Take Courage !

Take Courage…!

, And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”

Martin Luther once said, “If we consider the greatness and the glory of the life we shall have when we have risen from the dead, it would not be difficult at all for us to bear the concerns of this world.

If I believe the Word, I shall on the Last Day, after the sentence has been pronounced, not only gladly have suffered ordinary temptations, insults, and imprisonment, but I shall also say: "O, that I did not throw myself under the feet of all the godless for the sake of the great glory which I now see revealed and which has come to me through the merit of Christ!"

Now today Luke presents us with the last of two defense speeches Paul gave in Jerusalem. There were three other defense speeches which follow in Caesarea— one before Felix (24:1–27), one before Festus (25:1–27), and one before Agrippa (26:1–32). These actions and this “progress” does not come easily. Though Roman officials smooth the way a little bit, they scarcely go out of their way to accommodate Paul. It is God’s care for Paul that is highlighted in various ways and contrasted with the antagonism shown from his own people. As Paul moves through a slow progression of legal spectacles, ‘Luke is able to demonstrate through Paul’s defense speeches not only Paul’s innocence of the charges brought against him by the Jews, but the reality for which Paul truly stands in suffering and witness: that in the resurrection of Jesus the authentic “hope of Israel” was realized.

The Roman commander continues to be a key figure in Luke’s narrative. Determined to find out why the Jews were so antagonistic toward Paul; he gave him permission to speak to the Jerusalem crowd (21:39–40). Frustrated by their violent response and restrained from flogging Paul because of his claim to be a Roman citizen (22:22–29), the commander now has ordered the chief priests and all the Jewish Council to assemble to clarify the accusation (22:30). But here we see the Sanhedrin becomes antagonistic when Paul makes explicit what was implied in the preceding speech, that he had consistently fulfilled his duty to God ‘in all good conscience’ (v. 1). Even as he is unjustly treated by the leaders of his people and condemns them for it, Paul shows remarkable respect towards the high priest (vv. 2–5). The meeting becomes even more violent when Paul claims to be on trial ‘because of the hope of the resurrection from the dead’ (vv. 6–9). This is no cynical attempt to win the support of the Pharisees against the Sadducees. Throughout the following speeches, Paul regularly comes back to this theme (24:14–16, 21; 26:6–8, 22–23; 28:20), showing that it is central to his apologetic with Jewish audiences. By this means he links the prophetic hope about Israel’s future with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And this my brothers and sisters takes courage.

The commander rescues Paul once more from Jewish attack, taking him away by force and keeping him in the barracks (23:10). But with that rescue the ascended Lord Jesus is revealed as Paul’s true protector. In a vision reminiscent of the one in Corinth, Christ promises to bring Paul safely to Rome, even in the midst of this storm to testify about him there also. All Paul needs to do is to trust Christ and take courage and all we need to do is to trust Christ and take courage.

Let us pray…

Take courage because you have lived your whole life before God in good conscience.

Our text begins as Paul utters these words from ,

And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.

Here we see an abrupt introduction to the proceedings with the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Paul’s at his a pre-trial hearing rather than for a formal trial. From where we ended last week in 22:30 it is clear that ‘the tribune is still trying to discern the facts of the case; whether Paul is guilty of an offense that is chargeable under Roman law’.

Paul looks directly at the Sanhedrin, staring intently, seeking to capture and hold their attention by his gaze. He addressed the members of the Council as equals because he calls them all brothers. Speaking to them, as a Jew speaking to fellow Jews, and listen to his claim, ‘I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day’. While it is true that the verb here politeuomai normally means ‘living as a (good) citizen. These are linked to the words (to theo) which this expression indicates that ‘his life has been lived in the sight of God, and in obedience to God’. This is what initially angers the Sanhedrin. Because the preceding speech suggests that the reference here is specifically to the way he had now responded to his divine calling from Christ our Lord.

Listen to what Paul says to King Agrippa in , “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

As in 26:19, he is claiming to have lived in obedience to the heavenly vision. So, this reading of 23:1 is one of several indications that Paul’s statements in his defense are illuminated when understood as part of his central testimony. When Paul claims that he acted in all good conscience, he means that his conscience was clear of any blame with regard to the conduct of his life as a Christian.

, always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia—they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. In particular, he was not aware of any fault in responding to God’s direction for his ministry.

Whatever you do, don’t look at this statement in light of this being a claim to sinlessness. We only have to look at to see that this is not what Paul believes when he speaks of having a clear conscience before God.

, For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Here we see that some of the Corinthians, perhaps followers of Apollos or Cephas, probably spoke disparagingly of Paul, especially of his speaking ability, thinking they because of it they were able to judge his spiritual effectiveness. Paul emphasizes the importance of not going beyond what is written in Scripture, as exemplified by his five quotations up to this point. He we also see that Paul acknowledges the limitations of his own self-awareness and confesses that the Lord is the ultimate judge. In , he speaks of the conviction that he once thought he was doing God’s will when he was living before his God, ‘I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them.’

During this time Paul suffered from what many people suffered from today. What is that pastor? Paul was overly righteous and overly wise.

What does it mean to What does it mean to be overly righteous and overly wise?

says, “Do not be overly righteous, / and do not make yourself too wise? — / why should you destroy yourself?” Given the Bible’s standard of righteousness and the premium it sets on wisdom, it seems strange that Solomon would say not to be overly righteous or too wise. One key to understanding this warning against being overly righteous and overly wise is found in : “In my vain life I have seen everything. There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evildoing.” Solomon had witnessed both situations: those who had died doing righteous deeds and those who had died while sinning—and, what’s worse, sinning for a long time while seeming to get away with it. Solomon here is contemplating the fact that sometimes the good die young while evil men live long, iniquitous lives. This is a mystery to him and one of the things that add to the “vanity” of a life lived “under the sun.” We must also keep in mind, because Solomon continues the thought begun with the warning against being over righteous and overwise: “Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time.” And then verse 18 summarizes the lesson: “ It is good that you should take hold of this, and from that withhold not you hand, for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them.” Putting it all together, Solomon is teaching moderation in the fear of God. Don’t be overly righteous, overly wise, overly wicked, or overly foolish. Chasing after extremes will not prolong one’s life or provide the satisfaction one desires. Still, what does it mean to be overly righteous and overly wise? Solomon obviously means something different from being truly righteous and truly wise. To be “overly righteous” is to strive for a self-made righteousness based on an outward adherence to rules. “Overly righteousness” is an extreme religiosity, perhaps marked by asceticism, excessive strictness, and zealous observance of the minutiae of man-made religion. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were “overly righteous” in this way; in their fanatical self-righteousness, they would “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” To be “overly wise” is to think of oneself as self-sufficient in matters of knowledge, especially when it concerns the things of God. Having a spirit of being “Overly wise” will call God’s character and wisdom into question, speculate about His actions, and judge them according to one’s own “superior” wisdom. Look at Job, a righteous man that he was, was “overly wise” when he began to question God, and God had to ask him, “Who is this that obscures my plans / with words without knowledge? / Brace yourself like a man; / I will question you, / and you shall answer me” (). Job’s reply showed that he had regained true wisdom: “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? / I put my hand over my mouth” (). Self-righteousness has the potential to lead to much harm. offers an excellent summary of the behavior of the “overly righteous”: “Everything they do is done for people to see.” This type of lifestyle is condemned by God as attempting to be righteous in the wrong way. In , the Lord calls His people to move beyond external religion and righteousness and to truly return to Him: “Yet even now, declares the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord was to the LORD you God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster.”

The passage shows that God is less concerned with their sacrifices and external adherence to the Law than He was the condition of their hearts. Solomon knew better than most people the outcome of righteousness that did not arise from a heart that truly loves God. As king, he would have been familiar with the religious leaders of the temple he commissioned to have built in Jerusalem. Thousands of Levites served within its walls. Some certainly did so with a true heart of love for God, while others served with improper motives. Solomon’s words in reflect the voice of one calling all of God’s people to live for Him with true righteousness and true wisdom. And the next verses () keep it all in balance. What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.

The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.

For this reason, the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God, just as her most significant message is what she says about Him or leaves unsaid, for her silence is often more eloquent than her speech. What about you? Why do you think it is important to think rightly about God? But a dramatic change of perception took place when the risen Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus. This event in Paul’s life shows that a conscience can be wrongly informed and needs to be educated by divine revelation to be a reliable check on our behavior.

, And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Who is this Ananias? Is this the same Ananias that help heal Paul? No! Ananias, son of Nebedaius, was appointed high priest by Herod of Chalcis (brother of Herod Agrippa I) and reigned in the period ad 47–59. After that, he continued to wield great authority until he was murdered in ad 66 by revolutionaries, because of his collaboration with Rome. The high priest Ananias immediately expressed his rejection of Paul’s claim when he ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. From his perspective, neither the claim to have had a heavenly vision nor the claim that Paul’s mission was an expression of faithfulness to God could be entertained. The prisoner was guilty of blasphemy for speaking in this way and could not represent himself as a conscientious Jew.

, Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” And Paul said, “ I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Paul responded with a warning of divine judgement, echoing the sort of challenge given by Jesus to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in : ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!’ What does it mean to be a whitewashed wall? , Precisely because they have misled my people, saying, ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace, and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear it with whitewash, say to those who smear it with whitewash that it shall fall! There will be a deluge of rain, and you, O great hailstones, will fall, and a stormy wind break out. And when the wall falls, will it not be said to you, ‘Where is the coating with which you smeared it?’ Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I will make a stormy wind break out in my wrath, and there shall be a deluge of rain in my anger, and great hailstones in wrath to make a full end. And I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you shall perish in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the LORD. Thus will I spend my wrath upon the wall and upon those who have smeared it with whitewash, and I will say to you, The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it, the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her, when there was no peace, declares the Lord GOD.

This use of the image of a ‘whitewashed wall’ is to portray something which looks stable enough but is about to collapse. The issue in , however, is more precisely the one addressed by Jesus in , where he uses the image of ‘whitewashed tombs’ to portray the hypocrisy of the religious leaders with respect to the Mosaic law. Jesus and Paul were united in condemning those who pretended to be righteous, but inwardly were corrupt. At the time of his trial, Jesus was clearly more restrained than Paul in dealing with his accusers.

, The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Jesus submitted to injustice without complaint to accomplish the redemptive work prescribed for the Servant of the Lord.

Jesus was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment, he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

Nevertheless, there are occasions when we Christians should speak out against hypocrisy and injustice. What Luke wishes us to see in Paul is ‘the courage with which he faced official opposition, injustice and violence. , Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand firm.” When many a man would cringe, Paul answers back, and points out … that the Jewish judge is himself not observing the Law that he is appointed to administer.’ The form of the sentence ‘God will strike you’ is not a curse, but a prediction of judgement, coupled with a reproof for the treatment received, because ‘you commanded me to be struck’.

Compared to the Roman officials in 22:22–29, the leaders of Israel had treated Paul badly, dismissing his case without proper investigation and condemning him without proof and without due process. In so doing, they were violating the very law they professed to uphold. The immediate response of those who were standing near Paul was to condemn him because he dared to ‘insult God’s high priest’. This mocking of God’s representative was perceived as a demeaning of God’s honor.

Somewhat surprisingly, Paul’s reply was, ‘Brothers, I did not know that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” How could he not know the person he addressed as the current high priest? Here, maybe Paul’s response is meant to be ironic, meaning ‘that it is hard to recognize this priest as God’s chosen high priest because of his conduct’. However, Paul’s use of Scripture speaks against this interpretation, ‘for it turns Paul’s outburst into a serious offense that he must correct’. (‘You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people’), Paul expresses respect for the office of high priest, even if he is critical of the behavior of the one who currently holds the position. More generally, it is also possible that Paul remembered his own claim to bless when cursed look at what he said in, , ‘And we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure;’

Perhaps the simplest explanation of Paul’s confusion about the identity of the high priest is that he had been away from Jerusalem for some time and on this visit had been given no opportunity to meet him or be in his presence. Furthermore, if this was an informal gathering of the Sanhedrin, the high priest may not have been distinctively attired or positioned in such a way that his identity could be immediately discerned. Paul was a man of honor, a man of principal, and a man who had taking courage because he lived his whole life before God.

Take courage… because of the hope and vision of the resurrection.

At this point, Paul changes the topic, ‘Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees…’

There was always (before ad 70) a potential division in the Sanhedrin, which could be exploited by one who was prepared to align himself with one party and enlist its support.’ The chief-priestly families were mostly Sadducean, but the Pharisees were strongly represented in the Council. Given the chaotic outcome, ‘divide and conquer’ may have seemed like a clever ploy to disrupt the proceedings. However, ‘the subsequent defense scenes show that Paul’s words are more than a tactical move for temporary advantage but that this was a heartfelt belief. He keeps coming back to the hope of resurrection, even when it no longer provokes disruption in, , having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” Then again in , other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’”

And again, in , For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.” It is obvious that this theme of the resurrection is central to his belief system and well as to his climactic defense speech before King Agrippa. , And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?

Paul seeks to change the focus of his trial from the charges listed in 21:28 to the more fundamental theological issue at stake. This enables him to persuade Roman officials of the religious nature of the antagonism against him (23:28–29). It also enables him to challenge Jews about the true hope of Israel and its fulfillment through Jesus.

, For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.” And they said to him, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you. But we desire to hear from you what your views are, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” He is being presented to Christian readers as ‘a resourceful witness from whom other missionaries can learn’.

Paul introduces the ‘main question’ by first insisting, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.’ This is not necessarily a claim that his father was a Pharisee, but more generally could mean that his upbringing and education were in the Pharisaic tradition. On that basis, he asserts that he stands on trial ‘with respect to the hope of the resurrection of the dead.’ Paul without endorsing everything taught by the Pharisees, he willingly identifies with their concern to focus on the eschatological hope of Israel, revealed in Scripture. , “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

The topic of the general resurrection surfaces again in ‘the hope of Israel’, but this is not explicitly linked with the resurrection of Jesus until 26:23 (Festus also reports that this was Paul’s message in 25:19). Luke shows much interest in the outcome of Paul’s various trials because of this theological theme. Earlier he showed that this was a fundamental point of contention between the apostles and the Jewish authorities. Here Paul implies that the hope of the resurrection of the dead belongs to all true Israelites. This is an important foundation for arguing that Israel’s hope is fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus, making it possible for all who call on his name to share in the promised resurrection from the dead. ‘Paul’s aim is to establish a theological foundation upon which to proclaim the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for Jews.

The text continues, ‘And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided’ (). Luke uses the strong word stasis, meaning ‘strife, discord, disunion and dissension’ to describe what resulted. He then explains this division in terms of fundamental theological differences between the two groups. The evidence that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection is clear (cf. ). However, what is meant by the claim that they acknowledge neither angels nor spirits? (). As those who acknowledged the authority of the Pentateuch, they can hardly have denied the existence of angelic and spiritual beings. However, in the context of denying the resurrection of the dead they may also have claimed that there was no intermediate or alternate state, ‘in which those who had died existed as angels or spirits, these being more or less synonymous terms. Luke rightly goes on to claim that the Pharisees believe all these things (‘confess belief in both’). The Pharisaic doctrine became to be regarded as normative in Judaism, so that the Mishnah decrees, ‘he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the law’ has no share in the life to come (m. Sanh. 10:1). But share the truth of God’s word with some people comes with the cost of affliction, in the furnace of affliction.

On a wall in his bedroom Charles Spurgeon had a plaque with on it: "I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." "It is no mean thing to be chosen of God," he wrote. "God's choice makes chosen men choice men...We are chosen, not in the palace, but in the furnace. In the furnace, beauty is marred, fashion is destroyed, strength is melted, glory is consumed; yet here eternal love reveals its secrets, and declares its choice."

Then a great clamor arose, (implies that the court acted like a rioting mob). At this point, , and some of the scribes of the Pharisees party stood up and contended sharply. Their verdict on Paul (‘We find nothing wrong with this man’) is strangely reminiscent of Pilate’s judgement about Jesus. The beliefs of the Pharisees revealed in v. 8 are clearly the basis for a certain openness to the prisoner and his claims. However, they do not simply endorse him as someone supporting their teaching about the resurrection. Their rhetorical question (‘What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’) implies that they take seriously the possibility that he received a divine calling and commissioning to carry out his ministry. On theological grounds, they cannot rule out the legitimacy of his testimony, though they clearly cannot yet accept that Paul was addressed by the risen Jesus. As with the temple scene (22:22–23), the dispute (stasis, as in 23:7) became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. Once more Paul was rescued by the commander, who ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks. Once more the Roman barracks function as a place of protection from Jews who seek his life. This verse suggests that the commander may have been either present or within earshot of the proceedings. Paul was once again called upon to take courage because of the true hope and vision of the resurrection of the dead.

Take courage … because you have testified to the facts about God.

The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, ‘Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.’ As previously noted, this revelation comes at a strategic point in the narrative, just after the interruption of violence in the Sanhedrin and before Paul’s life is further threatened by an attempted assassination. The Greek present imperative (tharsei) which means to take, implies the need for continuing courage in the face of ongoing hardship and danger (‘Keep up your courage’). This charge is reminiscent of the vision given to encourage Paul to persevere in his Corinthian ministry.

, And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” ‘do not be afraid’), in the context of opposition from unbelieving Jews. Paul receives a further vision during the dangerous sea voyage to Rome (27:23–24). Once again in 23:11, it appears to be the risen Jesus who addresses Paul, since the Lord refers to testifying about me. By implication, the Lord commends his witness in Jerusalem. In the flow of the narrative, this suggests that Paul did not use a clever trick in lifting up his Roman citizenship to get out of trouble but to only further his testimony before the Sanhedrin. Paul has ‘borne the witness he was intended to bear and that the Lord has protected him and will continue to do so’. A further implication of this text is that Paul will suffer in the process of testifying to Jesus in Rome, just as he has suffered for testifying in Jerusalem. It will be as a prisoner that he gets to bear witness. The divine necessity for this is stressed (dei, ‘must’), as in 19:21; 27:24. ‘The Christophany reconfirms Paul’s mission; Jesus continues to have Paul as his witness, even in spite of the witness’s apparent limitations as a prisoner confined to a place of custody.’ By implication, Paul’s transfer to Caesarea, which is one step closer to Rome, is also part of the divine plan. Paul though being presented with a low view of life, must seek the truth that it is better higher up!

The famous preacher D.L. Moody told about a Christian woman who was always bright, cheerful, and optimistic, even though she was confined to her room because of illness. She lived in an attic apartment on the fifth floor of an old, rundown building. A friend decided to visit her one day and brought along another woman -- a person of great wealth. Since there was no elevator, the two ladies began the long climb upward. When they reached the second floor, the well-to-do woman commented, "What a dark and filthy place!" Her friend replied, "It's better higher up." When they arrived at the third landing, the remark was made, "Things look even worse here." Again the reply, "It's better higher up." The two women finally reached the attic level, where they found the bedridden saint of God. A smile on her face radiated the joy that filled her heart. Although the room was clean and flowers were on the windowsill, the wealthy visitor could not get over the stark surroundings in which this woman lived. She blurted out, "It must be very difficult for you to be here like this!" Without a moment's hesitation the shut-in responded, "It's better higher up." She was not looking at temporal things. But her eyes of faith were fixed on the eternal, she had found the secret of true satisfaction and contentment. The truth that it is better higher up!