Глава 23

Ap. Paul before the Sanhedrin (1–10). The appearance of the Lord to Paul (verse 11). The plan of the Jews to kill Paul, the revelation of the plan (12–22). Sending the prisoner to Caesarea, to the procurator (23–35) Acts 23:1. Paul, fixing his gaze on the Sanhedrin, said: Men and brethren! I have lived with all my good conscience before God until this day. “Fixing his gaze on the Sanhedrin” - with a calm conscience and decisive confidence in his rightness. “Men, brothers!” - without adding to this “and the fathers”, or “the leaders of the people”, as in other cases (cf. Acts 22:1, 4:8, 7:2). In the high consciousness of his apostolic dignity, Paul puts himself, as it were, on an equal footing with these elders of the people, showing that even the bonds do not deprive him of this dignity and righteousness before those who judge him. Acts 23:2. The high priest Ananias ordered those standing in front of him to strike him on the mouth. “High Priest Ananias” - according to Flavius, a “proud and rude” man (Flav. Archaeol. XX, 8 et al.), son of the Nevedee (Archaeol. XX, 5, 2), successor in this position to Joseph, son of Kamil (ibid., XX, 1, 3; 5, 2), predecessor of Ishmael, son of Fabi (ibid. XX, 8, 8, 11). The predecessor of the then procurator Felix - Square he was sent to Rome to justify himself before Caesar in the raised charges (Archaeol. XX, 6, 2; “On the War of Judas.” II, 12, 6) - upon his return, he retained his position for some time, from which he was dismissed by Felix, who transferred this position to Ishmael, the son of Fabi. In character and way of life, he was the most depraved of the Sadducees of the worst period of the Jewish hierarchs. History tells of his unreasonable vengeance on the Samaritans and the far from noble means he used to avoid the consequences of participating in the murders carried out. To complete this gloomy characterization of Ananias, the Talmud adds that Ananias was a robber-tyrant, who with his insatiable greed brought the lower priests to poverty, cheating them out of tithes, and that he sent his favorites with clubs to extract the tithes by force. “Ordered to beat him on the mouth.” Probably the priest did not like the use of the word “brothers,” which is only permissible when addressing equals, although Paul could well have said so, because he himself was once a member of the Sanhedrin. It may also be that the words of the apostle seemed to him impudent self-praise and even blasphemy, after Paul was accused of breaking the law and desecrating the church. Be that as it may, the act of the high priest was a clear lawlessness, which should not have remained without equally strong admonition. Here, not only the law was insulted, but also the truth. Here the purity of the apostle’s conscience was insulted, and, finally, his personal honor as a Roman citizen, and insulted by the judge himself! Obviously, the harsh word of the apostle does not need justification at all: its justification is in the very circumstances of the case. Moreover, the apostle “did not want to be subjected to the contempt of the captain (apparently, who was present here, cf. Acts 23:10). If this one did not dare to scourge him and wanted to betray him to the Jews, then when the servants began to beat him, then he showed even greater boldness, turning not to the servant, but to the commander himself” (Chrysostom). Acts 23:3. Then Paul said to him: God will beat you, you whitewashed wall! you sit to judge according to the law, and, contrary to the law, you order me to be beaten. "God will beat you". This is both a reproach and a prophetic prediction that God will take revenge on the insult. And indeed, a few years later, at the beginning of the Jewish War, Ananias died at the hands of the Sicarii as a traitor (Flav., On War, II, 17, 9). “The wall is whitewashed!” - a figurative designation of emptiness and baseness of apparent greatness (similar to the expression “watered tomb” Matthew 23:27), perversion of personality, hypocrisy. He calls it “a whitewashed wall” because although Ananias took on the bright image of a man who seems to defend the law and judge according to the law, his thought is full of lawlessness. Therefore, Paul exposes in him the hypocritical appearance of an outward disposition towards the law” (Theophilus). Some compare Paul's action with a similar incident at the Savior's trial and find that Paul set an example less worthy of imitation than the example of the Savior. Yes, blessed one. Jerome, citing Paul’s reproachful expression, asks the question: “Where is the patience of the Savior, Who, being led like a lamb to the slaughter, does not open His mouth, and so meekly asks the one who struck: “If I said bad, show that it is bad, and if it is good, why do you strike Me?” But who will dare to condemn the action of the apostle, comparing human self-control with the self-control of the God-man, Who, suffering in body, stood above all carnal untruth and human weakness! However, the comparison here suffers from an important inaccuracy, which speaks a lot in favor of Paul: Jesus Christ, firstly, received blows - not by order of His judges. If it had been different - if the blows had been inflicted on the orders of Caiaphas, who knows whether the Savior would not have pointed out to him such an indecent oblivion by the high priest of his dignity and the rights of a judge? And then we must not forget that the Lord Himself, denouncing hypocrisy and insolence, gave complete freedom to His righteous anger in other cases. It should also be thought that Paul acted in this case not as an ordinary person, but as a messenger of God. And it is known that the prophets had the right to convict everyone of crimes (1 Kings 18:18; 2 Kings 3:13; Isa.1:10-23; Ezek.21:25). What followed showed that his reproach was indeed spoken in a prophetic spirit. If they point to the commandment of Jesus Christ about substituting the right cheek when striking the left (Matthew 5:24), then we must not forget that He requires from His followers only to withdraw from vengeance, and not the kind of silence that feeds the insolence of lawless people. Paul more faithfully fulfilled the will of the Lord in this regard, for he himself testified about himself: “They revile, but we bless; we are persecuted, but we endure; They blaspheme, but we pray” (1 Cor. 4:12–13). But in the present case, he did not act contrary to the example of Christ, Who also exposed the injustice of the condemnation that struck Him before. If Paul seems to further excuse his act, it is in order to eliminate the suspicion that he violated the law commanding not to slander the high priest (Innocent, Bishop of Kherson). Acts 23:4. Those present said: Do you revile the high priest of God? Acts 23:5. Paul said: I did not know, brethren, that he was a high priest; for it is written: Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people. “I did not know, brothers, that he was a high priest!” This confession of the apostle's ignorance of the high priest seems surprising to many. However, there is nothing surprising here. The high priest was new to Paul (having assumed office long after his conversion, around A.D. 48), and Paul, although he visited Jerusalem occasionally, may have had neither the incentive nor the interest to get to know him personally, although he may have known his name. It is quite possible that it was difficult to recognize the unfamiliar high priest in the congregation itself, since by the differences in his clothing he could be recognized only during the priestly service (cf. Matthew 26:65). It was not always possible to recognize the high priest by his presiding position, which was not the inalienable and vital right of the high priest, since the Sanhedrin had the right to choose its own co-president (cf. John 11:49). One way or another, Paul's sincerity leaves no room for doubt. Admitting one's ignorance regarding the high priest was not, however, a denial of the power of what Paul said. Declaring that he would not have said these words of his out of respect for the dignity of the high priest, he, however, makes it clear that he reserves the right to repeat them in relation to the act itself, without regard to the person. This lesson in lawlessness thus remains in all its force and significance. “For it is written...”, - i.e., if I knew that this was the high priest, I would not have said, “for it is written” ... etc. (Ex. 22 according to LXX), Acts 23:6. Having learned that there were one part of the Sadducees and the other of the Pharisees, Paul exclaimed in the Sanhedrin: Men and brethren! I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; I am being judged for hoping for the resurrection of the dead. "When Paul found out." Probably, due to some differences in appearance and thanks to a distant acquaintance with some, Paul notices the artificial unity of his judges, despite the irreconcilable to the extreme contradiction of their religious convictions, and this leads him to the happy idea of ​​​​transferring his question to another ground, on which the lack of unanimity in prejudice against him would first of all be revealed. With amazing presence of mind, insight and wisdom, with one bold turn of thought and speech, he decomposes the meeting into its mutually destructive elements, attracting to his side the strongest Pharisaic party of the two dominant parties here. “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” - (in some lists the son of the Pharisees), that is, not only by personal conviction, a Pharisee, but also by nature, a natural hereditary Pharisee, in whom not only convictions, but also the flesh and blood of the ancient Pharisees. By this confession, the apostle not only separated himself from that part of the assembly (the Sadducees), which allowed itself to deny some of the truths of the law of Moses (Acts 23:8), but also drew, so to speak, into battle the other right-thinking part of the assembly (the Pharisees), indicating the most sore point of discord from which to begin. “I am being judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” The translation of the original at this point suffers from an important inaccuracy. In the Greek text this place reads like this: περί ελπίδος καί αναστάσεως νεκρῶν εγώ κρίνομαι, more precisely the Russian Slavic text: “about hope and resurrection I accept the judgment of the dead." Since the word “expectation”, hope, hope had a special meaning and related to the Messiah, Messianic aspirations (cf. Luke 2:33), Paul’s expression first of all wants to say that he stands on trial for the Hope of Israel - the Messiah (cf. Acts 26:6). As for the second half of the accusation - the “resurrection of the dead”, this implies, of course, first of all the Christian belief in the resurrection of the Savior, and then in general the belief in the “resurrection of the dead”, following the example of this already risen “Firstborn of the dead”. In both parts of the accusation, Paul points out only the general aspects related to the Pharisaic teaching, regardless of the Christian understanding of the matter, and thereby achieves a passionate defense of himself in the dispute that flared up on this basis. Incomparably wise and skillful technique! The best and strongest protection! Acts 23:7. When he had said this, a quarrel arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the congregation was divided. Acts 23:8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; and the Pharisees admit both. “A quarrel arose” - from what follows it is clear (Acts 23:9) that the quarrel was strong and passionate, fully justifying Paul’s hopes. “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit,” with the doctrine of which the doctrine of the resurrection is closely connected. Wed. to Matthew 3:7; Archaeol reports more about the sects. Flav. XVIII, 1, 4; "On the War of Judah." II, 8, 11. Acts 23:9. There was a great cry; and the scribes of the Pharisees stood up and argued, saying: We find nothing bad in this man; if the spirit or angel spoke to him, let us not resist God. “The scribes of the Pharisees”, i.e., representatives of Pharisees’ learning (cf. Matthew 5:20), who were at the meeting, not only took the side of Paul, but also poisonously pricked the opposing party by admitting the possibility that Paul was speaking according to the teachings of an angel or spirit denied by the Sadducees. Apparently, the Pharisees knew about the circumstances of Paul’s conversion (perhaps, he managed to report this during the meeting), and their expression - “if a spirit or an angel spoke to him” - represents a free transfer of his story about the appearance and words of the Lord to him. “Let us not resist God...” This expression is not found in all ancient lists, and its absence gives the above phrase a slightly different shade of thought, which is also acceptable when reading this passage in its entirety. The Greek structure of speech fully allows and seems to even require independent understanding of the first part of the saying: ει δέ πνεῦμα ελάλησεν αυτῶ, ή άγγελος - “what if the spirit spoke to him or an angel?” What is implied, of course, is what may have subsequently appeared in the text instead of an explanation: μή θεομαχῶμεν - let’s not fight God! Acts 23:10. But as the discord increased, the captain, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down and take him from among them and take him to the fortress. “So that they do not tear Paul to pieces.” The dispute reached such a level of passion and irritation that the captain began to fear, not unreasonably, that Paul might become a victim of the mutual irritation of the parties, that one of them - hostile to him, the Sadducees - in irritation would rush forcibly at the apostle in order to insult him, and the other - temporarily disposed towards him, the Pharisees - would rush to defend him, and that at the same time they would tear Paul to pieces in in the literal sense of the word. “He commanded the soldiers to go down” - from the Antonian fortress to the meeting place of the Sanhedrin, probably in the courtyard of the pagans at the temple. The commander now had the dual duty of protecting Paul's safety, both as a guardian of order and as a guardian of the rights of Roman citizenship. Acts 23:11. The next night the Lord appeared to him and said: Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you testified about Me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome. “Appearing to him” - how? in a dream or state of ecstasy (cf. Acts 22:17–18), not evident from the text. The words of the Lord who appeared to Paul both encourage him not to fear the Jews and foreshadow the continuation of his beloved preaching ministry in the very center of the pagan world - Rome. This is both the prisoner’s best protection and his best consolation. Acts 23:12. When the day came, some of the Jews made a plot and swore not to eat or drink until they killed Paul. Acts 23:13. There were more than forty who made such a spell. “Some Jews” - probably from the former Asia Minor persecutors of Paul (Acts 21:27), not without the encouragement and assistance of his new enemies, the Sadducees. “They swore” - they took a vow on themselves with an oath, that is, calling upon their head the curse of God if they tasted food without fulfilling their intention. This spell formula contains a strong urge for the immediate and irreducible implementation of the intended plan. Acts 23:14. They came to the chief priests and elders and said: We have sworn by an oath not to eat anything until we kill Paul. Acts 23:15. So now you and the Sanhedrin let the captain know so that he will bring him to you tomorrow, as if you want to more accurately examine the matter about him; we, before he approaches, are ready to kill him. “To the high priests and elders” - undoubtedly of the high priestly party. Her consent and approval were enough to persuade the Sanhedrin to hold a second meeting on Paul's case. For this it was enough to turn to one high priest, who, according to the testimony of Josephus, was capable of committing any crime. Acts 23:16. Hearing about this plan, the son of Pavlova’s sister came and, entering the fortress, notified Pavel. “The son of Pavlova’s sister” Nothing more is known about him, apart from what has been said here. "Entering the fortress". Probably, after declaring his Roman citizenship, the apostle was kept in the fortress without special strictures, so that his relatives could have access to him; this was the case in Caesarea after (Acts 24:23), and in Rome itself (Acts 28:16). Acts 23:17. Paul, calling one of the centurions, said: Take this young man to the captain, for he has something to say to him. In order not to disclose the matter, which required possible secrecy, the apostle does not tell the centurion about it, but asks to take his nephew directly to the commander of a thousand, so that only three knew about the plan for Paul’s life - Paul himself, his nephew and the commander of a thousand (Acts 23:22). “It is worthy of surprise,” says Chrysostom, that Paul was not embarrassed and did not say: “What does this mean?” Is what Christ said to me fair? (Acts 23:11) No, he did not think or feel anything like that, but only believed. However, believing, he did not sleep, and did not fail to do what was possible with the help of human wisdom.” Acts 23:18. He took him and brought him to the captain and said: The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to take this young man to you, who has something to tell you. “Prisoner Paul” - despite the comparative ease of imprisonment, Paul still remains a prisoner due to the uncertainty of the importance and degree of his guilt. Acts 23:19. The commander of a thousand, taking him by the hand and stepping aside with him, asked: what do you have to say to me? “Taking the hand” is an expression of friendliness, approval and willingness to pay close attention to the statement. “Going aside with him” - to better preserve the secret. Acts 23:20. He replied that the Jews agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow, as if they wanted to more accurately investigate the matter about him. Acts 23:21. But don't listen to them; for more than forty of them lie in wait for him, who have sworn not to eat or drink until they kill him; They are now ready, awaiting your order. Acts 23:22. Then the captain released the young man, saying: Don’t tell anyone that you announced this to me. Acts 23:23. And, calling two centurions, he said: prepare for me two hundred foot soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred archers, so that from the third hour of the night they will go to Caesarea. “Two hundred warriors” - of course - “on foot”, with full weapons, in contrast to mounted warriors and lightly armed riflemen. The apostle's convoy thus consisted of 400 infantry and 70 horsemen. An unnecessary precaution, caused perhaps by a slightly less threatening number of embittered enemies of Paul. “From three o’clock in the morning” – in our opinion – from 9 o’clock in the evening. This order is given partly because in those hot countries it is more convenient to travel at night, and partly for greater safety from the Jews, which also required haste (Acts 23:31, 32). Acts 23:24. Prepare also the donkeys so that, having seated Paul, they will convey him to the governor Felix. In Lysias's disposal to lead Paul on donkeys, one cannot help but see his concern for the comforts and ease of the path for the apostle, and hence his disposition towards him. “Governor Felix” was the then Roman procurator of Judea, a freedman of Emperor Claudius, brother of Nero’s favorite Pallas, son-in-law of Herod Agrippa I (see Acts 12:1). He received the prosecutor's office from Claudius, after the change of Cuman, around 53 A.D., correcting “the royal office in a slavish spirit,” according to Tacitus (Ist. V, 9). There was no crime that he was not capable of. He was even accused of personal participation in robberies, in alliance with zealots and inveterate robbers. Acts 23:25. I also wrote a letter with the following content: Acts 23:26. “Claudius Lysias to the venerable ruler Felix - rejoice. Acts 23:27. The Jews seized this man and were ready to kill him; I, coming with soldiers, took him away, learning that he was a Roman citizen. “Took him away when he learned that he was a Roman citizen.” The junior official here allows a deliberate written lie in order to curry favor and cover up his reckless act with the apostle, whose civil rights he learned about after being brought to the fortress, when he wanted to scourge the apostle (Acts 22:24–29). This small, characteristic feature of the letter undoubtedly testifies to its authenticity. Acts 23:28. Then, wanting to find out what they accused him of, he brought him to their Sanhedrin Acts 23:29. and found that he was accused of controversial opinions concerning their law, but that there was no guilt in him worthy of death or chains. “In controversial opinions” – Acts 23:6-9. Acts 23:30. And when it dawned on me that the Jews were plotting against this man, I immediately sent him to you, ordering the accusers to speak against him before you. Be healthy." “Having ordered those who accuse him to speak against him before you.” Obviously, in fulfillment of this order, hitherto unmentioned, Paul’s accusers soon appear before the procurator (Acts 24, etc.). Acts 23:31. So the soldiers, according to the orders given to them, took Paul and led him at night to Antipatris. “Antipatrida” - built by Herod I in honor of his father, Antipater, on the way from Jerusalem to Caesarea, 60 versts from Jerusalem and 35 from Caesarea. Acts 23:32. And the next day, leaving the horsemen to go with him, they returned to the fortress. “The next day” - apparently, the transition was made with as much haste as possible, for the safety of the prisoner. “Leaving the horsemen to go.” Further Antipatrides, near Caesarea, the residence of the procurator, Paul's safety could be considered ensured, which is why the excess part of the army returns back to the Jerusalem fortress. Acts 23:33. And they, having come to Caesarea and given the letter to the governor, introduced Paul to him. Acts 23:34. The ruler, having read the letter, asked what region he was from, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, said: “What region is he from?” – this is really not mentioned in Lysias’ report. Acts 23:35. I will listen to you when your accusers appear. And he ordered him to be kept in custody in Herod’s Praetorium. “I will listen to you when your accusers appear.” Here, of course, there is a detailed judicial official interrogation, as opposed to a preliminary, brief and private interrogation, perhaps limited to the mentioned question. "In Herod's Praetorium". The palace built by Herod I, in which the procurators lived. Thus, here Paul was not imprisoned along with ordinary prisoners, but was kept in custody in the same house where the procurator lived. Probably, the kind word about the prisoner in Lysias’ letter contributed to such a relatively gentle attitude towards him. The writer further directly notes that after the interrogation of Paul in the presence of his accusers, the procurator makes a deliberate order “not to restrain the prisoner” (Acts 24:23). You might be interested in: