was Paul a sanhedrein ?

[Elijah's Mantle]

As i was reading a strange question popped into my head

was Paul ever of or from or taught by the Sanhedrin ?
can some one give info on this ?

[ChristianMomma]

The pastor of my Sunday School class says that he was. This meant that at one time he had to be married and possibly had children. I am not sure where he got that information but I will see if I can find more information on it! I have often wondered about this as well since Paul talks about being single and I wonder how that came to be about if he was indeed married at one point.

Acts 21:1-6 might be where the idea comes from since Paul refers to the Sanhedrin as his "brethren" and that he seems familiar with the council. I am not sure if there is more to base the idea that he was part of the Sanhedrin though.

[micah719]

Interesting thoughts. Saul had the ability to pronounce death sentence...hence a member of the twelve most powerful in the Sanhedrin. Marriage was a prerequisite for membership. What happened to his wife? Did she convert and fall afoul of her husband? Or was Paul's motivation for declaring himself chief of sinners perhaps that he cast his vote for crucifixion of the Saviour? Side issues, but nonetheless interesting. On my part, pure speculation.

[Meg]

According to Paul himself, he was a Pharisee. Acts 23 strongly implies that he was in fact not a member of the Sanhedrin, as he was judged by them, so I'd say no. The second source on Paul's early professional life is Philippians chapter 3, and again Paul describes himself as a Pharisee:

Philippians 3:5-6

5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

Had he in fact been a member of the Sanhedrin at any time, he would surely have said so in this passage. He doesn't, so the answer must be no. Furthermore, there is also no Scriptural reason to believe Paul was ever married. Again had he been married, he would have said so. Quite to the contrary, he found great value in never having been himself married, as he considered bachelorhood to be an advantage in his dedication to the Lord.

[Elijah's Mantle]

thank you for that information christianmomma
from reading certain passages Paul clearly wrote I cant help but
inquire as to whether Paul was
meg is right in part to say
we dont know
but it gets rather Obvious
from reading what Paul wrote
he was not just a average nobody
Paul understood things only some one high up
into the Sanhedrin counsel would have
Its rather interesting what he states about Pharisee's

Interesting thoughts. Saul had the ability to pronounce death sentence...hence a member of the twelve most powerful in the Sanhedrin. Marriage was a prerequisite for membership. What happened to his wife? Did she convert and fall afoul of her husband? Or was Paul's motivation for declaring himself chief of sinners perhaps that he cast his vote for crucifixion of the Saviour? Side issues, but nonetheless interesting. On my part, pure speculation.

micah719 I have something in common with you
from reading what Paul states I have had the same speculations
and find it very interesting

Paul clearly intended after conversion to advance the KINGDOM OF GOD
When Jesus talked about the kingdom, he didn’t emphasize its physical blessings or clarify its chronology. He focused instead on what people should do to be part of it. Tax collectors and prostitutes enter the kingdom of God, Jesus said (Matthew 21:31), and they do it by believing the gospel (verse 32) and by doing what the Father wants (verses 28-31). We enter the kingdom functionally when we respond to God with faith and allegiance. I suppose Paul had a paradigm shift as to what Kingdom he
more over was to serve and his former had ought to do with his later
stll interesting to speculate on Paul being a Sanhedrin though
just got the stange notion others may have noted some facts about Paul

[Elijah's Mantle]

Is it my imagination people of today dont see the invisible advancement of the kingdom
as a reality ? any more than that crowd Jesus spoke to in Matthew 21 ?

Just a naving notion that bothers me

[king'sbloomingrose]

Is it my imagination people of today dont see the invisible advancement of the kingdom
as a reality ? any more than that crowd Jesus spoke to in Matthew 21 ?

Just a naving notion that bothers me

You're right, EM.

[Meg]

Paul worked for the Sanhedrin.

Acts 9:1-2

1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:13-14

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

I can't emphasize enough the importance of reading the Bible for yourself. People get wrong impressions from depending on others to do their reading for them, the story gets repeated and repeated until the facts are replaced by the mistaken impressions. God displayed the glory of His wisdom by writing His Word down.

Here's my favorite example of this problem. I have actually heard I think at least 2 pastors repeat the impression that in Judges 6, Gideon was hiding in the winepress. He wasn't cowering in terror in the winepress, he was threshing wheat in the winepress, very likely choking on dust and wondering what was going on outside.

Judges 6:11

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites.

[micah719]

According to Paul himself, he was a Pharisee. Acts 23 strongly implies that he was in fact not a member of the Sanhedrin, as he was judged by them, so I'd say no. The second source on Paul's early professional life is Philippians chapter 3, and again Paul describes himself as a Pharisee:

Philippians 3:5-6


Had he in fact been a member of the Sanhedrin at any time, he would surely have said so in this passage. He doesn't, so the answer must be no. Furthermore, there is also no Scriptural reason to believe Paul was ever married. Again had he been married, he would have said so. Quite to the contrary, he found great value in never having been himself married, as he considered bachelorhood to be an advantage in his dedication to the Lord.

There is no reason to assume that just because the Sanhedrin judged Paul the Christian, that Saul the Pharisee was not once a member of their council. Remember, he once had the power to vote on the death penalty and to take a leading role in investigating and executing judgement and sentence, with the approval of the chief priest. That strongly implies at the least membership of the Sanhedrin and very plausibly the highest level which exclusively had the power of death sentence; and you couldn't be in the Sanhedrin without being married. If he had been married and, according to my speculation above perhaps executed his apostate (from Pharisaical Judaism) wife, he would definetely not have been proud of this act after the Damascus road incident. Further, the possibility that he may have been involved in the illegal trials and condemnation of The Lord Jesus Christ would certainly not be a favourite talking point once he had repented to Him as Saviour.

This would also not have helped in his evangelistic mission and relations with converts...I as a sinner am already personally responsible for the murder-death of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and in my unsaved sinful life would quite possibly have taken part in His persecution and execution...at the very least as part of the crowd giving approval of the act...but to have actually been there and directly participated would be a difficult thing to deal with for any repentant sinner and would certainly reinforce the urgency of active and constant repentance and obedience in the sanctification walk. I imagine the centurion that repented as he witnessed the events around the One Whom he had just nailed up having a most interesting thought life afterwards, but I don't envy the man. There is enough on my plate already without having been an eyewitness and participant in the most heinous murder ever, and literally having His precious blood on my hands. Understand so far? Put yourself in such a position and think through how such things would affect you. This may explain why there is such silence about the particulars which are not helpful or central to the Book.

Paul's teachings on marriage in the epistles would be out of place from a lifelong bachelor, which is precisely why elders are to be married so as to know from experience the trials of married life and to be able to minister to the whole congregation from a position of "been-there, done-that, slept on the couch and ironed my own T-shirt". Bachelorhood for a traveling Apostle under Pauline persecution would definetely had its advantages....but Peter on the other hand did take along a Christian sister as wife, remembering of course he was married before he ever met The Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps Peter was of the type of brother that is better off married for reasons of self control...we know Peter was afflicted with a mild form of micah-itis, a most distressing malady where the footwear is inexorably drawn into the wearer's oral orifice, and which can also manifest itself as difficulty in control of desire and sufferings under temptations for companionship with a descendantess of a former rib.

There is no way from Scripture to prove my speculations, but neither is there a way to disprove them as you so resoundingly state, and I did say they were merely speculations however interesting the implications. Something in Saul's past made Paul declare by inspiration and sanction of The Holy Spirit he was the chief of sinners, this cannot be explained as excessive humility or hyperbole or as merely his personal opinion. It is a most intriguing declaration and makes Paul a unique man in Scripture....a sort of counterpoint to the most righteous man (note the lower case "m") in the Bible, Job, whom The Lord declared as such before His holy angels (and the unholy accuser that comes among them).

[mattfivefour]

Here's my favorite example of this problem. I have actually heard I think at least 2 pastors repeat the impression that in Judges 6, Gideon was hiding in the winepress. He wasn't cowering in terror in the winepress, he was threshing wheat in the winepress, very likely choking on dust and wondering what was going on outside.

Judges 6:11

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites.

Ah, but why was he threshing wheat in the winepress? It was, as the verse says, to keep it from the Midianites. In other words, he was hiding with it, hoping they would not discover him with it. History reveals to us the nature of the Midianites and this particular segment of history. To have hidden grain from the Midianite raiders and conquerors would have invited harsh retribution, likely death. Perhaps Gideon was merely protecting his grain and was NOT afraid in the least of the Midianites; but his behavior leading up to and during subsequent events such as the destruction of the idol and the movement against Amalek and Midian do not give me a picture of a very brave man. BUT ... it is clear he was a humble man and he WAS a man who believed God and trusted Him. And that is the very definition of faith. The lesson in what an extraordinary God can do with an ordinary man who will trust Him is the very point of the story.

But, respectfully, to decide that those who say Gideon was cowering are incorrect is as much an opinion as those who say he was not.

This is the fact with the question in the OP. To state as a definitive fact that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin is no more factually inaccurate as to state he was a member. Personally, I think the preponderance of evidence is that Gideon was likely afraid of the Midianites; and I think that while, as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, Paul was connected to the Sanhedrin and clearly had at least one commission for them as their representative, the preponderance of evidence is that he was not an member of that august body.

But I will not argue these points. Neither is important to salvation, sanctification, or a necessary understanding of scripture. And that is the sole basis on which we should debate issues. Curiosity about scripture and the history that surrounds it is all well and good. Evidence and answers can be dug out. But they should never be allowed to divide brethren.

To the topic(s) here— respectfully, unless we receive fresh, incontrovertible scriptural or historical evidence that one of the two divergent views in each of these cases is wrong, I see no basis for useful discussion. Surely all we can do is lay out what we DO know as fact; and the various posts in this thread have done that quite well, I think. Each reader here can decide his or her opinion, recognizing that—lacking more evidence—that opinion is no more than exactly that.

[Elijah's Mantle]

God Bless you REAL BIG MATT
very much appreciate it

[mattfivefour]

I have deleted messages that either contained abusive comments or were in response to them. This discussion veered off into personal attack because one individual got on their high horse. They may have had some valid points, but the Holy Spirit is very clear in the New Testament scriptures how we are to discuss issues among ourselves and in the very attitude we are to debate from. The particular post to which I refer, respectfully, did not do that. It was fleshly in its attempt to argue scriptural precepts and provoked like fleshly response from others.

I think this is a good lesson for ALL of us in recognizing that the flesh only begets its peculiar fruit, which—among many other things—consists of "enmities, strife, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, and factions." (Galatians 5:20) Whereas the fruit produced by the Spirit in an individual is first of all characterized by love and the absence of desire to respond to personal attack. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) Indeed, the wisdom, James says, that comes down from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, and full of mercy. (James 3:17a)

We cannot produce this kind of love and wisdom in our own strength or by our own efforts. It is the wisdom FROM ABOVE. And it is the fruit OF THE SPIRIT. It can only be produced in our lives by God the Holy Spirit as He gets more and more control of us. And for that to happen we have to be willing to yield ourselves and our RIGHT to ourselves ... to Him. This is the meaning of dying to self. This is the process portrayed by the admonition to "take up our cross daily." (Luke 9:23) It is to recognize that we are dead men walking. We live, but not for ourselves. Everything that is important to US is laid down in preference to what is important to HIM. In Roman days, when you saw a man carrying his cross, you knew that he no longer had any freedom or life of his own. The fact he was carrying his cross told the world that he no longer was free to go where he wanted, do what he wanted, or even dream of a better day. Instead he was as good as dead already. All that remained was the actual excruciating process. In our lives as Christians it is the same. Or should be.

When we are saved, God invites us into His rest. In the Old Testament the Sabbath was the picture of this rest to come. It typified the complete work of Christ by requiring man do no work of his own. And it gave a promise. It said that "if you turn your foot from doing your own pleasure on My holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the LORD honorable,and honor it, desisting from your own ways, from seeking your own pleasure and speaking your own word, then you will take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; and I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father." (Isaiah 58:13-14a) This spoke to the people of that day in a physical sense. But to the church, in its fulfillment, it speaks in a spiritual sense. "In My rest," God is saying, "if you delight in it, and honor it by not seeking your own desires, your own ways, your own pleasures, and by not speaking your own words, then I shall lift you up and feed you with the richness of my promises."

Many Christians wonder why they do not see the fulfillment of the promises of God in their lives. There may be many reasons. but among the chief is that we do not enter into God's Sabbath, into His rest as we should. Rather we do NOT turn our foot from doing our own pleasure, we do NOT desist from our own ways, we do NOT desist from speaking our own words. If only those churches that believe in Sabbath-keeping were ever to see the truth of the REAL Sabbath! Instead, a fleshly keeping of a physical law obscures the real beauty of this spiritual law, blinding men to this truth that would see those who heed it lifted and fed by God's own hand. And for most of us, we live in defeat and daily struggle because we do not keep the real Sabbath ... the attitude that we are dead to self and alive to Him. As Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Galatians 2:20)

I am closing this thread. Not because it was speculative in its nature (for I believe it can be interesting to examine some of these questions) but I am deleting it because of the un-Christlike direction it had taken and, since both sides of the question have had their say, I see no point in leaving it open. What more can be said on the topic? If somebody believes they have fresh information that is relevant, please PM me and I will consider re-opening this thread.

If there is anything we can take away from what happened in the discussion of this topic—beyond a consideration of the arguments for and against Paul being a member of the Sanhedrin—it is this: Sometimes what is said often is not as important in God's eyes as how we say it. In other words, words spoken from a humble heart in the love of God bring forth more and better fruit (and provide a better witness to the world) than those spoken from fleshly zeal for the laws of God or from a position of moral indignation for having been attacked and hurt. And the former rather than the latter can only spring from within us as we are controlled by the Spirit not by the flesh. If there is one great need among us Christians today it is the need to daily surrender to God, to daily submit our wills to His, to (using His imagery) take up our cross daily, signifying that we are are as good as dead to self ... but alive unto Him.

In Christ,

Matt