Scripture Daily

Context No. 1285 of 4322 · Acts

Context · Reflection

Acts 23:6-10: in context

6But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” 7When he had said this, an argument arose between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the crowd was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess all of these. 9A great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ part stood up, and contended, saying, “We find no evil in this man. But if a spirit or angel has spoken to him, let’s not fight against God!” 10When a great argument arose, the commanding officer, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them and bring him into the barracks.

On trial before the Jewish council, Paul, perceiving that the assembly is split between Sadducees and Pharisees, calls out: brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; it is concerning the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial. The effect is immediate: the Pharisees, who believe in resurrection, angels, and spirits, and the Sadducees, who deny all three, fall into a fierce dispute, and the council divides. Some of the Pharisees' scribes even stand up to defend Paul: we find nothing wrong in this man. The argument grows so violent that the Roman commander has Paul pulled out by force to keep him from being torn apart.

Paul's move looks shrewd, and it was, but it was also true and revealing. He did not invent a diversion; he named the actual heart of his case, the resurrection of the dead, which really was what set him apart and really was what divided his accusers. The resurrection is the dividing line, and always has been. The Sadducees denied it and could not tolerate a message built on it; the Pharisees affirmed it and found themselves, against their will, half agreeing with Paul. By naming the resurrection, Paul put his finger on the one issue that cut the room in two, because a risen Christ is finally the thing the world cannot stay neutral about. It is worth seeing that Paul's defense, again and again in Acts, keeps coming back to this: the resurrection of the dead. He did not soften the offense to keep the peace; he named it, and it divided the council. The resurrection is not a detail of the Christian message that can be quietly set aside; it is the center, and it forces a decision. People can be indifferent to a moral teacher, but a man raised from the dead demands a verdict, and the verdict divides.

Do I treat the resurrection as the center of the Christian message that it is, the thing that forces a decision, or as a detail to be softened, and have I settled my own verdict on the risen Christ?

Sources