Paul Goes Before The Sanhedrin; Acts 22:30 – 23:11 Part 3

Church History: Date: A.D.57 – 59

Paul realized what he had said was a stumbling-block to his weak brethren, and might prejudice them against him in other things. These Jewish Christians, though weak, yet were brethren, so he calls them here, and, in consideration of that, is almost ready to recall his words; “Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? (2Corinthians 11:29) His fixed resolution was rather to abridge himself in the use of his Christian liberty than give offence to a weak brother; rather than do this, he will eat no flesh while the world stands, (1Corinthians 8:13). And so here though he had taken the liberty to tell the high priest exactly what he thought of him, yet, when he found it was offensive to his brethren, he cried I have done wrong. He wished he had not done it; and though he did not beg the high priest's pardon, or apologize to him, yet he begs the pardon of those who were offended by it, because this was not a time to inform them better, or to say what he could say to justify himself. He excuses it with this, that he did not consider when he said it to whom he was speaking.7

Because Paul had been brought up in Jerusalem, and had been previously acquainted with the Sanhedrin, (Acts 9:2), he perceived that he would have an acquaintance, doubtless, with the character of most of those present, though he had been absent from them for fourteen years, (Galatians 2:1). He knew that the council was divided into two parties, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was commonly the case, though it is uncertain which had the majority. Paul resolved to take advantage of their difference of opinion. He saw that it was impossible to expect justice at their hands; and he, therefore, regarded it as prudent and proper to consult his safety, He saw, from the conduct of Ananias, and from the spirit manifested, that they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the case, and were driven on by blind rage and fury. His objective was to show his innocence to the chief captain. He wanted to ascertain the purpose for which he had been arraigned. The purpose, 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. It was a spirit of party strife, contention, and persecution. Knowing 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 willing to hear him according to the rules of justice. His intent was 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 master-stroke of policy, and that it demonstrated 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 in the main 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 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 doctrines which distinguished that sect, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, 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 persecution and opposition to me. The Pharisees embraced, as he desired and expected, his side of the question, and became his advocates, in opposition to the Sadducees, who were decidedly against him.