"The irregular structure of Luke's account of Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin evidently reflects the tumultuous character of the session itself. Three matters pertaining to Luke's apologetic purpose come to the fore: (1) Christianity is rooted in the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (cf. 23:6); (2) the debate Paul was engaged in regarding Christianity's claims must be viewed as first of all a Jewish intramural affair (cf. 23:7-10); and (3) the ongoing proclamation of the gospel in the Gentile world stems from a divine mandate (cf. 23:11)."870
22:30 The commander released Paul from his chains but kept him in custody. He decided the Sanhedrin could discover why the Jews were accusing Paul since he could not figure this out. He ordered this body to meet to examine Paul because he was responsible for keeping peace in Jerusalem. If Paul's offenses proved inconsequential, Claudius Lysias would release him. If the Jews charged him with some religious crime, the Sanhedrin could try him. If they charged him with a civil crime, the Roman provincial governor would try him.871
This was at least the sixth time that the Sanhedrin had to evaluate the claims of Christ. The first occasion was when it met to consider reports about Jesus (John 11:47-53), and the second was Jesus' trial (Matt. 26:57-68; 27:1-2; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). The third meeting was the trial of Peter and John (4:5-22), the fourth was the trial of the Twelve (5:21-40), and the fifth was Stephen's trial (6:12-7:60).
23:1 Evidently Paul intended to give his testimony again to the Sanhedrin. He addressed this body using the formal address common among Jews (lit. "Men brothers,"Gr. Andres adelphoi). He identified himself as a Jew since his loyalty to Judaism was in question.
Paul frequently claimed to have lived with a clear conscience before God (cf. 20:18-21, 26-27; 24:16; Rom 15:19, 23; Phil 3:6; 2 Tim. 4:7). Here this claim meant that he believed that nothing he had done, which he was about to relate, was contrary to the will of God contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically his Christian beliefs and conduct did not compromise his Jewish heritage.
"He was not, of course, claiming sinlessness, nor was he referring to the inner spiritual conflicts of Rom. 7. The reference was to the externals of his life, and the blamelessness of his conduct as measured by the demands of the Law (cf. Phil. 3:4-6)."872
23:2 Paul's claim to uprightness so incensed Ananias that he ordered a soldier to strike Paul on the mouth. Probably Ananias, who was a Sadducee, had already made up his mind that Paul, who had been a Pharisee, was guilty. An officer of the high priest had also struck Jesus as he testified before the Sanhedrin (cf. John 18:20-23).
Ananias became high priest in 47 A.D. The Jewish high priesthood was a political appointment during Rome's occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should have gone to the ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor summoned him to Rome on charges of being involved in a bloody battle between Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very wealthy and resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very pro-Roman, and the Jews finally killed him in their uprising against Rome in 66 A.D.873
23:3 Jewish law considered a person innocent until proved guilty, but Ananias had punished Paul before he had been charged much less tried and found guilty. Paul reacted indignantly and uttered a prophecy of Ananias' judgment that God fulfilled later. A white-washed wall is one that was frequently inferior on the inside but looked good outwardly (cf. Ezek. 13:10-16; Matt. 23:27). Paul's reaction was extreme, but as he proceeded to explain, it resulted from misunderstanding.
23:4-5 Paul may not have known that the person who commanded the soldier to strike him was the high priest for any number of reasons. Paul had not been in Jerusalem for an extended visit for over 20 years and may not have been able to recognize the current high priest by sight. Perhaps Ananias was not wearing his high priestly robes since this was not a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin.874Perhaps Paul was looking in another direction when Ananias gave the order to strike him. Perhaps Paul had poor eyesight,875though this seems less likely in view of verse 1.876Another possibility is that Paul was speaking in irony: "I did not think that a man who would give such an order could be the high priest.'"877Some interpreters believe that Paul simply lost his temper.878Others believe he was apologizing.879Paul voiced similar passionate utterances on other occasions (cf. Gal. 2:11; 5:12; Phil. 3:2).
The high priest was a ruler of the Jews in a higher sense than was true of the rest of the Sanhedrin members. Paul's quotation from Exodus 22:28 showed that he was in subjection to God's revealed will that he was on trial for repudiating. Being subject to governmental authorities is a requirement under the New Covenant as it was under the Old (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; et al.). Paul quoted the Old Covenant here for the benefit of the Jews who lived under it.
23:6 Paul recognized that he could not get a fair trial in a court that did not even observe the law it purported to defend, so he changed his tactics. He decided to divide the jury and began his defense again ("Men brethren"). This time he took the offensive.
The issue of the resurrection of the dead was fundamental in Paul's case (cf. 17:32). Israel's national hope of deliverance by her Messiah rested on the resurrection of that Messiah as predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. By raising the old controversy of whether resurrection is possible, Paul divided his accusers.
"Paul keeps coming back to the theme of hope and resurrection even when it no longer provokes disruption (cf. 24:15, 21; 28:20), and it will be a central theme in Paul's climactic defense speech before King Agrippa (26:6-8, 23). Paul is doing more than injecting a controversial subject into the Sanhedrin hearing. He is trying to change the entire issue of his trial, and he will persist in this effort in subsequent scenes. Therefore, the significance of Paul's statement that he is on trial concerning hope and resurrection of the dead' can be understood only by considering the development of this theme in later scenes."880
23:7-8 Paul's belief in the resurrection divided the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees denied the resurrection as well as the existence of (good) angels and (evil) spirits, but the Pharisees believed in these things.881
23:9-10 The Pharisees sided with Paul, and the Sadducees opposed him. Their emotional dispute excluded any possibility of a serious examination of Paul's conduct or even a clarification of the charges against him. The Pharisees likewise defended Paul's claim to having received a vision on the Damascus road (22:6-11) or in the temple (22:17-21), but the Sadducees repudiated it. The Roman commander must have thrown up his hands in dismay. For a second time he could not discover what Paul had done and why so many Jews hated him. Pilate had a similar problem with Jesus (John 18:28-19:15). Claudius Lysias decided to take Paul into protective custody in the Fortress.
