Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:30
On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from [his] bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.
30. The Chief Captain brings Paul before the Sanhedrin
30. because he would have known ] Literally and better (with Rev. Ver.) “desiring to know.” The Chief Captain was anxious as a Roman officer, that justice should be done, and this could only be by having both sides before some authoritative council.
he loosed him from his bands ] The oldest MSS. do not contain the last three words, but they are to be understood, whether expressed or not.
and commanded the chief priests ] He had discovered thus much that the offence charged against his prisoner was concerning the religion of the Jews. He therefore summons the chief religious authorities as those who were best able to decide whether any wrong had been done.
and all their council ] The oldest text omits “their.” The council intended was the whole Jewish Sanhedrin.
to appear ] i.e. to be assembled in some place to which he might bring Paul, and have the case fairly discussed. The place where the Sanhedrin met for their own consultations was called Lishkath-Haggazith and was a hall built of cut stone so situate that one half was built on holy, the other half on the profane ground, and it had two doors, one to admit to each separate section. T. B. Joma 25 a . But whether this was the place of meeting at this time we have no means of deciding.
brought Paul dawn ] The castle was situate on the highest part above the temple, so that wherever he had to go, the Chief Captain must come down.
set him before them ] He appears to have left him there (see Act 23:10) and to have given him over to them for examination, though still taking care that he should not be the victim of mob-law.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
On the morrow – After he had arrested Paul. Paul was still a prisoner; and if suffered to go at liberty among the Jews, his life would have been in danger.
And commanded the chief priests … – Summoned a meeting of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the nation. He did this, as he was prevented from scourging Paul, in order to know what he had done, and that he might learn from the Jews themselves the nature of the charge against him. This was necessary for the safety of Paul and for the ends of justice. This should have been done without any attempt to torture him in order to extort a confession.
And brought Paul down – From the elevated castle of Antonia. The council assembled commonly in the house of the high priest.
And set him before them – He brought the prisoner to their bar, that they might have have an opportunity to accuse him, and that thus the chief captain might learn the real nature of the charge against him.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 30. He – commanded – all their council to appear] Instead of , to come, which we translate, to appear, , to assemble, or meet together, is the reading of ACE, nearly twenty others, the AEthiopic, Arabic, Vulgate, Chrysostom, and Theophylact: this reading Griesbach has received into the text; and it is most probably the true one: as the chief captain wished to know the certainty of the matter, he desired the Jewish council, or Sanhedrin, to assemble, and examine the business thoroughly, that he might know of what the apostle was accused; as the law would not permit him to proceed against a Roman in any judicial way, but on the clearest evidence; and, as he understood that the cause of their enmity was something that concerned their religion, he considered the Sanhedrin to be the most proper judge, and therefore commanded them to assemble; and there is no doubt that he himself, and a sufficient number of soldiers, took care to attend, as the person of Paul could not be safe in the hands of persons so prejudiced, unprincipled, and enraged.
This chapter should end with the twenty-ninth verse, and the following should begin with the thirtieth; this is the most natural division, and is followed by some of the most correct editions of the original text.
1. IN his address to the council, Paul asserts that he is a Jew, born of and among Jews; and that he had a regular Jewish education; and he takes care to observe that he had early imbibed all the prejudices peculiar to his countrymen, and had given the fullest proof of this in his persecution of the Christians. Thus, his assertions, concerning the unprofitableness of the legal ceremonies, could neither be attributed to ignorance nor indifference. Had a Gentile, no matter how learned or eminent, taught thus, his whole teaching would have been attributed to ignorance, prejudice, and envy. God, therefore, in his endless mercy, made use of a most eminent, learned, and bigoted Jew, to demonstrate the nullity of the whole Jewish system, and show the necessity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. At the close of this chapter, Dr. Dodd has the following judicious remark: – “As unrighteous as it was in the Roman officer, on this popular clamour, to attempt putting this holy apostle to the torture, so reasonable was St. Paul’s plea, as a Roman citizen, to decline that suffering. It is a prudence worthy the imitation of the bravest of men, not to throw themselves into unnecessary difficulties. True courage widely differs from rash and heedless temerity; nor are we under any obligation, as Christians, to give up our civil privileges, which ought to be esteemed as the gifts of God, to every insolent and turbulent invader. In a thousand circumstances, gratitude to God, and duty to men, will oblige us to insist upon them; and a generous concern for those who may come after us should engage us to labour to transmit them to posterity improved rather than impaired.” This should be an article in the creed of every genuine Briton.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He loosed him from his bands; that he might not continue, after knowledge, in that (accounted) crime of binding a Roman citizen; as also that Paul might speak with the greater liberty and freedom in his own defence.
The chief priests; the chief of the four and twenty courses amongst the priests, according to their families, or such as in place and dignity did excel in the sanhedrim.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. commanded the chief priests andall their council to appearthat is, the Sanhedrim to beformally convened. Note here the power to order a Sanhedrim to trythis case, assumed by the Roman officers and acquiesced in on theirpart.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
On the morrow,…. The next day; so that Paul was kept in the castle all night: because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews; which, as yet, he could not come at, some saying one thing, and some another; and which he ought to have known before he had bound him, and ordered him to be scourged:
he loosed him from his bands not from his being bound with thongs to the pillar, that he had been loosed from before, but from the two chains with which he was bound, and held by two soldiers; see
Ac 21:33.
and commanded the chief priests, and all the council to appear, the whole Jewish sanhedrim, which was now very much under the direction and influence of the Romans: and this he the rather did, because, though he could not come at the certainty of the charge and accusation, he perceived it was a matter of religion, and so belonged to them to examine and judge of:
and brought Paul down; from the Castle of Antonia, into the temple, and to the place where the sanhedrim sat, which formerly was in the chamber Gazith, but of late years it had removed from place to place, and indeed from Jerusalem itself, and was now at Jabneh; only this was the time of Pentecost, and so the chief priests and sanhedrim were at Jerusalem on that account:
and set him before them; or “among them”; in the midst of them, to answer to what charges should be brought against him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
To know the certainty ( ). Same idiom in 21:34 which see.
Wherefore he was accused ( ). Epexegetical after to . Note article (accusative case) with the indirect question here as in Luke 22:1; Luke 22:23; Luke 22:24 (which see), a neat idiom in the Greek.
Commanded (). So the Sanhedrin had to meet, but in the Tower of Antonia, for he brought Paul down (, second aorist active participle of ).
Set him (). First aorist active (transitive) indicative of , not the intransitive second aorist . Lysias is determined to find out the truth about Paul, more puzzled than ever by the important discovery that he has a Roman citizen on his hands in this strange prisoner.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Brought Paul down. To the meeting – place of the Sanhedrim : probably not their usual place of assembly, which lay within the wall of partition, which Lysias and his soldiers would not have been allowed to pass.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “On the morrow,” (te de epaurion) “Then on the following day,” after the arrest, binding, and detainment.
2) “Because he would have known,” (boulomenos gonnai) “Being disposed (minded) to know,” to satisfy his uncertainty, and quiet his fear, Act 22:29.
3) “The certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews,” (to asphales to ti kategoretai hupo ton loudaion) “The certain or specifically clear matter for which he was accused by the Jews;” The chief captain had not yet even heard the accusations of the Jews against Paul.
4) “He loosed him from his bands,” (elusen auton) “He released him,” from his band-restraints by which he had been bound, from the two chains at least, Act 21:33.
5) “And commanded the, chief priests and all their council,” (kai ekeleusen sunelthem) “And he commanded to come together,” (tous archiereis kai pan to sunedrion) “The chief priests and all the Sanhedrin (the council),” for he had authority to summon them on issues of Jewish religious matters.
6) “To appear,” (sunelthein) “To make their appearance,” and personally confront Paul, in a lawful assembly, on Mt Zion, to hurl their complaints and accusations.
7) “And brought Paul down and set him before them.” (kai katagagon ton Paulon estesen eis autous) “And when he had brought Paul down from confinement he set him among them,” the priests and Sanhedrin elders, to hear their questioning and complaints against him, as Peter and other apostles, Act 5:26-40.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(30) Because he would have known the certainty . . .Better, wishing to know the certain fact, namely, why he was accused. Failing to get the information by the process of torturing the prisoner, the chiliarch now has recourse to the other alternative of getting a formal declaration from the Sanhedrin, as the chief representative body of the Jews. As yet, it will be remembered, they had taken no official action in the proceedings, and the chief captain had heard only the clamours of the crowd.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. The certainty Lysias is now on the right track, inquiring of the prosecutors what the charge is, confronting the accuser with the accused. Inasmuch as troops could be brought from the castle in a moment, (xxiii, 10,) this meeting was probably held in the cloisters of the court of the Gentiles, very near to the stairs of Fort Antonia.
This seems, however, not to be a court for judicial trial and sentence, but an informal calling together for inquiry. Lysias assembles the Sanhedrin simply to know “the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews.” And probably himself (and not the high priest, Ananias) presided over the informal inquest.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty of what he was accused of by the Jews, he loosed him, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set him before them.’
So on the next day, wanting to know exactly what charges were being laid against Paul, he gave Paul his freedom within the fortress and commanded the Sanhedrin if they wished to justify Paul being handed over to them to gather to discuss the matter and formulate their charges. Then he brought Paul out and set him before the Council.
This chief captain was an object lesson to the Jews. He alone (although he did not know it) was obeying the Law, ‘;– then you shall enquire, and make search, and ask diligently —’ (Deu 13:14). That is what the Jews should have done. It took a Roman to hold them to it.
We note that this was at least the sixth time that the Sanhedrin had been called on to evaluate the claims of Christ. The first occasion was when the official Sanhedrin had met to consider reports about Jesus (Joh 11:47-53); the second was during Jesus’ series of ‘trials’ (Mat 27:1-2; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66-71); the third was for the trial of Peter and John (Act 4:5-22); the fourth was for the trial of the Twelve (Act 5:21-40), and the fifth was for Stephen’s trial (Act 6:12 to Act 7:60). They had had plenty of time to come to a firm and reasonable decision about him. But they had not. They were still divided.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul Appears Before the Sanhedrin (22:30-23:9). The Lord Assures Him That As He Has Testified in Jerusalem So Will He Testify in Rome (23:10-11).
The chief officer did not know quite what to do with Paul. He was not even quite sure of what the accusation against him was. At first it had been quite clear. He was an Egyptian insurgent, he was a blasphemer, he had taken Greeks into the inner temple, he was all that was bad (or so he had been told). Now having listened to Paul he was not so sure. He had also probably been visited by Jewish leaders who had wanted him to hand him over to them. This was presumably why he as a mere chief captain was able to ‘command’ the appearance of the Sanhedrin. If they wanted him they must justify their request, for Paul was a Roman citizen.
Having described the appearance of the risen Jesus in chapter 22 Paul will now continually proclaim the hope of the resurrection. The word of God is not bound. This proclamation is found in Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Act 26:6-8 (in the introductory analysis in ‘h’, ‘l’, and ‘h’). It will then be followed by a further description of the risen Jesus to Paul (Act 26:12-18). So his period of detention from his arrest in Jerusalem to his commencement of his journey to Rome is one long proclamation of the resurrection from the dead which is everywhere emphasised.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:11 records Paul’s testimony before the Sanhedrin.
Act 22:30 On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.
Act 23:1 Act 23:1
Act 24:16, “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.”
2Ti 1:3, “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;”
Act 23:1 “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren” – Comments – Each of Paul’s opening speeches reveals a man unashamed and confident of his innocence. In Act 21:40 he turns to address the Jewish mob rather than accept deliverance from the Roman soldiers, as would be typical for someone who had committed a crime and wanted to escape punishment. In Act 23:1 he looks intently upon the Sanhedrin and speaks boldly rather than hanging his head down in shame and guilt. In Act 24:10 he addresses Felix the governor with cheer. In Act 25:11 Paul boldly declares to Festus that if any wrong can be found in him, he is ready to die. In Act 26:1-2 he stretches forth his hand as an orator and speaks unto King Agrippa.
Act 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Act 23:3 Act 23:3
Mat 23:27, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”
Act 23:4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
Act 23:5 Act 23:5
Exo 22:28, “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people .”
Other New Testament passages make an indirect reference to this verse out of Exodus.
2Pe 2:10-11, “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.”
Jud 1:8, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”
Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Act 23:6
Act 23:6 “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question” Comments – Paul will focus upon the theme of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin and in his defense before King Agrippa (Act 26:3; Act 26:23).
Act 26:8, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”
Act 26:23, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
Act 23:9 Comments The Pharisees took seriously the testimony of a fellow Jew who had received a vision or divine oracle. When reflecting back on Paul’s first defense in Act 22:1-21, we see that he relied heavily upon the visionary aspects of his conversion, which was more likely to appeal to the Pharisees
Act 23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.
Act 23:11 Act 23:11
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Second Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before the Sanhedrin (A.D. 58) Act 22:30 to Act 23:35 gives us the testimony of Paul’s second trial as he stands before the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is the second speech that Luke records of Paul’s defense of the Christian faith. Paul has spoken before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he now stands before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he will stand before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he will stand before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12); and he will stand before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Paul Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:11
2. The Jews Plot Against Paul’s Life Act 23:12-22
3. Paul is Sent to Felix the Governor Act 23:23-35
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Act 22:30 . . . .] is an epexegetical definition of . The article, as in Act 4:21 . The is nominative. Comp. Thuc. i. 95. ii. , Soph. O. R. 529.
] Lysias did not immediately, when he learned the citizenship of Paul, order him to be loosed, but only on the following day, when he placed him before the chief priests and in general the whole Sanhedrim ( ., comp. Mat 26:59 ; Mar 14:55 ). This was quite the proceeding of a haughty consistency , according to which the Roman, notwithstanding the , could not prevail upon himself to expose his mistake by an immediate release of the Jew. Enough, that he ordered them to refrain from the scourging not yet begun; the binding had at once taken place, and so he left him bound until the next day, when the publicity of the further proceedings no longer permitted it. Kuinoel’s view, that refers to the releasing from the custodia militaris , in which the tribune had commanded the apostle to be placed (bound with a chain to a soldier) after the assurance that he was a Roman citizen, is an arbitrary idea forced on the text, as necessarily points back to , Act 22:29 (and this to Act 21:33 ).
from the castle of Antonia down to the council-room of the Sanhedrim. [141] Comp. Act 23:10 .
[141] See also Wieseler, Beitr. z. Wrdig. d. Ev . p. 211.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
C.PAUL IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL; HE MAKES HIS DEFENCE; THE COMFORTING PROMISE WHICH THE LORD GIVES HIM
Act 22:30 Act 23:11
[Act 22:30]. On the morrow, because he would have known [But on the following day, wishing to know] the certainty wherefore [of that of which] he was accused of [by] the Jews, he loosed him from his bands [he released him15], and commanded the chief priests and all their [the] council to appear [assemble], and brought Paul down, and set him before them.
[Act 23:1.] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until [I have walked before God with all good conscience unto] this day. 2And [But] the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3Then said Paul unto him, God shall [will, ] smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou [wall: thou sittest] to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law [me, in violation of the law, to be Smitten]? 4And [But] they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? 5Then said Paul [And () Paul said], I wist [knew] not, brethren, that he was [is, ] the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. 6But when Paul perceived [But as Paul knew] that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee [a son of Pharisees1]: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question [for the sake of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged!]. 7And [But] when he had so said [said this, ], there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, [and] neither2 angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess 9 both. 9And [But] there arose a great cry: and the scribes3 that were of the Pharisees part [cry: and scribes4 of the party of the Pharisees] arose, and strove [contended], saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God [man: but if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?4]. 10And when [But as] there arose a great dissension, the chief captain [the tribune], fearing lest Paul should have been [might be] pulled in pieces of [by] them, commanded the soldiers to go [that the soldiers should come] down, and to take him by force [and snatch him] from among them, and to [om. to] bring him into the castle [barracks]. 11And [But in] the night following the Lord stood by [came to] him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul [om. Paul]:5for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 22:30. On the morrow., i.e., that which is certain or sure; Lysias wished to obtain information on which he could rely; the words: , are in apposition with the former [referring epexegetically to . (Meyer).Tr.]. Lysias did not investigate the facts themselves, but wished to ascertain the precise charge which the Jews brought, against Paul. He had hitherto learned nothing that was definite; he had only perceived that the Jews were excessively excited, and spoke of Paul with the utmost exasperation. The hierarchical authority of the Jews could, as he hoped, enable him to accomplish his design. His command that a meeting of the Sanhedrin should be held, demonstrates that the independence of the Jews, even in matters referring to the internal concerns of their religion, had been seriously impaired. The word implies that the members assembled in the ordinary council-room, whereas the reading , which is not well attested [note 1, appended to the textTr.], assumes that they were required to meet at the abode of the Roman. Besides, (with which compare , Act 23:10), indicates a locality in the city itself, and not one in the interior of the tower of Antonia, which commanded the city. From the word it appears that, although Lysias had at first felt some alarm, because he had illegally fettered a Roman citizen, he had, nevertheless, not freed Paul from his bonds, until he presented him to the Sanhedrin. [Although he had been alarmed, he determined, in a spirit of defiance, to exhibit no signs of weakness to the Jews, by the immediate release of the prisoner., i.e., brought him down from the tower to the council-room of the Sanhedrin.(Meyer).Tr.].
Act 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.The apostle was now placed before the Sanhedrin, like the Redeemer himself, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, and like the first apostles, Act 4:7 ff; Act 5:27 ff. , i.e., he steadfastly surveyed the assembly before him, with a calm and undaunted spirit. The address, . , without (as in Act 22:1), demonstrates that he felt himself to be the equal of the persons before him. He commences the proceedings himself, for he had not been cited by the assembly, but had been placed before them by the Roman commandant. Hence they waited until the latter made his own statement; the apostle, on his part, speaks with great composure. He testifies that he had a good conscience, inasmuch as he had always fulfilled his duty to God in every respect; , in every respect, in every case, with a good conscience. (which is equivalent to rempublicam gero, fungor magistratu in repub.) here implies: I have performed my office with a good conscience ; the latter is dativus commodi, namely, for God. [I have lived unto God, i. e., for his service and glory; See Rom 14:8; Gal 2:19. (Hackett).Tr.]. The usus loquendi furnishes no authority whatever for taking in an entirely abstract sense, as if it were equivalent to vitam instituere, or, se gerere.
Act 23:2-3. a. The high priest Ananias.He is also mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 5. 2; 6. 2 f.). He was the son of Nebedus, and was appointed high priest by Herod, the king of Chalcis, in the year A. D. Acts 48: he probably retained his high office till towards the year 60, when Ismael, the son of Phabi, was made the high priest, shortly before the departure of the procurator Felix (Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 8).Ananias was sent to Rome, in the year A. D. 52, by Quadratus, the governor of Syria, in order to defend himself before the emperor Claudius, in reference to certain acts of violence of which the Samaritans accused the Jews (Jos. Ant. xx. 6. 2). This circumstance led interpreters, at an earlier period, to believe that Ananias had, on that occasion, been deposed, and that, when Paul appeared before him, he was only temporarily administering the office, or, possibly, merely retained the honorary title of an ex-high priest (Eichhorn; Kuinoel). But Ananias pleaded his cause with entire success when he was in Rome, and then returned to Jerusalem, where he was, no doubt, allowed to retain his office without interruption. This is the opinion, among other recent writers, of Winer (Realwrt.), Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalters, 1848, p. 76 f. note), Meyer (Com.), and Ewald (Ap. Zeitalter, p. 500). Thus, other historical records establish the fact that Ananias was at that time unquestionably the ruling high priesta fact indicated by the designation , Act 23:2; Act 23:4.
b. Commanded them that stood by him, etc.[ . , those who stood at his (the high priests) sideservants, or officers of the court; comp. Luk 19:24. (Meyer).Tr.]. Scarcely had Paul uttered the first words, when the high priest, to whom they seemed to betray audacity or hypocrisy, commanded those who stood by (probably officers of justice), to smite him on the mouth. But Paul replied to him with righteous indignation, and announced a divine retribution for that blow. [Observe the position, (at the beginning of the reply) of the word , which, in a higher sense, returns to the high priest the blow that had just been received. It is an arbitrary assumption (Baumg.), that the command of the high priest was not executed. (Meyer).Tr.]. The words , do not constitute an imprecation, as Kuinoel supposes. [Shall smite, literally, is (or is about) to smite, the first verb denoting simple futurity the idea of a (human) curse or imprecation is at variance with the very form of the original. (Alex.).Tr.]. The expression exposes the hypocrisy of Ananias; it contrasts the external splendor of the paint or lime on the surface of the wall with the interior parts, which consist of filthy clay. [A whited wall is a familiar figure for a fair outside, behind which, or within which, all is foul and filthy. Our Saviour uses the still stronger image of a whited sepulchre, Mat 23:27. (Alex.).Tr.]. Great prominence is given to the inconsistency of the high priest, who professes to judge according to the rule of the Mosaic law, and yet personally violates it, by illegally subjecting Paul to ill treatment. , i.e., Thou too, as well as the rest, whereas, thou, as a judge, art specially bound to observe the law with strictness and conscientiousness. [, for (Winer 14. 4).Tr.]That prophetical announcement was fulfilled ten years afterwards, when Ananias, as one of the leaders of the loyal imperial party, was murdered, at the beginning of the Jewish war, by the insurgents [the sicarii]; Jos. Jewish War, ii. 17. 9.
Act 23:4-5. Revilest thou, etc.?To the charge that when Paul addressed such abusive language to the high priest of God, he offered an insult to the holy God himself, he replied, (for the purpose of justifying his course,) that he knew not that the person so addressed was the high priest. This answer has received various artificial interpretations, and its meaning has often been distorted. In some of these cases, the words that he is the high priest ( .), in others I knew not ( ), have served as the basis of the explanation. The former have, by a forced interpretation, been represented as meaning that the apostle denied that Ananias was really the high priest, either because he had procured the office by money (Grotius), or because he really was not at that time the true high priest (Lightfoot). The meaning of the other words, in which Paul speaks of his want of knowledge of the fact, has also been perverted by commentators, as if Paul intended to say: I did not reflect that he is the high priest (Wetstein, Olshausen, Ewald). According to this view, Paul really retracts his words, as having been too hastily uttered, or, he means by : I do not admit that it is so (Augustine), or I could not knowcould not think that he is the high priest, since he has acted in a manner so unpriestly, and so entirely unworthy of a high priest (Calvin, Meyer, Baumgarten). [Calvin says: Ego Augustino subscribens non dubito quin hc ironica sit excusatio, etc.Tr.]. The cause which has led to these far-fetched explanations, was the apparent impossibility of believing that the words, if taken in their plain and direct sense, conveyed the truth, namely, that the apostle actually did not know that he who had given that unbecoming command, was in truth the high priest in office. There have, however, been interpreters, who adhere to the literal sense of the wordsfor instance, Chrysostom; Beza. They appeal to the fact that the apostle had long been absent from Jerusalem, and hence could not personally know the high priest. If Ananias had been invested with the office at the time when Paul proceeded with the letters of the high priest (Act 9:1-2) to Damascus, in order to persecute the Christians, it would be inconceivable that Paul should not now know the same man. But it has already been fully demonstrated that Ananias did not obtain the office until the year 48, whereas the latest date that can possibly be fixed as that of Pauls conversion, is the year 40 or 41. [See Exeg. note on Act 9:2.Tr.]. Besides, the high priest could not be recognized by his apparel, when he was not engaged in performing his official duties in the temple. It is also quite possible that Ananias was not, at that moment, the presiding officer of the meeting, for the whole occurred, not at a regular session of the Sanhedrin, but at one which had been unexpectedly appointed by the Roman tribune. Or, if Ananias even did act as the presiding officer, Paul could not know from that circumstance that he was also the high priest, for the latter was not always or necessarily the nasi (president of the Sanhedrin). [It should be remembered that the intricacy and confusion on these pointsthe many High Priests who had been successively put up and down by Roman intervention, etc.is not necessarily the fault of the historian, but arises from the actual irregularities existing at this crisis of the Jewish history, etc. (Alex.).Tr.].Paul refers, in this connection, to a commandment of God (Exo 22:28 [quoted verbatim from the LXX. Exo 22:27.Tr.]), as one which he well knew and also reveredbut without retracting his words [The quotationis simply tantamount to saying, I know the law that you refer to, but I am not guilty of its violation. (Alex.).Tr.]
Act 23:6. I am a Pharisee.At this point the apostle quickly changes the course which he had hitherto pursued; a calm defence, such as he had begun in Act 23:1, found no favorable hearing. [He had seen enough to be convinced that there was no prospect before this tribunal of a fair inquiry and a just decision. (Conyb. and H. II. 270).Tr.]. The method which he now adopted in defending himself, and by which at least one party in the assembly before him might be won for his causethe cause of Christian truthwas that of openly declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and that his faith was allied to the Pharisaic doctrine. [Pauls declaration that he was still a Pharisee, is as little untrue, as it was when he made it in Php 3:5. He describes himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other religious society than that of the Pharisees, and who, especially with regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, adhered to the creed of the Pharisees (in opposition to the whole system of Sadduceeism), after its truth had been so fully established in the Person of Christ Himself. His opposition to the doctrine of righteousness by the law, to the hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his anti-Pharisaic labors, did not refer to the sect per se, but to its moral and other errors. As a Jew, he continued to be a Pharisee, and, as such, was an orthodox Jew, in opposition to the Naturalism of the Sadducees. (Meyer).Tr.].When he calls himself a son of Pharisees, he refers to his father and ancestors, and implies that he was not the first of his family who adopted Pharisaic views and sentiments, but had already received them by inheritance. [A son of Pharisees, see note 2, appended to the text.Tr.]. He adds, that he was in reality placed before the tribunal for the sake of the hope and resurrection. The words , are commonly explained as an hendiadys, equivalent to hope of the resurrection; this is the opinion of Bengel, Meyer, Baumgarten. But a better and more complete sense may be obtained by taking each of the terms separately, thus: for the sake of the hope, that is, the hope of redemptionof the Messianic promise given to Israel, and for the sake of a resurrection of the dead. The latter words may then be directly referred to the resurrection of Jesus, whereas, if they are inseparably connected with , the future resurrection only can have been meant; and yet the resurrection of Jesus was, no doubt, the subject which primarily presented itself to the mind of the apostle.
Act 23:7-9. And when he had so said.The multitude [the whole mass or body of the Sanhedrin itself, as distinguished from the parties into which it was divided (Alex.).Tr.] had previously united in assailing Paul; but it was now divided (), so that the Pharisees and the Sadducees contended with each other. The contention grew louder and more violent ( , Act 23:9; , Act 23:10), insomuch that the Roman tribune, who was alarmed by the danger which threatened his prisoner, ordered the soldiers to conduct the latter away. Here Luke explains the difference between the doctrinal views of the Pharisees and those of the Sadducees, for the purpose of enabling his readers to comprehend the cause of the difficulty which had arisen between men, who had previously acted in concert. The latter denied, on the one hand, the resurrection, and, on the other, the existence of an angel or spirit. (The reading should be retained, for critical reasons. [But see note 3, appended to the text, above.Tr.]. The former, , introduces a second class of conceptions, generically different from the preceding (); the latter, , connects with it objects that are similar, in so far as , an incorporeal spirit, and are, essentially, homogeneous). The Pharisees, on the contrary, confess both. (, i.e., in so far as the resurrection of the body, on the one hand, and the existence of a pure spirit, e. g., angels or departed souls, on the other, constitute two distinct categories). [On in this passage, see Winer: Gram. N. T. 55. 6.Alford, who differs from Lechler, says: The former has been altered to to suit , because with . . . three things are mentioned;whereas, if is read, the two last are coupled, and form only one. But . is used of both things, the one being the resurrection, the other, the doctrine of spiritual existences; the two specified classes of the latter being combined generically.On the doctrines of the two sects, see Jos. Ant. xvii. 1. 4. Bel. Jud. ii. 8. 14.Tr.]. Indeed, several scribes [see note 4, appended to the text, above.Tr.] of the Pharisaic party, espoused the cause of Paul. This party consisted both of learned, and of unlearned men; the former were the speakers. They spoke of Paul, personally, in favorable terms, as a man who could not be charged with any offence, and, moreover, expressed the opinion that it was quite possible that he had received a revelation. The sentence: – – , terminates abruptly, [ being cancelled by recent editors; see note 5 appended to the text, above.Tr.]; it either states, affirmatively, the condition, without adding the apodosis, or it is a question, the reply to which the opponents are expected to furnish. [The question is an aposiopesis (comp. Joh 6:62; Rom 9:22,) implying, but not expressly saying, that if such are the facts, they are very serious. (Meyer).Undoubtedly, a designed aposiopesis. A significant gesture or look towards the Sadducees expressed what was left unsaid. (Hackett). Winer (Gram. 64 II.) does not decide whether the words were pronounced affirmatively or interrogatively, and adds that it is doubtful whether an aposiopesis is here to be assumed, or whether the sentence was simply left unfinished on account of a sudden interruption, comp. Act 23:10.The sentence was left incomplete or unheard in the uproar. (Conyb. and H. II. 271). In all these cases the words . are assumed to be a later addition.Tr.]. There can be no doubt that the words: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, refer to Pauls statement in Act 22:6 ff. respecting the appearance of Jesus, except that the Pharisees conceived of the appearance of an angel, or the manifestation of a spirit, in their own way.
Act 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension.The excitement continued to increase, until at length the tribune became apprehensive that Paul would be pulled in pieces by the parties ( implies that while some took hold of him in order to protect him, others seized him in wrath, and thus he was dragged to and fro.). Hence he ordered that the military force which he commanded () should descend from the tower, secure the person of the prisoner, employing even violent measures, if the assembly resisted, and re-conduct him to the barracks. The commander, who did not desire to wound the feelings of the hierarchy, had, doubtless, directed the soldiery to remain in the tower, and had come to the meeting attended only by an orderly officer.
Act 23:11. And the night following.The revelation of Jesus Christ was probably made through the medium of a vision in a dream. Paul saw the Lord standing by him, and heard his cheering words of promise. , i.e., he was directed to go to both cities, and address his testimony to () boththe one being the religious, the other, the political capital of the world, at that time.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. When the apostle declares that he has a good conscience, he does not so much refer personally to himself as an individual, as rather to his calling as an apostle of the Gentiles. He was bound more solemnly than ever, when he stood in the presence of the highest court of the hierarchy of Israel, not to be ashamed of his office; and he did, openly and gladly, acknowledge it. He appealed to God ( )to that divine grace and that divine approbation, which were decisive, even though men should sternly condemn his conduct. He had, no doubt, chiefly those years of his life in view, which followed his conversion; still, his testimony does not refer exclusively to that period; he says in substance that, as a Christian, he served God as sincerely and zealously, as at any previous period.
2. The distinction between the office and the person who is invested with it, was placed by Paul in a very clear light, both when he so quickly addressed Ananias, on being subjected to such ill treatment, Act 23:3, and when he justified the words which he had uttered, Act 23:5. The office required the president and every member of the court to observe the law with the strictest conscientiousness; but here the person, the office-bearer, most grossly violated the law, Act 23:3. His personal act unquestionably justified any one who refused to recognize him as the holder of such a sacred office. This is the decision of the Holy Ghost, who applies the standard of right and truth to the person, however exalted his position may be, and recognizes no man as infallible, whether found in cathedra, or in the midst of a general church council.
3. The declaration of the apostle, Act 23:6, that he was a Pharisee, is frequently represented as having been dictated by worldly wisdom, as it enabled him to divide the assembly, and to derive personal advantage from party interests. Divide et impera. But it was assuredly not his object to secure himself and his personal interests; he was influenced solely by a regard for the sacred cause of the truth, and for the honor of Christ. He availed himself Of the party distinctions existing between the Pharisees and Sadducees, simply as the means of obtaining a hearing for the truth, to which the minds of all had hitherto been entirely closed. And he gained this object by declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and was brought before the tribunal on account of a doctrine which constituted the centre of gravity in the Pharisaic system. He pursues here the same course which he adopted when he combated paganism [see the authors Exeg. notes, and Doct. views, Act 17:16-34.Tr.]; he selects those principles which are allied to ChristianityIsraels hope of a Messiah, and faith in the resurrection of the dead. The result, indeed, shows that the Pharisees approached more nearly to the truth, than their opponents.
4. How far was Paul justified in saying that he had not merely been, but that he still was, a Pharisee? It has been supposed by some that his language involved an untruth. But when we reflect on the relation in which he stood to the whole system of the Sadducees (and it is precisely in view of their adverse positions that he speaks), it is evident that he could, with entire truth, assert that he had not changed, that he still was a Pharisee, that he held strict views of that holiness and righteousness which availed before God, and that, as to the hope of Israel and the resurrection, he was a firm believer; indeed, the richest blessing which existence could afford him, was the fulfilment of that earnest hope which the devout Pharisee entertained. And with respect to the points in which he differed from the Pharisees, he says to them, as he had once said to the pagan Athenians: That which ye seek, but do not understand, I have; I know it; I declare it unto you. In this sense the remark may be appropriately repeated, which Bengel makes in another connection, on Act 23:1 : [In pristino statu, quanquam in errore versabatur, conscienti fuerat obsecutus, neque quicquam commiserat, cur in foro externo reus fieret.] Nunc, quum bona vetera non abjecit, sed meliora accepit, ex prsenti statu lux in pristinum sese refundebat.
5. The revelation of Christ, Act 23:11, alike comforted and strengthened Paul. Even while he is involved in very great danger, a most brilliant prospect is opened before him. It had long ago appeared to him to be the highest object of life, to be permitted to preach the Gospel in Rome, Act 19:21; and that permission was now granted.All the purposes of the Redeemer in reference to him, as revealed at the period of his conversion, through Ananias, were rapidly approaching their fulfilment, although under the sign of the cross, seeing that he would be required to suffer much for the sake of the name of Jesus (Act 9:15-16).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.Such a glance Solomon had already cast on places of judgment, where ungodly men and wickedness prevail, Ecc 3:16; and such expressive glances are mentioned in the history of the life of our blessed Saviour, Luk 20:17; Mar 3:5; Mar 11:11. Pauls heart was, no doubt, deeply affected as he surveyed the scene before him; he thought of the fall of his brethren according to the flesh, whose Great Council was governed by such principles; he thought, too, on his own election and calling, by which he had been delivered from the bonds of darkness, and in consequence of which he would never again be obliged to apply for letters and a commission (Act 9:3) to such a council. (Rieger).I have lived [walked] in all good conscience before God until this day.Those who are rebuked by their own conscience, do not usually lift up their eyes, as Paul here does, but cast them down. (Starke).A good conscience before God, proceeds, I. From true faith in Christ, by which the remission of sins is obtained; II. From the assurance of divine grace and eternal life; III. From the renewal of the Holy Ghost, unto a new life and walk; IV. From the faithful performance of the duties of our calling, (id.).It is true that many appeal to their good conscience, because no man can actually look into it; many, too, mistake a sleeping for a good conscience. (id.).
Act 23:2. To smite him on the mouth.In this mode of suffering, too, Paul was an image of the suffering Jesus, who, in the days of his sorrow, was smitten on the cheek because he witnessed a good confession (1Ti 6:13) before the high priest (Joh 18:22). (Ap. Past.).How many shameful blows on the face devout believers still receive, partly, by beingreviled, partly, by not being allowed to speak the truth, and to rebuke the wicked ways of the world! Job 16:10; 1Ki 22:24; Act 5:28. (Starke).
Act 23:3. God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.Here was one of those whited sepulchres mentioned by the Lord Himself, Mat 23:27.We have here a striking instance of an unconverted teacher. Ananias held the sacred office of high priest, and, perhaps, when viewed externally, his gray hair and white priestly garments, gave him even a venerable appearance; but internally, his heart was full of rage and deadly hatred, of injustice and tyranny. Our sacred offices, ecclesiastical titles, and priestly dignities, are nothing else than a white lime which conceals the internal uncleanness of the carnal heart. But no attempt at concealment is of avail before God, and even in the presence of men the loose lime sometimes fails to adhere. (Ap. Past.).No doubt when Pauls conduct is compared with the calmness, gentleness, and self-denial of Jesus (Joh 18:23), his warmth of temper becomes evident. Still, we ought not to be too rigid in forming a judgment respecting the apostle. It is true that in our excessively refined age, the servants of Christ cannot commit a greater sin than when they exhibit impetuosity; the remark is at once made that they should have been more circumspect. This may be true; but then, let it be considered that they have exposed themselves to every danger, and, weak as they are, chose their position at the front of the army. It is surely better to be unskilful advocates of the Lord, than, through excessive caution, to resign the whole work to others. It may be also remarked, that if Luther, for instance, had been in Pauls place, he would have spoken with far more severity. (Williger).
Act 23:5. I wist not that he was the high priest.It ought to be observed that it was quite possible that, amid the tumult, Paul should not have known or recognized the person of the high priest; for, at that time, the office had been exposed to such vicissitudes, that it could not always be known who was really invested with it. Hence Paul might have regarded. Ananias as a Jewish elder and judge, without actually knowing that he was at that time the presiding high priest. However, even if it should be assumed that Paul did know him, his words could not have been intended to imply more than that, while he revered the office, he rebuked the person who so unworthily administered it. (Ap. Past.).It would, however, be an abuse to quote the conduct of Paul for the purpose of justifying violent human passions, or the maxims of a false political wisdom, Tit 1:7. (Starke).If St. Paul in this manner assails the priest, who was appointed by the law of Moses, why should I hesitate to assail these painted bishops and masks that come from the pope, without any authority derived from God or from men? (Luther).
Act 23:6. I am a Pharisee, etc.Here Paul stands as a sheep in the midst of wolves; he is, therefore, wise as a serpent, Mat 10:16. (Starke).And yet, he did not renounce the harmlessness of the dove. He still belonged to the Pharisees, not only on account of his education and earlier life, but also on account of his present position as a believer, in so far as, in contradistinction from the frivolity of the Sadducees, he maintained, with the Pharisees, the authority of the divine law, and believed in the resurrection. This was the common ground occupied by them and by him, and he desired to guide them still further, until he had conducted them to the Gospel.The hope of the fathers, fulfilled by the appearance of Christ; and, the resurrection of the dead, sealed by the resurrection of Christthe two fundamental themes of the preaching of Paul. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:7. And the multitude was divided.Here again we see the wisdom of God, in patiently permitting so many forms of religion to exist. If the whole world were of one mind, the truth would soon be crushed. But now, while one sect contends with another, divine truth finds an opportunity to speak. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:9. We find no evil in this man.Human passions were violently inflamed; nevertheless the wisdom of God accomplished its great design. He rules in the midst of his enemies [Psa 110:2.]. Somesays Paul (Php 1:16; Php 1:18),preach Christ, who are influenced by hostile feelings; still, if Christ is preached, whatever the motive may be, I will rejoice. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing, etc.When the people of God are in great distress, He can always send them guardian angels, even though these should be heathen soldiers. (Starke).It may easily be conceived how great a stumbling-block this division was to the heathen officer. (Rieger).And still, in our day, when Christians, in their religious disputes, pull one another in pieces, their conduct must give offence to heathens.
Act 23:11. And the night following, the Lord stood by him.The danger was great, but the comfort, too, was great. (Starke).The consolatory words of the Lord, must, on this occasion, have been of special value to the apostle. He may, himself, have felt but little satisfied with the witness which he had borne in Jerusalem, partly, on account of the result, and partly, on account of the manner of his defence. Such thoughts and doubts, to which, more than to any other cause, the sleepless nights of a servant of God are due, were dispelled by the words of the Lord: Be of good cheer; I am satisfied with thy testimony; thou hast done what thou couldst do; the result did not depend on thee; thou hast not interfered with my ways and purposes; thy witness in Jerusalem is at an end; now go to Rome. (Williger).The rest of the book, after Acts 23., is occupied with the apostolical testimony which Paul bore in Rome. Now if the defenders of the primacy of Peter could have found all these statements, or even only the half of them, made in reference to Peter, what a great stress they would lay on the circumstance! (Bengel).
On the whole section, Act 23:1-11.
The enemies of the Gospel, condemning themselves: I. By the injustice of which they are guilty, Act 23:2 ff.; II. By their internal disputes, Act 23:6 ff. (Lisco).
The hope of the resurrection, the crown of Christianity: I. The force of Pauls defence depends on the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection; II. That doctrine is sustained by the sure foundation of divine truth. (id.).
The excited feeling which Paul displayed before the council: I. The cause, Act 23:1-2; II. The manner in which he controlled it, Act 23:3-5. (id.).
The true mode of combining the simplicity of the children of God with the wisdom of the children of this world: I. The simplicity of the children of God, by a candid confession of our infirmities, Act 23:3-5; II. The wisdom of the children of this world, by availing ourselves of those circumstances by which our object may be gained, Act 23:6-10. (id.).
The comfort of a good conscience, Act 23:1; I. The source from which it proceeds; (a) justification by faith; (b) earnestness in following holiness [Heb 12:14]; II. The support which it affords: (a) it enables us to labor with diligence; (b) it enables us to suffer with hope and joy.
Pauls defence before the council, or, The true spirit of a witness: a spirit, I. Of manly courage, Act 23:1-3; II. Of childlike humility, Act 23:4-5; III. Of calmness and prudence, Act 23:6; and, at the same time, IV. Of candor and simplicity, Act 23:6, (for Paul speaks nothing but the truth).
Even when a servant of God exhibits nothing but carnal zeal, he shows what manner of spirit he is of [Luk 9:55]: I. By the cause which provokes his zeal (it is iniquity that arouses him, and justice and truth for which he is zealous). II. By the manner in which that zeal manifests itself (even in anger, he forgets neither his own dignity, nor his reverence for God). III. By the victory which he gains over it (he confesses it, when his composure is restored, and firmly controls it.Parallel cases in Luthers life and writings).
Jesus and Paul before the Great Council, or, The Master and the disciple before unjust Judges: I. The points of resemblance between them; (a) both are undeservedly exposed to shame, (Act 23:2, and comp. Joh 18:22); (b) both maintain the dignity which heaven had bestowed (Act 23:3, and Joh 18:23). II. The points in which the Master is above the disciple; (a) the holy self-consciousness of Jesus (Joh 18:20-21), is more than Pauls good conscience (Act 23:1); (b) the gentle reply of Jesus (Joh 18:23), is more heavenly than Pauls human vehemence (Act 23:3).
The best advocates of a servant of God before the tribunal of an unjust world: I. The comfort of a good conscience in his own breast, Act 23:1; II. The curse of a bad cause in the ranks of his enemies, Act 23:3; Act 23:6-9; III. The sympathy of unprejudiced and honest men of the world, Act 23:10; IV. The gracious testimony of a righteous Judge, in heaven, Act 23:11.
The call from heaven: Be of good cheer, Paul!, a source of comfort for all the faithful servants of Christ: I. It consoles them when the world unjustly condemns. II. It indemnifies them, when their office exposes them to reproach; III. It soothes them when their own conscience is troubled; IV. It endows them with strength for future contests (Thou must bear witness also at Rome.).
[Act 23:8. Faith in the invisible world: I. The invisible world; (a) the future judgment; (b) the eternal happiness of the redeemed; (c) the eternal misery of the impenitent. II. The grounds of our faith in it; (a) reason sustains it; (b) the word of God establishes it; (c) the resurrection of Christ confirms and illustrates it. III. The influence of that faith; (a) on the mind and heart; (b) on the conscience; (c) on the outward walk. Tr.].
Footnotes:
[15]Act 22:30. (Acts 22). [D. is deficient from , Act 22:29, to the end of the book.Tr.] , after [of text. rec., with G. H.] is obviously a later addition; for the four oldest uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E., also Cod. Sin., Vulg.] do not exhibit it.Further, the same four manuscripts [A. B. C. E., with Cod. Sin., Vulg. (convenire)] exhibit the reading , whereas the others [G. H.] have the reading [of text. rec.]. The latter is also a later correction, as it was supposed that the Jewish authorities had been directed to proceed to the quarters of the Roman commander. [See the Exeg. note.In the same verse, before ., of text. rec., with G. H., is changed into by recent editors, on the authority of A. B. C. E., Cod. Sin., Vulg. (omne)., after ., of text. rec. with G. H., is dropped by the same, on the same authority.Tr.]
[1]Ch. 23, Act 23:6. The reading, , is found in the uncial manuscripts A. B. C. [also, Cod. Sin.], in seven minuscules, the Syr. and Vulg.; also in Tert.; the reading [of text. rec., found in E. G. H.], , is, without doubt, a correction, as it was assumed that Paul referred solely to his father. Griesbach preferred the plural form; it has been very properly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. [also Born. and Alf., while Scholz retains the singular.Tr.]
[2]Act 23:8. [The text. rec. reads: , . with G. H., some minuscules and fathers; Lach., Tisch., and Alf., change , before . into , on the authority of A. B. C. E (also Cod. Sin.)., some minuscules, etc. See the Exeg. note on the passage.Tr.]
[3]Act 23:9. a. The reading of the two latest uncial manuscripts, G. H., and of five minuscules, namely, , without the article, seems to be genuine. Two uncial manuscripts [B. C (also Cod. Sin.).] read: ; in two others [A. E., and Vulg. (quidam Pharisorum)] the reading is: . All such alterations were probably intended to explain or improve the original words [which, according to Lechlers translation, he assumes to have been those found in text. rec., excepting , which occurs in none of the uncials. This is the reading preferred by Tisch.; Lach. reads simply: . Alf. makes no change in the text rec. Meyer concludes with Born. that the genuine reading is probably the following: . . .Tr.]
[4]Act 23:9. b. The concluding words: , after , [of text. rec., with C (second correction).G. H.] are wanting in the four most important manuscripts, of the first class [A. B. C (original). E., also Cod. Sin.], in three minuscules, and five of the oldest versions; they should, in accordance with the opinion of Erasmus, Griesb., and most of the recent critics, be cancelled, as being simply a gloss derived from Act 5:39.
[5]Act 23:11. after , is, according to external evidence, undoubtedly spurious. [It is found in C (second correction). G. H., but not in A. B. C (original). E., Cod. Sin., Vulg., etc.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
REFLECTIONS
My soul! behold the great Apostle, rescued from Jew, and Gentile, and with a mind awakened, animated, and strengthened by the Lord, boldly addressing both, and declaring the glory of God, in the wonderful work of his conversion! And do not fail to remark, with what candour, and openness, he confesseth his former state of unregeneracy; when persecuting unto the death, the precious followers of the Loco Jesus! He seems to be at once regardless, what shame, and confusion of face he takes to himself; so that he may but thereby give the greater glory to his Lord. Is it so with thee, my soul? While Christ’s name is so precious: art thou laying lower in the dust before God, in token of thine unworthiness? Is Paul’s language thine, when he saith: And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus! Oh then, tell it abroad as he did, and in every direction, proclaim the blessed truth: This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief!
Reader do not fail to remark, the stedfastness of Paul, amidst all the rage and malice of his enemies, He was indeed free born, when by his new birth in regeneration, the Lord had made him free. This was a freedom, unpurchasable with money. And, as it made Paul a true citizen of no mean city; so it secured him all the everlasting and eternal privileges of a kingdom, which cannot be moved, whose Builder, and Maker, is God.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30 On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.
Ver. 30. And brought Paul down ] sc. From the castle, or from the rock Antonia. See Act 21:34 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30. ] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It seems remarkable that the tribune in command should have had the power to summon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen this remarked on by any Commentator. Some of the ancient correctors of the text, however, seem to have detected the difficulty, and to have altered into the vapid in consequence.
.] From Antonia to the council-room. According to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes), the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions in the temple about twenty-six years before this period. Had they done so now, Lysias and his soldiers could not have been present, as no heathen was permitted to pass the sacred limits. Their present council-room was in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge leading across the ravine from the western cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 22:30 . . .: epexegetical of , cf. Act 4:21 for the article, and Luk 1:62 ; Luk 9:46 ; Luk 19:48 ; Luk 22:2 ; Luk 22:4 ; Luk 22:23-24 ; Luk 22:37 , also 1Th 4:1 , Rom 8:26 , Mat 19:18 , Mar 9:10 ; Mar 9:23 . The usage therefore is more characteristic of St. Luke than of the other Evangelists, Viteau, Le Grec du N.T. , p. 67 (1893), Hawkins, Hor Synoptic , p. 38. , if retained, cf. Winer-Moulton, xlvii., 5 b, who takes it to mean “on the part of the Jews,” i.e. , they had not as yet presented any accusation. : according to Act 22:29 it looks as if the chiliarch immediately he knew of St. Paul’s Roman citizenship released him from his severe bondage. Overbeck, Weiss, Holtzmann therefore refer only to . , and not to and , but the order of the words cannot be said to favour this, and Wendt (1899) rejects this interpretation. The words may possibly mean that he was released from the custodia militaris in which he had been placed as a Roman citizen, although he had been at once released from tine chains, cf. Act 21:33 . In Act 22:10 of the next chapter he apparently stands before the Council not in any way as a prisoner, but as one who stood on common ground with his accusers. ., i.e. , from Antonia. ( ) . Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. i., p. 190, E.T., contends that the Council probably met upon the Temple Mount itself; it could not have been within the Temple, or we could not account for the presence of Lysias and his soldiers (see also Schrer, u. s. , p. 191, note), but cf. on the other hand for the place of meeting, O. Holtzman, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , p. 176, and also the remarks of Edersheim, Hist. of the Jewish Nation , p. 131. Hilgenfeld, Zw, Th. , p. 517 ff. (1896), so Wendt, Clemen, Jngst, J. Weiss and Spitta regard the whole scene before the Sanhedrim as an interpolation extending from Act 20:30 to Act 23:10 . But most of the objections to the passage may be classed as somewhat captious, e.g. , objection is taken to the fact that on the second night of his imprisonment St. Paul is assured by Christ that he should testify at Rome, Act 23:11 ; why should such a communication be delayed to the second night of the imprisonment? it belongs to the first night, just as we reckon dreams significant which occur in the first night of a new dwelling-place! So again it is urged that the vision of the Lord would have had a meaning after the tumult of the people in 22, but not after the sitting of the Sanhedrim in 23. But if Act 22:10 is retained there was every reason for Paul to receive a fresh assurance of safety. In Act 23:12-35 we have again Hilgenfeld’s source , and in this too Hilgenfeld finds a denial of the preceding narrative before the Sanhedrim, on the ground that Paul’s trial is not represented as having taken place, but as only now in prospect. But Act 22:15 ; Act 22:20 may fairly be interpreted as presupposing a previous inquiry, unless we are to believe, as is actually suggested, that may have prompted the author of Acts to introduce the account of a preceding hearing.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 22:30
30But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set him before them.
Act 22:30 “he. . .ordered. . .the chief priests and all the Council to assemble” This shows the Roman power. The Sanhedrin was forced to meet, possibly in the Fortress Antonio. This seems to be an unofficial, informal meeting.
Paul had to face the local charges but in a Roman setting.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
On the morrow = But on the morrow.
because, &c. = wishing (Greek. boulomai. App-102.) to know.
certainty. See note on Act 21:34.
accused. Greek. katlgoreo. Occurs nine times in Acts.
of. Greek. para. App-104, but the texts read hupo, xviii. 1.
from his bands. The texts omit.
council = the Sanhedrin. See Joh 11:47.
appear. The texts read “come together”.
brought . . . down. Greek. katago. See note on Act 21:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
30. ] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It seems remarkable that the tribune in command should have had the power to summon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen this remarked on by any Commentator. Some of the ancient correctors of the text, however, seem to have detected the difficulty, and to have altered into the vapid in consequence.
.] From Antonia to the council-room. According to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes), the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions in the temple about twenty-six years before this period. Had they done so now, Lysias and his soldiers could not have been present, as no heathen was permitted to pass the sacred limits. Their present council-room was in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge leading across the ravine from the western cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 22:30. , he was being accused) He had as yet heard no accusation, but had understood that there was some accusation lying underneath.-, he loosed him) for some time: for, in ch. Act 23:18, he is again said to be bound, , the prisoner. Comp. ch. Act 24:27, Act 26:29.-, he commanded) So much diminished was the authority of the people.-, to come together) to the usual place.-, having brought down) from the camp to the city, which lay in a lower position beneath.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
because: Act 21:11, Act 21:33, Act 23:28, Act 26:29, Mat 27:2
commanded: Act 22:5, Act 5:21, Act 23:15, Mat 10:17
Reciprocal: Luk 21:12 – before Act 5:27 – set Act 21:34 – know Act 24:11 – but Act 28:18 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Act 22:30. On the morrow the captain concluded to take a more orderly course and “sift the case to the bottom” by calling in the accusers of his prisoner. He loosed him from his bonds and summoned the Sanhedrin to take charge of the situation.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 22:30. On the morrow, when he would have known the certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bonds. In spite of his being convinced that Paul was a Roman, the captain of the thousand garrisoning Jerusalem was uneasy respecting his prisoner; he could not but believe him guilty of some very grave offence, seeing that so many persons, and among them not a few responsible men, seemed to consider him deserving of death. Treason and rebellion against the Empire filled the very air then of Juda; who then was this malefactor?
Commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them. The procurator or governor was evidently not in the city. (The procuratorship was the office once held by Pontius Pilate.) In his absence the chief authority in Jerusalem was held by the commanding officer in Antonia. Claudius Lysias thus had the power in extraordinary instances of summoning the Sanhedrim together. This power, after the preceding days tumult, he thought fit to exercise. Hence the meeting of the supreme Jewish council. Now Jewish tradition tells us that some twenty-six years before this time, the Sanhedrim had ceased to hold their meetings in their hall called Gazith which was in the temple. Probably they declined to sit in the temple when the power over life and death was taken from them by the Roman government. After ceasing to sit in Gazith, they adopted as their council chamber a room in the city, near the bridge leading across the ravine from the western cloister of the temple. It is not unlikely that this removal from the temple to the city was originally owing to an authoritative suggestion of the Roman power; for within that part of the temple area where the hall Gazith was situated, the Romans as Gentiles had no access. As on the present occasion, when Lysias brought in Paul, the representatives of Rome no doubt were often in the habit of insisting on being present at the deliberations of the supreme Jewish council.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Subdivision 3. (Act 22:30; Act 23:1-35.)
Before the Special People of God.
Paul still awaits his trial before the supreme court of Israel, which should have been, and was professedly, the spiritual court, before the heads of the people set apart from all others as the special people of God. The place and title had been indeed long forfeited, but not the responsibility of being what the claim implied. The trial becomes in fact that of themselves in this character. As a trial of Paul, it has no result, but breaks up in confusion: its own trial is all the more perfect; its incompetence is absolute. The people have already manifested themselves; and they are what their leaders have made them; not irresponsible on that account, but most guilty in yielding themselves to such leadership. We have here the head, Ananias; the body, disunited on every essential point. In contrast with all this we have lastly the judgment of the Lord Himself, who owns His faithful servant in his witness to Him. After this he has to be once more saved by the Gentile power from a conspiracy against his life; which at the same time shifts the scene to Caesarea, and brings him before the tribunal of the world.
1.(1) The court of Israel sits at the bidding of the Roman commander: a significant sign of where they were before God. Lysias, unable to gather the cause of so much frenzy and confusion, summons the Sanhedrin, that the charge against Paul may be made clear. The latter, with his eyes fixed upon his judges, affirms his having lived in all good conscience before God until that day. Conscience is not the standard by which man is to be judged; nor does the apostle mean therefore to affirm this. It is simply his uprightness of which he is speaking; and indeed especially in those later and Christian days, in which alone they would care to question it. There was no accusing voice within, from which he would seek escape, which he had (or had had) to silence. He did not come as a criminal to throw himself upon their mercy, but as one pledged to the truth, to maintain it. His unblenching look was fixed upon his judges as he said this, confirming his bold words.
But the anger of the high priest is roused at once, and he commands those standing by him to smite Paul on the mouth. It was the only answer he could give, and showed, perhaps, the sting of his own conscience, which the apostle embodied for him then, and which he was accustomed to treat only as an enemy. Paul at once announces his judgment from God: “God is about to judge thee, whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me according to law, and in breach of law commandest me to be smitten?” This is not an imprecation, as is plain; it is the announcement of judgment on the part of God, and was fulfilled at the outbreak of the troubles which began the last Jewish war. Paul is here passed from the place of the accused altogether, into that of judge; and he was not one to take so solemn a place without realizing what he was doing. The high priests of this time were in fact a sorrowful indication of the condition of the people, as they were also their official representatives. Paul knew not in this case that the “whited wall,” -the painted hypocrite to whom he addressed himself, -was the high priest; and he apologizes when he learns the fact; although with the text he quotes he puts the man whom they call “God’s high priest” upon no higher ground than “a ruler of Thy people.” It has been said, and rightly, surely, that the Holy Spirit could not say, “I knew not;” yet the Spirit doubtless was in the judgment pronounced; and the indignation shown by Paul had so much justification that, remembering his own words at another time, “Be angry and sin not,” and realizing that there is a necessary anger at iniquity, which is sinless, one hesitates to say whether he had passed the limit.
Of much more importance it seems than to decide as to the apostle, it is to realize that the Spirit must have used the very lack of knowledge on Paul’s part to lay bare the iniquity that was upon the head of Israel’s priesthood now, and the doom that was impending. If a shadow that priesthood was at any time, now it was but the shadow of a shadow. Out of these forms all semblance of life had departed; and they must by the law of nature vanish away.
(2) There follows the further testimony of a house divided against itself, and that in the most important matters. Moreover that which was most contrary to God -which indeed destroyed the very foundations -was in the ascendancy, not indeed in regard to the number of its followers, who were few, but nevertheless possessed at this time of the chief places. The comfortless doctrine of the Sadducees which denied all future life for man could never appeal to the masses, but remained as the justification of those too rich and well satisfied with the present to trouble about the future. It was the unbelief of immortality; not a faith, but a blight of faith. Between Sadducee and Pharisee the friction was necessarily of the extremest kind, although they might band together for a common purpose, which was then sure to be of the most evil character.
None knew better than Paul this essential opposition. With the Pharisees also he had a link, in all this doctrine which the Sadducee wholly denied. Of this he now avails himself: was it to throw confusion merely among those who were alike in hostility to the Name which was all his glory? or had he the hope, slight as it might be, of working upon the more orthodox by an appeal to the truth they had? All that could be spoken of as “the hope,” and which connected itself more fully for the Christian than even for the Pharisee with the resurrection of the dead, separated both from the chief men in the council there. As between these, Paul’s claim to be a Pharisee would certainly be justified; that he would have made it in any other connection one can hardly believe. But we are bound to impute, and with such an one as the apostle, the highest motive possible for what he did. He is clearly not at his highest. Yet he might have discerned that here there was no opportunity for his great theme, which must have been well known to these his judges, even if they had not been amongst the crowd that listened to him from the castle stairs; and he might have realized that now the suggestion of the link between Pharisaism and Christianity was the best seed he could sow on soil like that before him. In fact there seems a certain success in it. Could they have been ignorant how much they were admitting when they allowed that perhaps a spirit or an angel might have spoken to Paul? We cannot follow this to any after results, but that does not justify us in declaring that there were none, or in thinking even that this was not all that could be done upon this occasion in testimony to Christ. Certainly we have no right to suppose that that devoted love to his people which had made him in face of all assurances as to the result put himself thus into their hands, had failed him now that he was there, and that he was merely trying to throw his foes into disorder as a means of escape for himself: he as to whom the Spirit in every city bore witness that bonds and afflictions awaited him.
But the effect, as far as we are given to trace it, seems to be more to expose the condition of things in Israel than to alter anything. The very men who here are ready apparently to go far in admission of the divine claim of Christianity would soon repent their hasty speech. The council, having exhibited its incapacity for righteous judgment, breaks up in mere confusion; Paul being once more saved out of their hands by those who are thus allowed to show their true title over them. Israel itself it is that is under judgment, and that in the chief seat of wisdom and authority.
(3) The apostle has accomplished nothing by his earnest self-devotion; he is manifestly out of his place, and the power realized in his labors among the Gentiles is not with him here. All the more, now that this has been fully manifest, does he find the divine arm thrown round him, and himself get the ministry that he needs to sustain him in this failure of cherished hopes. “The night following, the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good courage; for as thou hast borne full witness at Jerusalem of the things concerning me, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.”
How beautiful the strong expression, “full witness!” It might have seemed that he had not had opportunity for this. And how much cause of exercise and sad questioning might there be in regard to this! That which he had been warned of had taken place; the warning which he had not heeded. Whatever might have been the motive, how vain to run contrary to the dictates of a Wisdom which was at the same time the perfection of Love! Yet He at least could sympathize with His servant’s sorrow who had wept His own tears over Jerusalem, and had to say too, as he was saying, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain.” And the Lord gives him too in his sorrow to have part also in His consolation, “yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and My work with My God.” It might seem as if the Lord were even thinking of such reflections as we would be apt to make upon the disappointed and sorrow-stricken laborer, and were throwing around him the shield of
His acceptance. He who has done worthily at Jerusalem shall have committed to him the same testimony at Rome! How well He knows that this is Paul’s blessedness to bear witness for Him! How He assures him of strength that shall be with him to carry him through; and that all the might of the world is powerless against him! Blessed be God that this remains in its comfort abidingly for those to whom the world will have the same Marah-spring to offer, which the “Tree” alone can sweeten.
So he goes back to his old call as the apostle of the Gentiles, if he be now “an ambassador in chains.” Rome! what treatment will the proud city of the world give to an ambassador in chains?
2. The council is not, however, the Jews’ last answer to the gospel of God’s grace. Their moral state comes out still more in the conspiracy which follows to lie in wait for Paul and kill him. The forty or more pledge themselves to it by a religious vow, and then communicate their plan to the chief priests and elders, without a thought, evidently of opposition on their part, nor that they will do aught but help on their design. And plainly they are not mistaken, although we hear nothing more about it, as God in His providential care for His servant causes the whole to fall to the ground. At the right moment Paul’s sister’s son, of whom we have not heard before, comes forward to declare what has come to his knowledge; and Lysias, now thoroughly aroused, sends off his prisoner, well protected by an escort, to the governor at Caesarea. That he seeks to make capital out of his zeal on behalf of a Roman citizen, stretching the truth considerably in order to do so, scarcely calls for remark, so thoroughly is it the way of the world at all times. By this act Paul is transferred from the Jews, tribunal to that of the Gentiles, though the Jews are still his accusers to the end. If Jerusalem can no more put to death the prophets herself, she will use the hands of others as far as she can influence them. We are now to see Paul therefore at Caesar’s judgment seat.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Act 22:30. On the morrow The chief captain, having become more anxious to know certainly what Pauls crime was, since he understood that he was a Roman citizen; loosed him from his bands In which he had laid him a close prisoner; and commanded the chief priests, and all their council All the members of the sanhedrim; to appear Or to come together and hold a court; and brought Paul down From the castle; and set him before them That he might be examined and tried according to the laws and usages of his own country; in order that the most seditious of the Jews might have no reason to complain of the manner in which they were treated.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
30. Lysias was disposed to do his duty, but he experienced great difficulty in deciding what is was. He had first inquired of the mob; had then heard a speech from Paul; and had now gone as far as he dared toward the trial by scourging; yet he knew nothing more about the charges against his prisoner than he did at first. He determined to make one more effort. (30) “On the next day, desiring to know the certainty as to what he was accused of by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the high priests and the whole Sanhedrim to come together, and brought Paul down, and placed him before them.”
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Act 22:30 to Act 23:10. Paul Before the Sanhedrin.This is a difficult section, and does not advance the action. Unless the proceedings took place in Greek, the tribune would scarcely secure his object of learning the charge against Paul; it is strange that he should have called a meeting of the Sanhedrin for this purpose, which could be reached otherwise. Paul is released from his chains and faces the court without them, and without the presence of military. He begins a speech which was to explain his position, but is rudely interrupted; he has not been asked to speak, and might be regarded as treating the court without respect. He retorts with applying an abusive epithet to the High Priest who had ordered the interruption. The and before his question (Act 23:3 b) expresses surprise or indignation. Ananias, son of Nedebus, was High Priest from about A.D. 47; Paul might not have seen him before, but he was presiding at the meeting, judging him, Paul says. There is a screw loose in the narrative, and the appeal (Act 22:5) to Exo 22:28 does not make it tight. Paul, however, is not silenced; he calls out aloud the subject of difference between the two great parties, which they no doubt ignored at their meetings, thus playing the enfant terrible among those grave and reverend men. It is on account of the hope and the resurrection of the dead that he is being judged, he says. He was not being judged at all (Act 22:30), and if he was, the charge against him was not that he believed in the Resurrection, but that he subverted the authority of Moses among the Jews of the Dispersion (Act 21:21). The diversion, however, is very successful; the meeting is at once in an uproar. Some of the Pharisees actually defend Paul; they find the story he tells (ch. 22) of his vision credible. He may have been visited by a spirit or an angel, and thenthe conclusion is left to be imagined. The tribune fears that in spite of this Paul will be torn in pieces; the military are to come and remove him. The author does not state his conclusion as to the charge here, but see Act 22:29.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The commander released Paul from his chains but kept him in custody. He decided the Sanhedrin could discover why the Jews were accusing Paul since he could not figure this out. He ordered this body to meet to examine Paul because he was responsible for keeping peace in Jerusalem. If Paul’s offenses proved inconsequential, Claudius Lysias would release him. If the Jews charged him with some religious crime, the Sanhedrin could try him. If they charged him with a civil crime, the Roman provincial governor would try him. [Note: See my comments on 4:5 for information about the Sanhedrin.]
This was at least the sixth time that the Sanhedrin had to evaluate the claims of Christ. The first occasion was when it met to consider reports about Jesus (Joh 11:47-53), and the second was Jesus’ trial (Mat 26:57-68; Mat 27:1-2; Mar 14:53-65; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66-71). The third meeting was the trial of Peter and John (Act 4:5-22), the fourth was the trial of the Twelve (Act 5:21-40), and the fifth was Stephen’s trial (Act 6:12 to Act 7:60).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin 22:30-23:10
"The irregular structure of Luke’s account of Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin evidently reflects the tumultuous character of the session itself. Three matters pertaining to Luke’s apologetic purpose come to the fore: (1) Christianity is rooted in the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (cf. Act 23:6); (2) the debate Paul was engaged in regarding Christianity’s claims must be viewed as first of all a Jewish intramural affair (cf. Act 23:7-10); and (3) the ongoing proclamation of the gospel in the Gentile world stems from a divine mandate (cf. Act 23:11)." [Note: Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," pp 529-30.]