Acts
24
A
Courtroom Drama – Perry Mason – is a good place to study human
nature. We watch that kind of stuff not to see whether justice will
be done, but how it is done – the characters and interactions
involved!
In
our world today, Christians are “on trial”. For some,
persecution, show trials and imprisonment and torture are still a
reality. For all of us, we, and the faith we talk about, are being
judged daily at home at work, in the supermarket. So what do we find
in this courtroom drama?
The Prosecution have now got a lawyer.... Tertullus is cool, professional. He is probably a Greek-speaking Jew. However, he doesn't seem to be either that well-informed about the case or too passionate about it. He may well have been a fairly?nominal? Jew who hadn't paid much attention to Paul's case, until he was offered a fee for prosecuting him!
He is, however, good at smooth-talking, flattering. A lengthy bit of flattery to the judge, was a convention of the time. It was part of what Tertullus was paid for. He was also paid to make a weak case sound more plausible. But he seems like a man who actually has very little of substance to say. Tertullus uses a lot of padding to try to hide the lack of content. Some authors think that
Luke deliberately quotes Tertullus' disjointed Greek in verse 5 to expose his ignorance: “for having found this man a troublemaker, and stirring up riot among all the Jews through the world -- a ringleader also of the sect of the Nazarenes”. It's the result of someone being pompous, trying to sound important and using big words ? but making a mess of it.
Tertullus' speech is marked by
(1) Insults. He calls Paul a pest, a plague, a disease.
(2) Generalisations: vague and unverifiable statements. “Stirring up riots all over the world” (the sort of thing that are often used to dismiss Christian faith in the minds of atheists or agnostics. You know the sort of thing: “Religion has caused more wars than anything else. Look at the Crusades” It sounds plausible and neat, until it's placed anywhere near the facts.)
(3) Emotive buzz words. “A ringleader among the Nazarenes.” Now “Nazarene” has become a Jewish word for “Christian” ... but for a Roman its meaning would be vague and almost certainly “dangerous”. Tertullus is deliberately pulling Felix's strings by making Paul sound like a dangerous political operator.
(4) Exaggeration. Tertullus can only really make one concrete accusation: “He even tried to desecrate the temple.” What Tertullus was referring to, of course, was the unfounded rumour that Paul had brought gentiles into the temple. He knew that would cause no concern to Felix, so he takes this false charge, and makes it sound even bigger.
Tertullus then finishes, quite abruptly, by challenging Felix to examine Paul himself: Paul's guilt, he is certain, will then become obvious. This is a bluff, designed to imply that what he has been saying is pretty much self-evident. “Anyone with any intelligence will realise it.” And the Jews who have paid Tertullus, all agree, although they have not been formally called as witnesses.
Tertullus whole speech, then is an attempt to make the case against Paul look and sound plausible – but in reality it is a combination of prejudice and bluff. He is prepared to twist the truth, in order to make a case that suits him and those who are paying him.
The defendant: Paul's defence is respectful and polite; but not gushing: none of Tertullus' flattery .
His defence is
(1) F actual v. 11-13: He begins his defence by stating that he has only been in Jerusalem for twelve days: that is a fact that can be verified. (v. 11) His one reason for coming to Jerusalem was to worship God in the Temple. No-one who wants to accuse him of doing anything else, has any proof. In v. 17-19. Paul lays out the facts in more detail, including a mention of the alms he had brought for the Jerusalem Church. Everyone has conveniently forgotten that evidence of good character.
(2) Forthright . v. 14-16. Paul admits that he is a follower of “the Way” who believes in the resurrection – that is, a Christian. That doesn't make him a heretic: it makes him “completed Jew.” What he will not allow is to have his faith in Christ associated in the minds of his hearers, with being a trouble-maker.
(3) Challenging . He hasn't had enough time to stir up riots, as he's only been in town less than a fortnight. The facts can be verified simply by asking people. (v. 11) As for the original charge against him, that was brought by some Jews for Asia – but Paul isn't going to do their dirty work for them by even repeating what they accused him of. (v. 19f) They should still be around to give their testimony, if they have any testimony to give. That is a totally logical challenge to the charges made against him.
(4) Passionate . You can sense the anger in Paul's speech. Why should his original accusers melt away into the crowd? He sounds almost sarcastic when he says in verse 21 “unless I am actually in court for saying I believe in the resurrection!”
His defence is clear, factual, honest. What more could you want? Paul is not only telling the truth; hi is living the truth and loving the truth. Again, it is not just Paul who is on trial: it is the integrity of his faith and the validity of his message. Paul is not so much defending himself as defending his faith.
The Judge . Felix, the ex slave, now a rising star in the Roman political system. Felix, who has the power of a king and the heart of a slave. He is married to a Jewess – Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I and ex-wife of a minor Syrian king. Felix had seduced her with help from a local magician! Felix is acquaint with the Way (Luke's way of talking about Christianity) probably thanks to Drusilla.
How Felix behaves is very telling.
(1) “Cool” He cultivates the right image. He wants to look just, so he decides to wait until Lysias (the Jerusalem commander) arrives; he gives Paul reasonably civilised living quarters within the confines of the Palace: Paul is still a prisoner, but he is permitted as many visitors as he wants. It looks OK, and maybe it is. But it is all done for effect. The reality is the Felix is neither interested in justice or mercy.
(2) Curious : There is another side to Felix. He occasionally calls Paul in to have a chat. Paul begins to talk about the right way to live, about being self-controlled, about the possibility of future judgement; that seems to touch a raw nerve with Felix, maybe because of his affair with Drusilla. Felix gets jittery and brings the conversation to an abrupt halt. But there are other little chats.
(3) Corruption . Alongside the curiosity and the fear, there's another motive: greed. He hopes that Paul will offer him a bribe. (Maybe he thought that, if Paul had brought alms for the Jerusalem Church, he had access to other sums of money!) This powerful governor remains a small-minded, and self-interested wee man, So Felix keeps Paul in prison, despite the lack of evidence, despite the fact that Lysias must have had reason to visit his superior in Caesarea regularly.
Two years later, there as a local disturbance – between the Jewish and Gentile people of Caesarea; Felix weighed in with Roman troops and a number of leading Jews were killed; as a result the Jewish council put in a complaint and Felix was moved on. He narrowly escaped execution in fact. To mollify the Jews and avoid making any more trouble for himself, he quietly left Paul in prison for his successor to deal with.
Felix was simply avoiding the truth. He can't accept the truth as it is (or even find the courage to check out the facts!) He doesn't feel any need to make up an alternate version of the truth. He just ignores it. Tell a joke, distract yourself by turning on the TV... and maybe the truth will just go away.
The Prosecution have now got a lawyer.... Tertullus is cool, professional. He is probably a Greek-speaking Jew. However, he doesn't seem to be either that well-informed about the case or too passionate about it. He may well have been a fairly?nominal? Jew who hadn't paid much attention to Paul's case, until he was offered a fee for prosecuting him!
He is, however, good at smooth-talking, flattering. A lengthy bit of flattery to the judge, was a convention of the time. It was part of what Tertullus was paid for. He was also paid to make a weak case sound more plausible. But he seems like a man who actually has very little of substance to say. Tertullus uses a lot of padding to try to hide the lack of content. Some authors think that
Luke deliberately quotes Tertullus' disjointed Greek in verse 5 to expose his ignorance: “for having found this man a troublemaker, and stirring up riot among all the Jews through the world -- a ringleader also of the sect of the Nazarenes”. It's the result of someone being pompous, trying to sound important and using big words ? but making a mess of it.
Tertullus' speech is marked by
(1) Insults. He calls Paul a pest, a plague, a disease.
(2) Generalisations: vague and unverifiable statements. “Stirring up riots all over the world” (the sort of thing that are often used to dismiss Christian faith in the minds of atheists or agnostics. You know the sort of thing: “Religion has caused more wars than anything else. Look at the Crusades” It sounds plausible and neat, until it's placed anywhere near the facts.)
(3) Emotive buzz words. “A ringleader among the Nazarenes.” Now “Nazarene” has become a Jewish word for “Christian” ... but for a Roman its meaning would be vague and almost certainly “dangerous”. Tertullus is deliberately pulling Felix's strings by making Paul sound like a dangerous political operator.
(4) Exaggeration. Tertullus can only really make one concrete accusation: “He even tried to desecrate the temple.” What Tertullus was referring to, of course, was the unfounded rumour that Paul had brought gentiles into the temple. He knew that would cause no concern to Felix, so he takes this false charge, and makes it sound even bigger.
Tertullus then finishes, quite abruptly, by challenging Felix to examine Paul himself: Paul's guilt, he is certain, will then become obvious. This is a bluff, designed to imply that what he has been saying is pretty much self-evident. “Anyone with any intelligence will realise it.” And the Jews who have paid Tertullus, all agree, although they have not been formally called as witnesses.
Tertullus whole speech, then is an attempt to make the case against Paul look and sound plausible – but in reality it is a combination of prejudice and bluff. He is prepared to twist the truth, in order to make a case that suits him and those who are paying him.
The defendant: Paul's defence is respectful and polite; but not gushing: none of Tertullus' flattery .
His defence is
(1) F actual v. 11-13: He begins his defence by stating that he has only been in Jerusalem for twelve days: that is a fact that can be verified. (v. 11) His one reason for coming to Jerusalem was to worship God in the Temple. No-one who wants to accuse him of doing anything else, has any proof. In v. 17-19. Paul lays out the facts in more detail, including a mention of the alms he had brought for the Jerusalem Church. Everyone has conveniently forgotten that evidence of good character.
(2) Forthright . v. 14-16. Paul admits that he is a follower of “the Way” who believes in the resurrection – that is, a Christian. That doesn't make him a heretic: it makes him “completed Jew.” What he will not allow is to have his faith in Christ associated in the minds of his hearers, with being a trouble-maker.
(3) Challenging . He hasn't had enough time to stir up riots, as he's only been in town less than a fortnight. The facts can be verified simply by asking people. (v. 11) As for the original charge against him, that was brought by some Jews for Asia – but Paul isn't going to do their dirty work for them by even repeating what they accused him of. (v. 19f) They should still be around to give their testimony, if they have any testimony to give. That is a totally logical challenge to the charges made against him.
(4) Passionate . You can sense the anger in Paul's speech. Why should his original accusers melt away into the crowd? He sounds almost sarcastic when he says in verse 21 “unless I am actually in court for saying I believe in the resurrection!”
His defence is clear, factual, honest. What more could you want? Paul is not only telling the truth; hi is living the truth and loving the truth. Again, it is not just Paul who is on trial: it is the integrity of his faith and the validity of his message. Paul is not so much defending himself as defending his faith.
The Judge . Felix, the ex slave, now a rising star in the Roman political system. Felix, who has the power of a king and the heart of a slave. He is married to a Jewess – Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I and ex-wife of a minor Syrian king. Felix had seduced her with help from a local magician! Felix is acquaint with the Way (Luke's way of talking about Christianity) probably thanks to Drusilla.
How Felix behaves is very telling.
(1) “Cool” He cultivates the right image. He wants to look just, so he decides to wait until Lysias (the Jerusalem commander) arrives; he gives Paul reasonably civilised living quarters within the confines of the Palace: Paul is still a prisoner, but he is permitted as many visitors as he wants. It looks OK, and maybe it is. But it is all done for effect. The reality is the Felix is neither interested in justice or mercy.
(2) Curious : There is another side to Felix. He occasionally calls Paul in to have a chat. Paul begins to talk about the right way to live, about being self-controlled, about the possibility of future judgement; that seems to touch a raw nerve with Felix, maybe because of his affair with Drusilla. Felix gets jittery and brings the conversation to an abrupt halt. But there are other little chats.
(3) Corruption . Alongside the curiosity and the fear, there's another motive: greed. He hopes that Paul will offer him a bribe. (Maybe he thought that, if Paul had brought alms for the Jerusalem Church, he had access to other sums of money!) This powerful governor remains a small-minded, and self-interested wee man, So Felix keeps Paul in prison, despite the lack of evidence, despite the fact that Lysias must have had reason to visit his superior in Caesarea regularly.
Two years later, there as a local disturbance – between the Jewish and Gentile people of Caesarea; Felix weighed in with Roman troops and a number of leading Jews were killed; as a result the Jewish council put in a complaint and Felix was moved on. He narrowly escaped execution in fact. To mollify the Jews and avoid making any more trouble for himself, he quietly left Paul in prison for his successor to deal with.
Felix was simply avoiding the truth. He can't accept the truth as it is (or even find the courage to check out the facts!) He doesn't feel any need to make up an alternate version of the truth. He just ignores it. Tell a joke, distract yourself by turning on the TV... and maybe the truth will just go away.
When
faith in on trial, the same characteristics show up again and again.
Some will twist the truth. Much of the opposition to Christian
faith today is based on a caricature of what Christians believe, on
unverified claims, emotive accusations, and on insults and
exaggeration. Some will avoid the truth; they may be curious for
awhile, but in the end why bother really. Who cares whether it
is tru or not. Some will live the truth: God calls us to be like
Paul – forthright, passionate, committed, and reasonable. Be able
to give a reason for our faith. It is not really us who are on trial
– it is our faith; it is Jesus.
What
are you inclined to do with truth?
If
you are a follower of Jesus –
- be able to give a reason for our faith.
- Tell your story honestly
- Respect those who don't agree with you;
- and remember, people aren't usually won for Jesus with arguments but with love.
And
if you’re not yet a follower of Jesus – at least be sure of your
facts
No comments:
Post a Comment