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?”
I hope that I am not contributing too much but I am interested in the topic.
As for Paul being a member of the Sanhedrin I find it unlikely. With his love of boasting and detailed accounts of his background he would have said so to bolster his pedigree. He admits to persecution of the Way then at the same time he boasts of his excelling beyond his peers. He never sounds repentant for it, I believe even considered himself blameless.
Status was a big deal to Paul who said “I don’t think I am the least bit inferior to the chief of these apostles” (Jerusalem Bible, 2 Corinthians) and called the pillars “those who were supposed to be pillars (what they were means nothing to me,..). When he needs it in the next paragraph to seem like they approved of” his” gospel and gave him the hand of friendship he just calls them pillars because the approval was valuable, but he lets them know ahead of time he is not subordinate to them and claims he was given sole right to the greater portion of the world population and the 12 and James to just Jews or “the circumcised.”
His statement for slaves to obey and treat their (likely Roman) Masters not as “Men and women but as Christ and God.” he reveals he is no humanitarian emissary but a lobbyist for Roman Imperialism and Caesar who he trusts to save him more than the government of Judea or anyone else, invoking his citizenship rights to appeal to Caesar who was Nero, the beast 666.
Sanhedrin member? I doubt it.
The reason 12 is proof Paul C’ANT be an apostle is the fact that Acts sets forth qualifications for being one and the number is fixed at 12.
Out of the two men on earth who meet the qualifications one can be and is selected, Matthias. There is no possibility of anyone becoming one after that unless Matthias died while Justus was living.
Revelation does what it intended and reveals it, confirming only 12 apostles exist. You may be glossing over these well known and obvious facts simply to preserve the notion that Paul qualified or ever had a chance, as well as his lack of witnesses per Biblical law, that he quotes, and he does not have a single witness.
Then would it be safe to assume that your quotes in a previous comment should have been around the word “church” instead of around the word Nazrenes? Obviously, if the “church” considered the Ebionites apostate (true believers according to you), the “church” would have been playing the part of apostate believers by following Paul, whom the Ebionites say was an apostate.
I believe it was Origen who claimed the Ebionites were so named for their “poor” or “low” opinion of Jesus’ Christology. That is, since they didn’t believe he was God, come in the flesh, they were called Ebionites. I also believe it is telling that you (or whoever makes the claim) accept the testimony of Paul at Romans 15:26 and Galatians 2:10 in order to substantiate the meaning of the name for the Ebionites.
I have been unable to verify this claim. I realize that the Qumran sect believed in “the way of the Law” (Torah), but simply “the Way”? — no! On the other hand Jesus claimed to be the Way in John 14:6. By saying he is “the Way” rather than the Law being the way, as believed by the Qumran sect (and the Ebionites, if I understand their beliefs accurately), he was placing himself over against the Law. For Christians, “the Way” wouldn’t be the Law, but WWJD. It is not so much a commandment as it is a Person we must believe and obey.
Well, I don’t consider the Nazarenes heretics, because they are mentioned in the New Testament, and, far from rejecting Paul, he is said to be a ringleader of that sect (Acts 24:5). However, I do believe the Ebionites were heretical. I don’t believe it is wrong to “keep the Law” per se. It is a matter of perspective. Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land, so the Gospel won’t come under attack by unbelievers. The law of the land for the Jews in Jerusalem was the Torah, so obedience to the Law for the Messianic Jew there would have been expected. Rather, it is when one considers the Law (Torah) “the way of Righteousness” or “the way to salvation” that is wrong, because it places the Law (Torah) in the place of Jesus, who is our Way and our Righteousness. Being his disciple is a matter of WWJD.
Does this mean you would have more points of agreement with Islam than with what most see as modern Christendom?
It is interesting that you would take the testimony of someone who was not considered Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. As for Tertullian, he said lots of things that I wouldn’t agree with. Just because he is considered one of the church fathers does not make him one of the 12 or someone who wrote Scripture, which we must believe.
Luke, who did write Scripture, claims Paul did meet the Lord, as did Paul. In fact, he kept pointing to that vision to defend his apostleship. As I see it, you would have to reject more Scripture than Paul’s letters to deny he met the Lord. But, that’s between you and Jesus. I try not to judge people for doing things like that.
We seem to be drawing from two different sources on Paul. In his letters he claimed to be a Pharisee, of the strictest sect—probably a follower of Shammai. I don’t know where you get your information. Pharisees communed with whomever would advance their cause. They hated Jesus, so they communed with the Herodians to kill Jesus. The Sanhedrin was composed of both Pharisees and Sadducees, so they worked together when it suited their cause (viz. getting Jesus crucified) and in opposition when that suited (viz. defending Paul when they found out he was a Pharisee — Acts 23:6). They were separatists in that they separated themselves from the common people by adhering to their many laws concerning washing and tithing.
When Rome rescued Paul from being beaten to death by the Jews, they were also about to engage in torture techniques to find out the truth concerning his being abducted by the Jews. It was only because Paul said he was a Roman citizen that they changed their minds (Acts 22:24-29). Luke doesn’t show that Paul was allied to Rome. Where do you get your information?
Concerning what Paul told slaves to do, Peter also said slaves should be obedient to their masters (1Peter 2:18). If Paul’s saying so made him an apostate, why don’t you consider Peter an apostate? If it is because Paul said to serve them as though they served the Lord, don’t you try to do all things as though you did it for the Lord. I try to do this. It is a matter of WWJD.