Acts 24-26
“On Trial”
Summary of 24-26: 3 trials of the Apostle Paul
At the end of chapter 23, Paul was transferred to Caesarea, to go on trial before Felix – a Roman Governor; (ch 24) and his enemies come from Jerusalem and bring a lawyer with them and make accusations and Paul defends himself; but despite the fact that there’s no evidence/proof, Felix just leaves Paul in prison – he is waiting for Paul to bribe him (which Paul doesn’t do) so he is just left in prison – for 2 years – until Felix is succeeded by Festus;
(ch 25) with a new ruler the chief priests and jewish leaders come again to put forward their charges against Paul but again there is no evidence, no proof, Festus doesn’t release Paul; he tries to convince him to go back and stand trial in Jerusalem, which of course wouldn’t be safe for Paul as they are planning to ambush him on the way back to Jerusalem. So, Paul, realizing he’s not going to be vindicated by the Roman authorities, appeals to Caesar – which would transfer his case to Rome;
But now Festus is in a pickle because he is sending a prisoner to Rome but not only doesn’t know why he’s sending him, doesn’t even know why he’s holding him prisoner. But he does know that it has something to do with the Jewish religion; which he doesn’t know much about, but he knows that King Agrippa does – this is King Herod Agrippa II. We saw his father Herod Agrippa I back in Acts 12 persecuting the church; and we saw his grandfather Herod the Great seeking to kill Jesus in Matthew 2.
And now, in chapter 26, Paul stands trial before him.
4 things: Paul is not a trouble-maker; Paul is not an opportunist; Paul’s message is not a novelty; Paul’s message was not done in a corner.
Not a trouble-maker
24:5-21
Though they have no real evidence – no eyewitnesses, nothing – they insist that Paul is guilty, and they prove their case by simply calling him names:
vv5-6 they call him a trouble-maker; they call him a ringleader; they call him a temple desecrater – but he’s none of those things; and the repeated emphasis all throughout these chapters with Paul’s trials – the repeated emphasis is that he is innocent; that he has not done the things they accuse him of, and they have no evidence behind their accusations.
And Paul then is portrayed just like Jesus in his trials – everyone knew he was innocent, but people insisted he was guilty because they wanted him gone because his message provoked them.
And we do the same thing; when the gospel message challenges us; when it provokes us; we simply want Jesus – and those who bear his message – we simply want him gone.
But against their empty accusations, Paul defends himself – v11 – he went to Jerusalem to worship God, not to cause trouble; v12 – they didn’t find him arguing or stirring up a crowd; v13 – they can’t prove any of these charges; v18 – he was ceremonially clean when he was in the temple, no crowd with him, no disturbance;
And he reaffirms again that the real reason he is on trial – vv20-21 – is because of his belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
And, Felix must agree that there is no real evidence against Paul – which is why he waits for Lysias (v22); remember, Lysias was the Roman Commander who rescued Paul from the angry mob, protected him from an ambush, and had him transferred to Caesarea.
Felix realizes not only is he an eye-witness but he is a neutral one; but it seems that either Lysias never gets there or whether Felix allows his evidence to factor in – because we see that neither Felix nor Festus are primarily concerned about Justice, but about their own political opportunity and advancement.
Not an opportunist
24:24 – 25:12
24:26 – Felix is hoping Paul will bribe him to decide his case in his favor; and at the end of his reign in Caesarea, v27 he leaves Paul in prison still to grant a favor to the Jews.
25:9 Festus asks Paul if he was willing to stand trial back in Jerusalem; and the reason he asked him this is that he was wishing to do the Jews a favor – since back in v3 they had requested that Felix transfer Paul back to Jerusalem (not because they thought they had a better chance of winning their case there, but because they were waiting to ambush and kill him on the journey back).
Festus’ explanation of the events to Agrippa in 25:16-22 when compared with the actual events and motivations, isn’t false, but is certainly a self-serving retelling, making him look better in front of another powerful person –
he emphasizes his commitment to justice – but all along we’ve seen he’s compromising justice – if he was so committed to justice, why didn’t he acquit and release Paul? What his real interest was, was political expediency – doing a favor to a powerful group of people that in the end would serve his own political interests.
he’s a politician! but moreso, he’s a sinner who lives in a self-serving way; apart from the gospel we are all, in some way on some level, going to be enslaved to living in that self-serving way that prioritizes me getting what I want and using others either as a vehicle to get what I want or viewing them as an obstacle in the way of what I want.
And these roman rulers, the way they deal with Paul doesn’t depend on justice but on whether Paul is helping or hurting their self-serving aims.
But Festus’ self-serving maneuvering has created a problem for him:
that Paul, though clearly innocent, has appealed to Caesar and must go stand trial before Rome –
And they act as though the problem is Pauls’ fault –
the very last verse of ch 26 – “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
they act as though Paul and his appeal is the problem – but why did Paul appeal?
you see the irony of that – is that he had to appeal to Caesar, because though he was innocent – at that point they were unwilling to declare his innocence because it was too politically costly for them! He had for years been in prison with no substantial cause, kept there by the Roman rulers who are trying to use Paul to do favors!
Now, now that he has appealed to Caesar, now they are willing to declare him innocent and now they are claiming that if it were up to them they would release him – but that’s clearly false because when it was up to them they didn’t release him!
But they’re saying that now, because now their declaration of his innocence doesn’t cost them, cause they can’t act on it – they can’t release him at this point – and so now that it’s not costly they can declare him innocent; in fact, now it benefits them to say they think he’s innocent and they would have released him if were up to them because now they have to send him to Rome with no charges or evidence against him!
And all of this contrasts to Paul; they are opportunistic for self-advancement and benefit; Paul is seeking opportunities to advance Christ.
The very reason he appealed to Caesar wasn’t primarily for his own safety, but because of his desire to have the opportunity to preach about Jesus in Rome; and out of obedience to Jesus words back in ch 23 “as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
He made his appeal in obedience to the revelation of God’s plan for him – that is what he is primarily concerned about – not getting out of chains – but extending his imprisonment to further Christ’s work.
Even on trial, he’s defending himself, but that’s not all he’s doing. That quickly turns into his attempts to evangelize those he’s standing trial before!
24:24 – Paul spoke to Felix about faith in Christ Jesus, righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come.
end of ch 26:27 – in a public trial he challenges Agrippa to come to respond to the gospel.
v29 he extends that challenge to everyone listening.
Think about Paul’s boldness.
Paul’s boldness. Speaking before the most powerful ppl in that time place – who hold his fate in their hands – and he is trying to evangelize them.
He’s on trial – and he’s trying to evangelize the judge!
It’s hard to be bold. It’s easy to be fearful; timid; silent; but Paul often prays for boldness; and so should we. And, what could happen if we were a little more bold in our Christian witness and proclamation?
And Paul’s imprisonment “operates as the continuation of his missions, not the suspension of it”.
It’s the opportunity for evangelism, not the hindrance of it.
And what could happen if we viewed the situations of life whether unexpected or unideal or unanticipated as the opportunity to live and speak boldly for Christ, not the hindrance or roadblock to that.
But Paul can be bold, because he has faith!
Paul is somewhat helpless in all this; all he can do is defend himself, testify to Christ, appeal to Rome; but his trust is in the God who is more powerful than the rulers of the earth; and though it might appear like Paul at this point is a ping-pong ball being bounced back from one place to another to testify before one ruler or another; despite the fact that most of what is happening is beyond Paul’s control, God is the hidden from physical sight actor who is controlling the events as part of his plan, because he is the sovereign Lord of history.
And Paul can be bold, because he knows that God is in control.
Paul’s message is Nothing New
in ch 26 we’re given Paul’s longest defense of the 3 – Listen to how Paul describes his Christian faith throughout: (26:6-7, 22-23; 26:27)
What he’s saying is that the resurrection of Jesus is what the Jewish People have hoped for all along, and it’s what the OT has promised all along.
Paul’s message is nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen.
what all throughout the OT God has promised to his people and what they looked forward to, waiting in Hope that God would do through the coming Messiah for his people.
Paul wasn’t preaching anything that the OT didn’t point towards or anticipate; he wasn’t being a theological innovator; He wasn’t violating his Jewish background or beliefs – he was finding them
he wasn’t taking the OT in a direction or conclusion that was unfaithful to it, but he was only following the OT to it’s proper & intended, though unexpected, conclusion in Jesus.
Jesus was like the ultimate twist-ending, that while you’re watching the movie, you don’t see it coming –
while watching, you never see it coming; but then looking back; or watching it a second time, then it all makes sense; you think, how didn’t I see that coming! That’s where all the clues pointed to all along the way –
Paul describes his former life as trying to put together a puzzle without seeing the box cover – all the puzzle pieces he was trying to fit together the wrong way but then you see the finished product and then you can fit the pieces together because you see the master plan.
Paul’s message is Nothing Unseen (26:25-6)
Paul describes the gospel message as based on events that happened in the public arena.
And we’ve seen not only here that King Agrippa knows about Christianity – v26 “The king is familiar with this things, – none of this has escaped his notice”
and back in 24:22 – Felix “was well acquainted with the Way” (a designation for Christianity)
Christianity was not something that was born in secret but in public – because at it’s foundation were events that happened in public.
And this is something that makes Christianity utterly unique – is that of all the religions, at it’s origin it was the one that could have been most easily disproved, but it wasn’t – in fact, instead, it flourished and spread like wildfire – because it was not done in a corner – there were events that happened, that people saw, who testified to those events; there was evidence that supported that testimony and couldn’t be explained without it; and so Christianity was, as Paul describes – true and reasonable.
Article: Origin of other religions: one person had a private dream about God, or a claim to a private angelic encounter, or just a private idea about God – and one person told everyone what he saw, or thought, or thought he saw.
And so you couldn’t really investigate it; you couldn’t verify it; you couldn’t disprove it; essentially, everyone, then, has to take that 1 person’s word for it.
But Christianity is different: It’s origin: Jesus had a public ministry, that people saw; Jesus was killed publicly – people saw him crucified & buried in a public tomb; Jesus rose from that public tomb and was seen – he appeared to people publicly; and that public told everyone what they saw.
It could be investigated; verified; disproven – it was not done in a corner; it is true and reasonable.
“Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to “come and see” if the claims are true. The only reason why I can say Christianity survived in the midst of such historic volatility is because it is true. And this is exactly what I would expect if there were an all-powerful God who created and loves this world. When he intervenes, he makes a significant enough footprint that historic inquiry is demanded.”
God made a footprint on this world. Footprint is too subtle of a description – God left a Crater on this world!
Because all those other religions – essentially they are simply messages – they are merely a claim about what God says that we must believe and do; and Christianity is no less than that – it certainly is a claim about what God says we must believe and do – but it’s different in two ways –
First because God himself came and said himself what we must believe and do – in the person of Christ – and proved that he was God and therefore his message was true – by his life and resurrection.
Second, because Christianity is more than just a message – God didn’t just leave us with a message of what to do so that we – doing it – could save ourselves – but he did something! He came himself, as savior to save us – and to do for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves – Christianity is more than message – it’s good news – good news of God’s saving action through Jesus that we receive as gift.
At it’s root was a historical event – even Festus can see that this is what is at issue – 25:19 – this is the perfect unbelieving description of Christianity – the dispute was “about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive”
Of all religions Christianity is the one that could have most easily been refuted and snuffed our right at the start, b/c at its core was the belief that someone who was dead was now alive. But it wasn’t. Bc people saw that dead man alive, they testified about that dead man alive, and people were convinced by what they saw and what they testified about, and people were transformed.
And that’s why again we see in Paul’s defense, an emphasis on his own conversion to Christ – perhaps one o the most dramatic in all history – he was transformed and how do you explain that – except that he was confronted by this once dead man who was now alive.
It is “evidence that demands a verdict”. Claims that can’t be ignored.
People are convinced and people are transformed – millions in all different times places cultures from all different backgrounds.
But also, people are transformed. Paul describes this personal transformation as the result of his ministry: 26:15-18
Jesus’ Salvation opens our eyes; it brings us out of darkness into light; it delivers us from the power of Satan to God; it forgives all our sins; it sanctifies us – sets us apart and makes us holy.
have you experienced this? Are you eternally grateful to God for this gift?