Acts 24

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 24 PAUL AT Act_24:1 to Acts 26:32 PAUL’ S BEFORE FELIXAct_24:1-9 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.

PAUL’ S DEFENSE BEFORE FELIXAct_24:10-27 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 expres¬sion, “ 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 Chris¬tianity “ 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 Christian¬ity ; 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 un¬just.” 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 preach¬ing 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 ad¬ministration was caused by the complaints which the Jews brought against Felix, and which led Nero to recall him. This was about A.D. 60.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 24Acts 24:1. When the Jews were commanded by Lysias to present their accusation before Felix, though disappointed in their first plot, they still hoped to accomplish his destruction, and made no delay in following up the prosecution. (1) “Now, after five days, Ananias the high priest, with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus, came down, and informed the governor against Paul.” It is most natural to count these five days from the time that Paul left Jerusalem, as that was the date at which the Jews were informed by Lysias of the transfer of the case. Acts 24:2-9. The orator, Tertullus, was employed to plead the case before Felix, and the high priest and elders appeared as witnesses. (2) “And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: (3) Seeing that by you we have attained to great tranquility, and a prosperous administration is effected for this nation by your foresight, in every respect and in every place, we accept it, most excellent, Felix, with all thankfulness. (4) But that I may not delay you too long, I entreat you to hear us, in your clemency, a few words. (5) For we have found this man a pest, exciting sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. (6) He also attempted to profane the temple; when we seized him, and wished to judge him according to our own law. (7) But Lysias the chiliarch came, and with great violence snatched him out of our hands, (8) and commanded his accusers to come before you. From him you yourself may be able, by examination, to obtain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. (9) And the Jews assented, saying that these things were so.” The complimentary words with which this speech is introduced were not undeserved by Felix; for he had restored tranquility to the country, when it was disturbed, first by hordes of robbers; afterward by organized bands of Assassins, and more recently, by that Egyptian for whom Lysias at first mistook Paul. In suppressing all these disturbances, his administration had been prosperous. The accusation against Paul, sustained by the testimony of the Jews, contained three specifications. It charged him, first, with exciting the Jews to sedition; second, with being the ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes; third, with profaning the temple. Tertullus also took occasion to vent his indignation against Lysias, for interfering by violence, as he falsely alleged against him, with the judicial proceedings of the Sanhedrim. Finally, he asserts that Felix would be able, if he would examine Lysias, to gain from his lips a knowledge of all of which they were now informing him. Acts 24:10-21. (10) “Then Paul answered (the governor nodding to him to speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, I do the more cheerfully defend myself: (11) for you are able to know that there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. (12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) having hope toward God, which they themselves also entertain, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these themselves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question by you this day.” This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have been only six days, which would have afforded no sufficient time for stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the synagogues, or in any party of the city. As to being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the offerings of the temple.

In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, that those who first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, in the resurrection of the dead. The last point was made, and presented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors. Acts 24:22. His defense, though he had no witnesses present to prove his statements, had the desired effect upon Felix. (22) “And when Felix heard these things, knowing more accurately concerning that way, he put them off, and said, When Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will thoroughly examine the matters between you.” In this decision he took Tertullus at his word; for he had already said that he could learn all about the affair by examining Lysias. But the decision is attributed to his “ knowing more accurately concerning that way,” showing that he had come to the same conclusion with Lysias, that Paul was accused merely about questions of the Jewish law, and not of crime against Roman law. Acts 24:23. When the Jews were dismissed, if Felix had possessed a strict regard for justice, he would have released Paul. As it was, he only relaxed the rigor of his previous confinement. (23) “And he commanded the centurion that Paul should be guarded, but have relaxation, and to forbid none of his friends to minister to him or visit him.” His confinement was now the least rigorous which was considered compatible with safe-keeping. He was under what was called the military custody, being placed in charge of a soldier, whose left arm was chained to Paul’s right, and who was responsible with his own life for the safety of his prisoner. The guards were relieved at regular intervals, and the “ relaxation” allowed Paul was, probably, an occasional release from the chain. Acts 24:24. (24)“Now, after some days, Felix came, with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.” Drusilla, according to Josephus, was a daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose persecutions of the apostles, and miserable death, we have considered in commenting on the twelfth chapter. She was a woman of remarkable beauty, the lawful wife of Azizus, king of Emesa, but was now living in adulterous intercourse with Felix. Concerning Felix, Tacitus testifies, that “ with every kind of cruelty and lust, he exercised the authority of a king with the temper of a slave.” Acts 24:25. Under the summons to speak concerning the faith in Christ, Paul was at liberty to choose the special topic of discourse, and did so with direct reference to the character of his hearers. (25) “And as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance, and judgment to come, Felix, being full of fear, answered, Go your way for this time, and when I have a convenient season, I will call for you.” The common version, “ Felix trembled,” may be true, but it is claiming more for the effect of Paul’s discourse than is asserted by Luke. He was “ filled with fear,” which shows that Paul addressed him on these appropriate topics, not in a spirit of bravado, but in that earnest and solemn strain which alone can penetrate the heart. This feeling was the beginning necessary to a change of life; but lust and ambition smothered the kindling fires of conscience, and the common excuse of alarmed but impenitent sinners was urged to get rid of the too faithful monitor. It is a sad warning to all who thus procrastinate, that to neither Felix nor Drusilla did the season ever come which they thought convenient to listen to such preaching. Felix was soon dismissed in disgrace from his office; and Drusilla, with a son by Felix, perished in that eruption of Mount Vesuvius which ingulfed the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Acts 24:26-27. True to the character which Tacitus attributes to Felix, Luke adds that (26) “Hoping also that money would be given to him by Paul, so that he would release him, he therefore sent for him the oftener, and conversed with him. (27) But after two years Felix received Portius Festus as a successor; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul bound.” Having learned, from Paul’s own lips, that he had been up to Jerusalem to bear alms from distant Churches to the poor, and knowing something, perhaps of the general liberality of the disciples toward one another, he could have no doubt, judging them according to the usage of the age, that they would be willing to purchase Paul’s freedom at a high price. That it was not done, shows that the disciples had too elevated a standard of morality to buy from a corrupt judge release from even unjust and protracted imprisonment. These two years, if we judge from the silence of history, were the most inactive of Paul’s career. There are no epistles which bear this date; and though his friends and brethren had free access to him, we have no recorded effects of their interviews with him. The only moments in which he emerges into our view, from the obscurity of his prison, are those in which he appeared before his judges. We shall, on this account, contemplate his conduct on these occasions with the deeper interest.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Twenty-Four IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To review the accusation of the Jews presented by Tertullus

2. To consider Paul’s defense before Felix

3. To observe Felix’s delay in rendering judgment of Paul

SUMMARY The chief priest, elders and Tertullus, an orator, came from Jerusalem to Caesarea to make accusations and to provide evidence against Paul. Tertullus was an eloquent spokesman. He began by giving Felix great praise. He said, “We enjoy great peace. Prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight. We accept it…with all thankfulness.” Next, he levied the charges against Paul. They found Paul to be a “plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world.” They found him to be a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” and he “tried to profane the temple.” Tertullus reviewed the events at the temple. The Jews had seized Paul. They wanted to judge him according to their law; however, the Roman commander, Lysias, took Paul “with great violence” from them. Lysias took Paul to Felix and commanded the Jews to bring their accusations against Paul before him. The attending Jews agreed with Tertullus. (Acts 24:1-9)

Paul was then given opportunity to provide his defense before Felix. Paul indicated that he was happy to speak for himself. He recognized Felix to have been a judge of the nation for many years. Paul reviewed the events as his defense to the Jewish accusations. He had gone up to Jerusalem to worship about twelve days prior. The Jews did not find Paul disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogue or in the city. Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations. He confessed that he worshipped God “according to the Way”

• which they call a “sect.” He believed all the things written in the Law and Prophets. Paul stated that he had “hope in God,” just as they do, “that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” As a result, he strove to have a “conscience without offense toward God and men.” Paul had returned to Jerusalem after many years to bring alms and offerings to his nation. This was the time when some Jews from Asia (who had not come before Felix), found Paul “purified in the temple,” and “neither with a mob nor with tumult.” If they had an accusation against Paul, they should have come before Felix at this time. Paul asked those Jews present if they had found any wrongdoing in him, when he stood before the Sanhedrin council. The only statement that Paul thought they may have objected to was what he had cried out among them, “Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.” (Acts 24:10-21)

Given that Felix had a “more accurate knowledge of the Way,” he adjourned the proceedings. He stated that he would make a decision on the case when Lysias the commander came to Caesarea. Paul was held by the centurion, but was given liberties - his friends were allowed to visit him and provide for him. Later, Felix and his wife, Drusilla, called for Paul. Drusilla was Jewish. They heard Paul “concerning faith in Christ.” Paul reasoned before them about “righteous, self-control, and the judgment to come.” This caused Felix to become afraid. He sent Paul away; he indicated he would call for him at a more “convenient time.” Felix hoped for a bribe from Paul to release him. Felix sent for him often. After two years, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as governor. Felix wanted to do the Jews a favor, so he “left Paul bound.” (Acts 24:22-27)

OUTLINE I. THE ARRIVED AND WERE MADE (Acts 24:1-9) A. THE CHIEF PRIEST, ELDERS AND ARRIVED IN (Acts 24:1)1. They came to provide evidence against Paul 2. Tertullus was brought as an orator 3. He was an eloquent spokesman

B. THE (Acts 24:2-9)1. Tertullus began by giving great praise to Felix a. “We enjoy great peace” b. “Prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight” c. “We accept it…with all thankfulness” 2. The charges were then levied against Paul a. They found Paul to be a “plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world” b. They found him to be a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” c. He “tried to profane the temple” 3. Tertullus stated that the Roman commander, Lysias, took Paul with “great violence” from them a. The Jews had seized Paul b. They wanted to judge him according to their law c. The commander had taken Paul and had commanded them to appear before Felix to make their accusations 4. The attending Jews agreed with Tertullus’ accusations

II. PAUL GAVE HIS DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX (Acts 24:10-21) A. FELIX FOR PAUL TO SPEAK (Acts 24:10)1. Paul stated that he would defend himself 2. He recognized Felix to have been a judge of the nation for many years

B. PAUL THE EVENTS AS HIS DEFENSE (Acts 24:11-21)1. Paul had gone up to Jerusalem to worship about twelve days prior 2. They did not find Paul disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogue or in the city 3. Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations 4. He confessed that he worshipped God “according to the Way” - which they call a “sect” 5. He believed all the things written in the Law and Prophets 6. Paul stated that he had “hope in God,” just as they do, “that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” a. As a result, he strove to have a “conscience without offense toward God and men” 7. Paul had returned to Jerusalem after many years to bring alms and offerings to his nation a. This was the time when some Jews from Asia (who had not come before Felix), found Paul “purified in the temple,” and “neither with a mob nor with tumult” b. If they had an accusation against Paul, they should have come before Felix at this time 8. Paul asked those Jews present if there had been found any wrongdoing in him while before the Sanhedrin council a. The only statement that Paul thought they may have objected to was what he had cried out among them, “Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.”

III. FELIX DELAYED OF PAUL (Acts 24:22-27) A. FELIX THE AND HELD PAUL (Acts 24:22-23)1. Given that Felix had a “more accurate knowledge of the Way,” he adjourned the proceedings 2. He stated that he would make a decision on the case when Lysias the commander came to Caesarea 3. Paul was held by the centurion a. Paul was given liberties b. His friends were allowed to visit him and provide for him

B. FELIX HEARD PAUL MORE TIMES (Acts 24:24-26)1. Felix and his wife, Drusilla, called for Paul a. Drusilla was Jewish b. They heard Paul “concerning faith in Christ” 2. Paul reasoned before them about “righteous, self-control, and the judgment to come” a. Felix was afraid b. He sent Paul away; he indicated he would call for him at a more “convenient time” 3. Felix hoped for a bribe from Paul to release him a. Felix sent for him often

C. FESTUS FELIX (Acts 24:27)1. After two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as governor 2. Felix wanted to do the Jews a favor, so he “left Paul bound”

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main events in this chapter?- The accusers arrived and the accusations were made (Acts 24:1-9)

• Paul gave his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10-21)
• Felix delayed the judgment of Paul (Acts 24:22-27)

2. How long was Paul held waiting for his accusers? (Acts 24:1)- Five days (Acts 24:1)

3. Who was Tertullus and what role did he play? (Acts 24:1-2)- Tertullus had travelled with the high priest and elders (Acts 24:1)

• He was an orator; he presented the accusations before Felix (Acts 24:1-2)

4. How was Paul described in the charges by Tertullus? (Acts 24:4-6)- A plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews worldwide, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5)

• He tried to profane the temple (Acts 24:6)

5. How did the Jews want to handle this, according to Tertullus? (Acts 24:6)- They wanted to judge him according to their law (Acts 24:6)

6. Why were the Jews not able to carry out their plan? (Acts 24:7)- Commander Lysias came by and took Paul with great violence (Acts 24:7)

7. What did Lysias command them to do? (Acts 24:8)- He commanded Paul’s accusers to come before Felix (8)

8. How did the Jews react to Tertullus presentation? (Acts 24:9)- They assented, and maintained that those things were so (Acts 24:9)

9. How many days prior had Paul’s situation occurred in Jerusalem? (Acts 24:11)- Twelve days earlier (Acts 24:11)

10. How did Paul answer their accusations? (Acts 24:12-13)- He had not been found in the temple disputing with anyone, nor was he found inciting the crowd (Acts 24:12)

• Nor had they found him doing these things in synagogues or in the city (Acts 24:12)
• Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations (Acts 24:13)

11. According to what did Paul say he worshipped God? What did the Jews call this? (Acts 24:14)- According to the Way (Acts 24:14)

• The Jews called it a sect; Tertullus specifically called it the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:14 Acts 5)

12. What did Paul say he had a hope in God to happen? (Acts 24:15)- That there would be a resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:15)

13. Who did Paul say would be resurrected? (Acts 24:15)- The dead - both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15)

14. Because of the resurrection, what did Paul always strive to do? (Acts 24:16)- To have a conscience without offense toward God and men (Acts 24:16)

15. How did the Jews from Asia find Paul in the temple? (17-18)- They found Paul purified in the temple (Acts 24:18)

• He was neither with a mob nor with a tumult (Acts 24:18)

16. Where did Paul say those Jews from Asia ought to have been if they had anything against him? (Acts 24:19)- They ought to have been there before Felix (Acts 24:19)

17. What statement did Paul cry out while before the Sanhedrin council in Jerusalem? (Acts 24:21)- “Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.” (Acts 24:21)

18. Felix adjourned the proceedings. When did he say he would decide the case? (Acts 24:22)- When Lysias the commander comes down (Acts 24:22)

19. When Felix commanded the centurion to keep Paul, what did he allow? (Acts 24:23)- The centurion was to all him liberty, and to allow his friends to visit him and provide for him (Acts 24:23)

20. Why did Felix and Drusilla send for Paul? (Acts 24:24)- They wanted to hear him concerning the faith in Christ (Acts 24:24)

21. What did Paul reason about before Felix and Drusilla? (Acts 24:25)- He reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25)

22. How did Felix respond to Paul? (Acts 24:25)- He became afraid, and said “Go away for now, when I have a more convenient time, I will call for you.” (Acts 24:25)

23. What did Felix hope Paul would do? (Acts 24:26)- He hoped Paul would bring money to release him (Acts 24:26)

24. Who succeeded Felix after two years? (Acts 24:27)- Porcius Festus succeeded Felix (Acts 24:27)

25. How did Felix leave Paul? Why? (Acts 24:27)- Felix left Paul bound (Acts 24:27)

• He did this as a favor to the Jews (Acts 24:27)

Verse 1 The third of five defenses which marked the early part of Paul’s period of imprisonment is given in this chapter, the same being a formal arraignment and trial before the Procurator Felix at Caesarea, about 58 A.D., in which the high priest Ananias and his company from Jerusalem were legally represented by a lawyer named Tertullus, and in which Paul convincingly spoke on his own behalf. Events of this chapter (except the last paragraph) occurred only twelve days from the time Paul entered Jerusalem from Caesarea (Acts 21:17). For discussion of Felix, see under Acts 23:24, and for notes on Ananias underActs 23:2. . PAUL’S THIRD DEFENSE: THE SPEECH BEFORE FELIXAnd after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul. And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying. (Acts 24:1-2 a) And after five days … Boles very properly says that this may mean “either five days from Paul’s departure from Jerusalem, or five days after his arrival in Caesarea."[1] However, Ramsay deduced that it means “five days from Paul’s leaving Jerusalem."[2] See more on this under Acts 24:11. An orator, one Tertullus … Having been foiled as a mob, and their forty conspirators having been left holding the bag, the high priest and company now tried another approach. “Cunning, assassination and conspiracy having failed, they tried the tinsel of oratory, attempting to gain their desire by flattery."[3]Informed the governor against Paul … The word Luke employed here is a technical one, having “the nature of a formal indictment."[4][1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1953), p. 377. [2] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 288. [3] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 422. [4] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 159. Verse 2 Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by thy providence evils are corrected for this nation, we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.As De Welt said, “Tertullus was doing his mercenary best!"[5] Some of the “evils” which Felix had corrected were well known, for example, his defeat of the Egyptian false prophet (Acts 21:38). Tertullus did not mention the murder of Jonathan the high priest. But of course, “If a man lacks arguments, he will flatter the judge.“Acts 2 pp. 245.">[6] “Felix was a man of the most infamous character, and a plague to all the provinces over which he presided."[7][5] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 303. Acts 2 pp. 245.">[6] R. Tuck, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, Acts 2 pp. 245. [7] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), in loco. Verse 4 But, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words.Hear us … In this, Tertullus, in good legal style, associates himself with his clients, continuing to use the first person plural pronoun throughout. Thy clemency … Felix would indeed bestow clemency, not upon the accusers, but upon Paul in the mild manner of his imprisonment. Tedious unto thee … Here is the art of the sycophant. “He speaks as if obliged to restrain himself from the further panegyrics which his feelings would naturally prompt!"[8]ENDNOTE: [8] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 159. Verse 5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrection among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: who moreover assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold: … from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.Briefly stated: Paul was accused of being (1) a pest, (2) an insurrectionist, (3) a ringleader of the Nazarenes, and (4) one who had attempted to profane the temple. All these charges except No. 3 were unspecific, and even it was unsupported by any evidence whatever. “The weak part of Tertullus’ case was that he produced no evidence to support his charges."[9]The sect of the Nazarenes … “This is the only place in the New Testament where this term is used of the followers of Jesus."[10] In no sense whatever is Christianity “a sect.” Assayed to profane the temple … Note how this is changed from “profaning the temple” as they at first alleged (Acts 21:28). By examining him thyself … Agreement is felt with McGarvey who construed this as “a hint of examination by scourging,"[11] as indicated by their careful avoidance of giving any information regarding Paul’s Roman citizenship, not knowing, of course, that Lysias had already informed the governor on that point. The resolution of the question, however, would have to turn finally on the verses left out of our text, appearing in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. The words left out are: Acts 24:6 b-8a, And we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came, and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before thee. If these words from the English Revised Version (1885) margin were allowed, of course, “examining him” would then be a reference to Lysias; and the fact of Felix mentioning Lysias in Acts 24:22 seems to indicate (but does not prove) that the words belong. It is a problem we must leave with the scholars. [9] Sir William M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 290. [10] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 465. [11] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company), 2p. 235. Verse 9 And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so.Of course, the very presence of the high priest with a group of prominent elders from Jerusalem, all arrayed on the plaintiff’s side of the court would IPSO FACTO be their “affirming” the charges. It is also likely that by voice response, or by some of them seconding the attorney’s opening remarks, they effectively joined in the charges. Evidently the high priest Ananias and the group were counting on the social prominence of the plaintiffs to sway the governor, for they brought no witnesses! Perhaps they considered themselves successors to the witnesses; but events proved that not even the pagan court of Felix would tolerate any such thing as a “successor” to witnesses. There is a message here regarding the claims of “successors” to the apostolic witnesses. Verse 10 And when the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, Paul answered: Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defense.Here Paul was abruptly asked to defend himself without any prior knowledge of the charges, except as he might have surmised what they would be; and the eloquent and convincing manner in which he devastated the plaintiffs’ case must be understood as a fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay” (Luke 21:15). Many years a judge … Felix’s career had included other assignments prior to his becoming procurator, and Paul by these words took a sweeping view of it all. “If these events took place in 58 A.D., Felix had been governor six years."[12] However, those who accuse Paul of exaggeration overlook the fact that Tacitus expressly states that Felix “was joint procurator with Cumanus, and therefore a judge to the Jewish nation long before the banishment of Cumanus,“Acts 2 p. 232.">[13] and long before Felix himself became procurator sole. Note Paul’s use of “judge” rather than “procurator, or governor.” None of the disgusting flattery such as Tertullus offered appeared in Paul’s defense. [12] W. J. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 610. Acts 2 p. 232.">[13] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, Acts 2 p. 232. Verse 11 Seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem.Thou canst take knowledge … By such a remark, Paul said in effect that “You are far too intelligent to be taken in by the unsubstantiated charges and wild allegations of the plaintiffs.” The only allegation made against Paul that would have been of any interest whatever to the governor was the insinuation that he was an “insurrectionist.” It was to that point which Paul immediately replied, proving by a single statement that it was a false charge, saying: It is not more than twelve days since I went up … (1) No insurrection was ever perpetrated in twelve days. (2) Paul was there to worship, and even paid the charges for certain men who had vows. He was in the temple when Lysias rescued him from the mob who were casting him out of the temple; and if Paul was causing an insurrection, the center of it would have had to be in the temple. Furthermore, Felix well knew, as did Pilate, that if Paul had been trying to stir up an insurrection, the temple Jews would have supported it. The charge, therefore, was a flimsy unsupported lie. Scholars have busied themselves endlessly, counting up the twelve days Paul mentioned; and Ramsay’s calculation of them is one of the most readable. It is as follows:

1. Reception by James and the elders; first day of purification. 2-4. Second, third, and fourth days of purification.
2. Fifth day of purification; riot; Paul’s speech on the steps of Antonio.
3. Meeting of the council (Paul’s dream that night).
4. Plot to slay Paul is arranged.
5. He starts to Caesarea before midnight, reaches Antipatris before dawn: Ananias learns of Paul’s departure: first of the five days (Acts 24:1).
6. Paul is handed over to Procurator Felix in Caesarea: second day. 10-11. Paul in Caesarea: third and fourth days.
7. Fifth day (Acts 24:1): arrival of Ananias and Tertullus in Caesarea: Paul denounced and the investigation begun. (This is also the twelfth day of Act 24:11.)[14]ENDNOTE: [14] Sir William M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 288. Verse 12 And neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city.Paul’s emphasis here is still directed to the charge of creating an insurrection, the only thing Felix would have been the slightest concerned about. Paul’s time in Jerusalem had been spent almost entirely in the temple, not in synagogues or the city, and what went on in the temple was controlled by the plaintiffs; and their casting Paul out and trying to murder him proved that no seditious activity had occurred. (Felix well knew that they would have sedition.) This blew their case right out of the water. Paul had been in Jerusalem only twelve days, and five of them had been spent in Caesarea. No! There could have been no sedition. An insurrection against Rome in less than a week? Impossible! Paul put the final torpedo in their charges with his next sentence. Verse 13 Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.With this blast, Paul clinched his defense against the only charge that might have seemed important to the governor. He then moved to refute the others. Verse 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call a sect, serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets.The way which they call a sect … The “way” as a designation of Christianity occurs frequently in Acts. See under Acts 9:2 Acts 16:17 Acts 16:25 Acts 18:26 Acts 19:9 Acts 19:23 Acts 20:4 Acts 24:14 Acts 24:2. Implicit in such a name is the trueness and rightness of it. There are many ways of sin, but only one way of eternal life. Sect … “Tertullus applied this name to the Christians in a bad sense (Acts 24:5)”;[15] but “Christianity was never a SECT, is not a SECT today; and Paul did not here refer to it as a sect."[16] God shall finally sum up all things in Christ; therefore, the wholeness is in him. The whole family in heaven and upon earth compose the one perfect entity of the body of Christ; and any thought of that precious and eternal spiritual body as, in any sense, a “sect” is a denial of sacred truth. The God of our fathers … Conybeare observed that Paul’s use of this expression, having the meaning of “our hereditary God,” had the design of establishing the legality of Christianity under Roman law. Thus, Paul asserts that, according to Roman law which allowed all men to worship the gods of their own nation, he is not open to any charge of irreligion.[17]This thought is further reinforced by Paul’s declaration in connection with it, namely, that Christianity is the way of worshiping which is in all things according to the law of Moses and the writings of the holy prophets. Throughout all of Paul’s epistles, as here, Paul never failed to present Christianity as fully identified with all the types and shadows of the Old Testament, being in fact the fulfillment of all that was intended by everything in the old institution. Christians are the true Israel. Christ is the Prophet like unto Moses. Christ’s teaching is the New Covenant. And yet the New is identified with the Old. [15] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 849. [16] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 382. [17] W. J. Conybeare, op. cit., p. 608. Verse 15 Having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust.Both this and the verse following are further elaborations of the truth that Christianity is not some wild and irresponsible new religion (though in another sense eternally new), but that its roots reach back to Eden and include all of the vital hopes which humanity ever had, such as the resurrection mentioned here. What was so clear to Paul was that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, a fact to which the ancient leaders of Israel were totally blind. Verse 16 Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offense toward God and men always.For discussion of “conscience” see under Acts 23:1. Paul repeatedly insisted, not merely as reported in Acts, but in his epistles as well, that he had done his best throughout life to live conscientiously toward God and men always. That he did, in fact, commit many sins does not deny this; for conscience is not an infallible guide. The conscience must be taught and regulated by the word of God before it can be a safe monitor of human behavior. Verse 17 Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings: amidst which they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult.Now after some years … “If Paul went up to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22), which it seems that he did, this was some five years ago."[18]Alms to my nation … This shows that Paul’s journey to Jerusalem was for the purpose of bringing alms to the poor of that city, and that “Thus it was no part of his purpose to interfere with or profane the worship of the temple."[19] “Here is the one clear reference in Acts to the purpose of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, which occupies so large a place in his epistles."[20] He had canvassed the Gentile churches extensively, collecting money to be distributed to the poor Christians in Jerusalem; and as they were of Jewish background, it was not an error to state that the alms had been brought to Paul’s “nation.” They found me purified in the temple … This was easily proved, and none of the opposition denied it; hence the conclusion was mandatory that Paul had in no way profaned the temple. Rather, THEY had profaned it by their mob action against Paul, and by their murderous conspiracy within the temple itself. In fact, the very existence of such a reprobate as Ananias on the seat of the high priest was a profanation. [18] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 383. [19] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), Acts, p. 334. [20] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 474. Verse 18 But there were certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been here before thee, and to make accusation, if they had aught against me.The failure of any of those Asian Jews to appear proved their unwillingness to testify against Paul; and, as they were the ones who first initiated the charge of profaning the temple, it left Ananias and the other litigants pressing a charge made by others, and of which they were in no sense witnesses. Paul’s plea here has the effect of saying, “Where are those who say they saw me profaning the temple?” The mention of the Asian Jews imposed upon the plaintiffs the necessity of either producing the witnesses or withdrawing the charges. The whole trumped-up affair was, by this time, appearing to the governor as fraudulent and irresponsible. Felix could undoubtedly, see through the whole thing. “The Jews, pretending loyalty to Caesar, desired Paul condemned as a traitor to Caesar, whereas their real motive was to have him silenced as a gospel preacher."[21]ENDNOTE: [21] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: .College Press), it, p. 81. Verse 20 Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.This brought their whole case crashing to the ground. They had already tried Paul before the Sanhedrin, and there had been no guilty verdict. Instead the Sanhedrinists broke up the meeting fighting among themselves! So Paul put his forefinger into a very sore spot when he asked them to explain to the governor what they found out when they had already tried him! Except it be for this one voice … This must not be understood as the tiniest admission of any wrong on Paul’s part. Adam Clarke paraphrased it like this: Of course, in the eyes of these Sadducean priests, they consider me to have done wrong in advocating a resurrection of the dead. “But as this doctrine is credited by the nation in general, and is not criminal, they can bring no accusation against me with reference to anything else."[22] Paul here implied that his belief in the resurrection was the true basis of their hatred of him. McGarvey also noted that: Paul made this last reference, not because he was conscious of any wrong in the matter, but in order to taunt his Sadduceean accusers, and to show Felix that they were moved against him by party jealousy.[23]Paul’s challenge for the high priest to tell what happened at that trial they had already completed administered the COUP DE GRACE to the hopes of the Jews that they might force an unfavorable verdict from Felix. “The high priest wanted no talk about their council meeting that had degenerated into a riot."[24]This was the summary end of the trial, except for the announcement of the verdict. [22] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1937), Vol. V, p. 876. [23] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 237. [24] Orrin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 182. Verse 22 But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the way, deferred them, saying, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter.The charges had been proved false, Paul’s innocence established, and the governor was fully convinced on both points; but he did not act in a manner consistent with the facts and his own responsibility, proving, as Walker said, “that the best methods of court procedure are of less consequence than the right kind of judges."[25]When Lysias the chief captain shall come down … This was only a delaying tactic. “He was a long time coming; for Paul stayed two years in Caesarea."[26] However, it may be that Felix never invited him to come. The governor’s fertile brain was already working on that bribe which he anticipated might be extorted from Christians to procure an innocent man’s release. Having more exact knowledge of that way … It should be remembered that Caesarea was the place where a prominent centurion, Cornelius, had been converted, where Philip the evangelist and his four daughters lived, and where there were doubtless many influential Christians. Felix doubtless knew many of these, hence it is not unreasonable at all that he should have had a great deal of information about the Christians. [25] W. R. Walker, op. cit., p. 79. [26] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 306. Verse 23 And he gave order to the centurion that he should be kept in charge, and should have indulgence and not to forbid any of his friends to minister unto him.The centurion … The use of the definite article here has led some to suppose that this was the same centurion sent by Lysias; but Plumptre affirmed that it might be either he “or the one who had special charge of the prisoners waiting for trial."[27]The favorable impression made by Paul on Felix is seen in the unusually lenient treatment accorded the prisoner. As Boles said, however, “The indulgence did not include removal of his chains."[28] Don De Welt, quoting Jacobus, noted that “He seems to have been in what was called `military custody,’ in which the prisoner was bound by a long light chain to his arm, the other end of which was fastened to the officer."[29]Indulgence … as used here “is a common medical term for the cessation or remission of pain or disease,"[30] thus inadvertently showing the hand of the learned doctor of medicine, the sacred evangelist Luke. [27] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 161. [28] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 386. [29] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 307. [30] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 233. Verse 24 But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.The character of Felix was noted under Acts 23:24; and some further attention is due to the woman who sat beside him as his wife. Drusilla was a sensuously beautiful person, one of the ten descendants of Herod the Great whose names appear in the New Testament, and, like all the Herod’s, possessed of a character marked by selfishness and profligacy. She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I; and at this time (57 or 58 A.D.), she was not yet twenty years old. Her brother Agrippa II gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa when she was only fourteen or fifteen years of age. The young queen was only sixteen when Felix, with the help of Atomos, a Cypriot magician, persuaded her to leave her husband and marry him. She was Felix’s third wife, and they had a son named Agrippa.[31] After the recall of Felix, Drusilla and her only son by him perished in the eruption of Vesuvius.[32] She was one of three royal wives taken by Felix.[33] According to the unanimous testimony of the ancients, she was a woman of spectacular beauty. Luke’s mention of the fact that “she was a Jewess” probably indicates Drusilla as the source, or one of the sources, of Felix’s decision to retain Paul in custody. [31] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 472. [32] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 233. [33] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 164. Verse 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me.Such subjects as Paul discussed with Felix were calculated to inspire terror in any man who fully comprehends their meaning. God is righteous and the imperishable enemy of all wickedness. The entire book of Romans is given over to a discussion of this theme; and what is indicated here is but a summary of all that Paul said before Felix. Self-control … is a quality of character demanded of all who hope to be saved; and the persons who composed Paul’s audience on this occasion were notoriously deficient in it. Judgment to come … This is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity (Hebrews 6:2). Briefly stated, it means that Jesus Christ will summon all the dead and living of the entire world to the judgment of the Great Day, and that every man shall receive the reward of the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or bad. The Christian concept of a universal judgment day is essential to all sanity in this present life. Without faith in the judgment, it must ever appear that the righteous are frustrated; but in this conception of what will finally occur, there lies the conviction that “even a cup of cold water” given in the name of the Lord shall not lose its reward. See more on “The Judgment” in my Commentary on Matthew under Matthew 12:41 ff Matthew 25:31 ff., in my Commentary on John, under Luke 5:29 and in my Commentary on Hebrews under Hebrews 6:2. One may only grieve for the fact that widespread preaching on the subject of eternal judgment has subsided or disappeared altogether in many churches; but right here is the power that convicted sinners like those who heard Paul here; and if modern churches would have any convicting power, let them preach the word of God on such subjects as this. A convenient season … Nothing that we know of either Felix or Drusilla leads us to suppose that a “convenient day” ever came for them. “Behold now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Satan will see to it that no man finds it “convenient,” either to surrender himself to Jesus or to forsake the pursuits of the flesh which are antecedent to it. Verse 26 He hoped withal that money would be given him of Paul: wherefore also he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.Having learned venality as a slave in the court of an emperor, Felix pursued the vice with a singleness of heart. As Ramsay said, “As Felix was a man of wealth, brother of the richest man in Rome, and the husband of a princess, he could not have thought of a paltry bribe."[34] Pallas his brother was a millionaire, a friend and favorite of the Emperor Claudius. Ramsay also thought that Paul had come into possession of considerable wealth at this time; but this is not by any means certain. We are not told how Felix managed to convey to Paul the message that some money might loosen up the wheels of justice, but we are sure what Paul’s response would have been: he would have given him “another sermon on righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come”![35]Regarding the results of Paul’s repeated preaching to Felix, Dummelow said, “The result was that Felix trembled, but delayed his repentance; and that Drusilla was made an irreconcilable enemy."[36] Another result that might be observed in what is recorded here is that for the Christians of all ages, the giving of a bribe is as sinful and reprehensible as the taking of a bribe; otherwise, Paul’s friends would doubtless have raised the necessary money to procure his release. And communed with him … Campbell said that this word is used only four times in the Christian scriptures. “It indicates familiar conversation."[37] The quaint comment of Lange sums up the situation which confronted Paul thus: When avarice has taken deep root in the hearts of men invested with authority, justice is sold for them by money; and the innocent receive no aid unless they pay for it, while the guilty who have bribed the judge, escape punishment.[38][34] Sir William M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 292. [35] Orrin Root, op. cit., p. 183. [36] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 849. [37] Alexander Campbell, Acts of Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), p. 164. [38] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 428. Verse 27 But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.Felix was succeeded … The occasion of Felix’s recall was the outbreak of strife between the Jewish and Gentile elements of Caesarea, in which Felix’s intervention with troops led to the slaughter of many Jews (revealing, perhaps, his true feelings against them). Through the intervention of his brother Pallas, he received no punishment beyond that of removal from office, which was taken by Festus. PORCIUS FESTUSThis man was described by Josephus as wise, just and agreeable. However, nothing is known of his life before his accession to the procuratorship of Judea, in which office he died after about two years. The picture of Festus that emerges in Acts contradicts Josephus, for he is revealed as willing to sacrifice Paul to please the Jews; and he further deliberately exploited Paul the prisoner for the entertainment of Agrippa and Bernice. As G.P. Gould said, “Paul’s appeal to Nero is the lasting condemnation of Festus."[39]The date of this change of procurators is very important in determining New Testament chronology; and the following quotations are offered as shedding some light on it: The procuratorship of Festus (60-62), as valuable as the specific date would be, is a debated question with opinions varying from A.D. 55-60.[40]William M. Ramsay, in PAULINE STUDIES, p. 348, has shown that Eusebius’ evidence, when rightly understood, points to the year A.D. 59 for the arrival of Festus in Palestine; and some support for this date may be afforded by the sudden change of procuratorial coinage in that year, an event most plausibly attributed to the arrival of a new governor.[41]Desiring to gain favor with the Jews, left Paul bound … Dummelow observed that the Bezan text says Felix left Paul bound “for the sake of Drusilla,” a not improbable statement.[42]REMARKSConcerning this remarkable chapter, some further comments are in order: I. Regarding the weapons of malice: A. Persistent hatred. The animosity against Paul was such that the highest authorities in Judaea traveled many miles, spending much effort and money to prosecute him illegally. B. Disgusting flattery. The speech of Tertullus is a model of sycophancy and deceit. C. Gross misrepresentation (Acts 24:5). D. Appeal to prejudice, “sect of the Nazarenes.” E. Downright falsehood. In no way had Paul profaned the temple. II. Regarding the defense of innocence: A. Courtesy (Acts 24:10). B. Straightforwardness (Acts 24:11-17). C. Fearless denial (Acts 24:12-13 Acts 24:18). D. Righteous challenge (Acts 24:19-20). III. Regarding the two years of Paul’s imprisonment. Paul spent two whole years in the old palace of Herod at Caesarea as a prisoner of Felix. How was this time employed by himself, and by Luke? Many have supposed that Paul wrote Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon during this period; and while a lot may be said in favor of such a view, agreement is felt with Dummelow who said, “It seems more probable that all four were written in Rome."[43] “They of Caesar’s household” (Philippians 4:22) naturally suggests Rome. It is the firm belief of this writer that Luke employed himself by careful and extensive interviews and investigations leading to his twofold work, especially Luke’s gospel. As Dummelow said, “He probably interviewed Philip the evangelist, James the Lord’s brother, and Mary the Virgin."[44] But it is also highly probable, if not indeed certain, that he also interviewed many of the Pharisees in whose homes occurred so many of the events narrated in Luke, such Pharisees having been among the great company of the priests who became Christians (Acts 6:7). In the matter of Luke’s painstaking investigations and interviews of eyewitnesses of the glorious beginnings of Christianity, one may behold the gracious Providence which overruled the injustice suffered by the apostle Paul, providing in that suffering and delay the occasion for the indispensable writings of the beloved physician Luke. [39] New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 421. [40] Jack P. Lewis, op. cit., p. 152. [41] The New Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 421. [42] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 850. [43] Ibid. [44] Ibid.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 241. What priest came in a few days? 2. Who are meant by the elders here? 3. Who was Tertullus? 4. What part did he have in the case? 5. By what did he introduce his speech? 6. Was this introduction truthful? 7. Did he state any truth about Paul? 8. Correct the statement in 6th verse. 9. And the one in verse seven. 10. Who endorsed the speech of Tertullus ? 11. What indicates Paul’s orderliness? 12. State the fact which encouraged him to answer. 13. How recent were his activities at Jerusalem? 14, Why had he gone to Jerusalem? 15. What disorder does he deny ? 16. Tell what proof he demands. 17. State the confession he makes. 18. To what does he refer in support of his belief? 19. What classes are to be in the resurrection? 20. Who believed this in common with Paul ? 21. Then why were they opposing him ? 22. State his concern about his conscience, 23. Would God and man always be alike offended? 24. What did he come to bring? 25. State the law that called for these things. 27. How could Paul, being a Christian, do this ? 28. Find similar obligation on Christians in Rom. 13. 29. Who observed Paul in the temple? 30. What was he doing then ? 31. State the point of justice he now cites. 32. What call does he make on the ones present? 33. State Paul’ s one exception to his general denial. 34. How had this cry resulted ? 35. To what extent did Paul’ s speech impress Felix? 36. Why did he take the case under advisement? 37. What officer was given charge of Paul ? 38. Was he put into solitary confinement? 39. What about his friends? 40. Who came in a few days ? 41. State the nationality of Felix’ wife. 42. Was the case against Paul now resumed ? 43. On what general subject did Felix wish to hear? 44. Which parts of that subject did Paul select? 45. Give another word for temperance. 46. Did Felix obey? 47. Was he wanting a more convenient season ? 48. What did he promise to do ? 49. Did he call for Paul more than once? 50. What indicates his lack of sincerity? 51. How did he try to please the Jews?

Acts 24:1

1 Act 24:1. The word descended is used with reference to direction, as to or from Jerusalem, in view of its importance. Thayer defines the original word, “To come down,” then explains it to mean, “as from the temple at Jerusalem, from the city of Jerusalem.” Ter-tullus was a professional speaker whom the Jews employed to argue their case against Paul before Felix. What his nationality was is not clearly shown in the history, but he was acquainted with the procedure of courts.

Acts 24:2-4

4Acts 24:2-4. Tertullus, like many court lawyers of our day, was not scrupulous in handling the truth, or in his manner of treating a serious case that pertained to the personal rights of a citizen. This paragraph is devoted to pure flattery of the governor, for the purpose of prejudicing him against Paul. I do not think this part of his speech needs any further comments.

Acts 24:5

5Acts 24:5. An orator is supposed to make his speech before a court after the accusers and witnesses have said their part. But Tertullus acted both as accuser and witness, before the legal accusers were even present, like the unprincipled lawyer that he was. The most of this verse is false, but, the part pertaining to Paul’s leadership among the Nazarenes is true. And that was the chief grievance the Jews had against Paul, because they had previously had that feeling against Jesus, the founder of the sect of the Nazarenes. The last word was applied to Christians by the Jews, in reference to Jesus who had lived at Nazareth.

Acts 24:6-7

7Acts 24:6-7. This was a falsehood. (See chapter 21:30-34.)

Acts 24:8

8Acts 24:8. By examining of whom was an admission that the court had not heard any testimony furnished by Paul’s accusers, thereby convicting himself (and the court) of gross injustice.

Acts 24:9

9Acts 24:9. Assented means the Jews agreed with what Tertullus had said; yet they did not even pretend to have any witnesses to present to Felix.

Acts 24:10

0Acts 24:10. Paul began his speech with remarks that were respectful and complimentary, but not in the nature of flattery. Having been in a public position over Judea for many years, Felix could appreciate the truths Paul intended stating before him.

Acts 24:11

1Act 24:11. But twelve days. The events to which Paul refers had occurred so recently, that it would be easy to find testimony to the contrary if any doubt was felt by Felix.

Acts 24:12-13

3Act 24:12-13. This paragraph is a general denial of all the charges of disorder made against Paul, and he challenged his accusers to present their testimony.

Acts 24:14

4Acts 24:14. To confess does not mean to admit any wrongdoing; it is only an admission of certain facts of which he was not ashamed, but which were objectionable to his critics. Paul does not admit that he is worshiping God through heresy, but, that he is serving Him with the system that his accusers called by such a name. He further states that the law (of Moses) and the prophets had taught that same system to be coming sometime.

Acts 24:15

5Acts 24:15. In this verse the apostle expressed the real subject that was the motive for their objection to him, namely, a belief in the resurrection. Which they themselves also allow. The Pharisees professed to believe in the resurrection, but denied that it was through Jesus whom they had crucified (chapter 4:2).

Acts 24:16

6Acts 24:16. Conscience is from SUNEI-DESIS and Thayer’s main definition is, “The soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending the one, condemning the other.” This definition states the action of the conscience, but it can act on improper information as well as proper. When Paul was persecuting Christians his conscience commended him for it, because his information (which was erroneous) was to the effect that the disciples of Christ were evildoers. In our present verse he means he had always exercised himself in a way that he thought would be right regarding both God and man. His good conscience while persecuting Christians was due to the improper information that he had received. The popular idea is not true that the conscience is “A creature of education,” for it is a part of every human being. However, it is true that the conscience may be educated, and it depends on the character of that education whether it will commend or condemn what it should.

Acts 24:17

7Acts 24:17. The alms refers to the collections that were made by the various churches (Romans 15:25-31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4). The offerings were according to some Jewish customs that Paul still had the right to perform as a Jew, since they were both secular and religious, and Paul did them as the former.

Acts 24:18-20

0Acts 24:18-20. This paragraph is explained at chapter 21:27-29.

Acts 24:21

1Act 24:21. See the comments on verses 14 and 15.

Acts 24:22

2Act 24:22. Felix now had a somewhat clearer view of the situation, to the extent that he wanted to see the case through after the other parties to it appeared. He promised Paul to hear the whole matter when the captain arrived. It might be stated, however, that so far as the record shows, neither Lysias nor witnesses ever appeared.

Acts 24:23

3Act 24:23. Paul was detained as a prisoner, but the soldier who was made responsible for his keeping was commanded to let him have many liberties usually not given.

Acts 24:24

4Acts 24:24. Felix came. He was not residing outside the community; the second word means, “to make a public appearance,” according to the lexicons. His interest had been aroused by Paul’s speech to the extent he wished to hear more about the faith he was preaching. We will hear more about his wife in the next verse.

Acts 24:25

5Acts 24:25. The subjects of this verse are in response to the request in the preceding one, to discuss the faith in Christ, which shows that the Gospel contains more than just the “first principles.” These subjects were especially appropriate at this time, for both Felix and his wife were very unrighteous people. He had induced her to desert her former husband to marry him, for no other motive than lust on the part of each. Thayer defines the original word for temperance, “Self-control,” then explains it to mean “the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, especially his sensual [fleshly or carnal] appetites.” Judgment to come is defined by Thayer, “The last or final judgment.” Being a judge himself and acquainted with the dignity of judicial sentences, Felix could feel the weight of Paul’s prediction and was made to tremble, which is defined in the lexicon “to be terrified.” A convenient season. The second word does not appear in the original Greek as a separate term. The phrase is from KAIROS which Thayer defines “opportune or seasonable time.” The word has been translated in the King James Version by the single word “time” in 63 places.

Acts 24:26

6Acts 24:26. The “convenient season” never appeared as far as the record informs us, for the same purpose that Paul had been called the first time. However , Felix was so depraved as to think the apostle would try to bribe the court into releasing him, and for that purpose he did call for him frequently.

Acts 24:27

7Acts 24:27. After two years Felix was replaced by Festus because he had incurred the displeasure of the Romans. During those two years Paul was kept as a prisoner, his accusers never having appeared. In spite of this situation, to gratify the hatred of the Jews toward him, Felix kept Paul bound when he relinquished his office to Festus.