Acts 24
BolesActs 24:1-9
PAUL AT
PAUL’S BEFORE FELIX
1 And after five days the high priest Ananias—“After five days” may mean either after five days from Paul’s departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea; it is not clear as to the exact meaning; no one can determine from the context. Roman usage required that a case referred to a higher court should be tried as soon as possible. The high priest, Ananias, came down to Caesarea “with certain elders,” probably of the Sadducean party. The fact that the high priest came with them indicates that the Sadducees considered this an important case; as one of their fundamental doctrines, the resurrection was at stake. It will be further noted that they “came down,” as Jerusalem was on a higher elevation. Caesarea was about seventy miles from Jerusalem on the seacoast.
They brought with them “an orator, one Tertullus.” Tertullus was a Roman lawyer. There were many Roman lawyers in those days who went to the provinces to gain training in the practice of law that they might go to Rome and practice their profession. Tertullus “informed the governor against Paul”; that is, he made formal charges against Paul.
2-3 And when he was called, Tertullus began—When the case was called and both sides were present. Tertullus began his formal charges against Paul. He began with exaggerated flattery of Felix, the Roman judge. He intended by his flattery to ingratiate himself into the good graces of Felix. Historians tell us that Felix had suppressed riots among the people and had been an officer of the peace, but Tertullus shrewdly does not mention any specific riot that he had quelled; he makes general statements to flatter Felix. He acknowledged “with all thankfulness” the many things that Felix had done for the peace and welfare of the nation. He hails Felix as the reform governor; this pleased Felix.
4 But, that I be not further tedious unto thee,—Tertullus proceeds with tact, and introduces his case in a very winning way. He does not want to encroach upon the good deeds that Felix has done; neither does he want to claim the time of Felix which could be given to Felix’s further good reforms. He is still flattering Felix. He entreated Felix to hear the case of his “clemency.” “Clemency” is from the Greek “epieikes,” and means “reasonable, likely, fair”; it also may mean gentleness. The clemency of Felix was an invention of Tertullus’ flattery; Felix was well known as an avaricious man; he was not a lover of righteousness.
5-6 For we have found this man—Tertullus now presents in a very logical way the charges that the Jews had against Paul. As we analyze Tertullus’ speech, we find that he made one general accusation against Paul; he was “a pestilent fellow.” “Pestilent” comes from the Greek “loimon,” and it means “pest, plague, pestilence.” It is used only twice in the New Testament, here and in Luke 21:11. The greatest gospel preacher in the world was charged with being a pest. In addition to this general charge, there were three specific charges. He was “a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world,” which meant that he was rebellious and excited sedition wherever he went. Probably Tertullus could refer to the tumult at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) and at Ephesus (Acts 19:28).
The second charge was that he was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”; this was a charge of heresy, and was the chief offense that the Jews had against Paul. However, here Tertullus makes it an offense against the laws of the empire, as Paul was teaching a religion that was not licensed by the state; in this charge Paul is accused of introducing strange gods. “Sect of the Nazarenes” is used here with a sneer as applied to Jesus and his followers. “Sect” is from the Greek “hair- esis,” and is the word from which we get “heresy.” The third charge was that he had profaned the temple. This was not true. Tertullus identifies himself in this speech with the Jews, as he is pleading their cause.
7 This verse is omitted from the Standard Version. Some ancient authorities insert: “And we would have judged him according to our law. 7 But the chief captain Lysias came, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, 8 commanding his accusers to come before thee.” This quotation includes part of verse 8. The Revised Version leaves out verse 7, and its translaors regard verse 7 as an interpolation which was added clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias. Some think that it was added as a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.)
8 from whom thou wilt be able,—Tertullus perpetrates another astute trick by saying that Felix would find Paul guilty of all that he had charged against him. He attempts to prejudice Felix against Paul before anything is said by Paul. He stated that Felix would learn the truth of these things after he had examined Paul. Some authorities think that Tertullus means that Felix would find these things true after an interview with Lysias; others think that he would find them true after examining Paul. This seems to be the meaning. “Examining” is from the Greek “anakrinas,” and means to examine thoroughly up and down, as in Luke 23:14. It does not mean to examine by torture.
9 And the Jews also joined in the charge,—Ananias and the elders who accompanied him endorsed the charges made by Tertullus, and testified that the accusations against Paul were true. We are not told how they affirmed the truthfulness of the charges made by Tertullus; it may have been simply by gestures, or they may have been called upon by Felix to speak for themselves. It will be noted that Tertullus and the Jews kept back the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen; neither does it appear that Tertullus knew that Lysias had informed Felix that Paul was a Roman citizen.
Acts 24:10-27
PAUL’S DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX
10 And when the governor had beckoned—There is a wide contrast between Paul’s defense and the accusation that Tertullus made against him. Tertullus had begun his speech with lying flatteries and distorted facts. Paul’s tone was that of frankness and truthfulness. When the governor signified that Paul could speak, he began by courteously acknowledging the facts concerning Felix. Felix had now been judge for about six years; this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship. Hence, Paul’s expression, “many years,” was not an exaggeration. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with divided authority, had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53. Paul did not stand before Felix as a criminal ; he was glad of the opportunity to speak; he cheerfully made his defense.
11 seeing that thou canst take knowledge—Felix knew many of the facts and could ascertain the truthfulness of Paul’s statements. He refuted the general charge of Tertullus by appealing to the facts which Felix knew. Paul had arrived in Jerusalem, had an interview with the elders of the church there, and had begun the seven days of purification. The seven days were almost ended when Paul was arrested; he was then brought before the Sanhedrin, and a conspiracy was formed against him and he was sent to Caesarea. He was now brought before Felix, and the trial seems to have taken place on the fifth day after he left Jerusalem. These “twelve days” may be reckoned as follows: first day, Paul arrived at Jerusalem and met with James (Acts 21:15) ; second day, he had made his first visit to the temple as a Nazirite; third to seventh days, he performed the Nazirite ceremonies and was arrested by Claudius Lysias; eighth day, he was brought before the Sanhedrin; ninth day, he was informed of the assassination plot and left that night for Caesarea; tenth day, he arrived at Antipatris; eleventh day, he was delivered over to Felix in Caesarea; twelfth day, he was in the palace of Herod, thirteenth day, he appeared before Felix.
12 and neither in the temple did they find me—Paul here urged that the accusation of exciting sedition was incapable of proof; nowhere had he publicly disputed with the purpose of exciting a tumult; nor had he gone preaching and speaking up and down the streets of the city. Felix had been governor between six and seven years and was well acquainted with all the seditions, and from personal knowledge could say that Paul had not been engaged in any of the insurrections. He had only been in Palestine or in Jerusalem about twelve days, and five of these he had spent as a Roman prisoner; he simply had not had time, even if he had been so disposed, to engage in plots against the Roman government. On the contrary, he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and had not come to engage in discussion; neither had he gathered a crowd in the synagogue or the city. He did not belong to any mob; neither had he engaged in any plot.
13 Neither can they prove to thee—Paul flatly denies their charges by appealing to the facts which were known to Felix. The charges that Tertullus and the Jews had made were mere assertions ; they did not have the proof of their charges; neither could they produce the proof, as the accusations were contrary to the well-known facts. Paul had no hired lawyer to plead for him, but the simple facts recited by him spoke eloquently for his freedom.
14 But this I confess unto thee,—Paul had nothing to keep back; he had nothing in his life as a Christian for which he was ashamed. But “this I confess unto thee”; Paul acknowledged that he was a Christian and that Tertullus and the Jews called Christianity “a sect.” Paul did not call the church “a sect”; it was not a sect, but after the way which they called a sect he worshiped God. Christianity was never a “sect”; it is not a “sect” today. “Sect” means a division and a divergence. Tertullus had used the term in a bad sense (verse 4), of which the Nazarenes were a schismatic offshoot from the body of the Jewish worshipers. The word translated “heresy” is the same that is here translated “sect.” Paul here claims Christianity to be the real, whole of Judaism, and not a “sect” of it. The essence of the law of Moses pointed to Christianity ; the only use of the law of Moses was to bring the people to Christ.
Christianity was the full, ripe fruit of Jerusalem. Paul believed in the law of Moses and in the prophets; he knew that Christianity was set forth both by the law and by the prophets.
15 having hope toward God,—Paul presented three reasons why his way of worship was not “a sect” or “heresy”; it was the only righteous and living way. First, he served the same God that “our fathers” served; this meant that Christianity was of God, as was the law of Moses. He had the same hope that the fathers and the prophets had, and this hope was to be realized through Christianity. The Jews were at that time looking for a Messiah; Paul pointed out that this Messiah had already come. The difference between Paul and the Jews was that they were looking for the Messiah, and Paul had already received him. Paul furthermore reaffirmed his belief in the resurrection “both of the just and unjust.” He affirmed that belief in the resurrection was a cardinal teaching of the Jewish faith, from which he had never swerved. He was really more orthodox with respect to the law and the prophets than were the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.
16 Herein I also exercise myself—“Herein” Paul exercised himself in the belief as stated in verses 14 and 15. He had been faithful in believing and practicing all that the law and the prophets taught; he had been conscientious in this, and had a clear conscience “toward God and men.” His belief in the resurrection was the field in which he trained himself to live a becoming life in God’s presence with the expectation of judgment before God. The fact of the resurrection was with Paul a stern solemnity and modified his whole life and conduct. Paul’s words must have been bitter to Ananias; however, Paul was courageous enough to speak the truth without fear or favor. Paul’s rule of life was to keep himself from sin, knowing that he should be judged according to the deeds done in the body. A belief in the resurrection implied a belief in a future life.
17 Now after some years I came—If Paul went up to Jerusalem in Acts 18:22, which it seems that he did, it was some five years ago. At least four years had elapsed since he had been to Jerusalem. The alms which Paul here mentions were the sums of money that he and his companions had collected in the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the relief of the church at Jerusalem. This is the only mention in the Acts of Paul’s generous work of which we hear so much in Paul’s epistles. (Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4.) Paul mentions this to show that he had been interested and engaged in a good work of collecting sums of money to disperse among the poor brethren, and was not what the Sadducees represented him to be. Every statement that Paul makes is a clear refutation of the charges made against him.
18 amidst which they found me purified in the temple,—Paul here states the facts with respect to his visit to Jerusalem and his manner of life while in the city. Paul was keeping his vow of a Nazirite (Acts 21:23-26) when he was arrested. In fact, he was engaged in this service when they seized him. He had no crowd, neither had he excited any tumult. Paul stated that there were “certain Jews from Asia”; this either means that those who found Paul in the temple were Jews from Asia Minor (Acts 21:27), or else it may be a more general statement.
19 who ought to have been here—It is to be observed that none of those “forty” Jews who had banded themselves together not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul were here to make charges against him. Possibly Felix did not know of this plot against Paul, but the high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin who were present before Felix did know of it. Those who were present and preferring charges against Paul were not present when he did that of which they were assusing him. The present witnesses did not have firsthand evidence; those who had any evidence at all were not present. These Asiatic Jews are not mentioned after the riot, though they almost succeeded in having Paul put to death.
20 Or else let these men themselves say—Paul had stood before the council; the high priest and some members of the council were present now before Felix. Paul reminds them that no charges were proved against him while he stood before the counthe high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin to state any charges that were proved against him in his trial before the Sanhedrin. His argument is that those who first preferred charges against him and caused him to be brought before the Sanhedrin were not now present, but members of the Sanhedrin are present, and even these cannot state any charges that were proved against him.
21 except it be for this one voice,—Paul here makes an exception to his statement above. He was charged by the Sadducees as teaching the resurrection from the dead. It is noticeable how often Paul refers to this point. Even in his legal defense Paul drives the wedge between Pharisees and Sadducees; if he can by any means show how near the truth the Pharisees are by their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he can more easily bring them to believe in the Christ who has been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Paul knew that some members of the Sanhedrin, and many of the Jews, would sympathize with him in his preaching the resurrection from the dead. His preaching the resurrection from the dead was the only thing that had come directly under the notice of the Sanhedrin, and it had been the cause of division in the Sanhedrin itself.
Paul understood clearly his case, and did not waste words; he presented his case truly and accurately and briefly before Felix. Tertullus and the Jews had no case at all.
22 But Felix, having more exact knowledge—Felix was not ignorant of the teachings of Christ; during the years he had held office in Judea and Samaria, at Jerusalem as well as Caesarea, he had frequent opportunities to learn what Christians taught and how they lived; even Philip, one of the seven (Acts 6:5), lived at Caesarea. Felix had a more “exact knowledge” of Christianity than the high priest and other Jews gave him credit of having. He should have released Paul, and would have done so, had he not sought to please the Jews. After hearing Paul’s defense he knew that he was innocent. However, he could not condemn Paul, but he could compromise with the Jewish party by retaining Paul as a prisoner. We do not know that “Lysias the chief captain” ever came to Felix; we hear no more of him.
This was Felix’s way of conciliating the Jews. Felix had another motive in retaining Paul as a prisoner.
23 And he gave order to the centurion—While Felix retained Paul as a prisoner, he gave orders to the centurion to show Paul kindness, and to permit Paul’s friends “to minister unto him.” There were three kinds of imprisonment among the Romans: (1) the imprisonment in the common prison as Paul and Silas were kept at Philippi; (2) the military arrest, when the prisoner was chained to a soldier; this appears to have been the form of imprisonment to which Paul was relegated during his Roman confinement ; (3) the free custody in which the arrested party was usually released on bail. Paul speaks of his chains in Acts 28:20, this shows the kind of imprisonment that Paul had. Indulgence was given Paul in respect to food, lodging, and friends, but this did not include removal of his chains.
24 But after certain days,—We do not know how long the “certain days” were. Some think that Felix had been away from Caesarea for a time, and when he returned he sent for Paul. He brought his wife, “Drusilla,” “who was a Jewess.” Under the influence of Felix she had left her former husband. She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I; her sisters were Marianne and Bernice: her father murdered James; her great-uncle, Herod Antipas, beheaded John the Baptist; her great-grandfather, Herod the Great, had the babes of Bethlehem killed. It is said that Drusilla was gifted with great beauty. It is said that she perished at the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79.
Felix sent for Paul to hear him “concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.” It may be that since he had his wife with him she was also eager to learn more of “the faith in Christ Jesus.” It seems that Felix and Drusilla were in earnest in their inquiry about the Christ. We may know that Paul was glad of the opportunity to preach Christ to these wicked rulers.
25 And as he reasoned of righteousness,—Perhaps Felix and Drusilla did not hear just what they wanted to hear. After presenting Christ to them Paul reasoned of “righteousness.” “Righteousness” is from the Greek “dikaiosmes,” which meant upright conduct; this condemned Felix who had murdered a high priest, had been tyrannical, had taken bribes, and had been an unrighteous ruler. Paul also reasoned with him about “self-control.” “Self-control” is from the Greek “egkrateias,” which means temperance in this life, including especially continence and chastity. Drusilla in his presence was a witness of Felix’s unbridled passions. Again, Paul reasoned to these unrighteous and intemperate rulers of “the judgment to come.” He pointed out that certain judgments would overtake them, and that they would not escape punishment for their wickedness. Felix and Drusilla had lived as though they would never have to give an account for their deeds; Paul very forcibly brings them to face the consequences of their wicked deeds.
Felix seems to have been brought under conviction, but Drusilla does not seem to have been affected. Felix knew himself to be a profligate, avaricious and mean; his conscience was awakened only to be stilled. He was “terrified,” frightened, and dismissed Paul, saying that he would call for him at “a convenient season.” That “season” never came. Felix becomes an example of the many millions who are lost by procrastination.
26 He hoped withal that money would be given him—Here we have another motive of Felix for keeping Paul in prison. Paul had mentioned in the presence of Felix that he had taken “alms” to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Felix evidently drew the idea that Paul or his friends would give him money to release him. This greed of gain in the very act of administering justice was the root evil of the weak and wicked character. Since Paul had money, or some of his friends were wealthy, why should not Felix get money from one or both of them? He sent for Paul often and “communed with him.” Perhaps Felix would have passed sentence and released Paul, if it had not been that he hoped to get some money from Paul. Paul did not offer any bribe, and so Felix continued to have hope that he would buy his freedom.
27 But when two years were fulfilled,—Paul lingered in prison in Caesarea for two years; he was waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea became the compulsory headquarters for Paul for two years. We know nothing of his history during this period; some think that Luke was with him, and that Paul and Luke had repeated conversations together; from these conversations, guided by the Holy Spirit, Luke was enabled to write at least the latter portion of the book of Acts, which tells about Paul and his missionary labors. Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews and left Paul a prisoner to be disposed of by Festus. The change of administration was caused by the complaints which the Jews brought against Felix, and which led Nero to recall him. This was about A.D. 60.