I. INTRODUCTION
A. It is obvious from the reading that Paul purposefully used a point of dissension among the Pharisees and Sadducees to divide the Sanhedrin namely, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Some commentators have felt that this tactic was beneath the Apostle Paul. Was he simply trying to confuse his opponents so he could secure his own safety, rather than defend the truth?
B. How far may we, as Christians, go in using the opinions and dissensions of others to carry a point of argument, secure our personal safety, condone our character, or defend the truth? How is Paul our example?
C. To see the application, we must consider Paul's circumstances, examine possible objections to his conduct, determine whether his conduct can be defended, and see if his conduct is consistent with fairness, honor and especially truth.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The circumstances leading up to and associated with Paul's case.
1. The riot and the arrest.
a. The cause of the uproar (Read Acts 21:27-34).
b. Lysias saves Paul's life (Read Acts 21:35-40).
c. Paul addresses the multitude (Read Acts 22:1-21).
d. The multitude reacts (Read Acts 22:22-30).
2. The trial.
a. Paul affirms that he has lived in good conscience (Acts 23:1).
b. The counsel responds! (Acts 23:2). This response was against the rules of justice and set the tone for the entire trial the Sanhedrin meant to condemn Paul regardless of the evidence. Determining this, Paul resolved to divide the assembly and trust his own safety to the protection of the Romans.
B. Objections which might be made concerning Paul's conduct.
1. Paul said he was a Pharisee. Was he really? Had he not spent his entire Christian life fighting against just about everything the Pharisees stood for? At one time he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, but was he one now?
2. Was he really under arrest for the "hope and resurrection of the dead?" Or was he in trouble for his views on the Law of Moses, the traditions of the rabbis and allegedly polluting the Temple by bringing in the Greeks?
3. Was Paul using oratory tricks to cunningly turn the subject from the one at hand so as to save himself? Was he attempting to divide, embarrass, and confuse the court to avoid mounting a defense he could not win?
C. Can Paul's conduct be vindicated? Was it consistent with fairness, honor, and truth?
1. The Sanhedrin had no real authority in this matter. They had been given some authority over matters that pertained to the Hebrew religion. The Roman magistrate had referred the case to them so that he could discover the reason for the riot. A breach of the peace was a matter for the Roman authorities, (Acts 22:30).
2. Paul did not cause the difference of opinion concerning the resurrection in the Sanhedrin , it already existed. Additionally, differences of opinion existed concerning the state of the soul after death, the future state and its hope, judgment, and retribution for unrighteousness. All of these stemmed from the first, and if it (resurrection) was not a true doctrine, then there could be no judgment, heaven or hell! Paul could not have magnified this difference between the two factions any more than it was already.
3. As far as the Pharisees and the Sadducees were concerned, Paul was a Pharisee. As far as the doctrine at hand (resurrection) he was a Pharisee. Indeed his conversion to Christ amplified his belief in the resurrection, (1 Cor. 15:13-19).
4. Paul possessed knowledge superior to either the Sadducees or the Pharisees, he was a witness of the risen Savior.
a. Man is generally skeptical of a doctrine that can only be proved by education or tradition.
b. Man's opinion concerning the resurrection, as well as the future state of mankind, is weak proof of their existence. Nature does not reveal these doctrines nor can man establish them through his powers of reasoning.
c. Proof derived from the Old Testament is tenuous at best. Basically, the Old Testament infers the doctrine. Even Jesus in his teaching had to rely only on this inference, (Lk. 20:37,38). Remember, we can see these inferences more clearly than the first century Jews because we have the New Testament to shed light on them.
d. Paul's view of the resurrection was a view from fact undoubtable fact, (1 Cor. 15:20-23).
5. Paul had indeed suffered at home and abroad for his belief in the resurrection of the dead, because it was directly tied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To refer to this doctrine was Paul's normal modus operandi , we should not be surprised that he brings it up here. Neither should we be ashamed of him for doing so, nor think less of him, nor question his fairness, honor, or truth.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Answer the questions posed in the introduction, point B.
2. Compare the Sanhedrin's "behavior" in this case with other references to them in the New Testament.
3. Show that preaching the resurrection of the dead (specifically Christ's) was indeed Paul's method.