Bible Difficulties (86 page)

(NASB). Which was it, then, two years or three?

As we examine the whole account of Paul's mission to Ephesus in Acts 19, we find that he was there considerably in excess of two years--which was merely the length of his teaching at the school of Tyrannus. But before he ever took up his headquarters there, he performed a good deal of preliminary work among his very first converts. Verses 1-6

relate how he made his first approach to a group of seekers who had already been ministered to by John the Baptist, or at least by converts of John the Baptist (v.3 simply says that they had been baptized into John's baptism--i.e., the "baptism of repentance"

[v.4]). Thus he began with twelve converts, all of whom experienced a repetition of Pentecost, speaking in tongues, after Paul had laid his hands on them (v.6). Not until after that did Paul venture into the local synagogue at Ephesus and begin an enlargement of his work there. Doubtless he renewed his contact with those who had showed an interest earlier (cf. Acts 18:19-21), probably in that same synagogue--for a certain period of time not specified but simply hinted at by the clause "for a longer time" (v.20).

At any rate, after Paul's initial phase was over in the development of this smaller group of a dozen or so, he moved into phase two: the ministry to the Jewish community as a whole. Apparently he made a good impression there at first, for they permitted him to carry on a vigorous preaching mission for a good three months (Acts 19:8). But finally 391

there was a determined opposition on the part of the unconverted, and Paul was forced to discontinue his work at the synagogue itself. Yet he had a sizable contingent of followers who left with him, and they apparently hired a meeting room at the school of Tyrannus, which may have been a college of philosophy. It was there that Paul carried on for two more years and managed to reach directly or indirectly all the important population centers of "Asia," which then included the entire west coast of Turkey as far back as the borders of Galatia.

As we total up the preliminary visit of Acts 18:19-21, the initial phase of 19:1-7, and the three months in the synagogue ministry, it becomes apparent that Paul's total time at Ephesus was closer to three years than it was to two. Hence there is no real discrepancy between Acts 20:31 and Acts 19:10--which lists the time at the school of Tyrannus as two years, not the entire time of his sojourn.

Was Paul obedient or disobedient to the Spirit when he went on pilgrimage to
Jerusalem?

Acts 20:22-23 expresses Paul's confidence that he is in the will of God as he journeys back to Jerusalem to fulfill his vow as a pilgrim: "And now, behold, bound in spirit [or

`the Spirit'], I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me" (NASB). But in Acts 21:4 the disciples at Tyre "kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem" (NASB). Likewise, at the home of Philip the evangelist in Caesarea, the prophet Agabus took Paul's belt from him and symbolically wound it around his own hands and feet, saying, "This is what the Holy Spirit says: Ìn this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'" (Acts 21:11, NASB). After this warning, all the local believers and friends strongly urged Paul to desist from his purpose; but he answered, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (v.13, NASB).

It is clear that the Holy Spirit did everything to warn Paul of the danger and suffering that awaited him if he went back to Jerusalem. The statement in Acst 21:4 that the disciples told Paul "through the Spirit (
dia tou pneumatos
) not to set foot in Jerusalem"

makes it sound as if Paul was acting in disobedience by persisting in the fulfillment of the vow he had taken at Cenchrea (Acts 18:18). W. L. Pettingill states his definite opinion that "Paul was forbidden to go to Jerusalem at all. It is therefore evident that he was out of the Lord's will" (
Bible Questions Answered
, ed. R.P. Polcyn, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979], p. 332). But this is a rather difficult position to maintain in view of God's continued faithfulness to him through all his trials. As Paul stood before the Sanhedrin, before Felix and Festus, and even before Herod Agrippa II, he enjoyed opportunities for witness that would never have come to him had he not become a
cause
celebre
.

If Paul was really out of the will of God, would he have been so marvelously delivered from the violence of the mob at the temple? Would he have been so notably used as a 392

preacher to governors and kings? Back at the time of Paul's conversion, the Lord had told Ananias of Damascus, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake" (Acts 9:15-16, NASB). It certainly looks as if Paul's arrest and trials at Caesarea, and his later appeal before Nero Caesar at Rome, were God's means of bringing to pass the purpose He announced to Ananias so many years before.

Paul's attitude in regard to the dangers and sufferings awaiting him in Jerusalem is not too dissimilar to that of our Lord Jesus as He too faced the prospect of His last journey to Jerusalem, there to meet His humiliation and death on a cross. There is something almost Christlike about the way Paul spoke of his impending sufferings in the presence of the Ephesian elders: "But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God" (20:24, NASB). He gladly laid his life on the altar, as one who was completely expendable for the Lord Jesus.

All things considered, then, it seems best to understand Acts 21:4 as conveying, not an absolute prohibition of Paul's journey to Jerusalem, but only a clear, unmistakable warning that he is not to set foot in Jerusalem--if he wants to avoid danger and stay out of serious trouble. But Paul had counted the cost, and he was willing to risk everything in order to fulfill his vow and set an example of fearless courage before the whole church of God. From the sequel it seems quite clear that he was indeed following God's good and acceptable and perfect will for his life.

393

Romans

Are the unevangelized heathen really lost?

Romans 2:12 (NIV) reads: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." (Here the reference seems to be to the Mosaic Law, or the Hebrew Scriptures; hence it might be better to capitalize "law" as "Law.") Romans 2:14-15 applies this principle to the Gentiles in contradistinction to the Jews: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature the things required by the Law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the requirements of the Law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." With this we should compare Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the
whole world
held accountable to God."

From these verses we deduce, first, that the Gentiles (and surely Paul includes the unevangelized Gentiles in this group) possess a knowledge of the moral law, an awareness of the difference between right and wrong, that makes them morally responsible before God, even though they have never come in contact with the Bible as such. They show their consciousness of basic moral law by their living in general conformity to it, as though they understood the fundamental principles set forth in the Ten Commandments. There is no organized community on the face of the earth where anyone living in total disregard of all the Ten Commandments would not be considered a lawbreaker and an enemy to society.

Second, the Gentiles "are a law for themselves," that is, they have within their conscience an awareness of a moral standard to which they are accountable, and yet their

"thoughts accuse them" (Rom. 2:15). In other words, they realize that even by their own standards of right and wrong they are guilty, for they have not always measured up to those standards. They may "defend themselves" against the accusations of their conscience, but by their resorting to self-defense against the moral law, they implicitly recognize and acknowledge its binding validity and authority over them. Even though they do not have the perfect standard of Holy Scripture and therefore but dimly apprehend their own guilt, they nevertheless are conscious of failures and offenses for which they will have to give an accounting before the powers of heaven--or however they conceive their gods.

Romans 3:19 sums the matter up very clearly: Every mouth is silenced before God, and all the world--both Jew and Gentile--is accountable to Him for sin and guilt. All mankind is lost. All men therefore need a Savior. Without an effectual Redeemer they have no hope of acquittal before the judgment bar of God (or of the powers of heaven). As John 3:18 declares: "whoever believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands
condemned already
because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (NIV, italics mine).

394

The sentence of "condemned as charged" has already been passed on the whole human race, and there is no hope for any man except by way of a special pardon from the King.

It is highly significant that John 3:18 comes only two verses after John 3:16, which speaks of God's love for the world and His gift of His Son, whose atoning death will prove sufficient to save any and all true believers from the eternal death they deserve.

This paragraph in John 3 makes it very clear that apart from Christ there is no salvation.

As Jesus Himself said to Thomas, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6).

Sometimes the hope is held out by those who shrink from the concept of the hopeless condition of unevangelized mankind that there may be some second way into heaven other than the way of Christ-- "If a pagan who has never had a chance to hear the gospel lives up to the light that has been given him and sincerely seeks after God, then surely he is not condemned to eternal hell for lack of a missionary witness." There are several observations to be made concerning this theory, showing that it cannot be sustained in the light of Scripture.

1. There is an implication in the statement that if the gospel has been presented to one group of people, then God is duty bound to get out immediately to all the rest of mankind without any kind of human agency. If it came to Christ's disciples or to the Jews in Palestine at Pentecost, then God owed it to the rest of the world without delay. Unless all nations in all parts of the world have equal access at the same time to the Good News of Christ's atoning death, God must be condemned as unfair. This is the necessary implication of the extenuating clause "who has never had a chance to hear the gospel"--

with its semi-reproachful innuendo. But this concept must be held up to careful scrutiny.

Is the gospel a matter of grace or a matter of duty on the part of God? The Bible clearly teaches that it is purely a matter of grace. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). "By grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). If then the gospel is of grace and God owed it to no man (for grace that is owed is no longer grace), then how can it be maintained that God is precluded from telling the Good News of redeeming love to any man unless all men everywhere hear the same message at the same moment all over the earth? Does not the New Testament clearly teach that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:13)? The inescapable logic behind the missionary imperative of the Great Commission continues on as follows: "How, then, can they call upon the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom. 10:14-15, NIV). If the heathen could actually be saved by living up to the light that has been given them--that is, the light of natural revelation--then this entire line of logic would collapse, and Romans 10 would have to be rejected as false teaching without any authority.

2. If the heathen may be saved by living up to the light that has been given them, then it necessarily follows that men may be saved by their own good works. If that is the case, 395

then Christ died needlessly on the cross; and He was mistaken in saying, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6).

3. If the heathen may be saved by sincerely searching after God the best they know how, this also is simply a specialized form of good works, and grace is rendered unnecessary.

But unless the Bible is grievously mistaken, there are no such people as that on the face of the earth. Romans 3:10-11 (quoting Ps. 14:1-3 and Eccl. 7:20) declares: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who seeks God." Well then, if there is no one who does sincerely seek God, we do not need to be troubled about the unfairness of barring heaven to those unevangelized heathen who do sincerely seek after God. God Himself says that there just aren't any like that around, nor have there ever been. And even if there were, the good work of seeking God would not avail to save them. Only Jesus can do that.

4. No one is condemned to hell for lack of a missionary witness. He is condemned to hell for his sin. He stands guilty of putting himself before God as the chief concern of his heart--repeating the choice of Eve, who decided to do what was most pleasurable and advantageous for herself and her husband, rather than faithfully doing what God had commanded and putting His will first in her life. Every descendant of hers who has lived to the age of moral decision has followed her in this same choice--all except Jesus!