Paul’s defence (Acts 21:37–22:30)

The Roman tribune had assumed that Paul was an Egyptian religious leader who had led a revolt a few years previously, and then went on the run. When he discovered that Paul was a polite Jew from Tarsus, he saw no reason why Paul could not address the hostile crowd. I assume verse 1 is where we get the phrase ‘fathers and brethren’ from, although Paul was using it to describe those of his nation and not a General Assembly. His address was not a sermon, but a legal defence.

This is the second time in Acts that Paul’s conversion experience is given, and it is not the last. On each occasion, Paul is sensitive to his audience. Here, speaking to a Jewish crowd, he highlights his Jewish background and beliefs. The listeners did not oppose the various details until he mentioned that the Lord had sent him to the Gentiles. They did not mind Gentiles becoming Jews as proselytes, but they hated the possibility of Gentiles becoming God’s people without becoming Jews. They had moved miles away from knowing God.

 

The tribune may not have understood Paul’s defence because it was delivered in Aramaic. But he could see that Paul’s words inflamed the crowd. Therefore, he had to find out what Paul’s motives were, and since he knew that flogging usually opened lips, he resolved to use that method. We should realise that flogging was not like getting the belt in school. It could lead to lasting physical damage. Yet it was not until the last minute that Paul revealed to a centurion that he was a Roman citizen, and the centurion knew that such persons could not be flogged.

 

The tribune realised that things had moved beyond his pay grade. Although the tribune was also a Roman citizen, it was not as prestigious as Paul’s status. Since Paul could not be tortured, he had to be tried by other methods. The tribune decided to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

 

This incident has several lessons. One is that we should speak politely to those in authority. A second is that we should speak relevantly to our listeners. A third is that when witnessing we should identify some common grounds before highlighting the difference between the gospel and whatever they believe. A fourth is that we can use secular privileges if we have them. A fifth is that we have no idea what Jesus will arrange for us in his providence.