Paul Goes Before The Sanhedrin; Acts 22:30 – 23:11 Part 4

Church History: Date: A.D.57 – 59

The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, It is strange, since these denied a future state, that they observed the ordinances of the law; for they also believed the five books of Moses to be a revelation from God: yet they had nothing in view but temporal good; and they understood the promises in the law as referring to these things alone. In order, therefore, to procure them, they watched, fasted, prayed, etc., and all this they did that they might obtain happiness in the present life. See the account of the Pharisees and Sadducees, (Matthew 3:7; 16:1).1

There was a great outcry, clamor and turmoil. The scribes, the learned men, would naturally be the chief speakers on the part of the Pharisees. Who were Pharisees; or who belonged to that party. The scribes were not a distinct sect, but might be either Pharisees or Sadducees. We find no evil in this man. No opinion which is contrary to the law of Moses; and no conduct in spreading the doctrine of the resurrection which we do not approve.

The importance of this doctrine, in their view, was so great as to throw into the back ground all the other doctrines that Paul might hold; and provided this were propagated, they were willing, to vindicate and sustain him. A similar testimony was offered to the innocence of the Savior by Pilate, (John 19:6). But if a spirit or an angel, etc. They here referred, doubtless, to what Paul had said in Acts 22:17-18. He had declared that he had gone among the Gentiles in obedience to a command which he received in a vision in the temple.

As the Pharisees held to the belief of spirits and angels, and to the doctrine that the will of God was often delivered to men by their agency, they were ready now to admit that he had received such a communication, and that he had gone among the Gentiles in obedience to it, to defend their great doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. We are not to suppose that the Pharisees had become the friends of Paul, or of Christianity.

The true solution of their conduct doubtless is that they were so inflamed with hatred against the Sadducees, that they were willing to make use of any argument against their doctrine. As the testimony of Paul might be turned to their account, they were willing to vindicate him. It is remarkable, too, that they perverted the statement of Paul in order to oppose the Sadducees. Paul had stated distinctly, that he had been commanded to go by the Lord, meaning the Lord Jesus. He had said nothing of "a spirit, or an angel." Yet they would unite with the Sadducees so far as to maintain that he had received no such command from the Lord Jesus. But they might easily vary his statements, and suppose that an "angel or a spirit" had spoken to him, and thus made use of his conduct as an argument against the Sadducees. Men are not always very careful about the exact correctness of their statements, when they wish to humble a rival