Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, August 15, 2013 Read – Acts 22:30-23:11 The next day the tribune released Paul and ordered the chief priests and the whole council to gather for a meeting. In truth, the tribune did not have the authority to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin, however, one might think of this as an informal hearing. Certainly they did not meet in a formal way in the Temple because that would have made the Jews impure. Paul begins his speech where it was cut off the previous day, once again attempting to make connection with his audience by calling them “brothers” and claiming that his conscience is clear before God. The Jewish authorities will have none of it. Luke tells us the high priest, Ananias (clearly not the Ananias from earlier in the story) ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Again Luke has his general historical facts in place – the high priest at this time was indeed named Ananias. The meaning of his actions in ordering Paul to be struck on the mouth is not clear. Paul’s reaction is classic Paul – fiery and bold. While the author of Acts most likely was not a close associate or co-worker with Paul, he does know some things about Paul, and one of them was Paul’s fiery temper. Paul’s words are both fiery and an accurate prediction. The high priest Ananias was struck down during the Jewish revolt from 66-70 AD and murdered by the people of Jerusalem for collaborating with the Romans. But Paul’s words also appear to get him into trouble. Those around the high priest jump on Paul’s fiery words and accuse him of insulting the leader of God’s people and breaking the law – a commandment written in Exodus 22:28 – “You shall not revile God or curse a leader of your people.” Paul pleads ignorance regarding the identity of the high priest. The whole episode is one more way for Luke to tell his readers that Paul is a law abiding observant Jew. Once again his credentials as a Jew, zealous for the law, are impeccable. At this point Paul cleverly changes the subject. He takes notice that the Sanhedrin is made up of some who are Sadducees and others who are Pharisees. Paul makes the main issue of his defense speech the question of the resurrection of the dead. Paul knows that the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, but the Pharisees do. This is a historical fact borne out by Josephus and others. Luke description of Sadducees and Pharisees is exactly correct and matches Josephus description perfectly – “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three” (Acts 23: 8). It is important once again that we hear how Luke puts this. Paul does not say, “I was a Pharisee,” but rather he says, “I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6)! This is not mere strategy on Paul’s part. As far as Luke is concerned Paul always remains a Jew. Paul would have claimed the same thing. Paul was a Christian Jew, but he was none the less first of all a Jew. Paul identifies with Pharisaic Judaism which did believe in the resurrection of the dead. The dispute at hand was fully within the confines of Judaism – it is not a dispute between Christians and Jews. Of course, Paul likely had far more in mind with respect to the resurrection of the dead than the Pharisees in his audience did. But Paul does not bring the resurrection of Jesus into the picture here. He is content to let the question of the resurrection of the dead in general be the main issue. Paul’s plan of action works. In what might seem like an impossible outcome, Paul receives an acquittal from the Pharisees at the meeting – “We find nothing wrong with this man!” they say (Acts 23:9). What a strange thing to hear. We need to remember that throughout his gospel and the book of Acts Luke has been portraying the Pharisees in a favorable light. From Luke’s point of view, the distance between a Jewish Christian and a Pharisee is not very great. Did Luke have hopes that the emerging Christianity of his time and Pharisaic Judaism, which was the only form of Judaism besides Christian Judaism to survive the Jewish war, might someday, somehow come back together? Was that one of his motives for writing the book of Acts? We can only speculate about those questions. At any rate, once again the Pharisees are portrayed by Luke in a positive way. With the Pharisees now on his side, at least with respect to the resurrection of the dead, the suspense in the story grows. Will this all work out for good for Paul? Before the thought has even settled into the minds of Luke’s readers, we hear that such a commotion arises that Paul has to be rescued for a third time by the Romans. Paul is nearly torn in two. Safely inside the Roman barracks, Paul is granted another vision during the night. God has already told Paul that he must go to Rome and witness there. That promise is renewed. Paul’s fate will not be to die in Jerusalem as Jesus did – or as Stephen did. His destiny is elsewhere. As we reflect back over the past few days’ readings, we discover Luke’s model speech of how a follower of Jesus is to proclaim the gospel to a Jewish audience. Paul is polite and honorable. He makes every effort to identify with his Jewish audience. He and they share a great common heritage, and Paul builds on that heritage. Having found as much common ground as is possible, Paul invites his Jewish brothers and sisters to consider his story about his encounter with Jesus and invites them to share in that encounter. Was the speech effective? Likely the same outcome as we have witnessed throughout the book of Acts unfolds – some believe, others don’t. We can learn from Paul’s speech how we might attempt to encounter others in our world. Luke is an evangelist first and foremost. His goal is to help followers of Jesus bear witness to the hope that is within them. More is going on than just the telling of a story. Witness to the gospel is happening in the words of Luke in the book of Acts.