Gooding, David: God’s New Programme of History

I'm delighted to be with you this evening, and I determine to make the best use I can of my opportunity to reap the benefit of your long studies on the Acts of the Apostles. I will not disclose the source of my information, but I understand you have been studying this book in some detail for many months since. Hence, for me, a golden opportunity to gather the fruits of your study. You have reached the introduction to the last trial, uh, that Paul suffered before he was dispatched to Rome, uh, to have his case tried there by the emperor. And perhaps the occasion, since chapter five is introductory to chapter twenty six, the occasion is suitable to ask ourselves what Paul exactly is doing in this last section of his work. The simple answer, of course, is obvious. He's relating a number of trials to which Paul was subjected in these days. Now, perhaps you are, uh, of more patient disposition than I am, but when I read these long trials, many times repeated, I begin to wonder why Luke has thought fit to include so many of them in his history. If we say, well, he's done it because they happened, that, I suppose, is one good answer. But then so many other things happened in the course of the period covered by the Acts of the Apostles that fo- that Luke has not thought fit to record, that perhaps we cannot content ourselves with the simple answer, well, he recorded things simply because they happened. What happened, for instance, to all the other apostles and their work for the Lord that Luke simply does not record anywhere. We cannot think, can we, that he didn't know of what the other apostles did. He therefore seems deliberately to have selected his material, because presumably he was interested in certain themes. And therefore, if we apply that principle to the last great section of his book, we shall have to say that he included the accounts of these trials that Paul underwent, not simply because they happened, but because behind his record he has some further and serious purpose. Now, to tell you what I think that purpose is, I shall have to beg a few minutes of your time. I promise to make this as short as I can, uh, make it. What I propose to do is to make now an open and honest confession of what I understand the Acts of the Apostles to be about, and so that of your kindness, when I have done so, you may, if need be, correct me, but certainly supplement my meager observations. It is frequently said, is it not, on the basis of a phrase in chapter one of the book, that the book is the record of the spread of the gospel geographically from Jerusalem to Rome. You shall be my witnesses from Jerusalem, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. And so the book begins with the story of the apostles in Jerusalem and ends with the Apostle Paul in Jerusalem, capital of the then known world. And certainly that is a very valid observation on the contents of the book. The book does record the, um, I'm wanting for a pencil, might be better. It's okay. It does record the geographical spread of the gospel. But as I understand it, Luke has an even more profound intention in writing his work than merely to record the geographical spread of that gospel. And I want to call attention to one place in his book where it is immediately obvious that geography is not the prime consideration in Luke's mind. To do that, may I just remind you of what you doubtless have seen, that Luke divides his narrative into six major parts by inserting from time to time a noticeable refrain. You came across one of those, did you not? In chapter six, verse seven. And the word of God increased. Chapter six, verse seven. And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly, and a great company of the priests were obedient, uh, to the faith. And if we notice that general remark, that kind of summary remark, notice that what it is talking about, the increase of the word of God, the multiplication of the disciples. We shall notice a certain similarity when we come to the next, uh, major, uh, uh, the end of the next major section, where Luke again uses a similar phrase. So we come now to now to chapter nine and verse thirty one. So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit was multiplied. So in the end of the first section, it was the word of God increased, and the disciples were multiplied. And here it is that the church had peace and was multiplied. Then we shall notice, if you will, what you've long since noticed, of course, at the end of chapter twelve, verse twenty four. There is a similar short phrase, but the word of God grew and multiplied. So now we find the refrains are alternating. First it was the word of God grew, uh, uh, uh, uh, and uh, uh, the disciples multiplied. Then it was the church multiplied. Now once more it is the word of God grew and multiplied. Come then, if you will, uh, to the chapter sixteen and verse five. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily. And they're becoming very clear, isn't it, that these are deliberately repetitive refrains, summary verses, ending the major sections of the writing, and we're back this time with the churches. The word increased, the church increased, the word increased, the church increased. It is a recipe that still holds good, of course, if you want the church to increase. But then look at the end of the fifth great section of his work. It comes in chapter nineteen and verse uh twenty. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed. We notice the mounting sense of the victory of the word of God. And when we shall come to the end of the whole of the book, then we come to a bigger refrain, but one of equal triumph. Chapter twenty eight, verse thirty: and Paul abode two whole years in his own high dwelling and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, unhinderedly, says Luke, as he ends his work. The triumph of the word of God. Now, if these refrains, so I would argue to myself, if these refrains are Luke's own method of dividing his work up, then they divide it into six major sections. But now I call your attention to one of them in particular that is exceedingly significant for our understanding of what Paul, of what Luke is doing. It is the, the refrain that comes in chapter sixteen and verse five: So the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily. And our task now is to notice exactly where in the narrative Luke puts that phrase, and then to ask, why ever did he put it there? If this is one of his refrains, it concludes the fourth major section of his work. But what an odd place for it to come. You say, why odd? Well, look at verse thirty six, if you will, of chapter fifteen to see what is happening at that point. Chapter fifteen, verse thirty six says, and after some days, Paul said unto Barnabas, let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaim the word of the Lord and see how they fare. So after a very long narrative in stage, the great section four of his work, Luke is now beginning the next major missionary journey. Hitherto, Paul and his companions have preached the gospel in Asia Minor. We are now going to embark with Luke on the next great surge forward of the gospel, where Luke and Sil- uh, where uh, Paul and Silas begin in Asia Minor, but very quickly come over into a- into Europe, with enormous consequences for the subsequent spread of the gospel. Verse thirty six of chapter fifteen, therefore, is the beginning of this major missionary journey. And you might have thought that, well, of course, now Luke will begin a new section with it. Geographically speaking, it is now a big new beginning of a further stage. But whereas Luke begins it, this new missionary journey in chapter fifteen verse six, he hasn't been going very many verses. When he comes to chapter sixteen verse five. and if you please, he ends the section. Well, the missionary journey is scarce got going. Why does he put one of his division markers after so few verses about this next missionary journey, and then go on to speak of that great missionary journey in the next section? Well, it seems to me that there is a very obvious answer to our question. Luke, for all he is interested, of course, in the geographical spread of the gospel, he's interested in, if I might say so, even bigger things. Notice, if now I may go back a little bit to the beginning of chapter fifteen, What Luke was talking of as that chapter opened. Chapter fifteen uh of the Acts, Luke is saying, and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, except you be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. That was a bit of a bombshell at Antioch. And when Paul and Barnabas heard these men from Judea teaching that you had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved, Paul and Barnabas got up on their hind legs and said, never, not on your life ever, and across our dead bodies you will not preach that stuff here. So in the end, they all went up to Jerusalem. You'll see. And when they got up to Jerusalem, verse five says, there arose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed. What on earth they believed, Luke doesn't tell us, but there you are, they passed for believers and were presumably in the church. And they likewise said it is needful to circumcise them and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. And of course, Paul and Barnabas, as verse two said, had no small dissension and questioning with them. So, at the beginning of chapter fifteen, the question is raised, circumcision? And the answer is no, not on your life, circumcision. Oh, I see. Well, then pray notice what chapter sixteen says. Paul found a young man called Timothy, and in verse three we are told him would Paul have to go forth with him, and he took. And circumcised him. Oh, come, come, come, come. Confusion. Well, doesn't it appear to be? Julesy. So now, as you doubtless saw, he raises a very big question, and now we forget all about geography. Doesn't matter where it happened, whether it happened on missionary journey number one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven. For theologically, you have here a tremendous question. The beginning of chapter fifteen, circumcision? No. Beginning of chapter sixteen, circumcision? Yes. And therefore Luke has underlined it. Please read the beginning of chapter sixteen with chapter fifteen, because you will not understand the theology that is here, uh, advocated unless you're prepared to hold those two things together. And then, of course, there is a minor theme that brackets these things together, is there not? Look at chapter fifteen again, if you will, verse two. And Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them. Paul and Barnabas in a big theological row against the hostages. No small dissension and questioning. Paul and Barnabas against the others. End of chapter fifteen. Barnabas was minded to take Mark, verse thirty seven. Paul thought not good to take him, verse thirty eight. and there arose a sharp contention, verse thirty nine, um so that Paul and Barnabas parted asunder. It was honest of Luke to tell us, wasn't it? That Paul and Barnabas had a big disagreement, so big that they parted. Though it is a comfort while you're looking at it to see, isn't it? What it was they stood shoulder to shoulder about and what it was they parted over. Yeah, they they stood shoulder to shoulder when it came to the doctrines of the gospel. When it came to methods in the Lord's work. It was, wasn't it? Very different. Over that they parted. Now, therefore, I have argued to myself that while Luke then is interested in the geographical spread of the gospel and marking the various, uh, stages, uh, that it passed through, he is even more interested in certain other, what you might call theological and doctrinal matters. And it is such as I, uh, uh, such that I tend to read it. It seems to me that what Luke has done in his first five major sections is to tell you the story of the rise of Christianity and its progress. And as he does so, he points out to you that from time to time there rose certain very big fundamental issues, over which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the apostles had to make up their mind. What they stood for, what they believed, and where, therefore, they had to diverge from Judaism. It's no news, is it, that the early Christians started off as Jews? But, uh, then they diverged. Pray, why did they diverge? And over what issues? Luke is going to tell us. And highly instructive and exceedingly important it is for our grasp of Christianity to mark those points of divergence, because when it came to points where the apostle said, sorry, my dear Jewish brethren, sorry, over this we cannot possibly compromise, and if you won't have it, then we must leave. Now you've come down to a point that is absolutely fundamental to Christianity, that you cannot surrender without surrendering Christianity itself. Luke, in a word, is defining Christianity for us. But now we notice a very interesting thing, and you, or at least I do, and you don't notice it long since, of course, that Christianity as we know it didn't come down from heaven all written up in a government blue paper, with the notice on the top, from Sunday next at two AM in the morning, you will stop Judaism and begin Christianity. Didn't happen quite like that, did it? Christianity di- developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course, but developed as the gospel went forward, and inevitably, in this particular part, they would meet this problem and have to decide what to do about it. As they moved a bit further, they would meet another problem, and they would have to decide what to do about it. And as under the Holy Spirit's guidance they decided, so the Christian faith was hammered out for all to understand what Christianity is. So I will rehearse, if I may, what I think the first five sections are about, and then come to your sixth section, where you are now arrived. The fundamental issue in the first major section of the Acts up to the beginning of chapter six, as I read it, it is nothing other than the person of the Lord Jesus. Listen to the Holy Spirit come down on the day of Pentecost to do the work that the Lord said he would do, to glorify the Lord Jesus. The evidence that the Holy Spirit has given, says Peter, points to this, that God hath made that Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ. Who is Jesus? By the apostles, the resurrection has demonstrated that God has made him both Lord, in the fullest sense of that term, and Christ, seated now on the very throne of the heavens. Judaism said no. Therefore, Christians had to diverge from Judaism. Had no choice. The person of the Lord Jesus, who he is, lies at the very heart of Christianity. Compromise on it, you've ditched Christianity altogether. He is risen from the dead. Of course, I know that that raised the problem that if Jesus is the Messiah, the Jews would turn around and say, where on earth is his kingdom then? The Old Testament said that when the Messiah came, he would set up his kingdom. The Jews had every right to ask him. They went, all right, you say Messiah, Jesus is Messiah, okay, but where is his kingdom? Can't see much of it around. And therefore, the first stage of Acts has to give itself, and does so, of course, at great length and in repeated detail, to pointing out what is the program for the establishment of Messiah's kingdom. It's an integral part of the gospel. I may sum it up in some simple phrase in chapter two. Uh, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand. This is Old Testament. That's the ascension. Until... That's the present era, isn't it? Yeah. I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. That is his second coming in power and great glory. It is a question that our gospel is still to answer, not only to Jews, but to men in general. If your Jesus is the Messiah, the Old Testament said the Messiah would put down evil. Why hasn't your Jesus done it? We need an answer to it, don't we? For intelligent men and women. Two thousand years of the preaching of Christianity seem remarkably effect- ineffective for putting down evil. And the Hitlers and the Stalins of this world still go merrily on. Ah, but then, ah, but then, ah, but then. The Old Testament did not say that at his first coming he was going to put down evil. It said the program would be this: he would come incarnate, he would be, uh, raised to the right hand of God, he would sit at the right hand of God, that's his ascension. There would have been until period, and not until the until period was finished would his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. But let me not, uh, die- delay too long. Um, we still have some minutes left, I believe. Uh, the, uh, second great, uh, passage of the Acts of the Apostles, if we are right, of course, lies between chapter six, verse eight, and chapter nine, verse, um, thirty one. What is that about? Well, it's very clearly defined, uh, uh, part o- o- of Luke's work. It contains four stories. The martyrdom of Stephen, the evangelization of Samaria, the conversion of the Ethiopian, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Luke, in his normal literary style, has so arranged things that every now and again, a brilliant phrase here and there will help you to see that the things are connected. For instance, in the first story, chapter seven, verse two, Luke records how that Stephen, in his defense, said at the very beginning of it, the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, or before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, get thee out of thy land and from thy kindred. The God of glory appeared to Abram and said, Get out. That's the first story. And the fourth story that is told us in chapter nine, uh is about Saul of Tarsus. He was careering up the road to Damascus, says verse three. and it came to pass that, uh, as he drew nigh unto Damascus, suddenly there shone round about him a light from heaven. He was sent into the city after that to await the coming of Ananias. And when Ananias came, he had to deliver the message to Saul of Tarsus, Saul, you are to get out and go back to the Gentiles. And Luke is by that simple device, calling our attention that the- to the fact that we stand now at a great watershed in history. Centuries before, God had intervened, and he'd called Abram out of the Gentiles. Now God was doing the opposite, and he calls out Saul of Tarsus to send him back to the Gentiles. The great dispensation of the Hebrew race, beginning with Abraham, began with this promise, come out of the Gentiles, Abraham, and I will make you a blessing, yes, but in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed. They weren't brought out permanently. They were to go back one of these days. And now the time has come. You stand at a point in history now, equal in importance to the beginning of the Hebrew race when Abraham was called out of Egypt, uh, of of Ur of Chaldees. Now a mighty move forward, and Saul the Jew is sent back to the Gentiles. The church is going to become predominantly Gentile now. And Luke marks the both of them by simply recording the historical facts, but you couldn't miss it, could you? When God called out Abraham, the God of glory appeared to Abraham and made him a pilgrim. Ah yes, but the light from heaven shone on Saul, and it made him a missionary. We must keep those two things, my dear brethren and sisters, mustn't we? You won't make much of a missionary unless, first of all, the Lord calls you out of the Gentiles. Amen. But he calls you out of the Gentiles, don't forget he does it so that he can send you back among the Gentiles. We need to both. We need to be pilgrims, but we do need to be missionaries. Mm. So what now are the things about? We'll take the first two stories in that section. The first one is about the temple, of course. Next big issue on the agenda over which Christianity is going to conflict with Judaism, is over the matter of the temple and the worship of God. Though Luke tells us that Stephen's accusers maligned him, and their accusations weren't strictly true, Stephen was doubtless preaching an early version of what we later find fully developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ was going to change the customs. Yes. What is the attitude of Christianity to the Jewish work temple and its worship and service of God? Well, Stephen makes it very clear that was God given, was the worship of Israel, but the God of Israel's history had been a God who from time to time had moved on. And in Christianity had come one of those times when God was going to move on again. God called Abram out of the Gentiles to Canaan, said, live in this land. So that was good. And the patriarchs, most of the time at least, were faithful to that tradition and kept in the land. Then God suddenly led the patriarchs down to Egypt and told Jacob to go and take the whole lot and clear off and go down to Egypt. You say, but how can that be if he told us to come out of the Gentiles? Well, we must stick by that. Well, yes, you're so you must until God, uh, changes things. For God's a living God. So now they had to go down to the, to the, to Egypt. They were there four hundred years. They got used to it. And then, if you please, suddenly God was on the move again, and he says, come out of Egypt. And when God came out of Egypt, no good saying, no, our fathers were here, and God brought us down, and we're not shifting. For to stay in Egypt when God has left is to depart from the living God. Stephen argues the case from Old Testament history that God's ways, even with the Hebrews, have been that from time to time, God begins something new and moves on. And now in our Lord Jesus Christ, God is moving on. He points out also that Israel, when it's come to those great times of moving on, they have consistently rejected the man whom God sent to lead them. And our blessed Lord is no exception. Their rejection of our blessed Lord was not faithfulness to God's Old Testament revelation, it was apostatizing from the living God. And we move on. Now, why should we bother our heads about that kind of thing? Because it lies at the very heart of our gospel. Listen to the writer to Hebrews. Can you come into the holiest of all, or not? In Judaism, no. They had, they'd have forgiveness. But you couldn't come into the holiest of all, not even King David, if you'd have suggested to King David that he brought his old guitar or whatever it was he played on with those psalms, and you said, David, I did enjoy Psalm thirty two, I think it's one of the best you ever wrote, my good man. I know what you're talking about. I had forgiveness too. Come on, David, bring your old heart, and we'll go into the holiest of all, and we'll have a session of praise. David will have a heart attack. In that holiest of all? Of course not. And you say to the man, why haven't you got forgiveness of sins, old chap? Oh, up to the moment, anyway. No access into the holiest, and a conscience not yet made perfect, according to Hebrews, because the dear man kept on offering sacrifices. If you find anybody keep offering sacrifices, we have lots of them in Belfast, and in the south of Ireland even more. If you have folks offering sacrifices, this you'll know about them, that they haven't got a conscience made perfect. What a shame, because they could have. This is an integral part of our gospel. Stephen was prepared to die for it. And we must, mustn't we resist all movements nowadays for Christendom to go back into Catholicism and the whole kibosh to go back into Judaism. Always done it over the years, hasn't it? You'll go to Greece, you'll find the older Greek Orthodox churches. Goodness me, they think the church is the dwelling place of God, the building, I mean. And then you go inside and you've got a mighty great screen, a great wall built across halfway through, and there are two places, and the room behind the wall is the holiest of all, with the altar in it and everything else, and the priest got a peephole to go through, but the people may never. So do their very buildings contradict Christianity, and they've gone back to Judaism. Yes, of course, but Luke i- i- is being fair, isn't he? In that first story, it is the temple at Jerusalem. The second story is Samaria, the evangelization of Samaria. Oh, that'll be... because the Samaritans had very fixed ideas on worship, didn't they? Our woman argued it with our Lord. The woman at Samaria argued it with our Lord. You say that Jerusalem is the place where the men ought to worship. Well, we don't. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain. Our religion is as good as yours. Yes. On that occasion, our Lord announced that in Christianity, of course, it would no longer be a place where. The hour cometh when neither in this place nor Jerusalem shall worship the Father. But notice he did add, my dear good woman, you worship you know not what, you Samaritans. Salvation is of the Jew. And now when the Samaritans hear the Christian gospel, what will God do? Will he now say, ah, let's, you didn't like the Jews, did you? Well, never mind, we'll, we'll sort of forget all about that now. Judaism is going to, we won't argue about that anymore. Now we've got the gospel. Not God. When the Samaritans believed, they got baptized, good Samaritans, they didn't get the Holy Spirit, though. Nor did they get the Holy Spirit until certain men came down from Jerusalem, of all places, and laid their hands on them. Well, that was evidence they were converted, because if they hadn't been converted, they'd have punched them right square on the nose, good Samaritans, and spit in their faces in addition. Had Jews tried to lay hands on Samaritans. Ah, see the effectiveness of the gospel. That the Samaritans getting converted are repenting of their decades-long defiance of God's word and admitting that salvation is of the Jews. And it comes from Jerusalem. We must remember it. Modern Christendom has cut its roots with the Old Testament because they don't believe it, and have come the prey to a lot of theological quacks like old Simon. You'll see. Christianity is not a philosophy. It is the culmination of God's great historical processes, and if we don't believe Moses, we shan't believe our Lord either. We cannot jettison Old Testament and say, well, it doesn't matter whether it's inspired or not, we preach the gospel. No, no. True salvation has this mark about it. It comes from Jerusalem. You got something that comes from America through Mrs. White or Joe Smith or somebody, that ain't the thing. Ah, but you see, in this great second section, Luke is defining for you Christianity then and its gospel in relation to the temple, the Jews being the Orthodox and the Samaritans being the non-conformists, if you like. And now he's going on to talk about, uh, the further service of God and the witness of God. For do you see, the temple at Jerusalem was not merely a place where Israel, um, um, worshipped God. The temple at Jerusalem was a place where God dwelt to be a testimony to the world. And we shouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of that testimony. They were not all wasted centuries. See here, here comes an Ethiopian, having turned his back on the idolatrous superstitions of his country, and coming where? Well, not to the gospel meeting. He's coming to the temple at Jerusalem, because it was renowned amongst the nation as the temple of the imageless God. There were no idols there. And he come up to worship, see the effect of Israel's testimony in the world. We need it still. Wow, this modern world has goes to its modern idol- i- idols. One of them is science with a big S. And we need Isaiah and all the others in their protest against idolatry, old and new. Yeah. We do indeed. And, uh, we mustn't despise that Old Testament as part of our gospel message. See the effect that is there's Ethiopians coming up to Jerusalem to worship, and the next big thing that Judaism gave him, it gave him a Bible. He was returning with a bit of the Bible. Oh, what a tremendous bit of evangelization. What a marvelous book that Old Testament is. Amongst all the holy books of the world stand unique. He's going back in his chariot. Then why? Why was it that Israel didn't bring him to salvation? And now you come to another point in which Christianity diverges from Judaism. He was reading Isaiah fifty three and he couldn't make sense of it, nor can Israel to this day. And they won't have it. It was telling of God's, who in the next verses from where the Ethiopian, where he was now about to read, who was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our enemies, the doctrine of vicarious suffering and substitutionary atonement, and Israel will not have it, nor will modern Christ- Christendom either, anyway. But then if modern Christendom denies the atonement as it does, won't have it. Then, of course, it has no gospel. Luke is showing us the utter essence of Christianity. Christianity diverges from Judaism. What its gospel is at its heart. If on these points we compromise, we cease to be Christianity. And then, of course, there comes, uh, Saul, the biggest missionary that came out of Judaism, other than our Lord. What turned the man into a missionary? Another thing that Judaism won't have, the realization that Jesus is God. Who art thou? Lord. Saul of Tarsus woke up to the fact he thought he knew God, but he didn't, did he, because God had become a missionary and Saul hadn't cared for the missionary. If it doesn't burn in our hearts that God has become a missionary, that he who left the Father's side and came into our world was God, our very God. He came to seek and save that which was lost. God become a missionary to our planet. If that doesn't burn in our hearts and we don't know God as God really is. Saul had a religion till then. He hadn't got a savior. That's a very important thing. That's what made the Saul a missionary. It ought to make us missionaries as well. The third great section I'm going to do very briefly, uh, as usual, the Holy Spirit knocks the nail on the head, puts the key at the front door, and all that. If you look at the third great section, it begins in verse, in chapter nine and verse thirty two. It came to pass as Peter went through all parts, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. Chapter nine, verse thirty two, the beginning of the third great section of the Acts. It goes to chapter 12, verse 24. What is it about? Well, lots of things, but the major, uh, subject of that part of Acts is the question of holiness, sainthood. And, as I say, Luke puts, knocks a nail on the head when he tells you that, that Peter came down also to the, to the, to the... not to the president, not to the disciples, not to the Christians, not to the church, but to the saints. What are saints, if you ever should meet one? Saints? Well, I have to tell you now, this is a rather curious story, but one of the biggest obstacles to the spread of the gospel was sainthood. Very curious. It came about like this, you see, that now was the stage for God to move on, and the gospel hitherto preached by, uh, all and sundry, uh, it had been preached to Jews, and no problem arose. Because even if they were unconverted Jews, you could go and have coffee with them. But now God wanted the gospel taken to the Gentiles. And Peter wasn't prepared to drink coffee with a Gentile. It's remarkably difficult to preach the gospel to a man that you're not prepared to drink coffee with. Ah. Ah. You imagine the situation that could have arisen had not God intervened with that sheep come down from heaven. Here's Peter innocently walking across the marketplace one day, and up comes, uh, this very smartly dressed centurion of the Roman army. Morning, sir. I believe you are a Christian apostle. Yes, that's right. You know, I've become very interested in what you preach. Oh, I'm glad to hear it. Now, I wonder, would you come home to lunch with me today to explain it? Well, no, sir, sorry, thank you very much. We've got another engagement. Oh, well, never mind, come tomorrow. Uh, well, no, let's let's talk about it here on the marketplace. Oh, but it's rather crowded, you know, it's rather uncomfortable here. We can talk at ease, you see. I'll send my chariot along with the servants, and you come to lunch, my good man, or would you prefer to come to dinner tonight? No, I, no, I, no, I'm sorry, no, I, no, I can't. Why can't you come? Well, I'm a saint. How would that have gone down? You're a saint. Oh, I see. So I'm not a saint, and you're a saint. Oh, I see. And of course you're a saint, and you can't eat with us. Oh, I see. And then if he had been sarcastic, uh, old uh, Cornelius might have said, tell me, old Peter, old chap, that Caiaphas man, would you drink coffee with him? Well, yes, if you ask me. Oh, I see. So he's a saint, is he, Caiaphas? Ha. Concepts of sainthood that would have proved an enormous obstacle to the spread of the gospel. Hadn't God now intervened to introduce in clear terms what is Christian sainthood as distinct from Jewish sainthood? Jewish sainthood has been a very important thing, of course. We mustn't, uh, forewarn on it. I would remind you of what you read when the sheep came down from heaven and the voice said, arise, Peter, kill and eat, and Peter replied, not so, Lord. God didn't say, don't be silly, Cornelius, don't be narrow-minded, old chap, all those rules and regulations about food and diet. Oh, come, Peter, they are old-fashioned and narrow-minded, oh, stop that nonsense. No, no, no, for it was God who gave it. But he gave it when Israel, as Galatians three would say, was a child. And they had to be treated like children, and a wall put round them and kept from the Gentiles. That's not Christian sanctity. Christians have got to be free to move into the world, no walls around them. But then, of course, Christianity has a different basis and resource for sainthood than Judaism ever had. And Peter preaches, and Luke goes on to record further details of what the basis of that sainthood is. First of all, utter forgiveness of sins for Jew and Gentile, both together, the Jew as bad as the Gentile and the Gentile as bad as the Jew, and both find forgiveness at the foot of our Lord's cross. And then, baptism in the Holy Spirit, says chapter eleven. Well, that's a new thing completely. That only came with our blessed Lord. He it is, being God incarnate, that can put men in the Holy Spirit and baptize them into one body, whether Jew or Greek. Christianity has a power for holiness that Judaism knew nothing about. But it is, uh, selling us surely something exceedingly important and exceedingly relevant to our gospel work as missionaries in the world. And Christian holiness is a different thing from Jewish holiness. And we need to be careful always, don't we, that we don't slip back from the Christian position into the Jewish concept of holiness. And the fourth section is about what? Fourth section is about, uh, uh, I, I suggest to you the doctrine of salvation. I needn't stay to prove it. Save to notice that if in section three you are thinking of the social implications of the gospel going to the Gentiles, that Peter must now become truly Christian in his sainthood, not Jewish. The social implications of the gospel going to the Gentiles. Then, of course, in the great section four, from, uh, the last verse in chapter twelve, twelve twenty five, right through to sixteen verse, uh, uh, uh, let me see, yes, sixteen verse, uh, five, You will have the doctrinal implications of the gospel going to the Gentiles. At Pisidian Antioch, Paul, as usual, preaches a sermon, but it's all about salvation, salvation, salvation, salvation. And then in chapter fifteen, the story of the great meeting in Jerusalem where the apostles and elders met together to pronounce upon this topic. Now, doctrinally speaking, how is a man saved? You see, hitherto, when the gospel was going to the Jews, and Jews got converted, praise the Lord, but they'd already been circumcised, hadn't they, as infants. So the question never really arose. They've been circumcised anyway. Now suddenly, somebody raises the question, now this circumcision business, what is the relation of that to the gospel and being saved? Is it necessary? Does it help? Oh yes, said certain Pharisees, which believed. Believed what? Presumably believed that Jesus was the Messiah. But dear men, they weren't clear on the basis of salvation, were they? But they said, yes, you do have to be circumcised. It was merciful, wasn't it, that the apostles gathered and, and pronounced upon it once and for all time, on what grounds is a man saved? And Peter put it, we believe it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that even we Jews shall be saved, as well as those Gentiles. The great doctrine of salvation. There can be no compromise. Alas, how often Christendom has slipped back into Judaism, into mere religion, making sacraments and ceremonies necessary to salvation. And what is the fifth big section about? Well, as I read it, I'm, I'm getting myself further and further into hot water by exposing my notions, I suppose, but there you are. You'll be kind against your criticisms, I'm sure. The fifth great section is the gospel coming to, uh, the... to Europe. And now it will not be the gospel diverging merely from Judaism. But now you're moving out into the great big Romans, uh, and Greek cities. But Luke is still at his task. He shows you the gospel diverging from a number of Gentile things, first of all, from Gentile spiritism. At the beginning and the end of that section. The Jew- the Christians talk about being led by the spirit, but then so did the ancient pagans. Talked about being led by spirits. See that woman that was employed. See any of them you like on the streets of Malaysia till this very present day, businessmen consulting the mediums to get guidance. What's the difference between you Christians being guided by the Holy Spirit and folks seeking mediums? I've just come back from Marseille, in the great council estates there, in these vast high-rise flats, there are mediums in most of them. And the people, having long since ditched anything Christian, constantly go to the mediums. What's the difference? And then, uh, Luke has to show us Christianity and the difference between Christianity and Roman politics. When they preached Jesus as a king, it was not a political message, despite what the Jews tried to say. We need to distinguish today still, don't we? Liberation theology and all that doesn't ring true, does it? Christianity is not politics. And Christianity isn't philosophy either. Paul knows his philosophy and knows how to talk to philosophers, but Christianity isn't philosophy. And we still need to distinguish, and we perhaps in academic circles more than many, need to distinguish between what is Christianity and what is Hellenistic culture, and still what is Judaism. And in this final great section that you have nearly finished, it seems to me there that Luke is not showing us Christianity diverging from Judaism or from even from Hellenistic and Roman culture and religion, so much as now he turns to the question of the defense of Christianity. Because Christianity had been slandered, and so had the Christian preachers all around the Roman Empire, and Saul Paul was statesman enough to know that he would have to try and put a stop to these slanders. You see, if the folks from this estate think you're a cranky lot here, perverts, a nasty little sect, they won't let the children come to the Sunday school. They certainly won't come to the gospel meetings themselves. And if you allow the papers to tell the world that you are a sect, or the BBC either, then the gospel is going to be hindered. So Paul wouldn't have put up with you. He was set for the defense of the gospel, both among the pagans, and then among the Jews, and finally among the Romans. You've already noticed how the leading occasions in this first section have to do with temples. There was a Christian attitude to pagan temples, on which they were slandered, and the record had to be put straight. There was a Christian attitude to the temple at Jerusalem, over which again Paul was slandered, and the record had to be put straight. He got himself in great trouble, both at the time and subsequently with many theologians, never mind, the Lord stood by and encouraged him and said, you did very well, Paul. So now you have arrived at, uh, the last trial. I would now be interested to hear what all, what you think all the other trials were about anyway, and, uh, why, uh, has Luke told so many? And what now is this trial before Agrippa going to add, if anything, to all the other trials that have gone before? What will it tell us about Christianity? Obviously, as well as the trials in this last section, uh, uh, Luke tells us of Paul in many situations, his attitude to money. His attitude to suffering, his attitude to a whole host of things that we might size up Christianity. But in the trial scenes themselves, what have been the issues at stake, and uh, how should we read this last one? I beg your pardon for going on so long. You'll see. And, uh, not to be unkind, but he treats them in a very different way from what he treats, uh, subsequent courts. You'll see. Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and an exceedingly learned man, brought up under the feet of Gamaliel, and here were a howling ignorant mob. He treats them, uh, with all dignity, but points out, verse three, I am a Jew born in Tarsus of Cilicia, admittedly, but brought up in this city, Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, the, one of the highest Jewish rabbis. It's like somebody nowadays saying to a mob, they're about to lynch him for, for, for his theological views. That I am a DD of Cambridge. And you down there, what do you know? But he's putting it politely. He isn't afraid to cite his theological education when he's talking to a bunch of ignoramuses. And he points out, doesn't he, that when he was converted, uh, one Ananias, a devout man according to the law. Because a lot of those standing down there hadn't got a clue, hadn't got a chance of being called devout. That's the last thing they were. Saul, in his unconverted days, had been a Jew par excellence, and to be half murdered by an ignorant mob who were no- neither devout, godly, nor learned. And he says, you see, uh, uh, when it came to my being sent to the Gentiles, you think that's disloyalty, and that's probably what lay behind a lot of the attacks in Jerusalem. They thought that Paul was going and giving the privileges of the Jews to Gentiles. Then Paul says, you know, I protested to the Lord how zealous I have been for the Jews, and how zealous have you lot been? Comes to being zealous for the religion of our fathers, challenge anybody in the crowd. In other words, I read that speech to be very tough, gracious but tough, putting the crowd in their place. If God who had spoken to the prophets in time past couldn't speak to Israel's leading theologian, but what the crowd has got to interfere, and Paul will put them in their place. The issues are different, therefore, between that and the, uh, uh, first real trial in in chapter twenty three, where Paul is brought before Ananias, you'll see, and rebukes Ananias, though he later apologizes for it because the scripture says you shouldn't thus rebuke your high priest. He rebukes him, because here's the man sitting on the, on the, on the bench, supposedly conducting a theological trial of Saul for his heresies, when all the while the high priest is breaking his own Old Testament. We'll see. Paul isn't going to have that. If he's going to be judged a heretic by the high priest, well, the high priest better keep his own Old Testament then first. And then, of course, Paul, some people think he was cheating. He wasn't cheating. He saw half of them were Sadducees and half of them were Pharisees, and Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, the Pharisees did, so he deliberately split them. Not that he was trying to escape the issue. There is a third issue, of course. But now, of course, the Pharisees were obliged to side with him. The first major thing that Christianity preached was the resurrection of our Lord. The Sadducees have said, no, there was none, but the Pharisees had to admit that there was such a thing as a resurrection. Why should Saul be persecuted for believing while half the nation and more believed that there was a resurrection? Let's get matters in the clear. The difference, therefore, was simply, but is Jesus raised from the dead? That would, of course, depend on the evidence, but they didn't give Paul a chance to cite the evidence because they fell into such a theological controversy that the court came to an end. But, you know, when one has to stand up against academic theologians, they mustn't be weak-kneed. You'll see, and let Christianity be slandered, usually by ignorant folks and unfair academics. I do remember being asked years ago, uh, by some Christian parents who had a very brilliant son, and he got a place, I don't know what, in medicine or somewhere at some university, but he had an, uh, a year to spare, and so he thought at school he would read, uh, religious instruction in a sixth form. When I met him, his faith was nearly shattered. So, eh, I, as gently as I could, I asked the dear lad, will he show me his syllabus, what they've been teaching him, you see? Here it came with all the long book lists. Modernist mature men. Mm. I said, they're very interesting. I said, uh, now, haven't they called your attention to so and so, and so and so, and so and so, mentioning certain scholars who were believers and evangelicals? No, we haven't heard of them. He said, I thought your course was scientific. How is this scholarship if they haven't even told you of the case on the other side? Oh, that's very often so. Mm. Oh, I'm very true. You see. So Saul is now pointing out that if Pharisees may believe in the resurrection and still be accepted on the council, he's not going to be damned because he's preaching the resurrection. It must now be brought into proper focus. The sole issue is the evidence whether Jesus Christ is risen. I take it that that court, uh, Paul is sifting out what the real center of the case is. Uh, then, uh, i- i- in the, uh, uh, uh, next one, uh, in twenty five, you'll see, uh, well, at least i- i- in twenty four, sorry, when he stood before the governor in twenty four, the charge against him, as he himself mentions in verse fourteen, uh after the way that they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers. Now the Romans would take possible exceptions to this kind of thing. One of the things that disturbed the Romans in the ancient world is not merely what you believed, but your attitude to your own ancestral religion. The Greek, the Christians were often called atheists by the Romans, and in that sense the Romans didn't like atheists because the Romans were all for law and order, and if a man respected the gods of his ancestors, he was liable to be an orderly chap. If he, uh, rejected the gods of his ancestors, he was liable to be a bit of a rebel in all sorts of ways. Secondly, in ancient cities, where you had the gods of the city, if a man didn't worship them, the general public were afraid that the gods would visit the city with wrath because of these people in the city that didn't worship those gods, and the people would be afraid, and it would lead to riots. And, uh, you see, uh, uh, thirdly, the Romans expected everybody, whatever religion, they not only worshipped the gods of their fathers, but they showed respect to everybody else's gods. And a man that wouldn't show respect to everybody else's gods was a possible center of trouble in a city. Look at what happened in Ephesus. Jupiter. Ooh. Ah. So that the Romans were interested in it from a point of view of law and order. And because religion, even to this present, can be the cause of all sorts of strife and civil war and, uh, riots in cities. The Romans would come down heavily on leaders of sects, which were calculated in their mind to be a trouble. That's why the the Romans didn't like Jews, because the Jews wouldn't respect other people's gods, went around saying they weren't true gods. But the Christians were worse. The Jews did at least worship the god of their fathers, and as the Romans were told by the Jews, these nasty little Christians didn't even do that. And when the Romans investigated it, of course, they found that, oh well, yes, the Christians are meeting in separate buildings. They're not even worshiping the God of their fathers in the Jewish synagogue. And that was a very, uh, serious charge to bring against the Christians with the Romans, that they were a sect. Of course, nowadays it damns you in the eyes of many people to be called a sect, doesn't it? Particularly if it's a bishop that calls you that. Wow, you try it in France. Bishops all declare they're a sect. Recently in Dublin, a book was published calling one Christian organization a sect, and the BBC took it up and blabbed it all round about the place as though it were the truth, you see. Who called a sect in Southern Ireland? That's the end of you in the eyes of multitudes of people. What is the answer to the charge that we're a sect? You see, so he says that he serves the God of his fathers, and he believes all things which are according to the law and which are written in the prophets. We are not a sect. I hope you aren't anyway. I'm mainstream Christianity myself. I believe everything in the book. I believe more than Bishop David Jenkins, actually, of Durham. It's he that's a sect. He does not believe traditional Christianity. I'm not going to be damned by bishops or anybody else for being a sect. Not one. I believe the whole lot. By the time we told the world so, who it is that's departing from the faith. The BBC with their Don Cupid. Oh, he's terrible. Oh, well, yes, that, but the BBC give him all the publicity. Somebody ought to be making a very big protest over here in Britain to the BBC. So that's what I take the big issue to be there, and for demonstrating that Christians are not a sect. Then, of course, there comes the big trial in chapter twenty six. and I think chapter twenty six, given the chance now, what you're going to come to, is now much more defense in the sense of the exposition of the gospel. You think so? I have that kind of feeling, but I wish I could be here next week to hear you. It's not the, it's not the balance, the defense of the gospel. Oh yes. The problems of the gospel. Oh, surely yes. Yes. I do believe it's the defense of the gospel, as you say. Uh, I think it is perhaps more than the others has got more positive exposition of it. That is its defense. To expound what the gospel really is, is in the last analysis its true defense. But a lot of people never get around to hearing what the gospel is. They're put off by all these slanders. And when poor old Festus said in a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad. Dear, dear, dear. Perhaps he didn't know Paul in his early days. Isn't that funny? When Saul was persecuting people, torturing them, causing them to blaspheme, hailing them to prison, nobody said he was mad. When he got converted and stopped persecuting, when he delivered that half-crazed poor woman at Philippi and brought her to sanity, and converted that thug in the jail to a tender-hearted servant of Christ. Then they said it was me. I'll listen. You are most patient, Joe.