Bible Commentaries
Acts 23

Verses 1-10

Act 23:1-10

PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

Acts 23:1-10

1 And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council,—Paul fixed his eyes intently on the council; he had been brought before it to answer for his conduct. He was not a criminal—he had done nothing wrong. The Sanhedrin had discovered that Paul was accused of some religious offense; he was summoned before the council that they might find out what the accusations were; Paul himself did not know what the charges were. He had not been in the hall of the council since he had sat as a member of the court probably twenty-two years ago. He politely addressed the members of the council and declared his sincerity at once. He declared that he had lived “before God in all good conscience until this day.” “Conscience” comes from the Greek “suneidesis,” and means “joint knowledge.” The Latin is “conscientia,” from which our English “conscience” is derived. The Greek word for “lived” means “having a citizenship.” This statement simply means that Paul had performed the duties of a citizen in a good conscience to God. (Philippians 3:6 Philippians 3:20.) Paul declared that he had lived in such obedience to God’s law that he had a clear conscience; it does not mean that he is claiming that he had not sinned. (1 Timothy 1:15.)

2 And the high priest Ananias—The smiting on the mouth was a judicial and symbolic mode of silencing the speaker from saying what was improper or false. Ananias is not to be confused with Annas. (Acts 4:6.) Ananias is thought to have been the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed high priest by Herod in A.D. 48. History describes him as being violent, cruel, and gluttonous. It is recorded that he was assassinated about ten years later.

3 Then said Paul unto him,—Paul very boldly rebuked the high priest for his conduct. He said: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” “Whited wall” is the reflection of a stronger figure used by Christ, “whited sepulcher.” (Matthew 23:27.) Paul gives his reason for the injustice done to him. “Sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law.” The spirit of the law of Moses forbade one to be condemned without first being heard. Paul shows the inconsistency between theory and fact; Ananias should have upheld the dignity of the law by obeying it himself. His conduct is similar to mob violence today. The victim may need punishment, but for unconstituted authority to mete out the punishment is illegal. Paul here impeaches the high priest in the name of Christ.

4 And they that stood by said,—The attendants and servants of the high priest and the Sanhedrin rebuked Paul for his speech. The high priest was God’s representative in spite of his bad character. (Deuteronomy 17:8 f.) These attendants claim for Ananias all the dignity, sanctity, and prerogative of his office as God’s high priest; this was against what Paul had already plainly intimated, that Ananias was acting in direct opposition to God. Paul made reply to these attendants which showed that he understood the situation.

5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren,—This shows that Paul did not know that it was the order of the high priest for him to be smitten. Some take the view that Paul did not know that Ananias was the high priest. Surely, Paul, who had served as a member of the Sanhedrin, and who was familiar with the proceedings of the council, would know the high priest. We cannot conceive of such ignorance on the part of Paul; hence, we must look for another view of the matter. The Greek means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. Some think that Paul’s eyesight was not good, and that he did not recognize Ananias as the high priest. It matters not what interpretation may be given to Paul’s language, he recognized, and so do we, that he was not treated justly. He quotes Exodus 22:28, showing that he knew the law.

6 But when Paul perceived—Paul quickly saw the attitude of the Sanhedrin toward him; he saw that he could not get a fair hearing before the Sanhedrin. He further saw that there were two parties in the council, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He knew the difference between these parties and tactfully brought them to clash with each other. He declared that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. He refers to this later in his letter to the church at Philippi. (Philippians 3:5.) He further declared that he was called in question because of the resurrection of the dead. This is not out of harmony with the statement that he did not know what charges would be preferred against him. He mentions this point at another time. (Acts 24:21.) The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was the resurrection; this was Paul’s chief point in preaching the gospel. If Christ had not been raised from the dead, his preaching was false. (1 Corinthians 15:13-14.)

7 And when he had so said,—Paul’s declaration started in the Sanhedrin a discussion on the great question of the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were bitterly opposed to the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection. The party cries were at once heard, and Paul was prevented from going on with his argument for the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of Christ. The difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were partly social and partly religious. The Sadducees were the Jewish aristocracy; they aimed at preserving the temple service and the written regulations of the law of Moses. Their theory or teaching limited man’s existence to this present life, and hence they denied a resurrection and a future life. The Pharisees became the leaders of the people in the days of the Persian and Greek rule; they were the unwavering champions of the ceremonial separation under Roman authority. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and through that faith Paul and many others had been brought to acknowledge the crucified and risen Lord.

8 For the Sadducees say—The Sadducees denied the resurrection, angels, and spirits. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees believed in a negative doctrine; they denied three things: (1) the resurrection, believing that the soul dies with the body; (2) the existence of angels and (3) the existence of spirits. The Sadducees cared very little for religion; they dropped out of history soon after the first century of the Christian era. The Pharisees believed in a future life, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of both angels and spirits.

9 And there arose a great clamor:—The dissension grew fiercer until there was a great clamor. The excitement was very great and broke out in an uproar. The “scribes” belonged to the party of the Pharisees; they were the learned expounders of the law, and would naturally take the lead in such an argument. Hence, they took sides with Paul and defended him against the Sadducees, their enemies. They said: “We find no evil in this man.” They were ready to take sides with Paul even before they had heard him; this shows their bias and prejudice. A few moments before this they were ready to condemn him, but now they are defending him. They “strove’’ with the Sadducees. “Strove” is from the Greek “diamachomai,” and means “to fight it out,” “to fight back and forth fiercely.” In their defense of Paul they said: What does it matter “if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel” ? They were willing to admit that perhaps a spirit or an angel had spoken to Paul; at least they were willing to admit this in their contention with the Sadducees.

10 And when there arose a great dissension,—The Sanhedrin was composed of about seventy to seventy-two men; we do not know what ratio of them belonged to the Pharisees. It seems that the Sadducees tried to seize and kill Paul, while the Pharisees attempted to rescue and protect him. The council itself became as bad as the mob that had tried to kill Paul the day before. The chief captain, Lysias, knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he was held responsible for him; so he feared that Paul should be “torn in pieces by them”; therefore, he commanded his “soldiers to go down and take” Paul from the council and “bring him into the castle.” Paul was hastily rescued from the Sanhedrin and delivered safely in the castle. Paul handled the situation very tactfully; he had been brought before a prejudiced court; he saw that the court could be divided, and that too over one of the things which he had preached; hence, he turned the two divisions against each other and put them to fighting each other, one party trying to protect him, and the other trying to kill him. The Roman authority then stepped in and brought him to safety.

Verses 1-35

Act 23:1-35

THE PROMISE IS FOR ALL:

LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS

Notes For Lesson Twenty-One:

In Chains For the Gospel

(Acts 23:1-35)

With Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, a lengthy series of hearings, trials, and other events now begins, which will eventually result in Paul being taken to Rome as a prisoner. Throughout this drawn-out process, Paul continues to look for opportunities to proclaim Jesus, whether to those who are seeking him or those who aren’t, whether to large groups or to single individuals.

Dispute in the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-11)

Before taking further steps with an obviously unusual prisoner, the Roman commander hoped to get a clearer view of the reasons why Paul was arousing such passionate hatred. Having little familiarity himself with the Jewish laws and customs, he thought that by making Paul appear before the Sanhedrin he could get a better grasp of the situation. Instead, this simply led to more commotion, as the Sanhedrin itself was divided in its attitude towards Paul.

The hearing was contentious right from the beginning (Acts 23:1-5). After Paul made a brief, honest opening statement of his innocence, the high priest Ananias ordered the guards to slap Paul on the mouth, as a demonstration of contempt for him. Paul and the high priest then engaged in a harsh exchange of words, with Paul bluntly criticizing the high priest’s lack of dignity and integrity. When Paul was challenged for making such criticism of the high priest, he replied in rather ambiguous fashion. It is not entirely clear whether Paul knew full well who the high priest was, and was ironically pointing out how his behavior was hardly worthy of such a position, or whether he had not actually realized that the high priest himself had given the order to slap the prisoner. In either case, the unfriendly dialogue underscores the blind hatred for Paul amongst the priests and Sadducees who held most of the power in the Sanhedrin*.

* For more on the Sanhedrin, see the notes to Acts 4 and Acts 5.

Paul then makes a statement to the council that was calculated to provoke the response he wanted (Acts 23:6-10). Stressing his heritage as a Pharisee, he takes the focus off of both himself and the gospel per se, indicating that one fundamental difference between him and the priests was his hope in a resurrection. This sharpened the conflict with the worldly, ambitious Sadducees, who refused to believe in any form of spiritual reality, whether resurrection, angels, spirits, or anything else. But it gave him instant credibility with the Pharisees, who as the minority in the council must surely have appreciated and respected someone who could stand before the intimidating religious rulers and so boldly claim a belief in the resurrection. The Pharisees therefore defend Paul vigorously, to the point where the confrontation threatens to turn violent. Seeing this, the Roman commander realizes that the hearing will not produce any worthwhile information, and indeed that if prolonged it will simply cause new disturbances. He therefore once again orders that Paul be taken away and placed in the custody of Roman troops, for his own safety and to prevent further disorder.

After this, which would only be the first stage in a long ordeal, God exhorted Paul to take courage (Acts 23:11). The final destination of this dispute would be Rome, where Paul would also need to testify about God. Throughout the battle ahead, Paul never lost sight of his opportunities to proclaim the truth of the gospel even as he defended himself legally.

For Discussion or Study: Why did Paul deliberately provoke a dissension in the Sanhedrin? In emphasizing his belief in a resurrection alone, and not mentioning the rest of the gospel, was he acting appropriately? How do you think God is going to use the outcome of this hearing before the Sanhedrin?

Another Plot (Acts 23:12-22)

Right after the fruitless debate in the Sanhedrin, Paul faced yet another plot on his life. This one, though, was probably more organized and cold-blooded than some of the spontaneous persecutions that had arisen on his various mission circuits. Yet, as always, God was in control, and this plot became the catalyst for moving Paul to the next stage of the trip that eventually would lead to Rome.

The very next morning after the fracas in the Sanhedrin, there occurs an organized plot to kill Paul (Acts 23:12-15). Paul’s enemies simply won’t give up, and here in Jerusalem we see the same kind of determination that we saw in some of his mission tour stops. Paul’s unrelenting teaching of the full truth of the gospel was received with great joy by those who just wanted to know the truth, but to those who were set in their own stubborn self-will, the gospel was a terrible threat, and hearing it provoked a fanatical opposition to anyone who, like Paul, spoke the full truth of God. This time, his enemies are also using deception - they suborn the religious leaders of Jerusalem, persuading them to ask the Romans to send Paul for another informational hearing, while the organizers of the conspiracy wait to ambush and kill him when he comes. This willingness to use lies and deceit, on the part of men who were supposedly so zealous for the law, shows how badly their vision had been blinded and distorted by their insecurity and their hatred of Paul.

But the Roman commander is alerted of the plot, so that it does not come off (Acts 23:16-22). Paul’s own nephew was the first to hear of it, and through him, Paul is able to send word to the Romans about the plan. The centurion and the commander both accept it as their duty to protect a Roman citizen, regardless of what offenses he may have committed against the public peace, and they immediately set about the task of making plans to protect their prisoner.

For Discussion or Study: Consider again the fanatic zeal of Paul’s enemies. What does it reveal about them? What parallels might we possibly find in our own experience? What can we learn from Paul’s dealings with his enemies?

On to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-35)

Responsible for protecting the safety and rights of a Roman citizen, the Roman commander decides that the safest thing to do would be to transfer his controversial prisoner to Caesarea, the Roman provincial capital, where the Roman presence and the distance from Jerusalem offered hope that things could be settled more quietly. This sudden exit from Jerusalem will be just one of many adventures that Paul will face over the next couple of years as he makes his way to Rome.

It does not take the experienced Roman commander very long to come up with a plan for such a situation (Acts 23:23-30). When the Romans knew their duty, they generally performed it promptly and efficiently. Here, the commander assigns an impressive guard to protect Paul, and has them leave at night for Caesarea, before even the first step of the planned conspiracy can be carried out. The prisoner is accompanied by nearly 500 men for the first part of the journey, and the soldiers also carry a letter from the commander to Governor Felix. The letter is slightly amusing in exaggerating the commander’s credit in protecting a Roman citizen, but it also shows his respect for the Roman legal process, turning over to the governor the responsibility for deciding Paul’s guilt or innocence.

Paul is brought safely and without incident to Caesarea, a trip of approximately 60 miles overland (about 50 miles by air) from Jerusalem (Acts 23:31-35). Once they are safely clear of Jerusalem, a little more than halfway to Caesarea, most of the troops return to Jerusalem, leaving the seventy cavalrymen to guard Paul the rest of the way. On arrival, the governor questions Paul briefly as to his residency, and orders him to be kept in custody until arrangements can be made for his trial.

For Discussion or Study: What ways can we see God at work so far in Paul’s ordeal of imprisonment? What lessons can we get from events so far?

- Mark W. Garner, July 2002

Verses 11-25

Act 23:11-25

PLOT TO KILL PAUL

Acts 23:11-25

11 And the night following—Paul was now a prisoner; the chief captain, Lysias, held him as a prisoner. Conditions were unavorable to Paul; he is discouraged, cast down, full of gloomy doubts. There is no mention of any sympathy from the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. At this time, when all seem to have forsaken him, “the Lord stood by him.” He strengthened and encouraged Paul by saying, “Be of good cheer.” Paul had desired to preach the gospel to his own people in Jerusalem; he had two opportunities, and twice he had to be rescued from those who sought to kill him. The first instance is recorded in Acts 9:26-30, and the second is here. The Lord, who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:5), in the temple (Acts 22:17-18), and at Corinth (Acts 18:9), now appeared to him and comforted him with the promise that he would be able to fulfill his desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Acts 19:21; Romans 1:11-13 Romans 15:23). The promise was of further service to the Lord among the Gentiles, and especially at Rome.

12 And when it was day,—At the very time that the Lord was encouraging Paul, the Jews were plotting to kill him. These forty Jews who were planning to murder Paul were in the end to send him to Rome to preach the gospel there. We are not told whether these Jews were Pharisees or Sadducees; the inference is that they were in favor with the Sadducees who had so violently opposed Paul in the council. They bound themselves “under a curse” that they would “neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.” These forty Jews “anathematized themselves.” The Greek “anathematizo” means “to place one under a curse.” King Saul took an “anathema” that imperiled the life of his son Jonathan. (1 Samuel 14:24.) The Greek for “banded together” is “poiesantes sustrophen,” and literally means “having made a conspiracy.” This pledge not to eat nor drink was a very ancient form of oath or vow. (1 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 3:35.)

13 And they were more than forty—Some think these forty were Assassins and of the Zealots, which was a wild and fanatical party of that time. The number “forty” shows how many enemies Paul had; it also shows how difficult it would be to keep the secret from Paul’s friends. We do not know what curse they took upon themselves if they failed to carry out their desire.

14 And they came to the chief priests—These forty Jews who had bound themselves under an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul came “to the chief priests and the elders” and reported their oath. David had divided the priests into twenty-four courses or classes. The head of each of these classes was called a “chief priest.” The “elders” were the rulers of the cities; they may have included some members of the Sanhedrin. It seems clear that the chief priests and those of the elders here mentioned belonged to the party of the Sadducees. This band of assassins felt free to go to the Sanhedrin and make known their intentions; they knew that the Sanhedrin was in sympathy with their efforts to kill Paul. Jesus had predicted that “whosoever killeth you shall think that he offered service unto God.” (John 16:2.)

15 Now therefore do ye with the council signify—Paul was still in the hands of Lysias, the chief captain. This band of assassins told the Sanhedrin in detail their plan. The council was to call on the chief captain to send Paul to the council that Paul may be examined further; they were to call upon Paul and kill him before he came to the council. The council was to make a formal or legal request for a regular and legal investigation; it was assumed that Lysias would be disposed to grant the request. The forty men assured the council that they would do their part and would kill Paul before he came to the council. This would keep the council in the clear, as they thought. The conspirators had stated their case clearly and had revealed the plot to the council which seemed ready to cooperate with them in destroying Paul.

16 But Paul’s sister’s son heard—This is the only reference that we have of Paul’s family in the Acts. In his letter to the Romans Paul speaks of his “kinsmen” who lived in Rome. (Romans 16:7 Romans 16:11.) His friends here, and afterwards at Caesarea (Acts 24:23), appear to have been permitted to visit him, which shows that the authorities did not think him to be a criminal. It is not certain that Paul’s sister resided in Jerusalem; neither is it certain that the young man who informed Paul lived in Jerusalem. He was granted permission to visit Paul. We do not know that Paul’s nephew was a Christian; neither do we know how he gained his information. The fact that the young man “entered into the castle” and told Paul of the plot shows that Paul’s friends had free access to him.

17 And Paul called unto him one of the centurions,—Paul, even as a prisoner, exercised some authority over others; he called one of the “centurions” or officers to him, and requested this centurion to take “this young man” to “the chief captain.” Paul did not trust the centurion with the secret that had been brought to him; he wanted the young man to tell the chief captain from his own mouth the plot that had been laid for him. We gather here that Paul’s nephew was a “young man.” Although Paul had been assured of his safety by the Lord (Acts 23:11), he used all precaution and proper means for his safety. God’s promise does not dispense with the legitimate means that we must use. This young man had some important business with the chief captain, and Paul desired that he be escorted to him by a centurion.

18 So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain,—The centurion was kind enough to take Paul’s nephew to the chief captain. It is not known that the chief captain or the centurion knew that the young man was Paul’s nephew. The centurion reported that Paul had called him and asked him to bring “this young man” to the chief captain, as he had “something” to say to him. The Roman officers now seem to be careful to treat Paul with kindness, since they know that he is a Roman citizen. Their previous treatment of him, when they thought he was only a Jew, exposed them to severe penalties of the law should Paul or his friends bring a complaint against them. It was a wise policy for the officers to give Paul as much freedom as possible and to grant his friends the privilege of communicating with him. This helps us to understand the willingness of the centurion to take the young man to Lysias, and the readiness of Lysias to grant a private interview with the young man.

19 And the chief captain took him by the hand,—In verse 18 the centurion refers to “Paul the prisoner”; Paul later, in writing some of his letters, refers to himself as a prisoner. (Ephesians 4:1.) The chief captain received the young man with courtesy; he “took him by the hand,” which indicated an eager interest in what concerned the case of this prisoner; he showed the young man that he had confidence in him. He took the young man “aside” and “asked him privately” what matter he had to bring to him. This shows that the chief captain was eager to get all the information that he could. We do not know the age of this young man; the Greek “neanias” is the same word that is used with respect to Paul in Acts 7:58; it is also the same word that is used for Eutychus in Acts 20:9.

20 And he said, The Jews have agreed—The young man reported faithfully and accurately the plot that he had learned whereby the Jews had determined to kill Paul. This shows that the conspirators clearly represented the state of Jewish feeling toward Paul in Jerusalem. The young man was able to quote accurately the language of the conspirators. The young man reports that the Jews had agreed to ask Lysias to bring Paul before the council “as though thou wouldest inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him.” But the conspirators had said to the council to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin so that the Sanhedrin might make further examination of Paul. There seems to be a slight discrepancy here. It may be that the inquiry was proposed to both parties, and the young man only refers to that by Lysias through courtesy to him.

21 Do not thou therefore yield unto them:—The young man now pleaded with Lysias not to yield or listen to the request from the Jews or the Council. The Greek here signifies “be not thou persuaded by them,” or obey not their request. The young man gave the reason for Lysias’ not yielding to their entreaty by saying that “there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men” who had determined not to eat nor to drink till they had killed Paul. He further urged that these Jews were now ready and “looking for the promise from thee” to bring Paul before the council. The Jews waited for the expected promise from the chief captain, and had made ready the ambuscade by which they hoped to get rid of Paul without the Sanhedrin having any apparent hand in the murder. The young man’s language implies that the council had agreed to the base plot, or that he believed that they would do so. The haste which Lysias exercised in getting Paul out of the city implies that he and the other Roman officials believed the report of the young man.

22 So the chief captain let the young man go,—The chief captain was satisfied with the report, and believed that the young man had told the truth. He enjoined secrecy on the part of the young man that he should not let anyone know that he had reported the Jews to him. His sympathies were clearly with Paul. He cautioned the young man not to let anyone know what he had reported. He did this to avoid any interference with his own plans, or a new conspiracy; also to avoid danger to the young man for revealing the secret; and again to avoid any explanation of his conduct to the Jewish leaders. He did not want the Jews to suspect that his action was based on any knowledge of their plot. He exercised his own rights in sending a prisoner under such circumstances to the governor at Caesarea.

23 And he called unto him two of the centurions,—Lysias acted with military promptitude; he ordered two centurions with two hundred soldiers or legionnaires and seventy cavalry and two hundred light armed troops to escort Paul to Caesarea. This was a large escort; he took every precaution to protect the safety of Paul and to deliver him to the Roman authorities at Caesarea. They left “at the third hour of the night.” This was at nine P.M. It was early enough for them to travel a full night’s journey under cover of the darkness. With a military guard of two hundred foot soldiers or heavy armed soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred light armed footmen, four hundred seventy soldiers and their officers, Paul was safe from any mob force of conspirators who might try to seize him from the soldiers and kill him.

24 and he bade them provide beasts,—“Beasts” is from the Greek “ktene,” and may mean asses or horses; it does not mean war horses. These beasts were for Paul and some soldier to ride. More than one would be needed for Paul’s use, as he was chained to a soldier; one or more would be needed for baggage. Some have inferred that the entire force was to be mounted on “beasts”; but the order was to provide beasts that Paul might be set thereon. He was to be brought to “Felix the governor.” Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favorite of Claudius. He and his brothers had been slaves, but were now freedmen; Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52; he held this position until Festus succeeded him. He was married to Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, with the hope of winning the favor of the Jews. Felix was one of the most depraved men of his time; Tacitus says of him that “with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave/’ The term “governor” means “leader,” and was applied to leaders of all sorts.

25 And he wrote a letter—Lysias “wrote a letter” to Felix the governor. This was the formal and official explanation why Paul was sent to the higher officer for trial; it was called “elogium”; this letter was not an accusation against Paul, but rather a statement favorable to him. Some understand that Luke here gives only the substance of the letter and does not give a copy of it. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar; it was probably written in Latin. The letter was probably read in open court before Felix and its contents could be learned.

Verses 26-35

Act 23:26-35

PAUL SENT TO CAESAREA

Acts 23:26-35

26 Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor—Paul was sent with a Roman escort of four hundred seventy soldiers from Jerusalem to Caesarea; this was a distance of about seventy miles. Felix was the governor, and Claudius Lysias was the chief captain. Felix was a higher official than Lysias; hence, the very courteous and formal salutation or greeting as given here. “Most excellent” is a term used by Luke in addressing Theophilus. (Luke 1:3.) This salutation is usual in addressing men of high rank; it is similar to “most excellent” in Acts 24:3. “Claudius Lysias” is a Latin name, and “Felix” is a Greek. Some think that the letter was written in Latin; others think that it was in Greek; we do not know in what language it was written.

27 This man was seized by the Jews,—Lysias here wishes to be understood that he interfered for Paul on account of learning that he was a Roman citizen; this would seem to gain him some favor for his loyalty. However, the truth was that he had unlawfully bound a Roman citizen. He concealed the injustice that he had done to Paul. We see here the difference between the simple truth of the history and the cunning artifice of the skeptical Lysias. This is what we would naturally expect from a clever worldly politician, who had more regard for the favor of his superiors than he had for the truth. Lysias did rescue Paul before he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but he had violated the Roman law before doing this.

28 And desiring to know the cause—Lysias proceeds to state the matter in such a way as to show his official acts were to be commended. Lysias, like Gallio, cared for none of those things which disturb the Jews, and regarded their religious affairs as of no consequence. Lysias intended to show that the prisoner had been treated illegally, and that he had done all that he could to learn the charges against Paul. He had taken Paul, he says, before the Jews’ council. This was to ascertain the nature of his crime.

29 whom I found to be accused—Lysias further states that when he brought Paul before the Sanhedrin he found him accused of violating some of the laws of the Jews. The only accusation that he learned against Paul was that he had violated the law of Moses; this had nothing to do with the Roman law. This is a confession that he had not violated Roman law and was not worthy of death or bonds. Then why should Lysias send him to Felix. Lysias proceeds to give his reason for sending Paul to Caesarea.

30 And when it was shown to me—Roman officers in reporting a prisoner to a higher official must give the charges. Lysias had no crime to charge against Paul, but the determined attempts on the part of the Jews to kill him seemed to demand further inquiry. He does not mention in this letter the fact that Paul was in danger of being torn into pieces before the council; he does declare his knowledge of the plot to kill Paul. This was sufficient ground for sending a Roman citizen where he might be expected to have a fair trial according to Roman law. He states that he charged Paul’s accusers to go to Caesarea and make their charges known to Felix. Lysias does not seem to state the facts as they are. There is nothing in the record that shows that he commanded the accusers to appear before Caesar’s court. He may have done so; at least, he says in this letter that he did. “Farewell” is added by many ancient authorities, but is omitted here. It will be observed that Lysias does not represent Paul as a convict, but as one who had been rescued from a mob.

31 So the soldiers, as it was commanded them,—This letter of Lysias is inserted by Luke, and breaks the continuity of the historical events. Verse 31 takes up the facts and continues them. The soldiers obeyed the command and brought Paul by night to Antipatris. This place was formerly called “Capharaba.” It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and called by him “Antipatris” in memory of his father, Antipater. It was more than forty miles from Jerusalem, and more than halfway from Caesarea. They journeyed all night and made good time. Paul was now out of reach of his conspirators.

32 But on the morrow they left the horsemen—“On the morrow” may mean the morning of the arrival at Antipatris, or it may mean the day after they arrived there. It seems that some time would be given for rest after journeying all night. It matters but little as to whether it means the next day after leaving Jerusalem or the next day after arrival at Antipatris. “They left the horsemen” to go on with Paul. The journey on to Caesarea was through a hilly region where there was much danger. There were four hundred seventy, and four hundred of them returned to Jerusalem, while the seventy horsemen continued with Paul. We are not told why these four hundred turned back; they had orders to go as far as Caesarea. (See verse 23.)

33 and they, when they came to Caesarea—Those who were in charge of the cavalry went on with Paul to Caesarea and presented Paul with the letter from Lysias to Governor Felix. In this way they executed their commission. It was probably a journey of five or six hours from Antipatris to Caesarea. They waited further orders from the governor. Paul thus entered Caesarea with the pomp of attendance very unlike the humble guise in which he had left it. They entered Caesarea in daylight, and such a parade would have attracted many curious eyes. Philip and other Christians of Caesarea must have been startled to recognize the rapid fulfillment of prophecy concerning Paul’s journey to Jerusalem.

34 And when he had read it,—When Felix read the letter from Lysias, he inquired from what province Paul came. He was informed by Paul or some other one that Paul was from Cilicia, which was an imperial province. He did not inquire whether Paul was a Roman citizen; that was stated in the letter of Lysias to Felix. Felix probably inquired of his native province that he might ascertain whether he had jurisdiction over him; it seems that Felix would have gladly avoided trying Paul. There were laws regulating provincial relations, and one government was not at liberty to rely entirely on another’s letter, but must himself make thorough investigation. This Felix did.

35 I will hear thee fully,—Since Cilicia was an imperial province, Felix had jurisdiction over the trial of Paul. He informed Paul that he would hear him “fully” when his accusers came. This meant that he would give Paul’s case a formal examination, and implied that he would give him a fair trial. Felix commanded Paul to be “kept in Herod’s palace.” This was built by Herod the Great; Judea was now a Roman province, and the palace of its former kings had become the governor’s official residence. It appears that Paul was dealt with kindly. It seems that Paul was kept near the governor’s place of residence. Paul was under honorable restraint, “a Roman, and uncondemned.” Paul was guarded or detained by soldiers, and had to wait the slow processes of a trial.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 23

• · What council was about to hear Paul?

• · In what frame of mind did he behold it?

• · Repeat his claim of conscience.

• · Would this include his persecution of Christians?

• · Can one be conscientious while doing wrong?

• · What did Ananias command to be done?

• · Was this a legal sentence?

• · State the name Paul called him.

• · What is the thought expressed thereby?

• · Also what charge did Paul make against him?

• · Tell the retort of the bystanders.

• · What ironic rebuke did Paul give Ananias?

• · State what Paul now observed of the crowd.

• · Tell what hope he mentioned now.

• · Which class would be favorable to this ?

• · What resulted among the crowd?

• · How did the Pharisees reason on the matter?

• · To what danger was Paul now exposed?

• · What was done to prevent it?

• · Tell what cheering message Paul received .

• · What curse did certain Jews take over themselves?

• · Is there any record of their keeping it?

• · Whom did they try to draw into the plot?

• · In what way was it prevented?

• · What did they pretend they wished to learn?

• · At what place would they meet, to learn it?

• · Was this a public place for inquiry into matters?

• · Would this give some show of truth to their plea?

• · How many were in the conspiracy?

• · What charge was given the young man?

• · Why did the captain call two centurions?

• · Why take Paul to Caesarea?

• · At what time was the journey to start?

• · Who was governor at this time?

• · Was all communication made orally?

• · State the name of the captain.

• · Was his address courteous?

• · By whom was Paul taken?

• · What was about to happen to him?

• · With what force did the captain rescue him?

• · Was this an orderly procedure for the captain?

• · On what fact did he act?

• · What was Paul’s rank as a citizen?

• · Why was he brought before the council?

• · What information resulted?

• · Upon what report is the captain now acting?

• · State his command to Paul’s accusers.

• · Where did tbe escort first stop?

• · What change was now made in the escort?

• · What is meant by the castle?

• · State antecedent of "who" in the 3ard verse.

• · Of what province was Paul?

• · For what was the hearing to wait?

• · Where was Paul to be kept?

Acts Chapter Twenty-Three

Ralph Starling

Paul’s defense to them did not go good,

The High Priest did not respond as he should.

He was so upset an order he mouthed,

An order to slap Paul in the mouth.

Paul reacted, “God will strike you, you white-washed wall”

You judge me for violating the Law,

While you do the same while standing there tall.

So, how could this matter be solved at all?

Paul, knowing Pharisees and Sadducees did not agree..

He called out, “I am from birth a Pharisee!”

A verbal battle ensued that became an uproar

So much so the Commander feared Paul would be torn.

That night the prison barracks became his “home.”

The Lord appeared saying he must testify in Rome.

Next day the Jews formed a plan to kill Paul.

Paul’s nephew heard it and reported it all.

The Jews would ask for information from Paul,

An ambush they planned would bring about his fall.

The Commander wrote a let to Claudia Lysias,

Giving a complete outline of the business.

Paul was escorted to Felix in Caesarea,

Who said, “When your accusers come we’ll have a hearing.
Paul was take n to a special place,

And kept under guard in Herod’s Palace.