Acts 23

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!

A few years after Paul’s conversion, when Paul’s life was in danger in Jerusalem, Jesus appeared to him in the temple and told him what to do (Acts 22:17–21). When Paul was discouraged in Corinth and contemplated going elsewhere, Jesus appeared to him and encouraged him to stay (Acts 18:9–10). Now, when Paul was certainly at “low ebb” in his ministry, Jesus appeared once again to encourage and instruct him. Paul would later receive encouragement during the storm (Acts 27:22–25) and during his trial in Rome (2 Tim. 4:16–17). “Lo, I am with you always” is a great assurance for every situation (Matt. 28:20).

The Lord’s message to Paul was one of courage. “Be of good cheer!” simply means “Take courage!” Jesus often spoke these words during His earthly ministry. He spoke them to the palsied man (Matt. 9:2) and to the woman who suffered with the hemorrhage (Matt. 9:22). He shouted them to the disciples in the storm (Matt. 14:27) and repeated them in the Upper Room (John 16:33). As God’s people, we can always take courage in times of difficulty because the Lord is with us and will see us through.

It was also a message of commendation. The Lord did not rebuke Paul for going to Jerusalem. Rather, He commended him for the witness he had given, even though that witness had not been received. When you read the account of Paul’s days in Jerusalem, you get the impression that everything Paul did failed miserably. His attempt to win over the legalistic Jews only helped cause a riot in the temple, and his witness before the Sanhedrin left the council in confusion. But the Lord was pleased with Paul’s testimony, and that’s what really counts.

Finally, it was a message of confidence: Paul would go to Rome! This had been Paul’s desire for months (Acts 19:21; Rom. 15:22–29), but events in Jerusalem had made it look as though that desire would not be fulfilled. What encouragement this promise gave to Paul in the weeks that followed, difficult weeks when leaders lied about him, when fanatics tried to kill him, and when government officials ignored him. In all of this, the Lord was with him and fulfilling His perfect plan to get His faithful servant to Rome.

Paul’s life had been in danger from the very beginning of his ministry, when he witnessed for Christ in Damascus (Acts 9:22–25). During his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Hellenistic Jews tried to kill him (Acts 9:29). The Jews drove him out of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:50–51) and threatened to stone him in Iconium (Acts 14:5). Paul was stoned in Lystra (Acts 14:19–20), and in Corinth, the Jews tried to get him arrested (Acts 18:12–17). In Ephesus, the Jews had a plot to kill him (Acts 20:19), and they even planned to kill him at sea (Acts 20:3). Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 take on special meaning when you consider all that Paul suffered at the hands of his own countrymen.

Perhaps it was the Asian Jews who conspired to kill Paul (Acts 21:27–29). Certain of the chief priests and elders agreed to cooperate with them and try to influence Claudius. It was a natural thing for the council to want further information from Paul, and it would have been an easy thing to ambush Paul’s party and kill the apostle. If this got the captain in trouble with his superiors, the high priest could protect him. The Romans and the Jews had cooperated this way before (Matt. 28:11–15).

But the forty fasting men and the scheming religious leaders had forgotten that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and that the exalted Lord was watching from heaven. At Paul’s conversion, the Lord had told him that he would suffer, but He had also promised that He would deliver him from his enemies (Acts 9:15–16; 26:16–17). Paul held on to that promise all of his life, and God was faithful.

We know nothing about Paul’s sister and nephew except what is recorded here. Philippians 3: suggests that Paul lost his family when he became a Christian, but we do not know if any of his relatives were converted later. (The word kinsman in Rom. 16: and 11 means “fellow Jew,” as in Rom. 9:3.) Since Paul’s family had long been connected with the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), his sister was no doubt in touch with the “powers that be” and able to pick up the news that was passed along. Wives do chat with each other, and a secret is something you tell one person at a time!

It is not likely that either the sister or the nephew were believers, for that certainly would have shut them out of the official religious circle in Jerusalem. But they were devout Jews and knew that the plot was evil (Ex. 23:2). It was in the providence of God that they were able to hear the news and convey it privately to Claudius. St. Augustine said, “Trust the past to the mercy of God, the present to His love, and the future to His providence.”

We certainly must admire the integrity and courage of Claudius Lysias, the captain. How did he know the boy was even telling the truth? Paul had already caused Claudius so much trouble that it might be a relief to get rid of him! The Jews did not know that Claudius was aware of their plot, so he could have used his “inside knowledge” for his own profit. No Roman soldier could afford to lose a prisoner, but there were always ways to work things out.

Throughout the book of Acts, Dr. Luke speaks favorably of the Roman military officers, beginning with Cornelius in Acts 10 and ending with Julius (Acts 27:1, 3, 43). There is no record in Acts of official Roman persecution against the church; the opposition was instigated by the unbelieving Jews. While the empire had its share of corrupt political opportunists, for the most part, the military leaders were men of quality who respected the Roman law.

Claudius’s plan was simple and wise. He knew that he had to get Paul out of Jerusalem or there would be one murderous plot after another, and one of them just might succeed. He also knew that he had better determine the charges against Paul or he might be accused of illegally holding a Roman citizen. He could solve both problems by sending Paul to Caesarea and putting him under the authority of Felix, the Roman governor.

If Paul had been a private citizen, attempting to travel from Jerusalem to Caesarea (about sixty-five miles), he would have been an easy target for the conspirators. But God arranged for 470 Roman soldiers to protect him, almost half of the men in the temple garrison! Once again in his career, Paul was smuggled out of a city under cover of night (Acts 9:25; 17:10).

The captain’s official letter is most interesting. Of course, Claudius put himself and his men in the best light, which is to be expected. While it is true they prevented Paul from being killed, it was not because they knew he was a Roman. Claudius thought Paul was an Egyptian and almost had him scourged!

Acts 23: is another of Luke’s “official statements” from Roman officials, proving that Christians were not considered criminals. The officials in Philippi had almost apologized to Paul (Acts 16:35–40), and Gallio in Corinth had refused to try him (Acts 18:14–15). In Ephesus, the town clerk told twenty-five thousand people that the Christians were innocent of any crime (Acts 19:40), and now the Roman captain from the temple fortress was writing the same thing. Later, Festus (Acts 25:24–25) and Herod Agrippa (Acts 26:31–32) would also affirm that Paul should have been set free. Even the Jewish leaders in Rome had to confess that they had had no official news against Paul (Acts 28:21).

Leaving at nine o’clock that night, Paul and his escort went from Jerusalem to Antiparis, about thirtyseven miles away. This must have been an all-night forced march for that many people to cover that much ground in that short a time. The cavalry then continued with Paul while the two hundred soldiers returned to the barracks, since the dangerous part of the trip was now over. They traveled another twenty-seven miles to Caesarea, where Paul was officially turned over to Felix. Paul was safe from the Jewish plotters, but was he safe from Felix?

Antonius Felix was governor (procurator) of Judea. He was married to Drusilla, a Jewess who was daughter of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) and who left her husband to become Felix’s third wife. She was sister of Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13ff.). The Roman historian Tacitus said that Felix “exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave.” Felix was called “a vulgar ruffian” and lived up to the name.

Not only was Paul protected by an escort fit for a king, but he was put, not in the common prison, but in the palace built by Herod the Great, where the governor had his official headquarters. We wonder if any of the believers in Caesarea knew about Paul’s presence and sought to bring him personal aid and encouragement. They would certainly remember the visit of Agabus and realize that his dire prophecy had been fulfilled (Acts 21:10–14).

As you review the events recorded in this chapter, you cannot help but be impressed with the commitment of the apostle Paul to his calling. “None of these things move me” (Acts 20:24). If ever a man dared to follow Christ, come what may, he was that man. Paul did not look for the easy way but for the way that would most honor the Lord and win the lost. He was even willing to become a prisoner if that would further the work of the gospel.

You are also impressed with the amazing providence of God in caring for His servant. “The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them” (Ps. 34: nkjv). “Let us trust in God, and be very courageous for the gospel,” wrote Charles Spurgeon, “and the Lord Himself will screen us from all harm.”

God’s people can afford to be daring, in the will of God, because they know their Savior will be dependable and work out His perfect win. Paul was alone—but not alone! His Lord was with him and he had nothing to fear.