Acts
22:30-23:11
5. The gospel reaches Rome, 21:1-28:31
v] Paul's defence before the Jewish Council
SynopsisThe tribune, Claudius Lysias, in arresting Paul, in now enmeshed in Judean politics. He seeks to resolve the matter by getting the Sanhedrin involved, but the assembly ends up in uproar and he is forced to intervene and escort Paul back to the barracks. In the midst of this turmoil, the Lord continues to encourage Paul, reminding him of his gospel mission.
Teaching
Chains cannot constrict the gospel.
Issues
i] Context: See 21:1-16..
ii] Background:
See 21:27-40 for map of Jerusalem.
iii] Structure: Paul's defence before the Sanhedrin:
Setting, 22:30;
A confrontation with the high priest, 23:1-5;
The Sanhedrin is divided over the resurrection, v6-10;
A vision of the Lord, v11.
iv] Interpretation:
The commander is now aware that Paul is a Roman citizen, and that by binding him in preparation for interrogation, he was acting outside the law. He still needs to find out what's behind the uproar, and at the same time, correct his improper treatment of Paul. Calling for a meeting of the Sanhedrin (the highest judicial authority in the land) is a logical way to resolve the matter, but as it turns out, it just makes things worse. The commander has no right to participate in the assembly, but, given his authority and his responsibility to maintain public order, he has every right to command that the council convene.
The Sanhedrin was made up of chief priests, elders and scribes, presided over by the high priest. In the first century, the membership was divided by religious / political persuasion: Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees.
Paul's address to the assembly doesn't get off the ground - the religious authorities are really not interested in what he has to say for himself. Paul astutely handles the feigned righteous indignation of the chairman (the high priest Ananias), by heading for the high moral ground, while pouring water on the slippery slope below. Paul first points out that the actions of the chairman in commanding that he be struck in the mouth is contrary to God's law, and then when checked, he points out that, he, as a law-abider, would never have questioned the right of the chairman to have him assaulted, had he known he was the high priest.
It is very likely that Paul knew that the chairman was the high priest, so his observations are nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to expose the corruption of self-righteous officials who have no intention whatsoever of giving him a fair hearing. To cause them more pain, Paul goads the assembly on the issue of the resurrection of the dead. Paul declares his heritage as a Pharisee and his strong belief in the resurrection of the dead. The subject of the resurrection is one of heated disagreement between Pharisees and Sadducees and so, within minutes, the assembly is in an uproar with some Pharisees siding with Paul.
The commander is forced to intervene, taking Paul back to the barracks. Paul has effectively revealed to the commander that he is the subject of a religious dispute, and not a civil one. None-the-less, the commander has brought the religious authorities into the mix, and so the opportunities for Paul's release are fast closing. Of course, none of this will interfere with God's intent that Paul should take the gospel of grace to the centre of world, Rome.
v] Homiletics: Shrewd as Snakes
Matthew 10:16 serves well as a text for this passage, as long as the preacher is of the view that Paul is not actually testifying to the resurrection of Christ, but is using rhetorical techniques to derail the illegitimate use of a legal tribunal by a lynch-mob. Bringing the gospel to bear on a world that is increasingly antagonistic toward Christianity, requires that we be artful and artless. The journey makes for an interesting sermon.
Text - 22:30
Paul's defence before the Sanhedrin: i] Setting, v30. The tribune "wishes to know the facts, namely, what accusation was being brought", Barrett. It is interesting to note that the tribune seems to have the authority to convene the Sanhedrin; Josephus records one such incident where the Roman authorities claim this right.
boulomenoV (boulomai) pres. part. "[commander] wanted" - [but/and on the next day] desiring. The participle is adverbial, best treated as causal, "because he wanted to know".
gnwnai (ginwskw) aor. inf. "to find out" - to know. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the participle, "wanting, wishing".
to acc. art. "[exactly]" - the [certainty, definite]. The article serves as a nominalizer, turning the adjective "certainty" into a substantive, direct object of the infinitive "to know", accusative of reference / respect; "with respect to ascertaining the real reason"
to acc. art. "-" - the [why he is accused by the jews]. The article serves as an adjectivizer, turning the indirect question "why he is being accused by the Jews" into an epexegetic modifier of the substantive "the certainty = the real reason"; "namely, why Paul was accused by the Jews".
th/ "the [next day]" - the [tomorrow]. The article serves as a nominalizer, turning the adverb "tomorrow" into a substantive, "the tomorrow = the next day", the dative being temporal, "on the next day".
sunelqein (sunercomai) aor. inf. "to assemble" - [he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the sanhedrin] to come together, gather. The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what the commander order, "he ordered that ........"
katagagwn (katagw) aor. part. "[then] he brought [Paul]" - [and] having lead down [paul, he placed him into = before them]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to place before"; "After that, he had Paul brought down to them and made him stand up in front of them", Cassirer.
23:1
ii] A confrontation with the high priest, v1-5. Paul testifies to his zeal before God - suneidhsei, "[I] in [all good] conscience / with a [clear] conscience", pepoliteumai, "have taken a proper course [under God]"
atenisaV (atenizw) aor. part. "looked straight at" - [but/and paul] having gazed at. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; "Paul looked intently at the council and said".
tw/ sunedriw/ (on) dat. "at the Sanhedrin" - the sunhedrin [said]. Dative of direct object after the verb "to look intently at".
adelfoi (oV) voc. "brothers" - [men] brothers. Vocative, standing in apposition to "men".
tw/ qew/ (oV) dat. "[I have fulfilled my duty] to God" - [i have lived / acted as a citizen = conducted myself] to god = in the sight of god. Dative of direct object after the verb "to conduct oneself". Culy notes that the verb "to conduct oneself", when used in the LXX, is often followed by a dative noun, or kata plus a noun phrase, expressing a standard, so "in accordance with God's law"; "I have lived my life ...... ever having God before my eyes", Cassirer.
suneidhsei (iV ewV) dat. "in [all good] conscience" - in = with [all good] moral sensitivity, conscience. The dative is adverbial, modal, expressing manner.
acri + gen. "to [this day]" - until [this day]. Temporal use of the preposition, expressing extension of time up to a point.
v2
Josephus tells us that the high priest Ananias was a very rich and powerful man, which probably means that the toiV parestwsin, "those who stood by him", were attendants. Presumably Paul failed to grovel and so was slapped down. In AD 58 Ananias was suspended from office, and in AD 66, he was assassinated due to his pro-Roman stance.
toiV parestwsin (paristhmi) perf. part. "those standing near" - [but/and the high priest annanias ordered, commanded] the ones having stood beside. The participle serves as a substantive, dative of direct object after the verb "to command".
autw/ dat. pro. "Paul" - him. Dative of direct object after the para prefix participle, "having stood beside, by".
tuptein (tuptw) pres. inf. "to strike" - to strike [the mouth of him]. The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what the high priest commanded; "The high priest gave orders to his attendants that they hit Paul in the mouth". A slap to the face is used in response to a blasphemous or highly offensive statement. Some alignment with Jesus' treatment before the high priest is evident, although not necessarily fictional.
v3
Paul's retort is very pointed, both with prophetic insight (Ananias will be murdered by a terrorist), a cutting insult, and moral clarity - the self-righteous don't like being defrocked. It is unclear exactly what a "whitewashed wall" is, but probably it is a poorly built mud and rubble wall coated with whitewash to make it look the part. A modern example would be a rusted motor vehicle, patched with bog and resprayed.
tuptein (tuptw) pres. inf. "[God will] strike [you]" - [then paul said toward him, god is about] to strike [you]. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "to be about to".
kekoniamene (koniaw) voc. perf. mid. part "whitewashed [wall]" - [o wall] having been whitewashed. The participle is adjectival, attributive, limiting "wall", vocative in agreement. A vocative participle is very rare.
krinwn (krinw) pres. part. "to judge" - [and you sit] judging me. The participle is handled in a number of ways: attendant circumstance, "you sit and judge me"; adverbial, modal, "you sit there judging me", or final, "you sit there [in order] to judge me".
kata + acc. "according to" - according to [the law]. Expressing a standard; "in conformity with the law".
kai "yet" - and. The correlative kai used earlier in the sentence and here, "both ....., and ..." is more like a contrasting men .... de construction, "on the one hand ......, but on the other". So, used here to express a contrast; "On the one hand you sit there to judge me by the law, and yet at the same time, are you not breaking the law by ordering me to be struck in the face?" Cf., Zerwick. Given that a negation (eg., ouk) is not present in the text to indicate that the question expects the answer "Yes", it may well be a statement, rather than a question (the semicolon is a later addition to the original text); ""You are sitting here, supposed to pronounce judgment in conformity with the law, and what you are really doing is breaking the law by ordering your people to strike me!", Cassirer.
paranomwn (paranomew) aor. part. "you yourself violate the law" - acting contrary to the law. The participle is adverbial, modifying the verb "to command", possibly temporal; "and yet at the same time, while acting contrary to the law"
tupotesqai (tuptw) pres. mid. inf. "that [I] be struck" - [you order, command me] to be hit. The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what the high priest commanded, as NIV. The pronoun me serves as the accusative subject of the infinitive.
v4
As with v3, it is unclear whether we have a question here or a statement. Note that the addition of the possessive genitive tou qeou is intended to heighten the offence; "It is no common man whom you insult, but the high priest who has been appointed by and thus represents God himself", Barrett.
oiJ ... parestwteV (paristhmi) perf. part. "those who were standing near Paul" - [but/and] the ones having stood beside [said, you are reviling the high priest of god]. The participle serves as a substantive, subject of the verb "to say".
v5
A rather mendacious comment, given that Paul would obviously know that he was dealing with the high priest, but on the other hand, a beautifully crafted piece of one-upmanship - Paul is willing to comply with God's law even if the high priest isn't. The use of rhetorical irony in such a situation serves as an effective means of debunking pomposity. Those standing beside Paul are most likely members of the assembly, rather than the high priest's attendants, and so he addresses them as adelfoi, "brothers" - fellow faithful Jews.
oJti "[I did not realize] that" - [and paul said, i had not known] that [he is the high priest]. Introducing an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what Paul did not realise.
gar "for" - for [it has been written]. Introducing a causal clause explaining why Paul needed to offer an (ironic) apology.
oJti "-" - that. Not found in all manuscripts. Again recitative, introducing an object clause / dependent statement of quotation.
Arconta (wn ontoV) acc. "about the ruler" - [do not speak bad] a ruler. The accusative is adverbial, reference / respect, as NIV; "You must not speak evil about a ruler of the people."
tou laou (oV) gen. "of [your] people" - of the people [of you]. The genitive is adjectival, descriptive, idiomatic / subordination; "a ruler over your people"
v6
ii] The Sanhedrin is divided on the issue of the resurrection, v6-10. Paul needs to show the tribune that the riot stems from a theological disagreement rather than any criminal behaviour on his part, ie., Paul is not an anti-social zealot. There is no better way of demonstrating this fact than to drop the resurrection bomb into a religious assembly divided by Pharisees (who believe in the resurrection), and Sadducees (who reject the notion of life after death). The polarised nature of this issue in the first century, guaranteed a good old ding-dong (a noisy, leaning toward physical, argument. Apologies to US readers who are now salivating for a taste of their greatly loved chocolate coated cupcake, the Ding Dong). Paul's statement is, of course, only a ploy to divide the council. This does raise ethical issues, but as Jesus put it, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves", Matt.10:16.
gnouV (ginwskw) aor. part. "knowing" - [but/and, paul] having known. The Participle is adverbial, best treated as temporal; "Now when Paul perceived that ....", ESV.
oJti "that" - that. Introducing an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what Paul perceived.
Saddoukaiwn (oV) gen. "[some of them were] Sadducees" - [one part of them is] of sadducees [and the other part of them is of pharisees]. As with "Pharisees", the genitive noun "Sadducees" serves as a predicate adjective, genitive in agreement with the assumed partitive pronoun "of them". "Paul knew that one half of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees and that the other half were Pharisees", Barclay.
Farisaiwn (oV) gen. "descended from Pharisees" - [he was calling out in the sanhedrin, men, brothers, i am a pharisee, son] of pharisees. The genitive is adjectival, relational. The genitive "of Pharisees" gives weight to the head noun "Pharisee" giving the sense, "When it comes to being a Pharisee, I'm the real thing".
peri + gen. "[I stand trial] because of" - concerning. Expressing reference / respect, "about, concerning"; "The matter concerning which I am being brought to judgment before the court is the hope I entertain that there will be a resurrection of the dead", Cassirer. The preposition can lean toward a causal sense, as NIV.
nekrwn (oV) gen. "of the dead" - [hope and resurrection] of the dead [i am being judged]. The genitive is usually classified as adjectival, verbal, objective. The phrase, "hope and resurrection" is possibly a hendiadys, "the hope of the resurrection", so Kellum, or possibly the kai is epexegetic, "the / my hope, namely the resurrection of the dead", so Rogers, as Cassirer above.
v7
Paul gets the result he is looking for; "The council split right down the middle; Pharisees and Sadducees going at each other in heated argument", Peterson.
eipontoV (legw) gen. aor. part. "when [he] said [this]" - [but/and, he] having said [this]. The genitive participle and its genitive subject autou, "he", forms a genitive absolute construction, temporal, as NIV.
Farisaiwn (oV) gen. "between the Pharisees" - [it = there became a dispute, discord, strife] of the pharisees [and sadducees, and the crowd = assembly was divided]. Together with "Sadducees", the genitive "Pharisees" is adjectival, descriptive, idiomatic, limiting the noun "dispute"; "there became a dispute which was between the Pharisees and Sadducees"; "The Pharisees and the Sadducees got into a big argument", CEV.
v8
Johnson notes that Josephus, both in his War, and Antiquities, records the Sadducees' rejection of any notion of the resurrection of the dead, and of the Pharisees affirmation of the idea. The Pharisees held the view that a person who denies the doctrine of resurrection has no share in the life to come. The doctrine had a late development in Judaism, reflected only in the minor prophets (Ezekiel's Dry Bones imagery relates to the rebirth of the nation Israel). It seems likely that the Pharisees understood resurrection in Platonic terms, of the spirit of the righteous, their spiritual being, rising after death to share in a heavenly new life. This development in thought occurred during the Maccabean period when Greek culture increasingly influenced Judaism. Even today, the Platonic idea of life after death dominates the thinking of most people. Christian theology, on the other hand, points to a coming day of resurrection when the dead in Christ rise as whole beings, body and soul, to be transformed into a spiritual being in possession of a resurrection body. As for Luke's reference to the Sadducees' belief in "angels" and "spirits", given that angels and the spirits of the dead are referred to in the Pentateuch, it is likely that he has something else in mind. Witherington suggests "the realm of angel or spirit", ie., a holding place for the righteous; a realm between death and the resurrection.
gar "-" - for. Introducing a causal clause explaining why the assembly was divided; "because ......"
men ...., de "....., but ..." - on the one hand [sadducees .......], but on the other hand [pharisees]. An adversative comparative construction.
mh ei\nai (eimi) pres. inf. "that there is no" - [say a resurrection, nor angel nor spirit] not to be, [but pharisees confess, acknowledge the both (the sense of "both" can extend beyond two things to include "all these things")]. The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what the Sadducees say. "A resurrection nor angel nor spirit" serves as the accusative subject of the infinitive.
v9
Order breaks down in the assembly, as a theological dispute over the resurrection of the dead turns violent, with the scribes of the party of the Pharisees questioning whether Paul is guilty of any crime at all (a possible allusion to Pilate's legal opinion of the charge against Jesus). They even go so far as "allowing the possibility that Paul was the recipient of fresh revelation (from one of the angels or spirit whose existence the Sadducees denied) which confirmed the Pharisaic interpretation of the Torah on this point", Dunn.
twn grammatewn (uV ewV) gen. "[some] of the teachers of the law" - [but/and a loud cry became and some] of the scribes. The genitive is adjectival, partitive.
twn Farisaiwn (oV) gen. "who were Pharisees" - of the pharisees. The genitive is adjectival, limiting "scribes", treated as attributive by the NIV, but it may also be treated as descriptive, idiomatic / identification; "scribes who were members of the party of the Pharisees."
anastanteV (anisthmi) aor. part. "stood up [and argued]" - having arisen [were arguing]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the imperfect verb "to argue, contend".
legonteV (legw) "-" - saying. Rather than adverbial, manner or means, the participle is best viewed as attendant circumstance, semi-redundant, serving to introduce direct speech.
en + dat. "with [this man]" - [we find nothing evil] in [this man]. Adverbial use of the preposition, expressing reference / respect; "As far as this man is concerned, we find nothing wrong with him".
ei + ind. "what if" - [but/and] if [a spirit spoke to him or an angel then are we not fighting against God]. Possibly serving to introduce an indirect or direct question, as NIV. Bruce Gk., suggests that it serves to introduce a conditional clause where the apodosis is suppressed. Spelling out that the assembly is possibly qeomacew, "contending against God" (mh qeomacwmen, "are we not fighting against God?", is supplied in the Western text), is not something someone says aloud. "What if a spirit has spoken to him? Or maybe an angel? What if it turns out we're fighting against God?", Peterson.
v10
"The dissension continues to have the potential to become violent, and the tribune fears that Paul might be torn in two", Bock. The verb diaspaw, "to tear apart", is used of the demon-possessed man, as recorded in the gospels, who "tears apart" his chains. Barrett suggests that, given the heated nature of the debate, a literal sense is possible.
ginomenhV (ginomai) pres. part. "[the dispute] became [so great]" - [but/and the argument, dispute] becoming [much]. The genitive participle, and its genitive subject, forms a genitive absolute construction, temporal; "And when the dissension became violent", ESV.
foqhqeiV (fobew) aor. pas. part. "was afraid" - [the commander] having become afraid. The participle is adverbial, probably Causal, introducing a causal clause, so Rogers; "The tribune, because he was afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces, ordered ...."
diaspasqh/ (diaspaw) aor. pas. subj. "torn to pieces" - [not = lest paul] may be torn to pieces. The subjunctive is used to introduce an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what the commander feared; "The tribune began to fear that Paul might be torn to pieces by them", Cassirer.
uJp (uJpo) gen. "by them" - by them. Instrumental, expressing agency.
kataban (katabainw) aor. part. "to go down [and take him away]" - [he ordered the troops] having done down [to snatch away him]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the infinitive arpasai, "to snatch away", which infinitive serves to introduce an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what the commander ordered; "the commander ordered the soldiers to go down and take him away", ESV.
autwn gen. pro. "-" - [from the midst] of them. The genitive is adjectival, partitive.
agein (ago) pres. inf. "bring" - [and] to bring [him into the barracks]. The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what the commander also ordered.
v11
iii] A vision of the Lord, v11. Paul may have expected that the collapse of any sense of order in the Sanhedrin, due to his nicely lobbed resurrection bomb, would have convinced the commander that the disorder stems from strongly held theological views, and that therefore Paul is innocent of any crime. None-the-less, the commander seems intent on confirming the legality of the arrest, now with the added necessity of protecting Paul's life. None of this interferes with the divine will (dei. "it is necessary"), the intent being that Paul will bear witness to Jesus / the gospel in Rome. The correlative construction wJV ..... ouJtw, "as .... in this way, thus ..." implies that the situation Paul finds himself in Rome will be in like manner to the situation he finds himself in Jerusalem, ie., in chains (the implication being that neither circumstance, nor flawed humanity, can hinder the divine intent that the gospel be proclaimed to the ends of the world, or in Paul's case, to its centre). Note the contra view of Peterson Gk., also Barrett, who argues that Paul's testimony before the Sanhedrin is not "a clever trick", but that it serves as an example of bearing witness to the gospel and that the vision serves to remind Paul that "the Lord has protected him and will continue to do so", Barrett.
th/ ... nukti (uX uktoV) dat. "the [following] night" - [but/and] in = on the [following] night. The dative is adverbial, temporal; "On the following night", Moffatt.
epistaV (episthmi) aor. part. "stood near" - [the lord] having stood beside. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; "the Lord stood by him and said", ESV.
autw/ dat. pro. "Paul" - him [said]. Dative of direct object after the epi prefix verb "to stand beside".
gar "-" - [be courageous] for. Introducing a causal clause explaining why Paul needs to be courageous, namely, "because" as he bore witness to the gospel in Jerusalem, with all its associated troubles, so it is of divine necessity for him to bear witness to the gospel in Rome, and again, to do this with all its associated troubles.
wJV as - as, like [you testified]. The comparative conjunction introduces a comparative clause which is completed by an adverbial clause of manner introduced by ou{tw ... kai, "[as ..........] so also in like manner, in the same way ................."
ta "-" - the things [about me in jerusalem]. The article serves as a nominalizer, turning the prepositional phrase "about me in Jerusalem" into a nominal phrase, object of the verb "to bear witness, testify". The preposition peri expresses "reference / respect", "about, concerning".
marturhsai (marturew) aor. inf. "testify" - [and = also in like manner you to testify into jerusalem] is necessary. The infinitive forms a nominal phrase subject of the impersonal verb "it is necessary". For a complementary classification see plhrwqhnai, 1:16. The accusative pronoun su, "you", serves as the accusative subject of the infinitive.
![[Pumpkin Cottage]](images/cottage1s.gif){kind=small}
lectionarystudies.com