Community Bible Study -- Acts Text of Presentation, Lesson 20, Acts 22:30-23:35 Click Here to see Lesson 20 Photos . . . Click Here to return to Acts Home Page

Paul Before the Sanhedrin

In last week’s lesson, Paul delivered money to the Jerusalem church: contributions from churches in the area that is now Greece and Turkey. The money was accepted gladly . . . but then Paul was asked to prove his “Jewishness” by doing something a Christian should never be asked to do: go into the temple and pay a priest to perform an animal sacrifice to “purify” himself and four others. Nevertheless, in the name of Christian unity, Paul agreed. Paul has lots of enemies among the Jews, so it isn’t surprising that a riot starts when he enters the temple. He would have been killed, but was rescued by Roman troops, and carried to the nearby Roman Fortress Antonio, where he stayed overnight – not as a prisoner, but as a free Roman, protected by the army.

Tonight’s lesson begins the next morning. The Roman commander, Lysias, summons the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to a hearing with Paul: to determine the cause of the riot, and ascertain if any charges will be pressed. This is important to Lysias, because his job is to prevent and suppress riots.

Chapter 23 opens with Paul’s address to the Sanhedrin. Recall the allegations which precipitated the riot: “(Paul) teaches . . . against (the Jewish) people and (the oral) law and (the temple)” (Acts 21:28). Paul therefore opens with a response to this charge: “My brothers,” he says, “I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). Paul identifies himself as a fellow Jew, and claims to be an observant Jew . . . and why not?  When attacked in the temple, he was undergoing a Jewish “purification” rite under Jewish law.

It’s been over 20 years since Paul was sent by the Sanhedrin to arrest Christians, and there is a new high priest, Ananias. When Ananias hears Paul’s statement, he commands that Paul be struck on the mouth, as if he has lied. Apparently startled, Paul responds:

God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck! (Acts 23:23).

Paul doesn’t recognize Ananias, who probably isn’t presiding at this hearing. Some scholars claim it’s because Paul had bad eyesight (cf 2 Cor 12:7). In any case, Paul really dumps on Ananias, calling him a hypocrite . . . just as Jesus described hypocritical Pharisees as “whitewashed tombs” (Matt 23:27). And Paul is right: Ananias is violating Jewish law by striking Paul in the mouth with no evidence he lied – just as Caiaphas commanded Jesus be struck when he was before the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23).

Ananias’ colleagues immediately criticize Paul for insulting the office of high priest. He promptly apologizes, confessing he failed to recognize Ananias, and quoting God’s instructions in Exodus not to speak badly about the Jewish ruler. But the most important point is this: all this makes Paul realize the Sadducees won’t listen to anything he says. Furthermore, there are no witnesses to testify Paul is an observant Jew – not even the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who sent him into the temple to prove that point. Therefore, Paul again tries to divide his opposition. Luke writes:

Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6).

Luke explains: “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all” (Acts 23:8). This is true . . . but there’s lots more to the story. And since the Sadducees and Pharisees have such an impact on the story at this point, it helps to understand more about these two competing sects of 1^st century Judaism.

The Sadducees were a wealthy, politically-connected, priestly aristocracy living in Jerusalem. They adopted much Greek culture, and do not believe in life after death; instead, they think God rewards good people with material riches on earth, and punishes bad people with a life of adversity (cf Deut 28). Since wealth is a sign of God's favor, they do anything to maintain their wealth and power and influence . . . and that includes collaborating with Gentile foreign invaders, with whom they have developed a symbiotic relationship: the Sadducees promise to keep the Jews in line if the Romans name one of their number as high priest. This violates the biblical succession of the high priesthood, but it keeps the temple open for Jewish religious practices.

To enhance their wealth and power, the Sadducees operate the temple like a personal cash cow. Ancient Jewish worship revolved around ritual and sacrifice of “unblemished” animal in the temple by priests; by controlling the high priesthood, the Sadducees force worshipers to purchase animals for sacrifice at grossly inflated prices in temple markets which they franchised. Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and his actions driving marketeers out of the temple were directed against the Sadducees. Rank-and-file Jews despised the Sadducees – but they were the only game in town for temple worship.

The Pharisees were very different from the Sadducees. They believed in the resurrection, and in angels and spirits. Their roots were in the “back to the bible” movement during and after the Babylonian captivity, but this devolved into legalism (as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah show). Instead of 10 Commandments, the Pharisees found 613 . . . and by the time of Jesus and Paul, they had evolved a comprehensive and inflexible oral law (“tradition”), which they believed was the key to "salvation."  The oral law consisted of the written law, God’s oral instructions to Moses, and rabbinical interpretations applying God’s laws to specific situations. When the oral law was finally written after 200 AD, it became known as the “Mishnah” (repetition) . . . a part of the Talmud.

Teachers like Gamaliel in Jerusalem were the spiritual leaders of the Pharisees and of Judaism. But the real strength of the Pharisees is their control of the synagogues, where Jews come every week to pray and study scripture. Jews went to the temple only for three annual festivals and occasional rituals and sacrifices, so Pharisees are in a position to dictate the Jewish religious education.

Pharisees are popular with rank-and-file Jews; they are close to the people in the synagogues, and their devotion to the oral law exudes piety. Yet Jesus said the oral law was so legalistic and inflexible it was often contrary to God's intent (Mark 7:5-13).

Since the Sadducees control the temple and the Pharisees control the people, both are well represented on the 71-member Sanhedrin.  But it is an uneasy alliance, since they dislike one another intensely.

This is what Paul knows as he adopts his strategy of dividing his opposition. The Sadducees don’t care about the facts . . . they only care that Paul caused a riot which brought out the Roman troops. Ananias can almost hear Governor Felix saying: “If you can’t control your people, I’ll find a high priest who can.” The Sadducees don’t care whether or not Paul is an observant Jew . . . they want to get rid of an irritant and prove to the Romans they can maintain order.

But the Pharisees do care; it’s important to them if Paul is an observant Jew or if he desecrated the temple by bringing in a Gentile. And the Pharisees know the Sadducees’ agenda. Hence Paul tries to spin the charges against him as a conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke’s story is abbreviated . . . but the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin surely know Paul’s claim the day before to be a ”Jew’s Jew” . . . they heard him open his defense by saying he has “fulfilled (his) duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1) . . . and they heard him quote Exodus in his apology to Ananias; they can see he knows the law. Hence it seems credible when Paul says: “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6).

Paul’s testimony causes “some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees . . . (to argue) vigorously. ‘We find nothing wrong with this man’” (Acts 23:9) . . . so Paul is successful. And the intensity of bad feelings between Pharisees and Sadducees is such that “the dispute became so violent that (Lysias) the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to . . . take him away . . . and bring him into the (Fortress Antonio)” (Acts 23:10).

We learn more about Paul’s family in this chapter than anywhere else in the bible. Paul’s father was a Pharisee before him (Acts 23:6). Paul has a sister . . . and a nephew in Jerusalem: probably studying to be a Pharisee, like his grandfather and his uncle. Paul’s family may not believe in Jesus, but they love and protect one another. Paul’s nephew has contacts in the Sanhedrin, and learns “more than forty men (are) involved” (Acts 23:13) in a plot to kill Paul while in custody; but the young man puts his career at risk and tells Lysias the commander about the plot . . . and it’s a darn good thing, because Paul’s nephew may have saved his life.

This was all part of God’s plan, because one night before his nephew came, “the Lord stood near Paul and said, ‘Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome’” (Acts 23:11). The term “the Lord stood near Paul” is typically interpreted figuratively: God stands by us all when in trouble. God protected Paul from the mob in the temple, and God will see him safely to Rome.

Nevertheless, the role played by the Jerusalem church in all this is troubling: Paul is in prison because they sent him into the temple to do something a Christian shouldn’t be asked to do – then disappeared when he got in trouble for it. The Church of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the bible after Acts 21. Moreover, it disappeared completely when Jerusalem was conquered and the temple destroyed by the Roman army in 70 AD . . . and the Pharisee-Christians who so dogged Paul’s missions work also disappeared. Maybe God was sending a message.

And it’s a darn good thing for Lysias, too, that Paul’s nephew tells him of the plot. No charges valid in a Roman court have been filed against Paul, and Lysias is responsible to protect Roman citizens in Jerusalem. Hence, faced with this insidious plot, Lysias immediately packs Paul up and sends him out of Jerusalem . . . escorted by 470 troops – infantry, artillery, and cavalry – to ensure his safety for an overnight trip to the Roman provincial capital of Caesarea . . . and the custody of Governor Felix.

When Paul arrives, Felix only asks about his home province. If it is nearby, he might send him there for trial . . . which seems a middle eastern custom. Recall: Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, and offered to let Herod try him. But Celicia is too far to send Paul and his witnesses for trial, so Felix keeps him under guard in the palace until representatives of the Sanhedrin arrive to press charges.

Next week Ananias and representatives of the Sanhedrin travel to Caesarea – along with a slick trial lawyer – to press charges against Paul. The hearing and its outcome will be discussed.

As a closing thought . . . Pharisees and Sadducees were very different, but Jesus condemned them both:

            Jesus said . . . “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” He was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 16:6, 12).

The yeast of the Pharisees was legalism. They had a formula for salvation, and defined goodness by how well this formula was followed; by contrast, Jesus preached that goodness flows naturally from a proper heart attitude. The yeast of the Sadducees was “worldliness,” “compromise,” and “materialism.” They sacrificed Jewish fundamentals for popularity, power, and money.

Sometimes it seems the problems of the 21^st century church can be described as modern Pharisees and Sadducees . . . those who try to make Christianity a formula religion of legalism . . . and those who compromise Christianity to get along in our secular society, hoping to bring more people to Jesus – but in reality just making Christians the same as non-Christians. Both attitudes are as wrong now as they were almost 2000 years ago.