Paul in Jerusalem and Palestine

Paul in Jerusalem and Palestine

When the missionary party came up from Caesarea “with certain of the disciples” there, the travelers brought “with them one Mnason, a Cyprian, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge” (Acts 21:16) When Paul entered through the city gate of the ancient Jerusalem the year was approximately A.D. 57 or 58; the greatest missionary known in the annals of man was to become a prisoner for the next four or five years (Acts 21:17 – 28:21)

As for the man himself he must have been in the neighborhood of sixty years of age, having for the past twenty or so years been engaged in almost superhuman labors and endeavors. All during these years he had been traveling and preaching almost incessantly, carrying upon his heart a crushing weight of cares such as no other man, apart from Christ, has ever borne. During these years of strife and toil his body had been mercilessly worn and torn with disease and several times mangled because of the dire punishments and abuse meted out by his own countrymen and the great variety of Gentile people among whom he labored. His hair; what little may have been left of it, must surely have been whitened and his fact furrowed and lined by the hand of time. So he must have appeared to one of the writers of his day and time who described him as “a man small in stature, bald-headed, bow-legged, stout, close-browed, with a slightly prominent nose, full of grace”.

Added to all his other afflictions had been the placement upon him by Satan; allowed and permitted by God, what he called a grievous “thorn in my flesh”. He never took the time or occasion to explain the meaning of the term “thorn in my flesh” and, consequently, many versions as to what it might have been has sprung up among believers. Some have claimed that he was terribly afflicted with epilepsy. The Jewish author, Sholem Asch, in his fictional biography “The Apostle”, assumes this view. Others have gone to the extent of claiming that Paul had a wife who was not in the least sympathetic with his religious views and practices, or his long missionary journeys, thus causing him considerable discomfort and difficulty. But the greatest portion of Biblical scholarship is agreed that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was undoubtedly opthalmia; a serious disease of the eyes which brings about a noticeable disfigurement of the face in making the eyes to become “runny and red-rimmed and finally producing almost total blindness”.

Yet, strangely enough, Scripture gives no evidence of his body breaking down at this time, and it is more than evident that his spirit was still as keen as ever in its enthusiasm for and desire to participate in the service of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, as Paul entered upon what was probably his last visit to Jerusalem; the end of his ministry is in view. At Tyre he had received an inkling of this end; at Caesarea it was much amplified.

Acts 21:17-26 makes known that the Jerusalem brethren received the missionary company, escorted by the saints from Caesarea, with hearty greeting immediately upon their arrival. It provided an excellent moment for Paul and the Jerusalem brethren to renew their fellowship and previous agreement. Paul, accompanied by some of his attendants (“us”), sought out the opportunity to go before James at the earliest possible moment; the full company of the Jerusalem elders also being present for the occasion. Strangely enough, James was the “president of the assembly of elders and was claimed by the Judaizers as their leader and authority for their secular contentions (Galatians 2)

In the presence of this assembled group Paul recounts at some length the surprising things “which God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry”. After the Jerusalem brethren had frankly and openly glorified God because of these great victories, they in turn report to Paul that there were “many myriad” of Jews who had come to believe, but who were all still loyal zealots for the Law. Unfortunately, these “many myriads” of believing Jews had been “misinformed”; literally “let down” concerning Paul’s missionary activities; the active and unscrupulous Judaizers and some sincere Jewish brethren, buying up the opportunity to preach and teach that Paul “was teaching apostasy from Moses” to all the Jews that lived among the Gentiles.

The biggest bone of contention was that Paul, so they accused, was not teaching the Jews to circumcise their children or to order their lives in accordance with the recognized Jewish customs. So successful had these Judaizers been in their program against Paul that the brethren were forced to frankly admit that such a prejudice has arisen against Paul as to produce a great commotion when it was known he had arrived in Jerusalem. After giving some thought to the matter they advised Paul to shave his head, along with four other Jews who had taken upon themselves a vow, and enter upon a voluntary purification in the Temple and thereby forestall any action that might arise on the part of the Jews. The suggestion was agreeable to Paul and he subsequently proceeded to the Temple to fulfill the prescribed rite of purification.

Everything seemed to progress smoothly until the seven days of purification were almost completed. Near the end days of his time of purification “the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the Temple, stirred up the entire multitude and laid hands on him”. Some have thought it most enlightening that they accused Paul in accordance with the statement previously made by the Jerusalem brethren. However, to this charge they also added the one that he had, as they supposed, brought Greeks into the Temple and had thereby defiled it (Acts 21:27-29) As word of Paul’s presence in the Temple, in the presence supposedly of Greeks, spread from mouth to mouth, in short order a riot ensued; “the entire city was moved”.

While the rioting Jews were evidently seeking a means to drag Paul out of the Temple that they might kill him, word came to the Roman captain, in the nearby Antonia Tower just off the wall of the Temple, that all Jerusalem was in confusion and at a riot state over the man Paul; he intervened and saved Paul’s life (Acts 21:30-33) In a matter of moments Paul is placed in chains and rushed by the Roman legionnaires up the stairway leading up from the Temple floor; to the “castle” the above mentioned Tower of Antonia overlooking the Temple grounds.

The moment the angry mob discerned that they were losing their prey, they made a strong attempt to get him back. Of such violence and determination was their endeavor that the soldiers were forced to pick up Paul bodily and carry him up the stairway (Acts 21:33-36) In the midst of the struggle Paul addressed the leader of the Roman legionnaires, speaking in the Greek language, and requested permission to speak to the howling mob below him. The leader of the legionnaires had mistakenly supposed him to be an Egyptian rioter, well-known for his troublesome uproars, but when Paul assured him that he was “a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city”, permission was granted to him to speak a word (Acts 21:37-40) As soon as the legionnaire gave his permission Paul raised his hand and beckoned to the people that he wished to speak. In that instant a “great silence was made” and Paul spoke to them in the Hebrew language, recounting very carefully to his own people his religious experience (Acts 22:1-21)

All progressed without the least difficulty until one word; “Gentiles” fell from the lips of Paul. This single word set the mob to howling again, howling in their lust for the blood of Paul (Acts 22:21-22) Fearing that a surge of the angry crowd would sweep up the stairway and overwhelm them, the legionnaires hastily withdrew into the safety of the tower above them. The moment that they were secured within the safety of the tower the Roman leader determined that he would examine Paul by means of the customary scourging. However, upon being appraised of Paul’s Roman citizenship “the chief captain also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him” (Acts 22:23-29) In undisguised haste the legionnaire dismissed those whom he had called to torture a confession out of Paul, and henceforth spoke to him in the most civil of tones.

Nevertheless a serious uproar had been created and, on the day following, the Roman captain was anxious to get at the bottom of the affair and commanded the “chief priest and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set him before them”. In due time Paul, being granted permission to make his defense before the Jewish court, commenced his argument by stating “brethren I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day”. As soon as he had made the statement the Jewish High Priest Ananias ordered him smitten on the mouth by one of those who stood near to Paul. When the command was apparently immediately obeyed, Paul turned and faced the High Priest and pronounced a curse upon him “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commands me to be smitten contrary to the law”.

In amazement and consternation some of them that stood around reproved Paul with the question, “Reviles thou God’s High Priest?” For some reason Paul seemed to be unaware that he was the High Priest and, remembering the commandment prohibiting the revealing of the High Priest, he made the proper apology. But this apology of Paul did not destroy the truth and certainty of his hastily spoken prophecy. Within a year’s time the prophecy was fulfilled upon Ananias he was deposed from his office and, some ten years later, when the Jewish war with Rome reached its climax, he was assassinated along with other of his Sadducean followers (Acts 22:30 – 23:1-5)

However, if the interference on the part of the High Priest did nothing more, it did give Paul time to reconsider which would be the best method to make his defense before the council and he chose to become a supreme psychologist. Luke records it that “when Paul perceived that the one part was Sadducees and the other part Pharisees touching the hope of resurrection of the dead I am called in question”. As Paul must have fully expected, the assembled members of the council that was trying Paul’s case became in fact and in action a howling mob. The dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so violent that the Roman leader, fearing for the life of Paul; that he would be any moment torn to pieces, hurriedly sent his soldiers down into the melee and once again rescued Paul. Upon returning to the security of the armored tower, Paul was deposited in a prison cell.

On “the night following” the Lord stood by Paul in his prison cell to give him encouragement. In this vision the Lord is careful to inform Paul that he is to bear witness to His name in Rome also. However, forty men, totally unaware of God’s determination to bring Paul to Rome, in the meantime bind themselves together under a most severe oath not to eat or drink anything until such time as they had accomplished the murder of Paul. These men, that they might facilitate their purpose to destroy Paul, quietly approached the chief priests and elders and desired of them that they would arrange to have Paul re-appear the very next day before them, giving to the Roman legionnaire the pretext of judging his case more exactly and properly. At some point in the affair the band of forty men would rush upon Paul and destroy him before the legionnaires could spring into action.

There is no indication whatsoever as to how it came about, but Paul’s sister’s son became aware of the plan to murder Paul and made a hasty visit to Paul’s prison cell and gave him the warning. Paul hurriedly called one of the legionnaires guarding him and requested of him that he would immediately take his nephew to the chief captain that he might tell him of the plan. The chief captain, acting very quickly when he received the information, ordered a group of his men to take Paul, in the middle of the night, to Felix, the Roman governor of the province, who was then at Caesarea. The Roman official at Jerusalem sent along a letter of explanation and Felix, upon talking somewhat briefly with Paul, proposes to “hear thee fully; when thine accusers are come; and he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s palace” (Acts 23:6-35)

Thus began Paul’s imprisonment under the jurisdiction of Felix which lasted for two years. But it was only five days after his nocturnal journey to Caesarea that “the High Priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul”. Felix subsequently summoned Paul for the purpose of defending himself when Tertullus, practicing the customary approach of most worldlings, began his oration against Paul by passing Felix several high compliments (Acts 24:1-3)

When Tertullus got down to the business at hand he falsely accused Paul of being a noisome pestilence; as we would say it “a common nuisance”. In general, his accusation was composed of three main points

(1) It was well known that he was an instigator of uprisings among all the Jews throughout the inhabited world; the Roman Empire.

(2) Paul was one of the outstanding and most adamant; a “first rank man” – “a champion”—of those who belonged to the “heresy of the Nazarenes”.

This was a stroke of genius if it would work for, if the Jews could succeed in repudiating Jewish Christians as not religiously Jews, then the Christian Church would possess no standing as a “permitted religion” in theRoman Empire, and its aggressive membership would be subject to punishment and banishment because of their violation of the Law.

(3) Paul had endeavored to openly and carelessly desecrate the Temple (Acts 24:4-8)

At the end of Tertullus’ oration it is written that “the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so”.

Tertullus having finished the statement of the prosecution, and the Jews having finished their secondary statements, Paul is permitted to speak on his own behalf. It is worthy of some significance that he also opens his remarks by complimenting Felix; but he in nowise was guilty of the use of flattery such as had been true of Tertullus. Thereafter he quietly reported to Felix the true facts of the case, demanding that if any person had proof of his misbehavior that they should appear before him in person, but at the same time refusing to deny that he was of the way which his fellow countrymen called heresy, intimating strongly that the chief problem was that “touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day”. When Paul had finished his defense the Jewish delegation from Jerusalem had to settle for a postponement of the case; for so Felix ruled.

Fortunately for the Christians, but unfortunately for the Jews, Felix was too well informed concerning “the Way” of the Christians to be misled by the proposed untruth of Tertullus and his aggregation. Moreover, his legally trained mind was fully aware that, up to now, no case against Paul had been made, and, what was more, none could be built upon the charges which had been presented by Tertullus. Notwithstanding, be felt that it would be wise to wait for a season and until such time as he would be able to speak to Lysius in person. He probably reasoned that this was as good an excuse as any other, and since he had heard of the supposedly large sum of money Paul handled, having heard doubtless of his sums for the poor saints in Palestine, and because he knew that Paul had influential friends, he determined upon postponement. In the interim between hearings it occurred to him “that money (would) be given him of Paul, that he might loose him”.

And so Felix placed Paul under a sort of house arrest wherein he was permitted a certain amount of liberty, permitting especially the friends of Paul to visit him as often as they desired. After this condition had prevailed for a time, Felix came with his wife and, sending for Paul, “heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus”. It was more than likely an opportunity that Paul did not expect, but he quickly applied himself to reasoning about righteousness, self-control, and concerning the judgment which was to come. Felix became more and more terrified and frightened; to the extent that he trembled, and in a short while he sent Paul away with the rejoinder that he would hear him when he was possessed of a more convenient season (Acts 24:10-25) Thereafter he sent for Paul often and communed with him, but no record of his conversion is given; only, as already mentioned, “he hoped with all that money would be given him of Paul”.

Thus, for two whole years Paul is kept under house arrest by Felix and the Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix, it appears, could easily have arranged for Paul’s release as he left his governorship, but, in the expressive phrasing of Acts 24:27, “desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds”.

Some time shortly after his arrival, Festus journeyed to Jerusalem and while he was at Jerusalem the Jewish leaders took the golden opportunity to inflame the mind of Festus against Paul and attempt to get him to bring Paul to Jerusalem; for they had planned to lay in wait “to kill him on the way”. Festus decided that, since he was soon returning to Caesarea, it would be best for them to bring their cohorts to that city and appear before Paul there. And so it was that the Jewish leaders returned once more to Caesarea, this time in Festus’ company, for the purpose of trying Paul. The day after their arrival Paul is escorted before the judgment seat and again harshly charged by the angry Jewish leaders.

As the trial progressed Festus struck upon the ides that here was an excellent opportunity for him to gain favor with the Jews, during these first days of his governorship, and he suggests to Paul that he return toJerusalem for trial. Paul completely rejected the suggestion on the basis that he had done nothing worthy of punishment and, what was more, he was at that moment before the judgment seat of Caesar where, if he were guilty, he should be judged. Consequently, he would not go to Jerusalem and, seeing that there apparently was no other course to pursue, he stated with finality “I appeal to Caesar” (Acts 25:1-12)

Paul was returned to his semi-house arrest; the future of the case remained inconclusive. During this state of affairs Herod Agrippa II and his wife Bernice came to pay an official visit to Festus. Agrippa was at the time a ruling king of sorts over a small territory in the northern part of Palestine. In the course of their conversations Festus brought the case of Paul to the attention of Agrippa and Agrippa expressed the keen desire to hear Paul’s case; and so the day was set (Acts 25:13-22) What actually happened was that Festus entertained Agrippa and his court with a sermon from Paul; for the evidence is that Festus made a notable state occasion of the whole proceeding. Thus, the hearing was not conducted in the usual judgment or justice hall, but in the public audience chamber, the “place of hearing”, where it was customary to hold all the receptions and entertainments.

Agrippa brought his queen to this gathering with a great show of display before the large assembly of military officers, the “commanders of thousands”, and the large number of men of the city who were invited on the grounds of their prominence and position. Last of all Paul is brought in, still bound and chained to a Roman soldier, and his case is presented to all the dignitaries present as a matter of politeness; but especially was the presentation made to King Agrippa.

Festus explained that the meeting was to be held for the purpose of determining exactly what charge to place upon Paul, seeing that it was necessary for him, in due course, to send this prisoner to Caesar’s judgment hall. Festus then turns to Paul and instructs him to speak for himself; and Luke, in Acts 26:1-29, carefully records the contents of Paul’s defense before this assembly.

Friend and foe alike have admitted throughout the passing centuries that the Apostle “made his defense” in an oration that is admittedly one of the foremost examples of splendid eloquence which has been preserved in any literature. All are equally agreed that he made his defense in a nobly frank, incisive statement of the self-consistency of his life as a Pharisaic Jew and a Christian Jew and of the consistency of that life with the Jewish faith, rightly interpreted. He presented to the court adequate and understandable reasons for his acceptance of Christianity, going carefully over the story of his conversion; and for his acceptance of his Gentile ministry the relation of his call by the Lord Jesus. As he progresses in his statements, so very reasonable does the whole issue appear to him, and so powerfully does his double passion for the Lord and for the souls of men grip him, that he cannot refrain from making a personal appeal to Agrippa to agree with him and, in agreeing with him, accept Jesus Christ as the saving Messiah. Paul’s defense was nothing more or less than the story of his life up to that moment.

Obviously, much that Paul was saying would have been outright new and strange to the Roman governor who was newly come to these parts to take up his political employment. Paul’s learning was undeniably profound, his great and vital questions so searching, and especially his personal enthusiasm at so white heat, that Festus experienced something of awe to the extent that he grew excited and blurted out in a high voice “thou art mad, Paul the much learning is turning thee mad”. Paul’s carefully worded answer to Festus was to disclaim any charge of madness, indicating, rather, that he possessed all the definite evidence of saneness. He then turned to Agrippa with a point-blank questioning as to whether he believed the things about which he had been speaking. The answer of Agrippa has become classic among Christians “with but little persuasion thou wouldestfain to make me a Christian”; and the reply of Paul is likewise classic “I would do God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become as I am, except these bonds”.

Finally, when the meeting had been adjourned and Festus and Agrippa were discussing the trial privately, the findings of their consultation; as voiced by Agrippa, was that Paul was “guilty of nothing calling for either death or bonds”; therefore, “this man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (Acts 26:30-32) Unfortunately, however, once the appeal to Caesar had been entered upon, the case was entirely out of the hands of the procurator and could not even be dismissed if all the parties concerned were to agree to dismissal, which, it is to be allowed, the Jews probably would not have considered.

The chief problem at the moment was that Festus had as yet nothing very “safe” to write, but subsequent events indicate that he must have stated the case in a manner that was exceptionally favorable to Paul; but, in all actuality, as Paul was being prepared for the journey to Rome, being taken there as a common prisoner, he had not case whatsoever against him; even Festus and Agrippa agreeing to this!