Paul Before the Sanhedrin

Acts 22:30 – 23:11

A. Paul’s apology 22:30-23:6

1. a good conscience – see Gal_1:14; 1Ti_1:13; Php_3:6

Paul demonstrated a zeal for God throughout his life that was commensurate with his knowledge and understanding. He operated on the basis of a well-defined sense of duty and not out of malice.

Ananias’ pre-conceived verdict shows in his action – consistent with his reputation for cruel and violent treatment of any he didn’t like

But as for the high priest, Ananias …was a great hoarder up of money: …he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. … [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. Josephus, Antiquities, 20.9.2

Was Paul’s response a visceral reaction to an obvious injustice without regard for who issued the order? Did he really not know who the high priest was, that it was he who had done it? The most reasonable explanation is that the council was called together in such hast that the high priest was not wearing his official garments and Paul did not recognize him.

Some even question whether the Roman commander had the authority to call an official session of the Sanhedrin. If he did not, that would lend even more plausibility to the idea that Paul truly did not know which of the men assembled was the high priest.

In any event, Paul’s retort could have been legitimately directed at any member of the Sanhedrin since they all were duty-bound to act in a lawful way but had failed to do so.

2. a law-keeper

After being made aware of his infraction, Paul immediately acknowledged his intention to be a law-keeper even if his accusers were not. Perhaps he intended this statement also to be a rebuke against those who were determined to cause him harm – I intend to follow the commands God has given to respect those in authority even if those in authority disobey God’s command to use their power justly.

B. Conflict in the court 23:7-23:9

1. It’s about the resurrection!

   Paul’s declaration that the issue at hand was the doctrine of the resurrection was like a spark to a powder keg, one of the most divisive issues between Pharisee and Sadducee.

the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.1.4

the Pharisees …say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, — but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees …take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.8.14

The result was a brawl in which neither side was willing to grant anything to the other. In fact, Paul became the pawn of the Pharisees, enabling them to attempt to gain an advantage over their opponents, the Sadducees.

Suddenly the issue was not about whether or not to advance the cause of justice but which side of this internecine warfare (a battle between supposed brothers) would prevail. Gaining turf in the Court became the goal between those who were determined to use Paul and his testimony to their own gain and those who wished him destroyed. How many times does that happen in and out of the church – a situation is spun into a turf battle, a means to protect a pet project or way of doing things.

C. Strategy analysis 23:6

1. Why did Paul identify the charge against him as centering on the resurrection? Several reasons come to mind:

1. doctrinal differences

   the most obvious, the doctrinal differences between Saducees and Pharisees and the probability that conflict among the Sanhedrin would bode well for Paul’s ultimate safety. They could be easily discredited as religious spokesmen by highlighting their deep differences and great animosity.

2. inability to conduct an impartial trial

   What it would show to Paul’s Roman escort – questionable credibility of the Sanhedrin from a legal standpoint, their inability to conduct an impartial trial, the “pettiness” of the issue.

3. the resurrection and atonement make Christianity uniqueThe doctrine of the resurrection coupled with substitutionary atonement are what make Christianity unique among religions. In fact, one without the other provides only half a solution to the results of Adam’s fall – either God conquered sin and Satan or death but not both; he could satisfy the penalty for sin but not remove its curse.

4. The doctrine of the resurrection is what gave Paul hope

   It was the source of hope, courage, motivation to persevere in preaching the Gospel. See 1 Cor. 15!

we see what horrible and filthy disorder there was at that day in the Church. …they had at that day no regard of discipline, but there remained among them confused barbarism. And no marvel, for they had estranged themselves from God; they had most reproachfully rejected Christ. Calvin, Acts 23:2

I would rather take occasion from hence to remark, what an awful day must it have been in the Jewish Church when the Seventy forming the High Court for Judgment in all things sacred was made up of such a motley body of men. …Remark Jehovah’s promise, of putting his Spirit upon them; and then, look at this degenerate Council, with such a character as Ananias at the head of them! Oh! what an awful change! Num_11:16-17; Hawker, Poor Man’s Commentary, Acts 23:6ff

D. God’s gracious providence 23:10-23:11

1. A Roman commander with some regard for due process

   He was not inclined to allow the mob to lynch Paul even though Claudius thought he probably was guilty of something.

   Once he found out Paul was a Roman citizen Claudius treated him “appropriately”.

   When it appeared Paul’s life was in danger again, Claudius rescued him from the unruly Sanhedrin.

2. A visitation by Christ Himself

a. “Have courage” – θαρσέω, (tharseō)

It has the basic sense of “to dare,” “to be bold,” and thence “to be of good courage,” “to be cheerful,” “to be confident,” TDNT Each time this form of the word is used elsewhere in the NT (7 times) it falls from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

b. Paul is in the hands of the One who has had victory over all his enemies

Thus, he has nothing to fear.

c. Christ validates Paul’s ministry in in Jerusalem.

This provides even more encouragement to Paul

d. Paul will make it to Rome.

Christ further indicates that Paul’s labors for the kingdom are not over – he will in fact make it to Rome. It is part of God’s sovereign plan – it is necessary – that Paul proclaim the Gospel in Rome also. Additional indication of the graciousness of Christ – he was pleased to grant the desire of Paul expressed twice in his letter to the saints in Rome ( Rom_1:10; Rom_15:23-24 ). Was this because Paul delighted himself in the Lord ( Psa_37:4 )? It certainly gave a more profound meaning to Paul’s concept of God as the one who provides comfort in suffering ( 2Co_1:3-7 ).

e. God providentially orders the affairs of men and nations.

By doing so he gives his servants opportunities for proclamation of the Gospel.

But his wish was accomplished, as our prayers and purposes so often are, in a manner very strange to him. A popular riot in Jerusalem, a half-friendly arrest by the contemptuous impartiality of a Roman officer, a final rejection by the Sanhedrim, a prison in Caesarea, an appeal to Caesar, a weary voyage, a shipwreck: this was the chain of circumstances which fulfilled his desire, and brought him to the imperial city. Alexander MacLaren

E. What’s in it for us?

1. The resurrection is worth dying for!

   Obviously a true doctrine of the resurrection, and not some form of reincarnation or pantheistic oneness. A true view of the resurrection and its “guarantee” in Christ is the source of true hope, something that “the world needs now” more than ever. Remember it is “the truth that will set us free” (Joh_8:32 ).

2. The Gospel must be central in our defense ( ἀπολογία, apologia )Whatever the opportunities, whatever the starting points providence affords us, we must be prepared as best we can with the Spirit’s enabling to give a proper defense of what we believe. We must not worry beforehand, but trust that Christ will give the words to speak through his Spirit (

   Luk_21:14-15 ). Following Paul’s example, even though he started with personal experience or condition it never took him long to bring the focus to Gospel truths.

3. Faithful witnessing begets further opportunities for service.

   Paul had proclaimed the Gospel faithfully in spite of extreme hardship and virulent opposition. His target audience ran the full gamut – royalty to slave, Jew and Gentile, learned and unlearned. Paul’s ongoing commission here renewed by Christ was to proclaim the Gospel in Rome in the same way that he had done so in Jerusalem.

4. Opportunities require commitment.

When God providentially gives us opportunities to advance the Gospel we must have the courage to move forward in the strength he gives us. God will open the doors or bring “situations” to us; our duty is to follow through.

Surely there can be no sadder sign of decadence and no surer precursor of extinction than to fall beneath the demands of our day; to have doors opening at which we are too lazy or selfish to go in; to be so sound asleep that we never hear the man of Macedonia when he stands by us and cries, ‘Come over and help us!’ We are members of a Church that God has appointed to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. We are citizens of a nation whose influence is ubiquitous and felt in every land. By both characters, God summons us to tasks which will tax all our resources worthily to do. We inherit a work from our fathers which God has shown that He owns by giving us these golden opportunities. He summons us: ‘Lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes. Come out of Jerusalem; come into Rome.’ Shall we respond? God give us grace to fill the sphere in which He has set us, till He lifts us to the wider one, where the faithfulness of the steward is exchanged for the authority of the ruler, and the toil of the servant for the joy of the Lord! Alexander MacLaren 1826-1910, England

Confessing Our Faith In the Culture – Chapter 26

Of Marriage

A. What is marriage?

1. a creation ordinance of God Gen 2:24

2. “a covenant of companionship” Gen 2:18

   1. “a public and formal sworn promise by a man and a woman to teach other which brings them into a marriage union intended to provide them with a multi-dimensional life companionship” Sam Waldron

   2. constituted by the making of the covenant

      1. promise publicly certified

         1. by swearing an oath

         2. by exchanging tangible signs or symbols

Marriage is, to use Jay Adams’ helpful phrase, ‘a covenant of companionship’. That is to say, it is a public and formal sworn promise by a man and a woman to teach other which brings them into a marriage union intended to provide them with a multi-dimensional life companionship. This definition of marriage contains a reference to the governing purpose and constituting activity of marriage. The governing purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman with one another’s companionship (Gen. 2:18, 24; Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14). These texts reveal that this intimate companionship is to be sexual, vocational, verbal and emotional. The constituting activity of marriage is commitment to and the making of the marriage covenant (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 2:17; Mal 2:14; Ezek. 16:8). A covenant is not merely a promise – it is a promise or commitment publicly and formally certified by the swearing of an oath. The public and formal character of such covenants is indicated by their frequently being accompanied in the Bible by the presence of witnesses and the exchanging of tangible signs or symbols. Waldron

B. What is the purpose of marriage?

1. mutual help for husband and wife Gen 2:18

2. procreation Gen 1:28

3. prevent immorality 1 Cor. 7:2, 9

4. model the church to the world Eph. 5:21-33

C. When can it be dissolved?

1. when the covenant has been broken

   1. by adultery Matt. 1:18-19; 5:31-32; 19:9

   2. by abandonment 1 Cor. 7:15
      
      VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case. WCF, Chapter XXIV

2. NOTE: It is not mandatory to exercise the right to a divorce even though to do so in either of these cases would not constitute sin.

The essential nature of divorce must be understood in the light of the identity of marriage outlined above. Since marriage is not constituted by sexual relations, divorce is not constituted by adultery (Matt. 1:18-19). Since marriage is constituted by the formal covenant of marriage, divorce must be carried out by a formal bill of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4; Jer. 3:8; Isa. 50:1). Since marriage has for its purpose companionship, divorce repudiates that companionship (Deut. 24:2; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8).

The proper grounds of divorce are two and two only. Since marriage is a covenant of companionship, the only proper grounds for divorce are those which absolutely contradict its identity as such. According to the Bible only desertion and adultery provide grounds for divorce. Desertion is the absolute negation of a covenant of companionship. It, therefore, provides the right to a divorce (1 Cor. 7:15). Adultery is the absolute violation of the supreme privilege and sacred heart of the marriage covenant (Gen. 2:24). For this reason it also gives the right of divorce to the injured party (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9). The right to a divorce need not be exercised. It may be very imprudent to exercise such a right. Yet it is not sin for the injured party to exercise that right. Waldron, Commentary

D. What does the Bible teach about gender?

1. distinctive equality

   1. equality

      1. image bearers Gen. 1:27

      2. one in Christ Galatians 3:28

      3. equally share in God’s grace 1 Peter 3:7

         [T]he Bible is quite clear that men and women are equally God’s image bearers (Genesis 1:27) and therefore equal before God and in relationship with one another, and also that they are fellow-heirs in the Christian life, equal in their spiritual standing before God (1 Peter 3:7; Galatians 3:28). The Bible is also clear that men and women, who are equal with respect to creation and redemption and therefore share many things in common, are called to different and equally important roles in marriage and the church. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Piper & Grudem

   2. distinctiveness

      1. in role Gen. 3:15-19; Eph. 5:23-24

      2. in relationship 1 Cor. 11:7-9

      3. in ministry Tit. 2:1-8

It is God Himself (as we shall see later) who has determined distinctive roles for men and women in order that thereby they may fulfill the creation mandate that He has given to mankind (cf. Genesis 1:28; 3:15-19). God has called men to serve as leaders in marriage and the church, and women to submit themselves willingly to that leadership, as they labor together in their distinctive roles (Ephesians 5:23-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Timothy 2:12; 3:1-13). In defining how men and women are to relate to one another in fulfilling their respective roles, God has called men to exercise a headship that is loving, gentle, and considerate (e.g., Ephesians 5:25ff.; 1 Peter 3:7), and He has called women to submit to that headship in a willing, gentle, and respectful way (e.g., Ephesians 5:24, 33; 1 Peter 3:1-2). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Piper & Grudem

When the Bible teaches that men and women fulfill different roles in relation to each other, charging man with a unique leadership role, it bases this differentiation not on temporary cultural norms but on permanent facts of creation. This is seen in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (especially vv. 8-9, 14); Ephesians 5:21-33 (especially vv. 31-32); and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (especially vv. 13-14). In the Bible, differentiated roles for men and women are never traced back to the fall of man and woman into sin. Rather, the foundation of this differentiation is traced back to the way things were in Eden before sin warped our relationships. Differentiated roles were corrupted, not created, by the fall. They were created by God.

E. Why is a proper understanding of gender roles necessary?

1. for marriage

   Instructions to husbands and wives in the New Testament always focus first on wives and their responsibility to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1ff.). Both Peter and Paul reaffirm the role relationship God established by creation before they deal with how men and women should conduct themselves in that relationship. The divinely instituted form must come first, before one talks about how to live within it. This is a permanently significant lesson. Furthermore, Paul always addresses those under authority before those in authority: wives before husbands, children before parents, servants before masters (Ephesians 5:22- 6:9; Colossians 3:18-4:1). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Piper & Grudem

   1. see Danvers Statement Rationale

   2. If the family is the basic building block of society, every structural flaw found there tends to be magnified in the culture.

   3. In order for the family to “reproduce” properly, gender roles and personal identity must be rightly understood.

   4. How to cultivate and maintain proper roles in all areas of culture begins with practice in the home.

2. for the culture

   At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.

   At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships. Piper & Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

   1. What do we look for in a leader?

   2. Who do our “boys” risk their lives to defend?

   3. What kind character/what sort of roles are encouraged or promoted by public policy?

   4. How do we treat one another?

The pagan overturning of who God is as Creator and Ruler (Rom 1:18-22) results in the overturning of that image of dominion in human beings who then proceed, in profoundly dehumanizing ways, to worship the things over which God intended that they exercise dominion. Paul states clearly, “They exchanged the glory of the [image of] the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Rom 1:23), with a clear reference to Gen 1:26, cited above. Today we understand more and more what Paul is saying. For many opinion makers, we are no longer mankind or even humankind. We are “earthkind,” just one among many other animal species, bowing before the ineluctable [impossible to avoid] progress of evolving Mother Nature.

According to Paul in Rom 1:18-22, the pagan overturning/exchanging of who God is as creator and ruler results in the overturning/exchanging of who we are as human beings (as Rom 1:26 explicitly states)-namely, bearers of the divine image-specifically expressed in sexual difference: “they… exchanged natural [heterosexual/creational] relations for those [homosexual] that are contrary to nature.”

Paganism is not attacking us about our positions on the millennium or baptism. It is attacking the very notion of both the person of God and the image of God in human beings, a special creation, made as either male or female. Pagans today are attacking not the superficial but the foundational notions of our faith. Peter Jones, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Vol. 12 No. 2

See Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood chart, pg.62-63; entire book available in PDF format here.

Additional helpful resources:

Online book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood here.
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: www.cbmw.org
The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: www.cbmw.org/Danvers
The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Fall 2007 Issue: www.cbmw.org/Vol-12-No-2/

 

Paul Addresses His Accusers

Acts 21:27 – 22:29

A. A temple riot v. 27-39

1. instigated by Ephesian Jews v. 27

a. people with an agenda

b. the strong negative sentiment against Paul had followed him from Asia and Europe

c. shouting the first outrageous things that came to mind that would get the desired results

d. they viewed Paul as a threat against Judaism and the Jewish way of (religious) life

2. fueled by false charges v. 28

a. teaches against the Jews

b. encourages law breaking

c. dishonored and defiled the temple

d. deja vu, it’s Stephen again Act_6:13-14

3. based on an assumption v. 29

a. saw Paul in the company of a Gentile – Trophimus

b. jumped to a conclusion – that the four men with him were Gentiles also

c. made a ridiculous charge – it should have been obvious why Paul was there; what would ever possess him to violate temple rules under those circumstances – in the midst of a purification rite?

4. resulted in a massive uprising vv. 30-39

a. people had their “religious radar” tuned to a fever pitch

b. anything out of the ordinary would set it off

c. were determined to kill Paul; prevented from doing so in the Temple proper by the temple guards shutting the doors. That also kept Paul from seeking sanctuary at the altar. Did Luke intend to show by this detail that established Judaism had slammed the door on the Gospel message?

d. timely providential intervention by Claudius Lysias (Act_23:26) saved Paul’s life even though he mistakenly identified him as an Egyptian insurrectionist

e. Chained to a soldier on each side, the commander tried and failed to make sense of what was going on. Decided to extricate Paul from the scene but was astonished by Paul’s question.

B. Apology Before the Jerusalem Mob 21:40-22:21

The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In the Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria (kathgoria), and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates’ defense.

Paul’s defense (apologia) is not merely personal – it is a defense of Christianity against its detractors. In this instance Paul happened to be the target and thus the representative who could logically speak in defense of this new thing called The Way.

These chapters are the record of Paul’s Defence or Apology. And the defence is ‘complete’ (xix 21). We have his answer both to the Jews – to the People, the Sanhedrin, and to a Jewish king – and to the Romans; or otherwise, to the Jews (xxi-xxiii), Romans (xxiv-xxv), and the world at large (xxvi). But this apology is not merely a personal matter. Paul is ’set for the defence of the gospel,’ and these chapters contain the apology for Christianity. They form in fact the first in that series of ‘apologies’ which were so important an element in the Christian literature of the first centuries. And as the typical apologist Justin Martyr addressed ‘apologies’ both to Jews and to Romans, so this apology is written for both of these ‘nations’ on whose attitude to the church so much depended. Richard Rackham, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles

The early apologies usually answered a couple sorts of charges – one brought by the secular authority and the other by the religious types. No, we Christians are not atheists or criminals. No, we are not heretics?

Let me tell you what God has done!!

1. The early years vv. 1-5

a. I speak your language v. 2

b. I am one of you

i. by birth v. 3a

ii. by training v. 3b

c. I was one with you

i. by way of thinking v. 3c

ii. in persecuting this Way vv. 4-5

I was determined to kill this offensive and, to my way of thinking, blasphemous sect just as you are determined to right now. I know what it is like to stand in your sandals because I have thought the same thoughts, had the same passions and goals, and furthermore had the official sanction of the high priest in doing so.

2. The crisis experience vv. 6-11

a. it was not anything I initiated – God stopped me in my tracks vv. 7-8

b. I’m not making it up, my companions saw the heavenly light also. v. 9

c. God gave me new direction and a new commission v.10

3. The new life vv. 12-21

a. Commission was conveyed and confirmed by Ananias, a man of whom you would approve, who acknowledged me as his brother. vv. 12-16

b. Paul continues to affirm his Jewishness and Jewish connections throughout his defense:
- Ananias devout according to the law (a Christian but also a law-abiding Jew) v. 12
- “the God of our fathers”, “the Just One” (Jewish terms readily understood) v. 14
- “praying in the temple” as a traditional Jew would; conducting himself with proper decorum in the temple v. 17
- “consenting to [Stephen's] death”, identifying himself with law-abiding Jews who were determined to preserve the purity of the faith v. 20

c. Paul indicates a preference to stay in Jerusalem and minister to his own people, a choice Jesus overruled. In spite of Paul’s love for his Jewish brethren Jesus had commissioned him to go far from Jerusalem to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. v. 21

C. Another violent response 22:22-29

1. Tumult restarted vv. 22-23

It was not the idea of the supernatural – the direct intervention of God in the affairs of a Jew – that set them off. It was the idea that the Jewish people had been rejected in favor of the Gentiles that did it. Here we have another tangible example of what Paul had described in Rom_11:7-10.

the parable of the vineyard and response of chief priests & scribes Luk_20:9-19

2. Imminent danger v. 24

Since Paul had spoken to the crowd in Aramaic, Lysias probably was no better informed at the end of his address than he was earlier as to what the real issue was. All he could see was the ire of the crowd, and assumed that Paul must be guilty of something really serious.

He thus ordered that Paul “be flogged,” a cruel beating with a whip (mavstix, mastix) that was made of leather thongs weighted on the ends with bits of bone and metal. Since the flogging was applied to the bare back of the victim, the physical damage done was enormous, often resulting in lifelong injury or even death. Paul’s previous beatings with the rod (16:22-24) or with the lash of the Jews (2 Cor 11:24) were mild compared to what this one would have been. College Press NT Commentary

3. Paul pleads his rights vv. 25-29

Paul chose his opportunity wisely to divulge to his captors that he was a Roman citizen. Lysias had in effect ordered him punished without the benefit of a trial, something especially egregious for a freeman. Further, he had ordered him bound with thongs and then scourged, both of which were illegal treatment of a Roman citizen who had not been convicted of any crime.

The act of binding a Roman citizen with such an intent, untried and uncondemned, was unlawful. Prisoners Who were to be scourged were usually bound by the Romans to a pillar or post; and a Similar custom prevailed among the Jews. That it was unlawful to bind a man with this intent, who was uncondemned, appears from an express declaration in Cicero (against Verres): “It is a heinous sin to bind a Roman citizen; it is wickedness to beat him; it is next to parricide to kill him, and what Shall I say to crucify him? There is no fitting word that can describe so horrible a deed.” Barnes’ Notes on the NT

At this juncture of Paul’s treatment, Lysias had gone far enough that if Paul wanted to press charges not only the commander but the centurion could be in serious trouble. They had broken the law by jumping to a conclusion and not doing a thorough investigation; both could lose their commission if not their liberty for such a miscarriage of justice. Paul rightfully objected to being punished without a trial and likely believed that Lysias would treat him with more consideration because of the compromising position he had gotten into.

“How very graciously the Lord was watching over his faithful servant the whole time”. He refers to God’s intervention as “preventing providences”, “circumstances in proof how the Lord Jesus watched over his servant in so critical a season though permitting the Apostle, for wise purposes, to be so sharply exercised! yet still overruling the whole as should ultimately promote the Lord’s glory and Paul’s welfare.” Robert Hawker, Poor Man’s Commentary

D. Application

1. Be prepared 1Pe_3:15-17

Paul didn’t figure out his defense between the time the shouting started and when the soldiers arrived. He had developed a conscious awareness of God’s sovereign activity in the affairs of his personal life for the previous twenty-plus years. He also had the benefit of knowing to expect trouble at Jerusalem (from the warnings given him). Consequently he used his time wisely, at least to mentally prepare what he might say to his “brothers after the flesh” given the opportunity.

We may have warning and time to prepare as Paul did, God may not give us that luxury. Either way we must be prepared to give an apology for our faith.

2. Know when to exercise your rights cp. Act_16:22-23 & Act_16:37-40

Paul exercised his rights twice as a citizen (Act_16:37-38; Act_22:26) and once by appealing to Caesar (Act_25:11). At other times he did not do so – earlier at Philippi (Act_16:22-23), earlier that day at Jerusalem when he was chained (Act_21:33), and during his imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome where he was bound for a total of four years.

Paul doesn’t give his reasons for behaving differently in these various situations but he does provide a glimpse into his general mindset – 1Co_9:19-23 – written less than three years earlier.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. ESV

All we do must be for the sake of the Gospel and not to promote our own interests.

3. Remember the Christian has dual citizenship Php_3:20, also Php_1:23-24

For Paul, however, citizenship in the kingdom of heaven is of far greater importance than civil rights. He writes, “But our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20, NIV). He does not point the Philippian believers to earthly citizenship (even though Philippi had special status but instead conveys the message that believers are residents in the city of God. Hendriksen, NT Commentary

How will our action promote the cause of heaven? If speaking up for our “rights” will do so, fine; if being silent will further the Kingdom in a more effective way, than do so.

 

Courage in the Face of Impending Danger

Acts 21:1 – 21:26

A.  Relentless progress  v. 1-14  (Holy Spirit in the foreground)

1.  fixed goal  20:16, 22; v. 4, 15

determined to go to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost

2.  ministry mindset  v. 4-5

ｷ      while the ship was unloading, used the time for ministering, not sightseeing

ｷ      can be seen by the response to his leaving – quite a relationship established in only 7 days

3.  firm convictions  v. 13-14

ｷ      refused to be dissuaded from his mission

ｷ      both at Miletus and at Caesarea, involved an emotional parting

1.    After they “had torn [themselves] away” (ἀποσπάω, apospaō) from the elders at Miletus

2.    Paul’s response to this pleading was to ask, “Why are you weeping and breaking (συνθρύπτω, synthryptō) my heart?” The word for “breaking” means “to break up” or “to pound,” and was often used of the practice of washing clothes by pounding them with stones. Paul sincerely felt the pain of his friends, but was determined that the Spirit wanted him to continue the journey to Jerusalem.  College Press NTC

ｷ      conflicting messages??

3.    Paul told by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem, not knowing what to expect other than “chains and tribulations”  Act_20:22-23

4.    Disciples at Tyre told Paul “through the Spirit” not to go  Act_21:4

5.    Told by Agabus to expect being delivered to the Gentiles  Act_21:11

6.    Encouraged by those in Caesarea and his traveling companions not to go to Jerusalem  Act_21:12

7.   consistent message, conflicting interpretation

ｷ      Paul had been told by the Lord to expect suffering; see Act_9:15-16

ｷ      revelation or premonition given to others was misinterpreted

ｷ      warning/revelation was to prepare Paul and his acquaintances, to help them recognize that it was part of God’s purpose and plan

4.  motivating message  v. 16

ｷ      Paul’s courage was such that some from the church at Caesarea went along with the missionary party to Jerusalem.

ｷ      They were inspired not only to accompany Paul but also to be identified with him in a dangerous situation.

ｷ      It is important to note that although Paul did not shrink from danger and suffering, neither did he provoke or try to hasten it.  He had his plans, followed them, pursued his business in Jerusalem as if he expected all to be well.

5.  Gospel parallels

The words ‘The will of the Lord be done,’ (Act_21:14) which end the account of the journey, irresistibly call up to our mind the scene in Gethsemane, where the prayer of the Lord was ‘Not my will but thine be done.’ There too his soul was sorrowful even unto death, as here Paul’s heart was breaking.  Again the words, they shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles, exactly express the critical act in the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah.  These coincidences force us to conclude that while Luke is describing Paul’s victory over the temptation to abandon his purpose, he has in mind the last journey of the Lord to Jerusalem and his preparation for the passion which culminated in Gethsemane.  This at once gives significance to a number of other coincidences in the narrative of the present journey, which by themselves would have escaped notice.  Accordingly, we observed that as the Lord uttered three prophecies of his passion, so the Spirit three times warns Paul.  Paul kneeled and prayed like the Lord in Gethsemane.  The mention of kneeling is the more remarkable, as standing was the usual attitude of prayer.

Like the Lord Jesus, Paul is carried before the Sanhedrin and smitten on the mouth; the multitude of the people cry out Away with him; his fellow-countrymen deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles; he is accused before the Roman governor, and stands before a Herod; his accusers are the same, the Sadducean high-priesthood, as also the counts of the indictment which culminate in the charge of treason against Caesar; three times he is pronounced to have done nothing worthy of death, yet he narrowly escapes a scourging, and the governor leaves him bound in order to please the Jews.  …This resemblance is not due to arbitrary invention.  It is the natural working out of a law which had been enunciated by the Lord Himself: ‘as the master, so shall the servant be.’  Richard Rackham, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles

B.  Missions Report  v. 17-20  (Holy Spirit in the background)

1.  warm welcome

ｷ      perhaps in part because of the benevolent gift

ｷ      not the primary reason since Luke does not mention it

ｷ      more a “family” reunion, that of brothers

2.  details conveyed

ｷ      report on growth in the Gentile church during Paul’s 2nd and 3rd journey

ｷ      broadening of the base in Asia Minor

ｷ      expansion into Macedonia, Greece and Italy

ｷ      correspondence – 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans

ｷ      growth in size, strength and spirituality

- accomplished by God through:

a.  personal apostolic/pastoral visits

b.  godly leadership

c.  correspondence

3.  thankful rejoicing

ｷ      recognized God @ work

ｷ      only divine power could explain the details of Paul’s report

ｷ      acknowledged Paul as a legitimate co-laborer – you see brother

ｷ      saw God @ work among Jews as well as Gentiles

C.  Attempted diplomacy  v. 21-26

1.  misinformation  v. 21-22

ｷ      Diaspora Jews had spread slander about Paul with some apparent success

ｷ      The letter written by the “Jerusalem Council” had not settled the issues – it was being presented as a “wedge” to separate Jews-among-Gentiles from other Jews

ｷ      Paul’s presence could not be kept secret and would likely serve to stir up the controversy

ｷ      Something needed to be done to keep a lid on emotions

2.  object lesson  v. 23-24

ｷ      Pay the expenses of those who have completed a Nazirite vow – male and female lamb, a ram, cereal and drink offerings  Num_6:14-15 – to be offered along with their hair

ｷ      Paul’s assistance and participation would show that the rumors were false, that he was living in accordance with the law

3.  legitimate “compromise”  v. 25-26

ｷ      James and the elders’ position was not to renege on the previous agreement

ｷ      The goal was to gain unity between various factions within the church

ｷ      Paul went the extra mile, undergoing purification himself, probably because of his extended time among Gentiles

ｷ      immovable on doctrine, humble on personal practice

-  followed the counsel of James and the elders
-  all things to all men that he might win some
-  doing what would be helpful without violating his conscience even though it wasn’t required

D.  Christ’s Church and His Gospel above all

ｷ      a “whatever it takes” mindset regarding the advance of Christ’s kingdom

ｷ      a calculated disregard for personal convenience or safety – we are immortal until our work is done

ｷ      a commitment to “truth in love”   Eph_4:15

ｷ      a determination for genuine unity wherever possible

In extreme fundamentalism, every doctrine is a hill to die on. Music (worship), dress, Bible versions (KJVO), personal separation (i.e. no movie attendance, alcohol, tobacco, gambling), believer’s baptism, pre-tribulational rapture — all of these are lined up right next to the Trinity, justification by grace through faith alone, inspiration, inerrancy, the virgin birth, etc. In short, every doctrine is essential, no doctrines are merely secondary. If God says it, I believe it, and that settles it!

I’m not claiming we shouldn’t stand for secondary doctrines. They are important. But they are not what the kingdom of God is all about (Rom. 14:17-20). In all our defense of truth, let us make sure we are not belittling the place of the Gospel in our system of thought. Make sure the Gospel towers above your horizon as your defining reality and the focus of your faith and of your life.

http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/minimizing-the-gospel-through-excessive-separation/

ｷ      “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”  Augustine