Wednesdays are for the New Testament
8/14/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 23" In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pages 424-437). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Acts 23:1-5 describes the start of Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin. Bruce observes that Paul's claim in verse one to have retained a clear conscience before God was consistent in his defenses at various times. He interprets Paul's assertion to depend on the fact that God in Christ had justified him and given him a clear conscience (Bruce 1988, p. 424). In verse two, however, the high priest ordered Paul to be struck in the mouth. Bruce provides a brief history of the high priest at the time, Ananias, son of Nedebasus, appointed in A.D. 47 (Bruce 1988, p. 425). He was roundly criticized by Josephus as a greedy and power hungry individual. Paul's retort to the high priest in verse three was based on the lawful presumption of innocence. Paul's response was forceful, no doubt (Bruce 1988, p. 426). Bruce does note that the words were, in fact, called for, with the exception that he spoke to the high priest. Verses 4-5 allege Paul was unaware of the identity of the high priest, as he was the person who presided over the Sanhedrin. The reason for Paul's failure to identify the high priest is slightly unclear.
Verses 6-10 record a shift in Paul's argument, as he alleges he has been judged due to the hope of the resurrection (Bruce 1988, p. 427). The Sanhedrin was composed of a majority of Sadducees, who rejected the possibility of a resurrection. The minority party, the Pharisees, did confess the reality of resurrection. Paul's contention, then, was that he was being opposed because he was a Pharisee. This move naturally caused a dissent within the Sanhedrin. Bruce notes that some commentators have been critical of Paul for using such a line of argument (Bruce 1988, p. 428). However, the hope of the resurrection was a well established historic tenet of Judaism. For a Sadducee to become a Christian it was necessary that he embrace resurrection. Verses 7-8 describe a significant level of discord in the court, which Luke explains in terms of belief in or rejection of resurrection. In verses 9-10 there is even a possible Pharisaic acceptance of Paul's vision on the Damascus Road (Bruce 1988, p. 429). The tribune, still present with some soldiers, chose to extract Paul from the dispute (Bruce 1988, p. 430).
Acts 23:11 speaks of an encounter with "the Lord" during the night. Paul is encouraged and told he would bear witness at Rome as well (Bruce 1988, p. 430). Bruce considers that this would have been very helpful to Paul during the events of the subsequent two years.
The next day, in Acts 23:12-15, a band of about 40 Jews made a vow that they would not eat or drink until they had killed Paul (Bruce 1988, p. 431). They asked the leaders of the Sanhedrin to persuade the tribune to send Paul to the council again, planning to attack him on the way.
Acts 23:16-22 tells of a nephew of Paul, who, having heard of the plot, managed to be interviewed by the tribune. Bruce observes that the presence of this nephew raises many questions. The man is not known by name. He has a great deal of information about the plot (Bruce 1988, p. 432). There is reason to think that in Philippians 3:8 when Paul says he "suffered the loss of all things" it included connection with his presumably wealthy family. Verses 17-22 remind us that as a Roman citizen who had not been convicted he had freedom to receive visitors. This made it possible for him to alert the tribune of the plot.
In Acts 23:23-24 the tribune sent Paul, under heavy guard, not to the Sanhedrin but to Caesarea and the governor Felix (Bruce 1988, p. 433). This move would prevent the assassination of an uncondemned Roman citizen.
Verse 25-30 record a letter from the tribune to the governor, to be sent along with Paul Bruce notes that, even if Luke's version of the letter is not a precise transcription, he does bring out the political nature of the letter. The tribune, a Greek by birth based on his name, likely took the Roman name of the emperor (Bruce 1988, p. 434). The address to Felix is appropriate to the governor's equestrian rank. The riot is described, with the tribune serving as the one who has rescued Paul. The tribune's heroic actions continue as he rightly understood the case before the Sanhedrin and has detected and defused an assassination plot (Bruce 1988, p. 435).
Verses 31-35 see the unit of 270 guards delivering Paul and the letter to Felix in Caesarea. In verses 31-32 the group departs from Jerusalem some three hours after sunset, covering 35 miles to Antipatris by morning (Bruce 1988, p. 435). From that point, the 200 infantry are sent back to Jerusalem and the cavalry continues to Caesarea. Bruce notes this area was largely Gentile and open country where the journey was relatively safe from disruption (Bruce 1988, p. 436). Felix kept Paul detained until his accusers could come to present a case against him. Bruce gives a brief biography of the governor, Marcus Antonius Felix. He had a reputation for dealing forcefully with insurgent uprisings, which Tacitus considered may have created, rather than resolved, conflict (Bruce 1988, p. 437).
8/14/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 23" In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pages 424-437). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Acts 23:1-5 describes the start of Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin. Bruce observes that Paul's claim in verse one to have retained a clear conscience before God was consistent in his defenses at various times. He interprets Paul's assertion to depend on the fact that God in Christ had justified him and given him a clear conscience (Bruce 1988, p. 424). In verse two, however, the high priest ordered Paul to be struck in the mouth. Bruce provides a brief history of the high priest at the time, Ananias, son of Nedebasus, appointed in A.D. 47 (Bruce 1988, p. 425). He was roundly criticized by Josephus as a greedy and power hungry individual. Paul's retort to the high priest in verse three was based on the lawful presumption of innocence. Paul's response was forceful, no doubt (Bruce 1988, p. 426). Bruce does note that the words were, in fact, called for, with the exception that he spoke to the high priest. Verses 4-5 allege Paul was unaware of the identity of the high priest, as he was the person who presided over the Sanhedrin. The reason for Paul's failure to identify the high priest is slightly unclear.
Verses 6-10 record a shift in Paul's argument, as he alleges he has been judged due to the hope of the resurrection (Bruce 1988, p. 427). The Sanhedrin was composed of a majority of Sadducees, who rejected the possibility of a resurrection. The minority party, the Pharisees, did confess the reality of resurrection. Paul's contention, then, was that he was being opposed because he was a Pharisee. This move naturally caused a dissent within the Sanhedrin. Bruce notes that some commentators have been critical of Paul for using such a line of argument (Bruce 1988, p. 428). However, the hope of the resurrection was a well established historic tenet of Judaism. For a Sadducee to become a Christian it was necessary that he embrace resurrection. Verses 7-8 describe a significant level of discord in the court, which Luke explains in terms of belief in or rejection of resurrection. In verses 9-10 there is even a possible Pharisaic acceptance of Paul's vision on the Damascus Road (Bruce 1988, p. 429). The tribune, still present with some soldiers, chose to extract Paul from the dispute (Bruce 1988, p. 430).
Acts 23:11 speaks of an encounter with "the Lord" during the night. Paul is encouraged and told he would bear witness at Rome as well (Bruce 1988, p. 430). Bruce considers that this would have been very helpful to Paul during the events of the subsequent two years.
The next day, in Acts 23:12-15, a band of about 40 Jews made a vow that they would not eat or drink until they had killed Paul (Bruce 1988, p. 431). They asked the leaders of the Sanhedrin to persuade the tribune to send Paul to the council again, planning to attack him on the way.
Acts 23:16-22 tells of a nephew of Paul, who, having heard of the plot, managed to be interviewed by the tribune. Bruce observes that the presence of this nephew raises many questions. The man is not known by name. He has a great deal of information about the plot (Bruce 1988, p. 432). There is reason to think that in Philippians 3:8 when Paul says he "suffered the loss of all things" it included connection with his presumably wealthy family. Verses 17-22 remind us that as a Roman citizen who had not been convicted he had freedom to receive visitors. This made it possible for him to alert the tribune of the plot.
In Acts 23:23-24 the tribune sent Paul, under heavy guard, not to the Sanhedrin but to Caesarea and the governor Felix (Bruce 1988, p. 433). This move would prevent the assassination of an uncondemned Roman citizen.
Verse 25-30 record a letter from the tribune to the governor, to be sent along with Paul Bruce notes that, even if Luke's version of the letter is not a precise transcription, he does bring out the political nature of the letter. The tribune, a Greek by birth based on his name, likely took the Roman name of the emperor (Bruce 1988, p. 434). The address to Felix is appropriate to the governor's equestrian rank. The riot is described, with the tribune serving as the one who has rescued Paul. The tribune's heroic actions continue as he rightly understood the case before the Sanhedrin and has detected and defused an assassination plot (Bruce 1988, p. 435).
Verses 31-35 see the unit of 270 guards delivering Paul and the letter to Felix in Caesarea. In verses 31-32 the group departs from Jerusalem some three hours after sunset, covering 35 miles to Antipatris by morning (Bruce 1988, p. 435). From that point, the 200 infantry are sent back to Jerusalem and the cavalry continues to Caesarea. Bruce notes this area was largely Gentile and open country where the journey was relatively safe from disruption (Bruce 1988, p. 436). Felix kept Paul detained until his accusers could come to present a case against him. Bruce gives a brief biography of the governor, Marcus Antonius Felix. He had a reputation for dealing forcefully with insurgent uprisings, which Tacitus considered may have created, rather than resolved, conflict (Bruce 1988, p. 437).
RSS Feed