Acts 24:10-21. Paul begins his defense cheerfully, pointing out that it has been less than twelve days since he went to worship in Jerusalem, and he was never found disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd. He admits that he believes in "the Way," and worships the same God as the Jews, "believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets," including the hope in the resurrection, which these Jewish leaders share. He attests that he always takes pains to have a clear conscience. Paul goes on to say he returned to Jerusalem after a long time away and went to the temple to offer alms and sacrifices. The Jews found him there with no crowd or tumult. There were some Jews from Asia who were upset with Paul, but they are not present to testify against him, so Paul says the Jews present should testify as to what he has done wrong, other than believe in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul makes short work of the Jews' "testimony" against him. He states the facts and points out the incongruity of saying that he is an agitator when he is only been in town twelve days and has not agitated anyone - he merely went to the temple to pray and offer alms. The only thing Paul has done "wrong" is believe that a man, Jesus Christ, has been resurrected from the dead. As the resurrection of the dead is something the Pharisees themselves believe in, there is no real case against Paul.

Paul says the Jews cannot "prove to you what they now bring up against me." What do they bring up against him? As we learned yesterday, they say he's pestilent; an agitator; a "ringleader" in a sect; and that he intended to profane the temple. Paul admits to the third - "I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers" - but he's perfectly correct that the other charges cannot be proven.

How do you prove that someone is "pestilent"? This is a charge based solely on feelings. It may be true, but it makes no difference at all. As to being an agitator - Paul points out points to the last twelve days and asks when he was doing anything to provoke agitation? He never was, but the Jews from Asia got agitated anyway. Again, this charge is based on feelings - the Jews felt threatened by Paul's mere presence, so they caused a riot and blamed it on Paul (sound familiar?).  Finally, there's the charge of intent to profane the temple. How could they possibly know Paul's intent? There is no way to prove that, and all of the actual evidence shows Paul respectfully entering and praying in the temple.

The Jews' case against Paul cannot stand under rational scrutiny because it is based on feelings. Cases like this are familiar to us today, but, as we also see today, just because a case is based on feelings and unprovable, does not mean it will fail. Many of our judges, politicians, administrators, and other decision makers are unwitting practicers of our new secular religion and are making decisions based on their feelings. This is one reason why Christians are in such danger right now - we are a threat to the state religion. 

We will see what happens with Paul, but he at least has the benefit of being heard before an authority figure who does not share the religious beliefs of either of the parties before him. Today we are not always guaranteed the same, and it seems like more often than not we end up with very biased decision makers who are more inclined to decide based on their feelings, rather than the evidence.