“There is irony in the Holy Spirit’s message through Agabus in Acts 21:10-11, ‘the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles’. It was in fact the Gentiles who saved Paul from two violent incidents and went on to thwart those Jews who wanted to kill him. “ (IVP-NBC).
After securing permission and addressing the crowd from the steps leading to the Fortress of Antonia (Acts 21:40-22:22), Paul's words only intensified the violent reaction of his opponents in the crowd. Not knowing yet that Paul was a Roman citizen, the commander had him brought inside the Fortress and was about to have him flogged to secure more information about why he so inflamed the Jews (22:24), when Paul informed him that he was a Roman citizen and could not legally be flogged. The commander could not have understood Paul's explanations in the address, since that address was in Aramaic (Acts 22:2).
The following day in order to discover the root of this riot, the commander had Paul stand before the Sanhedrin in order for charges to be brought. This “trial” ended in a stalemate, since the Pharisees in the audience sided with Paul who claimed the whole matter was due to his believe in the doctrine of resurrection.
Returned to the Roman fortress, Paul was discouraged, since he saw no way he was going to be released and allowed to continue his missionary work. That night Jesus appeared to him and assured him that he would be able to stand as a witness to Jesus in Rome, as Paul had previously felt was his divine calling.
Meanwhile, over night the Jewish opponents of Paul were plotting a further step.
Acts 23:12-15 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.”23:12-15 The words “in the morning” remind the reader that this dangerous situation is under the control of the Lord Jesus (ὁ κύριος), who the previous night promised Paul that he must (δεῖ) survive in order to testify to Christ in Rome (v. 11) (cf. Rapske in Witness to the Gospel 254).
Some authorities translate verse 12 as ‘The Judeans [not 'the Jews'] came together in a mob’ Acts 23:12”. But if, as the NIV Commentary suspects, these fanatical Jews were from Asia/Ephesus, they were not “Judeans” but simply “Jews”. Nevertheless, it is clear that Luke does not mean that all Jews were complicit in this plot to kill Paul, but only a group of more than forty together with certain members of the national leadership.
The group of “more than forty men” were not themselves priests or Sanhedrin members, but rather probably members of the group of Jews from Asia [i.e., the region around Ephesus] who had failed to kill Paul in the temple precincts (Acts 21:27-29). But they made common cause with high priests and elders in order to lure Paul out of the safety of Roman custody in the Fortress of Antonia. The fanaticism of this group of forty-plus is indicated by their vow, which however did not mean they starved to death when they failed: when Paul’s enemies eventually had to break their oath of fasting when they were unable to kill him, Jewish law would simply require them to bring atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve. (cf. IVP-BBC-NT).
Still, we may ask: “Why was a vow necessary?” In conspiracies which require coordinated activity it was always important to ensure that each member did his part and did not back out at the last minute. Therefore group vows provided a deterrent: whoever backed out would suffer the curse that each member swore down upon himself if he failed to follow through. See 1 Enoch 6:4-5 (a fictional elaboration of Genesis 6:1-3) for an example: a vow taken by all the fallen angels to cohabit with human women and beget offspring.
“Now when humans had grown numerous on the earth, there were born to them beautiful daughters. And the angels, the sons of heaven, noticed them and lusted after them, saying to one another: 'Come, let us choose wives from among the humans and have children with them.' And Semyaza, their leader, said to them: 'I'm afraid you will not in fact agree to do this deed, and I alone will have to pay the penalty for such a great sin.' But they all answered: 'Let us all take an oath, and bind ourselves by shared curses not to abandon this plan but to carry it out.' Then they all took an oath and bound themselves to it by shared curses. And they were in all two hundred” (1 Enoch 6:1-6, English wording slightly modernized from the online text).Although the devotees probably counted on God’s help, the vow of the 40 would have been useless without the cooperation of the men of the Sanhedrin who would lure Paul to Jerusalem under the pretext of needing further information and inquiry.
It would appear that, although Paul was in Roman custody in order to preserve the peace, the investigation as to the nature of his offense which had so enraged the mob (διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ) could belong to the jurisdiction of the local Jewish court. The transfer of Paul’s case to the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea was only resorted to, when it became clear that a lynch mob would thwart the judicial process in Jerusalem.
12-15 One wonders if Luke was not reminded, as he wrote this, of the verses from Psa 2:1-3 quoted by Peter at Pentecost (Ac 4:25). The same dynamic which was at work in the trial and death of Jesus as is evident here with Paul. In Psa 2:4 God’s response to human conspiracies against his rule is to laugh at their feeble efforts, as he doubtless also did at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:5-9), and then he frustrated the plan.
23:16-22 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. 17 Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” 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.”16-22 But the God's power to frustrate opposition to his plans is often done through human means, and here it is simply that Paul’s nephew learned of the plot and reported it to the tribune, Claudius Lysias. Paul’s nephew refers to the alliance of the forty-plus and the Sanhedrin simply as “the Jews” (v. 20-21), meaning those ones who were involved in the mob attempt to kill Paul in the temple and from whom Claudius Lysias had barely rescued him.
19 The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?” 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.” 22 The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”
17 “Paul' s status has gradually been elevated as the story has progressed. He ‘summons’ the centurion and sends him on an errand!” (Johnson, Acts 404).
“The seriousness with which the commander took the warning about the plot shows that he knew that [the current High Priest] Ananias was the kind of man who could support such action and realized that Jewish feeling against Paul was strong enough to nurture it.” (NIV Comm).
23:23-24 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. Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”23:23-25 Tribune Claudius Lysias believed the report and took steps to send Paul under guard to Caesarea, to the court of the Roman procurator Antonius Felix. The Roman tribune’s plan was to act swiftly and secretly in order to avoid his detachment from being itself ambushed by the conspirators. Just how seriously he regarded the threat is indicated by Luke’s numbers:
“[he] commit[ed] almost half the garrison at the Fortress of Antonia to escort Paul, with most of them due to return in a day or two” (NIV Comm.).One should keep in mind in evaluating this seemingly excessive number of troops in the escort, that the goal was not just to be able to win in combat with the forty-plus armed assassins, but rather to discourage them from even attempting to attack the convoy.
23:25-30 He wrote a letter as follows:Claudius Lysias also drafted a letter-report to Felix, detailing the circumstances. The form of the letter and its tone are precisely what one would expect in correspondence between a military tribune and his commander. The greeting "His Excellency" befits Felix's office, although he was by birth a slave who had been freed by his master.
26 Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings.
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.
His reference to Paul as “this man” (τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον) shows that the letter would be read to the procurator with Paul standin
g in his presence.23:29 It is curious that according to Lysias the Sanhedrin did not accuse Paul of violating the sanctuary (μηδὲν δὲ ἄξιον θανάτου ἢ δεσμῶν), since that was clearly recognized by the Roman provincial governors as sufficient cause for the Jews to execute the offender themselves on the spot, and did not even require consulting the Roman authorities first. This part of the letter certainly strengthened Paul’s case not only before Felix and Festus, but also eventually in Rome, where the letter would have formed part of the trial documents. The private prosecutor Tertullus eventually alludes to this "desecration" in his allegations before Felix (24:6), but by then he can neither rely on an explicit mention in the letter of Claudius Lysias, nor does he produce eye-witnesses.
23:30 Lysias also ordered the Jewish plaintiffs (κατηγόροις) to appear before Felix to present their charges.
23:31-35 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.23:34 “Had Paul been from one of the client kingdoms in Syria or Asia Minor, Felix would probably have wanted to consult the ruler of the kingdom. But on learning that Paul was from the Roman province of Cilicia, he felt competent as a provincial governor to hear the case himself” (NIV Comm.).
“Cilicia was an imperial province, the capital of which was Tarsus. But during Paul’s period (not, however, Luke’s period), Cilicia was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction he might otherwise have deferred.” (IVP-BBC-NT). It is unclear if Paul’s case would have had a more favorable hearing in a Syrian court.
24:1-4 Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. 2 When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. 3 Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4 But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.24:1 The delegation from Jerusalem included the High Priest Ananus (Hebrew Hananiyah), some members of the Sanhedrin, and “a lawyer named Tertullus” (NIV). Tertullus is called a “lawyer” (NIV), “attorney” (NRSV), and “spokesman” (RSV, ESV). He served on the Sanhedrin’s behalf as a “private prosecutor”, bringing the charges and arguing for the prosecution.
“According to the normal working of things [in the Roman imperial system], the judicial process was initiated by the drawing up of charges and penalties and the formal act of accusation (delatio) by an interested party. The Roman system had no public prosecutor …. Apart from manifest offenders, enforcement of the law depended on private initiative, hence the place for … a private prosecutor” (Ferguson, Backgrounds 65).2-4 Tertullus begins his case against Paul in the accepted form of flattering the judge. No one in that day (even the judge) would take its details seriously.
24:5-9 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.” 9 The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.The charge presented could not have been better chosen in order to arouse Felix’s attention, since it was precisely rebellions and riots in Judea that had most troubled him during his tenure there, and he had been swift and ruthless in suppressing them. The question was, however, if the charges could be verified. Luke’s readers know of the riots that broke out in Ephesus (Roman Asia) and of Asian Jews who had followed Paul to Jerusalem.
24:10-16 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.10 “Invited to respond, Paul also began with a complimentary statement—but a briefer and truer one. Felix had been in contact with the Jewish nation in Palestine for over a decade, first in Samaria and then as governor over the entire province of Judea. Therefore Paul was pleased to make his defense before one who was in a position to know the situation as it was and to understand his words in their context” (NIV Comm).
11 In vv. 11-12 Paul states the facts of the case as he knows them: “You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city.” He is confident, because verification of certain key facts was possible through Lysias’ accompanying letter, as well as through Felix's network of local informants.
12-13 Crucial here is the circumstance that there is no eyewitness present in the court who can give testimony that Paul was guilty of any of the charges. All that the prosecution can offer is allegations and perhaps oaths. And in a Roman provincial court witness testimony always trumped allegations, oaths and arguments of probability. “For example, Herod’s son Antipater, after much proof of his guilt, offered only oaths in favor of his innocence, so the Syrian legate Varus had him executed” (IVP-BBC-NT).
14-16 In what he modestly (and sarcastically?) calls an admission Paul unveils the real motive for this malicious prosecution: it springs from an internal religious conflict within Judaism which is no proper subject for a Roman court. With this statement Paul traps his opponents, even pointing out that they themselves call the followers of Jesus a “sect” (αἵρεσις), which means that the Jesus movement—like Pharisaism and Sadducaism—was a legitimate wing of Judaism, which was a religion that enjoyed legal protection under Roman law (religio licita). He further explains that his religious group holds to all the sacred writings of Judaism and observes its worship forms.
24:17-21 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18 I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance. 19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me. 20 Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin— 21 unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’”17-18 Paul’s affirms that the purpose of his visit to Jerusalem was to bring “gifts for the poor (alms)” and “offerings”. “Gifts” refers to the gifts brought from the Diaspora churches of Asia Minor and Greece for the Jerusalem believers and the “offerings” were those presented at the temple at the suggestion of James in order to pay the expenses of the men who had taken vows. The relevance to his defense is that such actions on his part made very improbable a charge that he deliberately defiled the temple by bringing a Gentile into the sacred area.
19 “Paul mentioned that the Jews from the province of Asia should have been the ones bringing charges. This line of argument was a potential bombshell, for there were two immediate implications. First, there was strong feeling against the practice of accusing someone without appearing in court to prosecute …. Secondly, any infractions or accusations that primarily concerned the province of Asia (as it would now appear Tertullus had meant by ‘all over the world’ in v 5 above) would place the affair out[side] of Felix’s jurisdiction” (IVP-NBC).
24:22-23 Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” 23 He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.22-23 Prior to his elevation to the position of governor of the province, Felix had served in a lower position in the region of Samaria. So he had been around long enough to be well acquainted with the incipient Jesus movement within Palestinian Judaism and to have his own network of reliable local informants. He knew, therefore, that Ananias and his friends really had no case against Paul that would stand in a Roman court.
The “freedom" (literally, "relaxation”, Greek ἄνεσις) granted to Paul in custody was probably a lenient form of military custody (cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 156ff.). This was in the massive palace built by Herod the Great which had become the headquarters of the Roman procurators. Located on a promontory jutting out into the Mediterranean, it was served by pleasant breezes. And Paul’s relaxed custody made it a comfortable place to spend two years. But being the restless evangelist that he was, Paul was uncomfortable not being able to travel to evangelize, plant churches, and strengthen those he had already planted. Paul's "comfort" was in serving Jesus and the gospel, not in lolling about in a palace. Many scholars believe that it was during these two years in Caesarean "imprisonment" that he wrote the "prison epistles" to Philippi, Ephesus and Colosse. If so, one can see the discomfort that Paul felt in Caesarea, wanting to get out and get on with his plans to travel to Rome and evangelize there. In Philippians 1 there is mention of how certain insincere fellow Christians (rivals of Paul's?) on the outside tried to frustrate him by showing off their own evangelistic efforts. But Paul found ways to evangelize right there in Herod's palace!
24:24-26 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.25 Paul’s holding area was the same palace in which Felix and his young Jewish wife Drusilla lived. this gave many occasions for “quiet serious talks”, since Felix was an intelligent man and, like most Roman officials, mildly interested in philosophy and ethical ideas. Paul’s serious discussions with Felix and his wife Drusilla about morality (“righteousness, self-control”) and God’s judgment “were apparently sufficiently on target to unsettle Felix, for he had not been practicing justice, and the very presence of Drusilla, whom he had lusted after while she was still the teenage bride of Azizus the king of Emesa, and the message about future judgment for bad behavior while on earth would probably have been disturbing and not very familiar to Felix, unless he had heard of it through his Jewish wife. The message of Paul terrified Felix, but apparently not enough to lead him to repent” (Witherington, Acts 715).
It is worthwhile noting with respect to the fashionable doubting of the genuineness of Luke’s records of Paul’s speeches in Acts, that the points which he discussed with Felix and Drusilla are precisely those that comprised his message to the Thessalonians: (1) faith in Jesus (“you turned to God from idols” 1 Thessalonians 1:9), (2) holy living (“to serve the living and true God” 1:9), and (3) expectation of the Second Coming of Jesus to judge (“and to wait for his Son from heaven who saves us from the coming wrath” 1:10). Luke’s “Paul” is clearly the real Paul. Felix’s dual-mindedness toward Paul—curious enough to want to hear him, yet unwilling to change his sinful life—reminds us of Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. His further meetings (v. 26) were simply in order to give Paul a chance to offer him a bribe. Paul probably knew that, but seized the opportunities to witness anyway.
“The Lex Repetundarum (or Lex Julia de repetundis) prohibited anyone holding a position such as Felix's from either soliciting or accepting a bribe either to free or take someone into custody. This law, however, was not infrequently violated by provincial governors, and for an example in Judea we can point to one of Felix's successors, Albinus (A.D. 61-65), whom Josephus tells us explicitly accepted money for these very purposes (War 2.14.1)” (Witherington, Acts 716).
“It may be in order to ask in passing what Luke might have been doing during this two-year span, other than perhaps attending to Paul. Longenecker 's suggestion that he used this time to investigate "everything closely from the beginning" commends itself. Here in Israel he would have access both to traditions about the time of Jesus and also to what happened in the Jerusalem church between about A.D. 35 and 57, the time about which Paul could inform him very little. Perhaps also ‘he had begun to sketch out during this time the structure and scope of his two-volume work we know as Luke-Acts’” (Witherington, Acts 717).
No comments:
Post a Comment