But Paul, knowing that the one part [of them] were of the Sadducees and the other of the Pharisees, cried out in the council, Brethren, *I* am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees *I* am judged concerning the hope and resurrection of [the] dead.
Paul stands before the Jewish ruling council. He sees that his judges belong to two rival parties, and he calls out a label from his own past. Commentators read the moment in two ways. Some hear the truth that carried his whole preaching. Others hear a clever move, made below his usual level.
Paul's words about his background were true. But his standing had changed:
Pharisees and Sadducees stood on opposite sides over the teaching of resurrection. Of course Paul still believed about resurrection just as the Pharisees did. In fact he went further than they did, for he knew Christ as raised from among the dead. And though he was brought up a Pharisee, he no longer belonged to that party. He was a Christian.
Paul says resurrection is what he is on trial for. He keeps saying it at every later hearing:
Look again at Acts 23:6, where Paul states plainly that he was put on trial for preaching this teaching — whether or not the apostle was right to appeal to the prejudices of the Pharisees. In Acts 24:15 he says the same thing. In Acts 26 he gives it to king Agrippa as the reason he is being held, and again in verse 23. These passages show clearly that the resurrection was the basis of the apostle's preaching and of the hope of the faithful.
Paul names the resurrection of the dead. That is not the same as the resurrection from among the dead:
The Jewish teaching of a resurrection of the dead is true as far as it goes. The Pharisees held it, and so did all Jews except the Sadducees, who denied it, as the pagan philosophers did. But the Lord Jesus taught a resurrection from the dead — plainly, from among the dead (Luke 20:35). This was the very thing that upset the Jews so much: that the apostles preached the resurrection from the dead through Jesus. The resurrection from among the dead went beyond all their teaching, and it offended them deeply.
The Sadducees denied resurrection. That denial cannot survive what happened to Jesus:
The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief in every age. It is God stepping in with power while the world carries on as it is. It is the pledge that the risen One will come and judge the world. He is the One God has appointed as Judge of the living and the dead. Resurrection is the only and final state of man that answers to God's purposes and will display His glory.
Commentators differ here. One asks whether the appeal matched the truth Paul usually preached:
Here the root of the matter appears. The apostle makes use of a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes the ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing men to his side. "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees," he cried. Was this up to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was undeniably true. But was it Christ as everything? Or was it a shrewd appeal, certain to divide the crowd in front of him, and a step down to ground far lower than he usually stood on?
Another writer gives Paul the benefit of the doubt, yet stops short of full approval:
Set against the Sadducees, Paul's claim to be a Pharisee was surely justified. It is hard to believe he would have made that claim in any other setting. But we are bound to credit him, and a man like the apostle above all, with the highest motive possible for what he did. Even so, he is clearly not at his best.
The Pharisees took Paul's side. Their reason had nothing to do with truth:
His cry had the effect he expected. It rallied the Pharisees to his side and made the Sadducees furious. They were all party men, and they judged everything by party. Taking him for one of their own, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them; party did. The same thing is very common today, and Christians are not free from it. So let us take the warning it gives us.
- True — Paul was raised a Pharisee. But he had gone further than any Pharisee. He knew Christ raised from among the dead.
- Partial — he named the resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees held. He did not name the resurrection from among the dead, which had offended them.
- Central — resurrection really was the charge. Paul says the same thing later to king Agrippa. It was the basis of his preaching and of the hope of the faithful.
- Divisive — the risen Christ is a death blow to Sadducee unbelief. He is God's pledge that the risen One will return to judge.
- Costly — the appeal split the council, but it put Paul on lower ground than usual. The Pharisees rallied to a party, not to the truth, and that habit still shows up among Christians today.
And when he had spoken this, there was a tumult of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided.
Paul stands before the Jewish council. One sentence about resurrection tears the room in two. Commentators read that result in very different ways. Was this a servant of Christ using truth wisely, or a man in danger falling back on something less?
The division did not happen by accident. Paul had scanned the council and spoken to what he saw.
The apostle uses a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing to his side. "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees," he cried. Was this up to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was unquestionably true; but was it Christ as everything? Was it not rather a shrewd appeal? It was certain to split the crowd in front of him, and it let him fall back on ground far lower than he was used to.
One subject was certain to divide that assembly. The two parties had led the opposition at different times, and resurrection is what changed that.
All through the Acts of the Apostles the Sadducees led the opposition, after the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Spirit. The Pharisees had led it in the same way while the Lord was on earth. There seems a certain fitness in this. The Righteous One was unbearable to the earthly-minded champions of human righteousness. They were always found wanting when weighed in God's balances. When He rose from the dead, the Sadducees sprang into action. They held outward power at the time, and the high priests seem to have come one after another from that party. The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief at all times.
Commentators differ on how to judge Paul here. Darby weighs his claim against Paul's own written words.
Afterwards he takes advantage of the different parties that made up the council. He throws it into complete disorder by declaring himself a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, called in question over a teaching of that sect. This was true; but it was below the height of his own word, "that which was gain I counted loss for Christ's sake."
The pressure that produced it is one every believer knows.
The division produced was no doubt what men would call politic; that is, the apostle meant to divide and conquer... I do mean that there was a kind of using the difference that reigned between those who held to the word of God with at least an outward religious respect, and those who despised it; and this is a danger no man is free from, especially when he is in danger.
The Pharisees' reaction exposed what drove the council. Their sudden support for Paul had nothing to do with his innocence.
It rallied the Pharisees to his aid, while violently antagonising the Sadducees. They were all true party men, viewing everything from a party standpoint. Assuming him to be of their party, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same kind of thing is very common today, and Christians are not immune from it; so let us accept the warning given to us here.
Splitting his accusers did not set Paul free. The party he stung still held the power.
The effect was immediate. A dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. No doubt the apostle was not preaching the gospel here, nor giving the testimony his heart usually turned to. Christ used no such measures when He was being judged; but it was surely righteous in itself, even if not up to the height of grace in Christ. Yet it brought Paul no deliverance. His adversaries were divided, but power lay with those who felt the blow struck at their unbelief.
Paul's own verdict on the tactic came later, and so did his Lord's answer to it.
Paul had used a rather clever device of his own to divide the Jewish council, setting the Pharisees and the Sadducees against each other. In Acts 24:21 he seems to admit that he had been wrong to do it. We can well imagine the night that followed. Paul lay in the Roman prison, too sad and discouraged to sleep. He was full of regret over what he felt had dishonoured the worthy Name he bore. Then the Lord Himself comes and stands by him... not to scold him — no indeed! — but to say once again that well known and well loved word, "Cheer up, Paul!"
- Divided by design — Paul saw two parties in the room. He spoke the one word certain to split them, so the tearing apart of the council was the effect he meant to get.
- Divided over resurrection — Christ risen was a death blow to the whole Sadducee system. That is why this one subject cut the room in half.
- Divided but true — Paul's claim was true, and it was righteous in itself. Commentators still place it below his own words about counting all gain as loss for Christ.
- Divided by party, not truth — the Pharisees backed Paul because they assumed he was one of them. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, and that warning still stands for us.
- Divided, yet undelivered — the split gained Paul nothing, and power stayed with his enemies. That same night the Lord came and stood by His discouraged servant with a word of cheer.
For Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but Pharisees confess both of them.
This short note explains why one sentence from Paul tore the council in half. It names the three things the two ruling parties could not agree on. The first of them, resurrection, is the foundation of everything Paul preached.
The verse describes this party by what they denied. A reference work fills in what they did and did not believe:
Next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were the most prominent sect of the Jews. The Pharisees made converts. The Sadducees were far more exclusive, so they stayed fewer in number. They did not believe in resurrection, angels, or spirits. They held that the soul died with the body. They were strict about the written law of Moses. But they rejected the traditions of the elders, known as the oral law.
In the earlier chapters of Acts, the Sadducees lead the attacks on the apostles, not the Pharisees. One writer explains why they fought so hard:
All through the Acts of the Apostles we have seen the Sadducees lead the opposition. They led it after Christ rose and the Spirit came, just as the Pharisees had led it while the Lord was on earth… The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief at all times. For it is God's intervention in power while the world goes on as it is, the pledge that the risen One will come and judge it.
The verse lists three denials. "Angel" and "spirit" are not two words for the same thing. One writer uses this verse, and the words shouted at the council soon after, to pin down what "spirit" means:
There the word "spirit" means what our word "ghost" means now: the spirits of people apart from the body. The verse puts angels in a separate class. And the context confirms this… "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?"
The Lord Himself had already answered this same party, and His reply touched every item on their list:
The Sadducees had raised a question about a resurrection of the body. The Lord in reply showed that He rejected all their distinctive beliefs, as stated in Acts 23:8. The resurrection is a Scripture truth. Angels there are, and the saints when raised will be equal to them. Spirits also exist, for all who have left the body live to God.
Commentators differ on whether Paul's cry was wisdom or a lapse. One reads it as a shrewd and true statement. It exposed how little the council cared about anything but party:
He presented himself as a Pharisee, on trial about the hope of resurrection. He was indeed a Pharisee by birth and early training, and resurrection does lie at the very foundation of the gospel… The Pharisees took him for one of their own, and swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same kind of thing is very common today, and Christians are not immune from it.
Another agrees the words were true, but asks whether they were the testimony Paul usually gave:
The apostle uses a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes the ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing to his side… It was true beyond question. But did it put Christ at the centre? Was it not simply a careful appeal? It was sure to divide the crowd in front of him, and it let him fall back on much lower ground than he usually took.
The Sadducee outlook did not die with the council. One writer names what lay behind it:
The Sadducees were the sceptics of that day and of the lowest kind; materialism had blinded them… A person's present life becomes everything. They shut God out, and even deny Him, because He is unseen.
The cure they point to is not argument. It is the preaching of the risen Christ:
Resurrection of the dead is faith's great weapon against the error of the day, and for souls in danger of destruction. Resurrection from among the dead is a greater weapon still. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is sending forgiveness of sins through His name… That alone is the true deliverance from what the Sadducees taught, and from anything like it today.
- Denial — the Sadducees cut out three things — resurrection, angels, and spirits. They taught that the soul died with the body.
- Motive — the risen Jesus destroyed that system. So this party, not the Pharisees, led the opposition in Acts.
- Distinction — "spirit" here means people's spirits apart from the body. Angels are a separate class.
- Division — Paul's claim was true, but commentators differ. One sees a shrewd move that exposed party spirit. Another asks whether it put Christ at the centre.
- Deliverance — the same denial lives on as materialism. The cure is the truth that split the council: resurrection, and forgiveness through the name of the risen Christ.
And there was a great clamour, and the scribes of the Pharisees' part rising up contended, saying, We find nothing evil in this man; and if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel ...
Paul stands on trial before the Jewish ruling council, and his claim to be a Pharisee has just torn the room in two. The shouting peaks here. Men who had been his judges become his defenders. What were their words worth, and what did they mean by "a spirit or an angel"?
The rescue came from men who had not changed their minds about Paul's message — only about which side he was on.
He presented himself as a Pharisee who was on trial over the hope of resurrection. He was without doubt a Pharisee by birth and early training. And resurrection does lie at the very foundation of the Gospel. His cry had the effect he expected. It rallied the Pharisees to his aid, while it made the Sadducees fiercely hostile. They were all true party men, viewing everything from a party standpoint. Assuming him to be of their party, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same thing is very common today, and Christians are not free from it. So let us take the warning given to us here.
The verse calls them "the scribes of the Pharisees' party." That puts two labels, scribe and Pharisee, on the same men.
Scribes did not form a separate sect in New Testament times. A person might be both a scribe and a Pharisee, or a scribe and a Sadducee: compare Acts 23:9.
The two words are not synonyms. They name two different classes, and the Pharisees held to both against the Sadducees.
Normally, the everyday language of the day is based on the older, Scriptural usage. That language speaks of departed spirits and of ghosts — "ghost" is simply the old English word for the same thing. A "spirit," as in Acts 23:8-9, was the common term for one who had passed into the unseen state. The Pharisees declared their belief in "spirits." They kept them clearly distinct from "angels," and they said so against the unbelief of the Sadducees. So the disciples thought the risen Lord was a "spirit," and the Lord answers them, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones." So the departed saints are "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" (Heb. 12:23), while the unrighteous are "the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19).
The verse stops mid-thought. Older English Bibles finish it: "let us not fight against God." The strongest manuscripts leave the question hanging.
Acts 23:9 ends correctly with "and if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?" The manuscripts ℵ A B C E and other good authorities read it that way. The longer ending of the common text still has much support, though.
Commentators differ over which ending to follow. Those who keep the longer one hear an echo of Gamaliel, who had once urged the council to leave the apostles alone.
Some of the scribes belonging to the Pharisees shouted in defence of the prisoner: "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God." That last sentence was a faint echo of the advice Gamaliel had given.
Whatever their motive, Paul's own judges announced they had nothing against him. The court that should have guarded the truth had already shown what it was worth.
The people trampled down the demands of truth and justice in the blind fury of religious zeal. Their rulers are to set those demands aside even more wilfully, deliberately and hypocritically — yet not without a witness from among themselves to what is due to the truth of God... though Ananias the high priest orders Paul to be struck against the law, the Pharisees in the council still argued against the Sadducees, saying, "We find nothing evil in this man."
Half the council now spoke for Paul. Did that open the prison door?
No doubt the apostle was not preaching the gospel here. He was not giving the testimony his heart usually turned to. Christ used no such measures when He was judged. Yet what Paul did was righteous in itself, even if it did not reach the height of grace in Christ. Yet it brought Paul no rescue. His enemies were divided, but power stayed with those who felt the blow struck at their unbelief.
- Cause — Paul's claim to be a Pharisee split the council. The split, not his message, turned his judges into his defenders.
- Party — the Pharisees backed him because they assumed he was one of them. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did.
- Words — "spirit" and "angel" mean two different things here. A spirit is someone who has passed into the unseen state; an angel is a heavenly being. The Pharisees held to both against Sadducean unbelief.
- Verdict — "We find nothing wrong in this man" is an acquittal from Paul's own accusers. Even a corrupt court produced a witness to what is due to the truth.
- Limit — the acquittal freed nobody. Power stayed with the party he had offended. A half-defence from men who valued their side above the truth left him a prisoner still.