Acts 23:1-5
Sermon preached on October 23, 2005 by Laurence W. Veinott.
© Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Other sermons can be
found at http://www.newlifeop.org/.
On Friday the president of Cornell University, Hunter R.
Rawlings III condemned teaching intelligent design as
science. He denounced intelligent design as, (NY Times,
Saturday, Oct. 21, 2005)
"religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."
He cited a recent report by the Pew Research Center in Washington which said 42 percent of Americans believe that creationism should be taught instead of evolution. Rawlings said,
"This is above all a cultural issue, not a scientific one,"
How do you feel as a Christian when you read something like that? If you're a Christian you have to believe in intelligent design because that's what the first two chapters of Genesis teach. So how do you react when you read something like that? Should we hang our heads and be apologetic about our Christian beliefs? Should we admit grudgingly admit that Christianity is wrong about creation and merely try to convince them that it is right on other points?
Not at all. One of the great things that our text teaches us is the attitude that Christians should have about the gospel. Paul shows us something here that we should not miss. Not only are Christians to go forth with the gospel of Jesus Christ, but we are to go forth with it in a certain way, with a certain attitude, with a certain demeanor. There's an attitude that God wants us to have when we are proclaiming Jesus Christ—
it's an attitude of confidence, of boldness, absolute certainty in the truth of the gospel, of being sure that what we are proclaiming is in very truth what the world needs.
There are three things in our passage that show us this.
First, consider how Paul behaved when he was brought before the Sanhedrin.
Paul was the center of attention. All eyes were on him. He had made some very surprising statements. He had told the Jews that God had told him to leave Jerusalem and preach to the Gentiles. As we have seen, this infuriated the Jews. To them it was one of the greatest of heresies.
Now it's important that we see this in its wider context. As J. A. Alexander writes,
"Paul was not a mere chance visitor to Jerusalem, accidentally involved in a disturbance there, but the Apostle of the Gentiles, specially commissioned to make, as it were, a last appeal to Israel, before he finally transferred his center of operations to the great metropolis and mistress of the heathen world."
So we are not to look at this narrowly, but remember that the Spirit compelled Paul to go to Jerusalem. He is there on official business for Jesus Christ.
As a result of the disturbance the previous day Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the Jewish high council. It was composed of high priests, elders and scholars, and met under the presidency of the ruling high priest. But it wasn't exclusively a religious court. It was, (BDAG)
"the highest indigenous governing body in Judaea… and… was the ultimate authority not only in religious matters, but in legal and governmental affairs as well, in so far as it did not encroach on the authority of the Roman procurator."
This body was the epitome of Judaism that had rejected Jesus. They did not accept Jesus' claims to be the Messiah, the Anointed One, the One who came to fulfill the Old Testament.
So Paul is brought before them, the Sanhedrin, with all their tradition, with all their learning, with all their pomp and circumstance—and what does he do? We read,
"Paul
looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said,
'My
brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God
in all
good conscience to this day.'"
Paul
didn't let them steal the high ground. He was
not at all apologetic about the gospel. Nor should he have
been. He had a good conscience. He told them that. Paul
told them that he was far from being an apostate or
renegade, (J. A. Alexander)
"he claimed to be still a faithful member of the chosen people…"
Further, Paul knew that, (Alexander)
"Christianity was the genuine development of ancient Judaism, so that he, and not his adversaries, held fast to the true design and spirit of the Mosaic institutions."
Paul knew the gospel of Jesus Christ was the power of God for salvation. He knew he had the truth—the truth of God and he stood up for it. As he wrote in Romans 1:16,
"I am
not ashamed of the gospel,
because
it is the power of God
for the
salvation of everyone who believes:
first
for the Jew,
then for
the Gentile."
He knew that Christ was, (1 Corinthians 1:24)
"the
power of God
and the
wisdom of God."
So as he stood before the Sanhedrin, he was full of
confidence and boldness. He was not ashamed to testify
about Jesus. He knew that Jesus was the Savior of the
world, the only hope of lost sinners. He knew what He was
called to. In Acts 1, just before He ascended into heaven,
Jesus said to His disciples,
"But you will receive power
when the
Holy Spirit comes on you;
and you
will be my witnesses in Jerusalem,
and in
all Judea and Samaria,
and to
the ends of the earth."
He knew that Jesus had come to save sinners. As Jesus
proclaimed in the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth,
"The
Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because
he has anointed me
to
preach good news to the poor.
He has
sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and
recovery of sight for the blind,
to
release the oppressed,
to
proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
So when Paul went forward with the gospel, it was with full
confidence. He was not ashamed of it. He was bold and
courageous, full of confidence. He knew he had the truth
and he held his head up and proclaimed it boldly.
That's the way we should be with the gospel, with God's
Word and what it teaches. For what we have with
the
president of Cornell is that he is trying to steal the high
ground.
He's
trying to tell everyone that creationism and intelligent
design is not in accord with science. But don't let anyone
fool you. God created science. Science does not contradict
the Bible. The more you know about science, the more you
should be drawn to glorify God.
I consider science to be like Psalm 19—it declares
the glory of God. Just
like the study of astronomy should cause people to know
God, and praise Him for His greatness, so the study of all
science should cause people to draw closer to Him and
praise and adore Him. The great question is—why
doesn't it?
There are two great ways you can go wrong with science and
the Bible. One applies to Christians and one applies to
scientists.
One way is to misinterpret and misunderstand what the Bible
says. This
sometimes happens to Christians and it
causes scientists to look down on Christianity
and its
teachings and to treat them with contempt. The great
scientist Galileo was convicted of heresy and imprisoned
because he taught the views of Copernicus.
Copernicus taught,
quite correctly, that the earth revolves around the sun
instead of the sun revolving around the earth. Yet some in
the church believed that that could not be so
because
Psalm 93:1 says,
"The
world is firmly established;
it
cannot be moved."
They misunderstood Psalm 93. They thought it was teaching
the scientific truth that the earth was stationary. But
that's not what Psalm 93 teaches. Psalm 93:1 teaches others
things. John
Calvin wrote,
"The Psalmist proves that God will not neglect or abandon the world, from the fact that he created it."
Charles Spurgeon says on Psalm 93.
"Because Jehovah reigns terrestrial things for a while are stable. We could not be sure of anything if we were not sure that he has dominion. When he withdraws his manifest presence from among men all things are out of order; blasphemers rave, persecutors rage, the profane grow bold, and the licentious increase in wantonness; but when the divine power and glory are again manifested order is restored, and the poor distracted world is at peace again. Society would be the football of the basest of mankind if God did not establish it, and even the globe itself would fly through space, like thistle down across the common, if the Lord did not hold it in its appointed orbit. That there is any stability, either in the world or in the church, is the Lord's doings, and he is to be adored for it."
So Psalm 93 understood correctly, is not in conflict with the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. But sometimes Christians make themselves look bad by holding to views that are wrong. That's one reason why some scientists look with disfavor on Christian teaching.
The other way to go wrong is what some scientists do. They will tell you that the scientific method consists of only things that are verifiable and repeatable. Since creation as it's presented in Genesis 1 & 2 doesn't meet that criteria—they rule it out. And let's be clear about this—they don't rule it out because the facts are against it—but because it doesn't fit in with the presuppositions. So when the President of Cornell makes statements like I quoted, Christians don't have to hang and head and feel like we're stupid for believing what the Bible teaches—not at all. God created the universe. Genesis 1 and 2 can't be reasonably interpreted any other way. Just because some scientist's presuppositions discount it—doesn't at all mean that they've disproved it. It just means they're not even considering it. Creationism has never been discredited. Rather it has been dismissed. We don't have to hang our heads because of that.
Creation is part of the gospel. It teaches that men and women are responsible before God because He created them. Paul was very up front about that when he preached in Athens. He said, (Acts 17:24)
"The God
who made the world and everything in it
is the
Lord of heaven and earth
and does
not live in temples built by hands."
He went on to command them to repent.
So don't be ashamed of the gospel. When you put it forth,
do it like Paul. It's the truth of God that people need to
hear.
The second thing in our passage that shows us Paul's
confidence is
the way
he rebuked the high priest who ordered him to be struck in
the face.
In
verse 2 we read
that the high priest Ananias,
"ordered
those standing near Paul
to
strike him on the mouth."
This had great symbolic meaning.
J. A. Alexander writes,
"Striking on the mouth implies a previous unlawful use of it, as well as an injunction to cease speaking… Translated into language it was here equivalent to saying, that Paul's claim, not only to integrity and innocence as some suppose, but to the highest theocratical fidelity, was false in itself, and grossly insulting to his judges…"
In other words, the priest was totally rejecting Paul's defense. It was like he was accusing Paul of something akin to blasphemy. Paul is struck on the mouth. It's much more extreme than the harshest verbal rebuke. Paul is struck on the mouth. It was an extremely forceful, painful and cruel rebuke. It was meant to be decisive and silencing. Perhaps after this they thought that Paul would hang his head in shame.
Hang his head in shame? Paul wasn't going to do that. There was no reason for it. This is important for us to note.
Have you ever see people act guiltily? It's painful to watch. I've see Christians doing something wrong and they know they're doing wrong and with some of them, you can see that their conscience bothers them. You can see it sometimes in church situations. They know they're doing wrong and they're ashamed of their behavior—but they carry on in it. One look at them and you know that truth and righteousness is not on their side. They just act guilty.
That's how the enemies of the gospel would like to see Christians act. But Paul refused to hang his head and act like that. He was struck, but he did not even begin to act like he was guilty. Rather, with great boldness, he said,
"God
will strike you,
you
whitewashed wall!
You sit
there to judge me according to the law,
yet you
yourself violate the law
by
commanding that I be struck!"
Paul draws attention to their hypocrisy and shows that
they, the epitome of Judaism that had rejected
Jesus—were not obeying the law. Paul rebuked the high
priest for doing wrong and warned him of the severe
judgment that would fall on him—how God would strike
him.
It
is quite likely that Paul was here speaking under the power
of the Holy Spirit. You'll
remember that in Matthew 10:17f Jesus said to His
disciples,
"Be on
your guard against men;
they
will hand you over to the local councils
and flog
you in their synagogues.
On my
account you will be brought
before
governors and kings as witnesses to them
and to
the Gentiles.
But when
they arrest you,
do not
worry about what to say or how to say it.
At that
time you will be given what to say,
for it
will not be you speaking,
but the
Spirit of your Father speaking through you."
Paul
was speaking with the authority of Christ.
He is on
trial—but he is the one who is fearless. He is the
one who is citing the law and pointing out his accusers
disobedience to it. He is the one who is warning them about
the punishment that will fall on them for what they are
doing. He is the one who has authority and power.
Now this is a very important lesson for us. No matter what
your situation, whether you are being mocked, ridiculed or
attacked for the gospel—
Don't be
afraid. The gospel has authority that is above all other
authority. Proclaim the gospel truth with authority.
You'll
remember just before Jesus ascended into heaven, Jesus said
to His disciples, (Matthew 28:18f)
"All
authority in heaven and on earth
has been
given to me.
Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit,
and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
you.
And
surely I am with you always,
to the
very end of the age."
We go out with Jesus' authority. Go out with confidence,
with boldness. Be absolutely fearless.
The
third thing in our passage that shows us Paul's confidence
is the irony in his apology.
J.
A.
Alexander writes,
"The fashionable sentimental view of this verse is,' that Paul acknowledges his having spoken in a fit of passion, and apologies for it."
Alexander goes on to totally dismiss such an understanding. He writes,
"besides the sheer impossibility of making I wist not (i.e. did not know) mean I did not consider (or remember at the moment), the acknowledgment itself would be at variance with all the facts and circumstances of the case."
How could Paul not know the high priest? Paul is familiar with the Sanhedrin. Various suggestions have been put forward. One is that the high priest was not wearing his official robes. It was a hastily called meeting so they think that Paul did not know he was the high priest. Others suggest that Paul didn't know who had given the order to strike him, that his poor eyesight prevented him from seeing who it was who ordered him to be struck—that he thought he was speaking against someone other than the high priest. But all such possibilities are weak.
Paul is not apologizing but is continuing his rebuke. Alexander writes,
"Another objection to both these solutions is that they suppose Paul's words to mean, "I did not know him but I know him now,' whereas the present tense (esti) necessarily implies, that his ignorance, whatever it might be, still continued. The combination of the past and present forms can only be explained by understanding him to mean, 'I did not know (and I do not now know) that he is the High Priest.'"
I believe the best solution, with Augustine, Calvin and Alexander, is to see irony in Paul's apology, that it is an apology with a sting—that Paul apologizes but at the same time in effect says, (Calvin)
"I, brethren, I recognize nothing priestly about this man."
Alexander writes,
"Paul means to deny that Ananias was in any such sense High Priest, as to make him a violator of the law in Exodus."
Although some see this directed at the man, and not the office, Alexander sees it also directed at the office.
"Paul's denunciation was not meant to terminate upon the individual, but through him aimed at the entire system, of which he claimed to be the representative."
Alexander sees Paul as pointing to the lawlessness of their whole system, that now that Jesus has come, the whole Mosaic system has been superseded—and that those who are carrying it on are violators of the law.
As I mentioned earlier, Paul was no chance visitor to Jerusalem. He was there because of the Spirit. Alexander writes,
"All that is recorded of his acts and sufferings, in his farewell visit to the Holy City, must be viewed as having an official character on his part…"
Paul was showing that the high priest, the whole Sanhedrin—were in violation of the law, and that they were going to be judged by God because they had rejected God's Messiah.
Christians, as you go forth with the gospel, don't be ashamed of it. It's the power of God for salvation. It's in accord with the facts of the universe. It's the truth, the truth that is the fulfillment of the Old Testament—Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, the only hope of the world.
Lastly, for those of you who aren't Christians—you should understand that Paul had authority from Christ. So too, the words of Christ that you have heard today have authority. Embrace Jesus. As Psalm 2 says,
"Kiss
the Son,
lest he
be angry and you be destroyed in your way,
for his
wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed
are all who take refuge in him."
Go to Jesus today. Find life in Him.