Acts 23:1-10 meaning

In Acts 23:1-10, Paul stands trial before the Council of the Sanhedrin (the seventy Jewish elders and the High Priest). A series of slanders and misunderstandings led to this examination. Paul had returned to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. Several Gentile believers had come with him. While in Jerusalem, James, the elder of the church, recommended that Paul pay the temple fees for a vow which some local Jewish believers were in the process of fulfilling. James encouraged Paul to do this to counter a false narrative that Paul was teaching Jewish parents scattered among the nations to not teach their children to follow Jewish tradition. By paying for the vow it would show that Paul also followed tradition, a fact he later confirmed directly (Acts 28:17).

Paul obliged, showing that he had continued to honor Jewish tradition for Jews, but not Gentiles, consistent with what had been decided at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:5-22). During Pentecost, Jews from all over the Roman Empire were in Jerusalem. Some were visiting from Ephesus, a city in the Roman province of Asia (in modern—day Turkey). While in the city, they recognized Paul and his Gentile friends. Paul had spent the past several years living in Ephesus, preaching the gospel (Acts 19:10).

On a separate day, Paul was in the temple courtyard to conclude the vows he was sponsoring. The Ephesian Jews openly accused Paul of having brought a Gentile into the temple (which he had not done), and very quickly a mob formed to beat Paul to death in the streets.

The local Roman guard intervened, arrested Paul for his safety, and arranged for a meeting with the Sanhedrin, so that they could determine if Paul had done something illegal by Jewish standards.

Apparently Paul is given the opportunity to speak for himself on the matter. It may be that one of the Jewish leaders opened the Council and posed a question to Paul, but Luke (the author of Acts) only records Paul’s opening statement:

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day” (v. 1).

Luke describes Paul as looking intently at the Council while he speaks. This phrase can also be translated looking earnestly or looking steadfastly. Paul is standing upright, composed, not averting his gaze or shrinking from the situation. He is confident and sincere in what he says.

His defense is simple and comprehensive. He addresses the Council as Brethren, just as he addressed the mob which tried to kill him the day before (Acts 22:1). Paul is a Jew just as this Council of priests and rabbis are. Paul is a Pharisee as well, tutored by the renowned teacher of Jewish law Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin and a respected teacher (Acts 5:34). Gamaliel had died some years before this chapter of Acts in the early 50s AD, so he is not present for this trial against his former pupil.

Paul tries to establish a common bond between himself and his audience. They are his Jewish Brethren. Paul declares that he has lived his life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.

This statement would absolve and protect him from further persecution, if the Council believed him. Paul refers to the conscience often in his writings. He considers his own conscience an affirmative witness of his innocence.

In Paul's letters to Timothy, he urges: “But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).

In 1 Timothy 3:9, Paul says that church leaders should lead by “holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.”

Giving focus to his own ministry, he writes in 2 Timothy 1:3, “I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience, the way my forefathers did.”

Paul’s letters to the churches are consistent in their teaching that all men have sinned (Romans 3:23), and that even believers in Jesus have a daily choice of whether to follow God’s Spirit or our sinful desires (Galatians 5:13-16). Paul laments his own struggle with sin in Romans 7:14-25, and in a letter to Timothy he calls himself “the foremost of all” sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

However, Paul believes in confession and forgiveness. Where Paul has sinned, he has repented and trusts in Jesus’s blood to cover his sins (1 John 1:9). It is in this manner that Paul can have a clear conscience.

Paul repents and turns away from sin to the best of his ability, then refuses to judge himself. He recognizes that he will stand before God one day and so turns the matter of judgment over to God. We see this described in his letter to the Corinthians, where he explains how the judgment or opinion of any human court was of little concern to him, because he focuses on seeking a clear examination from God Himself,

“But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.”
(1 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Paul’s point in this verse is that it is God who gives the only meaningful evaluation of us in the end. In the meanwhile, we should live with a clean conscience. Paul urges the Corinthians to test themselves to see that they are living out their faith (2 Corinthians 2:13). This would lead to a clean conscience. But we should seek only to please God and not let other people control our behavior to gain their approval. We should, rather, be God—pleasers (Galatians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:4, Ephesians 6:6).

When Paul states before the Sanhedrin that he has a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day, he likely is making direct reference to the accusations against him. First, he knows the accusation that he brought Gentiles into the temple is untrue. He also knows the accusation that he is leading Jews to convert away from Jewish practice is untrue, as he himself continues in Jewish practice (Acts 28:17). He knows he has remained consistent with the Jerusalem Council decision of Acts 15. And he knows he has been obedient to God’s commission on his life.

He has been forgiven of his sins (Romans 8:1). He lives to serve God’s will. He moves in God’s grace (1 Corinthians 15:10). He follows the Holy Spirit, not the flesh (Romans 8:12-13). It is with a perfectly good conscience before God that Paul lives his life. He is telling the Council, “God holds nothing against me, so why should you? I’ve done nothing wrong.”

The high priest does not approve of this opening statement, based on the following action:

The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth (v. 2)

It is likely that the high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin Council knew who Paul was already: a follower and preacher of the Way of Jesus. In making this move to strike Paul on the mouth for saying he has a perfectly good conscience before God, the high priest is declaring that it is unacceptable for Paul to defend himself. Only admission of guilt is to be allowed in this trial. Given this understanding, Paul will next shift from making a defense to advancing a clever rhetorical trick to divide the council.

Paul understands where the Pharisees are coming from. He had once served the Sanhedrin’s interests; he had been a promising Pharisee who led the successful persecution against believers years ago (Acts 8:1, 9:1-2). Then Paul went “missing in action” for a few years and the persecution lost steam (Galatians 1:17, Acts 9:31).

Eventually, word spread that Paul was now himself a believer in Jesus (Galatians 1:22-24). He preached that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah. Paul had been turning Jews and Gentiles to faith and worship in Him for many years.

An earlier administration of the Sanhedrin from twenty—odd years ago had conspired to put Jesus and His teachings to death, but belief in Jesus and the claims of His resurrection had persisted ever afterward. Now, with one of Jesus’s leading apostles in their grip, the high priest Ananias was prepared to mistreat Paul, and probably put him to death. He apparently did not intend to allow Paul to make a defense.

Because Ananias joins a plot to murder Paul on the day following this trial, this was probably his desired outcome for the trial itself. This is why from the outset he commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth by those standing beside him. Those standing beside Paul were most likely Jewish temple guards supervising him during the trial. Roman soldiers would not take orders from Jewish priests.

This instant physical attack on Paul communicates clearly that the high priest is not going to give Paul a fair hearing. Paul responds to this violence by appealing to both God and God’s Law:

Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” (v. 3).

Paul calls Ananias a whitewashed wall. This is similar to Jesus’s name for the Pharisees, calling them “whitewashed tombs,” appearing clean on the outside but on the inside are foul and unpleasant (Matthew 23:27-28). A whitewashed wall is not quite so severe an analogy as a whitewashed tomb, but still conveys the same criticism that the person is covered in clean paint which hides the dirt underneath.

Outwardly, the members of the Sanhedrin were wealthy men dressed in the finest clothes, respected by the community. But they had been corrupt in Jesus’s day and continued to be so.

Paul declares that Ananias is a hypocrite whom God is going to strike. He is saying that God will punish Ananias for commanding this evil action—physical abuse of a prisoner—that violates the Law. Indeed, Ananias would suffer a tragic fate during the early days of the Jewish rebellion in 66 AD, when his fellow countrymen burned his house down and later killed him in an aqueduct where he had hid himself (Josephus, The Jewish War, Book II, Chapter 17.9).

Having Paul struck on the mouth is an act of evil and it violates God’s Law, which Paul underscores, Do you sit to try me according to the Law, You are going to judge me by the standards of the Law, but then in violation of the Law order me to be struck?

Whether it was Paul or any other Jew standing before the Sanhedrin, it was in violation of the Mosaic Law to beat a defendant who has not yet been declared innocent or guilty. God’s Law directed judges and men in authority to treat those on trial or imprisoned humanely, fairly, and without hatred or vengeance (Leviticus 19).

Paul accurately appraises the bias and injustice with which Ananias will treat him. However, Paul was ignorant on one point, that Ananias was the high priest.

In response to Paul’s rebuke against Ananias, those standing nearby take Paul to task for his critical speech:

But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” (v. 4).

Paul did not know Ananias was God’s high priest nor did he mean to revile the high priest of God. Paul has been away from Israel for around three years. Nor has Paul really lived in Israel as his primary residence for around twenty—plus years.

After Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul has chiefly lived in Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia, as well as Greece, Macedonia, and the province of Asia (the western region of modern Turkey) while on his missionary journeys (Galatians 1:17, 21, Acts 9:30, 11:25, 18:11, 19:10).

Paul’s return visits to Jerusalem and Israel have always been brief and impermanent (Acts 15:4, 30, 18:22, Galatians 1:18). So it is fair to say he would not have kept up with who the high priest was. Some propose that Paul had poor eyesight (Galatians 4:15, 6:11), and did not know the high priest from any other man there, due to his impaired vision. It is also possible the high priest was not dressed in his official attire for this trial.

Whatever the case, Paul was ignorant, and reacting justly on one level, that it was wrong for him to be struck in the mouth at the command of the religious leaders of Israel. This abuse went against the intent and letter of God’s Law.

Paul explains his ignorance, while also doubling down on his own clean conscience toward the Law:

And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’” (v. 5).

In one sense, Paul is explaining that he did not know Ananias was the high priest and therefore would not have reviled him had he known. I was not aware, brethren, says Paul, again reminding his listeners that he is one of their Jewish brethren.

He did not know Ananias was high priest and would have otherwise chosen different words. But Paul again shows his knowledge of and respect for the Law through this apology by quoting the Law, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’

Paul is quoting Exodus 22:28, when Moses first gave the Law to the Israelites. The command to not speak evil is also translated, “not revile,” or “not speak a curse.” What Paul said was not evil in the sense that it was spoken with evil intentions; what Paul said was accurate. God would strike Ananias. Whether at the judgment seat of Christ for believers (2 Corinthians 5:10), or at the throne of God for unbelievers (Revelation 20:11-15), the deeds of all men will be evaluated.

The problem was that Paul’s description of God’s judgment should not be spoken against a ruler of the people of Israel. God may have made this law to promote peace and civility between Israelites and their leaders, to prevent disharmony and rebellion (Romans 13:1-7).

So Paul apologized in so many words as soon as he was informed that this was the high priest. It did not make the high priest’s order to have Paul struck on the mouth somehow just. But there is a principle seen throughout scripture that God will hold men in authority to higher account than those whom they are assigned to govern, lead, teach, or shepherd (Hebrews 13:17, James 3:1, Luke 12:48). The Law forbids reviling any ruler, because God will deal with them. This does not let the ruler off the hook; it increases the ruler’s accountability to answer for their actions.

By quoting the Law, Paul is signaling that he respects the Law, implying yet again that Ananias does not. Paul first declared it explicitly, that his examiners aren’t following the Law by physically assaulting him. He stresses the point subtly by apologizing and quoting the Law itself, demonstrating that he is following the Law in this situation, while the Jewish leaders are only pretending to adhere to the Law and are really doing whatever they want (like striking a prisoner during trial).

This goes back to the overarching accusation against Paul. When the Jews from the province of Asia roused a mob in the temple the day before, their attack against Paul was:

“This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
(Acts 21:28)

But twice now Paul has shown he knows and respects the Law. He has explained that the Law forbids physical abuse of prisoners and Jews should not speak curses against their rulers. The case against Paul that he preaches against the Jewish people and the Law is not strong.

In this action, it appears that Paul recognizes that he will not get a fair hearing from this high priest. The day before, he made the effort to explain his testimony to the mob which sought to kill him, but it did not change anyone’s mind (Acts 22:22). Here, since Paul already sees the outcome is decided, he chooses to distract and disrupt the Council. He reaches out for potential allies by starting an argument:

But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” (v. 6).

The seats of the Sanhedrin Council were distributed along party lines. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were very different in the roles they played in Jewish society and the beliefs they held. The Sadducees were the priest class, who managed the temple and performed sacrifices. The Pharisees were the rabbis, the teachers of the Law. In the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees were given twenty—four seats. The Elders (Teaching Pharisees) were given twenty—four seats. The Scribes (Pharisees who were experts on the Law and the Mishnah/oral tradition) were given twenty—two seats.

Paul, perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, takes advantage of this difference in political parties. He introduces a controversial subject which has divided the Sadducees and Pharisees for many years. By crying out in the Council, Paul seeks support from one of the groups, declaring himself a Pharisee and a son of Pharisees.

Paul calls himself a son of Pharisees due to his training to be a Pharisee as a young man by the revered teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), as well as the possibility that Paul’s father and forefathers were Pharisees. As a Pharisee, Paul probably knew that introducing the topic of resurrection would create chaos within the Council. He draws support from the Pharisees by reminding them that he is one of them, and by summing up the reason he is unjustly on trial: I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!

Paul is being clever and artful in escaping unjust condemnation in this situation, but everything he says is also truthful. He is being as wise as a serpent but as innocent as a dove, as Jesus taught His disciples to be (Matthew 10:16).

Paul is indeed on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. He preaches the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and for the hope of resurrection for those who believe in Him. The concept of resurrection has been a stumbling block for many who have heard his preaching. Resurrection from the dead is the foundation of the Christian faith; either Jesus stayed dead (which would make our belief in Him irrational) or He resurrected (which would mean He was who He said He was, the Son of God).

The question of Christ’s resurrection is the most important matter to answer when someone considers faith in Him (1 Corinthians 15). In the Book of Acts, there are several instances where people reject the gospel message when considering Christ’s resurrection (Acts 4:1-2, 17:32, 26:8).

Paul’s declaration that he is on trial for belief in resurrection causes uproarious infighting in the Council chamber that day, taking the heat off of him for the moment. While many of the Pharisee class did not believe in Jesus and had, years ago, played a role in His arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 12:14, John 11:45-53), the Pharisees absolutely believed that God would resurrect His people. They believed in a life after death:

As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all (vs. 7-8).

Here we see why there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees. This resulting conflict helps clarify to modern readers how different these political parties were and why the assembly was divided over this issue. Luke, the author of Acts, clues in his first—century readers as well that these two parties are not aligned on this important doctrine. Acts was probably written primarily for a Gentile audience, who would need the cultural context to distinguish the Sadducees from the Pharisees, instead of lumping them together as a monolith of power.

The Sadducees, Luke explains, say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit. This is ironic, since the Sadducees are priests and offer up sacrifices to God on a daily basis. Their role is to act as mediators between the supernatural and the creation. And yet, in first century Judea, the priests of that time period did not believe in anything supernatural other than God Himself.

They believed that when men died, they were simply dead. They did not believe that we each have a spirit that indwells our bodies, or that goes to any spiritual location in the afterlife. They did not believe that anyone would experience a resurrection from death to life. They did not even believe that there was such a thing as an angel. In a broad respect they were materialists, excepting their belief in a creator God. They tried to discredit Jesus at one point, asking Him what they considered a tricky question about the resurrection (Luke 20:27-40, Matthew 22:23-33). The question itself was disingenuous coming from the Sadducees, who did not even believe in the afterlife circumstances of the scenario they presented to Christ.

In His response, Jesus showed that the Sadducees did not understand who God was, what He could do, and what He has spoken in His Word:

“Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?...He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”
(Mark 12:24-27)

The Pharisees, on the other hand, acknowledge them all; resurrection, angel, and spirit were all real according to the Pharisaical worldview. Despite the well—deserved criticism the Pharisees received from Jesus during His ministry (Matthew 23, John 8:44) and the role they played in putting Jesus to death, it is worth noting that some of the Pharisees became believers in Him eventually (including Paul, of course). Even a significant number of priests “became obedient to the faith” during the early years of the church (Acts 6:7). That number may have waned in the years since at this point, in Acts 23.

Two of the Pharisees named in the gospels—Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea—were also members of the Sanhedrin during Jesus’s ministry; both appear to have believed in Him as the Messiah (John 3:1-2, 7:50-51, 19:39, Matthew 27:57, Luke 23:50-53). There were other unnamed leading Jews and rabbis who secretly believed in Jesus (John 12:42).

After His resurrection, other Pharisees also put their faith in Jesus and were part of the Jerusalem church. Unfortunately, some of these Pharisee Christians also caused many problems for Gentile believers by pressuring them to convert to Judaism to complete their salvation, instead of living in God’s assurance and grace by following the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:5, Galatians 3:1-5)

While the majority of the Pharisees rejected Christ, the fact that they believed in resurrection, angel, and spirit probably helped those who did believe in Christ to have open hearts to His teachings, miracles, and claims. Joseph of Arimathea was described as someone who was “waiting for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43), and so he saw Jesus for who He was.

This belief in resurrection, angel, and spirit is the sole reason the Pharisees come to Paul’s aid in this situation. If Paul had not applied this clever device, he may have been sentenced to death by the Council on the spot.

By aligning himself with the Pharisees, in that he is himself a Pharisee and believes in the hope and resurrection of the dead, Paul conjures some temporary allies and causes a smokescreen to distract Ananias and his violent prejudice against Paul:

And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” (v. 9).

The dissension over this spiritual matter turns into a great uproar. The Council is divided, the argument grows loud and angry. The Pharisees jump to his defense, since they too believe in resurrection. Specifically, some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly. The great uproar escalates as some of the scribes (Pharisee lawyers) get up out of their seat.

Luke describes that they began to argue heatedly; this Greek phrase “diamachomai” is used only here in the entire New Testament, and can also be rendered “to fight fiercely.” These scribes of the Pharisaic party have leapt up from their chairs to defend Paul. They passionately declare, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

There is humility in their words. They entertain the possibility that Paul might actually be a prophet sent by God; they ask the other members of the Sanhedrin to suppose that he is teaching the truth as received by a supernatural messenger, a spirit or an angel may have spoken to him.

The hearts of the Sadducees are shut off to such a supposal; their core belief is that there is no such thing as a spirit or an angel. But the scribes of the Pharisaic party are open—minded to God’s revelation to human beings; they find nothing wrong with this man Paul, because he preaches the resurrection of the dead and it is entirely possible God has spoken to him.

The religious debate becomes so heated and dangerous that the trial is beyond recovery. Paul’s gambit worked; the Sanhedrin is fighting amongst itself and some are defending him. But the threat to his life is not gone:

And as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks (v. 10).

The situation has been described as a dissension and a great uproar, and is now described as a great dissension that was developing; it was actively escalating. It was developing to the point where the Roman commander who had arranged for this trial becomes anxious. As a Roman commander, he had the skills and instincts to accurately sense when a situation was about to turn violent. Or perhaps it was already becoming violent.

This commander, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26), was afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them (the Sadducees) and killed. He ordered the Roman troops to go down and take Paul to safety. The soldiers had to take Paul out of the council chamber away from them by force.

Again, the them describes the Sadducees and the high priest Ananias, who did not believe in resurrection and wanted Paul dead. The detail that the Roman troops had to drag Paul away from them by force implies that some of the priests had already seized Paul physically and were beginning to try to tear him to pieces then and there. It is also possible that the two parties (Sadducees vs. Pharisees) were putting hands on Paul to pull him to their side, which would put him at risk of being torn to pieces. The Romans forcibly remove Paul and relocate him to safety in the Roman barracks (possibly the Tower of Antonia, which was built into the structure of the temple).

Leading up to his return to Jerusalem, Paul was informed by the Holy Spirit that he would suffer bonds and afflictions in Jerusalem, and he faithfully accepted this inevitability, expressing to his friends that he was willing to die if that was God’s will (Acts 20:23-24, 21:13).

But Paul is not actively seeking a martyr’s death. He wants to live as long as he can. Though he knows he will probably not die of old age but will one day be killed for the sake of Jesus’s name, Paul does whatever he can with a good conscience to evade death and continue his ministry. Here in Acts 23, he stirred a theological debate to escape the high priest’s persecution, to escape his own murder if possible, if it might afford him one more day to preach the gospel to the unsaved.