Analyzing Paul's Apologias in Acts 22-26 [Class Summary]
Right before class, I made a visit to the porcelain throne room where, it seems, I do all of my best thinking. While in the solitude of that room, I started thinking about what I was going to say and how I was going to start our analysis of Paul's apologias. I always like to stress why we're doing what we're doing, so I started thinking about how to reinforce that. First Corinthians 10 came to mind...that all the stuff in the Old Testament was written for our benefit—to serve as examples for us, both of things to do and things not to do.
"Perfect. I'll start with that. I’ll talk about 1 Corinthians 10:6, and we'll cruise right into Acts."
Confident of this approach, I returned (refreshed) back to my classroom.
The first question I asked the class was "Why did God go through all the trouble of writing and preserving the Bible for us over all these years?"
From the back came the voice of my youngest daughter..."So we can learn from other people's mistakes!" I couldn't help but have a "proud papa" moment there.
"Okay, good. Can anyone think of a specific verse that states that?" I replied. Honestly, I was hoping that someone in the class had some familiarity with 1 Corinthians 10 so that I'd have an easy segue into the Scriptures. But what followed was so much better than that.
A young lady responded, mentioning the time that Moses struck the rock twice when he was supposed to speak to it. I was just about to brush off that response as "not what I was looking for" or "too specific...I want a verse that talks about this at a more conceptual level." But I think the Holy Spirit "restrained my madness" and whispered, "Roll with it."
So, I started asking some questions:
What was God's command to Moses the first time he was to get the water? He was to strike it it.
When Moses struck the rock, what was the result? Water came out.
The second time, what was Moses supposed to do to the rock to get water? He was to speak to it.
What did he actually do? He struck it…twice.
What was the immediate result? Water came out.
What was the consequence of Moses' disobedience? He was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
“Just because God seems to be using our hamfisted and misguided attempts at serving Him for His glory, we should not think of this as tacit approval of our methodology. ”
The second time around, God said "do it this way" and Moses did it another way. The end result was the same, but because Moses chose his own methodology, he was denied entry to the promised land. What do we learn from this? Just because God seems to be using our hamfisted and misguided attempts at serving Him for His glory (Romans 8:28), we should not think of this as tacit approval of our methodology. To take such a view would be "pragmatism" (i.e., "it ain't wrong if it works!"), which is clearly unbiblical.
So, why is this so amazing? Because when we look at the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 10, this is what we see:
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. — 1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Is God amazing, or what? That he would use a cracked, earthen vessel like me in this way absolutely boggles my mind.
Paul's Apologias (Acts 22-26)
In a tiny nutshell, here's what we learned from each of Paul's "defenses" in the latter chapters of the book of Acts:
He never tried to prove that the Bible is true
He never tried to prove that Jesus existed
He never tried to convince the polytheistic Romans that there was but one God
He twice told his "road to Damascus" story (i.e., gave his testimony)
He unabashedly proclaimed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
Now, since all Scripture is God-breathed, and all Scripture is given to us that we may be fully-equipped, and since Scripture explicitly states that the history recorded therein has been given for us as examples to follow (or not follow, as the case is perhaps more often than not!), why do we think that we get to ignore the examples from Scripture and do things our way?
Why do we think we cannot quote Scripture to an unbeliever because "he doesn't accept its authority"? Paul did.
When did Paul or Peter ever defend the Scriptures?
Why do we think that we get to argue first for a generic theism, then to monotheism, and then finally to Christian theism? The apostles never did that.
Why do we think we have to rationalize (i.e. use logic, reason, and rhetoric) people to Christ? Did the apostles ever do that? Did not Paul say to the Corinthians that he "determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"? (1 Corinthians 2:2)
We cannot use the excuse "those verses are not imperative...they're declarative" because the Holy Spirit twice says that they're given as examples for us (1 Corinthians 10:6) and were written for our instruction (1 Corinthians 10:11)! Lest someone say that "We're so much smarter today, and the atheists are far more clever in their argumentation than they were back then!" I would remind the reader that thousands of years ago, a bunch of dudes wearing not much more than loin cloths managed to construct gigantic pyramids and we still today don't really know for sure how they did it. I submit to you that we're not nearly as smart or clever as we think we are. Remember what we've been hearing about every Sunday for weeks now? "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Next week, we'll take a close look at Paul's apologia in Athens, which is where many modern-day apologists like to hang their hat when they argue for rationalizing unbelievers to Christ. I trust you'll see then that there's more to this passage than you've probably been taught.
Homework
Apply the same analysis we used in class on Acts 17:16-34. Observe everything you see...to whom is Paul speaking (dig a little into this...see if you can learn what the named groups actually believed)? What is he saying? Upon what are his arguments/statements based? What is his central focus?