FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (3)
[p. 31] FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (3)
JT I thought we could look at the scripture before us in relation to Paul. It is clear that, after the Lord, he stands first in the dispensation, especially in its universal bearing, and this chapter affords opportunity to consider him in this respect in the presence of the representatives of the gentile rulers. The Lord said that He had taken him up in relation to them. He said to Ananias, “Go, for this man is an elect vessel to me, to bear my name before both nations and kings and the sons of Israel”, Acts 9: 15. It mentions nations first, and then kings. This is in accord with Simeon’s prophetic word: “a light for revelation of the Gentiles” (Luke 2: 32), meaning that they were brought into evidence for blessing. The original word ‘revelation’ means ‘unveiling’; there had been a veil over them, but now they are brought into distinct evidence, being unveiled through Christ. And Paul is the servant to be used particularly in this, so that he certainly has the first place after the Lord in our consideration. He is an example for us of service and conduct before gentiles and their rulers. He is a model. But then it should be also noted that this chapter contemplates that the apostle had been wanting in recent movements, insisting on going to Jerusalem, whereas his ministry was to be towards the gentiles. So that the position fits with our own times which are marked by the Lord coming in to take matters in hand Himself, the ministry in the hands of others having generally failed. Mark has this in mind, recording in his last chapter want of faith in the disciples, the leading ones particularly, so that the Lord had to take the matter in hand Himself and readjust the [p. 32] position. Paul therefore is seen here as having gone through all this experience. He tells us at the beginning of it “that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and tribulations await me”, Acts 20: 23. This meant that the saints at all the meetings he visited on the way to Jerusalem testified by the Spirit that he would suffer; and at Caesarea in particular Agabus acted the truth, which was a most exceptional thing; he bound himself to show that Paul should be bound at Jerusalem. And yet Paul was not dissuaded. So he went to Jerusalem and was arrested and brought before the gentile powers. But the chapter which we have read shows that he was superior to his circumstances, so that he is an example, wishing that all those present in Agrippa’s court were such as he was at that time, without his bonds.
AEH Would bearing His name before nations link on with what you had in your mind last night in connection with the leaves of the tree (Revelation 22: 2)? It is in the testimony that the healing qualities are. The sufferings that the apostle endured in serving would be like the preparing of the leaves for giving effect to their healing qualities.
JT Of course that reference is millennial, but there is in it a link with Paul. God arranged in Genesis 11 the place the nations were to have. The four monarchies began later, and are distinct. The Assyrian kingdom began at Babel and had no place in the four monarchies. At Shinar God assigned the position of the nations, according to Deuteronomy 32: 8, 9: it was in relation to the children of Israel; it had their blessing in mind. They were to stand there until the testimony of the gospel was introduced as the time arrived for it. Paul speaks of the redemptive work of Christ as purposed to be witnessed: “the testimony to be rendered in its own times; to which”, he says, “I have been appointed a [p. 33] herald and apostle, (I speak the truth, I do not lie,) a teacher of the nations in faith and truth”, 1 Timothy 2: 6, 7. So that the position is marked off in that way, that Paul is the appointed vessel for this purpose; and in our chapter he uses a dignified word for the official position he was to occupy. He says, “And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise up and stand on thy feet: for, for this purpose have I appeared to thee, to appoint thee to be a servant”, (the word signifying an official servant, not a slave, but an official person) “and a witness both of what thou hast seen, and of what I shall appear to thee in, taking thee out from among the people, and the nations, to whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me” (verses 15 - 18). Paul is an official personage, having the status of an ambassador according to 2 Corinthians 5. The position therefore is clearly marked off as to his service and his relation with the ruling powers. He had this status in the assembly in the gospel. He says of himself that he was an abortion, that is, a person born out of due time, not born after but before; meaning that he represents the Jews in the last days and the mercy that would be shown them in spite of their lawless course, which before he was converted characterized himself. He would love to minister to them. He said he had wished to be accursed for them, he loved them so much; but they were not his primary mission. His position is as a present dispensation minister, involving the new covenant and reconciliation. This gospel brought, not cursing but blessing, so Paul says that the blessing of Abraham has arrived at the nations. It is not ‘the gentiles’, but ‘the nations’, meaning the position they occupy in the [p. 34] government of God. It is not that the government of God is adverse to them, but rather preserving them in their settings for the time of the gospel. It is through Paul that the blessing of Abraham had arrived among the gentiles. In Galatians he speaks of himself as representing Christ among them, — “Jesus Christ... crucified among you”. He ministers the Spirit amongst them also, bringing Him in in a practical way; not only the ministry of Christ, but that of the Spirit, too, was witnessed there. I think therefore Paul is a full representative of what we are speaking about — witnesses of the gospel coming in contact with the rulers of the nations. The chapter before us indicates how he behaved. A leading point in our enquiry is how we are to behave in having to do with those in authority.
AEH Would the four gentile monarchies be in mind in this?
JT Yes. Nimrod appears as the first monarch, and he was under God’s eye — “a mighty hunter before Jehovah”. Destroying God’s creatures for pleasure did not commend him. He was the first monarch, but God did not take him up specially, nor did He take up any of the Assyrians in the same grace in which He took up Babylonish and Persian rulers. He took up Nebuchadnezzar and constituted him king of kings. He did not change his heart at the outset, but He intended to do so, and He worked matters circumstantially so that Nebuchadnezzar could show what he was, a degenerate gentile monarch. But God was pleased to bring one of His choicest servants into contact with him in an attractive way as a servant. The Spirit of Christ had been in mankind before the flood; then He was in Noah, and now He is in Daniel, who was brought into direct contact with this monarch, and ministers to him the truth in the most striking and favourable way. He announced to Nebuchadnezzar in a prophetic [p. 35] way that he was the head and beginning of the great system of government which God was setting up. He said to him, “Thou art this head of gold”. God had constituted him that, which would imply that he was fitted for it. He became converted to God, which is one of the most important things we can mention in this subject. The first great monarch, the head of the first empire set up of God among the nations, was converted; so that the Spirit of Christ was not only in Daniel but in the king. Thus the gentiles had palpable testimony in their own monarch to the God of the heavens, and that testimony has been there ever since in one way or another, even in the Lord Himself as before Pilate. I am speaking of it particularly as bearing witness to those in authority. How beautifully Paul spoke to Agrippa, as we have seen! He differentiates between Agrippa and Festus.
HGH It would seem that Paul was brought into these conditions because he actually appealed to the authorities.
JT That is another thing — we might say it was below the level of his testimony. If a young brother were to say at a military tribunal in the United States that he was an American citizen and had the right to be heard as to his conscience, the law would be behind him, but he would be on a lower level than that taken by the Lord before Pilate. The brothers, however, are taking the ground of being in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, as the Lord says, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and thus they reflect the Spirit of Christ in their confession. I think Paul lowered himself in appealing to Caesar. It is a question of whether I assert my rights before a tribunal as a citizen of the country, or whether I appeal as a devoted follower of Christ, owning allegiance to Christ and to God. The believer at the same time acknowledges that he is ready to serve [p. 36] the authorities so far as the Scriptures warrant — but that he must obey God rather than men (Acts 5: 29).
AEH Did not Paul primarily come into contact with the civil authorities in desiring to escape from the hatred and venom of the religious authorities?
JT He did. He appealed on the ground of his citizenship at Jerusalem. He says, “I appeal to Caesar”, so that he put himself on that ground and God overruled it. According to all appearances, he would have been slain in Jerusalem had he, not taken up this ground, but that is another matter. It was God’s overruling.
Ques “Such as I also am”, he says to Agrippa. Would that be a help?
JT That is what I thought we might see. He virtually says, ‘Now I am going to take the liberty of giving you a life-sized picture of myself’. Previously Agrippa had said to him, “It is permitted thee to speak for thyself”. The apostle recognizes that the king has the power to accord him liberty to speak. If he were out preaching the gospel, he would not act on that line at all, he would stand up and preach the gospel as he had done many times, and would suffer in connection with it too; but here he is before the authorities and he is respectful to them. Agrippa says, “It is permitted thee to speak for thyself”. Paul did not begin his oration until he was given liberty to speak. That brings up the whole matter of our behaviour before the authorities, and the spirit in which we should address them.
JRH Paul stretched out his hand. Would that be expressive of God’s attitude in healing? In chapter 4 we read that the Lord is requested by the saints to stretch out His hand to heal.
JT Just so. It is a phrase quoted from Isaiah: “All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a... gainsaying people”, Romans 10: 21. I suppose there is some allusion to that. You have the same idea in Antioch in Acts 13: 16, where Paul made a sign with his hand. I suppose the idea is that God is favourable.
AAT I notice that Paul twice in speaking to Agrippa says, “O king”, and to Festus he says, “Most excellent Festus”. Is that part of the behaviour?
JT I think it is. We ought to be very deferential to persons in authority. Peter says, “Honour the king”; and Paul says, “Render to all their dues: to whom tribute is due, tribute; to whom custom, custom... to whom honour, honour”. But if a Roman Catholic dignitary claimed honour, that would be another matter; he has no authority from God.
RWS Behind all this pomp seen in our chapter, the preceding chapter shows these two men talking together between themselves. Would that have a parallel today?
JT It would. The influence of Agrippa seems to be in favour of the right; that is important. You get some men in authority in favour of the right.
CAM Agrippa says to Paul, “It is permitted thee to speak for thyself”. “For thyself” gives the apostle opportunity to bring out what was in his heart.
JT Later Festus interrupted him but Agrippa did not. Agrippa was a different man, and that is a thing to be noted. Men are not all the same. The President of the United States is a different man from the leader of Germany. There are differences in rulers, and differences that are of God. Agrippa was different from Festus, and Paul knew it, and as he was speaking to him Agrippa was evidently affected by what Paul said. I was thinking of how the matter of personality comes into the gospel, into the service of God. In the book of Genesis we have [p. 38] the idea of generations, suggesting origins in men and things. There are ten of them mentioned there: the generations of the heavens and the earth, the generations of Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. These persons or systems are traced from their origin. So with a man: he is not regarded simply from the time he is converted, but what preceded his conversion is taken account of; God evidently has to do with that. Every man receives his spirit from God, so that his history really begins with God in that way; and Paul intended here that Agrippa should have a life-sized picture of himself because of the place that the Lord had given him officially. He was an official servant and Agrippa would understand such an office. He was an official personage himself. Paul says, “I count myself happy, king Agrippa, in having to answer today before thee concerning all of which I am accused by the Jews, especially because thou art acquainted with all the customs and questions which are among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently” (verses 2, 3). That is a most apt way of beginning to put his case before a man like Agrippa. Paul did not ask Festus to hear him, but Agrippa was of a higher rank. The idea of rank is always to be observed. Michael observed the rank of Satan, that is the rank he still had although now fallen (Jude 9).
Paul begins, “My manner of life then from my youth, which from its commencement was passed among my nation in Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who knew me before from the outset of my life, if they would bear witness, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand to be judged because of the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to arrive; about which hope, O king, I am accused of the Jews” (verses 4 - 7). That is [p. 39] Paul, briefly presented to the king. He is presenting himself, his personality in a way, to the monarch. The issue is very clear: here is a man competent to give a full account of the truth, and he is dealing with a man who has interest and knows certain things about the truth. Well, this is a practical matter, because the men that we have to do with, both in the United States and the British Empire, do know something of it. They know something about the way of Christianity. Why not appeal to that in them? That is what Paul does here.
AEH Why do you stress the thought of ‘official servant’? Do you think that we should have this character about us? While we pay proper deference and respect to those in authority, there is a consciousness that being of God we have spiritual dignity.
JT Christianity involves a system representative of God. It stands in that dignity before the gentile rulers. Paul speaking before Agrippa alludes to himself in this way (verses 15 - 18). Christianity is not something done in a corner, a mere sect that has arisen to disappear into oblivion. It is going to stand. It is of God, and great moral dignity is attached to it.
AEH The Lord Himself saying, “I am”, enters into the whole course of Christianity through the world.
JT When His enemies enquired for “Jesus of Nazareth”, He owns that title, but in replying He does not say. I am Jesus of Nazareth, He says, “I am”; ‘he’ is not in the original. That implies Deity, as in Exodus 3: 14; that is behind the whole position. Pilate was much concerned because the Jews said the Lord “made himself Son of God”. Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace one “like a son of God”, Daniel 3: 25. These great facts indicate the [p. 40] presence of God.
RWS Are you viewing Agrippa more favourably than Festus?
JT Quite so. He is a different man — you can see that. When Festus spoke to Paul he said “with a loud voice, Thou art mad, Paul”. That is a very disrespectful word. But Paul says, “I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but utter words of truth and soberness; for the king is informed about these things”. He sees that Agrippa is a different man.
RWS I asked that because Festus is a governor for Herod, and Agrippa is a king.
JT Agrippa is representing his own authority. For instance, a young brother has to do with the Board, and the Board says, You are granted exemption because of conscience. He is given a card to testify to that. When the young man goes to camp an officer may ignore that. Why does he do that? He is of a different mind. He is an officer and he wants to convert the young man. He has other motives, whereas the Government of the United States is abstractly in accord with Christian conscience as to military service. They do not here make provision for Christianity formally as they do in Great Britain, but nevertheless they do in effect in their state papers. They do not make provision formally in the constitution for Christ, but they do in effect, and that involves divine influence. Primarily that arises from the knowledge of Christianity held by persons that immigrated to the United States; it would not have come from the original inhabitants of the country, for they were heathen. People having come in, many of whom were real Christians, they exercised influence in favour of Christianity, and this affected the government. So that Christ is honoured in a way in the state papers, and so, abstractly, the Government of the United States is in favour of conscience out and out; but when it comes to working it out, some individuals [p. 41] are not. The officers often endeavour to convert the young men inducted into the army to induce them to give up their consciences. That is what you have here. Festus is different from Agrippa, and Paul says in effect, I am really speaking to the king. He knew Festus. We have to meet men of that character; but bearing in mind that the President of the United States and the Government are abstractly in favour of Christian principles, the true believer is encouraged to assert his conscience toward God.
ANW It is quite in order to think that God had to do with the clause in the constitution granting freedom of worship. Is that not where the fear of God might be brought in?
JT Wherever the thought came from it is there, and it is of God. But we ought to differentiate between persons. If an officer is hard and exacting and unfeeling, you would say, That is Festus. You would not be disrespectful because of that, but Paul would say, I am speaking to the king. It was Agrippa’s day and Paul was not at all misled. He knew Agrippa had some favourable feeling about the truth, and as the king gave him liberty to speak, he was the more bold in his presence.
AAT I thought you said a brother would weaken himself by appealing to Caesar?
JT He would. The young brothers generally do not do it. The ground they take is that they belong to the Lord, and they follow His teaching and His example. But if a brother says, ‘The law supports my conscience’, what can you say? It does support the believer’s conscience as refusing to take the sword.
CAM The officers very often say there is a difference between conscientious objectors, and underneath there is the fact that they will take account of what an inducted man is [p. 42] personally.
JT Yes: I thought we should see that in this chapter. It is a striking picture of Paul, and at the end he says to Agrippa, I would like you and all who hear me to be like me, as I am now. He would say, I do not want you to be like me as I was as a young man; when I was a young man I murdered people; but God saved me out of that, and you can all be saved likewise.
ASB Would there be something in the soul of Paul corresponding to what is seen in Daniel in speaking to Nebuchadnezzar? He says, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of the heavens set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the sovereignty thereof shall not be left to another people” (Daniel 2: 44): one people and one sovereignty in relation to one kingdom.
JT Yes. The kingdom is a divine thought. The idea of kingdom never ceases with God. It became stressed after Babel, but it runs on even to the eternal state when the Lord Jesus, having subdued all things, delivers up the kingdom to God. That is to say, the kingdom never ceases; what God calls ‘kingdom’ never ceases. It may take different forms; but the Babylonish one and that of the Medes and Persians as well as the Grecian and the Roman kingdoms will disappear; they will be broken in pieces by the stone cut without hands. But the kingdom set up by God will never come to an end.
JWD Is not the prime intent in this feature of the testimony as ordered by God, to build up the Christian’s constitution? There is no evidence that it has vitally affected the authorities, but something essential is built into the personalities of those of the assembly.
JT Just so. God is carrying on this operation of building; it is something that is to exist in the nature of a structure. You are begging [p. 43] leave to go on with that, making full allowance for the authorities.
JWD There are many chapters in this section of the Scriptures that are taken up with accounts of long discourses as to the truth to men that were apparently unaffected. I was thinking of what you said of the personality of Paul, how all these difficulties regarding ourselves and the authorities are to build something in us constitutionally in relation to eternity. Agrippa was very derisive; he knew certain things connected with Christianity and no doubt was affected to a certain extent; yet is not the main thing in this long chapter, describing such a marvellous outshining of the truth, the personality of Paul, representing what should belong to the personality of all the saints?
JT As far as we can see, Agrippa was unconverted. Whether anything came out of this marvellous occasion we cannot be sure. God was there, not only in words in the remarkable speech Paul made, but in the person himself. What influence that had we have to conjecture, but certainly it placed knowledge where knowledge would be disseminated, that is, in high circles. God would get to the highest. Paul is to be sent to the nations — that is the first thing, and then to kings (Acts 9: 15). We have no record that any one of these kings was converted; but the first dignitary with whom Paul and Barnabas had to do, the proconsul of Cyprus, evidently was converted. The eunuch was another representative of monarchies and kingdoms, and he was converted; and Cornelius was a military representative of Rome, and he was converted. These are not to be passed by. We do not know what happened after Agrippa and Festus heard this wonderful speech — and the women too who were present. What would be said, and what influence might be spread abroad in the Roman Empire from it! I [p. 44] think that idea is important; what, for instance, might have been disseminated from Pilate? Take Pilate’s wife: what would she say to persons of her rank about Jesus? Would it not be in accord with her testimony to her husband? All that was intended of God to spread as a testimony. There is something that the Christian can appeal to in Christendom that is not in heathendom.
SWP The night that Belshazzar was slain Daniel had been in to the king and told him the truth.
JT Yes; and the queen mother was in the hall of the feast that Belshazzar had made. There were a thousand of his lords there when she came in. She had not been at the feast, the revelry previously; she came in to tell the king about his father. She said, “There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods”, and then Daniel is brought in. I am calling attention to what persons such as the queen here would say. Evidently there were women at this occasion in Caesarea; what would result from their report as to what Paul said? These women might say, We never heard such words before! At any rate something had come into the Roman Empire that had not been there before. Now in our day there are a good many in non-combatant service in Great Britain; these men are lovers of the truth, and they speak of it to one another and to others. That is not for nothing. God is following it up.
AEH Is there also involved the idea of restraint — what restrains or hinders?
JT Yes; there is “that which restrains”, and “he who restrains”. Evil is thus kept in check.
SMcC It is remarkable that in Mark 13 and in Luke 21 reference is made to this kind of situation. The Lord in Luke says, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your opposers shall not be able to reply to or resist”; but in Mark He says, “Whatsoever [p. 45] shall be given you in that hour, that speak; for ye are not the speakers, but the Holy Spirit”. In Luke stress is laid on the human vessel, and in Mark on the Holy Spirit in the vessel.
JT Quite so. Then another thing is the matter of government. Government is a restraining power, and it is more restraining as it comes under the influence of true Christianity. In Germany there is no recognition of conscience in the army. That country has not come under the influence of the Spirit of God in the ministry as, to some extent, the British Empire has, and God is taking account of that; for there is more respect for conscience in the governments where the truth is announced. It is undeniable. God uses the ministry as making way for conscience. The authorities are set up by God, and in the countries I have mentioned way is made for the gospel. So even the Roman roads were used by Paul; the Romans built great roads, and God used them to spread His testimony. What is current in a similar sense today is provided by the authorities; and we keep on praying that the use of these necessities might be kept open for us in our service and testimony.
HGH Paul refers to “the promise made by God to our fathers”, Acts 26: 6.
JT Quite so. He brings not only himself, but the truth too before Agrippa. He speaks of “the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to arrive”. That is another matter, that there is the service of God carrying on all the time. There is a real service of God going on; it is the full thought. The whole twelve tribes are said to be in it. He also speaks about their hope, “about which hope, O king, I am accused of the Jews”. And now he is going to say something directly to this man: “Why should it be judged a thing incredible [p. 46] in your sight if God raises the dead?”. It is a question of consistency. If he believes in God, why should any sensible man think it an incredible thing that God should raise the dead? I mean to say that these are examples for us as to what may be said in dealing with the powers that be.
TLS In connection with conscience and the matter of trade-unions, if the employers do not listen to us, would it be right to appeal to the authorities?
JT God gives us wisdom in these matters. For instance, in New South Wales the Government is very radical, and they want to impose trade-unionism as a law. However, it is deferred for the moment, but it is in mind. In the meantime you might have the opportunity of talking with a trade-unionist in the Government who is a Christian (he might also be what he would call an out-and-out Briton), and you would refer to unionism as to whether it is consistent with the gospel, with the truth of Christianity. You might also point out that it is not consistent with Magna Carta, and he could not show that it is. On the contrary, you could say, it is entirely out of consistency with Magna Carta; for as a member of a trades union I could not give my son work in my shop because he is not a trade-unionist. The thing is utterly unfair. I would not have any difficulty in bringing forward reasonable points of the foregoing kind to enforce the truth; but to go to court about it — I could not do that. Paul, in stating the truth to the Athenians, said, “Some of the poets amongst you have said, For we are also his offspring”.
JAP Is it well to bring in that we are subjects of the grace of God in speaking to these men?
JT We are coming to that, what the converted man is over against what he used to be. Paul tells them what he used to be, “an insolent overbearing man”. He had been a very, very bad man. But he [p. 47] was not that since he was converted. What had changed him? As we proceed down the chapter, we see that he brings himself in as he is now: “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said to Paul, In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds” (verses 27 - 29). That is the next thing, what he is now. It is not simply what happened when he was converted, but what he is now before them: “such as I also am, except these bonds”, the apostle says. That is the final feature of this remarkable interview between Paul and Agrippa.
AHP Is it that “My kingdom” is operating now, so that Paul stresses the idea of the heavenly vision and of what he was as the product of the operation of Christ in his soul?
JT God had operated in him; and God has operated in the young men who have a conscience toward Him who are inducted into the army. The subordinate officers will come in contact with the young men, and the spirit they see in them will be a testimony to them.
CAM The mighty change that took place in Paul has, in measure, taken place in these young men.
JT Paul is suggesting that it might be taking place in Agrippa. The power was there to change him.
JH Would you say that this kind of representation is what God used in justifying the way that He finally dealt with Belshazzar and the Babylonish empire?
JT Yes, Belshazzar knew of it. This occasion with the apostle will face Agrippa at the judgment [p. 48] seat; so also with Pilate as to the Lord. Hence the importance of bearing testimony to persons in high places. The point that is before us now is that such men at least are capable of being influenced for good. Agrippa’s court said one to another of Paul, “This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds”. And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man might have been let go if he had not appealed to Caesar”. That is what you want to get, that the public rulers should be affected, that the way should be made for us.
SWP Does the fact that King Agrippa uses the word ‘Christian’ show that he had some knowledge of the things that preceded this issue?
JT That is the ground Paul takes, that he was conversant with the matter. He knew the word ‘Christian’. If you were to ask him what that word meant, he might say, Just a sect. Paul was expressive of it as of God — suffering as a Christian.
WL Would you say that spiritual history was an important underlying feature with Paul?
JT We are trying to show that. We are now coming to the man. Paul is not here claiming that he is a Roman, that is not now good enough for him. “Such as I also am”, he says, not a Roman citizen, but a citizen of Christ’s kingdom. That is what he means.
RA He speaks of his “manner of life”, and also of “the outset of my life”; are these important?
JT There were incidents in his early life of which the Jews were cognizant. He was a known man in Jerusalem, especially as a persecutor of Christians. What effected the change? That is the whole point. Christ’s kingdom effects the change, and Christ says that the power of His kingdom is outside of this world. Paul belonged to [p. 49] another world.
AAT Is there not today a double testimony rendered sometimes? The military boards are made up of different kinds of men, and on the boards there is sometimes a Jew.
JT We have to make allowance for that, and also for the fact that sometimes a man comes outside when you are leaving and says, “I have sympathy with you”. That happens.
ANW One of the judges once said to a young brother, “I wish there were more in our church like you”.
JT That is what we are to look out for. Even if they are not converted, these men have good influence.
FKC You quoted from Paul’s words in Timothy, “That in me, the first, Jesus Christ might display the whole long-suffering, for a delineation of those about to believe on him to life eternal”. Is this the kind of impression king Agrippa gets?
JT That is the point. A kind of man is now before the board, or having to do with the commanding officer in the camp, who is different — a man like Paul: “such as I also am”, as he says. He will make his presence felt there. Instead of their endeavouring to convert him from his views, they will admit there is something in him beyond them.
TNW Many of us may be weak. If we take all this on now it will help us in our prayers.
JT It is a great matter to have a clear understanding of the times; all this sorrow in the world has not come up accidentally. It is a question of the times. Of David it says, “the times that passed over him”. Extraordinary times are passing over us. God would make us fit for them, He would have us understand them so as not to defeat His purpose in them.
RA He is holding nothing back; He reveals His mind through the prophets.
JT So Paul says, “I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds”. He is preaching the gospel now; it is a gospel time and the point is that a person is speaking who knows. He is permitted to speak and he is using his liberty to unfold the truth, and he is an example of the truth himself.
SWP Is it of importance that he says he is “saying nothing else than those things which both the prophets and Moses have said should happen”? Therefore what he says carries authority and weight with it. He does not inject his own thoughts or opinions.
JT Yes. There are other things that he says here carrying down the testimony of God from the start. It is no question of something done in a corner, or of a mere religious sect. It is a universal matter; that is what Christianity is. It is immutable.
JWD Why do you think that today the testimony is linked on with the very young? Those who are the standard-bearers of what Paul represents here are young men, nineteen and on. Why do you think God has ordered that it should be in their hands today, whereas here it is in one who is the very acme of spiritual excellence?
JT No doubt under God there has been a measure of preparation, and now it is urgent that the truth should be kept before all grades of the young. There are many here today. They are getting the truth; they will be called upon to use it. The little maid in Naaman’s house is an example: she knew enough to say what was needed, and she said it well.
Rem A young sister in Great Britain was called up to serve, and when it came to the matter of the clothing she was to wear she responded that she could not wear men’s clothing, quoting Deuteronomy 22: [p. 51] 5.
JT That was a practical testimony, a thing to be noted by young people. How quickly we take on worldly fashions as against Scripture! She took her ground on the basis of Scripture as to the use of men’s clothing, a stand which is much needed. So with Rhoda in the prayer meeting at Jerusalem, how well she stood her ground! She was persecuted; she was out of her mind, they said, but she was not. It may not be a matter of preaching the gospel or of teaching, but you know something of God that is needed to be said, and you say it fearlessly and in a becoming way.
AEH Would Paul’s words come in here, that his bonds were manifested as being in Christ in the praetorium and in other places?
JT Just so; he was not a felon, he was a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and that became manifest. So in Ephesians he says he is Christ’s prisoner, not Caesar’s prisoner. That is a great thing.
HGH Would you say a word about the last verse? It says, “This man might have been let go if he had not appealed to Caesar”.
Rem Before that it says, “This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds”.
JT The apostle is exonerated both morally and legally.