Acts: Opposing the Gospel: Some Working Definitions and the Central Issue

When thinking about opposition to the gospel, the obvious first place to start is what is meant by “the gospel.” It would be a mistake to think of the gospel as a thing, a thought, a philosophy, or even a polemic. The gospel is a person, not an idea, not a worldview, and not a philosophy. Jesus Christ, himself, is the good news, and that conception of the good news rooted in who he is forces us to think what might be good about him relative to where we hearers are sitting. In other words, is he truly good news or not?

I raise this issue of Christ-is-the-gospel because a lot of opposition to the gospel is misconstrued and therefore confronted by us in response as philosophical arguments or moral arguments or worldview arguments. I am not sure there is any truth to that way of thinking about opposition. Nor am I convinced there is any merit to defending the gospel in that manner.

Those types of arguments are deceptive because they never get to the heart of the matter: whether Jesus Christ is Lord. And more importantly, those types of arguments allow those in opposition to the gospel as an idea or a worldview to escape from ever confronting Jesus-Christ-as-Lord at all.

I would rather the opponent know he is actually rejecting the Son, and not something (like a personal belief) or someone else (like a Christian). Leaving someone in the deception that he is instead rejecting an idea or a worldview or a personal truth may not be that kind to him or her.

Don’t get me wrong such an opponent may be able to argue exceptionally well, and the proponent of the gospel may be overwhelmed by the rhetoric. But the tragic fact remains that the opponent has merely won a phyrric victory; he remains under God’s wrath. If he persists in his brilliance, he will have lost the war over his soul.

If we can bring people to Christ-whether to the cross, the empty tomb, the ascension, the present Holy Spirit—then they aren’t arguing with us. Rather, they are accepting or rejecting Jesus himself. And life begins or ends for the opponent there at the feet of Jesus. Isn’t that right and proper and as it should be?

Remember: He said, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

So, no matter how brilliant, learned, scholarly, charismatic, or persuasive the opponent is, in the end, he or she rises no further than a footstool—an enemy of God. That’s true human brilliance for you.

So how can we help the wise men around us? Give them Jesus. Proclaim the person of Jesus, in his humanity and in his glory. I think that is what we see Luke doing in his Volume 1 (Luke’s gospel) and Volume 2 (Acts)—presenting a Person in such a way that you have to choose: repent or perish.

What I am trying to say is: opposition at its core is nothing more and nothing less than a direct rejection of God the Father and God the Son. And we help no one by arguing tit-for-tat.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no objection to such arguments or against those who make them in a defense of the truth. There are quite a few people who are quite skilled at doing so. I simply want to avoid, where we can help it, people going back to their homes thinking they heard a fine philosophy or some interesting ideas—things they can quite readily dismiss and at the same time fail to realize they have in realty rejected Jesus—the Truth.

Maybe an example of this dilemma will be helpful to understand what I am getting at. Turn with me if you will to Matthew 19, starting at verse 3:

Then some Pharisees came and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? …

Focus on these words Jesus responded with: read, beginning, Creator, male, and female. In these few words, Jesus has just confirmed the Book of Genesis, the author Moses, the creation by a Creator, as opposed to some other system, only two genders, and marriage between man and a woman. And he also elevated Scripture as the answer to a culture that has moved beyond it, whether Jewish apostasy in the first century, or human apostasy in the 21st century (doesn’t matter).

(I would also refer you to Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, and Malachi 2:15.).

Jesus cannot be telling the truth and misrepresenting the truth both at the same time. A truth and a lie are contradictory; they cannot reside at the same time, or in the same person who claims to be the Son of God, from heaven, and returning to heaven. If he rose again from the dead, we folks have a real problem because we are stuck with what he said. We either bow to it or oppose it.

So, some types of opponents should immediately come to mind: (i) those that consider Scripture a series of stories or allegories or metaphors; (ii) those who favor evolution, primordial ooze, alien seeding, and apes; (iii) an alphabet soup of genders; and (iv) same sex, pan-sex, and any other congress. When these folks argue for any one of more of these things, and in turn deride those who hold “traditional values” as bigots and phobes of one sort or another, it’s a fools errand to appeal to reason or to deny that we are these things. It’s true from their worldview that we would be narrow-minded, bigoted, and homophobic.

But none of that is helpful for either side. Their point of view is immaterial if they don’t see their argument for what it really is. They are not contending with holders of “traditional, conservative values” (those scales, measures, or eponyms are not constructive and they aren’t true really). We cannot be said to hold traditional values or mores. Jesus Christ said these things; and that therefore reinforces their character as eternal not traditional. We either believe what he said or we don’t. We either follow him or we don’t. We either obey the way he looks at human beings and human relationships or we don’t. He is the standard. He sets the standard.

No one has to like it. But I think this direct confrontation with Jesus is more helpful for people who are hell bent on affirming some other relationship than what He created in the beginning (the actual Hebrew title of Genesis) to come to terms with who, not what, they are really contending with. Jesus would be the bigot, wouldn’t he? Jesus would be the narrow-minded one who made them male and female—and one.

When an individual embraces something other than what Jesus said in Matthew 19, which I have already delineated above, then that person needs to understand what they are saying, “Jesus got it wrong.” (you may hear others day, “he didn’t mean that,” “God made me this way” or whatever—all of that is to say, “Jesus is wrong here.” And if he got it wrong here, he is not who he says he is. That’s the issue stripped away of all the nonsense.) Jesus is the problem, and as such he must be gotten out of the way.

Oh, wait . . . that has already happened. He was gotten rid of, despised, and rejected as he was. That is why the distinction I am trying to draw is so important. You must decide whether you are for him or against him. That’s the only decision that matters. What to do with Jesus?

One has to kill Jesus to embrace all of these shameful things we glory in today. He must be done away with because the cross shouts condemnation for those who would traffic in their sin and call it love. The cross shouts salvation only for those who will repent. So we have a choice: we can participate, have a hand in, his death—even though it occurred 2000 years ago, or we can participate in his life, which he purchased for us by his blood.

By the way, you can immediately see the efficacy of the miracles Jesus performed (and why they were so important after Christ rose again from the dead). It was really kind for God to give them to us. They help us overcome our objections to the truth. If you heard Jesus affirm the marriage between a man and a woman (and you were a homosexual or an adulterer or promiscuous) you could reject what he said—it’s just words (“Save us from the Romans first, and then we may believe” some could say); but when the lepers are cleansed, and the dead are raised, and the blind are given sight by Jesus, you have to wrestle with what he said even if it kills you. The miracles compel you to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong in your ideas about life.

This is just an aside, but I can see the wisdom in affirming the truth through these signs and wonders. Without them, its too easy for us to reject the truth of who Jesus is. And when we do reject, we crucify him all over again in our souls.

I think if people understood the gravity of that situation—the consequences of their arguments—maybe they may pause and consider their next step.