Grace Bible Church Gillette, Wyoming

a) It was obvious that Paul’s trial involved a biased jury. He was not even able to admit his own innocence of having a clear conscience in serving God (Act 23:1-2).

b) Since Paul was not able to give an eloquent defense, he dispensed with the amenities and cut to the chase.

c) Some have maintained that Paul was at best playing politics or at worst being divisive.

(1) It is true that Luke records that Paul “perceived” (ginōskō – come to know or recognize) that there were Sadducees and Pharisees in the Council. He would have known that the two groups did not have the same beliefs nor necessarily get along. In addition, he would have known that one of the main disagreements they had was concerning the resurrection.

(2) Luke also recorded that Paul became desperate so that he began “crying out” (krazō – imperfect tense, to scream or cry out). What he said would cause an uproar between the two groups (Act 23:7-8).

d) This does not necessarily indict Paul of complete political savagery or underhanded divisive tactics.

(1) In all likelihood, Paul realized that he was not going to have much of a hearing. So he made his basic defense that he was both a Pharisee and a son of Pharisees (i.e. grandfather). He truly was serving God with a good conscience.

(2) In addition, the main reason he was on trial was because he indeed preached of the hope of the resurrection of the dead on the basis of Christ’s resurrection. Paul indicated before Felix that the only charge that the Council had against him was his statement about the resurrection (Act 24:17-21). The point being that a belief in the resurrection was not against the Jewish or Roman Law (cf. Act 23:8).

(3) Regardless how upset the Council would become, Paul was the one person focusing on the main issues of his trial (i.e. his good conscience, his credentials, and his creed of the resurrection). Act 23:11 reveals that Paul was fearful for his life and therefore would have wanted his defense to be heard before the Council.

(4) If Paul’s defense would not be heard and if the Council would end the trial because of dissension, then so be it.

2. Resurrection of the Dead

a) The main issue under discussion was the “resurrection of the dead” (Mat 22:31-32). The denial of the resurrection is a materialistic notion that there is nothing after death. The resurrection was sneered at by the Athenian philosophers (Act 17:32).

b) There was no need of a resurrection before the Fall because no one died, i.e. having to be raised again. But when sin entered into the world and death by sin (Rom 5:12), then came the dilemma of the resurrection to eternal life.

c) The resurrection of eternal life (cf. resurrection of judgment, Joh 5:29; Act 24:14-15) is made possible by and on the basis of the resurrection of Christ (Act 17:31-32; Act 26:23; 1Co 15:12-21).

d) Christ was declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection of the dead (Rom 1:4) and He promised the resurrection of life to all who believed in Christ (Jn 11:25-26; Rom 10:9).

e) Christ’s resurrection was part of the kerygma of the apostles preaching (Peter - Act 2:24, 31, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 7:56; 10:40; Paul - Act 13:30, 33, 34, 37; 17:3, 31; 26:23).

f) Paul was indeed a witness of the resurrected Christ (Act 22:14-15; 26:16).

B. Divided Assembly (7)

1. When Paul declared that he was being tried for his belief in the resurrection, it set the Council into a dissension (stasis, lit. standing, here it is taking separate stands on belief) between opposing sides.

2. The dissension was between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and divided (schizō – to split or cause a division, Eng. Schism cf. Joh 21:11; Act 14:4) their assembly.

C. Divided Beliefs (8)

1. Luke gave a parenthetical explanation on the differences of beliefs between the Sadducees and Pharisees as he also gave in his gospel (Luk 20:27 cf. Act 4:1-2).

2. According to Josephus, there were three philosophical sects among the Jews, the two major groups were the Sadducees (priestly politicians) and Pharisees (priestly lawyers), along with the Essenes (priestly monks) (Ant 13:171; Jwr 2:119).

3. Luke informed us that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits, even though they held to the primary authority of the Torah.

4. They did not believe in the oral Law or traditions of the Pharisees, seeing themselves as conservatives and the Pharisees as progressives (Ant 13:297; 17:41; 18.16; Jwr 2:162).

5. The Sadducees did not believe in the immortality of the soul nor the punishments or rewards in the afterlife (Jwr 2:165).

6. Sadducees did not believe in fate (sovereignty of God) in an attempt to separate God from the origin of evil (Jwr 2.164–65; Ant. 13.173). Hence, they believed in the free will of man (i.e. Arminians) while the Pharisees believed in the sovereignty of God with the limited free will of man (i.e. Calvinists).

D. Disposition of the Pharisees (9)

1. The Pharisaic members were zealots in their own right and provoked a heated debate. They found nothing wrong with Paul because a belief in the resurrection was not against the Law.

2. The Pharisees had heard Paul’s testimony the resurrection of Jesus either by being present during his first speech or by word of mouth. Perhaps at least for the sake of argument, they viewed the resurrected Jesus as an angel or spirit (not the Son of God), which was within their scope of beliefs. Ironically, they were defending Paul.

3. God had previously spoken to Israel through angels to reveal His will. That is why the Jews should have believed in Christ (Gen 16:7; 19:1; Deu 33:1-2 cf. Act 7:53; Gal 3:19). They should have also been open to the miracles of Christ (Joh 10:37-38; 14:11) and the apostles (2Co 12:11-12 cf. Exo 4:1-3; 1Co 1:22).

E. Delivered by the Roman Commander (10)

1. Once again, the Roman Commander was used by God to intervene and protect Paul from being torn to pieces.

2. However, because of the ruthless and jealous natures of both Sadducees and Pharisees (Ant 20:200; Jwr 2:166), the troops had to get Paul from them by force.

III. OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

A. God’s sovereignty in protection – In all of that Paul has had to go through, God protected him through it all, even if He did so through unlikely means (Roman Commander). Paul was somewhat fearful for what would happen to him, but God sovereignly protected him and encouraged him in Act 23:11. This not only gave him courage to continue on, but it vindicated Paul that His entire ordeal had been the will of God.

B. God’s sovereignty in chaos - Sometimes we do not associate God’ sovereignty with all the strangeness, craziness, and chaos going on in our lives. Life is often messy because of man’s complexity and sin. But those things do not preclude God from working it altogether for good. It appears that God’s greatest challenge is getting believer’s to God’s sovereignty in the midst of life’s chaos.

C. God’s sovereignty in the message – In spite of all the different beliefs that Paul had encountered, His central defense and message has been the death and resurrection of Christ. We should be as equipped as possible to give a defense of our faith. But it eventually comes down to sharing the deity, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. That message will in all intents and purposes bring about dissension, division, and persecution for the believer. But in the midst of all chaos, whether inside the courtroom or not, God sovereignly protects His child, sovereignly works through all the chaos, and God will sovereignly promote His saving message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516