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?”
Hello again, Edward. I don’t believe there is “scriptural’ support for any of this stuff concerning a wife for Paul. It may be fun looking at circumstantial evidence that fits the scripture we do have, but at the end of the day we must conclude we simply are not certain about Paul’s wife. I agree that Jewish law in the first century practically demanded a religious person like Paul to marry, probably well before 30. What happened to Paul’s wife since she is never mentioned in scripture? We can infer that he was married, but Jesus wasn’t married although he was past 30 by the time of his crucifixion. Still, Paul was probably 60 or older by the time of his death, so it seems unreasonable that he wouldn’t be married, considering Jewish law and the scriptures you mention (1Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9). Nevertheless, we can also consider 1Corinthians 7:25-40 and apply it to Paul’s life. Paul speaks similarly in the same chapter in verses 1-15 and refers to himself as not having a wife, but since he speaks of both death and divorce of a mate, we simply do not know what occurred in this respect for Paul. His wife may have died, but why wouldn’t he mention he is a widower? He never speaks of her, which if he had a wife would fit the context of him hiding her sin. The maturity of Paul’s compassion for both the married and the unmarried seems to point to his experience in both states. Nevertheless, it is just my opinion. Lord bless you in you studies of his word.
Shalom, Eddie. Still working my way back through your posts, so pardon the late comment.
I agree that we simply lack the Biblical data to say whether Paul had been married or not. I will point out that while Jewish tradition encouraged people to marry young, there is plenty of evidence that not all Jewish men, or even all rabbis, did so. For example, Rabbi Simeon Ben Azzai (early 2nd Century) was criticized for not having married yet, and responded by saying that he was in love with the Torah (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 3b).
Having said that, my personal opinion was that Paul had been married, but that his wife had left him over the matter of Yeshua. Paul would have had to be the one to issue the Get, the document of divorcement, under Torah law however. That adds some poignancy and personal experience to his teachings on divorce in 1 Corinthians.
To address the article’s main point, I do believe that Paul was on _a_ sanhedrin (how else would he cast a vote against the Nazarenes?), but most likely he wasn’t on _the_ Great Sanhedrin. There were many sanhedrins of 23 judges, and smaller ones for just about any sizeable town. As a student of Rabban Gamaliel, and one who apparently was known to have excelled in his studies, it makes sense that Paul would have been a judge in one or more courts.
Shalom
Rabbi Mike, it is always a pleasure to hear from you. Thanks for your comment. I don’t know why I never considered Paul being a member of a local Sanhedrin. That makes more sense, especially, as you point out, since he was a disciple of Gamaliel. Lord bless you in all your service to him. Shalom.
Eddie, a friend told me that Paul could not have been of the Sanhedrin because he was of the tribe of Benjamin, not Levi (Phil 3:5). Interesting commentary, though, that he could have a part of a smaller council.
I am through my Sunday school class on Acts. Your insights helped that study come alive for me. Now, my son’s Sunday school is taking it up, so I get to go through it again. Amen!
Blessings,
Bill
Bill, greetings and thank you for your comment and encouraging remarks. It is true that when the court was established by Jehosaphat the judges were taken from the priests and Levites, but it also says of “the chief fathers of Israel (2Chronicles 19:8), also called “the principle persons of the multitude” (Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews” 9.1.1). Josephus also mentions that King Alexander on his death bed advised his wife to let the Pharisees have power in the government in order that she might retain her royal office (see “Antiquities of the Jews” 13.15.5), which she did. One didn’t need to be a Levite or a priest to be a Pharisee, and this is shown clearly in the Bible when Paul tells us he was also a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.
To be honest about the matter, I don’t think Paul was a “member” of the Sanhedrin (but he could have been). Rather, I believe he was an officer of the court, like a sheriff or something like this. He gave his vote against Christians, because he was given a vote being the arresting officer. The actual vote of life or death, however, came from the court itself. I think Paul means that he “recommended” punishment up to and including execution.
Nevertheless, the above is just my interpretation of what I see in Scriptures. There is no “thus saith the Lord” concerning what office Paul held in Jerusalem before becoming a believer, but we know he knew the high priest quite well.
Lord bless you, Bill, and your son in your studies of God’s word.