In the last post, I stated that some of the Jews who wanted Paul dead were Pharisees, just like him—possibly even classmates under Gamaliel. So where do I get this idea? Well, from reading Acts 23:9. Look at this verse once again, in its context:
Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” When he said this, an argument began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) There was a great commotion, and some experts in the law from the party of the Pharisees stood up and protested strongly, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the argument became so great the commanding officer feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, he ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks —Acts 23:6-10
When Paul stood in front of the Sanhedrin, back in Jerusalem, and cried out that he was a Pharisee, I somehow mistakenly believed that Paul had created a complete rift between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. To some degree, this is true, but if we read the text carefully enough, we can see that Paul’s words also created a split within the party of the Pharisees. Some of the Pharisees defended Paul, declaring him innocent of all charges, and even agreeing that he may well have had a vision from God. What I failed to see is that Luke makes it clear that not all of the Pharisees defended Paul—maybe even some of the 40 men who took a vow to kill Paul, were Pharisees. What I am saying is that the riot that arose, was not just between Pharisees and Sadducees, but also between those Pharisees who took Paul’s side and all the rest (Pharisees or Sadducees) who did not.
So when Paul’s accusers had arrived, I presumed (incorrectly it seems), that it was only the Sadducees who came. But that can’t be right, and Paul’s words to Agrippa prove it. Those who most strongly opposed Paul were Pharisees who had once been his closest friends and colleagues. They opposed Paul because they saw him as a defector and a traitor, as well as a serious threat to Pharisaism.
What do I mean? Well, use your imagination a moment. Picture what would have happened if Osama bin Laden was on his way to bomb a major city ande while driving there, were he is suddenly blinded by a bright light and the car crashes. Then he has a dramatic encounter with Christ and gets born again. Now suppose that he went from one terrorist training camp to another, preaching the gospel of Jesus. As a result, all kinds of terrorists begin professing faith in Jesus Christ. They repent of their terrorism and renounce Islam.
Now, who do you think would be the most angry and oppose him—even enough to kill him? I don’t there is any question that it would be those who felt betrayed by him. Amazing, he was just like them, but now he accepts and believes—and now preaches what they had rejected.
Too farfetched? Maybe, but that is actually what Paul is facing. Paul’s outcry in the Sanhedrin seems to have brought some Pharisees to his defense (and maybe even to faith in Jesus as the Christ); but it also ignited the rest to strongly oppose Paul and his preaching. The more than 40 assassins who vowed to kill Paul could have included some radical Pharisees. Certainly some of the Jews who went to Caesarea to accuse Paul were Pharisees. This is why Paul could say to them:
“But I confess this to you that I worship the God of our ancestors according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets. I have a hope in God (a hope that these men themselves accept too) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” —Acts 24:14-15
If interested, you can download the entire study of The Story of Acts
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
The Book of Acts: Chapter 26 (pt 4 of 14)
In the last post, I stated that some of the Jews who wanted Paul dead were Pharisees, just like him—possibly even classmates under Gamaliel. So where do I get this idea? Well, from reading Acts 23:9. Look at this verse once again, in its context:
When Paul stood in front of the Sanhedrin, back in Jerusalem, and cried out that he was a Pharisee, I somehow mistakenly believed that Paul had created a complete rift between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. To some degree, this is true, but if we read the text carefully enough, we can see that Paul’s words also created a split within the party of the Pharisees. Some of the Pharisees defended Paul, declaring him innocent of all charges, and even agreeing that he may well have had a vision from God. What I failed to see is that Luke makes it clear that not all of the Pharisees defended Paul—maybe even some of the 40 men who took a vow to kill Paul, were Pharisees. What I am saying is that the riot that arose, was not just between Pharisees and Sadducees, but also between those Pharisees who took Paul’s side and all the rest (Pharisees or Sadducees) who did not.
So when Paul’s accusers had arrived, I presumed (incorrectly it seems), that it was only the Sadducees who came. But that can’t be right, and Paul’s words to Agrippa prove it. Those who most strongly opposed Paul were Pharisees who had once been his closest friends and colleagues. They opposed Paul because they saw him as a defector and a traitor, as well as a serious threat to Pharisaism.
What do I mean? Well, use your imagination a moment. Picture what would have happened if Osama bin Laden was on his way to bomb a major city ande while driving there, were he is suddenly blinded by a bright light and the car crashes. Then he has a dramatic encounter with Christ and gets born again. Now suppose that he went from one terrorist training camp to another, preaching the gospel of Jesus. As a result, all kinds of terrorists begin professing faith in Jesus Christ. They repent of their terrorism and renounce Islam.
Now, who do you think would be the most angry and oppose him—even enough to kill him? I don’t there is any question that it would be those who felt betrayed by him. Amazing, he was just like them, but now he accepts and believes—and now preaches what they had rejected.
Too farfetched? Maybe, but that is actually what Paul is facing. Paul’s outcry in the Sanhedrin seems to have brought some Pharisees to his defense (and maybe even to faith in Jesus as the Christ); but it also ignited the rest to strongly oppose Paul and his preaching. The more than 40 assassins who vowed to kill Paul could have included some radical Pharisees. Certainly some of the Jews who went to Caesarea to accuse Paul were Pharisees. This is why Paul could say to them:
Share this:
Like this:
Category:
Acts, Bible Commentaries, Bible Study
Leave a comment
The Book of Acts: Chapter 26 (pt 3 of 18)
The Book of Acts: Chapter 26 (pt 5 of 14)