The Book of Acts 24:1-27 Paul before Felix

We got a fun lesson today. It's kind of a one chapter that's really pretty succinct and to the point. And I had fun preparing for this. It was, I think, a lesson we'll all enjoy. So what I'm going to do is I've divided this into three parts. And the first is kind of, if you will, fairly colloquial in terms of Ananias Wax's political. Actually, it's not really Ananias Wax's political.

It's the the Tertullius, who's this. this orator that he requests to serve, kind of like the attorney of the day. So what we're going to do is we're going to read the first nine verses, because that's this section, we're going to comment on those, and then we're going to allow the verses themselves to take place in the second part, which is Paul's response. all this and then and the third part then relates to ultimately what what the sequelae are entitled Felix response. So we've got kind of three people kind of leading each of these sections and the first is Tertullus who's Ananias' person to wax favorably for him. After five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain order named Tertullus and these gave evidence to the governor against Paul, by the way the governor is Felix. And when he was called upon, Tertullos began his accusation saying, quote, seeing that through you we enjoy great peace and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear by your courtesy a few words from us.

For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the Temple, and we seized him and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands.

Love that. Commanding his accusers to come to you, by examining him yourself, you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so. Wow. Doesn't this look like somebody running for office? I love this. Because we just got done with the elections and it kind of reminded me of all the advertising that went on.

So now we're with Paul in Caesarea. Remember, he's kind of deported to Caesarea. And five days later, Ananias with other Sadducee elders. Remember, these are all Sadducees now. I mean, this is representing the leadership opinion of no resurrection, right? These are the more liberal Jews of the days. And they all show up together.

Five days after what? Well, it seems pretty obvious after he arrived in Caesarea, right? But then you look at verse 11. We didn't read that far, but look at Acts 24.11. And it says, Because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And you get into this kind of argument that this is a place where scripture is failing and inaccurate. So this is a discrepancy. And the skeptics really, I guess, come down hard on us. It seems pretty simple to me.

And it did to Macaulay also. But anyway, here's kind of the thought. In Acts 21, 27, it says, on the seventh day, there was an arrest in the temple. and that's at 2133 and thus perfectly consistent until it's when he arrived in Jerusalem. So if you go back to when he arrived in Jerusalem, the 12 and the 5 don't pan out, but if it's when he was arrested, in Jerusalem, then it's perfectly 12 days.

So anyway, so there's a lot of debate about this. I think we need to get really bogged down with this. Yeah, Tom? I think the key word is context, people, because he's dealing with the Romans. He's not dealing with all the other details. Roman to fellow Roman, et cetera. Yes. And that's really where McCauley goes. He feels that when there's discrepancies in scripture that we feel that are potentially contradictory, that ultimately additional insight and reading of the Word of God will clarify these discrepancies. And I don't think we need to spend any more time there. This is not something we need to worry about. So from his arrest, it's 12 days coming that ultimately relates to the 7 plus 5 equals 12. OK, let's get back to this section then.

And a certain order named Tertullus joined him. Now presumably this is a Roman attorney. And the idea here is that here they are in Judea, which is the region that Felix is the governor over. And the thing is we got all these Jewish leaders coming down here to accuse Paul, but they don't really know Roman law that well. So they thought they'd get themselves a first-class attorney that reminds you of O.J. Simpson or somebody like this that would be hiring someone who knew the customs and the laws of the Romans that could take the case and ultimately, actually, look at them as maybe the prosecutors, although they're really on the defense side of the picture. So look at the politics in Acts 23, 2, and 3.

I just chuckle when I read this. Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace and prosperity. I mean, were the Jews happy with the Roman presence? I don't think so. And it's being brought to this nation by your foresight. The idea of the Romans are so wonderful and so hospitable that the Jews are just getting along wonderfully. We accept it always in all places. Most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

I mean, give me a break. Sounds like Ligia Haskell, doesn't it? What's that Tom? Eddie Haskell, grown up. So anyway, we're seeing, you know, we enjoy great peace, Mosnebel, Felix, etc. I just put of there, you know, this really kind of turns your mind in an ugly direction.

And I just said, how many of these claims were true? I just, you questioned whether anything He's just trying to butter him up. Absolutely. And actually as we'll see at the end of the chapter, he wins. He kind of wins. He doesn't do it convincingly, but he does it enough ultimately that Paul remains in jail for two years. With visitors. He can have visitors, but he's still under guard.

So Josephus portrays both the good and the bad sides of Felix as governor of Judea. I guess there are some things that Felix did that were looked at as good for the times from an earthly perspective. And then there are other things that Felix did. I don't necessarily go into detail because this is all outside the word of God. I have to see if I just didn't take the time to go look at it but but apparently though his his. political position or relationship to the Jewish nation was one in which any religion was okay as long as you didn't violate anything about the Roman law. And so Paul will bring that up actually in his response to the accusations. So Felix is a politician and the appeal to him is as a politician from Tertullius.

And I guess from an earthly perspective this all fits the age in which we live today. And all of the charges that come forth are really emotionally scheming. They're divisive. They're really built on perception that's obviously Jewish only and Jewish leader only. Remember, these are the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who are bringing these accusations towards them. And we're going to find out really a little bit more about the source of these accusations in Paul's reply. And the other Jews assented.

So Acts 24.9. So this is Tertullus representing Ananias and the other elders and they're assenting. They say, yeah, this is true. So they've obviously hired the right orator to defend their case.

All right, so the first accusation or charge is that he's a plague, which is, I think, in many versions translated pest. A plague, a pest. I think a pest is a nicer term than plague actually. If you call it a plague, you're contagious, right? Well, I guess a pesky more like. A pest could be contagious too, I guess. who stirs up dissension among the Jews in Jerusalem around the world and basically around the world is viewed as the Roman Empire.

He's appealing to the Roman government about the offenses that Paul's about. It's not just, oh, about here in Judea or wherever where Felix is the governor. It's about the whole world, which is the way the Romans view, you know, the globe they live on. And the sentiment presented was that Christianity is anti-Roman.

I kind of translated that as Jesus is the king, right? Not Caesar. I mean, the position that the Roman might see in terms of the antithesis to allowing religion to be permissive, as long as it was not anti-Roman, if Jesus is called the king, Which, of course, from our perspective, he's only the king in the millennium. I mean, he didn't come as king. I mean, Paul certainly realized that at the time. Anyway, the Romans might perceive that if Jesus is king, who's Caesar then?

Oh, remember too that they had the Old Testament or the Torah. So they had the prophecies and all the prophecies say he's the king. That's right. Whether Paul says that or not. Well, and that would be the Jewish view, right? And Paul's gone beyond that in terms of the theology at this point. Right. All right.

The second accusation is that he's a ringleader, which is a military term actually, of the sect of the Nazarenes who had no legal status. Now the sect is really related to the way, and the way is what he's called. In other words, the way of Christianity is being called a sect. And so because the way is looked at as a sect, they're identifying the accusation is that he's really persuading the Nazarenes to become part of the way, which is a sect, which is anti-Roman.

I mean, I think it's kind of interesting. I mean, they're twisting the truth to fit their needs. Did he still have his head shaved at this point? You would think so. I mean, this temple experience wasn't that long before. Wasn't that pretty recent? So that's pretty hard to dispute when he's got his head shaved.

The third accusation that Paul profaned the temple and this, by the way, many of these would have been ultimately leading Paul to be executed. I mean, these are major crimes, many of them, like anti-Roman government. And from the Jewish perspective, profaning the temple was, I mean, look at the Lord Jesus Christ, right? I mean, he was really crucified because of his being an antithesis to Jewish law, which he was, the perfect Jew.

Anyway, so those were the accusations and what was claimed was that Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands. What was Lysias' job? Basically, Lysias came to actually rescue Paul, but their perception and It just reminds us, we always have to take a step back and perception is 100% of the rule to those who are perceiving that. And that's an earthly experience.

Your perception as a believer should be from the right hand of God is the way the Lord Jesus Christ is seeing our circumstances. But we in our human body still have that flesh and that old man and our perception is often not correct, but we believe what our perception is to be 100% true. And that's the thing about perception we have to realize. Even with our children, whatever they think happened or they perceive how we reacted to something, That's their perception. And you have to deal with the perception.

And that's where the ultimate clarification ultimately takes place or doesn't. And you've got a barrier to progress that exists based on perception. And that seems like a tough thing because Paul is sitting there. I mean, if somebody was saying like, you know, Holly's really a pest. And I can see like a job review or something. You know, she's a pass. She's like, did all these things. I would be like, did I? She's a troublemaker. Yeah, so I would.

I've heard this about you. And I would say that my perception would go there, but it shows how strong Paul was to say, you know, he's not listening to that, you know, because he knows it isn't true. But isn't the human nature is exemplified here in this section so, so unchanged in terms of where we're at today? Oh yeah, that's what I'm saying. I would be like, oh yeah, they must be right. So I'm going to go cry. But Paul doesn't do anything like that.

No. unique example of what our life should be like. Remember Paul always said, be ye followers of me even as I am also in Christ or of Christ. Paul is not saying I am Christ, he is just saying look at my path because this is Christ in me that you are seeing and observing. We are never going to be like Paul and we are never going to walk in Jesus' footsteps. It's a matter of the identification that allows by faith that new life to be lived out.

That's what Paul, by the way, Paul responds in a beautiful way. We're going to see that in a second here. Any other thoughts about these accusations here? All right, let's move on then to Paul's response because I think this is really uplifting in terms of where we should be today, in terms of the way we deal with these controversies and conflicts that have become apparent before us. Paul replies to Felix.

Paul's response to the judge, which is the way scripture indicates it, I forget which verse is whose Felix, is organized and orderly. And let's contrast that to, by the way, this is an expectation of the Roman court, that we're very orderly and respectful and appropriate. Let's contrast that to the Jewish court. Let's turn to Acts 23, 1 through 10 again. We maybe not read every verse, but let's go ahead and just turn back there for a second. So here's the Jewish court. Let's just start with verse one.

Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by to strike him on the mouth. I mean, is this the Roman court? Then Paul said to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, for you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law? And those who stood by said, do you revile God's high priest?

And then I guess we go down here. By the way, verse 7 then, and when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Assemblies, and the Assembly was divided, for the Assemblies say there is no resurrection. Anyway, you get this idea of this chaotic court environment here. So here's the Jew who has this beautiful law that's God-given that they're trying to abide by, but yet their courtroom is like hell. Like kids at recess when there's a fight.

So anyway, it's just interesting to contrast what is going on here in terms of Paul's case before the Roman judge versus what the Jews are used to. And the overall claim of Paul I think was that Christianity was not rebellious and did not counter Roman law. So if Paul is going to the stand to take the stand and ultimately he's got this mindset.

I've always had the privilege or trial of interacting with the media a lot. When you know you're going to be interviewed for just a minute or two, you've got to have your one, two, three bullet points. Because if you don't, they're going to take you down a path. You always return to your one, two, threes. So Paul had that in mind. I think when he's standing before these people, I'm not rebellious and I'm not in any way cowering around the ball. That's what he went to the stand to portray.

This was consistent with the Roman law, the idea that I mentioned a few minutes ago, any religion was permitted unless it was interfering with the state. You could be a Muslim, of course at that time you couldn't be a Muslim, but the point is you could be any wild and crazy religion you wanted as long as Roman law was not abided by. So Paul knows this, and he's a Roman, remember? He's a Roman, so he knows this perhaps better than anyone. And Paul's defense of the charges was both courteous but yet objective. So he responded with facts, and this is the case that he portrays. In Acts 23, 11, and 12, the facts of his timing and purpose were revealed. The charges were refuted.

Number one, he is a plague who stirs up dissension among the Jews in Jerusalem and around the Roman Empire. So let's look at his response now in verses 10 through 13. So it was the day of Pentecost, and he came to worship. So that's his reason for coming to Jerusalem.

Now remember, we went back in several previous lessons, and I think Jeremy and Roger probably touched on this at times too, that some people think that Paul should not have gone to Jerusalem, and McCulloch feels that way, and I think Roger and I at least disagree with that.

But nevertheless, you can have your own opinion whether he should have gone or not, but obviously he did, and to God's glory, right? God makes no mistakes because he's there to meet us in our circumstances no matter what we choose. If we choose sin, we're forgiven, but yet we pay the penalty for that sin in terms of the recollection of it and how it impacts our fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ. So Paul's decision to go to Jerusalem was not a sinful one.

It was just a decision he made and God's going to meet him there to bring about his purpose in his life. So who's in control around here anyway? Alright, so Paul states that I went on the day of Pentecost to Jerusalem to worship. I mean, it's very simple. It's stated in verse 10. And I'm quoting, and they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone, nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city.

Let's turn to 1 Peter 5.16. There's a parallel verse that I think has some meaning here. And whoever gets it first, just go ahead and read it, please. And you'll know you have it first because you're reading. 516, 1 Peter 516. My bad, it's 316. I can't even read my own slide. It's my bad. 316. Sorry.

Keep a good conscience so that in things in which we are slandered, those who are vile and good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. Yeah, I mean, we could find another 10, 15 verses to support this position. So he's there, you know, not causing trouble, but there to ultimately spread the gospel and ultimately worship, and ultimately he caused no problem. So, and the evidence is that he did it. He also says, nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. All right, so they're accusing him of various things, but causing dissension among the Jews in Jerusalem around the world is not something he was intently guilty of.

The second charge when he's a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarene, and here we look at verses 14 through 16. And he states, and I'm just taking this out of scripture, he was not there to persuade the Nazarenes, and I'm directly out of scripture, according to the way which they call a sect. So I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. So in other words, the Nazarenes, by the way, ultimately had no legal right.

They were just a bunch of Gentiles, really. And so he came according to the way, and the way was the way of Christianity, not to be a sect to draw the Nazarites. Yes, he was there to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, but that's not why he came to Jerusalem. But yes, the message goes beyond simply the Jewish nations.

Romans 3.21, let's take a look at that.

Now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Okay, so he turns to the fact that the law and the prophets are still reality. But he's claiming ultimately that the Lord Jesus Christ and the cross and the resurrection really have completed the law. But yet Paul is not ignoring the law and in the prophets. That's written in the law and the prophets. He also says, I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead. And if we turn to John 28, 5, 28, 29, we don't have to go there, but if you do, maybe we should do there. I think we have time this morning to do this. John 5, 28, 29. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming.

For the hour is coming, in the witch all that are in the grave shall hear his voice. And they shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Now notice, everybody gets resurrected.

It's just not the believer. So this issue of the resurrection from the dead are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, right? Those are his words. It calls it the two resurrections. The two resurrections, yeah. Either you're saved or you're unsaved at the time you're resurrected. So, ultimately, I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept that there will be a resurrection. So remember, this is what divided the Sanchestes from the Pharisees when Paul was in Jerusalem. Alright?

And this being so, I myself also strive to have a conscience without offense towards God and men. We don't have to go to Second Corinthians a couple of verses, but it just talks about the consciousness that is about us, which is really being exemplified before the world system that we're living in. So the conscience of the believer is the consciousness of biblical truth and Christ-based theology. The conscience that Romans 2 talks about is that conscience that's influenced a lot by ethics and culture.

And so God gives us all a conscience at birth. I mean, I think, you know, remember the three C's of ultimately salvation begins with creation. You know, goodness have this whole thing happen around here. Our conscience, which is God given to every man to have some sense of right and wrong. Do you think that happened after Adam and Eve sinned? The consciousness? Absolutely. So that's where it started.

You're not saved by conscience. Conscience is God-given, the spirit of God in all man of all time to know that there's some right and wrong. Now again, the problem with conscience is that if you're unsaved, it's influenced entirely by the world system you're operating within. by cannibalism. I mean, you get hungry enough, you kill old Sarah next to you here to have some breakfast. It's not appropriate to kill somebody to have a meal. But there is a consciousness in all of us around the world of right and wrong. And Bob, do you think that's also in everyone's conscience is the fact that there is a God? I think that's what Romans points to. Romans wanted to deal with the creation as God's imprint on all man of all time and then the consciousness is also imprinted by God.

Now of course the third C is Christ himself. Nobody gets saved without Christ and believing in the resurrection and not just the cross. He's got to get resurrected too. Anyway, what Paul is talking about is he strives to have a conscience without offense towards God and men. That means the way he walks in the spirit. is one that ultimately exemplifies the glory of God in his life. And that's what our challenge is, to walk by faith so that our conscience is uplifted by who we are in Christ. Tom, did you want to say something? No, just eye contact, just listening.

The third accusation, remember, was Paul profaned the temple. And here in verses 17 through 21, which we're going to outline, he responds to this accusation. He mentions that he was there to bring alms and offerings to my nation. And I think repeatedly in Acts, we've indicated that this was a goal of his, getting to Jerusalem. And we can see that documented in Romans 15, 25 through 27, 2 Corinthians 8, 1 through 4.

So this is clearly indicated that his trip through Asia really in part was to gather alms and offerings to bring back to the body of Jerusalem. So he doesn't need to to reiterate that more than simply indicating that that was one of his goals. And that was the temple, because the believers, remember, Paul always hit the temple first, or the synagogue first, because many of the Jews who had been saved were still around the synagogues. And so these alms and offerings were being brought back to the temple first to bring to the needs of the local church. Then I bolded a few things here, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia, now notice this, in which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with a tumult. So you remember this section? Acts 21, 26, 27, what happened here?

Suspicion. I'm sorry? Suspicion. Suspicion. Because he saw him at a different time with a gentile in the vicinity of the temple and jumped to conclusions. Okay. What else? Maybe we should go back to Acts 21. Didn't he bring I was going to say, did he bring a gentile into the... No, that was a false accusation. Yeah. Oh, that's right. They said he brought... They saw Paul with his gentile and they assumed he took him into the area where no gentile was allowed. Right. And that was the whole thing and they just went bonkers over that.

So just to read directly from those two verses, then Paul took the men and the next day having been purified with them, remember this is why he went in to meet the needs of the very conservative Jew who said he was really not, his activities and his beliefs were not consistent with the law and the prophets. So he went in. So then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. And now, when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd."

So that's the verse that ultimately we turn to here to look at that section. Is this when he had his head shaved? I think so. Wasn't that when he did that? And then he's fasting? He wouldn't eat? At the end of the fast you go to the temple and make your offering. Actually you have your hair cut and you burn your hair in the altar. So that related to your comment earlier, was he still bald? So the timing here would be indicating he was still bald, or at least didn't have much hair.

So that's what that relates to. And then the next verse says, they ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me. Notice this now. I bolded that. We're going to come back to that in a second. Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council.

So keep in mind that Paul did this to be consistent with the view of the very legal Jew in terms of what ultimately his commitment to Judaism was all about. And so now he's being accused of profaning the Temple when in fact he carried out one of the ultimate procedures of this, something of the Nazarite. The rite of the Nazarite or whatever. So anyway, he said, or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me.

Well, you know, basically the people that were accusing him weren't there. And so unless it is for this one statement, and this is another issue that comes up here, which I cried out standing among them concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am being judged by you this day. He's wondering maybe these other things can't be true because I went into the temple, I didn't take any Gentiles with me, I got cleansed and I went through all these ceremonies to please the most stringent of Jews and their belief and now ultimately the only thing that I could think you're accusing me of is this resurrection deal, right? And of course, the Sanchezes don't believe in the resurrection.

So they could take a position that, yeah, you're profaning the temple because of our view. But the Pharisee, which would be closer to the law of the prophets in terms of everything it says, they say, would ultimately take a position that Paul can't be accused of this because they believe in the resurrection. So overall, Paul was entirely legitimate according to old Jewish law. There's nothing here in terms of Paul's own defense that ultimately would violate the Jewish law, unless you were taking a view of the Sadducees that the resurrection was something that ultimately did violate it. So I don't understand. Pharisees and Sadducees are both Jewish, and they're all together. But one believes in resurrection, one doesn't. Like the Republicans and the Democrats, if you will. I don't want to go there in terms of comparing who's who. But yeah, I mean, the Pharisees, very conservative, very, very much committed to the Law and the Prophets. And the Centrists, he's also portrayed that to some extent. But there were issues where they had a much more liberal view of things.

And the resurrection is a good example. And is that resurrection in the Old Testament? It is, I think. I can't tell you where to go there, but Christ himself has stated it, right? That's why the verse is moderate. Martha Mary once said, when Lazarus was going to be raised and the Lord came and said, we know that there is a resurrection. She testified. She was in the Old Testament. Martha Mary once said that. But we know that Lazarus was going to be raised at the end time.

So the concept of resurrection was I think where Holly is going though is that if the Sadducees were only Jewish leaders, what did they think about something that was also part of the Law and Prophets? Where is it in the Old Testament? They really only believe in the first five and all the rest. They were like, it's not really anything to really believe.

Maybe that's correct. What was that reference? Because I bet you that says... John 5, 28, 29. Maybe you've got a scope. Let me go back. I bet you that refers back. I guess I'm getting it too. Apparently you can be Jewish and believe either way. Well, think about Christianity today. Basically to be saved you have to believe in a very simple gospel, right? Right. I'm a sinner. I've forgiven my sins.

Okay, it's in Job 19.25. I mean, that's what the reference is. Anybody else have anything else there? So I was going to go back.

Isaiah 11.11. Why don't you both look those verses up and let's see what they say. What's yours, Roger, Isaiah? I have a section on the resurrection of Israel. But that's of the kingdom, right? The nation.

It's a good question, Holly, because the resurrection divided the Pharisees from the Sadducees. Why would that be divisive if it's not clearly stated in the Old Testament? I think that's a good question. So let's see if we can answer that for you. I don't think they studied the Bible.

Well, there's a verse in Isaiah that said They say, your dead will live, your corpses will rise, those who lie in the dust will, but you can shout for joy. So there's an allusion to the fact that God is going to raise people in the end time. He's raising people. To paint that picture you have to go through a whole bunch of verses, but the concept of resurrection, the Jewish people believed they would be resurrected. Some Jewish people. About the Sadducees.

Margaret, what's a Job verse say? No, it really just talks about For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. Yet in my flesh I shall see God. even though I'm dead. So I guess that does talk about a resurrection. whom I shall see for myself and mine eye shall behold and not another, though my reins be consumed with thee. So that does indicate a resurrection. Although it doesn't say in my flesh I'll see God. No, but it says Though my skin worms destroy my body, which means you're dead, yet in my flesh shall I see God.

In Daniel 12, 2 and 3 it says, Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to an everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever. So the Daniel 12, 2 and 3 does indicate 12.2 particularly. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. And many ultimately means everyone, depending on how it's translated. Some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So it doesn't use the word resurrection, but that's how it describes it. So that is resurrection. So it seems like they would be in agreement. I mean, it's like, you know, Christianity, the resurrection isn't debatable, you know. To some people it is. It sounds like in Isaiah and Daniel both we have enough to support this as a principle. Keep in mind the Lord Jesus Christ trumps everything in what he says, but yet he was basing that presumably on Old Testament scripture. So back to Holly's question. I think we have enough evidence that the Jew, the well-informed, theologically sound Jew would believe in resurrection.

But I'm glad you asked. It's a good question. And I kind of think of like, even now, I think of like Jewish people then as all being adamant, following the rules, all Jews, but that isn't the case. Some are like, oh, yeah. The liberal Jew to the person that's a white. Yeah. I kind of classify Jews into three groups.

The orthodox who are very, very, very chronic, try to follow everything about the law and the prophets and what they've proclaimed. The second one is the land and the holidays. And the third is, I could care less about any of this. Oh yeah, Israel, yeah I care about it. The food here is really... And it was like that then. That's maybe not a fair categorization. It's the way I look at the Jewish people. And very few are Orthodox. Alright, so Paul's just claiming that look I'm okay with the Jewish law. I mean there's nothing here you can really accuse me of. And notice these Jews from Asia who were the accusers were not in the courtroom in Caesarea.

I think that's critically relevant. If you're being accused of a crime, let's say even if it's a speeding ticket and you claim that the policeman is wrong or policewoman is wrong, when you're in the court, The policewoman, man, has to be there. You can't be accused by someone who didn't witness the crime. So here we've got a kangaroo court. The accusers are not those who made the initial accusation. So I think from a Roman perspective, this should have been ultimately dismissed. I mean, from a pure legal person. It should have been freed, but it wasn't. Judge Judy would throw it out.

That's right. So the question to the class, why did Ananias bring these people along? Why don't you think he said, hey, you know, you know, whatever their names were, Joe or, you know, Solomon or whomever? You know, I would say it wasn't worth it to him.

You go to court to try and get something out of it. You know, if it's like, OK, you're going to go to court and you're going to testify against this guy, but you're not going to get anything out of it. You're going to be traveling. You're going to be wasting your time, missing work, whatever.

You know, they probably like. Don't you think Ananias thought that he had enough clout that he could go to Felix and he could portray these accusations and that he could convince, especially by now bringing in this lawyer. Who's lawyer are you going to believe anyway? Mine or this guy? And probably they had a long history. Ananias probably knew Felix and they probably had a few history. We don't have any evidence of that.

But they're both Romans. But let me say this. If I were to Tulis, I'd say, well, why don't you bring a few of these Asian guys with you? Because by the way, if you're you're saying that Paul's, you know, altering the goals of the Roman government throughout the world. These people are from Asia, they're not from Jerusalem, right? So why don't you bring a few of these guys with you to ultimately make the accusation seem more firm.

Anyway, I love to speculate on scripture because we don't have any right answers or wrong answers. We can just say what we think. Unlike the resurrection, right? Now we've provided proof. Alright, good thoughts. Now, the final six verses are Felix's response. We're going to read this.

But when Felix heard these things, this verse 22, Having more accurate knowledge of the way, notice that, he adjourned the proceedings and said, when Lysias, the commander, comes down, I will make a decision on your case. This Lysias, he gets around.

He was up in Jerusalem rescuing Paul on behalf of the Roman government to cover their tail ends, right? And then he says, so he commanded the centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty and told him not to forbid any of his friends to provide for or visit him. And after some days, when Felix came with his wife, Priscilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. As he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, Go away for now. When I have a convenient time, I'll call for you. Meanwhile, he also hoped that money would be given him by Paul that he might release him. Therefore, he sent for him more often and conversed with him. But after two years, Potius Festus succeeded Felix, and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound. Alright, so here's Felix's response. Now about Felix and, by the way, wife Drusilla, who, by the way, was the sister of King Agrippa.

So she's ultimately related to Herod. It's kind of interesting. She's a Jew. We don't have to go any further because we don't have any more details about her. But let's look at Acts 24, 25 more closely. Now is he reasoned about righteousness? self-control, and the judgment to come.

Felix was afraid. Reminded you of anybody? Pilot maybe? And answered, go away for now. When I have a convenient time, I'll call for you. Meanwhile, he hoped that money would be given him by Paul, that he might release him. And therefore, he sent for him more often and conversed with him. So he's obviously curious a bit more about the faith. and it says he was enlightened about the way. Presumably Paul shared the gospel with him. If he wants to know more about the way, Paul is going to tell him about the way.

Paul was not thankful about sharing the Lord. My study guide says that Felix was talking to Paul about convincing his friends to give him some money. It doesn't sound like Felix was like, I want to hear about the way and all that. Felix was like, He wanted to talk about getting some money. He wanted to hear about the way, but he didn't want to hear about the way enough that he also wanted some coin. He wanted a bribe. That probably was pretty common. So he was enlightened about the way to the extent that he obviously didn't go there. He's not going to accept the Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, he's a procrastinator. He's delaying the decision, right? Basically, if you're a judge or a jury, you come out of the courtroom with a decision. That's not true of Felix here. can't seem to come to any conclusion. Because he was afraid. He didn't want to be the one that put Paul in jail forever. He's kind of washing his hands of this just like Pilate did. I'm going off track. I have a question I don't understand.

When someone commits a crime, like a big crime, a murder let's say, they take them in and they have some sort of justification for them being the criminal, they take them in and put them in jail. So the bond means like, okay, we're going to put you in jail unless you can pay this certain amount of money to get out. It almost seems like you're put in jail before you're really determined to be innocent or guilty. It's kind of like you're assumed to be guilty because some people are in jail for years and years and years before they even go to court.

With that bond though, typically, right? Like I'm even thinking of the guy, you know, the theater shoot-up guy. I mean, he's in jail. We were just talking about that on the way in. But he can't, but they didn't offer, there were too many witnesses. They know. Yeah, yeah. It's not a, oh, was he really the one?

So it's not really innocent until proven guilty. No, and they didn't have a bond for him because his crime was so serious that The bond is put there if they think he won't flee. And so for theft or car robbery or whatever, Because if it was really truly innocent until proven guilty, people would not be in jail and they would take off and you'd never get to try again. It's a little bit different here for sure.

Third, he was frightened by the way, and I just have, well Acts 24-25 is where that's stated, which you have right before you, but John 19, 7 and 8, being frightened is really the pilot story all over again, right? And he's self-serving, expecting money from Paul, whether you're looking at that as a bond or not. I think this is a little different in that Paul was presumably not guilty of death, but ultimately sufficiently guilty not to let loose. And I was just going to say these attributes, he was enlightened but not convinced about the way, a procrastinator, frightened, self-serving.

How do we measure this and isn't this so typical today, in fact the flesh from Eden going forward. I mean this is just human fleshly based behavior. Self-serving, delaying necessary decisions, frightened by circumstances. What an example of human behavior.

So ultimately what Felix does, he acts as a favor to the Jews. And that favor was ultimately not letting Paul loose. So he's bound. and has restrictions but he can have visitors for two years and then he's out of there. Felix is out of there. Some of your versions say that Festus came to him in a room but the evidence is overwhelming historically that Festus became the governor over Judea at this time and Felix was out of office. Now whether that was a personal decision to resign or whether that was coming from higher Roman authorities is not clearly stated, but nevertheless Felix is out and Fessus is in and that's where Paul finds him. Two years without a decision and ultimately having an opportunity to visit with friends and other believers. So the question I have is who's in control here anyway?

Paul wanted to get to Rome, so there he is. He's in control. He got in there, didn't he? He very did. All right. So fun lesson. This, I think, is an interesting lesson that reflects a lot on today's courtroom and kind of the human nature that we need to leave behind, but ultimately don't, many of us on a day-to-day basis.

Let's pray. Father, we're thankful for the lesson before us. May we learn about circumstances and why you have them exist to your glory. And may we live by faith that these things are not by mistake, but ultimately to bring high marks and glory to you. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.