Okay, let's pray together. Heavenly Father, we worship you together. We love you and we acknowledge that we do not love you as we should. But Father, you have put in our hearts the desire to follow you to serve you too. Love you too. Walk in your ways to serve your people and to go out into the world with your truth. That's why we're here. And so we pray, Father, that you will teach us in this time, open our hearts and minds to yourself that we may be persuaded by the work of your Spirit in our hearts and by the clarity of your word. We ask it for Jesus' sake, our men. If any of you didn't get a copy of the handouts that were given at last Thursday, there are some circulating around the room, just that brief one on Acts 17 on the Arabic as a dress and also another shorter one giving just a few examples of the creative use of language in the New Testament by the apostles. And that's the principle we were talking about in our last class, that principle of the adaptation of language to the minds and understanding of the hearers. It's simply the issue, of course, of translation. If you were to go to some other part of the world, you would not expect the people there to learn your language English or Korean or whatever it is, you would know that you had an obligation to learn their language to communicate the gospel to them in the language of their hearts. And that is the same issue, simply living in this culture today. We are called to learn the language of the hearts of the people around us and to communicate the gospel in that language. Now as we finish that point, I want to start today by looking at one final example of this very creative and very careful use of language in the New Testament. And in your notes in your syllabus, you will see there's just a brief section on the term Logos from John chapter 1. And I want to just say a little bit about that as we start class today. As some of you will remember reading what Michael Green had to say about the term Logos in his book of Angism in the Early Church and also about John's careful use of language all the way through his gospel. Now what's fascinating, first of all, as we read John chapter 1, what is often called the prologue of John's gospel, John chapter 1 verses 1 through 18, John is introducing the gospel of Christ with these very well-known words in the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. And then to verse 18, no one has ever seen God but God, the one and only who was at the farthest side, has made him know. Now if you think about Greek readers of this passage, any Greek who was a tall acquainted with the history of thought of his own culture would have immediately had all sorts of, we want to use this image, bells rung in their mind as they started reading John chapter 1. The term Logos has a long history going back to at least the time of Heraclitus a thousand years before the period in which the New Testament is written. And it's got a long history in Greek thought. And by the time of the New Testament, it's a word that has been used in the whole Platonic tradition extensively. It's used in neoplatonism. We find it, for example, in the writings of a Jew named Philo coming from the first century. You'll see there's a couple of quotes from him in that section in your notes. And it's also a term that's thoroughly familiar to the Stoics. Some of the people with whom Paul was talking in Athens recorded for us in Acts 17. And for many of these Greeks, the term Logos, carried with it the notion of the divine principle of reason or order that stands behind this visible world. There is the divine Logos, the principle of reason of order which stands behind the physical world that we can see and touch. And it's far above this world. They also thought the Stoics and others too that this divine principle of the Logos expressed itself particularly in the human mind, in our human rationality. So there was a human beings where in that way sort of related to or a part of that divine and eternal Logos or where fragments, so to speak, broken off from that, the principle of reason, apparent in the structure of the universe, the reality of reason making human beings unique and giving them dignity set apart from every other creature here in this world. Now as you read John chapter one, it's very evident that any Greek reading this, but as I have said, had bells rang in their minds, there's so many things that are said here that the Greek reader would have been familiar with. In fact, the great theologian Augustine put it this way after his own conversion in the fourth century. And Augustine had a background in neoplatonism, and he was thoroughly familiar with the teaching of the Logos, of the word of God. And he said this, when I read John chapter one, John's prologue, I was familiar with every idea in it until I came to the words, the word was made flesh and dwelt among men. And that was a radically new idea. So Augustine saying that as a neoplatonist, what John writes here was something which he understood thoroughly, that he could relate to, that he could make sense of, as an unbeliever. He could immediately, immediately build a bridge, if you like, towards Greek thought. Now what's interesting, of course, and I made this point last week, is that John is very careful to clarify what he's saying when he uses the term Logos, so that a Greek reader won't be left with the notion of the Logos as simply a divine principle, a principle of regional order in the universe or in the mind of human persons. He very carefully talks about the personal nature of the Logos in a way which the Greeks would have found challenging, that the Logos is fully equivalent to God, which would also have stretched their minds. But what it would have been particularly challenging for them and difficult is John's statement in John 1, verse 14, where he says the Logos became flesh and he uses the strongest Greek word Saks, not simply the Logos assumed a body, but the Logos became flesh. Now that idea would have been extremely challenging to say the least, in fact offensive to somebody with a neoplatonic or a stoic background, because John, while he's prepared to use their language, is very careful to make sure that his gospel is not watered down in any way, it's expressing biblical truth as clearly as possible, though he's prepared to use their language in doing so. And in fact, it's for the Greeks the notion that the divine principle, the principle of order in the universe, became flesh, became physical, was an idea that was totally unacceptable. And in fact, this is the fundamental reason why the early church for three or four hundred years has to wrestle with the doctrine of the Trinity, and particularly the doctrine of the incarnation of the full humanity and the full divinity of the person of Christ. For the Greek mind, they could accept the notion that Christ was divine, or they could accept the notion that Christ was human, but that he was both, in a complete sense, was a notion that was completely at odds with their whole system of thought, because for them the physical world was an inferior world. The world of reason, the world of ideas, the world of spirit, the world of the divine was totally separate from this world. And the incarnation brings these two worlds absolutely together, and John makes that passionately clear in verse 14, where he says the word became flesh and dwelt among men. So John using their language, but using it very carefully and very creatively. The other thing that's fascinating about this section in John's Gospel, and some of you who read Green carefully, well remember this, if you haven't got so many other ideas in your mind by this time, that you've forgotten what he said. But Michael Green also makes the point that any Jew reading John 1 through 18 is also having all sorts of bells rang in their mind. This is so carefully written, and it's true in fact of the whole of John's Gospel, and you might want to go back and look at that section, Michael Green, on this. The whole of John's Gospel is written in such a sophisticated way that all the way through the Gospel, John is ringing bells in the minds of both Greek and Jewish readers. This is fascinating to us, because in some ways John's Gospel is the most simple one. It's the one you often start when you're first learning Greek to read. It's the one we often give unbelievers or brand new Christians to read to introduce them to Jesus, because it has an apparent simplicity and directness and clarity to it. But that doesn't mean it's not very carefully written, in fact, it means exactly the opposite. It is extremely carefully written. To write simply and clearly, you have to write very, very carefully, but John's Gospel is a very sophisticated presentation of biblical truth to both the Greek mind and the Jewish mind. Now, as I make that point, and you think about John 1 through 18, the prologue to John's Gospel, where are some examples of John ringing bells in the minds of his Jewish readers? Let me ask you that question, anyone who's still paying attention. Yes. In the beginning, exactly the very first words, of course, echo the first words of the book of Genesis, and he's doing that purposefully. So when he Jewish reader is immediately taken back to Genesis 1, what other examples are there here? Yes. Yes, he refers to the law of Moses directly there, but in terms of the language, yes. Yes. That's a very good point. All the way through the Old Testament, the word of God, the Davai Yahweh, the word of the Lord, is repeated expression, both in terms of God's creation of the world, but also of God giving His word to His prophets, speaking to His people. And again, any Jew is going to be immediately think of this as soon as they read. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and speaking about the word is the source of creation. Of course, this is another point where a Jewish mind is going to have bells rang. In Genesis 1, God speaks, and the world is brought into being. And here in John 1, the word is the source of creation. Other examples from here, the word of the Lord, anyone else? Other what he says about light, and many, many other things through this passage, but go back and read Michael Green on this. Now as you think about this, about this thoughtful use of language, whether it's here in John 1, or in any other place in the New Testament, what's actually happening, of course, is not simply a very careful use of the language of the hearer or the reader, but also what the apostles are doing is making a very carefully reasoned presentation of the truth about Christ. That's exactly what John 1 is. In chapter 1 of John's gospel, he is seeking to persuade his readers, that the word, who is the creator of the universe, that God's word that has revealed himself to the human race has been made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, that the human person Jesus of Nazareth is indeed one in the same as the one true God, the creator of the universe, the one who orders and brings into being the whole system and structure of this present reality. By his careful use of language, John is seeking to persuade his readers of that truth, that Jesus and the word, Jesus and God are one and the same. Now, of course, in John's gospel, John explicitly tells us what his purpose in writing is, in John chapter 20 verse 31, he writes, Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book, but these are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in his name, so that you may be convinced, so that you may know who Jesus truly was, and that in knowing that and believing in him, you may have life. And later, in chapter 21 verse 24, John adds and uses language from the courtroom, this is the disciple who testifies to these things, and to wrote them down, we know that his testimony is true, that John is using legal language. He's appealing to testimony, to eyewitness evidence. John is presenting testimony or evidence to persuade his readers of the truth of his message. He wants to prove his case about who Jesus is and the need to believe in him. Now, if you think back to John's gospel and you might want again to read the section Michael Green on this, you'll see that John does this constantly. The whole gospel is an appeal to many different witnesses or testimonies about Christ. It's an appeal to the testimony of God the Father, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of Jesus' own words, the testimony of Jesus' miracles, his signs, the testimony of the prophets who predicted his coming, the testimony of Moses, the testimony of the whole scriptures, the testimony of the apostles who have seen and heard Jesus doing and saying these things, the testimony of the Samaritan woman, of what she has learned about Jesus, and many other examples as well. You read through John's gospel, and this is one of his major themes. His gospel is a presentation of testimony or evidence to demonstrate who Jesus is and why we must believe in him. Now, that brings us to our fifth principle, a carefully reasoned presentation of the gospel. Now, if we go back to look at our examples in the Book of Acts, if you turn to Acts chapter 13 and Paul in the synagogue in Pasidian, Antioch, you want to know these messages off by heart, if you have read them several times, by the time we're finished here, and it would do you good to do that, to learn them by heart. But what Paul is seeking to do just as John does in his gospel, what Paul is seeking to do is to persuade or convince his hearers about who Jesus is. Basically, we may summarize Paul's approach in Acts 13 verses 16 through 41 to say this. In this sermon to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, we find a powerfully reasoned message aimed at persuading those present that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. That's the heart of this message. Paul is marshaling together evidence to persuade those listening to him that Jesus is indeed the Christ promised in the Old Testament scriptures and that therefore they must put their hope in him. Now to what does Paul appeal? He appeals number one to God's revelation of himself in the Old Testament and in particular to his promises about the coming of the Messiah, equals several Messianic prophecies. Number two, Paul demonstrates how these prophecies have been fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and his second line of argument. Number three, he appeals to the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus, because John the Baptist is highly respected by almost all the Jews. And number four, he appeals to the eyewitness testimony about Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Those of four of the ways Paul seeks to persuade his hearers, he's giving his hearers reasons to believe in Jesus. Now his appeal is to special revelation, that is to scripture, primarily, but not entirely so because he also appeals to the testimony of John the Baptist, the evidence of his ministry and to the living eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Now that's the way Paul reasons in the synagogue and we can assume that he did much the same thing, most every time he went to a synagogue or spoke to a Jew or a Gentile who already believed the Old Testament to be the Word of God. Now what about in Athens, in Acts 17 and in Listera, in Acts 14, and we'll deal with these two together, to what does Paul appeal and what does he try to demonstrate when he is speaking to the Gentiles? What Paul basically does in Acts 14 and 17 is appeal to general revelation, they're unfamiliar with special revelation, that is the scripture, so Paul appeals to general revelation as he sets forth his case as he makes his defense of the faith. And let me give you several examples, number one, Paul reasons from the knowledge of God which God has put in a heart and mind of every person. Number two, he appeals to their understanding of the dependence of all of life on the creator. These people know that the universe and its creatures are not self-created or self-existent. They depend on the power of God for their coming into being and their continued existence. Number three, he appeals to their daily experience of God's providential care. For example in Acts 14, 17, he says the pagans, God has not left himself without testimony, that is without convincing evidence, he has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons, he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. So that's the third point he appeals to their experience of God's providential care to that testimony which God gives. Number four, he calls them to reflect on God's rule over history and over the lives of nations, a rule that should lead people to seek God and worship him. That's what he says in Acts 17. He's talking about God's rule over the nations and he says God did this so that people would seek after him and find him. In other words God rules history, he rules the nations to draw people to himself, to point to his existence, to his power, to his care. This is true if we think about let's say the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of communism across East and Europe and the former Soviet Union. God is ruling history to draw people to himself giving evidence of his just and righteous rule. Number five, Paul argues from their recognition of the unique dignity of human persons. They know that there is something divine about men and women. As we've seen their own poets and thinkers acknowledge that we are God's offspring. So that's a fifth line of evidence he appeals to their own understanding of the uniqueness of human persons. We would say that people are made in the image of God. There's something special about us. That's how God has made us and God constantly testifies to himself through this reality of who we are. Number six, he appeals to their own sense of the inadequacy of their worship, their own recognition that human temples cannot contain God. Who they know to be the creator of heaven and earth. God does not live in temples built by hands. They know this and he appeals to that line of argument. And number seven, very closely related, he insists that idolatry is self-evidently foolish. Because idols are made by people who are themselves the creations of God. So God is obviously far greater than idols. It's exactly the same argument as Isaiah makes in that section on idolatry in Isaiah 41 through 49. And finally, he climaxes his argument by appealing to what he calls the proof of the resurrection of Christ, which he says all people may know about by paying attention to the testimony of those who witnessed it. So his climax is to appeal to the proof of the resurrection which he says all people may know about by paying attention to the testimony of witnesses. Now, we can summarize Paul's approach here in Acts to the pagans in this way. His messages to pagans are aimed at giving them compelling reasons as to why they should become worshipers of the one true God and put their hope in his son, Jesus, whom God appointed as the universal judge. Now, that's his fundamental line of approach, to give them compelling reasons why they should become worshipers of the one true God and put their hope in Christ. Now, there's an objection here that we need to consider, an objection that is very frequently raised by Christians. And that is that Paul renounced the use of reason and we need to look at this fairly carefully. I've heard preachers in this country making this argument and it's an argument and it's ironic to use that term purposely but you see people very strongly arguing and passionately arguing for this position that Paul renounced the use of reason. In presenting the gospel and therefore so must we. In Korea, this is also a very widely held view in reformed and Presbyterian circles there. And there is in particular teaching a book written in Korea arguing that Paul's approach in Acts 17 was both a failure and it was mistaken. And I've heard that same argument given here in the States as well by a professor of apologetics actually his name I won't reveal. But I heard in preaching on Acts 17 in church one day and that's exactly what he said this message is a failure and it's a mistake. Now, why would somebody make such an argument? That is to say that Paul renounced the use of reason. What they appeal to is first Corinthians chapters one and two in particular and we need to look at those here because this is quite an important issue because if Paul renounced the use of reason then basically everything I've said for the last month is a total waste of time. And you need to forget it as soon as possible and trash your letters apart from other things. Now, what are they appealing to and those who hold this view appeal primarily to some of the words of Paul and first Corinthians one and two and we'll look at the particular verses where this argument takes its force. Or the which those who take this view appeal verse 17 of chapter one of first Corinthians for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel not with words of human wisdom less the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. And that verses understood by those who take this view to mean that the preacher must renounce any attempt to seek to persuade once here is and simply let the cross of Christ have its power. Our calling is simply to proclaim rather than to persuade that's the heart of the argument that you're calling as you got into the church is simply to proclaim the message to declare it not to seek to reason with people or to persuade them or to use any kind of wisdom in presenting the message. Verse 18 onwards for 18 to 21 of first Corinthians one for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God for it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent. I will frustrate where is the wise man where is the scholar where is the philosopher of this age and again those who take this view will argue that the gospel is always literally foolish to any unbeliever. And therefore it's absolutely pointless trying to persuade somebody of its truth or to convince them about who Christ was or who God is or who we are or the problem of evil or anything else under the sun. That it's a waste of time God has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world for since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe and again those who take this view will say that literally the gospel is foolish to the unbeliever. So all the Christian preacher can do is proclaim it simply declare it and let it fall where God wills rather than seek to persuade so you're getting a contrast built between declaration and persuasion. Again down in chapter 2 verse 1 when I came to you brothers that is to Corinth when I came to you brothers I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. And again the argument is that Paul here is saying when I came to Corinth I no longer made any effort to speak eloquently. You remember I made the point that Paul's message in Acts 17 has all sorts of rhetorical flourishes and touches in it. It's very carefully and eloquently put together so those who take this view are saying that after Athens Paul changed his approach repented of it if you like and when he got to Corinth did something entirely different. He did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom he simply proclaimed though notice there and this is I point to ironically that Paul uses the word testimony here which is a legal word about evidence. I just point that out in passing and then verses 4 and 5 my message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the spirit's power so that your faith might not rest on mens wisdom but on God's power. And again the argument is made that Paul is saying here I made no attempt to persuade anybody to convince them that Christianity is the truth that Jesus is the son of God that God exists or anything else. I didn't want to do that I simply depended on the power of the spirit and that's all that matters. We declare and we wait for the spirit's power to work so that people's faith may be simply in the power of God rather than in any careful reasoning or presentation of the gospel made by the preacher. Now clearly this is a very powerful argument and it raises at least the following three important questions which we need to think about. Number one are these words in first Corinthians a denunciation by Paul of his own previous practice because that's the view that some hold. Are these words in first Corinthians a denunciation of Paul's own previous practice of reasoning in the synagogue and in particular to the pagans in Leicester and Athens or to put it another way. Did Paul repent of his message to the Athenians and regarded as a failure and as a mistake and some people take that view very strongly that Paul repented of what he done in Athens and decided that after Athens he would literally speak only about Christ and him crucified. In future he would say nothing about the existence of God the nature of God no more talk about pagan worship about idolatry no more building bridges to pagan and belief but in future he would simply proclaim the ABC of the gospel Christ died for your sins repent and believe in him etc. Now is that what Paul saying in first Corinthians one and two and notice of course it rejects not only Paul's message in Athens but Paul's approach in the synagogue as well which is also very carefully reasoned. Some people are not prepared to acknowledge that when they make this point because the appeal in the synagogue is primarily to special revelation so they will accept that appeal to Old Testament prophecy but it's still basically a persuasive and rational argument that Paul is making so if this were really true it would project what Paul's doing there as well. So that's the first question is Paul repenting of his Paul denouncing his own previous practice number two how does Luke present the way Paul communicates the gospel does Luke for example set up attention between declaration or proclamation and reasoning because that's what this argument requires and first Corinthians one Paul saying now I only preach I no longer reason or persuade so does Luke as he describes Paul's communication of the gospel how does he presented how does he presented before Paul got to Athens how does he presented while he was in Athens. Athens and how does he presented after he left Athens how does Luke teach us about Paul's method of communicating the gospel remember Luke as an inspired writer so this is important and number three the third important question here is if Paul isn't rejecting his own previous practice. Why does he use this strong language about persuasive words and eloquence in first Corinthians one or two and what does he mean by it so if Paul isn't renouncing reason what is he saying that's the third question here now we'll begin with this question was Paul's preaching in Athens a failure in a mistake we'll go through these points one by one. Ross Paul's preaching in Athens a failure in a mistake that's one of the charges that has been made and so Paul repented of it now if you turn to Acts 17 you find absolutely no suggestion from Luke that Luke considered Paul's approach in Athens to be mistaken in any way this is clearly written sometime after these events at least in its final form but Luke makes no suggestion whatsoever that he thinks that what Paul did in Athens was wrong and of course Luke and Paul are friends they are fellow travelers they are people who labor together in the gospel if Paul had felt his work in Athens was unworthy of the gospel we may be sure that he would have made known this to Luke and Luke would have mentioned it but he breathes no hint of it now this isn't simply an argument from silence looks account of Paul's ministry in Athens and elsewhere is an account inspired by the Holy Spirit it is part of Scripture it is to be regarded as an authoritative account binding on the readers just like any other part of Scripture it is a dangerous way to approach Scripture to suggest that a speech of Paul is a mistake when it's clearly recorded by Paul as a part of his ministry Paul the ambassador of Christ appointed by Christ proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and here we have the primary example of that of Paul preaching Christ to the Gentiles and are we supposed to conclude that this was in error when there is nothing to tell us so Luke would most certainly have informed us of this if there is any likelihood of this at all in fact Luke presents this to us as something for us to read to understand and to emulate this is true in this account of Paul's ministry in Athens and everywhere else he speaks we cannot choose pick and choose between pastors of Scripture I don't like this so I will regard what Paul did here is wrong when there is nothing in the text to tell us so now was Paul's ministry in Athens a failure look at verse 34 Luke tells us quite explicitly that some people were converted some said verse 33 we want to hear you again on this subject they are eager to talk more a few men became followers of Paul and believed among them was Dionysius a member of the Ariopagus also a woman named Damaris and a number of others now I would say that it's remarkable that there were people converted here just think of the context I often go and speak at colleges all over the world and sometimes to groups of faculty who are not believers and I would be absolutely thrilled if I could come back from one such meeting and say several people became Christians it would be wonderful it would be fantastic you would be thrilled to bits the other thing you should notice is that when Luke records people's names for us he always does so intentionally because people whose names he records are people who had a particular significance in the life of the church in later years and when he gives us these names Dionysius and Damaris we can be sure that these are people who had a deep impact on the life of the church in Athens and perhaps elsewhere in the years to come and we can add as well of course every individual every one of these few people who believed is precious in the eyes of the Lord God doesn't measure things by numbers in the way we do Jesus tells the parable of the shepherd who went to search for one lost sheep every individual is precious in the eyes of God he goes to extraordinary lengths to save just one and if any of you look back of your lives if I look back at my life and I think of any single individual who has become a believer through my ministry and obviously through all sorts of other means that God has used I would say my whole life has been worth it for just that one person and that's the preciousness of individuals I have this man who calls me basically every week from England who was converted in 1972 with me and he is a schizophrenic he is terribly badly damaged if he weren't a believer he would be in a psychiatric hospital for his whole life obviously his calls every week take a lot of time he often calls it two or three or four in the morning English time in the evening here because he doesn't sleep well but I would say if I had never touched anybody else's person in my life if I never touched anyone else's life apart from his and my whole life would be worth it so it's such folly to read an account like this where Luke explicitly tells us people were converted and say this was a mistake and a failure it's a completely sinful way to approach Scripture I'll put it that strongly now we may make another point here and that is this suppose verses 33 and 34 were not there in Acts 17 would it be appropriate of us to draw the conclusion if Luke had not recorded the fruit of this message it would be appropriate for us to conclude that Paul's message was a failure and a mistake it certainly would not there are many occasions when we read the gospels and the book of Acts when we are not told explicitly that anybody became a Christian at that time there are lots of examples in the gospels like this lots of encounters that Jesus has with people which do not result in anyone's immediate conversion it would be completely wicked I'm serious it would be wicked to draw the conclusion from that that Jesus' approach was mistaken or failed the same when we read the book of Acts and Luke doesn't record any particular conversions Jesus and Paul just like you and I are often sowing seeds in the human heart rather than reaping for Jesus for example much of the fruit of his ministry is not realized until after his resurrection as he says it's necessary for a grain of wheat to fall into the ground and die before it bears fruit in the early chapters of Acts we read of huge numbers of people coming to faith one day we will find out exactly how many of those had heard Jesus preaching and teaching or had personal contacts with him during his earthly ministry but we can have absolutely no doubt that many of the people in Jerusalem who were converted in those days following Pentecost those days and months and years were people who had been touched by the earthly ministry of Christ for example when we read in Acts 6 for a 7 that a great number of priests came to the faith who can seriously doubt that these people had not had some contact with the ministry of Christ now in the same way it would be completely wrong to conclude but when there are either no converts or just a few after one of Paul's encounters with people that this means there's something inadequate about Paul's presentation of the gospel I can't imagine anybody really seriously any serious and thoughtful Bible teacher putting forward such a view if they stopped to reflect on the implications of it what this does is to set scripture against scripture first Corinthians 1 and 2 against Acts 17 in a way that is totally cavalier and unacceptable number 2 a second question how does Luke present the teaching of the Apostle Paul and what kind of language does he use does he for example set proclamation or declaration on one side over against persuasion on the other because that's the heart of this argument how does Luke present the preaching of Paul well let's look at a whole series of passages first of all Acts 9 22 22 and just notice the language that Luke uses this is right after Paul after Saul's conversion and he's in Damascus it says at once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the son of God now here he's used the language of proclamation the declaration Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews letting in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ there you have Luke putting right together the word preach or proclaim with the language of baffled by proving a second example Acts 9 27 through 29 this is when Paul is back in Jerusalem here it says this is Barnabas describing his Saul's ministry and it says he told them has saw on his journey had seen the Lord and the Lord had spoken to him and how in Damascus he had preached fiercely in the name of Jesus and then verse 28 Saul stayed he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord and then verse 29 he talked and debated with the Grecian Jews again you've got Luke putting together language of proclamation of simply declaring boldly and the language of reasoning he debated with the Grecian Jews or take Acts 14 verses 1 through 3 at aconium it says Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue there they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews believed and then he goes on to say they spent considerable time in a conium and they spoke boldly for the Lord there now here Luke's language is not specific it could include both straight proclamation and reasoned persuasion and almost certainly did include both or take Acts 17 verses 1 through 4 at 17 verses 1 through 4 and here Luke summarizing Paul's ministry when they passed through Ampifilus and Apollonia they came to Thessalonica where there was a Jewish synagogue as his custom was Paul went into the synagogue and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the scriptures explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead and notice how he summarizes what he's done Luke tells us that as his custom was he reasoned explained and proved and then Luke summarizes or Paul summarizes what he is by saying this Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ so the language of proclamation of reason and persuasion together and verse 4 so some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas as did a large number of God fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women Luke is quite happy to exchange the word believe or converted with were persuaded as he speaks so the language of reason, persuasion and proof and proclamation set together or act 17 verses 16 through 18 this is in Athens while Paul was waiting for the man Athens he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols so what did he do so he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God fearing Greeks as well as with in the marketplace day by day with those who happen to be there so his response to the idolatry is to reason with Greeks and Jews in the synagogue and to reason with others in the marketplace and then they began to dispute with him verse 18 why did they dispute with him does it say they said this the end of verse 18 because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection so again you've got this language of reasoning in all these different contexts summarized by Paul preaching the good news or take another passage and this is from Corinth itself where Paul is supposed to have changed his approach chapter 18 verses 1 through 5 after this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth there he met a Jew named Aquila a native of Pontus who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome Paul went to see them and because he was a tentmaker as they were he stayed and worked with them every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue trying to persuade Jews and Greeks now here's Paul reasoning and persuading people both Jews and Greeks in Corinth where he's supposedly no longer using persuasion now if that's what he meant in 1 Corinthians you know I didn't use any persuasive words well Luke says right here that he did Luke says right here that he did now the crux comes down below when silence and Timothy came from Macedonia Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ now some people quite seriously argue on the basis of that word there that verse but at this point Paul repented of his previous approach and changed what he was doing that his first period in Corinth he carried on the same old sinful pattern of reasoning and persuading but then he decided suddenly to devote himself exclusively to preaching from that time onwards he only proclaimed so it's argued that these words are describing a transition in Paul's ministry from this point on he would reason and persuade no more and again I'll quote here I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom I resolved no nothing except Christ and him crucified my message my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words so here's the radical change in Paul's approach that's the argument but is that convincing it is that what what Luke is saying here and he says nothing of course about Paul repenting but Luke is not contrasting preaching and persuasion notice he uses the word testifying there in verse 5 again testifying is a word from the courtroom it's the presentation of evidence to convince people now actually what Luke is talking about here is not Paul doing something different in the way he presented the gospel he's simply saying that from this point onwards Paul was a full-time evangelist in Corinth that's all he's saying that's all he's saying he devotes himself exclusively to teaching rather than working as a tent maker that's the contrast that's being made here why is he able to do this he does this because Silas and Timothy come from Macedonia that is from the church at the same time with Gifts to support his ministry Paul's practice when he went to any new city was to support his ministry by working as a tent maker because he refused to accept money from the unbelievers to whom he was proclaiming the gospel he tells us that absolutely explicitly in Corinthians that he refused to accept money from those to whom he preached the gospel he was happy to accept money from those already converted and churches already established and that's exactly what's happening here and if you read Philippians 414 and 2 Corinthians 11 8 through 9 Paul tells us in those two passages about the gift that was given by the Philippian church from Macedonia which enabled him to devote himself exclusively to preaching after Silas and Timothy came from Philippi from Macedonia that's all that Lucas is saying he's not saying anything about Paul's kind of approach he's simply saying he worked as a tent maker and preached when he was able when Silas and Timothy came with a financial support he devoted himself exclusively to the ministry of the word now if you look at Acts 13 the opposers Acts 18 13 sorry at verse 13 of Acts 18 those who are opposing Paul's ministry in Corinth summarize it this way this man they charged is persuading the people to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law in other words everybody else still sees Paul as trying to persuade people which of course is what he's still doing now after two years in Corinth Paul went to Ephesus and we read about Paul's practice there in Acts 18 verse 19 they arrived at Ephesus where he left Priscilla and Aquila he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews with Luke still using precisely the same language to communicate how Paul presented the gospel or take another example this isn't about Paul but it's about a Paulus in Acts 1827 through 28 when a Paulus wanted to go to a Kier that is he's going back to Corinth Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus sorry when Paul verse 27 of Acts 18 when a Paulus wanted to go to a Kier the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples that welcomed him on arriving he was a great help to those who by grace have believed for he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ Luke obviously has no problem whatsoever in using the language of reason persuasion of proof and debate and argument to present however anyone proclaimed the gospel and then finally chapter 19 verses 8 through 10 where Luke presents Paul's ministry in Ephesus for the three years that he was there and you see the language that Luke uses here to describe Paul's ministry and this is some years after he's been in Corinth and supposedly changed his approach Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months language of declaration arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God but some of them became obstinate they refused to believe and publicly maligned the way so Paul left them he took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of tyrannous and this went on for two years and Paul hasn't changed his approach in any kind of way now where many other examples we could look at as well of the way Luke describes how Paul presented the gospel but there is simply absolutely no linguistic basis whatsoever to argue that one can make an opposition between proclamation and preaching and declaring boldly and reasoning and persuading people Luke quite happily can summarize what Paul does by using any of that language now again I'd urge you to read the section Michael Green on this subject that brings us to a final question question three why does Paul use such strong words about wisdom, about persuasive words and about eloquence in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 if Paul isn't repenting of his method of presenting the gospel what is he talking about by this heavy language in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 now to answer that question you need to look carefully at some of the language or some of the things that Paul says here in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 this for example in verses 20 and 21 these words he talks about the wise man, the scholar, the philosopher of this age and then he talks about the wisdom of this world and then since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom worldly wisdom or in verse 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom and verse 25 of Acts of 1 Corinthians 1 for the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, man's wisdom, the wisdom of the world, the philosopher of this age or chapter 2 verse 1 when I came to brothers I didn't come with eloquence or superior wisdom and then chapter 2 verses 6 I do not speak I do speak a message of wisdom among the mature but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age who are coming to nothing and verse 8 none of the rulers of this age understood it now Paul here speaking about the wisdom of this world, the rulers of this world etc what Paul is doing here is not renouncing reason he is simply drawing attention to the fundamental problem of the Greek mind in his day every culture has its idols which stand between it and God just as the Jews were skeptical about Jesus because they were proud of their heritage as God's people Paul we are Abraham's children we belong to God we have the law God that is signs among us Jews seek signs you know we are God's special people among whom he has done his work now the Jews were proud of that and that stopped them hearing the message of Christ the Greeks were proud of their heritage of great wisdom you know I said to you earlier this semester Greek philosophy you know all of philosophy since Plato is basically a series of footnotes to Plato the Greeks were very proud of their wisdom God's gift of wisdom to them had become a snare to them they considered themselves a superior race they worshipped their own brilliance of mind and their philosophical heritage rather than God the giver of wisdom they trusted in their own wisdom rather than in God and that's what Paul's talking about here he is contrasting the wisdom of the Greeks which has no room for the gospel of Christ they did not believe that God intervenes in history or that God could become flesh they rejected that absolutely that's why these people and Athens sneer and regard Paul as a babbler for talking about Jesus and his incarnation and his resurrection they think this is nonsense they think it's foolishness because it doesn't fit with their wisdom that's the point that Paul is making here in every age in every culture the prevailing wisdom rejects Christianity as folly the wisdom of this age always does Paul's not renouncing reason he's contrasting the wisdom of this world the wisdom of this age with the true wisdom which comes from God that's the fundamental point that Paul is making here and if you read Romans 1 18 through 32 you'll find Paul making exactly the same point there the people reject the knowledge of God and become foolish in their thinking they think they're wise but they become fools exactly what he's saying in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 he's contrasting the wisdom of the gospel with the folly of the wisdom of this age now the second point that Paul's making is very quickly here about eloquence in Athens in Greece everywhere there were schools of rhetoric schools that taught eloquence the taught rhetorical skills and the skills of debate and in particular there were schools of sophists S O P H I S T S schools of sophists who were trained in rhetoric who were trained in public eloquence and they hired themselves out for a high fee to anybody who would pay that fee to defend them in court or anywhere else and they boasted that they were so skillful in rhetoric and in eloquence and debate that they could persuade anybody of anything whether it was true or not now that's what Paul's renouncing he's not saying you know I don't think for a second about what I'm saying when I preach the gospel I make every effort not to be eloquent that's not what he's saying he's saying my methods are not those of these schools of rhetoric in Athens and other Greek cities where nobody's concerned about truth but just brilliance just like lawyers in our own culture many lawyers you can hire a lawyer if you've got enough money and you can get off you know that's true there's a huge difference between the kind of defense in court that somebody Paul gets and somebody wealthy gets you get what you pay for there's lots of lawyers who will defend anything regardless of whether it's true or not or whether somebody's or whether somebody's guilty or innocent simply for money and they're clever enough to do it now that's what Paul's talking about here that kind of problem and we need to stop there