(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees . . .--We recognise the same parties in the council as there had been twenty-five years before. Whether they sat in groups on different sides, after the manner of the Government and Opposition benches in the House of Commons, or whether St. Paul recognised the faces of individual teachers of each sect with whom he had formerly been acquainted, we have no data for deciding.
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.--It is natural, from one point of view, to dwell chiefly on the tact of the Apostle. He seems to be acting, consciously or unconsciously, on the principle divide et impera, to win over to his side a party who would otherwise have been his enemies. With this there comes, it may be, a half-doubt whether the policy thus adopted was altogether truthful. Was St. Paul at that time really a Pharisee? Was he not, as following in his Master's footsteps, the sworn foe of Pharisaism? The answer to that question, which obviously ought to be answered and not suppressed, is that all parties have their good and bad sides, and that those whom the rank and file of a party most revile may be the most effective witnesses for the truths on which the existence of the party rests. The true leaders of the Pharisees had given a prominence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which it had never had before. They taught an ethical rather than a sacrificial religion. Many of them had been, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Acts 15:5). St. Paul, therefore, could not be charged with any suppressio veri in calling himself a Pharisee. It did not involve even a tacit disclaimer of his faith in Christ. It was rather as though he said, "I am one with you in all that is truest in your creed. I invite you to listen and see whether what I now proclaim to you is not the crown and completion of all your hopes and yearnings. Is not the resurrection of Jesus the one thing needed for a proof of that hope of the resurrection of the dead of which you and your fathers have been witnesses?"
Verse 6.- Brethren for men and brethren, A.V. (as in ver. 1); a son of Pharisees for the son of a Pharisee, A.V. and T.R.; touching for of, A.V. When Paul perceived, etc. Possibly the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim were disgusted at the brutal act of Ananias, and were not sorry to hear him called "a whited wall;" and St. Paul's quick intelligence saw at a glance that the whole council did not sympathize with their president, and divined the cause. With a ready wit, therefore, he proclaimed himself a Pharisee, and, seizing upon the great dogma of the resurrection, which Christians held in common with the Pharisees, he rallied to his side all who were Pharisees in the assembly. Of Pharisees. The R.T. has Φαρισαίων (in the plural), which gives the sense that his ancestors were Pharisees (comp. Philippians 3:5). Touching the hope, etc. (see Acts 24:21). The words are somewhat difficult to construe. Some take "the hope and resin'. rection of the dead" for a hendiadys, equivalent to "the hope of the resurrection of the dead." Some take ἐλπίς by itself, as meaning "the hope of a future life." Perhaps the exact form of the words is, "Touching the hope and (its ultimate object) the resurrection of the dead I am called in question." The article is omitted after the preposition (Alford). As regards St. Paul's action in taking advantage of the strong party feeling by which the Sanhedrim was divided, there is a difference of opinion. Some, as Alford, think that the presence of mind and skill with which Paul divided the hostile assembly was a direct fulfillment of our Lord's promise (Mark 13:9-11; see Homiletics, 1-11) to suggest by his Spirit to those under persecution what they ought to say. Farrar, on the contrary, strongly blames St. Paul, and says," The plan showed great knowledge of character... but was it worthy of St. Paul?... Could he worthily say, 'I am a Pharisee'? Had he any right to inflame an existing animosity?" and more to the same effect (vol. it. pp. 325-328). But it could not be wrong for St. Paul to take advantage of the agreement of Christian doctrine with some of the tenets of the Pharisees, to check the Pharisees from joining with the Sadducees in crushing that doctrine. He had never thrown off his profession as a Jew, and if a Jew, then one of the straitest sect of the Jews, in any of its main features; and if he claimed the freedom of a Roman citizen to save himself from scourging, why not the fact of being a Pharisee of Pharisees to save himself from an iniquitous sentence of the Sanhedrim?
23:6-11 The Pharisees were correct in the faith of the Jewish church. The Sadducees were no friends to the Scripture or Divine revelation; they denied a future state; they had neither hope of eternal happiness, nor dread of eternal misery. When called in question for his being a Christian, Paul might truly say he was called in question for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It was justifiable in him, by this profession of his opinion on that disputed point, to draw off the Pharisees from persecuting him, and to lead them to protect him from this unlawful violence. How easily can God defend his own cause! Though the Jews seemed to be perfectly agreed in their conspiracy against religion, yet they were influenced by very different motives. There is no true friendship among the wicked, and in a moment, and with the utmost ease, God can turn their union into open enmity. Divine consolations stood Paul in the most stead; the chief captain rescued him out of the hands of cruel men, but the event he could not tell. Whoever is against us, we need not fear, if the Lord stand by us. It is the will of Christ, that his servants who are faithful, should be always cheerful. He might think he should never see Rome; but God tells him, even in that he should be gratified, since he desired to go there only for the honour of Christ, and to do good.
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees,.... That is, that one part of the sanhedrim consisted of Sadducees, which was often the case; sometimes the high priest was of this sect, as Ananias probably was, and sometimes the greater part of the sanhedrim were Sadducees, and even sometimes the whole; See Gill on Acts 5:17, but this sanhedrim were only part of them Sadducees:
and the other Pharisees; of both these sects; see Gill on Matthew 3:7.
he cried out in the council; with a loud voice, that he might be heard by all:
men and brethren,
I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.
The son of a Pharisee; the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read in the plural number, "the son of Pharisees"; his father and his mother were both Pharisees; for there were women Pharisees (w), as well as men; so that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, as well as an Hebrew of the Hebrews; and this is said to show that he was by education of that sect.
Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question; that is, either for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, Acts 24:15 or for professing the hope of eternal life, and happiness in a future state, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when the soul and body will be reunited, and enjoy endless felicity together: not that these were the particular things now charged upon him, and for which he was now trying and judging; but that these were the ground and foundation of the hatred and persecution of him, because he preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the resurrection of men through him, and that there was hope of eternal life and salvation by him. And in this the apostle showed the prudence and wisdom of the serpent, along with the innocence of the dove, hereby to divide the assembly, and free himself from them; and it was but just and right; for since they would not hear him about to make a fair and open defence of his cause, but ordered him to be smitten on the mouth, it was but justice to throw them into confusion, and save himself.
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.--It is natural, from one point of view, to dwell chiefly on the tact of the Apostle. He seems to be acting, consciously or unconsciously, on the principle divide et impera, to win over to his side a party who would otherwise have been his enemies. With this there comes, it may be, a half-doubt whether the policy thus adopted was altogether truthful. Was St. Paul at that time really a Pharisee? Was he not, as following in his Master's footsteps, the sworn foe of Pharisaism? The answer to that question, which obviously ought to be answered and not suppressed, is that all parties have their good and bad sides, and that those whom the rank and file of a party most revile may be the most effective witnesses for the truths on which the existence of the party rests. The true leaders of the Pharisees had given a prominence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which it had never had before. They taught an ethical rather than a sacrificial religion. Many of them had been, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Acts 15:5). St. Paul, therefore, could not be charged with any suppressio veri in calling himself a Pharisee. It did not involve even a tacit disclaimer of his faith in Christ. It was rather as though he said, "I am one with you in all that is truest in your creed. I invite you to listen and see whether what I now proclaim to you is not the crown and completion of all your hopes and yearnings. Is not the resurrection of Jesus the one thing needed for a proof of that hope of the resurrection of the dead of which you and your fathers have been witnesses?"
and the other Pharisees; of both these sects; see Gill on Matthew 3:7.
he cried out in the council; with a loud voice, that he might be heard by all:
men and brethren,
I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.
The son of a Pharisee; the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read in the plural number, "the son of Pharisees"; his father and his mother were both Pharisees; for there were women Pharisees (w), as well as men; so that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, as well as an Hebrew of the Hebrews; and this is said to show that he was by education of that sect.
Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question; that is, either for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, Acts 24:15 or for professing the hope of eternal life, and happiness in a future state, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when the soul and body will be reunited, and enjoy endless felicity together: not that these were the particular things now charged upon him, and for which he was now trying and judging; but that these were the ground and foundation of the hatred and persecution of him, because he preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the resurrection of men through him, and that there was hope of eternal life and salvation by him. And in this the apostle showed the prudence and wisdom of the serpent, along with the innocence of the dove, hereby to divide the assembly, and free himself from them; and it was but just and right; for since they would not hear him about to make a fair and open defence of his cause, but ordered him to be smitten on the mouth, it was but justice to throw them into confusion, and save himself.
(w) Misna Sota, c. 3. sect. 4.