Page 108 - Acts Student Textbook

sin (2 Sam. 11, 12). Samuel rebuked Saul (1 Sam. 15). Elijah rebuked Ahab (1 Kings 18). Jesus called
Herold “that fox” (Luke 13:32). Stephen called the whole Sanhedrin including the high priest “you
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51). Surely, sin should be rebuked whether
or not it is a ruler who committed it. None of the above apologized for rebuking with all those strong
words. Definitely Paul falls into their category. And for some, Scripture clearly shows that they were
well received in heaven: Elijah, Jesus, Stephen.
I strongly agree with Stringer who suggests “Paul’s statement was spoken in irony or sarcasm. The
idea is that perhaps Paul spoke as if he apologized, not because he was really sorry, but to make the
point that he did not recognize the high priest because he was not acting as a high priest should act.
I.e., Paul could not imagine that a high priest would do such a thing, so he naturally assumed the man
was not the high priest or he would have known better than to do to Paul what he had done. I think
it is unfair to make it too hard on Paul when many other righteous men rebuked sin to its face
regardless of a sinner.

How did Paul come out clean of this trial? (23:6-10)

At this point Paul knew he would receive no justice here. They would even punish him for claiming
innocence! Rather than offering logical proof of his position to men who were obviously bigoted,
Paul threw out a theological issue that the Sadducees and Pharisees disagreed about. The Sadducees
denied the afterlife, while the Pharisees affirmed it (cf. Job 14:14; 19:23-27; Isa. 25:8; 26:19; Dan.
12:2). This set the two factions of the council against each other (cf. vv. 7-10). Paul sided with the
Pharisees saying that he himself was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and that he was really on trial
because of the resurrection of the dead. This was true in the sense that Paul believed in the
resurrection of the dead, and in fact he went further than any of them did. He was called to be an
eyewitness for Jesus, who had been raised from the dead. He preached Jesus’ resurrection
everywhere and it was this preaching that was one of the reasons people were so upset at his
preaching (Cf. 1 Cor. 15.). In what sense was Paul a Pharisee? In the same sense that he was a Jew.
He had been born into that belief and raised in it. Though he had been religiously converted from
Judaism to the gospel, his present beliefs were just the fulfillment of what he had formerly believed
and was not really a contradiction of those beliefs. The Pharisees professed to strictly believe in the
law of God, so what Paul now believed was really consistent with what he had professed as a
Pharisee all along.

Paul’s theological statement divided his opposition so they turned against one another instead of
opposing him. The strife among the council members became so great that the commander again
became afraid for Paul’s life. He ordered the soldiers to remove Paul by force from the meeting and
bring him safely to the castle. He had done his duty to give Paul’s enemies the chance to state their
case, but they failed to achieve their ends because they were divided and could not really prove him
guilty of wrong anyway. Further, it showed the Romans that Paul had been arrested for religious
reasons, not because he had done some crime or personal injury. In fact, many of his accusers agreed
with him and disagreed with one another.

Twice now the Roman government had saved Paul's life in Jerusalem. No wonder Paul saw the
government as a minister of God (cf. Romans 13). This may relate to "the one who restrains" in 2
Thess. 2:6-7.

107