Acts 24

CHAPTER XXIV

PAUL HELD BY FELIX IN CAESAREA

Acts 24:1

1Now after five days there came down the hight priest Ananias in company with certain elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

It is natural to count these five days from the time of Paul’s arrival at Caesarea; moreover, they have nothing to do with the counting of the twelve days mentioned in v. 10. It took this delegation at least two full days to make the journey from Jerusalem. They must have learned about Paul’s transfer the day after it was effected. So they had moved rapidly in order to appear already “after five days.” Ananias is the chief accuser perhaps because of 23:3; the μετά phrase places the elders in a secondary position as being “in company with” Ananias. And we translate, “certain elders,” πρεσβυτέρεντινῶν, and not “some elders,” τινῶντῶνπρεσβυτέρων. This was not a committee of the Sanhedrin as such that had been duly sent to represent that body; their spokesman does not venture to say that.

The opinion that the Sadducees had placated the Pharisees (23:7, etc.) and had gotten together with them in bringing action against Paul is untenable. These few elders in company with Ananias were friends of his, perhaps all were Sadducees as he was. While all were Sanhedrists, their importance extended no farther than this.

Ananias had employed “one Tertullus” (τίς is used by Luke when he introduces new persons) to act as the ῥῆτωρ, orator forensis, “spokesman,” advocate, “prosecuting attorney” (R., W. P.), when bringing charges against Paul on behalf of his clients. These lawyers seem to have been as numerous in those days as they are in ours and looked for business over the entire empire. We have not been able to verify the claim that “Tertullus” was a common name among them. The idea that he was employed in this case because these Sanhedrists did not know the mode of legal procedure, is incorrect. For years all the high priests and the Sanhedrin had had all sorts of legal affairs with the Roman procurators and certainly knew all the formalities; it was their business to know them.

The supposition that the proceedings had to be conducted in Latin and that for this reason Tertullus was taken along is also groundless. Paul may have understood enough Latin to follow the address of this rhetor, but he himself certainly replied in Greek, and if he was permitted to use Greek in his defense, the same privilege would be granted his accusers, and all these Sanhedrists knew Greek, all understood Paul’s defense. All the proceedings in regard to Jesus before Pilate were conducted in Greek; so also the proceedings before Gallio in Corinth (17:6, etc). The letter of Lysias to Felix was drawn up in Greek. The short address of Tertullus contains so many hapaxlegomena as to make it certain that Luke reports the very original and that this was Greek. Tertullus seems to have been brought along more as an ornament than for any other purpose.

Perhaps someone had suggested bringing him and hoped thereby the more to impress the governor. This is the best we are able to say.

“Came down” is the proper word, both physically (Caesarea lying on the seacoast, compare 9:30) and ethically (one always goes up to Jerusalem and down when leaving it). Οἵτινες = “they being such as,” and often has causal force; here, “these were the ones who” accused Paul. The aorist ἐνεφάνισαν (the same verb used in 23:15, 22), “they informed the governor against Paul,” is elucidated in the following where we see how they did this. The tense does not imply that they first lodged information and that Paul was then called to appear. Because of the context, “to inform or lodge information” has a legal sense; the information consisted of an accusation presented to a judge.

Acts 24:2

2And he having been called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, etc.

Luke does not need to go into detail and relate that the delegation sent in word of its presence, asked an audience in order to lodge their charges against Paul, and that a time was set for them to appear. Felix sat as the judge. Paul was called; nothing was done until he was present. The Romans always brought accusers and accused face to face before the judge. Paul “was called,” he was not brought in. No soldiers stood beside him, and he was not treated as a prisoner, for he was merely held to see whether any charges would be preferred against him. Besides, as a Roman he had to be treated with consideration. “Began to accuse him” means only that the thing was done with due formality.

Blass has stirred up discussion in regard to the brevity of this address which, according to him, is “so bungling that one might come to surmise that Luke intended to persiflage this rhetor as an infantissimus.” This induces Blass to adopt the longer version in spite of the weak textual evidence in its favor (v. 6, etc.). Others follow him or at least assume an abbreviation of the entire address. We decline to follow this lead. The preamble is so genuine in every word that it certainly was uttered just as it is recorded. In v. 4 Tertullus himself states to Felix that he will not be tedious but will speak “concisely.” Exactly this he does, and most wisely. The indictment ought to be put tersely.

The more to the point it is, the more effective will it prove to be. The unsubstantiated insertion only weakens it and is not an indictment. Tertullus knew his business well. Tertullus had a miserably poor case but certainly made the most of it.

Much peace obtaining through thee and reforms occurring for this nation through thy providence both every way and everywhere we accept them, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness!

This is the so-called captatio benevolentiae which is used by ancient and by modern orators in order to gain the favor of the hearer. Some authorities in homiletics have advised its employment even in sermons. It is always dangerous. Unless it is done perfectly it has the opposite effect. It then appears to beg the question by seeking to win by favor and not by the merit of the cause and betrays in advance the weakness of a cause which needs such an appeal. It is vacuous in sermons, for the hearers have come for the very purpose of gratefully receiving the pulpit message. Tertullus chooses his words with utmost care. One sentence is enough, but the flattery is spread on thick.

In order to get the full force of the choice expressions used we must catch what is implied. Thus the first terse genitive absolute, “much peace obtaining through thee,” refers to the special honor accruing to a governor when he could be called Pacator provinciae. Tertullus is suggesting that Felix deserves this high title. Here read Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 9, etc. Felix did put down some impostors but caused worse conflicts. He used the sicarii (“assassins”) who became worse than ever (see 21:38), had them murder the successor of Ananias, caused the worst friction in Caesarea, was finally accused by the Jews in Rome, and removed from office by Nero—“much peace” from such a pacator!

The same is true regarding the “reforms occurring for this nation (Tertullus was not a Jew) through thy providence both every way and everywhere.” They existed only in the insincere imagination of Tertullus. Here again προνοία must not escape attention. It is the Latin providentia and appears on many Roman coins where it is combined with the name Caesar: Providentia Caesaris. Tertullus suggests that Felix deserves to have his great “providence” immortalized in some such way. In the Scriptures this word is used with reference to man only here; in Rom. 13:14 it is used in a different sense.

Our versions construe the adverbs “both every way and everywhere” with the following verb “we accept”; but this construction is unsatisfactory. Tertullus could not say with great emphasis (because they are placed before the verb these adverbs have fullest emphasis) that the Jews “in every way and everywhere” thankfully accepted this peace and these reforms from Felix; he is lauding Felix and not the Jews. Nor do the adverbs fit this thought. Tertullus should say ἡμεῖςπάντες, “we all” accept. Reforms may “occur in every way and everywhere,” but accepting them is not so expressed. The great flattery consists in this that Felix is heaping up “in all kinds of ways and places” his wonderful reforms for these Jews who were in so bad a state until he came with his προνοία or forethought.

Acts 24:3

3It, of course, adds to the flattery to tell “His Excellency Felix” (see 23:25) that “we accept with all thankfulness,” that these manifold and widespread benefactions are appreciated. But the “we” is only inflectional, is found in the verb ending, and hence is without emphasis and does not mean, “we, the whole nation,” (Tertullus was not a Jew) but “we, this delegation,” of which Tertullus was a part as spokesman: men such as the high priest himself, such as these great ruling elders, such as Tertullus, their rhetor. Felix certainly wanted to stand well with just these men. He had married the Jewess Drusilla, the daughter of one Herod and the sister of another, for this very reason. Well, if Felix liked this sort of thing, this sort of thing was what he would like.

Acts 24:4

4Now comes the skillful transition. But in order that I may not further detain thee I entreat thee to hear us briefly in thy clemency.

It took a skillful rhetor to make this expert turn. Tertullus implies that the captatio he has just uttered, brief as it was, which he really ought to have amplified greatly, already cut into the governor’s precious time more than it ought. It was a great favor on the part of Felix to listen so long; it would be presumption to ask him to listen to further eulogy. This was actually cream and sugar.

Accusers have a right to be heard when they lodge an indictment. Although these are themselves rulers of the Jews with the high priest himself at their head, Tertullus “entreats the judge,” makes the charges as brief as possible, and in this relies on the clemency of Felix, really his well-known clemency. The word is best understood by a comparison with its opposite: a δίκαιος is one who stands on his full rights; an ἐπιεικής is one who makes fair and reasonable concessions, who is mild, clement, moderate. Was Felix surprised to hear what a paragon he was in the eyes of these Jews? Was he made wary by this excessive sweetness on the part of the Jews? Now we perhaps see why they had hired Tertullus: they themselves could never have spoken such honied turns and phrases. Give them credit for procuring this expert!

Acts 24:5

5For having found this man a pest and setting in motion disturbances for all the Jews throughout the inhabited earth, also a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also tried to profane the Temple, whom also we seized, from whom thou wilt be able, by thyself examining him, to know fully concerning all these things of which we on our part are accusing him.

The specifications of Paul’s criminality begin with γάρ. Now the participle εὑρόντες, as someone has well said in regard to pronouns that lack antecedents, “has no visible means of support.” Neither subject nor predicate follows, nor can they be supplied. B.-D. 467 charges Luke with “careless reproduction” of the address; Moulton cancels this: “Luke cruelly reports the orator verbatim” (R. 1135). This is, of course, anacoluthon, which is merely a big word for saying that the usual grammatical order is not followed. B.-D. has suggestions for removing the anacoluthon. Yet this so-called “irregularity” is really quite regular because it is intentional, a deliberate means to an end.

Luke does report verbatim and does not give merely “a summary of the charges against Paul” (R., W. P.). He does it neither carelessly nor cruelly. Tertullus, pointing contemptuously to “this man,” merely throws out his accusations against him. He is an actor and with this anacoluthon simulates his indignant agitation: “Think of it—we having found him a very pest,” etc.

“Pest” really says it all, and καί merely specifies Paul’s pestiferousness. He is causing commotions for the Jews all over the world, and this he does as the chief leader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This is the only time the Christians are called “Nazarenes,” a remark that proves that Luke’s record of the address is exact. But the Sadducees, who here appear against Paul, were themselves members and chief leaders of a Jewish sect, see 5:17, where “sect” is explained; the Pharisees were also a “sect.” See the στάσις (the very word here used in connection with Paul) between the Sadducees and the Pharisees mentioned in 23:7. Any new “sect” among Jews would naturally cause “commotions” among the members of the other sects.

Were these troubles matters for a Roman procurator? Had Lysias not reported in 23:29 that he found that Paul was accused only of wranglings about the Jewish religious law and therefore of no charge deserving death or bonds? And now this actor-orator foolishly throws in the phrase “throughout the inhabited world” (ἡοἰκουμένη, sc. γῆ, meaning the Roman Empire). Was Felix the emperor? Could he try a man for commotions that somebody heard about in distant provinces? The A. V. “seditions” and the R. V. “insurrections” are too strong and misleading. A glance at 19:40 and at 23:7, 10 shows that “commotions” or “disturbances” are referred to; and this holds true also in regard to Mark 15:7, and Luke 23:19, 25. Our versions make the reader think of political revolts.

Tertullus made a serious error when he preferred this his strongest accusation; Paul answers him most crushingly.

Acts 24:6

6Now comes the charge about profaning the Temple, but it is greatly reduced: “he tried” to do this. After an investigation even these Sadducees had evidently found out that the Asian Jews who had raised this cry and started a riot because of it (21:28) could not substantiate the charge; in v. 19 Paul demands that they should be present if they had anything against him. “He tried”—that is hard to prove. “Whom also we seized”—but did we? The mob on the Temple grounds seized Paul; how can Tertullus extend this little inflectional “we” to include that whole mob?

At this point two texts (E, and 137, and a version) insert: “And would have judged according to our law; but the chiliarch Lysias, having come upon us with great force, led him away out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come unto thee” (see A. V.). See v. 2. There is insufficient textual evidence for the genuineness of this reading; this interpolation is based on the remark of Felix about Lysias, mentioned in v. 22. It weakens the address materially with its implication that Felix had better let the Jews try Paul, and with its alteration of the antecedent of the following relative παρʼ οὗ from Paul to Lysias—the latter knew nothing prior to his own arrest of Paul.

Acts 24:8

8Tertullus closes by declaring that Felix will be able to verify all that Paul is accused of from Paul himself (παρʼ οὗ) by subjecting him to a judicial examination. In other words, the prisoner will not dare to deny the allegations of Tertullus if he is subjected to a proper judicial examination. That certainly concludes the case against him. The point must be noted that ἀυακρίνας refers to the regular judicial examination to which a prisoner might be put (Jesus was so examined, Luke 23:14), but only by the judge himself. Lawyers could not serve in such a function. The proceedings were as follows: a full statement of the charges by the accusers while facing the accused; the right to make a full defense by the accused; the depositions of any witnesses; if necessary, the judges’ questioning of the accused.

The spuriousness of the interpolation is at once apparent because it makes Lysias the one to be subjected to a judicial examination “concerning all these things of which we on our part (emphatic) are accusing him” (the verb is construed with two genitives, or ὧν is used for ἅ). Lysias knew nothing about Paul’s activity “throughout the inhabited world” and very little of what had happened in Jerusalem; and in no case would he be put under such an examination; he would freely testify without coercion. Παρʼ οὗ must apply to Paul as also the correct text shows.

Acts 24:9

9And the Jews also joined in the charge, alleging that these things were so. Literally, “they with (Tertullus) put upon (Paul) as far as they were concerned (middle voice)”; ἔχειν with an adverb = “to be,” es verhaelt sich also. It was necessary that they, the real accusers, acknowledge the indictments made in their name.

Acts 24:10

10And Paul answered, the governor having nodded to him to make his statement.

This was the regular course of procedure before a Roman tribunal. The judge could also bring out the defendant’s side of the case by questioning him; this would be the judicial examination to which Tertullus referred; Pilate did the latter in the case of Jesus; Felix refused to take Tertullus’ hint. A nod was enough; λέγειν means “to make a statement,” to present his defense and not merely “to speak.”

Paul’s defense is also brief, yet no one seems to raise objection to that. It does not begin with a captatio benevolentiae and contains no flattery. Since Paul intends to refer to Jewish doctrine and practice he fittingly states that he does so the more cheerfully because Felix is fully conversant with these matters. He presents three points in his defense: 1) during the twelve days he has caused no στάσις or commotion anywhere, v. 11–13; 2) he describes the sect to which he confesses he belongs, v. 14–16; 3) he challenges the Asian Jews or any of the Sanhedrists to show that he had done wrong. When we study this defense we admit that we do not see how we could have improved on it in any way.

It was, of course, an easy matter for Paul to answer Tertullus as he did. The one real charge of having caused a commotion was entirely false. As for being the ringleader of a sect and working in the empire generally, what the sect stood for was the all-sufficient answer. Tertullus had nothing on the basis of which he might construct a real accusation before a Roman court; Paul had everything on the basis of which he might present a genuine defense. There is a strong contrast between the two addresses made before Felix. This appears first in the honesty of the two men, secondly, in the appeal to the judge, thirdly, in the presentation of the facts.

Knowing that for many years thou art a judge for this nation, cheerfully do I make defense as to the things concerning myself, thou being able to know fully that there are not more than twelve days for me since I went up in order to worship in Jerusalem. And neither in the Temple found they me reasoning with anyone or causing a press of a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor along in the city. Nor are they able to prove to thee whereof they are now accusing me.

Felix had been procurator since 52 or 53, and it was now after Pentecost, 58 (see the elaborate discussion in Zahn, Introduction III, 469, etc.); it seems that he also held an important position under his predecessor Cumanus. Paul does not say that he knows that Felix has been “governor” for many years; he says “judge,” and this includes the entire connection Felix has had with “this nation.” These past years as judge among Jews have enlightened him as to all things Jewish and certainly also as to the character of their high priests and most of the Sanhedrists. Before a judge who is so well informed and so fully experienced, Paul says, he cheerfully presents his defense regarding the things (adverbial accusative) concerning himself. Felix will understand without a lengthy explanation. This was not flattery such as that used by Tertullus. Any innocent man would regard himself fortunate to have his case tried by a judge of experience in the matters at issue.

Acts 24:11

11Without a break Paul passes over into the defense by using a genitive absolute; this is a typical Greek way of moving on to important matters. Paul mentions the number of days he has been in Jerusalem for a double reason: Felix will understand that he came for the Jewish festival of Pentecost a couple of weeks before this (this lies in the words, “I went up in order to worship in Jerusalem,” the future participle denoting purpose, R. 111); secondly, Felix will understand that Paul came in time for the festival and not weeks before it. And all this implies that anything of a public nature which Paul may have done as recently as this will certainly be easy to discover. Paul goes on to deny that he did anything whatsoever of a public nature and challenges any man to prove that he did. The point regarding the number of days spent in Jerusalem is thus most important, and Paul mentions this point first. Some commentators lose the force of this by at once trying to determine how Paul counted the days.

“Not more than twelve days” is a litotes. Paul has in mind eleven days. But Jews and Romans did not begin and end the day in the same way. The Jews start the day at sundown, the Romans at midnight. Paul left at nine in the evening; the Jews might thus add another day, for when they count they regard also a part of a day, however brief, as a day. If this be done, Paul says, they could make the number twelve, but absolutely not more than twelve.

The day of Paul’s arrival was one day, another was spent in meeting James and the elders (21:17, 18), seven more were needed for the vow, another passed when Paul faced the Sanhedrin (22:30), the final day was the one on which the Jewish plot was reported to Lysias (23:12)—this makes eleven days. But the Jews might count a twelfth because Paul was spirited away after dark (23:23). Ἀφʼ ἦς = ἀφʼ, ἡμέραςᾗ, but is used in the sense of “since,” R. 717.

Others count differently. Some begin with the departure from Caesarea; they generally count only five days for the vow; they also add in the five days mentioned in 24:1, making them either five since the arrival at Caesarea or five since leaving Jerusalem. Thus they have too many days; hence the number is reduced at either the one end or the other. We object to the interpretation of 21:27; “when the seven days (of the vow) were about being finished.” This cannot mean on the fifth of these days but must mean on the seventh when the final sacrifices were about to be brought. The five days mentioned in 24:1 cannot be included because Paul was no longer in Jerusalem.

Acts 24:12

12And what about Paul’s activity during these days? It is plain that, when he specifies “in the Temple,” “in the synagogues,” and “throughout (κατά, down through) the city,” he is speaking only of the days spent in the city, i. e., since he arrived and before he was taken away—just as we have counted these days. Nowhere did Paul’s accusers find him “reasoning with anyone,” starting a discussion of any kind. This would not have been wrong; no law, either Jewish or Roman, forbade it. Paul went quietly about his business day after day, did not do even what he might freely have done. And thus he certainly never “caused a press of a crowd.” Ἐπίστασις = “collecting a crowd,” causing people to halt. “At no time,” Paul says, “did I gather a crowd around me.” Our versions misunderstand the word as does R., W. P., who translate “onset.” What Paul says is that he was so far removed from causing a disturbance that at no time and at no place did he even as much as gather a number of people around him to listen to him.

Acts 24:13

13Paul drives this home: “Neither are they able to prove to thee,” etc., παραστῆναι, “to place beside,” i. e., to place anything beside their bold assertions, anything to substantiate them; and περὶὧν = περὶτούτωνπερὶὧν (or just ὧν, since “accuse” may govern two genitives). If a man keeps making himself a pest by everywhere setting in motion disturbances among the Jews, these Sanhedrists certainly ought to find it the easiest thing in the world to furnish overwhelming proof that Paul had done this sort of thing in Jerusalem, within the jurisdiction of Felix, during those eleven or twelve days. Paul does not merely demand this proof, he asserts that it cannot be furnished. He meets the charge squarely. “Now” they accuse me, Paul says, now they invent charges, but at the time to which they refer I was doing nothing, and they know it.

Acts 24:14

14He advances to the second point, the matter of this terrible sect of the Nazarenes. But this I confess to thee that, according to the Way which they denominate a sect, thus do I serve the God of my fathers, believing all things, those according to the law and those that have been written in the prophets, having hope in God, which also these themselves accept, that there shall be a resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous. Herein do I also myself take pains to have a conscience void of offense toward God and men alway.

Paul is only too happy to confess his faith before Felix. He does this with reference to the distinction obtaining between Pharisees and Sadducees, the two parties who were so prominent among the Jews and in the Sanhedrin itself (23:8, 6–9), a distinction that was fully known to Felix. As according to Roman law it was no crime to belong to the Sadducees, so it certainly was no crime to be a Pharisee (23:6) in holding to the Biblical teaching which this Jewish party maintained over against the Sadducees.

Λατρεύω is the service all men ought to render to God in distinction from λειτουργέω, the official service rendered by priests; ὁδός is explained in 9:2; the adjective πατρῷος = “of one’s father or fathers.” Paul confesses that he serves the God of the Israelite fathers according to the Way (doctrine and life combined) which these Sadducaic accusers of his are pleased to call “a sect.” Paul does not call it so, nor were the Nazarenes (Christians, v. 5) a αἵρησις like the Sadducees or the Pharisees. The word means a peculiar tenet which one chooses and holds, and then those who hold such tenets (5:17). But Paul maintained faith in the entire Old Testament in its original teaching as he also makes plain here. In no sense did he hold to some peculiar tenets that differed from the Scriptures.

The same thing applies today. Those who hold to the true and original Scriptural teaching belong to the great body that has held this teaching through the ages; they are the church. Only those are a sect and their teaching a αἵρησις who advocate some teaching that is contrary to the Scriptures. They usually also sever connections with others, cause a separation, and in this sense, too, form “a sect.” This word naturally came to mean “heresy” in the sense of false doctrine.

How little “the Way” was a peculiar tenet Paul brings out in his description of it. Felix knew about this Way and about the Christians; but Paul is missing no opportunities since Felix may have heard only slanders. Tertullus had called Paul “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Very well, then Paul ought to know what these Nazarenes stand for. If Tertullus makes him an authority on the Nazarenes, Felix may be assured that Paul knows what he is talking about when he now states what he believes: “believing all things” in both parts of the Old Testament, “those according to the law and those that have been written in the prophets.” “The law and the prophets” was a current designation for the Old Testament. Paul mentions “the prophets” most prominently because his accusers were Sadducees, and the Sadducees, while they did not reject the rest of the Scriptures, held mainly to the Pentateuch and thereby made themselves a sect.

Acts 24:15

15In v. 14 Paul enunciates his formal principle: all that the Scriptures contain. Now he goes over to the material principle, the one that is so pertinent in the present case: the resurrection of the dead. He restates what he had shouted into the Sanhedrin in 23:6. Paul holds to the very hope in God which even “these themselves” (the Jews) accept, namely (apposition to “hope”), “that there shall be a resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous.” Μὲλλειν is followed by the future infinitive and is a periphrastic future. One does not “look for” a hope (R. V.), one “accepts” it.

Paul is turning the tables on his accusers. These Sadducees, of course, do not accept the resurrection, but the Jews as such most emphatically do, and the Pharisees stand in the forefront. In this respect the Pharisees and their great following wore not a sect in any sense, but the Sadducees who rejected this hope most decidedly were. Like a boomerang the invidious term “sect,” with which Tertullus wanted to discredit Paul and the Nazarenes (v. 5) before Felix, recoils upon the very men he is trying to represent: in regard to this point these Sadducees alone constitute the sect. And the worst of it was that Felix, who knew the Jews, could not but see the point.

Here Paul defines the Old Testament teaching that was held by all the Jews save the Sadducees more closely than Luke does in 23:8, or than it appears in Matt. 22:23, etc., and in John 11:24. A resurrection awaits “both the righteous and the unrighteous,” both terms being forensic, those who are declared thus by the eternal Judge. This is, indeed, the teaching of both Testaments, Dan. 12:2; John 5:28, 29. It underlies all the passages that speak of the judgment, such as Matt. 25:31, etc.; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12; John 12:48; and others. The old Jewish sect which denied that the Old Testament taught the resurrection has many adherents today who generally also assail this teaching as it is found in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. 15:1–20 Paul shows how the resurrection is the very foundation of the gospel; those who deny it have no hope, no gospel, no Christ.

Acts 24:16

16From the formal and the material principles Paul proceeds to the ethical principle. Because he holds the two former (ἐντούτῳ) he takes pains to have a conscience void of offense toward God and men alway. Ἀσκῶ means “to practice,” to exercise oneself, thus to take pains; ἀπρόσκοπος is passive in force, for one cannot cause God to stumble (this is the active sense) but one can himself stumble by in some way striking against God as well as against men. The word does not contain both ideas. Here Paul repeats what he said in 23:1. Men who like these vicious, lying Sadducees think that their souls die with their bodies (23:8) are capable of any crime in life; Paul, who knows that the unrighteous as well as the righteous shall rise to face God at the last day, would certainly want to keep his conscience “uninjured” (C.-K. 619, unverletzt) in every way. He takes pains to do so even now when making his defense.

Paul speaks with reference to himself only. Let his accusers and his judge Felix think about themselves.

Acts 24:17

17Coming to the third part of his defense, Paul challenges his accusers who failed to bring witnesses and who themselves have testified and can testify to nothing.

Now after an interval of several years I came in order to do alms in my nation and offerings in connection with which they found me as having been sanctified in the Temple, not with a crowd, nor with tumult—however, certain Jews from Asia who ought to be present before thee and be accusing if they should have anything against me. Or let these themselves state what wrong they found when I stood before the Sanhedrin other than this one exclamation which I shouted standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead I, I am being called in question today before you!

This is the only place in Acts where Luke mentions the great collection (see 20:4, etc.), and now he does so only in Paul’s address. This had, indeed, brought him to Jerusalem. Διʼ ἐτῶνπλειόνων == “at an interval of more (several) years”; Paul had been in Jerusalem in 54 (18:22, see this passage), it was now 58. “In my nation” has static εἰς; Paul had come “to do alms,” i. e., to dispense them. These were “offerings”; we may translate, “to do alms, namely (καί) offerings.” They were not ordinary alms but gifts that the churches had made to God for their needy Jewish brethren. Because ἐναἷς follows, some are inclined to think that “offerings” refers to Temple sacrifices, either those made by Paul for the four brethren who had made a vow (21:26), or some that he brought of his own accord. But the latter are included in προσκυνήσων mentioned in v. 11.

Acts 24:18

18Our versions misunderstand ἐναἷς, “whereupon” (A. V.), “amidst which” (R. V.), “in presenting which” (margin). The R. V. plainly thinks of “offerings” that were brought as sacrifices in the Temple. Ἐν is to be taken in its original sense as it is in so many phrases: “in connection with which,” i. e., the alms-offerings. Paul is referring to 21:20, etc.

Having come to bring alms-offerings, he was advised to help four brethren with their vow; so it was “in connection with these alms” that he happened to be in the Temple, and in helping these brethren he was naturally there “as having been sanctified,” which is explained in 21:24, 26. That, Paul tells the governor, is how “they found me in the Temple” as one sanctified in connection with a great alms-offering. It was not necessary to add all the details about helping the four brethren with their vow. But “as one having been sanctified” for ritual purposes of some kind Paul would be present in the Temple “not with a crowd nor with tumult” but as quietly attending to what his ritual sanctification made incumbent upon him. Felix knew enough about these rituals to understand that fully.

Acts 24:19

19“They found me,” Paul says, for the moment omitting the subject. Now he adds it: not these Sanhedrists so found him as Tertullus made it appear in v. 5, 6 by falsifying the fact, “but certain Jews from Asia.” We should not disconnect this subject from the verb “they found” and say with R., W. P., that “some Jews from Asia” is without a verb in the Greek and then proceed to supply one or perhaps think of an anacoluthon. Paul says: “They found me—but some Jews from Asia,” not the Sanhedrists, not anybody who saw me in a tumult. This is dramatic speech, hence the subject is placed last with a parenthetical δέ.

In the Greek the relative is often emphatic as it is here in the case of οὕς: “they are the ones who,” etc. Most assuredly, they ought to be present before the governor and be accusing if, indeed, they should have anything against Paul. Why, then, are they not present? It is their absence that shows what is wrong with these charges of the Sanhedrists. We decline to regard this statement as a mixed conditional sentence as R. 1022 does by making εἰ with the optative a protasis of potentiality and the imperfect ἕδει an apodosis of present unreality. Then in 886 R. makes the imperfect ἕδει the imperfect in an obligation that has not been met.

The imperfect could not be both the apodosis of a conditional sentence and also the imperfect of an unfulfilled obligation. Here ἕδει is only the latter. We at once see this when we note that Paul might have stopped with the relative clause: “who ought to be present before thee” (ἐπί as in 23:30, and again in 24:20, 21). The conditional εἰ clause is merely appended: “if they should (might) have anything against me.” This is mere potentiality, for what could they honestly have against Paul?

Acts 24:20

20But Paul covers every possibility. “Or let these themselves state what wrong they found when I stood before the Sanhedrin,” genitive absolute, aorist participle to express the fact of so standing. Note well, in regard to this incident and in regard to this alone could the high priest and his elders testify as eyewitnesses. Then and then alone when the chiliarch had brought him down to face the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:1) had they seen him; for anything that occurred prior to this they would have to produce the proper eyewitnesses. Paul challenges his accusers to state (aorist, make a single deposition) any ἀδίκημα, “wrong sufficient for a judicial charge,” on his part that they had witnessed.

The apostle knew his business, and Felix saw that he did. Where were those Asian Jews, the only witnesses who might substantiate the charge that Paul had defiled the Temple by bringing Gentiles into it (v. 6; 21:28)? Their absence spoke for itself. The Sanhedrists would have had them on hand if they had witnessed what they claimed to have seen. The Sanhedrists had witnessed only what Paul did in their meeting in the presence of Lysias. What could they testify?

Acts 24:21

21What “other than this one exclamation,” etc., ἥ after the interrogative τί (τίἄλλο): “what other than.” The grammars discuss the absence of the article with ταύτης; B.-D. makes this demonstrative predicative and thus removes the difficulty; R. 702 supports the absence of the article by evidence from the inscriptions. Some texts have ἐκέκραξα, a reduplicated aorist, R. 363. Paul says that the only thing to which these Sanhedrists could take objection was his shout in their meeting when he stood among them and because of their wild commotion had to shout in order to make them hear (23:6, ἔκραζε, the same verb): “Concerning the resurrection of the dead (no articles: Totenauferstehung) I, I am being called in question today before you!” Unless the emphasis on ἐγώ is noted, the point of Paul’s shout is lost. How could he be even so much as called in question regarding the resurrection when the Sanhedrin itself was full of Pharisees who themselves believed that doctrine? Paul says: “Do these Sanhedrist Sadducees now want to make an ἀδίκημα or crime of that? Well, that is all they have—some crime that would be!”

We do not see how anyone can find an admission of wrong in this statement as though Paul’s sensitive conscience made him confess what others would consider venial. He was doing the very opposite. This statement of his regarding the resurrection was all that his accusers had, the last thing in the world which a procurator of the Jews would call a crime unless he wanted to make criminals of nearly all Jews. Without knowing it, Paul was substantiating the statement of the chiliarch’s letter that the trouble was “concerning contentions about their (religious) law” (23:29). Paul is delivering the climax of his defense, his strongest point.

But what about his insult to the high priest (23:3)? Why does he say nothing about that? Because the high priest had ordered him to be struck on the mouth, and because this was a crime against a Roman according to Roman law. Ananias had Paul to thank for not bringing that matter to the attention of the Roman judge.

Acts 24:22

22But Felix, knowing rather accurately the things concerning the Way, put them off, stating, When Lysias, the chiliarch, shall come down, I will decide the things concerning you, directing the centurion that he be kept in ward and have indulgence and to hinder none of his own from waiting on him.

Here the character of Felix begins to reveal itself. The second perfect participle εἰδώς (always used as a present) is concessive: Felix held Paul “although knowing” the things concerning the Way “rather accurately.” The comparative is to be understood in this sense. He was better informed about the entire Christian movement than another man in his place might have been (ὁδός as in v. 14). He sinned against better knowledge when he still detained Paul. That, of course, was a small matter for a man who had done things that were far worse. He, of course, had a plea for putting the case off, but one could not have guessed that plea in advance.

He must wait until Lysias could come down to Caesarea. Yet he had all the information that Lysias could present; Lysias, too, as far as we know, never came down, was never asked to do so. The middle aorist ἀνεβάλετο is forensic: “he adjourned them”; and διαγνώσομαι is used as it was in 23:15: “I will decide”; καθʼ ὑμᾶς is equal to a genitive but is stronger, the phrase is made a substantive by the article: “your matters.” The aorist εἰπών, like the following διαταξάμενος, denotes a single action: he adjourned them “by stating—by directing,” etc.

Acts 24:23

23Paul was to be detained in light military custody. He could not leave the palace; a centurion had charge of him. Yet he had ἄνεσις, easement, release from the rigors of close imprisonment. In particular (καί) none of his own, relatives or friends, was to be prevented from waiting on him. This verb is significant: any of Paul’s friends could act as ὑπηρέται, “underlings,” for Paul, i. e., could wait on him as personal servants, do for him what Paul might direct. This sounds fair and gracious, but look at v. 26.

That word about the alms-offerings (v. 17) seems to have been caught by Felix; his knowledge of the Way may also have included rather accurate knowledge in regard to Paul’s being the great apostle for whose release from custody the Christian Jews or Gentiles might be willing to pay a goodly sum. He was certainly putting no obstacle in their way.

Philip, the evangelist, lived in Caesarea (21:8), and he surely visited Paul often. The eight who had come to Jerusalem with Paul (20:4), also Paul’s nephew (23:16) and other relatives very likely came to visit him. Whether Luke and Aristarchus, who accompanied Paul when he was finally sent to Rome (27:2), remained with him during his entire imprisonment in Caesarea, no one can say. That Paul was chained is unlikely although it is assumed by Zahn; he was a Roman, and Felix was careful. Paul could have all the visitors he desired. These might bring him books, food, etc. He could take exercise in the palace grounds, bathe when he desired, etc. Yet two lonely years lay ahead of him here in Caesarea.

Acts 24:24

24Many things occurred during the two years of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea, but Luke reports only one episode and the attitude of the governor. Now after some days, Felix, having come with Drusilla, his wife, she being a Jewess, summoned Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.

Felix had apparently been absent during the interval of perhaps a few weeks and had now returned. He brought his wife with him, who had not been in Caesarea since Paul’s arrival. On the three successive wives of Felix see 23:24. Drusilla was one of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa I (Drusilla, Mariamne, Bernice). Their brother Herod Aprippa II and Bernice are mentioned in 25:13. According to the most probable chronology Drusilla was born in 37; was married to Aziz, King of Emesa, in 52, after he had become a Jew; was induced to leave him through the machinations of Simon, a Cyprian magus, and to marry Felix in 54 or 55. They had a son who, at the age of 20–22, perished with his mother in an eruption of Vesuvius in 79.

It has been remarked that her father killed James, her great-uncle Herod Antipas slew the Baptist, her great-grandfather Herod the Great murdered the babes of Bethlehem in addition to his many other murders. She is said to have been a beautiful woman; although she deserted her first husband, she was otherwise an ardent Jewess. It was at her request, we assume, that Felix summoned Paul in order to have him tell about “the faith in Christ Jesus.” Here πίστις is undoubtedly to be taken in the objective sense. In this place Luke writes “Christ Jesus,” placing the Messianic title before the personal name “on Jesus Christ,” (see 2:38). This expression, of course, did not come from the lips of Felix.

Paul was summoned only for the purpose of an audience with the governor and his wife. Codex B has ἰδίᾳ, “with his own wife.” The article alone is sufficient although two texts have αὑτοῦ. On the basis of textual evidence ἰδίᾳ should be eliminated; the surmise of R. 692, that the word hints at Drusilla’s character as it was “at present,” leaves the textual question unanswered and puts an implication into the word which it does not convey. We have no reason to deny the presence of attendants although Paul may have been accompanied only by a centurion. While curiosity may have prompted Drusilla’s request, her religious interest would also move her to wish to see and to hear this man whom so many Jews, including the prominent Sanhedrists, were determined to put to death. Perhaps this casts some light on the fact that Paul was constantly given great consideration.

Ramsay thinks that he must have commanded ample financial means to make him a man of standing. True, prisoners who are poor often receive short shrift, but think of Gandhi in the disturbances in India. The treatment Paul received was due to the man himself, his personality, his work and his fame, and the impression he made on friend and on foe alike, and most likely not to his command of funds.

Acts 24:25

25And as he was reasoning about righteousness and self-control and of the judgment about to come, Felix, having become frightened, answered, For the present be going! And when I get occasion I will call thee unto me—at the same time also hoping that money should be given to him by Paul; wherefore also, summoning him rather often, he kept conversing with him.

Asked to expound the Christian faith, Paul does that very thing and does it most gladly. This occasion is different from any other at which Paul had to speak since his arrest. Here he was at least not defending himself in any way, he was merely satisfying the desire of these high personages. There sat Felix, for the once not as a judge but as a hearer only, with his wife beside him. It was Paul’s life calling to preach the gospel, and here he was even asked to preach it. Strange providence, indeed!

These two high personages would never of their own accord have gone to a Christian meeting to hear the gospel even when a man like Paul would be the preacher; but here God sends them a preacher, one of the best the world has heard. He turns their own audience chamber into a church. He brings about a situation in which these two sinners give full and close attention to the gospel sermon. Behold, the great hour of grace has struck in the lives of these two! The door of the kingdom was thrown open to them, salvation was reaching out to draw them into its embrace. If they had only known, at least in this their day, the things, that belonged to their peace!

Luke 19:42; Heb. 3:7, 8, 15.

The assumption that Paul began his address with a summons to repentance and expected to follow this with a mention of Christ and remission but got no farther than the first part, is unacceptable. The idea that the gospel must always be preached in this order, and that remission cannot be presented until contrition is effected, is contradicted by John 4:7, etc., where Jesus himself preached the gospel first and then followed with the law (v. 16, etc.) and thus converted the Samaritan woman. Either may be preached first. In this instance Luke says in so many words: “And heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.” Luke could not have written this if Paul had spoken first regarding the law (“righteousness, self-control, judgment to come”) and had then been put off. He presented, first of all, “Christ Jesus,” the whole gospel, and after Felix “heard” that, Paul preached the law. It goes without saying that Paul never for a moment thought of merely telling the story of Jesus but aimed at the conversion of his hearers; he preached “the faith,” the “Christ,” and then the law to bring about contrition.

Luke presents the conclusion of this sermon because of its effect. “Righteousness” is here combined with “self-control and judgment to come” and thus signifies the moral quality when one does what receives the approval of the divine Judge. The term is always forensic; God judges and declares righteous either man’s conduct (as here) or his entire status (righteousness in Christ Jesus), C.-K. 315, etc.

The law demands righteousness—could Felix and his wife face God in regard to that demand? Ἐγκρατεία == “self-control,” the life that is governed by κράτος, holding all the passions and desires in check; “temperance” is inadequate. This is usually referred to the unlawful marriage of Felix and Drusilla but it extends much farther. Could these two face God with reference to that part of the law? Finally, Paul points to “the judgment about to come,” impending (μέλλων) for every man at death and at the last day (2 Cor. 5:10, and other passages). Κρίμα is neutral, it may acquit or condemn. Could Paul’s hearers face this inescapable judgment? It is this “judgment” that puts teeth into the law of God.

The sinner always ignores, hides this coming judgment from his soul; only in this way can he sleep at night, only in this way can he go on in his sins. To have this judgment clearly and effectively presented to him is to strike the one vulnerable place in his soul and conscience.

From Paul we may learn how to preach so as to convert. Only one blow ever goes home through the sinner’s armor, and that is the blow of the law with the judgment to come delivered at the conscience with full force. Omit this, and conversion will not result. See how Jesus struck home in John 4:16–18; Peter likewise in Acts 2:36, 37. In this drive at the conscience the sinner must be brought to accuse and to condemn himself just as God will condemn him. The preacher often makes the mistake of doing this accusing and thereby arouses in the people he accuses a false antagonism against himself.

Instead of confronting them with God he confronts them with himself and thus ruins his own work. Paul confronted Felix and Drusilla with righteousness, self-control, and the judgment of God and did not inject himself into the picture. He did not preach about unrighteousness and lack of self-control but about the positive side of the law. In all this he was wise. He did not charge these sinners with sins. Sometimes it is in place to say: “Thou art the man!” more often it is in place to let the sinner say this to himself.

Paul was the prisoner of Felix, yet he reached this man’s conscience without arousing his anger against himself for being presumptuous and rash.

Felix became ἔμφοβος, he got into a condition of fear. Conscience makes cowards of us all. Paul had done his work perfectly. That fear (“trembled,” A. V., is incorrect) was produced by confronting Felix with God, his law and his judgment, in a way which gave the man no opportunity to turn upon Paul in rage. The terrores conscientiae were beginning to take hold of Felix.

Some use the expression that he was “under conviction,” and the law intends to convict. The law strikes with great power like a hammer; it pierces the sinner’s armor like a sword that reaches the vitals. These effects are the motus inevitabiles. When a man is struck in an unprotected spot he inevitably winces even when he does not yield. Luke’s account deals only with Felix, hence he says nothing about Drusilla beyond the fact that she was present. We are not at all ready to join in the assumption that she was not “under conviction” and still less ready to say that “like another Herodias her resentment was to be feared.” Even the daughter of a Herod had a conscience.

Felix then makes the fatal turn. He hushes the preacher’s voice; he thrusts him and his Word away; he deliberately separates himself from the divine power that is taking hold of him in order to save him. Compare C. Tr 835, 12 (point 11); 1077, 40. Call this act and the condition to which it led “wilful resistance” or use some other term, in Felix we have a plain example of breaking the hold of the Word on the heart, cutting the heart off from the power of the Word, the sinner himself by his own guilt preventing his conversion. In this case the thing was done politely: “For the present be going!

And when I get (aorist participle) occasion (καιρόν, a convenient season, our versions) I will call thee unto me (middle voice).” In τὸνῦνἔχον we have the accusative of time; ἔχω with an adverb = to be, hence the neuter participle: “as the thing now is.” The present imperative πορεύου is mild, it is like our, “please, be going,” and not at all like the aorist, “Go!” or, “Get out!” But this politeness must not deceive us. In his heart Felix had resolved never to give Paul another opportunity to speak to his conscience in this manner. He saw to it that no convenient season came. By his own determination he cut himself off permanently from the Word. That was fatal. Felix deliberately destroyed himself.

Acts 24:26

26The force of the present participle should be noted and the fact that it modifies ἀπεκρίθη. The desire for a bribe was already in the mind of Felix when he became afraid and gave his answer to Paul. There are two thoughts in this participial statement, “at the same time also hoping” for a bribe. His fear was mingled with this greedy hope. Secondly, he now saw more clearly than ever that Paul had committed nothing for which he deserved to be held. While the divine law and its threat of retribution upset Felix for the moment, it failed to check his greed for criminal gain. Although he was frightened he clung to his sin.

Roman law decreed exile and confiscation for a magistrate who accepted bribes, but in the provinces its enforcement was difficult. The way in which Luke states the matter makes us think that Felix had enriched himself with bribes before this. The statement Paul made in v. 17 had very likely helped to raise the cupidity of Felix. A man with a following and a standing like Paul’s would have friends who would be ready to pay a good price for his release. And Felix would have willingly released him for such a price. He could easily answer the Jews that he had found no crime in Paul even as they had failed to establish one. At another trial he could have rendered this verdict and have given himself the airs of being a just judge.

These conversations for which he repeatedly summoned Paul had this one purpose in view and no other. Διό makes this certain; “rather often” does the same. “He kept conversing with him” means that he gave Paul every opportunity to arrange for a bribe; in familiar private conversation this could easily be done, and διό implies that Felix touched on the matter. Yet some have held that Felix gave the apostle opportunity to speak more fully about the faith; but the purpose back of this exegesis seems to be to eliminate the idea that Felix had definitely cut himself off from the Word. This view does not agree with Luke’s words. Nor does it gain what is desired; for even if Felix let Paul speak about the faith, he did so only in order to obtain a bribe for Paul’s release. This was his answer to what Paul had said about “righteousness,” etc. Felix deliberately followed open unrighteousness, and no word about “the judgment to come” could deter him. Luke, however, knows about only one topic of conversation, that directed toward a bribe.

Acts 24:27

27Now two years having been fulfilled, Felix received as a successor Porcius Festus, and wanting to establish favor for the Jews, Felix left Paul behind bound.

Lysias never came down (v. 22), the trial never advanced. Paul was able to do nothing but to cultivate the great virtue of patience. Since no further trial was held, Paul could not appeal to Caesar as he did when Festus assumed office. Nero had become emperor on October 13, 54. He finally recalled Felix, but even Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 9, assigns no special reason for this act; it was certainly not the disturbance mentioned in 20:7, 8. After the recall Felix was accused by the Jews in regard to the affair mentioned in 20:7, 8 but escaped punishment through the influence of his brother Pallas.

Josephus has little to say about Festus; the gens of the Porcii to which he belonged had obtained senatorial rank centuries before this time. He became procurator in 60, put down the sicarii (21:38) and other brigands, died in 62, and was succeeded by the evil Albinus.

Felix left Paul bound and thereby desired to deposit a favor for the Jews, i. e., to leave a favor for them (χάριτα, an Ionic and poetical accusative instead of χάριν, R. 265). He evidently desired to placate the Jews, yet after his recall they accused him before Nero. Felix failed in his purpose. One lone variant reads that Paul was left in ward “because of Drusilla.” Disappointed in getting no bribe from Paul and hoping to get some consideration from the Jews, he left Paul “bound.”

Does this perfect participle with its present connotation, “having been and thus still remaining bound,” imply that Paul was kept in chains, one or two chains fettering him to a soldier? In 22:30 this verb does refer back to 22:25 and to the chains there mentioned. But the chiliarch was frightened because he had “bound” Paul with chains. He certainly came into the hands of Felix as a Roman without chains and was left without chains during the two years he remained in the custody of Felix. Would Felix then, on leaving, order that he be chained and so turn him over to Festus? For what reason? Would Felix risk such an act when the prisoner was going into a new governor’s custody? We think not. “Bound” means “a prisoner” and no more. Regarding 26:29, 31, and finally 28:20 see these passages.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta, Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House.