Acts 22

Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?” asked Ralph Waldo Emerson. “Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton … To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Emerson might have added that the apostle Paul was misunderstood, by friends and foes alike. Three of these misunderstandings—and their consequences— are recorded in these chapters.

In the temple, separating the court of the Gentiles from the other courts, stood a wall beyond which no Gentile was allowed to go (note Eph. 2:14). On the wall was this solemn inscription: “No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the sanctuary and enclosure. Anyone who is caught so doing will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.” The Romans had granted the Jewish religious leaders authority to deal with anybody who broke this law, and this included the right of execution. This law plays an important role in what happened to Paul a week after he and the four Nazarites began their purification ceremonies.

Some Jews from Asia saw Paul in the temple and jumped to the conclusion that he had polluted their sacred building by bringing Gentiles past the barricade. It is likely that these Jews came from Ephesus, because they recognized Paul’s friend Trophimus, who came from Ephesus. With their emotions running at full speed, and their brains in neutral, these men argued: (1) wherever Paul went, his Gentile friends went; (2) Paul was seen in the temple; therefore, his friends had been in the temple too! Such is the logic of prejudice.

They seized Paul and would have killed him had the Roman guards not intervened in the nick of time. (At least one thousand soldiers were stationed in the Antonia Fortress at the northwest corner of the temple area.) The temple crowd was in an uproar, completely ignorant of what was going on. The scene reminds you of the riot in Ephesus. (Compare Acts 21: with Acts 19:29, and Acts 21: with Acts 19:32.) It required the chief captain (Claudius Lysias, Acts 23:26), two centurions, and perhaps two hundred soldiers to get the mob under control and to rescue Paul. The captain actually thought Paul was an Egyptian rebel who was wanted by the Romans for inciting a revolt (Acts 21:38). This explains why he had Paul bound with two chains (see Acts 21:11).

When Claudius interrogated the people, they could not explain what caused the riot because they did not really know. The original troublemakers must have escaped during the great excitement, knowing that they could not actually substantiate their charges. Since Claudius could get no help from the people in the temple, he decided to interrogate Paul, so his soldiers carried Paul from the court of the Gentiles up the stairs into the barracks. As Paul was borne away, the crowd shouted angrily, “Away with him!” This again reminds us of our Lord’s arrest and trial (Luke 23:18, 21; John 19:15).

At this point, Paul decided it was time to speak up, and the captain was amazed that his dangerous prisoner could speak Greek. When Paul asked for permission to address the Jews, Claudius consented, hoping that perhaps he would get enough information for an official report. He never did (see Acts 23:23–30). Paul spoke to the Jews in their native Aramaic, and this helped quiet them down. He was never able to finish his speech, but he did get to explain three important aspects of his life and ministry.

His early conduct (22:3–5). Paul had been a leading rabbi in his day (Gal. 1:13–14), so he was certainly known to some of the people in the crowd. Note how Paul piled up his Jewish credentials: he was a Jew, a native of Tarsus, brought up in Jerusalem, trained by Gamaliel, a follower of the law, a zealous persecutor of the church, and a representative of the Sanhedrin. How could his countrymen not respectfully listen to a man with that kind of record!

Instead of accusing them of participating in a riot, he commended them for being “zealous toward God.” (He had used a similar approach with the Athenians; Acts 17:22.) He admitted that he too had been guilty of having people arrested and bound, and even killed. The Christian faith was known as “the way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22), probably a reference to our Lord’s statement, “I am the way” (John 14:6).

His wonderful conversion (22:6–16). Luke recorded Paul’s conversion experience in Acts 9, and Paul would repeat the account later for Felix and Agrippa (Acts 26:1–32). It is difficult to imagine a comparable crowd today quietly listening to that kind of a testimony. However, people in that day expected miraculous things to happen and were no doubt fascinated by Paul’s story (see Acts 23:9). Also, Paul was on official Sanhedrin business when these events took place, which at least gave it some aura of authority.

In his testimony, Paul affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was alive. Paul saw His glory and heard His voice. The people listening in the temple courts knew the official Jewish position that Jesus of Nazareth was an impostor who had been crucified and His body stolen from the tomb by His disciples, who then started the rumor that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Of course, Paul himself had believed this story when he was persecuting the church.

The men with Paul saw the bright light, but were not blinded as he was, and they heard a sound, but could not understand what was being said (Acts 9:7). Imagine Paul’s amazement to discover that Jesus was alive! Instantly, he had to change his whole way of thinking (repentance) and let the risen Lord have control.

Note Paul’s wisdom as he identified himself with Ananias, a devout Jew who kept the law and who called him “brother.” Note also that Ananias attributed Paul’s great experience to “the God of our fathers.” In quoting Ananias, Paul gave reason for his listeners to accept his salvation experience and his call to service. Paul had seen “the Just [Righteous] One,” which was a title for Messiah (see Acts 3:14; 7:52). Paul was now commissioned by God to take His message to “all men.” This would include the Gentiles, but Paul did not say so until later.

Acts 22: in the King James Version seems to suggest that baptism is required for the washing away of our sins, but such is not the case. In his Expanded Translation of the New Testament, Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest puts it, “Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name.” We are saved by calling on the Lord by faith (Acts 2:21; 9:14), and we give evidence of that faith by being baptized. According to Acts 9:17, Paul was filled with the Spirit before he was baptized, and this would indicate that he was already born again. It is the “calling,” not the baptizing, that effects the cleansing.

Certainly many of Paul’s listeners knew about the new “Christian sect” that had sprung up, the baptisms that had taken place, the stoning of Stephen, and the miracles that these “people of the way” had wrought. Paul was not speaking to ignorant people, because these things had not been “done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

His special calling (22:17–29). After his conversion, Paul had ministered in Damascus and then had gone to Arabia, perhaps to evangelize and to meditate on God’s Word (Acts 9:19–25; Gal. 1:16–17). When Paul did return to Jerusalem, the church leaders did not accept him until Barnabas interceded and got him in (Acts 9:26–29). Note how Paul again emphasized the Jewish elements in his experience, for the Jews would be impressed with a man who prayed in the temple and had a vision from God.

The Lord told Paul to leave Jerusalem quickly, because the people would not receive his witness. By obeying this command, Paul saved his life, because the Hellenistic Jews had plotted to kill him (Acts 9:29–30). But first, Paul debated with the Lord! He wanted to show the Jews that he was a new person and tell them that Jesus was the Messiah, and He was alive. If Paul won some of them to the Lord, it would perhaps help to compensate for all the damage he had done, especially in the killing of Stephen.

The Lord’s command was, “Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles” (Acts 22: nkjv). Paul was about to explain why he was involved with the Gentiles, but the Jews in the temple courts would not permit him to go on. No devout Jew would have anything to do with the Gentiles! Had Paul not uttered that one word, he might have later been released, and perhaps he knew this. However, he had to be faithful in his witness, no matter what it cost him. Paul would rather be a prisoner than give up his burden for lost souls and for missions! We could use more Christians like that today.

When Claudius saw that the riot was starting again, he took Paul into the barracks for “examination by torture.” The apostle had already mentioned that he was born in Tarsus, but he had not told them that his citizenship was Roman. It was unlawful for a Roman citizen to be scourged. We do not know how people proved their citizenship in those days; perhaps they carried the first-century equivalent of an ID card.

Claudius must have been shocked that this little Jewish troublemaker who spoke Aramaic and Greek was actually a Roman citizen. “With great sum I obtained this freedom,” Claudius boasted, indicating that he had gotten his citizenship by bribing the Roman officials, for it could not be actually purchased. But Paul was ahead of the Roman captain, for he had been born into freedom and Roman citizenship, thanks to his father. How Paul’s father obtained his freedom, we do not know. We do know that Paul knew how to make use of his Roman citizenship for the cause of Christ.

The soldiers had made two mistakes, and they were quick to undo them: they had bound Paul and had planned to scourge him. No doubt Claudius and his men were especially kind to Paul now that they knew he was a Roman citizen. God was using the great power of the empire to protect His servant and eventually get him to Rome.

Paul’s entire time in Jerusalem was one filled with serious misunderstandings, but he pressed on. Perhaps at this point some of his friends were saying, “We told him so! We warned him!” For Paul and his associates, it may have looked like the end of the road, but God had other plans for them. Paul would witness again and again, and to people he could never have met had he not been a Roman prisoner. God’s missionary did get to Rome—and the Romans paid the bill!

That’s what happens when God’s people are willing to be daring!

Iwas once called to be a character witness in a child custody case involving a man who had served time in prison. This was a new experience for me, and I was completely unprepared for the first question the attorney asked me: “Reverend, do you think that a man who has been a prisoner is fit to raise a child?”

“That depends on the man,” I replied bravely. “Some of the greatest men in history have been prisoners—John the Baptist, John Bunyan, and even the apostle Paul.”

“Simply answer yes or no!” said the judge curtly, and that was the end of my sermon.

“Paul the prisoner” (Acts 23:18) was the name the Roman soldiers used for the apostle, a designation he himself often used (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1, 9). Paul was under “military custody,” which meant he was bound to a Roman soldier who was responsible for him. Prisoners under “public custody” were put in the common jail, a horrible place for any human being to suffer (Acts 16:19–24).

Paul’s friends could visit him and help meet his personal needs. It is sad that we don’t read, “And prayer was made fervently by the church for Paul” (see Acts 12:5). There is no record that the Jerusalem church took any steps to assist him, either in Jerusalem or during his two years in Caesarea.

This is an exciting chapter, and in it we read of three confrontations that Paul experienced.

Having discovered that Paul was a Roman citizen, the Roman captain now had two serious problems to solve. First, he needed to let the prisoner know what the official charges were against him, since that was Paul’s right as a Roman citizen. Second, he also needed to have some official charges for his own records and to share with his superiors. He was sure that Paul had done something notorious, otherwise why would so many people want to do away with him? Yet nobody seemed to know what Paul’s crimes were. What a plight for a Roman official to be in!

The logical thing was to let Paul’s own people try him, so the captain arranged for a special meeting of the Jewish council (Sanhedrin). This group was composed of seventy (or seventy-one) of the leading Jewish teachers, with the high priest presiding. It was their responsibility to interpret and apply the sacred Jewish law to the affairs of the nation, and to try those who violated that law. The Romans gave the council permission to impose capital punishment where the offense deserved it.

The captain and his guard (Acts 23:10) brought Paul into the council chamber and stepped aside to watch the proceedings. Knowing how the Jews in the temple had treated Paul, Claudius remained there on guard lest his prisoner be taken from him and killed. No Roman soldier could afford to lose a prisoner, for that might mean the forfeiting of his own life. The loss of a prisoner against whom the charges were nebulous would be especially embarrassing for any Roman officer.

As Paul faced the council and examined it carefully, he decided to start with a personal approach. “Men and brethren” immediately identified him as a Jew and no doubt helped win the attention of his countrymen.

The Greek word translated “lived” means “to live as a citizen.” It gives us the English word politics. Paul affirmed that he was a loyal Jew who had lived as a good Jewish citizen and had not broken the law. His conscience did not condemn him even though the Jews had condemned him.

“Conscience” is one of Paul’s favorite words; he used it twice in Acts (23:1; 24:16) and twenty-one times in his letters. The word means “to know with, to know together.” Conscience is the inner “judge” or “witness” that approves when we do right and disapproves when we do wrong (Rom. 2:15). Conscience does not set the standard; it only applies it. The conscience of a thief would bother him if he told the truth about his fellow crooks just as much as a Christian’s conscience would convict him if he told a lie about his friends. Conscience does not make the standards; it only applies the standards of the person, whether they are good or bad, right or wrong.

Conscience may be compared to a window that lets in the light. God’s law is the light, and the cleaner the window is, the more the light shines in. As the window gets dirty, the light gets dimmer, and finally the light becomes darkness. A good conscience, or pure conscience (1 Tim. 3:9), is one that lets in God’s light so that we are properly convicted if we do wrong and encouraged if we do right. A defiled conscience (1 Cor. 8:7) is one that has been sinned against so much that it is no longer dependable. If a person continues to sin against his conscience, he may end up with an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22) or a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:2). Then he would feel convicted if he did what was right rather than what was wrong!

Paul had persecuted the church and had even caused innocent people to die, so how could he claim to have a good conscience? He had lived up to the light that he had, and that is all that a good conscience requires. After he became a Christian and the bright light of God’s glory shone into his heart (2 Cor. 4:6), Paul then saw things differently and realized that he was “the chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).

Ananias the high priest (not to be confused with Annas in Acts 4:6) was so incensed at Paul’s saying that he had “lived in all good conscience” that he ordered the nearest Jewish council members to slap Paul across the mouth. (Jesus had been treated in a similar way— John 18:22.) This was, of course, illegal and inhumane, for, after all, Paul had not even been proven guilty of anything. Certainly the high priest would be expected to show honesty and fairness, if not compassion and concern (Lev. 19:15; Heb. 5:2).

Paul responded with what appears to me to be justified anger, though many disagree about this. When called to account for what he had said, Paul did not apologize. Rather, he showed respect for the office but not for the man. Ananias was indeed one of the most corrupt men ever to be named high priest. He stole tithes from the other priests and did all he could to increase his authority. He was known as a brutal man who cared more for Rome’s favor than for Israel’s welfare.

In calling the high priest a “whited wall,” Paul was simply saying that the man was a hypocrite (Matt. 23:27; see Ezek. 13:10–12). Paul spoke prophetically, because God did indeed smite this wicked man. When the Jews revolted against Rome in the year 66, Ananias had to flee for his life because of his known sympathies with Rome. The Jewish guerrillas found him hiding in an aqueduct at Herod’s palace, and they killed him. It was an ignominious death for a despicable man.

Paul’s reply in Acts 23: has been variously interpreted. Some say that Paul did not know who the high priest was. Or perhaps Paul was speaking in holy sarcasm: “Could such a man actually be the high priest?” Since this was an informal meeting of the council, perhaps the high priest was not wearing his traditional garments and sitting in his usual place. For that matter, Paul had been away from the Jewish religious scene for many years and probably did not know many people in the council.

The quoting of Exodus 22: would indicate that Paul may not have known that it was the high priest who ordered him to be smitten. Again, note that Paul showed respect for the office, but not for the man who held the office. There is a difference.

Having failed in his personal approach, Paul then used a doctrinal approach. He declared that the real issue was his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, a doctrine over which the Pharisees and Sadducees violently disagreed. Paul knew that by defending this important doctrine, he would divide the council and soon have the members disputing among themselves, which is exactly what happened. So violent was the response that Claudius and his men had to rush down to the floor of the council chamber and rescue their prisoner for the second time!

Was Paul “playing politics” when he took this approach? I don’t think so. After his unfortunate clash with the high priest, Paul realized that he could never get a fair trial before the Sanhedrin. If the trial had continued, he might well have been condemned and taken out and stoned as a blasphemer. The Asian Jews, if given opportunity to testify, could well have added fuel to the fire with their false witness. No, the wisest thing to do was to end the hearing as soon as possible and trust God to use the Roman legions to protect him from the Jews.

There is a second consideration: Paul was absolutely right when he said that the real issue was the doctrine of the resurrection, not “the resurrection” in general, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Acts 24:21; 26:6–8; 28:20). Had he been given the opportunity, Paul would have declared the gospel of “Jesus Christ and the resurrection” just as he had declared it before Jewish congregations in many parts of the empire. The witness in Acts centers on the resurrection (see Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15).

Jesus had stood trial before the Sanhedrin, and so had His apostles, and now Paul had witnessed to them. What great opportunities the council had, and yet they would not believe!