The Hope of the Resurrection

Review and Context

Review

Paul has returned to Jerusalem following his third missionary journey. While on the way to Jerusalem he was warned of the trials and dangers he was to experience while in Jerusalem, but he continued anyway. After meeting with the elders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul took part in a Nazarite vow with four other men and moved into the temple for the required 7 days in order to maintain purity for the completion of the vow. While there, Jews from Asia saw him and stirred up the crowd into a tizzy using the false accusation that Paul was teaching against the temple and Moses, as well as bringing a Gentile into the temple beyond the Gentile court. Both accusations are false. The crowds began to beat Paul and the overwatch that was situated nearby broke up the mob and carried Paul toward the barracks to figure out what he was being beaten for. Paul asked for the opportunity to speak to the crowd and give a defense, and the tribune allowed it, he didn’t seem to understand what the accusation was anyway. Paul proceeded to tell the Jews that he’s a Jew’s Jew, following the law and following the way of Jesus. When he began to talk about his ministry among the Gentiles, the crowd is thrown back into an uproar and the tribune takes him into the barracks for further questioning. While there it is discovered that Paul is a Roman citizen and a Jew. That sets up where we’ll start today.

Context

In today’s passage we’re going to encounter the sanhedrin:

The supreme council in charge of Jewish affairs in Roman Palestine. . . It was common for cities and people groups under Roman authority to have their own local councils to decide legislative and judicial matters. The assembly could be a regular permanent governing body in the city, or it could be an informal group that convened as needed. The Jerusalem Sanhedrin seems to be the latter type, [a] group of prominent religious leaders including priests and Pharisees. This council had wide-ranging influence on political, legal, judicial, and religious affairs. . . .The most common opinion is that the Judaean Sanhedrin consisted of the elders of various sociopolitical Jewish classes, both priestly and nonpriestly. At least according to the New Testament and Josephus, the Sanhedrin was closely related to chief priests . . .

- Douglas Mangum and Vasile Babota, “Sanhedrin,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Along with the chief priests, there would have been Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and elders making up a group of men that traditionally numbered 71, with the high priest as the president of the body.

What we know about the Sadducees is limited because none of the writings which they may have left are available, so what we know has to be reconstructed by those who opposed them, however we can make some comments on who they were and what their beliefs were.

Sadducees are tightly woven with the high priestly family, the sons of Zadok, who play an important role in the return of the priesthood to prominence during the time of the Maccabees (intertestamental period). They seem to be very wealthy and have considerable influence with the social elite of Judea. And there seems to be an indication that while they are religious leaders, they were influenced more by Roman politics than by Jewish religious teaching.

Some of their teachings that we can reconstruct are that there is no bodily resurrection; the written scriptures, particularly the Torah, take priority and are the only thing authoritative, oral tradition like Midrash was to be rejected; there was an emphasis on human responsibility and free will, similar to a deist approach to God; were materialists in that they did not believe in angels or spirits.

On the other hand we know a lot about the Pharisees because it is the Pharisaic tradition that has continued throughout Jewish development and the Pharisaic understanding of scripture that Jesus interacts with in his ministry. Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were generally geographically located in Galilee and were the Jewish academic elites of the day. The writings of the New Testament assume a Pharisaic worldview.

With that in mind, let’s read Acts 22:30-23:11

Acts 22:30–23:11 CSB

The next day, since he wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and instructed the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to convene. He brought Paul down and placed him before them. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience to this day.” The high priest Ananias ordered those who were standing next to him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You are sitting there judging me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law are you ordering me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare revile God’s high priest?” “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,” replied Paul. “For it is written, You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” When Paul realized that one part of them were Sadducees and the other part were Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am being judged because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and neither angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees affirm them all. The shouting grew loud, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party got up and argued vehemently, “We find nothing evil in this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the dispute became violent, the commander feared that Paul might be torn apart by them and ordered the troops to go down, take him away from them, and bring him into the barracks. The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, “Have courage! For as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for you to testify in Rome.”

What we see here is that Paul was not imprisoned for breaking Roman Law, nor was he breaking any religious law, but his arrest and continued incarceration were political in nature. This is what it looks like for someone to undergo the same treatment as Jesus did. Paul's commitment to the resurrection made him suffer not because of his actions but because of the hardness of the hearts around him.

Paul was committed to the resurrection of Jesus as guiding principle of his life. While we affirm the resurrection of the dead we must really come to face how it impacts our daily living.Christ's resurrection brings us hope to endure suffering, it gives us courage to face uncertainty, and frees us to make decisions in light of the eternal not the temporal.

Jesus' resurrection should be the guiding principle of our life right now, not just give a future hope of "one day in eternity"

Paul’s initial defense (v.30-5)

Explanation

By this time the commander knew the accusations against Paul were Jewish (cf. vv. 23–29), and the best way to unearth these was to have a hearing before the Sanhedrin. If the prisoner was found innocent he could be released, but if the charges were valid the case could be remitted to the procurator, the Roman governor (BKC).

In charge of the Sanhedrin as the president would have been Ananias. Ananias was known for his bad temper. The historian Josephus described him as “insolent, hot-tempered, profane, and greedy.” In fact he was so disliked, he was eventually assassinated by some Jews during a revolt in AD 66. We see the quick-tempered character in his treatment of Paul in verse 2.

As I studied this passage, I was surprised by the number of comment’s on Paul’s response to Ananias in verse 3. There is a spectrum of interpretation as to what Paul’s psychological state is when he makes the pronouncement against Ananias. On one hand there is the school that says that Paul lashed out in unrighteous anger and then responded in sarcasm and on the other there is the school that says that Paul was pronouncing judgment like an Old Testament prophet would do. Let’s take a look again at the exchange and see what we can decipher.

Acts 23:1–5 CSB

Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience to this day.” The high priest Ananias ordered those who were standing next to him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You are sitting there judging me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law are you ordering me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare revile God’s high priest?” “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,” replied Paul. “For it is written, You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”

I think for us to give Paul a fair assessment, we have to actually look at his responses.

First, we have the whitewashed wall pronouncement and then an indictment of the injustice that occured. And like we’ve discussed before, Paul’s words do not come out of a vacuum, but rather straight from Scripture in the form of a remez. If you go searching, you’ll find that Ezekiel uses this phrase in these two passages: Ezekiel 13:8-16 and Ezekiel 22:27-31

Ezekiel 13:8–16 CSB

“ ‘Therefore, this is what the Lord God says: You have spoken falsely and had lying visions; that’s why you discover that I am against you. This is the declaration of the Lord God. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and speak lying divinations. They will not be present in the council of my people or be recorded in the register of the house of Israel, and they will not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord God. “ ‘Since they have led my people astray by saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and since when a flimsy wall is being built, they plaster it with whitewash, therefore, tell those plastering it with whitewash that it will fall. Torrential rain will come, and I will send hailstones plunging down, and a whirlwind will be released. When the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, “Where’s the whitewash you plastered on it?” “ ‘So this is what the Lord God says: I will release a whirlwind in my wrath. Torrential rain will come in my anger, and hailstones will fall in destructive fury. I will demolish the wall you plastered with whitewash and knock it to the ground so that its foundation is exposed. The city will fall, and you will be destroyed within it. Then you will know that I am the Lord. After I exhaust my wrath against the wall and against those who plaster it with whitewash, I will say to you, “The wall is no more and neither are those who plastered it—those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw a vision of peace for her when there was no peace.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.’

Ezekiel 22:27–31 CSB

“Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey, shedding blood, and destroying lives in order to make profit dishonestly. Her prophets plaster for them with whitewash by seeing false visions and lying divinations, saying, ‘This is what the Lord God says,’ when the Lord has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy and unlawfully exploited the resident alien. I searched for a man among them who would repair the wall and stand in the gap before me on behalf of the land so that I might not destroy it, but I found no one. So I have poured out my indignation on them and consumed them with the fire of my fury. I have brought their conduct down on their own heads.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.

This phrase of whitewash points to the Lord’s condemnation of Judah’s leaders from before the exile to Babylon and how they were leading Judah astray. Because they were whitewashed, they obscured what was actually underneath. They were covering up the filth and injustice that was being done in Judah and proclaiming God’s favor on them. Ultimately, God’s wrath was leveled on Judah and her leaders in part because of the leaders’ unwillingness to do what was right but instead cover it up.

So Paul starts with this remez about whitewash and then alludes to Deuteronomy 25:1-2 and Leviticus 19:15.

Deuteronomy 25:1–2 CSB

“If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court, and the judges will hear their case. They will clear the innocent and condemn the guilty. If the guilty party deserves to be flogged, the judge will make him lie down and be flogged in his presence with the number of lashes appropriate for his crime.

Leviticus 19:15 CSB

“Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.

So we’re beginning to see a picture not so much of hot anger lashing out as an insult, as much as a pronouncement of judgment on an unjust leader in line with what we hear from Ezekiel.

The accusation of sarcasm against Paul in verse 5 assumes that Paul knew who the high priest was and that the response was more about Ananias not acting like the high priest: “I didn’t know you were the high priest because you certainly aren’t acting like it.” This school of thought sees Paul’s quotation of Exodus 22:28 as a reflective half-hearted apology recognizing he shouldn’t have spoken ill of the high priest.

Exodus 22:28 CSB

“You must not blaspheme God or curse a leader among your people.

Ananias is believed to have taken the High Priesthood sometime near when the Acts 15 Jerusalem council took place and this hearing is about 10 years later. It is reasonable to assume that Paul had not encountered Ananias as High Priest and didn’t know what he looked like. If that’s the case, we can simply take Paul’s word at face value and the apology/quote of Exodus makes more sense.

Taking all the data we’ve looked at, it seems to me that Paul was not lashing out in anger, but he was responding in line with how he thought, through his deep knowledge of Scripture. I also think that Paul wasn’t using sarcasm because sarcasm, at its core, is an un-Christlike behavior.

Application

Sarah Swenson, a therapist rights this about Sarcasm:

I was surprised recently by a discussion among members of a group of therapists describing how they use sarcasm in their personal lives with their children and their spouses. I had assumed they would understand why that’s probably not a good idea. Why? Because sarcasm isn’t humor. It’s hostility. And it makes people feel bad.

It may be challenging to accept this, especially if your response to my statement that sarcasm is not humor raised your hackles. Some even believe that sarcasm is a sign of high intelligence. Well, no. Well-developed wit is a sign of high intelligence. Wit is insightful, showing us the world in a slightly new way. Great wit is a high art.

Sarcasm, on the other hand, derives from Greek words that mean “tearing of the flesh.” Sarcasm is hostility disguised as humor. That’s why when someone says something sarcastic to you, you don’t feel good. Sarcasm is unsettling. If you challenge it, the person can say, “What? I was just kidding!” But it doesn’t feel like kidding. It feels like veiled criticism. Because that’s exactly what it is, regardless of its superficial deniability.

For some individuals who identify as highly sensitive persons, sarcasm is particularly biting. But most people respond negatively to it, whether they show it or not. Think about the last time someone made a sarcastic remark directed specifically at you. Maybe they made a comment about your “ballet shoes” if you were wearing hiking boots. Maybe they cut closer with something like, “Take all the time you need. The rest of the world can wait.” Did you appreciate it? Did it help you?

We hear the term passive-aggressive often to describe someone whose orientation is sarcastic. It means that on the surface, the person’s words and actions are neutral, but that underneath them lies a second layer of meaning which is aggressive. It doesn’t mean wavering between the two; it means both at once. Sarcasm is passive-aggressive speech.

Mrs. Swenson speaks of sarcasm as veiled hostility. Other writers talk about sarcasm as veiled emotional violence. If this seems a bridge too far, let’s compare what Paul says about how to speak to one another to sarcasm.

Ephesians 4:20–32 CSB

But that is not how you came to know Christ, assuming you heard about him and were taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus, to take off your former way of life, the old self that is corrupted by deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, the one created according to God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth. Therefore, putting away lying, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another. Be angry and do not sin. Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, and don’t give the devil an opportunity. Let the thief no longer steal. Instead, he is to do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need. No foul language should come from your mouth, but only what is good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear. And don’t grieve God’s Holy Spirit. You were sealed by him for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, anger and wrath, shouting and slander be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ.

Paul suggests that our speech be true, not foul, good for building up, give grace to the other, and show compassion.

Sarcasm on the other hand uses intentional ironic dishonesty to make a point, tear down, slander, or insult someone. It’s the exact opposite and does not show oneself as created in God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.

Think about it, when was your sarcasm ever used as a way to build someone up or show someone grace?

Another problem of sarcasm for the one using it is that it becomes ingrained into their communication habits and reflects a type of character they may not even be aware of any more. When our character uses veiled insults and hostility as a way of communicating, it is definitely not reflecting Christ’s character of love for one’s enemy and the truth of speech that comes out of the overflow of the heart.

Paul’s Shrewd Statement (6-9)

Explanation

In this next section, we see Paul, knowing he’s not going to get a fair hearing, divide the Sanhedrin in order to show the injustice of his imprisonment. To do this, he boils down the reason for his imprisonment in verse 6 as the result of his hope in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul understands that his whole ministry to the Gentiles hinges on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and the hope of our participation in it.

We often talk a lot about Paul’s theology surrounding the cross, but his theology of the resurrection is just as important. Here are some examples

Romans 4:20–25 (CSB)

(Speaking of Abraham) He did not waver in unbelief at God’s promise but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, because he was fully convinced that what God had promised, he was also able to do. Therefore, it was credited to him for righteousness. Now it was credited to him was not written for Abraham alone, but also for us. It will be credited to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 5:10 CSB

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

1 Corinthians 15:12–19 CSB

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “There is no resurrection of the dead”? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and so is your faith. Moreover, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified wrongly about God that he raised up Christ—whom he did not raise up, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Those, then, who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.

It seems to be Paul’s opinion that if there is no resurrection, there is no reason to follow Jesus at all, which means that his ministry to the Gentiles was a fool’s errand.

Application

Clifford and Johnson, in their book, The Cross is Not Enough, discuss the problems with not recognizing the importance of the theology of the Resurrection. They suggest that, while the cross is important in its work of atoning for our sins, it is the resurrection that gives us the power to live a life like Jesus. They suggest twelve resurrection zones of discipleship for living that are only possible in light of the resurrection: forgiveness; caring for the whole person; empowerment for daily living; future hope of a general resurrection; our view of the end times as a time of reigning with Christ; Eden breaking into our daily experience; confidence in Jesus as the Son of God; God’s face of compassion, mercy, and love; ethics of the Christian life and the value of our bodies; justice for those around us; the new community of God’s people; and mission.

So a question that we need to wrestle with as individuals and as a congregation is whether we live in light of the resurrection or not. If we live in light of the resurrection we are able to see the temporal for what it is, we will be willing to endure suffering on account of the Kingdom of God, and help us experience the Kingdom of God that is right now not that will happen one day after we die.

The Christian life is not about getting to heaven when we die. The Christian life is living the abundant life of eternity right now in the midst of the brokenness around us. It is a life that is marked by joy and community with one another and God that makes us stand out when there is suffering in our lives. It is this type of life in the midst of suffering that Peter says we ought to have a reason for the hope that is within us. A life where hope is based on some time in the future will not carry us through right now when there is suffering and pain. A life based on the reality of abundant, eternal life right now will make us look like Jesus people.

Assurance for Paul (10-11)

Explanation

In these last two verse we see a couple of important things.

First, tribune sees that the issue that got Paul arrested was not a Roman civil issue, but a matter of religion. But because of the uproar that Paul’s presence has caused, he didn’t feel justified in letting him go. The safest place for Paul would be in the barracks where he wouldn’t be torn apart by the mobs objecting to his existence.

Second, we see that Paul received a message of encouragement from the Lord. Over the last few weeks, we saw how much of what he had received from the Lord through others was the danger that was ahead. Now that he was in that time of trial, he received a message of comfort and encouragement from the Lord.

Acts 23:11 CSB

The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, “Have courage! For as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for you to testify in Rome.”

Paul experienced the Lord’s comfort just like Jesus promised.

John 14:26 (CSB)

But the Counselor (comforter), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you.

John 15:26–27 CSB

“When the Counselor comes, the one I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—he will testify about me. You also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:13 CSB

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. For he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears. He will also declare to you what is to come.

Application

One of the challenges we experience today is the many voices that are around us. It’s not just the people we’re around, but the music, podcasts, radio, tv, and other media or social media that are trying to give input to us. We are drowning in voices such that it’s hard to decipher what is true. With so many voices, we become deaf to the voice of the Lord.

The Lord is speaking, but we often aren’t listening or can’t hear his voice through all the other noise that we’ve surrounded ourselves with. You can’t expect to hear the voice of the Lord if your only engagement with him is at church on Sunday or occasionally reading your Bible. Hearing the voice of the Lord after so many years of noise takes time and attunement.

“DJ, you don’t understand the pressures I’m under. I just don’t have time.”

To that, I have 2 responses: First, you make time for what you prioritize. Instead of saying, “I don’t have time for that” say, “I am not going to prioritize that.” What we give priority in our life is what we give our time to. Second, if we are so busy and under so much pressure that we aren’t able to know God and enjoy him forever, our priorities are out of line. Parenting is tough, leading people is tough, the responsibilities that some of you have make life really tough. But if we’re not spending time cultivating our relationship with Jesus, our personal relationship, we are climbing the ladder of success on a building that is going to crumble.

You’ve heard me talk about this subject over and over again, listening to the Holy Spirit, cultivating relationship with the Lord. If you’ve heard it and week after week think, “that’s something that I’d like” come talk to me. I would love the opportunity to help you begin the process of attuning to the voice of God so that you can have a personal relationship with him. If your hackles are raised because it sounds new-age or unbiblical, come talk to me about that too.

We’ve been given the opportunity to walk in communion with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Let’s not waste the opportunities he’s given us to do that together!

Conclusion/Application

As we wrap up, I just want to reiterate some of the ways we can apply this passage to our lives today.

First, consider your use of sarcasm. I know this is something that I’ve been working on and something that I’m still struggling with, especially in work contexts. But let’s also pay attention to how we use it with our spouses and children, with our church family and with our neighbors. Let’s speak in ways that give life and grace to those around us, not cut and tear their flesh.

Second, live our lives in the hope of the resurrection. Maybe that’s by beginning to look at life through the lens of the Kingdom of God breaking into our life today and right now. Maybe that’s by looking for justice for those around us. Or maybe its showing God’s face of compassion, mercy and love in tangible ways to those around you.

Third, assess the level of priority that you give to your relationship to God. If you want it to grow and aren’t sure how to do that, come talk to me! Let me help you in your discipleship to Jesus, in your communion with God, by helping you learn to attune to God’s presence in your life.