Evidence of Truth. Acts 4:1-22
Acts chapters three and four
work together and fit together, and we have to understand them in the same
context. The event sin chapter three relate to the healing of the lame man
outside of the temple at the gate called Beautiful. This is a lame man who has
been crippled from birth. He is known by everyone in
This led to a message or
sermon by John in which John gives another opportunity to the Jewish audience
listening to recognize that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the promised Messiah
from the Old Testament. His focus was on God’s plan and God’s promise of a
Messiah to Israel, starting with reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob in 3:13, pointing out the reality that they Had denied His claims and
denied that He was who He claimed to be, and that they had by choosing Barabbas
authorized His execution. Then Peter drove home the point, and that was that
they were to change their minds and turn back to God so that the times of
refreshing would come. His point is that the messianic kingdom, the coming of
the Messiah in glory to reign, is conditioned upon the turn of the Jews to
accept Jesus as Messiah. Until they do that—which is what Jesus had said at the
end of Matthew chapter twenty-three: until they say, Blessed is He who comes in
then name of the Lord—He would not return. This is the precondition for the
establishment of the second coming. The announcement in Matthew 13 and the
parallels in the other Gospel passages that this generation of Jews were under
divine discipline because of the rejection of their Messiah still stands still
stands, but the message of hope doesn’t change. They have to turn and accept
Jesus as Messiah before the messianic kingdom will come called the times of
refreshing in verse 19.
He then goes on to
Deuteronomy 18:15ff that there would be a prophet like Moses. And at the end
Peter hits home the point in verse 26: NASB “For
you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every
one {of you} from your wicked ways.” This
is the third time he has mentioned the resurrection, which by now has gotten
the Sadducess, who were really the power base supervising everything that went
on on the temple mount, very upset. They are seriously upset that Peter and
John have the audacity and the temerity to come here to the temple and proclaim
Jesus as the Messiah and to say that He rose from the dead. Even tough they
knew that several weeks before Jesus had been raised from the dead—the evidence
was clear to them that the tomb was empty, they had been warned that the
disciples might try to steal Jesus’ body and so they had put a guard on the
tomb, and yet the tomb was discovered to be empty. They had irrefutable proof
of an empty tomb and yet they are still denying that because they had a
pre-set, determined commitment that resurrection is impossible. Because they
were set on negative volition to the truth they were refusing to accept or to
properly understand evidence that is before their very eyes. So when they heard
Peter and John preaching the resurrection from the dead they arrested them and
incarcerated them on one of the rooms of the temple overnight so that they
could convene the Sanhedrin the next day in order to try them.
There was a progress report
given by Luke in verse four that five thousand males who heard their message
believed. It is that belief that is the key, all that is required in Scripture
for salvation is to trust in God’s provision of a savior, which is Jesus
Christ.
Then
we began to look at what took place in the council chamber as the council of
seventy plus the high priest gathered together. Peter confronts them. Acts 4:10 NASB “let it be known
to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ
the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this {name}
this man stands here before you in good health.” Once again he makes sure that
it is Jesus who gets the credit. He has this whole congregation here of 71,
none of whom believe that resurrection from the dead is possible, and operating
from divine viewpoint knows that they know that Jesus rose from the dead. They
may be denying it, suppressing that truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff), but
they know not only from what they have heard but because they tried to cover it
up. They have a certain intellectual knowledge that Jesus did rise from the
dead but they are not giving it any meaning—the same meaning that Peter does.
Then he
quotes from Psalm 118:22. Acts 4:11 NASB “He is the STONE
WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE
BUILDERS, {but} WHICH
BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER
{stone},” concluding in verse 12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for
there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we
must be saved.” Again we see this claim of exclusivity in the Scriptures. This
is what just drives unbelievers nuts! People just hate the fact that Christians
come along and say Jesus is the only way. That’s what the Bible teaches, it is
not our opinion. Cf. John 14:6.
Acts 4:13 NASB
“Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they
were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and {began} to recognize
them as having been with Jesus.” The word “confidence” is the Greek word parrhesia [parrhsia] and it means there is openness,
confidence, boldness. He knows that he has the truth. He is not defensive, he
is going to present the truth as clearly as he can and is not going to worry
about what the consequences are. “…and understood that they were uneducated and
untrained men,” reflects the type of arrogance that was evident among the
Sanhedrin at that time. The word “untrained” is translated in some translations
as “ignorance.” It is the Greek word idiotes
[i)diwthj] from which we get the word “idiot” in
English. It didn’t mean idiot in Greek, it had the idea of someone who was on
his own or self-taught; he wasn’t trained in the right schools but was
self-taught. So they had this elitist religious group, the Sanhedrin, and
they’re looking down at Peter and John as untrained and uneducated; and they
marvel at them, they are just amazed at what is going on.
What is
interesting in the way Luke is writing this is that he uses these imperfect
tenses all through here. The imperfect tense indicates continued action. All
through this they are listening, continuously being amazed at the fact that
these men who they considered to be untrained, ignorant fishermen are utilizing
the Scriptures in such power. That is because God the Holy Spirit is empowering
them and they have the conviction of the truth of their position. Then at the
end of the verse we read that they realized that these men had been with Jesus.
Acts
The issue
here for us: When we boil the whole thing down what we have here is a
witnessing encounter. Here are Peter and John explaining the good news about
Jesus Christ and His claim to be the Messiah, and His resurrection, to a group
of people who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and who refuse to accept
the fact that He rose from the dead. So it is time to stop and look at how they
are handling this witnessing situation, at the mechanics, and especially when
we bring in the fact that they are dealing with evidence. That is an important
aspect as we talk about the gospel: What is the evidence of the truth of the
gospel? And it is not just a matter of what is the evidence but of how do we
use the evidence. We are supposed to use evidence. God did not work in history
in a vacuum, there is clear evidence. The Scripture talks about that evidence
and God provides evidence because Christianity, despite what some people want
to say about it, is not just a blind leap of faith into the dark. Belief is not
empty. Faith is knowledge based upon fact and you believe the facts. Every
scientist believes in facts.
But now we
introduce another issue. What is this word “fact”? What makes a fact a fact,
and is there such a thing as just an independent, autonomous fact that just
sits there on its own un-interpreted? Is there such a thing as a fact that
doesn’t immediately and simultaneously with your awareness of it also have
interpretation with it? Or does fact exist apart from interpretation? We will
say that there is no such thing as an independent fact. Every fact is
interpreted and is viewed and assigned an interpretation from the very
beginning.
How do we
use evidence and what kind of response can we expect from referring to and
using evidence? This gets us into an area that is very important within our
understanding of Christianity and it is the area of apologetics. Apologetics is
sometimes misunderstood but it is extremely important and is commanded in
Scripture.
1 Pet 3:15,
16 NASB “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always {being}
ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the
hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good
conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile
your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.”
“Ready to
make a defense” is the Greek word apologia
[a)pologia], a word that comes out of the legal
language, the language of the courtroom, in ancient
Within the
realm of theology we have a branch of study that is called apologetics. It is a
broad field of study; it is not identical to studying Christian evidences.
Christian evidences may be a sub-set of apologetics but apologetics is simply
covering how we communicate the gospel in a clear way to those who need to hear
it. Any time anyone is making a case for the gospel then they are engaged in
apologetics.
Another
aspect of apologetics has to do with effectively communicating to someone. It
gets down to the whole process of communicating truth in a cross-cultural
situation. We as Christians are part of a culture, a Christian culture; we
think differently than any unbeliever thinks. So we have to present what we are
saying in a way that is going to, to the best of our ability, make the gospel
clear. This is not excluding the role of the Holy Spirit which is very
important and is part of this. We can’t do the Holy Spirit’s role; He is not
going to do our role. We have to be as effective as we can in our role and He
will take care of whatever shortcomings there are. That is not a basis for
excusing our responsibility but is recognizing that we have different roles. So
we have to communicate the gospel to people. Not only is there a cross-cultural
difference between the way we think as Christians and the way unbelievers think
but we may be Americans taking the gospel as a missionary to another culture,
to people who have grown up in another ethnic group, another country another
language, and they think differently.
Within the
context of apologetics the question comes up and there is a lot of debate on
how to use evidence. On the one hand there is a group of people who are called
evidentialists. They believe that if you just give people the evidence that
Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead, and that the Bible is true, that
that is all a person needs and they will believe it. There are problems with
that approach. On the other side there is a group called presuppositionalists.
They understand that because man is fallen he has a spiritual agenda in terms
of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness; and they say that has to be taken
into account. Really when we look at the two camps, the two approaches, the
bottom line is: What is the ultimate authority? As a Christian communicating
the gospel how are we going to validate the truth, the truth of God? Is there
anything higher than God? No. If God says, “I am truth,” are we going to appeal
to a higher authority to establish His truth? No. He is God; He is truth. If we
approach from an evidentialist viewpoint their approach is that of you give a
logical reasoned explanation then people should believe it, because it is
logical. Or, if they are an empiricist, if we give the historical validation
then that is what they need to know. A presuppositionalist would say the
problem with both of those approaches is they are treating facts as if they
exist in pure neutrality. In the devil’s world no fact exists in pure
neutrality; all facts are immediately interpreted in some sense.
Example:
Romans 1:18-21 NASB “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;
for God made it evident to them.” In other words, Paul is saying they know God
exists. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood
through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” The things that
are made are evidence of God’s existence. A presuppositionalist isn’t saying it
is apart from evidence, he is saying it is how you use the evidence. We have to
realize that the evidence here is the creation but the evidence, the brute
fact, doesn’t exist; it is immediately suppressed by unrighteousness. “Being
understood” is a knowledge concept; it is known (in one sense of knowledge).
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks,
but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.” The atheist knows God, but only in one sense: in a sort of an
academic, intellectualized sense.
In this case
we see that there is evidence, i.e. the creation. We also have an
interpretation of the facts of creation. As a Christian we look at those facts
and interpret them as something created by God, but as a Darwinist we would
look at the same thing and interpret it differently almost from the get-go,
because that is our frame of reference. There is a prior orientation that comes
from a spiritual issue—because it’s not just about the facts, ma’am, it has to
do with spiritual issues.
What we see
in these verses is that all men know that God exists but the unbeliever does
not know God as God has revealed Himself. That is important. The unbeliever
knows God exists but not as he ought to know God exists, not as he should know
God exists, because he is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. He has
knowledge of God in an intellectual and academic sense but he has at the same
time rejected that and turned it back on God.
The
unbeliever does not know God as he should. “Should” implies a value system. We
call that ethics. As soon as we say the unbeliever knows God but not as he
should know God we are linking ethics with knowledge. That is usually not done
but the Bible connects the two. Knowledge is not morally or ethically neutral,
or in terms of our vocabulary, knowledge is not spiritually neutral. So as soon
as we use words like “should” we import these values of right and wrong to the
discussion.
Rebellious
man in human viewpoint wants to treat knowledge as if it is purely ethically
neutral. But that is not how God created knowledge. The knowledge of God
demands a decision for or against. That brings in another key word: volition.
Knowledge isn’t volitionally neutral either. So we learn that knowledge is not
ethically neutral, therefore knowledge is not spiritually neutral. Therefore
knowledge is impacted by a person’s spiritual perceptions or presuppositions,
which is basically volition. Knowledge therefore cannot be divorced from
volition. To know something as God wants us to know something demands a
volitional decision, a choice.
In John
chapter 20 when the other disciples we saying that Jesus rose from the dead;
they saw him. There is the evidence. What is Thomas doing? He is saying he is
not going to believe until he can touch Him. He is an empiricist there. When he
sees Jesus—that is the right use of evidence here—he believes in the
resurrection. Then another character comes along, an unbeliever. He is positive
to God but at the moment he has confused being positive with God to being
positive with religion. He is out-Pharisseing the Pharisees and trying to kill
every Christian that comes across his path. He hates Christianity. But what
happened. Again there is an evidential exposure of the resurrected Lord Jesus
Christ on the road to
In contrast
to those two we have the Sadducees here in the room with Peter and John and
they have seen this lame man that most of them have know for their entire life
as being lame. And when they see the evidence in front of them they go: It is not
what it looks like. Why? Because they have a preconceived spiritual agenda of
negative volition. Some of them may eventually be like Paul and that may
change, but what they are saying at this time is, I’m not believing that. It’s
not a matter of not giving them enough logic and rational arguments; it is not
an issue of giving them enough evidence and knowing all these different lines
of argument. The bottom line is you make the gospel clear, the Holy Spirit also
works to make it clear to them spiritually, but it is their volition. They have
to decide to believe or to reject the truth.
The issue
isn’t how many people we can get saved; the issue is to be faithful in giving
an answer, just basically and accurately explaining the gospel so that people
can understand what it is that we have said.