“Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
And that was when his dilemma had begun, for instead of charging the man with recognisable crimes and wrongdoing of the kind that he had expected, they had instead charged him with what they saw as religious misdemeanours. It had all been about ‘not observing the Law of Moses', and ‘violating the Temple' (although no specific example had been proved by witnesses) and about a man called Jesus, whom the Jews were quite certain was dead, while Paul claimed that He was alive. It was all very strange.
‘And of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.' It is probable that he had not realised the significance of this, that is, that it indicated that He was alive because He had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. (Paul's testimony would make this clearer). But it went to the heart of the matter. For it was His resurrection and enthronement that declared Who He was and proved His ability to effectively work in the salvation of men and women. It proved His right to rule, and to call men now to come under the Kingly Rule of God, that is, to submit to His rule. And it proved that He had the power to give life, and to provide men with His Holy Spirit, and to forgive their sins.
It was this that Paul was willing to live and die for. It was this that the High Priest and his cronies were afraid of. For if it was true then they had brought about the crucifixion of the Son of God, of Israel's Messiah, and had proved unfaithful to God, and were even now opposed to His will. If it was true then they had no right to be where they were, for it meant that they were in opposition to all that they were supposed to stand for..