But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out … I am a Pharisee.
Paul before the Sanhedrin
I. Objections to his conduct.
1. That when he said he was a “Pharisee,” it was not true in the sense which the term would naturally convey, he was not now of their party. He had renounced all connection with them, and had everywhere opposed their characteristic doctrines and practices.
2. That what he affirmed to be the main point involved in his present troubles, “the hope and resurrection of the dead,” was not really the point for which he was “called in question,” but for undervaluing the Hebrew institutions; for apostasy from the faith; and for polluting the temple.
3. That this was the trick of an orator rather than the act of a noble-minded man; that it was designed to embarrass, and divide, but that it constituted no defence in regard to the charges which had been brought against him; and that it had no tendency to enlighten the mind of Lysias, or to aid him in the performance of his duty.
II. Its vindication.
1. We are to bear in mind that the Sanhedrin had properly no jurisdiction over the case and that it had not been submitted to them at all with that view. It was solely referred to them to ascertain the cause of the riot. That one thing discovered, the case would then be entirely in the hands of the Roman authorities. But even in regard to this point, it was manifest at the very opening of the trial, that there was no hope of justice. The command given by the high priest took away all prospect of obtaining a fair hearing. If now, in this state of things, Paul could prove that, in condemning him, as it was manifest they were determined to do, the majority would condemn themselves, and must deny doctrines for which they had always been contending, could it be regarded as unfair or unmanly to show them that this must be so? It is certain that this was his aim.
2. There was, in fact, an important difference of opinion in the Sanhedrin on the most vital subjects of religion. That difference of opinion Paul did not make, nor did he increase it.
3. It was a matter of fact, also, that, so far as these two parties were concerned, Paul was wholly with the Pharisees by ancestry and conviction. Paul had no sympathy with the Sadducees whatever. Moreover, he attached all the importance to the doctrine of the resurrection which the Pharisees had ever done. It had lost none of its value in his estimation by his having become a Christian.
4. Paul held that doctrine now in a form which was to him most convincing in the fact that one had actually been raised from the dead. We may easily suppose that he had the consciousness that he was now able to confirm the views in which he and they had been educated, by an argument vastly superior in strength to that in which they had been trained.
5. It was this doctrine, as thus held, which was the real cause of all that Paul had suffered; and it was, in fact, this for which he had been “called in question.” He had laid this doctrine at the very foundation of all his arguments for the truth of the Christian religion; and in order to diffuse a knowledge of this he had gone over the world, enduring all forms of privation and suffering. (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Paul and the Sanhedrin
1. There is sometimes a gain to the right in setting the forces of the wrong to attacking each other, and to wearing each other out.
2. There is nothing which will so speedily bring the Pharisees to espouse Paul’s cause as the knowledge of the fact that the Sadducees hate him.
3. There is little love for one another felt by the various adversaries of Christianity. True love is too much of a Christian virtue to be exercised by those who hate Christ.
4. There always arises a great clamour when two theological parties, both in the wrong, are aroused to discussion, of the very theological point upon which they most strongly differ.
5. There was no love for the truth in this suddenly manifested zeal of the Pharisees for Paul. The Pharisees only hated the Sadducees a little worse than they did Paul--that was all.
6. There is sometimes as much danger in being in a fight as there is in being the object of a fight. Paul had to be hurried out of danger, even after the direct assault upon him had ceased. (S. S. Times.)
Paul’s strategy: its vindication
Was Paul disingenuous? No--
I. He was a Pharisee by birth and education; he had a right to throw himself on the only section of the crowd with which he had any sympathy, and it would be a great mistake to suppose that there was not a great deal in the better Pharisees of that day with which Paul and every good man could heartily sympathise, if it were nothing else but their firm belief in a spiritual world, and their sincere attempt to live cleanly. If Paul was to stand his ground for a moment in such an assembly, it must be by an immediate appeal to anything friendly to be found there.
II. Was it true that he was a prisoner on account of his belief in the resurrection? Was he not rather a prisoner because of his sympathy with the Gentiles? Was he not submitting a false issue at the expense of truth in order to extricate himself from a perilous position? Not at all--he was strictly within the letter and spirit of uprightness. True, the beginning of his troubles had to do with the Gentiles, but the last scene which ended in his being hailed before the Sanhedrin was directly connected with the message he claimed to have had from the Risen One; the mission to the Gentiles held for him its consecrating force directly and solely from “the power of His resurrection,” and, like a skilful orator, again Paul takes up, not the central grievance at first, but the controversy just where it had left off in chap. 22:21. That is what Paul stood on--the authority of the risen life. The resurrection happened to be held a verity by the Pharisee and a delusion by the Sadducee--it happened to draw all the Pharisees over to Paul’s side--and it was an oratorical feat to pit the two sects against each other, no doubt, but it was justifiable. The plea was perfectly true, consummately opportune, and absolutely successful. (H. R. Haweis, M. A.)
A diversion
During the early excesses of the French Revolution, a rabble of men and women were rioting in the streets of Paris. Lafayette appeared and ordered a young artillery officer to open fire upon them with two cannon. The officer begged the general to let him try first to persuade them to withdraw. “It is useless to appeal to their reason,” said the general. “Certainly,” answered the officer; “and it is not to their reason, but to their vanity, I would appeal.” The officer rode up to the front of the mob, doffed his cocked hat, pointed to the guns, and said, “Gentlemen, will you have the kindness to retire; for I am ordered to shoot down the rabble.” The street was cleared at once; for none could brook the idea of being classed with the scum of the city.
Paul’s policy vindicated
If a general, who had never distinguished himself by his bravery, should, in some hazardous enterprise, proceed with a caution bordering on timidity, and thus bring off his men in safety, but gain no victory, he might be suspected of cowardice, and it might be thought that a more determined leader would have boldly attacked and routed the enemy. But if the very same caution, with the very same result, had been used by a veteran who had manifested his prowess in many a hard fought field, all would be satisfied that he had good reason for what he did, and would admire the union of courage and circumspection which met in his character. Let this obvious and just mode of judging be applied to Paul. If we knew no more of him than what we learn from this transaction, we might suspect that his fears had led him to suppress a part of his principles. Or had it been Mark who now acted in this manner, we might have ascribed his conduct to timorousness. But when it was Paul, who was familiar with danger and with suffering, and whose coming at this time to Jerusalem was in the face of foreshown peril, and with a readiness to be bound or even to die for the name of the Lord Jesus; every rule of judging compels us to conclude that his wariness was not the result of fear, but manifested a circumspection which adds to the lustre of his character, and shows that his sufferings were not incurred by rashness or self-will, but were the unavoidable consequence of his faithfulness in preaching the gospel of Christ. (J. Fawcett, M. A.)
Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Proofs of the resurrection
Every impulse and feeling we have within us teaches a prolonged and immortal existence.
1. As to proofs from the conscience. Conscience of guilt speaks with great certainty of a future life.
2. Proofs from our affections: from our human affections in the remembrance of lost friends. Rev. Octavius Winslow has beautifully said that this assurance of heaven grows stronger gradually as the family on earth grows less, and there are more to meet us above. Further from our religious affections. Can the saint who has spent long years in learning to realise the presence of God here be made to believe that he shall be cut off from it hereafter?
3. Proofs from the will and desires.
4. Proofs from the imagination. The mind of man in every age, in every country, has been busied in painting a future life. The mythology of all religions from Egypt to Mexico, from the civilised Roman to the unenlightened Druid, are full of this. This may be called the weakest of our proofs, but it is the most universal. (E. Sharpe.)
The hope and the resurrection
Not a little light will be thrown upon Paul’s conduct if it be remembered that his address from the stairs was unfinished, and that his mind must have been full of the thoughts which, if altered, would make that address complete. Verse 1 is the natural conclusion to the argument of the preceding chapter, which shows the sincerity with which he embraced and held his present views. Another interruption occurs, and as soon as it subsides the apostle resumes, to deal with a subject which is never absent from his speeches. Seeing Pharisees present Paul recognises a providential moment for proclaiming their favourite doctrine and his own; and it is interesting to compare the whole paragraph with Acts 24:14-15; Acts 26:5-6. “The hope,” which should be distinguished from “the resurrection,” was unquestionably the advent of the Messiah which Paul had proved had taken place, inasmuch as Christ had appeared unto him (Acts 22:6-10). With the hope, the calling of the Gentiles (the ground of the uproar-- Acts 21:28-29) was inseparably bound up, as any impartial student of prophecy will admit, and as Paul tried to show (Acts 22:18; Acts 22:21) when he was compelled to break off. And then, further, upon the hope the resurrection was founded and made sure. Consider--
I. The hope. It was--
1. An ancient hope: as old as the fall, renewed to the patriarchs, repeated by the prophets and psalmist. In all its vicissitudes Israel had been supported by this hope, and men were eagerly waiting for its fulfilment when Christ came.
2. It was a sure hope. It was no brilliant speculation or dream of a golden age. It was no vague impression that as God in wrath had closed the gates of Paradise, He might, perhaps, in mercy, send a deliverer to open them once more. It was a hope based upon certain definite promises made by God again and again.
3. It was a wide hope. With the Scriptures in their hands it is hard to account for Jewish exclusiveness. The primeval promise was made to humanity; the patriarchal promises embraced all the families of the earth, and the glowing prophecies of Isaiah show clearly that without the Gentiles the Jews themselves could not be made perfect.
4. It was a glorious hope. It included--
(1) Redemption from sin.
(2) The establishment of a universal kingdom of righteousness and peace.
5. The hope has been fulfilled. Have you any part in it? The Jews rejected Him who was the subject of it. He now offers Himself, and it to you. How will you escape if you neglect so great salvation?
II. The resurrection as founded on the hope. The fulfilment of the hope for this life only would have frustrated its purpose--to make men blessed. Its very revelation would have engendered despair at the thought that it would one day come to an end (1 Corinthians 15:19). But connected with the revelation it is an eternal hope, it opens vistas of glory and bliss that stretch out forever.
1. Christ has redeemed the body as well as the soul. The future life and happiness which He purchased for the one He has secured for the other.
2. Christ gave a security for our resurrection by His own.
3. Christ promised it in connection with Himself, “the hope.” (J. W. Burn.)
And when he had so said there arose a dissension.--
The effect of the apostle’s policy
It answered the end he sought. It divided the Sanhedrin, and got the Pharisees on his side. Three results came out of it.
1. A great excitement through a sectionising dogma. “The resurrection of the dead,” which was a grand truth to the apostle, was a mere dogma to them; but it was just that dogma that divided them into two sects. As a rule, whatever idea divides one religious sect from another is the idea which awakens sectarian bitterness. Immersion, Presbyterianism, Independency--these things make sects and awaken irritation in the parties they divide.
2. A demonstration of the apostle’s innocence. So little impressed was the Sanhedrin with the idea of the apostle’s criminality, that they forgot all about it in the disputation amongst themselves; and, more than this, the Pharisees actually said, “We find no evil in this man.”
3. His deliverance from Jewish persecution (verse 10). (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees
There are plenty of indications in the Talmud that there was no love lost between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Edersheim quotes several Sadducee sayings regarding the scrupulosity of the Pharisees. “It is as a tradition among the Pharisees to torment themselves in this world, and yet they will gain nothing by it in the next.” “By and by,” said the Sadducees, “the Pharisees will set about purifying the round sun itself.” They also talked of “the plague of Pharisaism”; and enumerated seven kinds of Pharisees, of whom only one kind was praiseworthy. Nor was this strife regarding Paul the only occasion on which a serious disturbance was provoked by the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in pouring the water of libation upon the altar on the feast of tabernacles, and the Pharisees did. On one occasion the dispute was so intense that it led to a riot in which the blood of both parties was shed. In the modern East, such appeals as Paul made to the fanaticism of the Pharisees are matters of everyday occurrence. (S. S. Times.)
And there arose a great dissension.--
Religious dissensions
There is hardly anything which men are more ready to quarrel over than religion. And the less religion they have, the harder they will fight for it. The last thing which dies out in an ungodly man’s religious life is his sectarianism; and as long as any of that remains, he will argue in its defence and denounce its opponents. When the Churches in any community are coldest and most inactive, then sectarian bitterness is most likely to prevail When those Churches are warmed into new life, and become active in their Master’s service, and in zeal for souls, they think less of that which separates them in name, and more of that which they hold and love in common. Sectarian dissensions are a sign of a low spiritual state. If you are ready to note your differences with your religious neighbour, it is a pretty sure proof that you have not enough religion to quarrel over. If you are really possessed with religious zeal, you will be on the look out for points of agreement in its behalf, in your neighbour’s opinions and practice. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
We find no evil in this man.--
Partisanship
Of course, the Pharisees found no evil in Paul when they learned that he was on their side of the question at issue. We are not inclined to see faults in the man who agrees with us in any difference we have with others. He who defends our denomination, or our political party, or our views of financial policy, or our theories of education, stands better in our eyes than he could under other circumstances. Let a prominent politician change his party associations, and how quickly the whole community is affected in its opinions of his personal character. The men who before praised his spirit and ability are now sure that he never amounted to much any way. They always knew him to be unprincipled, and he is no gain to any party. And those who have been his enemies are surprised that he had been so misunderstood. At all events, they now find no evil in him, and they wonder if a spirit hath not spoken to him, or an angel. Would not it be well--safe as well as charitable--to ask this question about a man while he is on the other side from ourselves, of questions which divide our common country, or our common Christianity? (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
Paul’s rescue by the dissensions of his enemies
When Cadmus had sown the dragon’s teeth and they sprang up from the ground armed giants, a great army, he took up a rock and threw it among them. So that instead of slaying him they went to fighting one another. And they slew one another till only one tall giant remained, and he became the helper of Cadmus in carrying stones for the walls of the city of Thebes he began to build. So it is wise to let the enemies of Christianity fight one another; one tears down what another builds up. So it has been through the ages, whether they use historic criticism or geology, or antiquarian researches or development theories, or any form of science for their weapons. But always after the battle is over there is left some solid, settled truth which never fails to help build the city Of our God. (Christian Age.)