Study No. 30 Paul at Caesarea – part Two Acts Chapter 25
From our extra Study: Should they be needed, what rights of appeal, as humans and as Christians, are at our disposal?
In the biblical scenario, the ‘husband is the head of the wife’ and scripture says,
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
and the scripture also says;
Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
If a father ‘provoked his child to wrath’ or in some manner had expectations, demands or counsel that the child took issue with, to whom could the child go for recourse? While we teach that a child should not array one parent against another, yet because he has two parents, if a child has a serious problem with a demand from the father, he should be able to go his mother with the issue. Her counsel would have to be done very carefully … perhaps only to the point of listening and then promising to take it to her husband privately. Of course this scenario applies in every direction … for example, the young man may have had an issue with an instruction from his mother, and he may need to speak to his Dad about it. The child may be a daughter and … etc.
he proverbs say,
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother;
Pr 6:20 ¶ My son, keep your father’s command, And do not forsake the law of your mother.
Pr 23:22 Listen to your father who begot you, And do not despise your mother when she is old.
A child should always have ‘an advocate’ or a recourse when he or she believes they are not being dealt with fairly.
What recourse do we have as Adults? We say that a person ‘leaves their father and mother’ to cleave only to their spouse … does this mean that if a person has a problem with their spouse that they must not be going back to their parents with a complaint?
A husband is required to love his wife and hold no bitterness toward her. When he disobeys the scripture and becomes abusive to his wife, can he expect that she would be calling her parents, someone in the church, a friend, or the authorities? Does he have the right to ‘forbid’ her from speaking to her parents about issues in her home?
And what about the recourse for church members between one another? How does I Corinthians 6:1-7 address this problem?
The governor, Felix has held a formal hearing but deferred making a judgment until he could get additional information from the chief captain. Later he came with his wife, a Jewess and heard Paul’s presentation of the gospel. It put him under great conviction and guilt, but he did not submit to Jesus, repent of his sin and call out for salvation. Hoping for a bribe he came to see Paul on a number of occasions. Whether he ever came that close to receiving Jesus again, we do not know. Whether he actually did receive Jesus, we do not know, but it is very likely that something would have been said about it if that were the case.
He left Paul ‘in limbo’ for two years, after which time he was replaced by Porcius Festus.
1. Paul examined by Festus before a representative number of Jews from Jerusalem.
Within a period of two weeks after taking office, Festus, visiting Jerusalem, has been approached by the accusing Jews and he begins the process of addressing and finalizing Paul’s case. Festus invites as many of the accusers who are able, to come to Caesarea. (Verses 1-6)
Uncertain of just what it was that Paul was being accused of, and up to that point still not having heard anything that constituted breaking any law, Festus asks whether Paul would agree to going with him to Jerusalem for a hearing. I suppose he is thinking that not all of the accusers had been able to come down to this hearing, and he was hoping to get a more complete picture. (verses 7-9)
Paul does not want to risk appearing before that angry mob. He affirms that he has done nothing wrong. He further states that he is standing at the right place; Caesar’s judgment seat, but then he appeals to Caesar. The judgment seat at Caesarea where Festus sat was called Caesar’s judgment seat (probably one of several), but since nothing was actually happening there, and he certainly did not want the Jews to have a say in his verdict, he appeals to Caesar’s court in Rome. (verses 10 - 12)
2. Paul examined by Festus and King Agrippa.
King Agrippa (between 25 and 30 years old)– Grandson to Herod the Great – Son of the Herod who was responsible for having James killed earlier in the book of Acts.
Bernice is not his wife, but his sister with whom he lived incestuously. He spent his last years in Rome, finally dying at about age 70 in or around the year 100ad.
Having heard what Festus told him about Paul, he is curious to hear more and Festus hopes to get help in describing the charges against him. (13 – 27)
Paul is permitted to give a lengthy defence.
- He briefly relates information on his younger years and his religious background … which is identical to that of his accusers. (1 – 5)
- He focuses on ‘the hope of Israel’, the promised Messiah.
- He moves immediately to the resurrection … which makes two things of which the Jews would not be convinced – that Jesus was the messiah – and that he rose from the dead. (6 - 8)
- He leads up to an opportunity to share his personal testimony by further identifying with the Jews, in that he shared the same hostility toward the followers of the Way. (9 – 11)
- He very clearly recites the account of ‘the heavenly vision’ (12 – 18)
- He ends with a summary of what he has been doing up to now. In so doing he gives a short but clear rendition of the gospel. (19-23)
3. The results:
- Festus, under obvious conviction, blatantly accuses Paul of being crazy.
- King Agrippa admits to being ‘almost persuaded’.
- The three of them confer privately and conclude that Paul is really innocent and, had he not appealed to Caesar, they would be setting him free. (24 -32)
Extra Study
In our next study we will read that Paul receives a visit from an angel.
Comment on the following verse:
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Reads as many of the following verses as you have time for, which mention ministering Angels and write down anything that impresses you regarding them.
Genesis 16:7 19:16 22:11, Exodus 14:19 23:20, 1Kings 19:5, Psalms 91:11, Isaiah 63:9, Daniel 3:28, 6:22, Mark 1:13, Luke 16:22, Acts 5:19, 12:7, 27:23, Hebrews 1:14
Heb 13:2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.
In the biblical scenario, the ‘husband is the head of the wife’ and scripture says,
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
and the scripture also says;
Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
If a father ‘provoked his child to wrath’ or in some manner had expectations, demands or counsel that the child took issue with, to whom could the child go for recourse? While we teach that a child should not array one parent against another, yet because he has two parents, if a child has a serious problem with a demand from the father, he should be able to go his mother with the issue. Her counsel would have to be done very carefully … perhaps only to the point of listening and then promising to take it to her husband privately. Of course this scenario applies in every direction … for example, the young man may have had an issue with an instruction from his mother, and he may need to speak to his Dad about it. The child may be a daughter and … etc.
he proverbs say,
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother;
Pr 6:20 ¶ My son, keep your father’s command, And do not forsake the law of your mother.
Pr 23:22 Listen to your father who begot you, And do not despise your mother when she is old.
A child should always have ‘an advocate’ or a recourse when he or she believes they are not being dealt with fairly.
What recourse do we have as Adults? We say that a person ‘leaves their father and mother’ to cleave only to their spouse … does this mean that if a person has a problem with their spouse that they must not be going back to their parents with a complaint?
A husband is required to love his wife and hold no bitterness toward her. When he disobeys the scripture and becomes abusive to his wife, can he expect that she would be calling her parents, someone in the church, a friend, or the authorities? Does he have the right to ‘forbid’ her from speaking to her parents about issues in her home?
And what about the recourse for church members between one another? How does I Corinthians 6:1-7 address this problem?
The governor, Felix has held a formal hearing but deferred making a judgment until he could get additional information from the chief captain. Later he came with his wife, a Jewess and heard Paul’s presentation of the gospel. It put him under great conviction and guilt, but he did not submit to Jesus, repent of his sin and call out for salvation. Hoping for a bribe he came to see Paul on a number of occasions. Whether he ever came that close to receiving Jesus again, we do not know. Whether he actually did receive Jesus, we do not know, but it is very likely that something would have been said about it if that were the case.
He left Paul ‘in limbo’ for two years, after which time he was replaced by Porcius Festus.
1. Paul examined by Festus before a representative number of Jews from Jerusalem.
Within a period of two weeks after taking office, Festus, visiting Jerusalem, has been approached by the accusing Jews and he begins the process of addressing and finalizing Paul’s case. Festus invites as many of the accusers who are able, to come to Caesarea. (Verses 1-6)
Uncertain of just what it was that Paul was being accused of, and up to that point still not having heard anything that constituted breaking any law, Festus asks whether Paul would agree to going with him to Jerusalem for a hearing. I suppose he is thinking that not all of the accusers had been able to come down to this hearing, and he was hoping to get a more complete picture. (verses 7-9)
Paul does not want to risk appearing before that angry mob. He affirms that he has done nothing wrong. He further states that he is standing at the right place; Caesar’s judgment seat, but then he appeals to Caesar. The judgment seat at Caesarea where Festus sat was called Caesar’s judgment seat (probably one of several), but since nothing was actually happening there, and he certainly did not want the Jews to have a say in his verdict, he appeals to Caesar’s court in Rome. (verses 10 - 12)
2. Paul examined by Festus and King Agrippa.
King Agrippa (between 25 and 30 years old)– Grandson to Herod the Great – Son of the Herod who was responsible for having James killed earlier in the book of Acts.
Bernice is not his wife, but his sister with whom he lived incestuously. He spent his last years in Rome, finally dying at about age 70 in or around the year 100ad.
Having heard what Festus told him about Paul, he is curious to hear more and Festus hopes to get help in describing the charges against him. (13 – 27)
Paul is permitted to give a lengthy defence.
- He briefly relates information on his younger years and his religious background … which is identical to that of his accusers. (1 – 5)
- He focuses on ‘the hope of Israel’, the promised Messiah.
- He moves immediately to the resurrection … which makes two things of which the Jews would not be convinced – that Jesus was the messiah – and that he rose from the dead. (6 - 8)
- He leads up to an opportunity to share his personal testimony by further identifying with the Jews, in that he shared the same hostility toward the followers of the Way. (9 – 11)
- He very clearly recites the account of ‘the heavenly vision’ (12 – 18)
- He ends with a summary of what he has been doing up to now. In so doing he gives a short but clear rendition of the gospel. (19-23)
3. The results:
- Festus, under obvious conviction, blatantly accuses Paul of being crazy.
- King Agrippa admits to being ‘almost persuaded’.
- The three of them confer privately and conclude that Paul is really innocent and, had he not appealed to Caesar, they would be setting him free. (24 -32)
Extra Study
In our next study we will read that Paul receives a visit from an angel.
Comment on the following verse:
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Reads as many of the following verses as you have time for, which mention ministering Angels and write down anything that impresses you regarding them.
Genesis 16:7 19:16 22:11, Exodus 14:19 23:20, 1Kings 19:5, Psalms 91:11, Isaiah 63:9, Daniel 3:28, 6:22, Mark 1:13, Luke 16:22, Acts 5:19, 12:7, 27:23, Hebrews 1:14
Heb 13:2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.