Evidence of Faith Epilogue

At the onset of this writing odyssey, I asked myself two primary questions: why is Acts important and what makes it relevant in today’s times? Regarding the first question, Acts is critically important because it demonstrates the essentiality of God. The apostles could not have accomplished anything worthy of note or record had the Holy Spirit not empowered them, blessed them, helped them, strengthened them, or guided them. In both personal and ministerial endeavors, the early disciples discovered that an active relationship with the Creator produces transformational lives.

To the second question, Acts is relevant in today’s times because it confirms that mankind is spiritually content, fruitful, and prosperous when a man-to-God relationship is established through redemption in Christ. The pioneer believers were wholly dependent upon God’s daily participation in their lives to make a difference in the world around them. Thanks to the Holy Spirit’s governance, the first century men and women of faith were able to carry out the sizable mission Jesus had called them to: to tell others about Him and lead the lost into salvation, baptism, and discipleship. Therefore, Acts underscores God’s involvement is the impetus for lasting change and reformation.

I find tremendous comfort and conviction in knowing that God was able to use people from all walks of life, including fishermen, Pharisees, Roman soldiers, and businesswomen alike, to usher in such a great awakening. But this consideration forces modern-day Christians to address some penetrating character inquiries. Will we make ourselves available for God’s mission? Will we allow God’s will, rather than our own, to direct us? Will we consider fellowshipping with God, affixing ourselves to the body of Christ, and evoking a communal awareness of the Lord through humble, Christ-honoring service as central aspirations? Will we, like the believers of Acts, fully engage and display the evidence of our faith, no matter the cost?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 28

"Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."

Acts 28:31

        Boldness. An unrelenting passion. An uninhibited persuasion. An unwillingness to compromise one’s beliefs.
Bold positions are the exception, rather than the rule, in appeasement-oriented societies. Politically correct environments tend to generate diminished moral standards collectively and label those who exhibit a bold presence as part of a radical fringe whose say must be ignored or muted. This pattern inevitably leads to two primary outcomes: passivity and complacency. As modeled by Jesus, Christianity should not be a passive, complacent devotion. The Savior of mankind was active, articulate, and approachable in His earthly mission. He was respectful of elders, authorities, customs, and governmental leaders, but not at the expense of traditions or sentiments that dishonored God. If a person brought shame to God, or profaned Him with a corrupted lifestyle, Jesus had no reservations calling someone into account. His holy boldness confirms that a firm faith and a dedicated disposition go hand-in-hand.  
It is critical to note that although boldness should be seen as a positive force (as it strives to draw attention to truth) it is sometimes employed in a negative fashion, which accomplishes the opposite effect. I was made aware of this my first Sunday as a minister of music. Because I desperately longed to glorify God in my new role, I spent many hours preparing for the inaugural service. I carefully considered the selection of songs, their respective sequence, and what I could share that would amplify the worship’s meaning and impact. After the service, the pastor asked me to accompany him to the church foyer and shake hands with attendees as they exited the building. As my veins coursed with excitement and nervousness, several people extended heartfelt “thank you” and “we are glad you are with us” utterances. But they were all eclipsed by one emotionally-distressing verbal jab. 

As an older woman greeted me she felt inclined to say, “You know we pay you to sing, not talk right?” In that moment, all the joy that I had encountered that morning evaporated. I went from feeling as though I was walking on air to feeling as though I had fallen from a great height. Everything I wanted to achieve at the onset of my ministry was somehow overshadowed by the boldly condescending remark, a remark that cut very deep. It took me awhile to learn how to view such obscure, isolated statements as outliers, outliers which do not appropriately measure my ministerial efforts in God’s eyes.

Boldness should be held in balance with a dynamic relationship with Christ. Had the senior church member chosen to realize that my usage of testimonies and Scripture reading was incorporated to enhance the singing, not diminish it, her exchange with me would have been drastically different. But because she chose to dwell on the fact that my worship leading style was unlike anything she was familiar with, she expressed her discomfort in an extremely brash manner. When not checked by the Holy Spirit, hasty thoughts usually morph into harsh words. Cynicism and derision have no business in a Christian’s dialogue. God desires for His believers to be compassionately communicative and patiently pronounced.              

Paul was a missionary who was well-acquainted with the cost of spiritual boldness. He suffered a substantial amount of hardship and heartache because of his transparent faith. And yet his steadfast commitment to journey to the ends of the world to proclaim Christ’s love never wavered. This remarkable resolve was evident in Paul’s demeanor throughout the perilous travel he encountered en route to Rome in Acts 27. Despite fourteen days adrift at sea, the apostle never relinquished trust in God. In fact, Paul encouraged the crew onboard his ship to rely on God’s promised deliverance. Eventually, the sea-ravaged vessel was run aground on a sandbar and all the passengers made it to land safely, where Acts 28 continues the story. 
Disoriented, the crew did not know where they had crashed. It was only after some local residents met them on the beach that they discovered the island they were on was Malta, south of Sicily. The people of Malta were incredibly sympathetic towards the crew and showed them great kindness, going so far as to build a fire to warm the cold, rain-soaked survivors of a horrendous ordeal. Paul, ever a diligent servant, assisted in stoking the fire by gathering up brushwood. As he tossed a pile of kindling into the blaze, a snake, driven out by the heat, darted out and clamped down on his fist. The inhabitants of Malta who witnessed it assumed the apostle was a vile man for why else would he live through a shipwreck only to perish immediately after because of a poisonous snake bite? 

Unfazed by the viper’s attack, Paul shook the creature right back into the fire. The spectators fully expected the apostle to die on the spot, or at least experience some swelling in his hand, but neither transpired. Instantly, the people of Malta stopped reviling Paul and started revering him. It is interesting to observe how rapidly the overall opinion and perspective of Paul changed. One minute, the apostle was a wretched mortal. The next, he was a god. Paul’s association with deity and the reference to Justice, a Greek goddess (Acts. 28:4), highlight the depth of false doctrine that permeated Malta. The island’s inhabitants were spiritually subjugated to polytheism, which was common in Greco-Roman culture. 

Even though the residents of Malta were under the spell of a manmade religion, they continued to treat the Rome-bound prisoner caravan with tremendous hospitality. The crew was taken to the home of a leading official on the island, a man named Publius. For three days, the marooned party received food and shelter at Publius’s estate. During that time, Publius was in the midst of a personal crisis. His father had contracted an illness. Physically weak, the older gentleman was bedridden. As he happened to be staying in Publius’s home, Paul went to see Publius’s father. After praying, the apostle placed his hands on the senior adult and healed him. Word of this miracle soon spread throughout Malta. Ailing people all across the island flocked to Paul for supernatural mending. Per Acts 28:9, all that came to the apostle were cured of their afflictions.

The citizens of Malta were so grateful for the apostle’s supplication-filled touch that they furnished him and the crew with all the supplies they required to get to Rome. After three months, the prisoner caravan put out to sea on an Alexandrian ship that had wintered in Malta. When they passed through assorted ports, the crew finally reached Rome. Before Paul ventured into the capital city, he was greeted by believers in the region. When the apostle beheld the men converging on him, he was encouraged that Christianity’s spiritual fire had expanded and thus he praised God.
In Rome, Paul was granted a favorable custody. He lived under house arrest with one soldier assigned to guard him. The time Paul spent awaiting the continuation of his trial (some two years) allowed him the opportunity to write letters to his fellow disciples scattered abroad. This period produced several epistles, including: Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians. The aforementioned correspondence with the churches was later preserved and canonized in Scripture, which has deepened peoples’ knowledge of Christ’s grace for many centuries.  
After three days in Rome, Paul requested that the resident Jewish leaders meet with him. The apostle asked the Hebrew elders to convene in his quarters. When everyone assembled, the apostle summarized the situation surrounding his arrest. Once again, Paul professed that he was innocent of violating the laws and customs of his Hebrew ancestors. This claim was confirmed by several Roman civil and governmental powers who failed to find punishable fault in the apostle’s actions.
The Jewish leaders informed Paul that they had obtained no notes from Judea concerning him. The absence of a report regarding the apostle may indicate that the winter storms had delayed the delivery of dispatches, or it could be that the priests and elders in Judea had abandoned their grudge with Paul when a great geographical distance was placed between them. Either way, the Jewish leaders in Rome showed no sign that they were predisposed to contend with Paul. In fact, they proposed that Paul clarify his precepts on a separate occasion.

A day was subsequently arranged to provide Paul the platform to offer his testimony. The response to this event was staggering. Large numbers of people went to hear Paul. The apostle evangelized from morning till night in an attempt to prove that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies written about in the Old Testament. Some were convinced Paul’s message was true; some were not. Some began to leave when Paul cited Isaiah 6:9-10, a passage which reprimanded the nation of Israel for stubbornly rejecting God. Paul understood few in the room believed Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, Who was raised to life three days after His sacrificial death at Calvary. He affirmed that the spiritual obstinacy which personified the Jewish forefathers was just as prevalent in the present generation’s refusal to acknowledge Jesus’ salvation.

Intending to spur his kinsmen to find redemption in Christ, Paul said the Gentile people, unlike many Israelites, possessed open ears and receptive hearts (when it came to the legacy and ministry of Jesus). This jealousy-inducing tactic did little to move the Jewish people in Rome from their cantankerous mindset. Many walked away unchanged. Thereafter, Paul lived in a rented house for two years and welcomed all who visited him. Boldly and without hindrance, Paul preached and taught about the kingdom of God. 

Luke’s exclusion of any follow-on details regarding Paul’s legal proceedings may mean that Luke completed this book before he learned the outcome of the apostle’s case. Or perhaps Luke purposefully withheld the results of Paul’s hearing because it did not heighten the realization that the Holy Spirit did an incredible work through Paul (and so many other believers). Tradition says the apostle was acquitted of his charges but then rearrested and executed. Regardless, Paul’s tenacious evangelistic outpouring, as recorded in Acts 28:31, ensured that the gospel was heralded throughout the Roman Empire, which thereby helped solidify Christianity as a spiritual mainstay rather than a transitory religion.

According to the final verse of the final chapter of Acts, Paul vigorously served God and talked about the Lord persistently in Rome. His motivation to tarry on in redemptive endeavors reveals three characteristics of spiritual boldness. One, boldness possesses a confident spirit. Paul not only preached, but he preached boldly. His sermons contained a sense of fervency and confidence. This confidence did not derive from Paul’s intellectual prowess or acumen, although the apostle enjoyed a stout academic and religious pedigree. No, Paul’s confidence came from the power of the Holy Spirit, Who was mightily effective in his God-ordained labor. 

Confidence is often associated with pride and arrogance, but, by definition, it is a state of conviction. Clearly, Paul was a man of great conviction. His bold spirit and bold stance persevered in spite of extensive ridicule and pushback. He refused to allow momentary sufferings, like shipwrecks, snakebites, or scoffers, to take his focus off of Christ’s calling: turning people from sin’s darkness towards heaven’s light. His resoluteness was emboldened through the power of the Holy Spirit, in Whom Paul’s confidence was wisely placed. 

Two, boldness possesses a charged voice. Paul preached boldly and he preached boldly without hindrance. Even though it would have been in his best interest from a fleshly perspective to circumvent attention or upset any local citizens who could negatively influence the apostle’s trial, Paul unfailingly spoke about Jesus Christ. His zeal for the things of God compelled him to not be silent or scared of worldly powers. Paul’s commission was directly from Christ and, until the Lord rescinded it, he would continue to make his charged voice known.

Three, boldness possesses a Christ-centered message. The theme of Paul’s ongoing declaration centered on the life of Jesus. He thought about Christ. He testified about Christ. He taught about Christ. Scarcely a discussion transpired that Paul did not mention the Son of God. Through Paul’s example, we see that a mind occupied with the considerations of Christ begets a mouth occupied with conversations of Christ. 
As unfinished as Acts may seem, given that there is no additional information about Paul’s last days (or most of the other apostles for that matter), this New Testament book has an appropriate ending. In closing with Paul’s persistent sermonizing of God’s kingdom (in the face of civil prosecution and carnal persecution), Luke leaves readers with the invitation to proclaim the goodness of Jesus Christ. Paul’s example is a call to grow in our walk with God. A challenge to trumpet the love of Jesus, the Savior of the world. May we, like Paul, choose to be a part of the Holy Spirit’s activity and preach Christ wherever He may guide us. 

Does your life boldly herald the greatness of God’s kingdom and the goodness of Jesus Christ?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 27

"So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it fall away."

Acts 27:32

      Courage. The ability to unflinchingly withstand affliction and difficulties. The strength to face adversity without bending or breaking. The tenacity to push forward in pressure-filled situations.

So often we associate courage with combat. While this connection is a fitting one, it is certainly not the only one for courage embodies a persevering spirit, a spirit that is just as noble in worship as it is in war. This perspective was made clearer to me a few years ago, when I was a part-time minister of music for a small church in Oklahoma City. One Sunday morning, the praise band drummer failed to arrive for the start of a pre-service practice. Because it was not uncommon for him to be a little tardy every now and then, I began the rehearsal with the assumption he would appear shortly thereafter. After fifteen minutes had elapsed, panic swiftly set in. The drummer’s sister, who was on staff as the children’s minister, happened to walk through the sanctuary as I was mentally scrambling to ascertain what to do. I asked her if she could contact her brother to ensure everything was ok. She soon informed me that her brother had come down with an illness overnight and would not be able to play for the service.

Flustered because most of the song charts for the service were energetic and rhythmic, I grew increasingly nervous as to how the worship would flow. I fretted that the praise would be less compelling without percussive accompaniment. I had no contingency for this scenario, which only compounded my frustration. Minutes prior to the service, the youth minister approached me and suggested we utilize a youth member to fill in on drums that morning. A teenager had been playing trapset for the youth worship band on Wednesday night services for over a year. Initially, I was reluctant to insert a new musician into the praise band rotation at the last minute, especially one with whom I never rehearsed with. But as the seconds drew closer to the service kickoff, I became more and more comfortable with the consideration.           

After receiving the pastor’s approval of the eleventh hour idea, I asked the young man if he would play drums for the opening praise songs. His eyes lit up momentarily, but then a sense of reservation streaked across his face. He looked to his father, who was standing nearby, listening to our conversation. The son communicated a non-verbal “Is it ok if play?” gesture to his dad. The father endorsed it with a nod of his head, at which point the teenager literally ran to the trapset from his pew seat. I glanced over towards the teenaged drummer sporadically throughout the worship and noticed his countenance conveyed immense joy. There was something remarkably pervasive about the satisfaction that he obtained from his personal contribution to the praise service. 

      Even in unanticipated circumstances, the Lord can move mightily. It may be tempting to brush aside events that challenge us to step outside our comfort zone or display courage. After all, who wants to venture away from a safety net and risk rejection or pain? But such reflections weaken our relationship with God and circumvent opportunities for Him to be exalted and revealed in a greater way. Numerous biblical passages highlight Paul’s exhibition of courage in trying affairs. The apostle understood his life was in God’s immaculate care, which enabled him to courageously anchor in when most others would have fallen or fled. Acts 27 presents a suitable illustration of this contemplation. 

Paul’s Caesarean trial lingered unresolved for over two years. Paul addressed two Roman provincial governors and a king without a verdict being rendered. In an effort to force a decision from the Roman courts and hurdle the legal gridlock that was obstructing a conclusive judgment in his case, Paul appealed to Caesar. Thus, arrangements were made to send the apostle to Rome, as chronicled in Acts 27. Paul’s voyage to the capital city was wrought with hardships and travails.  

     Luke joined Paul for the apostle’s transfer to Rome (indicated by the author’s usage of the term “we” in Acts 27:1, the fourth “we” section listed in Acts). It seems like an unusual custom in the modern age, but it was not abnormal in the ancient world for prisoners to be granted the privilege of having friends accompany them on such transports, at least for Roman citizens in the Roman Empire, which Paul was. Paul’s path to the capital city would not be an easy one. Therefore, God stirred the hearts of some faithful companions to provide fellowship for the apostle’s arduous journey. Not only did Luke attend to Paul, but Aristarchus did as well. Aristarchus was introduced in Acts 19:29, when he was apprehended in Ephesus and paraded before an angry mob, a mob that was eager to shed Christian blood (Paul’s in particular). Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, held no resentment for bearing the brunt of Paul’s backlash in Ephesus, as evidenced by his support of the apostle in Acts 27.

Paul and other captives were assigned to a centurion named Julius. According to Acts 27:2, the military officer sought passage for the prisoners and soldiers by boarding a ship from Adramyttium (based out of Western Asia). They put out to sea and landed in Sidon the next day. Although Acts does not record a church being established in Sidon it apparently contained a body of believers for when the ship made port Paul was allowed to visit them. Julius placed a significant amount of stock in Paul’s integrity by permitting this liberty. The apostle earned this courtesy through his example and reputation. 

     When Paul’s ship set sail again, it stayed close to land because strong winds threatened to force the vessel out into open water. It is probable that this naval expedition occurred in the fall season (September to November). To avoid the heavy storms, which could easily damage ships and their precious cargo, various waterways were closed for several months during this cycle. When Paul’s ship landed at Myra, the prisoner caravan required another vessel because the ship from Adramyttium was continuing along the province of Asia. Julius promptly secured passage on a grain boat bound for Italy. The captives and soldiers boarded an Alexandrian ship and pressed ahead. Due to hostile winds, several days passed with almost no progress to show for it, intensifying the realization that the height of the perilous sailing season was fast approaching.

Paul offered a solemn warning to Julius and the crew. He told them that if they maintained their current heading it would come at an immense cost. This prophecy might have been divinely-inspired, or it could have been deduced from Paul’s familiarity of sea travel (per 2 Corinthians 11:25 Paul experienced shipwreck three different times). Either way, the apostle’s cautionary advice was ignored by Julius, who chose instead to heed the opinion of the ship’s captain and owner. When the ship’s pilot thought he had an ideal wind stream, he set sail for Phoenix, on the island of Crete. The objective was to have the prisoners and soldiers winter in Crete and wait out the intense storm cycle. But before long, the vessel was overtaken by hurricane force winds blowing in from the north. Because the vessel’s captain had no capability to steer through the gusts, the ship was at the mercy of the wind.

With virtually no control of the vessel, the crew desperately tried various means to make land. They tied ropes around the ship’s hull to keep it from tearing apart. They tossed freight and gear overboard to make the vessel lighter and prevent it from becoming submerged in the open sea. Because of overcast skies, monitoring the sun and stars, which yielded vital navigational aid, was inaccessible. When the storm showed no indication of relenting, many onboard the battered ship gave up hope of surviving the ordeal. 

The crew went an extensive time without the nourishment of food. It could be that the constant, violent rocking of the ship brought on a horrible seasickness, or perhaps the plausibility of dying at sea made the passengers relinquish the inclination to physically endure. Paul recognized the prevailing despondency and countered it with a word of encouragement. He told the people to be courageous because an angel of God had appeared to him and proclaimed everyone on the ship would live through the storm. The crew need not lose heart for God had promised to intervene and supernaturally help them weather the treacherous elements. Paul pivoted from the spiritual to the logical, telling the passengers that they desperately needed to run the ship aground.

After fourteen days adrift at sea, the sailors perceived that they were nearing land, which was verified by dropping weighted ropes into the water at assorted intervals (to track the sea’s depth). Because the ship was travelling at such a fast pace, and coming in blind due to the nighttime sky, the sailors applied a mechanism to slow down the ship’s rate of speed by lowering four anchors into the water. Some of the sailors, out of desperation, put a lifeboat into the sea, intending to circumvent a presumably deathly fate. Paul reminded Julius that God’s assurance was for all of the passengers, not most of them. Because they shared the same destiny, it was vital that they see this through together. In response to Paul’s counsel, Julius mandated that the ropes connecting the lifeboat to the ship be severed.

Just before daybreak, Paul advocated that the entire crew eat a meal. Their bodies were undoubtedly weak and required replenishment. Recalling God’s vow that they would be saved, Paul took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God, tore the bread apart, and ate it in front of everyone. Inspired, all two hundred and seventy-six people onboard consumed some food provisions. While a captive, Paul was still very much a courageous consoler and a champion of Christ-like composure. The man of God was a great motivator. 

      Thereafter, the crew threw the grain out to sea to further lighten the load of the ship. This action signifies that the sailors were fully aware that the ship’s grain, the crew’s primary source of income, would not be salvaged from pending destruction. With the grain no longer giving additional weight or stability to the vessel, the ship could be run aground. When sunlight appeared, the crew noticed a beach on the horizon. Cutting loose the anchors and untying the ropes fastened to the rudders, they readied themselves for a crash. The ship struck a sandbar, which exposed the stressed vessel to incoming waves, thereby shattering the stern into pieces. 

     Realizing the prisoners could attempt a getaway in the frenzied chaos, the soldiers proposed killing the captives, knowing the repercussions for permitting inmates to escape warranted extreme punishment, in some cases execution. But Julius purposed to spare Paul’s life and prohibited his troops from carrying out their proposal. Because some of the passengers did not know how to swim, Julius bid them to jump overboard and cling to sections of debris from the ship. The rest of the passengers were instructed to swim to shore. When all was said and done everyone made it to land. 

     Throughout this account, Paul demonstrated a courageous heart. He was unfazed and undaunted by the life-and-death dilemma. The apostle’s spiritual fortitude was not shared by any of the soldiers or sailors at first, but eventually it positively influenced Julius the centurion. The military officer’s charge to discard the lifeboat in Acts 27:32 denoted his acceptance of God’s Word, as communicated through Paul. 

      This narrative identifies three distinguishing traits of courage. One, courage entails boldness. It is not a meager act of gallantry; it is a perceivable life-substantiating valor. As the lifeboat was swept away by the sea, there was no turning back. So often mankind wants to cling to the lifeboat of our everyday endeavors. It somehow feels comforting to think there is a suitable exit strategy, should it be needed. But with God there is no backup plan because His plan is the only plan that counts. Try as hard as we may to bypass God, there is simply no avoiding the Almighty. Rather than scheming against God, we should submit ourselves to His leadership and exercise faith in Him, as Paul and Julius did.

Julius’s decision to leave the lifeboats behind was a bold one. Perhaps some of the sailors, and maybe even some of the soldiers, mentally questioned the centurion’s mindset. But courage is not timid and does not entertain lukewarm considerations. It confronts the storms of life and braces for impact.
      Two, courage entails bravery. It does not cower when it encounters the harsh settings it is sometimes thrust into. It does not wince at danger or overwhelming odds. Julius faced criticism and mutiny for decreeing that the passengers remain as one unit, but he did not allow the potential for ridicule or the appearance of recklessness to alter his conviction. He was certain Paul’s message was of divine origin and so he developed a solution to ensure that everyone tarried together. Bravery demands resolve. It calls for the audacity to resist the allurement of bailing out of hostile environments. A lifeboat was made for such an occasion, so why not use one? Because on that day, for that moment, it was not God’s will. 

      Three, courage entails belief. Julius’s command to jettison the lifeboat was belief-driven. The centurion trusted Paul’s declaration that the Lord would guide everyone onboard the ship ashore. Because of Julius’s belief in God, via Paul’s God-ordained pronouncement, he was able to engage a heavenly-based courage. Some might conclude that Julius assumed control of the ship by having his soldiers release the lifeboat. But, in essence, he surrendered control of the matter to God. Julius confided in God to rescue all two hundred and seventy-six passengers, not some manmade watercraft. Clearly, belief is a powerful force when it is concentrated on the all-powerful God.

     Courage’s potency flows from an active relationship with the Lord. It is most visible when it is placed in harm’s way. A sea-tossed boat and some sorrow-filled hearts surrounded Paul and Julius. Few would have blamed Julius for allowing sailors to make for the lifeboats, given the perilous conditions. But courage does not search for the simple way out. It does not retreat because of trepidation or terror. Courage marches on, even when factors suggest disaster is in its path. It stays the course, no matter where the course is directed. 

When the winds of life rage against you, does a heavenly-based courage rage stronger?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 26

"This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me."

Acts 26:7

        Hope. An assured expectation. A resolute confidence. An unwavering conviction. An unflinching belief. More than anything, hope is the acknowledgment that God’s sovereign rule appropriately affects and guides human affairs. After all, the Lord’s mighty hand, flawless character, and proven effectiveness confirm He is aptly able to bring about satisfactory outcomes.  
Hope is the anticipation that God will direct situations to the conclusion He deems best. It trusts His lordship and praises His holy governance. Hope is not weakened by trials or hardships for such conditions cannot diminish the awe-inspiring power of humanity’s Creator. 
A recent incident gave me a greater appreciation of how amazing hope is. At the time, my wife, Dawn, and I were experiencing a growing level of marital discord, mainly in the area of finances. Both of us were employed full-time and earning decent salaries, but we could not seem to find our footing on a sound, fiscal foundation. As our savings balance dwindled, arguments and worries intensified. Because we were unwise, impatient, and oblivious to discerning money management techniques, we started to accrue credit card debt. To make matters worse, Dawn and I signed a contract for the purchase of our first home, which only heightened our sense of concern. Taken together, monetary apprehensions overwhelmed us and became a topic of division. 
Eventually, Dawn and I learned that a financial stewardship seminar was going to be held at a local church in the upcoming months. As we researched the workshop, we discovered that the forum had successfully aided thousands of people in overcoming money woes, primarily through the development of realistic budgets. In short order, our interest in attending the conference shifted from a “this might be practical” musing to a “for the sake of our marriage we must go to this” petition. Thereafter, we purchased tickets for the seminar and participated in it with receptive hearts. 
The sage advice we absorbed from that event was astounding. Basic financial administration principles were presented in a logical, commonsense approach. How to achieve a healthy monetary portfolio was laid out with precision and clarity. Underlying problems with fiscal priorities and how they can negatively impact marriages if not properly addressed were identified, along with solutions. Numerous resources were supplied in our conference packet, which only reinforced the incredible life-changing education. 

As Dawn and I drove home from the seminar, we both remarked how transformative the workshop had been. We apologized for expressing hurtful words in the past and pledged to not let financial irresponsibility be an impediment to our marriage again. Money is tool to pay for necessities and nothing more. Somehow we had let worldly values and worldly influences pull us away from the simplistic purpose of money: to honor God (through tithes and offerings), to provide for our family, and to assist others in need. 

Hope encapsulates what Dawn and I felt that day. Hope that God would help us exercise wisdom in our future financial plans. Hope that money would no longer be a source of conflict in our home. Hope that we would stop looking for a certain savings threshold to obtain a sense of security, but that we would find contentment and peace in the Supreme God, Whose spiritual riches never leave us in a state of emotional poverty. What set Dawn and I on the course to unity was the extraordinarily regenerative quality of hope. 
Hope is not some whimsical, unfounded sense of optimism. It flows from a decisive knowledge that the God Who has demonstrated His faithfulness throughout history will continue to display His faithfulness. The Lord honors all of His promises and one of His most comforting vows is that He sustains the ones who serve Him (Joh. 12:26). This does not necessarily mean that all believers will attain material prosperity, at least by cultural standards, but it does mean that God, Who charged us to work to fulfill our ongoing obligations, will bless our efforts should we labor in the right spirit and for the right reasons.   
Where many would have struggled to exhibit a positive outlook, particularly through incarceration, persecution, abuse, and extreme scrutiny, Paul maintained a hopeful disposition during the course of his earthly pilgrimage (post-salvation). In Acts 23, the apostle was dispatched as a prisoner from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he remained through Acts 26. Because of a reluctance to upset the Hebrew community, influential Roman civil powers delayed Paul’s ruling for over two years. The apostle nobly refuted the charges the Jewish priests and elders had levied against him on multiple occasions. It was determined, in large part by his own request, that Paul’s case be transferred to Caesar in Rome. The governor posted in Caesarea when Paul made his appeal to the Emperor, Porcius Festus, was not well-versed in Hebrew religion (or Christianity for that matter) and felt ill-equipped to outline the crux of the dispute to Caesar. 
When King Agrippa visited Caesarea to congratulate Festus on his appointment as provincial governor, Festus utilized the opportunity to seek the king’s advice on Paul’s trial. Rather than cite generic counsel or procedural protocols, Agrippa asked to hear Paul testify in person. In Acts 26, Paul was brought before King Agrippa and other Roman dignitaries. According to Acts 26:1, Paul’s voice was silent until it was authorized to be unfettered by King Agrippa. When Paul was granted permission to speak, the apostle provided one of the most compelling defenses of faith in all of Christianity. 
Before Paul uttered his opening statement, he motioned with his hand, perhaps imploring the king to offer his undivided attention. Paul intended to partake in a lengthy discussion and thus he entreated King Agrippa to patiently hear him out. Agrippa might have been tempted to mentally dismiss the apostle’s lecture considering the king’s affection for Jewish scholarship, but Paul urged the king to not arbitrarily overlook the truthfulness of his message. Paul perceived Agrippa was fluent in the Old Testament writings and so the apostle sought to expound upon the ancient texts through the ministry and legacy of Jesus Christ. 
Like King Agrippa, Paul’s upbringing had endeared him to Hebrew beliefs. He was so zealous for the religion that he committed himself to the training and tutelage of the Pharisee sect when he was younger. He was no stranger to Scripture; he was an imminent scholar. Unlike some within the Jewish religious parties, namely the Sadducees, Paul understood resurrection was possible. If God could create the world out of nothingness, why couldn’t He breathe new life into a dead body, specifically the crucified body of Jesus Christ? But Paul initially rejected this reality and treated it as pure heresy. He attempted to mute those who proclaimed Jesus is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God, Who had been miraculously raised to life. Paul was so opposed to the Christian faith that he amassed the approval of Jewish priests to imprison and murder followers of Jesus. He began his vendetta began in synagogues throughout Jerusalem, where Christians were actively witnessing. Paul went so far as to try to coerce captured believers to renounce their allegiance to Christ, presumably through the means of torture. 

In his obsession, Paul journeyed to distant lands to assail the body of Christ. When Paul embarked upon a trip to Damascus to apprehend followers of Jesus one fateful day, he was interrupted by a most glorious vision of a heavenly light. In reciting this story to King Agrippa, Paul indicated that his stubborn defiance of accepting Jesus as Savior was conquered by an encounter with Christ. This honest confession served to provide some credibility to his account and explain his dramatic transformation from a doubter to a disciple. 

The narrative recorded in Acts 9 was retold in Acts 26, with some additional detail regarding Jesus’ interaction with Paul. According to Acts 26:14, Jesus rebuked Paul for kicking against the goads, which was not previously mentioned in Acts 9. Goads are pointed rods used to urge animals towards a destination. They represent a means of physically prodding a creature to go where the master wants it to go. This term is mentioned in the Old Testament. Ecclesiastes 12:11 says, “The words of the wise are like goads.” On the road to Damascus, Jesus was showing Paul that Christians were marshaling humanity towards truth, and by toiling against them Paul was in conflict with God. 

Paul informed King Agrippa that his divine exchange with Jesus changed his mission and, ultimately, his destiny. Paul became a proponent of the gospel message that he had long scoffed. He stopped profaning it and he started preaching it. Paul’s heavenly-commissioned ministry commenced in Damascus, but he was forced to flee to Jerusalem when some of the Jewish residents in Damascus conceived a plot to kill him. Paul resumed evangelizing in the city of David with much vigor, but Paul upset others in the Hebrew faith residing there as well, so-much-so that several Jewish people formed a conspiracy to slay Paul. When believers in Jerusalem caught wind of the malevolent plot, they sent Paul away to his hometown of Tarsus (by way of Caesarea).

Later, Paul was called to witness to many people in Antioch and across Asia Minor. His instruction harmonized with the Bible and did not socially exile any segment of society. Whether Jew or Gentile, wealthy or destitute, senior or adolescent, Paul told others to repent of their sins and find forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice. Paul claimed that it was his willingness to herald the gospel to the Gentile people that prompted his arrest inside the Jerusalem temple a few years prior. 
Paul was prepared to say more, but he was cut short because of an outburst from Governor Festus, who assumed the apostle was certifiably insane. The governor voiced his contemplation in a raised manner, shouting aloud his inner thoughts. Even though the gathering was for King Agrippa’s benefit, Festus became weary of the proceeding and intended to discredit Paul. Hardhearted people have no shortage of hasty, hotheaded behavior. Paul did not respond in kind to the inappropriate distraction. He respectfully denied the governor’s charge that he was deranged and declared his testimony was fair and reasonable. Furthermore, he called Festus “most excellent” as a sign of honor. Paul had an acute mastery of speech, which was in line with his mature spirit, a spirit interwoven and counseled by the Holy Spirit.
After Governor Festus’s tantrum, Paul beseeched King Agrippa to consider his literacy of the Old Testament and overall familiarity of the Jewish faith. The apostle inquired if the king firmly believed in the Scriptural passages penned by the prophets, many of which alluded to a Messiah. Paul’s question was likely a forerunner to another, a question which would have required King Agrippa to either embrace or expel the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. On the cusp of spiritual deliverance, Agrippa, like Governor Felix before him (Ac. 24), internally trembled at the thought of his depravity and refused a redemption proposition. Although the king was persuadable, he chose not be persuaded, at least by Paul. Rather than continue to listen to the outspoken, but compelling, apostle, King Agrippa arose and left the assembly room, thereby preventing Paul an outlet to triumphantly usher the king, or any others in attendance, to the door of salvation.
Despite King Agrippa’s stiffnecked attitude towards Paul’s message, he recognized there was nothing in Paul’s ministry that warranted jail or death. At the conclusion of Acts 26, the king observed that Paul’s predicament was aggravated because of the apostle’s demand to be taken to Caesar. Paul’s appeal would have to be fully vetted by the highest Roman court, regardless of Paul’s innocence.
Paul’s uncompromisingly encouraging countenance, which is underscored in Acts 26:7, highlights three critical aspects of hope. One, hope is discernable. It is not camouflaged or concealed. It is an articulated, recognizable reliance upon the Almighty God. Paul was not ashamed to announce his loyalty to God, or God’s Son: Jesus Christ. While many in the Jewish faith were still awaiting the appearance of the Messiah, Paul understood that he had already met the Messiah, Jesus, on the road to Damascus. 
The hope Paul enjoyed harkened back to a promise that God made to Israel’s patriarch, Abram, in Genesis 12. In that Old Testament passage, God told Abram that his family would be blessed. Abram’s blessing would not be a multi-generational outpouring of financial prosperity or military dominance, but rather a redemptive promise foreshadowing Jesus’ human-coming through Abram’s genealogical line. The apostle was extremely grateful for the covenantal relationship that God had established with Abram and its subsequent fulfillment in Christ. It forged an imperishable, discernible hope that overflowed in Paul’s heart.
Two, hope is desirable. Hope is worth obtaining and yields ample spiritual value. Paul’s unflappable hope derived from the cognitive awareness that God has absolute authority and His plans are put in motion at His digression. In a society that longs for instant success and entitlements, the apostle made no stipulations of God, except that God employ him as an instrument of heaven. To many outside the Christian faith, hope appears misplaced or false. But nothing could be further from the truth. God’s hope is the only real hope for it is the only hope never fails or disappoints. It is desirable because it is both exhorting and eternal. 
Three, hope is doubtless. It is sure of God’s power. It is certain of God’s ability to resolve complex circumstances. It is emboldened and encouraged by the unending endowment of the Holy Spirit’s strength. Paul did not cower before the high-ranking Roman dignitaries. He did not fear their position or the punishment they could inflict upon him. The apostle was doubtless in his belief that his trial, and his life in general, would finish exactly how God destined it to. Therefore, Paul relinquished anxieties about his life because he rightly believed he was protected through God’s wondrous watch, revealing that panic loses its sway over a person who holds fast to hope in God.
Paul’s hope-filled perseverance has much to teach modern-day Christians. We would do well to cast aside the worries of the world and leave them at the throne of grace. The apostle Paul was able to withstand skepticism by placing his faith in Jesus, the Prince of Peace. The bond produced a spiritual resiliency and a hopeful spirit in the apostle. Even when he found himself in restraints, Paul had an unrestrained spiritual freedom that refused to accept timidity or defeat. In Acts 26, the apostle was in chains, but the burden of sin’s sentence was removed from his soul because it had been replaced with the freeing hope that only Christ can bestow.

Do you enjoy the unshakable hope that a relationship with Jesus provides?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 25

"They urgently requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way." 

Acts 25:3

        Hatred. A vile intolerance. A wicked zealousness. A scarcity of patience, compassion, or charity.
Hatred reveals the sinister character of humanity and highlights our selfishly-rooted nature, thus preventing us from mercifully looking upon our fellow man. It emotionally rots our soul and promotes a calloused outlook, encouraging us to trivialize beliefs and viewpoints different from our own. God’s love-filled disposition does not exhibit such detestable thought or conduct for He deems all of creation treasured and meaningful. 

Several years ago, I was struck by the overwhelming brashness hatred presents when my family was away on a vacation. The incident came about when my wife, Dawn, and I, along with our son, Jayden, who was just a few months shy of turning one, traveled some fifteen hundred miles to visit two longtime friends, a husband and wife. Typically, we enjoy the couple’s company during the winter holiday season, when they are in town fellowshipping with their families. Because Dawn and I longed to see the husband and wife earlier than the annual December reunion, we booked flights to travel to the couple’s region (after we secured a calendar date that accommodated their schedule). 

The sabbatical was a blessing in that we not only reconnected with our friends, but we also observed several celebrated sites in colonial history, which happened to be in close proximity to the couple’s residence. During our sightseeing excursion in one of the most notable and prestigious locations of American record, Dawn and I had lunch at a renowned restaurant. Many television specials and online articles featured it as a must-try eatery. Needless-to-say, I was elated that we had the chance to sample some of the highly publicized food. I quickly discovered that every bite was as good as advertised. 

But when I finished my meal, I noticed something disturbing. My eyes were drawn to restaurant-sponsored t-shirts posted on the walls of the establishment. The for-sale apparel demanded entrees be ordered in English. If customers were unable to comply with this mandate then the prospective patrons would be refused service. The crassness of the communication unnerved me. I was obviously not the only one who felt this way because the restaurant’s “order in English” campaign instantly garnered media coverage, not just locally but across the United States. It received ample backlash from numerous ethnic communities. 

As I think back upon that episode, I am reminded that hatred is a most resilient and difficult foe. It spawns an intense hostility towards others. Choosing to loathe and detest perceived outsiders often derives from angry and fearful sentiments. In time, the propensity to loathe and detest can morph into bitter disgust and antipathy. Only in the benevolent reach of Christ’s grace can such cold and dark behavior be overcome.
Paul was no stranger to the consuming quality of hatred. In fact, the apostle was formerly bound to it, evidenced by his bygone commitment to quiet, castigate, and murder Christians throughout Jerusalem and abroad. When Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and fundamentally transformed him thereafter, Paul set out to direct people to salvation. Unfortunately, the abhorrence to the gospel that once plagued Paul was displayed by many of his Hebrew kinsmen. Acts 25 lists one such example.
Acts 24:27 states Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment endured two years under the reign of Governor Felix. Felix was then succeeded by Porcius Festus. According to Acts 25:1, Governor Festus went from Caesarea to Jerusalem after just three days in his post. Roman civil powers, over time, became sensitive and responsive to the pressure of the Jewish populace, which explains why the newly established governor arranged a hurried expedition to the city of David. The brief pilgrimage was almost certainly an attempt to appease the highly vocal Hebrew contingent. The Jewish religious leaders immediately organized a conference with Festus and promptly enunciated their grievances with Paul. The chief priests and elders asked Governor Festus to transfer the apostle to Jerusalem. But their pretext was a ruse to lure Paul away from the safety of his Caesarean confinement. Per Acts 25:3, the religious leaders were preparing to have the apostle apprehended and executed in the event he was transported to Jerusalem. Clearly, hatred has no caution or civility when it comes to feeding its voracious appetite.
Governor Festus did not capitulate to the plea of the religious leaders, at least initially. He wisely proposed that the chief priests and elders follow him back to Caesarea and readdress their objections with Paul in a Roman court. No doubt disappointed, but equally unwilling to broadcast how false their claims were, the religious leaders agreed to Festus’s suggestion. Although the chief priests and elders had intended to malevolently influence the governor’s position on Paul’s incarceration, Festus chose to mull both sides of the argument before rendering judgment. Festus’s intuition proved to be prudent for Acts 25:7 discloses that the religious leaders could not validate their accusations. When given an opportunity to counter the complaints against him, Paul forthrightly professed his innocence. There was no proof that he had violated any Hebrew laws, temple customs, or Roman decrees because he had not partaken in such depraved activity, post-salvation.
Even though the fair, reasonable resolution in light of the weak accounts delivered   by the religious leaders would have been to release Paul, Governor Festus apparently lacked the volition to cast a verdict siding with the apostle. Because he wanted to avoid Jewish repercussions at all costs, Festus inquired if Paul would be willing to go back to Jerusalem to conclude the trial, a complete reversal of the governor’s stance in Acts 25:5. It would seem that Festus followed in Governor Felix’s footsteps, in that he aimed to grant the Jewish inhabitants favor. Presumably, Festus hoped that such action would secure the compliance and respect of the Hebrew society. Furthermore, Jewish and Christian theologies were subjects Festus was not comfortable arbitrating, nor cared to research. Therefore, he endeavored to free himself of Paul’s case and return it to the Jewish court.       

       But Paul resolutely stated his case should proceed through the Roman legal system. The apostle believed so strongly in this persuasion that he appealed to Caesar directly. The query was often reserved for the most grave, empire-impacting matters. Perhaps Paul recalled the words of Jesus in Acts 23:11, when Christ commanded the apostle to bravely testify in Rome. Or it could be that Paul supernaturally comprehended that the path to Jerusalem was sure to result in his death, thereby jeopardizing his evangelical course to the capital city. Either way, the apostle entrusted his fate to God via the Roman courts and rejected the notion of another Jerusalem-based investigation.

Governor Festus delayed Paul’s ruling and assembled a council to analyze the apostle’s case. It is commendable that Festus did not rush to issue a sentence when he was plainly unsure of the Jewish practices that were being debated. Rather than let his ignorance of Hebrew religion, or Christianity, cause him to make an unintelligible decision, Festus welcomed the advice and guidance of others. A few days later, Festus was bestowed a royal greeting by King Agrippa, the son of Herod Agrippa 1 (Ac. 12). It was customary for emissaries to be sent on behalf of monarchs on such occasions, but King Agrippa opted to share his congratulatory remarks in person. King Agrippa determined to stay in Caesarea for a while, which served to reinforce the spirit of recognition for Festus’s appointment to an esteemed governmental assignment.
Since Agrippa was sojourning in Caesarea for a protracted period, Festus informed the king about Paul’s case. As Festus outlined the details of it with King Agrippa, he humbly acknowledged his lack of scholarship regarding the Jewish faith or the legacy of Jesus Christ. Because Paul had appealed to Caesar, Festus was at liberty to admit to Agrippa that he sensed Paul was not guilty of any wrongdoing. King Agrippa was familiar with Hebrew belief from both his upbringing and his purview as appointer of the Jewish high priests. Therefore, Agrippa was intrigued with hearing Paul elaborate on his faith. Acts 25 does not identify whether King Agrippa generated the recommendation as a courtesy to Festus or because he earnestly wanted to know more about Christianity. After all, the king’s genealogy included two relatives who were vehemently opposed to Jesus (Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I). Regardless, Paul was brought before King Agrippa, Governor Festus, high-ranking officers, and distinguished residents of Caesarea. The forum resembles a superficial show of pomp more than anything, but Paul was dedicated to taking the message of Christ to both princes and peasants.
When Paul entered the assembly room filled with Roman dignitaries, Governor Festus provided some stage-setting comments. He summarized the reason for the gathering. Paul had been labeled a criminal worthy of execution by Jewish law. But no incriminating evidence was submitted by the religious leaders warranting such punishment. Festus had expected Paul’s charges to concentrate on Roman affairs, but when he ascertained that the case centered on Jesus, and not insurrection or civil rebellion, he was perplexed as to what opinion to offer. Because Paul had appealed to Caesar, Festus was compelled to send the apostle to Rome. The governor’s confusion over the underlying topics meant he did not have amplifying information to furnish the Emperor. Therefore, Festus beseeched the ear of King Agrippa so that the king could determine what indictment should accompany Paul in his Rome-bound journey.
Paul’s drawn-out ordeal began with the hateful conjectures of a few Jewish individuals from the province of Asia in Acts 21. Their malice spread like wildfire across Jerusalem. What started off as the musings of a small body of ungodly people was quickly absorbed, shared, and replicated by many. The lethal cravings towards Paul (in Acts 25) points out three unenviable attributes of hatred. One, hatred controls. When one is fully encumbered in the ways of the flesh, boundaries are eliminated. The religious leaders knew that God had prohibited murder in Exodus 20:13. But when the Word of God is replaced with sin’s impulses, the yearning to pursue holiness is abandoned.
Hatred devalues the precious gift of existence and harbors a spiteful nature. Paul was not an enemy of the Jewish faith. Actually, he was one of its biggest advocates. But hatred prevented the chief priests and elders from perceiving the legitimacy of Paul’s witness. They disregarded the apostle’s genuine reformation. They ignored his noble deeds, efforts, and missionary work. In the minds of the chief priests and elders, Paul was a nuisance and nothing more. Hatred drove them to an extremist standpoint, calling for the apostle’s death through lies and trickery. Controlled by hatred, they neglected to consult God or Scripture as they developed their heinous plans.
Two, hatred conspires. Although prejudice and angst are sometimes divulged publicly, it is often behind a veiled curtain that hate-spawned conspiracies are devised, as confirmed by the cunning subterfuge of the religious leaders in Acts 25. They knew their aspiration to kill Paul had no legal merit so they hatched a covert plot to ambush him. It is remarkable how far down the road of abomination the flesh can carry us. If an objective is not suitable to be articulated openly and honestly then it is probably not one that should be sought after. 

     The scandalous devotion to slay Paul had no decent trait, but the chief priests and elders elected to see it through anyway. Their fate-fueled conspiracy could not be satisfied except in focusing on the destruction of one of God’s greatest saints. Deception was the mechanism they exploited, and, shamefully, they exploited it with considerable force and vigor.    

Three, hatred corrupts. The religious leaders were the individuals commissioned with learning holy doctrine and teaching it to others. They were tasked to intercede on behalf of their brethren and guide them in truth. And yet the most educated men of Old Testament instruction cruelly strategized to violate its very tenets. This heightens how corrupting hatred can be. It can weaken our resolve. It can divert our gaze off God. It can distract us from the Lord’s divine principles. When our corrupted spirit is leading us instead of the Holy Spirit, we are destined for danger.
The Jewish chief priests and elders overlooked and flat-out refused to practice God’s Word in all circumstances, especially when it came to the testimonies of Christians. In hatred, they vowed to destroy the gospel and its couriers. Because of this, they tried to discredit Paul, but all they did was expose how unloving and hate-filled their hearts were. They debased themselves and they dishonored God.    

Are you protecting your heart from the acceptance of hate-filled desires?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 24

"As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, 'That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.'" 

Acts 24:25

         Fear. A paralyzing anxiety. An immobilizing dread. An incapacitating state of internal affliction that shrouds those suffering from it in terror.
Fear comes in many forms. It challenges mankind daily, tempting Christians to relinquish trust in God. If we dwell on our Maker, this world and all its troubles will hold no sway over us. But if we look to this world and all its troubles, the Lord’s reassuring voice can be muted by the influence of ungodly chatter. This reality was present in the Old Testament story of David and Goliath. Through faith, David viewed Goliath differently from his kinsmen. Israelite soldiers saw an intimidating, unbeatable giant. David, however, saw a mortal man, a man who was provoking and mocking God’s people, and certainly no match for God’s might (2 Samuel 17). Like the Hebrew warriors cowering from the sight and sound of Goliath, fear can overwhelm us and cause us to remain stationary, or altogether retreat from a situation. I remember how fearfully debilitated I was the day my wife, Dawn, experienced complications from a supposedly routine medical procedure. 
Dawn has suffered from digestive problems the majority of her life. It began in her youth and carried itself into the early years of our marriage. Dawn is incredibly resilient and rarely voices the sporadic discomfort that engulfs her at times. But after our first child, Jayden, was born, the pain associated with her digestive ailments surged dramatically and put her in an unbearably agonizing circumstance. When we consulted our family doctor, he performed some preliminary tests, which unfortunately did not yield any findings. He then suggested Dawn undergo an ultrasound procedure to analyze her digestive tract. When the ultrasound images were returned to him, he diagnosed the presence of gall stones. He subsequently recommended that Dawn have her gall bladder removed and provided a reference for a local surgeon. The surgeon confirmed our family doctor’s counsel and scheduled Dawn for an operation, reinforcing the fact that Dawn’s gall bladder was improperly functioning and was thereby doing more harm to her body than good. 
Both Dawn and I had concerns about the procedure, but we agreed it had the potential to minimize, or better yet eliminate, her digestive troubles. I saw Dawn for a handful of minutes in the hospital before she was taken back to the surgery room. She looked so weary. The years of pain and strain that she had been subjected to were evident in her body language. Her face, which is so normally so bright and expressive, was shrouded in nervousness and reservation. Dawn expressed concerns about how life would be post-surgery. Although many people have benefited from the removal of their gall bladder, some have noted that their bodies reacted in a very foreign, awkward fashion. Frankly, becoming a part of the unsuccessful group of gall bladder removal patients terrified Dawn. 
Dawn’s family joined me and Jayden, who was just six months old at the time, in the waiting room. Dawn's mother, father, and three brothers provided me invaluable support, not only in occupying Jayden’s attention but in being a source of comfort. It seemed like an eternity but Dawn’s operation was over after a few hours. When a doctor emerged in the waiting room to give me an update, his initial statement set my heart ablaze with fear. He said Dawn awoke from the surgery unable to breathe. The medical staff was making every effort to stabilize her and supply her with oxygen. They injected Dawn with epinephrine, which did free up her constricted airway. When I asked if I could see Dawn, the physician said they only wanted hospital personnel with her because the situation was critical and demanded medically-trained, qualified staff. 

      I don’t recall much more than that (although I am sure the physician provided more information). I could not focus on what I was being told because I had gone into momentary emotional shock. A very frightening question formed in my mind: what if Dawn doesn’t survive? Sure there are risks associated with any surgical procedure but I never cognitively assessed the possibility that Dawn could die as a result of complications from the operation. As panic set in, I asked Dawn’s parents to watch Jayden so that I could step outside the hospital and speak to my mother, who asked me to call her after the surgery was completed. She answered the phone in her typically energetic manner, likely expecting me to report that everything with Dawn’s procedure had gone smoothly. I responded to her warm greeting with fear-charged fragments of words, “Mom….Dawn made it through….the surgery….but….when she awoke…she…she…couldn’t breathe…the hospital won’t let me see her…I don’t know…I don’t know what to do.” 

     Every phrase became harder to convey because I was fighting through tears and fighting through fear. My ability to think and my ability to talk were all being filtered through the lens of anxiety. My weighed-down spirit prevented me from contemplating the grandeur of God or displaying faith in Him. My mother provided me sound encouragement, prompting me to rely on God. When our brief conversation concluded, I went back to the hospital waiting room. I immediately got on the floor and sat alongside Jayden. I desperately longed to hold him for he was a strong, loving connection to Dawn. My soul raced with doubts and distressing considerations. If Dawn doesn’t pull through, how could I ever cope with the pain of losing her? Furthermore, how effective would I be as a widowed father? 

     I sulked and fretted in that worrisome state for almost an hour. Thankfully, a nurse finally appeared and announced Dawn’s condition had dramatically improved. When I heard that amazing news, my heart practically leapt out of my chest. It was later surmised that acid reflux flared up when Dawn’s intubation tube was extracted. The sudden rush of acid up her esophagus caused her throat to constrict. The administration of epinephrine helped reverse the dangerous effects that rapidly transpired after her surgery. When I was allowed to see Dawn in the recovery room, it felt as though I had been given a second chance to cherish her. I vowed not to take her for granted. Earth’s journey is but a vapor, a reflection which only amplified the importance of letting Dawn know that she is a treasured creation and that I am truly blessed to have her in my life.  

      Scripture underscores two types of fear: the fear of God (Proverbs 9:10) and the fear of the world (Proverbs 29:25). The fear of God is an attitude of reverence, awe, or respect for the Maker of heaven and earth. The fear of the world, however, is an unhealthy feeling of alarm or dismay brought about by assorted factors (people, animals, unfavorable conditions, etc). Although the fear of the Lord is the fear championed repeatedly throughout the Bible, the fear of the world is a very serious issue, as demonstrated in Acts 24. 

In Acts 23, Paul was hastily taken to Caesarea from Jerusalem when a plot to murder him was discovered and relayed to a Roman military commander named Lysias by Paul’s nephew. Having determined Jerusalem would not provide the apostle a safe environment or a safe trial, Lysias decided to bring the legal matter before Governor Felix in Caesarea. Recall that Caesarea was the region Cornelius, a Roman centurion, resided in when his family was led to faith in Christ by Peter in Acts 10. Although the Acts 10 event occurred many years before Paul’s Jerusalem and Caesarean incarceration, the Christian movement that began in Cornelius’s home had apparently remained strong, at least in the Roman civil structure for Acts 24:22 acknowledges that Governor Felix was well-acquainted with the followers of Jesus Christ. 

      Paul’s trial with Governor Felix was postponed until members of the Sanhedrin could arrive in Caesarea. According to Acts 24:1, the high priest Ananias, some of the elders, and a lawyer named Tertullus met with Governor Felix and Paul a few days later to resume the proceedings that had begun in Jerusalem. Hiring Tertullus for legal counsel was a telling move by the Sanhedrin. Tertullus is not a Jewish name, which implies the religious leaders hired a lawyer of Roman citizenry to argue their case. Presumably, this action was performed with the intention of obtaining a wicked advantage: Governor Felix’s favor. The high priest and the elders were so disposed to seeing Paul remain in chains or executed that they employed an accomplished Roman attorney in an effort to justify the apostle’s condemnation. 

     With a greedy hand, an immoral heart, and a deceitful tongue, Tertullus spoke on behalf of the religious leaders. His opening statement was laced with flattery and fabrication regarding Felix’s rule and character. Tertullus proclaimed Felix was honorable and an instrument of positive reform, which does not match history’s record, or even what is written in Acts 24:26. Governor Felix was an unprincipled, uncompassionate, power-hungry tyrant, and yet Tertullus rendered him underserved praise. After uttering verbal tribute to Governor Felix, Tertullus declared Paul should be judged a trouble-maker and dissenter, claiming that the apostle had stirred up riots among Jewish people all over the world. While the apostle had certainly received a sizable share of violent threats and actions from mob-like forces, Paul’s expressed desire was to unite people through faith in Jesus Christ, not divide them. He longed to be an intermediary, not an insurrectionist. 

     Tertullus falsely professed Paul was trying to desecrate the temple in Jerusalem when he was apprehended inside it a couple of weeks prior. The religious leaders were portraying Paul as a person on the fringe of religious extremism. The apostle’s beliefs regarding Jesus’ divinity and sacrificial redemption were not universally accepted doctrinal tenets within the Jewish faith and were therefore considered blasphemous to the priests and Jewish rulers. Paul did not devise these teachings on his own, nor did he seek to receive acclaim because of them. His understanding was the result of careful examination and personal inspiration from the Holy Spirit. 

     After Tertullus’s closing argument, several Jewish people vouched that the lawyer’s flagrant distortions were credible. Clearly, wickedness has no shortage of accomplices. Nowhere in the text do we read that Paul interrupted the false testimonies. The apostle showed great patience and civility in waiting for his opportunity to address the court. When it came, Governor Felix motioned for Paul to give his defense. Like Tertullus, Paul began his account by recognizing that he was in the presence of an important governmental agent. But unlike Tertullus, Paul did not resort to inappropriate or exaggerated forms of commendation in an effort to woo Felix to his position. He showed Felix respect and then pleaded his case.

Paul’s character was assailed and thus he purposed to correct the misrepresentation of his spirit and conduct. He informed Governor Felix that this matter started when he was observed worshipping inside Jerusalem’s temple. His behavior was not of impure motive. He did not plant seeds of rebellion or argue with any of the Jewish believers engaged in reverent praise inside the temple. Neither did he seek to incite a mutiny against the religious establishment. Simply put, Paul was in the middle of adoring God in serene solitude when he was attacked. The apostle’s desire to associate with his Hebrew brethren by way of respecting Jewish practices was indicative of a motivation to minister to them, not mock them. Paul had no disregard for Jerusalem’s temple. If anything, he cherished it more than most of the Hebrew people. He found great significance in sacrificial offerings because of their symbolic connection to the individual redemption made available in the blood of Christ.
In Paul’s retort, he did not cower or gloss over his allegiance to Jesus. Tertullus labeled Christianity an unreasonable sect, but the apostle explained his core beliefs were traceable to the Old Testament writings of Moses (the first five books of the Bible, often referred to as the Torah, meaning instruction or teaching) and the prophets (Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and so forth). Therefore, Paul’s perspective was not based on some self-concocted humanist reasoning; it was founded on the Word of God. Additionally, the apostle referred to himself as a follower of the Way in Acts 24:14, which perhaps alluded to John 14:6 (a verse signifying that Christ is the singular way to forge a relationship with God and obtain forgiveness of sins).
Paul identified his earnest aim was to be free of offense or reproach and that he strove to keep a clear conscience before both God and man (Acts 24:16). In many of his epistles to the various churches, Paul admitted that he was far from moral perfection, but he also made known his aspiration to maintain a noble lifestyle. A fitting example of Paul’s dedication, which he mentioned to Governor Felix, was his willingness to bring monetary gifts and offerings to Jerusalem on behalf of Christians scattered abroad. In light of this, how could he, a man concerned for his brethren and charitable towards them, be labeled an enemy of them? Paul wisely pointed out that the people directly responsible for his abuse and imprisonment, Jewish people from the province of Asia, were conveniently absent from Felix’s court. It was an appropriate query. After hearing from Tertullus, some dishonest witnesses, and Paul, Governor Felix adjourned the trial, delaying a ruling because he wanted to hear directly from Lysias about the matter. 

  Sadly, Felix had the power to pardon Paul but chose not to exercise it. Acts 24:26 reveals Felix did this hoping that he might gain financially and politically from Paul’s captivity. Felix did grant Paul some leeway in that Paul’s fellow ministers and friends were permitted to attend to him and visit him, a right frequently bestowed upon Roman citizens. Again, this action was probably driven by Felix’s greed, rather than his generosity. While a prisoner in Caesarea, Paul was called upon by Felix and his wife, Drusilla, so that they could hear more about Paul’s faith in Jesus Christ. 

  Paul spoke candidly to Felix and Drusilla about the sinful state of man and the judgment that is to come. Felix became so frightened by Paul’s message that he demanded Paul stop talking about it. It would seem that the confrontation of his own depravity alarmed Felix. Instead of seeking spiritual resolution, he chose to defer, or altogether ignore, it. Not long before Paul’s conversation with Felix and Drusilla, a Philippian jailer’s conversion was brought about because of a fear-stricken heart. The prison officer fell at Paul and Silas’s feet, begging for an explanation as to how salvation is achieved (Acts 16:29-30). But Felix, who also received a distressed spirit because of an awareness of his transgressions, suppressed the conviction rather than alleviate it. Stubbornly hostile to the gospel, the governor brushed Paul aside and told him they would discuss faith another day. 

      Secretly, Felix believed Paul would attempt to bribe him to secure freedom, thus communicating Felix did not really appreciate Paul’s integrity or mission. The apostle was a man of courage, but the Roman governor took him to be a man of corruption and crookedness. Acts 24:27 records Felix kept Paul in confinement for two years, when his tenure in Caesarea had run its course. Paul’s release could have been granted as a parting measure of Felix’s reign in Caesarea, but Felix left Paul in custody in order to retain the pleasure and approval of the Jewish people. 

Felix’s reaction to Paul’s testimony in Acts 24 highlights three elements of fear. One, fear is enveloping. Felix was a high-ranking civil authority. He was expected to maintain a sense of composure, decorum, and unflappability. But Felix lost all manner of placidity when he was forced to face the penalty of his misdeeds. Concern suffocated him and caused him to recoil from Paul’s testimony. The man who was prone to making others unsettled was himself made unsettled in the presence of God’s missionary. 
Sin is not a pleasant reflection, nor should it be. It should send jarring pulses through our soul, pulses that yearn to find satisfaction in the redeeming work of Jesus. Felix stared salvation in the eyes and looked away. He received the firsthand account of one of earth’s greatest saints and refused to heed the loving advice Paul had given him. Enveloped in fear, he allowed it to devour him instead of spurring him to humbly surrender his life to Christ.
Two, fear is exposing. It unveils the dark nature all of humanity has fallen prey to, save Jesus. In a vulnerable and fearful standing, we encounter great shame and remorse. Felix was not accustomed to such sentiments. He was familiar with exaltation and salutation, not guilt or forgiveness. In a commanding office, Felix struggled to acknowledge his weaknesses, which God suddenly flashed before him. Stripped of all self-righteousness, the mighty governor did not feel lofty, but lowly. His sinful heart uncovered, Felix could not safely rest on the laurels of his accomplishments or ambitions.
Felix was not infallible in the company of the Almighty. His impurity and infirmities before him, the only response the prominent ruler could muster was, “That’s enough for now!” Where others have yearned to learn more about God’s glorious love (the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 for example), Felix declined the offer of grace. Fearfully exposed of his humanity, he rebuffed the opportunity to establish a life-changing relationship with Christ. 
Three, fear is exasperating. Although exasperation is often used in conjunction with the generation of anger, exasperation can also mean an annoyance which causes one to make an unwise decision. The uncomfortable realization that he was destined to suffer in hell if he did not submit his life to Jesus Christ exasperated Felix, causing him to unwisely shun Paul’s words of redemption. Felix’s ill-advised response was to stubbornly refuse the merit of the apostle’s claims. In defiance, the governor tightened the grip on his heart, disallowing Christ to enter in. His reply was enunciated through his flesh, where imprudent actions always derive from. 
There are two paths fear can take us: sanctification or separation. Sanctification is the process by which believers are welcomed into spiritual deliverance through the confession of Jesus’ lordship. Separation, on the other hand, is spiritual exile from God, which was exhibited in Felix’s protest. The governor was presented truth and he spurned it. In his mind, developing a fear or reverence of God was not alluring. He was content to remain affixed to the life he lived and the civil power it rendered him. Fear can either propel mankind to faith and fellowship with Jesus, or it can solidify our passivity and keep us in a lonely, isolated place of self-control. Sadly, fear of the world blinded Felix to salvation. He had an opening to meet the Supreme Authority, the King of kings, but let it pass him by.    

Which fear has subdued you: the fear of God or the fear of the world?