Paul's Defense

Acts 22:1-21

By using the daily language of ordinary Jews, Paul established a bond with the crowd, and they settled into attentive quietness. Greek would have been a poor choice. The crowd was already seething with resentment at his willingness to consort with Greek gentiles. To hear him speak the common gentile language may have riled them up again.

Paul proceeded to emphasize his Jewishness. He pointed to his childhood in Jerusalem, his education under the great rabbi Gamaliel, and his zeal in keeping the law. He noted that when he was young, he was a leading opponent of "this way," a common designation for the religion of Jesus. He had persecuted Jesus' followers even unto death, and not content with the havoc he wrought in Judea, he gained letters from the high priest authorizing him to arrest Jesus' followers in Damascus and bring them for trial in Jerusalem. Lest the crowd disbelieve him, he said that his story could be corroborated by no less a figure than the current high priest, as well as by all the other Jewish leaders.

Paul so far was trying to convince the crowd to view him as a fellow Jew who, to begin with, was exactly like themselves. He must have reasoned that if he could make them identify with him, they might believe his testimony. Therefore, he built his testimony on common ground. The crowd surging in the courtyard was zealous for the law and antagonistic to the way of Jesus, just as he had been in his youth.

Then Paul moved on to tell about his dramatic encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. He underscored the supernatural character of the vision: the unearthly light seen by the whole company, the voice of a man who had died but had risen again, the strange blindness visited upon Paul, and his instant recovery at the bidding of Ananias. All these happenings made it hard to dismiss Paul's story as mere imagination or hoax. An active imagination does not become blind as a result. The men with Paul when the vision occurred were not sympathizers with the way, and yet they could not deny that Paul had seen something.

Next, Paul tried to show that his life's ministry also had a supernatural basis. During his vision on the road to Damascus, Christ had revealed that Paul would be given a special work to accomplish. Later, in Damascus, the same Ananias verified the words of the vision when he prophesied under the influence of the Spirit that Paul would be a witness to all men of what he had seen and heard. Some time afterward, when Paul came to Jerusalem, he was praying in the Temple and fell into a trance. Then Christ spoke to him again and commanded him to leave Jerusalem. He said that to stay and share his testimony with the Jews would be futile. They would simply reject him. Paul protested that the Jews knew how bitterly he had opposed the way, even to the point of imprisoning believers and applauding the stoning of Steven. It was obvious that his complete turnaround could only be explained as a work of God. But Christ repeated the command, saying emphatically, "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."

Delving Deeper

This earlier encounter with Christ provides further evidence that Paul was out of God's will when he went back to Jerusalem. Christ rejected Paul's arguments for further witness to the Jews. He commanded Paul to leave Jerusalem, and He told him clearly that his mission in life was to reach the gentiles.


Acts 22:22-23

Paul was hoping that when the Jews heard his testimony from his own mouth, they would perceive his sincerity and recognize truth. Surely, they would understand that he would not be putting his life in constant jeopardy by preaching Christ unless he had sound reasons for believing he was right. Surely, when they heard his reasons, resting on firsthand experience of heavenly things, they would believe him. But no, Paul's first mention of the gentiles rekindled the madness of the mob, and they exploded in hateful denunciations of Paul, shouting that he deserved to die. To show how scandalized they were by Paul's testimony, they cast off their outer cloaks and threw dust in the air.

Pondering a Question

Did Paul use the right approach in his speech to the crowd?

Paul found himself in peril of his life because he had been walking outside the Lord's will. If the Lord's will had been that he come to Jerusalem, his speech and its outcome might have been different. His speech was skillful in many respects. It was logical, well-constructed, full of references calculated to draw sympathy, replete with strong evidence of the supernatural, and in all respects a fine piece of extemporaneous argument.

But it was a little short on common sense. Paul wanted the Jews to hear his testimony of conversion, because personal testimony is always the strongest form of witness for Christ. But he moved directly to his testimony with no mention of the immediate charges against him. The crowd was incensed because they believed he had desecrated the Temple. Paul evidently found the charges so ridiculous as to be unworthy of reply. But he might have created a more receptive atmosphere to his testimony if he had simply reassured the Jews that he never introduced a gentile to the Temple, never contemplated it, and looked on callous disregard of Jewish law with as much horror as they did. If he had been walking in the Lord's will, his speech might have been wiser and more effective.

A Narrow Escape from the Lash

Acts 22:24-30

When the Roman officer saw that Paul's speech to the crowd merely incited them to greater wildness, he lost patience with Paul and ordered his soldiers to carry him into the fortress. He ordered further that they examine him by scourging. He meant they should beat him with a lash until he was so desperate to escape from further pain that he would tell them everything they wished to know. This method of extracting a confession from a suspected criminal was standard procedure for Roman rulers when dealing with their non-Roman subjects, and Claudius naturally assumed that Paul was an ordinary subject without special rights.

But as they prepared Paul for the lash by binding him with cords and perhaps by tying him to a post so that he could not move, Paul protested. He called out to the centurion nearby that he was being treated illegally. He was a Roman citizen, and Roman law protected a citizen from punishment if he had not been adjudged guilty in a proper trial. Moreover, it declared that a citizen could not be subjected to any brutal punishment like scourging.

The centurion recognized the impropriety in what they were doing and immediately informed his superior that Paul was a Roman citizen. He cautioned his superior against torturing the prisoner. Seeing the wisdom in this advice, the captain went to question Paul personally. He asked whether Paul was indeed a Roman, and Paul answered, Yes. The captain was astonished. The man before him did not look like a Roman. He was obviously a Jew. The captain blurted out that he himself had been able to obtain citizenship only by paying a large sum of money. Implicit in his words was disbelief that Paul was wealthy enough to obtain citizenship in such a way. After being manhandled by the mob, he did not cut an imposing figure. His clothing was in tatters, and his face was covered by dirt and blood. Moreover, if the captain was able to discount the effects of the beating, he could see that what Paul wore to the Temple was hardly the ostentatious dress of a rich man. Perhaps also the captain understood enough of Paul's speech to the crowd to surmise that Paul was some sort of a rabbi—that he was a man devoted to a religious life rather than to business or worldly affairs. Therefore, it came as a great surprise when he learned that Paul was a Roman. How could he have afforded such a privilege?

Paul replied that he had not bought citizenship. He had inherited it from his father. History records that many Jews in Asia Minor were granted Roman citizenship long before. There is evidence that Tarsus received Jews as citizens as early as 171 BC. Later, when Asia Minor fell under the control of the Roman general Pompey in about 60 BC, the descendants of these Jews received Roman citizenship.

As soon as the captain was satisfied that Paul was telling the truth, he called off the scourging and pondered what to do. He was afraid of mistreating Paul. The Romans were successful as a conquering nation in part because they believed in the rule of law and treated any breach of their own law as a serious matter. If a lower official like Claudius failed to carry out due process, the result might be the end of his career. Claudius was especially fearful because he had already broken the law by putting an uncondemned Roman citizen in bonds. As we will see, the realization that he was at fault shaped his later conduct toward Paul.

Getting Practical

Paul spared himself from a beating by claiming his rights as a Roman citizen. Was he in this matter also straying from divine direction? I think not. It was a tactic he had used before with results helpful to his ministry. Not only the Romans, but also God Himself believes in the rule of law. He has given us human government with its law-making powers to suppress evil in the world (Rom. 13:1-6). Upholding the rule of law, if only for his own protection from injustice, falls within a believer's responsibility to act as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16).

Claudius did not know what to do with his prisoner. The reason for the tumult surrounding Paul was a great mystery. What did the Jews have against him? Before he could deal with Paul properly, he had to know what kind of threat he posed to public order and safety. At last, determined to gain the information he needed before he could dispose of the prisoner, the officer resolved to take Paul before the Sanhedrin. He wanted to hear from Jewish leaders exactly what accusations they had to bring against Paul. So, he ordered them to convene the Sanhedrin in a full session. When they gathered, he went to the meeting himself, taking Paul along so that he might speak in his own defense.

Paul took a seat in front, with Jewish guards surrounding him. Who presided over the meeting is a matter of some dispute. It may have been the Roman officer, or it may have been the high priest. In either case, the high priest had a place in front of the assembly. Yet Paul did not recognize him.