We read in Acts 23:6, “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!””
The context is that Paul is in custody for no good reason, except
for the Jews of Asia stirring up the crowds. (Acts 21:27-29) Yet Paul seems to
deliberately stir up the Sanhedrin with his statement. In fact, the Scripture
plainly states that this was indeed Paul’s intent.
On the face of it the statement is true. Paul’s crime was
because of the hope of the resurrection. But is Paul to be blamed for the
disturbance in the council? Did Paul do
right?
Let’s examine the events to see. The original dispute was
due to Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem and to the Temple to fulfill a Nazarite vow.
It was the first time in years he’d been back to Jerusalem. And true, he had
been warned repeatedly not to go, by prophets such as Agabus and others within
the church. (Acts 21:10-14) But it was God’s will that he go. In fact, God had
plans for Paul which depended upon this arrest! (Acts 23:11)
So Paul’s trip to Jerusalem was by the will of God, and he
obeyed this, even though he knew it meant hardship. As for the original rabble
rousing by the Asian Jews, this crowd had no good intent or purpose other than
to get Paul in trouble. In fact the Scripture testifies that “…some
among the multitude cried one thing and some another.” (Acts 21:34a)
Fast forward to the next day, before the assembled
Sanhedrin, Paul’s explanation on being a Jew on trial for the hope of the
resurrection of the dead – no matter the motive – was right.
The division within the Sanhedrin existed prior to Paul’s statement. Did Paul
use the division in the Sanhedrin for his advantage? Absolutely. Was this sin?
Not at all.
Public discourse is this way. Men and women may be divided
or agree on many things. One man’s comments may reveal those divisions to the
world, but that does not place guilt upon Paul for that reason.
I do find it interesting that Paul called himself a
Pharisee. It’s been years since he was last in Jerusalem – yet he still takes
the party name. This is the question I’d like to tackle. Are denominations
right?
Names – such as Calvinist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist,
etc. are not at all sinful in and of themselves. We divide along such lines in
order to better reflect the convictions we have and to allow closer fellowship
with those we share more with theologically. And I readily admit that no
denomination one chooses to affiliate himself with is of necessity a perfect
match to his or her personal convictions. But the affiliation helps us
to fellowship with one another is a sweeter and closer manner.
There is wisdom in this.
For example, I am by conviction a Baptist. I strongly
believe that Paedo-baptists err, and would feel highly uncomfortable with the
message that such a baptism sends to those less theologically driven. I cannot
help this – it is my conviction. And it’s right to have convictions. So I just
could not bring myself to be a member in a Presbyterian church of any type.
But there are Presbyterians I know and love. So how does our
denominational affiliation allow us greater and sweeter fellowship? By drawing the line distinctly. I know I
cannot be a member there. But what if I am traveling on vacation? Couldn’t I
visit then? I could, and would (and hope they aren’t baptizing that Sunday!). I
also would feel perfectly comfortable taking breakfast or lunch with a brother
from a different denomination.
Think of it another way, if there were no denominational
choices – could I be comfortable taking lunch with another, if I knew we
disagreed on baptism like we do, but the line was not distinctly drawn? I think
not. I might wonder what other aberrant theological beliefs he held. And even
if
I didn’t think like that, I might suspect he holds me at arm’s length,
since my theological stances are aberrant to him.
But what a joy it is to be able to visit my brothers when we
both by conviction stand and respect one another’s position, not by holding it,
but by realizing the same Lord who has caused me to end up in Baptist territory
also led him to another conclusion. Remember how Agabus and the brethren in Caesarea
told Paul not to go to Jerusalem? Yet Paul by the same Spirit was compelled to
go! Sometimes the paths our Lord compels us to, are not the same as another,
but they can be right and good. This is not to say that all paths are equally
right…but rightly understood, denominationalism can be very good.
