 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Book of Acts
|
BIBLE STUDY ACTS 23:1-35 REVIEW: In chapter 22, Paul retells the story of his conversion. He emphasizes his Jewish credentials by addressing the people in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language rather than Greek, telling them that he had been brought up (taught) by the respected Pharisee Gamaliel, and that he had persecuted the followers of Jesus (the Way). Paul then goes on to relate his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. As I (Pastor George) mentioned, in Luke’s overall narrative purpose it is important to note that this story is told three times to emphasize its importance in showing that the resurrected Jesus personally appeared to Paul and chose him to be an apostle. In retelling this story, Luke makes some subtle alterations from the first account of it in chapter 9 – but the most significant one is Paul’s previously unmentioned vision from the risen Jesus in the temple, which many of his hearers considered to be blasphemy. Finally, Paul avoids being “examined” by flogging by mentioning his Roman citizenship. The Roman tribune then brings Paul to the Jewish council in order to find out what charges they had against him. CHAPTER 23:1-5 “Paul and the High Priest” “While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.” Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth. At this Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” As William Barclay writes in his Daily Study Bible commentary, there was a certain audacious recklessness about Paul’s conduct before the Sanhedrin; he acted like a man who knew that he was burning his boats. Even his very beginning was a challenge. He speaks out of turn – he was supposed to speak only after being questioned. Also, to say “Brothers” was to put himself on an equal footing with the court; for the normal beginning when addressing the Sanhedrin was, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” In reaction to Paul’s apparent lack of respect, the high priest Ananias ordered him to be struck on the mouth. As the high priest, Ananias was supposed to be a shining example of how to keep the Torah law – yet by ordering Paul to be struck he was blatantly transgressing it. It was a well known saying that “He who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God.” Paul then calls Ananias a “whitewashed wall” – it was an Israelite custom to whitewash tombs so that no one might touch them by mistake and thus be ritually defiled. As Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees in Mt. 23:27-28: “For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” Paul here is obviously referring to Ananias in the same way. When reprimanded for insulting the high priest, Paul says that he did not realize that he was the high priest. This statement is not be to taken literally – of course he knew! But Paul did want to make the point that he knew the Law (as shown by his quoting Ex. 22:28 about not speaking evil of a ruler of the people) and actually observed it – unlike Ananias! What Paul in effect was saying was: “This man sitting there – I never knew a Law-breaker like that could be the high priest!” CHAPTER 23:6-11 “Paul’s Defense at the Council” “When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the dissension became violent, the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks. That night the Lord stood near him and said, “Keep up your courage! For just as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also in Rome.” On the surface, it appears that Paul cited the fact that he was a Pharisee who believed in the hope of the resurrection in order to create a division between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the council about that issue. That certainly was the immediate result. But on a deeper level, this claim is also an argument against the Pharisees of Luke’s time. By the time that Luke and Acts were written, the Sadducees no longer existed as a viable party within Judaism – they were not important. What was important was that the Pharisees of Luke’s time were excommunicating those who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. The issue was not about belief in a resurrection of the dead, but rather whether or not that hope has been realized. By not being willing to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus, the Pharisees of Luke’s day are unfaithful to their own best convictions! They even acknowledge that a spirit or an angel might have spoken to Paul (and to other Christian witnesses) and yet they still refuse to believe. Finally, Jesus again appears in a vision to Paul – as he has done at other crisis points in Paul’s ministry (see Acts 9:3-6; 22:17-21; 18:9-10). From now on the rest of Acts is a narrative as to how Jesus’ message will be fulfilled. Paul will be brought to Rome and be a witness for Christ there. CHAPTER 23:12-35 “Paul’s Transference to Caesarea” “In the morning the Jews joined in a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. There were more than forty who joined in this conspiracy. They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul. Now then, you and the council must notify the tribune to bring him down to you, on the pretext that you want to make a more thorough examination of his case. And we are ready to do away with him before he arrives.” Now the son of Paul’s sister heard about the ambush; so he went and gained entrance to the barracks and told Paul. Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the tribune, for he has something to report to him.” So he took him, brought him to the tribune, and said, “The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you; he has something to tell you.” The tribune took him by the hand, drew him aside privately, and asked, “What is it that you have to report to me?” He answered, “The Jews have agreed to task you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more thoroughly into his case. But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of them are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They are ready now and are waiting for your consent.” So the tribune dismissed the young man, ordering him, “Tell no one that you have informed me of this.” Then he summoned two of the centurions and said, “Get ready to leave by nine o’clock tonight for Caesarea with two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen. Also provide mounts for Paul to ride, and take him safely to Felix the governor.” He wrote a letter to this effect: “Claudius Lysias to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings. This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them, but when I had learned that he was a Roman citizen, I came with the guard and rescued him. Since I wanted to know the charge for which they accused him, I had him brought to their council. I found that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but was charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before you what they have against him.” So the soldiers, according to their instructions, took Paul and brought him during the night to Antipatris. The next day they let the horsemen go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. When they came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they presented Paul also before him. On reading the letter, he asked what province he belonged to, and when he learned that he was from Cilicia, he said, “I will give you a hearing when your accusers arrive.” Then he ordered that he be kept under guard in Herod’s headquarters.” Luke seems to have a “double purpose” in relating this story. He presents the story of a plot of fanatical Jews against Paul, with the implication that they were the reason for Paul’s transference to Caesarea. But since Paul had earlier asserted his Roman citizenship, his transference to Caesarea would have been automatic because he now was within the Roman rather than the Jewish legal system. So why does Luke highlight the story of the fanatics’ plot? Perhaps it is to contrast their hatred with that of impartial Roman justice. Throughout Luke/Acts, Luke almost always portrays Roman officials in a favorable light. By doing so, he shows any Roman readers that Christian believers are not opposed to them. -------------------- George R. Karres, Pella Lutheran Church 418 W. Main Street Sidney, MT 59270
|
||||