Original Meaning
Paul Appeals to Caesar (25:1–12)
GOVERNOR FESTUS MADE his first visit to Jerusalem three days after arriving in the province. He met with the Jewish leaders, who were quick to bring up the issue of Paul (25:1–2). Even two years after Paul’s arrest their urgency over this case and their plans to kill him had not diminished. The first favor they requested of Festus was to have Paul brought to Jerusalem, with the intent that they might kill him on the way (25:3). Festus apparently preferred to conduct most of his business from Caesarea, particularly in cases that could be drawn out. So he asked the Jews to come to Caesarea with him and promised to take up the case on his return (25:4–6).
As in the trial before Felix, the Jews made serious charges against Paul, which they could not prove (25:7). Again Paul proclaimed his blamelessness before the Jewish law, the temple, and Caesar (25:8; see 23:1; 24:16). He should have been released at this stage. But Festus bowed to Jewish pressure and, wishing to grant them a favor, asked Paul whether he would be willing to go to Jerusalem for trial. Luke uses the word “favor” three times in the space of ten verses (24:27; 25:3, 9), showing that the chances of a fair trial for Paul were bleak.
Since the process of justice had been stalled for two years, Paul now realized that there was no hope of his getting a fair trial in Judea. Instead, his life was in great danger. The famous Roman justice system that had served him well under Gallio (18:17) could not operate for his good here because of the influence of powerful locals. Paul must have felt that this problem would not be as serious in Rome. Besides, the Lord had told him that he would testify in Rome (23:11). Thus, he decided to appeal to Caesar (25:11)—a privilege granted to Roman citizens.1 Felix must have been relieved by Paul’s appeal to Caesar, for he could now wash his hands of the case. It was clearly beyond his abilities to judge, considering his unfamiliarity with Jewish customs and beliefs. He conferred with his council and declared the appeal valid (25:12).
Bridging Contexts
THE LIMITS OF the law in practice. Earlier in Acts Luke presented the Roman justice system in a positive light. There were fair officials, and in Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem they had even protected Paul from harm (chs. 18; 19; 21). Some key Romans were converted in Caesarea and Philippi, and in Philippi the officials recanted the harm done to Paul unjustly (chs. 10; 16).
But now we see Roman procedures in a different light. There is almost an element of absurdity here. Serious charges have been made against Paul (25:7, 24), and Festus is at a loss, not knowing what to do (25:20, 26–27). Yet many times the Roman officials express their belief that Paul is innocent (25:7, 18–19, 20, 25–26; 26:31). This culminates with Agrippa’s statement, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (26:32). This was easy for Agrippa to say since he had no responsibility for the case. But those who did have responsibility (Felix and Festus) were afraid to take a stand that would antagonize the majority.
In other words, though Roman law was a noble system that Christians used for their protection, its implementers were sometimes reluctant to antagonize the majority. This is why Luke uses the word “favor” three times (24:27; 25:3, 9). On one occasion the Jewish leaders asked for this favor, and the other two times the Roman officials acted in order to grant the Jews a favor. After the process of justice had been stalled for two years, Festus tried to escape from the responsibility by having Paul transferred to Jerusalem. Thus, Paul was forced to look for a more favorable climate for a fair trial and appealed to Rome. While we should use the law to look after us, we should not naively think that resorting to the law will automatically provide justice.
The centrality of the resurrection to the Christian message. In our study of the Pentecost message we saw how important the resurrection is to the Christian message; it was God’s accreditation of Jesus as the Messiah.12 In Paul’s speech to Agrippa we see another reason why the resurrection is so central. As the first to rise from the dead (26:23), Christ fulfilled the hope of Israel (26:6–8). That is, he started the process of the regeneration of Israel and actually of the new Israel, which consists of all the redeemed—Gentiles and Jews. With the resurrection of Christ, “eternal life . . . appeared in the midst of mortality”13 and will be consummated at the end of time. G. E. Ladd puts this succinctly in the language of biblical theology:
The resurrection of Jesus is an eschatological event that occurred in history and gave rise to the Christian church. It sounds a note that provides the clue for understanding the character and message of the primitive church. The church was brought into being by an eschatological event; it is itself an eschatological community with an eschatological message. In some real sense, the events that belong to the end of the age and the eschatological consummation have invaded history.14
Paul’s explanation of evangelism. Paul’s speech before Agrippa provides the most comprehensive defense of his evangelistic ministry in Acts. The fact that people were being converted to Christianity had caused much anger among the Jews. Paul explains to this “Jewish” king how and why this takes place. Undoubtedly Luke records this speech in some detail so that his readers will understand what happens in the evangelistic process.
(1) God calls and enables people to be witnesses for him. He appoints us as servants and witnesses to what we have experienced of Jesus (26:16). He commissions us to go to the people (26:17), protects us from our opponents (26:17), and helps us throughout our ministry (26:22a). Christ himself, the first to rise from the dead, proclaims light to Jews and to Gentiles (26:23).
(2) In our role as witnesses for Christ, we must respond obediently to God’s call (26:19). We must testify to both small and great (26:22b), and in so doing we open their eyes to the truth of God. To achieve this end we must say things that are true and reasonable (26:25) so that people will be persuaded about the gospel (26:28–29). Behind all of this is our hope and prayer that all the people we encounter will experience salvation (26:29).
(3) Paul also makes several points about the evangelistic message. We preach that people should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). We say nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen (26:22c). We testify that the Messiah had to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he proclaims light to the people (26:23).
(4) The result of this ministry is that people are saved. Their eyes are opened; they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (26:18a). On their part they must have faith in Jesus (26:18b), repent of their sins, turn to God, and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). On God’s part, he forgives their sins and gives them a place among those who are sanctified (26:18b).
The divine and human sides of evangelism. This list of the elements of the evangelistic process shows us that effective Christian mission includes both divine and human activity. The initiator of everything is God. He calls, commissions, equips, and protects the evangelists (26:16, 17, 22). But we have a responsibility to obey the heavenly vision (26:19), testifying to both small and great (26:22b). When we proclaim the gospel, God is actually speaking through us and makes our words become fruitful, and Jesus is the one proclaiming light to the people (26:23).
Agrippa uses the word peitho (“to persuade”) to describe what he sees Paul trying to do to him. This word is used seven times in Acts to describe Paul’s evangelism15 and means to work with persons until their minds are changed and they accept the message proclaimed.16 From the content of Paul’s speech here, it is clear that he worked hard to convince others about what he believed. He tells Festus that what he says is true and reasonable (26:25). Thus, in all his proclamation Paul used reason (cf. 17:1–15). While it is true that we proclaim a divine wisdom that is higher than human wisdom, we do so reasonably.17
This interplay between the divine and human sides is also seen in the response of the individual. On the one hand, Paul “preached that [people] should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). This suggests that conversion is something we do (cf. also 17:30). Paul’s letters also speak of our obligation to obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). On the other hand, Jesus told Paul that people “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (26:18b). That is, forgiveness and a place among the sanctified are gifts given by God (though the word “faith” suggests also that a person is not a passive recipient of this gift).
In Paul’s prayer for the conversion of the lost (26:29) we see his combining of the divine and the human sides of evangelism most clearly. We pray to God, and what happens on earth is his answer to our prayers.
Contemporary Significance
RECKONING WISELY WITH the law. We said that while we should try to use the law on our behalf, we should not naively think that by resorting to the law we will automatically get justice. Even the best legal system is administered by fallen individuals, who may choose expediency over what is right. This calls for wisdom on the part of the Christian, so that we take a course of action that will best serve the cause of Christ. In this case, Paul appealed to Caesar, thinking that this would be the best way to get justice and avoid assassination by the Jews. We too should weigh the options wisely when appealing to the law. We should also seek advice from fellow Christians and from those who are more conversant with the law than ourselves. This buttresses the view presented in the last study that some of the best minds in the church should give themselves to the task of dealing with the knotty issues involving church and state.
This challenge of wisdom in relation to the state is going to become more and more significant as both religious fundamentalism and pluralism continue to grow. These two diverse approaches to truth oppose Christian evangelism because they are incompatible with the view that, since Christ is absolute truth, we must urge all to convert to him. The fundamentalists say, “Don’t touch our people”; the pluralists say, “Don’t say yours is the only way.” In the coming years we can anticipate a growing opposition to biblical Christianity. We must let some of our best minds—our Pauls—tackle this great challenge.
Proclaiming the message of the resurrection. While the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity (both proof of the message of Jesus and the onset of Israel’s eschatological blessings), many within the church do not know how to proclaim that message. The victory of the resurrection is one that must be emphasized because, in our pragmatic world, we find it difficult to visualize how an event like this can affect our daily lives.
Through the stress given to the cross in evangelical preaching in this century, we have come to understand at least some of the deep meaning of the cross. But we may not have come to a corresponding understanding of the resurrection and its significance. Yet this is a key message for today’s church because, with all our pragmatism and focus on how to live the Christian life, Christians seem to lack the theological and spiritual muscle needed to overcome the onslaught of the world upon the church. The answer to the moral and ethical poverty of today’s church is not only more instruction to weak people on how to live. It is a good dose of theological truth that will enable them to understand the meaning of Christ’s victory won through his work. Believers will then realize that in Christ they have the spiritual and theological power to withstand the onslaughts that come from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Early in my ministry, my colleagues asked me to give a series of four messages on the resurrection at an evangelistic youth camp. I thought that would be easy, considering that I had come to agree with my teacher George Ladd’s affirmation that “the cornerstone of the entire New Testament is the resurrection.”18 But as I looked for material to go into this series, I struggled, partly because I had not heard much evangelistic preaching on the resurrection. I realized a great need for Christians to rediscover the meaning of the resurrection and to learn how best to communicate it to both Christians and non-Christians. In my book The Supremacy of Christ I have shown how the resurrection provides proof about the person of Christ, about his plan of salvation, about his Lordship over all, about the wonderful new life he opens up for us, and about his and our victory over death.19
The debate over divine and human activity in evangelism. The issue of the divine and human sides in Christian activity has caused much controversy in the church throughout history.20 This is understandable, considering the paradox of human and divine involvement as presented in our passage. It is easy to get carried away with one aspect of this paradox and exclude the other. Given the difficulty of fallen human beings to achieve perfect balance, I suppose this conflict of emphases is something we will continue to face within the church.
Some Christians object to praying for the conversion of the lost, saying that human prayers cannot influence God here, for he has sovereignly decreed who are elected to salvation and who are not. They may pray that they will be good witnesses, but they do not think it biblical to pray for the conversion of the lost. Yet Paul clearly prays for the salvation of those whom he encounters (26:29; see Rom. 10:1; 1 Tim. 2:1–4). Those from the Reformed tradition who seek to come to grips with the biblical insistence on the important place that human instruments play in the evangelistic process should see that God uses means, such as prayers and persuasion, to bring in the elect.21
The issue of using means to receive what God has decreed came to a head over the so-called “new measures” advocated by the evangelist and scholar Charles G. Finney (1792–1875). Jonathan Edwards and other preachers of the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century had seen revivals as “surprising works of God”—that is, inexplicable outpourings of God’s Spirit. Finney, on the other hand, claimed that revival is a “result of the right use of constituted means” (the new measures).22
Each of these streams of the church had latched onto a scriptural truth, which they emphasized to such an extent that they virtually eliminated the other side of the coin. Earlier in this commentary we said that when William Carey advocated foreign missions by talking about the means through which the nations were going to hear the gospel, he was discouraged by a high Calvinism that produced the famous statement, “Sit down young man! When God chooses to convert the heathen he will do it without your aid or mine!”23 The idea was that if we start talking about human means to achieving the mission of the church, we undermine God’s sovereignty.
This is particularly true of persuasion techniques as means of evangelism. Some feel that since God sovereignly effects the regeneration of the elect, seeking to persuade people denies his role in the salvation process. They object to public invitations, especially those that plead with people to “come forward.” In this view, those who have been regenerated by God do not need such persuasion. Instead, at an evangelistic meeting, preachers should ask those who sense that they have been found by God to quietly meet the pastor or someone else to indicate this.
On the other extreme, some preachers place far too much emphasis on the human element in evangelism. Evangelists can exert undue pressure when inviting people to respond to the gospel, almost with the notion that the success of the evangelistic event depends on their ability to urge people to come forward. They can be seen as manipulating the audience. The invitation does not seem to be given in confidence and thus lacks the authority of a herald of Christ.
I personally suffered from a nervousness in this regard in my early years in evangelism and was greatly helped by the wise counsel of the Presbyterian evangelist Leighton Ford. He reminded me that the sovereign God was the one doing the inviting and drawing of people to himself. I had to rest in the confidence that he would draw people to himself through my words. This was not an excuse for reducing my preparation; rather, I continued to work hard at preparing my message, including the invitation. But this was a liberating truth that took away the crippling fear that sometimes gripped me as I invited people to turn to Christ.
The use of reason in evangelism. Another aspect of the divine and human in evangelism is the use of reason in proclamation. In 26:25 Paul says, “What I am saying is true and reasonable.” Some, however, appeal to the fact that God’s wisdom and thoughts are higher than ours (Isa. 55:8–9) to back their belief that we should not use reason to try to win people to Christ. These people refer to Paul’s discounting of human wisdom in evangelism in 1 Corinthians 1:17–25 to show how useless it is to appeal to people’s intellect in evangelism. Instead, they say, our work is to simply preach Christ crucified and leave it to God to open the eyes of people. But this approach contradicts the method used by Paul (cf. the discussions on Acts 17).
One of the keys in this issue is to understand the nature of fallen humanity. As a result of the Fall human reason has been warped; we think in ways that are foolish (e.g., believing that sin satisfies and that we can save ourselves). Naturally, then, God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But sin has not obliterated human reason. In proclamation we may appeal to the remnants of reason within the human mind. Like God, we may appeal to sinful people with these words, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Our fallen nature may revolt against such reasoning, for we do not want to turn from our sin and self-sufficiency. But when God opens people’s minds, they will follow our reasoning, and to them it will be good news. The Calvinist may say that those whom God enlightens cannot resist his grace, whereas the Arminian may say that God’s enlightenment can be resisted by a rebellious heart. But in practice that should not cause a difference in our methodology. We do not know who the elect are. Insofar as God can use our reason to bring people in, our job is to reason with them.
To understand Paul’s rejection of human wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 we must note the context of that passage. He is referring there to disunity in the church. People had latched onto those they considered to be their leaders (e.g., Paul, Cephas, and Apollos); division had resulted in the church. Bruce Winter explains that in that culture the pupils of secular teachers had to give exclusive loyalty to their masters and thus there was often rivalry among different teachers. This is what was happening in the Corinthian church.
Moreover, in the first century, rhetoric was so important that the careful crafting of a speech was even more important than its content. Orators “spoke to gain the adulation of their audiences.”24 Paul, on the other hand, says that he was sent “to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom [lit., not by means of the wisdom of rhetoric], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). Had Paul focused on rhetoric, he would have promoted himself and diverted attention away from the cross to himself. But “Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to secure a personal following.”25 Thus, the wisdom he was against was a focus on rhetoric that directed attention away from the cross to the speaker.
Paul went on to say that the preaching of the cross was folly to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). He rejected the wisdom of such worldlings who scoffed at the idea of the cross. That is, he rejected any presentation of the gospel that downplayed the cross so as to appeal to the intelligentsia. Communicating the message of the cross was far more important than winning the audience. Instead of using a human wisdom that rejected the cross, he proclaimed the wisdom of God, that is, Christ (1 Cor. 1:24). But since God created reason, the wisdom of God is not unreasonable. Therefore we may reason with people and show them both the folly of all ways that reject God’s wisdom and the reasonableness and truthfulness of the gospel. We can leave it to God to enlighten their eyes so that they may accept and act upon what we share.
Evangelism as obedience to a vision. Paul’s statement about not being “disobedient to the vision from heaven” (26:19) presents a key to the effectiveness of a servant of God. Shenk and Stutzman have a helpful discussion on this. They point out that “vision has become a catchword in today’s language.”26 A leader must have a clear picture of what is desirable and must be able to articulate that vision so that others also can grasp it. “The word vision shows what is ahead and uncharted. It is in the future tense.” They agree that visionary leadership is a key to motivating others to give themselves to a task or movement.
But Shenk and Stutzman make an important distinction between the above model of vision and the biblical model. After referring to the visions of Paul on the Damascus road, Peter on the rooftop, and John on the island of Patmos, they acknowledge that in the Bible “vision had vital implications for the future. But the vision was not a humanly constructed picture of what was to come. The vision came from God as an instruction for action.” This is something that we too easily overlook as we speak on vision today.
When we plan for the future, draw up our goals, and develop a vision statement, we often use methods of research that the business world gives us. These can indeed help in developing a vision. But much more important is waiting to hear from God. Peter and John were seeking God’s face when they received their respective visions (Acts 10:9; Rev. 1:10). The church of Antioch was “worshiping the Lord and fasting” (Acts 13:2) when God gave them the vision that gave birth to the first formal foreign missionary movement in the church. Leaders must earnestly ask God, both privately and in community, for a vision of what he wants done through them.
Once God’s vision has been discovered, leaders must express it to their people enthusiastically so that they too will catch the vision. It should be communicated practically so that others will realize that this is something that can be done and that they can have a part in achieving it. We have shown how Jesus did this with the Great Commission.27 When people are excited with the vision, they will pay the price to see it fulfilled.
Leaders must also order their lives in order to give priority to the vision.28 There are so many “urgent” demands on our lives that it is easy to neglect the “important” (to use a distinction popularized by Charles Hummel in his influential booklet, The Tyranny of the Urgent29). Leaders must constantly divest themselves of weights that, though they are good in themselves, keep them from doing the truly important things in life. Often our devotional life and personal ministry are the first things affected by being overcommitted. But dropping these will hinder us from fulfilling our visions. Without a healthy devotional life we will become spiritually dry and will not have the spiritual resources to motivate people to receive their fullest potential under God. Without personal work we will soon find that we are left with no people to motivate. It is personal ministry that breeds committed workers in a ministry.
We must always stretch ourselves because Christian leadership is never easy or convenient. We may need to take on the cross of tiredness and strain. But let that strain come from fulfilling the vision God gave us, not from doing things that we should have avoided.
Original Meaning
Festus Consults King Agrippa (25:13–22)
FESTUS WAS HAPPY to use a visit from Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice to consult on the puzzling case of Paul (25:13–14). Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I (the grandson of Herod the Great and the “King Herod” mentioned in Acts 12). He was in his early thirties. Rumors were rife about an incestuous relationship between Agrippa and Bernice,2 both of whom did not live exemplary private lives. Agrippa held the vestments of the Jewish high priest and had the right to appoint him.3 Paul acknowledged that Agrippa was “acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies” (26:3). Thus, “the Romans would consult him on religious matters.”4
Festus explained the events up to that point (25:14–21). It was a straightforward explanation, and it is interesting to note that he saw the resurrection of Jesus as a pivotal point in this case (25:19–20). When Agrippa expressed a desire to hear Paul, arrangements were made for a meeting to be held the next day (25:22).
Bridging Contexts
THE LIMITS OF the law in practice. Earlier in Acts Luke presented the Roman justice system in a positive light. There were fair officials, and in Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem they had even protected Paul from harm (chs. 18; 19; 21). Some key Romans were converted in Caesarea and Philippi, and in Philippi the officials recanted the harm done to Paul unjustly (chs. 10; 16).
But now we see Roman procedures in a different light. There is almost an element of absurdity here. Serious charges have been made against Paul (25:7, 24), and Festus is at a loss, not knowing what to do (25:20, 26–27). Yet many times the Roman officials express their belief that Paul is innocent (25:7, 18–19, 20, 25–26; 26:31). This culminates with Agrippa’s statement, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (26:32). This was easy for Agrippa to say since he had no responsibility for the case. But those who did have responsibility (Felix and Festus) were afraid to take a stand that would antagonize the majority.
In other words, though Roman law was a noble system that Christians used for their protection, its implementers were sometimes reluctant to antagonize the majority. This is why Luke uses the word “favor” three times (24:27; 25:3, 9). On one occasion the Jewish leaders asked for this favor, and the other two times the Roman officials acted in order to grant the Jews a favor. After the process of justice had been stalled for two years, Festus tried to escape from the responsibility by having Paul transferred to Jerusalem. Thus, Paul was forced to look for a more favorable climate for a fair trial and appealed to Rome. While we should use the law to look after us, we should not naively think that resorting to the law will automatically provide justice.
The centrality of the resurrection to the Christian message. In our study of the Pentecost message we saw how important the resurrection is to the Christian message; it was God’s accreditation of Jesus as the Messiah.12 In Paul’s speech to Agrippa we see another reason why the resurrection is so central. As the first to rise from the dead (26:23), Christ fulfilled the hope of Israel (26:6–8). That is, he started the process of the regeneration of Israel and actually of the new Israel, which consists of all the redeemed—Gentiles and Jews. With the resurrection of Christ, “eternal life . . . appeared in the midst of mortality”13 and will be consummated at the end of time. G. E. Ladd puts this succinctly in the language of biblical theology:
The resurrection of Jesus is an eschatological event that occurred in history and gave rise to the Christian church. It sounds a note that provides the clue for understanding the character and message of the primitive church. The church was brought into being by an eschatological event; it is itself an eschatological community with an eschatological message. In some real sense, the events that belong to the end of the age and the eschatological consummation have invaded history.14
Paul’s explanation of evangelism. Paul’s speech before Agrippa provides the most comprehensive defense of his evangelistic ministry in Acts. The fact that people were being converted to Christianity had caused much anger among the Jews. Paul explains to this “Jewish” king how and why this takes place. Undoubtedly Luke records this speech in some detail so that his readers will understand what happens in the evangelistic process.
(1) God calls and enables people to be witnesses for him. He appoints us as servants and witnesses to what we have experienced of Jesus (26:16). He commissions us to go to the people (26:17), protects us from our opponents (26:17), and helps us throughout our ministry (26:22a). Christ himself, the first to rise from the dead, proclaims light to Jews and to Gentiles (26:23).
(2) In our role as witnesses for Christ, we must respond obediently to God’s call (26:19). We must testify to both small and great (26:22b), and in so doing we open their eyes to the truth of God. To achieve this end we must say things that are true and reasonable (26:25) so that people will be persuaded about the gospel (26:28–29). Behind all of this is our hope and prayer that all the people we encounter will experience salvation (26:29).
(3) Paul also makes several points about the evangelistic message. We preach that people should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). We say nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen (26:22c). We testify that the Messiah had to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he proclaims light to the people (26:23).
(4) The result of this ministry is that people are saved. Their eyes are opened; they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (26:18a). On their part they must have faith in Jesus (26:18b), repent of their sins, turn to God, and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). On God’s part, he forgives their sins and gives them a place among those who are sanctified (26:18b).
The divine and human sides of evangelism. This list of the elements of the evangelistic process shows us that effective Christian mission includes both divine and human activity. The initiator of everything is God. He calls, commissions, equips, and protects the evangelists (26:16, 17, 22). But we have a responsibility to obey the heavenly vision (26:19), testifying to both small and great (26:22b). When we proclaim the gospel, God is actually speaking through us and makes our words become fruitful, and Jesus is the one proclaiming light to the people (26:23).
Agrippa uses the word peitho (“to persuade”) to describe what he sees Paul trying to do to him. This word is used seven times in Acts to describe Paul’s evangelism15 and means to work with persons until their minds are changed and they accept the message proclaimed.16 From the content of Paul’s speech here, it is clear that he worked hard to convince others about what he believed. He tells Festus that what he says is true and reasonable (26:25). Thus, in all his proclamation Paul used reason (cf. 17:1–15). While it is true that we proclaim a divine wisdom that is higher than human wisdom, we do so reasonably.17
This interplay between the divine and human sides is also seen in the response of the individual. On the one hand, Paul “preached that [people] should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). This suggests that conversion is something we do (cf. also 17:30). Paul’s letters also speak of our obligation to obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). On the other hand, Jesus told Paul that people “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (26:18b). That is, forgiveness and a place among the sanctified are gifts given by God (though the word “faith” suggests also that a person is not a passive recipient of this gift).
In Paul’s prayer for the conversion of the lost (26:29) we see his combining of the divine and the human sides of evangelism most clearly. We pray to God, and what happens on earth is his answer to our prayers.
Contemporary Significance
RECKONING WISELY WITH the law. We said that while we should try to use the law on our behalf, we should not naively think that by resorting to the law we will automatically get justice. Even the best legal system is administered by fallen individuals, who may choose expediency over what is right. This calls for wisdom on the part of the Christian, so that we take a course of action that will best serve the cause of Christ. In this case, Paul appealed to Caesar, thinking that this would be the best way to get justice and avoid assassination by the Jews. We too should weigh the options wisely when appealing to the law. We should also seek advice from fellow Christians and from those who are more conversant with the law than ourselves. This buttresses the view presented in the last study that some of the best minds in the church should give themselves to the task of dealing with the knotty issues involving church and state.
This challenge of wisdom in relation to the state is going to become more and more significant as both religious fundamentalism and pluralism continue to grow. These two diverse approaches to truth oppose Christian evangelism because they are incompatible with the view that, since Christ is absolute truth, we must urge all to convert to him. The fundamentalists say, “Don’t touch our people”; the pluralists say, “Don’t say yours is the only way.” In the coming years we can anticipate a growing opposition to biblical Christianity. We must let some of our best minds—our Pauls—tackle this great challenge.
Proclaiming the message of the resurrection. While the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity (both proof of the message of Jesus and the onset of Israel’s eschatological blessings), many within the church do not know how to proclaim that message. The victory of the resurrection is one that must be emphasized because, in our pragmatic world, we find it difficult to visualize how an event like this can affect our daily lives.
Through the stress given to the cross in evangelical preaching in this century, we have come to understand at least some of the deep meaning of the cross. But we may not have come to a corresponding understanding of the resurrection and its significance. Yet this is a key message for today’s church because, with all our pragmatism and focus on how to live the Christian life, Christians seem to lack the theological and spiritual muscle needed to overcome the onslaught of the world upon the church. The answer to the moral and ethical poverty of today’s church is not only more instruction to weak people on how to live. It is a good dose of theological truth that will enable them to understand the meaning of Christ’s victory won through his work. Believers will then realize that in Christ they have the spiritual and theological power to withstand the onslaughts that come from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Early in my ministry, my colleagues asked me to give a series of four messages on the resurrection at an evangelistic youth camp. I thought that would be easy, considering that I had come to agree with my teacher George Ladd’s affirmation that “the cornerstone of the entire New Testament is the resurrection.”18 But as I looked for material to go into this series, I struggled, partly because I had not heard much evangelistic preaching on the resurrection. I realized a great need for Christians to rediscover the meaning of the resurrection and to learn how best to communicate it to both Christians and non-Christians. In my book The Supremacy of Christ I have shown how the resurrection provides proof about the person of Christ, about his plan of salvation, about his Lordship over all, about the wonderful new life he opens up for us, and about his and our victory over death.19
The debate over divine and human activity in evangelism. The issue of the divine and human sides in Christian activity has caused much controversy in the church throughout history.20 This is understandable, considering the paradox of human and divine involvement as presented in our passage. It is easy to get carried away with one aspect of this paradox and exclude the other. Given the difficulty of fallen human beings to achieve perfect balance, I suppose this conflict of emphases is something we will continue to face within the church.
Some Christians object to praying for the conversion of the lost, saying that human prayers cannot influence God here, for he has sovereignly decreed who are elected to salvation and who are not. They may pray that they will be good witnesses, but they do not think it biblical to pray for the conversion of the lost. Yet Paul clearly prays for the salvation of those whom he encounters (26:29; see Rom. 10:1; 1 Tim. 2:1–4). Those from the Reformed tradition who seek to come to grips with the biblical insistence on the important place that human instruments play in the evangelistic process should see that God uses means, such as prayers and persuasion, to bring in the elect.21
The issue of using means to receive what God has decreed came to a head over the so-called “new measures” advocated by the evangelist and scholar Charles G. Finney (1792–1875). Jonathan Edwards and other preachers of the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century had seen revivals as “surprising works of God”—that is, inexplicable outpourings of God’s Spirit. Finney, on the other hand, claimed that revival is a “result of the right use of constituted means” (the new measures).22
Each of these streams of the church had latched onto a scriptural truth, which they emphasized to such an extent that they virtually eliminated the other side of the coin. Earlier in this commentary we said that when William Carey advocated foreign missions by talking about the means through which the nations were going to hear the gospel, he was discouraged by a high Calvinism that produced the famous statement, “Sit down young man! When God chooses to convert the heathen he will do it without your aid or mine!”23 The idea was that if we start talking about human means to achieving the mission of the church, we undermine God’s sovereignty.
This is particularly true of persuasion techniques as means of evangelism. Some feel that since God sovereignly effects the regeneration of the elect, seeking to persuade people denies his role in the salvation process. They object to public invitations, especially those that plead with people to “come forward.” In this view, those who have been regenerated by God do not need such persuasion. Instead, at an evangelistic meeting, preachers should ask those who sense that they have been found by God to quietly meet the pastor or someone else to indicate this.
On the other extreme, some preachers place far too much emphasis on the human element in evangelism. Evangelists can exert undue pressure when inviting people to respond to the gospel, almost with the notion that the success of the evangelistic event depends on their ability to urge people to come forward. They can be seen as manipulating the audience. The invitation does not seem to be given in confidence and thus lacks the authority of a herald of Christ.
I personally suffered from a nervousness in this regard in my early years in evangelism and was greatly helped by the wise counsel of the Presbyterian evangelist Leighton Ford. He reminded me that the sovereign God was the one doing the inviting and drawing of people to himself. I had to rest in the confidence that he would draw people to himself through my words. This was not an excuse for reducing my preparation; rather, I continued to work hard at preparing my message, including the invitation. But this was a liberating truth that took away the crippling fear that sometimes gripped me as I invited people to turn to Christ.
The use of reason in evangelism. Another aspect of the divine and human in evangelism is the use of reason in proclamation. In 26:25 Paul says, “What I am saying is true and reasonable.” Some, however, appeal to the fact that God’s wisdom and thoughts are higher than ours (Isa. 55:8–9) to back their belief that we should not use reason to try to win people to Christ. These people refer to Paul’s discounting of human wisdom in evangelism in 1 Corinthians 1:17–25 to show how useless it is to appeal to people’s intellect in evangelism. Instead, they say, our work is to simply preach Christ crucified and leave it to God to open the eyes of people. But this approach contradicts the method used by Paul (cf. the discussions on Acts 17).
One of the keys in this issue is to understand the nature of fallen humanity. As a result of the Fall human reason has been warped; we think in ways that are foolish (e.g., believing that sin satisfies and that we can save ourselves). Naturally, then, God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But sin has not obliterated human reason. In proclamation we may appeal to the remnants of reason within the human mind. Like God, we may appeal to sinful people with these words, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Our fallen nature may revolt against such reasoning, for we do not want to turn from our sin and self-sufficiency. But when God opens people’s minds, they will follow our reasoning, and to them it will be good news. The Calvinist may say that those whom God enlightens cannot resist his grace, whereas the Arminian may say that God’s enlightenment can be resisted by a rebellious heart. But in practice that should not cause a difference in our methodology. We do not know who the elect are. Insofar as God can use our reason to bring people in, our job is to reason with them.
To understand Paul’s rejection of human wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 we must note the context of that passage. He is referring there to disunity in the church. People had latched onto those they considered to be their leaders (e.g., Paul, Cephas, and Apollos); division had resulted in the church. Bruce Winter explains that in that culture the pupils of secular teachers had to give exclusive loyalty to their masters and thus there was often rivalry among different teachers. This is what was happening in the Corinthian church.
Moreover, in the first century, rhetoric was so important that the careful crafting of a speech was even more important than its content. Orators “spoke to gain the adulation of their audiences.”24 Paul, on the other hand, says that he was sent “to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom [lit., not by means of the wisdom of rhetoric], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). Had Paul focused on rhetoric, he would have promoted himself and diverted attention away from the cross to himself. But “Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to secure a personal following.”25 Thus, the wisdom he was against was a focus on rhetoric that directed attention away from the cross to the speaker.
Paul went on to say that the preaching of the cross was folly to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). He rejected the wisdom of such worldlings who scoffed at the idea of the cross. That is, he rejected any presentation of the gospel that downplayed the cross so as to appeal to the intelligentsia. Communicating the message of the cross was far more important than winning the audience. Instead of using a human wisdom that rejected the cross, he proclaimed the wisdom of God, that is, Christ (1 Cor. 1:24). But since God created reason, the wisdom of God is not unreasonable. Therefore we may reason with people and show them both the folly of all ways that reject God’s wisdom and the reasonableness and truthfulness of the gospel. We can leave it to God to enlighten their eyes so that they may accept and act upon what we share.
Evangelism as obedience to a vision. Paul’s statement about not being “disobedient to the vision from heaven” (26:19) presents a key to the effectiveness of a servant of God. Shenk and Stutzman have a helpful discussion on this. They point out that “vision has become a catchword in today’s language.”26 A leader must have a clear picture of what is desirable and must be able to articulate that vision so that others also can grasp it. “The word vision shows what is ahead and uncharted. It is in the future tense.” They agree that visionary leadership is a key to motivating others to give themselves to a task or movement.
But Shenk and Stutzman make an important distinction between the above model of vision and the biblical model. After referring to the visions of Paul on the Damascus road, Peter on the rooftop, and John on the island of Patmos, they acknowledge that in the Bible “vision had vital implications for the future. But the vision was not a humanly constructed picture of what was to come. The vision came from God as an instruction for action.” This is something that we too easily overlook as we speak on vision today.
When we plan for the future, draw up our goals, and develop a vision statement, we often use methods of research that the business world gives us. These can indeed help in developing a vision. But much more important is waiting to hear from God. Peter and John were seeking God’s face when they received their respective visions (Acts 10:9; Rev. 1:10). The church of Antioch was “worshiping the Lord and fasting” (Acts 13:2) when God gave them the vision that gave birth to the first formal foreign missionary movement in the church. Leaders must earnestly ask God, both privately and in community, for a vision of what he wants done through them.
Once God’s vision has been discovered, leaders must express it to their people enthusiastically so that they too will catch the vision. It should be communicated practically so that others will realize that this is something that can be done and that they can have a part in achieving it. We have shown how Jesus did this with the Great Commission.27 When people are excited with the vision, they will pay the price to see it fulfilled.
Leaders must also order their lives in order to give priority to the vision.28 There are so many “urgent” demands on our lives that it is easy to neglect the “important” (to use a distinction popularized by Charles Hummel in his influential booklet, The Tyranny of the Urgent29). Leaders must constantly divest themselves of weights that, though they are good in themselves, keep them from doing the truly important things in life. Often our devotional life and personal ministry are the first things affected by being overcommitted. But dropping these will hinder us from fulfilling our visions. Without a healthy devotional life we will become spiritually dry and will not have the spiritual resources to motivate people to receive their fullest potential under God. Without personal work we will soon find that we are left with no people to motivate. It is personal ministry that breeds committed workers in a ministry.
We must always stretch ourselves because Christian leadership is never easy or convenient. We may need to take on the cross of tiredness and strain. But let that strain come from fulfilling the vision God gave us, not from doing things that we should have avoided.
Original Meaning
Paul’s Speech Before Agrippa (25:23–26:23)
THE APPEARANCE OF Agrippa and Bernice with great pomp to hear Paul speak at a gathering that included “high ranking officers and the leading men of the city” (25:23) reminds us of the prediction God made to Ananias that Paul would appear before the kings of the Gentiles (9:15). Though Agrippa cannot himself be called a Gentile, the territory he ruled included many Gentiles. Luke’s expression “with great pomp” may suggest the transitory character and vanity of all the outward show.5 Kistemaker remarks, “The contrast between the dazzling garb of the high and mighty and the humble clothes of the chained prisoner suddenly becomes meaningless, for Paul displays the quiet dignity of a man with a message.”6
Festus’s recounting of the events surrounding Paul shows that he was impressed by the mob approach of the Jews (“shouting that he ought not to live any longer” [25:24]) and expresses his conviction that Paul was innocent (25:25). His immediate dilemma was that he did not have any specific charges against Paul to present to Caesar when he sent him to Rome (25:25–26).
Paul’s speech once again follows the standard pattern of defense speeches of the first century. It starts with the exordium (introductory address to the king [26:2–3]), proceeds to the narratio (the narration of events [26:4–18]), and ends with the argumentio (the proof of his case [26:19–23]).7 Paul acknowledges the acquaintance of the young king with “Jewish customs and controversies,” thus implying his suitability to hear his “defense” (26:2–3). Technically this was not a legal defense, but the word is used in a general sense here.
The narratio gives Paul’s testimony. This is his fullest testimony in Acts because it discusses his pre-Christian activity, his conversion, and his calling, which drives his mission. Nothing is said about the role played by the devout Jew Ananias, who had an important role in the testimony given before the Jerusalem crowd (cf. 22:12–16). After saying that the Jews know his past well, Paul affirms his strict background as a Pharisee (26:4–5). Then he says that it is because of the hope of the Jewish people that he is on trial (26:6–7) and immediately affirms that his audience should not consider it incredible that God raises the dead (26:8). The hope of Israel and the resurrection of Christ are intimately bound together, as we will see later.
Paul insists that he once had the same attitude toward Christianity as his opponents now do (26:9–11). He vividly describes the vehemence with which he opposed the gospel and persecuted Christians; he was an official representative of the chief priests and their main prosecutor (26:10a). His statement that he cast his vote against those who were put to death (26:10b) has led some to conclude that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, where such a vote may have been taken. But he was too young to be a member of the Sanhedrin at that time (see 7:58). Rather, it signifies that Paul was one of the major leaders in the campaign against Christianity and that he was actively involved in prosecuting Christians. He “went from one synagogue to another” (26:11), by which Paul shows to Agrippa that at that time the believers were still participating in the life of the Jewish synagogues.
Verses 12–18 give the third account in Acts of Paul’s conversion and divine call. Here he recounts that Jesus spoke to him in Aramaic, suggesting that this was Christ’s first language. Also to his words are added the comment, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (26:14). This proverb has been used to buttress the idea that Paul was a troubled person, fighting his conscience prior to his conversion. In our study of chapter 9, we discounted this view on the grounds that the autobiographical statements of Paul leave no room for such psychological unrest in the apostle. This proverb appears often in classical writings.8 Daniel Fuller explains that it was “often used by the Greeks to express the futility of striving against fate or against the gods, and its meaning to Paul on the Damascus road was that it was now futile for him to try any longer to work against Christ as it would be for an ox to kick against the plowman’s goad.”9
Also unique to this narrative of Paul’s conversion was his commissioning by Jesus himself (26:16–18). The account in Acts 22 mentioned two commissionings—one by Ananias (22:14–16) and a later one by Jesus (22:21). Here Paul mentions a direct commissioning from Jesus right on the Damascus road, where he was appointed as a servant and a witness of Christ and of what he would show him (26:16). Like the other apostles, then, Paul was to be a witness to the resurrection. Based on this commissioning Paul claimed apostleship.
Two factors qualified a person to be an apostle in the early church with the uniqueness that the twelve apostles had: seeing the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; see Acts 1:22) and being personally commissioned by him (cf. Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; 2:7). Both these things happened to Paul during his Damascus road experience.10 Paul cites one more feature as qualifying him for apostleship: his effectiveness in ministry (1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 2:8–9). This feature is also presented in the speech to Agrippa (26:19–23). A key to understanding his ministry is that he was obedient to a vision from heaven (26:19). Through a study of Paul’s description of his commissioning and his ministry here, we discover a comprehensive view of the evangelistic process (see discussion below).
Bridging Contexts
THE LIMITS OF the law in practice. Earlier in Acts Luke presented the Roman justice system in a positive light. There were fair officials, and in Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem they had even protected Paul from harm (chs. 18; 19; 21). Some key Romans were converted in Caesarea and Philippi, and in Philippi the officials recanted the harm done to Paul unjustly (chs. 10; 16).
But now we see Roman procedures in a different light. There is almost an element of absurdity here. Serious charges have been made against Paul (25:7, 24), and Festus is at a loss, not knowing what to do (25:20, 26–27). Yet many times the Roman officials express their belief that Paul is innocent (25:7, 18–19, 20, 25–26; 26:31). This culminates with Agrippa’s statement, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (26:32). This was easy for Agrippa to say since he had no responsibility for the case. But those who did have responsibility (Felix and Festus) were afraid to take a stand that would antagonize the majority.
In other words, though Roman law was a noble system that Christians used for their protection, its implementers were sometimes reluctant to antagonize the majority. This is why Luke uses the word “favor” three times (24:27; 25:3, 9). On one occasion the Jewish leaders asked for this favor, and the other two times the Roman officials acted in order to grant the Jews a favor. After the process of justice had been stalled for two years, Festus tried to escape from the responsibility by having Paul transferred to Jerusalem. Thus, Paul was forced to look for a more favorable climate for a fair trial and appealed to Rome. While we should use the law to look after us, we should not naively think that resorting to the law will automatically provide justice.
The centrality of the resurrection to the Christian message. In our study of the Pentecost message we saw how important the resurrection is to the Christian message; it was God’s accreditation of Jesus as the Messiah.12 In Paul’s speech to Agrippa we see another reason why the resurrection is so central. As the first to rise from the dead (26:23), Christ fulfilled the hope of Israel (26:6–8). That is, he started the process of the regeneration of Israel and actually of the new Israel, which consists of all the redeemed—Gentiles and Jews. With the resurrection of Christ, “eternal life . . . appeared in the midst of mortality”13 and will be consummated at the end of time. G. E. Ladd puts this succinctly in the language of biblical theology:
The resurrection of Jesus is an eschatological event that occurred in history and gave rise to the Christian church. It sounds a note that provides the clue for understanding the character and message of the primitive church. The church was brought into being by an eschatological event; it is itself an eschatological community with an eschatological message. In some real sense, the events that belong to the end of the age and the eschatological consummation have invaded history.14
Paul’s explanation of evangelism. Paul’s speech before Agrippa provides the most comprehensive defense of his evangelistic ministry in Acts. The fact that people were being converted to Christianity had caused much anger among the Jews. Paul explains to this “Jewish” king how and why this takes place. Undoubtedly Luke records this speech in some detail so that his readers will understand what happens in the evangelistic process.
(1) God calls and enables people to be witnesses for him. He appoints us as servants and witnesses to what we have experienced of Jesus (26:16). He commissions us to go to the people (26:17), protects us from our opponents (26:17), and helps us throughout our ministry (26:22a). Christ himself, the first to rise from the dead, proclaims light to Jews and to Gentiles (26:23).
(2) In our role as witnesses for Christ, we must respond obediently to God’s call (26:19). We must testify to both small and great (26:22b), and in so doing we open their eyes to the truth of God. To achieve this end we must say things that are true and reasonable (26:25) so that people will be persuaded about the gospel (26:28–29). Behind all of this is our hope and prayer that all the people we encounter will experience salvation (26:29).
(3) Paul also makes several points about the evangelistic message. We preach that people should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). We say nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen (26:22c). We testify that the Messiah had to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he proclaims light to the people (26:23).
(4) The result of this ministry is that people are saved. Their eyes are opened; they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (26:18a). On their part they must have faith in Jesus (26:18b), repent of their sins, turn to God, and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). On God’s part, he forgives their sins and gives them a place among those who are sanctified (26:18b).
The divine and human sides of evangelism. This list of the elements of the evangelistic process shows us that effective Christian mission includes both divine and human activity. The initiator of everything is God. He calls, commissions, equips, and protects the evangelists (26:16, 17, 22). But we have a responsibility to obey the heavenly vision (26:19), testifying to both small and great (26:22b). When we proclaim the gospel, God is actually speaking through us and makes our words become fruitful, and Jesus is the one proclaiming light to the people (26:23).
Agrippa uses the word peitho (“to persuade”) to describe what he sees Paul trying to do to him. This word is used seven times in Acts to describe Paul’s evangelism15 and means to work with persons until their minds are changed and they accept the message proclaimed.16 From the content of Paul’s speech here, it is clear that he worked hard to convince others about what he believed. He tells Festus that what he says is true and reasonable (26:25). Thus, in all his proclamation Paul used reason (cf. 17:1–15). While it is true that we proclaim a divine wisdom that is higher than human wisdom, we do so reasonably.17
This interplay between the divine and human sides is also seen in the response of the individual. On the one hand, Paul “preached that [people] should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). This suggests that conversion is something we do (cf. also 17:30). Paul’s letters also speak of our obligation to obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). On the other hand, Jesus told Paul that people “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (26:18b). That is, forgiveness and a place among the sanctified are gifts given by God (though the word “faith” suggests also that a person is not a passive recipient of this gift).
In Paul’s prayer for the conversion of the lost (26:29) we see his combining of the divine and the human sides of evangelism most clearly. We pray to God, and what happens on earth is his answer to our prayers.
Contemporary Significance
RECKONING WISELY WITH the law. We said that while we should try to use the law on our behalf, we should not naively think that by resorting to the law we will automatically get justice. Even the best legal system is administered by fallen individuals, who may choose expediency over what is right. This calls for wisdom on the part of the Christian, so that we take a course of action that will best serve the cause of Christ. In this case, Paul appealed to Caesar, thinking that this would be the best way to get justice and avoid assassination by the Jews. We too should weigh the options wisely when appealing to the law. We should also seek advice from fellow Christians and from those who are more conversant with the law than ourselves. This buttresses the view presented in the last study that some of the best minds in the church should give themselves to the task of dealing with the knotty issues involving church and state.
This challenge of wisdom in relation to the state is going to become more and more significant as both religious fundamentalism and pluralism continue to grow. These two diverse approaches to truth oppose Christian evangelism because they are incompatible with the view that, since Christ is absolute truth, we must urge all to convert to him. The fundamentalists say, “Don’t touch our people”; the pluralists say, “Don’t say yours is the only way.” In the coming years we can anticipate a growing opposition to biblical Christianity. We must let some of our best minds—our Pauls—tackle this great challenge.
Proclaiming the message of the resurrection. While the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity (both proof of the message of Jesus and the onset of Israel’s eschatological blessings), many within the church do not know how to proclaim that message. The victory of the resurrection is one that must be emphasized because, in our pragmatic world, we find it difficult to visualize how an event like this can affect our daily lives.
Through the stress given to the cross in evangelical preaching in this century, we have come to understand at least some of the deep meaning of the cross. But we may not have come to a corresponding understanding of the resurrection and its significance. Yet this is a key message for today’s church because, with all our pragmatism and focus on how to live the Christian life, Christians seem to lack the theological and spiritual muscle needed to overcome the onslaught of the world upon the church. The answer to the moral and ethical poverty of today’s church is not only more instruction to weak people on how to live. It is a good dose of theological truth that will enable them to understand the meaning of Christ’s victory won through his work. Believers will then realize that in Christ they have the spiritual and theological power to withstand the onslaughts that come from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Early in my ministry, my colleagues asked me to give a series of four messages on the resurrection at an evangelistic youth camp. I thought that would be easy, considering that I had come to agree with my teacher George Ladd’s affirmation that “the cornerstone of the entire New Testament is the resurrection.”18 But as I looked for material to go into this series, I struggled, partly because I had not heard much evangelistic preaching on the resurrection. I realized a great need for Christians to rediscover the meaning of the resurrection and to learn how best to communicate it to both Christians and non-Christians. In my book The Supremacy of Christ I have shown how the resurrection provides proof about the person of Christ, about his plan of salvation, about his Lordship over all, about the wonderful new life he opens up for us, and about his and our victory over death.19
The debate over divine and human activity in evangelism. The issue of the divine and human sides in Christian activity has caused much controversy in the church throughout history.20 This is understandable, considering the paradox of human and divine involvement as presented in our passage. It is easy to get carried away with one aspect of this paradox and exclude the other. Given the difficulty of fallen human beings to achieve perfect balance, I suppose this conflict of emphases is something we will continue to face within the church.
Some Christians object to praying for the conversion of the lost, saying that human prayers cannot influence God here, for he has sovereignly decreed who are elected to salvation and who are not. They may pray that they will be good witnesses, but they do not think it biblical to pray for the conversion of the lost. Yet Paul clearly prays for the salvation of those whom he encounters (26:29; see Rom. 10:1; 1 Tim. 2:1–4). Those from the Reformed tradition who seek to come to grips with the biblical insistence on the important place that human instruments play in the evangelistic process should see that God uses means, such as prayers and persuasion, to bring in the elect.21
The issue of using means to receive what God has decreed came to a head over the so-called “new measures” advocated by the evangelist and scholar Charles G. Finney (1792–1875). Jonathan Edwards and other preachers of the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century had seen revivals as “surprising works of God”—that is, inexplicable outpourings of God’s Spirit. Finney, on the other hand, claimed that revival is a “result of the right use of constituted means” (the new measures).22
Each of these streams of the church had latched onto a scriptural truth, which they emphasized to such an extent that they virtually eliminated the other side of the coin. Earlier in this commentary we said that when William Carey advocated foreign missions by talking about the means through which the nations were going to hear the gospel, he was discouraged by a high Calvinism that produced the famous statement, “Sit down young man! When God chooses to convert the heathen he will do it without your aid or mine!”23 The idea was that if we start talking about human means to achieving the mission of the church, we undermine God’s sovereignty.
This is particularly true of persuasion techniques as means of evangelism. Some feel that since God sovereignly effects the regeneration of the elect, seeking to persuade people denies his role in the salvation process. They object to public invitations, especially those that plead with people to “come forward.” In this view, those who have been regenerated by God do not need such persuasion. Instead, at an evangelistic meeting, preachers should ask those who sense that they have been found by God to quietly meet the pastor or someone else to indicate this.
On the other extreme, some preachers place far too much emphasis on the human element in evangelism. Evangelists can exert undue pressure when inviting people to respond to the gospel, almost with the notion that the success of the evangelistic event depends on their ability to urge people to come forward. They can be seen as manipulating the audience. The invitation does not seem to be given in confidence and thus lacks the authority of a herald of Christ.
I personally suffered from a nervousness in this regard in my early years in evangelism and was greatly helped by the wise counsel of the Presbyterian evangelist Leighton Ford. He reminded me that the sovereign God was the one doing the inviting and drawing of people to himself. I had to rest in the confidence that he would draw people to himself through my words. This was not an excuse for reducing my preparation; rather, I continued to work hard at preparing my message, including the invitation. But this was a liberating truth that took away the crippling fear that sometimes gripped me as I invited people to turn to Christ.
The use of reason in evangelism. Another aspect of the divine and human in evangelism is the use of reason in proclamation. In 26:25 Paul says, “What I am saying is true and reasonable.” Some, however, appeal to the fact that God’s wisdom and thoughts are higher than ours (Isa. 55:8–9) to back their belief that we should not use reason to try to win people to Christ. These people refer to Paul’s discounting of human wisdom in evangelism in 1 Corinthians 1:17–25 to show how useless it is to appeal to people’s intellect in evangelism. Instead, they say, our work is to simply preach Christ crucified and leave it to God to open the eyes of people. But this approach contradicts the method used by Paul (cf. the discussions on Acts 17).
One of the keys in this issue is to understand the nature of fallen humanity. As a result of the Fall human reason has been warped; we think in ways that are foolish (e.g., believing that sin satisfies and that we can save ourselves). Naturally, then, God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But sin has not obliterated human reason. In proclamation we may appeal to the remnants of reason within the human mind. Like God, we may appeal to sinful people with these words, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Our fallen nature may revolt against such reasoning, for we do not want to turn from our sin and self-sufficiency. But when God opens people’s minds, they will follow our reasoning, and to them it will be good news. The Calvinist may say that those whom God enlightens cannot resist his grace, whereas the Arminian may say that God’s enlightenment can be resisted by a rebellious heart. But in practice that should not cause a difference in our methodology. We do not know who the elect are. Insofar as God can use our reason to bring people in, our job is to reason with them.
To understand Paul’s rejection of human wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 we must note the context of that passage. He is referring there to disunity in the church. People had latched onto those they considered to be their leaders (e.g., Paul, Cephas, and Apollos); division had resulted in the church. Bruce Winter explains that in that culture the pupils of secular teachers had to give exclusive loyalty to their masters and thus there was often rivalry among different teachers. This is what was happening in the Corinthian church.
Moreover, in the first century, rhetoric was so important that the careful crafting of a speech was even more important than its content. Orators “spoke to gain the adulation of their audiences.”24 Paul, on the other hand, says that he was sent “to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom [lit., not by means of the wisdom of rhetoric], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). Had Paul focused on rhetoric, he would have promoted himself and diverted attention away from the cross to himself. But “Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to secure a personal following.”25 Thus, the wisdom he was against was a focus on rhetoric that directed attention away from the cross to the speaker.
Paul went on to say that the preaching of the cross was folly to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). He rejected the wisdom of such worldlings who scoffed at the idea of the cross. That is, he rejected any presentation of the gospel that downplayed the cross so as to appeal to the intelligentsia. Communicating the message of the cross was far more important than winning the audience. Instead of using a human wisdom that rejected the cross, he proclaimed the wisdom of God, that is, Christ (1 Cor. 1:24). But since God created reason, the wisdom of God is not unreasonable. Therefore we may reason with people and show them both the folly of all ways that reject God’s wisdom and the reasonableness and truthfulness of the gospel. We can leave it to God to enlighten their eyes so that they may accept and act upon what we share.
Evangelism as obedience to a vision. Paul’s statement about not being “disobedient to the vision from heaven” (26:19) presents a key to the effectiveness of a servant of God. Shenk and Stutzman have a helpful discussion on this. They point out that “vision has become a catchword in today’s language.”26 A leader must have a clear picture of what is desirable and must be able to articulate that vision so that others also can grasp it. “The word vision shows what is ahead and uncharted. It is in the future tense.” They agree that visionary leadership is a key to motivating others to give themselves to a task or movement.
But Shenk and Stutzman make an important distinction between the above model of vision and the biblical model. After referring to the visions of Paul on the Damascus road, Peter on the rooftop, and John on the island of Patmos, they acknowledge that in the Bible “vision had vital implications for the future. But the vision was not a humanly constructed picture of what was to come. The vision came from God as an instruction for action.” This is something that we too easily overlook as we speak on vision today.
When we plan for the future, draw up our goals, and develop a vision statement, we often use methods of research that the business world gives us. These can indeed help in developing a vision. But much more important is waiting to hear from God. Peter and John were seeking God’s face when they received their respective visions (Acts 10:9; Rev. 1:10). The church of Antioch was “worshiping the Lord and fasting” (Acts 13:2) when God gave them the vision that gave birth to the first formal foreign missionary movement in the church. Leaders must earnestly ask God, both privately and in community, for a vision of what he wants done through them.
Once God’s vision has been discovered, leaders must express it to their people enthusiastically so that they too will catch the vision. It should be communicated practically so that others will realize that this is something that can be done and that they can have a part in achieving it. We have shown how Jesus did this with the Great Commission.27 When people are excited with the vision, they will pay the price to see it fulfilled.
Leaders must also order their lives in order to give priority to the vision.28 There are so many “urgent” demands on our lives that it is easy to neglect the “important” (to use a distinction popularized by Charles Hummel in his influential booklet, The Tyranny of the Urgent29). Leaders must constantly divest themselves of weights that, though they are good in themselves, keep them from doing the truly important things in life. Often our devotional life and personal ministry are the first things affected by being overcommitted. But dropping these will hinder us from fulfilling our visions. Without a healthy devotional life we will become spiritually dry and will not have the spiritual resources to motivate people to receive their fullest potential under God. Without personal work we will soon find that we are left with no people to motivate. It is personal ministry that breeds committed workers in a ministry.
We must always stretch ourselves because Christian leadership is never easy or convenient. We may need to take on the cross of tiredness and strain. But let that strain come from fulfilling the vision God gave us, not from doing things that we should have avoided.
Original Meaning
Festus and Agrippa Respond to Paul’s Speech (26:24–32)
PAUL’S SPEECH IS too much for the practical Roman official, Festus, who knows little about the intricacies of Jewish theology. He recognizes that Paul is a learned man, but he cries out that his learning has driven him insane (26:24). Paul responds by affirming that what he is saying is both true and reasonable (26:25). Had Paul been addressing Festus primarily, he would have presumably presented his words in a way that Festus would have understood. But here he is speaking to Agrippa, and Paul knows that the king understands what he is talking about (26:26a). He is positive that Agrippa already knows many of the facts about Christianity because these things were “not done in a corner” (26:26b).
Paul zeros in at this stage with a direct challenge to Agrippa: “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do” (26:27). This challenge is for Agrippa to compare what the prophets foretold with what happened in Christ. The king is in a dilemma. As an expert on the Jewish Scriptures, he knows what Paul is speaking about. But he cannot afford to make connections between what he knows and what Paul is saying because then he will have to make a decision about Christianity. He therefore brushes off the challenge with an evasive comment that means something like, “In short you are trying to persuade me to act the Christian” (26:28).11 Agrippa has not come to this gathering with a view to making such a serious commitment. He simply wants to help Festus out by giving him advice about this case. He may also have looked forward to meeting one of the top leaders of this growing sect. Paul’s response shows that he desires all to come to Christ—including rulers (26:29). Later he tells Timothy to pray for kings for God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4).
As the gathering is adjourned, the general sense of everyone there is that Paul has done nothing to deserve punishment (26:31–32). Agrippa specifically states, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” It was easy for the consultant Agrippa to say this after Paul made his appeal. Before that, for two whole years, Paul was kept in prison because the leaders did not have the moral courage to release him even though they knew he was innocent.
Bridging Contexts
THE LIMITS OF the law in practice. Earlier in Acts Luke presented the Roman justice system in a positive light. There were fair officials, and in Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem they had even protected Paul from harm (chs. 18; 19; 21). Some key Romans were converted in Caesarea and Philippi, and in Philippi the officials recanted the harm done to Paul unjustly (chs. 10; 16).
But now we see Roman procedures in a different light. There is almost an element of absurdity here. Serious charges have been made against Paul (25:7, 24), and Festus is at a loss, not knowing what to do (25:20, 26–27). Yet many times the Roman officials express their belief that Paul is innocent (25:7, 18–19, 20, 25–26; 26:31). This culminates with Agrippa’s statement, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (26:32). This was easy for Agrippa to say since he had no responsibility for the case. But those who did have responsibility (Felix and Festus) were afraid to take a stand that would antagonize the majority.
In other words, though Roman law was a noble system that Christians used for their protection, its implementers were sometimes reluctant to antagonize the majority. This is why Luke uses the word “favor” three times (24:27; 25:3, 9). On one occasion the Jewish leaders asked for this favor, and the other two times the Roman officials acted in order to grant the Jews a favor. After the process of justice had been stalled for two years, Festus tried to escape from the responsibility by having Paul transferred to Jerusalem. Thus, Paul was forced to look for a more favorable climate for a fair trial and appealed to Rome. While we should use the law to look after us, we should not naively think that resorting to the law will automatically provide justice.
The centrality of the resurrection to the Christian message. In our study of the Pentecost message we saw how important the resurrection is to the Christian message; it was God’s accreditation of Jesus as the Messiah.12 In Paul’s speech to Agrippa we see another reason why the resurrection is so central. As the first to rise from the dead (26:23), Christ fulfilled the hope of Israel (26:6–8). That is, he started the process of the regeneration of Israel and actually of the new Israel, which consists of all the redeemed—Gentiles and Jews. With the resurrection of Christ, “eternal life . . . appeared in the midst of mortality”13 and will be consummated at the end of time. G. E. Ladd puts this succinctly in the language of biblical theology:
The resurrection of Jesus is an eschatological event that occurred in history and gave rise to the Christian church. It sounds a note that provides the clue for understanding the character and message of the primitive church. The church was brought into being by an eschatological event; it is itself an eschatological community with an eschatological message. In some real sense, the events that belong to the end of the age and the eschatological consummation have invaded history.14
Paul’s explanation of evangelism. Paul’s speech before Agrippa provides the most comprehensive defense of his evangelistic ministry in Acts. The fact that people were being converted to Christianity had caused much anger among the Jews. Paul explains to this “Jewish” king how and why this takes place. Undoubtedly Luke records this speech in some detail so that his readers will understand what happens in the evangelistic process.
(1) God calls and enables people to be witnesses for him. He appoints us as servants and witnesses to what we have experienced of Jesus (26:16). He commissions us to go to the people (26:17), protects us from our opponents (26:17), and helps us throughout our ministry (26:22a). Christ himself, the first to rise from the dead, proclaims light to Jews and to Gentiles (26:23).
(2) In our role as witnesses for Christ, we must respond obediently to God’s call (26:19). We must testify to both small and great (26:22b), and in so doing we open their eyes to the truth of God. To achieve this end we must say things that are true and reasonable (26:25) so that people will be persuaded about the gospel (26:28–29). Behind all of this is our hope and prayer that all the people we encounter will experience salvation (26:29).
(3) Paul also makes several points about the evangelistic message. We preach that people should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). We say nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen (26:22c). We testify that the Messiah had to suffer and that, as the first to rise from the dead, he proclaims light to the people (26:23).
(4) The result of this ministry is that people are saved. Their eyes are opened; they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (26:18a). On their part they must have faith in Jesus (26:18b), repent of their sins, turn to God, and prove their repentance by their deeds (26:20). On God’s part, he forgives their sins and gives them a place among those who are sanctified (26:18b).
The divine and human sides of evangelism. This list of the elements of the evangelistic process shows us that effective Christian mission includes both divine and human activity. The initiator of everything is God. He calls, commissions, equips, and protects the evangelists (26:16, 17, 22). But we have a responsibility to obey the heavenly vision (26:19), testifying to both small and great (26:22b). When we proclaim the gospel, God is actually speaking through us and makes our words become fruitful, and Jesus is the one proclaiming light to the people (26:23).
Agrippa uses the word peitho (“to persuade”) to describe what he sees Paul trying to do to him. This word is used seven times in Acts to describe Paul’s evangelism15 and means to work with persons until their minds are changed and they accept the message proclaimed.16 From the content of Paul’s speech here, it is clear that he worked hard to convince others about what he believed. He tells Festus that what he says is true and reasonable (26:25). Thus, in all his proclamation Paul used reason (cf. 17:1–15). While it is true that we proclaim a divine wisdom that is higher than human wisdom, we do so reasonably.17
This interplay between the divine and human sides is also seen in the response of the individual. On the one hand, Paul “preached that [people] should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). This suggests that conversion is something we do (cf. also 17:30). Paul’s letters also speak of our obligation to obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). On the other hand, Jesus told Paul that people “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (26:18b). That is, forgiveness and a place among the sanctified are gifts given by God (though the word “faith” suggests also that a person is not a passive recipient of this gift).
In Paul’s prayer for the conversion of the lost (26:29) we see his combining of the divine and the human sides of evangelism most clearly. We pray to God, and what happens on earth is his answer to our prayers.
Contemporary Significance
RECKONING WISELY WITH the law. We said that while we should try to use the law on our behalf, we should not naively think that by resorting to the law we will automatically get justice. Even the best legal system is administered by fallen individuals, who may choose expediency over what is right. This calls for wisdom on the part of the Christian, so that we take a course of action that will best serve the cause of Christ. In this case, Paul appealed to Caesar, thinking that this would be the best way to get justice and avoid assassination by the Jews. We too should weigh the options wisely when appealing to the law. We should also seek advice from fellow Christians and from those who are more conversant with the law than ourselves. This buttresses the view presented in the last study that some of the best minds in the church should give themselves to the task of dealing with the knotty issues involving church and state.
This challenge of wisdom in relation to the state is going to become more and more significant as both religious fundamentalism and pluralism continue to grow. These two diverse approaches to truth oppose Christian evangelism because they are incompatible with the view that, since Christ is absolute truth, we must urge all to convert to him. The fundamentalists say, “Don’t touch our people”; the pluralists say, “Don’t say yours is the only way.” In the coming years we can anticipate a growing opposition to biblical Christianity. We must let some of our best minds—our Pauls—tackle this great challenge.
Proclaiming the message of the resurrection. While the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity (both proof of the message of Jesus and the onset of Israel’s eschatological blessings), many within the church do not know how to proclaim that message. The victory of the resurrection is one that must be emphasized because, in our pragmatic world, we find it difficult to visualize how an event like this can affect our daily lives.
Through the stress given to the cross in evangelical preaching in this century, we have come to understand at least some of the deep meaning of the cross. But we may not have come to a corresponding understanding of the resurrection and its significance. Yet this is a key message for today’s church because, with all our pragmatism and focus on how to live the Christian life, Christians seem to lack the theological and spiritual muscle needed to overcome the onslaught of the world upon the church. The answer to the moral and ethical poverty of today’s church is not only more instruction to weak people on how to live. It is a good dose of theological truth that will enable them to understand the meaning of Christ’s victory won through his work. Believers will then realize that in Christ they have the spiritual and theological power to withstand the onslaughts that come from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Early in my ministry, my colleagues asked me to give a series of four messages on the resurrection at an evangelistic youth camp. I thought that would be easy, considering that I had come to agree with my teacher George Ladd’s affirmation that “the cornerstone of the entire New Testament is the resurrection.”18 But as I looked for material to go into this series, I struggled, partly because I had not heard much evangelistic preaching on the resurrection. I realized a great need for Christians to rediscover the meaning of the resurrection and to learn how best to communicate it to both Christians and non-Christians. In my book The Supremacy of Christ I have shown how the resurrection provides proof about the person of Christ, about his plan of salvation, about his Lordship over all, about the wonderful new life he opens up for us, and about his and our victory over death.19
The debate over divine and human activity in evangelism. The issue of the divine and human sides in Christian activity has caused much controversy in the church throughout history.20 This is understandable, considering the paradox of human and divine involvement as presented in our passage. It is easy to get carried away with one aspect of this paradox and exclude the other. Given the difficulty of fallen human beings to achieve perfect balance, I suppose this conflict of emphases is something we will continue to face within the church.
Some Christians object to praying for the conversion of the lost, saying that human prayers cannot influence God here, for he has sovereignly decreed who are elected to salvation and who are not. They may pray that they will be good witnesses, but they do not think it biblical to pray for the conversion of the lost. Yet Paul clearly prays for the salvation of those whom he encounters (26:29; see Rom. 10:1; 1 Tim. 2:1–4). Those from the Reformed tradition who seek to come to grips with the biblical insistence on the important place that human instruments play in the evangelistic process should see that God uses means, such as prayers and persuasion, to bring in the elect.21
The issue of using means to receive what God has decreed came to a head over the so-called “new measures” advocated by the evangelist and scholar Charles G. Finney (1792–1875). Jonathan Edwards and other preachers of the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century had seen revivals as “surprising works of God”—that is, inexplicable outpourings of God’s Spirit. Finney, on the other hand, claimed that revival is a “result of the right use of constituted means” (the new measures).22
Each of these streams of the church had latched onto a scriptural truth, which they emphasized to such an extent that they virtually eliminated the other side of the coin. Earlier in this commentary we said that when William Carey advocated foreign missions by talking about the means through which the nations were going to hear the gospel, he was discouraged by a high Calvinism that produced the famous statement, “Sit down young man! When God chooses to convert the heathen he will do it without your aid or mine!”23 The idea was that if we start talking about human means to achieving the mission of the church, we undermine God’s sovereignty.
This is particularly true of persuasion techniques as means of evangelism. Some feel that since God sovereignly effects the regeneration of the elect, seeking to persuade people denies his role in the salvation process. They object to public invitations, especially those that plead with people to “come forward.” In this view, those who have been regenerated by God do not need such persuasion. Instead, at an evangelistic meeting, preachers should ask those who sense that they have been found by God to quietly meet the pastor or someone else to indicate this.
On the other extreme, some preachers place far too much emphasis on the human element in evangelism. Evangelists can exert undue pressure when inviting people to respond to the gospel, almost with the notion that the success of the evangelistic event depends on their ability to urge people to come forward. They can be seen as manipulating the audience. The invitation does not seem to be given in confidence and thus lacks the authority of a herald of Christ.
I personally suffered from a nervousness in this regard in my early years in evangelism and was greatly helped by the wise counsel of the Presbyterian evangelist Leighton Ford. He reminded me that the sovereign God was the one doing the inviting and drawing of people to himself. I had to rest in the confidence that he would draw people to himself through my words. This was not an excuse for reducing my preparation; rather, I continued to work hard at preparing my message, including the invitation. But this was a liberating truth that took away the crippling fear that sometimes gripped me as I invited people to turn to Christ.
The use of reason in evangelism. Another aspect of the divine and human in evangelism is the use of reason in proclamation. In 26:25 Paul says, “What I am saying is true and reasonable.” Some, however, appeal to the fact that God’s wisdom and thoughts are higher than ours (Isa. 55:8–9) to back their belief that we should not use reason to try to win people to Christ. These people refer to Paul’s discounting of human wisdom in evangelism in 1 Corinthians 1:17–25 to show how useless it is to appeal to people’s intellect in evangelism. Instead, they say, our work is to simply preach Christ crucified and leave it to God to open the eyes of people. But this approach contradicts the method used by Paul (cf. the discussions on Acts 17).
One of the keys in this issue is to understand the nature of fallen humanity. As a result of the Fall human reason has been warped; we think in ways that are foolish (e.g., believing that sin satisfies and that we can save ourselves). Naturally, then, God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours. But sin has not obliterated human reason. In proclamation we may appeal to the remnants of reason within the human mind. Like God, we may appeal to sinful people with these words, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Our fallen nature may revolt against such reasoning, for we do not want to turn from our sin and self-sufficiency. But when God opens people’s minds, they will follow our reasoning, and to them it will be good news. The Calvinist may say that those whom God enlightens cannot resist his grace, whereas the Arminian may say that God’s enlightenment can be resisted by a rebellious heart. But in practice that should not cause a difference in our methodology. We do not know who the elect are. Insofar as God can use our reason to bring people in, our job is to reason with them.
To understand Paul’s rejection of human wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 we must note the context of that passage. He is referring there to disunity in the church. People had latched onto those they considered to be their leaders (e.g., Paul, Cephas, and Apollos); division had resulted in the church. Bruce Winter explains that in that culture the pupils of secular teachers had to give exclusive loyalty to their masters and thus there was often rivalry among different teachers. This is what was happening in the Corinthian church.
Moreover, in the first century, rhetoric was so important that the careful crafting of a speech was even more important than its content. Orators “spoke to gain the adulation of their audiences.”24 Paul, on the other hand, says that he was sent “to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom [lit., not by means of the wisdom of rhetoric], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). Had Paul focused on rhetoric, he would have promoted himself and diverted attention away from the cross to himself. But “Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to secure a personal following.”25 Thus, the wisdom he was against was a focus on rhetoric that directed attention away from the cross to the speaker.
Paul went on to say that the preaching of the cross was folly to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). He rejected the wisdom of such worldlings who scoffed at the idea of the cross. That is, he rejected any presentation of the gospel that downplayed the cross so as to appeal to the intelligentsia. Communicating the message of the cross was far more important than winning the audience. Instead of using a human wisdom that rejected the cross, he proclaimed the wisdom of God, that is, Christ (1 Cor. 1:24). But since God created reason, the wisdom of God is not unreasonable. Therefore we may reason with people and show them both the folly of all ways that reject God’s wisdom and the reasonableness and truthfulness of the gospel. We can leave it to God to enlighten their eyes so that they may accept and act upon what we share.
Evangelism as obedience to a vision. Paul’s statement about not being “disobedient to the vision from heaven” (26:19) presents a key to the effectiveness of a servant of God. Shenk and Stutzman have a helpful discussion on this. They point out that “vision has become a catchword in today’s language.”26 A leader must have a clear picture of what is desirable and must be able to articulate that vision so that others also can grasp it. “The word vision shows what is ahead and uncharted. It is in the future tense.” They agree that visionary leadership is a key to motivating others to give themselves to a task or movement.
But Shenk and Stutzman make an important distinction between the above model of vision and the biblical model. After referring to the visions of Paul on the Damascus road, Peter on the rooftop, and John on the island of Patmos, they acknowledge that in the Bible “vision had vital implications for the future. But the vision was not a humanly constructed picture of what was to come. The vision came from God as an instruction for action.” This is something that we too easily overlook as we speak on vision today.
When we plan for the future, draw up our goals, and develop a vision statement, we often use methods of research that the business world gives us. These can indeed help in developing a vision. But much more important is waiting to hear from God. Peter and John were seeking God’s face when they received their respective visions (Acts 10:9; Rev. 1:10). The church of Antioch was “worshiping the Lord and fasting” (Acts 13:2) when God gave them the vision that gave birth to the first formal foreign missionary movement in the church. Leaders must earnestly ask God, both privately and in community, for a vision of what he wants done through them.
Once God’s vision has been discovered, leaders must express it to their people enthusiastically so that they too will catch the vision. It should be communicated practically so that others will realize that this is something that can be done and that they can have a part in achieving it. We have shown how Jesus did this with the Great Commission.27 When people are excited with the vision, they will pay the price to see it fulfilled.
Leaders must also order their lives in order to give priority to the vision.28 There are so many “urgent” demands on our lives that it is easy to neglect the “important” (to use a distinction popularized by Charles Hummel in his influential booklet, The Tyranny of the Urgent29). Leaders must constantly divest themselves of weights that, though they are good in themselves, keep them from doing the truly important things in life. Often our devotional life and personal ministry are the first things affected by being overcommitted. But dropping these will hinder us from fulfilling our visions. Without a healthy devotional life we will become spiritually dry and will not have the spiritual resources to motivate people to receive their fullest potential under God. Without personal work we will soon find that we are left with no people to motivate. It is personal ministry that breeds committed workers in a ministry.
We must always stretch ourselves because Christian leadership is never easy or convenient. We may need to take on the cross of tiredness and strain. But let that strain come from fulfilling the vision God gave us, not from doing things that we should have avoided.