Felix gets scared

Felix gets scared!

By Richard P. Joseph

                7/15/2020

    In Acts 24 we find Paul on trial in Caesarea.  The Jews, especially the Judaizes, were committed to killing Paul because they felt that he had forsaken the Mosaic covenant in his teachings.   Some Jews allowed the belief in Jesus but only as a sect of Judaism as they were never able to understand that Judaism was really only a precursor to a coming Messiah.  Since the Jews were the murderers of many of the prophets and then finally the Messiah himself, they were to be judged and found wanting.  Physical Israel was to give way to spiritual Israel.  It was made quite clear in the gospels, in the epistles and in Revelation that physical Israel had run its course and would soon become defunct as a religious system.  Jesus Christ had become the fulfillment of the  law.  Now Paul was on trial for that very hope, the hope of, not only a resurrection of souls but of a resurrected Israel to be realized in both Jew and gentile alike.  

    During Paul’s trial that Felix was overseeing, he made it clear that he spoke only of the things that were written in the Old Testament.  He then said:

Acts:2415 I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection [e]of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.  NKJV

Young’s literal translation actually makes it clear that this coming resurrection was imminent, not just something in the future.  

Paul kept reminding them that he was an orthodox Jew and that that orthodoxy demanded a resurrection and Paul made it quite clear (as well as the other apostles) that this rising from the dead was imminent.  

    This soon coming (Greek word mello) resurrection caught Felix’s attention but his love for money was stronger.  He kept a hope up that Paul would bribe him with some money for his release which, of course, Paul never offered.  But it came around that Felix’s Jewish wife became interested in this Paul and Felix, perhaps,  thought that she might have a fresh perspective on this so called new doctrine (which of course wasn’t since the prophets have been predicting it for centuries) so he called Paul in for a private session with just him and his Jewish wife Drusilla.  Drusilla was descended from the Herodian dynasty.  Paul began to share the gospel with them and when he finally got to the resurrection Felix began to become afraid.

Acts 24:25 and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, `For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;'  Young's literal translation.

My question therefore is this; “why would Felix be concerned with something that won’t happen for maybe thousands of years” (according to the common futurist doctrine of eschatology)?   Answer; Because Felix never interpreted it that way, only modern day seminarians do because they use poor hermeneutics.  That might sound harsh but I think Felix had it right.  Felix was the original recipient of Paul’s sermon and he correctly understood that this resurrection was “about to occur” very soon.  Since paul was preaching about self control and righteousness, this definitely caught Felix’s attention because he was a wholly corrupt man.  When Paul mentioned an approaching judgement, Felix became frightened and promptly dismissed Paul back to his jail cell.  

    The point I am attempting to make is that the preterist position is thoroughly ensconced in new testament writings.  The context always indicates an imminent judgement and resurrection.  It never ever considers a long and protracted timeline for the events of the parousia.  Not one apostle ever embraced such a doctrine.  Stick with what was written and with the historical events that prove it and you can’t go wrong.

Original Intent

Original Intent

                                                               By Richard P. Joseph

                                                                7/1/2020

    Just about anything that David Barton writes is worth reading.  Barton has a passion for explaining the Christian origins of the United States government. These origins have a blatant biblical foundation which has been blotted out and perverted by modern day liberal judges and educators.  Their hatred for all that is holy and good has caused them to disregard the original intent of our founding only to replace it with an imaginary and twisted distortion of American history.  In Barton’s book Original Intent,  he produces the historical documentation to prove his point concerning the writing of our constitution and amendments showing that our modern courts, in many instances, have altered the meaning to such a degree that it is unrecognizable and completely detached from its actual meaning.  

Many of our founders expressed their concern when people attempted to use “modern thought” to interpret ancient documents.  Noah Webster expressed this when he said “..not only misinterpretation but even serious error can result when original meanings are ignored.”  Joseph Story added: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and intentions of the parties”.  Preterists call this “audience relevance”.  

An example of blatant misinterpretation by way of the disregard for audience relevance would be the misapplication of our first amendment.  

In a nutshell, the amendment is written only to congress, not to individuals.  To apply this to individuals is a gross misapplication of the law.  This amendment is not intended for any individual, its only purpose is to limit congress from enacting any law that would restrict religion, free speech etc.  It has nothing to do with telling someone they can’t have a bible in a school or the ten commandments in a courtroom etc.  But because they have ignored the original intent and have a complete disregard for audience relevance, they got away with brainwashing 90% of American citizens that they can’t express their inalienable right to worship when and how they wish.  What is funny about this whole thing is that David Barton is a futurist!

    If David Barton applied this same logic to his bible studies, he would quickly turn into a preterist.  Preterism is really nothing more than a proper interpretation of the bible via audience relevance.  In other words, what did that passage mean to those that first heard it.  Nearly all new Christians today pick up the bible and think that it was written just last week and commence to interpret it that way.  The scamsters feed on this ignorance and prey on the ignorance of the new believers.  What is worse is that seminaries actually teach in this same manner.  People that should know better dig their feet in and will not relent because of either money or pride; both of which will destroy you.  For example if I ask nearly any pastor “who was the book of Timothy written to?”, he would smile and say “to me, of course”.  I hate to be the one to tell him that this book was written to a young man named Timothy who lived 2,000 years ago and must be interpreted in light of that.  What would Timothy think about the letter that was sent to “him” not me.  That is how we can benefit from Timothy’s letter, by extracting the original meaning from it.  It is ironic that someone like David Barton has not done such a thing so I now encourage him to do so (like he is going to be reading this!!!).   So let’s all glean the precious meaning from past historical documents, which includes the bible, in the most accurate way possible by applying the concept of audience relevance to our study.  

Ps, I heartily recommend Barton’s book.