07 April 2024 // Acts 25
SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION: Read Acts 25
SERMON REVIEW:
The Problem with Politics
Acts 25
The Political Climate. Vs. 1-2
Ananias –
Jonathan –
Felix –
Ishmael –
Festus –
Herod Agrippa II -
The Plot Continued. Vs. 3-8
2 years ago! 23:12-15
The Plea to Caesar. Vs. 9-12
Ad Caesarem Provoco – Roman 5 th Amendment
The Problem Conversed. Vs. 13-27
Core issue of the case revealed! - The Resurrection! Vs. 19
Festus unknowingly introduced the gospel to Herod.
QUESTIONS:
LIFE APPLICATION:
Worldly Values
Religion is not the only field which rejects brilliant representatives of its own group. In our chapter, the Jews continued to press for the execution of one of the greatest rabbis who ever taught. They had exiled him from their holy city and their religion, but that was not enough. They wanted him dead, so they would hear no more about this Messiah who died and rose again and whose death had been caused by the emotional and volatile temperaments of his own people.
In 1968, a young man earned a degree in zoology from Syracuse University. He applied to medical schools all across America and was rejected by every one. He chose to attend the University of Bologna but spent only two years on that campus before dropping out. Finally, some years after graduating from Syracuse, he earned a medical degree from the University of Utah. His name was Robert Jarvik. He used his medical brilliance to create the first permanent artificial heart and, thereby, revolutionized the way the medical community handled heart disease.
Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to think of thousands upon thousands of Christians in churches around the world who have “dropped out” of serving the Lord because they have been disappointed or perhaps even mistreated by other Christians. Often that abuse comes from superiors, even from pastors who have been commissioned by God to care for the flock.
Or perhaps we could look at the shattered lives of hundreds of pastors who, disheartened and depressed because of their abuse by church members and defenders of denominational policy, were driven out of the ministry and with crushed spirits now sell real estate or used cars.
We can deplore such a situation, and we can ask God never to allow us to be part of discouraging the life and ministry of another; but we must also watch our own lives and service. Somehow, we need to learn that Philippian joy of Paul who, as we shall see in the next chapter, took delight in his chains for they gave him such a magnificent opportunity to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ in places he could have never gone while a free man. Can the Holy Spirit give us that kind of positive outlook today? Of course; but we will have to be just as committed to Jesus and just as dependent upon God’s grace as was Festus’ prisoner in a.d. 60. [1]
DIGGING DEEPER:
A. Rome’s Fifth Amendment (v. 11)
The Ad Caesarem Provoco (appeal to Caesar) protected Roman citizens from mistreatment and legal hanky-panky in all parts of the empire. Sometime after the New Testament era, Roman citizens were automatically sent to that city from all the provinces for trial. In the third century the Ad Caesarem Provoco was commonly allowed to everyone but slaves. Here, however, it became necessary to appeal officially for trial at the imperial court in Rome. Such an appeal was usually required only for cases that transcended normal provincial jurisdiction. The right itself dated back to almost 500 b.c. Verdicts could be appealed out of a formal court to a jury of fellow-citizens, a very Greek process. Polhill describes the transition:
Under the empire the emperor himself became the court of appeal, replacing the former jury of peers. Although governors seem to have had the right to pass capital sentences and even to deny appeal in instances involving established laws, in cases not involving well-established precedent (extra ordinem) such as Paul’s, the right of appeal seems to have been absolute; a procurator such as Festus would not have been in the position to deny it. Though appeal was generally made only after a verdict had been reached, Paul’s appeal before condemnation seems to have been in order (Polhill, 491).
Conybeare and Howson suggest that Festus was probably surprised by this move and emphasize again the significance of what Paul said: “By the mere pronunciation of these potent words, ‘I appeal unto Caesar,’ he instantly removed his cause from the jurisdiction of the magistrate before whom he stood, and transferred it to the supreme tribunal of the Emperor at Rome” (Conybeare, 669).
The appeal to Caesar, unlike the Fifth Amendment in process, still intended the same protection for citizens against lawyers and judges who might entrap them with their own words or by means of some local interpretation of law. Certainly Paul’s experience demonstrates the usefulness of understanding basic laws that apply to Christians (including such matters as taxes and donations) as well as more crucial matters of imprisonment and punishment.
B. The Herodian Clan (v. 13)
It all began with Antipiter in 47 b.c. who was somehow linked to services rendered to Julius Caesar by Hyrcanus, a high priestly ruler of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, and Perea. The connection between the two gave Antipiter the procuratorship of Judea. Before the aged Hyrcanus passed off the scene, Antipiter arranged the appointment of Herod, his second son, to the governorship of Galilee.
Antipiter was murdered in 43 b.c., the year after Caesar’s assassination, and the Parthians marched west against the vulnerable eastern front of the Roman Empire. Somehow in all of this, Herod made his way via Egypt to Rome and gained the support of both Octavian and Antony. During the thirteen years between the assassination of Caesar and the emergence of Octavian, Herod solidified his reign in Palestine and governed for thirty-four years.
Herod the Great left four sons who appear in the Gospels: Archelaus, Antipas, Philip the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1) and Herod, son of Mariamne (Matt. 14:3). The latter is of no consequence, and the royal line beginning with the original Antipiter passed from Herod the Great to Herod Antipas I (who killed John the Baptist) to Herod Agrippa I (eaten by worms in Acts 12); and now to Herod Agrippa II who conversed with Paul in Acts 26.
We should not confuse this long line of kings with the Herodian party. Andrews explains this latter group:
The Herodians were those among the people who, though hating the Roman rule, favored the pretensions of Herod’s family to kingly power.… In case of national independence, this family should reign rather than the House of the Maccabees, or any other claimant. They were never numerous, for the great body of the nation looked upon that family as foreigners and usurpers (Andrews, 261).
C. Did Paul Fail to Trust God?
Some have criticized Paul for constantly claiming his Roman citizenship and, on this occasion, appealing to Caesar. Why not the humble silence of Jesus? Where was the apostle who was unafraid to die, the testifier of such wonderful words in Acts 20:24? Some scholars find fault with Paul’s attitude as well as his words since he defiantly refused any involvement by Festus and says, No one has the right to hand me over to them [the Jews]. I appeal to Caesar (v. 11).
Although the situation was considerably different, a passage in Nehemiah sheds light on the dilemma of Acts 25.
But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem’s walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it. But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat (Neh. 4:7–9).
Notice the “double coverage” used by Nehemiah—we prayed to God, and we posted a guard. There was not the slightest evidence that Paul had transferred his dependence from God to Nero—that would have been a foolishness far beyond his capability. Without ceasing to pray, and still totally resting on God’s grace for deliverance, Paul added to that prayer a modern “posting of the guard” by appealing to the highest Roman court.[2]
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. If placed on trial for Christian beliefs, what kind of verdict would you face? What kind of testimony could you give for yourself?
2. If friends involved you in a dispute about a dead man named Jesus, what would you say to them?
What letter of recommendation could your church write for you? What specific evidence would they have to cite in the letter?[3]
PRAYER:
[1] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 422–423.
[2] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 423–426.
[3] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 426.
SERMON REVIEW:
The Problem with Politics
Acts 25
The Political Climate. Vs. 1-2
Ananias –
Jonathan –
Felix –
Ishmael –
Festus –
Herod Agrippa II -
The Plot Continued. Vs. 3-8
2 years ago! 23:12-15
The Plea to Caesar. Vs. 9-12
Ad Caesarem Provoco – Roman 5 th Amendment
The Problem Conversed. Vs. 13-27
Core issue of the case revealed! - The Resurrection! Vs. 19
Festus unknowingly introduced the gospel to Herod.
QUESTIONS:
- What did the message teach me about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit?
- What did the message teach me about the human condition?
- Is there anything I need to confess, repent, or be grateful for, because of this passage?
- How do I need help in believing and applying this scripture to my life?
- How can I encourage others with this passage?
LIFE APPLICATION:
Worldly Values
Religion is not the only field which rejects brilliant representatives of its own group. In our chapter, the Jews continued to press for the execution of one of the greatest rabbis who ever taught. They had exiled him from their holy city and their religion, but that was not enough. They wanted him dead, so they would hear no more about this Messiah who died and rose again and whose death had been caused by the emotional and volatile temperaments of his own people.
In 1968, a young man earned a degree in zoology from Syracuse University. He applied to medical schools all across America and was rejected by every one. He chose to attend the University of Bologna but spent only two years on that campus before dropping out. Finally, some years after graduating from Syracuse, he earned a medical degree from the University of Utah. His name was Robert Jarvik. He used his medical brilliance to create the first permanent artificial heart and, thereby, revolutionized the way the medical community handled heart disease.
Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to think of thousands upon thousands of Christians in churches around the world who have “dropped out” of serving the Lord because they have been disappointed or perhaps even mistreated by other Christians. Often that abuse comes from superiors, even from pastors who have been commissioned by God to care for the flock.
Or perhaps we could look at the shattered lives of hundreds of pastors who, disheartened and depressed because of their abuse by church members and defenders of denominational policy, were driven out of the ministry and with crushed spirits now sell real estate or used cars.
We can deplore such a situation, and we can ask God never to allow us to be part of discouraging the life and ministry of another; but we must also watch our own lives and service. Somehow, we need to learn that Philippian joy of Paul who, as we shall see in the next chapter, took delight in his chains for they gave him such a magnificent opportunity to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ in places he could have never gone while a free man. Can the Holy Spirit give us that kind of positive outlook today? Of course; but we will have to be just as committed to Jesus and just as dependent upon God’s grace as was Festus’ prisoner in a.d. 60. [1]
DIGGING DEEPER:
A. Rome’s Fifth Amendment (v. 11)
The Ad Caesarem Provoco (appeal to Caesar) protected Roman citizens from mistreatment and legal hanky-panky in all parts of the empire. Sometime after the New Testament era, Roman citizens were automatically sent to that city from all the provinces for trial. In the third century the Ad Caesarem Provoco was commonly allowed to everyone but slaves. Here, however, it became necessary to appeal officially for trial at the imperial court in Rome. Such an appeal was usually required only for cases that transcended normal provincial jurisdiction. The right itself dated back to almost 500 b.c. Verdicts could be appealed out of a formal court to a jury of fellow-citizens, a very Greek process. Polhill describes the transition:
Under the empire the emperor himself became the court of appeal, replacing the former jury of peers. Although governors seem to have had the right to pass capital sentences and even to deny appeal in instances involving established laws, in cases not involving well-established precedent (extra ordinem) such as Paul’s, the right of appeal seems to have been absolute; a procurator such as Festus would not have been in the position to deny it. Though appeal was generally made only after a verdict had been reached, Paul’s appeal before condemnation seems to have been in order (Polhill, 491).
Conybeare and Howson suggest that Festus was probably surprised by this move and emphasize again the significance of what Paul said: “By the mere pronunciation of these potent words, ‘I appeal unto Caesar,’ he instantly removed his cause from the jurisdiction of the magistrate before whom he stood, and transferred it to the supreme tribunal of the Emperor at Rome” (Conybeare, 669).
The appeal to Caesar, unlike the Fifth Amendment in process, still intended the same protection for citizens against lawyers and judges who might entrap them with their own words or by means of some local interpretation of law. Certainly Paul’s experience demonstrates the usefulness of understanding basic laws that apply to Christians (including such matters as taxes and donations) as well as more crucial matters of imprisonment and punishment.
B. The Herodian Clan (v. 13)
It all began with Antipiter in 47 b.c. who was somehow linked to services rendered to Julius Caesar by Hyrcanus, a high priestly ruler of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, and Perea. The connection between the two gave Antipiter the procuratorship of Judea. Before the aged Hyrcanus passed off the scene, Antipiter arranged the appointment of Herod, his second son, to the governorship of Galilee.
Antipiter was murdered in 43 b.c., the year after Caesar’s assassination, and the Parthians marched west against the vulnerable eastern front of the Roman Empire. Somehow in all of this, Herod made his way via Egypt to Rome and gained the support of both Octavian and Antony. During the thirteen years between the assassination of Caesar and the emergence of Octavian, Herod solidified his reign in Palestine and governed for thirty-four years.
Herod the Great left four sons who appear in the Gospels: Archelaus, Antipas, Philip the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1) and Herod, son of Mariamne (Matt. 14:3). The latter is of no consequence, and the royal line beginning with the original Antipiter passed from Herod the Great to Herod Antipas I (who killed John the Baptist) to Herod Agrippa I (eaten by worms in Acts 12); and now to Herod Agrippa II who conversed with Paul in Acts 26.
We should not confuse this long line of kings with the Herodian party. Andrews explains this latter group:
The Herodians were those among the people who, though hating the Roman rule, favored the pretensions of Herod’s family to kingly power.… In case of national independence, this family should reign rather than the House of the Maccabees, or any other claimant. They were never numerous, for the great body of the nation looked upon that family as foreigners and usurpers (Andrews, 261).
C. Did Paul Fail to Trust God?
Some have criticized Paul for constantly claiming his Roman citizenship and, on this occasion, appealing to Caesar. Why not the humble silence of Jesus? Where was the apostle who was unafraid to die, the testifier of such wonderful words in Acts 20:24? Some scholars find fault with Paul’s attitude as well as his words since he defiantly refused any involvement by Festus and says, No one has the right to hand me over to them [the Jews]. I appeal to Caesar (v. 11).
Although the situation was considerably different, a passage in Nehemiah sheds light on the dilemma of Acts 25.
But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem’s walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it. But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat (Neh. 4:7–9).
Notice the “double coverage” used by Nehemiah—we prayed to God, and we posted a guard. There was not the slightest evidence that Paul had transferred his dependence from God to Nero—that would have been a foolishness far beyond his capability. Without ceasing to pray, and still totally resting on God’s grace for deliverance, Paul added to that prayer a modern “posting of the guard” by appealing to the highest Roman court.[2]
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. If placed on trial for Christian beliefs, what kind of verdict would you face? What kind of testimony could you give for yourself?
2. If friends involved you in a dispute about a dead man named Jesus, what would you say to them?
What letter of recommendation could your church write for you? What specific evidence would they have to cite in the letter?[3]
PRAYER:
[1] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 422–423.
[2] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 423–426.
[3] Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 426.