Please bow your heads with me once more as we pray for the blessing of God on the public preaching of His Word. Let's pray together. Oh, Father, we are hungry for Your Word. We do hunger and thirst for righteousness. This world is a desert. There's nothing in this world that can feed our souls like Your Word. We need to be built up, we need to be strengthened, we need to be fed, we need the outpouring of Your Spirit to slake our thirst, to hydrate our souls, So we pray now, would you speak, O Lord? Speak through the preaching of your word, through your churches built until the earth is filled with your glory. For Jesus' sake, amen. Culture wars reignite. Elites deploy lawfare to sabotage opponents. Change of venue to different circuit court creates bias jury. Judge condemns wrong suspect as favor to political action committee. Supreme court to decide religious freedom case. Judge incriminates himself. You can imagine all of these headlines today. Abuse of official power, politicization of judicial courts, litigating legal brinksmanship. It all sounds so Western, so modern, so last week. But before these were 21st century headlines, they were 1st century headlines. As we'll see in our passage this morning, Acts 25. If you'll turn there with me in your Bibles, Acts 25. Acts 25. We're going to read it piecemeal and tell the story and then we'll draw a few points of application. Acts 25, we'll start reading in verses 1 through 5. Now three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews laid out their case against Paul, and they urged him, asking as a favor against Paul, that he summon him to Jerusalem because they were planning an ambush to kill him on the way. Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea and that he himself intended to go there shortly. So, said he, let the men of authority among you go down with me. And if there is anything wrong about the man, let them bring charges against him. So Festus starts his new job as governor in Acts 25.1. Remember, he is succeeding Felix, who procrastinated Paul's case all the way until he was out of office. And Festus, in contrast to Felix, hits the ground running. He also gets thrown into the deep end. Three days in, he heads to Jerusalem to meet with the chief priests. And after two years of Paul being left in prison by Felix, these Jews are still out for Paul's blood. So they lay out their case against Paul before Festus in Jerusalem, while Paul's still under watch in Caesarea. They also try to take advantage of Festus being a rookie. by asking for a change of venue in Paul's case from Caesarea to Jerusalem. But they ask that because for the last two years of Paul's imprisonment, they've apparently been perfecting their ambush plan to kill him during transport. They also ask it as a first political favor from Festus. They want to get the first favor in. You scratch our back in giving us Paul, we'll scratch your back with support for public policy. Well, Festus isn't quite savvy to their game yet, so he says, no, I'm going back to Caesarea soon, so you guys can just come down with me and we'll try the case at the Capitol, because that's where Paul is already, and if there's anything wrong with the man, let them bring charges against him. Buy the book. buttoned down, rookie. We'll keep reading in verses 6 to 12. After he stayed among them not more than eight or ten days in Jerusalem, he went down to Caesarea Festus. And the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. And when he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. Paul argued in his defense, neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense. But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, ah, now he's catching on, said to Paul, do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried on these charges before me? But Paul said, I'm standing before Caesar's tribunal where I ought to be tried. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself know very well. If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with his counsel, answered, To Caesar you have appealed, to Caesar you shall go. So in verse six, after a week and a half in Jerusalem, Festus keeps his word, goes back to Caesarea the very next day, takes the bench for Paul's hearing. Pretty efficient administrator. Festus is doing more than two weeks than Felix did in two years with Paul. Jerusalem Jews come down to prosecute Paul, but after two years, their case has gone a little cold. So they're making serious charges, but nothing they can prove in court. You get the idea. from their charges in Paul's defense in verse 8. So same old tired stuff from the prosecution. They accuse them of crimes against their ethnicity, sacrilege in the temple, treason against Caesar. They got nothing new to say after two years. Feels a little like they're just throwing anything against the wall and seeing what sticks with Festus. Verse 9, Festus quickly learns how to swim in the political swamp. He's learning what it's like to live in D.C. Because he sees that he's between a rock and a hard place. They can't prove their charges against Paul. But they're a powerful constituency that Festus needs to placate. So what can he do? Well, if Paul himself asks for a change of venue, then Festus can't be held quite as responsible for whatever happens next. Well, you're the one that wanted the change of venue. But Paul knows that commuting the venue back to Jerusalem is a dead end for him, not just legally, but literally. Remember, Paul had found out about this same kind of plot two years prior when he was in Jerusalem and his nephew had just happened to overhear that the Jews were plotting to kill him on the way down to Caesarea. Paul knows he wouldn't even make it back to Jerusalem alive this time. He does not want to play into the Jews' hands. But more than that, he wants to testify to Jesus and the resurrection higher up the chain of Roman jurisprudence. He's not trying to avoid accountability if he's done wrong. If he deserves to die, he won't fight it. But he says in verse 11, if there's nothing to their charges against me, then no one can give me up to them, by which he means no one can treat me as if I'm a political favor if I'm innocent. And you know that as well as I do, Festus. So he appeals to Caesar. But think about it. If the Jews could not prove their charges against Paul, then why wouldn't Paul just ask for the case to be dismissed out of hand, thrown out of court altogether, if freedom is his only goal? It's because Paul's ultimate motive was not to secure his personal freedom, if you can even bring yourself to believe that, as an American. His motive was to testify to Caesar no matter what the outcome would be for himself, either politically or even personally. Paul is working his defense not to free himself but to position himself for testimony to Jesus and the resurrection in Rome before Caesar. Even though he knows that legally and really even morally he could and probably even should just try to get his case dismissed if what he intends is simply his freedom. Today we'd say Paul wants this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It seems then that Paul already knew what Agrippa and Bernice say to each other at the end of chapter 26. This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. Again, it may be hard for us to fathom, but freedom was not Paul's ultimate aim in this case. He remembered what the Lord had said to him in 2311. He had already testified in Jerusalem. He doesn't need to go back there. Not according to God's plan for him. Time to move the venue to Rome. It's not time to seek His freedom. It's not time for the case to be dismissed. to up the ante. Even though he knows his case should have been thrown out in a lower court, Festus should have acquitted him on the spot, but he's too busy learning how to swim in the swamp. Speaking of which, passing Paul up the chain of jurisprudence raises a new problem for Festus in verses 13 to 22. Follow along with me. Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. Agrippa is like Festus' boss. And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, There's a man left prisoner by Felix. And when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. They're asking for the death penalty. I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met their accusers face to face and had an opportunity to make his defense concerning the charges laid against him. So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed. Rather, they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. So Agrippa, the regional king, is next. is the next rung up the legal ladder. He and his sister, Bernice, Bernice is his sister, not his wife, they come to Caesarea and Festus asks Agrippa's private counsel on what to do about the Paul problem. So verse 18, he summarizes the hearing that he had just conducted. As far as Festus could tell, they weren't charging him with any capital crimes. There's no way that he could send him to the equivalent of the electric They were arguing about some obscure Jesus who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. I mean, you get the feeling that Festus is listening to this hearing and he's like, what am I supposed to do with this? So Festus is asking, what do I do about this guy? I mean, have you dealt with this kind of thing before from these Jews? Then in verse 20, the swamp gets kind of murky and Festus' motives are unclear to say the least. Look at how he puts it. Verse 20, being at a loss to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there. Really? Is that all that was going on? You're really just at a loss? Is that why you offered to change the venue? Because the narrator said in verse 9 that Festus offered that because he was wishing the Jews a favor. And the narrator in biblical narrative is never wrong. It was neither kindness to Paul nor incompetence in Festus. In fact, it looks a lot more like corruption that moved Festus to move the venue. Of course, Festus is a first-term governor, so he's inexperienced, but he's a pretty quick study, and he realized that putting in a favor with the Jews now meant that he could call one in all the sooner, later. Worst of all, maybe he offered the venue change so that the Jews could actually murder Paul along the way and make the whole thing go away all at once. We don't want to believe that about him. We don't really know what to believe about Festus, to be honest, because Luke recounts it this way on purpose. Not to answer our questions about Festus' motives, but to raise our questions about them, because that's how it is in the swamp. Murky motives, shady ethics, more questions than answers about who's doing what and why. We are moving now with Paul through the shifting shadows and ulterior motives of Roman politics, and you start to feel like Paul feels. We encounter the ambiguities with him, and you don't always know how the sausage gets made downtown. But again, if Paul was as innocent as Festus knew, then why not acquit him on the spot? The implication is that Festus is corrupt. He wants to do the Jews a favor. Regardless, Festus still wants Agrippa's experienced opinion, but when he asks for it, Festus acts like his hands were tied as soon as Paul appealed to Caesar. As if Festus couldn't acquit Paul himself when, in truth, he could have released Paul. weren't so afraid of the Jewish prosecutors who failed to prove their case against him. You see, Festus knows. You don't really have a case, man. The prosecution is failing. Paul knows it, Festus knows it, and Paul knows that Festus knows it. He's confronted him about it already. to the Jews I've done no wrong, as you yourself know very well, Festus." Hey, man, you know what's going on here, don't you? I know it, you know it. That's Paul's perspective. Paul can read it. So Festus, it seems, is more interested in clearing himself of wrongdoing than clearing Paul of wrongdoing. Agrippa, on the other hand, seems eager to hear Paul for himself. and he will pretty soon. So Festus introduces Paul to Agrippa and to the rest of the crowd, verses 23 to 27. So on the next day, Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. It's like there's a parade going on, going into this trial. Then at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. And Festus said, King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish people petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. Again, they want the death penalty. But I found that he had done nothing deserving of death. And as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to go ahead and send him. But I have nothing definite to write to my Lord, Caesar, about him. And what am I gonna, what do I write in the cover letter here? Therefore, I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippus, so that after we have examined him, I may have something to write, for it seems to me unreasonable in sending a prisoner not to indicate the charges against him. I mean, this is absurd. And Festus knows it. We're looking at this like, what are we doing here? So next day, everybody arrives in the equivalent of their black government suburbans in limousines with tinted windows. The glitterati are all showing out. One theologian actually called this a show trial. It's the equivalent of reality TV, judicial theater for the elites, but serious, probably more like OJ than Judge Judy. The aristocratic Jews had tried to prosecute a high-profile case. Paul was now appealing all the way up the ladder. The king himself was in town for the appellate hearing, and everybody who was anybody used it as a chance to see and be seen. Everybody's here, man, it's electric. Downtown Caesarea is hopping. So verses 24 to 27, when Festus introduces Paul publicly, he really introduces his own predicament about Paul. In short, the Jews want Paul executed for treason, sacrilege, crimes against Jewish ethnicity. But Festus found that he had done nothing deserving of death. So Festus says, I'm granting Paul's appeal to Caesar. The problem is, what do I tell Caesar about Paul? What do I write for the abstract that will summarize the reason for sending the case all the way to the top? How do I justify sending this guy to Caesar? Because if I don't come up with something good, Caesar's going to think that I'm incompetent for not handling it myself and for wasting his time. You don't want to waste Caesar's time. From Luke's perspective, though, the longer Festus talks, the more he proves Paul innocent. I have nothing definite to write to my Lord about him. Right. Like, are you listening to yourself, Festus? Therefore, I've brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after we have examined him, I may have something definite to write. Like, maybe you'll hear something. Maybe you'll hear a crime. Maybe we'll get him to incriminate himself. In other words, see if you guys can find out what this guy did wrong, because I got nothing. In verse 27 it's almost like Festus doesn't know how he sounds himself. So Agrippa Glitterati, he says, take a listen to Paul yourself and tell me what you think I should do here. Tell me, see if you can find some reason for us to get rid of this guy. Because we need to wash our hands of him and get on to the next problem of transitioning this new administration. Not exactly convictional leadership from the rookie governor. This is as pragmatic as it gets. Festus knows the right thing to do and he acts otherwise. What is the point? Why is this in scripture? I think it is in scripture for four different reasons. I got four points to this sermon. Four points, not just one. There are different kinds of points. First we are going to make a social point. The social point is Christianity deserves a civil hearing not criminal prosecution. Christianity deserves a civil hearing, not criminal prosecution. Luke is showing us that Paul is not doing anything in his preaching or evangelism that would directly destabilize social structures. And the powers that be know it. Christian ministry is not a threat to anybody's Christians respect private property. Christianity is careful to observe public morality, to respect law and order, and encourages a general submission to civil authorities. Christianity is not politically revolutionary or socially corrosive at root. Morally transformative? Yes. Challenging? Always. Confrontational? Sometimes. But Christian theology threatens no one's personal safety. Christianity's disagreements with Judaism pose no physical, political, or social danger to the Jews. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. It's the Jews planning to ambush Paul, not the other way around. So the state has no compelling interest in condemning Christianity as a religion or Christians as such. It's not a crime for which Christians should be criminally prosecuted or socially canceled. In fact, what Christianity deserves is a fair and civil hearing. Paul thinks the gospel should be on the record in the public square, not just in the pew or in the sanctuary. That's not to say that Paul thinks the church should run the state. That's not what he's doing here. The state, even administered by non-Christians, has a place in God's economy as a common grace institution that preserves society and secures an environment where all people's lives are secure, their livelihoods can flourish, their property is respected, their efforts are broadly coordinated for the common good. Romans 13. But in that environment, the gospel of Jesus Christ's death for our sins and resurrection for our new life is public truth that deserves a public hearing, without eliciting demands for criminal prosecution of those who believe it and talk about it publicly or try to persuade others to believe it. After all, we all try to persuade each other about all sorts of things all the time, whether we're Christians or not. From individual consumer choices to public policy debates, we're all trying to persuade each other. The Jesus who died and rose from the dead deserves the respect of a civil public hearing. Just hear him out. Besides, Christians cannot force other people to become Christians against their will. But it's not unreasonable for Christians to talk about Christian truth in the public square, to display Christianity's truth and benefits in the marketplace of ideas, to let it stand or fall on its own two feet. Let it get attention or let it not get attention. Let it persuade or not persuade. Let it illuminate or not. Let it change people's minds or not. When we call people to turn from their sins and trust in Christ, we mean it, but we also have to let people take it or leave it. Because Christian conversion is God's work, not ours. Friend, I wonder if you, yourself, have ever given the Gospel of Jesus a fair and civil hearing. Here I'm out. The cosmos is so ordered and functional and beautiful. The earth is so conveniently hospitable to human life because God ordered it that way in His kindness to us. God is good to make the world like He did, as a habitat for the human race to multiply and flourish. He told the first human couple to fill the earth and subdue it under His authority and for His glory. But Adam and Eve rebelled against God's good authority and His righteous love for them, His generosity to them. They wanted to steal God's moral authority rather than submit to it. They wanted to define right and wrong for themselves. And that drew down God's righteous wrath, which would have sent us all to an eternal experience of dying in hell, because we sinned against God's eternal love and righteous law. And He's the one who gave us life. But God showed mercy. He sent His only eternal Son, born of a virgin, to live a sinless human life on our behalf, and then to die the death we deserved as the penalty for our sins in our place, so that if we turn and trust in Christ, we can be forgiven of our sins, reconciled to God, and to live with Him for eternity in the new heavens and the new earth that He will create for all those who love and trust Him. That's it. That's the Christian message. Take it or leave it. But please, take it. That's the social point. Second, the gospel point. In our text, Acts 25, it includes the second of three times that Paul's judges admit his innocence. In 23.9, the Jewish Pharisees said, we find nothing wrong in this man's admission of Paul's innocence from the Jews Here in 2525, Festus says, I found that he had done nothing deserving of death. Verse 26, I have nothing definite to write. Verse 27, he even finds it unreasonable to send Paul to any higher court without any ability to indicate a single charge against him. And after Agrippa gives Paul a fair hearing, he himself turns to his sister, Bernice, and says at the end of chapter 26, this man is doing nothing to deserve death or even imprisonment. And then he says to Festus, this man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. So Paul's triple acquittal by the Pharisees, then Festus, then Agrippa, echoes Jesus' own triple vindication by Pontius Pilate in Luke 23. That's intentional. The world is re-litigating the case against Jesus in the person and case of Paul and with similar results. They got nothing on him and they prosecute him anyway. They find no fault with him but instead of releasing him they treat him as a political football and as a favor to a religious political constituency. Paul's innocence here testifies to Jesus' innocence before him. Paul is, in a very real sense, re-presenting the righteous suffering of Jesus in his own legal trials here in chapter 25. He is like a Christ-type after the fact. Paul images Jesus as falsely accused simply for testifying to the truth in his own teaching and ministry. The servant is not greater than the master. If they falsely accuse Jesus, they'll falsely accuse his followers too. That is our opportunity to testify to the Christ who took God's condemnation for us when he was innocent, confident that if God is the one who justifies, then who is the one who condemns? If God is for us, who can be against us? So testify to Him. Even the logic of Festus repeats the logic of Nicodemus. Festus says, 2516, it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face. Look, you can't sentence someone to the electric chair without at least giving them a fair hearing, a fair trial. Bring the prosecution in and let them accuse him and see if the charges stick. But isn't that just the point Nicodemus made in John 7, 51? Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? The problem with the prosecution of Paul is the same problem with the prosecution of Jesus. It's premature. The Jews knew it was wrong to prosecute Jesus. The Gentiles knew it was wrong to prosecute Paul. Even there, you see Roman law and Jewish law overlapping because they're both built on the common foundation of a higher law, a more basic law, natural law. the creation order, which we'll get to in a minute. But first, third, the theological point. The theological point that God will ensure the global spread of his gospel no matter who does what with political power. No matter how corrupt Felix Infestus may be, No matter how little you would have voted for either one of them, based on their morals or their policies, or their treatment of Christians, the risen Christ is using them, corrupt as they are, to accomplish his own purposes in the world, even through their corruption. Jesus said of Paul in Acts 9.15, Who is he getting ready to testify to here? King Agrippa. In Acts 23.11, the Lord stood by Paul and said, Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify in Rome. Yet even while he walked the earth, Jesus said to his followers in Luke 21 12, they will lead you away to kings and governors on account of my name. And so it is. In fact, Psalm 76 10 applies to the Jewish hatred of Jesus and their pretense of prosecuting Paul. Surely the wrath of man shall praise you. The remnant of wrath you will put on like a belt. In other words, even the raging of the nations against Jesus as King of Kings will be used in God's providence to praise the sovereignty and mercy of God Almighty and His Lord Jesus Christ. Even the wrath of those who hate Christianity and its followers will praise the sovereign God who sent Jesus to die and rise for us. You believe that? Because if you do, it changes the way you talk about what's going on around you in the public square. You don't talk like Chicken Little anymore. Oh, sky's falling, sky's falling because the wrong person won or lost. Look at this Christian. God can be working out His purposes even when people as corrupt as Felix and Festus are running it. They're not Christians. They're not even almost Christians or Christian adjacent. They're not interested in working with Paul or giving justice to Paul. They're using Paul. They're using him. They're not even good men. They're politicians in the worst sense of that word. Felix and Festus are part of the swamp. Felix never did get around to calling Claudius Lysias for his testimony. Remember? That was his excuse. Ah, let me call Claudius Lysias, and when he comes down, I'll get some real Roman perspective on the issue, and I'll call you. I'll call you, Paul. It won't be long. Let me just put in a call to Claudius Lysias. Did he ever call him? Never called him. Did he ever mean to call him? Probably not. Infestus is more interested in learning to do favors than justice. If it's up to the integrity of his judges, Paul has very little hope of being freed. After all, remember who the emperor is to whom he is appealing. It's Nero. Not a good guy. So it's a good thing that it's not Paul's hope that he would be freed. Because that's probably not going to happen anyway. Not with these guys pulling the strings. Paul's hope is that Jesus will be proclaimed in Rome. And that hope has a very good chance of being realized actually not in spite of but precisely because of the corruption of his judges. Felix and Festus intend to use Paul as a chip in the game, but God superintends not only their intention, but the whole game for the spread of the gospel to Rome. Christian, let the truth of God's sovereignty redirect your hope, reinvigorate your witness and stabilize your perseverance no matter what is happening politically. Fourth and finally, the public point. It's going to be a little bit longer. Multiple times in our text, non-Christians are either expected to know or say they know what's good or evil, what should or should not happen. what's reasonable or unreasonable. Paul himself says to the non-Christian Festus, to the Jews I have done no wrong as you yourself know very well. If then I am a wrongdoer or have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I don't seek to escape death, but if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to That is a Christian expecting to persuade a non-Christian to do the objectively right thing using a non-biblical moral argument from reason that the Christian expects the non-Christian to understand intuitively without the Christian quoting a single Bible verse. Paul thinks he's speaking a common moral grammar that Festus can actually understand. Even common sense. Festus, you and I both know that I did no wrong. So you know the right thing to do. That's the implication of Paul's argument to Festus. In fact, everyone would know the right thing to do. No one, no one can give me up to them. I don't care what you think. I don't care what your religion is. I don't care what your worldview is. Nobody can give me up to them if they don't have anything on me. I don't need a Christian lawyer to make that point. Everybody knows that. Paul expects Festus and everyone else to understand that argument intuitively. Paul expects everyone to be able to do this moral math. It's as obvious as 2 plus 2. Case minus evidence equals acquittal. Anybody want to argue with that? No, of course not. Again in verse 18. Festus says Paul's accusers brought no charge in his case of such evils as I suppose. Now what in the world can a non-Christian corrupt governor know of evils? A Christian might ask. They brought no charges in his case of such evils as I had supposed, said the pagan ruler who does not know the Ten Commandments." What could a biblical illiterate know about evils? Again in verse 25, Festus says, I found that he had done nothing deserving of death. Deserving of death? Where did he get that category? If he doesn't know capital punishment started with God's covenant with Noah. If he doesn't know the sixth commandment against murder. Verses 26 to 27, I have nothing definite to write to the emperor about this guy and it seems unreasonable to send him without a charge against him. Again, the non-Christian Festus insists on at least maintaining an appearance of doing justice. Of doing what? Justice. He's at least seeking a modicum of justice, a veneer of justice. He knows better than to condemn an innocent man to death. He also knows better than to send a case to the Supreme Court with not even so much as a clear accusation of wrongdoing. He knows better. How does Festus know that? Why is that common sense to him? And why does he state it like everybody else should know it too? What is it that makes that moral common sense so common to everybody? What makes moral common sense so common is that it comes naturally to us. And it comes naturally to us because natural law is woven into the fabric of undeniable reality. The heavens declare the glory of God." Psalm 19.1. That is a moral glory, not merely an ontological glory of being, but a glory of righteousness and truth and justice. The heavens declare the glory of God. The only reason humanity can suppress the truth and unrighteousness is that they know it's there and they know they don't measure up. You've got to know something's there to know that you've got to suppress it. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, from heaven, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. They suppress the truth. What truth? Where do they get that truth? How do they know that truth in order to suppress it? It's the moral truth about God that the heavens are declaring. For, Romans 1, what can be known about God is plain to them, says Felix, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived. ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made that both Christians and non-Christians can see and perceive. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking Moral common sense comes naturally to us because it is woven into the very fabric of nature itself, the created order. In other words, is determines ought. What is implies what ought to be. The universe is not a blank moral canvas on which we can impose whatever moral meaning and significance we desire. No, no. Reality is created. It's given. I don't choose my own reality. Think about this. Think about it in a micro sense and it'll make more macro sense to you. In a micro sense, I didn't choose my parents. or my place in time and space, or my biological sex, or my socioeconomic starting point. The most identifying things about me were determined without me. And that truth points me to a greater truth, that the moral world we inhabit has a significance and a standard that were determined without me and without you. The heavens declare the glory of God, not of humanity. Moral common sense is also common because God's law is written on every human heart. not just the Christians. You see, it's not just declared in the heavens, it's declared in your heart. It's internal to you. That's where you're suppressing it. Romans 2.14, when Gentiles, non-Jews, non-Ten Commandment knowers, when Gentiles who do not have the law of Moses, by nature do what the law requires, they're a law unto themselves. even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts while their conscience also bears witness. Reason and conscience remain the undeniable faculties that we use to discover objective right and wrong. That's how we know better. Because we all have moral eyes to see. and we shut them. Because we don't like what we are looking at. This is why Festus, reason and conscience, that's why Festus can say in verse 27, for it seems unreasonable to me in sending a prisoner not to indicate the charges against him. It's not just you Festus. It seems unreasonable to all of us not to indicate the charges against the prisoner that you're sending on to a higher court. Duh. And you read that, you're like, well, of course, man, like, I think I could do your job. But why is that universally assumed? that it is unreasonable not to indicate the charges against the prisoner you're sending to a higher court. Why is that universally assumed? Well, the humanists might say it's because of the social contract agreed upon by people in times past. But of course that's just pushing the question back another step. If indeed there was such a social contract, then why did it seem so intuitive to everyone that they all signed it? It's because natural law exists. Festus' concern to be right and reasonable suggests the objective reality of both righteousness and reason and the ability to use reason and conscience to discover righteousness. The question then is, who put righteousness and reason both in here and out there? Who put that there? Why is it like that? The Christian answer is God did that. God did that. That answer has the most explanatory power for the way the world is and the way we experience it. Why do facts and evidence even matter for justice? Who gives a rip whether you can prove it or not. Why should you even care on a materialist understanding of the universe? Facts and evidence matter for justice because true justice cannot be predicated on false charges. Because truth is one, not many. Why do we see wrongs and expect authorities to do something about them? Why is everybody so upset about justice and injustice, even today? Because wrong is the corruption of right. Because wrong hinders human flourishing. And because right should be the rule, not the exception. Non-Christians don't need Christians to tell them these things, because they're properly basic. Because when they do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves. Why does a non-Christian stop at a stop sign, or at least roll very slowly through it? Like many Christians, roll very slowly through them. Why? Because you don't want to die. and you don't want to make somebody else die. Why don't you want to die? Why don't you want somebody else to die? Because life is valuable. Why is life valuable? Because it's life, man. I ran over the squirrel the other day. I think I might still be there. It might be the first time I ever did that. I had mixed emotions, to be honest. I felt a little bad, a little skilled. But I didn't feel so bad as I would if I hit a person. Why not? Because I know intuitively a squirrel's life is not as valuable as a person's life. And nobody in the neighborhood saw that dead squirrel or saw me run it down and then ran me down and be like, hey man, you're fleeing the scene of a crime. You can't hit somebody like that and just expect to get away with it. Nobody said that in my neighborhood. Why? Because I didn't hurt a person. I hit a squirrel. And everybody knows people are more valuable than squirrels. How do they know that? They know it in their heart. They know it in their heart. Why don't I have to make that argument to anybody? And why is it that when people do try to make the argument around the other way, everyone's like, you're being ridiculous, man. You really don't believe that. Natural law. God put this law in the world and in our hearts. when they do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves. That doesn't mean they create their own law in Romans 2. That means that their own spontaneous, untaught, morally righteous behaviors, when they occur, and their righteous expectations of themselves, witness to the law that's written on their hearts. You're a law to yourself in that your expectation of yourself to do right, your guilt when you do wrong, Those things testify that a good and moral God made you in His good and moral image to be good and moral like He is good and moral. So, agnostic, non-Christian, atheist, you have a law, God's good and righteous law, operating in your heart and conscience, even if you don't believe in this God, even if you resent the operation of that law in your heart, even if you suppress it, even if it makes you angry that I'm saying it, But that law is like a beach ball in your heart. You can try to suppress it under the murky waters of your soul, but that beach ball is buoyant. So it pops up to the surface the very moment that you let go of it. And the problem with this beach ball is you can't puncture it, and there's no release valve. You can't take the air out of that. So it's always going to pop up. It's never going to stay under. you're always going to have to suppress it. But everybody around you can see what you're doing. You're acting like the beach ball isn't there while you're shoving it under the water and asking everyone with an awkward smile, what beach ball? But everybody knows that beach balls are brightly colored. They're white and yellow and red and blue and green and purple. It's clear as day. There's a beach ball, and you're trying to hold it under the water, and you're spending all that energy trying to hold it under the water, and now you're having trouble treading water, because you're trying to tread with one hand, and you're sinking. Beach ball's there. It's as clear as the blue sky. The heavens declare the glory of God. And you, you were meant to declare God's glory most of all because He made you in His image, His good, moral, righteous image. Our shared moral concern with justice, even specifically proportional justice, testifies that justice exists. Paul says, Acts 25 11, if I have committed anything for which I deserve to die. And Festus uses that proportional logic himself. Verse 25, I found that he had done nothing deserving of death. Both a Christian and a non-Christian can independently articulate justice ought to be proportional. That category, deserving of death, is shared between a Christian and a non-Christian here. Why? How? Well, the clearest answer is natural law. Again, Romans 2.14, when Gentiles who do not have the law of Moses by nature do what the law requires. They are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Why does the non-Christian even want to be considered a good person? Good? Good according to what? You can see the gears turning, not just in Festus' mind, but in his conscience, right? He himself wants to at least be seen as reasonable to his peers, righteous to the public, competent to Caesar. Even a politician trying to please a constituency cannot overcome his conscience to condemn an innocent man. Beach ball, beach ball, keeps popping up. Can't keep it down. What this implies then is that Christians can and must make natural law arguments in public justice contexts. You gotta be able to do that. Paul did. Paul can say to Festus, to the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself know very well. Festus knows better than to condemn Paul for a crime he didn't commit. And Paul knows that Festus knows better. even though Festus is not a Christian. Paul knows that he has an ally in Festus' very heart. You know. Festus knows better. He can see the facts of the case, and he can know what to do about those facts. As a judge, Paul knows what Festus knows, so Paul can press all of that on Festus without ever quoting Moses. Paul is putting on a clinic here in making natural law arguments in public justice contexts. Pay attention to what he's doing and how he does it. Yes, he will evangelize Agrippa when he takes a stand in the very next chapter. He's going to testify to the resurrection and Jesus. But when among Roman rulers Paul speaks, Paul speaks the grammar and logic of natural law. without quoting chapter and verse from the Mosaic Law. That is why his arguments make sense to Festus. That's actually what makes Festus, it gives him pause. I think Paul's right. Remember, Paul's the first one to use the proportional justice argument with Festus, and then Festus repeats it back to everybody else. Good point, Paul. Good point. Hey, Christians need to start making natural law points that non-Christians can say, hey, that's a good point. You're right. And not because we quoted the Bible, but because we're right about how God created reality. Because we're all living in the same reality. And it's not secular. It's Christ's reality. You're playing a home game. You're playing a home game every time in a public justice context because reality is God's in Christ and everybody's living in it. Finally, the role of the state. The state has no compelling interest in adjudicating religious questions like the resurrection. That is Paul's argument to Festus. He's not committed a crime against his ethnicity or Rome in advocating for the resurrection. The state does, however, have a compelling interest in upholding natural law. The reason is that natural law, while ultimately theological in its origin, I'm not going to be dishonest about that, God is the giver of the natural law. While natural law is theological in its origin, it is inescapably consequential for everyone in this world whether we realize it or not, whether we're theists or not. Murder is wrong because it inhibits human flourishing. Stealing is wrong because it takes away the material wards of work. Adultery is wrong because it ruins marriages as the nucleus of the family and the incubator of a righteous citizenry. Malicious lying is wrong because it undermines justice. And denying natural law is not only a denial of reality but fatal to society because it claims willful ignorance of the only common moral grammar we have. and the only internal accountability there is that enables a virtuous citizenry to govern itself. The state exists to pursue justice according to, and therefore accountable to, natural law. Natural law is what keeps governments from becoming gods and dictators from claiming divinity. Right must be rewarded, wrong must be condemned, good must be done, evil must be stopped, peace must be maintained, law and order must be observed, the state maintains the conditions necessary for human flourishing, and all these things must be defined according to common sense, common natural law. The state maintains the conditions necessary for human flourishing, one of which is the expectation of justice, the innocent acquitted, the guilty condemned. But natural law is the way we know what is right and what is wrong. That's how we come to agreement about it, without descending into complete moral relativism or absurdity. The denial of objective natural law by the state leads very quickly to absurdity, which we see in the inability of people to admit when human life begins, or what defines a woman, or whether a man can become a woman, or what counts as true violence and victimization. Without natural law, the state doesn't know what to enforce, or why. And the state cannot be held accountable for how it enforces it. Christianity deserves a civil hearing from the world. So we as a church should be bold in testifying to it. And that might mean that we suffer in ways that Jesus suffered, as we saw in Paul's trials. Even so, God will be faithful to spread his gospel no matter who does what with political power. Nature, creation, and history all testify to the righteousness, law, and goodness of the God who is. reason and conscience testify to the moral law of God even in the heart of the unbeliever. It is the church's privilege, calling and responsibility to keep on proclaiming the Christ who obeyed the command of that law for our benefit in our place so that his righteousness might be credited to the account of all who trust in him. We proclaim the Christ who endured the curse of God's law in our place for our sins when we were helplessly condemned under the criminal under criminal disobedience to God. And we proclaim that He is risen from the dead, the firstborn of all creation, and He is coming again to judge the living and the dead, to save His trusting people, and to make all things right or new. Friend, where do you stand with this Christ? Let's pray together. Father, we confess that we have been far too timid in our testimony to Jesus. Make us bold. Make us wise. Make us shrewd. And we realize that this is our Father's world. And it bears the stamp of His morality, and we bear the stamp of his image and so do the people who do not yet obey him or trust in his son Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. May we not be timid and may we be bold to testify to this Christ so that others might be saved through his atoning death, his physical resurrection. We might submit to His Lordship as the one who sits on the throne of heaven, one day to judge all the earth and make all things right and new. Help us to testify to this great message, we pray, for Jesus' sake. Amen.