Paul Before the Sanhedrin
1 And looking intently at the Sanhedrin, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God with a completely clear conscience up to this day.”
2 But the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth.
3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there judging me according to the Law, and yet in violation of the Law you order me to be struck?”
4 And those standing nearby said, “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?”
5 And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
ἀτενίσας (atenisas) — v.1: “Looking intently” — this verb (ἀτενίζω) means to fix one’s gaze, to stare with focused attention. It’s the same word used of Stephen gazing into heaven before his death (Acts 7:55). Paul scans the council with deliberate, unblinking eye contact. Given that he was beaten by a mob the previous day, the courage of this opening is remarkable.
πάση συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ (pasē syneidēsei agathē) — v.1: “With a completely clear conscience” — συνείδησις (syneidēsis, “conscience”) is a concept from Greek philosophy that Paul frequently uses in his letters. His claim is bold: he has served God with integrity in everything — including his years as a persecutor (when he believed he was serving God) and his years as an apostle. The continuity is the point: Paul has always acted on conviction, not convenience. This is not an apology; it’s an assertion of integrity.
v.2: The high priest Ananias (not to be confused with the Ananias who baptized Paul, or the Ananias of Acts 5) was the son of Nebedaeus, who served as high priest from approximately AD 47 to 59. He was notorious in Jewish sources for his greed, violence, and pro-Roman sympathies. Josephus records that he sent servants to steal tithes from other priests and that he was eventually assassinated by Jewish nationalists at the start of the Jewish revolt (AD 66). His order to strike Paul on the mouth was an extrajudicial act of intimidation — exactly the kind of abuse Paul’s retort calls out.
τοῖχε κεκονιαμένε (toiche kekoniamene) — v.3: “You whitewashed wall!” — the insult is biting and scripturally loaded. A whitewashed wall looks clean on the outside but is structurally unsound or hiding corruption underneath. The image echoes Ezekiel 13:10–16, where God condemns false prophets who “whitewash” flimsy walls, and anticipates Jesus’s condemnation of the Pharisees as “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). Paul is calling the high priest a fraud — a man who sits in the seat of judgment but acts lawlessly.
v.5: Paul’s response — “I did not know he was the high priest” — is one of the most debated lines in Acts. How could Paul not recognize the high priest? Several explanations have been offered: (1) Paul had been away from Jerusalem for years and genuinely didn’t recognize Ananias by sight; (2) the setting was informal and Ananias was not wearing his vestments; (3) Paul’s eyesight was poor (Galatians 4:15 and 6:11 may hint at this); (4) Paul is being deliberately ironic — “I didn’t realize a man who behaves like that could be the high priest.” The last reading is the most satisfying but the least certain. Whatever the case, Paul immediately backs down by quoting Exodus 22:28, demonstrating that even in anger he defers to Scripture.
v.5: The quotation from Exodus 22:28 (“You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people”) is significant because Paul is acknowledging the institutional authority of the high priesthood even while criticizing the man who holds it. The office is valid; the officer is corrupt. Paul models a posture that distinguishes between respect for an institution and approval of its current leadership.
Paul Divides the Council
6 Now when Paul perceived that one part of them were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees! It is regarding the hope of the resurrection of the dead that I am being judged!”
7 And when he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
9 And a great uproar broke out, and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began arguing vigorously, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?”
10 And when the dispute became violent, the commander, fearing that Paul would be torn apart by them, ordered the soldiers to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.
Φαρισαῖός εἰμι, υἱὸς Φαρισαίων (Pharisaios eimi, huios Pharisaiōn) — v.6: “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” — Paul uses the present tense: “I am,” not “I was.” This is not merely a biographical detail; it’s a theological claim. Paul never stopped being a Pharisee in his own self-understanding — he became a Pharisee who believed the resurrection hope had been fulfilled in Jesus. The phrase “son of Pharisees” indicates multi-generational Pharisaic heritage. He is staking his identity claim in the strongest terms.
v.6: Paul’s move is often described as cynical manipulation, but it’s more accurate to call it strategically truthful. He genuinely does believe in the resurrection — it is the center of his theology. He genuinely is a Pharisee by training and conviction. And the charge against him genuinely does reduce, at its theological core, to a dispute about resurrection: was Jesus raised from the dead or not? Paul doesn’t fabricate a distraction; he forces the council to confront the actual theological question, which happens to split them down the middle.
v.8: Luke’s summary of Sadducean theology is confirmed by Josephus and rabbinic sources. The Sadducees were the priestly aristocratic party who accepted only the written Torah (the five books of Moses) as authoritative and rejected the Pharisees’ “oral tradition.” Since they found no clear teaching of resurrection in the Torah, they denied it. They also denied the existence of angels and spirits — or at least denied their ongoing active role. The Pharisees, by contrast, had a robust theology of resurrection, angels, and spirits, and accepted the authority of the prophetic books and oral tradition. These were not minor differences; they represented fundamentally different worldviews within Judaism.
διασπάω (diaspao) — v.10: “Torn apart” — the tribune fears Paul will be literally pulled to pieces by the two factions. The verb διασπάω means to rip or tear asunder. This is the second time in two days that the Roman military has had to physically extract Paul from a crowd of his own countrymen. The Sanhedrin — the supreme judicial body of the Jewish people — has descended into a brawl. The tribune must be concluding that the Jewish legal system is incapable of handling this case.
v.9: The Pharisees’ defense of Paul is remarkable: “What if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?” They are not endorsing Paul’s Christianity, but their own theology compels them to consider the possibility. If spirits and angels exist (as they believe, against the Sadducees), then Paul’s claim of a heavenly encounter cannot be dismissed out of hand. The Pharisees are trapped by their own theology into partial openness to Paul’s testimony. This is precisely the wedge Paul drove in by raising the resurrection issue.
The Lord Appears to Paul
11 And on the following night, the Lord stood at Paul’s side and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify in Rome also.”
θάρσει (tharsei) — v.11: “Take courage” — the same word Jesus used when walking on water (“Take courage, it is I,” Matthew 14:27) and when healing the paralytic (“Take courage, son,” Matthew 9:2). It is a command, not a suggestion: be brave. The implication is that Paul needs to hear this — after two days of mob violence, a near-flogging, and a council session that turned into a riot, Paul is in a cell in the Antonia Fortress, alone, battered, and uncertain. This is the second night vision Paul has received at a low point (cf. 18:9–10 in Corinth). Both follow the same pattern: fear, followed by divine reassurance, followed by a specific promise.
v.11: “As you have testified in Jerusalem, so you must testify in Rome” — the word “must” (δεῖ) is the same word of divine necessity used throughout Luke-Acts. Paul’s journey to Rome is not an accident, not a miscarriage of justice, and not a defeat — it is a divine appointment. This single verse is the theological key to everything that follows in Acts. The trials, the imprisonment, the shipwreck, the delays — all of it is the mechanism by which the divine “must” is accomplished. Paul will get to Rome, but the route will go through chains.
v.11: This verse also answers the interpretive question raised back in chapter 20: was Paul right to go to Jerusalem despite the prophetic warnings? The Lord does not rebuke Paul for coming to Jerusalem. He commends what Paul has done (“you have testified about me in Jerusalem”) and announces the next assignment. Whatever the cost, the Jerusalem testimony was part of the plan.
The Plot Against Paul
12 Now when day came, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.
13 There were more than forty who formed this plot.
14 They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, “We have bound ourselves under a solemn curse to taste nothing until we have killed Paul.
15 So now, you and the Sanhedrin make a request to the commander to bring him down to you, as though you were going to examine his case more thoroughly. And we, for our part, are ready to kill him before he gets near.”
ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτούς (anethematisan heautous) — v.12: “Bound themselves under a curse” — the verb ἀναθεματίζω (anathematizō) means to place oneself under a self-imposed ban or curse (Hebrew: herem). The oath meant that if they failed to carry out the killing, they would be cursed by God. They were literally staking their spiritual fate on murdering Paul. The intensity is staggering: more than forty men swore before God to fast until one man was dead.
v.14: The conspirators go directly to the chief priests and elders — meaning the Sadducean leadership of the Sanhedrin — and ask them to cooperate in an ambush. The religious leaders are being asked to participate in an extrajudicial assassination by creating a false pretext for a meeting. Whether they agreed or merely didn’t refuse is left ambiguous by Luke, but the fact that the conspirators feel comfortable approaching them with this plan says something about the moral climate.
v.15: The plan is straightforward: request another hearing, ambush Paul in transit between the barracks and the council chamber, and kill him in the street. The route from the Antonia Fortress to the probable meeting place of the Sanhedrin would have passed through narrow streets and corridors — ideal ambush territory. Forty armed men against a small military escort could have succeeded.
A practical question arises: what happened to these forty men and their oath when the plot failed? Did they starve? Rabbinic law actually provided an escape clause for impossible vows — a formal process of absolution. But the willingness to take such an oath in the first place reveals the depth of the hostility Paul faced.
Paul’s Nephew Discovers the Plot
16 But the son of Paul’s sister heard about the ambush, and he came and entered the barracks and told Paul.
17 Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Bring this young man to the commander, for he has something to report to him.”
18 So he took him and brought him to the commander and said, “The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.”
19 The commander took him by the hand and withdrew privately and asked, “What is it that you have to report to me?”
20 And he said, “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the Sanhedrin tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more carefully about him.
21 But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of their men are lying in ambush for him, who have bound themselves under a curse neither to eat nor drink until they have killed him. And now they are ready, waiting for your consent.”
22 So the commander dismissed the young man, instructing him, “Tell no one that you have reported these things to me.”
v.16: This is the only reference to Paul’s extended family anywhere in the New Testament. Paul had a sister in Jerusalem, and her son — Paul’s nephew — somehow learned of the plot. How? We can only speculate. Perhaps the nephew had connections in priestly or Pharisaic circles (Paul’s family was Pharisaic). Perhaps the conspiracy was not as secret as the plotters imagined — forty men swearing an oath and approaching the Sanhedrin leadership is not exactly airtight operational security.
νεανίας ... νεανίσκον (neanias ... neaniskon) — vv.17–18: Luke uses two terms for Paul’s nephew: νεανίας (“young man”) and νεανίσκος (“youth”). The diminutive form in v.18 and the fact that the commander “took him by the hand” (v.19) suggest he was fairly young — perhaps a teenager. The image of the Roman tribune bending down, taking a boy’s hand, and walking him to a private room to hear his report is one of the most humanizing moments for a Roman official in Acts.
v.17: Paul’s presence of mind is impressive. He is a prisoner, beaten and bruised, but he immediately understands the significance of his nephew’s information and activates the proper chain of command: summon a centurion, send the boy to the tribune. He doesn’t try to escape. He doesn’t panic. He works the system.
v.22: The tribune’s instruction to the nephew — “tell no one” — reveals a competent officer switching into security mode. He now has actionable intelligence about a conspiracy involving dozens of men and possibly senior members of the Sanhedrin. His response needs to be swift and secret. What follows is one of the most dramatic military operations in the New Testament.
Paul Transferred to Caesarea
23 And he called two of the centurions and said, “Prepare two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea by the third hour of the night.
24 Also provide mounts so that Paul may ride, and bring him safely to Felix the governor.”
25 And he wrote a letter having this form:
26 “Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix: Greetings.
27 This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them. I came with my troops and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen.
28 And wanting to know the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their Sanhedrin.
29 I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but that there was no charge deserving death or imprisonment.
30 And when I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state their case against him before you.”
v.23: The size of the escort is staggering: 200 infantry, 70 cavalry, and 200 spearmen — 470 soldiers total to protect one prisoner. This represents nearly half the garrison of the Antonia Fortress (a standard auxiliary cohort was nominally 1,000 men, though often understrength). The tribune is not taking any chances. The departure at the “third hour of the night” (about 9 PM) ensures secrecy. The conspirators won’t discover Paul is gone until morning — by which time he will be 35–40 miles away, under heavy military escort.
δεξιολάβους (dexiolabous) — v.23: “Spearmen” — this word is extremely rare and its exact meaning is debated. It occurs only here in surviving ancient literature. Possible meanings include “javelineers,” “light-armed troops,” or “bodyguards who seize with the right hand.” Whatever the precise meaning, they were a third type of soldier in addition to the infantry and cavalry, adding to the overwhelming force of the escort.
vv.26–30: The tribune’s letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic self-serving. Notice how Claudius Lysias rearranges the facts to make himself look good. He writes that he rescued Paul “having learned that he was a Roman citizen” (v.27) — as if he knew about the citizenship before intervening. In fact, he learned about it only after he had already arrested Paul and was about to have him illegally flogged (22:25–29). The near-flogging of a citizen is discreetly omitted. The letter is a textbook example of an officer covering his tracks in an official report while conveying the essential facts accurately enough.
v.29: The tribune’s assessment echoes Gallio’s verdict in Corinth (18:14–15): the dispute is about Jewish religious law, and there is no charge deserving death or imprisonment under Roman law. This is the third time a Roman official has reached this conclusion about the Christian movement. Luke is building a cumulative legal argument across the narrative of Acts: Roman authorities consistently find Christianity not guilty.
v.26: Felix was the Roman governor (procurator) of Judea from approximately AD 52 to 58. He was a freedman — a former slave — who rose to power through the patronage of the imperial court. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote one of the most savage one-liners in ancient literature about him: Felix “practiced every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of a king with the instincts of a slave.” Josephus similarly paints him as corrupt and brutal. Paul is being sent from a competent military officer to a notoriously corrupt political appointee.
Arrival in Caesarea
31 So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.
32 The next day they let the horsemen go on with him, while they returned to the barracks.
33 When they arrived in Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him.
34 And when he had read the letter, he asked what province he was from. And learning that he was from Cilicia, he said,
35 “I will give you a full hearing when your accusers arrive as well.” And he ordered him to be kept under guard in Herod’s Praetorium.
v.31: Antipatris was about 35 miles from Jerusalem, roughly two-thirds of the way to Caesarea. This was a forced march through the night — an impressive feat for infantry. The location was significant because it marked the transition from the Judean hill country (where an ambush was more likely) to the coastal plain (where cavalry could operate effectively and the danger was reduced). At this point, the 200 infantry and 200 spearmen turn back, and the 70 cavalry continue the remaining 25 miles to Caesarea with Paul.
v.34: Felix’s question about Paul’s province is a jurisdictional inquiry. Under Roman law, a governor had primary jurisdiction over residents of his own province. Paul was from Cilicia, which was at this time an independent province, meaning Felix had no obligation to hear the case — he could have sent Paul to the governor of Cilicia instead. His decision to hear the case himself (“I will give you a full hearing”) keeps the narrative in Judea and ultimately sets the stage for Paul’s appeal to Caesar.
τὸ πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρῴδου (to praitōrion tou Hērōdou) — v.35: “Herod’s Praetorium” — this was the palace built by Herod the Great in Caesarea, now serving as the Roman governor’s official residence and administrative headquarters. Extensive archaeological remains of this complex have been excavated, including the palace, a hippodrome, and a harbor. It was a luxurious facility by any standard. Paul is being held in the governor’s palace, not in a common prison — consistent with his status as a Roman citizen. He will remain here for two years (24:27).
v.35: The Greek word for “full hearing” is διακούσομαί (“I will hear your case thoroughly”). Felix is promising a proper judicial proceeding with both parties present — Paul and his accusers. What he actually delivers, as the next chapter will show, will be considerably less principled.
General Notes on the Chapter
Acts 23 moves at breakneck pace: a confrontation with the high priest, a theological grenade that splits the Sanhedrin, a divine vision, an assassination plot, a teenage spy, and a nighttime military extraction involving 470 soldiers. It reads less like a theological narrative and more like a thriller — and every major detail has been confirmed or rendered plausible by external sources.
Paul’s move in v.6, splitting the Sanhedrin by invoking the resurrection, is controversial. Was it a cynical trick or a legitimate theological argument? The answer is probably both, in the best sense. Paul genuinely believed the resurrection was the central issue. He also knew it would divide the council. A good lawyer does not fabricate arguments; a good lawyer identifies the real issue that happens to favor his client. Paul identified the real theological question and forced it into the open, with predictable results.
The night vision in v.11 is the structural center of the chapter and the theological key to everything that follows in Acts. “You must testify in Rome” reframes all of Paul’s subsequent legal troubles as the mechanism of divine purpose. The imprisonment, the trials before Felix and Festus and Agrippa, the appeal to Caesar, the shipwreck — none of it is accidental. Every obstacle is a step on the road to Rome. Luke is telling his readers: the story looks like it’s about injustice and bureaucratic dysfunction, but it’s actually about the unstoppable advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to the capital of the world.
The tribune’s letter (vv.26–30) is one of the few documents in Acts presented in its entirety. Luke probably had access to it through the court records at Caesarea (where the case files would have been kept), or through Paul himself, who as a Roman citizen had the right to see documents related to his case. The letter’s mixture of accurate facts and self-serving spin is entirely characteristic of official military correspondence, and its inclusion gives the narrative a documentary quality rare in ancient literature.
By the end of the chapter, Paul has been removed from Jerusalem permanently. He entered the city in 21:17 and was arrested in 21:33; he will never return. The city that killed Jesus, that stoned Stephen, and that tried to kill Paul has rejected the gospel for the last time in Acts. From here forward, the narrative moves toward Rome — the new destination, the new audience, the new chapter in the history of the church.