The Gospel Proclaimed and Rejected. Acts 21:37 - Acts 22:30

What we see here by way of an application framework is that Paul has been warned again and again that he is going to be arrested, put in jail, and face intense persecution and opposition when he goes to Jerusalem. And yet he had that one-sided focus that his mission that God gave him was to be an effective witness for Jesus Christ, to the Jew first but primarily to the Gentiles. He shows tremendous moral courage even in the midst of tremendous opposition.

Acts 21:37 ^NASB “As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, ‘May I say something to you?’ And he said, ‘Do you know Greek?’”

Notice how he is relaxed and recognizes authority and seeks permission to do what he is going to do. He does it in Greek, which surprises the commander. This was a case of mistaken identity where the commander had expected him to be someone else, a troublemaker who had caused problems in the past.

Acts 21:38 ^NASB “Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Assassins is not the right term. Assassin is a word that came into English some time later when there was a group that was sent out to commit assassinations. They would get high on hashish and so they were called “hashishins”. Assassin comes from that root word hashish, so this is not really the best word. The word that is used here is sikari, which mean the dagger men. It is from a Latin word sicae, which described the short sword or dagger that they used to commit their atrocities. This was a group that first appeared during the procuratorship of Felix who was the procurator in Judea from 52-59 AD. These were enemies of Rome and they would mingle with the crowds and when they saw their target they would slip up next to them and stab them or cut their throat. One of the high priests that they killed during this time was Jonathan who was the son of Annas.

Josephus mentions them and he refers to this event that is mentioned in verse 38, which shows us that the Bible deals with historical facts. He wrote:

An Egyptian imposter who claimed to be a prophet gathered together 30,000 followers and came to the Mount of Olives promising that the walls of Jerusalem would collapse at his command. Felix set his troops on them, killing some, and the remainder scattered but the Egyptian escaped.

Acts 21:39 ^NASB “But Paul said, ‘I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.’”

In the Greek Paul says, “I am a man, a Jew.” He uses the word anthropos. When he addresses the crowd in the next section he refers to himself as a male, so there is something significant there in emphasizing that he is a Jewish man in both places. “A citizen of no insignificant city” is a negative way of saying it is an important city. It had a medical school, a university, was on the trade route. But Paul doesn’t mention that he is a citizen of Rome. This will come a little later on. Paul didn’t want to play his Roman citizenship card unless he really had to.

Acts 21:40 ^NASB “When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,

Acts 22:1 ^NASB “Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now {offer} to you.”

Literally he says, “Men, brethren and fathers.” What do those three terms have in common? Paul is a sexist; he hates women! That’s the liberal conclusion. Every time they see things like his they say, “Well they just don’t like women”. Remember that the leadership in the temple is male under Judaism. The women are in the courtyard of the women. But the crowd is probably mostly the men that are attacking Paul. This is indicated by the fact that he calls them “Men, brethren”—a term addressing them out of respect, those generally his own age, and then those who are older and worthy of respect he calls “fathers”. He is addressing them in a very polite manner, not using language that would stir anything up or incite anything, and he is using the same kind of address that Stephen used in Acts chapter seven when he addressed the Sanhedrin. So he shows respect for them, good manners, poise under pressure, and he is going to make a “defense”, the Greek word apologia which doesn’t mean an apology, it means to make a defense, a legal argument for your case. Paul is going to make a case for what he is teaching and what he is doing. Remember that he has been charged with several falsehoods. He is going to argue in his defense that these things are not true whatsoever.

His goal is to be able to present the gospel. He never takes his eye off the ball. Even though he is addressing an extremely hostile crowd he doesn’t let that affect what he is going to do. He is not going to back off but he is not going to try to address it in any way that would be inflammatory. He is going to let the message itself create the antagonism, not his tone or his manner or his personality.

Acts 22:2 ^NASB “And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,

He addresses them in the Hebrew language, which gets their attention.

apologia: In Philippians 1:7 Paul says, “For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.” This is his mission—in defense of the gospel. The defense doesn’t mean that we are on the defensive, it means that we are arguing a solid case for the truth of the gospel and presenting it in a logical manner so that people can understand it. That means that when we are personally communicating it to people sometimes we have to achieve limited objectives and not try to get the whole gospel to somebody, especially if we know that they are in opposition. We have to be patient and tactful and respectful. Some people are going to react, but we should not react in anger or resentment or impatience because of their hostility. That is not easy for some of us because of our personalities and sin natures, but we have to learn to be that way.

So Paul says that part of his role is to defend and authenticate the gospel, and in Philippians 1:16 he says, ^NASB “knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel …” This is part of his mission as an apostle.

1 Peter 3:15 ^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.” One of the ways we are sanctified and grow to maturity is that we are always to be ready to give a defense, to give a logical answer or explanation to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in us. This should be done in humility.

We see how Paul does this. There are four times in the rest of Acts—only two of them are identified as a defense but they are all defenses—that he does this and each time it is a little different. So we can learn different ways and approaches from examining these apologia events in the life of Paul.

First of all he begins with his own background. He does this because he wants to identify with this Jewish audience and he wants them to understand the profound level of respect that he has for their traditions, for the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and for what has been taught in the Old Testament, and what he has been taught about the Law. He is not hostile to the Law as had been claimed.

Acts 22:3 ^NASB “I am a Jew …” In the Greek he says, “I am a male, a Jew.” “… born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

“Born in Tarsus, brought up in this city, and taught according to the strictness of our fathers” are all perfect participles. A perfect tense indicates a past complete action. So there are three participles there all perfect tenses, all emphasizing that it is completed action in the past. Then there are two verbs in the present tense. That should stand out be cause what he has done is talk about his background and his training and then by the shift of the present tense he is saying, “I still have this respect for the Law.” He is establishing that this antagonism to the Law that they are assuming is not legitimate. Then he says, “being zealous for God just as you all are today.” He is identifying with the crowd: “I believe in the Law; it is not bad”.

Then he shifts to how he acted when Christianity first began. Acts 22:4 ^NASB “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, [5] as also the high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify. From them I also received letters to the brethren, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished.” The words “the Council of” is not in the original Greek at all, it is just an addition by English translators to give some sense to this.

As he describes what happened on the road to Damascus we should recognize that there are three accounts in Acts of his conversion. Acts chapter nine records his conversion in the words of Luke who is summarizing what took place with Paul on the road to Damascus. But this is the first time we get a firsthand account from the apostle Paul. There are some differences but those are accounted for in the sense (they are not contradictions) that Paul is highlighting certain things about what happened for a reason. He is leaving certain things out because they don’t relate to the point he is trying to make, and he include certain things because they reaffirm his continued devotion to the Mosaic Law—not as a means of spirituality, not as a means of grace, not as a means of salvation, but because he has respect for their historical and cultural tradition.

Acts 22:6 ^NASB “But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me.” He comes near to Damascus, within sight. And we learn something new here. This is about noon when the sun is at its apex and it is the brightest of the day. But then this bright light appears from heaven that just blinds Paul. It flashes forth like lightning all around him. The Greek word is periastrapto, which means to flash around. The peri at the beginning (like a perimeter) is a preposition meaning to go around. So he is surrounded by this intense bright light.

Acts 22:7 ^NASB “and I fell to the ground …” This is a typical response to the presence of deity. It is automatic, like when Isaiah is brought into the throne room of God; he falls on his face because when we are in the presence of God there is no question. Paul is not saying, “What is this bright light?” He falls on his face because he knows inherently, internally that he is in the presence of God. “… and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’” This is identical to what is described by Luke in 9:4, and versed 8 is identical to 9:5. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who is addressing him.

Acts 22:8 “And I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.’”

There are a couple of interesting interpretations here. If you belong to the John MacArthur lordship school of theology you will know that MacArthur will say, “See, Paul recognizes the Lordship of Jesus.” In terms of vocabulary that is possible, but kurios here [Adonai in the Old Testament; kurios in the Greek] is also a term like we might say, “Sir”, a recognition of someone in authority, an expression of politeness, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we accept their authority. Although it could mean that he recognizes the deity of Christ I think we have to be careful not to read too much into this at this point. He has just been knocked on his rear end and flattened on the ground, and he is responding” “Who are you, sir?” The reason he asks the question is because he doesn’t know who it is. So we can’t assume that the Lord means he has recognized the deity and Lordship of Jesus. If he has, why is he asking the question: “Who are you?”

The Lord responds: “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting”. It is not the individual humans you are persecuting. Yes, you are doing that; you are throwing them in jail. But they are part of the body of Christ. The one you are really persecuting is me.

Acts 22:9 ^NASB “And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.” In Acts 9:6 it says that they heard the voice but couldn’t make out the words. This is Luke’s precision. Paul is talking to this audience and when he says they didn’t hear the voice he really means they didn’t understand what the voice was saying.

Acts 22:10 ^NASB “And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’” He has just summarized what the Lord said back in Acts 9 where the Lord gave him instructions to go to the street called Straight and to find Ananias.

Acts 22:11 ^NASB “But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus.[12]   “A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, {and} well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him.”

“Brother indicates more than just kinship as a Jew. He is recognizing that Saul is a believer now.

Acts 22:14 ^NASB “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth.”

The word “appointed” has been translated “chosen” in some versions, but the Greek is not eklektos, which has the idea of election, it is procheirizo. cheir is the word for hand, so it is a word indicating appointing somebody to a task. It is not selecting them or electing them to salvation, it is that Paul is being appointed by God to a task, as an apostle. Three things here: “that you should know His will”—special divine revelation given to you; “see the righteous (just, in some translations) one”—the word “just” in Greek is dikaios and the same word is used in relation to righteousness. In the Old Testament is the word tsedek. Righteousness is also translated “justice”. A key concept in 2^nd temple Judaism is righteousness, and so the emphasis here is that he is a believer in righteousness and the one who app-eared to him, Jesus of Nazareth is the righteous one. So he is holding the same values as his audience in terms of his desire for righteousness; “and hear the voice of His mouth” – he will hear and be instructed by the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:15 ^NASB “For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard? [16] Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” This is one of two verses in Acts that are used to support the idea that people need to be baptized in order to be saved and that baptism actually brings about forgiveness. But that just doesn’t fit the grammar. Every time we see baptism in the New Testament it is almost immediate upon their conversion and their belief in Christ. It was something assumed to be an act of obedience that was done immediately and it had a pedagogical purpose: to teach about identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. The sin nature is now blocked; its total authority over the individual is now removed.

What Paul is doing is summarizing what Ananias said. What Ananias is saying is not a doctrinal statement. He is not articulating a theological principle on baptism. He is talking to Paul as a Jew in the sense of how Jews perceived baptism. Baptism is a picture of cleansing from sin. It was not baptism that cleansed from sin, it was a ritual that depicted something that was true internally. Ananias said “Get up”. There are two infinitives of purpose: “Get up so that you can be baptized, and so that you can wash away your sins.” That is followed by a causal participle: “because you have called on the name of the Lord.” The phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” has a certain prophetic value: that Israel in the end times will call on the name of the Lord. It is used that way in Acts 2:11. But it is a picture of someone in prayer who is calling upon God to deliver them from a set of circumstances. It can be used for salvation, although in many cases it is not. “ … and wash away your sins.” This is the imagery. Because this has already happened in the spiritual realm when you called upon the name of the Lord. Paraphrase: “Arise to be baptized and to wash away your sins symbolically.” It is recognizing that he has already been saved and now going through this ritual simply teaches the principle that his sins have been forgiven and cleansed and no longer separate him from God.

Paul skips over a lot of things that happened in Damascus at this time. He is in Damascus almost three years before he goes to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:19 ^NASB “and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, [20] and immediately he {began} to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” There was also a time here when he went out into the desert to rethink his theology. [21] All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, ‘Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and {who} had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?’ [22] But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this {Jesus} is the Christ.” He is really engaged in a lot of enthusiastic debate, discrediting and disproving rabbinic theology, and demonstrating that Jesus is the Messiah.

Acts 9:23 ^NASB “When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, [24] but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; [25] but his disciples took him by night and let him down through {an opening in} the wall, lowering him in a large basket.”

Nothing is said in Acts 9 about 22:17. This is new information. While he is engaging the Pharisees in all of these debates and opposition, and they are plotting to kill him, he goes to the temple where he is given a vision.

Acts 22:17 ^NASB “It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance.” The Greek word is ekstasis. This is not ecstatics. Ecstasy was the modus operandi of the pagan priests in trying to work themselves up into an altered state of consciousness where they would have some sort of hallucination. The word in Greek simply meant a trance or a vision. The difference between a dream and a vision: A dream is when God has revealed Himself to somebody when they were asleep, and a vision was when God would reveal himself to somebody in a similar way but they were awake. Paul is awake and fully conscious and he sees what God is revealing to him. What God reveals is that he needs to leave Jerusalem.

Acts 9:28ff says that he created a lot of antagonism and when the brethren found out they sent him back home to Tarsus. There was peace in Jerusalem after that. The enthusiasm of the new convert was creating more tension and trauma by his enthusiasm rather than good sense. He had to go home and into obscurity before he was really ready to minister.

Acts 22:18 ^NASB “and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’” So what is left out of the Acts 9 account is the warning that Jesus appeared to him and told him to leave Jerusalem.

Acts 22:19 ^NASB “And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves understand that in one synagogue after another I used to imprison and beat those who believed in You. [20] And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I also was standing by approving, and watching out for the coats of those who were slaying him.’” Paul is trying to defend his conduct. He is getting to the climax of his argument here.

Acts 22:21 ^NASB “And He said to me, ‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” As soon as he said ethnoi [Gentiles] the crowd erupted in madness and hostility towards Paul. They are so antagonistic to the Gentiles.

Acts 22:22 ^NASB “They listened to him up to this statement, and {then} they raised their voices and said, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!’” They wanted to crucify him at that moment just like they wanted to crucify Christ. [23] And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air.” They have worked themselves into an emotional state of anger. Throwing dust into the air indicated great grief over blasphemy. They are just as hostile to Paul as they possibly can be.

Acts 22:24 ^NASB “the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way.” But he is still not sure who Paul is and what he wants to do is examine him. This is a word that means examine by torture. The word is anetazo and it means to enquire or interrogate by torture. They wanted to know why everybody got so mad at him. They heard what he said, so what has upset the people so much? There has to be more to this, so lets beat it out of him.

Acts 22:25 ^NASB “But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, ‘Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?’” That got the centurion’s attention. [26] “When the centurion heard {this,} he went to the commander and told him, saying, ‘What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.’ [27] The commander came and said to him, ‘Tell me, are you a Roman?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ [28] The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.’ And Paul said, ‘But I was actually born {a citizen.}’”

There were three ways one could obtain Roman citizenship if not a Roman citizenship. It could be awarded because of some great act of bravery on the battlefield or in some other way that was an act in favor of Rome. The second was to be born into citizenship. The third way was to purchase it at an enormous price. Paul was born a citizen and that meant he had a higher quality citizenship than the person who bought it with a lot of money. This brings a lot of respect for the apostle Paul from the commander because he was a born Roman citizen. [29] “Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains.”

Acts 22:30 ^NASB “But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set him before them.”

So he orders the Sanhedrin to come together. Then he is going to bring Paul in and have an interrogation before the Sanhedrin.

What we see here is how Paul is relaxed under pressure. He is poised; he has his focus on the fact that it is not up to him to try to convince them of the truth. It is not his ego that is involved in communicating the gospel. What he needs to do is make sure that he presents the gospel in as clear a manner as he can, present his testimony in as clear a manner as he can, and the results are up to the Lord. When we can do that, even when we are facing an audience or an individual that is somewhat antagonistic, it takes the heat off. It is not our job to convince them to be saved. It is our job to present the gospel as clearly as we can and let God the Holy Spirit convince them of its truth. Our ego is not on the line. If they reject the gospel it doesn’t mean they are rejecting us, though often that happens.

Slides