Before the Sanhedrin (con’t), 1-11

Acts 23:1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” 2 At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

“I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” – ‘This does not mean ‘I have never done anything wrong’; it means ‘Whenever I have done anything wrong I have immediately done whatever was necessary to put it right’, including, as here, apologizing for a ‘sin of ignorance’ (Acts 23:5). That was precisely the kind of thing that the sacrificial system was designed to deal with.’ (Wright)

Acts 23:4 Those who were standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?”
Acts 23:5 Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

“I did not realise that he was the high priest” – Was this due to poor eyesight?  Or that Paul did not recognise him in his day clothes?  Marshall thinks that Paul is speaking ironically: he knew perfectly well who he was speaking to, but lets it be known that he could not imagine that a man in such a position could give such an order.  But, as Peterson says, Paul’s use of Scripture counts against this interpretation, ‘for it turns Paul’s outburst into a serious offence that he must correct’ (Tannehill, cited by Peterson).

Peterson thinks that the most likely explanation for the non-recognition is that Paul had been away from Jerusalem for some time.  Wright assumes that Ananias was not wearing any distinctive signs of his office.

[I, for one, would content, in principle, to acknowledge that Paul had committed a temporary error of judgement. (Did another such error occur when he had his sharp disagreement with Barnabas about John Mark?)  We must not think of the apostle – great and godly as he was – as being infallible in everything that he said and did.]

Wright:

Paul thus manages to hold together two things which people often find difficult. On the one hand, he certainly will respect the office. Without that, chaos is come again. That is the long and the short of his famous passage in Romans 13:1–7: God wants the world to be governed, because he wants people to live in peace and justice, and if you don’t have structures of justice then the bullies, the extortioners and the rest will always win. The problem, of course, is when those structures become structures of injustice; but the present passage meets that question head on. The fact that you must respect the structures does not rule out, but rather actually includes, the duty to remind the people currently operating the structures what it is that they ought to be doing, and for that matter not doing. This is not the first, and it will not be the last, time when Paul provides some object lessons in basic political theology.

Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

‘Luke’s claim that “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit” (Acts 23:8) would seem to require some qualification in that the Sadducees accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, in which angels are prominent. Perhaps they differed from the Pharisees and Paul in assigning angels to a past dispensation (cf. Acts 23:9).’ (DLNT)

Such a stance is taken by some today, who profess to be Christians!  For example, the NT scholar Bultmann, who wrote,

‘today we no longer believe in such spiritual beings.  We now understand through our increased knowledge of nature, that disease is not caused by demons, but by viruses and bacteria…It is impossible to use electric lights and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.’

Theological scepticism has also been in evidence in earlier ages of Church history:

‘Even in Wesley’s time the presuppositions of Christianity were being increasingly questioned.  A process of incipient demythologising had already started.  “Christianity was to be neither ‘mysterious’ nor ‘miraculous’, but basically rational and humane,” explains Dr V.H.H. Green.  (Wood, The Burning Heart, 15)

Undesigned coincidence.  ‘In the gospels, the main opposition to Jesus comes from the Pharisees: they receive the Woes of the Pharisees (Matt 23:29,32); they conspire with the chief priests to capture Jesus (Jn 11:57); they support Judas in his betrayal of Jesus (Jn 18:3). But in Acts the main opposition comes from the Sadducees: Peter and John were set upon by them (Acts 4:1); they threw the apostles in prison (Acts 5:17); Paul appeals to the Pharisees against the Sadducees (Acts 23:6). This is explained by the Sadducees rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts 23:6), since the disciples barely mentioned it in the gospels (cf. Mk 9:10) but made it a key doctrine later (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:12; 4:10; 5:31; 10:40).’ (Source)

Acts 23:9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

“We find nothing wrong with this man” ‘is strangely reminiscent of Pilate’s judgement about Jesus (Lk. 23:4, 14, 22), and anticipates the conclusion of the Roman commander (23:29).’ (Peterson)

“What if a spirit or angel has spoken to him?” – Possibly suggesting that Paul had encountered someone in (what we would call) the intermediate state.

Acts 23:11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

The Plot to Kill Paul, 12-22

Acts 23:12 The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13 More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15 Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here.”
Acts 23:16 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.
Acts 23:17 Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” Acts 23:18 So he took him to the commander.
The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.”
Acts 23:19 The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?”
Acts 23:20 He said: “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. 21 Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request.”
Acts 23:22 The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”

Paul Transferred to Caesarea, 23-35

Acts 23:23 Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. 24 Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”

A detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen – As Marshall says, this seems an improbably large number, amounting to half the garrison.  Sceptics suppose that the figure has been given to exaggerate Paul’s importance, the scale of the danger, and the care that the Romans took of their prisoners.

But several factors indicate that we should not be too rash in doubting the accuracy of the account:

• The word translated ‘spearmen’ is esceedingly rare, and its meaning uncertain.  One theory is that it refers to ‘led horses’ – substitute mounts for the long journey.
• The two hundred soliders only accompanied Paul on the first and most dangerous part of the journey, and returned to the garrison the next day (v32).

Schnabel comments that:

‘the growing unrest in the province of Judea during this period “suggests that the numbers are realistic” since a wise senior officer “who heeded trustworthy warnings and anticipated the level of popular animosity toward a prisoner in his care” would have taken swift and effective measures.’

Caesarea was nearlyy 70 miles distant by road.  It was the seat of Roman government.

Mounts for Paul – Plural, possibly because others (Luke? Aristarchus? Acts 27:1) accompanied him.  Or for relays, baggage or a soldier to whom Paul was chained.

Acts 23:25 He wrote a letter as follows:

Barrett wonders how Luke could have had access to the Roman archives in order to know the content of this letter.  But it was common practice for such documents to be read aloud.  Moreover, it is the sort of document that would be preserved for Paul’s trial.  In any case, Luke only claims to give the gist of the letter, not its precise content.

Acts 23:26 Claudius Lysias,

To His Excellency, Governor Felix:

Greetings.

Acts 23:27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. 28 I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. 29 I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. 30 When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.

Lysias is keen to present himself to his superior in the best possible light:

‘He conveniently fails to mention his original misunderstanding about Paul (21:37–39) and his later attempt to have him scourged before discovering that he was a Roman citizen (22:23–25)!’ (Peterson)

Acts 23:31 So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. 32 The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. 33 When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him. 34 The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, 35 he said, “I will hear your case when your accusers get here.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.

Antipatris was about 35 miles from Jerusalem.