The Pharisees survived [Acts 22]

The Pharisees are literally still with us. For Orthodox Judaism is the teachings of the Pharisees, and that, not liberal Judaism or political Judaism, is what survived the desecration of the temple and the scouring of Palestine.

So when Paul says he is a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee, he is setting himself in a living tradition: we can also take something from the argument, which is a little more of a metaphor.

But on the next day, desiring to know the real reason why he was being accused by the Jews, he unbound him and commanded the chief priests and all the council to meet, and he brought Paul down and set him before them.

	And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

	Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

	The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”

(Acts 22:30-23:11 ESV)

Now for a bit of metaphor. Here you see the classic academic fight. On one side those who speak for the truth — for the Pharisees did have the law, and their teaching on the law was correct: it was their lives that were not righteous.

On the other hand the quislings, the compromisers: those who were in love with power and their status.

I have seen academic committees and church disputes for a long time. There is a pattern. The people who want to be in the elite will compromise: will make alliances that should not be, will let teachings fall for the sake of progress, and so they are praised by the rulers. For, like the Sadducees, they see nothing but this life. They deny the resurrection: it is but a useful myth.

Which is not a faith that will survive. The popular theology of Judea was that of the Pharisees: they may have been prideful and self righteous, but they did believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses, David and Job: and though the worms eat their body that in their flesh they would see God.

But the besetting sins of the theologically correct remain priggishness, hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Nothing much has changed: we are still human. Better, however, to have a love for the truth, and seek the Almighty. There lies Christ, who Paul was trying to preach.

And in our arguments we shred the truth as surely as Paul would have been torn to pieces.