‘So the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.’

So that night the contingent of soldiers left as commanded and arrived at Antipatris, roughly just past half way to Caesarea. The journey from there would be through less dangerous territory.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The journey and the arrival in Caesarea:

v. 31. Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.

v. 32. On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle;

v. 33. who, when they came to Caesarea and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.

v. 34. And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia,

v. 35. I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come, And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall.

The start from Jerusalem was made by night, to attract as little attention as possible, and the armed escort was so strong that it could easily have warded off the attack of a band of assassins. The fact also that the soldiers left by the road to the north served to have them escape notice. Four miles to the north they marched, over the old road whose paving stones are still visible in places, and then turned to the east across the mountains of Ephraim and down into the beautiful plain of Sharon, where Antipatris was located. This was a forced march of fully thirty miles, and must have been a great strain to Paul. But they were now beyond all possible danger of an attack from Jerusalem. The four hundred men infantry therefore turned back at this point and returned to the barracks at the Tower of Antonia in Jerusalem, letting the troopers continue the journey with Paul. These men arrived in Caesarea in due time, delivered the letter to the governor, and presented Paul to him. The procurator read the letter and then asked Paul what kind of province he belonged to, imperial or senatorial, since he needed this information to complete the report of Lysias concerning the case. “A procurator of Judea, like Felix, was subordinate only to the governor of Syria, inasmuch as the latter could bring his supreme power to bear in casts of necessity. The military command and the independent jurisdiction of the procurator gave him practically sole power in all ordinary transactions, but the governor could take the superior command if he had reason to fear Revolutionary or other serious difficulties. ” When Felix had found out that Paul hailed from Cilicia, and could thus enter the case properly, he promised him a judicial hearing as soon as his accusers would present themselves. In the meantime the governor gave command that Paul should be kept in the praetorium of Herod, the palace which Herod Agrippa I had erected there, chap. 12:19, and which contained also a guard-room, where Paul might be confined. Note: We find Paul here once more under the protection of the Roman government For that reason the government has been ordained of God, to protect peaceful citizens, and therefore also the Christians, against sedition and violence. And thus the Lord holds His protecting hand over them that are His. Unless He permits it for reasons of His own, the raving and raging of all the enemies can bring no harm to His Church.

Summary. Paul is arraigned before the Roman tribunal in the presence of the Sanhedrin, and is made the object of a murderous plot of the Jews, upon whose exposure he is sent to Felix, the governor, by Lysias, the Roman tribune at Jerusalem.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 23:31. Antipatris. Very different accounts are given of the situation of Antipatris, which must however have been north-west of Jerusalem, as it was in the way from thence to Caesarea. Its ancient name was Caphar Salama, 1Ma 7:31. But Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it the name of Antipatris, in honour of his father Antipater. It was something more than thirty-eight of our miles from Jerusalem. Probably the soldiers thus hastened, lest the Jews, in their rage against St. Paul, should pursue them. However, it is not necessary to conclude that St. Paul was carried thither in one night, or that the soldiers returned in one day: it is only said that they travelled by night, which they might do, and rest by the way, nor is it probable that they took St. Paul with them by night from Jerusalem, and reached Caesarea the next day, when it appears from Josephus, that from Jerusalem to Caesarea was near seventy miles.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 23:31-34 . Antipatris, on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, built by Herod I., and named after his father Antipater, was 26 miles (thus 5 1/5 geographical miles) distant from Caesarea. See Robinson, III. p. 257 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. p. 571.

] as in Act 17:10 . Inexact statement a potiori ; for, considering the great distance between Jerusalem and Antipatris (about 8 geographical miles), and as they did not set out from Jerusalem before nine in the evening (Act 23:25 ), besides the night a part of the following forenoon must have been spent on the journey to Antipatris, which must, moreover, be conceived of as a very hurried one; yet the following night is not, with Kuinoel (against Act 23:32 ), to be included.

Act 23:32 . . . .] thus from their own foresight (because such a strong force was unnecessary at the distance which they had reached, and might be required in case of an uproar at Jerusalem), not according to the literal command of the tribune, Act 23:23 .

] not also the , whom they took back with them, as may be concluded from their not being mentioned.

Act 23:33 . ] “ad remotius nomen , secus atque expectaveris refertur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 368.

. .] simul et Paulum.

Act 23:34 . Felix makes only a preliminary personal inquiry , but one necessary for the treatment of the cause and of the man, on a point on which the elogium contained no information.

] is qualitative : from what kind of province. Cilicia was an imperial province.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XXX

PAUL BEFORE FELIX AND FELIX BEFORE PAUL

Act 23:31-24:27 .

There are strange contrasts in this section which awaken certain lines of thought. The first contrast is between Felix and Paul. The one an intensely religious and moral man, and with the greatest possible integrity, the highest moral courage an innocent man. The other, the one who is acting as judge, one of the greatest rascals that ever went unhung. He had been a slave, and was too vile to talk about. His whole life was offensive to God and man. How great the contrast with a man innocent of all offense, tried before such a judge! The next contrast is brought out in the case of Felix before Paul. God’s judgment was different from man’s judgment. The lines of thought awakened by this contrast are these: Look at these people to whom Paul was brought to be judged, also Christ in his ministry. Pilate, Herod the Great (that Herod who died and was eaten of worms as related in Act 12 ), Felix, Festus, Gallic, and Nero, and just think of that Agrippa the Second, Bernice, and Drusilla, all of them coming in the limelight of personal contact with either the Lord or some of his closest followers, going into history simply because they came into the orbit of that light for a little while.

THE FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE FELIX, Act 23:33-35

There is a certain force of the compound Greek word, diakousornai (Act 23:35 ), rendered, “I will hear thee fully,” and there is a special reason for the employment of that particular word. The use of the preposition, dia, with akouo gives an intensity to the verb. The verb means “to hear”; putting in the preposition dia implies a degree of hearing much stronger than the other: “I will hear thee fully.” That is the force of the word. The reason for the employment of that word is that a Roman officer who stood in judgment on a person who had been commended in a letter that had been sent, was required by Roman law to give a full hearing. Paul reached Felix commended by a letter from Lysias, who stated that he was a Roman citizen, and that there was nothing in the charges against him. That is called a eviogium by the Roman officer that sent him to the judge. The Roman law was, that if the judge gets a eulogium from the officer that passed the person to him, he must hear the case fully. He must not do it slightingly. That is why Felix uses the expression: “I will hear thee fully.” He did not tell the truth when he said it, but the law required him to say it.

The place of Paul’s confinement was called “Herod’s palace,” or praetorium, i. e., judgment hall. Herod the Great, in order to please the emperor Augustus, built the whole city of Caesarea. He made a magnificent harbor. He built the most stately palaces and buildings, and in the palace that Caesar was to occupy, if he ever came there, was a praetorium, the judgment office in which he might hear cases. There is no Caesarea now nothing but the ruin of ruins.

THE SECOND APPEARANCE BEFORE FELIX, Act 24:1-23

The value of this section is that it gives most graphically the method of Roman trial. We have the judge, the prosecution, the counsel of the prisoner, the case formally stated by the prosecution, and the defense fairly stated by Paul. The value of it is in giving us a look into a Roman court room.

The speeches of Tertullus and Paul appear here in contrast. Tertullus was employed by the Jews. He was prosecuting this case as a hired lawyer. Let’s look at his speech. His clients present are Ananias, the high priest, and the elders. He is going to speak before them and this is his speech: “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. But, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: 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. And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so” (Act 24:1-9 ).

Let us analyze this speech. It commences in the oratorical method of attempting to conciliate the judge by saying flattering things, and in saying that he does some steep lying. Notice what he says: “Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace.” No man that had ever been put over that country had stirred up more rows with the people. “And that by thy providence evils are corrected for this nation.” Tacitus, the Roman historian, and Josephus, say that his deeds were infamous. “We accept it in all ways, and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.” They never did accept anything that he did. They hated him worse than they hated the devil. But he put all that into his speech. Tacitus says that everything he did was in the spirit of the slave which he was, and the Jews, instead of accepting his administration thankfully, never did stop until they bad him recalled, and Porcius Festus sent to succeed him.

But anyhow that is the way he commences. That is called the exordium of the speech, in which he placates his audience by saying pleasing things to them, either to make them laugh or tickle their fancy, or gratify their pride. All orators do that.

Notice what the accusation against the prisoner is. There are three points in it: (1) He accuses him of sedition, that is, against the Roman law he created disturbances among the Jews throughout the world.; (2) heresy, which is against the Jewish law, only as a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; (3) his profanation of the Temple, which is against both Jewish and Roman law. Those are the three points, and in a very masterly way he presents the accusation. There is just about as much truth in it as in that flattery in the exordium, but it is certainly done in an orderly way. The next point in his speech is that the Jews, under the Roman law, had a right to try a man for offenses against the Jewish law, and Paul was such an offender, and he alleges that they had arrested him and were proceeding to give him a trial under the Jewish law for offenses that were against the Jewish law, and that a Roman chiliarch came with violence and took him away, when they were about to try him, and commanded them to come and appear before Felix.

That is certainly presented in a masterly way, and equally false. They were not proceeding to try him according to their law. They were proceeding to kill him when Lysias interfered. There was no trial about it. There was a mob putting him to death and they almost succeeded. Notice now what the object of the speaker is. In the analysis of the address we must know what the lawyer is trying to get at. From this address let us see what object he is after what it is he wants to get at. “We were trying this man before the Jewish law [which they were continuing under the Roman jurisdiction], and the Roman official, Lysias, snatched him away from that court.” What is he after? He wants Felix to say, “Take him back to Jerusalem and try him under your law.” That’s the point, and they had assassins ready to kill him if they ever got him back there. He wants this procurator to say that his case is not ready yet to come before his court that Lysias was indiscrete in going into a Jewish court when they were trying him on matters pertinent before their court. “Now take him back and try him.” That is what he wants him to say.

Let us now analyze Paul’s speech: “Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defense [or I do the more cheerfully answer for myself].” That is his exordium. Just as when he makes a speech before Agrippa, he says, “I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert in the customs and questions which are among the Jews.” It is a fact that Felix for quite a while had been a judge for the Jewish nation, so that his exordium is truthful: “Because you have had time and opportunity to find out these people here that are making the accusation, and to know something of the merits of the Christian religion for which I am accused.” So that exordium is certainly true in statement, and a fine way to put it. Never begin a case by abusing the court. If you can’t say good things, just speak out what is true. That is what Paul does. Next he says, “Seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem.” In other words, “Now, you as a judge living here, knowing the country and hearing this string of accusations against me, can find out, if you want to, that I have been in this country but twelve days, going from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and now I am back here again, and in all that time it is only twelve days; so it is very easy to get your facts.” “And neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd [they accused him of sedition; now he is replying to it], nor in the synagogues, nor in the city. Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.”

He is here answering the Jewish charge. First charge is that he went about raising disturbances, rousing the people up. He says, “It has been just twelve days; there are plenty of witnesses; you can find out all I did in those twelve days, part of which I consumed in going to Jerusalem and being brought back here. In that time they cannot prove that I was even disturbing, either in the synagogue or in the Temple, or raising any disturbances whatever, and as for profaning the Temple, that is where they arrested me. I was there conforming to the customs of the Mosaic law.” That is the way he answers the first charge. Now he is going to answer as to his being a heretic: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call a sect so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets.”

How are they going to make a heretic out of a man that believes everything that is written, either in the law or the prophets, or in the Bible? He continues: “And having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offense toward God and man always. Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings [to create sedition; I came on a mission of mercy and kindness; I had worked four years to get up these funds]: amidst which they found me purified in the Temple, which was no crowd, nor yet with tumult [not I, but they], 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.” In other words, he says, “Why are these witnesses not present? They are the men that raised the row.” Then he goes on, “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.”

It is one of the most perfect defenses that was ever delivered in a courtroom. It sticks to the question; it answers the accusation; it points to the crowd of Ananias and the elders that are there: “You can get your witnesses out of that crowd right there for my prosecution; now all I want to do is to have them put on the witness stand. The whole time was twelve days; you can easily find out whether I am guilty of sedition or not. As to my believing in Christ, that is true, but that doesn’t make me a heretic, because I believe in the resurrection of the dead; in fact, they had a row over it when I was tried before this crowd.” That’s the analysis of the two speeches. All who intend to be speakers, should study all cases where great speeches are made to learn how speeches are to be made.

There is a new term of reproach employed by Tertullus, destined to become historic, anticipated by previous scripture, as other names originated by enemies also became historic. The term of reproach is “The sect of the Nazarenes.” From Nazareth! “Did any good thing ever come out of Nazareth?” The scripture that anticipates it is that statement in Mat 2:23 , “That the prophecy might be fulfilled, he shall be called a Nazarene.” The other cases where enemies originated names, are the words “Christian,” originated in Antioch, and “Galilean,” used by an apostate emperor, Julian. When he came to die, after trying so hard to destroy Christianity, he said, “Thou Galilean hast conquered.” “Galilean” means a crude fisherman, and “Nazarene” and “Christian” were all terms of reproach, and all became historic.

There is a certain basis of fact underlying Tertullus’ flattery of Felix. Felix did two things that may have been beneficial. He did suppress the bandits, and he is the man that whipped the impostor, the Egyptian, but it was at a very great cost to the Jews in both cases, and they did not thank him for driving the bandits out, since there were more patriots driven to desperation than bandits, in the present sense of the word. They were very friendly to the Jewish people because they were people that refused to submit to the injustice of the tyrants, a good deal like Judas Maccabaeus. Anyhow, he had done those two things that might be called a basis of fact.

They clamored for the sentence against Paul. The record says that he, “having more exact knowledge concerning the way, deferred them.” The force of it is this: It means that Felix, from his residence there, probably living in Gaesare when Philip the evangelist was there, and since Paul had from time to time been there and preached, knew what that heresy was. The idea is that he had too exact information on that subject to be fooled by those words of Tertullus, and therefore he deferred judgment. They thought they would take Paul back with them, but they did not get him. Felix very plausibly says, “There is no evidence in this case; you have made an accusation against Lysias. Lysias will be here soon and I will just defer it until I hear from him.” That is the ground on which he defers it. He had the letter of Lysias stating the case, and there was not a bit of reason that Felix should not have ended that whole matter and set Paul at liberty right there. They had utterly failed to establish anything, and he knew it. But the real motive which prompted him to postpone decision was shekels. He wanted the prisoner, unknown to him, to bribe him, and he deferred the case and left it unsettled, hoping that Paul would pay him some money. Doubtless he had heard of that big collection that Paul had taken up to Jerusalem, and he knew how much devoted to Paul his friends were, and if he would just hold him a while someone would come and pay him a big sum, or else the other crowd would pay him a proper sum to send Paul back to Jerusalem. That is what governed that slave. There is evidence in this section that Felix was assured of Paul’s innocence, viz.: the charge that he gave the centurion. He was not to be put in the prison, and his friends were to have free access to him. We know by this that he was thoroughly convinced of the falsity of the accusation, but he simply detained him to get shekels. It was detention under pretense, yet he allowed his friends to come and see him just as freely as if he were not a prisoner.

FELIX BEFORE PAUL

The record says, “After certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.” This time it is Felix before Paul. The Herod in Act 12 imagined himself a god, the angel of the Lord smote him and the worms ate him up. He was the father of the King Agrippa that he we will take up in the next chapter, and of the Drusilla that we will consider in this chapter, and of Bernice one brother and two sisters. The older sister was Bernice, and Drusilla was the younger sister. And she was a Jewess; so they all were Jews. What is the history of her connection? She had been married to another man. The Simon Magus that Peter had turned down, given in Act 8 , had come there and gotten the ear of Felix, and, paid by Felix, and using his charms and incantations, he had enticed Drusilla away from her husband to come to Felix. Of course, there was a divorce, but it amounted to stealing a man’s wife. It did not make any difference to Drusilla, or any of her kin, how often that was done; she was ready. There is not known in history any set of women that were more vile in their relations than these two women. These people found their immortality in history by coming in touch with Paul. This Drusilla, when Felix was driven back to Rome on the importunities of the Jews, drifted out near Naples, and in that great eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was buried under its lava. Those excavators have doubtless come upon the bones of the woman, vile in her life, and who yet once had the opportunity to hear God’s apostle teach righteousness, chastity, and judgment to come.

But this interview was not intended to be judicial. The record says that man and his wife came to hear Paul about the faith of Christ. So it was not a trial. But Paul makes it so, and reverses the relative positions of himself and Felix. He takes Felix and Drusilla and brings them before the great judgment bar of God. He tries them there under that text of righteousness, chastity, i. e., continence (the text says self-control, but it refers to sexual control), and judgment to come. Instead of Paul being tried before Felix, Felix is being tried before Paul. Paul did not tremble when he stood before Felix, but Felix trembled when he stood before Paul.

He knew that Felix and Drusilla were unrighteous from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet. He knew they were unchaste. He knew that they were amenable to the final and everlasting judgment of God. And they came to find out about the faith in Christ, and he takes that subject and discusses it. Was it polite? Not very, but it certainly was right. Paul was not sent out to be polite he was sent out to preach the gospel of God. And if he ever did intend to preach on righteousness, continence, and judgment to come, that was the audience for him. The general idea is that when one preaches he must look over his crowd, and never wound anybody in that crowd.

There is a story about a deacon that came to a new preacher, and the deacon says, “Parson, don’t say anything about the Roman Catholics, for there is quite a number of them present in the audience; and don’t say anything about the Episcopalians, for the judge is an Episcopalian, and he has come out to hear you; and don’t say anything about the saloon business, for that man is a wholesale liquor dealer, and he is very liberal.” “Will you please tell me whom I may say something about?” asked the young preacher. The deacon said, “There are no Mormons here give it to them.” That is the idea that some people have about preaching. That was not Paul. He took a shot at the game in sight. He was ready for anything, whether they were crouched or on the wing. He took a shot at the crowd before him.

The trembling of Felix was not worth a cent religiously. It shows the cowardly apprehension of his peril, but there was no repentance about it. He trembled as the thief trembles when he is caught.

There are parallels to this interest of Felix in the case of Herod and John the Baptist, and Louis XIV and his great court preachers. Herod was the one that beheaded John the Baptist, and the one that mocked Christ, and was just such a rascal as Felix, and there was a bad woman in that case. He had taken his brother Philip’s wife, and he wanted to be patronizing to the great Judean prophet, John the Baptist, and sent for him. John shook his finger in his face and said, “It is not lawful to have your brother’s wife.” That was not polite, was it? Herod was very much stirred by John. He preserved John for a long time, but a woman does not forgive such things. Man may, but woman never does, and Herod tried to save John from the woman. I will venture that Drusilla did not tremble like Felix. Herod frequently sent for John after that, but at last the woman got his head. And when it was brought to her on a charger she took a bodkin and pierced his tongue with it, and said, “You will never say again, It is not lawful to have your brother’s wife.'”

The case of Louis XIV is one of the most shameful cases in the sight of the moral law. He affected to be the most pious man in the world, the defender of the faith and the cross of the Roman Catholics. The preachers that preached before him were really greater preachers than the Protestants in their day, and yet, though he heard these great sermons, he went right along living his life of shame.

There is a striking example in the case of Louis XIV cited in Strong’s Systematic Theology. One of these great preachers was discussing in the presence of Louis XIV this text: “But I see another law in my members warring against the law of the mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” While he was discussing that subject, Louis, who always claimed to have special privileges, cried out aloud in the audience, “Oh, sire, I know those two men, the two are in this man!” The preacher looked down at him and said, “Sire, to know is somewhat, but one or the other of them must die; one or the other must conquer.” He was a brave preacher and he made Louis XIV tremble. Paul made Felix tremble, and John the Baptist made Herod tremble.

There are some great revival texts in this section: (1) Paul’s text: “Righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” (2) “Felix trembled,” or the inadequacy of mere trembling without true repentance to save men. (3) “Go thy way for this time, and when I have a more convenient season I will call thee unto me.” How many times has this been preached from! A very fine text, too.

The despicable attitude of Felix is presented in Act 24:26-27 . That says that Felix kept coming to see Paul, hoping he would give him something to let him loose. Now there is the picture of the man holding out one hand to Paul and one to the Jews, say-ing, “I am holding this case in the balance; I do not know how to decide it.” He held a pair of scales in each hand; it depended on which of them would put the most money in it. There is a pertinent passage from Shakespeare on “the law’s delay and the insolence of office.” This man kept Paul there two years when there was not a thing to do but just pronounce him acquitted. The passage is in. Hamlet’s soliloquy (Act III, Scene 1), commencing thus: To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind, to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep, No more; and, by a sleep, to say we end The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish’d. To die; to sleep, To sleep perchance to dream; ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: There’s the respect, That makes calamity of so long a life: For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of despis’d love, the law’s delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life; But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover’d country, from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will; And makes us rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of?

In the successful administration of justice three things are fundamental and vital:

(1) That the defendant should be tried where he can have fair hearing. (Paul could not get it in Jerusalem.); (2) that the man who is arrested should have a speedy trial; (3) that in the trial the righteous should be acquitted and the wicked condemned.

If we compare Luke’s “Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus” (Act 24:27 ), with Josephus’ “Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix” (Antonym, Book XX, chap. 8), it looks like one copied from the other, but Luke wrote his first, of course. We may compute Paul’s twelve days (v. II) by referring to the textbook, which shows the twelve days and what each day was devoted to. (See Goodwin’s Harmony of the Life of Paul, p. 131).

There is just one allusion in Acts to the great collections by Paul so abundantly discussed in Ins letters, i. e., this one here: “I came to bring alms to my nation.” That is the only time in Acts that we have any reference to it. Luke’s Gospel was probably written at Caesarea during the two years there of Paul’s imprisonment. The traceable effect of Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment on his later writings is ably discussed in Conybeare and Howson, in Stalker’s Life of Paul and in some other works. The date of Festus’ succeeding Felix was A.D. 60 or 61. Luke and Aristarchus were with Paul at Caesarea.

Ananias, the high priest, here appearing against Paul, to whom Paul had said, “God will smite thee, thou whiled wall,” was killed by the assassins. He is here enticing the assassins to kill Paul. Vesuvius got Drusilla, the assassins got Ananias, and Judea just kept on boiling and boiling over everywhere against Felix. Charges going all the time to Rome that were finally successful. At Caesarea, while Paul was a prisoner there, the streets ran with the blood of the Jews stricken down by Roman soldiers. Thus ends the sad story of Felix, the slave.

QUESTIONS 1. What is the scripture and the theme of this chapter?

2. What strange contrasts does” this section present, and what lines of thought does it awaken?

3. What is the force of the compound Greek word diakousornai, and what the reason for the employment of that particular word?

4. Why was the place of Paul’s confinement called Herod’s palace or praetorium, i. e., judgment hall?

5. What the value of the section Act 24:1-23 ?

6. How did Tertullus introduce his speech, and how many and what lies did he tell in the exordium?

7. What threefold accusation did he make against Paul?

8. What the Roman law with regard to offenses against the Jewish law, what did Tertullus allege concerning Paul’s arrest and trial under the Jewish law?

9. What was the object of Tertullus in his speech?

10. How does Paul begin his speech, and what the contrast between his exordium and that of Tertullus?

11. How does Paul answer the threefold charge against him?

12. What can you say of Paul’s defense in this case?

13. What new term of reproach employed by Tertullus destined to become historic, what previous scripture anticipates it, and what other names originated by enemies also became historic?

14. What basis of fact underlies Tertullus’ flattery of Felix?

15. What the force of the phrase, “Having more perfect knowledge of the Way”?

16. On what alleged ground does Felix defer judgment, and was there any reason to wait for the testimony of Lysias?

17. What real motive prompted Felix to postpone decision?

18. What evidence in this section Felix was assured of Paul’s innocence?

19. What the history of Drusilla’s connection with Felix?

20. Was this interview of Felix before Paul intended to be judicial?

21. How does Paul make it so, and reverse the relative positions of himself and Felix?

22. Was it polite in Paul to discuss such a theme in such a presence, and if not, how may we justify it?

23. What the religious character and value of the “trembling of Felix”?

24. What parallels to this interest of Felix do we find in the case of Herod and John the Baptist, and Louis XIV and his great court preachers?

25. What striking example in the case of Louis XIV cited in Strong’s Systematic Theology?

26. What great revival texts in this section?

27. What the despicable attitude of Felix as presented in Act 24:26-27 ?

28. Cite the pertinent passage from Shakespeare on “The law’s delay and the insolence of office.”

29. In the successful administration of justice, what things are fundamental and vital?

30. Compare Act 24:27 , and Josephus’ Antonym Book XX chapter 8, and tell which wrote first, Luke or Josephus.

31. How may we compute Paul’s twelve days?

32. How many allusions in the Acts to the great collections by Paul so abundantly discussed in his letters?

33. What New Testament book was probably written at Caesarea during the two years there of Paul’s imprisonment?

34. What effect of Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment on his later writings?

35. What the date of Festus’ succeeding Felix?

36. Who were with Paul at Caesarea?

37. What became of Ananias, the high priest?

38. What transpired in Judea and at Caesarea during Paul’s two years of imprisonment there?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

31 Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris.

Ver. 31. To Antipatris ] So called by Herod (who had repaired it) in honour of his father Antipater. Christ, the everlasting Father, Isa 9:6 , hath his name far better propagated and perpetuated by his sons and daughters, Psa 72:17 , his name shall endure for ever ( filiabitur nomine eius ) by a continual succession of spiritual children (so the Hebrew word signifieth), who shall build his house, and keep up his name, much better than Rachel and Leah did the house of Israel, Rth 4:11 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

31 .] ANTIPATRIS, forty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six from Csarea, was built by Herod the Great, and called in honour of his father. It was before called Kapharsaba (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 1; xvi. 5. 2). In Jerome’s time (Epitaph. Paul, 8, vol. i. p. 696) it was a ‘semirutum oppidum’ (Winer, Realw.).

They might have well made so much way during the night and the next day, for the text will admit of that interpretation, . being not necessarily the morrow after they left Jerusalem , but after they arrived at Antipatris .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 23:31 . : Rendall, appendix on , p. 162. Page finds the antithesis in , Act 24:1 , referring the five days there not to Paul’s arrival in Csarea, but to his despatch from Jerusalem by Lysias, “so then the soldiers, etc. but after five days ” (see also note below). , cf. Act 20:13 . ( ) : “by night,” this use of with genitive of time passed through ( cf. Act 1:3 ) is comparatively rare, Luk 5:5 , Heb 2:15 , except in almost adverbial phrases as here, cf. Act 5:19 , Act 16:9 , Act 17:10 , Simcox, Language of the N.T. , p. 140. : founded by Herod the Great, on the road from Jerusalem to Csarea, not apparently as a fortress but as a pleasant residence, giving it its name in honour of his father, most probably on the site now called Rs el ‘Ain , “the spring-head,” and not where Robinson placed it, on the site of the present Kefr Saba . The more modern site, the discovery of which is due to Conder, is more in accordance with the abundant supply of water referred to by Josephus. It is to be noted that while Josephus in one passage identifies Antipatris with Kefr Saba, in another his description is more general, and he places it in the Plain of Kefr Saba (for notices cf. Ant. , xiii., 15, 1, xvi. 5, 2, B.J. , i., 21, 9). They were now more than half way to Csarea, and the road traversed the open plain so that they were no longer in danger of surprise, G. A. Smith, Historical Geography , p. 165, B.D. 2 , Hastings’ B.D. (Conder). On the Greek article in notices of stations on journeys, peculiar to Acts, see Blass, Gram. , p. 149, cf. Act 17:1 , Act 20:13 , Act 21:1 ; Act 21:3 (but Act 20:14 no article).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 23:31-35

31So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. 32But the next day, leaving the horsemen to go on with him, they returned to the barracks. 33When these had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. 34When he had read it, he asked from what province he was, and when he learned that he was from Cilicia, 35he said, “I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also,” giving orders for him to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium.

Act 23:31 “brought him by night to Antipatris” This city was built by Herod the Great and named after his father, Antipater II. This was a very long march of possibly 30-40 miles. The exact site of the city is uncertain. The reason the foot soldiers returned (cf. Act 23:32) at this point is because

1. this was primarily a Gentile area

2. the topography was open and flat, so there was little danger of surprise attack

Act 23:33 “the governor” This is literally “procurator.” Luke is very precise in his titles for local and Roman officials.

Act 23:34 “asked from what province he was” This was to ascertain jurisdiction. Since Paul was also from an Imperial Province Felix could try the case. There were three divisions of jurisdiction in the Roman Empire:

1. Imperial (Caesar)

2. Senatorial

3. local (like the Herods)

Act 23:35 “after your accusers arrive” This should have been the Jews from Asia who accused Paul in the Temple of bringing a Gentile into the restricted Jewish area. The fact that they did not appear should have resulted in a dismissal of the charges. But, as often happens, local politics affects justice!

“kept in Herod’s Praetorium” The Romans were kind to Paul while he was in their custody (cf. Act 24:23). Paul stayed in a palace built by Herod the Great, which had previously been used for his personal residence, but now had become Roman Headquarters.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Then = So then.

as it was = according to (Greek. kata. App-104.) that which was.

commanded. Greek. diatasso. See note on Act 7:44.

by = through. Greek. dia. App-104. Act 23:1.

Antipatris. A small town in the plain of Sharon, about forty miles from Jerusalem. Built by Herod the Great, and called after his father, Antipater.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

31.] ANTIPATRIS, forty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six from Csarea, was built by Herod the Great, and called in honour of his father. It was before called Kapharsaba (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 1; xvi. 5. 2). In Jeromes time (Epitaph. Paul, 8, vol. i. p. 696) it was a semirutum oppidum (Winer, Realw.).

They might have well made so much way during the night and the next day,-for the text will admit of that interpretation,- . being not necessarily the morrow after they left Jerusalem, but after they arrived at Antipatris.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

as: Act 23:23, Act 23:24, Luk 7:8, 2Ti 2:3, 2Ti 2:4

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2

Act 23:31-32. Antipatris was about halfway between Jerusalem and Caesarea. The entire military escort went that far, at which place it was thought that most of the danger was over. The day after leaving Jerusalem they reached that place, from which all of the escort except the horsemen started back to Jerusalem, and the horsemen conducted Paul the rest of the jorney to Caesarea.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 23:31. Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris. This was the ancient Caphar Saba (town of Saba), and was built by Herod the Great, and then named after his father Antipater. It is about ten miles from Lydia. This town is forty Roman miles from Jerusalem. The escort probably arrived there on the day following the night on which they left the tower of Antonia. There were twenty-six miles still to be travelled before they reached Csarea.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The apostle being brought before Felix the Roman governor, although he was an heathen, yet he showed the apostle far more favour than his own countrymen the Jews: for, observe, 1. His affability to St. Paul, in asking him of his country.

2. His justice; he would not judge him till he had his accusers face to face, I will hear thee when thy accusers are come. If it be enough to accuse, who can be innocent? and if it be sufficient to deny, who would be found guilty? Magistrates must know a cause, before they give sentence or judgment about it; otherwise, though they pronounce a right sentence, it is not in judgment, but by accident. Magistrates must be stars, as well as ministers; they must do nothing blindfold, or blindly.

Observe, 3. His great favour towards the apostle, in committing him a prisoner, not to the common gaol, but to Herod’s palace; a fair prison, if a place of confinement may be so called. The Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, though of his own country, and of his own religion, yet were not so kind to him as Felix the heathen governor.

Thus the chapter concludes with an account of the apostle’s wonderful deliverance from the Jews at Jerusalem, who conspired his destruction; together with the instrumental means and manner of it.

In the next chapter we find him brought to Cesarea, tried before Felix, making a defence for himself, and so reasoning that Felix trembled.

Behold a prisoner at liberty, and his judge in bonds.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Act 23:31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herods judgment-hall Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

31-35. (31) “Then the soldiers, according to what was commanded them, took Paul and conducted him by night to Antipatris, (32) and, on the next day, they returned to the castle, leaving the horsemen to go forward with him. (33) They went to Csarea, delivered the epistle to the governor, and presented Paul before him. (34) And when the governor read the epistle, he asked of what province he was, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, (35) he said, I will hear you when your accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.” This was a palace erected by Herod the Great, who built Csarea.

When the troops guarding Paul has passed beyond the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, there was no further use for the powerful force of infantry; hence the return of the four hundred soldiers and spearmen. The distinction between these two classes is, that those called soldiers belonged to the regular Roman legions, while the spearmen were light-armed troops attached to the legions.

This incident in Paul’s history has been made to bear a part in the controversy as to whether military service is compatible with Christianity. It is urged that Paul could not consistently accept the services of an army of four hundred and seventy men to protect his life from a Jewish mob, unless he acknowledged the rightfulness of military service. But the facts in the case are not suitable to the argument. He did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for military interference; but the military had already interfered, without consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him; and his request was, that they should exercise the power which they had chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no more an indorsement of highway robbery than Paul’s request, expressed through his nephew, was an indorsement of military service. There is not an instance on record in which the apostles ever called for military interference in their times of suffering and persecution.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Act 23:31-35. Arrival at Csarea.Antipatris (p. 28), a Greek town even the name of which has disappeared, was where Ras-el-Ain is now, on the road from Lydda to Csarea, 40 miles from Jerusalem, 25 from Csarea. 40 miles are more than a nights march for infantry. The procurator asks the necessary question as to the province of the prisoner (cf. Luk 23:6 f.), and undertakes to hear the case when the prosecutors arrive. Of the prtorium (mg.) of Herod at Csarea nothing is known.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Paul’s trip back to Caesarea 23:31-32

The large contingent of Roman soldiers escorted Paul through the Judean hill country and the Shephelah (foothills) to the town of Antipatris about 37 miles northwest of Jerusalem. The remaining 28 miles to Caesarea lay over flatter terrain in an area that had a sparser Jewish population. Paul’s party travelled this area in daylight. The foot soldiers returned to Jerusalem from Antipatris, and the 70 remaining cavalry soldiers escorted Paul the rest of the way to Caesarea.

Paul’s departure from Jerusalem was the first leg of his journey to Rome. God had used Paul as His witness in Jerusalem again and had preserved him to witness to the uttermost part of the earth.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)