Debatable
And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” Acts 23:9 NASB
Nothing wrong – Most Christians read this story of Paul’s defense without understanding anything about its implications. That is the result of ignoring what the scribes actually say. Instead, Christians tend to read this as a justification of Paul’s faithfulness. But a closer examination reveals something rather startling. The scribes of the Pharisees actually state that in their opinion Paul remains a full-fledged Pharisee! They do not object to his declaration that Yeshua is the Messiah. They do not object to his claim that God has poured His favor out on the Gentiles. They do not denounce Paul for rejecting Torah. In fact, they state that Paul is free to believe Yeshua is the Messiah, God has called the Gentiles and Torah is still completely relevant. They agree with Paul, or at least they do not oppose Paul’s views. As far as they are concerned, Paul can go right on proclaiming the good news of the kingdom under Yeshua and remain a Pharisee. As far as they are concerned, Paul might really have had an encounter with an angel or some divine spirit and it’s OK with them.
A careful reading of this event yields two crucial conclusions. The first is that being a Pharisee does not mean rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah. In other words, the strict observance of the Mosaic revelation is not incompatible with the Messianic claims of Yeshua. That statement alone should forever settle the spurious “law vs. grace” argument. Pharisees knew that men did not earn their way to God. They had just as strong a view of the necessity of grace as any contemporary “grace only” preacher. But they also knew what God demanded—Torah.
The second conclusion is just as powerful. It is this: we do not have to agree in order to belong to the Kingdom. Certainly there were many among the Pharisees who did not accept Paul’s claim that Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah. But it didn’t matter. The important point is that it didn’t matter to them. This is not about Paul’s acceptance of those who rejected Yeshua as Messiah. This is about their acceptance of Paul’s disagreement. It’s OK for Paul to have a different view.
“Judaism is a culture of conflict. There’s an old saying in Hebrew: ‘Without debate (argument), there is no learning.’”[1] This implies tolerance for difference. In fact, it relishes disagreement as the only true way to learn. If we all agree, there is nothing more to discover. Better to have a community of differing views than enforce a uniformity of presumption. This event demonstrates the tolerance of the Pharisees toward Paul and this should cause us to ask, “How tolerant are we of those who have a different view of God’s work among me?”
Topical Index: nothing wrong, Acts 23:9, tolerance, disagreement
[1] Marc Tunage, Windows into the Bible, p. 135.
Hello Skip and others,
The question of tolerance comes with another question: Where do we draw the line theologically on what we will tolerate, live with?
I see the following as the “elephant in the figurative living room.”
Is it one thing to differ on our interpretation of the angelic prayer for peace on earth and good will among humankind, and another to understand LGBT issues within the confines of Judeo-Christian parlance, or God having maternal traits contrasted with being referred to as mother God or what I’ll call degendered?
Is Christianity today guilty, as some allege, of racism and sexism?
I can permit, tolerate, co-exist with you without having to buy or agree with your theological understanding and vice versa. Is there room to present my theological view in the congregation if it differs from the denominational ethic? Generally speaking, no!
I may do so privately with others but not publicly.
A culture of conflict would be a welcomed addition to Christianity today rather than a culture of conflict leading to splits and formations of groups where uniformity and peace at any price is the order of the day. Truly worth thinking about!
David Russell
Without debate there is no learning, that is so true , at our congregation we are always debating and that is exactly how we learn,. “Iron sharpens iron”
“. . .being a Pharisee does not mean rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah. In other words, the strict observance of the Mosaic revelation is not incompatible with the Messianic claims of Yeshua.”
However, I would venture to guess that if the scribes had any inclination that Paul believed and taught that Yeshua was God they would not have stated that they “find nothing wrong with this man.” I expect they would be the first to pick up stones.
Excellent point. So may we then conclude that they did NOT think he taught that Yeshua was God? They didn’t find anything wrong with his view of the Messiah. Therefore, they clearly did not think his view of the Messiah was Trinitarian.
Sorry Skip but I read this chapter differently. It was not about Paul and his mission but about control and authority of their convictions.
None the less. Paul’s ministry was very different from those of the time. Imprisoned yet still moving forward proclaiming the mystery that was not revealed until his anointment… That could have triggered the Pharisees response as you quoted.
What is never questioned by the rulers was the mystery Paul proclaimed “Christ in you”…