Acts 23:6

Many are the troubles of the righteous, but some way or other the Lord delivereth them out of them all. Paul owned he had experienced the truth of this in the persecutions he had undergone among the Gentiles (see Ti2 3:11): Out of them all the Lord delivered me. And now he finds that he who has delivered does and will deliver. He that delivered him in the foregoing chapter from the tumult of the people here delivers him from that of the elders.

I. His own prudence and ingenuity stand him in some stead, and contribute much to his escape. Paul's greatest honour, and that upon which he most valued himself, was that he was a Christian, and an apostle of Christ; and all his other honours he despised and made nothing of, in comparison with this, counting them but dung, that he might win Christ; and yet he had sometimes occasion to make use of his other honours, and they did him service. His being a citizen of Rome saved him in the foregoing chapter from his being scourged by the chief captain as a vagabond, and here his being a Pharisee saved him from being condemned by the sanhedrim, as an apostate from the faith and worship of the God of Israel. It will consist very well with our willingness to suffer for Christ to use all lawful methods, nay, and arts too, both to prevent suffering and to extricate ourselves out of it. The honest policy Paul used here for his own preservation was to divide his judges, and to set them at variance one with another about him; and, by incensing one part of them more against him, to engage the contrary part for him.

1. The great council was made up of Sadducees and Pharisees, and Paul perceived it. He knew the characters of many of them ever since he lived among them, and saw those among them whom he knew to be Sadducees, and others whom he knew to be Pharisees (Act 23:6): One part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and perhaps nearly an equal part. Now these differed very much from one another, and yet they ordinarily agreed well enough to do the business of the council together. (1.) The Pharisees were bigots, zealous for the ceremonies, not only those which God had appointed, but those which were enjoined by the tradition of the elders. They were great sticklers for the authority of the church, and for enforcing obedience to its injunctions, which occasioned many quarrels between them and our Lord Jesus; but at the same time they were very orthodox in the faith of the Jewish church concerning the world of spirits, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (2.) The Sadducees were deists - no friends to the scripture, or divine revelation. The books of Moses they admitted as containing a good history and a good law, but had little regard to the other books of the Old Testament; see Mat 22:23. The account here given of these Sadducees is, [1.] That they deny the resurrection; not only the return of the body to life, but a future state of rewards and punishments. They had neither hope of eternal happiness nor dread of eternal misery, nor expectation of any thing on the other side death; and it was upon these principles that they said, It is in vain to serve God, and called the proud happy, Mal 3:14, Mal 3:15. [2.] That they denied the existence of angels and spirits, and allowed of no being but matter. They thought that God himself was corporeal, and had parts and members as we have. When they read of angels in the Old Testament, they supposed them to be messengers that God made and sent on his errands as there was occasion, or that they were impressions on the fancies of those they were sent to, and no real existences - that they were this, or that, or any thing rather than what they were. And, as for the souls of men, they looked upon them to be nothing else but the temperament of the humours of the body, or the animal spirits, but denied their existence in a state of separation from the body, and any difference between the soul of a man and of a beast. These, no doubt, pretended to be free-thinkers, but really thought as meanly, absurdly, and slavishly, as possible. It is strange how men of such corrupt and wicked principles could come into office, and have a place in the great sanhedrim; but many of them were of quality and estate, and they complied with the public establishment, and so got in and kept in. But they were generally stigmatized as heretics, were ranked with the Epicureans, and were prayed against and excluded from eternal life. The prayer which the modern Jews use against Christians, Witsius thinks, was designed by Gamaliel, who made it, against the Sadducees; and that they meant them in their usual imprecation, Let the name of the wicked rot. But how degenerate was the character and how miserable the state of the Jewish church, when such profane men as these were among their rulers!

2. In this matter of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees Paul openly declared himself to be on the Pharisees' side against the Sadducees (Act 23:6): He cried out, so as to be heard by all, "I am a Pharisee, was bred a Pharisee, nay, I was born one, in effect, for I was the son of a Pharisee, my father was one before me, and thus far I am still a Pharisee that I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and I may truly say that, if the matter were rightly understood, it would be found that this is it for which I am now called in question." When Christ was upon earth the Pharisees set themselves most against him, because he witnessed against their traditions and corrupt glosses upon the law; but, after his ascension, the Sadducees set themselves most against his apostles, because they preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead, Act 4:1, Act 4:2. And it is said (Act 5:17) that they were the sect of the Sadducees that were filled with indignation at them, because they preached that life and immortality which is brought to light by the gospel. Now here, (1.) Paul owns himself a Pharisee, so far as the Pharisees were in the right. Though as Pharisaism was opposed to Christianity he set himself against it, and against all its traditions that were set up in competition with the law of God or in contradiction to the gospel of Christ, yet, as it was opposed to Sadducism, he adhered to it. We must never think the worse of any truth of God, nor be more shy of owning it, for its being held by men otherwise corrupt. If the Pharisees will hope for the resurrection of the dead, Paul will go along with them in that hope, and be one of them, whether they will or no. (2.) He might truly say that being persecuted, as a Christian, this was the thing he was called in question for. Perhaps he knew that the Sadducees, though they had not such an interest in the common people as the Pharisees had, yet had underhand incensed the mob against him, under pretence of his having preached to the Gentiles, but really because he had preached the hope of the resurrection. However, being called in question for his being a Christian, he might truly say he was called in question for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, as he afterwards pleaded, Act 24:15, and Act 26:6, Act 26:7. Though Paul preached against the traditions of the elders (as his Master had done), and therein opposed the Pharisees, yet he valued himself more upon his preaching the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, in which he concurred with the Pharisees.

3. This occasioned a division in the council. It is probable that the high priest sided with the Sadducees (as he had done Act 5:17, and made it to appear by his rage at Paul, Act 23:2), which alarmed the Pharisees so much the more; but so it was, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Act 23:7), for this word of Paul's made the Sadducees more warm and the Pharisees more cool in the prosecution of him; so that the multitude was divided; eschisthē - there was a schism, a quarrel among them, and the edge of their zeal began to turn from Paul against one another; nor could they go on to act against him when they could not agree among themselves, or prosecute him for breaking the unity of the church when there was so little among them of the unity of the spirit. All the cry had been against Paul, but now there arose a great cry against one another, Act 23:9. So much did a fierce furious spirit prevail among all orders of the Jews at this time that every thing was done with clamour and noise; and in such a tumultuous manner were the great principles of their religion stickled for, by which they received little service, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Gainsayers may be convinced by fair reasoning, but never by a great cry.

4. The Pharisees hereupon (would one think it?) took Paul's part (Act 23:9): They strove, diemachonto - They fought, saying, We find no evil in this man. He had conducted himself decently and reverently in the temple, and had attended the service of the church; and, though it was but occasionally, yet it showed that he was not such an enemy to it as he was said to be. He had spoken very handsomely in his own defence, and given a good account of himself, and had now declared himself orthodox in the great principles of religion, as well as regular and conscientious in his conversation; and therefore they cannot see that he has done any thing worthy of death of bonds. Nay, they go further, "If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him concerning Jesus, and put him upon preaching as he does, though we may not be so far satisfied as to give credit to him, yet we ought to be cautioned not to oppose him, lest we be found fighting against God;" as Gamaliel, who was himself a Pharisee, had argued, Act 5:39. Now here, (1.) We may observe, to the honour of the gospel, that it was witnessed to even by its adversaries, and confessions, not only of its innocency, but of its excellency, were extorted sometimes by the power of truth even from those that persecuted it. Pilate found no fault in Christ though he put him to death, nor Festus in Paul though he detained him in bonds; and the Pharisees here supposed it possible that Paul might have a commission sent him for heaven by an angel to do what he did; and yet it should seem, as elders, they after this joined with the high priest in prosecuting him, Act 24:1. They sinned against the knowledge which they not only had, but sometimes owned, as Christ had said of them, They have both seen and hated both me and my Father, Joh 15:24. Yet, (2.) We will hope that some of them at least did henceforward conceive a better opinion of Paul than they had had, and were favourable to him, having had such a satisfactory account both of his conversation in all good conscience and of his faith touching another world; and then it must be observed to their honour that their zeal for the traditions of the elders, which Paul had departed fRom. was so far swallowed up in a zeal for the great and fundamental doctrines of religion, to which Paul still adhered, that if he will heartily join with them against the Sadducees, and adhere to the hope of the resurrection of the dead, they will not think his shaking off the ceremonial law to be an evil in him, but charitably hope that he walks according to the light God has given him by some angel or spirit, and are so far from persecuting him that they are ready to patronize and protect him. The persecuting Pharisees of the church of Rome are not of this spirit: for let a man be ever so sincere and zealous for all the articles of the Christian faith, yet, if he lay not his neck under the yoke of their church's authority, they find evil enough in him to persecute him unto the death.

II. The chief captain's care and conduct stand him in more stead; for when he has thrown this bone of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees (which set them together by the ears, and gained a fair testimony from the Pharisees), yet he is never the nearer, but is in danger of being pulled in pieces by them - the Pharisees pulling to have him set at liberty, and the Sadducees pulling to have him put to death, or thrown to the people, like Daniel into the den of lions; so that the chief captain is forced to come with his soldiers and rescue him, as he had done, Act 21:32, and Act 22:24. 1. See here Paul's danger. Between his friends and his enemies he had like to have been pulled to pieces, the one hugging him to death, the other crushing him to death, such violences are those liable to that are eminent, and that are become remarkable, as Paul was, who was by some so much beloved and by others so much maligned. 2. His deliverance: The chief captain ordered his soldiers to go down from the upper wards, and to take them by force from among them, out of that apartment in the temple where he had ordered the council to meet, and to bring him into the castle, or tower of Antonio; for he saw he could make nothing of them towards the understanding of the merits of his cause.

III. Divine consolations stood him in most stead of all. The chief captain had rescued him out of the hands of cruel men, but still he had him in custody, and what might be the issue he could not tell. The castle was indeed a protection to him, but withal it was a confinement; and, as it was now his preservation from so great a death, it might be his reservation for a greater. We do not find that any of the apostles or elders at Jerusalem came to him; either they had not courage or they had not admission. Perhaps, in the night following, Paul was full of thoughts and cares what should become of him, and how his present troubles might be turned to answer some good purpose. Then did the Lord Jesus make him a kind visit, and, thought at midnight, yet a very seasonable one (Act 23:11): The Lord stood by him, came to his bed-side, though perhaps it was but a bed of straw, to show him that he was all the day long with him really as sure as he was in the night with him visibly. Note, Whoever is against us, we need not fear if the Lord stand by us; if he undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, and then nothing can come amiss. 1. Christ bids him have a good heart upon it: "Be of good cheer, Paul; be not discouraged; let not what has happened sadden thee, nor let what may yet be before thee frighten thee." Note, It is the will of Christ that his servants who are faithful should be always cheerful. Perhaps Paul, in the reflection, began to be jealous of himself whether he had done well in what he said to the council the day before; but Christ, by his word, satisfies him that God approved of his conduct. Or, perhaps, it troubled him that his friends did not come to him; but Christ's visit did itself speak, though he had not said, Be of good cheer, Paul. 2. It is a strange argument which he makes use of to encourage him: As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. One would think this was but cold comfort: "As thou hast undergone a great deal of trouble for me so thou must undergo a great deal more;" and yet this was designed to encourage him; for hereby he is given to understand, (1.) That he had been serving Christ as a witness for him in what he had hitherto endured. It was for no fault that he was buffeted, and it was not his former persecuting of the church that was now remembered against him, however he might remember it against himself, but he was still going on with his work. (2.) That he had not yet finished his testimony, nor was, by his imprisonment, laid aside as useless, but was only reserved for further service. Nothing disheartened Paul so much as the thought of being taken off from doing service to Christ and good to souls: Fear not, says Christ, I have not done with thee, (3.) Paul seems to have had a particular fancy, and an innocent one, to go to Rome, to preach the gospel there, though it was already preached, and a church planted there; yet, being a citizen of Rome, he longed for a journey thither, and had designed it (Act 19:21): After I have been at Jerusalem, I must also see Rome. And he had written to the Romans some time ago that he longed to see them, Rom 1:11. Now he was ready to conclude that this had broken his measures, and he should never see Rome; but even in that Christ tells him he should be gratified, since he desired it for the honour of Christ and to do good.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act_23:6-10

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 Pauls 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.)

Pauls 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 Pauls 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.

Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Act_24:14-15; Act_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 (Act_22:6-10). With the hope, the calling of the Gentiles (the ground of the uproar-- Act_21:28-29) was inseparably bound up, as any impartial student of prophecy will admit, and as Paul tried to show (Act_22:18; Act_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 (1Co_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 apostles 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 apostles innocence. So little impressed was the Sanhedrin with the idea of the apostles 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 mans 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 Masters 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 neighbours 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.)

Pauls rescue by the dissensions of his enemies

When Cadmus had sown the dragons 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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 23:6-8. But when Paul perceived — Γνους δε ο Παυλος, Paul knowing, in consequence of his being personally acquainted with many whom he saw sitting round; that one part of the council were Pharisees, and the other Sadducees, cried out, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee — I am such both by birth and education, as also by my own free choice, having voluntarily attached myself to that sect: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Meaning, that he was brought before them as a criminal for preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as a proof of the resurrection of all the dead at the last day. Certainly this was a principal part (though not the whole) of the truth, since the chief thing which enraged the Sadducees against Christianity, was the demonstration it gave to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they so eagerly opposed. When he had so said, there arose a dissension — A disagreement and contention producing a separation between the Pharisees and Sadducees, several persons of each sect becoming warm in the debate. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection — Of the dead. See on Mat 22:23. Neither angel nor separate spirit — It seems strange that the Sadducees should deny that there were angels, considering that they acknowledged the authority of the five books of Moses, in which mention is frequently made of angels; but it seems they either understood the passages that speak of angels, in those books, allegorically, or, as Dr. Whitby observes, supposed that when they are said to appear, they were framed at that particular time for that purpose, and afterward ceased to have any being: so that, after the giving of the law, at least, no angel existed. And with regard to their denying the existence of spirits, the meaning probably is, not that they denied God to be a spirit, or that there was any spirit in man, but, as Josephus testifies, they denied, της ψυχης την διαμονην, the permanency of the soul after death, or, that any spirits existed in a state of separation from men’s bodies. But the Pharisees confess both — Both the resurrection and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23:6 Paul focused on the key issue in his trial, the hope of resurrection from the dead. His preaching was simply the outworking of that hope and the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, but the message was unacceptable to both groups of Jews because of its implications. Pharisees could not abide the inclusion of the Gentiles apart from circumcision and keeping the law of Moses (cp. 15:5), but that was what the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit had provided (Acts 2:39; 10:34-48). Sadducees could not stand the proclamation of the resurrection at all (cp. 4:1-2).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 23:6. Ἔκραξεν, he cried out) Making an open profession, in order that all in the crowd might hear: ch. Act 24:21. Here the saying held good, in a good sense, “Divide et impera,” divide, and you will thereby command. Paul did not use craft of reason or dialectical stratagem, but simply invites to his defence those who were less far removed from the truth.—Φαρισαῖος εἰμι, I am a Pharisee) according to my ancient discipline (training); and even yet am so, as far as concerns faith in the resurrection.—υἱὸς Φαρισαίου) υἱὸς Φαρισαίων, others read, whose testimony is corroborated by the ancient authority, Tertullian. [The Gnomon here follows, not the margin of the larger Edition, but that of the 2d Edition, along with the Germ. Vers.—E. B. Φαρισαίων is read by [126]

[127]

[128] Vulg. Syr[129]; but ΦΑΡΙΣΑΊΟΥ of the Rec. Text, only by [130]

[131] of the very old authorities.] Moreover Paul calls himself a son of the Pharisees, not meaning his preceptors, which would give tautology in the sense, a Pharisee, a son of the Pharisees, nor does Paul mention in ch. Act 22:3 a number of preceptors, but Gamaliel alone; but he means that he had parents, or a father and grandfather or forefathers, Pharisees: comp. 2Ti 1:3. In this way there is a Climax: a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees.—ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως, of the hope and resurrection) A Hendiadys: for it was the resurrection that they hoped for.—ἐγὼ κρίνομαι, I am judged, called in question) In the present judicial procedure, in which Ananias acts the part of president, saith Paul, the case has come to this, that the hope and resurrection of the dead is being impugned. The predecessors of Ananias had been Sadducees, ch. Act 5:17, and now also he himself was a Sadducee. Now, when more than twenty years had elapsed from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they did not so unceasingly assail the preaching concerning Jesus Christ and His resurrection, as they did the dogma itself concerning the Resurrection of the dead, which was long ago odious to them; as indeed they had already done, ch. Act 4:2: whereas the Pharisees, in this respect, were not so far removed from the Christian faith. Therefore Paul conciliates them to himself, whilst the Sadducees were the more enraged in consequence. This then was what at that time the state of the controversy became, which Paul earnestly and stedfastly mentions subsequently, ch. Act 24:15; Act 24:21, Act 26:6-7, Act 28:20.

[126] the Alexandrine MS.: in Brit. Museum: fifth century: publ. by Woide, 1786–1819: O. and N. Test. defective.

[127] Cod. Basilianus (not the B. Vaticanus): Revelation: in the Vatican: edited by Tisch., who assigns it to the beginning of the eighth century.

[128] Ephræmi Rescriptus: Royal libr., Paris: fifth or sixth cent.: publ. by Tisch. 1843: O. and N. T. def.

[129] yr. the Peschito Syriac Version: second cent.: publ. and corrected by Cureton, from MS. of fifth cent.

[130] Laudianus: Bodl. libr., Oxford: seventh or eighth cent.: publ. 1715: Acts def.

[131] Laudianus, do.: Acts.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_23:6-7. Whether the irony of Act_23:5 was understood by the Sanhedrists or not, Paul at all events now knew that here a plain and straightforward defence, such as he had begun (Act_23:1), was quite out of place. With great presence of mind and prudence he forthwith resorts to a meansall the more effectual in the excited state of their mindsof bringing the two parties, well known to him in the council, into collision with one another, and thereby for the time disposing the more numerous party, that of the Pharisees, in favour of his person and cause. He did not certainly, from his knowledge of Pharisaism and from his previous experiences, conceive to himself the possibility of an actual internal crisis among the Pharisees (Baumgarten); but by the enlisting of their sectarian interests, and preventing their co-operation with the Sadducees, much was gained in the present position of affairs, especially in presence of the tribune, for Paul and his work.

ἐν τῷ συνεδρ.] so that he thus did not direct this exclamation (ἔκραξεν) to any definite individuals.

ἐγὼ Φαρισ. εἰμι, υἱὸς Φαρισ.] i.e. I for my part am a Pharisee, a born Pharisee. The plural Φαρισαίων refers to his male ancestors (father, grandfather, and perhaps still further back), not, as Grotius thinks, to his father and mother, as the mother here, where the sect was concerned, could not be taken into account (it is otherwise with Php_3:5, ἐξ Ἑβρ.). We may add, that Pauls still affirming of himself the Φαρισαῖον εἶναι is as little untrue as Php_3:5 (in opposition to Zeller). He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other than the religious society of the Pharisees; and particularly in the doctrine of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession of the Pharisees (in opposition to all Sadduceeism) according to its truth confirmed in the case of Christ Himself (Act_4:1 f.). His contending against the legal righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labouring in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself, but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodox Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism.

περὶ ἐλπ. καὶ ἀναστ. νεκρ. ἐγὼ κρίν.] on account of hope, etc.; hope and (and indeed, as regards its object) resurrection of the dead it is, on account of which I (ἐγώ has the emphasis of the aroused consciousness of unjust treatment) am called in question. Comp. Act_24:15, Act_26:6-8. As the accusations contained in Act_21:28, οὗτος … διδάσκων,[147] were nothing else than hateful perversions of the proposition: This man preaches a new religion, which is to come in place of the Mosaic in its subsisting form; and as in this new religion, in point of fact, everything according to its highest aim culminated in the hope of the Messianic salvation, which will be realized by the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15): so it follows that Paul has put the cause of the ΚΡΊΝΟΜΑΙ in the form most suited to the critical situation of the moment, without altering the substance of the matter as it stood objectively.[148]

ΣΤΆΣΙς ΤῶΝ ΦΑΡΙΣ. ΚΑῚ ΣΑΔΔ.] without repetition of ΤῶΝ (see the critical remarks): the Pharisees and Sadducees, the two parties conceived of together as the corporation of the Sanhedrim (comp. on Mat_3:6), became at variance (Act_15:2), and the massthe multitude of those assembledwas divided.

[147] The untruth added to these accusations, ἔτι τε χαὶ Ἕλληνας κ.τ.λ., Paul might here with reason leave entirely out of consideration.

[148] The procedure of Paul in helping himself with dialectic dexterity was accordingly this: he reduces the accusations contained in Act_21:28 to the pure matter of fact, and he grasps this matter of fact (the announcement of the Messianic kingdom) in that form which was necessary for his object. Non deerat Paulo humana etiam prudentia, qua in bonum evangelii utens, columbae serpentem utiliter miscebat et inimicorum dissidiis fruebatur, Grotius.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 23:6 . γνοὺς … τὸ … ἓ τὸ δὲ ἕτερον . On ἕν … ἕτερον : see Simcox Language of the N.T. , pp. 71, 72. That Pharisees and Sadducees alike had seats in the Sanhedrim during this period is borne out not only by the N. T., but by Jos., Ant. , xx., 9, 1, B.J. , ii., 17, 3, Vita , 38, 39. It is possible that the Pharisees might have attracted the attention of the Apostle by their protest against the behaviour of Ananias and their acceptance of the words of apology (so Felten, Zöckler), but it is equally probable that in St. Luke’s apparently condensed account the appeal to the Pharisees was not made on a sudden impulse (see below), but was based upon some manifestation of sympathy with his utterances. In Act 23:9 it is evidently implied that the story of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus had been narrated, and his acceptance of the Messiahship of the Risen Jesus carried with it his belief in a resurrection. ἔκραξεν : the word may here as sometimes elsewhere, cf. Joh 7:37 ; Joh 12:44 , indicate no isolated cry, but a reference to something previously said, and it is probable that St. Luke may have passed over here as elsewhere some portions of the Apostle’s speech, which were less intimately connected with the development and issue of events. It must however be noted that the verb may mean that the Apostle cried aloud so that all might hear him amidst the rising confusion. ἐγὼ φαρι . εἰμι κ . τ . λ .: the words have been severely criticised, but in a very real sense they truthfully expressed the Apostle’s convictions. Before Felix St. Paul made practically the same assertion, although he did not use the word φαρ . ( cf. also Act 26:5 ), Hort, Judaistic Christianity , p. 111. Moreover it is difficult to see why the Apostle should not describe himself as a Pharisee in face of the statement, Act 15:5 , that many members of the sect were also members of the Christian Church. They, like St. Paul, must have acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah. But that Messiahship was attested by the avowal of the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection was a prominent article of the Pharisees’ creed. In the acceptance of this latter doctrine St. Paul was at one not only with the “Pharisees who believed,” but with the whole sect, and that he used the title in this limited way, viz. , with relation to the hope of the resurrection, is plain from the context, which fixes the limitation by the Apostle’s own words. But because the declaration shows the tact of St. Paul, because it is an instance of his acting upon the maxim Divide et impera , has it no higher side in relation to his character and purpose? May we not even say that to the Pharisees he became as a Pharisee in order to save some, to lead them to see the crown and fulfilment of the hope in which he and they were at one, in the Person of Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life? That the Apostle’s action met with Divine approval seems evident, Act 23:11 . See “Paul” (Dr. Llewellyn Davies), B.D. 1 , iii., 754, 755, and amongst recent writers, Luckock, but on the other hand Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul , p. 187 ff. Bethge attributes to the Apostle an apologetic aim, viz. , to show the chiliarch that Christianity should be protected by the State, since it was no new religion, but really proceeded from Judaism; and in support he refers to the words of Lysias, Act 23:29 ; but although the Apostle’s appeal may have helped Lysias to form his judgment, it seems somewhat strained to attribute to the Apostle the motive assigned by Bethge. υἱὸς φαρ .: “a son of Pharisees,” R.V. plural, which is the best reading, i.e. , his ancestors, 2Ti 1:3 , Phi 3:5 , possibly including his teachers by a familiar Hebraism. περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀνασ .: generally taken as a hendiadys (so Page), “hope of a resurrection of the dead” (see, however, Winer-Moulton, lxvi. 7). In Act 26:6 ἐλπίς is used of the hope of a future Messianic salvation the hope of Israel but in Act 24:15 St. Paul distinctly makes mention of the hope of a resurrection of the dead, and his own words again in Act 24:21 seem to exclude anything beyond that question as under discussion on the present occasion.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We may lawfully sometimes set the wicked together by the ears, that they may leave off to assault us, so that it be with no hindrance of the truth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

when Paul perceived--from the discussion which plainly had by this time arisen between the parties.

that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out--raising his voice above both parties.

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee--The true reading seems to be, "the son of Pharisees," that is, belonging to a family who from father to son had long been such.

of the hope and resurrection of the dead--that is, not the vague hope of immortality, but the definite expectation of the resurrection.

I am called in question--By this adroit stroke, Paul engages the whole Pharisaic section of the council in his favor; the doctrine of a resurrection being common to both, though they would totally differ in their application of it. This was, of course, quite warrantable, and the more so as it was already evident that no impartiality in trying his cause was to be looked for from such an assembly.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 6. I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee] Instead of φαρισαιου, of a Pharisee, ABC, some others, with the Syriac and Vulgate, have φαρισαιων, of the Pharisees; which, if acknowledged to be the genuine reading, would alter the sense thus, I am a Pharisee, and a disciple of the Pharisees, for so the word son is frequently understood.

Of the hope and resurrection] Concerning the hope of the resurrection, the και, and, being here redundant; indeed, it is omitted by the Syriac, all the Arabic, and AEthiopic. St. Paul had preached the resurrection of the dead, on the foundation and evidence of the resurrection of Christ. For this, he and the apostles were, some time before, imprisoned by the high priest and elders, Ac 4:1-3; Ac 5:17, because they preached, THROUGH JESUS, the resurrection of the dead. This they could not bear; for, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, their malice and wickedness, in putting him to death, were incontrovertibly established.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. And when Paul knew. The policy of Paul, whereof Luke maketh mention, doth seem not to beseem the servant of Christ. For the subtilty which he used was inwrapped in dissimulation, which was not far from a lie. He saith that the state of his cause did consist in the resurrection of the dead: but we know that the strife arose about other matters: because he disannulled the ceremonies, because he admitted the Gentiles into the covenant of salvation. I answer, that though these things be true, yet did not he lie. For he doth neither deny that he was accused of other matters, neither doth this make the whole controversy to consist in one point; but he saith truly that the Sadducees were therefore offended with him, because he did hold the resurrection of the dead. He knew that those who had conspired together against him were enemies also one to another. He knew that his own conscience was clear; and it had been an easy matter for him to prove his cause good before just judges. Yet because he seeth them cry out on him clamorously, and that he had no place granted to defend himself, he setteth his enemies together by the ears. Whereby it doth also appear, that they were carried away through ignorance and blind zeal. Therefore we must note that Paul did so begin, as that he was desirous truly and plainly to unfold the whole matter; and that he did not craftily refuse to make a pure and sound confession, such as, the servants of Christ ought to make; but because the way was stopt before him, neither could he be heard, he used the last remedy, to declare that his adversaries were carried headlong with blind hatred. For the end doth show, that those are not guided with reason or judgment, who are carried out of the way by mutual discord.

Now, if any man, which darkeneth the light of doctrine, excuse his craft, by the example of Paul, he is easily refuted. For it is one thing for a man to provide for himself alone with the loss of truth, and another to lead the professed enemies of Christ from resisting him, that they may strive among themselves.

Furthermore, we see the nature of the wicked, though they disagree among themselves like enemies, yet when they are to make war against the gospel, they forget their own garboils [strifes]. For Satan, the father of discord, doth procure this one consent only among his, that they may be of one mind and of one affection, to extinguish godliness. So we see that the factions which are in Popery hot, are quiet only so long as they join hand in hand to oppress the gospel. For which cause, the disciples of Christ must be more courageous to foster and nourish truth, that, being joined together, they may the better resist. Also, we gather by this what manner of peace the Scripture commendeth unto us. Christ saith that the peace-makers are the children of God, (Matthew 5:9) and this is true, that they must do what they can to bring all men that they may grow together under the Lord. Yet this doth not hinder but that we may, (fighting under the banner of the same Lord) as it were, with the sound of the trumpet, stir up the wicked, that they may, like Midianites, one slay another, (Judges 7:22) so that both simplicity of zeal, and the wisdom of the Spirit, direct us hither.

One part were Sadducees. We see here again, as in a glass, how deformed and confused the ruin of the Church was at that day. Faith is the soul of the Church; nothing is more proper to faith than agreement, nothing more contrary than sects. And this thing must needs follow, when every man (setting aside the word of God) did draw his disciples unto his own inventions. For there is no other holy bond of unity than the natural and plain truth of God. So soon as men depart from that, no marvel if they be dispersed and drawn hither and thither like members pulled asunder.

Therefore, the beginning of sects among the Jews was the corruption of the law; like as the Lord did revenge the profanation of his word, which was corrupt with diverse inventions of men, with like punishment in Popery. Wherefore, we must the more fear, lest horrible and more lamentable scatterings hang over our heads than was that which was in time of Popery, whereof there appear some tokens. And no marvel, seeing we provoke the Lord to wrath so many ways with our unthankfulness. But though the face of the Church be blotted and blurred with many spots and blots; and what manner of deformity soever fall out hereafter, let us comfort ourselves with this, that as God was careful then to deliver the Church wonderfully from destruction, so through his grace there shall always some seed continue. It cannot be, indeed, but that godly minds will somewhat despair, when they see things so far out of order; but let us learn straightway to hold up that buckler, that the Lord, who, in such a thick mist of errors, in such a heap of superstitions, in the unbridled licentiousness of sects, did preserve his Church among the Jews, will never suffer the same to be quite put out wholly in the world.

The same thing did likewise happen in Popery. For when as the worship of God was overthrown there, the doctrine of salvation was oppressed, the kingdom of Christ was thrown down, and ungodliness did openly reign, yet God did save certain hidden remnants, and there was always some wheat in the chaff. It is very profitable to confer these examples together. When as we inveigh at this day against Popery, the hired patrons thereof cry out on the other side, that nothing is more absurd than that we should imagine that the Church of God was extinguished during many ages, as if we did imagine that God had no people left, when those had forsaken him who ought to have maintained his pure worship. Yea, we complain that those tyrants did corrupt the Church, that the temple was by them profaned, so that it did not greatly differ from an hog’s-sty, that the flock of Christ was scattered abroad, and his sheepfold broken down. Finally, that the Church was hidden from the eyes of men, yet so that the Lord knew his elect, though they were dispersed, and did brood them under his wings. And by this it appeareth how foolishly the Papists brag and boast of the titles of honor, in that not the common sort, or any private men, but the priests themselves did in times past divide the Jewish church by deadly dissension.

Wherefore, there is no cause why we should be afraid stoutly to resist the pride of the Pope and of all his adherents, with whom we have the same combat which the prophets and apostles had with the priests of their time. And as the reverence of the Church did not keep back holy men, but that they did molest the tyranny of the wicked priests, so we must not be terrified with vain visures, [masks] under which the Papists do vainly boast, seeing they have, notwithstanding, cast from them the doctrine of godliness. It is certain that the people were then divided into three sects; but Luke doth only make mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees, omitting the Essenes, because it was most fit for his purpose thus to do. And though this be the common opinion concerning their names, that the former took their name of separating, because they withdrew themselves from the company of other men, by reason of their reigned holiness; and that the second sort took their name of righteousness, as if they were called zeduchim; notwithstanding, for mine own part, as I have said elsewhere, I am rather of their mind who say that the Pharisees took their name of interpreting. For phrus signifieth exposition, whereupon also interpreters are called phruschim; and we know that the Pharisees, being not content with the natural doctrine of the law and prophets, did put in many inventions which they said they received of the fathers.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Arimathæa, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Act_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?”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. But when Paul perceived, &c.] We are not told in what way the knowledge which the Apostle here acted on was gained. Perhaps the Pharisees, as in the parable of the Pharisee and publican, kept themselves apart; or to a Jewish eye some mark of their dress may have been enough to bespeak a difference of party. St Paul used this party spirit in a perfectly legitimate manner. What he did was not done merely to set them by the ears, but to secure an opportunity for speaking on that central doctrine of Christianity, the resurrection of the dead. (Cp. Act_24:21.)

Men and brethren] Better “Brethren.” See note on Act_1:16.

the son of a Pharisee] The best MSS. give a son of Pharisees. This reading has the advantage of removing St Paul’s language beyond the questioning which has sometimes been raised about it. “I am a Pharisee,” he says. And the question has been raised, whether he had a right to describe himself thus. When he continues “a son of Pharisees” we see that he is stating that by descent and birth his family had for generations been members of that party. Having said this, he then propounds that doctrine which, of all their teaching, was that which severed them from the Sadducees. That this point also was the central doctrine of Christianity makes St Paul’s address not disingenuous, but an appeal to those who agreed with him thus far in his belief, to hear what he had further to say which might meet with their acceptance. And it is not as if the Apostle had raised the question in their midst on some side-issue. The whole teaching of the Christian church rested on the truth of the resurrection, and therefore with much wisdom and without any thought of deception he cries, “I am a Pharisee, and for teaching the doctrine of the resurrection (which they hold) I am now called in question.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Act 5:17, but this sanhedrim were only part of them Sadducees:

and the other Pharisees; of both these sects; see Gill on Mat 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, Act 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Ver. 6. But when Paul perceived] Paul lacked not human prudence; wise as serpents we should be to improve all advantages that we may with the safety of our consciences. Religion doth not call us to a weak simplicity; but allows us as much of the serpent as of the dove. The dove without the serpent is easily caught; the serpent without the dove stings deadly. Their match makes themselves secure, and many happy.

Of the hope and resurrection] For fiducia Christianorum est resurrectio mortuorum, the faith of the Christians is the resurection from the dead, saith Tertullian. Christians look for great things at that great day, and in that other world, which the Hebrews call saeculum mercedis, the world of wages.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But when Paul perceived - Probably by his former acquaintance with the men who composed the council. As he had been brought up in Jerusalem, and had been before acquainted with the Sanhedrin Act 9:2, he would have an acquaintance, doubtless, with the character of most of those present, though he had been absent from them for fourteen years, Gal 2:1.

The one part ... - That the council was divided into two parts, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was commonly the case, though it was uncertain which had the majority. In regard to the opinions of these two sects, see the notes on Mat 3:7.

He cried out ... - The reasons why Paul resolved to take advantage of their difference of opinion were, probably:

(1) That he saw that it was impossible to expect justice at their hands, and he therefore regarded it as prudent and proper to consult his own safety. He saw, from the conduct of Ananias, and from the spirit manifested Act 23:4, that they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the case, and were driven on by blind rage and fury.

(2) His object was to show his innocence to the chief captain. To ascertain that was the purpose for which he had been arraigned. Yet that, perhaps, could be most directly and satisfactorily shown by bringing out, as he knew he could do, the real spirit which actuated the whole council, as a spirit of party strife, contention, and persecution. Knowing, therefore, how sensitive they were on the subject of the resurrection, he seems to have resolved to do what he would not have done had they been disposed to hear him according to the rules of justice - to abandon the direct argument for his defense, and to enlist a large part, perhaps a majority of the council, in his favor. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of this course, it cannot be denied that it was a masterstroke of policy, and that it evinced a profound knowledge of human nature.

I am a Pharisee - That is, I was of that sect among the Jews. I was born a Pharisee, and I ever continued while a Jew to be of that sect. In the main he agreed with them still. He did not mean to deny that he was a Christian, but that, so far as the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees, he was with the former. He agreed with them, not with the Sadducees, in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits.

The son of a Pharisee - What was the name of his father is not known. But the meaning is, simply, that he was entitled to all the immunities and privileges of a Pharisee. He had, from his birth, belonged to that sect, nor had he ever departed from the great cardinal doctrine which distinguished that sect - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Compare Phi 3:5.

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead - That is, of the hope that the dead will be raised. This is the real point of the opposition to me.

I am called in question - Greek: I am judged; that is, I am persecuted, or brought to trial. Orobio charges this upon Paul as an artful manner of declining persecution, unworthy the character of an upright and honest man. Chubb, a British Deist of the seventeenth century, charges it upon Paul as an act of gross “dissimulation, as designed to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had brought upon himself, and as designed to deceive and impose upon the Jews.” He affirms also that “Paul probably invented this pretended charge against himself to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews unto him.” See Chubb’s Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 238. Now, in reply to this, we may observe:

(1) That there is not the least evidence that Paul denied that he had been, or was then, a Christian. An attempt to deny this, after all that they knew of him, would have been vain; and there is not the slightest hint that he attempted it.

(2) The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was the main and leading doctrine which he had insisted on, and which had been to him the cause of much of his persecution. See Act 17:31-32; 1 Cor. 15; Act 13:34; Act 26:6-7, Act 26:23, Act 26:25.

(3) Paul defended this by an argument which he deemed invincible; and which constituted, in fact, the principal evidence of its truth - the fact that the Lord Jesus had been raised. That fact had fully confirmed the doctrine of the Pharisees that the dead would rise. As Paul had everywhere proclaimed the fact that Jesus had been raised up, and as this had been the occasion of his being opposed, it was true that he had been persecuted on account of that doctrine.

(4) The real ground of the opposition Which the Sadducees made to him, and of their opposition to his doctrine, was the additional zeal with which he urged this doctrine, and the additional argument which he brought for the resurrection of the dead. Perhaps the cause of the opposition of this great party among the Jews the Sadducees - to Christianity, was the strong confirmation which the resurrection of Christ gave to the doctrine which they so much hated - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. It thus gave a triumph to their opponents among the Pharisees, and Paul, as a leading and zealous advocate of that doctrine, would excite their special hatred.

(5) All that Paul said, therefore, was strictly true. It was because he advocated this doctrine that he was opposed. That there were other causes of opposition to him might be true also; but still this was the main and prominent cause of the hostility.

(6) With great propriety, therefore, he might address the Pharisees and say, “Brethren, the doctrine which has distinguished you from the Sadducees is at stake. The doctrine which is at the foundation of all our hopes - the resurrection of the dead; the doctrine of our fathers, of the Scriptures, of our sect, is in danger. Of that doctrine I have been the advocate. I have never denied it. I have everywhere defended it, and have devoted myself to the work of putting it on an imperishable basis among the Jews and the Gentiles. For my zeal in that I have been opposed. I have excited the ridicule of the Gentile and the hatred of the Sadducee. I have thus been persecuted and arraigned; and for my zeal in urging the argument in defense of it which I have deemed most irrefragable the resurrection of the Messiah - I have been arraigned, and now cast myself on your protection against the mad zeal of the enemies of the doctrine of our fathers.” Not only, therefore, was this an act of policy and prudence in Paul, but what he affirmed was strictly true, and the effect was as he had anticipated.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees.[2] It may signify only a disciple of the Pharisees, though the common Greek copies have of a Pharisee. (Witham) --- The address of the apostle in this is great. Knowing the different dispositions of his judges, he throws disunion into their councils, in order to draw himself from danger. Such innocent artifices are allowed in the defence of a just cause. It is one of our Saviour’s counsels, to use the prudence of the serpent. St. Gregory, in his Morality, (lib. xxxiv. cap. 3. and 4.) and St. Thomas Aquinas in his Sum. Theol. (2. 2. quæst. 37. art. 2.) observe, that on similar occasions you may, without sin, cause divisions among the wicked; because their union being an evil, it is consequently a good thing that the enemies of peace and righteousness should be divided in sentiments and interests. It must, however, be acknowledged that this principle is very easily stretched beyond its proper limits, and therefore ought not to be acted upon but with the greatest caution and prudence. (Calmet) --- St. Paul knew from divine revelation that he was to go to Rome; but this did not hinder the apostle from taking every prudent care of his own life; as we may see from the following chapter.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Filius Parisæorum; and so divers of the best Greek manuscripts Greek: pharisaion; but the common Greek, Greek: uios pharisaiou.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

I am a Pharisee; in his former profession, opinion, and conversation; and now also in the points that were controverted betwixt them: and St. Paul, with his dove like innocency, does in this but make use of the serpentine subtlety, to preserve himself, and to gain credit unto the truths of the gospel.

The son of a Pharisee; the son of Pharisees, in the plural; either for several descents his ancestors had been of that sect; or that both his father and his mother were of it.

Of the hope and resurrection; or, for the hope of the resurrection; an hendyadis: although he did not agree with the Pharisees in all their opinions, yet in this he did; and the resurrection was the common subject he preached upon: and the gospel does give us the best proof and evidence of it; insomuch that Paul was taxed for preaching Jesus and the resurrection, Act 17:18; and unless there be a resurrection, his preaching was vain, and his faith vain, 1Co 15:13,14.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. I am a Pharisee—It is sometimes said that this statement of Paul was false. Yet his additional words, the son of a Pharisee, gave fair warning that he applied the term Pharisee to himself in a modified sense. On that point of the variation between himself and the Pharisees he had yesterday fully and frankly explained himself. Not merely may we say that on the points of division between the Pharisees and Sadducees he was with the former; but Paul might say that he was the truest and most consistent Pharisee present; that a true Phariseeism, being orthodox Judaism, ought by its own premises to develop into Christianity.

Son of a Pharisee—The preferable reading is, the son of Pharisees; that is, the descendant of a Pharisaic lineage.

The hope—Probably this word is a term for the Messiah. (See note on Act_26:6.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Farisaiwn (in the plural), which gives the sense that his ancestors were Pharisees. (comp. Php_3:5) Touching the hope, etc.. (see Act_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 ejlpiv 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 (Mar_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?

The hope of the living and the resurrection of the dead.

hope and resurrection of the dead." The chapter in which these words are found offers a striking illustration of the irresistible force of providence, or of providence and the direct acts of the Spirit in co-operation. The day was dark for Paul, nor did there seem a glimmer of hope of any justice for him at the hands of the council before whom he stood. But words and wisdom were found either by him or for him. Those words of wisdom were the weighty words of the text. The mere utterance of them rent the council in twain; soon compelled the chief captain to come again to the rescue, in place of shirking his duty, as by a side move he had wished to do; left an enraged populace no chance, as they thought, of disposing of Paul except by a murderous conspiracy; necessitated the removal of Paul by the governor under a sufficient military escort to another place and another court of trial, which in its turn led on directly to Paul"s appeal to Caesar and arrival in the capital of the world. And weighty indeed were those words words which may be numbered as two; for they were weighted with the solemn meaning and inscrutable mystery of a whole world. They touch all that, is deepest in questions between God and man. They hold, in fact, the one question that lies hidden down m some of its aspects in mystery unfathomably deep. Notice, then

I THE HOPE HERE INTENDED. The expression may mean simply "the hope of Israel". (Act_26:6-8 Act_28:20) But if it do mean this, it is instanced as having for its chief implication the revelation of immortality in and by Jesus. Or it may mean more specifically Israel"s "hope in and for the resurrection of the dead," though for obvious reasons Paul omits the word Israel" a wider resurrection than that of Israel merely being deep in his. (Act_24:15) The expression says the hope," either absolutely or "of the dead. " The ambiguity of expression is immaterial, because there is none of meaning. And grand indeed are the suggestions that come of the language employed.

1. "The hope" must be universal. The laborious and far-fetched exceptions that possibly might be produced would be infinitely insignificant, and might be accounted for in, perhaps, every case by moral reasons, though the most disastrous.

2. "The hope" must be of the very chiefest that can stir human hearts.

3. "The hope" carries in it the highest argument and testimony of the Creator of those hearts.

4. "The hope" must determine the great leading tracks of our thoughts of God and thoughts toward him. If he is only our God up to the grave, the greatest feeders of human regard, awe, devotion, are ruthlessly cut off at one stroke. Wonder because of him, fear toward him, love for him, wither away rootless and profitless. According as we find ground for this hope or were to fail to find it, our notions of God must be trustful or doubting, loving or callous, aspiring or ruinously baffled, and our own life rearing itself to air and light or cruelly beaten down to earth. Yes, the hope of universal man, his deepest hope, his last hope, his highest kind of hope, his most governing hope, is the hope that those called "the dead" are not dead, but that they "all live." For "the dead" the living hope this, and they hope it for themselves, ere they, too, shall be numbered among that number. Upon the basis of this hope rises the superstructure of our leading views of God, as of our forecasts of self.

II THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD HERE SPOKEN OF. The resurrection of the dead (in the sense of the resurrection in any tenable philosophical sense of the body) is, beyond doubt, the specific revelation of Christianity. The Christian revelation of the resurrection of the body avails:

1. To guide human thoughts as to the method of the transition from mortality to immortality. Whatever may be the facts as to the disembodied and intermediate state, the resurrection of the body sufficiently fixes for us the form of the immortal life, and gives definiteness to our conception of it.

2. This revealed method evidently guarantees the maintenance of individuality in the immortal life.

3. For quite similar reason it postulates the continuous identity of the individual.

4. It surely infers the responsibility of the individual. No one for one moment contends for human responsibility or for human irresponsibility in this poor lower life. That those who have known it for the years of life"s brief span should ignore it, at the first moment when its commanding character would receive forcible illustration, is incredible.

5. The resurrection of the dead indefinitely enlarges the entire character of man. Were the truth now conceivably subtracted from the wealth of truth which is our present possession, it would condemn us to a poverty of distressing misery. No more appalling type of the truncated could be found the world around. When Paul introduced with powerful voice and distinctest of utterance this twofold expression of the grandest and the most fundamental fact of human nature, he threw, doubtless, the apple of discord into the midst of Pharisees and Sadducees, and he did it designedly. But he was gaining a hearing for the truth that carries humanity"s highest outlook in it. He was making a fresh appeal to all that is greatest and deepest in human nature. He was reminding a hardened multitude of what should most raise them and endear the Christ who came from God to them. And he was preaching to them, not what could be construed into "a hard saying," but what was fitted to be perennial inspiration. Let us see to it that it may be to us what it should have been, but was not, to them. B.

The resurrection a dividing doctrine.

If the supposition be a correct one that, just at this time, there was no high priest, we can well understand how easily divisions and contentions might be aroused in the mixed council, where party feeling was always strong. The Pharisees and Sadducees were really more political than ecclesiastical parties; they had distinct lines of thought, and conflicted for the positions of supreme influence in the ecclesiastico-political life of the nation. Both parties vigorously opposed Christianity, but the Pharisees on the ground of its teachings as they thought them against Mosaism, and of its degrading the national hope of Messiah, by affirming that he had come in the person of the Galilaean Jesus. The Sadducees on the ground chiefly of the disciples" affirmation that Jesus had risen from the dead, which, they were quick to see, it once admitted, involved the truth of our Lord"s claim to the Messiahship. St. Paul evidently estimated, quickly and skillfully, the character of the judges before whom he was brought, and easily turned them from the consideration of his case to mere party wrangling. He saw, plainly enough, that there was no chance of a fair judgment from either party. If we must recognize some guilefulness in St. Paul"s conduct on this occasion, we must remember that he had to deal with party prejudice and unreasoning hatred, and he was justified in securing his deliverance by such a quick-witted device. We observe

I THAT THE JEWISH RESURRECTION WAS A DREAM OR A DOCTRINE, To the Sadducees a mere superstitious dream, to the Pharisees an important doctrine. Hints of it are found in the earlier Scriptures, but the Old Testament has no clear testimony on the subject. This is not really remarkable, because Mosaism did not take this point of view; it did not demand obedience upon the promise of the "life to come," but upon promise of "the life that now is." Thoughts of resurrection and eternal life do not properly come to a Jew as a Jew, only to a Jew as a personally devout, God-fearing man, with an individual spiritual life of fellowship with God. Therefore the psalmists and prophets alone give us hints of resurrection. See what helps come to the idea

(1) from the translations of Enoch and Elijah;

(2) from the resurrections to natural life wrought by Elijah and Elisha;

(3) from the expressions used in the Book of Job, and in the Psalms; and

(4) from allusions in the prophets. Exactly in what sense the Pharisees believed in resurrection it is difficult to say. Clearly they had no notion of that spiritual body in which Christ reappeared among men, and we also must appear. Probably they held the doctrine very much as we hold some of our doctrines, merely for a battleground. The Sadducees had not much difficulty in showing that such a resurrection was a mere dream.

II THAT THE CHRISTIAN RESURRECTION IS A TRUTH AND A HOPE. St. Paul calls it here a hope, but it is really a truth upon which we may build our hopes. Illustrate by showing what St. Paul writes about it about its foundations and about its vital importance to the Christian in 1Co 15. To him it was no mere dividing doctrine, though among foes he ventured so to use it; to him it was infinitely sure and infinitely precious the message to him of his Redeemer"s own resurrection, He labored, if "by any means he might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

III WHEREIN MAY WE FIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND THE, CHRISTIAN IDEAS OF RESURRECTION? We only note one of the more important differences. Pharisees had only, as aids to their conception, cases of resurrection which were merely a temporary restoration of bodily life. All the risen ones they could know of died a natural death. Christians take their conception from the resurrection of their Lord, which was to a spiritual, incorruptible, and eternal life. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: for the hope of the resurrection of the dead am I called in question - So he was in effect; although not formally, or explicitly.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Sadducees

(See Scofield "Mat 3:7").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A division among the members of the Sanhedrin:

v. 6. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

v. 7. and when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided.

v. 8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.

v. 9. And there arose a great cry; and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose and strove, saying, we find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

Paul had come down to the meeting in the hope that there would be a real hearing. He had attempted a calm defense, which had been rudely interrupted by an unwarranted interference of the high priest. Since neither a fair inquiry nor a just decision was to be expected in the presence of such prejudiced fanatics, he now adopted a different method. Knowing that a part of the Sanhedrin, the smaller portion, consisted of Sadducees, and the other of Pharisees, he called out before them all that he was a Pharisee and a son or disciple of Pharisees. This statement was not a petty trick or malicious deception, as some have thought. Everyone in the assembly knew that he was a Christian; his assertion was therefore understood by them as it should be understood by us, that he had been a member of that sect and still agreed with them, as many other former Pharisees did, in certain doctrines. It was concerning one of these that he was now on trial, namely, that of the hope and the reality of the resurrection of the dead. This was literally true, and cannot be regarded as a subterfuge; for the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, as preached by Paul, was the fact that Christ had risen from the dead, and that because of His resurrection all believers were sure of their own rising unto eternal life. No sooner had Paul said this than there was a controversy, a dissension, a contention of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Before this the body of the Sanhedrin, the entire mass, had been united against Paul, but now they were divided into two parties, into the two factions which were usually at enmity with each other on account of their different doctrinal positions. For, as Luke here inserts by way of explanation, the Sadducees are in the habit of saying that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. Their position was one of negation, of denial. But the Pharisees confessed and believed in both the resurrection of the dead and the existence of spirits. The uproar over the matter increased with every moment, finally becoming violent. It was the custom in the debates of the Jews to walk over to the side of him whose cause one espoused, thus incidentally recording one’s vote. And so here some of the scribes among the Pharisees openly took Paul’s part, going over and standing near him, and contending forcibly, arguing very vehemently in his favor. They maintained that they found nothing evil in the accused, and what if a spirit had spoken with him or an angel, as he had stated on the previous day? -that was no reason why the man should be condemned. Thus the Jewish rulers were in a worse predicament than ever. The commander’s purpose in calling the meeting was to have the Jews show cause why they had clamored for the death of Paul, and here they sat, not only without any accusation that would have had any weight in the eyes of the Romans, but actually engaged in a bitter controversy among themselves. Thus the dissension of the unbelievers has often redounded to the liberty or to some other benefit of the believers. That is one of the ways in which God keeps and protects His Church in the midst of this evil world, that He creates dissension in the midst of its enemies.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, The innocent policy which the apostle uses for his own preservation: he, perceiving that the council before whom he stood were not all of a piece, but patched up of Pharisees and Sadducees, he publicly professes himself a Pharisee by education, and of that persuasion now in point of the resurrection.

Thus at once he cast in a bone of contention between the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, and the Pharisees who owned it; and obliged the Pharisees, at least as to that opinion, to take his part, and so by pious prudence he turned their opposition against him upon one another: that by setting them at variance he might the better escape.

Learn hence, that an innocent and prudent policy may warrantably be made use of by the members and ministers of Jesus Christ, without any blemish to their holy profession, in order to our preservation from the hands of persecutors; a serpentine subtilty may be made use of, together with a dovelike innocincy. Thus did St. Paul here: when he perceived that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out, &c.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) " But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees' party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle. " It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings.

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6–10. Perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees. When the Savior was condemned, the Sanhedrim was composed of both parties, and now, nearly thirty years later, we find it the same. The chief priests, as a rule, were Sadducees, while the scribes were mainly of the Pharisees. It was the doctrine of the resurrection that especially inflamed the Sadducees against the gospel (see Acts 4:2). This was the ground of battle between the two sects, and Paul, himself once a Pharisee, now preaching a gospel of which the great fact is the resurrection, not only avails himself of the opportunity to proclaim the fundamental truth of Christianity, but in so doing divides his enemies. Alford, says, concerning his declaration, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question, that, “All prospect for a fair trial was hopeless. Paul well knew from experience that personal odium would bias his judges, and violence prevail over justice. He therefore uses in the cause of truth the maxim so often perverted to the use of falsehood, Divide and conquer.”

There arose a dissension. The Pharisees were at once reminded that Paul was with them in their great ground of contention with the Sadducees. His appeal to them makes them at once his champions against the rival sect.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Brothers

Here "Brothers" means "Fellow Jews"

a son of Pharisees

Here "son" means he is the literal son of a Pharisee and also the descendant of Pharisees. AT: "and my father and forefathers were Pharisees"

the resurrection of the dead that I

The word "resurrection" can be stated as "come back to life." The word "dead" can be stated as "those who have died." AT: "those who have died will come back to life, I" (See: Abstract Nouns and Nominal Adjectives)

I am being judged

This can be stated in active form. AT: "you are judging me" (See: Active or Passive)

the crowd was divided

"the people in the crowd strongly disagreed with one another"

For the Sadducees ... but the Pharisees

This is background information about the Sadducees and Pharisees. (See: Background Information)

translationWords

Paul

council

Sadducee

Pharisee

brother

son

resurrection

die

judge

angel

spirit

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

6. Φαρισαίων for Φαρισαίου with אABC. Vulg. ‘Pharisæorum.’

6. γνοὺς δέ ὁ ΙΙαῦλος, but when Paul perceived. We are not told in what way the knowledge which the Apostle here acted on was gained. Perhaps the Pharisees, as in the parable of the Pharisee and publican, kept themselves apart; or to a Jewish eye some mark of their dress may have been enough to bespeak a difference of party. St Paul used this party spirit in a perfectly legitimate manner. What he did was not done merely to set them by the ears, but to secure an opportunity for speaking on that central doctrine of Christianity, the resurrection of the dead. (Cf. Act 24:21.)

υἱὸς Φαρισαίων, a son of Pharisees. This reading has the advantage of removing St Paul’s language beyond the questioning which has sometimes been raised about it. ‘I am a Pharisee,’ he says. And it has been asked, whether he had a right to describe himself thus. When he continues ‘a son of Pharisees’ we see that he is stating that by descent and birth his family had for generations been members of that party. Having said this, he then propounds that doctrine which, of all their teaching, was that which severed them from the Sadducees. That this point also was the central doctrine of Christianity makes St Paul’s address not disingenuous, but an appeal to those who agreed with him thus far in his belief to hear what he had further to say which might meet with their acceptance. And it is not as if the Apostle had raised the question in their midst on some side-issue. The whole teaching of the Christian Church rested on the truth of the Resurrection, and therefore with much wisdom and without any thought of deception he cries, ‘I am a Pharisee, and for teaching the doctrine of the Resurrection (which they hold) I am now called in question.’

On the καὶ before ἀναστάσεως which = namely, ‘for the hope, even the resurrection of the dead,’ cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 546. See also above on Act 1:25.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6.] Surely no defence of Paul for adopting this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of mind. Nor need we hesitate to regard such skill as the fulfilment of the promise, that in such an hour, the Spirit of wisdom should suggest words to the accused, which the accuser should not be able to gainsay. All prospect of a fair trial was hopeless: he well knew from past and present experience, that personal odium would bias his judges, and violence prevail over justice: he therefore (Neand.) uses, in the cause of Truth, the maxim so often perverted to the cause of falsehood, ‘divide et impera.’ In one tenet above all others, did the religion of Jesus Christ and the belief of the Pharisees coincide that of the resurrection of the dead. That they looked for this resurrection by right of being the seed of Abraham, and denied it to all others,—whereas he looked for it through Jesus whom they hated, in whom all should be made alive who had died in Adam,—this was nothing to the present point: the belief was common—in the truest sense it was the hope of Israel—in the truest sense does Paul use and bring it forward to confound the adversaries of Christ. At the same time (De W.) by this strong assertion of his Pharisaic standing and extraction, he was further still vindicating himself from the charge against him. So also ch. 26:7.

υἱ. Φαρισαίων] A son of Pharisees, i.e. A Pharisee of Pharisees,’—‘by descent from father, grandfather, and upwards, a pure Pharisee.’ This meaning not having been apprehended, the -ων was altered into -ου.

ἐλπ. κ. ἀναστ.] the hope and the resurrection of the dead. The art. is omitted after the prep., see Midd. ch. vi. § 1.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The one part were Sadducees, etc. Perceiving the impossibility of getting a fair hearing, Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other.

The resurrection. A main point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees, the latter of whom denied the doctrine of the resurrection, of a future state, and of any spiritual existence apart from the body.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.