Walking Through Acts
Last week we ended with Paul being interrupted in his speech to the Jews. And his
speech was not just any old speech. It was a gospel presentation, and it was given
through his personal testimony. The main idea was this, “The gospel is for
everyone.” Even someone like himself who persecuted Christians even to the
death and pursuing them outside of Jerusalem. While Paul was still breathing
threats against the Church on his way to the city of Damascus, he encountered
Jesus. And anyone who has had an encounter with Jesus will never leave
unchanged. And a few days later, Paul was baptized and became one of the
biggest proponents of Christianity in the first century. He was a walking, talking
living testimony to the fact that the gospel is indeed for everyone. But here’s why
he was interrupted. The Jews were fine with everything that Paul had said up to
that point until he said the word, “Gentiles.” And the Jews became enraged and
wanted to kill him again. And we ended with these last words, “he (that’s Paul)
should not be allowed to live.”
One observation we can draw from this that I didn’t touch on last week is this. The
gospel is polarizing. It isn’t neutral. The gospel will either soften one’s heart or it
will harden it. And of course, the hardening and softening is completely
dependent upon one’s own openness to receiving it. A couple of months ago, I
said the phrase, “Truth has no company with falsehood.” That means that these
two things (truth and falsehood) are simply incompatible with one another. And
too many people have given themselves over to falsehood. Trading the truth for a
lie. And people who have given themselves over to their sin don’t want anything
to do with the gospel because it is a perceived attack on their sinful lifestyle.
Here’s what it comes down to. “We don’t like to be told we’re wrong.” Yet at the
core, this is what the gospel is and does. And all of us who have given ourselves to
Christ know this. We’ve all had to admit at one time or another prior to our
conversions that we were wrong. Our outlook on life, our worldviews, our deepest
held convictions, no matter how seemingly noble and charitable, if out ofalignment with what God’s Word says, stands in direct opposition to the truth and
must be repented of.
Here in what we’ve been looking at for the past couple of weeks is a stark contrast
between Paul and the Jews. On the one hand, Paul is the example of having his
heart softened by the gospel. There was no one more unlikely to convert to
Christianity than the man once known as Saul, the killer of Christians. On the
other hand, you’ve got the Jews who heard the gospel in its totality (the gospel is
for everyone) and they hardened their hearts against it and became enraged.
I’ve got three kids with one on the way, and I can tell you that when emotions are
running high in children all semblance of bodily control is gone. There’s a
thrashing about that happens, arms flailing and outbursts of yells and no concern
for anyone’s safety not even their own. This is what is known as a temper tantrum.
And although it may not be as conspicuous as when we were children, adults,
believe it or not, still throw temper tantrums. It’s just that it’s expressed
differently. The first verse of our text today begins with the Jews in the middle of
what can be described as an adult temper tantrum.
Acts 22:23
23 And as they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into
the air,
Just picture that in your minds for a moment. These guys are out of their minds.
Throwing off one’s cloak back in this time was a sign of ultimate disapproval. Some
commentators believe that throwing off their cloaks had a practical purpose as
well. It would allow one to be able to throw things at their opponent much easier.
I played baseball from the time I was in kindergarten through the 8th grade and I
did not like playing in the early spring because of how cold it would be (you all
know how much I don’t like the cold). I was a pitcher and much preferred pitching
without having all the extra layers on because I felt it impeded my natural
throwing motion.
The text states that they were flinging dust in the air. Along with the intentions
just mentioned, it is also further speculated that they were flinging dust in thedirection of Paul, and if there had been stones nearby, it wouldn’t have been just
dust that they were flinging, but stones.
The gospel will either soften one’s heart, or it will harden it.
Acts 22:24
24 the tribune ordered him to be brought into the barracks, saying that he should
be examined by flogging, to find out why they were shouting against him like this.
Imagine you’re Paul for a moment and you’ve delivered part of your speech
before being interrupted. And as pandemonium revs back up, you’re taken by the
tribune he tells you, hey, we got to whip you until we can figure out what you’re
guilty of. I’d be like what? What kind of crazy process is that?
Now, first century Roman flogging is carried out with an instrument know as a
scourge. It is a whip formed from 3 to 9 strands of leather with shards of metal
attached to the ends. This thing was no joke. It was the very instrument used
when Jesus was flogged prior to his crucifixion.
I won’t go into all the gruesome details, but I’m sure you can imagine this
instrument of the Romans could do quite the damage. The first century historian,
Tacitus tells us that in such beatings seven out of ten men died, literally beaten to
death; the other three were carried out in a stretcher.
The tribune’s goal was to have Paul scourged until he explained why the Jews
were so upset with him. And it is at this moment that a thought occurred to Paul
regarding a way out of the present circumstance. I wouldn’t want to be scourged
and neither did Paul.
Acts 22:25-29
25 But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion
who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and
uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune andsaid to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So
the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he
said, “Yes.” 28 The tribune answered, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.”
Paul said, “But I am a citizen by birth.” 29 So those who were about to examine
him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he
realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.
And it is here that we find out that flogging a Roman citizen is against the law
(Roman law). Roman soldiers who found themselves guilty of breaking these laws
would subject themselves to similar punishment if the prisoner or prisoners
wished to press charges.
Now, what was stopping any prisoner from lying about their citizenship? At this
time, each city had a citizenship list (much like today eg. Driver’s license, birth
certificate), and it would not be too difficult to find out whether a prisoner was
making a false claim regarding their citizenship. The punishment for making a false
claim such as this was death.
So, Paul says, “hey, I’m a Roman citizen. Do you really want to flog me and reap
the consequences?” And so the centurion brought Paul to the Tribune. And the
Tribune is perplexed. He asks, “Are you really a Roman citizen? I bought my
citizenship. How is it that you acquired yours? And Paul responds by saying, he
was born a Roman citizen. And at this, the Tribune realizes he has made a huge
mistake.
Acts 22:30
30 But on the next day, desiring to know the real reason why he was being
accused by the Jews, he unbound him and commanded the chief priests and all
the council to meet, and he brought Paul down and set him before them.
In an effort to get to the bottom of this mystery of what would cause such a stir in
the Jews there in Jerusalem, the Tribune sets up an appointment to have Paul
stand before the Jewish council and the chief priests. A strikingly similar scenario
to the one we read about in Acts chapters six and seven when Stephen stood
before them. We know what happened to Stephen. What is going to happen to
Paul?Acts 23:1
And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before
God in all good conscience up to this day.”
Just as Paul had done with the Ephesian elders in Miletus, Paul appeals to his
conduct as a Christian. He has lived his life in such a way that he has a clear
conscience. How many of us can say that for ourselves today? Do you have a clear
conscience? I would venture to say that most people living today are not living
with clear consciences. And I’m not being pessimistic about humanity. I’m only
pointing to the reality in which we live. It’s one compromise after another. Sin
begets sin. A lie gets pushed under the rug and is ignored for a while until it can’t
anymore and before you know it, you’ve got a dragon living in your house.
(referencing a children’s book “There’s no such thing as a dragon”). And we
wonder why so many people are medicated, whether by a prescription or through
other avenues of self-medicating. A lot of people find it very difficult to live face to
face with their current reality and so they try to find a way to escape. While in
high school and in college, I drank caffeine late into the night and that made it
very difficult to sleep, understandably so. But more than that, having a
compromised conscience will never let you rest. You will never be at peace with
yourself. Paul is saying, I’ve lived with a clear conscience. I am at peace with
myself. How striking of a statement that must’ve been.
Acts 23:2-3
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him
on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you
whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet
contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”
This Ananias guy did not like the fact that Paul had said what he said about having
a good conscience. Who knows what was going on in Ananias’s mind. Did he
perceive Paul’s statement as a personal attack? Whatever it was, he sought to
intimidate Paul by ordering him to be struck…struck on the mouth. He didn’t want
Paul to say one more word. Then what does Paul do? He was probably thinking,
“what? You were offended by that? Well how about this. You’re a whitewashed
wall.”We’ve heard a similar thing from Jesus when he was addressing the Pharisees.
Jesus used the term whitewashed tombs. Beautiful and radiant on the outside,
but full of deadness and rot on the inside. Whitewashed tombs and whitewashed
walls both take aim at hypocrisy. A whitewashed wall is a wall that is probably an
unpleasant sight, but when newly painted over looks great to the one who fails to
look beneath the surface. How poetic is that? The meaning of these terms would
be clearly understood.
Acts 23:4-5
4 Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” 5 And Paul said,
“I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall
not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
There are many ways one can look at this situation resulting in different
conclusions. Here’s the most likely one that I’ve arrived at. It is very likely that Paul
wouldn’t have known who the high priest was at the time for in the years
between 37 AD and 70 AD there were no fewer than 28 different high priests.
That’s a lot of turnover. And so verse five here seems like a genuine apology. He
was caught up in his emotions and because of that, he violated one of the Old
Testament laws.
I believe it is extremely important to see Paul’s actions towards Ananias as being
descriptive and not prescriptive. We can’t say, “well Paul was insubordinate to the
high priest. I too can be insubordinate if I feel justified.” That would be bad
hermeneutics; a bad way of interpreting the Bible.
Acts 23:6
6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other
Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of
Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am
on trial.”
With the paragraph change here comes a thematic change in the discourse
between Paul and the chief priests and the council. At first it seems pretty abrupt.It is likely that there was more said by Paul in his hearing that Luke didn’t record.
In any case, Luke does record this vital moment when Paul makes another
incendiary claim. Remember, the first incendiary claim he made to the Jews at the
Temple was that “Jesus came to save the Gentiles too.” The next claim that he
makes here is that there will be a resurrection of the dead. Now, around Easter
time, I made the statement that without Jesus’ resurrection, we don’t have
Christianity. Our faith hinges on the resurrection. That’s why it’s so important.
Here’s why the claim about resurrection was so polarizing. Not everyone believed
that it was possible, namely the Sadducees.
Acts 23:7-10
7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is
no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9
Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood
up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or
an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune,
afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go
down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the
barracks.
Wouldn’t it have been interesting to be a fly on the wall during this discourse?
First you would see the entire council united against Paul. And then at one point,
the council is divided. Two sides hurling insults and arguments against one
another while Paul and the Roman soldiers stood there watching.
And this quarrel match between the two parties (Pharisees and Sadducees)
turned from a fight with words to one with fists. It is at this point that the Tribune
realizes he is not going to find out any answers to his questions regarding Paul that
day and so back to the barracks Paul goes.
Acts 23:11
11 The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you
have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in
Rome.”The first time Jesus made an appearance to Paul was on the road to Damascus.
The next time Jesus appears before Paul is here in Chapter 23 in the barracks. We
this command to take courage. One does not give such a command if it is not
perceived that it is needed. And if Jesus is the one giving this command, we can be
confident that Paul was feeling pretty low at this moment in his life. He was
probably in great distress and was probably discouraged by the seemingly futile
attempts to share the gospel there in Jerusalem. He was probably thinking, what’s
going to happen next? What am I supposed to do? And Jesus tells him. “As you
have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in
Rome.
Piano to play here.
Isn’t it so true that in our greatest moments of distress, being given a clear
direction and purpose becomes a source of great hope and encouragement?
That’s the power of purpose in one’s life. And every single one of us in here today
have been given a purpose. And because of that, we never have reason to fall into
despair.
A book by Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl called “Man’s Search For Meaning”
points to this concept. If there was anyone who knew what suffering was, it was a
man who lived through the horrors of the holocaust. What he concluded was that
suffering is simply a part of the human experience. And the thing that made
suffering bearable was the knowledge that somehow, someway, there was
meaning and purpose behind it.
And I believe Jesus’ words gave Paul a peace that he so desperately needed. There
was more work to be done.