Grace Bible Church Gillette, Wyoming

1. Felix had been removed from procurator because of Jewish repulsion toward him. The conditions under Felix became unbearable. Riots, burned villages, and lawlessness broke out everywhere. Porcius Festus had been appointed by Nero to fill the vacancy in 59 A.D..

2. Nothing notable had been recorded about Festus until Luke’s record of him in Paul’s trial. He was instrumental in subduing the Sicarri, robbers, and magicians. He sided with Agrippa against the Jews in regard to a wall they built. The wall prevented Agrippa and the Romans from seeing into the temple .

3. The new appointee made a trip to Jerusalem after three days in office.

II. ACCUSATIONS OF CHIEF PRIESTS REVISTED (2-5)

A. Chief Priests Immediately Accused Paul (2)

1. As soon as Festus was appointed procurator, the Jews immediately came to him to once again bring up Paul’s charges.

2. After two years of the imprisonment of Paul, the Jews continued to seethe in their hatred for Paul. They could not wait for an opportunity to go after Paul again.

B. Ambush Attempted Again (3)

1. They were not content to leave things in the hands of God or the judicial system. They themselves wanted to kill Paul and be rid of him for good.

2. They concocted another plan to ambush Paul and kill him. The plan proved that the chief priests were very much conspirators in the first attempt to kill Paul (Act 23:12-15).

3. The plan involved that the unsuspecting Festus would send for Paul to be brought to Jerusalem. Along the way, the chief priests (through Jewish zealots) would orchestrate an “ambush” (enedra – lying in concealment for a surprise attack, Ac 23:16) and kill Paul.

C. Festus’ Pragmatism Deflected Request (4)

1. Whether or not Festus knew anything about the ambush is conjecture. However, it is not a stretch to hold that Festus was a pragmatist.

2. A pragmatist is someone who deals with situations based on practical outcome (“whatever works”) as opposed to theoretical considerations.

3. So when the Jews asked Festus to send for Paul and bring him to Jerusalem, Festus did not see its feasibility. His answer was definitively pragmatic when he stated that he himself would be going to Caesarea shortly.

4. Philip Schaff’s New Testament Commentary also adds that such an action would have been contrary to Roman procedure. Under Roman law, a national tribunal does not arbitrate supposed violations of sacred customs and laws. Nevertheless, it was Festus’ pragmatism that would foil the plot.

D. Festus’ Pragmatic Solution (5)

1. Festus, the pragmatist, even suggested that some of the influential (dunatos – powerful or authoritative) men among the chief priests accompany him. This was a practical way of settling the case against Paul and for foiling the plot.

2. While maintaining Paul’s rights, Festus pacified the Jews by saying that if Paul was guilty of violating sacred customs and laws, then the Jews could prosecute him in accordance with Roman law.

3. Unbeknownst to Festus, his pragmatism was preventing Paul’s death at the hands of Jewish assassins. This would be the second time that Paul’s life was spared at the hands of secular men (cf. Act 23:23).

4. Yet we know that it was God at work in and around Paul’s life and protection. God’s kingdom and plans will not be thwarted by God’s enemies. Instead, God will use those very enemies to unwittingly accomplish the will of God (Pro 21:1; Act 2:23).

III. ADVANTAGE OF CAESAREA (6-9)

A. Festus Goes to Caesarea (6)

1. Festus’ time in Jerusalem lasted eight or ten days. After which time, he proceeded down to Caesarea.

2. Upon arriving in Caesarea, Festus complied with his duty and took his seat on the tribunal (bema – judgment seat on a raise platform).

3. Luke appears to indicate a certain haste in the judicial procedure which was no doubt provoked by the Jews.

B. Chief Priests Brought Serious Charges (7)

1. The courtroom was without question an intimidating scene. Festus was upon his tribunal seat and Paul’s accusers were around him.

2. Many serious charges were brought against Paul by the chief priests. They included at least the three charges previously leveled against Paul by Tertullus, Sedition, Sectarianism and Sacrilege (Act 24:5-6).

3. But just like the first trial before Felix, there was no evidence or witnesses, and hence, no proof against Paul (cf. Act 24:11-21).

C. Paul’s Legal and Religious Defense (8)

1. Festus then gave Paul the opportunity to give his own defense as he had done before Felix.

2. Paul’s premise was that he committed no offense in 1) against the Jewish Law (Sectarianism), 2) the temple (Sacrilege), and 3) Caesar (Sedition).

D. Festus Suggests Trial at Jerusalem (9)

1. Festus, like Felix, had an easy decision before him. There was no proof against Paul and he should have been released by both governors.

2. While Felix procrastinated for two years, Festus sought the most pragmatic (and self-benefitting) course that benefitted him in the presence of the Jews.

3. Both Felix (with a non-decision) and Festus (with a decision to deliver Paul over to the Jews) guided their actions in order to gain the favor of the Jews (Act 24:27; 25:9).

4. Festus suggested a practical solution that pleased the Jews. Festus maintained that if Paul was innocent, he need not fear to appear before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

IV. APPEAL TO CAESAR (10-12)

A. Paul ‘s Boldness Before Festus (10)

1. Paul exhibits both boldness and wisdom in his reply. He was bold in reminding Festus that he was Caesar's tribunal and wise in instructing Festus in Roman law.

2. Paul’s trial was where it should have been, before the Roman governor and not before the Sanhedrin. According to Roman law, without proof of doing wrong to the Jews, Festus should have released Paul.

B. Paul Appeals to Caesar (11)

1. Paul made it very clear, that if he had done anything worthy of death, he should die. However, if he was innocent, he should not be handed over to the bloodthirsty Sanhedrin. In fact, Festus did not have the right to hand over an innocent Roman citizen.

2. Suspicious of Festus’ pragmatism and the Sanhedrin’s blood-lust, Paul made an appeal to appear before Caesar and his supreme court.

C. Festus Grants Paul’s Appeal to Caesar (12)

1. After conferring with his council, Festus agreed to send Paul before Nero. Festus pragmatically had not denied the Jews their day in the Sanhedrin court. Nor had Festus violated Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen. But Festus had not done the right thing, which was to have released Paul.

2. On an interesting note, when Paul went before Agrippa, Agrippa stated that Paul might have gone free had he not appealed to Caesar (Act 26:32).

3. Did Paul make a mistake appealing to Caesar? Not at all.

a) Paul would most likely be murdered on the way to Jerusalem.

b) Or Paul would be sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin.

c) Paul also knew that Festus could not be trusted because he would do whatever was pragmatic for his own benefit.

d) An appeal to Caesar would take him to Rome (Act 23:11).

V. OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

A. Peril of Pragmatism

1. Pragmatism as a philosophy is similar to situational ethics. They both claim that there are no absolutes. Only that which works or benefits the person at the time is the right and true. The problem is that God’s truths are absolutes whether they appear to work out for the believer or not.

2. Pragmatism can cause problems within the church.

3. Whats wrong with pragmatism? After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesnt it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if theres a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.

4. But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life, theology, and ministry, inevitably it clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what works and what doesnt. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf Job 12:6).

B. Pugnaciousness of the Religious

1. The hatred of the religious Jews toward Paul, a true believer, was unrelenting and over the top in its intensity.

2. Those who are most religious are often those who become most volatile. When you begin asking personal questions about their salvation, their true colors show.

3. Historically, the greatest persecutors of Christianity have been religionists. Whether it was Judaism, which is as pagan as the worship of anything else outside of Christ, or whether it was Caesar worship (which persecuted Christians), it was always a worshipful or a religionists' mask that covered the face of persecution. … Don't expect religious people to be tolerant; they're not, because Satan is the head religionist and he's absolutely and totally intolerant toward Christ and Christianity.

4. …We see again how Spirit-filled, effective Christians always create problems in the world, because the world can't stand what their lives bring out in them. It is the rebuke of a godly life. MAC Sermon.

Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516