When I was in 5th grade, the biggest enemy I faced was my list of chores. Nothing terrified me more than walking downstairs on Saturday morning, and slowly peering into the kitchen to see if that mother of mine had scribbled out one of those motherly death sentences. They usually read like this: “Dylan, before you watch TV or go play with friends, do these three things.” A 5th graders gallows if you ask me. So, I would do my best to avoid my chores, but eventually, I was forced to complete them. Then one day, I was practicing the piano, and my mom said, “Aww! I could listen to you play piano all day long.” And suddenly it dawned on me - as long as I play the piano, my mom will never force me to do my chores. And thus began one of the most rigorous practice schedules ever known to a 5th grader.

In Acts 26, Paul finds himself facing an actual death threat, not just a list of chores. But, this isn’t his first rodeo. Back in Acts 22 and 23, he faced nearly the same thing - on trial, retelling his story of conversion as his legal defense. In Acts 23, Paul faced a council of leaders and escaped only because he was able to stir up division amongst his accusers. “Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ‘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…” (Acts 23:6-7). After much confusion, almost being illegally flogged, and nearly killed, Paul resorted to some old school tactics - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And, miraculously, it worked!

Now, over two years later, Paul is before a council of leaders again. This time, he knows how to handle the situation. He’s learned how to avoid the mob uprising, just like I learned how to avoid the chore list. So, he begins his testimony by bringing up this heated point of contention, instead of waiting until the end.

But does Paul bring up this dispute at the beginning only to avoid danger? Or is there a deeper reason? Back in Acts 23, the Pharisees and Sadducees split over Paul because of the issue of the Resurrection. The Pharisees believed that there is a Resurrection, whereas the Sadducees held that there was no none (Acts 23:8). So, when Paul brought up the dispute, they took sides. But their siding with Paul was simply a matter of philosophical discussion. It was purely about what things are reasonable to believe and what are not. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were not concerned about anything fundamental to the Gospel itself. Their only concern was with general metaphysical realities. As it were, in an attempt to avoid death, Paul turned their attention away from the person of Jesus, and onto a philosophical debate.

Knowing this, Paul takes a different approach in Acts 26. He begins by bringing up this heated debate regarding the reality of the resurrection because he wants to drive home a different main point. Right after mentioning this societal ‘hot topic’, he says, “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Acts 26:9). Paul turns their attention away from the philosophical debate around the feasibility of the resurrection, and turns their attention onto the person of Christ. Paul sees that when he was opposed to the gospel and living in sin, he still believed in the Resurrection (since he was a Pharisee). It didn’t matter at all where the Jews landed in the debate around the resurrection of the dead. What mattered was that they reckon with the person of Christ. There is no saving faith in affirming correct metaphysical truths. There is only salvation in relating rightly to the person of Christ, by repenting and turning to him alone.