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?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 23

"Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here." 

Acts 23:15

        Deceit. A willful rejection of honest behavior. A malicious attempt to conceal or minimize wrongdoing. A shameful demeanor that not only disgraces the offender, it dishonors the integrity-filled life God intended for humanity.
Sadly, deception is prevalent in mankind’s daily conduct. Children deceive their parents. Spouses deceive each other. Public servants deceive their constituents. Criminals deceive law enforcement officials. The biblical examples are just as plentiful as the common day ones. Satan deceived Adam and Eve, the original man and woman (Genesis 3). Abraham deceived Abimelech, a pagan king (Genesis 20). Jacob deceived Isaac, his father (Genesis 27). King David deceived Uriah the Hittite, a faithful soldier (2 Samuel 11). Ananias and Sapphira deceived the apostles, God’s evangelical ambassadors (Acts 5). What makes this reflection so distressing is how defiant this etiquette is in comparison to God’s holy character. The Lord is not a liar. He does not speak with a false tongue. He is pure, sincere, and the unending source of truth. And He desires that we emulate Him. 
        Although I have performed my fair share of deceitful misdeeds, I have been on the receiving end of many as well. One such encounter I remember vividly because my removal from a ministry position was aided, in large part, by the betrayal of a person I was mentoring at the time. I had been serving as music minister for a small church on the outskirts of Oklahoma City for almost two years when I was introduced to a visitor after a Sunday morning worship service. The gentleman informed me that he worked in the oil and petroleum business with a member of our congregation. That member, who happened to be our church’s praise band drummer, invited this man and his family to attend a worship service at our church when he learned that they were looking for a new Christian fellowship. The newcomer’s family was a part of a spiritual flock that had recently undergone a rift. Because of broken hearts and numerous differences with the direction the church was heading, his family decided to move on.

The gentleman made a strong first impression. He possessed immense energy and hungered for a servant-oriented role in the music ministry. Not long after our initial conversation, his family joined our church. I met with the gentleman a short while later. It was obvious this man was passionate for worship and that he yearned to help inspire others to praise God. Furthermore, he had a commanding singing voice and was comfortable with a wide variety of range and song styles. When I took into account his heart, spirit, and music skills, I saw no reason to hold him back from participating in our church’s worship ministry. 

I initially gave the gentleman a rotating spot in the praise vocal team. Because our church had a substantial amount of quality singers, we alternated months the singers were involved in the praise team for Sunday morning worship services. The individual gladly accepted the offer and became one of my most reliable participants thereafter. He was consistently early to rehearsal. He always displayed a gracious, positive attitude. He never complained nor was disruptive in practice. It was truly enjoyable to be around him.                       

Within a few months, the gentleman asked if he could share an idea he had for the forthcoming Easter service, which was several months out. He wanted our church to consider departing from the standard Easter cantata format. His vision was to select Christ or cross-centered contemporary praise songs and fuse them with personally-written narration, along with Scripture passages highlighting Christ’s path to Calvary. Because I had never thought about incorporating this concept before, I told him the individual I needed some time to assess it and pray about it. Within a few weeks, God assured me that this was a plan we should put in motion.
The gentleman invested a significant amount of effort into crafting the Easter worship service. Once it was complete, I reviewed the song list, drama script, and the biblical verses he had recommended. Although I did revise some of the presentation, all my changes were minor. The well-constructed service was impressive. I thanked the man profusely for his contribution. As a result of the meaningful Easter service, I sought to find more responsibilities for the man I viewed as a worship protégé. Therefore, we met throughout the following weeks to co-develop orders of worship. 

One Saturday not long after the gentleman and I embarked upon this routine, I received a phone call from my pastor, who was evidently distressed. He announced that he was irritated about the songs that had been chosen for the upcoming service. I was caught off guard because this issue had never surfaced before, even though the pastor and I had operated alongside each other successfully for a little while. Since I have already addressed the fallout from the exchange with the pastor in a book I wrote (Chapter Two of Love Has Come: A Twenty-Eight Day Journey Through the Gospel of Matthew), I will cut to the chase of what I later discovered was occurring. My music ministry pupil was going to the pastor during the week and abetting in the questioning and criticism of my music preferences. The man that I befriended and took on as my student both undermined and undercut me in a deceitful manner. He leveraged his knowledge of my worship-planning process and depicted it to the pastor in a very cunning, calculated way, a way which apparently did not provide the pastor any confidence in my spirituality or music ministry proficiency. It was a devastating blow to say the least. 

I was never summoned to the private meetings between my protégé and pastor, but I certainly felt the upsetting aftershock of them. The relationship I had with the pastor was instantaneously severed. He exhibited a lack of trust in me as a worship leader and I exhibited a lack of trust in him as a pastor. I was subsequently asked to resign without even a farewell to the church, as if my term there was an unfortunate footnote. My friendship with my apprentice never recovered from the ministerial backstabbing. Not surprisingly, the gentleman was asked to be the interim worship pastor after my hasty departure.            

Deceit highlights the cruelest nature of mankind, even in believers. Paul was no stranger to humanity’s devious and deceitful attributes. In Acts 20, Jewish followers devised a plot to harm the apostle as he was about to set sail for Syria. God’s providence made the conspiracy known to Paul and he was able to circumvent the fruition of the malevolent scheme by going through Macedonia. Acts 23 introduces us to yet another attempt to afflict the apostle, which, once again, came through shrewd, spiteful intentions. 
Acts 22 closed with a Jewish trial. The Roman military commander posted in Jerusalem, Lysias, who had taken personal responsibility for Paul after Jewish followers assaulted the apostle outside the temple, called together a religious meeting of the Sanhedrin. As highlighted previously in Acts 4, the Sanhedrin was a Jewish council of religious leaders, a council containing priests, elders, and experts in the Mosaic law. In Acts 4, the apostles Peter and John were arrested and interrogated by the religious panel. In Acts 6, Stephen was forcibly set before the Sanhedrin to disclose his spiritual beliefs right before he was executed. Therefore, Paul’s session with the Sanhedrin in Acts 22 was not uncommon, but also did not have a strong likelihood of yielding a receptive audience based on the aforementioned examples. 

The outcome of Paul’s assembly with the Sanhedrin is captured in Acts 23. As Paul stepped foot inside the gathering place, he made a short, but significant statement, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). Paul’s usage of “brothers” implored the religious body to not think of Paul as some outsider of the Hebrew community. This form of civility was similar to what he expressed in his introductory remarks to an angry Jewish mob in Acts 22:1. Paul was entrenched in the Hebrew legacy and deserved honest consideration as a fellow family member. Paul went on to say that he had fulfilled his duty to God, which surely drew the ire of most, if not all, of the Sanhedrin members. This same council once sanctioned Paul to destroy the very faith movement he was now championing (Acts 22:5). To the Sanhedrin, Paul was a deserter, or worse a traitor. For the apostle to claim, although rightly, that he was fulfilling his duty to God by witnessing in the name of Jesus Christ was sacrilegious speech in the ears of the spiritually-muted elitists. In their minds, Paul was not a saint; he was a miscreant.

Ananias, the high priest, was so enraged by Paul’s opening declaration that he ordered Paul be struck in the face. This scene is eerily reminiscent of what happened to Jesus in John 18:22. The command to strike another in the mouth was not only insulting it represented a motivation to silence the one speaking. Paul’s reaction to Ananias’s directive was potent. He compared the religious leader to a whitewashed tomb, a rebuke Jesus gave the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27. Paul alluded to the priest’s spiritual shallowness. He had the appearance and stature of a faithful disciple of God, but in ignoring, better yet despising, the message of Christ he exposed a heart that was cold, dark, and dead. Paul rested on the laurels of the Mosaic law which had strict guidelines for when it was proper to have a person physically reprimanded. According to Deuteronomy 25:2, only a guilty man could be beaten. At this point in his trial, Paul had not yet been found punishable of any transgression. 
Even though Paul was justified in calling the high priest out the unnecessary assault, those standing near the apostle chastised him for responding so harshly to the religious leader. Paul’s contrite reply implies Paul was unaware that Ananias was the high priest. The line Paul had to walk was a hard one for he had to boldly proclaim the truth of Christ, and yet still honor the traditions, principles, and hierarchy of the Jewish sect. Paul humbly abandoned his critical tenor, perhaps knowing that he had already offended the council and would offend them further with additional rebuke. Although Paul did not apologize, he acknowledged a sense of regret for his counter response to Ananias’s wrath.
Paul, perceiving the council would not welcome or accept his testimony, purposed to confuse the religious body. Paul pinned the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another by citing his Pharisee upbringing and training. He claimed his reason for standing trial was his hope in the resurrection of the dead, which alluded to Jesus Christ’s supernatural victory over death three days after He was crucified. This declaration sent the Sanhedrin into an immediate uproar. The Sadducees did not ascribe to the reality of angels or God’s capacity to resurrect people, whereas the Pharisees believed the opposite was true. Because of the sharp disagreement between the religious parties, the council was unable to render a unanimous verdict upon Paul. 

The chaotic environment quickly intensified and became primed for violence. Lysias bid the soldiers to take Paul back to the military barracks, lest he be manhandled by the Sanhedrin, particularly the Sadducees. Incredibly, Jesus personally attended to Paul in the apostle’s quarters the next night, encouraging him to continue testifying. In fact, Jesus told Paul to testify in Rome as he had admirably done in Jerusalem. Christ’s mentioning of Rome guaranteed Paul that the Lord would see him through his current predicament in Jerusalem. It is important to note Christ’s appearance to Paul came at a much-needed time. The rebuffing Paul received from his kinsmen no doubt vexed and distressed him. Scripture confirms the apostle ached to help save his Hebrew brethren. But the perpetual refusal to accept Paul’s message of redemptive truth by many Jewish people, especially the religious leaders, deeply troubled him. But Jesus compassionately addressed Paul’s pain so that it could be exchanged for heavenly peace.  

The next day, Jewish men formed a cold-blooded collusion to assassinate the apostle. When the Jewish legal system could not conclusively condone Paul’s death, some forty individuals decided to take matters into their own hands. They hatched a ploy to lure Paul back to the Sanhedrin where the apostle was to be intercepted and killed. Their deceitful strategy was made known to the chief priests and elders, who wretchedly consented to it. Through God’s intervention, Paul’s nephew learned of the plot and immediately went to see Paul in his holding facility. Paul’s nephew told Paul everything he had discovered. Paul then requested the presence of a centurion. As identified in Acts 10, a centurion was a soldier of authority and rank. He was not someone who was disposed to being at a person’s beckon call. Centurions gave instruction far more often than they received it, especially in regard to instruction from non-military individuals. Paul beseeched the centurion take Paul’s nephew at once to Lysias. The text does not intimate Paul provided any amplifying information about Paul’s concern or the underlying circumstances. Neither does the narrative indicate that the centurion subjected Paul to questions relating to the issue or the credibility of Paul’s nephew. The centurion promptly obliged Paul’s appeal. That Paul could send for a centurion, entreat the centurion to swiftly accompany his nephew to the Roman commander’s company, and have the centurion accomplish his petition indicates Paul was deeply respected in the barracks setting. 

When Paul’s nephew entered Lysias’s office, the military officer took the boy by the hand, implying the military officer possessed a very affectionate and sincere resolve. After the commander was informed of the plan to slay Paul, he asked the apostle’s nephew not to tell anyone what he had reported. This wise solicitation was probably done in the interest of the young man’s safety, lest the bloodthirsty connivers uncover Paul nephew’s whistle-blowing act. Lysias was compelled to remove Paul from the danger and rage that was emerging. He ordered two centurions to ready their units, along with seventy members of the cavalry and two hundred spearmen. Some four hundred and seventy soldiers departed Jerusalem that night, escorting Paul to Caesarea, where the apostle was placed in the charge of Governor Felix. This swift maneuver meant Paul’s Jewish trial was now a Roman trial.  

The great irony of this account is that Paul’s Jewish kinsmen were so eager to rid the earth of him through deceitful and violent means, while Roman soldiers, the ones viewed as heathen brutes by many in the Hebrew community, displayed great concern and a protective temperament for Paul. The instruments God can use in any given situation truly astounds. Lysias included in the battalion accompanying Paul a written dispatch explaining why Paul was being transferred to Governor Felix’s care. When Felix received the letter and read it, he agreed to hear Paul’s case as soon as the Jewish religious leaders could arrive in Caesarea. Technically, Paul’s trial could have been convened in the Syrian province since Paul was from Cilicia, but Felix determined to examine the arguments in his province, presumably because he was familiar with Hebrew teachings in his marriage to a Jewish woman (Drusilla). In the meantime, the apostle was kept under guard in a room inside Herod’s palace awaiting the commencement of his hearing with Felix and various members of the Sanhedrin. 

The latter half of Acts 23 illuminates humanity’s destructive disposition. Some forty spiritually corrupt Jewish men, along with numerous senior religious leaders, deemed Paul’s life, a life that was precious in God’s eyes (as all life is), expendable. This disparaging story reveals three elements about man’s deceitfulness. One, deceit exposes our moral shortcomings. The deceitful character of mankind authenticates the evil impulses of mankind. As much as we may try to tout our virtuous deeds or boast of our ethical respectability (especially in comparison to other people), we find that all measure of self-good falls short of God’s standard. The formation of an agenda to kill Paul displayed a horribly immoral darkness. No God-honoring thought went into it. No prayer-saturated effort was exercised. Pure and simple, the morally corrupt Jewish men indulged the most awful temptations the human heart can expel. In pride, they disregarded the sanctity of human life and sought to levy a death sentence on Paul. It is unsettling to consider how rapidly this plot progressed.

In diagnosing our deceitful, and overall carnal, character, we begin to understand what makes God worthy of our praise. He never produces nefarious contemplations nor entertains unholy activity. He is the everlasting example of moral supremacy and preeminence. God’s complete perfection and absolute holiness have no equal. There is tremendous hope in this observation for in recognizing our shortcomings we find Christ’s undeserved grace that much more amazing and awe-inspiring.

Two, deceit embitters our spiritual aspirations. Mankind was made to know God, as well as glorify Him. Scripture attests that we are a treasured creation in that we are made in God’s image. We are endowed with emotional, mental, and spiritual receptors that nothing else in God’s design enjoys, save heaven’s angels. When humanity rebels against God we dishonor His holy intentions. This was particularly obvious in Acts 23 when the Jewish conspirators took a solemn oath not to eat anything until Paul was dead. Throughout the Bible, fasting was employed as a means of worshipping God. For instance, the believers in Antioch temporarily sacrificed the physical needs of their bodies so that their spiritual needs could find greater satisfaction and fulfillment in God, according to Acts 13:2. The believers in Antioch wanted to discern God’s will and receive His blessing. And yet fasting was utilized in Acts 23:14 as a motivator to accomplish a most profane work: murder. This mindset shamefully discarded God’s commandment in Exodus 20:13. 

The men involved with this plot bound themselves to iniquity. They forsook God’s Word and God’s virtue. They did not attempt to consult God or mirror the Lord’s grace-filled poise. Spiritually embittered, they yielded to sinister objectives and became pawns of the devil. This is an eye-opening reminder that it is imperative that we guard our heart and surrender time daily to Scripture. If we willingly allow ourselves to slowly drift from God then we will eventually find ourselves thinking or doing things that are unimaginable in an attentive, Holy Spirit-affixed posture. God will lead us if we allow Him to. But if we turn Him away then we will surely approve the implementation of heinous notions, as the embittered Jewish men did in Acts 23.           

Three, deceit escalates our wicked tendencies. Sin begets more sin. One vile exploit precedes another, often more egregious, exploit. Sin is not stationary. It craves more and demands more. Its thirst is not easily satisfied. What starts off as one seemingly small transgression can easily transform into a series of disastrous decisions. Momentary pleasure can induce long-lasting misery and remorse. The collateral damage from such mistakes impacts friends, spouses, children, siblings, parents, coworkers, neighbors, and a host of other people we come into contact with every day.  

Had the Jewish conspirators, including the chief priests and elders, been attune to Scripture they would have abandoned this ungodly endeavor. Their misdeeds were completely contrary to the tenets of the Old Testament. Solomon wrote about such a scenario in Proverbs 1 when he warned, “My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them. If they say, ‘Come along with us; let’s lie in wait for someone’s blood, let’s waylay some harmless soul; let’s swallow them alive, like the grave, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we will get all sorts of valuable things and fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot with us, and we will share a common purse’ – my son, do not go along with them” (Proverbs 1:10-15). Solomon went on to say that people who strive after ill-gotten gain and behave inappropriately will only hurt themselves. They will toil to take the lives of others, but wind up losing their own (Proverbs 1:19). 

In the end, Acts 23 is a cautionary lesson on what can happen when we step outside or altogether disregard God’s protective moral boundaries. It confirms how vital it is that believers walk by faith and cling to God’s Word. There is spiritually rich and resourceful information in the Bible if man will choose to submit to it. The more time we dedicate to God’s treasured message the more we will find our spiritual tendencies strengthening, rather than our wicked tendencies. Ultimately, only God can help us overcome the sinful nature we are so disposed of succumbing to. In Genesis 4, when God perceived Cain’s jealously towards his brother Abel, God told Cain that if he continued to do wrong, sin would continue to wait at his door (Genesis 4:7). God proclaimed sin was ready to devour Cain. Later, Cain premeditatedly and deceitfully lured Abel into a field where he killed his brother, his own flesh and blood. Such is the inclination and enterprise of a life averse to abiding in God’s truth. 

Are you properly shielding your heart and mind from the deceitful inclinations of man through the power of God’s Word and Spirit?

Evidence of Faith (Continued): Acts 22

"You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard." 

Acts 22:15

        Witness. Someone whose personal observation renders credibility to a report. An individual who verifies critically important details of an occurrence.
The term “witness” is typically attributed to legal settings where both prosecuting and defending attorneys rely upon human accounts to solidify the merit of a case and help establish facts. In that context, witnessing is more than the awareness of circumstances; it is the attestation of them as well. This train of thought is relevant to the Christian faith because believers are charged to speak of the things that we have seen and heard (Acts 4:20). Scripture validates God’s followers are not only called to enact a relationship with Christ, we are called to exemplify Christ. A vital part of the Christ-exemplifying process is the dedication to unashamedly witness about the glory and greatness of Jesus.  

To an apathetic, spiritually dark world, Christians should be beacons of light and demonstrate that Jesus’ salvation yields undeniable hope and security. Sadly, this honorable obligation is one that I took for granted for the better part of my young adult life. Because of my self-perceived limitations and weaknesses, I did not actively beseech God to utilize me as His spokesman. But when I was challenged to share a testimony with my church fellowship at the age of twenty-one, I realized that being a witness of God is a tremendous privilege, a privilege that should not be dismissed or trivialized. 

One day, my music minister asked me to present a message to our church. He was making the final preparations for a youth musical service and felt my testimony would complement the theme of the worship drama, which was that the world’s standards are ever-changing and ever-declining (whereas God’s standards are forever-strong and forever-holy). In my flesh, I wanted to reject the music minister’s invitation, but the Holy Spirit encouraged me to pray about the speaking proposal. I was convicted because I had never really spurred myself to be in a place where my witness could be noticed or heard. Like Moses, I rationalized the reluctance to publicly testify with my inability to adequately articulate my heart. But the more I dwelled on it, the more I recognized that my stance was a feeble excuse for refusing to let God use my life for His great purpose. After all, if I continued to wait for ideal conditions (from my selfish vantage point) or the eradication of my many faults then I would never do anything significant for God’s kingdom. When I firmly acknowledged that I needed to view the event as an opportunity to be an instrument of praise, I accepted the testimonial prospect. 

Because I longed for my witness to be meaningful in the youth musical service, I asked the music minister what theme I should base my message on. He wisely told me that my question was a matter I needed to bring before God. I spent the next several weeks praying about it and searching for an appropriate topic. As I reviewed the youth musical’s score, one song in particular kept circulating in my mind. The lyrics contrasted how different man’s definitions of success and beauty are from God’s. Humanity attributes success to accomplishments and beauty to appearance, but God attributes success to conduct and beauty to character. Reflecting on that disconnect, I was moved by how destructive mankind’s behavior is. Humanity’s lowly and sinful desires often wound our ability to fully appreciate God. It soon became apparent what central point I should convey to the congregation: the carnal, self-pleasing lifestyle is both debilitating and demoralizing. 

The subject was intensely personal to me because I had witnessed the aftermath of an alcoholic addiction in a family member, as well as in college classmates. It was painful to watch loved ones slip into a detached, depressed, and dysfunctional state because they were enslaved by drunkenness. I was determined to not journey down the same ruinous road. Sinful obsessions, like alcoholism, do not strengthen a bond with God; they fracture it. In essence, that was the core declaration I extended to the church a short while later. It was a difficult testimony to share because it was an emotionally-stirring and near-to-my-heart consideration. But such real-life encounters make witnessing that much more compelling and convicting.     

Being a witness carries with it a great imperative: vocalizing what a person knows to be true through firsthand experience. Paul was very familiar with challenges that often accompany Jesus-centered witnessing. Having given himself wholeheartedly to the cause of Christ, he traveled to distant lands and preached to hostile audiences. The apostle received much affliction and harassment because of his pronounced faith. His beliefs were often misunderstood and misconstrued, as was the case in Acts 21 when some Jewish followers from the Asian province made some faulty assumptions about Paul’s reverence for Hebrew practices and religious customs. In hate, they initiated a vicious sequence of episodes.
Because of a hasty smear campaign, Paul was apprehended inside the Jerusalem temple and forcibly carried outside the perimeter gates. He was then brutally assaulted and beaten. News of an uproar made its way to the Roman guard commander (who is later identified as Claudius Lysias in Acts 23:26) posted in the city of David. The officer momentarily quieted the unrest by incarcerating Paul. The apostle was hastily taken to the military barracks quickly thereafter, but the bloodthirsty mob trailed the soldiers to Paul’s holding facility. Even as the apostle was being marched to confinement, the anger of the people erupted into additional violence. Their venomous shouts of “Away with him!” insinuated Paul was not worthy to live. Paul petitioned to address the people, a request Lysias authorized. Paul’s appeal to his Jewish brethren comprises the lion’s share of the text in Acts 22. 

Paul opened his address by referring to the people as his kinsmen. In designating the men assembled “brothers” and “fathers”, the apostle not only conferred a spirit of respect for the Jewish nationality, but he drew attention to his association with it. Paul was raised in a Hebrew home and spent a considerable deal of time studying the customs and doctrine of the Jewish community. As Paul preached, he orated in Aramaic, the common tongue of the Jewish people at this juncture in ancient history. This caused most, if not all, of the virulent yelling to cease. Paul’s usage of the Aramaic dialect further validated his connection and affection for the Hebrew populace. Paul spoke to the antagonistic crowd, a crowd directly responsible for physically assaulting him, with a calming compassion. There was no hint of hatred or vengeful thought in the apostle’s speech. Like Christ on the path to Calvary, Paul had a supernatural composure, a composure which bestowed upon him the ability to nobly communicate to a body of individuals bent on bringing about his sudden demise. 

Paul confirmed both his genealogical and educational credentials in his defense. Born in Tarsus, he later went to Jerusalem to train in the religious school (presumably around the age of thirteen) under the tutelage of Gamaliel, an esteemed, eminent scholar. As a Pharisee, Paul possessed and expressed fervor for the Mosaic law. Because of this zeal, he became fiercely reactive to anyone who attempted to teach about anything or anyone outside of the Old Testament writings (as the Christians were by heralding the life and lordship of Jesus). Thus, Paul persecuted the followers of Christ for propagating a creed that he initially assumed was heresy. He imprisoned and murdered Christians, justifying that they were enemies of God and needed to be punished as such. 
Having aptly outlined his disdain for the tenets of Christianity, Paul revealed the miraculous and divine manner in which Jesus invited him into the Christian faith on the road to Damascus. The apostle recounted how he had been blinded by a heavenly light and heard the voice of Christ. He said that Ananias, a highly respected Jewish man and follower of Jesus, had been instructed to meet him and disclose Paul’s future purpose: to be a witness of everything he had seen and heard. Paul then mentioned a trip that he had taken to Jerusalem some years after the Damascus conversion where he prayed for God’s direction as he worshipped inside Jerusalem’s temple. As Paul entered into supplication in the house of worship, he fell into a trance and saw Jesus, Who told Paul to hastily leave Jerusalem because most of its citizens would refuse to accept his testimony (this narrative, incidentally, is not captured in any other section of Scripture). Paul pressed the matter with Christ for he longed to be an agent of change in the epicenter of Hebrew culture. But Jesus reiterated Paul’s need to depart Jerusalem and reminded Paul that he had been commissioned to be a witness to the Gentiles. 
It was at this point that the attentiveness of the mob suddenly vanished. The implication that outsiders of the Jewish sect, uncircumcised Gentiles, could have an equal stake in God’s eternal kingdom and blessing was absolutely preposterous to those who had long held to the perception that God’s love and favor were solely reserved for His chosen nation: Israel. History teaches us that Israel was tasked to share God’s message and glorify Him by their righteous example, but over time covenantal relationship with God, by and large, turned into a source of pride, a pride that drove many to exclude those outside their lineage from learning about God’s Word or His magnificence. Paul was very familiar with this sentiment because he once subscribed to it. For most of his life, the apostle had held tightly to the principle that there was to be a strong, distinct division between Jewish and Gentile people. But upon receiving salvation, Paul realized that all of humanity could find connection and unity through Christ’s forgiveness. 

Paul, the former Christian persecutor, hoped that his repentance might compel some, if not all, of the Hebrews listening to him to remove blinders from their souls and petition Jesus to do a similar work in them. Unfortunately, Paul’s crowd that day was full of stubborn, obstinate hearts. The people began screaming, ripping off their cloaks, and flinging dust in the air. Their behavior implies many had pronounced a death sentence on Paul by way of stoning, similar to the pattern that was recorded in Acts 7 with Stephen’s murder. Lysias sought to prevent this from occurring and demanded Paul be rushed into the barracks. Because of the explosive reaction of the people, the Roman commander probably assumed Paul was worthy of extreme punishment for inciting the Jerusalem residents and visitors to anger. Therefore, Lysias ordered Paul be subjected to harsh examination by way of flogging. This tactic was an attempt to forcibly extract the nature of Paul’s business and determine the root cause of his supposedly malicious intentions. This was not uncommon treatment for non-Roman citizens in this era. 

As Paul was being prepared to be tortured, he questioned whether it was legal to flog a Roman national who had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, knowing it was not. When Lysias was made aware that Paul had claimed Roman citizenry he immediately went to see the apostle to authenticate it. Paul confirmed that he had been born a freeman of Rome. Lysias and the soldiers subsequently halted their course of violent interrogation, lest they violate the civic rights afforded to a Roman inhabitant and risk being punished themselves for failing to adhere to the official protocol and process in such matters. Instead, Paul was released, but kept in the care of soldiers. The apostle, who was formerly under guard because of a speculative crime, was now being given the resources of the Roman military for his protection. Lysias set out to investigate the impetus of the Jewish hostility towards Paul. The Roman commander had the Sanhedrin gather so that Paul could bring his defense before them. 

Paul’s charge from Christ was to be a witness to all men. Clearly, Paul had a fondness for his Jewish brethren. He routinely offered the first fruits of preaching in the Jewish synagogues of the cities he visited post-salvation. But Jesus made it clear that by being a witness to Gentiles the apostle needed to look further than his religious genealogy and be a messenger to those outside the Hebrew community. Paul became a most excellent ambassador for Christianity and made an enduring impression upon Gentiles across the ancient western hemisphere. Through Paul’s testimony in Acts 22 we discover three critical components of a sound witness.     

One, a sound witness involves perception. Although we often liken perception to a casual mindfulness, perception entails so much more. To perceive is to gain amplifying discernment or knowledge. It provides pivotal insight, an insight which cultivates a clearer picture of someone or something. As Paul described the way in which Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, he declared that a bright light from heaven flashed around him and he heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?” (Acts 22:6). When Paul inquired as to who was speaking to him, the voice said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 22:7). Paul’s ability to perceive the communication from the Lord prompted him to reconsider and reevaluate everything he had wrongly believed about Jesus. 

What makes Paul’s testimony so compelling is that there were men traveling with him who saw the light but did not perceive the message or its significance. Whether shielded from hearing the divine correspondence by Jesus Himself or shielded from hearing the heavenly dispatch because of the callousness of their own spirits, the men accompanying Paul on the road to Damascus did not share the redemptive breakthrough that Paul did. They could not perceive or appreciate that God’s Son and humanity’s Savior was in their midst. Sadly, there is no indication in Scripture that these men were changed as a result of their introduction to Christ.    

Perhaps a vital lesson to be learned from this passage is that perception implies something much more than a dispassionate mental deliberation; it is a soul-rousing reflection that causes one to put the things of God before the things of man. This truth is reinforced by how quickly Paul’s persecutory plan was abandoned after he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Perceiving Jesus’ eternal existence, the former adversary of Christianity was immediately moved to dedicate ample time in meditation and prayer to Jesus. Paul’s heavenly solicitation produced a yearning to intimately know Christ and submit to His governance. Upon surrendering belief that Jesus is the Son of God Who sacrificially offered His life for mankind at Calvary, Paul received the blessing of spiritual deliverance and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were essential to his eternal life, as well as his earthly life.      
Two, a sound witness involves provocation. Provocation is often evaluated in a negative sense because people correlate provoking with the generation of irate feelings. But to provoke is to evoke a powerful response. It is a method utilized to elicit activity, which means a provocation can either be positive or negative. The intent of the provocation and the nature of the one exercising it differentiate a positive provocation from a negative provocation. Paul received the purest provocation of all: a holy prodding from heaven’s Prince. Christ’s personal and passionate contact with Paul acknowledges Jesus lovingly engages mankind and seeks to excite our complacent temperament.
Paul highlighted his divine provocation in Acts 22:10 when he asked Jesus, “What shall I do now, Lord?” Paul was intellectually endowed with the ability to educate, strategize, and organize (as evidenced by his cunning crusade to eradicate Christianity), but he found himself unable to know what he should do with his life, a life that had been suddenly turned upside-down. His previously concocted agendas and tasks were exposed as shameful and destructive. Jesus’ intervention provoked the apostle to acquiesce to Christ’s sovereignty and plead for the Lord’s guidance. 

“What shall I do now, Lord” was a cry for heavenly aid. Broken of his ego and religious vanity, Paul deduced that the path he was on was not approved or sanctioned by God. The divine collision left him dumbfounded and searching for answers from the Savior, the very One Paul should have been seeking all along. God’s provocations shatter our spiritual barriers. When we sense the overwhelming wisdom and superiority of God it cannot help but provoke our spirit and motivate us to ask, “What shall I do now, Lord?” 

Three, a sound witness involves a proclamation. The intersection of a Christ-oriented perception and a Christ-oriented provocation naturally beget a passion to proclaim Jesus. Numerous passages affirm Paul convincingly proclaimed Christ to the world. In the Savior’s exchange with Paul in Acts 22:18, Jesus identified Paul’s abiding allegiance to make known his testimony, even in the face of adversity. Clearly, Paul was a workman for God’s kingdom and displayed an ever-thankful outlook for his salvation. He made himself available for proclaiming the hope, truth, and emancipation of Jesus.       
Acts reminds us that witnessing is no easy endeavor, but it is a most honorable endeavor. Paul’s persistence, devotion, and esteem for witnessing produced a lasting legacy, a legacy worth following. The apostle taught us that carrying the banner of Christ in this world yields a sweet contentment for the life committed to it.    

Are you a witness for Christ in this world?