Paul, knowing that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, cried out, 'I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees: I am judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead.' Suddenly the council is fighting each other instead of fighting him. He's divided the opposition by appealing to their actual theological disagreement.
I'm a rhetoric professor, and I have to admit this is brilliant strategy. But I'm also uncomfortable with it. Is Paul using truth as a weapon, or is he telling the truth strategically? The resurrection is central to Christian hope. He's not lying. But he's also weaponizing his honesty in a way that feels... manipulative.
Or is it? I've been teaching my students that truth has power. That honesty is an ethical persuasion. But Paul shows us that truth can be deployed strategically and still be true. He's not deceiving the council about what he believes. He's highlighting a truth that creates division because the division serves the gospel's advance. I'm realizing the line between honesty and strategy might be thinner than I thought. Paul isn't slick. He's sharp. And those are different things.
No comments yet. Be the first.