IS PAUL A PHARISEE?
PROSECUTION
Our Lord's warning against the teaching of the Pharisees could not have been plainer when He stated in
Luke 12:1 ..."Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, "
Yet Paul, well after his supposed conversion to Christianity, boldly declares in
Acts 23:6 ..."I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee... "
Please notice that Paul did not say I
was a Pharisee, but I am (present tense) a Pharisee.
DEFENCE
The Prosecution quite rightly point out that the 'teaching' of the Pharisees was the dangerous
'leaven', but does it dare to condemn all those who were Pharisees - because both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also Pharisees and secret Disciples of Jesus? Furthermore, Acts 15:5 declares that there were already a number of Pharisees who were converted, but it does NOT say there that they WERE (past tense) Pharisees. In fact this verse implies that they were still recognisable members of the Sect of the Pharisees, as was Paul.
However, again the Prosecution employ that most reprehensible of all habits to support their case - that of taking a few words out of context, with neither any reference to the circumstances in which they were spoken, nor even quoting all that Paul said, nor why he said it.
As mentioned previously in
Acts 23:3 Paul makes a prophecy which could only be made by a person guided by the Holy Spirit that 'God would smite the High Priest', which prophecy came true. At this point Paul was arraigned before the whole Temple Council comprising of both Pharisees and Sadducees who were about to join together in a vote to have Paul put to death. This they could do - under an agreement with Rome - if the 'crime' he committed merited death, in accordance with their religion, (which Paul himself had supported and used with Stephen's case).Perceiving that some of the councillors were Sadducees and some Pharisees, Paul then used the true belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection of the body - (a fact which, by the
Resurrection of Jesus, had already brought about the conversion of many Israelite Pharisees) to cause an uproar amongst them. This tactic compelled the Roman Captain to intervene and rescue Paul for the sake of the Apostle's own safety. Paul's statement did not imply any rejection of his faith in Jesus. On the contrary, Paul said that he agreed with the Pharisees IN THEIR OWN BELIEF IN THE HOPE AND RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. In Acts 24:14 Paul confesses that his faith was that which they - the Pharisees and the Sadducees - call HERESY, believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets. This is precisely what Jesus calls on us to believe and obey today and it shows clearly that Paul no longer believed all that the Pharisees believed.If the Prosecution make such an issue over Paul's tactical and timely statement in Acts 23:6, why do they not also loudly praise Paul for his outright confession of his faith as stated in Acts 24:14? Both verses are recorded by St. Luke and cannot be refuted without discrediting both the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of St. Luke.
