Acts 23:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

“For the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am on trial.” Περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι: for hope and the resurrection of the dead I undergo judgment (verse 6).

The Russian translation, “for the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am on trial,” takes the conjunction καὶ in the sense “namely.” If the Apostle’s words are understood in this latter sense, he points here to the most essential and final point.

This is the final point of apostolic preaching and Christian faith (1 Cor 15:13-19). In relation to it, the faith of the Pharisees was, in essence, the same as that of the Christians.

If the Apostle’s words are understood according to the Slavonic translation, then two objects of the Apostle’s preaching and faith are indicated here. They are the hope of Israel, the Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead.

The Pharisees also connected the hope of the resurrection with the hope of the Messiah. I am accused of opposition to the Law, yet by birth itself I belong among the most ardent zealots of the Law, the Pharisees.

I am not on trial for teaching against the Law. The true cause is my faith and preaching concerning the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead.

By speaking thus, the Apostle intended to awaken some sympathy for himself among the Pharisees. He declared his agreement with them on one of the chief dogmas of their faith, thereby drawing them to his side, if only temporarily.

The Apostle’s plan succeeded. A quarrel arose among the judges. The scribes of the Pharisaic side were not disposed toward Paul and were even hostile to him.

Yet simply to oppose their enemies, the Sadducees, they took his side and said: “We find nothing evil in this man.” In these words they acknowledged the defendant’s lack of guilt.

But the Pharisees did not stop there. Intensifying their struggle against the Sadducees, they went on to suppose that perhaps justice might even be on Paul’s side.

“What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him,” namely, what he believes and preaches? The words “Let us not fight against God” (verse 9) are absent from many ancient codices.

Without them, the phrase, “If a spirit or an angel spoke to him,” clearly has the sense of a question. The answer is understood by itself, namely: “Let us not fight against God.”

And this is entirely possible. In that case, by going against him, we shall turn out to be opponents of God. Let us therefore not fight against God.

Let us leave his affair to its own course. If it is not pleasing to God, then sooner or later it will perish. But if it is the work of God, no human efforts can end or stop it.

This reflection of the Pharisees has the same meaning as Gamaliel’s counsel in the Sanhedrin concerning the persecution of Christians (Acts 5:34-39). It was plainly caused by their struggle against the Sadducees.

The Sadducees denied the existence of angels and, in general, the existence of the spiritual world. The discord among the judges increased so much, and the arguments between Pharisees and Sadducees became so heated, that the commander became afraid.

He feared that the disputants might rush upon Paul, some attacking him and others defending him. In this way they might tear Paul, a Roman citizen, to pieces, for which he could be held responsible before his government.

Therefore he ordered the soldiers to take Paul from the midst of the judges and lead him back again into the fortress.

But the Pharisees pursued the knowledge of God without self-denial. They pursued it not for heaven, but for their earthly position and for the purpose of obtaining earthly advantages. For this reason, from the very study of the Law of God, from its letter that kills the soul with eternal death, they fell into the abyss and darkness of carnal wisdom hostile to God. They studied the Law of God for human glory and for arranging their material position in human society. Thus the Pharisees came into one spiritual disposition with the Sadducees. It was a disposition incapable of receiving the Messiah and incapable of bringing forth the fruits of repentance. The first did not occupy themselves with the Law of God and did not know it because of devotion to the world. The second carefully studied the Law of God and knew it according to the letter, but for the sake of love of the world. Both alike became carnal men, enemies of God, and children of the devil.

When minds are irritated and excited, this means is often very effective. By a bold turn of thought and speech, he set the two dominant parties in the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducees, against one another.

His aim was to interest one of them, the stronger Pharisaic party, especially in himself and his case. He sought to draw it, at least for a time, to his side.

Of course, he knew both the Pharisees and Sadducees well, along with their common interests. He hardly hoped to draw the Pharisees to his side for long.

Yet in his present position, even their temporary support was useful. This was especially so before the Roman commander who was present there, on whom much now depended.

By this, Paul placed an obstacle, at least for a time, before the united action of both parties or sects against him. Concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees, see the note on Mt 3:7.

“He cried out,” that is, he spoke with a loud voice, even shouted, in the Sanhedrin. Thus he did not address this exclamation personally to anyone, but to the whole Sanhedrin.

“I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” In some manuscripts, “the son of Pharisees.” I am a Pharisee not only by personal conviction, but, so to speak, a born Pharisee.

I come from Pharisees, probably father and grandfather, and perhaps still earlier ancestors. I belong to the Pharisaic sect. Clearly, by this expression, “he speaks according to human terms,” as Theophylact says.

Paul identifies himself as a Jew, apart from Christianity. As a Jew, he belonged to no society other than the Pharisees. He did not belong to the Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, or Zealots.

He was accused of teaching against the Law of Moses, that is, of setting another law in its place (Acts 21:28). The Apostle says that, in relation to it, he belongs to the most strictly orthodox Jewish sect.

He belongs to the Pharisees, zealots of the Law, and is not a traitor to Moses, as, for example, the Sadducees were. They denied certain truths of the Law of Moses (verse 8).

If the Apostle armed himself against the Pharisees and rebuked them, he did not arm himself against the sect itself. Nor did he oppose the dogmatic truths it held.

He opposed the members of the sect, their practical moral tendency, their hypocrisy, and the like. But in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, about which the Apostle speaks further, he was entirely on the side of the Pharisees.

He was not on the side of the Sadducees, since at this point the Pharisees were in complete agreement with Christianity. In this respect, even as a Christian, he could rightly say: I am a Pharisee, a born Pharisee.

“For the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am on trial.” More precisely, for hope and the resurrection of the dead. This expression may be understood as: for the hope of resurrection I am on trial.

That is, for hope, and specifically for the object of hope, the resurrection of the dead, I am on trial. But it seems possible to find a fuller meaning in the expression by separating the concepts of hope and resurrection of the dead.

The word “hope” had a special meaning for the Jews and referred to the Messiah. It meant the hope of the Messiah, the messianic hope, the expectation of messianic redemption. Compare Lk 2:38.

In Paul’s mouth, it may mean that he now stands before judgment for the hope of Israel, the hope of the Hebrew people, namely, the Messiah.

The expression “resurrection of the dead” may then be referred to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the firstborn from the dead. His Resurrection bears witness to the reality of the coming general resurrection of the dead, which the Sadducees denied (verse 8).

Thus the Apostle’s saying will mean: I am on trial for the teaching about the Messiah and His Resurrection from the dead, and in Him the resurrection of all. Compare Acts 26:6.

This is true in the strictly literal sense, for this is the chief subject of his preaching, for which he now stood on trial.

Under the first interpretation, “I am on trial for the hope of the resurrection of the dead in general, of all,” one must allow a certain adaptation in the Apostle’s speech to the occasion.

He was not being tried for the doctrine of the general resurrection of all the dead. He could say this only in the general sense that the resurrection of all from the dead is an essential and final point of apostolic teaching about the Messiah’s Kingdom.

He hardly hoped to draw the Pharisees to his side for long. But in his position even their temporary attraction was useful, especially before the Roman tribune present there, on whom the case now greatly depended. By this Paul placed an obstacle, at least for a time, against the united action of both parties or sects against him.' According to St. John Chrysostom, 'Here Paul speaks in a human way, that is, in accommodation to men. He is not always guided by grace, but permits himself to bring in something of his own. He does this now and later. In his defense he intends to divide the crowd that had maliciously united against him. Nor does he speak falsely here when he calls himself a Pharisee, for by ancestry he was a Pharisee.' 'Paul identifies himself as a Jew, apart from Christianity. As a Jew he belongs to no other society than the Pharisees, not to the Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, or Zealots. He was accused of teaching against the Law of Moses (see Acts 21:28). The Apostle says that, in relation to it, he belongs to the strictest sect, the Pharisees, zealots for the Law. He has not betrayed Moses, as the Sadducees have, who deny certain truths of the Law of Moses.'