Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 23:6

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." — Acts 23:6 (ASV)

But when Paul perceived. He probably perceived this from his former acquaintance with the men who composed the council. As he had been brought up in Jerusalem and had previously been acquainted with the Sanhedrin (Acts 9:2), he would undoubtedly have known the character of most of those present, even though he had been absent from them for fourteen years (Galatians 2:1).

The one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees. This means that the council was divided into two parties, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was commonly the case, though it is uncertain which had the majority. In regard to the opinions of these two sects, see the notes on Matthew 3:7.

He cried out in the council. The reasons why Paul resolved to take advantage of their difference of opinion were probably as follows:

1. He saw that it was impossible to expect justice at their hands; and he, therefore, regarded it as prudent and proper to ensure his safety. He saw from the conduct of Ananias and from the spirit manifested (Acts 23:4) that they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the case and were driven on by blind rage and fury.

2. His object was to show his innocence to the chief captain. Ascertaining his innocence was the purpose for which he had been arraigned. Yet his innocence, perhaps, could be most directly and satisfactorily shown by bringing out, as he knew he could do, the real spirit that motivated the whole council: a spirit of party strife, contention, and persecution.

   Knowing, therefore, 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 disposed to hear him according to the rules of justice—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 masterstroke of policy and that it demonstrated a profound knowledge of human nature.

I am a Pharisee. This means, I was of that sect among the Jews. I was born a Pharisee, and I always continued, while a Jew, to be of that sect. In the main, he still agreed with them. He did not mean to deny that he was a Christian, but that insofar 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 son of a Pharisee. His father's name 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 that distinguished that sect—the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. .

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead. This means, of the hope that the dead will be raised. This is the real point of the persecution and opposition to me.

I am called in question. The Greek is, I am judged; that is, I am persecuted or brought to trial. Orobio charges this against Paul as an artful manner of declining persecution, unworthy of the character of an upright and honest man. Chubb, a British Deist of the seventeenth century, charges it against Paul as an act of gross "dissimulation, as designed to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had brought upon himself; and as designed to deceive and impose upon the Jews." He also affirms that "St. Paul probably invented this pretended charge against himself, to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews to him." (See Chubb's Posthumous Works, vol. ii, p. 238). Now, in reply to this we may observe the following:

1. There is not the least evidence that Paul denied that he had been, or was then, a Christian. An attempt to deny this, after all that they knew of him, would have been vain; and there is not the slightest hint that he attempted it.

2. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was the main and leading doctrine that he had insisted on, and which had been for him the cause of much of his persecution (Acts 17:31–32; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 13:34; Acts 26:6–7, 23, 25).

3. Paul defended this with an argument that he deemed invincible, and which, in fact, constituted the principal evidence of its truth—the fact that the Lord Jesus had been raised. That fact had provided a demonstration for the doctrine of the Pharisees, that the dead would rise. Because Paul had everywhere proclaimed the fact that Jesus had been raised up, and because this had been the occasion of his being opposed, it was true that he had been persecuted on account of that doctrine.

4. The real ground of the Sadducees' opposition to him, and of their opposition to his doctrine, was the additional zeal with which he urged this doctrine and the additional argument that he brought for the resurrection of the dead.

   Perhaps the Sadducees, this great party among the Jews, opposed Christianity because the resurrection of Christ strongly confirmed the doctrine they so much hated—the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. This thus gave a triumph to their opponents among the Pharisees; and Paul, as a leading and zealous advocate of that doctrine, would excite their special hatred.

5. Therefore, all that Paul said was strictly true. He was opposed because he advocated this doctrine. While there might have been other causes of opposition to him, this was still the main and prominent cause of the hostility.

6. Therefore, with great propriety, he might address the Pharisees and say, "Brethren, the great doctrine that has distinguished you from the Sadducees is at stake. The great doctrine that is at the foundation of all our hopes—the resurrection of the dead—the doctrine of our fathers, of the Scriptures, of our sect, is in danger. I have been the advocate of that doctrine. I have never denied it. I have endeavored to establish it, have everywhere defended it, and have devoted myself to the work of putting it on an imperishable basis among the Jews and the Gentiles. For my zeal in that, I have been opposed. I have excited the ridicule of the Gentile and the hatred of the Sadducee. I have thus been persecuted and arraigned; and for my zeal in this, in urging the argument in its defense that I have deemed most irrefutable—the resurrection of the Messiah—I have been persecuted and arraigned, and now cast myself on your protection against the mad zeal of the enemies of the doctrine of our fathers."

   Not only, therefore, was this an act of policy and prudence in Paul, but what he affirmed was strictly true, and the effect was as he had anticipated.