About Acts

Acts records the birth and growth of the church through the power of the Holy Spirit from Jerusalem to Rome.

Author: LukeWritten: c. AD 62-64Reading time: ~4 minVerses: 35
Holy SpiritWitnessChurch GrowthMissionPersecutionUnity

King James Version

Acts 23

35 verses with commentary

Paul Before the Council

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

View commentary
Paul's claim to have lived 'in all good conscience before God' doesn't mean sinless perfection but rather integrity in following known truth. Even as persecutor of Christians, Paul acted according to his understanding of God's will (1 Timothy 1:13). This demonstrates that conscience must be informed by Scripture and Spirit, as sincerity alone doesn't guarantee correctness.

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

View commentary
Ananias's command to strike Paul on the mouth violated Jewish law requiring fair hearing before judgment (Leviticus 19:15). This illegal violence revealed the Sanhedrin's corruption and prejudice. The high priest, who should have modeled righteousness, instead demonstrated the moral bankruptcy of the religious establishment that had rejected the Messiah.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

View commentary
Paul's rebuke - 'God shall smite thee, thou whited wall' - echoed Jesus's condemnation of hypocritical leaders (Matthew 23:27). The charge of sitting to judge 'after the law' while commanding to strike Paul 'contrary to the law' exposed stunning hypocrisy. Paul's righteous anger at injustice, especially when cloaked in religious authority, reflected Jesus's own confrontations with corrupt leaders.

And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

View commentary
Revilest thou God's high priest? (λοιδορεῖς, loidoreis, to insult/revile)—The bystanders rebuked Paul for calling Ananias a 'whited wall' (v. 3), considering this disrespectful to the high priest's office. Their question appeals to religious propriety even while tolerating judicial injustice—Ananias had ordered Paul struck illegally, violating Roman and Jewish law by punishing before conviction. The irony is profound: they defended the dignity of an office occupied by a corrupt man who commanded lawless violence.

This confrontation reveals tension between respecting God-ordained authority and confronting its abuse. Paul's bold denunciation echoed Jesus calling Pharisees 'whitewashed tombs' (Matthew 23:27). The Greek present tense suggests ongoing reviling, implying Paul's statement was seen as sustained disrespect rather than momentary reaction.

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

View commentary
I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest—Paul's statement 'I did not know' (οὐκ ᾔδειν, ouk edein) has sparked much discussion. Perhaps Paul had poor eyesight (Galatians 4:15), or Ananias wasn't wearing high priestly garments, or Paul spoke ironically ('I didn't recognize behavior so corrupt as befitting a high priest'). Regardless, Paul immediately submitted to Scripture.

For it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people—Paul quoted Exodus 22:28, demonstrating his submission to biblical authority even when defending himself against injustice. The Greek archonta (ruler) acknowledges God-ordained authority deserving respect despite personal unworthiness. This models Christian ethics: honor the office even when confronting the office-holder's sin. Paul balanced prophetic boldness (calling out injustice) with covenantal submission (honoring God's word).

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

View commentary
Paul's strategic declaration - 'I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question' - brilliantly divided the council. This wasn't deception but highlighting how the real issue centered on resurrection, Christianity's core claim. By identifying with Pharisees against Sadducees, Paul created allies and exposed that opposition to Christianity was rooted in denying God's power to raise the dead.

And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

View commentary
The 'great dissension' that arose demonstrates how fundamental theology divides more than peripheral issues. The resurrection question wasn't academic but touched the heart of God's redemptive plan. Paul's statement created chaos not through manipulation but by highlighting the central issue - whether God raises the dead and thus whether Jesus's resurrection validated His messianic claims.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

View commentary
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit—Luke summarizes the rationalistic theology of the Sadducean party, who accepted only the Pentateuch and rejected oral tradition. Denying resurrection (ἀνάστασις, anastasis), angels (ἄγγελος, aggelos), and spirits (πνεῦμα, pneuma) represented materialistic worldview limiting reality to the physical realm. This made them theological liberals of their day.

But the Pharisees confess both (ὁμολογέω, homologeo, to acknowledge/confess)—The Pharisees affirmed supernatural realities, oral law, and future resurrection. Paul strategically identified with Pharisaic theology (v. 6), splitting the Sanhedrin. While using political wisdom, Paul genuinely believed in resurrection—the risen Christ was his life's foundation. This theological division reflects ongoing tension between naturalistic and supernatural worldviews in interpreting Scripture.

And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

View commentary
The Pharisees' partial defense - 'We find no evil in this man' - represented limited progress. Their concession that perhaps 'a spirit or an angel' spoke to Paul (referencing Acts 22:6-10) acknowledged supernatural possibility while avoiding Jesus's lordship. This demonstrates how people may accept elements of truth without embracing its full implications.

And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

View commentary
The violence grew so intense that the chief captain feared Paul would be 'pulled in pieces' by the disputing parties. Roman military intervention again preserved Paul's life, demonstrating how God uses secular authority to protect His servants. The Greek 'diaspao' (torn asunder) suggests Paul faced literal dismemberment from the frenzied religious leaders.

And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

View commentary
Jesus's personal appearance - 'the Lord stood by him' - provided crucial encouragement when Paul needed it most. Christ's affirmation that Paul had 'testified of me in Jerusalem' validated his efforts despite apparent failure. The promise 'so must thou bear witness also at Rome' revealed God's sovereign plan and assured Paul his life would be preserved for this purpose.

A Plot to Kill Paul

And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together , and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. under a curse: or, with an oath of execration

View commentary
The conspiracy formed 'when it was day' shows the plotters' immediate and determined hatred. Their binding oath to 'eat nothing until they had killed Paul' demonstrated fanatical zeal that valued murder over self-preservation. This echoes Jesus's warning about those who 'kill you, thinking they do God service' (John 16:2), showing how religious extremism corrupts moral judgment.

And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.

View commentary
The conspiracy involved 'more than forty men,' showing organized opposition to Paul and the gospel. This wasn't spontaneous anger but coordinated plotting by a significant group willing to murder and break civil law. The specific number suggests Luke's access to detailed information, perhaps through Paul's nephew (verse 16) or other sources within the Jewish community.

And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

View commentary
The conspirators sought the chief priests' and elders' cooperation, revealing corruption at the highest levels of Jewish leadership. These religious authorities were willing to enable murder through deception, showing how institutional religion can become utterly corrupt when it rejects divine truth. Their participation in assassination plans while maintaining religious appearance epitomizes hypocrisy.

Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.

View commentary
Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain—Over forty men conspired with Sanhedrin members to murder Paul under pretense of further inquiry (v. 12-14). The verb emphanisate (make clear/inform) shows their plan required official cooperation. As though ye would enquire something more perfectly (ἀκριβέστερον, akribesteron, more accurately)—The adverb 'more perfectly' gave the plot appearance of legitimate judicial procedure, masking murderous intent with religious language.

We, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him—The conspirators' confidence reveals their fanaticism: bound by oath, fasting until Paul's death (v. 12). This plot demonstrates how religious zeal untethered from righteousness produces violence. The irony is stark—those claiming to defend God's law planned premeditated murder in God's name, violating the sixth commandment while invoking the first.

And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.

View commentary
Paul's nephew's discovery of the plot demonstrates God's providential protection through natural means. The detail that Paul's sister's son 'heard of their lying in wait' suggests either divine revelation or the young man's access to Jewish circles discussing the conspiracy. God's sovereignty orchestrated protection through family connections and timely intelligence.

Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him.

View commentary
Paul's request to bring his nephew to the chief captain shows wisdom in using proper channels rather than attempting escape or taking matters into his own hands. His calm cooperation with Roman authority, even while imprisoned, demonstrates trust in God's providence working through established systems. This contrasts sharply with the conspirators' violent lawlessness.

So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee.

View commentary
Paul the prisoner called me unto him—Despite chains, Paul retained relational influence and strategic awareness. The young man was Paul's nephew (v. 16), showing Paul's family connections in Jerusalem. That Paul summoned him (προσκαλέω, proskaleō) indicates Paul had freedom to receive visitors even under custody. Prayed me to bring this young man unto thee—The verb erōtaō (asked/requested) shows Paul's courtesy. He didn't demand but requested, modeling respectful engagement with authority.

Who hath something to say unto thee—The centurion's willingness to escort the nephew to the tribune reveals Roman military's openness to information that might prevent bloodshed. Paul's strategic use of this opportunity shows wisdom: he could have relied solely on divine protection, but he utilized available means. God's providence worked through natural means—the nephew's discovery of the plot, the centurion's cooperation, and the tribune's protective response.

Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately , and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me?

View commentary
The chief captain's personal attention - taking the young man 'by the hand' and asking privately - shows respect and prudence. His willingness to hear information from a young Jewish man demonstrates Roman professional competence in gathering intelligence. This private inquiry protected both the informant and the investigation, showing wisdom in handling sensitive information.

And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly.

View commentary
Paul's nephew reveals the conspiracy, stating The Jews have agreed to desire thee—using the Greek synethento (συνέθεντο), meaning 'they covenanted together,' implying a formal pact. The phrase as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly exposes the deceptive pretense of legal inquiry masking murderous intent. This echoes the Jewish leaders' earlier stratagems against Jesus (Mark 14:1). The nephew's timely intelligence demonstrates God's providence preserving Paul for his Roman witness (Acts 23:11)—divine protection through human agency.

But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee.

View commentary
The nephew warns there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, describing an anathema (ἀνάθεμα) oath: bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him. This self-cursing vow invoked divine judgment if unfulfilled—a practice rooted in Numbers 30 and Deuteronomy 23. The conspirators' fanaticism mirrors later sicarii (dagger-men) terrorism. Their murderous intent violated the Sixth Commandment while claiming religious devotion, exposing how tradition can corrupt conscience (Mark 7:13).

So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me.

View commentary
Claudius Lysias charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me—the Greek medeni eklaleo (μηδενὶ ἐκλαλήσῃς) means 'tell absolutely no one.' This operational security protected both Paul and the rescue plan from compromise. The commander's swift, decisive action reveals Roman military efficiency and his growing conviction that Paul deserved protection. His confidential treatment of the informant shows administrative wisdom—premature disclosure would have doomed the rescue.

Paul Sent to Felix

And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;

View commentary
The massive military escort - 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen (470 total) - reveals Roman determination to prevent Paul's assassination. This overwhelming force for one prisoner demonstrates both the conspiracy's seriousness and Roman commitment to justice for citizens. God's providence used Roman military might to preserve Paul for his appointed testimony in Rome.

And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.

View commentary
The provision of 'beasts' (plural) for Paul suggests pack animals for supplies plus mounts for Paul and companions, showing respect for his Roman citizenship. The destination - Felix the governor at Caesarea - represented proper jurisdiction for a Roman citizen's case. God's providence moved Paul from the volatile Jerusalem situation to a venue where civil law would prevail over mob violence.

And he wrote a letter after this manner:

View commentary
And he wrote a letter after this manner (Greek grapsas epistolen, γράψας ἐπιστολὴν) introduces Claudius Lysias' official correspondence to Felix. Luke's inclusion of this letter (vv. 26-30) provides rare documentary evidence within Acts' narrative. Roman military reports followed standardized formats—sender, recipient, greeting, body, closing. This administrative detail demonstrates Luke's historical precision and provides legal documentation of Paul's innocence from Roman perspective. The letter becomes part of Paul's judicial record supporting his appeals.

Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting.

View commentary
Claudius Lysias's letter provides Luke's historical source for events in the fortress. The formal epistle format - greeting, situation summary, and action taken - follows Roman military protocol. This document would officially introduce Paul's case to Felix and explain the military action, showing how God's providence worked through proper administrative procedures.

This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.

View commentary
Lysias's account distorts the sequence - he didn't rescue Paul knowing he was Roman but discovered his citizenship after the arrest (Acts 22:25-29). This face-saving revision shows how even God's instruments have mixed motives. Yet divine providence used Lysias's self-interested report to advance Paul's case, demonstrating how God accomplishes His purposes through flawed human actions.

And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council:

View commentary
Lysias reports I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, using epignonai (ἐπιγνῶναι)—to know thoroughly or investigate. The phrase I brought him forth into their council reveals the commander's attempt to resolve the matter through Jewish channels before assuming jurisdiction. This demonstrates Roman policy of respecting local governance where possible. Lysias' investigation methodology—allowing the Sanhedrin hearing—shows administrative prudence, though it nearly cost Paul his life (Acts 23:10). The commander's report frames Paul's case as an internal Jewish dispute, not Roman criminality.

Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.

View commentary
Lysias's assessment that Paul faced 'questions of their law' with 'nothing worthy of death or of bonds' represented crucial official Roman opinion. This judgment that Christianity involved internal Jewish disputes rather than Roman crimes would protect the church for decades. God used a pagan officer's assessment to establish legal precedent favorable to gospel spread.

And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Farewell.

View commentary
Lysias writes when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, using enedras (ἐνέδρας, ambush)—military terminology for hostile intent. His phrase I sent straightway to thee (Greek exautes, ἐξαυτῆς, immediately) shows decisive action protecting Roman justice. The closing Farewell (erroso, ἔρρωσο) was standard Latin correspondence formula (vale), meaning 'be strong/healthy.' Lysias transfers responsibility to Felix while establishing Paul's protected status as a Roman citizen accused of religious, not criminal, violations.

Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris.

View commentary
The soldiers' rapid nighttime march - reaching Antipatris (about 40 miles) by morning - demonstrates Roman military efficiency and the urgency of protecting Paul. The Greek emphasizes they acted 'according to their orders,' showing disciplined obedience. God's providence used Roman military precision to spirit Paul away from danger during darkness.

On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle:

View commentary
On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him—the 200 infantry and 200 spearmen returned to Jerusalem while 70 cavalry continued to Caesarea. This tactical shift reflects Roman military doctrine: the greatest ambush danger lay near Jerusalem in Judean hills; once reaching the coastal plain, mounted troops sufficed. The phrase returned to the castle (parembolēn, παρεμβολὴν, garrison) refers to the Antonia Fortress. This military detail demonstrates Luke's precise knowledge of Roman procedures and the seriousness with which Lysias took the assassination threat.

Who, when they came to Caesarea, and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.

View commentary
The formal delivery of both Paul and the letter to Felix follows proper Roman administrative procedure. The governor's receipt of Paul established him under Roman legal protection, removing him from Jewish jurisdiction. This transfer represented a crucial shift in Paul's situation - from religious to civil authority, from mob violence to legal process.

And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia;

View commentary
Felix's question about Paul's province determined legal jurisdiction. Discovering Paul was from Cilicia (under Syrian provincial governance) meant Felix could legally hear the case, as Judean governors handled cases from nearby provinces. This detail shows Luke's accurate knowledge of Roman administrative law and how God arranged proper legal jurisdiction for Paul's defense.

I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod's judgment hall.

View commentary
Felix's promise to hear Paul 'when thine accusers are also come' ensured proper judicial process. The command to keep Paul 'in Herod's judgment hall' provided secure custody in the palace complex. Though imprisoned, Paul now had Roman legal protection and proper venue for defense, demonstrating how God's providence can improve circumstances even within restrictions.

Test Your Knowledge

Continue Your Study