Paul's Apology Acts 22 In our last study we saw Paul ending his third missionary journey by delivering a gift

from the Macedonian churches to the struggling Christian church in Jerusalem. When meeting with the Elders of the Jerusalem church, Paul was told that it was being said that he taught Jews to forsake Moses. They asked him to prove his Jewishness by paying for four Jewish mens vows. When Paul entered the temple to take part in a Jewish traditional practice, he was verbally attacked by a group of Asian Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. Upon seeing the apostle in the temple, they cried out: "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (Acts 21:28 NASB) Their four-fold charge was entirely false, but it had the desired effect; the mob dragged Paul out of the temple and began beating him. The nearby Roman guard stepped in immediately and carried Paul away from the angry crowd as they were about to beat him to death. As the Roman soldiers were carrying Paul in the fort, Paul asked to speak to the crowd. The Roman commander gave him permission to do so. From chapter 21 on he becomes a prisoner; and from here on out until his death, he remains a prisoner. So we see Paul from chapter 21 to the end of the book in chapter 28 as a prisoner. Now during the time of his being a prisoner, he gives six different defenses of himself, of his actions, and of his attitudes. The first such defense is given here in chapter 22. The bloodied, bruised Paul, who would have to be in great pain: ...standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, (Acts 21:40 NASB) "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you." (Acts 22:1 NASB) Paul's opening statement is strikingly similar to the words that He heard Stephen use many years before, Stephen said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers!" (Acts 7:2). This man they had just tried to beat to death addresses this angry crowd in a very respectful manner. Remember, we closed last week by saying that Paul loved the Jewish people. Paul is fleshing out here what he preached to others. He had written to the Corinthians telling them the importance of love, and he described it this way: Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NASB) The first thing Paul says about love is that it is patient. This is the Greek word makrothumeo, this word as it is used in the NT is a word that almost on every occasion conveys the idea of having an infinite capacity to be injured without paying back. It is used with regard to people, not circumstances. It's having a long fuse. The loving person is able to be inconvenienced or taken advantage of by a person and yet not be upset or angry. How do you respond when mistreated by others? Are you patient? Paul says that Love is "not provoked"--the Greek word used here is paroxuno, it means to arouse to anger and is the origin of the English word paroxysm, a convulsion or sudden outburst of emotion or action. Paul's final word in this section, love "endures all things" is from the Greek hupomeno, it is a military term that has to do with being positioned in the middle of a violent battle; to stay under, remain, have fortitude, persevere. Love stands against incredible opposition and still loves. Love never quits; it never gives up on anyone. It cares too much to give up.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians the importance of love, and now he shows us a loving man in a very difficult situation. How do you react to hostility? It your reaction Biblical?: "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you." (Acts 22:1 NASB) Paul says, "Hear my defense"--the word defense is from the Greek apologia from which we get apologetics. It means: "a speech in defense of." Paul is not apologizing as we may think of it, he is giving a defense. So there he stands at the top of the stairs, with the crowd halfway up the stairs and filling the entire courtyard, jammed in there. He's got chains on his hands. He's surrounded by Roman soldiers. There's blood all over his clothes from the beating, and his skin is all puffed and bruised, and the mob is now silent as he holds his hand up and he speaks his defense, and it is a masterpiece. The basis of his defense is that all through his life to this point he had acted as a true Jew in obedience to the God of the Jews: And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said, (Acts 22:2 NASB) When they realized that he was speaking in Hebrew, an even greater hush resulted. Why did Paul speak to this crowd in the Hebrew language, when only a part of this crowd could understand this language, and all others would have no idea what was said? In the first place, it was a mark of respect for Jewish nationality, which they were not prepared to expect from Paul. Speaking to this crowd in Hebrew excluded the Hellenistic Jews, the very ones who had taken the initiative in the arrest and stoning of Stephen years before, and who had also taken the initiative in Paul's arrest now. The ability to read and speak in Hebrew set the "native Hebrew" apart from the "Hellenistic Jew." If you asked a "native Hebrew" about this, he would tell you this set him above the "Hellenistic Jew." Why address only one part of this crowd, when speaking to them in Greek would have enabled virtually all present to hear Paul's testimony? If Paul could convince these Jews, who were the dominant religious leaders in this city, the opposition of the Hellenistic Jews would fad away. The Hellenistic Jews had called upon these men, these "men of Israel," for their aid. Without their aid, Hellenistic opposition would not have enough strength to do away with Paul. This also kept the Roman commander and his troops from knowing what Paul was saying. Here is Paul's apology: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today. (Acts 22:3 NASB) He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia where there were large numbers of respected Jews, and his family was so "Jewish" that they arranged for him to be educated in Jerusalem. Hence he is not against the Jewish people. He was brought up in Jerusalem. One can hardly expect the son of Diaspora Jews, returned to Jerusalem for his formative years, to be against the temple. Educated under Gamaliel--Gamaliel was the leader of the school of Hillel, one of the two most influential parties of the Pharisees. He had been a protg of Hillel, who was his grandfather. People called him Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban (lit. "our teacher") was a title of higher honor than rabbi (lit. "my teacher"). Gamaliel was the most respected Pharisee of his day. The Mishnah, a collection of commentaries on the oral laws of Israel published toward the end of the second century A.D., contains the following statement about him: "Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time." You couldn't have a better educational background than to be brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. So here were these characters from Asia Minor saying that he is against the Law, and he says he was trained, "strictly according to the law of our fathers." Now, listen to what he adds. "Being zealous for God just as you all are today." Do you see what he is doing here? He justifies their motives for beating him. He says, You know, I know why you're beating me up; because you think this is pleasing to God. I used to be zealous for God just like you. Then he proves it by saying: "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, (Acts 22:4 NASB)

He tells them that he was not a person who was from the beginning in support of Christian doctrine--he tried to stomp it out. Christianity became known as "The Way." It's easy to understand, isn't it? Jesus had said in the last night before His death, "I am the Way." He had hunted down Christians and had committed them to prison, even the women. For a Pharisee to bother about women was zeal, indeed, for to a Pharisee women were of little account. And he had sought the death penalty on many. Paul tells them that he used to do just what they were doing. He used to persecute Christians all over the place, and all because of his zeal for God. as also the high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify. From them I also received letters to the brethren, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished. (Acts 22:5 NASB) Paul here basically says: talk to the high priest and the Sanhedrin, they can tell you about my zeal for Judaism. They gave me authority to hunt down and destroy Christians. So his credentials as a Jew, and as a zealous Jew, were impeccable. None had been more zealous than he. And his only desire had been to serve God. This alone must prove his genuineness. And then something had happened which had changed the whole course of his life, he met the risen Christ. "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' (Acts 22:6-7 NASB) Paul's account of his conversion here is unique in several ways. First, this is the first time in Acts that Paul has given an account of his conversion. This account in chapter 22 is a "first person" ("I") account. Luke's account in chapter 9 was a "third person" ("he") account. Blinding at noontime and being cast to the ground pictures the spiritual judgment under which the zealous Paul found himself. The reference to noon might have been intended to remind the knowledgeable among his hearers of Moses' words in Deuteronomy 28: "The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart; and you will grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you. (Deuteronomy 28:28-29 NASB) This blindness at noon meant that this zealous Jew was under the curse of God as a a covenant breaker. They should have recognized that they too were under the curse of God even though they were zealous for God. "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' (Acts 22:8 NASB) Can you imagine all those Jews standing there listening to that? Jesus the Nazarene? They had condemned, killed and buried Jesus the Nazarene. But then there were those stories of His resurrection. Whatever else this proved, it demonstrated that Jesus was alive and in heaven and approved of by God, for here He spoke from God. It was proclaiming the living, resurrected, and enthroned Lord, Jesus the Nazarene. This was also a strong hint to the crowd. They too were persecuting Jesus when they persecuted Paul. "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:9 NASB) Now, he says: Look, if you don't believe that this happened, you find those guys who went with me to capture those Christians, and they'll tell you that it happened. "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' (Acts 22:10 NASB) Notice that the things that Paul is going to do are things that are appointed for him. This is the same word that is used

in Acts chapter 13 in verse 48, where it is said that those whom God had appointed to eternal life believed. Paul was not considering the claims of Christ as he marched toward Damascus that day. He had not been re-reading his Bible in light of the life, death, and claimed resurrection of Jesus to see if the ancient prophecies pointed to Jesus as Israel's Messiah. He was not unhappy with his life in Judaism, searching for another way. Rather, he was militantly defending the Jewish faith, seeking to rid it of the blight of these heretics who claimed that Jesus was the Christ. God didn't say: Oh Paul, I'd really like you to be My apostle, but I'm not going to force your will. You have to exercise your free will to choose Me! There are many who say that the reason that God chose Paul, or that He chooses anyone, is that He foresees that the person will one day choose to follow Him. But to say this is to base God's sovereign election on the fallen will of man, ignoring the plain Biblical truth that unless God first does a work of grace in our hearts, no one would ever choose Him. No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44 NASB) Paul tells them that despite his hostility to Christianity, he was converted against his will. This is the testimony of a hostile witness, which, in a court of law, carries greater weight than any other kind. If you ever have any doubt about who initiates salvation, just remember the conversion of Paul. Here is a guy who is going one way. God invades his life, and the guy hasn't even enacted his will, except to say, "Who are you, and what do I do?" And God is already reversing his entire life. Salvation is an act of God. "But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus. 12 "A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing near said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very time I looked up at him. (Acts 22:11-13 NASB) Ananias was not a marginal Jew. He was a keeper of the Law of Moses and had a good reputation in the Jewish community in Damascus. The key role Ananias played in Paul's conversion demonstrates to the audience that being a pious Jew and being a Christian convert are not necessarily mutually exclusive. "And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. (Acts 22:14 NASB) Again, the term "appointed" suggests that God has had his hand on Paul for a long, long time. As he will say in the Epistle to the Galatians, "From the time of his mother's womb." And, of course, as he says in other places, "From the ages past." Notice who appointed Paul: "The God of our fathers" Not a different God. You get the point? It's the God of Israel. It's a devout Jew. It's a zealous Pharisee. See, this whole transformation is all involving features of Judaism. This title for God is distinctly Jewish. Ananias used the messianic title "The Righteous One" (Jer 23:5-6; 33:15; Zech 9:9; Acts 3:14; 7:52). This points to the heart of the Gospel: the risen, exalted Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul sees, is the vindicated victim of an innocent death. 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. (Acts 22:15 NASB) That is what he is doing right now--witnessing to what he had seen and heard. That is of the life, sacrificial death, resurrection, and enthronement of Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. Now, when he says, "to all men," he obviously does not mean all men without exception, but as the context makes very plain, all men without distinction. That is, both Jews and Gentiles. because he has been appointed apostle of the Gentiles. 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' (Acts 22:16 NASB)

It's not uncommon for people to suggest this text teaches that the way we get our sins washed away is by being baptized in water. Now, if you read this passage in the original text, you will find that the word translated here "calling" is participial in form. It's what is called an adverbial participle, or some grammarians call it a circumstantial participle, and then, attached to it, the nuance that appears in the text. Now remember, we don't have punctuation marks in the original text. Let's eliminate the comma after "wash away thy sins." An editor added that, Luke didn't put it there. So let's read it this way, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sin by calling on His name." Now, in that case, we have the washing away of sins, linked with calling on the Name of the Lord. That is a personal faith, calling on the Lord. That's the way that text should be read. Baptism doesn't wash away sins, faith does. The most unique part of Paul's account of his conversion is to be found in verses 17-21, which is found nowhere else in the Scriptures: "It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance, (Acts 22:17 NASB) Paul remained loyal to the temple, he is praying in the temple upon his return to Jerusalem. So Paul is clearly not antitemple. So Paul had been fully dedicated to God from birth, he had been taught by the greatest teacher in the land, he had been humbled by the glory of the Lord, he had heard the voice of the Lord, he had seen the resurrected Lord, he would receive visions in a trance, his experience had been confirmed by a pious and revered Jew; what more evidence did they need? and I saw Him saying to me, 'Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.' 19 "And I said, 'Lord, they themselves understand that in one synagogue after another I used to imprison and beat those who believed in You. 20 And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I also was standing by approving, and watching out for the coats of those who were slaying him.' 21 "And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" (Acts 22:18-21 NASB) It took a vision from God to make Paul responsive to the appeal of his brethren to leave Jerusalem. He was convinced that the people would listen to him, since he was "one of them" before, but the Lord told him this was not to be the case. Thus, when divinely instructed of the futility of evangelizing his peers, Paul left Jerusalem, knowing that he was being sent to the Gentiles. In verses 18-21, Paul speaks of his vision as a dialogue, not a monologue. The first words are spoken by the Lord, interrupted, as it were by a protest from Paul. Then, after Paul's interruption, the Lord speaks again. The command to "go to the Gentiles" was linked with a parallel command to "get out of Jerusalem". Paul was telling his peers that the time of their blessings was coming to an end, due to their unbelief, and that times of blessings were coming to the Gentiles: They listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!" (Acts 22:22 NASB) What happened? That a heavenly vision in the temple would send Paul to the Gentiles was an unthinkable, blasphemous notion. The crowd reacted to this "red flag" vocally, even turbulently. Raising their voices to drown Paul out, they took up again their cry, "Away with him!" Of all the things that he could have said to that audience in the temple area, the thing that he said was probably the worst thing, so far as his own safety was concerned. He didn't have to say that, you know. But he said it. He said it because that was God's word to him. He knew what the reaction of the crowd would be, but he said it anyway. There are things that we can avoid saying so as not to upset the people. We can avoid talking about the Sovereignty of God or the first century Second Coming of Christ. We can avoid the things that disturb people, the controversial subjects. But if we are faithful to the Word of God, and if we follow the example of Paul, we do not do that. We will speak the truth of God no matter what the masses may think. Why did they get so upset when Paul talked about taking the Gospel to the Gentiles? Jews had taken messages from

God to Gentiles many times in Israel's past (e.g., Jonah; the Pharisees, Matt. 23:15; et al.). That revelation could not have been what infuriated Paul's audience. What upset them was that Paul was approaching Gentiles directly about the Messiah without first introducing them to Judaism and its institutions. This was equivalent to placing Gentiles on the same footing before God as Jews, and this was the height of apostasy to the traditional Jewish mind. The city that had killed the prophets and crucified the Son of God had not changed. And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air, (Acts 22:23 NASB) All of a sudden this quiet crowd goes nuts. These poor Romans had not understood a word that Paul has said to these people, because he has spoken in Aramaic. And when the place all of a sudden erupts, they do not know what to make of it. the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way. (Acts 22:24 NASB) Though Paul had been beaten five times by the Jews and felt the Roman lictors' rods three times, this scourging would eclipse all these in its severity. In scourging, a whip of thongs studded with pieces of bone or metal, attached to a wooden handle, was applied repeatedly to the back of a person positioned on the floor, at a pillar, or suspended from the ceiling. It was very possible that a person should not survive scourging. And if he did survive, he might be maimed for life: But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?" 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, "What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman." (Acts 22:25-26 NASB) Paul here uses his "get out of jail free card", his Roman citizenship: The commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes." 28 The commander answered, "I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money." And Paul said, "But I was actually born a citizen." (Acts 22:27-28 NASB) For someone to claim to be a Roman citizen when they were not was a capital crime and made them subject to summary execution, and as his citizenship could be proved from citizenship records, it would be foolish for a nonRoman citizen to make such a claim. Because most citizens did not travel far from their hometown, they did not normally carry with them proof of citizenship. But a traveler such as Paul may have carried with him a copy of his birth registration. During the reign of Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) it was possible to obtain Roman citizenship for a high price. As the son of a Roman citizen, Paul inherited this status. Born citizens enjoyed greater respect than Romans who had bought their citizenship: Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. (Acts 22:29 NASB) Rome becomes the tool of God, not only to protect Paul and to promote the Gospel which he preached, but also to chasten His disobedient people, Israel. But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set him before them. (Acts 22:30 NASB) The commander released Paul from his chains, but kept him in custody. He decided the Sanhedrin could discover why the Jews were accusing Paul, since he could not figure this out. In chapter 23 we see Paul's defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin.

Having described hearing from Jesus the Nazarene from heaven, Paul will now continually proclaim the hope of the resurrection. This proclamation is found in 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8. It will then be followed by a further description of the risen Jesus to Paul (26:12-18). So from his arrest in Jerusalem to his commencement of his journey to Rome is one long proclamation of the resurrection from the dead. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on May 2, 2010. Media #504. Paul Before the Sanhedrin Acts 23:1-11 We are studying a new section in the book of Acts; from the end of chapter 21 to the end of the book Paul is now a prisoner and will remain a prisoner until his death. As we have seen, Paul was now in Jerusalem, he had gone to the temple and was carrying out this vow with four other Jewish Christians. Near the end of his time of purification some Jews from Asia Minor, who knew him only as a disturber of Judaism, and who hated him, started a riot, which was designed to end in his being beaten to death. In the middle of the attempt to beat him to death, the Romans intervened, saved his life, and started to take him into the Roman barracks. While on the steps ascending Fort Antonia, Paul asked for, and was granted permission to, speak. So Paul addressed his Jewish brothers in the Hebrew tongue. In Paul's apology he made three points; they were very simple points. He basically starts out by saying: In blood, in training, and in zeal, I was what you are. Then he made the second point: The Lord Jesus Christ intervened in my life as I was on my way to kill Christians. There is no other satisfactory explanation for the change that has taken place in my life. So the apostle asked them to consider his life before hand, then to consider the change that had taken place, from Christian killer to defender of Christianity. This was truly divine intervention. The third point that he made was: I was sent by God to the Gentiles. It was God speaking to me and as a result of that, I have a ministry to them, which I would never have anticipated. Once Paul mentioned going to the Gentiles, the silent crowd erupted, started throwing off their clothes and throwing dust into the air. So the Romans again rescue him and take him into the fort to beat the truth out of him. Paul tells them he is a Roman citizen and the Romans panic: Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set him before them. (Acts 22:29-30 NASB) So Claudius Lysias, who is the commander of this particular garrison of soldiers at Jerusalem, faces a dilemma. To preserve the life of this Roman citizen, he should probably keep him in custody. And in order to keep him in custody, he should at least have charges. Yet. these he has not yet discovered. His desire is to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews. He decides to assemble the Jewish Sanhedrin to examine Paul and determine what he was being accused of. The word "Council" here is the Greek word sunedrion, which means: "to sit together." The Sanhedrin was made up of high priests, which would be the acting high priest, the former high priest, and some special members of the family of the high priest; and it was made up also of elders. Now, an elder was the head of a family or the head of a tribal family. It also included scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. So you had high priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees; and the high priest was the moderator or the president. The Sanhedrin met in the hall of hewn stone, which was the place set aside for them, it was an amphitheater, kind of forum-type thing, where the 70 members of the Sanhedrin sat together in judgment. Two people would sit there as secretaries taking down the count on the vote. The prisoner would stand in the middle. During the past 25 or more years the Sanhedrin had been confronted by the Gospel at least five times. It deliberated anxiously over the growing popularity of Jesus after the raising of Lazarus, and determined He must die (John 11:4753). In a hasty and illegal meeting, it determined that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and must die (Luke 22:66-71). After the resurrection of our Lord, they arrested Peter and John and warned them not to preach in the name of Jesus

any longer (Acts 4:1-22). Shortly after that they arrested a larger group of the apostles, this time beating them to underscore their threats and warnings if they preached in the name of Jesus any more (Acts 5:17-42). Under pressure from the Hellenistic Jews, Stephen was tried on charges very similar to those made against Paul (Acts 6:8--7:60). The Sanhedrin hardly seems to have reached a verdict when the mob dragged Stephen out and stoned him. Now, about 20 years later, Paul stands before the Sanhedrin. So this is the fifth time that the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council, the brains, the wisdom of Israel, has been put in a position to have to evaluate the claims of Christ; they were really responsible. Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NASB) So the next morning they bring Paul before the Sanhedrin, the high court of Israel. They had already rejected and condemned Christ, the apostles, and Stephen. One last chance will now come, and, in that sense, Israel's supreme hour has been reached as Christ's chosen vessel, the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, is to stand before them. "Looking intently"--are from the Greek word atenizo, which is a very strong word. It means: "stare at, to gaze at, to fix your eyes on." Paul just stared at them, many of them were people he knew. Some of them were the students of Gamaliel, who had studied with him when he was younger. Many of them were Pharisees, and the comradery of the Pharisees was really amazing; they had been friends. "Brethren"--this was not the proper way to address the Sanhedrin. The customary address to the Sanhedrin was a standardized form which began, "Rulers of Israel, and elders of the people..." Notice how Peter addresses them: Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, (Acts 4:8 NASB) Paul does not employ that, as he normally would, but instead puts himself right on a level with these rulers, no doubt because he once was one of them, and he addresses them simply with the familiar term, "Brethren." That was probably seen as an offense to these Jews. "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day"--how can Paul say this when in his apology he said: "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, (Acts 22:4 NASB) How could his conscience be clear when he had done so much that was wrong? Remember "context is king." And in this context Paul's clear conscience is in reference to how he had "lived his life." The Greek verb translated "lived my life" is politeuomai, which means: "to conduct myself as a citizen." This expression is a rare one, used elsewhere only by Paul in Philippians 1:27 (rendered "conduct yourselves" in the NASB). Its specific reference is to one's life as a citizen. And so when Paul here claims to have lived with a clear conscience to this very day, he is specifically referring to a clear conscience with regard to his civil conduct. He is denying the charge leveled against him of bringing a Gentile into the exclusively Jewish section of the temple. Let me say a word or two here about conscience. Conscience means co-knowledge, its that inner voice that tells us how to behave based on what we have learned. The Webster dictionary says, "Conscience is the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good. A faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts." But do you understand that conscience does not always tell you to do what is right? It tells you to do that which you have been told is right. It tells us how to behave based on what we have learned. Your conscience may render you guilty when you're really not. Or not render you guilty when you really are. For a long time in Paul's life his conscience was fouled up, and his conscience was telling him what he was doing was right--killing Christians; trying to stomp out Christianity. Our conscience must be informed by God's Word or it will be a faulty guide. Paul was acting in good conscience when he persecuted the church, but he was terribly wrong, because his conscience was informed more by his Jewish culture than by the Scriptures. Today a Christian may feel guilty because they are not tithing. This is only because they have been taught that they must tithe. But the New Testament nowhere commands the believer to tithe. Tithing is Jewish, not Christian. But if

you are taught wrong, you will feel guilty for doing things that are not wrong. Many people do things that are wrong, but don't feel guilty because they have been taught they are right. The woman in India who takes her baby and throws it to drown in the Ganges River thinks she is serving her God. She looks at that god as some great fearful ogre who must be appeased. If their charges were that Paul was conducting himself contrary to Jewish and Roman civil laws, Paul had no pangs of conscience on such matters in the least. Paul implies that there is no possible ground of complaint against him. This was certainly true. Yet, it seemed to imply that there was no reason for this meeting at all, that it was absurd, ridiculous, to have called this Council together. The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. (Acts 23:2 NASB) Ananias became high priest in A.D. 47. The Jewish high priesthood was a political appointment during Rome's occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should have gone to the ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor summoned him to Rome on charges of being involved in a bloody battle between Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very wealthy and resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very pro-Roman, and the Jews finally assassinated him in their uprising against Rome in A.D. 66, nine years after Paul stood before him. Exactly why he had Paul struck, we don't know. He was an egotistical, tyrannical ruler who pretty much did what he wanted. Maybe it was because Paul didn't address the Council in the proper manner, or perhaps because he said he had a clear conscience; meaning the charges against him were false. For whatever reason, he had Paul hit. The word "strike" here is from the Greek word tupto; a primary verb (in a strengthened form) to "thump," that is, "cudgel or pummel (properly with a stick, but in any case by repeated blows." This is with a fist, or one of the temple police could have hit him with the clubs that they carried, right across the mouth. Remember, Paul had just been badly beaten the day before by the angry mob. His face was probably sore and bruised. The blow must have both shocked Paul and hurt terribly. Here again we see Paul following in the steps of Jesus: When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23 NASB) They were treating Paul just as they had treated His master. Ananias was accusing Paul as a law-breaker, but he, the judge, just broke the law by ordering him struck. It was specifically stated in passages like: 'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15 NASB) An individual who stood before a court of law was to be judged justly on the issues, and the high priest has violated that. Jewish law said, "He who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God." Now notice Paul's response: Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" (Acts 23:3 NASB) Paul here calls Ananias a stinking hypocrite. A "whitewashed wall" is one that has been painted to hide its imperfections so that it can pretend to be what it is not. Paul may be drawing from Ezekiel 13:10-16. This is certainly not the most tactful way for a prisoner to address a judge who holds the power of life and death. Don't try this the next time you go to court. Let me ask you something: Is this a Biblical response? Is this what Jesus would do? I'm not asking if you like Paul's response, but is it Biblical?: "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39 NASB)

Paul wasn't slapped, but the principle is the same. Paul didn't turn the other cheek: For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; (1 Peter 2:21-23 NASB) Paul, is not acting very Christlike here. Jesus, when He was reviled, reviled not again. When He was threatened, He threatened not. So I guess it is possible for an apostle to lose his temper. And the fact that the Apostle Paul was a great man is not affected by the fact that he lost his temper one time. So when we look at an incident like this, we should avoid immediately saying, "No, it couldn't happen to an apostle." An apostle is simply a man, they were not sinless. Peter is evidence of that. Calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall," Paul was laying stress upon the hypocrisy that characterized this man. Paul was saying, in effect, "I walk before the Law blamelessly, yet you, you religious hypocrite, hit me, breaking the very Law you are required to uphold." "God is going to strike you"--God is going to punish you for sitting at the seat of authority in the Law and violating the Law. That was prophetic. It wasn't long until that's exactly what happened. God took his life, and he was murdered. But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'" (Acts 23:4-5 NASB) Paul blurts out in anger, someone questions his response, and Paul immediately admitted his fault. Paul is instantly repentant, for he recognizes that he is in the wrong. He apologizes, then he quotes Scripture: "You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. (Exodus 22:28 NASB) Though the high priest had no regard for the Law, Paul did. He knew the words and the intent of Exodus 22:28, and he cited them to those nearby. To revile God's representative was to be seen as reviling God. So Paul apologizes. Now, that's Christlike! He informed them that he had not known that this man was the high priest, otherwise he would not have done it. Paul's prophetic curse, given in hasty anger, had violated a basic Biblical precept lived out by David in his dealings with Saul. Though an officeholder dishonors the office through his conduct, one does not have liberty to dishonor him (1 Sam 24:6; 26:9-11). For all of Paul's freedom from the Law, Paul was still a man who endeavored to live in accordance with the precepts and standards set by the Law, and thus he knew he was obliged to show respect to this man, Ananias; not for his personal piety, but due to his position. Paul had already written the Book of Romans; he wrote it from Corinth before he ever got to Jerusalem. And in the Book of Romans, he said this to Christians who were living under Nero's rule: Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (Romans 13:1-7 NASB) The Paul who taught the saints to live in submission to God-given authorities, even the wicked rulers, would do so himself, even with regard to this evil and hypocritical high priest.

Paul acknowledged his sin in speaking thus, but he also claimed it was a sin of ignorance. He did not know this man was the high priest. There are some who would doubt Paul's words. I have no doubt that Paul was both sincere and honest in his claim of ignorance. I do not know why he did not know who the man was, but there are many possible reasons. Many New Testament scholars feel that it was an ironical accusation of him; that he knew he was the high priest, but he was so different from what a high priest should be in Israel, who should be a model of fairness and equity. How could a person like this, so wicked, so notoriously evil. be a high priest in Israel? I guess that's possible. Some other possibilities are: Paul had not been in Jerusalem for a long time, nor had he been there long this time. Why would he know who was the high priest, or, better yet, why would he know what he looked like? This seems to have been a hastily called meeting and may not have been nearly as orderly and formal. Was Ananias dressed casually or sitting in some seat other than his normal place? Some think Paul had bad eyesight. Whatever the reason, Paul did not know who he was speaking to and thus sinned in ignorance. But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23:6 NASB) I don't think we should assume that what is said in this verse happened immediately. There was probably a lengthy discussion that took place, and Paul's understanding arose from things that were being said. Paul recognized there were a number who would, in fact, agree with his main proposition, the resurrection from the dead. The Sanhedrin was composed of priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and elders. For the most part, the priestly families, the high priestly families were Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in the minutia of the oral Law. The Sadducees accepted only the written Law. The Pharisees were Calvinists. They believed in absolute sovereignty. The Sadducees were Armenians. They didn't know it yet, because those guys hadn't come along. But the Sadducees believed in free will. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of predestination. So they used to always argue about predestination and free will. The Pharisees believed in angels, spirits, and the resurrection; the Sadducees did not. So here is the point that divides these two, and it's the point at issue. Did the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Messiah of Israel, rise from the dead? The whole issue, really, was the resurrection. Paul preached the resurrection. That's what people got upset about. He preached that Jesus was alive, that Jesus had talked with him twice, and this is what infuriated everybody. After Pentecost and the preaching of the apostles commenced, the Sadducees took the leading role in opposing the apostles and Christianity. After all, the Gospel was based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. They could not allow such teaching to go unchallenged, especially when they were accused of instigating the death of Jesus. On the other hand, the Pharisees seemed to gradually become less aggressive in their opposition to the apostles. Paul, who saw these proceedings as having become weighed down by inessentials, was genuinely concerned to establish the truth of the resurrection and of heavenly beings speaking to men and of his defense of them. That was, after all, what his testimony had been all about. If he was to be condemned, let it be for something worth while, something that will enable Claudias Lysias to recognize that what he is being charged with is simply a subject on which the Jews themselves were in dispute. For the trial to become a dispute about Jewish teaching would strongly aid his case. So he points out that what he is really being condemned for is something that is dearly held by a number of them, the hope of the resurrection. Every genuine Pharisee lived his life with only one final aim in view; that he might attain eternal life and the resurrection from the dead. We need to recognize what was central in Paul's thinking; the resurrection from the dead. Paul's confession focuses on that aspect of the Gospel that will be central to his apologetic throughout his trial. It tells the truth about the ultimate reason for his arrest by the Jews. For Paul and Luke, resurrection, especially the resurrection of Messiah Jesus, is the key issue that determines the nature of the continuity and discontinuity between Jews and Christians as part of the true people of God. Hope in the resurrection of the dead, literally,"Hope, even the resurrection of the dead." Paul finds himself on trial because of the Messiah's resurrection and the new realities it introduced. For if Jesus had not risen from the dead, he could not have appeared to Paul on the Damascus Road, or in the temple, and commissioned him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 22:15, 21). Paul would then not have promulgated a message or lived a lifestyle that his fellow Jews would have opposed.

As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Acts 23:7-8 NASB) Suddenly the focus of the court shifted from Paul to the chief doctrinal differences that were being debated between the two schools of belief: And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, "We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" (Acts 23:9 NASB) The Pharisees found themselves in a most interesting position; they found that they had more in common with Paul than they did with the Sadducees. And so a number of the Pharisees had to acknowledge, at least in principle, that what Paul claimed and taught was, by their own system of belief, believable. The debate resulted in a partial verdict. Some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party said, "We find nothing wrong with this man" And as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks. (Acts 23:10 NASB) Claudius, the Roman cohort, had another riot on his hands! He had failed in his quest to get to the bottom of the first riot and discover why Paul had been accused. For the third time, he has to rescue Paul from the mob and once more take him to the Roman barracks. He must have been in some despair. Here he was stuck with this prisoner, who was a Roman citizen and therefore difficult to deal with, and it was apparent that none of his opponents knew what to charge him with. He was having to hold him without charge and risk any consequences. But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts 23:11 NASB) Things didn't seem to have gone too well, but One Person was satisfied with the way that things were going, and that night the risen Lord stood by Paul, and encouraged him. The word "courage" here is the Greek tharseo, which means: "to have courage, to be of good cheer or comfort." Can you imagine how comforting it would be for Jesus to show up and say, "Be of good comfort, you have witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." Believer, do you understand that God is a God of comfort?: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Corinthians 1:34 NASB) Look at what Paul said to the Philippians: Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:5-7 NASB) Believer, the Lord Jesus Christ is here, He cares about you, and He is the God of all comfort. The fact that Paul is now a poisoner may appear to us as a hindrance to the spread of the Good News. But remember, God is in control. Paul was now such a marked man and so intensely hated by many Jews in many cities that wherever he went his life was in danger; so much so that some followed him around with the aim of killing him. This being so, his being directly under the protection of Roman soldiers with his companions able to visit him freely, is truly a

blessing of God. Remember what Paul wrote: And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NASB) We see this fleshed out in Paul's life, and you will see it in yours if you trust Him. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on May 9, 2010. Media #505.

Providential Protection Acts 23:12-35 Paul has finished his missionary journeys and is now in Jerusalem. Everything Paul has tried to do since he came to Jerusalem has ended in a riot. He tried to pacify the Jewish Christians by purifying himself in the temple and paying the expenses of four men who had taken a vow; that ended in a riot. He tried to give his testimony of what God had done in his life to the Jewish crowd in the temple court, and that ended in a riot. He tried to give testimony before the Jewish Council, the Sanhedrin, and that ended in a riot. Now he's a prisoner. A bunch of Jews put together a plot to assassinate Paul, but God providentially protected him. Let me just say that the term "providence" is not found in the Scripture, but the doctrine of providence is very Scriptural. The theological term "providence" means nothing short of: "the universal sovereign rule of God." Providence is the preserving and governing of all his creatures and all their actions. Charles Hodge said, "The external world, rational and irrational creatures, things great and small, ordinary and extraordinary, are equally and always under the control of God." The text we want to look at today is interesting in that it contains no exposition of Biblical doctrine, no exhortations, and no commands. In fact nothing about the Lord is mentioned from verse 12 to the end of the chapter. The name of God isn't mentioned, the name of Jesus isn't mentioned. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit, or salvation, or any Biblical doctrine. So we are going to just skip this text and move on to chapter 24. Just kidding! This text is like the book of Esther in which God is never mentioned, and yet His providential rule is seen at every turn. In Esther we see the deliverance of Esther and Israel and Mordecai by the fact that King Ahasuerus one night couldn't sleep. Because the king couldn't sleep, he called for the political records of the kingdom to be read to him. As they were being read he found in there that Mordecai had done a very noble thing in the past. And he said, "What's been done for Mordecai?" You know the story: Haman, a wicked man, who wanted to do away with Mordecai and all of the Jews, had already made his plans. Haman had ordered gallows be constructed, upon which to put to death Mordecai, and made arrangements for the extermination of the Jews. Well, because of the fact that Ahasuerus couldn't sleep one night, just that incidental little thing, changed everything. The result was Mordecai was delivered and honored, and Haman died on the gallows he had constructed for Mordecai. Our text, like Esther, Illustrates for us the doctrine of God's providence. In our text Paul had a bad day, he had been before the Sanhedrin, which ended in a riot, and now he is sitting in jail wondering what will happen next. Believers, if we have a bad day, it is because the Lord ordained these circumstances for our benefit. Bad days don't just happen! So Paul sits alone in the barracks, and the Lord Jesus comes to him in person in verse 11, and it says: But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts 23:11 NASB) The risen Lord stood by Paul, presumably visually, and tells him to "Take courage." The word "courage" here is the Greek tharseo, which means: "to have courage, to be of good cheer or comfort." If the Lord showed up to cheer up, comfort, and encourage Paul, then Paul must have been somewhat discouraged. If you were Paul, and you had been rejected by your own people, God's chosen people, the Jews; and you had risked your life to witness to them, only to be beaten, and now imprisoned, there would be cause for despair. This was the fourth time in the book of Acts that the Lord shows up for Paul during a time of hardship. Here the Lord tells Paul that he must witness for Him at Rome. It took two years for this promise to be fulfilled.

Do you remember what happened when Paul was imprisoned in Philippi?: and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened. (Acts 16:26 NASB) They put Paul in jail, and the Lord had a very localized earthquake knock only the whole jail down--that's a miracle! But there are no miracles in our text for today. In this text we see Paul's imprisonment as God's providential protection of Paul. Paul was now such a marked man, and so intensely hated by many Jews in many cities, that wherever he went his life was in danger--so much so that some followed him around with the aim of killing him. If Paul, who was one of God's choicest servants, went through such trials, then none of us are exempt, and the health/wealth teachers are wacked. When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. 13 There were more than forty who formed this plot. (Acts 23:12-13 NASB) "When it was day"--that's the morning after the night in which Jesus appeared to Paul and the very day after he had given testimony to the Jewish Council. It says that the Jews bound themselves under an oath; the Greek is "they anathematized themselves with an anathema." They devoted themselves to destruction. This was not an uncommon thing. They placed themselves under a divine judgment, as it were, they invoked the vengeance of God. These men clearly expected to achieve their aim quickly. Now you may be thinking, "Well I guess these men are dead now." Well, yes they are, but not because of this vow. Technically, they could have gotten out of the vow. The rabbis provided absolution for those who just couldn't come through with their vow. Why did they hate Paul? He'd never harmed them, stolen from them, or broken their laws. All he did was preach love and salvation; announce that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, whom they had rejected, came alive from the dead. Paul told them that even after they had rejected and crucified Jesus, He would grant them eternal life if they believed. They hated Paul because he went around the Roman Empire preaching that Gentiles could know God without becoming Jews. This message needed to be silenced. They came to the chief priests and the elders and said, "We have bound ourselves under a solemn oath to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. 15 "Now therefore, you and the Council notify the commander to bring him down to you, as though you were going to determine his case by a more thorough investigation; and we for our part are ready to slay him before he comes near the place." (Acts 23:14-15 NASB) Now the chief priests of the Sanhedrin were the Sadducees. The Sadducees' party was the most antagonistic to Paul. Do you remember for what reason? Because Paul taught the resurrection, and they were anti-resurrectionists. The high priest probably never forgave him for publicly calling him a "white wall" and reminding him of the judgment he faced. Now obviously the conspirators knew that the leadership of Israel was so morally rotten that they were willing to advertise a murder. These men were supposed to be the spiritual leaders, and they agreed to a murder plot, according to verse 20. These assassins planned to kill him somewhere on the streets between the Fortress of Antonia and the Hall of the Sanhedrin. These buildings were not far apart. They surely realized that Paul's Roman guards might kill some of their number in the process. They hated Paul so much they were willing to die in order to kill him. On the surface, it would appear that Paul was really in danger now. Things seem to be going from bad to worse. But this is only the appearance of things. In reality, this conspiracy is by God's providence; Paul's ticket for a safe departure out of Jerusalem. It is also his next step toward Rome. But the son of Paul's sister heard of their ambush, and he came and entered the barracks and told Paul. (Acts 23:16 NASB) It was no "coincidence" that Paul's nephew just "happened" to be there when these conspirators met, and to overhear

their plans. This is the only time the Bible says anything about Paul's family, other than Paul saying that his father was a Pharisee. We don't know anything else. We do know that in Philippians 3:8, he said that because of his faith in Christ, he had suffered, "The loss of all things." Most Bible teachers assume that "the loss of all things" included being disinherited from his Jewish family, because from then on, you hear nothing at all about his family. God providentially ensured that news of the plot reached the ears of Paul's nephew. And he came to the fortress and informed Paul. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would have a certain freedom to enjoy visitors: Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, "Lead this young man to the commander, for he has something to report to him." (Acts 23:17 NASB) As a Roman citizen his request would be received with respect. They would not want to offend him. I have a question for you here: How do we reconcile this verse with verse 11?: But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts 23:11 NASB) The "must" here is the Greek word "dei," which is a term often used by Luke to indicate divine necessity. Since God had already told Paul that he was going to Rome, why did he even bother with these Jewish threats? Why didn't Paul just laugh and say, I'm going to witness at Rome, try and stop me. Or, Thanks for telling me the news, but I'm trusting the Lord--so you can go back home. Sovereignty and Responsibility: We know that God is sovereign over everything that happens. Nothing happens outside the sovereign will of God. He controls plants, animals, men, weather, nations, and nature. God controls everything that happens. The Bible says that God causes the rain and snow to fall on earth, along with the wind to blow and the lightning to flash (Job 37:6-13; Ps. 135:7). God also gives food to the wild animals and birds (Ps. 104:27-29; Matt. 6:26). God governs what we might call random chance events, such as the casting of lots (Prov. 16:33). Also, God causes things to happen where His creatures also play a role. For example, I may water and fertilize my grass or a farmer his crops, but God causes them to grow. God also governs human affairs. He determines the time, existence, and boundaries of the nations (Acts 17:26). He sets up rulers and takes them down again (Dan. 4:34-35; Ps. 22:28). He governs every aspect of our lives (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 16:9; 20:24), including the number of days that we will live (Ps. 139:16). Because we are so prone to twist or misuse the truth we find in Scripture, it is the tendency of some individuals to see the doctrine of sovereignty as fatalism. The fatalist would say, "God is going to do what He wants to do so I'm not going to concern myself about it." If there was a storm coming, they would make no preparations; they wouldn't run to the store or make sure they had batteries or water. On the other hand, the person who rightly understands God's sovereignty would make all the preparations that wisdom dictates, while the whole time trusting in God and praying for wisdom and protection. God's sovereignty does not negate our responsibility to act wisely. Acting wisely, in this context, means that we use all legitimate, Biblical means at our disposal to avoid harm to ourselves or others and to bring about what we believe to be the right course of events. David gives us a good illustration of acting wisely as he fled from Saul. Saul was determined to kill David. So David did everything he could to avoid Saul. David acted wisely. David knew that he was to be king some day: Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:13 NASB) He had already been anointed to succeed Saul. And David knew that the Sovereign God would carry out His purpose: I will cry to God Most High, To God who accomplishes all things for me. (Psalms 57:2 NASB)

David knew that God would fulfill His purpose for him. Yet David didn't just sit down and say, "Saul can't hurt me because God had ordained that I be king, and I can't be king if I'm dead." David fled from Saul and took every precaution so that Saul could not kill him. David didn't presume upon the sovereignty of God, but acted wisely in dependance upon God to bless his efforts. He ran from Saul, and he prayed to God. Jesus also gives us a good illustration of acting wisely. For most of His ministry, the Lord Jesus had been telling His disciples not to disclose to the world that He is the Son of God. Even demons are silenced who cry out, "We know who You are!" When a leper is healed, Jesus says, "See that you don't tell this to anyone" (Mk. 1:44). When a little girl is raised from the dead, we are told, "He gave them strict orders not to let anyone know about this" (Mk. 5:43). When Peter, on behalf of the apostles, says, "You are the Christ," we read that "Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him" (Mk. 8:30). The reasons for this were that there was considerable misunderstanding as to the nature of the Messiah; the crowds thought of that figure as a political revolutionary. If Rome suspected that He was a revolutionary who claimed to be the Messiah, they'd have taken and arrested Him. If Jesus had immediately thrown down the gauntlet to the chief priests by teaching that He was the promised Messiah, then He wouldn't have survived the two or three years of ministry He had to have. I think Jesus' attitude of secrecy teaches us something about sovereignty and responsibility. Jesus knew He was going to the cross; it was God's will, and it could not be stopped. And yet Jesus uses human means to keep His secret until the proper time. Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. (Ecclesiastes 10:18 NASB) The house is not said to decay because of God's sovereign plan, but because of man's laziness. If a student fails an exam because he did not study, he can't blame it on God's sovereign will, but on his own lack of diligence. God is sovereign over every thing that happens in life, but we are still responsible. Don't ever use God's sovereignty as an excuse for your failure to use wisdom. Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, "Lead this young man to the commander, for he has something to report to him." (Acts 23:17 NASB) Take this boy to Claudius Lysias, your commander and chief. So he took him and led him to the commander and said, "Paul the prisoner called me to him and asked me to lead this young man to you since he has something to tell you." 19 The commander took him by the hand and stepping aside, began to inquire of him privately, "What is it that you have to report to me?" (Acts 23:18-19 NASB) "Paul, the prisoner"--this is Paul from now on. Paul uses similar words 5 times in his letters (Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 1:13; Philemon verses 1, 9). Who does Paul see himself as a prisoner of? Rome? No, the Lord Jesus Christ: For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- (Ephesians 3:1 NASB) Evidently Paul's nephew was a young boy because Lysias took him by the hand and drew him aside to talk to him: And he said, "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down tomorrow to the Council, as though they were going to inquire somewhat more thoroughly about him. 21 "So do not listen to them, for more than forty of them are lying in wait for him who have bound themselves under a curse not to eat or drink until they slay him; and now they are ready and waiting for the promise from you." (Acts 23:20-21 NASB) No doubt the chief captain questioned the lad about the source of his information, and was satisfied. He would know that the High Priest Ananias was quite likely to be involved in such a plot. It was typical of his methods. So the commander let the young man go, instructing him, "Tell no one that you have notified me of these things." 23 And he called to him two of the centurions and said, "Get two hundred soldiers

ready by the third hour of the night to proceed to Caesarea, with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen." 24 They were also to provide mounts to put Paul on and bring him safely to Felix the governor. (Acts 23:22-24 NASB) Do you notice how Luke seems to contrast the kindness and lawful protection of the Roman commander with the murderous conniving of these religious Jews? This is the heavily armed infantry, 470 soldiers armed to the gills to escort one apostle out of town. This would deprive the fortress of a good proportion of its force for a short while, but Claudius Lysias figured he needed a large force. He knew that the whole of the populous in the temple ground had riled against Paul; he knew that this was a big issue, and he was afraid, so they left at 9:00 that night. He knew that Paul would be safe in Caesarea if he could get him there. Caesarea was a Gentile-dominated town and a Gentiledominated territory. There was less likelihood of a real problem, or revolution, or assassination. And he wrote a letter having this form: (Acts 23:25 NASB) How did Luke know the wording of this letter? Luke never read it. This is a good illustration of divine inspiration. The Spirit of God told Luke, by the miracle of revelation, the words of that letter, and he wrote them down with his own hand. Claudius summarizes the events that have brought him to this place of sending Paul: "Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings. 27 "When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came up to them with the troops and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. 28 "And wanting to ascertain the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their Council; 29 and I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. 30 "When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, also instructing his accusers to bring charges against him before you." (Acts 23:30 NASB) Notice the Lie in verse 27. He explains the circumstances of Paul's rescue, and suggests that he did it because he knew that Paul was a Roman citizen. This was presumably in order to gain himself some credit. He didn't know he was a Roman until he had already rescued him and strapped him on the frame to be scourged. Notice that the commander indicated in very clear language, Paul's innocence: ... I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. (Acts 23:29 NASB) Why didn't the commander just release Paul if he knew he was virtually innocent? Because he knew that the Jews would kill Paul, and that Paul's rights, as a Roman citizen, would thus be violated. He felt obligated to keep Paul alive. Again this is the providence of God. So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. (Acts 23:31 NASB) Antipatris is about 35 miles from Jerusalem. To crank those 35 miles out in that one night, they would have had to push to their limits all through the night. But the next day, leaving the horsemen to go on with him, they returned to the barracks. (Acts 23:32 NASB) Once they got him to Antipatris, they were in Gentile territory pretty much. They felt that the 70 horsemen could handle him, so the other 400 came back to Jerusalem. When these had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. 34 When he had read it, he asked from what province he was, and when he learned that he was from Cilicia, (Acts 23:33-34 NASB) Now, he had to determine where Paul was from, because he had to determine who had jurisdiction. There were two

kinds of provinces in the Roman Empire: There were those under the control of the Roman senate, and those which reported to the emperor--the imperial provinces. He learns that Paul is from Cilicia, which, like Judea, is an imperial province under the direct control of the emperor himself, responsible to him. he said, "I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also," giving orders for him to be kept in Herod's Praetorium. (Acts 23:35 NASB) The word Praetorium is from the Greek "praitorion". It means: "the residence of the governor." Herod the Great had built in Caesarea a very costly palace (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 15.331), which now served as the headquarters of the Roman procurator of Judea. So Felix said, "Keep him in my house." Paul was being given due respect as a Roman citizen. Paul had been escorted by 470 soldiers, and now he was going to room in the palace. God is taking care of him. Let me point out several points from this text: 1) There is a very clear contrast in our text between the kindness and attention to the law of the Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, and the cruel disregard for the law of the Jews, and especially of the Sanhedrin. 2) Paul's movement toward Rome is at the same time a final movement away from Jerusalem. Though he will continue to witness "to the Jew first" (28:17-27), Jerusalem's refusal to receive the Gospel message (22:18, 22) and constant intent to destroy its messengers (Lk 13:34; Acts 25:3) seals its judgment from God (Lk 13:35; 21:20, 24). 3) This chapter, like the rest of the Book of Acts, underscores the sovereign control of God over history. This has got to be one of the greatest illustrations in the entire New Testament of the providence of God. God is at work in all that happens, though we don't usually appreciate, or understand it. All too often we are just like Jacob. We see the circumstance of life as against us instead of trusting in God who controls our circumstances. Look at what Jacob said when he was really suffering: Their father Jacob said to them, "You have bereaved me of my children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and you would take Benjamin; all these things are against me." (Genesis 42:36 NASB) "All these things are against me"--he was dealing with some difficult circumstances, he had lost Joseph; he thought Joseph was dead: Joseph, the son of Rachel, his beloved wife. There was a famine in the land. Simeon is now in Egypt and the prime minister there is holding him, and the prime minister also now is insisting that Benjamin come. And so, Benjamin, the young son of Rachel, now appears to be gone also. Joseph is dead. Simeon is gone, they can't get more food unless Benjamin goes to Egypt. It's not so much one thing, it's when everything seems to come together and it's all bad that we are often troubled. And Jacob responds, "All these things are against me." At the very moment that Jacob uttered, "All these things are against me," actually, everything was working for him; for Joseph, the son that he had thought dead, was not only alive, he was the prime minister of Egypt, the greatest kingdom of the earth. Egypt was the place that had the grain that could solve their problems of food. In addition, Joseph, the prime minister, was the beloved son of Rachel, and Joseph, the prime minister, was longing to be with his family. The very time when Jacob says, "All these things are against me," is the very time when all these things were working for his ultimate blessing and good. You know, if we understand the providence of God, and understand how God controls the affairs of human lives, and our lives, in particular, it's amazing, really, that we can be disturbed about things. Calvin states in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 10: "Without Certainty About God's Providence Life Would Be Unbearable.": Here we are forcibly reminded of the inestimable felicity of a pious mind. Innumerable are the ills which beset human life, and present death in as many different forms. Not to go beyond ourselves, since the body is a receptacle, nay the nurse, of a thousand diseases, a man cannot move without carrying along with him many forms of destruction. His life is in a manner interwoven with death. For what else can be said where heat and cold bring equal danger? Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding objects not only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to present immediate death. Go on board a ship, you are but a plank's breadth from death. Mount a horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers your life. Walk along the streets, every tile upon the roofs is a source of danger. If a sharp instrument is

in your own hand, or that of a friend, the possible harm is manifest. All the savage beasts you see are so many beings armed for your destruction. Even within a high walled garden, where everything ministers to delight, a serpent will sometimes lurk. Your house, constantly exposed to fire, threatens you with poverty by day, with destruction by night. Your fields, subject to hail, mildew, drought, and other injuries, denounce barrenness, and thereby famine. I say nothing of poison, treachery, robbery, some of which beset us at home, others follow us abroad. Amid these perils, must not man be very miserable, as one who, more dead than alive, with difficulty draws an anxious and feeble breath, just as if a drawn sword were constantly suspended over his neck? Calvin, also writes, "Ignorance of providence is the ultimate of all miseries. The highest blessedness lies in the knowledge of it." I couldn't agree more. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on May 23, 2010. Media #506. Paul's Defense Before Felix Acts 24:1-21 In our previous studies we have seen that Paul had been arrested in Jerusalem as a riot was about to break out in the temple courts. He had made two unsuccessful attempts to placate the Jews and to testify to them of Jesus Christ. They refused to listen; and now, after a plot against his life, he has been brought down to the province capital, Caesarea, on the coast. There he will face the governor: When these had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. (Acts 23:33 NASB) The delivery of Paul to Caesarea marked the beginning of a two-year imprisonment in that city. During this period he stated his case and also the case for the Christian Gospel to two provincial governors and a king, fulfilling one aspect of the Lord's prediction about his ministry: But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; (Acts 9:15 NASB) The governor referred to in Acts 23:33 is Felix. His full name was Marcus Antonius Felix. He was Roman governor of Judaea (52-58). He is also known as Claudius Felix. He began his life as a slave, but due to the fact that his brother Pallas gained a great deal of favor with Antonia, who was the mother of Claudius, the Roman Emperor, he, also, gained his freedom as well. He was the first slave in history to become a governor of a Roman province. His behavior in Palestine increased the hatred of Rome. Tacitus says of him that "Practicing every kind of cruelty and lust he wielded royal power with the instinct of a slave" (which of course he had been). His method of exacting his will was by violence and crucifixions. He married three times, and each time into royalty. His first wife was the granddaughter of Anthony and Cleopatra; his present and third wife was Drusilla, a very beautiful Jewess and daughter of Agrippa I. She had been married when young to Azizus, king of Emesa, a petty Syrian king, but Felix saw her shortly after her wedding, desired her, and through the services of a magician from Cyprus prevailed on her to desert her husband and marry him in defiance of the Law. This was typical of the man. Tacitus says, "He believed that he could commit all kinds of enormities with impunity." Tacitus also said that he indulged in every kind of barbarity and lust (Histories 5:9). Sounds like our politicians. Under his procuratorship hostility against Rome increased enormously, resulting in the expansion of the influence of the zealots, and he then reacted viciously against them by hunting them down ruthlessly and dealing with them with extreme cruelty. This simply produced a further reaction which resulted in general hatred and contempt and a huge increase in the number of "assassins" (men who mingled in crowds with hidden daggers and secretly murdered collaborators) until no one in Jerusalem with political connections could feel safe. Once Paul arrives in Caesarea, Felix says, "I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also." This is where we left off last week. The first nine verses of chapter 24 are Luke's account of the accusations made against Paul by the Jews, as represented by Tertullus, the lawyer. Verses 10-21 are Luke's account of Paul's defense.

After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. (Acts 24:1 NASB) The importance attached to Paul is seen in that the high priest came in person together with some leading elders and with a trained advocate in order to charge Paul. Ananias was a corrupt high priest. He saw Paul as a threat, so he had traveled over sixty miles to present his charges before a Roman governor, in hopes of having Paul put to death. This whole thing must have been quite an awkward situation for Ananias, because he had to deal with a man who just a few years earlier had been a mere slave. Tertullus was probably a Hellenistic Jew in view of his Roman name, though he could have been a Roman Gentile. "Attorney" is from the Greek word rhetoros, which means: "a lawyer who was specially skillful in oratory." This is its only time it appears in the New Testament. "After five days"--this will be calculated from when the trouble first began (see verse 11). After arriving in Jerusalem, Paul had met with the church, immediately spent a few days of purifying, and had five days earlier been initially arrested by the Romans, making "twelve days" in all. After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, "Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, 3 we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. 4 "But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. (Acts 24:2-4 NASB) Tertullus begins by engaging in a bit of nauseating flattery. He spoke of Felix as a very wise and benevolent leader, who skillfully had brought peace and progress to the Jewish nation. "We have through you attained much peace"-with a knowledge of secular history, we know that these statements were hypocritical and dishonest. Felix was no man of peace, and the Jews did not have a high regard for him. He assassinated Jonathan, the high priest, because he didn't like him (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.8.5). I think that Tertullus praised Felix for being a peacemaker in preparation for his charge that Paul was a disturber of the peace (vv. 5-6). After the flattery he brings the charges against Paul: "For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [We wanted to judge him according to our own Law. (Acts 24:5-6 NASB) The first charge was that Paul was a "real pest." The Greek here is loimos, which means: "a plague (literally the disease) or pestilence." The idea is that he is a revolutionary pest, a troublemaker, stirring up difficulties and riots all through the empire. This lawyer knew that would have an effect upon this Roman judge, because the Romans had a far-flung empire to administer, and the one thing they dared not tolerate was civil disorder. Any uprising could be a spark that would light a fire which would be very difficult to put out, and they knew it. The Romans dealt with a heavy hand with any troublemaker. Second, Paul was labeled a religious radical,"He's a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." In other words, he is a representative of a group of people who are illegally practicing religion in the Roman Empire. Now, the Romans recognized certain religions as permitted, that is, legal. But others were illegal. They cannot be practiced with the support of the Roman Empire. At this time, Christianity was still under the sanction of the Roman Empire because it was thought to be a sect of Judaism. This sect was seen as a small group of Jews who believed that Jesus from Nazareth was their Messiah. The third charge leveled against Paul was that he was a sacrilegious fanatic who had tried to profane the temple, to defile it by bringing Gentiles in. This was the religious charge which started the riot, but it was also a political charge because the riot broke the Roman peace. The Romans knew that it was such a sacred precinct to the Jews that anything which happened to their temple was apt to inflame this entire nation. So basically, Tertullus is saying that Paul is worthy of death three times over! Nevertheless, let the procurator note, fierce fellow that he was, they had managed to "arrest him," Is that what they call it? They tried to kill him on the spot.

Now if you are using the NASB you will notice that the last part of verse 6 thru the beginning of verse 6 are in brackets. 6b [We wanted to judge him according to our own Law. "But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, 8a ordering his accusers to come before you.] " (Acts 24:6-8 NASB) Some of the old manuscripts have these words, but the oldest manuscripts do not. And, in the light of the principles of texture criticism practiced by most New Testament critics today, these words are judged not to be part of the Book of Acts. But they are certainly true to the story that Luke is telling. By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him." 9 The Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so. (Acts 24:8-9 NASB) Tertullus basically says, "Felix, we are so thankful that under your ruling hand we are experiencing this season of peace and the various reforms, but there is a fly in the ointment--Paul, the peace-breaker. Felix, if you will examine him in the right way, you will discover that all this is true. Check this out yourself, and you will agree with us." Then the words of Tertullus were backed up by "the Jews," that is the Jewish party who had come with him. All of Paul's accusers confirmed Tertullus' charges. They undoubtedly expected Felix to dispatch Paul quickly since Felix had repeatedly crucified the leaders of uprisings for disturbing the peace of Rome. So here we see Paul before a Roman court being falsely accused. It's difficult to be accused of things you didn't do. You can live a godly life and still be accused of things you haven't done. Scriptures are filled with stories of followers of the Lord who have been falsely accused. For example, Joseph was minding his own business in the house of Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh's bodyguards, when Potiphar's wife became sexually attracted to him. When Joseph failed to respond to her advances, she falsely accused him of trying to rape her. Her angry husband had him thrown in jail without a trial. What about Daniel in Babylon? The prophet was faithfully serving the Persian King Darius when two other leaders became jealous of his wisdom. In order to eliminate Daniel, they enacted a law stating no man could worship any god other than the king. They knew Daniel would pray to God. The innocent prophet was arrested, charged, and thrown into the lion's den. Then there is Jesus. The Jewish leaders repeatedly tried to set traps to falsely accuse Him of breaking some Mosaic Law in order to have Him killed. Finally, they had Him put to death on false charges. So being a Christian who lives a godly life doesn't mean that you won't be falsely accused. And if we are, we are to trust in our Lord. He is in control. Now it's Paul's turn. In verses 10-21 he defends himself: When the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: "Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, (Acts 24:10 NASB) Paul's introduction was short and truthful: he was grateful to stand trial before Felix because he was a man with considerable experience in dealing with this nation. Felix was no novice, who would be taken in by the fancy words of Tertullus, or by the impassioned words of his opponents. Felix knew these Jews and the issues which were really at stake. Thus, Paul could gladly state his case before this official. Against the charge of being a "real pest," a revolutionary, a troublemaker, stirring up difficulties and riots all through the empire, Paul says: since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. (Acts 24:11 NASB) It had only been twelve days since Paul arrived in the city of Jerusalem, and some of those days have been spent out of Jerusalem in Caesarea. It's obvious the apostle didn't have time to raise sedition against the Roman Empire. So the apostle simply pleads there is insufficient time for this charge of sedition:

"Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. (Acts 24:12 NASB) His accusers could not prove that he had even carried on a discussion in the temple, or in the synagogues, or even in the city, much less fomented a riot. There was, therefore, no evidence to support these charges against him: "Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. (Acts 24:13 NASB) It was a case of words without evidence. Not a single genuine witness had been produced. Their case was all generalities and accusations and short on facts. Paul rebutted the second charge of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (v. 5) by explaining that his beliefs harmonized with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures. This would have helped Felix see that the real conflict between Paul and his accusers was religious and not political. "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:14-15 NASB) Paul said he belonged to "the Way," which they scornfully called a sect. But this did not make him a bad Jew for in "the Way" he served the "God of our fathers"-- that was a historic title for "the God of Israel." Paul still worshiped the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He had not forsaken Him. The Jews seemed to suggest that the reason why Paul's ministry was so volatile and led to such violence was that he was not a true Jew and opposed Judaism. So Paul goes on to say that he believed, "everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets"--so how could anyone call that a heresy? If you speak of the Nazarenes as a sect or a party, you must see that this is a party that accepts the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures as we know them. Paul says that he had a "hope in God." What hope? The hope of the resurrection. The traditional hope of the Jew was the resurrection. Did the Hebrew Scriptures teach a resurrection? Yes, they did. It can be found in Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:26, Daniel 12:2, Ezekiel 37:12 and elsewhere. Abraham believed in a resurrection; that's why he was willing to sacrifice Isaac: He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Hebrews 11:19 NASB) Paul says that the resurrection was a hope, "which these men cherish themselves." There must have been Pharisees present, because the Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection. Paul is claiming to be orthodox, while these Sadducees were the heretics. If there was a "sect," it was the Sadducees who were to be seen as in this camp, not Paul, and not Jewish Christians. How could the Sadducees avoid the teaching of the resurrection if it is in Isaiah, Job, Ezekiel and Daniel? They believed that the only binding truth in the Hebrew Scriptures was what Moses said--the Torah. When Jesus was engaged in an argument about the resurrection with the Sadducees in Matthew 22, He quoted Exodus 3:6 because He knew they would have to acknowledge that Scripture. "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32 NASB) "I Am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"--indicated the reality of the resurrection. The Sadducees denied what the Scripture taught. I'm sure that the majority of Paul's accusers were Sadducees. The high priest was a Sadducee, as probably were some of the elders. The topic of the resurrection would have immediately caused internal conflict with the Jewish leaders. That's what started the fight in the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:7. Who were the real heretics? The high priests. They had ceased worshiping God because the only way to Him is through Christ. Jesus said:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6 NASB) They had ceased believing in the Law and the Prophets. If they still had believed, they would have had to believe in Christ, because the main topic of the Law and the Prophets is Christ. To deny Jesus as the Messiah is to deny the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus said: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; (John 5:39 NASB) On the road to Emmaus Jesus showed how the Hebrew Scriptures taught of Him: Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:27 NASB) If you believe the Hebrew Scriptures, you will believe in Jesus. Paul is basically saying that Christianity was true Judaism. They were the heretics because they didn't worship the true God, believe the Scriptures, or believe in the resurrection. Paul wrote to the Romans: For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:28-29 NASB) The only true Jews in the world are Christian Jews: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (Romans 9:6 NASB) A true Jew is one who continues to worship and obey the true God because he came to Him through the Messiah-Jesus Christ. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha. (1 Corinthians 16:22 NASB) As Paul stood before Felix, he was saying that he was the only true Jew in the trial because he had come to the Messiah. Once again he makes clear that any real disagreement is about what they taught, especially the doctrine of the resurrection, and seeks to win to his side those of the opponents who believe in the resurrection. Paul is here precisely because of the truth of the resurrection. We'll come back to verse 15 in a couple of minutes. I want to finish Paul's defense and then show you something very significant in this verse. "In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. (Acts 24:16 NASB) "This" refers to "the Way"; being a member of "the Way" results in men living conscience controlled lives: "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; 18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia 19 who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. (Acts 24:17-19 NASB) Paul came to Jerusalem to "bring alms" to his own people and to present offerings. These were not the actions of a revolutionary, an anti-Jew, but were the very things which a true Jew would do on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Noticeably absent were the Asian Jews, who had mistakenly assumed that Paul was seeking to defile the temple. Roman law imposed heavy penalties upon accusers who abandoned their charges, and the disappearance of accusers often meant the withdrawal of a charge. Their absence, therefore, suggested that they had nothing against him that would stand up in a Roman court of law.

"Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, 21 other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, 'For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.'" (Acts 24:21 NASB) And so he refers back to the time when he stood before Ananias, and he says, "See if any of you can point to anything that I did that was wrong when I stood before the Council, except for this one thing. And that is that in the midst of the Council, I cried out, "For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today." So, in effect, Paul concludes with, The real issue is the resurrection. That is why he was on trial. We could say that Paul was on trial for his eschatology. RESURRECTION: Let's talk about the resurrection. Let's go back to verse 15: having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:15 NASB) Do you see the "when" of the resurrection in this verse? No, you don't because the NASB obscures the text. Look at YLT: having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; (Acts 24:15 YLT) The words "shall certainly" in the NASB is the Greek word mello. Whenever mello in the present active indicative is combined with an infinitive, it is consistently translated "about to." Paul told his first century audience that, "there is about to be a resurrection." The Greek word "mello" means: "is about to," but is never translated in the literal fashion by major translations. I wonder why? In Vines Expository Dictionary of Greek Words, on page 1038, Vine shows mello's primary meaning as: "to be about (to be or do). It is used of purpose, certainty, compulsion, or necessity." Thayer's Greek Lexicon, on page 396, defines "mello" as: "to be about to do anything," and "to be on the point of doing or suffering something." The Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer Greek-English Lexicon defines "mello" as: "Be on the point of, be about to." There are 110 places where "mello" is used in the Greek New Testament. In many places, by context, it can be seen to mean something about to take place. Biblically, the resurrection is to take place at the Parousia of Christ. So if the resurrection was "about to" take place, then so was the Parousia: "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. (Matthew 16:27 NASB) Vine translates mello here as: "The Son of Man is about to come." This verse is talking about the Second Coming and the judgment. At His coming He will "recompense every man"--that's judgment. And it says He is "about to come." How soon is about to? Look at the next verse: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28 NASB) The "you" here are His disciples. He says that His coming will be before they all die. If we are going to understand what Paul is saying about the resurrection, we must understand "audience relevance." Who is Paul talking to? Felix, Ananias, Tertullus and the elders. Paul told them, not us, that there was about to be a resurrection. So if the timing of the resurrection was "soon," what does this tell us about the nature of the resurrection? It must be spiritual! Time defines nature. What exactly did Paul mean by "the resurrection"? The traditional view that is held by most of the Church is this: When a believer dies, their body goes into the grave and their spirit goes to heaven to be with the Lord. They are in a disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. Then at the end of time the Lord returns, resurrects all

the decayed bodies of the dead saints, puts them back together, then changes the physically resurrected bodies into spiritual immortal bodies like Christ's. Does that sound like what you have been taught? That is basically what the Church teaches about the resurrection, but is it what the Bible teaches? Paul clearly taught that the resurrection was the hope of Israel. "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. "Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead? (Acts 26:6-8 NASB) The hope of Israel was the resurrection from the dead. The word "resurrection" does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the concept does: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2 NASB) "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." (Daniel 12:13 NASB) Here we see a resurrection at the end of the age. This is what the Jews believe, as is seen in Martha's response to Jesus: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (John 11:23-24 NASB) How did she know that? It was taught throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF RESURRECTION: It is interesting to note that the Bible never uses the terms "resurrected body," "resurrection of the body," or "physical resurrection." Does that surprise you? The Church uses those terms quite often, but the Bible never does. The phrases that the Bible does use are "the resurrection of the dead" and "the resurrection from the dead." So, in order to understand "resurrection." we must understand death. Resurrection is "resurrection from the dead." To understand death, we need to go back to the book of beginnings, Genesis. In the book of Genesis we see God creating man: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. (Genesis 2:7-8 NASB) After creating man, God placed him in the garden of Eden and gave him a command: Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17 NASB) God warned Adam regarding the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "In the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Adam disobeyed God and ate of the tree: When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6 NASB) Did Adam die that day? Not physically! Adam lived at least 800 years beyond the day he ate the fruit. But, God said he would die the day he ate, and we know that God cannot lie. Adam did not die physically that day, but he did die spiritually. He died spiritually the moment he disobeyed. Spiritual death is separation from God. And that is man's problem. Our problem is spiritual, and the solution is spiritual, not physical.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:21 NASB) Because of Adam's sin, we are all born dead, separated from God. But through Jesus Christ came spiritual life, the resurrection from the dead. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on May 30, 2010. Media #507. The "About To Be" Resurrection Acts 24:15 In our last study of Acts we looked at the first 21 verses of chapter 24, which dealt with Paul's trial before Felix. In Paul's defense he makes this statement: "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:14-15 NASB) Notice how Young's Literal Translation translates this: having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; (Acts 24:15 YLT) The words "shall certainly" in the NASB are the Greek word mello. Whenever mello in the present active indicative is combined with an infinitive, it is consistently translated "about to." Paul told his first century audience, "there is about to be a resurrection." If we are going to understand what Paul is saying about the resurrection, we must understand "audience relevance." Paul is not talking to us; he is talking to Felix, Ananias, Tertullus, and the elders. Paul told them that there was about to be a resurrection. So if the timing of the resurrection was "soon," what does this tell us about the nature of the resurrection? It must be spiritual! Time defines nature. What we want to seek to understand is exactly what Paul meant by "the resurrection." The traditional view that is held by most of the Church is this: When a believer dies, their body goes into the grave and their spirit goes to heaven to be with the Lord. They are in a disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. Then at the end of time the Lord returns, resurrects all the decayed bodies of the dead saints, puts them back together, then changes the physically resurrected bodies into spiritual immortal bodies like Christ's. Does that sound like what you have been taught? That is basically what the Church teaches abut the resurrection, but is it what the Bible teaches? One very important thing that we need to understand is that Paul clearly taught that the resurrection was the hope of Israel. We looked last time at the fact that resurrection is resurrection from the dead. And we saw that death was spiritual. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually, not physically. Man's problem is spiritual death; separation from God. Because of Adam's sin, we are all born dead, separated from God. But through Jesus Christ came the resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ came to restore what Adam had lost, fellowship with God. Jesus Christ came to redeem man from death, to resurrect man back into the presence of God. The Bible is God's Book, about His plan to restore the spiritual union of His creation. Resurrection is not about bringing physical bodies out of the graves, it is about restoring man into the presence of God. Prior to Jesus' messianic work, no one went to Heaven: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (John 3:13 NASB) If prior to Jesus' messianic work no one went to Heaven, where did people go when they died? They went to a holding place of the dead and waited for the atoning work of Christ and the resurrection from the dead. In the First Testament the Hebrew word for where they were prior to the resurrection is Sheol. In the New Testament

the Greek word is Hades. What this place amounted to was a waiting area for disembodied spirits. The first Testament uses the word "Sheol" to refer to a place in the depths of the earth. The expressions, "go down" or "brought down" are used twenty times in connection with Sheol. The "depths of Sheol" are mentioned six times (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; Prov. 9:18; 15:24; Isa. 7:11; 14:15). Four times Sheol is described as the farthest point from heaven (Job 11:8; Ps. 139:8; Isa. 7:11; Amos 9:2). Often Sheol is parallel with the "pit" (Job 17:13-14; 33:18; Ps. 30:3; 88:34; Prov. 1:12; Isa. 14:15; 38:18; Ezek. 31:14-17). Nine times it is parallel with death (2 Sam. 22:6; Ps. 18:4-5; 49:14; 89:48; 116:3; Prov. 5:5; Isa. 28:15,18; Hos. 13:14; Hab. 2:5). Sheol is described in terms of overwhelming floods, water, or waves (Jonah 2:2-6). Sometimes, Sheol is pictured as a hunter setting snares for its victim, binding them with cords, snatching them from the land of the living (2 Sam 22:6; Job 24:19; Ps. 116:3). Sheol is a prison with bars, a place of no return (Job 7:9; 10:21; 16:22; 21:13; Ps. 49:14; Isa. 38:10). People could go to Sheol alive (Num. 16:30,33; Ps. 55:15; Prov. 1:12). In Jewish tradition it was also known as "Abraham's bosom" since at death, the faithful Israelite was said to be "gathered unto his fathers." Whatever it was called, it was not Heaven: "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. (Acts 2:29 NASB) "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, (Acts 2:34 NASB) David was dead, but he did not go to Heaven. But he had a promise that he someday would. God had promised to redeem His people from the grave: Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight. (Hosea 13:14 NASB) But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah. (Psalms 49:15 NASB) This verse expresses hope that God will provide salvation beyond the grave, one of the few First Testament references to life after death. This verse anticipates the clear New Testament teaching of life after death, eternal life, and salvation by God. All people were believed to go to Sheol when they die: What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah. (Psalms 89:48 NASB) To be taken out of Sheol and brought into the presence of the Lord is what the Bible calls resurrection. Resurrection has nothing to do with physical bodies coming out of graves. Daniel spoke of this in: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2 NASB) According to the Bible, when was the resurrection to take place? The Scriptures testify that the time of the resurrection was to be at the end of the Old Covenant age: "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." (Daniel 12:13 NASB) We know this to have happened in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the Jewish Temple. The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant age and the inauguration of a New Age. Since we know that the resurrection is past, we know that it was spiritual and not physical. The resurrection of the dead that took place at the end of the Old Covenant in A.D. 70 and was not a biological resurrection of dead decayed

bodies, was a release from Sheol of all who had been waiting through the centuries to be reunited with God in the heavenly kingdom. We can see from the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus several things about the resurrection beliefs of the early Christians: and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:17-18 NASB) The early Christians must have believed that the resurrection would be spiritual in nature, and, therefore, not subject to confirmation by any physical evidence. If the early Christians had believed that the resurrection would involve the physical bodies coming out of the graves, as is taught today, Hymenaius and Philitus could never have convinced anyone that the resurrection had already happened. They also must have believed that life on earth would go on with no material change after the resurrection. They didn't believe that they would be on a renovated planet earth as a consequence of the resurrection. Otherwise, the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been impossible. No one would have paid any attention to them. The reason that their teaching that the resurrection had already happened was overthrowing the faith of some was that it postulated a consummation of the spiritual kingdom, while the earthly temple in Jerusalem still stood. This was a mixture of Law and grace. This destroyed the faith of some by making the works of the Law a part of the New Covenant. WHAT ABOUT CHRIST--WASN'T HE PHYSICALLY RESURRECTED? YES! Absolutely, without a doubt. Since Christ's resurrection was physical, won't ours be? NO! Christ's physical resurrection was a SIGN to the apostles that he had done what He had promised. The resurrection of Jesus' body verified for His disciples, the resurrection of His soul. David had prophesied: For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. (Psalms 16:10 NASB) Peter preached that David looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ: he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. (Acts 2:31 NASB) These verses speak of both spiritual death (the soul in hades) and physical death (decay of the flesh). Jesus was resurrected from both. Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to Hades and had been resurrected. The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual to which it was tied. While the physical resurrection of our bodies would have no point since we will not continue living on this planet, breathing earth's oxygen and eating earth's food, after we die physically. When Jesus was resurrected was his body different, was it a glorified body? Many say that it was. But I propose that the body of Jesus that came out of the tomb was the same body that went into the tomb. Now someone who knows their Bible may say, "Well Mark says that Jesus' body was different after the resurrection: When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. (Mark 16:11-12 NASB) Because of verses like this many have assumed that Jesus' resurrection body was different. But notice what Mark writes in: Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; (Mark 9:2 NASB) That word "transfigured" comes from a Greek word from which we get our English word "metamorphosis"--to be changed into something else. The Greek word is a compound word from "morphe" meaning: "form" and "meta,"

which implies: "change". Very simply, therefore, the underlying meaning of the word has to be "to change form." Remember this is before the resurrection. Now you might also be thinking, "Well, Jesus walked through walls after His resurrection." So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." (John 20:19 NASB) Notice that the text does not say he "walked through walls." It simply says he appeared in their midst. Well, doesn't that imply a different body? No, look at: And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things; and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, He went His way. (Luke 4:28-30 NASB) The crowd has Jesus cornered on a cliff! And He "passes through their midst." How did He do that? And He did things like this before He was raised from the dead. Notice what Luke writes of Jesus after His resurrection: And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39 NASB) Obviously, the scars from the Cross were visible, and Jesus said He was flesh and bone, not a Spirit: And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. (Luke 24:40-43 NASB) Here we see Jesus eating. Will glorified bodies be hungry, have a digestive process? It sounds to me like a regular human body: Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:27-28 NASB) Here again we see that Jesus had the same nail holes in His hands and feet and the same spear hole in His side, just like He did before His resurrection. Haven't we all heard that our glorified bodies will be perfect? Jesus' wasn't, because it wasn't a glorified body; it was His SAME body. We could say that Jesus' physical resurrection looked nothing different from Lazarus' physical resurrection. When the Bible says that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead, it is talking about spiritual life, not physical life: and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood-- (Revelation 1:5 NASB) There were many physical resurrections before Christ, but no spiritual resurrections before Christ. Think about this: Jesus was spiritually raised while still in His physical body and the Bible says the same thing of believers: Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (Romans 6:4-5 NASB)

This can't be talking about biological death or resurrection. We were united in His death spiritually, and the resurrection is also spiritual. And we were spiritually resurrected while still in our physical bodies. Jesus' resurrection demonstrated that we do not need to shed our physical body in order to be raised from the dead. The nature of resurrection life was that a person did not need to physically die to obtain eternal life, resurrection life. "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. "Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead? (Acts 26:6-8 NASB) Paul preached the resurrection as the hope of Israel. The promise of the resurrection was made to Old Covenant Israel. So the promise of resurrection was an Old Covenant promise, it was not something newly given in the New Testament. It wasn't a new promise given to the Church. Resurrection was to take place at the end of the age, and since the promise was made to Israel, it was to happen at the end of Israel's age, A.D. 70. Eschatology is Israel's eschatology! If the promises to Israel have been fulfilled, then resurrection has occurred. Paul preached only what Moses and the prophets taught: "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; (Acts 26:22 NASB) Notice carefully what Paul says here. He says that he is teaching "nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said." So if Paul was teaching a physical resurrection, then we should be able to find physical resurrection in the First Testament. And if we can't, then Paul must not be teaching a physical resurrection. In Isaiah 24 God predicted the destruction of heaven and earth, we know this is physical Israel. Then He says in chapter 25: He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25:8 NASB) God was going to destroy death. What is death? Is it physical or spiritual? Well in chapter 24 He said that death came because they broke the covenant: The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:5 NASB) The death that was to be swallowed up was spiritual death. What is interesting about this is that Paul's source of "Resurrection" in 1 Corinthians 15 is Isaiah 24-25. The resurrection Paul talks about is spiritual, not physical. Turn with me to another First Testament text that talks about resurrection, Ezekiel 37. The historical context of this text is that the children of Israel have been carried off into Babylonian captivity, and the Babylonian captivity has assimilated into it the Assyrian captivity. Because the Babylonians destroyed the Assyrians, now all those that were in Assyrian captivity are now in Babylonian captivity: The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.' "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 'I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.'" So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. Then He

said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life."'" So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. (Ezekiel 37:1-10 NASB) The dead bones are a picture of death--they are made to stand up. Then they come to life, this is resurrection. Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.' "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. (Ezekiel 37:1012 NASB) God is talking to physical Israel; they say their bones are dried up and their hope is gone. They weren't saying they were physically dead, they were separated from God, out of the land. According to the rabbinic writings, any time Israel was out of the land they were dead. Life is in the land where God dwells. God said He was going to open their graves, these weren't physical graves, because they weren't physically dead: "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'" (Ezekiel 37:13-14 NASB) When did God put His spirit within Israel and bring them to life? Pentecost!: "They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God. (Ezekiel 37:23 NASB) God is going to cleanse them and make them His people. This sounds like the New Covenant. This is spiritual life: "I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. "My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. (Ezekiel 37:26-27 NASB) Notice Revelation 21: And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, (Revelation 21:3 NASB) God is promising Israel resurrection life, spiritual life in His presence in the New Covenant. So the resurrection that Paul said was "about to happen" in Acts 24:15 was a spiritual re-gathering of God's covenant people. The resurrection of the dead that took place at the end of the Old Covenant in A.D. 70 was not a biological resurrection of dead decayed bodies, but a release from Sheol of all who had been waiting through the centuries to be reunited with God in the heavenly kingdom. They were no longer separated from God (dead), they were now in His presence (alive). For believers who have lived since A.D. 70, we are resurrected when we trust in Christ. Jesus gives us spiritual life, which is a resurrection from our state of spiritual death. We have eternal life and can never die spiritually. Therefore, we don't need a resurrection. At death our bodies go to dust, and we go immediately to heaven. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26 NASB)

Jesus is saying, "He who believes in me shall live (spiritually), even if he dies (physically), and everyone who lives (physically), and believes in Me, shall never die (spiritually)." Two categories of believers are discussed: those who would die before the resurrection, and those who would not. For those who died under the Old Covenant, He was the Resurrection, but for those who lived into the days of the New Covenant, He is the Life. Under the New Covenant, there is no death, spiritually speaking: But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:54-57 NASB) Where there is no death, there is no need of a resurrection. We have eternal life and can never die spiritually. Therefore, we don't need a resurrection. At death, we go immediately to heaven. The resurrection was a one time event in which the Old Testament saints were brought out of Hades and finally overcame death to be with the Lord. We have put on immortality. As believers, we live in the presence of God, and in physical death, we simply drop the flesh and dwell only in the spiritual realm. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on June 6, 2010. Media #508. Paul Preaches To Felix Acts 24:22-27 In our ongoing study of Acts we have seen Paul end his third missionary journey and head to Jerusalem with a love offering from the Gentile churches. Once at Jerusalem he met with James and the elders of the church, who gladly received his report of God's work through the Gospel in the lives of the Gentiles (21:17-20). They urged Paul to correct some misconceptions about his ministry and message by demonstrating that in coming to faith in Christ he had not completely rejected Judaism, and especially its ceremonial worship. In other words, they asked Paul to prove that he was still, as a Christian, "zealous for the Law" (21:17-25). Paul took their advice and went to the temple, along with the four men whom the elders had recommended, to purify himself and to make sacrifices, paying their expenses, and thus identifying himself with all that they did. At the end of seven days, some Asian Jews spotted Paul in the temple, and they jumped to the conclusion that Paul had brought a Gentile into the temple and defiled it. These Asian Jews called upon the Jerusalem Jews to help them be rid of Paul once and for all. It was their intention to put Paul to death. A riot broke out as men gathered in the frenzy of the moment, all attempting to kill Paul. News of this riot reached the ears of Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander whose prompt arrival cut short the Jew's efforts to kill Paul. When the commander learned that Paul was not the Egyptian revolutionary, he allowed Paul to address the crowd. Paul spoke to the crowd in Hebrew, and they listened quietly until Paul told of his vision in which the Lord commanded him to flee Jerusalem and go to the Gentiles (22:17-21ff). At this point the crowd erupted, and Lysias took Paul into the barracks. The commander, who didn't really understand what all the commotion was about, planned to learn the truth by examining Paul by scourging. In the course of preparing him for this "interrogation" Paul indicated to the centurions that he was a Roman citizen, which quickly changed the commander's mind about beating him without a trial. The commander released Paul and arranged for his trial by the Sanhedrin the following day. After offending the high priest, Ananias, Paul turned the Council into a chaotic free for all by taking his stand with the Pharisees in believing in the resurrection of the dead (23:1-10). The commander, once again, had to intervene to save Paul. He placed him in custody once again. The Jewish opponents of Paul concluded that there was no legal way of disposing of him, and so they became party to a conspiracy in which Paul was to be assassinated (23:12-15). When Paul learned of this plot through his nephew, he sent the young lad to the commander, who took prompt and decisive action, sending Paul to Felix in Caesarea that night, under heavy guard. With Paul, Claudius Lysias sent a letter which explained the situation.

In the first 21 verses of chapter 24 we looked at Paul's trial before Felix. Paul's defense was brilliant, he refuted ever charge against him. When Paul finished his defense, they didn't have anything to say. Paul concluded by saying: other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, 'For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.'" (Acts 24:21 NASB) Paul ended his testimony by throwing the case into the area of theology. Paul knew from experience that a Roman judge could not make a determination in a case regarding Jewish theology. So Felix had a problem, he was trying a Roman citizen, and a Roman citizen had certain rights. If those rights were not met, Paul could make trouble for Felix. But he had an even worse problem: There were many angry Jews in his court--and angry Jews had been known to start revolutions in the past. But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case." (Acts 24:22 NASB) Having listened to all this, and having more exact knowledge about the Way (so that he knew that the accusations were lies), Felix knew that Paul was right, he was not guilty, because he had not done any crime. But Felix did not want to offend the Jews, so he made an excuse. He said that he must wait for Lysias, the chief captain, to come to Caesarea. But he really didn't need to have Lysias come down. He had already received from him a letter exonerating Paul. But he uses this as an excuse to delay. So he retains Paul in custody, even though he had every legal right to set him free. Felilx had no intention of bringing Lysias to Caesarea, otherwise he could have been there within a couple of days or so. There is no record that he ever called Claudius Lysias, or that he ever came. Felix postponed the case permanently. He did this to protect himself from further civil unrest sparked by Paul's being at large, and did the Sanhedrin a favor. And providentially, in protective custody Paul is kept from the hands of Jews intent on his death. Notice that no one is able to bring any charge against Paul. Lysias could find nothing wrong with Paul, so he sent him off to Felix. After hearing the charges against Paul and hearing Paul's defense, Felix realizes that there is no evidence of any reason whatsoever for the apostle to be delivered over to the Jews. How did Felix have a more perfect knowledge of Christianity than Paul's Jewish accusers did? He lived in Caesarea. Philip the evangelist lived there, as did many Christians. Felix also spent nine years in Judea, and tens of thousands of Christians lived throughout Judea. Then he gave orders to the centurion for him to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him. (Acts 24:23 NASB) These details serve as silent witness to Paul's innocence, for he is being treated as a Roman citizen simply detained for trial. Paul is under what we might call "house-arrest," with access to friends and with some liberty. It was normal for prisoners to be fed and provided for by their friends, so Luke clearly saw the courtesy extended to Paul as something extra, as giving him considerable leeway. This would mean that under the protection of Rome Paul could see any brethren who wished to come to see him and could teach them to his heart's content. He was still in a position in complete safety to proclaim the Word. People could have been popping in and out to see Paul all day. We can imagine that Philip probably came around quite often. But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. (Acts 24:24 NASB) Felix and his third wife, Drusilla, who was Jewish, sent for Paul and listened to him speak. Drusilla, according to the historians, was supposed to be a raving beauty. When she was still only sixteen, Felix, with the help (it is said) of a Cypriot magician called Atomos, persuaded her to leave her husband and come to be his wife, promising her (with a play on his name) every "felicity" if she did so. So their relationship was immoral from the beginning. At this time Drusilla was 19 years old. She was one of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa I. Her father murdered James--the murder is recorded in the Book of Acts. Her great uncle, Herod Antipas, slew John the Baptist. And her great grandfather, Herod the Great, killed the babes in Jerusalem. So you can see, she comes from a long line of Christ haters.

Here is Paul, a prisoner who is innocent of the false charges against him, coming before the man who had the power to release him or execute him. Maybe he should present the Gospel in a user-friendly fashion, showing them how Jesus could help them have a happier life. He could bring out his best stories to warm their hearts, and maybe Felix would even let Paul out of prison. If you were Paul, and you were summoned to Felix, a Roman governor, and his wife, a Jewess, and were asked about your message, what would you have said? When asked to expound the truth about "the faith of Jesus Christ," Paul did not dampen his message down so as not to cause offence. He knew the facts about Felix and about his wife. He knew them for what they were. Felix possibly expected an interesting discourse on the resurrection, but he got more than he bargained for. Paul didn't give Felix and Drusilla an inspiring message that left them feeling good about themselves: But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, "Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you." (Acts 24:25 NASB) The verb translated "discussing" means: "to reason with." The couple needed to understand God's standards, their accountability, and the reality of a final reckoning. In brief, they must face the bad news of their lost spiritual condition before they can grasp and embrace the Good News. Now, what Paul said about righteousness is not said here, but he must have exalted the principles of righteousness before a right, holy, and just God. If I know Paul, I think that he also spoke about how we may obtain the righteousness of God. And he pointed out that while we have no righteousness ourselves, and God demands righteousness, the only way by which we may be "right" before God is to receive righteousness as a gift, through the blood that was shed on Calvary's Cross. So Paul starts by reasoning with them about "Righteousness"--this is from the Greek word dikaiosune, which means: "to be right with God and to conform perfectly to God's standard." The definitive passage of righteousness in the First Testament is Deuteronomy 25 where Moses exhorts the children of Israel to use honest weights in their homes and in business transactions. In their culture, goods for sale were weighed to determine the value. A dishonest seller would use a fifteen ounce weight, but charge for a pound. A dishonest buyer would use a seventeen ounce weight and only pay for a pound. Moses told them to have right weights to make sure they conformed to the standard. Righteousness is perfect conformity to a standard; our standard is the holy God. According to the Bible, our spiritual condition as humans is one of unrighteousness: as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (Romans 3:10 NASB) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NASB) Our standing with God is not right--neither judicially nor morally. He is the Judge of the universe. It is to Him, who created us, before whom we must answer and be judged. With God's righteousness expressed in the moral law being the standard, none of us has enough personal righteousness to commend ourselves to God. Our nature as sinners keeps us at enmity with God. Our practice of sin continues to offend the holiness of God. We are in need of being put into a right standing with God. Righteousness is God's divine ideal--His absolute standard. What does God demand? Absolute righteousness. Jesus said: "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 NASB) Throughout the Bible, the basic idea conveyed in the word "righteousness" is that of a legally right standing with God. The word is heavily weighted on the side of the forensic, though it does carry some ethical connotations too. But the ethical follows the forensic (legal), not vice versa. We find this to be a vital matter when we consider the character of God. Whether we look in the First or New Testaments, we always find God consistently righteous. "The Lord is righteous..." (2 Chronicles 12:6; Lamentations 1:18). "O Lord God of Israel, Thou art righteous..." (Ezra 9:15). The Psalmist explains that even the legal decisions of God, those based upon His written Law or the law expressed by the righteousness within His nature, are always righteous:

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. (Psalms 19:9 NASB) If we could somehow measure infinity, then we could begin to explain the extent of God's righteousness, goodness, holiness, and justice. He is altogether pure; He is holy, holy, holy; He is light without even the least trace of darkness. As a righteous God, the Lord has responsibilities that go along with His perfect righteousness. One of those is to deal justly with those who break His Law or those who have any rebellion in their natures against His authority. He cannot not be just. He cannot overlook sin without dealing with it judicially or legally. It is part of His whole nature as God to apply justice to His creation. We sometime bemoan the crooks and criminals who seem to get away with all manner of lawbreaking. They violate every standard of law and order, yet they seem to never be held accountable for their actions. We are reminded, when we consider the nature of God, that He will not allow any injustice to ultimately survive His creation. We may not personally see the justice take place, but we are assured it will: Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. (Romans 12:19 NASB) The nature of God demands that each sin and each sinner be dealt with legally. The law of God that is bound up in His nature requires that each offense be paid accordingly. The nature of our offense against the righteous standard of God demands nothing less than the eternal measure of His wrath. You ask, "Why so severe? Is God not a loving, kind God?" Absolutely, we must rejoice that He is a loving, kind God or there would be no chance for mercy! But the severity is found in the nature of our offense. We are not breaking a human law and thus offending only mortal creatures. We have broken divine laws and have infinitely offended the nature and character of God! With our lives laid bare before Him, what we deserve, what His justice requires, is all too clear. Condemned! Divine judgment! Wrath! The Judge exercises His office with perfect wisdom and justice. He will not condemn the innocent nor overlook the guilty, for His judgment is carried out according to the perfections of His nature. Mistakes in judgment are impossible for Him. How can a sinful man justify himself before God? Paul's position is that he cannot. The Jews of the first century had inherited a teaching of self-justification through adherence to the Law. For several hundred years the rabbinical scholars had taught the Jewish population that they could acquire merit in God's eyes by certain works of righteousness. They had essentially created a balancing scale model of righteousness. The works that were accounted as righteous would be added to the merit of a person's life, while their failures would become demerits. In the end, the weight of the balance would determine the person's standing before the judgment of God. There was no assurance for a man that he had more merit than demerits. If there was a tie between a man's merits and demerits, then God would show mercy and press on the merit side of the scale. This is not far from the thinking of most people in our own day. Most view their standing with God based upon the positive addition of merit by good works outweighing their demerits. Normally, people have elevated views of their merits! They cannot even begin to fathom that they have enough flaws to sink the balance of the scale out of their favor. But the apostle states categorically: because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20 NASB) We stand before God condemned; our only hope is in Jesus Christ. nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Galatians 2:16 NASB) In his writings Paul unfolds for us this wonderful, central message of the Bible. It is the fact that guilty sinners are brought into a right standing with God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Because He is gracious, full of mercy, and out of the abundance of His love, God has provided two important things: (1) the solitary way for sinners to be declared righteous before Him, and (2) the solitary way for God to be just in declaring sinners righteous. How can God be just in declaring sinners righteous? God would be unjust to grant forgiveness to anyone of us apart from His divine justice being satisfied. This is where some well-meaning people err in seeking forgiveness. They appeal to God's mercy and love for forgiveness. But they do not do this on the basis of the justice of God at the cross. They believe that they are sinners, and they believe that God is indeed merciful and loving; so they appeal to God to grant them forgiveness without reference to the work of Christ. They ignore the need for divine justice. They ignore the fact that God is righteous and just; that forgiveness is not granted simply on the basis of God's love. The mostquoted verse in the New Testament attests to this fact: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB) Because of God's love, He gave His Son as a satisfaction for sin, so that all of the judicial (forensic) requirements for righteousness might be provided for undeserving sinners. His love does not forgive apart from His justice being fully satisfied. Because God is merciful, gracious, and loving, He provided the means to satisfy His own righteousness and, at the same time, declare undeserving sinners to be "Not guilty" for all eternity. The way our gracious God accomplished this was by transferring our guilt to His own Son. Our sin was imputed to Him at the cross. As Paul expressed it in: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB) The things that I have done are placed upon Christ's responsibility sheet, and the things that Christ has done have been placed upon my responsibility sheet. Thus, He assumes the responsibility for my sin--and pays the debt I owe; and I am attributed with His righteousness--though, in real life, I am not righteous. The sinless Son of God took on the weight of our sin and guilt before God. He stood between us and the full measure of the divine wrath as our Mediator. All that the Judge of the universe requires for you to have a right standing with Him, He has provided through Jesus Christ. All of the merits of Christ to justify you before a righteous God are not obtained by the works of the Law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ. Are you trusting fully in Jesus Christ and His merits for your standing with God? Is it important that Christians live a righteous life? Absolutely! If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, (Titus 2:12 NASB) To me nothing is more important than the doctrine of "Free Grace." We are saved by God on the basis of faith alone. We are not saved or kept by our works. But as Christians if we live unrighteously, we will pay for it in this life. Sin has consequences. He also spoke about self-control--this is the Greek word egkrateia. It implies a "restraining (of the) passions and appetites," particularly in a moral sense. The word indicates especially self-control with regard to sexual matters. It has been translated: "chastity." Remember here that Paul is talking about self-control before two people who had not exercised self-control: Drusilla, in leaving her husband, and Felix in using a sorcerer in order to seduce her to becoming his wife. Self-control, whether in regard to sex, money, or power, is foreign to them. In other words, he went right to the heart of their own relationship and the sin that had been involved. He pulled no punches and no doubt informed them what Jesus had taught on the matter: But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became

frightened and said, "Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you." (Acts 24:25 NASB) Again, we need to look at this is the YLT: and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, `For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;' (Acts 24:25 YLT) Paul also talked to them about the "judgment that is about to be." "To come" here in the NASB is mello, which as we have said over and over means: "about to be." So Paul tells Felix and Drusilla that judgment is "about to come," he says this to Timothy also: I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: (2 Timothy 4:1 NASB) Here "who is to" is mello. Paul again is telling his first century readers that Jesus is about to judge the living and the dead. This is to happen at His appearing! Christ's Second Coming was a coming in judgment. If this universal judgment was in A.D. 70, what about believers today, when do we get judged?: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1 NASB) The word "condemnation" is the Greek word katakrima, which means: judgment." Christ boar our judgment, there is no judgment for us. We share Christ's righteousness. What about unbelievers today, when do they get judged?: "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18 NASB) Unbelievers are already under wrath, they are separated from God, at physical death they will forever and always be separated from God, Who is life. Drusilla would know of the judgment to come from her Jewish upbringing, and Felix would have heard about it because he had an "exact knowledge about the Way." Paul here lays out the Gospel to these two: He tells them what God's standard is, he shows them that they are not living up to it, and he tells them that they will be judged if they don't live up to it. Then he tells them that since they can't live up to it, Jesus Christ took their sin, paid their penalty of judgment, and offers them His righteousness by faith. Notice Felix's response, "Felix became frightened and said, 'Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.'" The Greek word indicates that he shuddered. But there is no indication that either of them trusted Christ. Felix basically says to go away, when he finds time he'll hear more. What a sad excuse! Here Felix was, talking with none other than the apostle Paul, who could have answered any spiritual question that Felix had asked. But he wasn't interested. Before we are too hard on Felix, think about our own missed opportunities. Every week we all face opportunities for spiritual advance. There is the opportunity to set your alarm a few minutes early to get up and spend time with the Lord. Or, you can sack in and miss that opportunity. There is the opportunity to read some spiritually enriching Christian books that will change your life. Or, you can sit mesmerized in front of TV or video games. There is the opportunity to meet with other believers to grow in your faith. Or, you can forsake assembling together with the saints. In an age when the majority view all moral values as relative, the Christian witness needs to find a way to speak of God's righteousness again in such a way that it raises a standard for all. What if you had the opportunity to give testimony before a homosexual leader? Would you speak of righteousness?

Would you be as bold as Paul? Paul's preaching to Felix and Drusilla was a fulfillment of prophecy: But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; (Acts 9:15 NASB) Felix did have Paul brought before him many times, but not because he was interested in the Gospel: At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him. (Acts 24:26 NASB) Felix was a wicked man, guilty of lust and greed. History records that he urged certain bandits to do certain things in order that they may pay him bribes from the rewards that they gained from their wickedness; but, still, he continued to converse with the apostle. According to Josephus, it was common provincial administrative practice to seek a bribe in exchange for a prisoner's release (Josephus' Jewish Antiquities 20.215; Jewish Wars 2.273). What would make Felix think Paul had money? Having learned, from Paul's own lips, that he had been up to Jerusalem to bear alms from distant churches to the poor, and knowing something, perhaps of the general liberality of the disciples toward one another, he could have thought that they would be willing to purchase Paul's freedom at a high price. He may have been impressed by the numbers of visitors who came to see Paul and thought that they would be able to raise a sufficient bribe. But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. (Acts 24:27 NASB) Tradition tells us that Felix was removed from his governorship when there was a big riot in Caesarea, about A.D. 59. He put it down with such violence that the Jews were outraged and managed to obtain his recall from Rome. But he still was afraid that the Jews would pursue him even when he was out of office. He had already lost his job and he was afraid he might lose his life. So he attempted to pacify the Jewish leaders by leaving Paul a prisoner. For two years Paul had to remain a prisoner. The case was never closed and a final testimony was never given. The Western text of the Book of Acts says that when he wanted to show the Jews a pleasure, he left Paul bound on account of Drusilla. So, evidently, it's possible that it was at her desire that Paul was left bound by Felix. The two years which Paul spent in his Caesarean imprisonment would have been a source of great irritation and frustration to many of us. To be imprisoned on charges which were totally unfounded, and all because of a politician who would not risk offending some of his constituency might have us quite frustrated. But Paul knew that this delay was a part of God's divine design. Many good things must have resulted from this two year period, but Luke chose to tell us only of one of Paul's ministries. Do you feel like you are in prison this morning? Have you found yourself locked into circumstances which you are helpless to change? Are you in a situation you cannot get out of? It may be ill health, or a bad job. It may be a poor marriage, or low finances, or something else. Remember, God has given that to you in order that you might learn the secret which Paul learned: I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13 NASB) Many scholars believe that Luke did the research for the Gospel of Luke while based here. He could have written Acts to this point, also. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on June 13, 2010. Media #509. Paul Before Festus Acts 25:1-27 This morning we come to our 84th message in the book of Acts, and we are looking at chapter 25. If you remember, in A.D.57 Paul was taken from Jerusalem to Caesarea because of an alleged violation against the temple. The Jewish leaders said he had desecrated the holy place by taking a Greek beyond the "Wall of Partition" during Pentecost.

Having been removed from Jerusalem because Jews were plotting to kill him, Paul was brought before Governor Felix with whom he had the opportunity to share Jesus Christ. Over the next two years, he continued to witness to Felix and his wife Drusilla. At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him. But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. (Acts 24:26-27 NASB) Felix was so inept that the whole province of Judea was in an uproar. Riots were occurring repeatedly with villages being burned, looted, and plundered. Felix was recalled to Rome because of the complaints of the Jews. Felix left Paul in prison because he wanted to pacify the Jewish leaders even though he knew that Paul was innocent. In this chapter we are continuing to see the prophecy that Jesus made about Paul fulfilled. The Lord Jesus said to Ananias, whom he sent to Paul to pray with him and welcome him into the Christian family: But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; (Acts 9:15 NASB) In chapters 25 and 26, we will see this prophecy fulfilled. This is exciting to me because fulfilled prophecy is an undeniable proof of the inspiration of the Bible. No other book in the world contains the kind of specific prophecies found all throughout the pages of the Bible. There is no comparison, for example, between the Oracles of Nostradamus and the First Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ. The prophecies of the First Testament are often so obvious that many secular scholars have unsuccessfully attempted to assign later dates to some of these prophecies to make it appear that the prophecies were made up after the events. That's how stunning some of this stuff is. There are over 300 prophecies that were literally fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. What are the chances that so many prophecies could all come true in the life of one man? Peter Stoner, in his book, Science Speaks, says, "... the probability that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled just eight of the prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. That's 1 with 17 zeros after it." In order to comprehend this, imagine taking that number ,10 to the 17 th power, of silver dollars and laying them on the face of the state of Texas. They will cover the entire state two feet deep. Then mark one of the silver dollars and somehow stir the whole pile thoroughly, all over the state. Put on a blindfold, travel as far as you wish, and on the first try, pick up the marked silver dollar. The chance of that happening is the same as the chance of eight messianic prophecies coming true in any one man. Stoner goes on to evaluate the chance of 48 of the prophecies being fulfilled by chance and the odds there had a 1 with 157 zeroes after it. And remember, that's just for 48 of the 300 that have been fulfilled. And that's why one researcher writes, "God designed fulfilled prophecy to be an open demonstration of the divine origin of the Scriptures." In A.D.59 Felix was replaced by Governor Festus. This is where we find Paul in Acts 25: Festus then, having arrived in the province, three days later went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. (Acts 25:1 NASB) We don't know much about Festus from history, but Josephus writes, "The brief but firm and honorable rule of Porcius Festus began with efficiency and wisdom" (A.D. 59-61; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.182-97; Jewish Wars 2.271). He was to be the last procurator to have any good intentions towards Palestine. He was appointed by Nero in A.D.59. and was in power for only two years before he died. Festus arrived on the scene in Caesarea, which was the Roman headquarters. His predecessors' incompetency left him a legacy of profound hate from the Jewish people. So the first thing he did was go up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with the high priests and leaders of Israel: And the chief priests and the leading men of the Jews brought charges against Paul, and they were urging him, requesting a concession against Paul, that he might have him brought to Jerusalem (at the same time, setting an ambush to kill him on the way). (Acts 25:2-3 NASB)

Luke describes the leaders in general terms as chief priests and Jewish leaders, probably indicating that more than the Sanhedrin was involved. From what we read here, it seems like the very first order of business for the leaders was to discuss with Festus the situation of the Apostle Paul. Luke says, "They were urging him, requesting a concession against Paul"-- this could be translated: "they persistently requested," the imperfect and present tenses point to imploring repetition for a change of venue for Paul's trial. The Jews were trying to take advantage of the new governor. They knew Festus realized the mistakes Felix had made, and he wanted to appease them. Their intention, as Luke makes clear in verse 3, was not to try Paul, but only to get him within reach of those who had vowed to assassinate him. Their real intent was to resurrect their foiled plans from two years before and murder him on the way. This instant approach about Paul might serve to confirm that throughout his imprisonment his influence had continued to be felt throughout Judaea. There is little doubt that word of Paul's present ministry came to Jerusalem from Caesarea. These men, who were plotting Paul's death, were the religious leaders of Israel, God's chosen nation. They were the only people on earth who had received God's covenant promises, and who were able to read His revelation in the Scriptures. They had access to God's presence through worship in the temple. Yet, in spite of all of their knowledge and privileges, they had killed the Anointed One whom God had sent to save them from their sins. And now they were intent on murdering God's servant Paul, one of their own countrymen, who had done them no wrong. We see here the blindness of religion. Festus then answered that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea and that he himself was about to leave shortly. "Therefore," he said, "let the influential men among you go there with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them prosecute him." (Acts 25:4-5 NASB) Festus declined the Jewish leaders request. This was a brilliant move on the part of Festus. He intended to gain the upper hand right from the beginning. He would not begin by having these Jews tell him what to do. There is another reason for Festus not taking Paul to Jerusalem: God is providentially directing human affairs so that the might of Rome will continue to protect His messenger. After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. (Acts 25:6 NASB) Tribunal is from the Greek word bema, the judgement seat. The bema on which Festus sat was customarily in a public place. After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, (Acts 25:7 NASB) The Jews circled around Paul, screaming out their charges. It was a chaotic, unruly proceeding. Their animosity against Paul was evident. But according to Scripture, the accusations against Paul could not be proved. Among other things, he had clearly been charged with being a man who disregarded local law, who had violated the temple, and who had been involved in activities against Caesar, none of which, as we know, were true. It was a maxim of Roman justice, as of Jewish justice, that a man could not be convicted on accusation alone. There must be evidence, and a case must be proved. And Festus was a just man. while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." (Acts 25:8 NASB) Paul was given the opportunity to defend himself, and he declared that he was guilty of none of the charges. What should have been Festus' response? He should have dismissed the case immediately, there was no evidence against Paul: But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?" (Acts 25:9 NASB)

Instead of doing what was just, Festus did what was advantageous for himself by conciliating the Jewish leaders. He was, after all, a politician. Remember that it was the protest of these Jews against the corruption of Felix that resulted in his removal from office. Instead of declaring Paul innocent, Festus saw a way that he could now gain some political capital with the Jews, and so he reversed his earlier decision and offered to move the trial to Jerusalem. Paul had done nothing wrong against the Jews, as the lack of any tangible evidence proved. He had already been put on trial twice before the Jews with nothing having been decided against him. So why then should he once more be judged by a Jewish court? The words "before me" do not mean that Festus would be the judge at the trial. Festus would either agree with the Sanhedrin's decision, or he would not agree with it. That is what Festus meant. The fact that he asked Paul's permission indicates that Paul was not a common criminal, but an un-convicted Roman citizen with rights that the governor had to respect: But Paul said, "I am standing before Caesar's tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. "If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar." (Acts 25:10-11 NASB) If Paul couldn't be absolved of any blame in Caesarea, before the Roman official, then how could he expect it in Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the last place on earth he could expect to receive justice. So now he took advantage of his Roman citizenship and appealed his case to Caesar. The right of appeal to the sovereign people (the populus Romanus) was one of the most ancient rights of a Roman citizen, traditionally going back to the foundation of the republic in 509 B.C. His appeal to Caesar may well have been the final straw for Paul, indicating that Israel would not turn, and that God's judgment was soon to come upon this nation, and particularly on the city of Jerusalem. Then when Festus had conferred with his council, he answered, "You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall go." (Acts 25:12 NASB) It was customary for the governor, even the emperor, to have a body of assessors, higher-ranking military officers, younger civil servants in training and dignitaries from the local population, to help him evaluate court cases. Festus wants to make sure the appeal is in order based on the type of charges that have been brought. While Festus is conferring with his cronies, Paul is no doubt smiling because he knew that his appeal would be granted, because he knew that was the sovereign purpose of God: But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts 23:11 NASB) Remember that behind the scenes God is controlling every decision of man. In these final chapters of Acts, God is using the unbelief and opposition of the Jews to accomplish His purposes, He is also using the Roman political officials. He has used Claudius Lysias to save Paul's life and to remove Paul from Jerusalem, where there was a conspiracy to kill him. He also used the politically shrewd Felix to keep Paul out of circulation (in what proved to be a kind of protective custody, out of Jewish hands) for two years. And now God will use Festus to point Paul toward Rome, where he must proclaim the Gospel. The Caesar at the time of Paul's appeal was none other than Nero himself. We know that Nero was a very wicked man, He was called a beast by his contemporaries, I believe he was Mr. 666 of Revelation. But in the early years of his rule (A.D. 54-62) he was an admirable emperor, and Paul had no reason to fear him now (A.D. 59). Only after A.D. 62 did Nero begin to rule erratically and to turn against Christianity. Now when several days had elapsed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and paid their respects to Festus. (Acts 25:13 NASB) Festus had just been appointed procurator of Judea. Agrippa was the neighboring king. He arrived with his entourage to make a courtesy call on Festus to cement their relationship. Festus was the superior to Herod. Even though Herod was king, he was only a vassal king. The Roman government had subjugated all Israel's authority, and Herod was

nothing but a puppet king. King Agrippa was the last in the Herodian dynasty and was the best of the Herods. These were the kings who, although not exactly Jews, nevertheless belonged to the Jewish faith. They were Edomites, descendants of Esau, the twin brother of Jacob. The first of the line was Herod the Great, who killed all the babies in Bethlehem when our Lord was born in an attempt to wipe out the Messiah, whom he regarded as a rival to his throne. His son, Herod Antipas, had John the Baptist beheaded in prison. His grandson was Herod Agrippa I, who resided in Caesarea fifteen years earlier. He had the Apostle James put to death with the sword in Acts 12. Then God killed him: The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!" And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died. (Acts 12:22-23 NASB) So Caesarea must have evoked many memories with the son's return. Agrippa II, has been appointed by the Romans to be tetrarch of Galilee. He had supreme power in Jewish religious life, for the Romans gave him the right to appoint the high priest and custodianship of the temple treasure and the high priest's vestments (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities20.213, 222). Jewish and Roman historians agree that he was an expert in the affairs of the Jews. Bernice's story is complicated. She was the sister of Felix's third wife, Drusilla, and the blood sister of Agrippa. Therefore, she and Agrippa were practicing incest, which was a capital offense in Israel. He is king of the Jews living in incest, according to Josephus (JewishAntiquities 20.7.3). Every so often she would have an interlude with a lover, but would come back to Agrippa because the lover would leave her when he found out about the incest she kept perpetuating. In fact, Vespasian's son, Titus, who was instrumental in the destruction of Jerusalem, took Bernice as his lover. When he took her to Rome, the gossip became so bad around Rome that he had to dump her. But she went right back into her incest with Agrippa. They remained in that relationship the rest of their lives. Now in verses 14-21 Festus shares his predicament with Agrippa: While they were spending many days there, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, "There is a man who was left as a prisoner by Felix; 15 and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. 16 "I answered them that it is not the custom of the Romans to hand over any man before the accused meets his accusers face to face and has an opportunity to make his defense against the charges. (Acts 25:14-16 NASB) Festus took advantage of Agrippa's superior understanding of Jewish law and custom to try to figure out what to do with Paul. He had been left by his predecessor with a prisoner that he was finding it difficult to make anything of. On the one hand, all the Jews could accuse Paul of were religious matters. On the other, Paul, for some reason, did not want to be judged in Jerusalem, and thus had appealed to Caesar. And as he did not really understand what the charges were against the man, he did not know what on earth he was going to give Caesar as the reason why he had sent him to him. "So after they had assembled here, I did not delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought before me. 18 "When the accusers stood up, they began bringing charges against him not of such crimes as I was expecting, 19 but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. (Acts 25:19 NASB) Notice that Festus saw that the issue was an issue about the Lord Jesus, and it was about an issue of whether he was alive or not. In other words, he centered in on the discussion of the resurrection. We now know that Jesus' resurrection is the central point of contention. Paul certainly made that clear in his speech before the temple mob (22:7-10, 14-15, 17-21). The question of Paul's alleged desecration of the temple has quite disappeared from sight, and the topic of the resurrection (23:4; 24:21) has replaced it. The real ground of dispute is that Paul preaches the resurrection of Jesus, something which the Sadducees refused to believe. We could paraphrase, "I thought they were going to accuse Paul of something serious, like murder or treason. But

instead they just had some silly dispute about their religion." Festus calls Him, "a certain dead man, Jesus" (25:19). To Festus, Jesus was some Jewish religious leader who went too far and got himself killed. But Paul was saying that Jesus was alive. That is the very heart of the Gospel, we don't worship a dead Man, Jesus is alive. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul argues that the whole Christian faith depends on the resurrection of Jesus Christ: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:13-17 NASB) Paul says that if the resurrection is not historically true, you're wasting your time to be a Christian. It's better to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. But if it is true, the resurrection of Jesus is the central fact of human history, not some inconsequential event that can be ignored if you choose. The world says that the resurrection is not factual or verifiable. It's just a subjective religious idea. But the Christian view is that the resurrection is based on factual, verifiable evidence. Our text says that Paul "asserted" Jesus to be alive (25:19). Paul didn't say it might be true or that he hoped it was true or that he believed it was true regardless of the evidence. He asserted it to be true. He wasn't presenting speculation or subjective religious ideas that warm the souls of all who are simple enough to believe. He was presenting testimony as an eyewitness of the risen Christ. Paul had met the risen Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road, and his life was turned around. Apart from the resurrection of Christ, how do you explain the changed lives of all of the apostles? They all were depressed, disappointed men who were not expecting a resurrection. They easily could have returned to their former occupations and slipped quietly out of sight. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by their testimonies to the resurrection. Yet they suffered beatings, went to prison, and many were killed because of their testimony that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead. They were all men of honest character and integrity who did not profit financially, but rather gave up everything in their role as apostles. Did they do it for a known lie? Does that make any sense? Why give your life for something you know to be a hoax, especially if it's not going to make you rich or famous? And how do you explain the empty tomb? If Jesus' body had been in that tomb, as soon as the apostles began preaching the resurrection, the Jewish leaders could have produced the body and ended the foolish myth right then. But clearly, there was no body to be found. The tomb was empty. If Jesus' enemies had stolen the body, they would have produced it immediately. If the Roman guards had been bribed to hide the body elsewhere, it meant their lives when the Jewish leaders protested to their commander. There is clear, compelling evidence that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. It was this that Paul was willing to live and die for. It was this that the high priest and his cronies were afraid of. For if it was true, then they had brought about the crucifixion of the Son of God, of Israel's Messiah, and had proved unfaithful to God and were even now opposed to His will. If it was true, then they had no right to be where they were, for it meant that they were in opposition to all that they were supposed to stand for. "Being at a loss how to investigate such matters, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these matters. 21 "But when Paul appealed to be held in custody for the Emperor's decision, I ordered him to be kept in custody until I send him to Caesar." (Acts 25:2021 NASB) It is interesting to note that Festus' words to Agrippa are recorded in the first person. While Paul was under arrest in Caesarea, he was free to move around and receive visitors. It is likely that Luke, who accompanied him on his missionary journeys, also accompanied him during this time in Caesarea. This would give Paul an opportunity to describe Festus' words as he knew them to Luke. It is evident that Festus, unlike Felix, did not waste any time trying to "get to the bottom" of this issue of Paul's imprisonment. He explained to Agrippa how he had gone to Jerusalem to learn of Paul's case almost immediately upon taking the position of governor. This might give us an implication of Festus' greater integrity. So Festus had a prisoner that he had to take to Caesar, a duty that he would most likely have preferred to avoid. He

was caught between the Jews, who wanted Paul condemned for his religious beliefs with their potential of violence if they are not vindicated, and the duty to appeal to Caesar with the ramifications that such an approach to the emperor might invoke. This is why Festus is so interested in Agrippa's opinion. He does not want to face the appeal to Caesar without the filing of specific charges against Rome: Then Agrippa said to Festus, "I also would like to hear the man myself." "Tomorrow," he said, "you shall hear him." (Acts 25:22 NASB) I can just hear Festus shout to himself, "Yes. This is exactly what I wanted to hear." He was hoping Agrippa can give him some insight and help him formulate formal charges against Paul. So, on the next day when Agrippa came together with Bernice amid great pomp, and entered the auditorium accompanied by the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. (Acts 25:23 NASB) Festus used this occasion to honor Agrippa and Bernice before the local Caesarean leaders. There were five commanders based in Caesarea, each with responsibility for 1,000 soldiers. They all had the same authority as Claudius Lysias, the commander of the cohort based in Jerusalem (cf. 21:31--23:30; 24:22). Beside these commanders many prominent men of the city were present in the auditorium of the governor's palace: Festus said, "King Agrippa, and all you gentlemen here present with us, you see this man about whom all the people of the Jews appealed to me, both at Jerusalem and here, loudly declaring that he ought not to live any longer. 25 "But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and since he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him. (Acts 25:24-25 NASB) Notice that Festus sees Paul as innocent--"he had committed nothing worthy of death." The Jews were trying to have him put to death, but since he had committed nothing worthy of death, he was obviously innocent. "Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you all and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write. 27 "For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate also the charges against him." (Acts 25:26-27 NASB) Festus was very open and honest about his problem. He couldn't send Paul to Rome without an accusation, so he turned his problem over to Agrippa. This wasn't an official trial, but merely a hearing to satisfy Agrippa's curiosity. What he was looking for was backing and support so that he would be able later to excuse himself if necessary and a reasonable charge to lay against Paul in sending him to Caesar. Alright, what can we glean from this chapter that we can apply to our lives? Well as we see Paul held in custody for two years going through trial after trial, it would be understandable for him to be frustrated and discouraged. It seems like nothing is happening. But we know that God is working behind the scene to fulfil His word. Remember at the time of Paul's conversion, God revealed that he would bear testimony of the Gospel "before the Gentiles and kings" (Romans 9:15). Paul has already stood before Claudius Lysias, Felix, and now Festus, and in the next chapter of Acts (26) he will stand before "King Agrippa" and Bernice. Before very long, he will stand before Caesar. God always keeps His promises. He is at work in our daily circumstances even though we can't see it. The key for applying this to your life is to view your circumstances, however seemingly frustrating and confusing, from God's sovereign, providential perspective, not from the human perspective. What we see in this chapter is kind of exciting. While Paul was sitting in prison, God assembled the entire town to hear his message. Festus and his family would be there along with King Agrippa and his wife. All of the commanders and prominent people of the city were invited. All were gathered on behalf of Paul so that he could tell them about Jesus Christ. God brought them all together to hear the Gospel, and Paul gets to preach to them all. We'll see what he has to say next week. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on July 2, 2010. Media #511.

From Persecutor to Preacher Acts 26:1-18 As we come to chapter 26 of Acts, Paul has been in custody in Caesarea for over two years. It all began when Paul arrived in Jerusalem and was engaged in worship in the temple. He was mistakenly accused of desecrating the temple, and a mob of Jews was quickly assembled, who were about to kill him. He would have been killed except for the swift arrival of Claudius Lysias, who saved Paul's life. A plot to kill Paul led to his transfer to Caesarea and to his unfinished trial under Felix. Festus, his successor, also attempted to decide the matter, but this only resulted in Paul's appeal to Caesar. Now, in order to identify some charges against Paul to include in a letter to Caesar, this group has assembled to hear from Paul and to give their advice to Festus. When Jesus predicted what would happen to His disciples, He said something very sobering, but also very encouraging. He said: "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake. "It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony. (Luke 21:12-13 NASB) The encouraging thing in these words is that God intends the persecution and imprisonments to be a strategic opportunity for witness to the truth of the Gospel. That is exactly what happens in our text, Paul shares his testimony of how Christ transformed him from persecutor to preacher. So the whole Jewish legal council and three of the highest political officials in Palestine (Felix, Festus, Agrippa) all hear the Gospel because Paul was arrested and imprisoned on false charges. In chapter 25 Paul was on trial before Festus. When Festus understood that Paul was innocent, he couldn't release him because it would enrage the Jews, so he asked Paul if he wanted to be tried in Jerusalem. At this time Paul appealed to Caesar. And Festus agreed to send him to Caesar, but he had a problem, he couldn't send him to Caesar without any charges. So when king Agrippa asks to hear Paul, Festus jumps at the chance hoping to come up with some charges against Paul. So Paul is brought before Agrippa. This is not a trial, just an opportunity for Agrippa to hear Paul: So, on the next day when Agrippa came together with Bernice amid great pomp, and entered the auditorium accompanied by the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. (Acts 25:23 NASB) So in this auditorium we have king Agrippa in the purple of a king with his wife/sister Bernice, and Festus, who would be in the scarlet of a Roman procurator. There were centurions, lectors, and soldiers. Every notable person in Caesarea, both Jew and Gentile, was gathered there to hear from a Jewish prisoner. Agrippa said to Paul, "You are permitted to speak for yourself." Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded to make his defense: (Acts 26:1 NASB) What a contrast, all these big shots--all dressed to kill, and in comes a little Jewish man in chains. Paul must have seemed like a nobody, an insignificant Jewish prisoner. But this seemingly insignificant man was there to represent the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And to this day Paul is recognized as a devoted servant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the writer of literature that is the object of perusal and study and spiritual blessing of countless multitudes down through the past two thousand years. "In regard to all the things of which I am accused by the Jews, I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; 3 especially because you are an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently. (Acts 26:2-3 NASB) Paul addressed the key figure in the room, Agrippa, with courtesy and respect. Paul "begs" the king's "patience" in listening to him. After so many efforts to make himself understood by such men as Lysias, Felix, and Festus, he was at last in the presence of one who could fully understand and appreciate his cause. Paul didn't have to appear at this hearing, because legally his appeal to Rome had to be honored. But Paul never missed an opportunity to preach the Gospel. Festus looked at it as an opportunity to get an accusation. Agrippa looked

at it as a curiosity-- he wanted to hear Paul. Paul began his defense by starting at the beginning, with his own faith and practice as a Jew, in Jerusalem: "So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; 5 since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. (Acts 26:4-5 NASB) From the earliest years of his life, Paul was educated at Jerusalem. If the Jewish leaders had the courage to testify, they would admit that he had belonged to the strictest sect of their religion, the Pharisees. A Pharisee was a strict legalist. And Paul was at the strictest end--he was a right-wing Pharisee. From his youth he was trained in orthodox Judaism in Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders knew he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel, a chief rabbi. He stresses that if there was anyone who ever lived who was convinced that Judaism was the final word from God, it was him. Josephus says of the Pharisees, "There was a group of Jews priding itself on its adherence to ancestral custom and claiming to observe the laws of which the Deity approves" (Jewish Antiquities 17.41). Paul was once their national hero. They would have delighted to have him for a son-in-law. For a long time Paul was known to these Jews as a devout Jew, a Pharisee, no less. More than this, he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews." He was one of the outstanding young men of Judaism. He wanted to show them how zealous he was as a Jew so they might understand the tremendous, cataclysmic effect of the transformation that took place in him. Was Paul now guilty of forsaking Judaism? Far from it! Paul, in his remarks in verses 6-8, shows that it is on account of his Jewish hope that he is now on trial. He is not really on trial for opposing Judaism, but rather for adhering to it. It is his opponents who have forsaken Judaism: "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; (Acts 26:6 NASB) A literal rendering here would be "on the ground of the hope." The article clearly defines what promise, "the one, namely, made of God." What promise is Paul referring to?: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14 NASB) What is the blessing of Abraham? If the curse of the law is death, what is the blessing? Life! The blessing of Abraham is eternal life. The parallelism of the two phrases in verse 14 indicates that the blessing given to Abraham is equivalent to the promise of the Spirit. Please notice what it is that the Gentiles receive--"the promise of the Spirit." What is the promise of the Spirit? To answer that, look with me at: "And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS UPON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. (Acts 2:30-33 NASB) The promise of the Spirit is the resurrection, which is life! Resurrection is life in the presence of God. To be under the curse is to be separated from God, and to be blessed is to be in His presence. Resurrection was a Jewish hope: "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another. My heart faints within me! (Job 19:26-27 NASB)

Job looked for the fulfillment of the promise of resurrection. Many see in this verse in Job the promise of a physical resurrection. But if this verse is translated correctly, it does the exact opposite. Kiel and Delitzsch translate verse 26 this way: And after my skin, thus torn to pieces, And without my flesh shall I behold Eloah, (Job 19:26-27) In their commentary on verse 26 Kiel and Delitzsch write, "We cannot in this speech find that the hope of a bodily recovery is expressed." Paul's argument in this chapter is based upon a very important truth: Christianity is Jewish. Paul was once a religious Jew, a Pharisee, but as a Christian he is now a true Jew, enjoying and looking forward to the hope of Israel. If Paul's defense proves anything, it is that the Gospel, which Paul proclaims and practices, is the fulfillment of all that Judaism hoped for. Paul believed that the Church was the Israel of God (Galatians 6.16), and that they were God's true people: the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. (Acts 26:7 NASB) Paul is guilty of hoping and believing in the promise which God gave to the twelve tribes of Israel, and which they think they are still looking for as they go about their religious rituals of worship. Thus he affirms a continuity of his Gospel message with Jewish orthodoxy. "Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead? (Acts 26:8 NASB) Paul addresses the Jews in the crowd. Notice the plural number of the pronoun "you." So, why should you, Jews, consider it incredible for God to raise the dead? There were no doubt Jews present from Jerusalem and the local Jewish community at Caesarea. If belief in the resurrection of the dead is a fundamental premise of Judaism, how is it that the Jews condemn Paul for believing in the resurrection of Jesus? Why do they find believing in an actual instance of resurrection (namely, Jesus) so incredibly difficult? Judaism was not consistent with itself in its response to Paul's proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. We know the Scriptures speak of God as omnipotent, and therefore, he is able to do anything that He determines to do. If He created this universe, to affirm that He cannot raise the dead is surely a contradiction in terms. Why should it be thought incredible that God can do anything? "So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. (Acts 26:9-10 NASB) It was Paul's zeal for Judaism that drove him to hate Christians. Notice that he calls Christians "saints," which is literally: "the holy ones." The Greek word for "voice" here is psephos, which means: "a pebble." This may have referred to the little pebble that was used in the Sanhedrin for casting a vote. Paul was referring to his membership in the Sanhedrin and his voting in favor of the death of Christians: "And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities. (Acts 26:11 NASB) Paul was the greatest heresy hunter that the Jews have ever known. He was totally committed to wiping out Christianity. The story is told of Alexander the Great approaching a strongly fortified walled city with a small company of his soldiers. Alexander insisted that the king of the city surrender the city and its contents to this small band of fighting men. The king laughed, "Why should I surrender to you? You can't do us any harm." Alexander offered to give the king a demonstration. He ordered his men to line up single file and start marching. He marched them straight toward a sheer cliff. The townspeople gathered on the wall and watched in shocked silence as, one by one, Alexander's soldiers marched without hesitation right off the cliff to their deaths! After ten soldiers had died, Alexander ordered the rest of his men to return to his side. The townspeople and the king immediately surrendered to Alexander the Great without a battle. They realized that if

his men were actually willing to commit suicide at the command of this dynamic leader, then nothing could stop his eventual victory. Paul's commitment was like that of Alexander's fighting men. He was committed, whatever the cost, to preserve his fatherland and its traditions against those whom he thought were undermining it. He pursued that commitment with the zeal and tactics of a revolutionary. "While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, (Acts 26:12 NASB) He was not seeking the truth; he was convinced that he knew the truth, and that Christianity was a lie. He was not acting independently in his persecution of the Christian community; he had the full consent and authority of the chief priests. Paul asks Agrippa to look at his past life: If you look at my past life, Agrippa, you will see that that cannot explain the great change that has taken place in me. With a record as this, there was no room to suspect him of any bias that would render him an easy or a willing convert to Christ. On the contrary, it must have appeared to Agrippa, and the whole audience, most astonishing that such a change could take place. How did this man, who had been driven by hate, change into a man driven by the love of Christ? How does someone come to embrace what he hates and considers heresy? This reminds me of David Chilton, a man who stood strong against Preterism, until he became a Preterist. In his book, The Days of Vengeance, David Chilton labels full Preterism as heterodox: "Contrary to the theories of those interpreters who would style themselves as 'consistent Preterists,' the Fall of Jerusalem did not constitute the Second Coming of Christ... its ultimate thesis--that there is no future Coming of Christ or Final Judgment --is heretical." "...it has become popular in some otherwise apparently orthodox circles to adopt a heretical form of 'Preterism' that denies any future bodily Resurrection or Judgment, asserting that all these are fulfilled in the Resurrection of Christ, the regeneration of the Church, the coming of the New Covenant, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Whatever else may be said about those who hold such notions, it is clear that they are not in conformity any recognizable form of orthodox Christianity." David Chilton denounced full Preterism as heresy, but then he had a paradigm shift. He became a full Preterist. After his paradigm shift, he said this, "The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus' words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus said. Scripture foretells a Second Coming--not a third!" (David Chilton, Foreword to "What Happened in AD 70?" By Ed Stevens, 1997) How is it that David Chilton went towards heresy? How does a man come to embrace what he has once denounced as heresy? He embraced it because he realized it was the irrefutable truth of Scripture! Paul now goes on to tell them what happened to him that caused this great change: at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. (Acts 26:13 NASB) On his way to arrest Christians, Paul is struck down by the glory of God. The idea of a light from Heaven revealing the glory of God occurs regularly in the First Testament: Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalms 104:2 NASB) Judaism thought of God as revealed in the Shekinah glory, brilliant and yet veiled. Saul could hardly see the light as other than the Shekinah glory through which God revealed Himself to His people, especially when it was accompanied by a voice: "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' (Acts 26:14 NASB)

To a Pharisee a voice from heaven was the voice of God, the "bath qol," especially when accompanied by blinding glory. Who, then, was this Who spoke from heaven? It could only be the Lord. But how could He be thought of as persecuting the Lord? Paul was without a doubt thoroughly confused. He was not persecuting God! Rather, he was defending God and His laws! "Goads" were the sharp spikes often mounted on the front of chariots. If a horse kicked back he would hurt himself against them. This was a Greek saying, meaning, You cannot resist fate, which Festus and Agrippa were familiar with. "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. (Acts 26:15 NASB) His reference to "Lord" was an expression of humility before divine authority. He wanted "the Lord" to identify Himself. How could he be persecuting God when his whole life was given to His service? The reply came, "I am Jesus." Can you even imagine how Paul felt at this moment? It had been the last thing that he had expected to hear. As far as he was concerned, Jesus was just a rotting corpse. Paul had dedicated the most recent part of his life to this belief that Jesus was not the Son of God, Jesus was not the Messiah, Jesus had not risen from the dead, and all those who believed that must be exterminated. Can you imagine the sobering reality of suddenly standing face-to-face with the resurrected Jesus, knowing He is indeed both God and alive--and you had been very wrong? These three words turned Paul's world and his theology upside down. This was then a clear testimony to the resurrection, for Jesus had been dead and buried, and yet here He was speaking from heaven and identifying Himself with Christians on earth. Indeed He was declaring that they were so precious to Him, that those who touched them, touched Him. This was the amazing thing that had changed the course of his life. He had been brought face to face with the risen Jesus Christ, and had had to face up to the fact that He was alive. New Testament scholars and others have puzzled a great deal over the conversion of Paul. Outside the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, it may well be the second most important event described in the New Testament. So the conversion of Paul has been the object of a great deal of investigation. Some of the most amazing theories have been brought forward to explain what happened to the Apostle Paul. One of the favorite explanations was to explain it by saying Paul had epilepsy. Joseph Klausner, the well known Jewish author writes, "Evidently, the apostle suffered an attack of epilepsy on the Road to Damascus, and that explains what came to pass." Spurgen used to say, "Oh, if that is true, O God, give us many epileptics, for that is what we need." Others have said what Paul saw was an hallucination. He was the victim of a sunstroke, because the Scripture does make special reference to the fact, that it was around noon, and we all know that at that particular spot, the sun does shine brightly, and its no doubt true, that many people have suffered sunstroke in that area. If Paul had been the only one to make the claim of seeing the risen Christ, perhaps we would have to concede the point, or at least not build our case on it. But in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul states: and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:5-8 NASB) Floyd Hamilton states: Now it is perfectly possible for one man to have an hallucination, and two men might have the same hallucination by a singular coincidence, but that eleven men of intelligence, whose characters and writings indicate their sanity in other respects, or that five hundred men in a body should have the same hallucination and at the same time, stretches the law of probability to the breaking point! (cited in Teacher's Manual for the Ten Basic Steps Toward Christian Maturity [Campus Crusade for Christ, 1965], p. 104, italics his) The only explanation that really satisfies the context and explains the life of Paul is that this was an appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ: "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

(Acts 26:15 NASB) Here our Lord makes it plain that to put your hand upon one of the saints is to put your hand upon Him, for the New Testament makes very plain that our Lord Jesus is the federal head of the saints. He is the covenantal head of the saints, and they're identified with Him. He represents them, and His experiences in representing them on the cross are the fundamental facts of divine redemption. And thus, to touch His saints, is to touch Him, for He stands for them. Remember this each week as we read the Voice of the Martyr: When they persecute the saints, they persecute Christ. 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, (Acts 26:16-17 NASB) This is Paul's commission, which he is fulfilling at this very moment as he witnesses to Agrippa and the crowd gathered before him that was made up of Jews and Gentiles: to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.' (Acts 26:18 NASB) "To open their eyes"--in Isaiah 42:7 it is the Servant of the Lord who was to open the blind eyes of His people that they might know the Lord. The idea is thus that the Messianic Age is now here and Paul is a witness of it. "That they may turn from darkness to light"--the central application would appear to be Isaiah 9:2. The Messianic light has shone, Jesus the Messiah has come, and men must come out of their darkness and respond to His light. "From the dominion of Satan to God"--God's servant "the Branch" would remove the iniquity of the land, ushering in the time of blessing. Being turned from the power of Satan to God indicates having the filth of sin removed and being clothed with righteousness and purity, and as Messiah's people finding a new oneness in Him. "That they may receive forgiveness of sins"--this forgiveness is the most remarkable thing in the world, for it is a complete removal of sin through the cleansing of the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7), a "blotting out" (Isaiah 43.25; 44.22; Psalm 51.9), so that man is no longer seen as sinful. His filthy garments having been removed, he is seen as clothed in the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and is thus able to approach the living God. "An inheritance among those who have been sanctified"--it is because their sin has been removed that they will be able to enjoy their inheritance among God's people, enjoying His blessing of eternal life. "By faith in Me"--none of this is the result of our efforts, but only through "faith" in Jesus Christ. In Paul's writings, he never varied from this Gospel, which he was given right from the beginning. That is one of the characteristic things of the preachers of the New Testament. They were absolutely intolerant of other ideas of the way of salvation. Does that seem strange to us in the 21st Century? Sure it does, because one of the things that we are supposed to have in the 21st Century is tolerance. But tolerance, when it comes to things of God, is ultimately indifference to that which is the truth of God. James Denney, a Scottish Presbyterian theologian, in his book, The Death of Christ, under the heading of "The Intolerance of Paul" writes: The first commandment is, "Thou shalt have none other gods beside me," and that's the foundation of the true religion. As there is only one God, so there can be only one Gospel. If God has really done something in Christ, on which the salvation of the world depends, and if he has made it known, then it's a Christian duty to be intolerant of everything which ignores or explains it away. If we're going to be faithful to the one God and the one Gospel, how can we be tolerant of doctrines that are contrary to what the one Gospel of the one God says? It's only unfaithfulness, unbelief, tragic departure from a clear testimony to the Lord Jesus, that leads a Christian man, a supposedly Christian man, to be tolerant of other ways of salvation." Listen to the Apostle Peter:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NASB) Listen to what Lazarus writes: He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. (1 John 5:12 NASB) We hear a lot today about "people of faith" and tolerance, and how we are all worshiping the same God, but by different names. But there is no such thing as a Christianity that stands side by side with Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, and says, "We worship one God under many names." Christians believe, fundamentally, of necessity, that there is one true God. This true God is not Allah. This true God is not Krishna. This true God is not the god of Joseph Smith or Buddha or the Jews. This true God is the Lord Jesus Christ!: looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, (Titus 2:13 NASB) Jesus Christ is God. And as God He seeks true worship, worship based upon a knowledge of Who He is in reality, based upon His revelation to man. He does not grant to man the freedom to worship Him in a manner that pleases the creature rather than the Creator. God is particular about His worship. His worship is intimately, vitally connected to truth. Without truth, there is no worship of the Christian God. May God deliver us from the mealy mouthed kind of tolerance that is supposed to be a great virtue in the twenty-first century. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on July 11, 2010. Media #512.

Repent and Turn To God Acts 26:19-20 We are looking at Paul giving his testimony before King Agrippa in Caesarea. Do you remember how Paul ended up in Roman custody? Soon after Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he was worshiping in the temple. When some Jews from Ephesus saw him, they started a riot claiming that Paul had brought a Gentile into the temple. The mob grabbed Paul and preceded to stomp him to death when the Roman General Claudius Lysias came in with his troops and rescued Paul. A plot to kill Paul led to his transfer to Caesarea and to his trial under Felix. Festus, who was Felix's successor, also attempted to decide the matter, but this only resulted in Paul's appeal to Caesar. Now, in order to identify some charges against Paul to include in a letter to Caesar, this group has assembled to hear from Paul and to give their advice to Festus. This group consists of: So, on the next day when Agrippa came together with Bernice amid great pomp, and entered the auditorium accompanied by the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Acts 25:23 NASB So Paul shares with them his testimony, he tells them about his zealous Jewish life and how he persecuted the Church of God. He tells them about meeting the risen Christ on the Damascus road and his transformation from a persecutor of Christianity to a preacher of Christianity. And he tells them of God's commission to him: 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; Acts 26:16 NASB It was because of this commission and the heavenly vision that accompanied it that he had gone everywhere proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ. "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, Acts 26:19 NASB His encounter with the resurrected Jesus radically changed his life. And right now, as he stands before Agrippa, Paul is

being obedient to this heavenly vision of Jesus. but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. Acts 26:20 NASB We should probably understand verse 20 as a general description of Paul's ministry rather than as a strictly chronological reference in view. "Damascus first"--he not only was baptized by Ananias in Damascus, but after some preparation, he began to preach "at Jerusalem,"where he disputed against the Grecians (Acts 9:27-29). "The region of Judea"--he may have had in mind here the trip he made through Judaea on his way to Jerusalem when he first went there after his conversion, a trip which he no doubt took advantage of by preaching on the way (9.26), or it may refer to the trip at the time of 15:3-4 similarly, or even one of which we know nothing. Paul tells them that he preached "even to the Gentiles"--and this is what really got him in trouble with his fellow Jews. I want to spend the bulk of our time this morning focusing on what Paul said at the end of verse 20. He tells us what he preached was, "that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Repent and repentance is a term we do not hear much. In fact, outside the Church, you'll probably never hear the word. But in some churches you hear it with every breath the preacher takes. So, what did Paul mean when he called people to repent? What is Repentance? The American Heritage Dictionary says, "To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it." Vine's Dictionary says, "A change of mind that involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. Always, in the New Testament, repentance involves a changing of the mind for the better and always of repentance from sin." What is wrong with Vine's definition? He says that repentance involves.... repentance from sin. He tries to define the word using the word. The Greek word that Paul uses in our text for repent is the verb metanoeo. This word, along with the noun metanoia, repentance, which Paul also uses, are the main words used in the Greek New Testament for repentance. If we are going to study the Bible, we must have some understanding of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation. The purpose of hermeneutics is to establish guidelines and rules for interpreting the Bible. Any written document is subject to misinterpretation, and thus we have developed rules to safeguard us from such misunderstanding. God has spoken, and what He has said is recorded in Scripture. The basic need of hermeneutics is to ascertain what God meant by what He said. We know that Paul said, "Repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Nobody can argue that, that much is clear. But what did he mean by what he said? One of the principles of hermeneutics is to determine carefully the meaning of words. Whatever else the Bible is, it is a book which communicates information verbally. That means that it is filled with words. Thoughts are expressed through relationships of those words. Each individual word contributes something to the whole of the content expressed. The better understanding we have of the individual words used in Biblical statements, the better we will be able to understand the total message of Scripture. Accurate communication and clear understanding are difficult when words are used imprecisely or ambiguously. Misuses of words and misunderstanding go hand in hand. All believers know that John, Jesus, Paul and all the apostles called upon people to "repent," but all believers do not agree on what He meant by "repent." Hermeneutics uses two basic methods by which words are defined: 1. Etymology--which is the science of word derivations. 2. Usage--which is how the author uses a word. Which of these two always takes precedence? Usage. Why? Because words can change their meaning over time. How do we determine usage? Context! And let me say that it is not always easy. At this point in my studies it seems to me that the word repent is used with the meaning: "change the mind and also turn from sin." We have to try to determine which from the context. For example look at:

"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham *said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16:27-31 NASB Repent here is metanoeo. Was he saying that these people in torment will turn from sin? How could they? In this text repent seems to mean: "change the mind." Notice how Abraham responds, he says, "They will not be persuaded." And the Greek word persuaded is peitho, which means: "to convince, to believe, to trust." So the rich man says, "they will repent," and Abraham responds, "They will not be persuaded." He doesn't say: They will turn from sin. This same word "persuade" is used in: When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, "The will of the Lord be done!" Acts 21:12-14 NASB Paul would not change his mind. He would not be persuaded. So it seems like "repent" and "persuade" are the same thing: "to change the mind." Let's look at another text where persuade is used with believe: Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. Acts 28:24 NASB Some were being persuaded, they were changing their minds, they were repenting, but others would not believe. So repentance is at times used to mean: "change the mind." I think that repentance is also used in Scripture to mean: "turn from sin to God": I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced. 2 Corinthians 12:21 NASB Some have sinned and not repented or turned from their sin. The word "repent" has gotten a bad rap over the years, as if it is a negative thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Repentance is the most positive thing that could ever happen in your life. Whether it's changing your mind about who Jesus is or turning from sin, it's a good thing. Let's use "repent" now to mean: "turn from sin to God." This is not a negative experience! When God calls you to repent, He doesn't shake an angry fist at you, He opens His loving arms to you. We'll expand on that a little later. But I want you to see that repentance is turning from sin to God: if they take thought in the land where they have been taken captive, and repent and make supplication to Thee in the land of those who have taken them captive, saying, 'We have sinned and have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly'; 48 if they return to Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to Thee toward their land which Thou hast given to their fathers, the city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; 1 Kings 8:47-48 NASB Here we see that repentance is returning to God. Ezekiel says that it is turning away from sin: "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Repent and turn away from your idols, and turn your faces away from all your abominations. Ezekiel 14:6 NASB Repentance, turning from our sin to God, requires that we realize we have disobeyed God. We have violated His law, offended His moral purity, tried to cast off His yoke of authority. This only happens when we stop deluding ourselves that what we are doing really is not so bad when compared to others. It requires that we admit we have turned from God to sin.

I'm really starting to see both meanings of repentance connected in a sense. We are to change our mind about who Jesus is, and we are to turn from our sin. This seems to be what Paul is saying in our text: but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. Acts 26:20 NASB Paul is saying that men are to repent, change their mind and turn (epistrepho) to God and do works that are appropriate to changing your mind. This word epistrepho is used of Peter in: but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." Luke 22:32 NASB Once Peter turns back to God he is to strengthen his brothers. Believers, we all have times in our lives when we need to repent, to turn from sin back to God. This should be obvious. Repentance is something that should be ongoing in our lives. Turning from sin is a prelude to holiness. Walking in holiness begins with repentance. That being the case, then maybe we should start thinking about repentance differently. Maybe we should start thinking about it as a discipline of our faith--a lifetime discipline necessary for a holy life. Maybe we should even think of repentance as a daily discipline. None of us are sinless, so we all should be involved in a repentance daily. Sin is just plain ugly, through and through. It breaks the heart of God, and it ruins the lives of people. If you fail to repent of the sin in your life, it will ultimately destroy you. And it's not so much a question of God "punishing" you for your sins--sin brings about its own punishment. When a parent tells a child not to touch a hot stove, and the child disobeys and does it anyway, what happens? The child gets burned. Who burned the child? An angry, vindictive parent? No, the hot stove burned the child. The loving parent tried to encourage the child not to touch the stove in the first place. This is why we need to repent, to live in sin is to bring great harm upon ourselves. Although some of our troubles are not the result of our own sins, the fact is that most of them are. Through our sinful behavior, we make major contributions to our misery: Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8 NASB Repentance means that we stop blaming other people for our problems, and we begin to take responsibility for ourselves. Sin is a choice. It's always a choice. You can't blame it on your parents, or your personality, or your nationality, or your situation, or on what the other guy did to provoke you. You have to take responsibility for your actions. For example: Your father may have had a bad temper, and you may have picked it up from him. Wherever you got it, you're the one that has to deal with it. Repentance is not a negative experience, it is a positive experience. When you repent, you turn from doing things that are capable only of creating misery in your life, and you turn toward doing things that will create joy and fulfillment in your life. When you repent, you turn away from the things that are bent on destroying your life, and you turn towards the One who has promised to bless your life. but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. Acts 26:20 NASB I think Paul is saying here, "[Change your mind] and turn to God, performing deeds that are appropriate to [someone who has changed their mind]." Paul is preaching holiness! Remember who he is talking to, King Agrippa, who was married to his sister. Paul is preaching a message that turns people to God and produces good works. Now let me ask you a very important question: Is repentance necessary for salvation? I guess it depends on which meaning you attach to repentance. Do you have to change your mind to be saved? Sure! Salvation is a change of mind, you didn't believe in Christ and now you do. But the real issue is: Do you have to turn from sin to be saved? How many of you have turned from all sin? How many of you live a sinless life? How many of you are saved? So you

are saved, but have not turned from all sin? Then you must not believe that total repentance is necessary for salvation. One commentator wrote this, "One of the most spiritual destructive mind-sets among Christians is that grace is so free and unconditional to sinners that repentance is not necessary. I would go as far as to say that any Gospel that does not clearly proclaim repentance is a false Gospel worthy of condemnation." It's a destructive mind-set to believe that grace is free and unconditional? If it is not free and unconditional, then it's not grace! The word "grace" means: "free and unmerited favor shown to guilty sinners who deserve only judgment." Human merit plays no part in man's salvation. Another writer said: "Without repentance, there is no salvation. It is important to know all about repentance. We need to know what repentance is so that we may not be mistaken. It is important to know what repentance is so that it might be brought about in our own lives. Repentance is one thing that man does which affects heaven. All must turn from a life of sin to a life of righteousness if they wish to be saved." Who in here has turned from all sin to a life of righteousness? I hope you understand that this is a serious issue. When talking about eternal life, we don't want to be mistaken about how to receive it. Do we? I sure don't! I think that some of the confusion comes because of texts like Mark 1:15 where repentance and faith are both called for by Jesus: And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:14-15 NASB Who is Jesus speaking to in this passage? Jews, God's chosen people, those He had entered into a covenant relationship with at Sinai: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 NASB who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, Romans 9:4 NASB Throughout the First Testament God had a covenant relationship with Israel. So when Jesus arrives and begins to preach, He is calling the Jews to turn from their sin and return to God: And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from that region, and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came to Him and kept asking Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is shouting out after us." 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:22-24 NASB As a Savior and Redeemer, He was sent to make satisfaction and atonement for the sins of all God's elect and to obtain eternal redemption and salvation for all of them, whether Jews or Gentiles; but as a Prophet, in the discharge of His own personal ministry, He was sent by his Father only to the Jews; He was the "minister of the circumcision." For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, Romans 15:8 NASB "The circumcision" is a designation for Israel. Jesus was sent only to preach the Gospel to them and work miracles among them in proof of his Messiahship; and upon their rejection of Him, then His apostles were to be sent among the Gentiles, but He Himself was sent only to the Jews. I think this is very important in light of Jesus' command to "repent and believe in the Gospel." Israel was being called to turn back to God--to repent and to believe in the Gospel that had been promised to them throughout the First Testament. As far as we are concerned today, I don't believe that repentance is part of the Gospel message. The four Gospels and Acts present a united front. There is but one condition of eternal salvation: faith alone in Christ alone. The following references from John's Gospel are clear on this point:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16 NASB "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. John 6:47 NASB Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, John 11:25 NASB The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) also present faith as the one and only condition. However, they do so less often and less forcefully than John's Gospel. Why? Because the Synoptics are written to people who were already believers. References to the Gospel in them are not central to their purposes. Do you know what book of the Bible is written primarily to unbelievers? It is the Gospel of John! John states his purpose in: Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB "These have been written"--this refers to all that John wrote. Why did he write them? "...that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." Now think with me, John wrote his Gospel specifically to bring people to eternal life. Yet, in the Gospel of John, "repentance" is never mentioned. If repentance is necessary for salvation, John messed up. But the fact that John didn't mention repentance speaks volumes. He didn't mention it, because it isn't necessary for salvation. The hermeneutical principle called "the analogy of faith" suggests that we can best understand unclear passages of Scripture by allowing related clear passages to shed light on them. This principle suggests that one should understand the occasional references to the Gospel in the Synoptics in light of the Gospel of John and not vice versa. John's Gospel clearly says that the sole condition of salvation is faith in Christ. That will inform our understanding of any socalled problem passage in the Synoptics. Some passages from the Synoptics clearly confirm that the sole condition of eternal salvation is faith in Christ: "And those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved. Luke 8:12 NASB The sole condition of salvation given by the Lord here is faith in Him alone. All who believe are saved: And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." Acts 16:31 NASB In direct answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"--Luke reports Paul's sole condition: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If turning from sin was a condition of salvation, my first question would be, "How much sin do I have to turn from? Which sins do I have to turn from?" Are those good questions to ask? You bet they are. What would the answer be? You really can't give one, because if you say you must turn from all sin, who would be saved? Nobody! Let me give you a test to see if you understand this: Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. John 12:42-43 NASB Were these individuals saved? Were they Christians? Many would say, "No," because they did not confess Him. But the Scripture says, "They believed in Him." And man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Repentance, turning from sin, brings fellowship, not salvation. In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation, the Lord continually calls believers to repent: 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 'Behold, I stand

at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me. Revelation 3:19-20 NASB "Behold I stand at the door and knock." What does this mean? There are two primary explanations: 1. Salvation - Christ is calling unbelievers to salvation; He is begging them to let him in their heart. 2. Fellowship - Christ is calling believers back into fellowship with Himself. Their pride has caused them to lose fellowship. The first view is not correct; Revelation 3:20 is not a salvation verse. The Bible teaches that the Lord opens the heart so that a person can receive the Gospel: And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. Acts 16:14 NASB Our God is sovereign in every arena, including salvation. Christ is not a weak and helpless deity who begs men to let Him into their heart; He is the sovereign God of the universe who controls all things. Revelation 3:19 says, "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent." The word "discipline" is the Greek paideuo, which means: "to train a child, to educate, practice discipline, correct." Every use of paideuo in the New Testament refers to believers. God only chastens His Children. After God's warning that He will chasten, He urges the Laodicean's to repent. The word "repent" is the Greek word metanoeo. It is a call to separate from sin and enter back into harmony with God. Repentance results in restored fellowship. The Lord promises that if the Laodiceans repent, He will "dine with" them. The word "dine" is from the Greek word deipneo, which means: "take the principal (or evening) meal." Deipneo is the Greek term for the evening meal at the end of the day when family and friends would gather around the table together. This term is also used in the New Testament for the Lord's Supper. It pictures fellowship, communion. Revelation 3:20 is an invitation for the Laodiceans to repent so that they may fellowship with the Lord. Their fellowship was broken by their lukewarmness and pride. Repentance is not a single act, but a lifestyle choice. It is a continuous evaluation that I make as I compare my life to God's Word and seek to conform to the image of Christ. As I see areas that are drawing my focus away from God's will, I reset my focus on Christ and align my life with His will. It doesn't mean that I beat myself over the head and live in misery, but instead I choose to keep myself aligned to His Godly path by focusing on Jesus Christ. Repentance is to recognize that God's plan is good, and my path has no lasting benefit. Martin Luther had it right when he said that every day is a day of repentance. Just in case you feel like you have sinned so much that God is really sick of it and no longer wants fellowship with you, turn with me to Luke 15. No doubt Luke 15 is the greatest chapter on repentance in the entire New Testament, perhaps in the entire Bible: And He said, "A certain man had two sons; Luke 15:11 NASB The father in this parable represents God, and the sons are believers. When the parable opens, they are sons of their father; when it closes, they are sons of their father; and during the parable, they are always sons. Believer, once you are a son of God, you are always a son of God: For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26 NASB The parable opens with both sons in fellowship: and the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' And he divided his wealth between them. Luke 15:12 NASB "Them" is a picture of God providing for us as believers. "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. Luke 15:13 NASB

Here the younger brother leaves the fellowship of his father. He turns from God to sin. "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 "And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 "And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. Luke 15:14-16 NASB Here we see God's chastening--he was in want. "But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! Luke 15:17 NASB He now realizes his sin and comes to his senses. What brought him to his senses? Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test? 2 Corinthians 13:5 NASB It might have been self-evaluation. But it may be that we need the help of others so that we see our sin; such as when Nathan confronted David with his sin: 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."' Luke 15:18-19 NASB Here is repentance. He has realized his sin, and he is confessing his sin and turning from it. In effect, the young man decided, "I want to repair the breach between me and my dad. Maybe I can put things right with an apology and by working for him." This was a good decision, but it was flawed. His father was not interested in making the bargain his son was thinking about. His dad was prepared to receive him freely. His love for his prodigal boy was not conditioned on any kind of pledge to serve on the farm. Restoring harmony with his father was going to be ever so much easier than he had imagined: "And he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him. Luke 15:20 NASB Please mark this. This is God's attitude toward a repentant sinner. Picture God running toward you, He grabs and kisses you. This is the compassionate love of your heavenly Father: "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' 22 "But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.' And they began to be merry. Luke 15:21-24 NASB He greets the child with a robe, a ring, and shoes, and he prepares a calf. This is a picture of fellowship. Notice what God says about his son: "this my son was dead and has come to life again". Death is separation. This son was separated from the father by his sin, but now after repentance he is alive again. This is the joy of repentance, it brings fellowship with God. It is always the same; whether we are coming to God for the first time or for the hundredth time. The Father is there with open arms and with an open heart to all who come to Him in repentance. Believer, if you are living in sin, repent. Turn from your sin to God that you may experience the fullness of His fellowship. When you are in fellowship with God, you will be at peace, no matter what is going on around you: but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. Acts 26:20 NASB

Repent--change your mind about who Christ is and turn to God and perform works that are appropriate to someone who is a child of God. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on July 25, 2010. Media #514.

Stating "Nothing" but The Tanakh Acts 26:21-32 In our text for this morning we find Paul imprisoned in Caesarea. Because of a near riot in Jerusalem and a plot by the Jews to kill him, Roman officers had brought him to Felix, the governor, so that his guilt or innocence could be ascertained. Paul remained in prison under Felix for two years, at which time Festus succeeded Felix as governor. During this time, Paul preached the Gospel to both Felix and Festus. But neither one of them could decide what to do with Paul. They both knew that he was innocent, yet they wanted to please the Jews, who wanted Paul in jail. They were in a political dilemma, so to speak. King Agrippa arrived to pay a visit to Festus. And when Festus tells him about Paul, he says that he would like to hear him speak. So Paul is now speaking to a large crowd gathered in Caesarea. Paul is sharing with them his testimony, how he once persecuted Christianity until he met the risen Christ, and now he is a preacher of Christianity. This gathering was, at best, an informal hearing, a favor to Festus, and probably a matter of curiosity to those who attended. Paul is not trying to prove his innocence as much as he is trying to present the Gospel. Paul is trying to convert this crowd. Last week we looked at Paul's message: but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. Acts 26:20 NASB Paul preached that men were to change their mind about who Jesus is and to turn from their sin to God. Believers are called to live a life of holiness. Then Paul says: "For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death. Acts 26:21 NASB What is "This reason"?--why did they try to put Paul to death? They wanted him dead because he was preaching to the Gentiles. Remember in Acts 22 when Paul was rescued from the Jewish mob by Claudius Lysias, who then allowed Paul to speak to the Jewish mob? Paul was giving his speech on the stairs leading to the Fortress Antonia, and the Jews were all quietly listening to him until he said that God told him to go to the Gentiles: "And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" They listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!" Acts 22:21-22 NASB Paul says that preaching to Gentiles is the reason the Jews wanted to kill him. Why did this bother them? We'll look at this further in a little while. "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; Acts 26:22 NASB How did Paul obtain help from God when the Jews were trying to kill him? Who rescued Paul from the angry Jews? It was Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander! Yet Paul says it was God who helped him. Why? Because he knew that God controlled all things, and that anything that happened was from the hand of God. Do you understand that? Let me show you this idea elsewhere in Scripture: So the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And he took a potsherd to scrape himself while he was sitting among the ashes. Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!" Job 2:6-9 NASB Who does the text say afflicted Job? It says that Satan smote Job. But Job's wife tells him, "Curse God and die." If

Satan did it, why does she tell him to curse God? It is because, just like Paul, she knows that all things come from the hand of God. Notice Job's response: But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. Job 2:10 NASB She says, "Curse God and die" and he says,"Shall we accept good [things] from God and not accept adversity?" The Hebrew word here for "adversity" is ra, which means: "evil." So Job clearly sees the evil that is happening to him as from God. Does the Bible condemn him for saying this? No, it says, "In all this Job did not sin with his lips." This is the same thing he said in chapter 1: He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." Job 1:21 NASB Here he says that it was the LORD who took away all he had and killed his children. That sounds like blasphemy, but notice what the text says: Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God. Job 1:22 NASB I like the way the Contemporary English Version puts this: In spite of everything, Job did not sin or accuse God of doing wrong. Job 1:22 CEV Job was saying that God did this, but he wasn't accusing God of doing wrong. Job and his wife knew what Paul knew--all things come from the hand of God; both the things we think are good and the things we think are bad. "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; Acts 26:22 NASB That the Jews had not succeeded, with all their mobs, and conspiracies, and corruption of rulers in destroying his life, was a matter of astonishment. And because he had obtained help from God, he was standing there testifying to both small and great that the salvation of the world comes only through the "hope of Israel," the Lord Jesus Christ, whose coming, death, and resurrection was foretold by the Prophets and Moses. "Stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place"this is a very significant statement. Paul is saying that he was preaching nothing but the Tanakh; we call it the Old Testament. But the Jews don't call it that, they call it the Tanakh; which is an acronym that identifies the Hebrew Bible. The acronym is based on the initial Hebrew letters of each of the text's three parts: 1.Torah, meaning: "Instruction," "The five books of Moses," also called the "Pentateuch." 2. Nevi'im, meaning: "Prophets." 3. Ketuvim, meaning: "Writings" or "Hagiographa." If you can remember back to when we started the book of Acts, I said that something that is critical to our understanding is that the Bible is one book. It is my opinion that the designation "Old Testament" is destructive. We think of something old as outdated, not needed any longer. When I get a new phone, I no longer want to use my "old" one. I think that most Christians have the idea that the Old Testament is not needed or useful for believers. This is due in part to confusing the Old Covenant, which has been superseded by the New Covenant, to the Old Testament. We connect the Old Covenant and the Old Testament, and since the Old Covenant passed away, we believe we don't need the Old Testament. The Old Covenant is fulfilled, and we are under the New Covenant. But the First Testament is not "old," in the sense that we don't need it. Please understand this: Apart from understanding the First Testament, you will never understand the Second Testament. The writers of the Second Testament all suppose that their readers understood the First Testament. Look at Romans 1: Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, Romans 1:1-2 NASB What is Paul saying here? He is saying that the Gospel was promised beforehand in the First Testament. "Through His prophets in the holy Scriptures" is referring to the First Testament.

To understand the words of the Second Testament, we must understand the words of the First Testament. For example, the new believer begins to read the Bible and starts in Matthew: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matthew 1:1 NASB In the first verse of the so called New Testament, we have to ask, "Who is David? Who is Abraham? "Where do we get the answers to those questions? We have to go back to the First Testament. Then in verse 21 speaking of Mary, Matthew writes: "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21 NASB Who are "His people"? Israel! Matthew then tells us that this was in fulfillment of prophecy from the First Testament: Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, Matthew 1:22 NASB Then He quotes from Isaiah: "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." Matthew 1:23 NASB So the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus was foretold in the First Testament. So we can't start in the last quarter of the book and expect to understand what is going on unless we first have read the first three quarters. The Bible was written in a time far distant from ours and in cultures quite strange to us. So as we try to discover the author's meaning, we must learn to read his writing as one of his contemporaries would. To do this we must understand the First Testament as they did. The importance of understanding the first three quarters of the Bible is brought out in Paul's words in our text. He says that he was, "Stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place"--listen, believers, Paul is saying that what he was preaching ALL came from the First Testament. Paul's eschatology was nothing but what the Prophets and Moses taught. So in Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 on the resurrection, and in 1 Thessalonians 4 on what most call "the rapture," Paul is teaching nothing but what Moses and the Prophets taught. He is teaching the hope of Israel. This is a problem to Dispensationalists; they teach what Paul taught was not revealed in the Tanakh. Dwight Pentecost, in his book, Things to Come, on page 137 writes, "The concept must stand that this whole age [he's referring to the Church age] with its program was not revealed in the Old Testament, but constitutes a new program and a new line of revelation in this present age." How can that be if Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, says that he is teaching nothing but what Moses and the Prophets taught? Who do we believe, Paul or Dwight Pentecost? Listen to me, believers, There is nothing new in the New Testament. Everything that Paul, and all its writers, taught was nothing but the hope of Israel. All the promises that God gave to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, because the Church is the true Israel of God. This view has been called "replacement theology"; it is said that the Church replaced Israel. But a much better term would be "fulfillment theology"; the promises of God made to Old Covenant Israel are "fulfilled" in the Church of Jesus Christ, which is true Israel. Covenant, not race, has always been the defining mark of the true Israel. Let me back up the statement that all the promises that God gave to Israel are fulfilled in the Church: "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Jeremiah 31:31 NASB What is promised here? A New Covenant. Who is this New Covenant promised to? Israel! Anyone disagree with that? Good. Then let me ask you this: What covenant is the Church under? Writing to the Church that was in Corinth, Paul

said: who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6 NASB The New Covenant is particularly problematic for the Dispensationalist, as Jeremiah 31 is undeniably addressed to Israel. The New Covenant is the very heart of the Gospel, yet, if the Church is fulfilling the promise given to Israel under the New Covenant then the Church is the true Israel of God. I believe that the Bible teaches the essential continuity of Israel and the Church. The elect of all the ages are seen as one people, true Israel, with one Savior, one destiny. When I say that there is nothing new in the New Testament, maybe some of you are thinking about Ephesians 3 and the mystery. that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, Ephesians 3:3-6 NASB Doesn't Paul teach here that this mystery was not made known in previous generations? Doesn't he teach that it is just now being revealed to him? Well Paul says, "Which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed"--he says that it was not made known "as" it has now been revealed. Was it taught in the Tanakh that the Gentiles would be partakers of the promise of Christ and brought into the kingdom? Was that taught? Sure it was: The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. Isaiah 2:1-2 NASB This is a prophecy about the "last days" and the establishment of the kingdom. And he says, "all the nations" will stream to it. It sure sounds like there would be equality in the kingdom: And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:3 NASB When Solomon dedicated the temple, he talked about Gentiles coming to it: "Also concerning the foreigner who is not from Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your great name's sake and Your mighty hand and Your outstretched arm, when they come and pray toward this house, then hear from heaven, from Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, and fear You as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name. 2 Chronicles 6:32-33 NASB So they expected Gentiles to come and worship the God of Israel at the temple in Jerusalem. Notice also: He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 49:6 NASB First God restores Israel and then makes them a light to the Gentiles. So what was the mystery that Paul talked about? The mystery was that Gentiles would be equal to Jews. Paul preached that the Gentiles could obtain salvation simply

by faith in Christ. Paul was preaching a circumcision-free, Law-free Gospel that made Jew and Gentile one. There is nothing new in the New Testament, but the New Testament writers interpret the First Testament for us. They unfold in a much clearer, more detailed way the things that were taught in the Tanakh. Please get this: When the New Testament authors comment on a First Testament passage, they do not give an interpretation, but THE interpretation. The New Testament interprets the First. The Old Covenant was a veiled representation of the New Covenant. It is in the New Testament that we learn that the material things of the Old Covenant were types and shadows of spiritual counterparts found in the New Covenant. We are to interpret the First Testament through the lens of the New Testament. We must understand that the last 27 books are a divinely inspired commentary on the first 39 books. Milton S. Terry, in his book, Biblical Hermeneutics, writes: "It is of the first importance to observe that, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament cannot be fully apprehended without the help of the New" (p. 18). I said earlier, "To understand the words of the Second Testament, we must understand the words of the First Testament." So as I said earlier, the Bible is ONE book. You need the First three quarters of it to understand the last quarter, and you need the last quarter to interpret the first there quarters. We need the WHOLE book. I need to say one more thing about this verse before we leave it. Notice how Young's Literal Translation puts it: `Having obtained, therefore, help from God, till this day, I have stood witnessing both to small and to great, saying nothing besides the things that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come, Acts 26:22 YLT Our text has the Greek word mello in it. Paul says that Moses spoke of these things as "about to come." Anything about that bother you? If mello means: "about to come," how could Moses have spoken about the things Paul is teaching as "about to come"? If they are "about to come" for Moses, how can they be "about to come" for Paul? I think that Paul is referring here to the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32: "Give ear, O heavens, and let me speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. Deuteronomy 32:1 NASB Who is God talking to here? The heavens and earth? Is He talking to the stars and dirt? No, he is talking to Israel. Notice what he says to them: 'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.' Deuteronomy 32:35 NASB I think that this is the verse that Paul is referring to in Acts 26:22 when he said Moses spoke of as "about to come." How could Israel's calamity be "near" in Moses' time? If you read this chapter from the beginning, you will see that it is a prophecy of Israel's last days. Moses is talking about what will happen in Israel's future. So Moses is saying that in Israel's last days her calamity is near. ...Stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." Acts 26:23 NASB Paul wanted them to recognize that what he was teaching is nothing other than the prophets have already said. Scriptures he had in mind would have included: 'I will raise up a prophet from countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. Deuteronomy 18:18 NASB This speaks of the coming Prophet Jesus. He also would have had in mind the following verses: Isaiah 53:10-12, which could only be fulfilled by the resurrection of the Servant (52:13), where the One Who had been humiliated is exalted on high; both halves of Psalm 22, expressing humiliation and triumph; the triumph of the Messiah in Psalm 16:8-11 and 110:1; Moses' teaching on the sacrifices that are fulfilled in Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7) and are for the forgiveness of sins; Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 where the Servant is shown to be for the light to the Gentiles. These promises were fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Jesus was put to death by the Jews and Gentiles (with the help of

Roman rulers), and by virtue of His resurrection from the dead, He was (on the road to Damascus) the first to proclaim "light" to the Jews and the Gentiles. And what Jesus first did, Paul and the Church continued to do. While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." Acts 26:24 NASB I can almost hear Festus mumbling to himself, "This is no defense, it is a crusade! Paul is trying to get us all saved." The Roman governor's outburst shows that he sees neither Jesus' resurrection nor the salvation blessings that flow from it as fit topics for rational discussion. There was no place in the Roman system of belief for a resurrection from the dead. Festus was a rationalist. For him, the notion that Jesus, or anyone else, could rise from the dead was just plain crazy. Festus had called Jesus "a dead man" (Acts 25:19). But Paul was saying that Jesus was alive! The Greek words ta polla . . . grammata, translated: "great learning" (lit. the many writings) indicate that it was Paul's knowledge of the Scriptures that Festus is talking about. But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. Acts 26:25 NASB The word used for sober is often used elsewhere in contrast with the idea of madness as its opposite. Paul's faith, along with the faith of all of the apostles, rested completely on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not an irrational leap in the dark, but was based on their eyewitness testimony. Paul can make such an assertion because his message is about an objective historical fact, a public event of which even King Agrippa is aware: "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. Acts 26:26 NASB The thing that was "not done in a corner" was the death and resurrection of Christ. It was common knowledge. Everyone knew that Jesus had lived and died, and that there was a claim to His resurrection. "King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." Acts 26:27 NASB Now Paul's language becomes second person language, as he turns to Agrippa, and he said, "Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you believe." Do you see what he's saying? He is saying, You know the historical facts of Jesus' life. He had known of Christ because he uses the term "Christian." Paul hasn't used that term. And you believe the Prophets. So put the two together. What did the Prophets say the Messiah would do? Where does that drive you? Jesus fulfilled what the Prophets wrote. Paul is putting Agrippa between a rock and a hard place. If Agrippa said, "I do believe the Prophets," then he would be tacitly admitting that Jesus is the Messiah. That would put him in deep trouble with the Jewish leaders. But if he said, "I don't believe the Prophets," then he would be in even deeper trouble with them. So he couldn't say yes or no. Agrippa, the politician, did not want to deny the Prophets or agree with a crazy man. So he diverted the question: Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." Acts 26:28 NASB The Greek here is a bit obscure. But it doesn't say what we have in our King James Version: Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Acts 26:28 KJV He is not saying, "You've almost got me, Paul. You almost have me convinced." I think the best way to see this is that Agrippa sarcastically says, "Do you really think, Paul, that in this short a time you're going to make me a Christian?" The word, "Christian" is only used twice in the New Testament, here and in 1 Peter 4:16 when Peter encourages one who "suffers as a Christian." The plural form is used in Acts 11:26 where it says "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." But King Agrippa is the first one recorded to refer to the Church by the name, "Christian." And Paul said, "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains." Acts 26:29 NASB

Paul was trying to convert Agrippa and everyone else. As he stands there he says: I wish you could be like I am. I wish you had the peace, the liberty, the power, the joy, the gladness of my heart and life. The Greek text says, "Altogether such as I am, except these bonds." What a gesture that must have been. I wish that all of you had what I have. In their day Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice had what everyone else wanted. They lived well. They had plenty of money, the finest clothes, the best food, and the most comfortable places to live. Paul owned no property, had no investment portfolio, and probably could pack all of his earthly belongings in one suitcase. But there is no status in this society that can possibly compare with the status of "in Christ." That's the greatest place for any person to be. Paul's reference to his chains may have been literal--he may have been wearing chains as he spoke--or perhaps metaphorical--he may have been referring to his condition as a prisoner. The king stood up and the governor and Bernice, and those who were sitting with them, and when they had gone aside, they began talking to one another, saying, "This man is not doing anything worthy of death or imprisonment." Acts 26:30-31 NASB Then the king stood up, the indication that the event was now at an end. And following his act the governor and Bernice stood along with him, followed by all the guests, and having left the room all agreed that Paul had done nothing worthy of either death or bonds. The reason for this meeting was not (in the minds of that crowd) to give Paul a chance to preach to them and to seek to convert them, but to hear Paul's case so as to give Festus something to report to Caesar. They got nothing. There really were no charges against Paul that would hold up in court. Luke implied that everyone present concurred that Paul was completely innocent. This had previously been the verdict of the Pharisees (23:9), Claudius Lysias (23:29), and Festus (25:25). Now the king of Palestine and the governor from Rome both agreed Paul was innocent. Christianity is not an insurrection, heresy, or political treason; it is a spiritual relationship with the living God. This whole scene emphasizes the contrast between the uprightness of Roman legal proceedings over against the partiality and injustice of the Jews. God was through with Judiasm, and soon He would utterly destroy Jerusalem. And Agrippa said to Festus, "This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Acts 26:32 NASB This verdict by the man who could appoint and remove the high priests of Jerusalem was clearly seen by Luke as more than counteracting the verdicts of the high priests themselves. The chief man in Judaism had declared Paul to be innocent. They could have released him. His appeal was only binding if there were grounds for it, and there were no grounds for an appeal from one who was innocent. To them he was a political pawn. Had he not been a Roman citizen, he would probably have been handed over to the Jewish court . So the alternative of releasing him was not an option. It would have brought turmoil. Paul's speech explains the intensity of Israel's unbelief. In spite of the fact that the Jews should recognize Jesus (and the Gospel) to be the fulfillment of the promise of God through Moses and the Prophets, they vigorously oppose it. They do this contrary to the Scriptures, history, and logic. They do so because of the hardness of their hearts. Men cannot be logically convinced and converted, any more than Paul was. In order for men to be converted, God must radically and powerfully intervene into their lives, convincing them that Jesus is alive, and that He is the Messiah. Our text is just one of many which reveals the deep-seated unbelief and hard-core opposition of men toward God, and of the dramatic, divine intervention required to save lost men. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on August 1, 2010. Media #515. The Perfect Storm Acts 27 How many of you have seen the movie, The Perfect Storm? If you have seen the movie, you have some idea of the perils of the sea. The sea can be so beautiful and yet so dangerous. The storm that Paul faces in our text is truly the

perfect storm. It is designed to allow all onboard to see the sovereign hand of God. If you remember from our past studies, Paul has been a prisoner of the Roman Empire for allegedly starting a riot in the temple area in Jerusalem. After being secretly moved to Caesarea, he was accused by the high priest before Felix, the Roman governor. At a second trial two years later Paul was forced into a corner by the governor, so he appealed to Caesar. Festus invited King Agrippa and his wife Bernice to listen to Paul in a public arena for the purpose of forming some acceptable political charges before shipping him to Rome. Paul, however, used the opportunity to witness of his faith in Jesus of Nazareth. Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice rejected the apostle's invitation to place their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and so arrangements were made to ship him some 2,000 miles away to Rome. It was September of the year A.D.59. Our text for today is one of the most detailed portions in all Scripture. Luke was such a careful historian that the detail which he gives in this chapter about ancient methods of sailing gives more insight into sailing practices on the Mediterranean in the first century than all other ancient manuscripts put together. Historians and archaeologists have studied this passage for its valuable description of ancient seamanship. The ancients generally had no love for the sea. The vessels were uncomfortable. It was not easy to travel in them. They were very perilous. They had no sextants. They had no compasses. They had to navigate by the stars, by the sun, and by the land. When it was decided that we would sail for Italy, they proceeded to deliver Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan cohort named Julius. 2 And embarking in an Adramyttian ship, which was about to sail to the regions along the coast of Asia, we put out to sea accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica. Acts 27:1-2 NASB One way or the other, Festus must have found some way to explain Paul's appearance before Caesar. Paul and a number of other prisoners were put aboard a ship on their way to Rome. "We" in verse 1 and 2 is a return to the "we" of Acts 21:18, an indication that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, had since rejoined Paul. Luke had most likely been living in Caesarea, where Paul was imprisoned, and had joined him along with Aristarchus. Aristarchus is a man whom Paul had met in Thessalonica on his second missionary journey, and who now faithfully accompanies the apostle wherever he goes. Paul was being sent to Rome as a prisoner, so how is it that Luke and Aristarchus can go with him? Some surmise that Luke went along as his physician, and Aristarchus as his servant, which would give them official positions. We don't really know for sure why they got to go other than the grace of God. This is the goodness and kindness of our God. The importance of the support of Christian friends should not be underestimated or taken lightly. This also demonstrates the love of these men for God and Paul. They weren't taking a Disney cruise for a time of rest and relaxation. They were risking their lives to be with Paul. There were other prisoners traveling with Paul, all under the authority of Julius, a centurion who was the commander of a hundred men. This Augustan Cohort of the Roman military establishment, which is a very prestigious unit, a picked body of soldiers responsible directly to the emperor himself, has considerable authority as a result. God gave Paul favor in the eyes of Julius. This centurion was to develop a deep respect for Paul, so that he would extend considerable liberties to him, take seriously his advice, and make every effort to protect him. Their intention was to sail from port to port, hoping to connect with a ship that was headed for Rome. Since there were no passenger ships, they had to rely on transport ships headed back to Rome. The next day we put in at Sidon; and Julius treated Paul with consideration and allowed him to go to his friends and receive care. Acts 27:3 NASB So the first leg of their journey was from Caesarea to Sidon. This is Paul's first visit to Sidon, but Christians were already in Phoenicia (Act:11:19) and so Paul had "friends" here. This act of Julius is rather strange, and again I think attributed to the goodness of God. The Romans had very strict rules concerning their prisoners. If a Roman solider lost a prisoner, he served the prisoner's sentence himself-regardless of the circumstances. But Julius let Paul go ashore and visit with his friends, no doubt accompanied by a

guard. From there we put out to sea and sailed under the shelter of Cyprus because the winds were contrary. 5 When we had sailed through the sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we landed at Myra in Lycia. Acts 27:4-5 NASB The normal route would not have been to go around Cyprus, but because the wind was such a problem they had to sail very close to the coast. Historians have indicated that it would have taken approximately nine days to travel from Sidon to Myra: There the centurion found an Alexandrian ship sailing for Italy, and he put us aboard it. Acts 27:5 NASB As they arrived in Myra, the centurion found an Alexandrian ship, laden with wheat, that was headed for Italy. They boarded this ship and set sail. These large ships were often 180 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 44 feet deep from the deck to the bottom of the hold. When we had sailed slowly for a good many days, and with difficulty had arrived off Cnidus, since the wind did not permit us to go farther, we sailed under the shelter of Crete, off Salmone; 8 and with difficulty sailing past it we came to a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea. Acts 27:7-8 NASB Roman transportation ships were very heavy and would have displaced a tremendous amount of water. And since they were grain ships, they would be loaded down. They had a single mast with a large, square sail and the seamen usually preferred to sail with the one sail behind the wind. They did not have an easy time going around Cape Salmone, which was on the eastern tip of Crete, because Crete is a 140-mile-long island: When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives." Acts 27:9-10 NASB The time which had been lost, due to unfavorable winds, made it evident that they would not be able to reach Rome, not without wintering at some port, and finishing the journey in the spring. An ancient writer, Vegesius, said, "Up to September the fourteenth, sailing was safe in the Mediterranean. Then from September the fourteenth to November the eleventh, it was dangerous." Now, those are the words that are used by Luke in the ninth verse, "the voyage was now dangerous." Vegesius went on to say, "After November the eleventh, then sailing was impossible." So from November until March, there was no sailing on the Mediterranean, particularly, if you wanted to arrive at your destination. To be stuck in Fair Havens would have been very undesirable because it was exposed to the winds of the open sea. It is not known how much time was spent in Fair Havens, but it must have been at least a month. "The fast" is a reference to the Jewish feast of the Day of Atonement. It occurs on the tenth day of Tishri, which is the seventh month in the Jewish calendar. That would put their journey at the end of September or the beginning of October. Notice what Paul says, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives." Some say that Paul is simply giving his opinion here. He simply spoke as a seasoned traveler, an astute observer, and one who had experienced dangers at sea. That's possible, but I think Paul may have had some divine insight as to what was to happen. I will expand on this a little later. They were not going to get to Rome until after winter was over anyway, and they could stay right where they were with no real problems. They had little to gain and much to lose. Time would prove Paul right. Paul's caution is rather interesting. I would think that Paul would have more reason to be reckless than these seasoned

seamen and the centurion, because he was a Christian. His God was in control of all things, including the sea. But more than this, God had already assured Paul that he would reach Rome: But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." Acts 23:11 NASB Paul was as secure as any man could be. But he still used wisdom. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are not incompatible. Paul's concern here was not for himself, but for others. Paul knew that he would reach Rome, but he also seemed to know that the ship and some of its passengers would not. But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. Acts 27:11-12 NASB The centurion agreed with the pilot and captain as did the majority of those on the ship. Their main reason for wanting to continue on to Rome was that Fair Havens was not a desirable place to stay. Historians record that the only place in the winter season that was comfortable was the port of Phoenix, which was about forty miles from Fair Havens. When a moderate south wind came up, supposing that they had attained their purpose, they weighed anchor and began sailing along Crete, close inshore. 14 But before very long there rushed down from the land a violent wind, called Euraquilo; 15 and when the ship was caught in it and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and let ourselves be driven along. Acts 27:13-15 NASB Euraquilo, was a sailor's term for a strong northeasterly wind. It came from two words--one Greek and one Latin. The Greek word euros refers to an east wind, and the Latin word aquilo literally refers to a north wind. This northeast wind would come down from Asia Minor and was so fierce that it was of hurricane or typhoon proportions. The Euraquilo was a great fear among all who sailed the Mediterranean because it tended to send ships to an ocean graveyard off the coast of North Africa. Running under the shelter of a small island called Clauda, we were scarcely able to get the ship's boat under control. 17 After they had hoisted it up, they used supporting cables in undergirding the ship; and fearing that they might run aground on the shallows of Syrtis, they let down the sea anchor and in this way let themselves be driven along. Acts 27:16-17 NASB They tried with great effort to get behind the island to gain some protection from the tempestuous winds. Every sailing vessel had a dinghy or lifeboat. It was small enough that when the vessel was harbored, it could be used as transportation to go ashore. With great difficulty everyone worked to secure the lifeboat. Barns writes, "In a single-masted vessel there was no distribution of stress, as opposed to a multi-sail vessel, where the stress is distributed over the entire hull. The ship would simply begin to split in half. They would attempt to wrap cables tightly around the ship to keep it secured during the storm, a procedure called 'frapping' in a mariner's dictionary" (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Acts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975], p. 364). The "shallows of Syrtis" probably refers to the dreaded sandbars and shoals off the African coast west of Cyrene. "Sea anchor" was a broad piece of wood held vertical by a weight below and an empty barrel on top. It would slow the ship's movement from crest to crest and help keep it on course. With the sail down, the storm swirling around them from all sides, and their inability to navigate, God caused them to sail on a direct course to the harbor of Malta. The next day as we were being violently storm-tossed, they began to jettison the cargo; 19 and on the third day they threw the ship's tackle overboard with their own hands. 20 Since neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small storm was assailing us, from then on all hope of our being saved was gradually abandoned. Acts 27:18-20 NASB The situation became so desperate that the entire group--crew and prisoners--began throwing overboard the excess

tackle of the ship, such as unnecessary sails, cables, furniture, and baggage. They navigated by the stars and by the sun, so when neither one of these appeared for days, that was disastrous for accurate navigation. The men on the ship had lost all hope. They had nothing and no one to turn to. Torn by the wind, drenched to the skin, hardly able to keep on their feet, and finding it difficult to hold on to the ship to prevent themselves going overboard, their plight now appears hopeless. When I was in the Navy I was aboard a Spruance class destroyer, which was 529 feet long; at least three times the size of the ship Paul was on. We ran into a very violent storm in the North Atlantic. We were not allowed out on deck because the waves were washing over the deck. It was dark, loud, and very violent. The captain had to change the ships course because it was being damaged by the storm. This was on a modern ship--I can't imagine what this crew was going through. When they had gone a long time without food, then Paul stood up in their midst and said, "Men, you ought to have followed my advice and not to have set sail from Crete and incurred this damage and loss. Acts 27:21 NASB Paul fought his way through the howling wind, and finding a convenient place, yelled, presumably to the pilot, the captain, and the centurion, but also to any within hearing, that had they listened to him this would not have happened. "You ought to have followed my advice"--the word "ought" here is the Greek word die, this is a term often used by Luke to indicate divine necessity. This may point to the revelatory quality of his prior warning. Paul's words were not meant as a typical "I told you so," but were spoken to motivate his peers to listen to him now. If Paul had been right before, and his words had come to pass, he had even more important words to speak now: "Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 "For this very night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood before me, 24 saying, 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you all those who are sailing with you.' Acts 27:22-24 NASB As at Corinth, the angel urged Paul to "stop being afraid" (18:9). He reiterated the divine necessity "you must" (dei) of standing trial before Caesar. "God to whom I belong"--that looks at Paul's position. He belonged to the Lord. He regards the Lord as the owner of himself, but then he says, "Whom I serve"--that is Paul's practice. He realized that he belonged to God, so he lived his life in service to Him. Paul calls every believer to understand this; to live their lives for Christ: For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:20 NASB We belong to God; we should live to serve Him. Notice verse 24, not only was Paul going to be saved, but so was everyone who was with him. "Has granted you"--is the perfect middle indicative of charizomai, which is from charis, a gift or grace. The lives of those that sailed with Paul God had spared as a gift (charis) to Paul. In the phrase "God has granted you," you can see what Paul has been doing. He has been praying for these others, praying that the sailors and soldiers accompanying him would be spared. God granted this one man, because of his prayer, the lives of the two hundred seventy-five individuals who sailed with him. They were spared because Paul prayed for them. What a revelation of the power of prayer! "Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God that it will turn out exactly as I have been told. 26 "But we must run aground on a certain island." Acts 27:25-26 NASB Now, you can see here, that what the apostle is saying is that faith exists in the understanding and accent to the words of God. God said it, and Paul believed it--that is faith. Faith is simply the acceptance of the teaching of the word of God. What are the chances of landing on the only island around, losing the ship and cargo, and yet everyone's life being saved? The mathematical probability of that occurring would be staggering. But with God this is no big deal: But when the fourteenth night came, as we were being driven about in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors began to surmise that they were approaching some land. 28 They took

soundings and found it to be twenty fathoms; and a little farther on they took another sounding and found it to be fifteen fathoms. 29 Fearing that we might run aground somewhere on the rocks, they cast four anchors from the stern and wished for daybreak. Acts 27:27-29 NASB Fourteen days had passed since they left Fair Havens in Crete and now were being driven about in the center of the Mediterranean Sea. At midnight the sailors sensed they were approaching land, perhaps because they could hear the sound of the surf pounding on the shore. To verify that they were approaching land, they dropped a line weighted with lead into the sea to determine the depth. They found they were at twenty fathoms (120 feet, a fathom is 6 feet). A little later they verified that the water was 90 feet. Nearing land in a storm is a very dangerous thing. A ship can be tossed about in the sea and survive much better than it can survive being dashed upon the rocks. James Smith, who wrote The Voyage and Shipwreck of the Apostle Paul over a hundred years ago, with extensive research, showed that a ship from the island of Crete left to drift for two weeks, which is about the time here, would have drifted just about exactly where this ship came, somewhere in the vicinity of Malta. And even modern navigation has confirmed that fact. The distance from Clauda, their last known destination, to Malta, where they ended up, is about 470 miles. The purpose in using stern anchors was in order to keep the ship pointing in the same direction. But as the sailors were trying to escape from the ship and had let down the ship's boat into the sea, on the pretense of intending to lay out anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, "Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved." Acts 27:30-31 NASB They tried to make it appear as though they were dropping anchors over the bow, but were actually dropping the dinghy into the water. Once the sailors discerned that land was nearby, staying on board ship became increasingly dangerous. They could not handle the ship in the stormy waters. Because of its size and cargo, it required deeper water. The smaller boat, was much more easily handled, and would have been the logical choice when trying to make shore, especially in such circumstances. Notice what Paul says in verse 31, "Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved." Is Paul adding a condition to eternal life? Is he here teaching shipboard salvation? Paul clearly says that only those in the ship can be saved. Paul is using the Greek word sozo here, the same word he used in: They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Acts 16:31 NASB So do we have to believe and be on a ship? I know that I'm being stupid here, but I'm trying to make a point. The majority of English readers see this word "saved" and automatically think--eternal life, salvation from damnation of God. Notice what James says: What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14 NASB James also used the Greek word sozo. Many people take this verse to mean that we must have "works" if we are truly saved. But they would not think that Paul is teaching shipboard salvation. They can see the context there means physical deliverance. What we must understand is that the Greek verb sozo--save, and the noun soteria--salvation, have a wide range of possible meanings. They can be referring to physical healing; rescue from danger; spiritual deliverance of various kinds; and to preservation from final judgment, the wrath of God. We must determine its meaning from its usage in the context. Paul is using sozo in Acts 27 of physical deliverance, and so is James in James 2. We are not saved by faith and staying on the ship, and we are not saved by faith and works. We are saved by faith alone, in Christ alone! Alright, back to the lifeboat. Paul saw what was happening and realized that those on board needed the sailors' expertise to get to land in the morning. So he said to the centurion, "Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved."

In other words, although God promised that everyone would be preserved alive, Paul did not assume that it would happen apart from the use of proper means. The sailors could not escape, and everyone needed the strength that came from eating. The fact that God announces what the end result is going to be does not mean that men are permitted therefore to fold their hands and say, "Well, it's all going to work out some way or another." He intends for us to exercise considerable understanding of a situation, and to act in line with common sense to carrying out His purpose. Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it fall away. Acts 27:32 NASB By this time, the centurion was willing to believe anything Paul said, because everything else he said had come to pass. The centurion must have felt cutting the dinghy was the only way to stop the crew from leaving the ship: Until the day was about to dawn, Paul was encouraging them all to take some food, saying, "Today is the fourteenth day that you have been constantly watching and going without eating, having taken nothing. 34 "Therefore I encourage you to take some food, for this is for your preservation, for not a hair from the head of any of you will perish." 35 Having said this, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of all, and he broke it and began to eat. 36 All of them were encouraged and they themselves also took food. Acts 27:33-36 NASB Paul. the prisoner, now seems to be in total command of the ship. Everyone was looking to him for the next instructions. He urged them all to eat, since they had not eaten in over fourteen days. If they ever expected to get to land, they were going to have to regain their strength. The word "preservation" in verse 34 is the Greek word soteria which means salvation, deliverance, preservation, or safety. In Scripture it refers to both physical deliverance and spiritual salvation, but here it simply refers to their physical well being or safety. "Not a hair from the head of any of you will perish" is an old Jewish proverb that refers to safety and security (1 Sam. 14:45; 2 Sam. 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52; Luke 21:18). Everyone was so captivated by Paul's courage that they too began to eat and have hope: All of us in the ship were two hundred and seventy-six persons. 38 When they had eaten enough, they began to lighten the ship by throwing out the wheat into the sea. 39 When day came, they could not recognize the land; but they did observe a bay with a beach, and they resolved to drive the ship onto it if they could. 40 And casting off the anchors, they left them in the sea while at the same time they were loosening the ropes of the rudders; and hoisting the foresail to the wind, they were heading for the beach. Acts 27:37-40 NASB The count when all this was over would prove that not one was lost. Evidently the sailors had locked these rudders in place when the ship was drifting, but now they put them into use again. Though God is sovereign, human beings still have responsibility. These sailors met theirs, and we must meet ours, especially in adverse circumstances that can tempt us to despairing passivity. But striking a reef where two seas met, they ran the vessel aground; and the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern began to be broken up by the force of the waves. 42 The soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, so that none of them would swim away and escape; 43 but the centurion, wanting to bring Paul safely through, kept them from their intention, and commanded that those who could swim should jump overboard first and get to land, Acts 27:41-43 NASB "Reef" implies coral reef in English, but the Greek word (topon) and investigations at the site (St. Paul's Bay) suggest that Luke probably described a sand or mud bar. The traditional Roman discipline was that any soldier who allowed his prisoner to escape would then be responsible for serving out the prisoner's sentence. The soldiers wanted to kill the apostle Paul and the rest of the prisoners to prevent that from happening. The prisoners (at least the dangerous or violent ones) may have been in chains. If the prisoners were to make it to land, the soldiers would have to release them:

and the rest should follow, some on planks, and others on various things from the ship. And so it happened that they all were brought safely to land. Acts 27:44 NASB Here again we see that because of Paul all the prisoners are kept alive. "And so it happened that they all were brought safely to land"--Two hundred seventy-six men jumped into the water, and two hundred seventy-six people met on the shore! The first thought those men must have had was that the God Paul worships is faithful to His word. God not only established His own veracity, but also established the credibility of the apostle Paul. Over and over again, God has kept His word. For Paul's sake, all of the prisoners were spared from execution by the soldiers. Believers. we bring a sanctifying influence to those we are around: It came about that from the time he made him overseer in his house and over all that he owned, the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house on account of Joseph; thus the LORD'S blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field. Genesis 39:5 NASB I think that others are benefitted by the presence of a believer. Such would have been the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. If there were but ten righteous in the city of Sodom, God would have spared the city for the sake of those righteous (Genesis 18:22-33). Is this principle of extended "deliverance" perhaps an explanation of Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7, that the unbeliever is sanctified on account of the believer? Since Paul was in the will of God why did God bring the storm? I say that God brought the storm because the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things! There are those who teach that it is not God's will when some tragedy hits. If the tragedies that happen aren't God's plan, then God is at the mercy of some greater power that got the upper hand, which is a blasphemous thing to say about God! So why couldn't Paul have had smooth sailing all the way to Rome? What is the purpose of the storm? The storm allowed each person on the ship to see that God was in complete, sovereign control. When He says something will happen and it does, it proves that God is who He claims to be. One of the greatest proofs that God is the author of the Bible is the fulfillment of prophecy. This storm was the perfect storm because it also caused Paul's faith to stand out. When we trust in God's care, we will be different in the storms than those who do not know God. Paul stands out above all others in this desperate situation because of his calm faith in God. The Christian is to live by a different principle. That is why, in the midst of circumstances which would panic others, the Christian is expected to be calm. We are not to reflect the panic, the anxiety, and the troubled countenance which others display when they get into difficulty. Paul's experience teaches us that if we will trust in God's sovereign care for us in life's storms, He will use us to bear witness to many. Because Paul rested in God in the midst of disaster, he was there to help others. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a group of Scottish unbelievers decided to expose errors in the Bible. They designated one of their number to visit all the places Luke mentioned that Paul visited with a view to proving the record in Acts inaccurate. The man chosen was Sir William Ramsay, who, after thorough study of the matter, concluded that Luke was accurate in every detail. Ramsay became a Christian and wrote several books on Acts and Paul in defense of God's Word. This message was preached by David B. Curtis on August 22, 2010. Media #517.

Always a Servant Acts 28:1-16 In our last study we saw Paul leave Caesarea by ship headed for Rome. Paul warned them on the Isle of Crete that they should stay there for the winter, but they pressed on and were caught in the midst of a severe storm. For fourteen days they were battered and tossed until finally ending up stuck on a reef. The waves destroyed the ship while the 276 men aboard made it safely to shore. The ship was a total loss, but the entire crew, all 276 men, were saved by the hand of God as promised by the message

of an angel who appeared to Paul in the midst of the storm, saying: 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you all those who are sailing with you.' Acts 27:24 NASB I wonder if Paul thought of Psalm 107 as he reached the beach: He caused the storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they were quiet, So He guided them to their desired haven. Psalms 107:29-30 NASB This unusually dramatic and vivid chapter in Acts stresses God's sovereign control over circumstances to bring His will to pass, specifically that Paul should minister in Rome. When they had been brought safely through, then we found out that the island was called Malta. Acts 28:1 NASB Paul and his fellow shipmates discovered that they were shipwrecked on Malta, a small island about 18 miles long and 8 miles wide, located about 60 miles south of the island of Sicily, and about 500 miles west of Crete. The people who inhabited it in Paul's day were of Phoenician origin. Malta is a Phoenician word that means "refuge" or "escape." The natives showed us extraordinary kindness; for because of the rain that had set in and because of the cold, they kindled a fire and received us all. Acts 28:2 NASB In mid-November the weather on Malta would be biting cold. The passengers would not have kept any heavy clothing, because they had to swim (or paddle on some piece of wreckage) to shore. We know that the storm was still raging, and thus there would have been high seas and strong winds. On top of this, it was raining. Can you imagine how cold folks were as they gathered on shore? Many of them would be suffering from hypothermia. The local people saw what was happening and came to help. Luke says, "The natives showed us extraordinary kindness"--the Greek text says, "the kindness that you don't meet with often." They came out into the bad weather and kindled a fire for them to gather around as a relief from the rain and the cold. These are unbelievers showing this kindness to them. On other beaches they might have found people waiting to kill them as they landed so as to collect their possessions. But God had prepared not only a beach to land on, but even the hearts of the people had been prepared. The word "natives" here is the Greek word barbaros from which we get the word "barbarians." This doesn't mean that they were barbarians in the sense in which we use the word today. They were obviously caring people. "Barbarian" properly means: "one whose speech is rude, or harsh"; the word is onomatopoeic, indicating in the sound the uncouth character represented by the repeated syllable "bar-bar." Hence it signified one who speaks a strange or foreign language. The Greeks called anybody who spoke in a language other than Greek a barbarian. Some scoffers have objected that there are now no trees on Malta. How, then, could they be gathering firewood? Easily. First, the fact that there are no trees now does not prove that there were no trees then. And there would certainly be driftwood on the beach. But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. Acts 28:3 NASB The able ones among the rescued no doubt busied themselves in doing what they could for the others. And, as usual, Paul was busy seeking to serve, and he assisted by gathering a bundle of sticks. Does that seem strange to you? The Apostle Paul gathering sticks? Culturally, it was strange. In the Hebrew culture, wood gathering was the work of women or children. So Paul is doing very menial work here when he gathers firewood. Culturally, its strange, but Biblically, it isn't. Paul said he was a follower of Jesus: Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1 NASB And Jesus said he was a servant of all: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for

many." Mark 10:45 NASB I think you would agree with me that as the Creator of the world, Jesus is in the supreme position of authority. But when He came to His creation, He did not come expecting to be served; He came to serve. And this is the same attitude He expects in His followers: And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. Mark 10:42 NASB Jesus illustrated His point from Gentile rulers; the Jews had experienced a number of them. And one thing was common to all: They lord it over their people. They were proud of their authority and very conscious of it, and they exerted it to the full. They were the masters, and they wanted everyone to know it. This is biting irony. This is exposing the hypocrisy of the disciples. Because in the disciples' desire for position, rank, and precedence so that they might exercise authority over other people, they are no different than the Roman rulers they so despise. And I suspect their hypocrisy and their struggle is ours also. In our workplace, in our neighborhood, and even in our church, we desire a place of rank or precedence that we might exercise our authority or influence for our own benefit-that we might exercise those things in our own interest: "But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. Mark 10:43-44 NASB "It is not so among you"-- As followers of Christ, as those redeemed through Christ's blood, as those who now live for the glory of Christ, it is not this way. The phrase "among you" implies all disciples, every congregation of believers. Jesus Christ insists on a distinct contrast between Kingdom citizens and the world. "Be your servant"--the idea is of personal service rendered to others. The word for servant is diakonos. This verse, incidentally, describes the duties and responsibilities of a deacon; humble service to others. "Slave of all"--the Greek word used here is doulos. Some translate this: "servant," which is not a very good translation. A servant is one who can quit. "Slave" better fits the picture here. Doulos conveys the idea of: "ownership, possession, dependency, subjection, loyalty." It also conveys the idea of: "willing service," not a forced service. They are slaves, but they are slaves by choice. They have willingly made themselves slaves of Jesus Christ to do His will. The disciple's prime concern, said Jesus, is to serve, yes, even to be a bond servant. That is the test of greatness among Christians: They do not look for praise, They do not seek honor, They do not desire position. They gladly take the lowest task if it will help someone. They just want to be useful in God's service, and as long as God is satisfied, they are satisfied. That is true greatness. Humility was no virtue in the ancient world. To be a slave meant that you were not a citizen, and you did not have the rights of citizenship. You were not free. You belonged to another. You could not pursue your own ambitions, but were left to the desires of someone else. Someone has said, "You will know whether a person is a servant or not by the way they act when they are treated like one." Those who want to be great in Christ's kingdom must become the servant of all. Paul echoes these words of Mark as he calls his readers and all Christians to follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who deliberately humbled Himself: Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, Philippians 2:5 NASB In the eyes of the men from the ship, Paul had established a great deal of credibility with them--from taking charge when they needed a cool head to forecasting that they would all be spared despite losing the ship. Yet when it came time to gather sticks, we don't see Paul directing others to do it; he went and did it himself. And he is serving others after 14 days of no food, being storm tossed and then being in very cold water. He has been through a rough time and immediately he is serving others. Humility is a must for the servant of God. After washing the disciples' feet, Jesus said:

"For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. John 13:15 NASB Just as our Lord Jesus served His disciples by the humble task of washing their feet, so we are to serve others by humble service. Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, who, like his Master, sought to serve rather than be served, began gathering wood. We should never consider ourselves too good or too important to minister to others in humble ways. But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. Acts 28:3 NASB The natives knew their snakes, and when they saw the viper fasten itself to Paul's hand, they were certain that he would be dead in moments. A number of the New Testament scholars have commented upon the fact that from what we know of the island of Malta today, there are no poisonous snakes on the island, and so some have suggested that this was an event that was invented by Luke. The Island of Malta today is a very densely populated island, twelve hundred people per square mile, which is rather dense. As a matter of fact, the reason they do not have many snakes on the island, is there are so many people there. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, "Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live." Acts 28:4 NASB Notice these natives theology, they interpret this event like the health/wealth people do. "If bad things happen to you, you must have sinned in some way." It illustrates the fact that so often we, like Jobs comforters, make judgments which are really not accurate at all. It's likely that the word "justice," which is the Greek word dike, is a reference to a goddess named "Justice." Albert Barnes wrote: "Dike, or justice, was represented by the heathen as a goddess, the daughter of Jupiter, whose office it was to take vengeance, or inflict punishment for crimes" (Notes on the New Testament: Acts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975], p. 370). The natives expected Paul to fall dead as one of her victims: However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god. Acts 28:5-6 NASB How would you respond to a poisonous snake stuck to your hand? After receiving a snakebite, most people would run around in a panic, but Paul merely flicked the snake off his hand. They waited and watched for him to swell up and fall down dead. But when nothing happened, they changed their opinion. Now they say, "He's not a murderer who managed to escape a storm, and now justice is going to take over and see that he dies for his sins. He's really a god." It seems like we are prone to attempt to interpret every event that happens. Paul experienced a similar but opposite response earlier in his ministry at Lystra when he healed a lame man. The crown said, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." Then shortly after this they tried to stone Paul to death. I think Luke wants us to see this incident with the snake as symbolic. To Christians the snake represented Satan, and here was his representative seeking to destroy Paul, but failing. We see this over and over in the book of Acts. At Samaria, Simon Mageus clearly had reference to the kingdom of Satan. When Paul reached the Island of Cyprus, Elymas the magician was there, and Paul performed a miracle there with Elymas, suggestive again of satanic power. When he was in Philippi, there was the girl who was involved with the python; again, satanic involvement. And perhaps here, when he performed the miracle, the viper suggested to the apostle, that old serpent, Satan himself, and the truth of our Lord's ministry as that which breaks the bonds of Satan himself. Now, when we reflect upon the fact that when the Lord called Paul to the ministry of apostleship He said that he was to: to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:18 NASB

In this incident we see the kingdom of God is defeating Satan's kingdom. This incident has caused a lot of misunderstanding in Church history. Many cults practice snake-handling as part of their worship services. Even to this day there are churches in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee that include snakes in their worship. Unfortunately, several people are bitten each year and die. These people take their authority from a text in Mark 16:14-18, which says: "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." Mark 16:17-18 NASB How many of you have believed? How many of you will drink some poison? Why not? It says, "If they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them." The Bible never teaches that "all" believers will demonstrate these miraculous signs as these verses seem to say. What these verses teach is taught elsewhere in Scripture, but in relation to the apostles and not all believers. Well, this incident with the serpent certainly gave Paul a much more attentive audience, as you can imagine. Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the leading man of the island, named Publius, who welcomed us and entertained us courteously three days. Acts 28:7 NASB The title "first man of the island" or "leading man of the island" is known from archaeology to have been the title given to the Roman governor of Malta. His name was Publius. Luke says that Publius welcomed "us" and entertained "us" for three days. Luke says in verse 2, "they kindled a fire and received us all." The "us" here seems to refer to all 276 men. Then he apparently found them lodging for the winter. And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his hands on him and healed him. Acts 28:8 NASB One commentator writes, "He says he was sick with fever and with dysentery, which sounds very much like the common symptoms of the flu today." I think it was a little more serious than the flu. The Greek word used here is dissentar. That is the word from which we get the English word "dysentery." Some say this is probably a reference to cholera. Others say it was most likely Malta fever, which could last from four months to several years. In 1887 it was discovered to be caused by a bacterium in the milk of Maltese goats. At any rate, it was a very serious disease, and Paul healed him. The Charismatics make a great deal over things like this, and say this should be the norm in the Church today. Well if we still had apostles, it probably would be. But we don't still have apostles, and this is not the norm for the Church. The apostles were individuals who had special gifts that were given to them for the transition age in which they lived. In 2 Corinthians chapter 12 Paul writes: The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. 2 Corinthians 12:12 NASB These signs were given to authenticate the ministry of the apostles as God's representatives. In the First Testament, for instance, God performed signs and wonders through His prophet Moses to demonstrate to Pharaoh that He alone is the only living God. The miracles of Jesus were all signs to demonstrate to the Jews that he was their Messiah and the Savior of the world. Nicodemus said to Jesus: this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." John 3:2 NASB The apostles followed and performed those works in order that their ministry might be authenticated. But since the days of the apostles, there have been no such miracles as were performed by our Lord and by the apostles. Many claims have been made comcerning modern day miracles, but unauthenticated. No one is raising people from the dead today. There was a report of a number of miracles out in the East Indies, and some investigation was finally made by some

responsible men, and they discovered it was really a semantic problem; that they had used terms such as we might use of a person who was converted who came from death into life. And they were misunderstood, and so the report circulated of people being raised from the dead: After this had happened, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured. Acts 28:9 NASB These healings, in addition to the viper incident, would have given Paul a credibility that would likely have opened doors for evangelism among these people, but Luke does not choose to discuss this. As is often the case throughout Acts, the Christian evangelism is simply assumed. We cannot doubt that every opportunity was taken to present the Good News, and that many responded. According to tradition, Publius became the first Gentile Christian on the Island of Malta. Catacombs that have been discovered on the island dating from the fourth and fifth centuries have many drawings of Christian symbols. The account of Paul's healings on Malta is very similar to the account of Jesus' healings at Capernaum at the beginning of His ministry: Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's home. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them. While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them. Luke 4:38-40 NASB In both cases, the healing of an individual is followed by the healing of "all" or "the rest" in a region. The individual, a relative of the healer's host, has been taken over by fever. There is also reference to laying on of hands. The similarities show that Jesus' healing ministry still continues through His witnesses. I think we see here a scene from the beginning of Jesus' ministry is echoed in the last description of healing in Acts: They also honored us with many marks of respect; and when we were setting sail, they supplied us with all we needed. Acts 28:10 NASB This indicates that many of them became believers, and that a church may have already been founded on Malta. Here, as earlier (on board the ship), Paul's presence proved to be a blessing to all. Paul blessed those on board his ship by encouraging them and by becoming the means of their deliverance. Paul blessed these shivering passengers by helping to keep the fire going. Paul was a blessing to Publius, his father, and to the natives of Malta by healing the sick. And because of the gratitude of these natives for Paul's ministry to them, Paul was a blessing to the passengers, who enjoyed the provisions the people of Malta gladly provided. God's presence in His people should prove to be a blessing to those who are around His people. Do people see you as a blessing? The last lap of the journey follows in verse 11 through verse 16: At the end of three months we set sail on an Alexandrian ship which had wintered at the island, and which had the Twin Brothers for its figurehead. Acts 28:11 NASB Luke is telling his readers how they made it from Malta to Rome. After spending three months in Malta, they found another Alexandrian wheat ship that had wintered nearby on which they could book passage. No ship would put to sea over those three winter months. If you studied Greek mythology when you were in school, you might know who the twin brothers were, this is referring to Castor and Pollux. Zeus had two sons by Leda, and the two sons were Castor and Pollux. They became the guardian deities of sailors and navigators, so not surprisingly in a superstitious age, you would find ships which had the statues or some representation or image of these two gods upon them. Luke's reference to the figurehead of this ship, from which it took its name, is unusual. This is the only ship's name that he recorded in Acts. Why does Luke tell us this? I think maybe Luke saw it as ironic that the sons of Zeus should carry to Rome the greatest opponent of Zeus in the Roman Empire.

After we put in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. Acts 28:12 NASB After wintering on Malta for three months, they once again set sail, making port first at Syracuse, an important city of Sicily. Syracuse stood on the east coast of the island of Sicily. It was a busy port and the most important city on the island: From there we sailed around and arrived at Rhegium, and a day later a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. Acts 28:13 NASB Rhegium was near the tip of the "toe" of Italy's boot opposite Sicily. It, too, was an important harbor. Puteoli--is a port in the bay of Naples, it was 180 miles farther north on the "shin" of the boot. It was a very large port and the final destination of many Egyptian wheat ships at this time. From this point, Paul and the others would travel by land, along the great Appian Way: There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome. Acts 28:14 NASB There they found a group of Christians and were heartily welcomed among them for "seven days," a period of joy and bliss. "And thus we came to Rome"--this is not a travel description, but a triumphant eulogy. They had not really arrived in Rome. but Luke viewed Puteoli as close enough to warrant this enthusiastic announcement of their arrival. To them Puteoli in Italy spelled Rome. To arrive at Ostia or Puteoli signified Rome to all sea travelers. They were Rome's grain terminals. And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage. Acts 28:15 NASB Christians came out as far as the Market of Appius (44 miles from Rome) and Three Taverns (33 miles) to escort Paul into the city. Can you imagine what the rest of the travelers in Paul's company thought when they saw these people welcoming this prisoner as an important dignitary! These believers had received Paul's letter to the Romans three years earlier (in A.D.57) from Corinth during his third missionary journey. Now they could meet the famed apostle, who was the author, for themselves. Paul must have felt like a conquering emperor being welcomed into Rome. Paul thanked God and took courage when he saw these Christians whom he had longed to see for several years (Rom. 15:23). When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. Acts 28:16 NASB Paul had finally reached Rome, and was free to carry out his ministry there. Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier guarding him. This was pretty exceptional treatment. Paul's rented accommodations must have been rather spacious to accommodate the large groups that came to hear him. Paul's desire and God's prophecy is finally fulfilled: Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome." Acts 19:21 NASB But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." Acts 23:11 NASB Now Jesus' words given at the beginning of Acts will also be fulfilled, "You shall be my witnesses... even to the remotest part of the earth."

This message was preached by David B. Curtis on September 5, 2010. Media #518.

Paul's Witness At Rome Acts 28:17-31 As we have seen in the closing chapters of Acts, Paul had been under house arrest for two years in Caesarea, falsely charged with desecrating the temple. Following a series of trials, he appealed to Caesar. We already have looked at his long and perilous trip to Rome as a prisoner, including a violent storm that ended in shipwreck and his being bitten by a viper on the Island of Malta. He finally landed at Puteoli, which was Rome's grain terminal. From this point, Paul and the others would travel by land, along the Great Appian Way. When the Roman Christians got news of Paul's arrival in Italy, they came out from the capital to the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet Paul and to escort him into Rome. Paul must have felt like a conquering emperor being welcomed into Rome. Three years earlier, while Paul was in Corinth, his plan had been to collect the contributions of the saints in Macedonia and Achaia, deliver them to the needy brothers and sisters in Jerusalem, and then go directly to Rome. From there Paul intended to be sent on to Spain: but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you whenever I go to Spain--for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while-- but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ. Romans 15:23-29 NASB Well Paul made it to Rome, not quite the way he had planned, but it was exactly the way God planned. We see his arrival in: When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. Acts 28:16 NASB As a result of God's promise, Paul arrived in Rome. Rome was the largest and most important Gentile city in the world. The apostle to the Gentiles was now able to minister in the heart of the Gentile world. An unusual courtesy was granted to Paul in that he was allowed to live under "house arrest" rather than in prison. It was probably the influence of Julius, the centurion, in his favor, which obtained for Paul the distinguished privilege of living in his own rented house with only a single guard. From other sources we learn that the praetorian guards of the Emperor became his jailers during that time. After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 "And when they had examined me, they were willing to release me because there was no ground for putting me to death. 19 "But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar, not that I had any accusation against my nation. Acts 28:17-19 NASB Paul didn't waste any time. He has only been there three days and he is giving his testimony to the leaders of the Roman synagogues. The Jewish community at Rome in mid-first century is estimated to have numbered forty to fifty thousand, most being slaves and freedmen. They inhabited "the great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber" (Philo Legatio ad Gaium 155). The names of ten to thirteen synagogues have been recovered from inscriptions in the catacombs (Dunn 1988:xlvi).

If you remember, back in Acts 18, verse 2 tells us the Emperor Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. Apparently, since Nero was now emperor, that edict was no longer in effect. There was a church in Rome, but the first thing Paul does is go to the Jews. He has always gone to the Jew first, and that is exactly what he does here at Rome. Paul was seeking to show Israel that her promises have been fulfilled, not suspended or transferred. The Intervarsity Press Commentary on the Book of Acts says this, "And today Paul's initiative teaches us that centuries of Jewish rejection and Gentile anti-Semitism or neglect cannot erase the responsibility that all witnesses have to make sure the Gospel goes 'to the Jew first.'" This is ridiculous! For two reasons: First, there are no ethnic Jews today. Secondly, God was finished with ethnic Israel in A.D.70 when He destroyed their temple. We have no responsibility to preach to Jews first today. Because Paul was under house arrest, he couldn't continue his ministry using the same methods he had used in the past. What did Paul generally do when he entered a city for the first time? He would go to the Synagogue to preach the Gospel, a Gospel that was the fulfillment of Judaism, not a competitor with it. He would preach that Jesus Christ was the long-awaited Messiah who would come and save His people. Paul could not do this in Rome, as much as he would have wanted to, so he did the next best thing: he called the leaders of the synagogues to his home. Paul was concerned to know what charges had been sent against him and how he was viewed among Jews here in Rome. Paul's statement in 28:17-20 is a summary of the preceding trial narrative and imprisonment speeches in Acts 22--26. The Romans had examined him and found that he did not deserve death and wanted to set him free. But the Jews in Jerusalem had spoken against it, with the result that he had had to appeal to Caesar. It was not because he wanted to bring a charge against the Jews, but simply that they had brought a charge against him and would not drop it. He made it clear that he did not intend to press charges against the Jews, but only to face the charges they had raised: "For this reason, therefore, I requested to see you and to speak with you, for I am wearing this chain for the sake of the hope of Israel." Acts 28:20 NASB Paul makes it clear to them that it was for the hope of Israel that he was bound with a chain. This was calculated to enlist their sympathies; for it was no uncommon thing for Jews to be persecuted. It wasn't that long ago that all the Jews had been run out of Rome. Paul is not a prisoner because he is preaching that God has cast out Israel? No, it is because he is preaching "the hope of Israel." In Acts 23 Paul said that he was on trial because of his hope in the resurrection. In Acts 25 & 26 Paul said that he preached nothing but the Law and Prophets; that there is about to be a resurrection from the dead. And now again he says he is bound for the hope of Israel. What is the hope of Israel? Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:13-14 NASB What is the blessing of Abraham? If the curse of the law is death, what is the blessing? Life! The blessing of Abraham is eternal life. The parallelism of the two phrases in verse 14 indicates that the blessing given to Abraham is equivalent to the promise of the Spirit. What is the promise of the Spirit? To answer that, look with me at: "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. Acts 2:32-33 NASB The promise of the Spirit is the resurrection, which is life! Resurrection is life in the presence of God. To be under the curse is to be separated from God, and to be blessed is to be in His presence. Resurrection life was the hope of Israel. Paul is guilty of hoping and believing in the promise which God gave to the twelve tribes of Israel, and which they think they are still looking for as they go about their religious rituals of worship. Thus he affirms a continuity of his Gospel message with Jewish orthodoxy.

They said to him, "We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren come here and reported or spoken anything bad about you. 22 "But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere." Acts 28:21-22 NASB They claim not to have received any letters about Paul, nor had any brethren come from Jerusalem because of Paul. I think the reason the Jewish leaders in Rome had no report about Paul is that apparently the Sanhedrin was reluctant to pursue its case to Rome. They knew they didn't have a case. The Roman government looked harshly on anyone who prosecuted a case without strong evidence. It would have been difficult to prosecute Paul, a Roman citizen, in Rome when they didn't have a case. While they had received no formal charges against Paul, they were aware of the Gospel and its impact, and at best they were skeptical. Before the Jews left Paul they made arrangements for a formal and deliberate hearing of what he thought: When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. Acts 28:23 NASB Paul's rented house must have been a good size for a large number of the Jewish leaders to be there. For an entire day Paul spoke of the kingdom of God, showing how the Lord Jesus fulfilled the First Testament Scriptures. Everything that Paul preached came from the First Testament. Paul's eschatology was nothing but what the Prophets and Moses taught. He probably took them to the texts in Moses that describe the Jewish sacrificial system, showing that these sacrifices pointed ahead to Jesus. He would have taken them to Leviticus 23 and shown them how Jesus was the fulfillment of the feast days. He would have taken them to Psalm 16, which both Peter and Paul used to show the truth of the resurrection (Acts 2:25-28; 13:34-37). He no doubt took them to Psalm 22, which describes death by crucifixion, centuries before this was known as a means of execution. He would have taken them to Isaiah 53, which describes the death of Jesus with amazing detail. Paul pointed out how the Lord Jesus Christ and his ministry is the fulfillment of the things that are spoken in the First Testament concerning the kingdom of God, because he says, "to persuade them concerning Jesus." Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. Acts 28:24 NASB Both Greek verbs are in the imperfect tense, implying continuous, progressive action. This can be seen in Young's Literal Translation: and, some, indeed, were believing the things spoken, and some were not believing. Acts 28:24 YLT I'm not sure why the NASB uses the word "persuaded," but I think it is confusing. The simplicity of salvation is that it is reduced to this: A person either believes in Christ or he doesn't. One commentator writes, "The scripture does reveal that some of these respected Jewish men were convinced by Paul of the truth of his doctrine. However, no indication is given that any actually turned their lives over to Christ." Where in the Bible does it say that we have to "turn our lives over to Christ" to be saved? I think the text is clear, some of these Jews believed Paul's Gospel and thus were saved. Others would not believe, they rejected Paul's message: And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; 27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM."' Acts 28:25-27 NASB

Paul quotes Isaiah 6 and applies it to the unbelieving Jews of his day. Just after Isaiah's vision of God exalted on His throne and Isaiah's commission to preach, the Lord spoke these words to Isaiah, warning him of the hardness of heart of the people of Israel. This important text is quoted six times in the New Testament. Jesus cited this text in every one of the four Gospels. In Matthew (13:14-15), Mark (4:12), and Luke (8:10), Jesus cited this text to explain why He had begun to teach the people in parables. In effect, Jesus said, "I am speaking to them in parables so that they won't understand Me, won't repent, and thus won't be saved": in order that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE; AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND LEST THEY RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." Mark 4:12 NASB Something I think we all struggle with is when we have our view of God clear in our minds, and we think we understand how God operates, then we run across a verse in the Bible that seems to be contrary to that. What we often do is try to rework the verse so it ends up agreeing with our preconceived theology rather than letting the verse cause us to rethink our theology. What causes all the trouble with this verse has to do with the very first word in the Greek sentence that's translated "in order that" (which is a statement of purpose), and also at the end where it says "lest." Those are the two words that are argued about, because as the NASB reflects, it's basically saying that Jesus' purpose was to teach in parables so that people would not understand, lest they come and seek forgiveness. And we say, "Well, now that doesn't sound like Jesus--that He doesn't want people to understand; that He doesn't want people to come seek forgiveness?" So what do we do with that? If we change the "in order that" from a purpose statement to a result by using a word like "because," it would say: "So Jesus was teaching in parables because they were not listening." If we change the word "lest" to a word like "perhaps" it would say: "And He was hoping if He did that, maybe they would listen and perhaps come and seek forgiveness." Then we would say: "Well, now that feels better; that feels more consistent with what I understand about Jesus." The only problem is, that is not what the text says. So commentators come back and they say: "Well, you know, we think that's probably what it means, and Mark just used the wrong word by mistake. Or the copiers just copied the wrong word by mistake." But there's no evidence of that; there's no proof of that. That's just trying to reconstruct the verse to fit a theology we're more comfortable with. What we really have to do is wrestle with the text as it's written. There's no question Jesus was saying that the purpose, the reason why He's teaching in parables, is so that they won't understand--because He doesn't want them coming and seeking forgiveness. How do we deal with that? Well, first we have to understand this is a quote from Isaiah, chapter 6. Isaiah had been commissioned by God to go forth and proclaim the Word of God (Isaiah 6:8), but it was not for the purpose of turning the nation back to God. It was rather to harden their hearts and to bring upon them the judgment of God. Our Lord saw His teaching ministry not as one which would result in hearing and heeding, but in hardening. He, like Isaiah, was to prepare the nation for judgment. Have you ever wondered why Acts ended not with Paul in front of Nero, but in front of the Jewish leaders? I think it is because before God could reject the nation Israel, the Old Covenant form, they had to reject God's offer so that God could justly remove the Old Covenant and fully bring in the New. The Old was a shadow and had to pass away before the New could be brought in. God had to judge and remove the Old. Remember what Jesus taught them in Matthew 24: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come. Matthew 24:14 NASB The "end" was the end of the age, which meant the destruction of the temple and the full consummation of the Kingdom of God. Luke ends his second volume with Paul in prison in Rome preaching to the Jewish leaders from Isaiah 6, which speaks of judgment on Israel. The Gospel went to the ends of the earth and then came the end. The Jews of Paul's day called Rome the "end of the earth."

Paul uses Isaiah 6 in exactly the same way that Jesus Himself had used it in His last encounter with the Jews in the twelfth chapter of John's Gospel: "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." John 12:36-40 NASB And then Lazarus adds this amazing word: These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. John 12:41 NASB And if we read the sixth chapter of Isaiah, from which that quotation comes, we find that it is the passage in which Isaiah said: In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Isaiah 6:1 NASB And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." Isaiah 6:3 NASB Lazarus says that Isaiah saw Jesus. Jesus is the Lord sitting on the throne, He is the Holy One. Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him. Jesus is God, and the Jews rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God. This is what Lazarus says: Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22-23 NASB This is the last time in the Scriptures in which you find the appeal of the Gospel officially set before the Jewish people. "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen." Acts 28:28 NASB Now the message was to go to a wider audience than that of Isaiah. The Gentiles also would hear. It is sometimes thought that this is something of an accident; that is, by virtue of the unbelief of the nation Israel, it is thought that somewhat as a move uncontemplated, the Gospel goes out to the Gentiles. But this Gospel going to the Gentiles was included in the fundamental Abrahamic Promise, if you remember from Genesis 12: And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." Genesis 12:3 NASB So the Abrahamic Promise is comprehended, not simply the blessing of God upon Abraham and his natural seed, but also blessing to the Gentiles, through Abraham's seed, Jesus Christ. There is great significance in going to the Gentiles. The First Testament taught that the conversion of the Gentiles would follow the restoration of Israel. When all the tribes of Israel were once again united under Messiah, then God would call the Gentiles: He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribe,s of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 49:6 NASB The Gospel going to the Gentiles was evidence that Israel had received her promise of restoration. Our salvation is

dependant on God keeping His promises to Israel. There is no salvation for the nations unless Israel is given her salvation. So the significance of the calling to the Gentiles is that God has fulfilled His promises to Israel.The thing that stands out most strongly from these last few verses, and the lack of any reference to the Church separately in this final passage is that Paul is still concerned that Christianity be seen and recognised as the true fulfilment of Judaism. To him the Church is the Israel of God. It is not a question of choosing between being a Jew or a Christian, it is a matter of a Jewish Christian being the true Jew, and the Christ-rejecter not being a true Jew. Those who believe are engrafted. Those who do not believe are cut off (Romans 11:17-27). [When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.] Acts 28:29 NASB This verse appears only in an ancient Greek copy of Acts that is called the "Western Text." A number of translations do not regard verse 29 as a part of the original text because it is missing in some key manuscripts. This verse simply reiterates Luke's statement in verse 25, even more emphatically. And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered. Acts 28:30-31 NASB For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and was welcoming (continuous imperfect) all who came (literally: "were coming"--present participle of continuous action) to see him. In a city filled with Roman and Greek temples dedicated to a variety of gods and goddess, Paul was free to herald the Good News about Jesus, the King of kings, who could set people free from the darkness in which they walked. "Unhindered" is literally Luke's last word in Acts. And that one adverb, acolutos, "unhindered," is a word that falls like a victor's cry. The Gospel has traveled from Jerusalem to Rome, and now in the concluding statement, Paul is pictured as, "Preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered." Paul had asked the Ephesians to pray for him during this time: and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. Ephesians 6:19-20 NASB They prayed, he was bold, and the Gospel went forth unhindered in Rome. It was from Rome that the Good News could flow out to all parts of the empire. So wide was the spread of the Gospel, that the apostle, writing in the letter to the Colossians, which he wrote from prison during this time, said: if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Colossians 1:23 NASB And thus Jesus' words are fulfilled: but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Acts 1:8 NASB Jesus said that when this happen: "the Gospel goes to all the world," the end would come: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14 NASB By the end of Acts, in the spring of A.D. 62 the Gospel had been preached to all the nations, and eight years later the end came. Jerusalem was destroyed, bringing an end to the Old Covenant and consummating the New. Acts ends pretty abruptly, which leaves us with many questions. What happens to Paul? Did he stand before Caesar? How did he die? We'll look at these question next week as we study [Acts 29].

This message was preached by David B. Curtis on September 12, 2010. Media #519.