Was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin?

It was this very man, Saul of Tarsus, who was the champion of Judaism, yea, of Satan, against Christ. A zealot in the Jews' religion, he was the foremost in the manifestation of bitter hostility to Christ and to His followers. "Young man" though he was when Stephen was being stoned, he stood calmly by, "assisting" at his death, endorsing in his wicked zeal that outburst of religious frenzy which, setting aside all legal forms, slaked its thirst in the martyr's blood. He would seem to have been a member of the Jewish council, before which all such heretics were tried and sentenced; for he said, when before Agrippa, "When they were put to death, I gave my voice [vote] against them." Commending himself thus to the Jewish authorities by his energy and zeal, he received authority from the chief priests to act against the saints in Jerusalem, and he shut up many of them in prison; and, to quote his own language, "I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities." (Acts 26:10-11.) This will explain the statement in chapter 8:3, that Saul "made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison"; and again, that he breathed "out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord." (9:1.)

That Saul was highly respected in Jerusalem and close to the leaders of the people, is seen by the letters entrusted to him and the commission to Damascus. He may have been even a member of the council, for "he voted." "When they (Christians) were put to death, I gave my voice (literally, my vote) against them" (Acts 26:10).

But what should the chief captain do with his prisoner? On what ground could he detain him? Or should he go free? Puzzled evidently as to the course he should pursue, his next device was to summon the council to meet, and to bring Paul before it. Something might then be elicited to make his path clear. The council met, and Paul, who had once, it is supposed, been a member of it, for the first and the last time in his life stood before it, yet not as a prisoner arraigned before that tribunal, for no charge had been formulated against him. Many who now looked on him must have known him in earlier years. Ex-high-priests, as Caiaphas and Theophilus, [87] were probably there, and doctors of the law, with whom, before his conversion, Paul had doubtless consulted. What a company to stand before, and what an occasion for them to see and hear the one whose name and whose course were well known to them all! But the purpose for which the council was summoned utterly failed to be realised. The chief captain could only gather that nothing worthy of death or of bonds could be brought against his prisoner. Questions of Jewish law were all that he could understand had caused the turmoil into which Jerusalem had been thrown; and even as to them there was not unanimity. For the council was divided. The Pharisees declared there was no evil in Paul; whilst the Sadducees, if they had had their way, would have killed him. Judicial calmness and even-handed justice, it became apparent, were absent from their proceedings. So as Paul's life was evidently in danger, the military, summoned by their commander, rescued him from his perilous position, and took him back to the castle.

On Paul's behaviour at this trying time some have commented in a manner not complimentary to the Apostle. The situation was unusual, and his circumstances were trying. He was there with no charge brought against him to which he was to plead. And when he said, and could say with truth, he had lived in all good conscience to that day, the high priest Ananias ordered him to be struck on the mouth, a most unrighteous act, and, considering the circumstance we have mentioned, utterly indefensible. No wonder the Apostle's sense of the injustice stirred him up, and he answered the high priest, not knowing that he was the high priest, in a way he would not have done had he been consciously addressing that officer. And then, discerning the character of the assembly, he rallied the Pharisaic section to his side, by reminding all that his great offence in the eyes of the Sadducees consisted in upholding the doctrine of resurrection, which they systematically denied. We would, however, whilst thus noticing what the historian has told us, leave Paul in the hands of his Judge and ours, only remembering that he had been distinctly forbidden by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem at this time. It is no wonder, then, if his conduct on this occasion laid him open to animadversion. No one of us is perfect. But ere we pass strictures on him, let us be sure that we should have acted better ourselves.

Saul of Tarsus, then a young man, was present at Stephen’s death, and “kept the raiment of them that slew him.”

The Sanhedrim was becoming effete and old. Its energy, hitherto fiercely waged in vain against the cross, was growing feeble, when this young man came upon the scene. One of great learning and unspotted life — and probably of the highest caste amongst the Jews, excelling all amongst his people in the religion of the Pharisee; with perhaps the finest energy given to man — he had been welcomed by the great Sanhedrim of Israel, and entrusted with authority to extirpate the religion of the Nazarene! With a zeal for the God of his fathers beyond all others at that day, he stood by when the final stroke was put to the rejection of Jesus, in the stoning of the proto-martyr Stephen. And lest the murderers should be impeded, by their long Eastern garments, he “kept the raiment of them that slew him,” and “consented unto his death.”

This is seen in Paul’s history in the book of Acts, from chapter 8 on. Paul voted for Stephen’s death and when the Lord spoke to him He said, “Why do you push your feet against the pricks?”which is an indication that Paul’s conscience bothered him. Paul saw something in Stephen when he was stoned to death that never left him, his conscience was touched by that but he went on in the persecution, he went on in Judaism nevertheless. He had a place as a trailblazer in rabbinic Judaism (he advanced in it) and so he excessively persecuted the church. Let me just state the passages that you could read to see this: Acts 8, 9, 22, 24 and 26, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 1 and also Philippians 3. There we have glimpses of what Paul had done and how the Lord came into his life. But he had a very dominant place in Judaism, he was taught at the feet of Gamaliel, a well respected teacher (Acts 5:34) and then he was probably in Tarsus for a while at the university there before coming back to Jerusalem, the Lord being already glorified in heaven, and he persecuted the Christians there. Judaism at that time was not what God had given through Moses or restored through Ezra; here Judaism was what man had made from what God had given originally. The scribes, a few generations after Ezra, introduced a lot of human reasoning to protect the law, to ensure that the Jews would not transgress it anymore as they had done before the Babylonian captivity. But later this reasoning was put on the same level as the law and gradually even placed above it (they came up with the idea that the “oral law,”meaning their interpretations and traditions, had been given by God to Moses the same time He gave him the written law, and that the ‘oral law’had been memorized from generation to generation, but now - still according to these scribes - the time had come to put it in writing).

"And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written, which no one knows but he that receives [it]." The word used here (psephos) signifies a stone or pebble which, in ancient times, had two well-known uses. In criminal cases, a white stone was given denoting acquittal; or a black, signifying condemnation. Thus Paul, referring to his pre-converted days when he persecuted the Christians, says, that when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them — literally, it is, he gave his stone against them the word is the same (Acts 26:10). But there was another signification; the white stone meant a token given to victors in the public games. Either of these two senses would suit the present case, though probably it is the latter which is intended for the overcomer in the Revelation. The white stone of our chapter, however, had a rare and precious attribute; it contained, and conferred on the possessor, a name which no one knew but he that received it. How sweet, amid the thronging myriads in heaven, for an individual to enjoy a secret shared only by himself and the Lord of glory! Personality and private acquaintance with the Lord Jesus will not be lost in the numerousness of the glorified hosts. How compensative will this be fot any toil or loss or adversity into which, down here, faithfulness may have led the overcomer! E.J.T. "Called by that secret name Of undisclosed delight (Blest answer to reproach and shame), Graved on the stone of white."

Here he lets us see how unsafe a guide conscience is for the natural man, no matter what may be his religious helps. He considered it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and zealously persecute all who called on Him. Nor does God accept such a plea. He had sent His Son with adequate proof of His Messiahship for all who would compare His written word with the facts of Jesus the Nazarene: prophecy accomplished, miracles wrought not only by Himself but by His servants, and of a character quite peculiar, yet harmonizing with a teaching altogether unexampled; and a moral power of holy life ending in a death of deepest shame on the cross, which He ever held out as not man's sin only, but God's grace as the ransom for sinners, to the reality of which all sacrifices pointed from Abel downward. Paul therefore had acted ignorantly in unbelief, as do others who refuse all revelation or misuse one part to reject another still fuller and more glorious.

The greater the religious zeal in such a state of unbelief, the farther it carries the devotee from the present testimony of God. Hence it was that Paul gave himself up with all his soul to opposing the faith of Jesus as the Christ in Jerusalem, which he would feel was outraged by His claims. Here, before Agrippa, he does not hesitate to confess to his own shame that he shut up 'many of the saints' in prisons. To the Jews he had employed the more vague expression, 'this Way' (Acts 22:4); as Luke in the history spoke of 'the disciples of the Lord' (Acts 9:1). How little he so thought when he received the requisite authority from the chief priests! Nor was it only imprisoning. When it was a question of putting them to death, had he not given an adverse vote? Notably it was so in Stephen's case, as this Book records. Had he not visited all the synagogues, often punishing souls and forcing out blasphemy if possible? And had he not in his excessive madness pursued them even into cities outside the land?

It is scarcely to be supposed that this was a regular assemblage of the Sanhedrim, it was done hurriedly to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority so to assemble the religious chiefs of the Jews. This may serve to explain what ordinarily would seem scarcely intelligible. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. Had he been in his official robes, this could scarcely be understood; especially as we are told that Paul looked steadfastly at the council. If it were an informal meeting, neither high priest nor other may have worn any distinctive raiment.

And now we find him addressing the Sanhedrin. For the last time the Jewish council is mentioned in this book. Three times before the Sanhedrin had been called together in connection with those who believed in the Lord Jesus (4:5, 5:21 and 6:12-15). Looking straight at the council, Paul did not wait for the formalities connected with the proceedings, but addressed the gathered Sanhedrin as men and brethren. And strange are the words with which he opened his defense: "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." In this he made a public declaration of his righteousness, which reminds us of his confession as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:4-6). This self-justification shows that he was not acting under the leading of the Holy Spirit. This bold language resulted in stirring up the anger of the high priest Ananias, who commanded that the bystanders should smite the Apostle on the mouth. And Paul was not slow to reply with a harsh word, calling the high priest "a whited wall" and demanding of God to smite him. No doubt the high priest was indeed a "whited wall" and fully deserved the judgment from God. But did Paul in speaking thus show the meekness of Him, whose servant he was?

The Greek word is συνέδριον, 'a sitting together': it is always translated 'council' in the A.V. There appears to be no Hebrew equivalent to the name. The Jews trace its origin to the seventy elders chosen to assist Moses, Num. 11:16-17; but nothing is said of such a council in the time of the kingdom; and it is probable that it was instituted in the time of the Maccabees. The early writers do not say how it was composed; from the N.T. we find it consisted of the chief priests, or heads of the twenty-four courses, the elders, lawyers, and the scribes. It was the highest court of the Jews, acting 'in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical and civil.' Its decisions were binding on Jews everywhere. Its powers were curtailed by Herod and afterwards by the Romans, who prevented the Jews from putting any one to death legally. John 18:31. The Lord, Luke 22:66; Peter and John, Acts 4:1-23; Acts 5:17-41; Stephen, Acts 6:12-15; and Paul, Acts 22:30; Acts 23:1-10; were arraigned before the Sanhedrin.