Paul The Apostle: Part 14.
Paul was requested to put himself under the Nazarite vow with the four, and to also supply the cost of their offerings, he at once accepting their proposal. It appears that the whole process required seven days to complete.
Towards the end of this time, certain Jews from “Asia” who had come up for the Pentecostal feast saw Paul at the Temple and had a personal knowledge of him and his companion Trophimus who was a Gentile from Ephesus. These Jews immediately set upon him, and stirred up the people against him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help: this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people (the Jews,) and the law, and this place (the Temple); and further brought Greeks also into the Temple, and hath polluted this holy place.”
The latter charge had no more truth in it than the first: it was only made because they had seen Trophimus with Paul, not in the Temple, but in Jerusalem.
However, they raised a great commotion: Paul was dragged out of the Temple of which the doors were immediately shut, and the people, having him in their hands, were proposing to kill him. But the news was carried to the commander of the force which was serving as a garrison in Jerusalem, that “all Jerusalem was in an uproar:” and he, the commander took with him soldiers and centurions, they hastening to the scene of the uproar.
Paul was rescued from the violence of the mob by the Roman officers who made him a prisoner, chaining him to two soldiers, than proceeded to inquire who he was and what he had done.
The inquiry only elicited outcries; and the “chief captain” seems to have thought that the apostle might perhaps be a certain Egyptian pretender who had recently stirred up a considerable rising up of the people.
The account in Acts 21:34-40, tells us with graphic insights how Paul obtained leave and opportunity to address the people in a discourse which is related at length. This discourse was spoken in Hebrew; that is, in the native dialect of the country, and because of this, it was listened to with a great deal more attention. It is described by Paul himself, in his opening words, as his “defense,” addressed to his brethren and fathers, and is in this light that it ought to be regarded.
Until the hated word of his mission to the Gentiles had been spoken, the Jews had listened to him when he spoke. “Away with such a fellow from the earth,” the multitude shouted: “It is not fit that he should live.”
The Roman commander, seeing the outcry that arose, might have well concluded that Paul had committed some heinous offence; and taking him away, he gave orders that he should be forced by scourging to confess his crime. Again the apostle took advantage of his Roman citizenship to defend himself from these outrages.
The Roman officer was bound to protect a citizen and to suppress unrest in the people; but it was also a part of his policy to treat with deference the religion and the customs of the country. Paul’s present history is the result of these two principles. The chief captain set him free from bonds, but on the next day called together the chief priests and the Sanhedrim, and brought Paul as a prisoner before them.
We need not suppose that this was a regular legal proceeding: it was probably an experiment of policy and courtesy. On the one hand, the commandant of the garrison had no power to call together the Sanhedrim, but on the other he would not give up a Roman citizen to their judgment. As it was, the affair ended in confusion, and with no resemblance of a judicial termination.
The incidents selected by Luke from the history of this meeting form striking points in the biography of Paul; but they are not easy to understand. When Paul was defending himself, he had this peculiar habit, a habit also mentioned in Acts 13:9 of looking intently at whomever he was speaking.
He began to say, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience (or I have lived a conscientiously loyal life) unto God, until this day.”
Here the high-priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. With a fearless indignation, Paul exclaimed, “God shall smite thee, thou white wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” But some bystanders said to Paul, “Revilest thou God’s high-priest?”
Paul answered, “I knew not, brethren, that he was the high-priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” How was it possible for Paul not to know that he who spoke was the high-priest? The least objectionable solution seems to be, that for some reason or other, — either because his sight was not good, or because he was looking another way, — he did not know whose voice it was that ordered him to be struck; and that he wished to correct the impression which he had made upon some of those in attendance by his threatening protest, and therefore took advantage of the fact that he really did not know this speaker to be the high-priest and to explain the respect and reverence he felt was due to the person holding that office.
The next incident which Luke records seems to some, who cannot think of the apostle as remaining still a Jew, to cast a shadow upon his moral integrity and up-righteousness of mind. He perceived that the council was divided into two parties, the Sadducees and Pharisees; and therefore he cried out, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.”
Those who opposed or attacked the authenticity of the Acts point triumphantly to this scene as an utterly impossible one; others consider that the apostle is to be blamed for using a disingenuous artful trick. But it is not so clear that Paul was using trickery at all, at least for his own interest, in identifying himself as he did with the professions of the Pharisees.
The creed of the Pharisee as distinguished from that of the Sadducee, was unquestionably the creed of Paul. His belief in Jesus seemed to him to supply the ground and fulfilment of that creed. I suppose he may have wished to lead his brother Pharisees into a deeper and more living apprehension of their own faith.
The above shows clearly the skill and presence of mind Paul had when addressing the Pharisees. Scriptures tell us in the hours in which Paul was confronted; the Spirit of Wisdom should bring words to Paul which the accusers should not be able to understand. All prospects of a fair trial were hopeless, and Paul knew this.
He well knew from fact, and from present experience, that personal hatred would bias his judges, and violence would prevail over justice: he therefore uses in the cause of truth, the maxim so often perverted to the cause of falsehood. “Divide et impers,” meaning “Divide and control.”
In this one area above all others did the religion of Jesus Christ and the belief of the Pharisees coincide, — that of the resurrection of the dead. In the truest sense, this belief was the hope of Israel; in the truest sense does Paul bring it forward to confound the adversaries of Christ, while at the same time vindicating himself from the charge against him.
Phillip LaSpino www.seekfirstwisdom.com