24:17,18
Paul continues with his defence, describing how after an absence of many years he returned to Jerusalem. And he did so with the purpose of bringing gifts for the poor (a fact attested to in several of the letters) and to present offerings (he was going with the Jewish Christians who were going to make a vow).
Moreover, Paul was ceremonially clean, ie he had gone through the various Jewish rituals. He was going quietly to the temple, not with a crowd, and certainly with no intention whatsoever to create a disturbance.
24:19-21
So Paul was entirely innocent of setting out to cause a disturbance. Indeed, it was the Jews from Asia who were the ones who created the disturbance. So those who were accusing Paul should give specific charges, rather than vague assertions. Paul then referred directly to the resurrection. So we see a mixture here of Paul giving careful and reasoned defence, completely countering the groundless accusations, and putting the focus on the issue that really mattered, namely the resurrection of Jesus Christ. we have a habit of doing one or the other. Either we dwell completely on answering accusations/questions in the world’s terms, or we ignore this and focus entirely on proclaiming the gospel. We need to do both. There is perhaps something of this in the debate between the evidential and the presuppositional approach to apologetics. I believe that we need a proper balance between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment