Gooding, David: 6 - Christianity Defended

As you have heard, this is the last of the six occasions for us to be together for the study of the Acts of the Apostles. Allow me, please, to thank you most sincerely for the way you have worked together with me through some very long sessions in the study of this book. Your bitter complaints at the length of the lectures, I have to now tell you, though it may embarrass the elders of this church, didn't actually reach me, and therefore you know who to complain to because they didn't pass them on. I can assure you that, uh, preachers who may be coming in subsequent evenings are much more civilized, will be much more considerate, and on average will end on time. It has been represented to me that tonight there are those who would like to ask me questions. And therefore, what I propose to do is as follows. I shall speak till about nine o'clock, and we shall conclude the session with prayer. We shall have then a hymn during which all who wish to or have to are perfectly free to depart. Then I shall forsake the comparative safety of the barricade here behind which I normally stand, and come down to the front and expose myself to the questions of those who have chosen to remain. But let me repeat that if you wish to go at nine o'clock, you will not offend anybody, and least of all will you offend me. Please feel free to go at nine o'clock when we shall be singing a hymn, and uh, thereafter, I've no idea at all how long and how many are the questions to be asked and answered, but we shall let, I trust, reason and due sense of proportion prevail. With that explanation, let us turn now and begin our study by reading from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter twenty six. Acts of the Apostles, chapter twenty six. And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand and made his defense. I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day, touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews, especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life then, from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews, having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, how that after the straightest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope, I am accused by the Jews, O king. Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead? I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, and this I also did in Jerusalem. And I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme. And being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities. Whereupon, as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise and stand upon thy feet, for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. For this cause, the Jews seized me in the temple and assayed to kill me. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day, testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come. How that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first, by the resurrection of the dead, should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles. And as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, art mad. Thy much learning doth turn thee to madness. And Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness, for the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this hath not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophet? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, with but little persuasion, thou wouldst fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day might become such as I am, except this bond. And the king rose up, and the governor and Bernice, and they that sat with them. And when they had withdrawn, they spake one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bond. And Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed unto Caesar. God give us true understanding of his holy word. So Tonight we come to the last section of the Acts of the Apostles, and we shall find that it is distinctly different from the five previous sections that hitherto we have studied. In the five first sections of the book, we have found the apostles preaching the gospel from one angle or another. In this last section of the book, Paul gives himself not so much to the preaching of the gospel as to the defense of the gospel. Again, we have noticed that in the first five sections of the book, Luke has been tracing for us the points at which the early Christians diverged from Judaism, and diverged also from other philosophies and poli- political theories of the ancient world. And thus has Luke shown us what essential and characteristic Christianity was and still is, because at those points and at those issues over which the early church was obliged to diverge, at that point we see what is essential, vital Christianity. But now in this last section, Luke chooses not to tell us anymore about how Christianity differed from other religions or philosophies. Instead, Luke records for us endless, seemingly endless court scenes, in which the early Christians are defending Christianity from the charges, accusations, and slanders that had been leveled against it. So it is not a question so much of distinguishing Christianity from, say, Judaism. It is a question of showing what true Christianity really is as distinct from the slanderous reports and accusations that had been leveled about it. I ask us then to notice in the first place how important Luke obviously regards this business of defending the gospel to be. This is by far the largest section in the whole of the book. And in as much as tonight we shall be obliged only to touch on a few major things from this last section. We could easily miss that unless perhaps we deliberately reminded ourselves. This is by far the largest section of the book, devoted to the topic of the defense of Christianity from the slanders and accusations leveled against it. Luke obviously thought it was exceedingly important, and so obviously did Paul, who deliberately set himself to what he obviously conceived of as a major task, the defense of Christianity in the highest quarters possible. Now, I say this because there have been Christians, and I suspect there still are, who tend to take the view that apologizing, in the strict sense of that term, apologetics is a thing that Christians ought not to engage in. Preach the gospel, they say, and whatever the critics and whoever says anything else, never mind what they say, don't bother to answer them, get on with your major task of preaching the gospel and forget all about apologetics. Well, I respect the motives from which people take that point of view, but it seems to me quite evident that it wasn't the point of view that Paul took, nor is it the point of view that Luke took. He was concerned, not merely that Paul gave so much of his time to the defense of the gospel, to apologetics, if you like, but Luke was concerned that the world should hear of it, and not just a brief summary of that defense, but, uh, in his last section, he includes court scene after court scene after court scene after court scene, until some people get a little bit wearied with the apparent monotony. But Luke is determined that everybody should hear about it, and hear what the defense of Christianity is. And of course, there is an obvious practical reason why both Luke and Paul took this point of view. It is all right for Christians to get up their corner and start preaching the gospel, or even to stand in the main thoroughfare in the town and preach the gospel. But if the gospel has been slandered, and slandered in high place, and widely slandered, until the mass of the population has come to believe the slander, then, of course, the general public won't come anywhere near your preaching the gospel, and your preaching of the gospel can be as sound as it likes, but if people don't come to hear it, they never will get converted to it, will they? And if you hear, oh, pardon the thought, it is an absurd thought to introduce into a lecture like this, isn't it? But if you hear in this particular church got the reputation in the locality of being rather queer people, not to be trusted with children, odd, people that are liable to pervert the teenager, as though you were some sect, like the Mooneyites or some other such thing, or Scientology or something. And you did nothing to dispel that slander. Then, of course, you might faithfully preach the gospel at seven o'clock on Sunday nights, as you do, but the parents wouldn't let their young folks come. And self-respecting people will pass by and say, that's that queer place. And never dream of coming anywhere near you. And what can be said at the small level of one individual church is, of course, all the more important about Christianity as a whole in this wide, wide world. It is very remarkable what curious notions get about as to what Christianity stands for. And therefore, if people are going to be induced to listen to our gospel, presently where the gospel has been slandered, we shall need to stand up on our two feet and defend it. And it may be on the estate where you live that you will be called upon to explain to your neighbors that they're not a bunch of cranks that you meet with down in Finicky Hall, and that your Sunday school teachers are very balanced and sane and healthy people. And it may be that you in your factory will have to stand up in your lunch hour and defend Christianity in front of your workers, and you businessmen likewise. And some of us in school and in university and in college will have to stand up on our two feet and, and deny the idea that Christianity is anti-scientific, obscurantist, and anti-intellectual, and point out that such things are slander. The Christianity is as keen as anybody else on the use of the brain, and on the whole a little bit keener. Because if not, as we see it happening hundreds of times, at least I see it happening. Young folks come flooding in every year, and large numbers of them are under the impression that, of course, Christianity is a something to be equated with the stories of Red Riding Hood and dismissed with the toy things in, uh, the playroom, or at least after you've got out of the Sunday school, and that anybody with any respectable intellect at all would finish with Christianity completely. And because that's what they believe, they don't even bother to listen to the gospel. Any rate, Paul, as we now see, gave himself in these last years to the defense of the gospel against the slanders that had been leveled against it. And so he determined, we are told, to go first to Jerusalem and then to Rome. And his defense was mainly conducted in those two places, in Palestine at least, in Jerusalem first, and then in Caesarea, and then as he went further, uh, in the capital of the Roman world, Rome itself, before Nero Caesar. But here again, my task tonight is made difficult, because legion have been the number of people that have said that on both these counts and in both these places, Paul made a sad mistake. First, they say he ought never to have gone to Jerusalem at all to start with. And got out of the will of God and went astray by going to Jerusalem against all warnings to the contrary. That's bad enough. Secondly, they say that when he got to Jerusalem, poor man, he misrepresented the gospel completely. And got himself into endless trouble with the Jews, and eventually imprisoned for his trouble. And made thereby a complete hash of defending the gospel. In fact, he went and compromised it exceedingly seriously, and went to Rome at last in chains, when he might have gone there as a free man. You will know, of course, that very wise, learned, God-fearing, responsible expositors take these points of view. And so at the beginning, perhaps, and then later on, I shall have to say something about these things. I say it with due respect for those with whom I am obliged to disagree. But let take, let me take the first charge first and reserve the second to later on in our discussion, that he oughtn't to have gone to Jerusalem at all. The charge is based on what Luke tells us in chapter twenty one, where in verse four he says that when Paul came to Tyre and tarried with the disciples seven days, these said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not set foot in Jerusalem, or as it is better translated, that he should not continue to go on to Jerusalem. And then again, when he came eventually to Caesarea, we are told in verse ten m that there came down a prophet named Agabus, and coming to us and taking Paul's girdle, he bound his own feet and hand and said, thus saith the Holy Spirit, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and they at that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. And Paul answered, What do you, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased saying, the will of the Lord be done. These then are the two passages on which Paul's critics base their charge. That he was distinctly told, not once but twice, by the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. And in spite of it, the man went. And of course, as you might, uh, uh, have expected, being thus disobedient to the Holy Spirit, got himself into a lot of trouble when eventually he arrived. Well, if that's how it was, that's how it was. And to be sure, Luke is being very honest. Suppose Paul then, extraordinary notion, surely, knowing it was the Holy Spirit's voice, aware that he was straightly forbidden by the Holy Spirit, decided to defy the Holy Spirit and go. Suppose that is the fact. I ask you, why do you think Paul, uh, Luke recorded it? Well, you could perhaps think of all sorts of reasons. But he needn't have recorded it, need he? It was perhaps a very curious thing to tell the world, at the time perhaps when Paul was still alive and trying to defend the gospel. You will notice the book concludes before Paul comes before Nero for the first time, let alone the second time. An odd thing to go and advertise around the world, wouldn't it, that the very man who is standing for the faith of the gospel has got it wrong and is in disobedience to the Lord. But need we put that construction upon it? Let me point out to you what Luke has earlier told us before he recorded these two passages that I have just read. Look, if you will, in chapter nineteen and verse twenty one. Now, after these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem, saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome. You notice how carefully Luke records it? As Paul said once to the Corinthians, the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes, and no, no? You are not dealing with a man that was normally given to arrogant, uh, self-willed decisions. Luke records that when Paul made his resolution to go first to Jerusalem and then to Rome, he, he, so it is said, purpose in the spirit to go. And then will you notice what he told the elders at Ephesus in chapter twenty verse 22? Now behold, I go bound in the spirit into Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost testifies unto me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me, that I hold not my life or any of any account as dear unto myself, so that I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. And for the second time over, we are told, now through Paul's own mouth, that as he was journeying to Jerusalem and thence to Rome, he was doing it under the constraint of the Spirit, bound in the Spirit, he says. That is in the Holy Spirit, isn't it? I go under constraint, says he, of the Holy Spirit. And I know that bonds and imprisonment await me. As far as I'm concerned, that is as nothing compared with the constraint I am under to fulfill my responsibilities to the Lord. You say, then we've got a contradiction, Mr. Preacher. Because the next verse does say that the people at Tyre told him in the spirit not to go on to Jerusalem, and you'll say, well, according to you, no, it's not according to me, according to Luke, the Holy Spirit had constrained him to go. You say, how can you reconcile the contradiction? Allow me a humble analogy. Hm. You, sir, have got a birthday coming up. You set yourself, uh, secretly in your heart upon, uh, Matthew Henry's commentaries, or the collected works of JND, or whatever other, uh, great tome is to your taste. As your birthday nears, your wife over breakfast one morning looks at you and says, my dear, what would you like for your birthday? You say nothing much. She says you'd like Matthew Henry commentary, wouldn't you? You say yes, well, well, I would, but you're not to get it for me because, my dear, you need a new coat, and and that must come first, and you're not to spend all that money, forty or fifty pounds, on me on a on a on a on a birthday. Now listen, I don't want it. You're not to spend it. You are to get a coat. It sure takes legs when the twelfth of July comes round and you come down to breakfast this morning. There's this enormous great packet sitting on your breakfast table, tied up with blue ribbon. Best wishes from wifey dear. And you say, my dear, I told you not to get it. I told you to spend it on the dress. She says, I know you did. You say, well, I'll have to tell the elders then, and this isn't to be. In fact, I must start divorce proceedings or something. Yeah. Well, I, I don't know what you say, because I don't know these things. But, uh... somehow, somewhere along the line, I imagine your wrath, if you had any, would be tempted, uh, by a tremendous admiration. Of course you didn't want it. And now that she's done it, you chalk it up as one more example of that tremendous self-giving love that you've known and admired all your life long. When God wanted somebody to defend the gospel in Jo- Jerusalem and Rome, and knew in the end it would cost the man his very life. He told Paul that as far as he was concerned, Paul needn't go. God didn't want any pressed man. And warned him straightly that if he went on, it would be bonds, imprisonment, and possibly death. Now don't go. And Paul says, but you know, I love the Lord. What do I care about my life? So be it only I can fulfill the charge that the blessed Lord gave me. I'm not so sure, my brethren, that when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ, Christ will criticize him for going. Oh, how easily some of us are put off making the slightest sacrifice. And in the task of defending the gospel, sure isn't it true to say that it's very rarely done effectively, apart from men and women who know what it is deliberately to face the cost. And not because they're compelled to do it, but for love of the Lord. Do it. Let none of us at least try and do what Paul said, break his heart. For the Lord has few enough men and women that are prepared for that ultimate sacrifice. Anyway, he went. But having thus approached the topic of Paul's willingness to suffer, let us now from these chapters begin to extract a number of themes by which we may judge Paul, and likewise the gospel he preached. For in these closing chapters, though of course there were men and women high and low all over the place by this time preaching and standing for the gospel, now in Luke's book, the center of attention must be Paul, and as he stands before priestly court and king's court, as he stands, uh, before the raging mob, or in the civilities, uh, of King Agrippa's presence, it is Paul that is carrying the standard of the gospel, so that you will judge both the gospel he preaches and defends, and perforce you'll have to judge Paul himself and what kind of a man he was. Because anybody that hears the gospel is going to look to the man who preaches it, and they're going to judge the two things together. They'll say, this is what he preaches. Ah yes, but what does he practice? And our estimate of the gospel is going to be in no little way affected by what we think of Paul himself. Of course, in the lesser way, it's true of any man who stands for the gospel and any woman, isn't it? People are going to judge the gospel by what the gospel itself says, and then they're going to judge it by the way those people behave that talk about the gospel. So let's take, uh, one theme to start with, the theme of suffering. Here is Paul, in spite of the explicit statement that bombs and imprisonment await him, determined to go on to Jerusalem, cost what suffering it may. How do you regard a man that behaves like that? For you see, one must be a realist and not carried away by starry-eyed enthusiasm. There are some people, are there not, in this world that are quite ready to suffer, and instead of admiring them, you would have to pity them. People that like making martyrs of themselves. And are ready to make a martyr of themselves for a cause, religious or political. And you wouldn't admire them. A too great a readiness to suffer is not always a commendable thing, is it? There are stories coming down to us from the early ages of the church, when the Romans began to persecute believers, some young men would sometimes walk out in front of the Roman magistrates and say, look, come, come take us too, execute us too, we'd like to be executed. That surely is not to be commended, but to be deplored. As wanting to be a martyr. As psychologically. Was Paul a fanatic of that order? Well, read the whole section and all its details, and you will find a man exceedingly balanced when it comes to this very matter of attitude to suffering. Yes, if defending the gospel at Jerusalem and Rome means suffering, bonds, imprisonment, and death, then if the Lord has told him to go and defend the gospel, he'll face the suffering. Yeah. But he isn't going to suffer any more than he has to. Hm. Here's the captain in the Roman army, and, uh, he's rescued Paul from the mob, and he's taking him up the stairs. He's given Paul a chance to address the crowd, and the crowd have heard him up to a certain point, and then there's a colossal riot broken out. And the captain, as he takes Paul further into the citadel, orders that the man be bound and examined under scourge. It was one of the procedures that the Roman magistrates were allowed, uh, on people that were not Roman citizens. They held the view that if you scourged a man good and proper, he was more likely to speak the truth with that preliminary preparation than if you hadn't. And Paul, what does he say? Yes, scourge me. I love being scourged for the sake of the Lord Jesus. Now make it real hard. Don't you think not? He isn't going to take a scourging when he doesn't have to. So he has a word with one of the centurions who said, excuse me, would you like to tell that, uh, the commander and ask him whether it's right to scourge a Roman citizen or even bind him and scourge him without his being first condemned? And when the centurion related that to the captain, the captain was, uh, in great consternation. For even binding Paul when he was a Roman citizen was highly illegal. And Paul could have made it very awkward for that good, uh, captain. And of course, when the captain heard it, he had Paul released forthwith. No further talk of scourging. No, Paul would suffer for the Lord Jesus if he had to. He didn't take a scourging when he didn't have to. And you will perceive then, surely, an exceedingly balanced character. Or take his attitude when at last he found himself in Caesarea. You will remember that having faced the Jews in Jerusalem, uh, he was then eventually taken down to the Roman headquarters at Caesarea, there to stand trial. The Jews concocted a plan. They would ask the Roman governor to bring Paul back to Jerusalem that he might stand trial in Jerusalem itself. Because they had themselves arranged, unbeknown to the governor, we hope, that as Paul was being, uh, transported back to Jerusalem city, they would attack the convoy and assassinate Paul. At first, the Roman governor Festus said, no, you come down to Caesarea. So they came down to Caesarea, but they didn't make much headway there. And Festus, willing to please the Jews, said therefore to Paul, Paul, would you be willing to go out to Jerusalem to be, uh, tried there? And Paul knew what that meant. That meant a little money in the palm of the Roman governor, a little more money in the palm of the, uh, military officer in charge of the detachment. And they would have been looking the other way when some dark footpads came out of the shadows and assassinated Paul, and that would be the end of that. Well, what did Paul do? Well, he wasn't having that. He stood for the gospel. He wasn't going to have the gospel's name dragged into mud through the corruption of some petty officials. And therefore, when he saw that there was no way out, and if he consented to go up to Jerusalem to be tried, that was certain death. And knowing that God had told him that he was to go to Rome anyway, Paul used the rights of his Roman citizenship. I appeal to Caesar, he said. And then to Caesar he had to go, and that put an end to all plans to assassinate him. A man willing to suffer for the Lord Jesus, but not to suffer more than he had to. To suffer for the sake of the gospel, but not to suffer if suffering would act against the gospel. But let's leave the question of suffering and turn to another matter, the question of money. Never far away, is it? Particularly when you get a new religion started. Here, who finances this? Huh. And what do they do with the collections when they get them? Money. And how does Paul stand up when it comes to his attitude to money? And anyway, what, what was the Christian system with money? All these gifts being collected, you know, from Gentile churches all over the place and, and, and so forth and so on. What are they doing with the money? In that connection, there are two stories, at least there are some more, but two major stories that you might care to consider. They both concern incidents that happened at Ephesus. And in chapter nineteen we are told of the one incident, the riot that took place in Ephesus against Paul. It was led by certain silversmiths. And of course, then the crowd joined in. Once day, so we're told, thousands of them rushed into the theatre. It's there still in Ephesus. And for the space of two hours, they stood shouting their heads off, great is Diana of the Ephesians. You've never heard such a hubbub. You say, what were they doing? They were standing for the truth. Ah, great is Diana of the Ephesians. Yes, but there was another side to it. The, uh, local chamber of commerce, or at least that division of it that was concerned with the silversmiths, had had a meeting a little while earlier, and their leader had pointed out, well, of course, I mean, I mean, it's the question of the truth, isn't it, gentlemen? Everybody knows throughout the world the fame of Ephesus as the city that has the temple of the great Diana and of that image that fell down from Jupiter. Utterly undisputable, he said. There is the other matter that Paul is preaching a gospel message according to him, and if those don't believe that, they'll stop buying silver shrines, and our trade is going down the drain, he said. And so, for the truth's sake, they decided to stop this gospel preaching. There is still an enormous trade in images, can't we know it in these next few days. There, at any rate, in Ephesus, it wasn't one hundred percent clear that the motives of the people were altogether altruistic, concerned only for the truth. Money played an enormous part in it. Chapter twenty gives us another scene, still in Ephesus, or nearby, as Paul came to the nearby port on his way past and called for the elders of the Christian church to give them his farewell address. As he stood before them, among the things he said was this, gentlemen, would you look at my hands? You know what kind of a man I've been among you all the years I was among you. I held nothing back from you of God's good counsel. Moreover, gentlemen, he said, look, look at my hands, would you? I worked and earned every penny that was necessary to pay my own expenses and the expenses of my team. I earned it myself, gentlemen. And I did so for this second reason, that I might leave you elders an example that you ought to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, it is more blessed to give than receive, and thus working, be able to assist those who need your help. Paul wasn't denying the right of some men and women to live of the gospel. He would stand up for Peter's right and other servants of the Lord, their right to be maintained by the churches as they went preaching the gospel. But as far as Paul himself was concerned, he's a man that was prepared to work to earn his own living, pay the expenses of his own team, and have something to give to the poor, that he might make the preaching of the gospel of no charge. And what is more, inculcate in the believers, by his own example, what is the norm to be followed. It is the bounden duty left us by the Lord Jesus himself, that as a part of our ministry, we not only preach the theory, but as Christian men and women, we work so that we may have that which we can give to the poor. Paul and money. There was, and this I shall have to pass over briefly. There was another charge that was brought against him very frequently in the courts that he was compelled to testify in. That is the charge that Paul was building a sect. Now, you know, if you want to damn a thing straight off, call it a sect. Because with a good many people calling a thing a sect, well, is immediately a smear word and a condemnation. Yes, a little sect, you see. So Paul wasn't mainline Judaism. He was a little sect. Of course, uh, Judaism had its sect. There was the sect of the Sadducees. They didn't believe in the resurrection. There was the sect of the Sa- uh, the Pharisees, they did believe in the resurrection, but then they were very numerous. So if you're going to be a sect and want to be respectable, be numerous. The kind of sects that aren't, uh, respectable are the ones that happen not to be numerous. They're obviously bad, aren't they? Call it a sect, there'll be multitudes of people will say, no, no, wouldn't go any near them. Mm. So Paul, we'll listen to him before Festus. Well, Festus, he says, yes, if you like, I'm a sect. Mm. I freely confess that after the way they call a sect, at any rate, that I follow. I know I'm a sect. I'll tell you something else, Festus. I believe everything in that book. Thus he said also before Agrippa, didn't he? After the way they call a sect, but he said, I, I believe Agrippa, everything the prophets have said, and if that's sectarian, well, I'm a sect. But as you perceive, Paul is far from admitting that he is a nasty little splinter group. He stands central to the faith. He believes all that Moses has said. He believes the prophets. And had he wanted to, he could have said a little thing more, couldn't he? Well, he did on one occasion. I believe the hope of the resurrection that our fathers held from the prophets. There are a good many folks around here, high priests included, that, uh, do no longer believe the resurrection. Who's the sect, me or them? Oh, let folks call us what they will. We're not obliged necessarily to sit down under the accusation that we're sect. The point is, what do we believe? If we're prepared to believe all that is in that book, then the idea that you're a funny little sad, of course, is far from the truth. Now I must dismiss. I wasn't a man of fanatic? It is the mark of sects sometimes, isn't it? They become fanatical compared with the composed, mature, responsible behavior of mainline gr- mainline groups. Sects can, from time to time, exhibit a certain fanaticism. Well, there's no denying in these last chapters of Acts that there's a certain amount of fanaticism about the place. There was a band of assassins, for instance, that took an oath and a vow that they would neither eat nor drink until they'd assassinated Paul. You would count that a little bit, uh, uh, extreme, wouldn't you? They weren't Christians. Here's Paul at last arrived in Rome, says Luke. He's about to go into Caesar to make his defense. Before he goes, he calls the elders of the Jewish community to come and visit him in his prison. And when they come, he explains to these Jewish elders how he happens to be here. Gentlemen, he said, uh, our fellow Jews in numbers of cities have persecuted me, stoned me, nearly killed me, and have driven me as the only way I could possibly escape death at their hands to appeal to Caesar, and that's why I'm here. Because Because of of the fanatical opposition by Judaism. So I now go into Caesar. Oh, what Paul could have solved Caesar, couldn't he? About those Jews. Now listen to him. Gentlemen, I want to tell you that when I go into Caesar, I have nothing to accuse my nation of. Loyal to his nation to the very last. You can call that sectarian fanaticism if you like, but then the facts would contradict you. Finally, so as to keep my promise, I come to the major part of his testimony. But some people say he completely spoiled. We may begin by considering the two stories, the two major stories about temples that occur in this part of Acts. There was a riot about the temple at Ephesus, you may remember. There was a riot in Jerusalem again about the temple, two temples. One was a heathen temple, one was a Jewish temple. The town clerk at Ephesus had to remind the crowd of a very interesting fact, that though they were getting so excited in the defense of their temple, Paul and his colleagues had never attempted to despoil or desecrate the temple of Diana at Ephesus. That is important. Of course, Paul preached that the Gentiles were to turn away from idols and serve the true and living God, and had the nation responded to him, they would have left their idols and their temple. That's what Paul preached. But whereas he preached it, he never once made an attempt to go up to the temple and smash the idols or desecrate their temple. And that's exceedingly important, isn't it? Never once a demonstration outside the temple. I have occasionally heard of Christian people that have gone into the churches of those they don't agree with and put mud in the font. Foolish men. That isn't serving the cause of truth. Let's preach the truth. But when it comes to other people's sacred places, Paul's example is that we should respect them. And what of the temple at Jerusalem? The charge was by the Jews that Paul had entered into the temple and desecrated it by bringing Gentiles into the temple. He had done no such thing. Of course, he gets it, uh, strong criticism from the Christians for not doing it, doesn't he? What, Paul? Go back to the temple and the middle wall of petition? Yeah. Because now Paul was in a Jewish temple, not in a Christian church. And if Paul chose to go into a Jewish temple, then Paul would abide by the rules and regulations of the Jewish temple. And if in the Jewish temple Gentiles were forbidden, Paul wouldn't begin to think of bringing a Gentile, not even a Gentile Christian, into the temple. It was a lie. He hadn't desecrated that temple by bringing any Gentile into it. Oh yes, he believed that in Christ there is no longer a middle wall of petition, and Jew and Gentile are one in Christ. That's true of the Christian church, isn't true of a Jewish temple. Paul didn't try to behave in a Jewish temple as though it were a Christian church. Ah, but then comes the rub. He shouldn't have gone to the temple at all, say some. And as for that business of, of actually paying for the vow. Surely he got that wrong. They say, you know, he went to Jerusalem, and James put up to him a story that in order to placate, placate the Jews, Paul ought to join with these men that had a vow and pay their sacrifices. And the theory is that Paul ought to have said, never, not on your life. What, go back to Judaism? Never on your life. I can't help it if the Jews get upset. I'm not going to do any such thing. But the theory is that Paul then weakened and compromised and fluffed the gospel and, uh, and tried to placate the Jews. And of course, he didn't placate them, but made matters ten thousand times worse and got himself imprisoned and went to Rome a prisoner. Wait a minute. Paul wasn't trying to placate any Jews. What James said that there was a lot of people in the city who believed that were Jews. And these believers who were Jews were like the people we met in, uh, chapter sixteen. They still felt that as Jews, as Christian Jews, they didn't have to keep the law for salvation. But as Christian Jews, they had a conscience that they ought, nevertheless, as Christian Jews, to carry out certain features of that law. We've heard what the apostles said about that one and all of them. Gentiles didn't have to keep the Jewish law, but if Jewish Christians wanted to keep it, not for salvation, of course, but because they were saved and wanted to please the Lord, and the way they felt they could please the Lord was by keeping that law, then neither Paul nor Peter nor James nor John nor any one of them told them they mustn't. The question was, did you have to keep it for salvation? Paul and everybody said, no, never for sa- salvation. But if the Jewish Christians wanted to keep it as a way of pleasing the Lord, you'll never find anything in Paul that says they mustn't. That he demonstrated. And there was another reason, wasn't there? The particular case that came up was a vow. Certain Christian men had made a vow before God, according to the Jewish law. Now the question is put to Paul. What does Christianity say about that? You say, well, the men shouldn't have taken the vow, all right, but they have taken the vow. They have taken a vow, solemnly before God, that they will do A, B, and C. Now here comes Christianity. What does Christianity teach people about vows? That you may break them. So now, you're married Miss Martha Smith and gone through all sorts of vows. She's not a converted woman, of course. And now you become a Christian. Oh, say, sorry. I did make a vow that I should be your husband till death us do part, but now, of course, I've become a Christian, so... I'm afraid I shall have to throw you out. Is that what Christianity teaches? I fancy not. Christianity teaches that if a man has vowed, then unless to fulfill the vow would be a sin, the man must fulfill the vow. Justification by faith does not mean that because we're justified by faith, we are free to cast off any responsibilities we have undertaken. It was no small principle that was at stake when Paul came to Jerusalem and demonstrated that true Christianity is not irresponsible antinomianism, but teaches people to fulfill the responsibilities that they have undertaken before God. And finally, part of the gospel itself. I leave you contemplating Paul before Agrippa. Said Festus, as he heard the gospel message. Paul, you're mad. It isn't the first time the opposition had said that about the Christian gospel. It won't be the last. Let's examine this a little bit more closely. There was a time when Paul, even ac- uh, by his own admission, was mad, exceedingly mad. Watch him going up the Damascus road, will you? Watch him hounding the Christians out of their homes, dragging them to prison, stand by him while he has the torture applied, and gets this young lady here to blaspheme the name of Jesus under terrible pain. Watch him as he stands exulting as they take the heavy stones and smash Stephen's rib cage in. I was mad, he said, against them. You know, neither Festus nor anybody else then called him mad. Isn't that funny? It's after years, says he, Christ appeared to me. You say that's madness, Festus? I tell you what I've been doing. I stopped the persecutors. I've myself been stoned many times, beaten, left for dead. I've been delivering people, by God's grace, from the power of Satan into God's wonderful light. I could take you to Philippi, and there was a girl who was mentally disturbed by an evil spirit. You'll go to Philippi now, and you'll find a woman calm and at peace. To take you to a jailer in Philippi, brutal thug of a man that lashed my back until it stood raw. Show that man as a Christian gentleman. And now you call me mad. Well, if that's madness, God give us more madmen. And there we must leave him. We studied Paul, some of Paul's apologetics. I feel now I must apologize to Paul, if he can hear me. How crudely I have put what he put so brilliantly. God give us to perceive the greatness of that man to whose defense of the gospel we who sit here tonight are obliged, in that it was through his defense of the gospel at the highest quarters in the land that Christianity came through that period of slandering and survived down to this present day. God give us the same zeal, the same willingness to suffer for Christ, the same balanced character, the same testimony before the world. That we in our day may stand for the gospel and defend it against its critics, and by God's grace, preach it, that God may bless it, even in our day and generation. Shall we pray? And now, Father, we pray thou wilt take thy word. Cause there to well up in our hearts, we beseech thee, a greater understanding of what the great heroes of the faith did for us and for thee in those early days. And in the gratitude of our heart that arises to them and to thee, give us the desire to be more like them in our day and generation, that we may do nothing against the gospel and bring no slur or stain upon it, but by upright walk and devoted life and sane attitude, we may commend thy gospel and adorn it in all things. For the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.