Three Fallacies – Acts 26:8-11

Paul bridged the testimony of his past sinful life to the testimony of his present ministry with a question.

Between his comments on his youth and Pharisaism, and how the Lord saved him and commissioned him,

he built a bridge with the rhetorical question:

“Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”

Rhetoric is the art of using language in an effective and persuasive manner.

Rhetorical questions are not necessarily designed for an immediate answer; they are asked for effect.

It’s not that this question doesn’t need to be answered; it is an extremely important question.

But there wasn’t time or the opportunity for this assembly of dignitaries to voice their answers.

Yet, hopefully, this would pierce the hearts of Agrippa and some of the others and reverse the effects of their unbelief.

We need to learn to use this technique.

Sometimes, even we can offer a question which results in eternal blessings.

We need to learn to ask the right kinds of questions at the right moment.

And we need design questions that relate to the misconceptions of the lost – the fallacies in their thinking.

This evening, I would like to briefly address three of the fallacies which were raised here in Paul’s discussion.

There was the misconception of God’s abilities.

There was the fallacy of the “be true to one’s self” philosophy.

And there was the futility of being contrary to Jesus.

First, the fallacy of DOUBTING GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE.

I wish that I could tell you that I know how Paul’s question relates to what he said in verse 9:

“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

I visualize a pause between the verses:

“Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”

If Paul left a few seconds of silence in the air, that would be one of those proverbial “pregnant” pauses.

My question is: was the confession after the pause related to Paul’s question, or was he moving on?

He could have been saying that he, too, had thought that the resurrection of Jesus was incredible.

As a Pharisee, it wasn’t that he doubted God’s ability to raise the dead in a general sort of way.

But he could have been saying that he couldn’t believe that Jesus arose from the dead.

And if that was the case then he may have been criticizing himself for criticizing them.

“I shouldn’t have said that, because I have been in the past just as unbelieving as you.”

When the preacher has been guilty of something, it makes it very hard for him to preach against that thing.

Then on the other hand, verse 9 may not be related to his question at all.

He may have been doing nothing but introducing the next part of his testimony.

I want to deal with this subject more fully on Sunday, so I’m going to leave this and move on.

Let’s just say that it is futile to resist or deny God’s omnipotence.

It is a fallacy to think that God cannot do whatever He chooses to do.

That brings us to the fallacy of BEING TRUE TO OURSELVES.

“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

As we said the other day, there is lots of repetition between Paul’s different trials.

But usually that repetition reveals something that is just a little different.

For example Acts 23:1 introduces Paul’s testimony before the Sanhedrin back in Jerusalem:

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said,

Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

Don’t you have just a little trouble with the idea that Paul had a clean conscience about the days before his conversion?

He was a murderer, a persecutor, a blasphemer and a terrible sinner in a hundred different ways.

And yet he said, “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

And here Paul says, “I verily THOUGHT WITH MYSELF, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Wasn’t he telling Agrippa that he reasoned with himself about Jesus of Nazareth and decided that he ought to do everything that he could to stop the effects of His life and ministry?

Linked to the idea that there is a spark of divinity in every human being,

And linked to the idea that there is a little goodness in every person,

there is the common conclusion that all that people need to do is find that good and fan that flame.

If they are true to their own heart, whatever they are doing will be good and right in the sight of God.

Totally contrary to the Biblical teaching of the depravity of man, is this idea that when we are true to our consciences then whatever we are doing is also pleasing to God.

Paul had been in complete accord with his conscience when he was binding men and women and bringing them to Jerusalem.

His conscience was clean at the time that he consented to the stoning of Stephen and the others.

But if he had taken the time to think about it, he was actually kicking against the ox-goad of the Lord.

He was rebelling against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the Word of God and whatever shreds of humanity there were in his soul in those days.

His conscience was dead wrong about Stephen and his persecution against the saints.

His dead spirit was incapable of seeing the Truth about the Lord Jesus.

Despite how he felt, Paul was in total confusion about the way that he was serving God.

There is probably nothing more self-destructive and evil than for a lost person to be “true to himself.”

In fact, we can say that about the Christian as well.

“Let God be true and every man a liar.”

It is to the Lord that we must be true.

We need to search the Scriptures, not our hearts, to find the things which we ought and ought not to do in order to please the Lord.

We need to listen to the Bible, not our consciences, in order to simply be a good temporary citizen in this world.

The adage “be true to yourself” is based on a terrible and wicked fallacy.

The third fallacy exposed through this scripture is that it’s OKAY TO BE CONTRARY TO JESUS.

That is exactly what Paul thought before his conversion.

“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

What does it mean to be contrary to Christ?

The Greek word translated “contrary” is used only eight times in the Bible.

About half the time the reference is to false doctrine.

I Timothy 1:19-10 – “For the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient … For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”

Titus 2:7-8 – “Shew thyself a pattern of “sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.”

I think that this word “contrary” is pretty easy to understand,

But three of those eight references add some clarity, because they are used to describe the wind.

“But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.”

“When we had launched from thence, we sailed under Cyprus, because winds were contrary.”

Contrarity to Christ is very aptly illustrated with a contrary wind.

How much success has man had in stopping the wind?

We can be sheltered from the wind, and we can use the wind, but we haven’t yet stopped the wind.

If we could then the disaster at New Orleans wouldn’t have occurred.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.”

The thing about this contrariness to the Lord, that it is totally pointless.

We may temporarily shelter ourselves against the revealed will of God, but there is nothing that is going to stop the eternal sovereign decree of the Lord.

Paul thought that he could do things contrary to Christ, but he was wrong.

“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do MANY THINGS contrary to name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Tell us about those many things, Paul.

Many of the saints I shut up in prison.

He didn’t call them “saints” when he was arresting them, but he does so now.

They were saints in that they had been saved by the grace of God and separated unto His glory.

Now that he too has been made a “saint” by the grace of God, he could see them for what they were.

And he was contrary to the name of Jesus when he testified against them as heretics and gave his voice against them when they were put to death.

Do you suppose that there were tears in his eyes or that his voice cracked when he said this?

He said that he punished them oft in every synagogue.

At first I wondered if perhaps this meant that Paul took a stick to people in the synagogues, or that he slapped their wrists or had them pilloried.

But I discovered that there are a lot of different Greek words translated “punish” and “punishment.”

This particular word means to take revenge or vengeance upon someone, but it doesn’t really say what it was that he physically did.

Then Paul said that he compelled some of them to blaspheme.

This sounds to me as though he used torture or threats to make professed believers deny the Lord Jesus.

He was exceedingly mad against them.

He was so filled with malice and rage that he wasn’t himself.

And when he had filled with Jerusalem with as much rage as he could afford, he obtained permission from the Chief Priests to attack the saints in other cities.

As I’ve said before the degree of Paul’s hatred against Christ and the saints, when set in contrast to his later love for the brethren was an argument against which the Jews had no answer.

This was probably at the root of their desire to silence him.

Because of his past, there was no greater human witness for Christ on the face of the earth.

He had to be stopped.

In all of this did you notice the change in direction in Paul’s words?

“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of JESUS of Nazareth.”

Paul was contrary to the “NAME OF JESUS,” but his attacks were upon the PEOPLE of Jesus.

Just as he learned at the moment of his conversion, to attack the people of the Lord is to attack the Lord Himself.

And then there is that reference to the “Name” of Jesus.

Paul’s madness was against the AUTHORITY of the Lord Jesus.

As is often the case in the Bible, the word “name” is talking about the person and the personal authority of the one who wears the name.

By opposing the preaching of Stephen and the other evangelists and ministers of the gospel, Paul was acting contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth.

By arresting and executing the saints of the Lord, he was attacking the Lord of those saints.

He was a pawn between the fingers of Satan in the chess match between the Devil and Jehovah.

And now after years in the service of the Lord, Paul was fully aware of who he had been and what he had been doing.

But that was then, and this was now.

“Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”

It is a fallacy – it is utter foolishness – to think that anyone can win by doing things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is a fallacy to think that God cannot raise the dead.

And it is a fallacy to listen to the foolish people telling us to “be ourselves,” and to be “true to ourselves.”

Paul had been that man, but by the grace of God he had learned the truth.

And now he was doing his best to be true to the Lord.

This should be our testimony as well.