Click Here to see Lesson 20 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

Paul Before the Sanhedrin

In last week’s lesson, Paul traveled to Jerusalem—"compelled by the (Holy) Spirit" (Acts 20:22), but aware he faced prison. The church there gladly accepted a large amount of money contributed by Jewish-Gentile churches of modern Greece and Turkey . . . but then they asked Paul to do something a fellow Christian should never have been asked to do: go into the temple and have the priests perform an animal sacrifice to "purify" himself and four others. They even asked Paul to pay the expenses of the four, though King David once said a sacrifice that costs nothing is worth nothing (2 Sam 24:24). The church’s requests are disgusting; but in the name of Christian unity, Paul agrees.

This is the last reference in the bible to the Church of Jerusalem. And although I’m getting ahead of my story, it disappeared when Jerusalem was conquered and the temple destroyed by the Roman army in 70 AD. Moreover, the concept of "Pharisaic Christianity"—which so dogged Paul’s missions work—disappeared at the same time. Maybe God was sending a message.

Paul was recognized by Jews from the Ephesus area when he was in the temple undergoing this rite. They started a riot against him, and would have killed him, except he was rescued by Roman troops, and carried from the temple to the nearby Roman Fortress Antonio. He was kept there overnight . . . not as a prisoner, but for his safety.

Tonight’s lesson begins the next morning . . . when Lysias, the Roman commander, requests a meeting of the Sanhedrin: the Jewish self-governing body under the supervision of the Romans, led by the high priest. Lysias wants to know the cause of the riot, and if any charges will be pressed; this is important to him, because his job is to prevent or suppress such riots. Paul is released prior to appearing before the Sanhedrin. He is not a criminal brought to court; he a free man, participating in an inquiry to allow Lysias to ascertain if there are any formal charges against him.

Chapter 23 opens as Paul addresses the Sanhedrin, but most likely there were private or public discussions beforehand . . . probably based on the allegations made in the temple before the riot: "(Paul) teaches . . . against (the Jewish) people and (the oral) law and (the temple)" (Acts 21:28). Essentially Paul is charged with teaching people—Jews in particular—not to follow accepted practices of 1^st century Judaism.

Paul responds to this charge: "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day" (Acts 23:1). Paul claims he is an observant Jew . . . and why not? He was "caught" in the temple, undergoing a Jewish "purification" rite under Jewish law.

At risk of beating a dead horse, we ask rhetorically: why aren’t the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem speaking out in Paul’s defense? They forced Paul to perform this rite, promising to be his friends if he did what they said (Acts 21:23). Why don’t they testify Paul is an observant Jew?

Since Paul was sent to arrest Christians more than 20 years before, a new high priest, Ananias, has been installed. Ananias commands that Paul be struck on the mouth for this statement. Apparently startled, Paul responds:

Paul doesn’t pull any punches. A "whitewashed wall" is a hypocrite. Jesus used this analogy to describe the Pharisees (Matt 23:27). A hypocrites is exactly what Ananias is . . . sitting as judge of Paul under Jewish law, yet violating Jewish law by striking Paul in the mouth as if he has lied, with no evidence to that effect. It is as Jesus said when this happened to Him before the Sanhedrin: "If I said something wrong, . . . testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18: 23).

Paul’s verbal attack on Ananias draws heavy criticism by others in the Sanhedrin. Paul apologizes, because he did not realize the person he insulted was the high priest. Indeed, God gives instructions in Exodus not to speak badly about the Jewish ruler . . . no doubt out of respect for the office. But why doesn’t Paul recognize the high priest? The day before—speaking to the crowd—Paul had cited the high priest and Sanhedrin as witnesses to his prior persecution of Christians. Does this undercut Paul’s credibility, as some non-believing scholars claim? Not necessarily; here are several good reasons. The high priest did not always preside at Sanhedrin sessions, and perhaps Paul simply failed to recognize Ananias . . . either because he hadn’t seen him for 20-plus years, or because Paul had bad eyesight (as some scholars claim and cite 2 Cor 12:7 as "proof").

But the most important point is this: when Paul is struck in the mouth at the direction of the high priest, he realizes Ananias and his Sadducees won’t listen to anything he says. And since he apparently has no witnesses to testify he is an observant Jew, Paul tries another tact: to divide the Sanhedrin by appealing to the opposition party. Luke writes:

Luke explains that: "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all" (Acts 23:8). This is all most of us know about these two competing sects of 1^st century Judaism . . . but there’s lots more to it. And since the Sadducees and Pharisees have such an impact on the story of Jesus and Acts, we should learn more about them.

The 1^st century Sadducees are a wealthy, politically-connected, priestly aristocracy living in Jerusalem. Like the Greeks, they believe there is no life after death; God's reward is material riches on earth, and His punishment, a life of adversity (cf Deut 28). They pursued riches at all costs, and considered wealth a sign of God's favor. They will do anything to maintain their wealth and power and influence . . . including collaborating with Gentile foreign invaders to control the Jewish religion. The Jewish high priesthood is a hereditary position; Sadducees could not legitimately be high priest . . . they usurped this position through politics and money. And since everything they did had to be approved by a pagan conqueror, their faithfulness in following God was dubious.

Furthermore, to maintain their wealth and power, they operated the temple like a personal cash cow. "Worship" in ancient Judaism revolved around ritual and animal sacrifices in the temple. Since the Sadducees controlled the temple, they franchised temple markets, which became the only viable way Jews could obtain "unblemished" animals for sacrifice; this brought them obscene profits. Sadducees were mean and arrogant—like this guy Ananias, who had Paul struck without reason. They were despised by the Jewish people . . . but they didn’t care, as long as they kept the Romans happy. Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and his actions driving marketeers out of the temple were directed against the Sadducees.

We’ve talked some about the Pharisees . . . who could hardly be more different than the Sadducees. They believed in the resurrection to heaven, and in angels and spirits. They had their roots in the "back to the bible" movement during and after the Babylonian captivity. But—as shown in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah—this devolved to legalism. Instead of 10 Commandments, the Pharisees claimed 613 Commandments. (Most of us can’t list all 10 . . . try 613!) Furthermore, by the time of Jesus and Paul, a comprehensive and inflexible oral law—or "tradition"— had evolved, consisting of the written law, what were claimed to be God’s oral instructions to Moses, and years of rabbinical interpretations applying God’s written and oral laws to specific situations. Pharisees believed "salvation" came through rigorous adherence to this oral law. It was not written until about 200 AD, when it became known as the "Mishnah" (repetition) . . . a part of the Talmud.

The spiritual leaders of Judaism were Pharisees like Gamaliel teaching in Jerusalem. But the strength of the Pharisees was their control of the synagogues, where Jews came weekly to worship God and study scripture; in this way they dictated the religious education of rank-and-file Jews. (By contrast, Jews went to the temple only for three annual festivals and occasional rituals and sacrifices.)

Mankind seems attracted to legalism because it is "often in error, but never in doubt." The Pharisees exuded such total confidence in their "plan of salvation" that rank-and-file Jews believed them. Their closeness to the people in the synagogues—and the appearance of piety given by devotion to the oral law—made them very popular. Yet Jesus said the oral law was so legalistic and inflexible it was often contrary to the God's intent (Mark 7:5-13).

Because the Sadducees controlled the temple and the Pharisees controlled the people, both were well represented on the 71-member Sanhedrin. But since they disliked one another intensely, it was an uneasy alliance.

This explains Paul’s strategy. When he realizes Ananias and the Sadducees are not listening to the merits of his case, he tries to spin the charges against him to a conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees. Let’s look at the issue from the Pharisee perspective. Paul’s knowledge of the oral law no doubt makes him a very credible witness . . . as he quoted Exodus in apologizing to Ananias . . . as explains that he was "captured" in the temple while undergoing a purification rite. Then he claims the real reason Jews from Ephesus started a riot against him is his belief Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This, too, is credible because—as we’ve discussed before—the Pharisees of Jerusalem look down on Hellenized Jews from places like Ephesus as not knowledgeable about Judaism . . . which Paul obviously is. The Pharisees on the Sanhedrin seem to believe Paul: "We find nothing wrong with this man," they say (Acts 23:9).

Why don’t the Sadducees care about the facts? Paul has caused a riot that brought out the Roman troops. Ananias can almost hear Governor Felix saying to him: "If you can’t control your people, I’ll find a high priest who can." Facts don’t matter; Paul must go!

Hence the debate in the Sanhedrin is not really about theological issues. The Sadducees are trying to get rid of an irritant and prove to the Romans they can maintain order, and the Pharisees are opposing them because the irritant claims he is on trial for believing as Pharisees believe. And we think politics in modern America is complicated!

Perhaps the crowd joins the debate in the Sanhedrin . . . but in any case "the dispute became so violent that (Lysias) the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the (Fortress Antonio)" (Acts 23:10).

We learn more about Paul’s family in this chapter than anywhere else in the bible. Paul’s father was a Pharisee before him (Acts 23:6); he has a sister . . . and a nephew in Jerusalem. Whether or not his family believes in Jesus, they continue to love and protect one another. My guess is Paul’s nephew is studying to be a Pharisee, like his grandfather and his uncle before him; since the young man became aware of the plot being hatched against Paul, he must have contacts in the Sanhedrin . . . and they don’t need to be good contacts, since it’s impossible to keep a secret with "more than forty men involved" (Acts 23:13)! Whatever . . . it’s a darn good thing Paul’s nephew found out, because this might have saved Paul’s life.

We nevertheless know it was all part of God’s plan, because before his nephew came, at "night the Lord stood near Paul and said, ‘Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome’" (Acts 23:11). What does it mean "the Lord stood near Paul"? Most commentators interpret this figuratively . . . as God stands by us all when in trouble; and as for God’s voice . . . don’t we all have the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Lysias the commander already knows the fervor of Paul’s opponents . . . but this plot confirms it big time! No charges valid in a Roman court have been filed . . . and Lysias is supposed to protect Paul—a Roman citizen—in Jerusalem. Hence, faced with such an insidious plot, he immediately packs up Paul and sends him out of Jerusalem to the custody of the governor in the Roman provincial capital of Caesarea . . . with 470 troops—infantry, artillery, and cavalry—to ensure Paul’s safety for an overnight trip.

Governor Felix is well connected, as we will discuss next week. When Paul arrives, Felix only asks about his home province. If it is nearby, he might send him there for trial . . . which seems to be a middle eastern custom. Recall: Jesus was sent from Pilate to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee . . . and after Al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan Saturday, we learn Pakistan can’t legally extradite him to the US, but can send him to his home country of Kuwait. Nevertheless, since Celicia is too far to send Paul there, Felix keeps him under guard in the palace until representatives of the Sanhedrin arrive to press charges.

Next week we’ll see Ananias and representatives of the Sanhedrin travel to Caesarea—along with a slick trial lawyer—to press charges against Paul. We’ll witness the dishonesty of governor Felix . . . keeping Paul there for what must be two very frustrating years, hoping for a bribe. Felix is eventually replaced as governor . . . and then we’ll see things set in motion to take Paul to Rome as Caesar’s prisoner.

I’m going to close with a final thought on Pharisees and Sadducees. Despite their great differences, Jesus condemned them both:

The yeast of the Pharisees was legalism. They defined a formula for salvation . . . and defined goodness by this formula, rather than flowing naturally from a proper heart attitude. The yeast of the Sadducees might be described with words like "worldliness," "compromise," and "materialism." They sacrificed Jewish fundamentals for popularity, power, and money.

Sometimes it seems all the problems of the 21^st century church can be described as modern Pharisees and Sadducees . . . those who try to make Christianity a formula religion of legalism . . . those who say being blessed by God means you can "Name it and claim it" . . . and those who compromise Christianity to get along in our secular society—making Christians indistinguishable from non-Christians. These attitudes are not consistent with what Jesus preached, and we should give that serious thought as we leave here tonight.