The evidence for such an understanding is sketchy, but it is a possibility that Saul / Paul was indeed a member of the Sanhedrin during the 1st century CE when Stephen was stoned. He tells us in his letter to the Galatians that he had been excelling above his peers in the Jewish faith. In Acts 8:1 we are told that Saul “gave his approval” to the killing of Stephen. Does this mean he generally agreed that Stephen’s death was justified, or that he actually gave his “vote” in the Sanhedrin? Notice how Paul, himself, describes similar accounts concerning those believers he brought to Jerusalem for judgment when he spoke before King Agrippa:
Acts 26:9-10 ASV I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. (10) And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them.
The phrase: I gave my vote comes from two Greek words kataphero (G2702) and psephos (G5586). According to “The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon,” kataphero means “to bear down, bring down, cast down” and when used with psephos, “a small, worn, smooth stone, a pebble”, it means: “to cast a pebble or calculus into the urn, i.e. give one’s vote, to approve.” Thayer goes on to say that “…in the ancient courts of justice the accused were condemned by black pebbles and acquitted by white.” Thus, we have Paul implying that he was a voting member of the Sanhedrin who condemned the early believers in Jesus. If this conclusion is true, then Paul was probably one of the members of the Sanhedrin who condemned Stephen.
According to Acts 7:58, Stephen was taken outside the city, as commanded by Deuteronomy 17:2-7. The Scripture further says the witnesses against Stephen were to cast the first stones. Leviticus 24:14 makes the same point saying that he who cursed was to be stoned outside the city, and remember the accusation against Stephen was “blasphemy” i.e. he cursed God in that he was saying the Temple upon which the Name of God was would be destroyed. The Talmud has an interesting account of the act of stoning that bears mention concerning Paul. Notice:
“When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed’ (Leviticus 24:14). A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrew sudarin = sudar, ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves the sudarin, and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to what he is saying.” [Sanhedrin 42b]
Notice that it is said in Acts 7:58 “the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of the young man named Saul.” The Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern has an interesting comment about the above excerpt from the Talmud. Notice:
“…Joseph Shulam thinks sudar in later Hebrew can also mean ‘coat.’ Thus, he conjectures, the Greek translator of Acts from a presumed original Hebrew text didn’t understand the Jewish context and therefore wrote of laying coats at Sha’ul’s feet, whereas actually Shu’ul was a member of the Sanhedrin, specifically, the one who held the sudar.”
So, was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin? Maybe, and maybe not, but the idea is an interesting one. One point against the idea would be, that an actual trial of life and death was not supposed to be held on a Holy Day according to the Talmud—and according to my study Stephen was stoned on the Day of Atonement in 34 CE. The account of Stephen’s trial seems a bit sketchy itself. Nothing is actually said about a vote taken against the accused, so was Stephen’s death an actual verdict of the court or was the matter decided by mob-rule? Luke just isn’t as clear as we would like him to be, so interpreting matters concerning the trial, the verdict and the sentence are questionable.
Smoodock's Blog 
44 responses to “Was Paul a Member of the Sanhedrin?”
You are making conclusions about matters not in evidence. You have no proof that Paul boasted to bolster his pedigree. You simply make that claim. As for his boasting in Galatians 1:14, Paul really was advancing in his religion—after all, he was sent by the high priest to Damascus to arrest believers (Acts 9:1-2). Since the high priest in Jerusalem was like the head of state in any other country, it would be safe to assume that he didn’t send just anyone on missions of the state. Paul was, indeed, advancing above many of his peers. But the point of his “boast” is Galatians 1:14 is that he left all that behind for Christ (Galatians 1:15-16). In fact, he counted his whole previous life as a dung heap (Philippians 3:8).
You are referring to Paul’s defense against his critics in Corinth, who claimed he wasn’t a real apostle. Some claimed they were of Peter etc. bringing division to the church. They assumed, because of Paul, their church was inferior to the apostolic churches. I’ll quote the Scripture in question:
“I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.”(2 Corinthians 12:11-13 KJV)
I don’t see the arrogance you claim should be here. Additionally, the “pillars” reference is not in 2Corinthians. It is in Galatians (Galatians 2:6-9). Actually, you have a wrong perspective here. Peter, James and John were referred to as the pillars of the church at Jerusalem, but their point of view was under attack by the Pharisees—educated men against fishermen. Paul was an educated rabbi, learning at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). When Paul mentioned that he didn’t care what they were, he was referring to their former livelihood—fishermen. When he said that God accepts no man’s person, he was referring to himself, a highly educated man. He placed himself on equal status with fishermen. This is not a boast.
Actually, the only letters in which Paul mentioned that servants need to obey their masters were letters sent to Asian churches, so your claim that the masters were likely Roman is unfounded. Now, I’m not trying to say that Romans servants could be disobedient to Romans masters. That’s not Paul’s point. The point is, there are many human customs that, while not in strict disobedience to God, aren’t really all that nice. The whole of ancient society had slaves. Having slaves and being a slave was not sinful—strictly speaking. To try to reform the Roman Empire (social Gospel) would make Jesus an enemy of Caesar, something Jesus told Pilate he wasn’t. His kingdom simply is not of this world. So, while we are here, we are to behave in such a way that the Gospel of Christ isn’t hindered. We accept persecution to advance the Gospel. To fight social customs would often hurt the Gospel. However, when the Gospel embraces most of a particular area, then the people themselves will reform the country they live in. Believers aren’t political per se. We are here to tell the world about Christ. Christ, once believed and accepted, will convict the world about wrongdoing.
You reject the witness of Scripture (Acts 9:15). Therefore, this is pretty much your opinion, and to add to Scripture something of one’s own that cannot be contradicted is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19)
On another note, no doubt you just forgot to do so, but you skipped one of my replies entirely. I asked:
“Does this mean that the Gospel of Luke isn’t Scripture, according to you? Is Luke a gentile or a Jew? Was he a witness of the events of his Gospel or was he not? Is his book, Acts, Scripture or not? Is Acts 9:15 Scripture or not–according to you?”
I would like a response to this, because it would help me understand better what you believe about Scripture. I know, since you reject Paul as an apostate and an ally of Rome, you must reject his epistles as Scripture, but I don’t know how you handle Luke’s treatment of him or for that matter Peter’s at 2Peter 3:15-16. I am wondering how much of what most people consider to be the New Testament that you throw out as non-inspired literature.
Dear Eddie,
I have read extensively your writing, postings on Apostle Paul, and I can say gladly that I have certainly been blessed by your biblical exegesis. Thank you for the job you do in teaching and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, to the glory of Yeshua.
Greetings David, and thank you so much for your kind encouragement. I am blessed both in your encouraging words and in knowing that the Lord has used me to help you in your own studies.
May the Lord continue to bless you in every way.