Paul On Trail
The last third of the book of Acts consists of Paul's refutations of accusations lodged against him. As if receiving a measure-for-measure punishment for his crimes against Stephen, he must prove that he has done nothing against the Torah, the Temple, or the Jewish people across seven trials from Acts 21-28.
In Acts chapter 22 verse one, Paul says to us, ''Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense, which I now offer to you.'' I propose that we spend some time doing exactly that. As we conclude the story of the apostle Paul in the book of Acts. A popular lawyer's saying says, ''He who represents himself has a fool for a client.'' Nevertheless, beginning with the first verse of Acts 22, Paul begins a series of legal arguments, representing himself, defending himself from various allegations and accusations leveled against him. He will find himself playing the fole of attorney for himself seven times in seven different venues. From the mob at fortress Antonia, to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, to the Roman civil courts of Caesarea, to the informal assembly of Jewish leadership in Rome, to the very court of Caesar, Nero himself. Six of these trials constitute the narrative of Acts chapter 21 through to the end of the book.
In fact, Luke ends his narrative with an image of Paul still poised in this defensive posture, warding off allegations that have been raised against him. Let's take a look at these defenses. The first defense is before the temple crowd; we find this in Acts 22. The second defense is before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23. The third defense is before Felix and Drusilla in Acts 24. The fourth defense is before Festus in Acts 25:1-12. The fifth defense is before Agrippa and Bernice in Acts 25:13-14.
The sixth defense is before the Roman Jewish leaders in Acts 28, and we have the seventh defense, which is before Nero. Now it all started in Acts 21 when James and the elders of the community say to Paul, ''You see brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. And they are all zealous for the Torah. And they have been told about you that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs." Here are the reports about Paul. Firstly, that he teaches Jews to forsake the Torah. Secondly, that he teaches Jews not to circumcise their sons. And thirdly, he teaches Jews not to live according to the customs.
Now, where did these false accusations come from in the first place? They came from rumors about Paul that had been drifting in from the diaspora. Yes, it's true. He was teaching the Gentiles that they were not obligated to keep the Torah, they were not obligated to circumcise their sons or to live according to the Jewish customs. James knows that. And that is why he says, ''You yourself also walk orderly, keeping the law.'' But concerning the God-fearing Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, ''Having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.'' it is verses 24 and 25. But just as is in the case Stephen, we have turned these false accusations against Paul upside down and said that they are true. Replacement theology has always taught that Paul turned away from Torah, from circumcision, and from Jewish law and custom. Paul articulates his first defense before the crowd in the temple courts.
Paul presents his credentials, identifies himself as a Jew discipled under Gamaliel the Elder in Jerusalem. He isn't' some weirdo form the diaspora, he is an observant Jew and a disciple of the Sanhedrin's most esteemed rabbi, thoroughly trained in the Torah, and zealous for it.
He makes his second defense before the Sanhedrin, where he denies the charges lodged against him. He says, ''Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up tohis day.'' That is Acts 23:1. In a Jewish context, in the context of the Sanhedrin, what does it mean for a Jewish man to live his life in perfectly good conscience before God? It means Torah and commandments.
This is the same as saying, ''I have remained Torah observant to this very day.'' Then he says, ''I'm a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead.'' Now his opponents are Sadducees. The whole Pharisaic side of the Sanhedrin stands behind Paul after he says this.
But there is one critical flaw in Paul's defense. ''I am a Pharisee.'' He uses the present tense. ''I am a Pharisee.'' If he was not a Pharisee, this would be an easy enough testimony to discredit. Nothing could be easier to disprove, unless of course he was a Pharisee. So, we have two options reading this text. Either Paul purges himself by saying, I am a Pharisee, instead of saying, ''I was a Pharisee,'' or ''He really is a present tense Pharisee, living a life of circumspect observance.''
In Acts, chapters 24 to 26, Paul stands trial before the tribunal of the Roman governor, Felix. Then he has the opportunity to teach before Felix and his wife, the Herodian princess, Drusilla. Then he stands trial before the tribunal of the Roman governor, Festus. and then he is granted the opportunity to offer his defense before the Herodian king, Agrippa II, and his sister, Queen Berenice.
In these defenses, Paul repeatedly denies being an apostate from Judaism, and affirms that he has done nothing against the Torah or the Jewish people. On the other hand, if you 'are looking for some first century Jews who were not exactly living lives faithful to the Torah, you need look no further than the Herodians we meet in these chapters of Acts, King Agrippa II and his younger sister, Bernice and Drusilla. These characters only briefly intersect the narrative of the book of Acts.
Remember that Paul has been charged with both religious and political crimes. Religiously, he is charged with teaching against the Torah, against the Temple, against the Jewish people, and with defiling the Temple by bringing Gentiles into it. Politically, he is charged with stirring up insurrections, riots and demonstrations against Rome and Caesar. In the hearing before Felix, Paul replied to the charges saying, ''I went up to Jerusalem to worship, neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot, nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. But this I admit to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the law, and that is written in the prophets.''
So, Paul refutes all charges of sedition against Caesar and teaching against the Torah or the Jewish people. Instead, Paul believes and conducts himself in accordance with the Torah, and that is written in the prophets. As for the charge about bringing Gentiles into the Temple, he clarifies that this is not the case, but rather he was in the Temple to offer sacrifices, which he was doing when he was jumped by the men from Ephesus.
Two years later, Paul stood trial, again on the same charges, at the tribunal of Governor Festus in Caesarea. He answered the charges this time saying, ''I have committed no offense either against the Torah, the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against Caesar.'' Now, here's the thing. If Paul was teaching Jewish believers not to keep the Torah, or if he himself had abandoned Judaism and the observance of the Torah, this is perjury. Here is a false witness. So, we have to decide, is Paul a liar, or have we had Paul wrong? A few days later, he has the opportunity to defend himself before King Agrippa and Queen Berenice, and he makes several points. Firstly, he says, ''I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.''
Now, interestingly, the Greek word translated here, strictest here, should actually be translated most accurate. It's a Greek word, akribes, meaning exact or precise. Secondly, Paul also says, ''Now, I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers.'' This is not just a legal maneuver. Paul knew full well that the real reason the Sadducees were trying to put him to death had nothing to do with him and very little to do with his teachings, but it had everything to do with their quarrel, with the Pharisees, over the resurrection of the dead.
Thirdly, Paul states that concerning his teaching, ''I state nothing but what is in the prophets and Moses.'' Now, King Agrippa II hears his defense and agrees with him. Paul is not an apostate from Judaism or the author of a new religion. Paul offers one more defense before the conclusion of the book of Acts.
In Acts 28, when Paul assembles the leadership of the Jewish community in Rome to hear him testify, he says to them, ''I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers.'' If he was not keeping the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the Torah as a Jew, he could not have made the statement.
Once again, to the very end, we see Paul, as it were, denying the traditional presentation of his character and the content of his message. Now, I know that I and others have been hammering this point hard, but that is because almost everything in the church hangs upon how we understand and interpret Paul. That is because if it is true that Paul renounced Judaism and Torah and thereafter lived as a Gentile and taught against keeping the Torah, then from the Jewish perspective, Paul and Christianity can be dismissed as a relevant apostasy. And from the Christain perspective, Messianic Judaism needs to be stomped out because it revives the old Jewish religion that Paul tried to eliminate.
So, it is a big deal. If it is not true that Paul left Judaism and taught against Torah, then theology needs to rethink the way it teaches Paul. And it needs to reassess the role of Torah. And it needs to reevaluate the relationship of Christians with the covenant people of Israel, the Jewish people.
So, you see, there is a lot at stake here, a lot riding on the way that we interpret Paul. Obviously, we have some rethinking to do around these issues.
Add comment
Comments