‘GREAT DISSENSIONS’

Posted by Angella Diehl, Webmaster on August 16, 2023 under AM Bible Study |

AM Bible Study Group: August 16, 2023 from Acts 22:30-23:11

Theme: God is able to cause His gospel to prevail—even through the division it causes.

(All Scripture is taken from The New King James Version, unless otherwise indicated).

Click HERE for the live-stream archive of this Bible Study.

Click HERE for the audio version of this Bible Study.

The Lord Jesus once made a remarkable announcement to His disciples. And it even still surprises us to hear it. In Matthew 10:34-36, He quoted from the Old Testament (Micah 7:6), and told them;

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household’” (Matthew 10:34-36).

The truth of the gospel is a divisive thing in this world. We shouldn’t expect it to be otherwise. When He who is ‘the Truth’ is proclaimed in a fallen world of people who are committed to sin, it would be natural that fierce division would result. But neither should this fact discourage us from our labors in the gospel. The wonderful thing is that God’s truth still prevails—even in the midst of the divisions it causes.

As we come to the 23rd Chapter of the Book of Acts, we encounter the story of division among unbelievers that resulted from the apostle Paul’s bold stand upon the truth. It appears that it even discouraged him for a time. The powerful dissension and discord that it brought about may have caused him to wonder if he was doing the right thing at all. But if we look to the end of this story—in Acts 23:11—we make a wonderful discovery. We find that the Lord Jesus Himself stood by Paul (perhaps through a vision or in a dream), and told him, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” He stood by Paul in the midst of the dissension that the preaching of the gospel caused in Jerusalem; and then promised that his ministry of proclaiming the truth would expand to regions beyond.

There’s a great lesson in this for you and me. Just as we should expect that the faithful proclamation of the gospel—and a faithful stand on the word of God—will cause division in this world, we should also know that such division cannot hinder the gospel’s progress. Very often, in fact, such division is a clear sign that the truth is being faithfully proclaimed—and that God is indeed at work in defeating the kingdom of the devil.

* * * * * * * * * *

Now; this story has a slight similarity to the one that preceded it—in Acts 22:22-29. In our last time together, we found that the apostle Paul was about to be scourged in the Roman barracks in Jerusalem. The Roman commander intended to beat Paul in order to find out why the Jewish people in Jerusalem were crying out so viciously against him and demanding his death. And in that passage, we found that the apostle Paul appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen; and thus was delivered from being scourged.

In the passage before us, in a somewhat similar way, Paul—in a moment of crisis—called upon his background as a Pharisee. Some people may be surprised to know that Paul had been a Pharisee among the Pharisees. But he had made it clear that this was the case in Philippians 3:5-6. He wrote to his Philippian brethren about how—if salvation could be achieved through boasting in the flesh—he would have a lot to boast about:

circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless (Philippians 3:5-6).

His identity as a Pharisee is part of what caused division over the truth in the story before us. And yet, Paul was not hesitant to declare his Pharisee background or identify himself with those aspects of truth that the Pharisees believed.

* * * * * * * * * *

So; with that in mind, the story picks up on the day after Paul had declared his rights as a Roman citizen to the Roman commander. That commander was now under a legal obligation to provide protection and security for Paul. But he still needed to know why the Jews were so angry with him. Acts 22:30 tells us;

The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them (Acts 22:30).

The “council” that was being called together by the Roman commander was the Sanhedrin. The name ‘Sanhedrin’ means ‘the Seating-Together’; and it was the highest ruling body of the Jewish people. It would have been a very unusual thing for the Roman commander to have ordered a gathering of the Jewish council. But the necessities of the situation required it. He was charged by the Roman government with the responsibility of keeping the peace; and so, he had to find out from these Jewish leaders why the Jewish people under his supervision were so fierce in demanding Paul’s death.

It would have been a courtroom drama as great as in any movie version! The whole room would have been silent—with the tension thick—as the defendant Paul stood to address the rulers of his people and declare his case. Acts 23:1 says;

Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (23:1).

That would have been a dangerous claim to make if it was not true. But was it? He had—after all—been a persecutor of the church. He felt obliged to call himself ‘the chief of sinners’ because of this (1 Timothy 1:15). His conscience had been later informed by the message of the gospel that had been revealed to him; and he knew that—in terms of his worth before God—he was a sinner. But at the time of his career among the Pharisees—as far as he had understood his duty as a Jewish man who sought righteousness before God on the basis of the law—he could say that he had lived “in all good conscience before God”; and that he still did so to that very day. Earlier, he had told the Jewish mob that had gathered to demand his death,

“I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today” (Acts 22:3).

None of his good works could save him, of course. He knew that now; and before God, he counted all those good works as “rubbish” so that he could have Christ. But as far as the laws and traditions of his people went, he could claim that he had lived with all good conscience before God—even up to that very moment. And the Jewish leaders could not argue otherwise. Whatever it was that they were angry about, it could not be because he had violated Jewish laws or traditions.

But the hostilities against Paul were powerful. When he set forth this testimony, we’re told;

And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth (v. 2).

In doing this, the high priest was showing less respect for his status as a fellow Jew than the Romans were showing him as a Roman citizen. In Leviticus 19:15, the law of God commands that the Jewish people “shall do no injustice in judgment”; and shall judge their neighbor “in righteousness”. And yet, the high priest—who sat in judgment—behaved more like a thug than like a judge.

Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” (v. 4a).

Paul was correct in his estimation of the high priest’s action. To call him a ‘whitewashed wall’ was to accuse him of religious hypocrisy. And indeed, the high priest was behaving hypocritically. But Paul was wrong in the way he expressed this fact. He gave vent to his anger and spoke out of line. We’d have to say this was so; because Paul himself admitted so afterward. We’re told;

And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’” (vv. 4b-5).

Paul was quoting from the commandment given by God in Exodus 22:28;

“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Exodus 22:28).

When rulers do wrong, we’re right to point out their injustice. John the Baptist, for example, confronted King Herod’s sin; declaring the truth to him from God’s word: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). But in saying this, John didn’t speak insultingly to the ruler of his people. When we speak against our rulers in the way that Paul spoke against the high priest—calling him a derogatory name and cursing him to the judgment of God—we’ve gone too far. Paul himself went too far in his reaction. But his character is shown—not in how perfect he was—but in how ready he was to admit his sin.

But how could it be that he didn’t know that this was the high priest? In Galatians 4:15, it’s hinted that Paul had suffered from some kind of ailment to his eyes. Could it be that, at this point, his eyesight was already beginning to fail him? After all, we’re told at the beginning of this story that he ‘looked earnestly’ at the council before he spoke. In any case, he could see well enough to know what kind of men constituted the council. And that was when he called upon his background as a Pharisee. We’re told in verse 6;

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” (v. 6).

In saying this, he was telling the absolute truth about himself. It’s true that he was a Pharisee. His father was also a Pharisee—which, in the mind of Pharisees, would have made him a Pharisee who was ‘a cut above’ other Pharisees. This would have caught the attention of the Pharisees in the council. And what’s more, he declared that he was being judged because of his hope in the resurrection—which indeed he had confirmed to him by his encounter with the resurrected Lord Jesus. And this caught the attention of the Pharisees even more.

Paul spoke the truth; but it caused division. Luke explained in verses 7-8;

And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both (vv. 7-8).

These were two divisions among the leaders of the Jewish people. The Pharisees could be considered the theological conservatives of the council, and the Sadducees could be thought of as the theological liberals. Jesus was once confronted by the Sadducees; who tried to trap Him with the speculative question about the seven brothers who married one woman. We’re told in Matthew 22:23 that the Sadducees “say there is no resurrection”. But the Pharisees definitely believed in a resurrection. They came to his defense in much the same way that Gamaliel (Paul’s former teacher; see Acts 22:3) spoke with regard to the preaching of the apostles in Acts 4:33-39. And it appears that, just as Paul had come under the protective care of the Roman commander, he now came under the toleration of the Pharisees:

Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God” (v. 9).

Whatever answers the Roman commander may have hoped to gain from this meeting of the council, he was quickly becoming disappointed.

Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks (v. 10).

* * * * * * * * * *

Did Paul mean to bring this division about? Did he do so as a desperate act to stir up the controversy between the leaders and distract attention from himself? And if so, did he regret having done it? It’s hard to say. Later on—in his defense before the Roman governor Felix—Paul testified that the Jewish leaders in the council found him engaging in no wrongdoing when he came to Jerusalem;

“unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day’” (Acts 24:21).

But whether or not this was intentional, the fact remains that division occurred because Paul testified to the truth that is taught in the gospel message of Jesus Christ. And it may be that Paul became discouraged by it all. Everywhere he went, it seemed, the truth of the message that he proclaimed resulted in division and discord. The Roman commander may have been beginning to think so too!

But let’s remember what happened at the end of the story. We’re told in verse 11;

But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome” (v. 11).

Yes; it’s true that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but rather a sword. His message of truth, conviction, and grace brings division among the unbelieving people of this world. But that division cannot—and will not—hinder the progress of the gospel in reaching those that God has chosen for salvation. In Paul’s case, the truth left the Jewish Sanhedrin in dissension … but then went on to save the Gentiles in Rome. This is because our sovereign God is able to work all things together for good. He is able to cause His gospel to prevail for the salvation of the lost—even through the division it may cause.

Let’s not give up proclaiming it!

AE