Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 23:9

"And there arose a great clamor: and some of the scribes of the Pharisees part stood up, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?" — Acts 23:9 (ASV)

A great cry. A great clamor and tumult.

The scribes. The learned men. They would naturally be the chief speakers.

Of the Pharisees' part. Meaning, those who were Pharisees, or who belonged to that party. The scribes were not a distinct sect but could 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 background 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 Saviour by Pilate (John 19:6).

But if a spirit or an angel, etc. They doubtless referred here 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 in spirits and angels, and to the doctrine that the will of God was often delivered to men by their agency, they were now ready 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 is doubtless that they were so inflamed with hatred against the Sadducees that they were willing to make use of any argument against their doctrine. As Paul's testimony might be turned to their advantage, they were willing to vindicate him.

It is remarkable, too, that they perverted Paul's statement in order to oppose the Sadducees. Paul had stated distinctly (Acts 22:17–18) 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 make use of his conduct as an argument against the Sadducees. People are not always very careful about the exact correctness of their statements when they wish to humble a rival.

Let us not fight against God. (See Barnes on Acts 5:39).

These words are missing in many manuscripts and in some of the ancient versions. The Syriac reads, "If a spirit or an angel have spoken to him, what is there in this?" That is, what is there unusual or wrong?