Following in Christ's Footsteps


Acts 23:1-5

The account suggests that the meeting opened with few preliminaries. Before Paul had an opportunity to distinguish the high priest from everyone else, he was required to speak on his own behalf. He started by addressing the council in friendly words, calling them men and brethren. Then he immediately sought to justify himself in their eyes. He claimed that his manner of life had left his conscience free of any guilt toward God. In this brief statement he was altogether denying the accusation of his enemies that he was a traitor to God and to the faith of his fathers.

Without giving Paul a chance to say another word, the high priest ordered some men nearby to rebuke him by striking him on the mouth. It was not the first blow that Paul ever received, but it was the first to inflame him as this one did. Here he stood in the highest court of his nation among the spiritual leaders of his people. Here, of all places, he should have been treated with simple justice. And here he stood as an innocent man. Therefore, in this court that prided itself on being a bastion of the law of God, he should have been acquitted of any wrongdoing. Indeed, he should have received something far better than mere acquittal. As God's spokesman to the world of gentiles, he should have received acclaim. After his years of toil for God, his return to the Sanhedrin, where he had once been a promising young member, should have been a joyous homecoming. But it was far from that. Instead, his brethren looked down on him as a despicable criminal. Paul found such treatment hard to accept. As a Jew with a deep love of Jewish institutions and of all things Jewish, who loved his people so much that he had once offered to suffer the divine wrath they deserved (Rom. 9:3), he was wounded to the core.

He responded with anger, but it was anger energized by pure disappointment and grief. He lashed out at the man who ordered the blow and called him a whitewashed wall. He meant that the man was a hypocrite. In all his finery as he occupied a commanding place before the Sanhedrin, he looked good on the outside, but inside he was full of corruption. Perhaps Paul was recalling Jesus' charge against the Pharisees who opposed Him—that they were like whitened sepulchres (Matt. 23:27), pretty on the outside but full of rotting bones inside. Or perhaps Paul was thinking of a wall with white paint hiding its loose structure, ready to collapse (Ezek. 13:10–16). His intent in this sarcastic comparison was to scold his adversary for authorizing abusive treatment contrary to the law that he was obliged to uphold. The law did not permit an accused man to be smitten or punished in any way before he had been properly tried. As in our modern courts, so in a Jewish court, a man was held innocent until proven guilty (Lev. 19:15).1 Unaware that his adversary was the high priest himself, Paul pronounced a fearful judgment upon him, saying that God would smite him for his shameful attack upon Paul.


Getting Practical


In the flesh

Paul was entirely justified in what he said. The law was on his side. Justice was on his side. Moral principle was on his side. And yet his conduct fell short of being perfect. Again, we must understand that Paul's last visit to Jerusalem was out of God's will. The record we have of that visit, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is intended to show us that even the greatest man of God cannot afford to ignore God's direction. The chief consequences for Paul were two. First, he suffered all the rejection and adversity and all the loss of freedom to serve God that God predicted would come upon him if he persevered in his foolhardy attempt to save the Jews from destruction. Second, he found it impossible to present a good testimony for Christ, because everything he did was in the flesh, not in the Spirit.

We see him in the flesh when he responded to the blow on his mouth. How can we be sure that he was not following the Spirit's prompting?

  1. Consider Paul’s own words written some years after this incident: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Tim. 2:24–26).
  2. Consider also the example of Christ. On more than one occasion He denounced whole groups of sinners, such as the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23), the money changers at the Temple (John 2:13–17), and the unbelieving cities in Galilee (Matt. 11:20–24), but never did He denounce an individual standing before Him. Instead, He always showed a face of love, giving that individual a chance to recognize his Savior.
  3. Especially consider Christ’s conduct at His trial before the Sanhedrin many years earlier. There His circumstances were almost exactly the same as Paul’s described in Acts 23. But notice how He handled Himself under extreme provocation (John 18:19–23). As very Creator and Lord of all, He warned the high priest bluntly that he needed to follow due process. And when He was struck on the face, He again pointed out the injustice. But He was perfectly calm. We see no flash of anger, no words of insult, no threat of impending doom. Later, when He was subjected to further unlawful abuse, He said nothing (Luke 22:63-65). His restraint was a powerful testimony to His persecutors that He was the person He claimed to be, the Son of God (Luke 22:70).

Paul’s lapse into ungodly behavior before the Sanhedrin is full of lessons for us. One is that nobody should think he has enough credit with God or enough good works on his record to risk disregard of God’s will. Another is that when men abuse us, we must restrain the fleshly impulse to fight back. We must show them the face of Christ—a face softened by longsuffering, gentleness, and love.

Yet even though Paul acted improperly before the Sanhedrin, God honored his words. His disobedience to God's command not to enter Jerusalem was an issue between him and God. So far as the Sanhedrin was concerned, he stood there as God's prophet and apostle. God expected them to recognize who he was, pay respect to his high office, and submit to his authority. On the Day of Judgment, God will hold them accountable for their failure to give Paul his rightful place. Therefore, God supported and vindicated whatever Paul said.

Paul said that God would smite the high priest. This high priest, named Ananias, was remembered in Jewish history as a conniving politician who was entirely unscrupulous in advancing his own interests. He held the position of high priest for over ten years and then remained a strong power behind the scenes for another seven or eight years. His success rested in part upon his skill in avoiding the displeasure of the Romans. But finally, in AD 66, shortly before the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem, his pro-Roman stance brought his downfall. In fear of Jewish extremists, he attempted to hide inside an aqueduct, but they found and assassinated him.2 Indeed, God smote him, as Paul predicted.

After Paul pronounced a curse on Ananias, the people standing around the apostle chided him, letting him know that the man he had attacked with angry words was no less than the high priest. Immediately, Paul realized that as a result of speaking rashly, he had committed a serious offense.

To make amends, he started by saying that he had not realized who the man was. The day before, in his aborted speech before the crowd in the Temple, he had implied that he knew the high priest (Acts 22:5), but perhaps well more than twenty years had gone by since he last saw the man, and in such a long span of the aging process, someone may change to the extent of being no longer recognizable. That was especially likely in the case of Ananias. The Babylonian Talmud preserves jests targeting his gluttony,3 which leave no doubt that he had a reputation for being exceedingly fat. Perhaps his obesity had greatly worsened over time, creating a much different appearance than Paul remembered. Also, Paul occasionally suffered from poor eyesight (Gal. 4:13, 15; 6:11), perhaps due to trachoma, a bacterial infection pervasive in the ancient Middle East.4 This infirmity may have flared up recently as a result of exposure to unsanitary conditions while he was aboard ancient ships.

Then Paul went so far as to acknowledge that he himself had disobeyed the law, for the law forbade any member of the nation to speak evil against his rulers. He even quoted the command that he had broken: "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Exod. 22:28, as it appears in the Septuagint5).


Delving Deeper


Coming to a false position

Paul's admission of wrongdoing was an ironic sequel to what he said earlier—that he considered himself faultless before God. Here again his disobedience left him in a false position.

Notice that his clear violation of an Old Testament command still in force in his day removes any possibility that his response to the high priest was by the moving of the Spirit. The Spirit would never have led him to break the law. On the contrary, the Spirit if consulted would have advised a very different response, perhaps to keep his mouth shut. Therefore, his behavior was unjustified. In plainer terms, it was wrong.


Pondering a Question


Why does Luke tell us about this embarrassing moment in Paul’s life?

We must remember that Luke was Paul’s faithful companion and perhaps his closest friend, and Paul was Luke’s spiritual mentor. We may assume that we have this account only because Paul wanted Luke to include it. Why? Perhaps to give us a good example of how to deal with sin. Paul immediately confessed his sin and never afterward sought to hide it. He was completely transparent about it. Perhaps also Paul wanted to warn other Christian leaders against thinking themselves too high and holy to fall into sin.

We have said before that Scripture informs us about this embarrassing moment to discourage hagiolatry. Perhaps another reason Paul himself urged Luke to record it was that he foresaw the same danger. He did not want to be remembered as Saint Paul.

Yet why was this unflattering account of Paul included in a book written to assist his defense in Rome? Perhaps because it shows how Paul conducted himself under extreme provocation by a ruler. As soon as he understood who the man was, Paul treated him respectfully. Any judge reading the account would see that Paul was no rebel at heart, no threat to Roman authority.


Delving Deeper


The mark of validity

Luke’s account is valuable in another respect as well. It is unthinkable that Paul’s dear friend Luke would have included a story of Paul’s moral slippage unless it was true. It is another in a multitude of evidences that the Book of Acts is dependable history.

It is also another rebuke to the critics, who imagine that the book comes from a much later writer who wanted to celebrate Paul’s achievements and venerate Paul. Yet their theory runs afoul of the nonvenerating candor we find in chapter 23.

Escape from Condemnation


Acts 23:6-10

Perhaps through the intervention of the Roman tribune, Paul was allowed to speak further. After taking a false step with impulsive words, he looked out over the Sanhedrin and carefully considered what to say. The realization that he had blundered badly must have shone like a floodlight upon his soul, bringing a stop to his stubborn plodding along a course contrary to God’s direction. From what happened next we surmise that now was the moment when Paul finally admitted to himself his error in coming to Jerusalem. Twice he had tried to give his personal testimony, but without success. Yesterday, when he spoke from the steps leading to the fortress, the Jewish mob had reviled him and called for his blood. Today, when he addressed the Sanhedrin, he managed to say only a few words before he suffered another scornful attack. This time it came from the high priest himself. In an instant, the cloud of self-deception lifted from his spiritual eyes, and he clearly saw the futility in his mad crusade to save the Jews. Moreover, he understood that his carnal reaction to the high priest was a sure sign that the Holy Spirit was not filling and helping him. Therefore, because he had neither power to gain anything nor anything to gain, Paul left off his attempt to tell about his own spiritual journey. To persevere was pointless.

As soon as he came into agreement with God, God gave him the wisdom he needed for his next words. Paul was in great peril. Roman policy permitted the Sanhedrin to enforce the Jewish law prohibiting defilement of the Temple, regarded as a capital offense.6 Thus, if the Sanhedrin agreed that Paul had committed this crime, Claudius Lysias, who represented Roman authority in Jerusalem, would have permitted them to execute Paul. But the Lord did not want him to die in Jerusalem. He therefore showed Paul the course that would take him out of danger.

Before him, Paul saw a Sanhedrin divided into two parties, Pharisees and Sadducees. The fracture was longstanding and bitter. He perceived that by taking advantage of it, he could save himself. How? All he had to do was present himself as a Pharisee and declare his support for one of the beliefs that set the Pharisees apart and fueled bitter arguments with their rivals. He anticipated correctly what the result would be. The Pharisees would rally to his side, the Sadducees would recoil in disgust, and conflict would erupt between the two parties, making it impossible for the Sanhedrin to agree on any verdict. Among the contentious issues at the root of enmity between the two parties was whether the dead will live again. Therefore, Paul cried out that he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and that he was under attack because he believed in resurrection of the dead. The effect of his words was exactly what he expected. The two parties began to exchange heated words.

Some among the Pharisees suddenly found enough charity in their hearts to say kind words about Paul. They were willing to declare him free of any great evil. Whether from reports of his testimony in the Temple courtyard or from other sources, they knew his claim to have seen the risen Christ. Although they did not necessarily accept Paul’s interpretation of the vision, they were willing to concede that perhaps an angel or a spirit had appeared to him. They therefore warned against treating his claim as grounds for condemnation. If the vision came ultimately from God, they would be putting themselves in a dangerous position, for they would be resisting the Almighty.


Pondering a Question


Why did the Pharisees think that if a spirit might have spoken to Paul, he should be exonerated?

Some commentators think that by "spirit," they meant an evil spirit, a demon.7 But if Paul had been listening to an evil spirit, the Pharisees surely would have seen such dependence on evil powers as further reason to condemn him, not excuse him. They condemned Jesus for being in league with Beelzebub (Mark 3:22).

It is more likely that they meant the spirit of a dead person, perhaps even a godly man from the past. They remembered that after Samuel died, a bodily manifestation of his spirit visited Saul and spoke to him (1 Sam. 28:3–25).

The words of the Pharisees merely infuriated the Sadducees even more. Besides rejecting the possibility of resurrection, they denied the existence of angels and spirits.


Delving Still Deeper


What the Sadducees believed

Critics find fault with Luke's assertion that the Sadducees acknowledged the existence of neither angel nor spirit. They argue that both appear in the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees regarded as authoritative Scripture. Therefore, what Luke says must be characterized as either exaggeration or, with less allowance, as flagrant error.8

Unquestionably, the Pentateuch speaks of the Spirit who is divine (Gen. 1:1). Yet the Pharisees were not referring to God. Nor was Luke referring to a spirit in this sense. It is therefore irrelevant that the Sadducees did not deny the existence of the divine Spirit.

The Pentateuch also mentions evil spirits (Lev. 20:27). But no evil spirit was intended by the Pharisees. Still, references to them in the Pentateuch might be seen as a challenge to Luke’s claim that the Sadducees "say . . . there is no . . . spirit." But the passage in question tells authorities to execute anyone "that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard." It is likely that the Sadducees interpreted the offense not as a fact, but merely as a claim enhancing the offender’s undesirable influence in the community.

Moreover, the Pentateuch acknowledges angels. But virtually always this order of being appears in the form of a single individual (Gen. 24:7; Exod. 33:2; Num. 20:16; etc.), often identified as the angel of the Lord (Gen. 16:7; 22:15; Exod. 3:2; Num. 22:22; etc.) or the angel of God (Gen. 21:17; 31:11; Exod. 14:19; etc.). The first name means messenger9 of Jehovah;10 the latter, messenger of Elohim.11 The Sadducees, from the perspective of their theological tradition, probably interpreted the occasional visit of a singular glorious being called an angel as in fact a manifestation of the divine presence—as God Himself guiding His people.

On certain occasions, this angel was unmistakably divine. After Jacob wrestled with a supernatural manlike person, presumably the angel of the Lord, he said, "I have seen God face to face" (Gen. 32:30). Earlier when speaking to Jacob, the angel of God said, "I am the God of Bethel" (Gen. 31:13). On his deathbed, Jacob affirmed that the angel who had guided him in the past was indeed God (Gen. 48:15–16). God Himself later verified that the angel bore God's name (Exod. 23:20–21). Although just outside the Pentateuch, the Book of Joshua yields further information that likely helped to shape the outlook of all Jews, including the Sadducees. When the captain of the Lord's host—doubtless another manifestation of the supreme angel of the Lord—stood before Joshua, He accepted worship (Josh. 5:13–15). Under the prodding of all these clues, a centrist tradition in Christian theology has viewed the angel dominant in Israel's early history as the preincarnate Christ.

It follows that none of the Pentateuch's references to this singular angel threatened the Sadducean cosmology excluding angels. But how then did they view a passage like Genesis 19:1, which undeniably speaks of two angels rather than one? We must remember that both the Pharisees and, even more, the Sadducees had a habit of glossing over texts at odds with their prejudices. Notice especially Jesus' comeback when the Sadducees challenged His teaching of a future resurrection (Matt. 22:23–32). He excoriated them for blindness to a truth shining forth even from the Pentateuch, the very writings which they professed to honor (v. 32 is a quotation of Exod. 3:6). And notice further that He also went out of His way to bring "angels" (plural) into the debate (v. 30). He was pointing to another clear teaching of the Pentateuch that they chose to ignore or distort. He was adding more proof of His opening accusation that they were guilty of resisting the plain meaning of Scripture (v. 29).

Conflict rose to such a pitch that the two parties apparently came to blows. Both sides surrounded Paul and sought to take him into their hands. The Roman officer realized that if he did not intervene, the warring factions would pull Paul apart. The soldiers he brought with him were insufficient to handle the crisis. So, he sent out an emergency call for reinforcements from Antonia, which was nearby, and they arrived in time to deliver the apostle from brawling politicians. Then they conducted him safely back to the fortress.


A Timely Vision


Acts 23:11

Now that Paul had turned from his folly and submitted to the Lord's will, the Lord was ready to meet with him. Throughout Paul's endeavor to revisit Jerusalem and confront its Jewish multitudes with his own strong preaching of the gospel, the Lord never spoke to him directly. He used others to give Paul the message that he was on the wrong path. Paul was denied the privilege of hearing the Lord's voice because, despite all the warnings, he was stubbornly moving ahead anyway. But now, after failure and defeat had brought him to a complete change of heart, fellowship with the Lord was possible again. On the very next night, the Lord came and stood by him. It is evident that Paul saw Him with his physical eyes and heard Him with his physical ears. This was no dream, nor any vision during a trance, but a real appearance of the Lord to Paul when he was awake and conscious—an appearance comparable to what Paul saw on the road to Damascus. Then, the glory of Christ was overwhelming. Now, it was evidently muted. But His presence was no less real.

The Lord came with words of comfort. He began by urging Paul to forsake gloomy thoughts and be glad. No doubt Paul was berating himself because he had been so long out of step with the Lord. Remorse flooded his soul, and he desperately needed to feel that the Lord forgave him. Perhaps it was primarily to assure Paul of forgiveness that the Lord came to him in such a dramatic way. Yet He had another purpose as well, recognizing that Paul was also troubled by fear for his life. To calm his heart, the Lord revealed that he would not die in Jerusalem. His life would be spared so that he might serve as the Lord’s witness in Rome. The Lord was making it clear that whereas His blessing did not shine on Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, his journey to Rome would be different. Then he would have the Lord Himself as his closest companion.


Getting Practical


How God leads us to repentance

We can learn many lessons from Paul's repentance.

  1. Just as his change of heart was instantaneous, so was his restoration to God's favor and grace. In one moment he spoke rash and imprudent words contrary to the law of God. Moments later he spoke words of wisdom coming from the Holy Spirit. The change in his conduct must have reflected a change in his heart. Once he took down the barrier of self-will erected against God, he immediately resumed the character of God's mighty warrior.
  2. The Lord was waiting eagerly for Paul's repentance, and when it came, He did not make Paul endure any display of His displeasure. How radically God differs from the race of men! We cannot hear an apology without letting the offender know how much he hurt us, and without trumpeting how noble we are in extending forgiveness. Or we may even withhold forgiveness until we have made him squirm under our words of censure. But Christ is not childish like us. His forgiveness was immediate and complete. To make sure that Paul knew he was forgiven, He came to his side right away with no words except words of love.
  3. Earlier, to show Paul that he was in need of repentance, the Lord used the same methods that He uses with us. Paul's disobedience did not begin until he set foot in Jerusalem. Therefore, up until that moment, the Lord was content with giving him warnings. At any time during his journey, he could have turned back and escaped any fault. But as soon as he reached the forbidden place, the Lord's mechanism of correction began to operate. Paul went from failure to failure. He failed to escape the demands of James and of the Pharisees—demands that must have rankled his conscience. He failed to speak effectively to the crowd outside the Temple. He failed to gain a respectful hearing at the Sanhedrin. At last, when he fell into a sin obvious to his own eyes, he even failed to keep self-respect. Then he was ready to say that he was wrong. Likewise, when we are wayward from God's will, He lets us fail, and the taste of failure gets more and more bitter until we are ready to spit out our pride.

A Plot Unfolds


Acts 23:12-15

Paul's presence in the city let loose a flurry of fanaticism. Extremists convinced that Paul was an archenemy of all things precious to Jews banded together and conspired to take his life. No less than forty stirred themselves up to make a vow so terrible that the KJV properly calls it "a great curse." The words "bound . . . under a curse" (v. 12) render a single Greek word which is the source of the English word anathema.12 The vow looms even blacker in the words that the conspirators spoke to the Jewish leaders. Then they said, literally, "we have cursed ourselves with a curse" (v. 14).13 What was the vow? While calling upon God to ruin them with some awful vengeance if they failed to comply, they joined in a solemn oath to neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. In essence, they agreed that if they did not kill Paul, they would kill themselves. We can see that the mentality of modern suicide bombers has roots in the ancient world.


Delving Still Deeper


A detail lost in CT

Instead of "certain of the Jews" (literally, "some of the Jews") in verse 12, CT has simply "the Jews."14 It therefore avoids treating the conspirators as an extremist subgroup, instead giving them a label suggesting that their hatred for Paul was typical of all Jews in the city. TR, however, is careful to blame only the men responsible for the plot.

Here again, we see loss of detail, often a good sign of a corrupted text. But it is probably not a loss by random oversight. It is more likely an unintentional oversight conforming to the copyist's prejudice (prior beliefs often distort human perception) or a case of deliberate editing. We have noted before, and will note again, that some readings peculiar to CT create a version less sympathetic to the Jews. This pattern strengthens the possibility that the change here is the work of a copyist or overseer who altered the text to better reflect his own antisemitism. Perhaps a dislike for Jews afflicted the gentile Egyptian churches that gave birth to CT.

These conspirators were not riffraff from back alleys. These were men of enough standing to gain an audience with the chief priests and elders. In fact, when they met the leaders, they spoke as if they were in command. It is evident that they were members of some organized movement which the leaders feared to disregard. At this time, resistance to Roman rule and to the many gentile incursions upon Jewish society was building in strength. About ten years later, it was strong enough to produce a full-scale rebellion, but the outcome for the Jewish nation was not freedom, only destruction.

The conspirators told the leaders to send Claudius Lysias a message requesting that he bring Paul back to the council the next day. The pretext would be that the council wished to question Paul further. But the forty conspirators would waylay Paul's escort before it could reach the council. Perhaps long observation of the commanding officer as he moved about the city led them to doubt that the escort would be a large force of soldiers, and for this reason they were confident that they could overpower the Romans and kill Paul.


A Plot Foiled


Acts 23:16-22

But the conspirators made one mistake—the same mistake that has defeated many other conspirators down through history. By bringing so many into the plot, they compromised its secrecy. Somehow, news of their murderous intent reached one of Paul's relatives in Jerusalem. This was a young man, son of his sister. The Greek word for "young man" (vv. 17, 18, 22) generally refers to a man in his twenties, perhaps early twenties.15 It is likely that he heard about the coming attack because the plotters brought into their confidence not only the chief priests, but also many among the elders, perhaps including some who, though outwardly hostile to Paul to protect their social rank, were privately sympathetic. Except for the meager information that this chapter provides concerning Paul's family in Jerusalem, we know nothing about them, but since Paul himself was, as good evidence indicates, a former member of the Sanhedrin, we may presume that his family were prominent Jews with longstanding ties to a certain bloc of leaders. Perhaps one of these insiders deliberately alerted his family to what was being planned.

However the news came to Paul's nephew, he was eager to save his uncle's life, and he went immediately to the Roman fortress to warn Paul. The apostle was evidently not being held under tight security, for the young man had no trouble gaining access to him. When Paul heard what his nephew had to say, he instantly accepted the report as credible and, summoning one of the centurions nearby, requested that he take the young man to see the captain. The centurion did Paul's bidding and found the captain willing to hear the young man. Indeed, the captain saw him as credible enough to warrant taking him aside and speaking with him confidentially. After Paul’s nephew told the whole story of the assassins' plot, he ventured to attach some advice, urging the captain against complying with the council's' request to bring Paul for further interrogation.


Pondering a Question


What was the captain's attitude toward Paul?

In the captain's handling of the strife centering on Paul, we find many clues that he took Paul's side. Once he found out that Paul was a Roman, he treated him virtually as an equal. He spoke to him in a familiar manner about how he himself obtained the privilege of Roman citizenship. He set Paul before the Sanhedrin as if he were a man of sufficient rank to address such a body. He kept Paul under loose custody at the fortress. He readily assented to hear the information brought by Paul's nephew. He received the young man as a friend. And in his letter to the governor, he said nothing critical of Paul, but offered the opinion that Paul was guiltless and worthy of release.

The Romans at this time were extremely leery of Jewish extremism. So, the captain was by no means disposed to think that the Jews had good reason to hate Paul. If anything, he was disposed in Paul's favor, because the Jews also hated Romans like Claudius Lysias. Another point in common was that Paul was a Roman citizen. Also, the captain perhaps detected that Jewish opposition to Paul had something to do with his friendliness to gentiles. Therefore, for all these reasons, he saw Paul as an ally, not as an enemy.

Another factor bearing on his attitude was that he had initially mistreated Paul. He therefore realized that it was good policy to get on Paul's good side, lest Paul retain a grudge against him when he later defended himself in court. There he would be able to complain that Lysias treated him illegally.


Delving Still Deeper


Taking the young man by the hand

This detail has provoked much discussion. It doubtless shows that the captain treated the young man in a friendly manner, yet some scholars view it as an unlikely gesture of friendliness unless the young man was really only a boy.16 The editors of CT were so uncomfortable with Luke's original account that they gave the word "young man" in verses 18 and 22 a diminutive form, thus leaving the impression that he was young indeed.17 But if he was just a boy, why was the captain so anxious to hear his report and so ready to accept his advice? How did the young man even manage to get inside the fortress?

All this skirts the obvious. The captain wanted to speak with the young man privately, with no bystander able to overhear the words exchanged between them, so he took the young man's hand and pulled him aside. That's all. Taking the young man's hand was simply the practical way to start a private conversation immediately.

The captain did not question the report or quarrel with the advice, but took immediate steps to frustrate the plot. He dismissed the young man and ordered him to tell no one that he had tipped off the Roman authorities.


Decisive Action


Acts 23:23-24

Claudius decided that to serve justice and to prevent civil unrest, he should send Paul to Felix, Roman governor of the whole province, who resided in Caesarea along the coast. To avert any attack during the transfer, he made arrangements to hurry Paul out of Jerusalem as quickly as possible. As a chiliarch, Claudius commanded an army unit that might include over a thousand men.18 Since Jerusalem was a hotbed of trouble, it is likely that he was fully staffed with soldiers. He was therefore able to make an effective response to the present crisis. He called two centurions and, to assure security in their mission of escorting Paul to Felix, he directed them to assemble a force of several hundred men—that is, a significant fraction of the total Roman force in Jerusalem—and to leave soon after dark on the same night. The exact time would be the third hour (nine o’clock), when most Jews were in bed. The exact number of troops mustered for this transfer of a prisoner would be seventy cavalry besides two hundred other soldiers. Also, there would be two hundred dexiolabous. This very rare word has baffled scholars. Its literal meaning, "taking something in the right hand," has favored two interpretations. The first is that it refers to men who were javelin throwers or spearmen. The other is that it refers to horses led by the right hand.19 Besides dictating what military units should accompany the prisoner, Claudius instructed his junior officers to provide a mount for Paul himself, so that he could move quickly rather than trudge along on foot.

The captain’s first object was clear. He wanted to prevent Paul’s enemies from making any attempt on his life in Jerusalem. His second object, in case these enemies found out that Paul was being moved to another place, was to escort him with enough armed men to deter any attack along the road. As it turned out, the Roman escort achieved both objectives. They removed Paul secretly by night from Jerusalem and conducted him safely all the way to Caesarea.


The Captain's Letter


Acts 23:25-30

The captain sent along with the escort a letter explaining who Paul was and why he was being sent to Felix. The letter illustrates the skillful use of half-truths to influence another man's judgment. Claudius was correct in saying that he rescued Paul from a mob bent on killing him. He also gave an accurate account of what happened when he took Paul before the Sanhedrin—that the Jews failed to bring any charge against Paul that had any merit under Roman law. Finally, he stated the true reason why he whisked Paul out of Jerusalem—to save his life from enemies plotting to ambush and kill him.

But on one point he fudged the facts. He said that the reason he and his men waded into the riot within the Temple was to rescue a man known to be a Roman citizen. This was neither true nor plausible. How could the captain have known whether Paul was a Roman? Claudius stooped to prevarication because he was afraid of censure for his actual conduct. He mistreated Paul by arresting him summarily on a mere assumption of guilt, by putting him in bonds, and by preparing to scourge him—all of which were forbidden when dealing with a Roman citizen. Claudius decided that the best strategy for guarding himself from censure was to pose as Paul's protector rather than as his persecutor. Whether the lie fooled Felix is beyond our discovery. But Claudius knew that the only evidence against him was Paul's witness, and the governor could hardly put the word of Paul above the word of his military commander. Also, Claudius was probably hoping that after all he had done to protect Paul, Paul would be kind enough not to contradict the captain's report.


Pondering a Question


How did Luke know the contents of this letter?

Scholars are in general agreement that the letter appears to be authentic in style and content.20 The salutation addressing Festus as "most excellent," the legal procedure which the writer assumes will be followed by Festus, and the facts presented as those Festus will need in his coming review of Paul’s case are all appropriate.

Luke’s introductory comment, "a letter after this manner," is viewed by many scholars as a signal that what follows is only a good guess at the captain’s actual words.21 But then it seems unlikely that Luke would have framed the letter in first-person language. A better translation of the comment is "a letter that went like this," referring to a verbatim copy.22 Perhaps in some fashion during Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea during the next two years, Luke came into actual possession of the letter, or heard from someone what it stated.

We learn later in Acts (Acts 24:23) and more especially in Philippians, written from Caesarea (Phil. 4:21–22),23 that Paul throughout these two years enjoyed ongoing communication with friends and supporters, even some in the governor’s household. We may be sure that Luke himself stayed as close as possible to Paul. From the time of their reunion in Philippi until the end of Paul's life, Luke, filling a vital role both as personal physician and secretary, probably never departed from Paul except to go on brief errands. Luke was therefore well positioned in Caesarea to gain further information, whether from Paul himself or from Paul's contacts or from his own contacts, about the legal proceedings against Paul that began with his arrest.

As we consider how Luke knew the contents of the tribune's letter, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Claudius himself, at the time he sent the letter, revealed its basic contents to Paul, perhaps while seeking Paul’s assurances that in appreciation for the captain's work to save his life, he would not, when standing before the governor, contradict what the captain said.


Transfer Completed


Acts 23:31-35

After embarking, the convoy quickly took Paul all the way to Antipatris along the coast, about thirty-seven miles northwest of Jerusalem and twenty-five miles south of his final destination, Caesarea.24 The wording, which sets the trip "by night," leaves little doubt that much of the journey was accomplished before dawn.


Delving Deeper


Pace of the soldiers

Luke's report that soldiers traveled thirty-seven miles in perhaps ten hours has often raised doubt. Indeed, if the force included marching infantry, it seems unlikely that the whole force covered so much ground in so little time. To maintain a pace of nearly four miles per hour for ten hours does not exceed human capacity, but certainly would be difficult for two hundred men walking together, even though they possessed the discipline and conditioning characteristic of the best Roman troops.

Some scholars are of course pleased to view Luke's account of the trip to Caesarea as proof of his tendency to replace fact with fiction. But actually there is a simple explanation for the feat he attributes to Paul's escort. None of them were walking. They were all riding on mounts, as Paul was. The dexiolabous were truly horses, not soldiers. Now we understand why their number was exactly the same as the number of soldiers apart from cavalry. Two hundred soldiers needed two hundred horses. Just because these soldiers did not belong to the cavalry division of the Roman army does not mean that their duties never required them to move quickly on horseback.


Delving Still Deeper


Tactical considerations

A strong point in favor of our interpretation of dexiolabous is that it credits the captain with sensible military strategy. Sending nearly half of his soldiers out of Jerusalem would, in light of possible threats to law and order, have been hardly a good disposition of forces. The man entrusted with maintaining Roman control of a city always in ferment needed to exercise more caution.

Why then did he send almost three hundred to escort Paul? He must have made plans based on a series of shrewd calculations:

  1. Although the forty cutthroats were expecting to make their move against Paul on the next day, surely they had men watching the fortress all the time, even at night.
  2. Also, since Paul's Roman citizenship was common knowledge, surely they saw the possibility that the captain might decide to bypass the Sanhedrin and conduct Paul straight to the governor.
  3. Once they saw Paul's transfer underway, surely they would try to stop it.
  4. But to put a large company of their own men on horseback and pursue the escort was probably beyond the resources of these conspirators.
  5. Yet they might be able to send messengers who could catch up with the escort and go around it unobserved, with the intent of reaching sympathizers in cities further along and, with their help, quickly organizing an ambush, which, in the darkness, might prove very effective.

Yet to raise enough men to resist three hundred professional Roman soldiers was, given the many constraints on these rebels, not at all feasible. Thus, if Jewish spies saw the escort leave the fortress, they probably accepted defeat right on the spot.

The remainder of the journey was through gentile settlements in open country.25 Since little danger of ambush remained, the foot soldiers returned to Jerusalem, leaving the small force of cavalry to protect Paul.

Immediately upon arrival in Caesarea, Paul’s escort delivered him to Felix the governor. His actual Roman title was procurator of Judea, an office he had held since AD 52. Rising to such eminence was an extraordinary achievement for a man who had once been a slave, but he proved to be far more skillful in currying the favor of emperors than in governing. At the time of Paul's trial, resentment of his harsh methods was growing among the Jews.26

As Paul stood before Felix, the governor first wanted to know the prisoner’s native province. Paul said that he came from Cilicia. As we have noted often before, this was the province in southeast Asia Minor where his home city, Tarsus, was located. The empire was then organized in such a way that the governor of one province could try the citizen of another,27 but perhaps Felix thought that if Paul was not a Judean, he might secure advantages by sending the case to the governor of Paul’s home province. At this time, Cilicia was under the authority of Felix’s superior, the legate of Syria.28 So, after hearing Paul’s answer, Felix decided that it would be better if he himself served as judge of the matter brought before him. He may have felt that his superior would resent Felix’s refusal to render a verdict. From the legate’s perspective, adjudicating charges based on a religious dispute which provoked civil disorder of only a mild sort, with no loss of life, might be seen as a waste of time.29 Therefore, Felix scheduled a hearing. He said that he would consider Paul’s case as soon as his accusers came down from Jerusalem.

Until then, Paul was to be kept in "Herod's judgment hall," an attempt to translate the Greek form of the Latin word praetorium,30 originally signifying the residence of a military commander, but in later times used for the residence of a regional governor.31 In Caesarea, the governor's residence, or praetorium, was a palace that Herod the Great had built for his own comfort when he visited the city.32 Now under the control of Felix, the palace included some rooms, probably secluded from the main building, where prisoners were held.

After Paul entered confinement in Caesarea, he never afterward regained his freedom. The date of this permanent departure from active ministry was probably sometime in late June, AD 58.


Getting Practical


God’s power on display

The Lord promised Paul that he would not die in Jerusalem. In the story of how the Lord saved Paul from a strong band of conspirators, we see how infinitely resourceful the Lord is in bringing His will to fruition. No drift of events can take Him by surprise or find Him helpless to resist. No human power can overrule His will or work around it.

Notice how easily God stopped the plot against Paul. He did it in four easy steps. He had a conspirator tell his plans to one of Paul's sympathizers; the sympathizer told someone in Paul's family; Paul's nephew told Paul and the Roman captain; and the Roman captain escorted Paul out of Jerusalem. God accomplished the first step by causing an enemy of God to act foolishly. Even the heart of one of His enemies is a tool in His hand.

How then can we doubt that He will fulfill His promises to us? He is truthful. Therefore, we can believe what He says. He is almighty. Therefore, we can be sure that no power can frustrate His will. It will prevail against all contrary circumstances, leap easily over all barriers, and laugh at what men reckon to be impossibilities. Just because our minds are too small to comprehend the ways of God, let us not be weak in faith.


Getting Practical


Fate of the plotters

As for the gang of conspirators, over forty in number, we might wonder what happened to them. They vowed not to eat or drink until they killed Paul. Evidently they also had called upon God to punish them with some horrible retribution if they took nourishment before they accomplished the murder. Well, Paul escaped. How did the forty handle their failure?

A typical perspective among commentators is that once it became impossible to fulfill their vow, they felt released from it. The rabbis did in fact teach that a vow was no longer binding if it became, in their words, "a vow of constraint."33 That is, overriding circumstances prevented its fulfillment. But this merciful exemption from guilt did not apply to the conspirators. What did they vow to do? Kill Paul? Not exactly. They vowed not to eat or drink until they killed him. Joining in such a heart-stopping commitment was the only guarantee of maximum zeal and effort. To vow only to kill him had, as we showed, no motivating force if the goal became elusive. It could not keep allies from shrinking away at the critical moment if they felt on the verge of death. No, the vow they actually took had no escape clause.

So, did any of them ever eat or drink again? You can be sure that one by one, they conveniently forgot the vow. But from God's perspective, their sin was not failure to starve themselves. A promise to do wrong should never be kept. Rather, their sin was to refrain from murder only because it became impossible. You can be sure that when they come to the Day of Judgment, they will still be judged as murderers. We must always remember that God holds us guilty not only of sins we commit, but also of sins we attempt without success.

Footnotes

  1. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 464; Bock 670.
  2. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 464; Jos. Ant. 20.5.2, 6.2, 9.1–4; Wars 2.12.6, 17.6, 9; Bock, 669; Longenecker, 530.
  3. TB Pesachim 57a; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 464; Longenecker, 530.
  4. Rickard, Perils, 1:250.
  5. Berry, 519; Brenton, 99; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 465.
  6. Rickard, Perils, 1.69; Jos. Wars 6.2.4; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 148, 449.
  7. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 466.
  8. Ibid.; Bock, 671–672; Polhill, 322.
  9. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (n.p., 1906; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 521.
  10. Jay P. Green, Sr., The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew/English, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983), 1:35, 51, 145, 413.
  11. Ibid., 1:48, 80, 179.
  12. Berry, 520; Vine, 254; Arndt and Gingrich, 54.
  13. Berry, 521.
  14. Aland et al., 509; Berry, 520; Nestle Greek Text, 422–423.
  15. Berry, 521–522; Vine, 1259; Philo On the Creation 36 (105); see commentary on Acts 20.
  16. Marshall, 388–389; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 469.
  17. Berry, 521–522; Nestle Greek Text, 425; Aland et al., 510; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 469.
  18. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 451; Bock, 452, 681; Polhill, 317–318; Marshall, 389.
  19. Bock, 681; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 470; Longenecker, 535–536; Marshall, 389; Lake and Cadbury, 293.
  20. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 472; Longenecker, 536; Bock, 682; Marshall, 391; Polhill, 323.
  21. Longenecker, 536; Marshall, 390.
  22. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 471; Bock, 682.
  23. To see why Philippians appears to have been composed in Caesarea, see commentary on Acts 24.
  24. Marshall, 392; Bock, 683; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 473; Longenecker, 536–537; Polhill, 323.
  25. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 473; Bock, 683.
  26. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 471; Polhill, 324; Longenecker, 536; Bock, 681; Marshall, 390.
  27. Sherwin-White, 28–30, 55; Bock, 683–684; Marshall, 393.
  28. Sherwin-White, 55–56; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 473; Polhill, 328; Marshall, 393.
  29. Sherwin-White, 56; Bock, 684; Polhill, 324; Marshall, 393.
  30. Berry, 523.
  31. Arndt and Gingrich, 704; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 474.
  32. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 474; Bock, 684; Polhill, 324; Longenecker, 537; Jos. Ant. 15.9.6.
  33. Mish. Nedarim 3.1, 3.

This page is one chapter of a larger book. Therefore, not all references are complete. You can see full citations in the bibliography.

Further Reading


This lesson appears in Ed Rickard's In Perils Abounding, vol. 2, Commentary on Acts 15-28, which is available from Amazon.com. Also available is volume 1, covering Acts 1-14. For information on how to obtain them, click here.