Lesson 22: Defending The Kingdom, Part 1 (Acts 22)

When the Jews from Asia first seized Paul in the temple, they made three charges against the Lord’s apostle: they said he spoke against 1)the people, 2) the law and 3) this place (see Acts 21.28). In Acts 22 we see Paul make his defense (apologia) before the mob who had just tried to kill him. In fact, this was just the first of a series of defenses which Paul would make as he testified before the Jewish council, Roman governors and ultimately appealed his case all the way to Caesar. His defense was more than a denial of the charges, but a testimony of what Jesus had done for him and the mission he’d been given by the Lord. Paul was defending the very Kingdom of God.

Notes From The Text:

Vss. 1-21, Paul’s Defense Before The Mob

Vss. 1-5 appear to be Paul’s defense against the charge that he spoke against the Law. Paul had been educated in the Law and was very zealous for the Law. If Paul was so zealous for the Law, but had converted to Christ, then shouldn’t they want to understand why?

• Vs. 1
  • Paul addressed those who had just tried to kill him with familial regard. He loved them and desired that they would be saved (Romans 9.1-3).
  • The word for “defense” is apologia, the basis for our word apologetics. Christianity can be intellectually defended.
• Vs. 3
  • We are not told when Paul moved from Tarsus to Jerusalem. Speculation is that he would have moved after the age of 13 when he assumed the full obligation of the Law.
  • Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel who held that tradition was superior even to the Law of Moses. Gamaliel would be regarded as one of the seven greatest teachers in all of Judaism. See Acts 5.34ff.
  • Paul had also been zealous, yet without knowledge (see Romans 10.2).
• Vs. 5, “This bringing of the Christians to Jerusalem implied that the offence, since it was against the Holy Place and against the Law, was beyond the jurisdiction of the local courts that met in the synagogue buildings, and must be reserved for the Sanhedrin. After a trial before the Sanhedrin, the prisoner was freed, or beaten and freed, or killed.” (Garreth Reese)

Vss. 6-16 is Paul’s defense that he had spoken against “this place” (i.e. the temple). Paul’s recounting of seeing the Lord on the road to Damascus was meant to convey more than why Paul was now a Christian. The Jews viewed the temple as a holy place because that was where God dwelt among the people. However, Paul had seen the glorified Jesus far outside of Jerusalem. So, what did that mean for the temple; was this truly a holy place?

• Vs. 9, some see a discrepancy with Paul’s words in Acts 9.7. However, the words are different in the passages. They heard the sound, but did not understand or comprehend the message.
• Vs. 11
  • Note that the others had seen the bright light (vs. 9), but they were not blinded. It was the glory of Christ that blinded Paul.
  • Paul was so helpless that he had to be helped into the city. Quite different from the way he had set out for Damascus (see Acts 9.1).
• Vs. 12, Ananias’ Jewish credentials would have struck a chord with the mob.
• Vs. 13, Since the Jews know that only God can generate a miracle (cf. John 3:2), if Ananias was able to restore Saul’s vision, this must signify that this entire event had been divinely orchestrated. Paul is laying a solid foundation to demonstrate that his conversion to Christianity was not alien to the will of the God they all loved.
• Vs. 14, Ananias referring to “The God of our fathers” showed the continuity between the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with those who now put their faith in Jesus Christ.
• Vs. 16, this passage, and many others, make it clear that sins are not forgiven until one is baptized (see Mark 16.16; Acts 2.38; Romans 6.3-4; 1Peter 3.21). However, baptism must not be divorced from faith in Christ, even as this passage makes clear. Paul was to be baptized, “calling on” Jesus’ name.

Vss. 17-21 is Paul’s defense against the third charge; that Paul had spoken against the people. Paul desired to proclaim the gospel among his Israelite kinsmen, but the Lord had other plans for him; he would be sent “far away to the Gentiles”. If the Lord was sending Paul to the Gentiles, what did that mean for Israel’s standing as the people of God? Could it be that the Lord had redefined who exactly qualified as His people?

• Vs. 17, Paul’s return was not until 3 years later.
  • Spent time with disciples in Damascus (Acts 9.19).
  • Trip to Arabia (Gal. 1.17-18).
  • Return to Damascus (Gal. 1.17-18).
  • Return to Jerusalem (Acts 9.23-26; 22.17).
• Vs. 18, Paul’s shift at this point may have been to suggest to the mob that they were also rebelling against the Lord.
• Vss. 19-21
  • Paul thought that his credentials would make him the ideal candidate to proclaim Jesus to the Jews, but the Lord had other plans for him (see Acts 9.15).
  • If there were any questions about why Paul had spent so much time away from Jerusalem (remember the charge that Paul spoke against “this place” in Acts 21.28), the answer was that the Lord who saved Paul sent him “far away to the Gentiles”.

Vss. 22-29, Paul And The Roman Tribune

• Vs. 22, remember that the charges were that Paul taught against “the people and the law and this place” (Acts 21.28). Paul’s defense had shown that those charges were baseless, but reason would not triumph over their hatred of the Gentiles.
• Vs. 24, the tribune did not speak Hebrew, so he did not know what the accusations were against Paul. The Roman scourge was an instrument of immense torture (see Matthew 27.26) which often resulted in death (Tacitus records that 7 out of 10 men would die when scourged).
• Vs. 25, Roman law (both the Valerian and Porcian laws) forbade Roman citizens from being beaten. Such unlawful punishment could even result in the death of the one who ordered the beating.
• Vs. 28
  • Purchasing citizenship was not strictly legal, but during the reign of Claudius it was well known that citizenship could be purchased if the correct bribes were paid to the right people. The commander’s name, Claudius Lysias (see Acts 23.26) likely indicates that he purchased his citizenship during his reign.
  • The tribune may have divulged how he purchased his citizenship as an insult to Paul, i.e. anyone could be a citizen these days. However, Paul’s birth as a citizen placed him in a completely different category. Being a resident of Tarsus did not confer Roman citizenship, so we do not know how Paul’s ancestors obtained Roman citizenship. Slaves freed by Roman masters were granted citizenship, so if Paul’s ancestors had been taken captive that could have explained how Paul was a Roman citizen.

Vss. 30, Paul’s Defense Before The Sanhedrin

• Vs. 30, “He still thought that Paul was a criminal of some sort, but he could not learn of what crime he had been guilty; he could not properly continue to hold him if there was no charge against him. But on the other hand, to release him would seriously endanger Paul’s own life if the Jews got hold of him again. Rome would not look with favor on any such breach of the peace as an assassination of a Roman citizen.” (Garreth Reese)

Defending the Kingdom:

1. Give good arguments, not insults. We would not blame Paul for being angry. After all, the mob he was addressing had just tried to kill him. However, Paul loved his enemies and desired that they would be saved (Romans 10.1-2). So, Paul did not hurl insults, rather he gave reasons arguments for why his kinsmen should put their faith in Christ.
2. Give the information necessary to reach the right conclusions. Paul didn’t give a series of doctrinal statements and then tell the assembled people to take it or leave it. He could have truthfully said that the temple had been replaced by God’s true temple the church or that the Jews were no longer the special people of God, rather it was whoever put their faith in Christ. But such declarations would only inflame the audience, so Paul made his defense by laying out his case so that hopefully at least some could reach the correct conclusions.
3. Remember that Jesus is the judge, not the audience. Paul did not win over the audience, their prejudice was too great to give the apostle a fair hearing. But Paul had been faithful to his Lord, and that was all that mattered.