Acts chapter 25. Actually, we'll begin at the last verse on chapter 24. That ties into both of the messages. Here God's Word. Acts 24, verse 27. But after two years, Portius Festus succeeded Felix, and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound. Now when Festus had come to the province after three days, he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Then the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and they petitioned him, asking a favor against him that he would summon him to Jerusalem. while they lay in ambush along the road to kill him. Bethesda answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea and that he himself was going there shortly. Therefore he said, let those who have authority among you go down with me and accuse this man to see if there is any fault in him. And when he had remained among them more than 10 days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought. And when he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all. But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things? So Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. But if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.' Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you shall go. May the Lord redeem us from the oppression of man that we may keep these as precepts." Heavenly Father, please, Instruct us out of your word this morning. apply and understand this word, to apply it rightly. Lord, may you sanctify us this morning as we hear this word. May it transform our thinking and result in greater obedience. And I ask that you would sanctify my sinful lips to proclaim your truth through Jesus Christ. Amen. Well, a well-connected writer who has gradually changed her viewpoint from being a one-time personal advisor to Bill Clinton's second presidential campaign to being a supporter of the sitting president recently wrote an article. She writes a number of articles, but she recently wrote one entitled, Baffled by President Trump's Response to the Epstein Client List. That's her question. Baffled by that, she says, I think I get it. And after some introductory paragraphs, she states, conservatives, quote, are baffled. My husband, a truly objective man, as well as an ardent President Trump supporter, who has also worked for numerous intelligence agencies for almost three decades, is puzzled to the point of wondering if the president is acting uncharacteristically in response to some serious unnamed threat, perceived or actual. She goes on to say, because I spent decades in the same elite liberal circles that sheltered Epstein, I am not puzzled. I think I understand the matrix of this situation. It has, in my view, she says, to do with the network. And she goes on to explain this network as she experienced it among these elite circles. She says she was unknowingly a part of a network that overlapped with part of Epstein's network. And then she explains how that happened. Her literary agent who helped her to publish her first book at 26 years of age found her. She didn't seek him out. He came looking for her. And that might not seem unusual for someone seeking to build clientele or build a business. But this agent was a literary legendary agent. He had curated a client list of elite intellectuals that focused on the interaction between humanities, technology, and the sciences. He didn't have any mass market novelists, no thriller writers, no cookbook authors, no popular historians in his list of clients. And so she felt very honored to have been recruited into this network. And her agent provided a number of vehicles for interactions and cross-pollination with the very best of the best in the world, not just the country. Billionaires and bright minds. that are steering our culture and our science. There were in-person gatherings, there was a website hosted all kinds of commentary, there would be dinners at TED conferences, there would be elite screenings of things where all these people would mingle together. But then, she says, in 2019, it came out that Epstein funded a number of these things. And so she immediately disassociated herself with her agent. And she wrote a heartbroken letter to him and to his wife because they had become friends of hers. And she said, I actually loved them. And she had trusted them with her development as a writer. And she said that was a task that they had managed very well for her. But after she left, she got a number of calls. She had a number of conversations from other clients of this agent. They called her. She didn't call them. And they all explained how they empathized with her views, how they shared her indignation about Epstein's misdeeds. But the final end of the analysis, they weren't going to leave this network. See, even with the breaking news that this agent's cultural activities were funded by a universally despised pedophile, these other clients, he says, rightly calculated that their staying within the shelter of such a powerful network would be more beneficial to them than it would be to leave and lose the support of and access to this very influential network that was available. See, that's the power, the durability, and the inviolability of the network in the worlds of these elite people. I think this network that she describes is something very similar, if not analogous, to what Paul is battling in this text. It's a network. And we'll look at this passage from two angles this morning. First, the network's treatment of Paul. and secondly, Paul's response to and handling of this network as he encounters it. So first, the network's treatment of Paul. As far as this network is concerned, comprised of the powerful people in that part of the world there in Israel, Paul is an expendable pawn. that each side is attempting to use to their best advantage without any regard or very much regard for justice or for Paul's well-being. See, Felix and the Jews are not friends at all, but they need each other and they use each other. The Jews actually strongly disliked Felix for a number of reasons. Sort of the last straw was when he intervened in a silly feud between the Syrians and the Jews living in Caesarea that had, because of the Jews, turned violent. And when the Jews refused to stand down from their violence, he released his soldiers against them, and they killed a number of the Jews. They took a number of them captive. And by his own consent, and maybe even encouragement, they plundered the houses of these citizens, which were full of riches. And so the Jews' complaints and Felix's harshness eventually got Felix recalled to Rome to stand trial for his conduct as the procurator. Nero recalled him. But the Jews, you see, they don't like him. They despise him. But they need his cooperation if they're going to get Paul. And they want that. Felix also needs the Jews if he's going to stand a chance at his corruption trial before Nero. And so he's here looking for a way to gain back at least some goodwill from the Jews in the hope that they would be helpful or at least less disparaging toward him at his trial. And so the way Felix is looking at this The way he's probably figuring is that releasing Paul, like justice would require, is not going to help him in his trial, as it would turn the Jews against him even more and give them even more reason to despise him. although they wouldn't be able to accuse him directly of any wrongdoing. He'd done enough wrong things that they didn't need any extra things. On the other hand, if Felix turns Paul over to the Jews, Remember, he thinks Paul's coming from a wealthy, prominent family, being a citizen, being a Jew. Remember, he was hoping for money from him, and that's why he kept him and called for him a lot, hoping to get some kind of a bribe. So he must have assumed that Paul had access to wealth, either from his family or from friends and influence. Obviously, the fact that he's a Roman citizen means that his family had some prominence. And so he realizes that If he turns Paul over to the Jews, Paul's supporters could easily incriminate him, or more easily incriminate him, for handing over an innocent Roman citizen. Especially if this is a prominent family, like he thinks. And so he concludes that the safest course of action for him, because remember, he's just thinking about himself, the safest course of action is to do nothing with Paul. And he kept Paul a prisoner. hoping that this favor to the Jews would carry some goodwill with them. So Festus comes along. Nero sent Festus to replace Felix. And from his initial actions, Festus shows some promise of being a better, more competent, and less corrupt ruler than Felix was, more equitable. And so the fact that Felix was accused by the Jews to Caesar, this is not lost on Festus. And so he begins immediately to try and build a good relationship with the Jews. And three days after taking his post there in Caesarea, he makes probably a two-day journey to Jerusalem. And he stays there more than 10 days. That's a long time for a ruler to stay in a city. He's there on a visit. He's there to build a rapport with the Jews, to get things started on the right foot. So he's looking for how he can win the Jews' favor. And so the Jews, size up this change of direction between Felix and Festus, and they immediately see an opportunity to turn it to their advantage in their attempt to get Paul. There's a new sheriff in town, as it were, and he may not be familiar with Paul's case, they assume, and certainly not familiar with their previous attempt on Paul's life. Even if they learn that Claudius had uncovered their plot and told Felix, they assume, and probably rightly, they assume that a detail like that about an obscure prisoner who's been in jail for a couple years would not be passed along to Festus, at least not in the first couple days of his tenure. And so it's also clear to them that Festus is trying to break into the network of power brokers in the Israel region. And he wants to build a better relationship with them than what Felix enjoyed. And they rightly assume then that Festus would be willing to grant a favor. they rightly assume that this would be a really good time to ask Festus to do something that they want. And so they immediately seize this situation, this occasion, to inform Festus about Paul. And it's the high priest who's different from the Ananias, it's a new high priest, and the other high rulers that come chief men of the Jews, they come and tell Festus about Paul. And they ask Festus to do them a favor and have Paul brought to Jerusalem to stand trial before their counsel, intending to assassinate him on the way. And I'm sure their informing Festus about Paul was as false and misleading as the charges they kept trying to bring against Paul that we've looked at in previous weeks. But the request does have some plausibility. They can argue that it's more convenient for everyone that is involved. Festus and all their side are already in Jerusalem. All they need is for Paul to be brought down. He's just a prisoner. He can be drug around anywhere they want him to. So they think this would kind of work okay, be kind of reasonable. be convenient. We're all down here. This is where our resources are. This is where we have the best situation for us. You're already here, so you don't have to do any other traveling. You've been here for a number of days now. You could stay a few more and so on. But Festus doesn't fall for this trap. He resists their attempt to hold the trial in Jerusalem, and he thwarts their plot to ambush and kill Paul by doing that. And the text doesn't give us, Luke doesn't give us directly his reasons for doing this, but I think it does suggest some reasons. First, he says that he would be leaving shortly. That's what he told them. So the send for Paul would take two to four more days. It would be one to two days for a messenger to go to Caesarea, another one to two days for Paul to come, depending on whether they traveled by horseback or foot. And Festus didn't want to wait around that long. Secondly, he had come for a visit, it says. came to the province for a visit. He didn't come to conduct trials. He probably didn't have the resources or the support staff with him to conduct a trial, especially as a new, inexperienced governor. He might not have felt comfortable with impromptu trial in a new city. And there would have been too many unknowns possibly that he's concerned about. But thirdly, we can assume he didn't want to set a precedent of informality or being a pushover to the Jews. Although he wanted to gain their favor, he doesn't want to make himself appear weaker or even equal. to the Jews. He wants to maintain their respect and distance for his office. Teachers are always taught that it's really hard to regain control of a class once it has been lost, or it's hard for a manager to increase requirements once lower expectations have been established in an organization. It's always hard to upgrade. It's much easier to downgrade. And so Felix doesn't want to be seen as somebody that they can push around. And so he pushes back on this. He doesn't grant these requests, but he pushes back in a way that shows his respect to the Jews, but also communicates that he, not them, is the one making the decisions. So he tells them that he'll be leaving shortly and he invites them to bring all the necessary people and to accompany him. That's a nice invitation for them to accompany him and whatever escort and security he has, he would provide for them. So he says, you take everybody you want and you can come with me and we'll go down to Caesarea. Which is what he does. And he says, we'll see if there is any fault in this person that he has been told about. So he's coming across very neutral. He's not promising them one way or the other. We'll try him. We'll have a fair trial. That's what he tells them. And then, just as promised, he conducts Paul's trial the day after he gets back to Caesarea from Jerusalem. And because this trial, Luke doesn't spend much time on it because it's just a complete rehash of the previous one. It's the same accusations, stirring dissent, profaning the temple. It's the same defendant and the same defense, which was that they have no proof of any of these charges. They can't prove it. But it has a different judge and different accusers. You know, the high priest has changed, and there's probably many of those bringing the charges have changed. There's no mention of Tertullus being with them again. But after this somewhat promising start, Festus succumbs to the network. And just like Felix, did before him, two years earlier. Instead of finding Paul not guilty and releasing him, which is the only just verdict in the face of no evidence, right? You are innocent until proven guilty, even in Roman law. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a very important biblical concept. So that would have been the only just verdict. But Festus wants to do the Jews a favor, Luke says. and he's willing to sacrifice justice at Paul's expense in order to improve his position with the Jews. This is more manipulation, more what we call politics. Tensions with the Romans were beginning to rise. In just a few years, probably five or six years, the Jews would be in full revolt against Rome and Caesar would be sending his legions to Jerusalem to squash the rebellion. That's what the book of Revelation is all about. And so Festus here as this representative of Caesar, this new governor who wants to prove himself, he wants to do all he can to calm the tensions and to build some rapport with these Jews. but he can't simply release Paul to them. That would be too much of an injustice and it could open himself up to being charged like Felix was for abrogating his duties, for releasing a Roman citizen, an innocent Roman citizen against whom there were no charges proven to the Jews. And so he shows some respect here for Paul's rights as a Roman citizen. But he figures that if he can get Paul to agree to voluntarily go to Jerusalem, then he could be cleared of any injustice. Because you see, you can willingly waive your rights. You can always waive your rights. That's a right, to waive your rights. And so he tries to get Paul to waive his rights here. And he's also, note the little phrase there, by me, by me, tried by me, judged before me. He's also simply not extraditing Paul and giving him over to the Jews. Festus is still going to be conducting the trial. He would still be the one rendering the verdict. But it would be in the venue that the Jews have asked for and it might allow some easier time for them marshalling their witnesses and presenting their case. They don't appear to have researched very well because there were many Had they bothered to research their case, they could have gone to all the Jews of the Diaspora and all the places like Ephesus and Liconium and Lystra where there were riots as a result of Paul's visit. But they could have made a much stronger case if they had done that, but they don't. Okay, so this is what Paul is facing, this network, this network of people who are manipulating, seeking to manipulate things for their own advantage using Paul as a pawn and readily willing to sacrifice justice and what's right for their own gain, whatever their own gain is. Now, remember, these people aren't all necessarily friends with each other. What they are is they're plotting against each other and Paul is the pawn in the middle. So how does Paul respond to this network that's arrayed against him and this network that is wielding this power of the sword, the power of the civil sword? How does Paul handle this? Well, first, Paul recognizes the authority of the civil magistrate in his court. He doesn't use their injustices, the fact that they've erred, to attack the court. He doesn't get angry and threaten the court. And he doesn't refuse to defend himself, claiming this is an illegitimate court or an unjust court. He doesn't refuse all cooperation, like that judge I recently heard about who's a lady who refused to walk out of the courtroom after she was found guilty and had to be dragged out like a rag doll by the bailiff. Paul doesn't act that way. He recognizes the authority of the civil magistrate and he's in submission to it. In fact, Paul even states that this is where he ought to be tried. He's saying it's right for him to be tried here in Caesar's court in response to Festus' request to get him to waive his rights and go down to Jerusalem. He says, no, he is here where he ought to be tried. See, citizens are not sovereigns. Citizens are subjects to the governing authorities. The civil magistrate is God's minister to bring God's wrath on those who do evil. And there is a time and a place when it is proper to use the civil courts. And this is not at all contradictory to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 about not using civil courts. That applies to property wrongs and other wrongs between Christians. It doesn't apply to matters between Christians and unbelievers. And that's where Paul is. In that chapter, 1 Corinthians 6, Paul clearly identifies many types of people as being unbelievers. It says in 1 Corinthians 6, 8, No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat and you do these things to your brethren. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? That's saying they're not Christians. Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." So these are all unbelievers. If not inheriting the kingdom of God, these are unbelievers. And it is not wrong to go to court against unbelievers. This prohibition also doesn't apply to matters that require capital punishment. Paul recognizes here the validity of the death penalty for some things, and he states categorically his willingness to submit to it. This is in the New Testament, after Christ is risen, and yet Paul is saying the death penalty is still valid, and he doesn't refuse to submit to it. If he's done anything worthy of death, he says, I don't refuse to die. See, the church doesn't have the power of the sword to execute murderers and adulterers and homosexual fornicators. So that has to be done by the civil magistrate. And just because someone is a believer doesn't exempt them from this punishment. David committed murder, but he was a Christian. It happens. It sometimes happens. I don't know, I have no idea how rare that is, but I know it happens. We know there are many other lesser forms of murder that are much more common. But Paul also resists the manipulation of Festus, asking him if he's willing to accept a change in venue. So he respects the court, he submits to the court, but he resists the manipulation of Festus. Being tried in Caesar's court is where he ought to be tried. And so Paul essentially is telling Festus that it's his duty to try Paul. But he doesn't just stop there, he asserts his rights. He says, I ought to be judged at this tribunal of Caesar, not the Jews. But if you're going to do that, if you're going to give me to the Jews, then I will go to your boss. I appeal to Caesar. He's exercising his rights. Paul is asserting rights. Now what are rights? I would suggest that it's easiest way to think of rights is to see them as authority. Rights are an authority. We need an authority for everything that we do, everything. Sometimes the scriptures give us broad authority in the family. Sometimes we only have authority to do what is specifically commanded. But rights are essentially authority. I'm going to look at a few passages that speak of rights and authority. 1 Corinthians 9, 4, and 5. Do we have no right to eat and drink? Now, in the English, it's mostly often translated Right. But that word is exousia. It's authority. It's the same word used in Romans 13. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority, there is no exousia, except from God. And the authorities that exist are ordained by God. So, do we have, Paul says rhetorically, do we have no authority to eat or drink? Do we have no authority to take along a believing wife, no right to take a believing wife, as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord in Cephas? It's even in the Old Testament as well. Deuteronomy 21, but a man shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his. And there are other examples. In Jeremiah 32, there was a rite. Hanamel, the son of Shalom, came saying, buy my field, which is in Anathoth, for the rite of redemption is yours to buy it. You have the authority to buy this. You have the authority to redeem it. And then Hanamel, my uncle's son, came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord and said to me, please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is the country of Benjamin, for the right of inheritance is yours." Now, in Jesus' gives another good example about this use of authority and the need for authority for everything that we do. In Matthew 21, Jesus came into the temple and the chief priests and the elders confronted him as he was teaching, saying, by what authority are you doing these things? What right do you have to come in here and teach? Who gave you this authority? So what authority and where did you get it? Jesus answers them saying, I will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. So Jesus acknowledges the legitimacy of the question, what authority, on what authority are you doing these things? But he escapes answering it by proposing this question to them, which he says, I'll answer your question if you answer my question. So he's resisting manipulation here. Jesus said, he goes on to ask them then, what about the baptism of John? Was it from heaven or from men? In Matthew 28, Jesus came and spoke to the disciples saying, all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. So all authority is in Christ. So if authority are rights, then our rights are God-given. They're not given by the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate, his authority comes from God. And where we have authority, that authority comes from God. And so Jesus could tell Pilate, you would have no authority except what's been given to you by God. A few other places where this same word is used, and sometimes you see it translated power, but I think you can just as easily translate it authority. Luke 5, 24, but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. He has the authority. The Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins. And he said to the man who was paralyzed, I say to you, arise, take your bed, and go to your house. Jesus told his disciples in Luke 10, 19, Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Luke 12, I will show you whom you should fear. Fear him who, after he has killed, has power. That's authority. After he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I say, fear him. In Matthew 10, he called the 12 disciples to him and he gave them power, that's authority, over unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of diseases. So, rights are the authority and all authority comes from God. Rights are also distinguished from power. Power the Greek where we get the word dynamite from. It's strength. It's capability. It's force. It's might. That's power. And you see, that's different from authority. You can have the power to do something that you don't have the authority to do. And you could also have the authority to do something you have no power to do. They're different. In Luke 9, 9.1, Jesus called his 12 disciples together and gave them power, dunamis, and authority, exousia, over all demons and to cure diseases. So Jesus is giving them both the power and the authority to do something. You see, might does not make right. Just because we have the power to do something doesn't make it right to do it. So we have this authority. What kind of authority do we have as people? Well, we have the right to marry. We have the authority to take a wife. The authority to take a believing wife comes from Genesis 2. In Genesis 2.20, God, Adam, Gave names to all the cattle to the birds of the air to every beast of the field but for Adam there wasn't found a helper who was comparable to him and the Lord God caused a deep sleep the fallen Adam and you know the story he took the rib and closed up the flesh and From that rib. He made a woman fashioned it into a woman and brought the woman to the man and And here's the conclusion in Genesis. Therefore, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore means he's summarizing something. What's it summarizing? God creating woman and bringing her to man. It's because of that that man shall leave his father and mother. So this is authority for Paul and every other man who is ready to leave his father and mother to take a wife. We have a right to eat, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9, 4. Do we have no right to eat and drink? Where does that authority come from? It comes in Genesis 1. We are given authority to eat plants. Genesis 1.29, God said, See, I have given you every green herb that yields seed, which is on the face of the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seeds. It shall be to you for food. There's authority from God. That's a right to eat. And there's correlative rights that go with it. That means we have to have the right to grow the food, to buy the seeds, and so on. To buy the food and whatnot. And so anytime we see that food, the ability to buy and sell food is being restricted, that is not being in submission. Whoever is doing that is not in submission to the governing authority. There are a lot of foods in our country that are that are banned from us being able to buy and sell. That's a violation of our God-given right, our God-given authority to eat. In Genesis 9, animals were added to food and we were given authority to eat them. Genesis 9.2 says, and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. There's no restrictions there on clean or unclean. Every living thing that moves shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs that were given to Adam. But you shall not eat the flesh with its life, that is, the blood." We don't have authority to eat the blood. Because we don't have authority over life. And so this is the answer to all the people who tell us it's wrong to hurt an animal. Or even now, it's wrong to hurt a plant. Plants have feelings too. Well, maybe they do. Maybe they do. I don't really know. There might be evidence they do. But we have authority to eat plants, to grow them, and we have authority to raise animals, and to butcher them, and to eat them. It's sad that too many people think that their steak comes from the grocery store, and have never had to butcher a bull or a steer. That's an authority that God has given us. It's a right. And you know when you don't exercise your rights, when you don't use authority, you often lose it. Where does the authority to have children come from? What's given to Adam and Eve as a married couple in Genesis 1. It's given to Noah and his three sons and their wives, Noah and his wife, they're all married. It's nowhere given to single people. You have no authority as a single person to have a child, to conceive a child. And if you don't have authority to do something, that means you're not allowed to do it. It's wrong. And we also have a right to justice. And that's what Paul pleads here, his right to justice, and he appeals to Caesar. Paul knew his rights, and he exercised them. And he wasn't afraid to exercise his rights. And I think his exercising of this right probably upset Festus a bit. It certainly upset the Jews. I think Paul, in all this, you see, is not trying to manipulate things to his advantage. In all of this, Paul rises above all this intrigue, he rises above this network, and he focuses on his mission. And what was his mission? God called him to bring the gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles and to kings. And that's what Paul is doing. He never loses sight of his calling. That's his focus. He's never sidetracked. by considerations of what might be best for him or what might get him freedom faster. So one of the lessons we learn here, I think, is that this network is not all powerful. They may have a lot of power. It may seem like they have a lot of power. It may seem like nobody can withstand them. But look at all the ways they don't get what they want. They complain against Paul, but they don't get their way for a trial in Jerusalem. And actually, by mentioning Paul and requesting a trial, I think the Jews actually helped to shorten Paul's imprisonment, just not in the way they intended. Prisoners can often be lost in the shuffle between rulers, especially ones that have been hanging around jail for a couple of years. And it wasn't uncommon for even Roman citizens to have been in prison for years prior to receiving a trial. And so by them bringing up, renewing this case, they actually resulted in getting a trial the very next day, or after they got up there. And in that trial, then Paul appeals to Caesar, and in so doing, he completely removes himself from the whole situation. See, ultimately, all the machinations of this network are frustrated and fail. Festus doesn't get the trial in Jerusalem that he wanted to please the Jews, and the Jews don't get Paul. Paul is able to appeal to Caesar. You see, God's plan and God's purpose for Paul is not at all thwarted here by all of these machinations. Paul testifies before kings. Well, the scriptures, as we know, are sufficient for every area of our life, and you have to look at what does this chapter have to do in a In a book that is this chapter on interaction with the civil magistrate and unjust courts and the network, what's this have to do in a book that's talking about the church and the growth of the church and the advancement of Christ's kingdom through the evangelization of the world? Well, it's because as a church we do have to interact with the civil magistrate. And we had some very good examples of that recently. If you haven't seen the movie Essential Church, I recommend it. It's an example of three churches primarily that they look at who asserted their rights in the face of unjust civil magistrates. It was put together by John MacArthur's church, and even though he initially was fully complying with all the restrictions, very quickly reversed course and began to assert their rights as a church, and God honored that. He blessed them because of that. Our rights are God-given. They are our authority to do what God calls us to do. And it is our duty as Christians to exercise them. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the fullness of your word that it leaves nothing of importance that we need to know in order to carry out all you've called us to do. You have not left us to wander in darkness on our own, but you've given to us your word that is sure and certain and abides forever. It never goes out of date. It never is proven wrong. It never fails as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. Lord, help us to see that light and to follow your word. in every area of our life, in our homes, with respect to the civil magistrate, as well as in our work and workplace situations. We ask for your blessing in this, Lord, and for your strength through Christ. Amen.