open your Bibles to Acts chapter 25. Acts 25 verse 1. So let's actually read one verse earlier, forgive me. Acts 24 verse 27. So you remember we had Felix. And so Felix is governor. He is the former slave who became a high-ranking Roman official. And so we have that quote. He is a king with the instincts of a slave. He's grasping, right? And so we have Festus, Porcius Festus. He is known for being honorable and wise as a ruler. So verse 27. But after two years, Porcius 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. he would summon him to Jerusalem, while they lay wait in ambush along the road to kill him. But Festus 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 remained among them more than ten days, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought. 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. 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. And after some days, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus. When they had been there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix, about whom the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me when I was in Jerusalem, asking for a judgment against him. To them I answered, it is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accused meets the accusers face to face and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him. Therefore, when they had come together, without any delay, the next day I sat on the judgment seat and commanded the man to be brought in. When the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation against him of such things as I supposed, but had some questions against him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I was certain of such questions, because I was uncertain of such questions, and because I was uncertain of such questions, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem, and there be judged concerning these matters. But when Paul appealed to be reserved for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I could send him to Caesar. Then Agrippa said to Festus, I also would like to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, he said, you shall hear him. So the next day, when Agrippa and Bernice had come with great pomp and had entered the auditorium with the commanders and the prominent men of the city. At Festus' command, Paul was brought in. And Festus said, King Agrippa and all the men who are here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole assembly of the Jews petitioned me, both at Jerusalem and here. crying out that he was not fit to live any longer. But when I found that he had committed nothing deserving of death, and that he himself had appealed to Augustus, I decided to send him. I have nothing certain to write to my lord concerning him. Therefore, I have brought him out before you. especially before you King Agrippa so that after the examination has taken place I may have something to write for it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner and not to specify the charges against him now this is all leading up to Paul explaining himself to King Agrippa at the beginning of chapter 26 says, then Agrippa said to Paul, you are permitted to speak for yourself. And so we have the defense that is given. And we have some back and forth between Paul and Agrippa. But this lead up, there's much to consider. In this lead up, we have the change of governors over the region. Brochius Festus is now governor, Felix is gone. And so when he gets there, after three days, he goes from Caesarea to Jerusalem, right? So he takes his office, he enters the position, he goes to his place of rule, and then from there makes a trip, right? a trip to engage with the local rulers, the Jewish rulers, and so this is obviously important. That, you know, who you visit early in your regime is a sign of who you think you need to make sure you're in good with, right? And so here he's going very early to the Jews at Jerusalem. So in verse 2, the high priest and the chief men of the Jews bring up Paul. Now the matters that you bring up in your early meetings indicate what is urgent to you, what's important to you, what these objectives are. So the Jews are important to Festus, and Paul is important to the Jews, and therefore Paul is important to Festus. Think about how these Jewish rulers who have apostatized, who have rejected Christ, who have rejected the key prophet, the Lord Jesus Christ, claiming to be defending and upholding the Mosaic Law, they are expressing how important Paul is to them, and thereby bringing attention to him. And so we have both this Roman government that was involved in the murder of Christ, and this Jewish government involved in the murder of Christ, both giving their attention to Paul, an apostle of Christ, a servant of Christ, a messenger of Christ. So we see the enjoyable way in which Christ rules history, causing his servants to be listened to, paid attention to, so that there's an increasing responsibility. So, the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed Festus against Paul, and they petitioned Festus, asking a favor of Festus, that he would summon Paul to Jerusalem, while he lay in ambush along the road to kill him. So they're thinking, let's get him out of this palace where the governor is. Let's have him go in transit on these roads, and let's kill him there. Remember, last time we had Lysias taking a large contingent of soldiers. 200 spearmen, 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and there were changes of horses. And so we talked about that rather dramatic exit from Jerusalem up to Caesarea. And so now, hoping that the change of regime has not successfully included the passage of information about this problem, that perhaps there will be a lightly guarded caravan taking Paul down, and then it could be attacked easily, and he could be slaughtered. Verse four, but Festus 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's any fault in him." Now, why would Festus care? If early on he gives in too quickly to the Jewish rulers and their demands, he is going to appear weak. And for the whole of his rule, he will be the tail. Right? So his concern is to understand their desire and to try to give them something while upholding his own strength. This is a political negotiation. No. I'm not going to leave my judgment seat and go to your location of authority and to have this occur. You come to me, and I will hear you from my judgment seat about this matter. I am the court of appeal. You are not the court of appeal. I do not go to you, and I'm not recognizing that your judgment is the principal thing here, and I am not coming to be an audience to your session, your court. you come to my court, and I will consider the matter. So this is a tussle about jurisdiction. Now, you remember, Paul has been held for two years now. And Festus is rehearing this case. And so the question is, you know, why is this guy here? Why has he been held for so long? Why is it not a verdict that has been reached in this trial? What is going on with this appeal? The book of Ecclesiastes in chapter 8 verse 11 gives us an important principle of justice that's captured in our own American Constitution. It's referred to as the right to a speedy trial. Ecclesiastes 8 verse 11, because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, Therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Right, so because there's not a swift punishing of evil, and so you look at the other side of that, and because the righteous are not speedily justified, not declared righteous swiftly, you discourage righteousness. And when you let false accusers not be judged negatively quickly, you encourage wickedness, right? And so we have all of that occurring together. We have wickedness being unpunished, and we have righteousness being punished. So this idea of a timely trial. The other question is, hasn't he already been tried by Felix? And didn't Felix already render a verdict, actually? He may not have closed the verdict, but he has pronounced the verdict that he doesn't find anything evil, and then continues to try him. And so this is called the principle of double jeopardy, that we ought not to have people being tried multiple times by the same court for the same offense. And so this multiple trial problem, you know, continuously trying and asking for more evidence, This is a way of tyrants. And so a limit on tyrants, a limit on governments to avoid them basically making the process the punishment is supposed to be that as soon as you're found innocent, you're found innocent. And you can have the right of appeal, which is also presented, the right of appeal. And the right of appeal is the right to be able to be retried by a higher court in terms of innocence. You think about the stacking of these things, the presumption of innocence, the right to a timely trial or speedy trial, and you think about the principle of double jeopardy and the right of appeal. That stacks things in favor of the individual and makes things very hard for the state. It makes the state very inefficient. God's view of government seems to be that it should be very inefficient and that it's very resource burdensome to be able to punish people. and that it's very hard to be able to pull together the evidence necessary to punish people. Requires two or more witnesses, right? And so we have the fact that you have principles that get laid out throughout this text as well that are enshrined in Roman law, but more importantly, are a part of biblical law and are also captured again in the American Constitution, which has to do with the right to face accusers. We see that down the line. And the ability to give a defense, the right to give a defense. And to face the accusers, the point isn't just that you're able to see them with your eyes. The point is that you're able to have an exchange with them, to cross-examine them. And so we saw Paul trying to get cross-examination to occur previously by trying to draw out accusations from witnesses. So these principles of law, when we look at them, we see the tyranny here. And you see how certain forms are preserved, right? You're seeing tyranny is being done, and yet certain forms are being dealt with in order to prevent some tyranny. And you look at American civilization, you look at American society today, and many, many, many of the restraints on government are being erased, dissolved, undermined, eroded, and you see tyranny being extended. But certain elements are being preserved by degrees. And so it's interesting, you look at what's happening there and you can see how Christianity as the salt of the earth, Christians being salt of the earth, there's a preserving effect so that the destruction is slower than it would otherwise be by people that would prefer to destroy the Christian institutions. And also Christianity and Christians are the light. They give light to the world and allow for things to be seen, allow rot to be taken out, destroyed, replaced, and for good things to be built. And so there is an interesting display of the sort of condition we find ourselves in in our own country. where there's an interesting preservation of some forms with great scrupulosity and at the same time a total disregard for certain elements of liberty and due process and the prevention of tyranny. And the very nature of Rome is such that it is similar to our own nation at this time. It has an emperor and yet pretends to preserve a senate. And so there is this attempt to have the outward forms of republic and yet there is an imperial office. And so in our own time, we pretend in many ways, and in some ways do, preserve elements of republic, and yet have a great imperial presidency where we have executive branches that include not only the execution of laws, but we also have inside of them writing of law, where they write new regulations. And they also have their own judicatory bodies where they judge whether or not someone has kept the law And so you have this imperial presidency and also a erosion of certain elements of the limitations of government. And so the same thing occurs here. Now, we can sometimes think about this and rail against it in terms of the institutions of our own society, and rightly so. But we also should make sure to take care in ourselves. Are we constantly reexamining our own conflicts and bringing people into double jeopardy again? Are we seeking to have a charitable way of looking at people or seeking to encourage strife? Do we resolve conflicts in a timely manner? Those are the kinds of things that we should consider for ourselves as well. And so principles of jurisprudence give great value in how to be a person who is slow to judgment and careful and slow to speak and able to bring peace, to be a peacemaker. So principles of jurisprudence help you to identify in yourself principles that you ought to apply in order to be a peacemaker. And at the same time, things that you can appeal to to prevent people from having tyranny over your conscience. And so We see Paul here is ferocious in the defense of his own rights, and he is unafraid to be able to argue even to princes of the land for his own rights. So, verse 4, Ephestus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea and that he himself was going there shortly. This is the tussle over jurisdiction. Verse 5, 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. So he's going to re-listen, he's going to have a second trial. Now, asking for those who are in authority among them to come down, he's asking for the court to bring its evidence, and he's essentially asking them to function as prosecutors, right? prosecuting a case. And so you think about this, you think about an attorney general, for example, you think about a city prosecutor, a city attorney, something like that, you have these, there's different roles that we have, we have divided out in different ways, separation of power, even inside of executive branches. And so you think about the policing power, the ability to defend a government, and you think about the prosecution of people who have been arrested by the policing power. And so those things are sort of consolidated into these councils, into this Jewish council, but they're asking, we have Festus asking for someone in authority, a public office holder to come down and to present the charges that this court is claiming to have proved. So this is a claim that you need to appeal to me, and this is an assertion of his authority. So he gives them deference and honor by going to visit to them, but then refuses to give them deference or honor in a way that he believes will undermine his own claim to power and is asserting his power. No, you come to me. And that's the context here for this tussle. Verse six, and when he had remained among them more than 10 days, he went down to Caesarea. So he stays with them for 10 days. That's a lot of attention, a lot of concern. especially when you consider that the duration of his time as governor would be relatively short, right? You're looking at sometimes a year, and then you have terms being renewed yearly terms. And that one year being renewed, you know, he's he's using those 10 days, he is using a very large percentage of his time, especially the starting time of his regime. When you get there and you're organizing your government and getting to know things, that's prime time to make sure that the rest of your rule goes well. And he is using a big chunk of that to engage with them. So, after ten days he went down to Caesarea, and the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought. When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about And it laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. Right? So you have all of these charges, all of these complaints, and then they can't prove them. So you can say, well, what kind of proof are we talking about? Are we talking about logical syllogistic necessary inference? Immediate inference from premises? No. This is proof in the sense of court of law, right? So evidentiary rules being applied. And they don't have the proof, the evidence that is sufficient in terms of the rules of evidence to be able to demonstrate that he is guilty. And so this, think about this for a moment. They're a court claiming to have found him guilty. And then, okay, on what evidence, when the evidence is presented as to what was supposed to be the basis of the judgment, Festus is finding you didn't have the evidentiary basis for your findings. And so that dramatically undermines the court. Remember, who brought this subject up? Did Festus walk in and say, here, now, I need to check in on you and see what's going on with this Paul fellow. No, the Jews brought it up. Now, if you've got a matter of justice that you have mishandled, and you are a court, and your superior comes in and you bring up the matter that you have bungled, doesn't that show an incompetence of handling of your own political success? This is going to totally undermine you. So now Festus already knows this court is a kangaroo court and he's going to now deal with them and his dealings with them are not in this like attitude of like we're all judges, we're all We're all here exercising authority, seeking to have justice done. He is plainly seeing this court is acting unjustly, unjustly, with injustice, and is seeking to pursue their own interests here. And they are not following the rule that I believe should be exercised. And so as he looks at this, they have, they're bringing complaints, but they don't have the evidentiary base. Verse 8 says, 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. So he's saying, the law of the Jews, there's not a criminal violation or civil claim that they can bring against me. There's no tort and there's no criminal charge that can be brought against me and sustained. According to the law of the temple, the ceremonies that are established, there's nothing that I have done, particularly the temple. Remember, there's a special right here the Jews have to defend it. The temple guards are able to use lethal force in terms of the preservation of the no trespassing rules there. And so he's saying I haven't violated that. So this special carve out in terms of the use of capital punishment, I have not violated. And I haven't done anything that's contrary to Roman law against Caesar. There's no treason. There's nothing that's able to be brought up. There's no criminal act that is a capital crime. And there's no crime, period. So he is not offended in anything at all. Those are the categories. And so this is his maintenance. He's pleading not guilty. And there's an inability to prove that he is guilty. So the defense is being offered. So verse 9. Bethesda's wanting to do the Jews a favor. Ah, there it is. 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 now, having made the Jews do the travel, to be able to show that he's in charge. Now he's going, well, You know, I'm hearing these things. And so now why don't we go down to Jerusalem and do this? Now, when somebody wants to do a favor, you know, there's a principle in law that has to do with the venue where judgment occurs. And there's a concern that in certain locations, you might not be able to obtain a fair trial. Right? Remember what happened with Jesus in Jerusalem. under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate found him not guilty. The Jerusalem mob preferred that Jesus be dead. Pilate decided rather than finding him not guilty, he would just give him over to the Jerusalem mob and have him punished. Right? So he has his Roman soldiers kill them in the midst of them and that is what occurs as capital punishment. Paul is aware of the history involved. It seems to be what the matter of controversy is about he is engaged in. So he is aware of that history. In addition to that, he has been told by the Lord Jesus that he should go to Rome. He must go to Rome. So, this is going in the opposite direction. And so, he has a response. So, verse 9, 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." Why ask? He's the judge, right? Can he say, appear for me here? Well, he just made a big deal of the fact that his session, his seat of judgment is in Caesarea. But he can, of course, do judgment elsewhere. And it's because he has already been tried in Jerusalem. And so it's a return to that old venue. And so there's something here that is contrary to law. It is the returning to that old venue. And it's a sort of odd concession against the appeal. And furthermore, is something that could be viewed as a cause for mistrial since it's now, you know, the second trial by a governor and occurring now in the old venue. And so there are certain problems that might arise. And Festus may well have known also that Paul would say no. And that would make it so that he has a basis that tells you he's like, I'd like to do this thing, but I can't because he's using his rights as a Roman citizen. And he's appealing to the judgment seat of Caesar, which is held in place by governors. And so this is a Roman court. And so here's how Paul responds. He doubles down. He says, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat. That's where he already is when he's talking to Festus. Festus is under Caesar. He's appointed by Caesar. And so this is a claim that governors are appointed by Caesar rather than by the Senate. This is a change of location of where justice comes from. In British law, in an attempt to have the crown be authoritative. One of the principal things that would frequently be said by absolutists in support of absolute monarchy, they would say that the crown is the font of all justice. And so all justice is administered by the crown, and the crown's courts are the source where that comes from. The Puritan reply was that no, God is the source of all justice. And so you had common law, which was actually originated by objection to the idea of the crown being the font of all justice. And so common law is largely a result of justices of the peace arguing against crown courts and using local authorities and local prerogatives and judging against crown courts and saying that God's law is contrary to what you are asserting here. And so we see Caesar doing something similar, trying to claim to be the source of justice and having these courts derived from his own authority. And so this is a subordinate court. Think about the difference between a province and a state. States have their own sovereignty. They claim that states The states have their own jurisdiction. And when you look at the United States, it's a union of sovereign states that are bound together in a covenant. And so a province is a subordinate government, a subordinate government. They are implementation centers of the central government. States have their own rights and authorities. And so there is this idea that basically Governor Festus is an implementation center of Caesar's justice. That's the idea by referring to it as Caesar's judgment seat. So Paul is saying, look, Festus, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat. It's not yours. You know, you're an appointee of Caesar. OK. And that's where I ought to be judged. appealing here you know the Jews misjudged me you want to take me back to Jerusalem to have injustice again well I'm at Caesar's judgment seat and that's where I ought to be judged to the Jews I have done no wrong as you very well know you just heard the evidence you know it does not meet the evidentiary standards that you require verse 11 for if I am an offender I or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying." Right there, there's the Apostle Paul affirming the death penalty stamp. If somebody is going to kill you unjustly, don't you think you should object to it? Paul is asserting, Paul is asserting, if I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. So he's supporting the death penalty here. The Bible clearly supports the death penalty for crimes that are defined by God as capital. And the Apostle Paul is supporting it. The New Testament does not have some sort of a pacifistic doctrine. There are capital crimes. Every murderer ought to be executed. That's what the Bible says. We have abandoned that principle. Kidnappers ought to be executed. We have abandoned that principle. Rapists ought to be executed. We have abandoned that principle. These are things that are not done in our own nation, and they are often appealed to based upon things that are meant to make it so that there is some sort of an appeal to a better, more merciful way. The Lord God Almighty knows what mercy is and he has defined it for us and he has given to us a criminal code. The criminal code is not an institution of mercy, it is an institution of justice. The criminal code is established so that magistrates administer vengeance on behalf of God for crimes. Not all sins, but crimes. And the Apostle Paul here is saying, look, if I've committed a crime that's deserving of death, I would not object to being executed. That is the Christian response to committing capital crime. I don't object to dying for capital crime if I've committed one. But if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. You don't have the right, Festus, to deliver me to them. You are abdicating your responsibility and your authority. You are failing to administer justice. You have a duty to judge me according to justice. and you are abdicating it for political favor. I appeal to Caesar. This is Caesar's judgment seat. You aren't exercising it. Send me to Caesar. In case you're not picking up on it, this is not a very subtle threat to Festus that he's going to tell his boss that he's not doing his job. Paul has guts. He has grit. And he knows that he has been told that he is to go to Rome and take the gospel to Rome. And so in order to stop that from being slowed down, he says, you're not doing your job. You are a bureaucrat appointed by Caesar, and you're not doing the job he's paying you for. Send me to your boss. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you shall go." This is supposed to be like, you know, be careful what you ask for. This is an indignant response. Now, he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Right? This is what happens here. When he realizes this, he's talking to the council and he goes, Their, their account is a joke. I'm not going to send this on to Caesar. I don't even know. What would I say he's done wrong here? What is the, what is the evidentiary base? I don't want to send the record. I don't want to send the record to the fact that he was tried by Felix and then by me and that the court that originally tried him was a joke. He's a Roman citizen. He's been detained. He's been detained for two years waiting for this retrial. And this retrial is a joke. I was sending him back to go back to Jerusalem. I mean, this thing is a mess. The whole paper trail is awful. This is bad. I don't want my boss looking at this thing. So his response is like an infantile rage. You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar, you will go. Paul's like, oh, great. That's what I asked for. Thank you. The angry response there, this is not an impressive response. This is after deliberating. Right? He goes, he talks to the Jews, they're talking about what do we do here, and he gets up and he goes, fine, have it your way. That's it. That's what he's got. This is a response of pride. What he should have said is, okay, okay, I'm sorry, you're right. You are free to go. Case dismissed. No need to appeal because you have no charge of standing against you. Just admit you're wrong. Instead, he's sending Paul to his boss so that Paul can present the record and present that he's not doing his job. And Paul has shown himself to be competent. Verse 13. And after some days, King Agrippa and Bernice, remember Felix's wife was Agrippa and Bernice's sister, both of them. So Agrippa and Bernice are brother and sister. And so there's an incestuous marriage here. After some days, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus. When they had been there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, there's a certain man left a prisoner by Felix. This is a problem of the previous regime. I'm trying to clean it up. peers get together who are working in a similar line of work. You know, I got this situation with another contractor. It's a big mess. I'm trying to clean it up. This is the thing. The gripe fest is about the problems that are other people's faults and then you're trying to clean it up, right? So Festus says, there's a certain man left a prisoner by Felix about whom the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me when I was in Jerusalem. Asking for a judgment against him to them. I answered is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accuser Accused meets the accusers face to face and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him Okay, so maybe he said this but obviously earlier on the point was the tussle of jurisdiction, right? So there's already been this trial He's retrying. He's doing the Double Jeopardy thing. And here, Festus is presenting himself to Agrippa and Bernice. He's a very just and noble man, very honorable, very concerned about justice and the performance of justice. So here's these things. I wanted to make sure due process was being followed, very careful about these things, and very scrupulous and very good judge. You should come help me. This is a hard case. Could you come and help me? Verse 17, therefore, when they had come together without any delay, the next day I sat on the judgment seat, right? Look, swift justice here. Without any delay, I'm bringing this thing along, moving it along, swift, fast administrator, very efficient, good at my job. Sat on the judgment seat and commanded the man to be brought in. When the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation against him of such things as I supposed. but had some questions against him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who had died, who Paul affirmed to be alive. This is a pretty version. They accused him of lots of stuff and they didn't have any evidence. They didn't have proper evidence. And so they accused him of lots of things. Let's go back and reread the sentence where that occurs. It says that, in verse 7, 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. Compare that to verse 17, when they had come together without delay, the next day I sat on the judgment seat and commanded the man to be brought in. Verse 18, when the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation against him of such things as I supposed. That's false. Now Festus, remember, has a reputation as a governor, a Roman governor, comparatively, to be just and honorable. But here, he is limiting what he is telling to Agrippa in a way that's not quite accurate. In reality, they brought lots of accusations which were demonstrated to be false, or not have any evidentiary base, and therefore calls into question the judgment of that court altogether, and makes it so that the charges should be thrown out on the basis of mistrial or that there should be no charges because he has been found innocent already by Felix. Many bases for throwing this out. Verse 19, but had some questions against him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Well, that's the bottom line. That's true, but just again, there's the cleanup here, which is not accurate. Verse 20. These are the things that are left over after everything else gets thrown out. And because I was uncertain of such questions, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there be judged concerning these matters." So trying to downplay this, what did it say earlier was his motive? Was it because he's uncertain about these matters and wants to find more competent judges? Or is it because he wants to do the Jews a favor? He wants to do the Jews a favor. So this is all a pretense to great justice. This is supposed to be the reason for the change of venue back to the original court, which had already judged the matter. Typically, when courts re-judge a matter that they've already judged, they find the same thing they found the first time. But that's not quite what he actually wanted to do, right? Remember, he said, go and be judged by me there. It sounds like he's trying to suggest in verse 20 that he wants someone else who's more competent to judge these matters. Verse 21. But when Paul appealed to be reserved for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I could send him to Caesar." Now at this time, we're looking at about 60 AD, Nero is Caesar. So Augustus is a title, as is Caesar. Augustus and Caesar are both being used as titles for Nero. Then Agrippa said to Festus, I also would like to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, he said, you shall hear him." So Agrippa finds this interesting. He's agreeing to help to hear him in order to figure out what to do. At this point, what is this? This is not a legitimate court, right? So at this point, Agrippa has no jurisdiction here. This is just taking Paul out and making him perform. This is an interesting specimen to examine. Verse 23, so the next day, when Agrippa and Bernice had come with great pomp, and had entered the auditorium with the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at Festus' command, Paul was brought in. Festus is making a great show out of this blunder. And this is all instead of just saying, I'm wrong, you're free to go, the charges are dropped, or the charges are rejected. I'm making a preliminary judgment in your favor because you've already been tried and found innocent or whatever. There's a number of ways he could do this. You see how many ways out there are? He's not doing it. Infestus said, King Agrippa and all the men who are here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole assembly of the Jews petitioned me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying out that he was not fit to live any longer. This is also a shameful thing for that assembly of Jews, isn't it? But when I found that he had committed nothing deserving of death, I mean, he's already stating he's judging the case, and that he himself had appealed to Augustus, I decided to send him. Think about the admission there. I've determined that there's nothing wrong, he hasn't done anything, but I'm going to clog up the courts of the emperor with this case. I think there's nothing here. There's no substance here. saying this in front of everybody. I have nothing certain to write to my Lord concerning him. Therefore, I have brought him out before you and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the examination has taken place, I may have something to write. For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner and not to specify the charges against him. Part of the principle of a speedy trial is a principle called habeas corpus that has to do with you have a right to know what the charges are against you and to be brought before a court who will consider the charges that are against you. And what's being said here is that all this time, all this nonsense, They still, this court doesn't know really what the charges are that are worth hearing. He's rejected a bunch of charges because on their face they don't have the evidentiary claims necessary to have a court hearing. And so with this leftover stuff that he can't even figure out what charges should be considered against him, he's calling all of the prominent men and a king with a different jurisdiction together to talk about this, to figure out what to put in writing to say to Caesar. Now, Festus is known as a wise and honorable man. The Lord Jesus Christ takes the great men, the wise men of the world, and turns them into fumbling idiots to accomplish his goals. Why would Rome pay to send Paul to have an audience with Caesar. Except the Lord Jesus Christ, his providential rule, King of kings and Lord of lords, makes this governor into his servant to accomplish his purpose. He's befuddling him, using his pride as a tool to make him do stupid things. to cause Paul to have audience with Caesar. And you've seen people do this. You've seen people who you think are smart, wise, self-controlled, do stupid things. It happens. It's not unrealistic. This is the governing power of Christ. And so this happens. This happened in history. This is real. And all of this silliness lined up, piled on top of itself, This is what happens, and this is the self-admission of Festus. And it gives opportunity for Paul, while he's waiting to be shipped off, to speak to King Agrippa, so that he is witnessing to kings of the earth. And so this is how these kings that conspire together against the Christ, against the Lord's Messiah, are put to the service of Christ. This is a great opportunity for persecution and tyranny, and it is persecution and tyranny. And yet it is used for Paul's good, and for our good, and for the glory of God. So are there any comments, questions, or objections from the voting members? Mr. Nye? Thank you, Elder Reese, for your teaching. I did have a couple of questions about how you interpreted a couple of things. The first is, chapter 25, verse 17, when Festus is recounting to Agrippa the charges that the Jews had brought. When he says that the Jews had brought no accusation against him, speaking of Paul, of such things as I supposed, but had some questions against him about their own religion. Could it have been that Festus was expecting to hear charges that would be breaking of Roman law? And instead, this has to do with the Jewish law. And so this is what he's telling Agrippa. He thought that there was going to be charges against the Roman law, but there were still, there were charges against the Jewish law, so not necessarily that they weren't serious in terms of what the Jews said, it just, like, he doesn't, that's not his thing, that's not what he was expecting. Yeah, I think that that's a, I think that's the next most reasonable interpretation, but So the question is, you know, verse 17, you know, Festus is saying to Agrippa, look, the Jews brought accusations, they weren't the type that I expected, you know, does that mean they maybe were Jewish ceremonial laws versus Roman law? You know, trespassing is Roman law. Trespassing against the temple is supposed to be a higher type of trespassing, and it's similar to trespassing into a palace or something. There are certain types of trespassing. The Romans would certainly have allowed for defense of a place and killing people if somebody's breaking in. And so it's similar to the idea of breaking into someone's house at night and the right of defense that would have occurred in that kind of circumstance. This is how they might have looked at it, but it's all the time, even during the day. So there's a special breakout for it. But that's not going to be something that would be so crazy to him. That's one of the charges. OK, so so these are that is that is the type of charge that you would say you would expect. You know, this is a guy who's going to cause public disorder and he's trying to cause tumult and he's trying to get into the temple and to vandalize or destroy it or, you know, make it unclean. And, you know, we arrested him on the spot. One of the execute him, we're in the process of exercising those specific rights that we had to kill him while actually he was trying to do it, he didn't do it, you know, you remember how that story developed. Those are all totally understandable charges under Roman law, and we've already heard the charges. So that's, that's, there's certain overlap there, but there is, it's not something that's totally off base. So this is, this is, I don't think it's, I think it's an unreasonably charitable interpretation of Festus to try to make it so that Festus is acting really honorably here. I think it's pretty clear that Festus is playing the fool and he's piling foolishness up on top of itself, which is weird since all of the other sources account Festus as being pretty wise. And he's known, one of the things, I talked about the Sicarii a while ago and said I'm not going to go into this because there's a lot of history that's not really relevant or whatever. Well, Festus came and he cleared out the Sicarii. He's known for having effectively ended the guerrilla war for a period of time. And so he ruled Judea so well that he kind of put it at peace for a bit. after Felix had ruled so badly that he got the countryside to just be chock full of these guys who would hide swords in their cloaks and kill Romans and go after them and engage in perpetual guerrilla war. So Festus was so good at governing that he got this under control. So there's lots of reasonable basis to think Festus is a smart guy, wise guy, good ruler. But here, it seems to be a piling up of foolishness. And so I think to try to make him prudent and wise in his discussion here when he's in the act of great silliness. I'm not inclined to interpret it that way. Thank you. And then my next question, you actually answered essentially like I was going to ask, the claim that Festus is wise and honorable isn't actually in the Bible. So could we just say that people thought he was wise and honorable, like people think a lot of people who are actually fools are wise and honorable because they're Supreme Court justices or they have letters behind their names. But they're in reality fools because they reject God's law and they hate. I think that to a certain extent that's probably true of Festus, but I was going to say, couldn't it just be that he was actually a fool? And this is just demonstrating that. But you have said that, I mean, this is not biblical evidence, like historical stuff and such, the accounts of what he's done and everything, and how he was esteemed in the empire. However, I think what you're saying is that Festus did a number of things that would be considered wise and honorable, especially compared to Felix or others. But in this situation, it's clear, it's very clear in this situation that he is acting like a fool. Yeah, so, and just real quickly, the principal evidence for saying that Yzvid is wise is Josephus, for example, writes about him and his efforts effectively to reduce the Sicarii threat in Judea, and so there is some writing in Josephus about him. The other thing is, you know, I tried to say he's the wise of the world, right? And so this is the Lord Jesus Christ using the wise things of the world to be foolish in reality and to use them for the wise ends that he has. And so I think that it is the case that he is ultimately a fool and it's why he is resisting the Lord Jesus Christ and being unjust towards Paul. But he has this reputation. And so I'm simply trying to suggest that this reputation for being wise shows for us how God uses the wise things of the world, so to speak, and shows their foolishness, and yet uses them for his own wise ends. That's all. Thank you. That's an excellent explanation. Thank you. Absolutely. OK. So anything else? OK.