The Book of Acts 22:24 to 23:11 Paul's defense before Centurion/Sanhedrin

For a change, we're going to read this morning. And I think we have a section that is readable in terms of its length. And I think it will help us put this all into perspective. So we're in Acts 22, and we're going to start in verse 23. Keep in mind now, we're in Jerusalem here.

And remember, Historically, Paul was led by the Spirit. And we discussed three weeks ago whether that was the Holy Spirit or whether that was Paul's earthly spirit to go to Jerusalem. I think I mentioned to you that Macaulay feels that Paul won against God's will. It was his own desire to go there. And it was not the Lord's will. I disagree with that. But that just shows us the Bible is there for us to interpret.

And ultimately, he's in Jerusalem anyway. So the point is, remember, Paul ultimately wants to go to Rome. And his desire and his plan was to go to Jerusalem first to take, I believe, offerings back to the church of Jerusalem. But he, as you know, has gotten into some difficulty there in Jerusalem. So this is kind of where we're at now.

Then as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks. and said that he should be examined under scourging so that he might know why they shouted so much against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, take care of what you do, for this man is a Roman. Then the commander came and said to him, tell me, are you a Roman?

He said, yes. The commander answered, with a large sum I obtained a citizenship. And Paul said, but I was born a citizen. Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him. And the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman and because he had bound him. The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear and brought Paul down and sent him before them. Then Paul, looking earnestly at the countenance, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said, And God will strike you, you whitewashed wall. For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law? And those who stood by said, Do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written, You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.

But when Paul perceived that in one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am being judged. And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection and no angel or spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.

Then there arose a loud outcry, and the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, We find no evil in this man, but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them and bring him into the barracks. But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome or in Rome." So there's that plan and intention for him to move from Jerusalem ultimately to Rome.

So that took a few minutes, but I think it helps us go forward today. All right, so I've divided this into two sections. The first is Romans 22, verses 23 and 29. Paul claims his Roman citizenship. I think try to identify a little bit here as we look at this section. I think it's kind of fun to kind of think about being in Paul's shoes and what was he going through in terms of his testimony and his defense of his Roman citizenship.

So as a reminder, we're in Jerusalem still. And Paul's life has been threatened. And Paul's statement that the Lord had sent him to the Gentiles infuriated the Jewish leadership. And they set out to kill him. Now keep in mind, there are Jewish members of the nation of Israel who have been converted. But I think these are the unconverted, Perhaps some converted. I don't know. We're not told. But there was this fury about the fact that he was sent to the Gentiles.

And the Jews believed that when the true Messiah comes, he will abase the Gentile nations. We don't need to look at this verse in Isaiah. But you can look back at the prophecy in terms of the Kingdom Age. And the Gentile nations, the unbelieving nations, if you will, in terms of the true Messiah from their perspective, will ultimately trample out the Gentile nations. I think the Jewish leadership here is reflecting on that prophecy that is stated in Isaiah.

I tried to find that elsewhere. Isn't that also why they thought he would come back as a king? To fight the Gentiles. They are looking for a kingdom. They are looking for a government. A earthly rule of righteousness. The Gentile nations were not part of that. They cast off their clothes. This is not to nudity, apparently this is a tradition of getting rid of the outer garments. in preparation for the stoning.

And if you turn to Acts 7, 57, and 58, you see a parallel scripture indicating the shedding of clothes before an intended stoning. And you can find this actually elsewhere. And 2 Samuel 16, 13, I think it also, let's turn to that, 2 Samuel 16, 13, and threw dust into the air And I think that's an expression of their abhorrence and indignation of the events that they're experiencing at this time. And I think I think both casting out for clothes and also throwing dust in the air is in the second. So somebody wants to pull that. And as David and his men went by the way, Shimea went along on the hillside over against him and cursed as he went and threw stones at him and cast dust. Okay, no clothing being shed there, but the clothing being shed is witnessed in Acts. We'll not turn there. It's witnessed in a couple of other places too.

Alright, and the chief commander, who by the way is the captain, this is a Roman leader, right? who did not speak Hebrew. He's dealing with this travesty in front of his front porch here. And he can't communicate. But he commanded that the Paul be brought into the castle.

And many people refer to this as the Tower of Antonio. I'm not sure where that came from. I think it's Josephus. But the Tower of Antonio is not stated in the Word of God. But that's referenced in some of the commentaries. and commanded that Paul be brought into the castle and be scourged.

Now, this scourging is not a simple deal here. This is really pretty substantial punishment. And from Macaulay's good here, but I think even dealing into the word scourge in terms of what it meant, examining by scourging was to bring about truth from the accused. So the idea is the scourging was kind of like, And if torture is what it is to try to get people to really reveal the truth and how many people under that type of torture. So what is scorching? Is it that whipping with the cattails? Scorching can take place in a wide variety of ways. It can be whipped, you can be stoned, you can be hung. I mean it takes on a wide variety of light.

It's a very severe thing. I heard the same thing here. McCauley said most people didn't live after they were scourged. And the Lord Jesus was scourged too. And as I put here after the, some might call it extreme punishment, typically leaving the scourge with permanent harm if they survived it. I mean this wasn't anything you kind of just Got whipped a few times and you had temporary pain and recovered from it. This was a terrible, terrible torture. Can you identify with torture? I mean, I'd be extremely poor tolerating being tortured.

It seems so incredible, but yet another evidence that Paul's about his business growing in grace under extreme conditions. Yeah, and Paul talks about it. This one he avoided, but he talked all the time. So many lashings. He goes through a whole list of things that happened to him. I mean, it's pretty incredible. 2 Corinthians, chapter 4, he lists all these things. Unbelievable what the early church went through. After being bound with thongs, which are cords, Paul addresses the centurion. So the question of the class here is, what's the centurion doing here?

This is not the captain. What's a centurion? What's his role? Well, he's not handing out athletic supporters. This is the guy who's kind of supervising this whole sequence of events, right? The scourge. So the captain's nowhere to be seen. He's just commanding this be done. That's just a soldier. That's all he is, a soldier. But a soldier with some oversight, some administrative responsibilities. All right, and Paul restates his citizenship to the captain, who knew already that Paul was a Jew from Tarsus.

And that's Acts 21.39. We don't have to turn there. Now, this is interesting to discuss here.

So apparently under the rule of Claudius, Roman citizenship came at a great price. So in other words, you could buy it. And the captain or the commander would presumably be in a position to throw out some coin to buy his Roman citizenship. But on what basis did Paul claim his Roman citizenship?

He claims he was born free, implying that Paul's father was a Roman citizen, which is actually stated, I think, in the scripture. So being born, it's kind of like someone who comes to the States, I guess, and brings a child with them who was born in a different country. That child automatically assumes US citizenship, right? Because it's a child of a parent who then ultimately goes through citizenship and becomes a citizen.

Anyway, Paul's a Roman because his dad was a Roman. That's all we really know. Or some people think that maybe Tarsus was really under Roman rule and to be from Tarsus made him a Roman citizen. But since the scripture says his father was a Roman citizen, we don't have to understand why his father was. And I think the other thing to keep in mind here, according to a number of commentators that I've read, the lying about your citizenship was a death sentence. So if you claim to be a Roman citizen and we're not, then trouble is ahead.

And notice the response of the captain. He's immediately fearful. And he kind of departs from the scene. So he's thinking, my goodness gracious. Why do you think the captain is responding this way? Because he could be killed. for harming a Roman citizen. It was a pretty strict law. Roman citizens were spared from this type of punishment. Scourging would have been a heinous crime as a Roman authority. He was put in a very difficult position. And to think that Paul would have gone through all that would have been something that would have reflected on his administrative incompetence, if you will. He was probably not just beginning to sweat bullets, the centurion that is, but deciding, let's check this out in the record. I want to dodge this bullet.

And you can picture this. I mean, we probably see this today, not infrequently around the world. The second section, then, I've entitled Paul Before the Sanhedrin. Not a very sophisticated title, but in fact, that captures the next 12 verses. So the Romans must be good at washing their hands.

I do pilot. So effectively, this commander's kind of washing his hands of all this. So Paul is loose from his thongs and brought down. Presumably this tower of Antonia is up in the sky someplace and he's now brought down to earth and presented to the Jewish leaders. I have put in quotations. what the commander may have been thinking. This must be a Jewish issue. Let the truth be made known. In other words, I'm washing my hands of my responsibility like Pilate did.

Roman leadership authority. Gee, he seems like an OK guy. Jesus Christ, it seems like he's OK to me. Why don't you guys go deal with him? So anyway, I found it kind of interesting and humorous to put this commander in the position that Pilate had had a few years earlier.

So the Sanhedrin are to whom Paul is ultimately given to in terms of ultimate consideration for punishment and or whatever. And this is a group of 70 elders, which is made up of both the Sadducees and Pharisees. This is a mixed group. Reminds me of our country, the Democrats and the Republicans. It's kind of similar. You've got two major parties here that are part of the Sanhedrin. And the scripture says, Paul earnestly defends his good conscience before God. So he's being very transparent with these Jewish leaders.

And Ananias, who apparently is not the Ananias we remember during Christ's trial. And ultimately, the Pharisee with whom the Lord Jesus Christ had to deal is presumably a different guy. And a couple of commentators said, this is the son of Nebidius. Josephus also indicates that. And apparently, Ananias has got a split palm, and he strikes Paul.

Turn to John 18.22 just a second. We'll kind of remind ourselves of something. That's John 18, is that it? 18.2, I think it's the correct first record. Okay, sure.

And when we had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow saying, is that the way you answer the high priest? Why don't you get a few verses before that just to put it in context. Jesus answered him, verse 20, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews come together. I have spoken nothing in secret. Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them. Behold, these know what I said.

And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by, Jesus gave him a blow and saying, is this the way you answer the high priest? Yeah, very similar. It was smiting someone or hitting them across the face was, I guess, something fairly common and accepted when someone is deserving of such a punishment.

Today you wouldn't get away with it. I often talk about this. When I was not respectful, my mother wasn't unusual for me to get slapped. And I wasn't thinking of calling the police at any time. I deserve it probably 10 times more. I mean, it's just it's kind of a. seemingly a pretty serious kind of offense, but yet I deserved every slap I got growing up.

It's just different today. But anyway, this is what we're looking at here. Apparently it's a more accepted kind of response to serve justice at the time, but obviously there's anything but justice being served here. So Paul brings the contradiction of the use of the law to their attention.

And Acts 23.3, we've read that, so somebody want to read that again?

And somebody turn to Leviticus 19.35, please.

So Acts 23.3. And Paul said, then God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, for you sit to judge me according to the law. And do you command me to be struck contrary to the law? So Paul's turning the law back on that. And the Leviticus passage, did anybody pull that? Kind of as just one supportive scripture about not using the law against the law.

Leviticus 19.35. You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight or capacity. I looked that up this morning and thought it was correct. I guess that's the way the translation occurred. Mine says, you shall do no injustice in judgment. What is your version? Do no wrong. You shall do no wrong in judgment. In measurement of length, weight, or volume. So I think the first part of that, I guess the translation, mine seems a little clearer. You shall do no injustice in judgment, which kind of implies torture, using the law against itself.

So Paul addresses sin as a whited wall, which in Matthew, I mean, Christ called the Pharisees hypocrites, basically. And that's what it is. Hypocrite, whited wall, are all indicating the same kind of position. And they imply that Paul has reviled God's high priest. So they're accusing him of reviling God's high priest when he calls him a whited wall.

And did not Paul know that Ananias was the high priest? Verse 5, what do you think? Did Paul know that this was the high priest? So he said, verse 5, that Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it's written, you shall not speak evil of the ruler. So Paul maybe didn't know this guy, Ananias.

Yet enough time could have passed between when he was hot on the trail of the Christians. And this time must have been years. So there would have been time for a change of the guard. Sure. But wouldn't you think that that and I would have in some way portrayed his administrative responsibilities in Poland? Well, remember that on the account of Christ, the high priest position rotated through a bunch of bunch of different people. Right. And that correctly. So it could be true.

I didn't wear something, though, that well, I guess they were. I mean, I'm kind of a bad show through the position you had at one time. So I'm just thinking, you know, what is Bob Eccles still? No, I don't know Bob Eccles. But I thought there was a stash. I thought there was something that Desmond wore. The scripture says that Paul said that I didn't know brethren that he was the high priest. He wasn't wearing the Urim or the Thummim or any of that. He forgot his brooch then.

Maybe it's painted white. That's 1915. Leviticus. Oh, OK. So what's that say about the previous thing? I lost. That was the injustice. We shall not be partial to the poor or to the great. But you are to judge your neighbor fairly. So in a sense, the same theme is there in 1935 to 15.

I think a little bit better. OK, good. Thanks. All right. Now Paul knew he was to honor magistrates. And again, Exodus, I'm just giving you a verse to look back at. And there are lots of verses. I'm sure we can find the Old Testament about honoring magistrates or rulers.

But had Ananias gone a bit too far here, his striking Paul in his mouth? I don't know. Whatever. But Paul's claiming he didn't know who he was, but Paul's really showing a lot of disrespect. He's really saying, you hypocrite, you. But the Lord Jesus Christ stood in those shoes too. So Paul, if you will, is, be followers of me even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11. So Paul is effectively doing God's justice here by identifying a hypocrite for what he stands for. All right, so Paul then takes the offensive. I like, I get a little twist here. So he takes the offensive and proceeds, he can divide his Sanhedrin money. A political move here. Let's see, we got these guys over here. Let's see. Yeah, Tom. He was a Roman citizen. He knew all about the Caesar divide and conquer.

You know, that reminds me, you said, haven't you seen the world system of the world metrics? claim that Paul was one of the greatest person ever to live, how smart he was. I mean, there's no question how smart Paul was. But Paul, this is evidence of how savvy he was and how intelligent he was. But the world looks at Paul as just a man who walked the earth. They don't look at the truth of what Paul represented.

But he's really got his political savvy showing here, doesn't he? All right, so he cries out and states that he is a Pharisee. And hope for the resurrection of the dead is the basis of his persecution. Now, this is very important, because this is where he's on trial from their perspective, because that's really a dividing item here between the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

So resurrection of Christ and or men in general. What are we talking about here, the resurrection of the dead? Is he talking about the Lord Jesus Christ? Or is he talking about all men will potentially be resurrected? I think he's personally talking about the hope of Christ, but he's trying to invoke in them the thought of resurrection of all men in general. Great answer. I think that's perfect. Yeah. I think he certainly is a born-again man looking through the Lord Jesus Christ's eyes and not his own. So I think that can't in any way be doubted here.

But then the Pharisee disbelieves Christ. It's who he said he was. So again, this is a very divisive tactic he's taking to get them to ultimately be more concerned about one another than they are him. And is this resurrection of the dead of life and of the body? And I think we could have the same conversation. resurrection of life would be presumably could be something like Lazarus or it could be in fact. resurrection of the body and I don't know that we have an answer. But you know because he's a Pharisee I think what Megan says is so true because he absolutely is using almost a play on words to rile them up and take the focus off himself. So he knows exactly what they believe. Whatever he says, they don't necessarily have to know what he believes. But he's really, like you say, very savvy here.

Can't you see this as an Eden and Tel Aviv relationship? Here we have the Sadducees here, we have the Pharisees here, and Paul will moderate. Let's see how this whole thing goes tonight. I bet the TV audience would be substantial here. Is it any surprise that dissension between the Sadducees and Pharisees arose?

And that's what the scripture said. Gee, these guys are a little concerned here. And it's almost like, you know. Maybe it's the Royals and the Giants playing the World Series anyway. We've got this terrible animosity of one group for the other, and they hang out together as part of the Sanhedrin. And the main issue here is the resurrection. Matthew 22-23, let's look at that.

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection, and asked him, Should it continue? No, I think that's it. So yeah, that's just documenting something that this passage in Acts restates. The Sadducees don't believe there's a resurrection. And the Pharisees do. And that's stated in the scripture we have before us. And by the way, angels and spirit are also here. I mean, but before we go on to the next point, angels and spirit, what are we talking about here? Well, the angels seem pretty straightforward. The spirit is the one that's a little thing. What are we talking about here? I knew you'd have an answer, Bob. You're going to be disappointed. We're going to go there in a second. All right, let's deal with something else.

And I think that this is really so relevant today. Is it the resurrection, the issue that divides the world from the church today? I mean, we have a lot of Jewish friends. We just had a couple with us last weekend, and I'm glad Jeremy could step up. But anyway, they were in from out of town, and so we don't often, but sometimes we get a chance to share the Lord and have a lot of conversation. But I mean, the issue of Christ as being a teacher and prophet, the Jews accept. They believe he lived. But was he crucified? Yes, oh yes, he was crucified. Was he resurrected?

No. And Mike Davidson, the guy in Chicago, from Chicago I was with in Boston a couple of weeks ago, we had that same conversation. That time we were discussing the gospel. And they give him credit. I'm not sure if this came up with the Hershes, I think it was Mike Davidson's the one I'm remembering this conversation with.

But anyway, they can believe the historical record up to a certain point. And I said to Mike, did the Lord God part the Red Sea for your nation to come back from Egypt into Israel? Oh no, I don't believe in any of these miracles. I just believe the historical record is short of the miracles. So the resurrection is the issue, isn't it? If you look at the history, all we want is a man named Jesus who walked the paths of Galilee and Jerusalem many years ago. Was he crucified? Oh, yeah, the record suggests that. Was he resurrected?

No, I don't believe that. So I think that's an issue here. And maybe it was not simply the Lord Jesus Christ, but it was just the belief in the Pharisees that they would be resurrected one day. And this agency is not, in fact, identifying with that truth.

So the scribes, which are Pharisees, side with their own kind and give credence to an angel or spirit having spoken to Paul. This guy seems like he's not so bad after all and they acknowledge that there was some other force. mechanism by which Paul was speaking with the authority did. And they find no evil in Paul. Any reminder here at all? Pilate. Of course now we're talking about the Jewish leaders. We're not talking about the Roman leader, the commander here. But you know, we find no evil in him.

So I bet that got the Sadducees pretty upset. Right, threw some more sand. So the captain rescues Paul from the Jewish crowd of dissension and soldiers are sent down to provide Paul the second escorted trip to the castle. Paul gets to go back to the castle now. The circumstances are a little bit different now. Yeah, rerun, no charge. Exactly, and the commander is concerned about his own hide here, right?

Wasn't this building pretty close to where the Jewish temple was? There's some pictorial I saw. Indicated this power of Antonio right next, right next door to something like that in Germany. Yeah, he's doing it out last week. Yeah, I think it's actually very close. It's not like I got the impression that you could look out the window and say, oh, bad things are happening. Yeah, isn't it this one back? Yeah. Yeah. So in the corner, I think this is a labeled tower. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So they actually could look down. OK. Oh, too close to the temple. That puts it in perspective. All right. Thank you.

And what was Analyze's motive here? Was he trying to describe Paul? I mean, basically, that's why he's like, you know, what he was saying. So he said it's laughter. And what was his motive? Is that kind of a power figure exemplification here? Who's really in charge here is probably what his thought was running through.

Well, and who are you going to listen to? I'm the high priest. So you should be listening to what I'm saying, not what this guy Paul is saying. And the Pharisees, By saying here, if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. So I think it was a, you know, a power struggle of who are you listening to? Welcome to mankind, right?

Sinful nature. So what are Paul's thoughts? What are his thoughts and emotions at this point? What do you think? Well, it almost seems like that because what happens later on, it almost like the Lord, you know, the Lord is going to talk to him here at the very end. You kind of wonder if the Lord doesn't kind of sense that this, you know, made Paul discouraged or maybe he's, I don't know. We don't know.

And remember one thing that Paul experienced and this was kind of his decision, remember he was dealing with these people from the Jewish background that had, I think, come to be saved. And they came to Paul and said, you're really contradicting what we've grown up with in terms of the circumcision and all the other things. And then Paul goes ahead and agrees with those four other guys. Remember, it goes into the temple gets sanctified with them. And shaves his head. Shaves his head. I'm going to forget the term, but it's the Nazirite vow.

So he goes through all this, and everybody must be confused, right? I mean, the Gentile believer is confused by the law, and the Jewish believer is confused by Paul not, in fact, commending the law as the way to live. I mean, I think Paul has put himself in a very awkward position in the way he's carried himself. I don't want to be critical of it, but I think you could see where criticism would come from every side possible.

And I think Ananias is, in some ways, just trying to step forward and say, this guy is really, in a major way, contradicting himself. And so therefore, are we going to go ahead and believe what he's saying? Or in fact, are we really going to take into consideration what we've grown up with, Jewish tradition, da-da-da-da-da-da. So I think Ananias is a bit of a power play. But ultimately, I'm trying to discredit Paul for what he represents. And Paul, I think, at this point, probably reflecting a little bit on what he's done. I mean, this is entirely speculation.

But he knows that these trials and tribulations are part of the Lord's plan for growing him in grace, and ultimately returns him to Rome, which is his intent anyway. And the night following, the Lord communicates to Paul. So the Lord stood by him, bid him good cheer, and projected his witness in Rome.

And my question to the class is, in what form was this? It says he stood by him. Is this in angelic form then? The pre-incarnate Christ appeared. I can't think of all his cases, but as a man, right? But now the Lord's in heaven, right? Well, there's one other thing that kind of certifies that Paul is an apostle indeed, and this is not necessarily in the same mode as when he was struck down by the bright light on his way to Damascus, but here he is Having Jesus there without any razzle dazzle and giving him a form of general encouragement.

Alright, is this a sign gift at the time then? Or is this not really a sign gift? I mean this is the Lord himself in some form. And we're not told what form this is, but in fact, remember, the Pharisees were accepting the fact that the angel or the spirit and both had influenced him. So presumably this is just an extension of that communication, do you think? The Lord knows his timing. Yeah.

I mean, how does the Lord speak to us today? Do we get tapped on the shoulder? Do we have verbal communication? And it's all in the word, right? So he speaks to us through his word. And we respond to that by faith. Paul's going through, I think, a temporal sequence of events that really reflect that this is a different form of communication. We really can't pin it down. The whole book of Acts is that way. So being part of that, it's got to be, you can see it in Romans or some other. And we're still living in the sign age, right?

So the Lord is speaking directly to him in some form. And by the way, stood by him. I presume that's something next to him, but I think of being in Christ as the Lord is in Paul. And bid him good cheer. Hey, Paul, you're doing OK down there, buddy. Keep living by faith, right? I'm taking you through all these trials, but I'm still here.

And by the way, you're going to go on to Rome. I mean, according to Macaulay, that wouldn't have been the Lord's desire, but anyway, he's granted permission for him to go on to Rome. It's interesting, Macaulay, with this verse, it sort of seems like this is his plan. I kind of agree with you. The verse says, my cause is Jerusalem, then you're going to go to Rome. And wait till you get to Rome. More surprises ahead for you. Does this affirm Paul's being led by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem?

Again, back in Acts 19.21, we can turn back just a couple of chapters and take a look at that. So verse 20, so the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed when these things were accomplished. Paul purposed in the Spirit. when he passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome.

So this has kind of been the theme. And again, we question and doubt. I think I talked in this section whether the Spirit was the Holy Spirit that's directing Paul, or whether that was his earthly spirit. And Paul suffered a lot by this decision. But that doesn't mean it wasn't of the Lord. clearly allowed that path to be developed and ultimately Paul to go through all the trials and tribulations he had. It doesn't say what Paul was feeling about that time too.

I wonder if he's not wondering whether everything he said was right. I mean he knew it was right, but whether he should have said it or not. We do that same thing, we'll say something and oh man, I don't know whether I should have said that or not. Well keep in mind- Or tell him it's to be of good courage.

There's no mistakes that we make with the Lord. We may, from a human perspective, regret some decisions we've made or not made, but the Lord meets us where we're at. Even if we're in error, it's a very self-serving, sinful act. And so whether this was Paul's desire that wasn't the Lord's perfect plan, or whether this was the Holy Spirit leading him, which I think is what happened. Ultimately, the circumstances, the Lord's there to meet. The Lord can change circumstances, but I don't think that's the way we pray today. We pray for circumstances, just like your cataract operation. Tell me, we don't pray for that. I'd like my knee to quit hurting. But anyway, so the trials and tribulations we go through are all part of the earthly existence. but to grow us in grace.

Just reflecting back a little bit with Margaret yesterday about seeing a sick wife for basically seven years and going home to be with the Lord early. It just didn't seem right. But anyway, at the time we both had a heavy view of that. This wasn't what we chose, this wasn't what we wanted, but this is really what we were going through. It was all for growth. And it's been neat subsequent to that, because I've been able to share with people who are losing a spouse and being able to identify what they're going through.

And that's a blur. So I thought it was a big price to pay. But nevertheless, I have to trust them. And these things that show up. So any other thoughts on this lesson? I don't know that there's anything I have to offer this morning. We're done a little bit early, but I would say that.

Everyone has an example of grace at work in a person's life, no matter what the circumstances. And in this instance, God took some extra steps to make the point clear to him since he is a Jew, and from this pastor, I mean to look for a sign. But you look at this too from the perspective of what Paul has just experienced is reflecting back on being Saul and seeing Stephen's. Margera. Right. And, you know, I think he felt a lot of personal responsibility for that. And by the way, that's a place where shedding of clothing took place, too. Before that study, we could have turned back to look at that. But the.

You know, this too, it all happened also for our benefit. I mean, we're sitting here now, 2014, reading the same thing. And we know that God's Word was carried on, and so we can benefit from all of this. That's awesome. With our PowerPoint presentation.

I was thinking that Paul did not go into an over-the-top mode like he was before he got saved. He knew there was something afoot, but he wasn't sure what the whole format was. He just had to continue in faith and work out those details as the Lord lead.

But yeah, because he was the persecutor at one time, now he's the persecuted. And this time it's for real. And I think that the experience with Stephen, while he was still a Pharisee and acting what he viewed I'm reading between the lines, but I think that has had an impact on him. And he reflects back on that not infrequently, I think, when he is going through all these additional trials and tribulations. Any other thoughts about this morning's lesson? OK. So who's teaching next week? Next week. OK. So Roger's next week, and I'll be back in two weeks. Not sure what the schedule is after that. We thought any further action for next year.

You think you actually have talks about actually first Peter. First Peter. Yes. Because actually it actually follows pretty well. You think about it. We spent a lot of time with Peter. Now we're involved. Actually, so we kind of decided that I haven't put an email out yet.

We tried for maybe maybe second Peter is what I divided up how much time each of them. But first Peter is coming. There's just so much in first Peter. I don't know how you studied a lot, but I haven't studied first Peter in depth. So I'm looking at that. That's our that's our suggestion. Yes. No, we did first Peter in the Bible say 10 years ago. And it's been a long time since I've done it.

I think the epistles of Peter really are so, so important and just so encouraging and uplifting. When you think about Peter and where he's come from, that makes him even more special in terms of his now writing in a very mature, experienced manner. Of course, Peter was a lot of the book of Acts early on, right? Well, it's kind of cool. Actually, we saw Peter a lot in Acts, and now that he moved to 1 Peter, when I started reading through it, I said, wow, I understand better where Peter's at. His maturity, I just really, you know, he has been kind of good work and you will see it. Oh my goodness.

So I didn't. So I think it will be cool. So that's the plan. I haven't got the task of dividing it up yet. So either be first Peter only or may first and second. Maybe it is going to be a year. Yes. So we'll be back to covering maybe three or four verses. Yes. Back to being a shorter amount of responsibility, teaching 30 or 40. I think today's lesson, I think, was more succinct to the point where it was good. It would be a good place to start and stop. Alright, well let's close in prayer.

Father, we're thankful for this class this morning. We're thankful for the scripture that gives us a lot of insight in terms of the experiences that Paul had. We're thankful that we can look at circumstances in a different way because of really what you've given us all about Paul in terms of each and every step along his path of growth and the great grace you provided. So as we move forward from here, we lift up the service to follow that the Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified and we would be uplifted and fed by the truth of the Word of God. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.