Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 24:1

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and [with] a certain orator [named] Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

Act 24:1-9. Arrival of the Accusers. Speech of Tertullus, their advocate

1. And after five days ] Most naturally this means after St Paul’s arrival in Csarea, and the events narrated at the end of chap. 23 But it may mean five days after the departure of the Apostle from Jerusalem. The chief captain would give notice to the high priest of what he had done as soon as it was safe to do so. After learning that they must go to Csarea with their accusation, the enemies of St Paul would spend some little time in preparing their charge for the hearing of Felix, and in providing themselves with an advocate. And as they would not probably travel with as much haste as St Paul’s convoy did, five days is not a long interval to elapse before they arrived in Csarea.

Ananias the high priest ] He would be sure to be hot against the Apostle after that speech about the “whited wall.”

descended ] Rev. Ver. [came down], i.e. from the capital to the sea-coast city of Csarea.

with the elders ] The best MSS. have “ with certain elders.” It is not likely that all the elders came. There would be some, who belonged to the Pharisees, who would rather have spoken in favour of St Paul. Those who came would be Sadducees, and so only a portion of the Council.

and with a certain orator named Tertullus ] Rev. Ver. “and with an orator, one Tertullus.” This man, as we may judge from his name, which is a modification of the Latin Tertius, was a Roman, and would be chosen because of his knowledge of Roman law, and his ability to place the case before Felix in such a light as to make it seem that Paul was dangerous to the Roman power, and not merely a turbulent and renegade Jew. We see below that he endeavoured to do this.

who informed, &c.] Better with Rev. Ver. “And they informed.” Thus it is shewn that the relative in the original refers not merely to Tertullus but to the whole deputation. The verb is one which St Luke uses in other places (Act 25:2; Act 25:15) of the laying a formal information before a judge. It is also used, Est 2:22, of Esther laying the information of the plot of the two chamberlains before king Ahasuerus.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And after five days – This time was occupied, doubtless, in their receiving the command to go to Caesarea, and in making the necessary arrangements. This was the twelfth day after Pauls arrival at Jerusalem. See Act 24:11.

Ananias, the high priest – See the notes on Act 23:2.

Descended – Came down from Jerusalem. This was the usual language when a departure from Jerusalem was spoken of. See the notes on Act 15:1.

With a certain orator named Tertullus – Appointed to accuse Paul. This is a Roman name, and this man was doubtless a Roman. As the Jews were, to a great extent, ignorant of the Roman laws, and of their mode of administering justice, it is not improbable that they were in the habit of employing Roman lawyers to plead their causes.

Who informed the governor against Paul – Who acted as the accuser, or who managed their cause before the governor.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 24:1-9

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with a certain orator named Tertullus.

Paul before Felix–a picture of barristerial depravity

1. From his Roman name we judge that Tertullus was a Roman barrister of signal abilities, and perhaps of great reputation. The Jews, probably, for the most part being ignorant of Roman law, employed Roman lawyers to represent them in the courts of justice.

2. The charge is threefold.

(1) Sedition. A mover of sedition, literally, a pestilence, or a pest. Demosthenes and Cicero speak of different persons as the pest of the Republic, the State, the Empire. All the commotions which Pauls enemies created were laid to his charge. To the Romans no crime was more heinous than that of sedition, for they seemed afraid that their vast empire might in some part give way.

(2) Heresy. A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This charge has the merit of truth.

(3) Sacrilege (verse 6). This was a foul calumny. After these charges this clever but unprincipled advocate does two things:

(a) Implies that the Sanhedrin would have judged Paul righteously if Lysias had not interposed.

(b) He gets the Jews to assent to all he had stated.

3. This piece of history presents to us a picture of a corrupt barrister. We see him doing things which disgrace his profession.

I. Venally adopting a bad cause. What was his motive? Love of right–chivalry? No, money. He sold his services to the cause–

1. Of the strong against the weak.

2. Of the wrong against the right. The English courts exhibit something analogous to this sometimes. There are eminent members of the bar, some of whom are wonderfully pious in public meetings, whose services in a bad cause can be easily secured by a handsome fee.

II. Wickedly advocating a bad cause. In his advocacy we discover–

1. Base flattery (verses 2, 3).

2. Flagrant falsehood. He lays, as we have seen, three false charges against him.

3. Suppressed truth. He said nothing about the conspiracy (Act 23:14-15). The man who suppresses a truth when its declaration is demanded by the nature of the case is guilty of falsehood, is a deceiver. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul misunderstood

The other day Paul was mistaken for that Egyptian, which before these days made an uproar, etc. Today a hired orator describes Paul as a pestilent fellow, etc. Does this tally with what you know about him?

1. There is no cause too bad not to hire an advocate to represent it. This Tertullus was the genius of abuse; the worse the cause the glibber his tongue. He lives today, and takes the same silver for his flippant eloquence.

2. How possible it is utterly to misconceive a great character! There is a key to every character, and if you do not get the one you never can understand the other. The difficulty of the man of one idea is to understand any other man who has two. Some of us are so easy to understand, simply because there is so little to be comprehended. No character was so much misunderstood as Jesus Christs; and He said, If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household!

3. Here, too, is the possibility of excluding from the mind every thought characterised by breadth and charity. It does not occur to the paid pleader to say, This man is insane, romantic, has a craze about a theory too lofty or immaterial for the present state of things. Sometimes a charitable spirit will take some such view. But Tertullus knew that he was talking to a man who could only understand coarse epithets, for he himself, though a judge in those times, was the basest of his tribe. Yet, without viciousness, there may be great narrowness. You will contract that narrowness if you do not sometimes come out of your little village into great London. I am not wishful to make every man into a Tertullus who opposes apostolic life and thought. It is possible honestly to oppose even Paul, but the honesty itself is an expression of mental contractedness. What is perfectly right to the eye within given points may be astronomically wrong when the whole occasion is taken in. So men may be parochially right and imperially wrong; men may be perfectly orthodox within the limits of a creed and unpardonably heterodox within the compass of a faith.

4. How wonderful it is that even Tertullus is obliged to compliment the man whom he was paid to abuse!

(1) He was a pestilent fellow. There was nothing negative about Paul, and Tertullus confirms that view. Paul was not a quiet character; wherever he was he was astir. According to Tertullus, Paul was also a mover of sedition, etc., among all the Jews throughout the world–a sentence intended to touch the ear of the Roman judge. Felix might well listen when the man before him was accused of being an insurrectionist. That he was a mower of sedition in the sense implied by Tertullus was not true, but Paul was the prince of revolutionists. Every Christian is a revolutionist. Christianity tears up the foundations, and, after this, begins to build for eternity.

(3) Paul was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. So the prisoner is not made into a little man even by the paid accuser. Paul never could be held in contempt. Put him where you will, he becomes the principal man in that company. A rich banker said, when someone asked him questions regarding his fortune, I cannot help it; if I were tonight stripped and turned into the streets of Copenhagen, I would be as rich in ten years as I am now–I cannot help it. Paul could not help being the first man of every company.

5. What is the inevitable issue of all narrow-mindedness. Falsehood (verse 6). Imagine Tertullus being excited regarding the purity of the temple! How suddenly some men become pious! What a genius is hypocrisy! You cannot misrepresent the people in the temple and yet be concerned honestly for the temple itself. Conclusion: The incident would hardly be worth dwelling upon were it confined to its own four corners, but it is a typical instance repeated continually in our day. The good develops the bad ever. Let a George Fox arise, and how will he be characterised, except as a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of a sect? Let a John Wesley arise, or a George Whitefield, a John Bunyan, or a John Nelson; read the early annals of English Christianity and evangelism; read the history of the early Methodist preachers, and you will find that every age that has brought a Paul has brought along with him a Tertullus. Thank God! nothing but epithets can be hurled against Christianity, yet Christianity stands up today queenly, pure, stainless–every stone thrown at her lying at her feet. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The opening statement of a prosecuting, counsel

The statement of Tertullus was supposed to convey to the judge an impartial description of the prisoner, and a just outline of his offence. Anyone not acquainted with Paul would conclude that he was a sort of Barabbas. And if one had remonstrated with the eloquent lawyer he, with a bland smile rippling over his countenance, would have justified himself by repeating the stereotyped phrase, Sir, I have spoken according to the instructions given me in my brief.

The speech of Tertullus

I. Shows that even then noble men connected with the gospel were branded with a name of scornful contempt. Coining a name of scorn is not a modern invention. As a rule–

1. In the name there lies concealed a pain-inflicting sting. What a sting was in the name Nazarenes!

2. And such names are generally published and circulated by persons who might be expected to act differently–Priests, Scribes, Pharisees and religious persons. And today it is not from atheists, but from persons nominally religious, that Christians receive the cruellest thrusts of scorn.

II. Reminds us that different interpretations may be given of the work done by one man. Here Paul was a walking pest, a scatterer of contagious evil; elsewhere men could not find words strong enough to express the grateful joy they felt as they witnessed the apostles work. Thus is it today.

III. Starts the reflection that the position and pursuits of a man may be the opposite at one period of life from what they have been at another. Twenty-five years before Paul was the ringleader of the opposition raised by priests and Scribes against the sect of the Nazarenes. Such a change is not of rare occurrence now.

IV. Gave indirect testimony to the thoroughness of the life and work of the apostle. As Paul heard himself spoken of as being a pestilent fellow, etc., a moments reflection would help him to gather the honey of consolation from the lawyers rhetoric. All that was said against Paul testified to his zeal and influence as a Christian worker. Had he been an idler the enemies of the Cross would not have thought it necessary to haul him to a bar of justice. If a man finds the world fraternising with him, he may suspect that he is not so loyally zealous in Christs cause as he should be; but if some worldly Tertullus storms at him he may console himself that his service is a work which incenses a sin-loving world.

V. Suggests that sectarian zeal may blind men to their true and best interest. The priests could not conceive it possible that Paul might be right, and they, after all, might be wrong. In fact, they would rather see Paul put to death than have their useless creed and ritual superseded by a gospel which would bring to light life and immortality. The same spirit reigns rampantly among the bigots who today ask, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? (C. Chapman, M. A.)

Paul and Tertullus: or false eloquence and true

1. False eloquence is flattering: it speaks to please the hearers (verse 3). True eloquence does not flatter: it addresses the heart and conscience.

2. False eloquence is hypocritical: it dwells only on the lips; it is honey in the mouth and gall in the heart (verses 5, 6). True eloquence does not dissimulate: it proceeds from the heart and speaks as it feels (verses 10, 14-16).

3. False eloquence is deceitful: it makes black white and white black (verses 5, 6). True eloquence does not lie: it denies only what is false (verse 13), but confesses what is true (verses 14, 15), and makes the matter speak instead of the words (verses 16-20). (K. Gerok.)

Eloquence true and false

Eloquence, considered as the power of giving a luminous and impressive statement of truth; of marshalling our arguments in distinct and forceable order; of portraying virtue in all its charms, and vice in all its deformity; of defending the innocent against oppression and calumny, and dragging forth the wicked to execration and punishment; eloquence employed in these important offices, and uniting with the clear deductions of reason and experience, all the energies of language, and all the ornaments of an ardent and cultivated imagination, is undoubtedly one of the noblest and most enviable talents which a mortal can possess. It may uphold the religion and morals of a nation; it may save a sinking state from ruin. But when it aims at exciting the passions, without enlightening the mind; when, with its false colouring, it makes the worse appear the better cause; when it corrupts the imagination and undermines the principles of morality; when, like a base prostitute, it offers itself to every person who demands its assistance; when it flatters where it should reprove, and condemns what it ought to applaud and defend; it is more noxious than the pestilence which infects the air that we breathe, or than the lightning which blinds us with its glare and overwhelms us with its irresistible force. (J. Dick, D. D.)

Eloquence perverted

Eloquence is the gift of God; but eloquence in a bad man is poison in a golden cup. (St. Augustine.)

Orators and preachers

Gods preachers are not orators of acquired words, but witnesses of revealed facts. (R. Besser, D. D.)

Sanguinary orators

We have a class of speakers in this country who are silent on all great social and cosmopolitan topics, but make themselves heard and felt the moment any matter of warlike fascination comes to the surface. All other questions float down the stream of public opinion without causing them even to indicate their existence. They remind one of those animals noted for their bloodthirstiness in the warm regions of Africa–the caribitos (Serrasalmo). Their haunts are at the bottom of rivers, but a few drops of blood suffice to bring them by thousands to the surface; and Humboldt himself mentions that in some part of the Apure, where the water was perfectly clear and no fish were visible, he could in a few minutes bring together a cloud of caribitos by casting in some bits of flesh. With equal ease we can collect all our war orators if we only give them one sanguinary pretext. (Scientific Illustrations.)

Lawyers without a perception of justice

Lawyers generally know too much of law to have a very clear perception of justice, just as divines are often too deeply read in theology to appreciate the full grandeur and the proper tendencies of religion. Losing the abstract in the concrete, the comprehensive in the technical, the principal in its accessories, both are in the predicament of the rustic who could not see London for the houses.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXIV.

After five days, Ananias the high priest, the elders, and one

Tertullus, an orator, come to Caesarea to accuse Paul, 1.

The oration of Tertullus, 2-9.

Paul’s defence, 10-21.

Felix, having heard his defence, proposes to leave the final

determination of it till Claudius Lysias should come down;

and, in the mean time, orders Paul to be treated with humanity

and respect, 22, 23.

Felix, and Drusilla his wife, hear Paul concerning the faith of

Christ; and Felix it greatly affected, 24, 25.

On the expectation of obtaining money for his liberation, Felix

keeps Paul in prison, 26,

and being superseded in the government of Judea by Porcius

Festus, in order to please the Jews, he leaves Paul bound, 27.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV.

Verse 1. After five days] These days are to be reckoned from the time in which Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem, and twelve days after he had arrived in that city; see Ac 24:11. Calmet reckons the days thus:-St. Luke says that Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem when the seven days of his vow were nearly ended, Ac 21:27; that is, at the end of the fifth day after his arrival. The next day, which was the sixth, he was presented before the Sanhedrin. The night following, he was taken to Antipatris. The next day, the seventh, he arrived at Caesarea. Five days afterwards, that is, the twelfth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, the high priest and the elders, with Tertullus, came down to accuse him before Felix.-But See Clarke on Ac 23:32.

A certain orator named Tertullus] This was probably a Roman proselyte to Judaism; yet he speaks every where as a Jew. Roman orators, advocates; c., were found in different provinces of the Roman empire and they, in general, spoke both the Greek and Latin languages; and, being well acquainted with the Roman laws and customs, were no doubt very useful. Luitprandus supposed that this Tertullus was the same with him who was colleague with Pliny the younger, in the consulate, in the year of Rome, 852; who is mentioned by Pliny, Epist. v. 15. Of this there is no satisfactory proof.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

After five days, from the time that Paul was come to Caesarea: the malice and fury of the persecutors was very great, they stick not at any travail and pains to do mischief; and surely we ought to be as earnest in doing good, or their zeal will condemn us.

A certain orator; a lawyer to form the indictment against Paul, or to aggravate his fault, and to desire judgment upon him. Such advocates usually were the chiefest orators, as Demosthenes in Greece, and Cicero at Rome; and Tertullus seems to have been a crafts master, whom the Jews hired to draw up an accusation against Paul.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. after five daysor, on thefifth day from their departure from Jerusalem.

Ananias . . . with theeldersa deputation of the Sanhedrim.

a certain oratorone ofthose Roman advocates who trained themselves for the higher practiceof the metropolis by practicing in the provinces, where the Latinlanguage, employed in the courts, was but imperfectly understood andRoman forms were not familiar.

informed . . . againstPaul“laid information,” that is, put in the charges.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,…. From Jerusalem to Caesarea: these five days are to be reckoned not from the seizing of Paul in the temple, but from his coming to Caesarea; the Alexandrian copy reads, “after some days”, leaving it undetermined how many: the high priest, with the elders, the members of the sanhedrim, with “some” of them, as the same copy and the Vulgate Latin version read, came down hither; not merely as accusers, by the order of the chief captain, but willingly, and of their own accord, to vindicate themselves and their people, lest they should fall under the displeasure of the Roman governor, for encouraging tumults and riots: the high priest must be conscious to himself that he had acted in an illegal manner, in ordering Paul to be smitten on the mouth, in the midst of the council, in the presence of the chief captain; and if it had not been for the soldiers, Paul had been pulled to pieces in the council: and the elders knew what a hand they had in the conspiracy against his life; and they were sensible that this plot was discovered, and Paul was secretly conveyed away; and what the captain had wrote to the governor, they could not tell, and therefore made the more haste down to him, to set themselves right, and get Paul condemned:

and with a certain orator named Tertullus: this man, by his name, seems to have been a Roman; and because he might know the Roman, or the Greek language, or both, which the Jews did not so well understand, and was very well acquainted with all the forms in the Roman courts of judicature, as well as was an eloquent orator; therefore they pitched upon him, and took him down with them to open and plead their cause. The name Tertullus is a diminutive from Tertius, as Marullus from Marius, Lucullus from Lucius, and Catullus from Catius. The father of the wife of Titus, before he was emperor, was of this name k; and some say her name was Tertulla; and the grandmother of Vespasian, by his father’s side, was of this name, under whom he was brought up l. This man’s title, in the Greek text, is , “Rhetor”, a rhetorician; but though with the Latins an “orator” and a “rhetorician” are distinguished, an orator being one that pleads causes in courts, and a rhetorician a professor of rhetoric; yet, with the Greeks, the “Rhetor” is an orator; so Demosthenes was called; and so Cicero calls himself m.

Who informed the governor against Paul; brought in a bill of information against him, setting forth his crimes, and declaring themselves his accusers; they appeared in open court against him, and accused him; for this is not to be restrained to Tertullus, but is said of the high priest, and elders with him; for, the word is in the plural number, though the Syriac version reads in the singular, and seems to refer it to the high priest.

k Sueton. in Vita Titi, l. 11. c. 4. l Ib. Vita Vespasian. c. 2. m De Oratore, l. 3. p. 225.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Speech of Tertullus.

      1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.   2 And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,   3 We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.   4 Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.   5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:   6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.   7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,   8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.   9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

      We must suppose that Lysias, the chief captain, when he had sent away Paul to Csarea, gave notice to the chief priests, and others that had appeared against Paul, that if they had any thing to accuse him of they must follow him to Csarea, and there they would find him, and a judge ready to hear them-thinking, perhaps, they would not have given themselves so much trouble; but what will not malice do?

      I. We have here the cause followed against Paul, and it is vigorously carried on. 1. Here is no time lost, for they are ready for a hearing after five days; all other business is laid aside immediately, to prosecute Paul; so intent are evil men to do evil! Some reckon these five days from Paul’s being first seized, and with most probability, for he says here (v. 11) that it was but twelve days since he came up to Jerusalem, and he had spent seven in his purifying the temple, so that these five must be reckoned from the last of those. 2. Those who had been his judges do themselves appear here as his prosecutors. Ananias himself the high priest, who had sat to judge him, now stands to inform against him. One would wonder, (1.) That he should thus disparage himself, and forget the dignity of his place. She the high priest turn informer, and leave all his business in the temple at Jerusalem, to go to be called as a prosecutor in Herod’s judgment-hall? Justly did God make the priests contemptible and base, when they made themselves so, Mal. ii. 9. (2.) That he should thus discover himself and his enmity against Paul!. If men of the first rank have a malice against any, they think it policy to employ others against them, and to play least in sight themselves, because of the odium that commonly attends it; but Ananias is not shamed to own himself a sworn enemy to Paul. The elders attended him, to signify their concurrence with him, and to invigorate the prosecution; for they could not find any attorneys or solicitors that would follow it with so much violence as they desired. The pains that evil men take in an evil matter, their contrivances, their condescensions, and their unwearied industry, should shame us out of our coldness and backwardness, and out indifference in that which is good.

      II. We have here the cause pleaded against Paul. The prosecutors brought with them a certain orator named Tertullus, a Roman, skilled in the Roman law and language, and therefore fittest to be employed in a cause before the Roman governor, and most likely to gain favour. The high priest, and elders, though they had their own hearts spiteful enough, did not think their own tongues sharp enough, and therefore retained Tertullus, who probably was noted for a satirical wit, to be of counsel for them; and, no doubt, they gave him a good fee, probably out of the treasury of the temple, which they had the command of, it being a cause wherein the church was concerned and which therefore must not be starved. Paul is set to the bar before Felix the governor: He was called forth, v. 2. Tertullus’s business is, on the behalf of the prosecutors, to open the information against him, and he is a man that will say any thing for his fee; mercenary tongues will do so. No cause so unjust but can find advocates to plead it; and yet we hope many advocates are so just as not knowingly to patronise an unrighteous cause, but Tertullus was none of these: his speech (or at least an abstract of it, for it appears, by Tully’s orations, that the Roman lawyers, on such occasions, used to make long harangues) is here reported, and it is made up of flattery and falsehood; it calls evil good, and good evil.

      1. One of the worst of men is here applauded as one of the best of benefactors, only because he was the judge. Felix is represented by the historians of his own nation, as well as by Josephus the Jew, as a very bad man, who, depending upon his interest in the court, allowed himself in all manner of wickedness, was a great oppressor, very cruel, and very covetous, patronising and protecting assassins.–Joseph. Antiq. 20. 162-165. And yet Tertullus here, in the name of the high priest and elders, and probably by particular directions from them and according to the instructions of his breviate, compliments him, and extols him to the sky, as if he were so good a magistrate as never was the like: and this comes the worse from the high priest and the elders, because he had given a late instance of his enmity to their order; for Jonathan the high priest, or one of the chief priests, having offended him by too free an invective against the tyranny of his government, he had him murdered by some villains whom he hired for that purpose who afterwards did the like for others, as they were hired: Cujus facinoris quia nemo ultor extitit, invitati hac licentia sicarii multos confodiebant, alios propter privatas inimicitias, alios conducti pecunia, etiam in ipso templo–No one being found to punish such enormous wickedness, the assassins, encouraged by this impunity, stabbed several persons, some from personal malice, some for hire, and that even in the temple itself. An yet, to engage him to gratify their malice against Paul, and to return them that kindness for their kindness in overlooking all this, they magnify him as the greatest blessing to their church and nation that ever came among them.

      (1.) They are very ready to own it (v. 2): “By thee we, of the church, enjoy great quietness, and we look upon thee as our patron and protector, and very worthy deeds are done, from time to time, to the whole nation of the Jews, by thy providence–thy wisdom, and care, and vigilance.” To give him his due, he had been instrumental to suppress the insurrection of that Egyptian of whom the chief captain spoke (ch. xxi. 38); but will the praise of that screen him from the just reproach of his tyranny and oppression afterwards? See here, [1.] The unhappiness of great men, and a great unhappiness it is, to have their services magnified beyond measure, and never to be faithfully told of their faults; and hereby they are hardened and encouraged in evil. [2.] The policy of bad men, by flattering princes in what they do amiss to draw them in to do worse. The bishops of Rome got themselves confirmed in their exorbitant church power, and have been assisted in persecuting the servants of Christ, by flattering and caressing usurpers and tyrants, and so making them the tools of their malice, as the high priest, by his compliments, designed to make Felix here.

      (2.) They promise to retain a grateful sense of it (v. 3): “We accept it always, and in all places, every where and at all times we embrace it, we admire it, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. We will be ready, upon any occasion, to witness for thee, that thou art a wise and good governor, and very serviceable to the country.” And, if it had been true that he was such a governor, it had been just that they should thus accept his good offices with all thankfulness. The benefits which we enjoy by government, especially by the administration of wise and good governors, are what we ought to be thankful for, both to God and man. This is part of the honour due to magistrates, to acknowledge the quietness we enjoy under their protection, and the worthy deeds done by their prudence.

      (3.) They therefore expect his favour in this cause, v. 4. They pretend a great care not to intrench upon his time: We will not be further tedious to thee; and yet to be very confident of his patience: I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. All this address is only ad captandam benefolentiam–to induce him to give countenance to their cause; and they were so conscious to themselves that it would soon appear to have more malice than matter in it that they found it necessary thus to insinuate themselves into his favour. Every body knew that the high priest and the elders were enemies to the Roman government, and were uneasy under all the marks of that yoke, and therefore, in their hearts, hated Felix; and yet, to gain their ends against Paul, they, by their counsel, show him all this respect, as they did to Pilate and Csar when they were persecuting our Saviour. Princes cannot always judge of the affections of their people by their applauses; flattery is one thing, and true loyalty is another.

      2. One of the best of men is here accused as one of the worst of malefactors, only because he was the prisoner. After a flourish of flattery, in which you cannot see matter for words, he comes to his business, and it is to inform his excellency concerning the prisoner at the bar; and this part of his discourse is as nauseous for its raillery as the former part is for its flattery. I pity the man, and believe he has no malice against Paul, nor does he think as he speaks in calumniating him, any more than he did in courting Felix; but, a I cannot but be sorry that a man of wit and sense should have such a saleable tongue (as one calls it), so I cannot but be angry at those dignified men that had such malicious hearts as to put such words into his mouth. Two things Tertullus here complains of to Felix, in the name of the high priest and the elders:–

      (1.) That the peace of the nation was disturbed by Paul. They could not have baited Christ’s disciples if they had not first dressed them up in the skins of wild beasts, nor have given them as they did the vilest of treatment if they had not first represented them as the vilest of men, though the characters they gave of them were absolutely false and there was not the least colour nor foundation for them. Innocence, may excellence and usefulness, are no fence against calumny, no, nor against the impressions of calumny upon the minds both of magistrates and multitudes to excite their fury and jealousy; for, be the representation ever so unjust, when it is enforced, as here it was, with gravity and pretence of sanctity, and with assurance and noise, something will stick. The old charge against God’s prophets was that they were the troublers of the land, and against God’s Jerusalem that it was a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces (Ezr 4:15; Ezr 4:19), and against our Lord Jesus that he perverted the nation, and forbade to give tribute to Csar. It is the very same against Paul here; and, though utterly false, is averred with all the confidence imaginable. They do not say, “We suspect him to be a dangerous man, and have taken him up upon that suspicion;” but, as if the thing were past dispute, “We have found him to be so; we have often and long found him so;” as if he were a traitor and rebel already convicted. And yet, after all, there is not a word of truth in this representation; but, if Paul’s just character be enquired into, it will be found directly the reverse of this.

      [1.] Paul was a useful man, and a great blessing to his country, a man of exemplary candour and goodness, blessing to all, and provoking to none; and yet he is here called a pestilent fellow (v. 5): “We have found him, loimon—pestem–the plague of the nation, a walking pestilence, which supposes him to be a man of a turbulent spirit, malicious and ill-natured, and one that threw all things in disorder wherever he came.” They would have it thought that he had dome a more mischief in his time than a plague could do,–that the mischief he did was spreading and infectious, and that he made others as mischievous as himself,–that it was of as fatal consequence as the plague is, killing and destroying, and laying all waste,–that it was as much to be dreaded and guarded against as a plague is. Many a good sermon he had preached, and many a good work he had done, and for these he is called a pestilent fellow.

      [2.] Paul was a peace-maker, was a preacher of that gospel which has a direct tendency to slay all enmities, and to establish true and lasting peace; he lived peaceably and quietly himself, and taught others to do so too, and yet is here represented as a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout all the world. The Jews were disaffected to the Roman government; those of them that were most bigoted were the most so. This Felix knew, and had therefore a watchful eye upon them. Now they would fain make him believe that this Paul was the man that made them so, whereas they themselves were the men that sowed the seeds of faction and sedition among them: and they knew it; and the reason why they hated Christ and his religion was because he did not go about to head them in a opposition to the Romans. The Jews were every where much set against Paul, and stirred up the people to clamour against him; they moved sedition in all places where he came, and then cast the blame unjustly upon him as if he had been the mover of the sedition; as Nero not long after set Rome on fire, and then said the Christians did it.

      [3.] Paul was a man of catholic charity, who did not affect to be singular, but made himself the servant of all for their good; and yet he is here charged as being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, a standard-bearer of that sect, so the word signifies. When Cyprian was condemned to die for being a Christian, this was inserted in hi sentence, that he was auctor iniqui nominis et signifer–The author and standard-bearer of a wicked cause. Now it was true that Paul was an active leading man in propagating Christianity. But, First, It was utterly false that this was a sect; he did not draw people to a party or private opinion, nor did he make his own opinions their rule. True Christianity establishes that which is of common concern to all mankind, publishes good-will to men, and shows us God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and therefore cannot be thought to take its rise from such narrow opinions and private interests as sects owe their origin to. True Christianity has a direct tendency to the uniting of the children of men, and the gathering of them together in one; and, as far as it obtains its just power and influence upon the minds of men, will make them meek and quiet, and peaceable and loving, and every way easy, acceptable, and profitable one to another, and therefore is far from being a sect, which is supposed to lead to division and to sow discord. True Christianity aims at no worldly benefit or advantage, and therefore must by no means be called a sect. Those that espouse a sect are governed in it by their secular interest, they aim at wealth and honour; but the professors of Christianity are so far from this that they expose themselves thereby to the loss and ruin of all that is dear to them in this world. Secondly, It is invidiously called the sect of the Nazarenes, by which Christ was represented as of Nazareth, whence no good thing was expected to arise; whereas he was of Bethlehem, where the Messiah was to be born. Yet he was pleased to call himself, Jesus of Nazareth, ch. xxii. 8. And the scripture has put an honour on the name, Matt. ii. 23. And therefore, though intended for a reproach, the Christians had not reason to be ashamed of sharing with their Master in it. Thirdly, It was false that Paul was the author of standard-bearer of this sect; for he did not draw people to himself, but to Christ-did not preach himself, but Christ Jesus.

      [4.] Paul had a veneration for the temple, as it was the place which God had chosen to put his name there, and had lately himself with reverence attended the temple-service; and yet it is here charged upon him that he went about to profane the temple, and that he designedly put contempt upon it, and violated the laws of it, v. 6. Their proof of this failed; for that they alleged as matter of act was utterly false, and they knew it, ch. xxi. 29.

      (2.) That the course of justice against Paul was obstructed by the chief captain. [1.] They pleaded that they took him, and would have judged him according to their law. This was false; they did not go about to judge him according to their law, but, contrary to all law and equity, went about to beat him to death or to pull him to pieces, without hearing what he had to say for himself-went about, under pretence of having him into their court, to throw him into the hands of ruffians that lay in wait to destroy him. Was this judging him according to their law? It is easy for men, when they know what they should have done, to say, this they would have done, when they meant nothing less. [2.] They reflected upon the chief captain as having done them an injury in rescuing Paul out of their hands; whereas he therein not only did him justice, but them the greatest kindness that could be, in preventing the guilt they were bringing upon themselves: The chief captain Lysias came upon us and with great violence (but really no more than was necessary) took him out of our hands, v. 7. See how persecutors are enraged at their disappointments, which they ought to e thankful for. When David in a heat of passion was going upon a bloody enterprise, he thanked Abigail for stopping him, and God for sending her to do it, so soon did he correct and recover himself. But these cruel men justify themselves, and reckon him their enemy who kept them (as David there speaks) from shedding blood with their own hands. [3.] They referred the matter to Felix and his judgment, yet seeming uneasy that they were under a necessity of doing so, the chief captain having obliged them to it (v. 8): “It was he that forced us to give your excellency this trouble, and ourselves too; for,” First, “He commanded his accusers to come to thee, that though mightest hear the charge, when it might as well have been ended in the inferior court.” Secondly, “He has left it to thee to examine him, and try what thou canst get out of him, and whether thou canst by his confession come to the knowledge of those things which we lay to his charge.”

      III. The assent of the Jews to this charge which Tertullus exhibited (v. 9): They confirmed it, saying that those things were so. 1. Some think this expresses the proof of their charge by witnesses upon oath, that were examined as to the particulars of it, and attested them. And no wonder if, when they had found an orator that would say it, they found witnesses that would swear it, for money. 2. It rather seems to intimate the approbation which the high priest and the elders gave to what Tertullus said. Felix asked them, “Is this your sense, and is it all that you have to say?” And they answered, “Yes it is;” and so they made themselves guilty of all the falsehood that was in his speech. Those that have not the wit and parts to do mischief with that some others have, that cannot make speeches and hold disputes against religion, yet make themselves guilty of the mischiefs others do, by assenting to that which others do, and saying, These things are so, repeating and standing by what is said, to pervert the right ways of the Lord. Many that have not learning enough to plead for Baal yet have wickedness enough to vote for Baal.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

And with an Orator, one Tertullus ( ). A deputation of elders along with the high priest Ananias, not the whole Sanhedrin, but no hint of the forty conspirators or of the Asian Jews. The Sanhedrin had become divided so that now it is probably Ananias (mortally offended) and the Sadducees who take the lead in the prosecution of Paul. It is not clear whether after five days is from Paul’s departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea. If he spent nine days in Jerusalem, then the five days would be counted from then (verse 11). The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin orator) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero pro Cael. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also. is a common old Greek word meaning a forensic orator or advocate but here only in the N.T. The Latin rhetor was a teacher of rhetoric, a very different thing. Tertullus is a diminutive of Tertius (Ro 16:22).

Informed (). Same verb as in Acts 23:15; Acts 23:22, somewhat like our modern “indictment,” certainly accusations “against Paul” ( ). They were down on Paul and the hired barrister was prosecuting attorney. For the legal form see Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. II., p. 162, line 19.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

An orator [] . An advocate. The Jews, being little acquainted with Roman forms and laws, had to employ Roman advocates.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PAUL ACCUSED BY ORATOR TERTULLUS BEFORE FELIX V. 1-9

1) “And after five days,” (meta de pente) “Then after five days,” after Paul had been in Caesarea about five days, and after the events surrounding his arrival there, as described in the latter part of chapter 23. Or it may mean, as supposed by some, that it was five days after Paul was escorted out of Jerusalem by 470 Roman guards, Act 23:23; Act 23:31.

2) “Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,” (katebe ho archiereus Hananias meta presbuterron) “Ananias the high priest came down (from Jerusalem) with the, or certain, elders,” from Jerusalem, the capitol of Judea, to Caesarea, the seacoast city of Rome’s Regional Governing Center, accompanied by a certain group of Sanhedrin elders, Act 23:2.

3) “And with a certain orator named Tertullus,” (tiono kai hreteros Tertullon tinos) “And a certain one who was an advocate orator, Tertullus,” came with them, as a professional pleader, to formally accuse Paul for the Jews, before Felix the governor or Roman procurator of Judea. It is considered that he was well versed in the form of Roman Law as a prosecuting council.

4) “Who informed the governor against Paul.” (oitnes enephanisan to hegemoni kata tou Paulou) “Who orally delivered the charges to the governor against Paul.” Tertullus is considered to have been a Roman who was able to give a formal oral abstract brief, or declaration of the grounds for the prosecution of Paul, as formerly noted, Act 21:27; Act 23:2; Act 23:30; Act 23:35; and, later given Act 25:2.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

1. Seeing Ananias goeth down to Cesarea to accuse Paul, it maketh the conjecture more probable, which I brought before touching his priesthood. For it was not meet for the highest priest to take such a journey. Therefore some other man was highest priest at that time; and Ananias being one of the chief priests, forasmuch as he was in great authority, and was withal a stout − (562) man, did take this embassage upon him. He bringeth with him a train, and that of the worshipful company of elders, that the governor might be moved with their very pomp to condemn Paul. But forasmuch as Paul did use no eloquence, they had no need to hire a rhetorician to contend with him in eloquence. Moreover, they did exceed both in dignity and also in multitude, so that it was an easy matter for them to oppress a poor man, and such a one as was destitute of man’s help. Therefore it was a sign of an evil conscience, in that seeing they were men of great experience, exercised in public affairs, and skillful in matters pertaining to courts, they hire a rhetorician. Eloquence is, I confess, the gift of God; but in this matter they went about nothing else but to deceive the judge therewith. And Luke declareth this, therefore, that we may know that the Jews did omit nothing whereby they might oppress Paul; and that they might not only prove him guilty, − (563) but so dash him out of countenance, that he might not be able to defend himself; and so let us consider that it came to pass by the wonderful providence of God, that Paul did so stoutly endure such sore assaults. Wherefore, if it so fall out at any time that a godly man being alone be beset with a great number of enemies, let him call to mind this history, and let him be of good courage. As David doth likewise exhort us by his own example, −

“

If tents were pitched about me, I will not fear, because thou art with me,” ( Psa 27:3). −

(562) −

“

Strenuus,” active. his innocence.

(563) −

“

Perverterent ejus innocentiam,”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

PAUL HIS OWN ATTORNEY

Act 24:1-27.

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul (Act 24:1).

THIS is an interesting statement. It deals with one of the greatest of all social questions, namely, the judgment of men who do not know us.

A Modernist has recently published two books The Man Nobody Knows, and The Book Nobody Knows, and there are competent readers who declare that he has perfectly illustrated his subject in both instances. It is almost a uniform custom for people who know least to talk most. The truly strong man is seldom so described by his opponents as to be even recognizable were he not named!

I have heard personal and prominent friends of mine commented upon so adversely that I have more than once felt constrained to say, Pardon me; but the man you are talking about is not the one you have named at allnot the one that I know, and know intimately. Certainly, if that remark was ever justified, some friend of Pauls might have made it to Tertullus.

Here is the most conscientious and Christian of menthe most courageous soldier of the Cross the most competent Christian living on the face of the earth, and here is a hired enemy of his talking to a judge, and he speaks of him as a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, a profaner of the templein other words, a blackened criminal. How remote the description from the man named; and such is life!

This chapter presents Tertullus, the Accusing Attorney, Pauls Speech in Self-Defense, and Felix, the Contemptible and Temporizing Judge.

TERTULLUSTHE ACCUSING ATTORNEY

When Paul was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, and that accusation involves certain lawyer traits.

The very speech employed proves a shyster lawyer. Addressing Felix, Tertullus said, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

It was a fine compliment. It was paid to a man who would appreciate it. The weaker the judge the more potent the laudatory method. The man who is consciously wrong wants people to tell him that he is right. The man who is consciously weak would like a competent attorney to tell him that he is strong. The man whose deeds are ignoble listens with pleasure when you tell him that they are worthy.

A judge with nobility of character does not even desire flattery from an attorney at his court. He resents it instead. The attorney who attempts it prejudices his case; but not so with the weakling, not so with the purchasable, not so with the politician sitting in the place of power. The latter fattens on flattery and delights in adulation and even dares to hope that, after all, the public judgment of his conduct is better than the censorship of his own conscience.

If there is one thing that a shyster lawyer knows, it is the nature of men. He rests his chances of success upon that knowledge and he never fails to flatter the weakling, to compliment the cowardly and to pay undeserved tribute to an unjust judge. He hopes always to win his case, not by adequate proofs of its justice, but by compliment. Tertullus was typical!

Shyster-like, he indulges in blanket charges. A pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, a ringleader of the sect, a profaner of the Temple, a dangerous criminal deserving judgment. It is amazing, and yet amusing, to listen to the deliverances of a certain kind of an attorney.

Some time since, two of my friends were divorced. The husband took the initial steps in the case. He had no cause whatever except that he had ceased to love the woman to whom he swore an eternal loyalty at the altar, and had come to love another; and yet, when that lawyer had prepared his statement for the court, one would imagine that of all the abused, outraged, martyred men time had known, my acquaintance was the chief. Such is the shyster-lawyers ability to magnify minor disagreements, or even to imagine non-existent ones.

Christ knew this kind of criticism in its fullest extent. There were few villainous charges they did not lay against him. His servants should scarcely expect escape from the worlds serpent tongue and tooth. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? (Mat 10:25).

Christianity is, however, by nature and character calculated to excite criticism. There was some measure of truth in what Tertullus said. When Christianity is rightly understood, its advocates are disturbers of world peace. They are seditionists in the worlds judgment, and they are ring-leaders of the Nazarenes.

Christianity is and will forever remain revolutionary. It practically overthrew the reign of the Caesars, and since that time it, has overturned governments more than once, and such a disturber it will remain until the end of time, for has not the Lord said, Exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him (Eze 21:26-27).

The explanation of this questionable course is also characteristic.

Whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so (Act 24:6-9).

A feature of this accusation that is intentionally interesting is found in the fact that this lawyer suddenly turns religious. He is shocked that the Temple should be profaned. There is no evidence whatever that he had any personal interest in this Temple. Tertullus is a Roman name, and the fact that he identifies himself with his clients is no proof that he was a Jew. Such has been the custom of lawyers from time immemorial! In order to appreciate Pauls innocence in this whole procedure, one needs to read Act 21:27-40, and compare Act 23:26-30.

The employment of pious terms to cover putrid purposes is not a custom of two thousand years of age. There are men alive now, whose skepticism is undermining the very foundations of both the denominations to which they belong and the very cause of the church itself, and yet, these men are making it appear that every true apostle of the faith is a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, an enemy of the true temple of God.

Some time since, in the defense of the anti-biblical theory of evolution, a certain professor, speaking in my presence, became suddenly eloquent in his interest in the church and his deep concern for Christianity, lest, believing all things that are written in both the Law and in the Prophets, should overturn both and bring discredit to the cause of Christ. More than once have I heard these anti-Christian teachers voice alarm lest, standing steadily for the Christian faith should drive young people from the church and cause them to become infidel and even atheistic. The fact that no such consequences can be found, interferes in nothing with the flow of their eloquence. They know that the appearance of piety will pass with many auditors, and so they shed crocodile tears in fear for the future of the church at the hands of people who believe God and His Word, and voice themselves as alarmed for the conclusions of an open and inquiring mind in matters of religion, while they themselves are doing their utmost to destroy the foundations of the Christian faith.

Satan is ingenious but not particularly novel. Unlike Shakespeare, he often repeats himself. The Tertullian critics of the twentieth century are trying to make it appear that the enemies of God and of true religion are none other than the mightiest apostles of the Christian faith, and they are calling upon high heaven to witness the truthfulness of their accusations, and they are still bringing the unbelieving Jews, who are the menace of this millennium, as eloquent witnesses to the charges they make against Christ and His cause.

But let us hear, now, while

PAUL SPEAKS IN SELF-DEFENSE

Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself (Act 24:10).

The Apostle employs only the compliment of truth. Being at once a Christian and a gentleman, he will say the best he can for the man before whom he appears, and that best is but an indifferent compliment. Thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation.

Long continuance in office is complimentary. It commonly indicates that the man has been efficient or he would not have continued; but in this case it was an accommodated speech. Felix had been judge but a few years. They were only long in comparison with the indifferent, slothful and inefficient judges who had preceded him, and had been changed often.

But even that little sign of superiority is not passed over by the Apostle in silence. There is no occasion, nor is there any profit in wantonly insulting the man who holds your destiny in his hands. Paul was neither gross nor foolish. He would think out what he could say truthfully and let the man on the throne make the most of his meagre words. It reminds one of a story that has gone the roundsa story of a certain Irishman who made it his business to speak well of the dead. He attended every community funeral, and when the preacher had closed his remarks, he would rise and ask the privilege of an additional word, and it was always a reference to some virtue of the deceased. Consequently, he was an acceptable attendant at all funeral occasions. Finally, the most worthless man of the town died. The preacher did his best with the difficult subject and the laudation was exceedingly light. Upon its conclusion, Pat stepped forward and the mourning audience listened with bated breath to hear what this complimentary soul could say concerning the deceased. He was silent a moment and stepped back. The audience felt that for once he had been baffled and found honest compliments impossible. A second time he moved forward, and again the people bent in keen listening, but he paused and partially retired. Then, with a sudden recovery, he turned again to the assembled company and said the only thing he could think of that was favorable, Begorry, he was a mighty good schmoker!

Paul is almost as barren, but he does his best. He, at least, leaves the impression that he expects justice from this judge, and that impression must exist or even the best of judges will do injustice.

The man who comes to trial, showing his contempt of judge or jury, and whose visage and voice alike indicate that he expects nothing, is doomed to failure. The cheerful man is the conquering man, whether in court or out of it. Paul knew that fact and employed that philosophy in his opening words.

The Apostle answers the charges and demands proofs.

Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.

And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me (Act 24:11-13).

Therein is a truthful suggestion! The guilty man seldom answers in any direct way the testimony given against him, and the guilty man never desires, much less demands, that all the witnesses be heard and all the proofs presented. You take two people charged with great crimes and watch the way in which they meet the charge and you will well-nigh discover the measure of innocence and guilt involved with each. The man who says, Paul-like, Bring on your witnesses, the more of them the better; let nothing be covered up; let the whole truth be known; turn on the lightthe stronger the light the more surely will my conduct be shown correctthat man is innocent, as a rule. But the man who does not want a careful trial; who is glad if the court throws it out; who rejoices when the prosecuting attorney shows a pale interest and who is extremely happy when the whole procedure is droppedthat man is guilty as a rule.

Two notable cases have been headlines in all American newspapers for the last two or three weeks. One of them, a New York murder, the other an Atlanta murder. In the New York murder the participants revealed their fear from the first, fought desperately to escape an indictment and were utterly disconsolate when witnesses appeared against them. In the Atlanta murder, circumstantial evidence was equally strong, but society might one day discover its mistake and base this supposition upon a single circumstance, namely, the supposed Southern murderer smiled through the whole trial; the Northern murderers wept theirs through. The Southern murderer frankly and openly affirmed with perfect good-nature that a mistake had been made in laying the crime at his feet, and the Northern murderers weakened and collapsed at the conclusion of the whole matter. We are not saying that there was guiltlessness in either case, but we are saying that the single circumstance of good cheer, open and frank discussion and flat denial, often characterizes the innocent, while the confusion, counter-criticisms, a covered face, a broken spirit, are seldom absent when the blackest sinners are called to judgment.

It is a frightful thing to be tried, whether one be guilty or guiltless, but the trial of the guiltless can never embarrass and shame as does the trial of the guilty. Men have been heard to whine over some slander that has been passed against them, saying, I would not have minded it had he told the truth! How absurd! That would have killed, indeed. It is the truth that hurts, and humbles, and bends, and breaks, as false indictment can never do. Every innocent man faces a court with complacency and every guilty man faces it with fear. The innocent man meets the policeman on his beat with a smile, a hearty salutation, a sense of friendship. A guilty man passes him only when compelled to and watches stealthily his gaze to see whether it be upon him, and is nervous if the officer but stop and look at him. Truly, conscience makes cowards of us all!

The Apostle deliberately planned to divide his opponents. In the preceding chapter he split their forces in twain by referring to his allegiance to Pharisaism. Here, again, he makes use of the same argument in another form. He says, If they have found any evil doing in me, while 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 by you this day (Act 24:20-21). In other words, the Apostle employed an effective policy. He knew that if his opponents were divided into two camps, he would walk out between them, and he also felt in his deepest soul that to be silent on this great question of the resurrection was a sin. It pays always to be open and above board as to ones creed as well as ones conduct.

Years since, I was engaged in a hot debate over the liquor traffic. I was fighting a proposed legislation that looked to the extension of saloon territory in my city, and my opponent thought to put me in bad light by saying, This man not only wants the limit of sixth street in Minneapolis to restrain the saloons. Down in his secret soul he hates them, and if he had his way, he would prohibit their existence in every part of the earth, and then in the hope of carrying the prejudiced by making this pass, he turned to me and said, Is not that true that you hate the saloon and would feign see the whole institution in hell? He was a bit abashed when I arose in reply and said, You report me accurately! I believe that strong drink was born of the pit and that men who are addicted thereto are fools to the correction of the stocks, and the nation that legally licenses it is particepts criminis.

To his dismay, nine-tenths of the audience vociferously cheered, and he saw at once that his middle-of-the-road position had lost out, and the radical demand for a repudiation of his pet advice had been roundly applauded.

Doubtless the Apostles declaration produced a kindred effect. The Pharisees were not few in number, and this open and above board belief would bring many of them to the Apostles defense, and the new fight in the ranks of his opponents would give the Apostle rest and the greater prospect of escape.

However, the power to release or condemn was with

FELIX, THE CONTEMPTIBLE AND TEMPORIZING JUDGE

Felix knowledge retarded His deliverance. He knew much of the Christian faith. The text says that he had more perfect knowledge of that way, and yet he delayed his decision. On the one side, he wanted to please the Jews. That was policy. On the other side, he wanted to conserve his own conscience, for he saw nothing in the Apostle Paul worthy of condemnation.

Delay on the part of a judge is seldom a sign of desire to do exact justice, or even the mental repose of an unformed opinion. Our observation would lead us to think that the delay of judgment is an ill omen. The judge often knows what is right long before the case is finished. Any observant judge ought to know what is right when the last attorney has closed his plea, and we believe, as a rule, he does know. Yet, under the pretense of reviewing arguments and testimony, long delays are often indulged. This gives the conscience a chance to sleep and makes the final deliverance in defense of the wrong seem less despicable to the man who makes it.

In a lifetime I have had but one case in court, and the contracts were alike interpreted by both parties, and there was both verbal and written proof of the same. When all testimony was in, the judge asked for time and kept extending it day after day until it became to me an ill omen, and I was not half so much surprised as I was amazed when his final deliverance camea deliverance which he sought so industriously to defend as to prove his shame in making the same.

Again,

This judge sought to still his conscience by softening imprisonment. He commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him (Act 24:23). In other words, he permitted him a certain measure of the free life when he knew he deserved full freedom. He would not release him, but he would show him special favors. He would not set him free, but he would permit his friends and acquaintances to visit and minister to him. How often such is true!

Today there languishes in a federal prison in the Southern states an ex-governor of state. He was technically guilty, but his condemnation was the pure product of political prejudice, and of the natural endeavor of a man in financial straits to find a way out. The prominence of this man in politics was such that any favor shown him would react upon the party to which he belonged, and which is yet in power. So he goes on adding day to day, week to week, month to month, and year to year, of this prison experience. But, knowing that he is not deep-dyed in guilt, and that his crimes were more technical than deliberately intended, he was shown so many favors as to produce a political protest. He is permitted to go about at his pleasure, quit the prison grounds and return at will. He is made the teacher of a great Bible class, and is everywhere accorded courtesies that belong only to the free man and to the honored citizen. Alas, for the makeshifts of justice! They are many.

Finally,

This knowledge eventuated in a no-judgment. Felix never set Paul free, nor did he ever pronounce his condemnation. By failure to do either he left the Apostle in prison, often visited with him and even hoped that he might be paid a price to permit the freedom that he knew the Apostle deserved. He was the kind of a judge who sways back and forth between the love of gold on the one side and the desire for political power on the other.

The Catholic church claims a few hundred successors to Peter. It would be easy to prove a few thousand successors to Felix. Such judges are common! They characterize every city! They curse every state in the Union! Perhaps nowhere in the annals of history has the character of such a judge been more vividly portrayed than in this twenty-fourth chapter. A man who is imprisoned here is making for himself an honorable name that time will constantly enhance, and the man who sits in the place of judgment is bringing on himself a condemnation that the centuries will increasingly feel.

The astute politician and the sanctified prophet are poles apart. Paul or Felix, which are you? Which am I?

We conclude this discussion with these questions, solely because we propose to return to it again, and in an evening address present a further exposition of Act 24:24-27.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 24:1. After five days.Reckoned from Pauls departure from Jerusalem (Kuinoel, Meyer, De Wette, Hackett, Alford, Plumptre), though some (Holtzmann, Lechler, Zckler, Olshausen, and others) prefer to count from Pauls arrival at Csarea. The former agrees better with the statement that twelve days had elapsed since his arrival in Jerusalem (Act. 24:11). The elders.I.e., the Sanhedrists, who were probably represented by certain of their number. The oldest authorities read some of the elders which, however, has the appearance of being a correction (Hackett, Alford, Lechler). A certain orator, rhetorician, or advocate, acquainted with the forms of Roman law, which were not understood by the people of the provinces, who therefore had to employ such barristers or rhetoricians (=oratores forenses or causidici publici) to plead for them before Roman tribunals. Tertullus.A. diminutive from Tertius. Probably a Roman. Had the trial been conducted in Latin, which cannot be proved, Luke would most likely have noted it (compare Act. 22:2). Who.I.e., not Tertullus, but Ananias and the elders through him. Informed the governor against Paul.I.e., lodged their complaint against him.

Act. 24:2. Called forth.Or, simply called. After the charges against him had been lodged, and before the evidence was produced. Roman law secured that no prisoner should be condemned without hearing and having an opportunity to answer the indictment preferred against him (see Act. 25:16). Tertulluss indictment, which consisted of three chargessedition, heresy, and sacrilege, or profanation of the temple (see Act. 24:5-6)was prefaced by the most undisguised flattery, in the hope of inducing Felix to condemn Paul. Great quietness, or much peace.The administration of Felix did not present much opening for panegyric, but he had at least taken strong measures to put down the gangs of Sicarii and brigands by whom Palestine was infested (Jos., Ant., XX. viii. 5; Wars, II. xiii. 2), and Tertullus shows his skill in the emphasis which he lays on quietness. By a somewhat interesting coincidence, Tacitus (Ann., xii. 54), after narrating the circumstances caused by a quarrel between Felix, backed by the Samaritans, and Ventidius Cumanus, who had been appointed as governor of Galilee, ends his statement by relating that Felix was supported by Quadratus, the president of Syria et quies provinci reddita (Plumptre). For very worthy deeds, i.e., things successfully achieved, the best MSS. read , improvements, emendations, bettermentsi.e., corrections of evil (R.V.). How much truth there was in this the statement of Josephus (Ant., XX. viii. 9) shows, that after his removal from office the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Csarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix, and that he had certainly been brought to punishment unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitation of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honour by him. By thy providence.Tu providenti, providentia Csaris, is a common inscription on the coins of the emperors (Spence).

Act. 24:3. Always and in all places are better connected with accept (Hackett, Zckler) than with done (Holtzmann, Wendt, Besser). Most noble Felix, : compare (Luk. 1:3).

Act. 24:4. A few words refer not to the flattering preamble (Meyer), but to the subsequent plea.

Act. 24:5. A pestilent fellow.Better, a pest, or plague; used as in English. The world meant the Roman empire. The sect of the Nazarenes.A contemptuous expression, for the first time transferred from the Master to the disciples (compare Act. 2:22, Act. 6:14; Joh. 1:46). The name is still applied to Christians by Jews and Mohammedans. During the Indian Mutiny of 1855 the Mohammedan rebels, it is said (Smiths Dictionary of the Bible: art. Nazarene), relied on a supposed ancient prophecy that the Nazarenes would be expelled from the country after ruling for a hundred years.

Act. 24:6. Who also hath gone about or assayed to profane the temple.Shows that the original charge had been modified (see Act. 21:28). Whom we took or laid hold of.Through the change of construction at whom the preceding participial clause (Act. 24:5) becomes an anakolouthon. The remaining words of this verse, with Act. 24:7 and first part of Act. 24:8, are omitted in the most approved texts. It is difficult to perceive why they should either have been inserted or left out. If genuine they show that Tertullus, instructed by the Sanhedrim, who were exceeding bitter against Lysias, wished to turn the tables against him by suggesting that had it not been for his interference the whole matter would have been disposed of without troubling the governor. Would have judged according to our law.Does not square well with the facts as related in Act. 21:31, Act. 26:21.

Act. 24:7. Represents Lysias as having rescued Paul with great violence, which also scarcely comports with truth (Act. 21:32).

Act. 24:8. Whom.Has for antecedent Paul, if the intermediate clauses be rejected; but either the accusers (as the A.V. suggests), or more probably Lysias (as the Greek text indicates), if the clauses be retained.

Act. 24:9. A better reading than assented, , is assailed him at the same time, or joined in assailing him, , by asserting that the charges were true.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.

Act. 24:1-9. The Indictment of Tertullus: or, the Vapid Eloquence of a Heathen Lawyer

I. The judge upon the bench.

1. His name. Felix. One of the worst of Roman officials (Ramsay). See on Act. 23:24.

2. His dignity. Governor of the province of Juda. Representative of Roman law and justice. Who should therefore have treated Paul with strictest equitywhich he did not.

3. His character. Immoral, tyrannical, covetous, unjust. The opposite to that ascribed to him by Tertullus (see Homiletical Analysis on Act. 23:23-35).

II. The prisoner at the bar.Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, who had just been rescued from the violent hands of his countrymen, and who was now to be impeached in their name on three serious charges, of every one of which he was innocent. Had his countrymen only known they might have said, with perfect truthfulness, This is the noblest Roman of them all. Looking back upon his great career, impartial posterity can testify

His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up,
And say to all the worldThis was a man!

SHAKESPEARE, Julius Csar, Act v., Sc. 5.

III. The prosecutors and their indictment.

1. The prosecutors were Ananias the high priest (see Act. 23:2), and the elders who had come down from Jerusalem to Csarea for the purpose of accusing Paul before the governor. Their state of mind may be imagined from the circumstance that they had, five days before, conspired with forty ruffians to assassinate the apostle, who only escaped their toils by a specially providential deliverance.

2. The indictment they were prepared to move against him consisted of three counts.

(1) Sedition. They alleged that the prisoner at the bar was a pestilent fellow, and a mover of seditions among all the Jews throughout the worldan old charge, which had been preferred against the apostle at Thessalonica (Act. 17:6-7), which had never been established, and which was absolutely false.

(2) Heresy. They accused the prisoner at the bar of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, by which phrase they sought to pour contempt upon the followers of Christ, because of His supposed birth at Nazareth, which, in their judgment, stamped Him as a false Messiah. This charge the apostle did not seek to deny (Act. 24:14).

(3) Sacrilege. They accused him of having profaned the temple. They asserted, not as they had done before (Act. 21:28), that Paul had desecrated the holy place, but that he had attempted to do so, by introducing within its precincts Trophimus, the Ephesianwhich the narrative shows he had not done.

IV. The advocate and his oration.

1. The advocate. Tertullus by name, a diminutive from Tertius, was a Roman lawyer or rhetorician, whose trade it was to plead in courts of law throughout the empire. He was probably

(1) a person of considerable talent, else his services would not have been sought by the Sanhedrim, though if he was, his genius and eloquence might easily have been employed in a better cause than seeking the conviction of an innocent man. He was certainly
(2) a man of untruthful character, since he not only openly and unblushingly flattered the judge, in the hope of carrying his suit, but most likely also knowingly misrepresented the facts of the case he had in hand (if the clause about Lysias be retained). And in any case
(3) his employment by the Sanhedrim was a melancholy proof of the unspirituality of that high court, that it called in a heathen orator to help their bad cause by his crafty speech (Besser). This, remarks Bengel, is the only place in the whole of sacred Scripture in which the name of the orator is to be found. The preachers of God, adds Besser, are not reciters of learned words, but witnesses of revealed things. The orator Tertullus steps forward to help the Godless Jews in place of the absent Holy Spirit.
2. The oration which Tertullus pronounced consisted of three partsflattery, falsehood, and misrepresentation.

(1) The flattery was offered as fragrant incense to the judge, to intoxicate his senses, becloud his understanding, pervert his judgment, and captivate his will. Felix was actually invited to believe that in the estimation of his admiring and devoted subjects he had been a veritable pacator provinciyea, a kind of little god, through whose benign providence the welfare of his dependents had been highly advanced, and whose gracious clemency the speaker humbly entreated while intruding on his awful majesty with a few more words. It showed Tertullus to be far from a bungler at his trade that he contrived so smoothly to slide over the difficult narration of the procurators misdeeds, and to convert what was abominable cruelty into gracious clemency; and considering how dearly most men love to be flattered, when the candied tongue is not too apparent, one wonders that Tertullus did not meet with more success. Either there was in Felix, after all, some fragment of a noble manhood which taught him to despise the compliments he knew to be as insincere as they were undeserved, or there was a loftiness of thought and speech in Pauls defence which completely neutralised the effect of the heathen lawyers rhetoric.

(2) The falsehood consisted in the repetition of the threefold charge of sedition, heresy, and sacrilege, which had been put into his mouth by the high priest and his unprincipled confederates. That Paul, who preached the gospel of peace and showed to men the way of salvation, promoted civil tumults and social revolutions, though an old charge (Act. 17:7), was as ridiculous as it was untrue (compare Rom. 13:1). That he was chargeable with heresy or schism could only be maintained by those who knew themselves to be in innermost accord with the truth, which Ananias and Tertullus were notelse, alas! for the truth. If to be a ringleader among the Nazarenes, as the Christians were then beginning to be styled (see Critical Remarks) was to be a hereticwhich, however, Paul denied (Act. 24:14)then undoubtedly their allegation was true, and no lie. That he had attempted to desecrate the holy place by bringing Trophimus within its precincts strayed as widely from the truth as the assertion that he had actually committed this unholy deed. Well might Paul have exclaimed as he listened to the glowing periods of the orator

O hateful error
Why dost thou show to the apt thoughts of men
The things that are not!

SHAKESPEARE, Julius Csar, Act v., Sc. 3.

(3) The misrepresentation lay in this, that Tertullus, instructed presumably by his employers, endeavoured to lay the blame of this intrusion on the noble Felixs leisure on Lysias, the commandant of the Castle of Antonia, who, said the orator, stating incorrectly what had taken place, had pounced down upon the Sanhedrim and violently torn Paul from their hands when they were peacefully attempting to judge him according to their law. Whether Tertullus believed his own story may be doubted; that Felix did not, especially after hearing Pauls defence, is almost certaineven though it was backed up by the strong asseverations of the high priest and the elders that the charges preferred against Paul, and the statements relative to Lysias, were correct.

Learn

1. The badness of the cause that cannot establish itself without the help of worldly Wisdom

2. The weakness of the indictment that needs to be prefaced by flattering the Judges 3. The exaggeration which characterises the most of the worlds charges against Christians.

4. The violence which accusers commonly exhibit when they feel that they have no case.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 24:1. One Tertullus.

I. An obscure man providentially lifted into doubtful fame. Better for his reputation and character it would have been had he never emerged from the oblivion into which he had been born.

II. A lawyer, not without ability, employed in a bad cause.His legal knowledge and forensic eloquence might easily have been consecrated to a nobler task than prosecuting Paul.

III. An undisguised flatterer, whose honeyed words were seen through.Most men who use this contemptible weapon expect to succeed by it. So, doubtless, did Tertullus; but he did not.

IV. A paid advocate, who lost his cause.From whatever motive, Felix, if he swallowed the flattery, did not condemn the apostle.

Act. 24:5. The Sect of the Nazarenes; or the value of nicknames.This appellation, like those applied to ChristThe Nazarene, Friend of Publicans and Sinners, etc., defeated its own end, which was to overwhelm the early Christians with shame and contempt. On the contrary, it was

I. The confirmation of a valuable historical truth.Viz., that Christ was brought up at Nazareth.

II. The recognition of what to them who uttered it must have been an unpleasant factViz., that the cause which Jesus of Nazareth represented had not been extinguished by the crucifixion, but had, since that appalling tragedy, increased its hold upon the minds of the community.

III. The publication of what those against whom it was directed counted their highest honour.Viz., that they were followers of the Nazarene. To this day the name of the Nazarene stands highest among the sons of men, and no commendation can be more acceptable to a sincere Christian than the suggestion that he is worthy of the name he bears.

Act. 24:2-5. Mistaken Judgments.

I. Bad men are often credited with good deeds they never do.Witness Felix, whom Tertullus lauded as a peace-maker and social reformer.

II. Good men are as often blamed for evil deeds of which they are entirely innocent.For instance, Paul, who was charged by Tertullus with being a mover of insurrections, a heretic and a profaner of the temple.

III. These mistaken judgments, though considered just at mans tribunals, are all wrong at Gods, and will eventually be reversed.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

b.

Pauls trial before Felix the governor. Act. 24:1-22.

Act. 24:1

And 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.

Act. 24:2

And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying,

Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by thy providence evils are corrected for this nation,

Act. 24:3

we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.

Act. 24:4

But, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words.

Act. 24:5

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:

Act. 24:6

who moreover assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold:

Act. 24:8

from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.

Act. 24:9

And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so.

Act. 24:10

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 defence:

Act. 24:11

seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem:

Act. 24:12

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.

Act. 24:13

Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.

Act. 24:14

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;

Act. 24:15

having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.

Act. 24:16

Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always.

Act. 24:17

Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings:

Act. 24:18

amidst which they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult: but there were certain Jews from Asia

Act. 24:19

who ought to have been here before thee, and to make accusation, if they had aught against me.

Act. 24:20

Or else let these men themselves say what wrong-doing they found when I stood before the council,

Act. 24:21

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.

Act. 24:22

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.

Act. 24:1 The forty men in Jerusalem were going to have a long fast if they were going to eat nothing until they killed Paul. But when word got to them that Paul had left the city, they probably gave up their vow. But not the high priest Ananias. He was not one to be thwarted. When the Christians fled Jerusalem, Saul pursued them to foreign cities. Saul went to the high priest for permission to do so. This time the high priest was himself in pursuit. (Not of Christians, but of the very one who was once the pursuer.)

It is probable that Lysias sent word to the high priest that since Paul was a Roman citizen his case had been referred to the governor,
Paul had been in Caesarea five days when his accusers came, Here is an interesting chronology of the 12 days that had elapsed since Paul came to Jerusalem.

1May 8th Paul arrived at Jerusalem.
2May 9th Pentecost and council held.
3May 10th Paul goes to Temple with the four Nazarites.
4May 11th Second day of Nazarite week.
5May 12th Third day.
6May 13th Fourth Day.
7May 14th Fifth day and Paul is apprehended in the temple.
8May 15th Before the Sanhedrin.
9May 16th The conspiracy against Paul; at nine oclock at night

Paul is dispatched to Caesarea.

10May 17th Reaches Caesarea.
11May 18th)

19th)
20th) At Caesarea.
21st)

12May 22nd Trial before Felix.
(This chronology is taken from Lewin, as quoted by Dallmann).

889.

Show the great difference in the relation of Paul to the high priest here from that of previous times.

890.

How did Ananias hear that Paul had left Jerusalem and was now in Caesarea?

891.

When Paul was tried before Felix how many days elapsed since he first arrived in Jerusalem?

Act. 24:2-9 Ananias was prepared to make the most of this appearance. With this in mind he had brought along a Roman orator who understood better the procedure of Roman law. Of course this lawyer or orator was paid, but he was determined to do his mercenary best.

Paul was called out of the prison and all were summoned before the governor and the trial began.
Tertullus was the first to speak and his first effort was to secure the good will of Felix. This Roman orator said everything he could in favor of Felix. It wasnt what he did say that mattered, it was rather what he did not say that suggested flattery. Indeed:
(1) By the effort of Felix the country did enjoy a measure of peace. He even called himself The Pacifier of the Providence yet there was much discord and Felix was the cause of a good deal of it.

(2) And it was true that evils were corrected. Yes, and how many other evils were promoted by this one? And some of the corrected evils resulted in the slaughter of numerous Jews.

Felix like other kings felt he had divine right in his rule, hence the use of the world providence in Act. 24:2.

Tertullus says that it was not only here before the governor that the nation made mention of these things, but at all times and in all ways with thankfulness. (What a liar.) This smooth speaker says in essence that: I could go on like this for hours but I do not wish to bother you with it.
What is the meaning of clemency? It refers to compassion or remissionjust another word of flattery. Now to the charges against Paul.

1.

We (the Jews, since he was speaking for them) have found this man a pestilent fellow.

This was but a general charge as much as to say that this man is a monster or this one is a desperate character, a dangerous criminal. This was only given to throw a dark aura around the apostle.

2.

He is a mover (originator) of insurrections. Not confined to one location, but among the Jews throughout the world.

When the Jews were pressed for a charge against Jesus they resorted to that of insurrection. This would be a very pointed appeal to a Roman ruler.

3.

A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

This was a military term applied to those who were in the front rank of the army, a foremost manof the sect. The term Nazarenes was a term of contempt referring to Jesus of Nazareth. This sect was mentioned by Tertullus as if it were a low class of people. Thus Paul then was a ringleader of this rabble.

4.

A profaner of the temple. Literally attemptedendeavoredto profane the temple.

Why would a Roman governor be interested in this thought? Because it was a capital offense in both Roman and Jewish law. The accusation they had against Paul had to do with bringing a Gentile into the Jewish quarter. This was strictly forbidden on penalty of death. This the Roman ruler knew.

To put the Jews in the best light, Tertullus insinuates that left alone the Jews would have tried the case and settled it in justice and law, but Lysias interfered and made it ultimately necessary to appear here in Caesarea.

892.

Why bring Tertullus along?

893.

In what way was Tertullus deceptive in what he said to Felix?

894.

Mention two of the sins of The Pacifier of the Providence.

895.

What is the meaning of the word providence in Act. 24:2?

896.

What obvious lie did Tertullus tell?

897.

Why call Paul a pestilent fellow?

898.

What is the meaning of the term insurrection?

899.

Why call the Christians Nazarenes?

900.

Why mention profaning the temple?

901.

In what way did Tertellus attempt to put the Jews in a favorable light? How false?

Act. 24:10-21 Of course a greater falsehood could hardly be imagined, for far from being about to judge Paul, they were about to murder him when Lysias interfered.

The orator adds in conclusion that a simple examination on the part of the governor will substantiate all that has been said. The Jews led by Ananias, although they knew how the facts had been perverted were so full of hatred they joined in assailing him.
Notice how carefully and completely Paul answers the false charges and note also his adroit introduction. When the governor gave Paul the nod of assent to speak he spoke after this fashion:
Since you have been for many years a judge of this nation (from 6 to 10 years, a long time when the average term was 2 years or less) I am glad to make my defense before you for I can be more confident of a fair judgment.
Then follows the reasons why the things whereof he was accused were not so.

(1)

A pestilent fellowThis general charge was passed over by Paul as not even worthy of notice. Anyone who actively objected to the belief of another would be considered by the one opposed as a pestilent fellowa monster of wickednessThis proved nothing.

(2)

A mover of insurrection. Hear Paul on this charge: Take knowledge, O Felix, it has been but 12 days since I came to Jerusalem. A mover of an insurrection against Rome? Where? Did they find me in the temple? Did they? Can they prove that I stirred up a crowd in the synagogues? Prove it. Or in the streets of the city? I have been here in Caesarea five days. Stir up an insurrection in seven days? Ridiculous! For proof of what they have said, they have nothing.

(3)

A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Guilty! But I am only serving the God of our fathers by this means. Far from introducing a new god, I am following the law and the prophets who hath told of these days. I have the same hope as these, my accusers, the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. Far from being some kind of a heretic I do so thoroughly believe these things that I constantly exercise myself (a term alluding to athletic exercises at the Grecian games) so as to have a conscience void of offense before God and man.

(4)

A profaner of the temple.

This was a charge of sacrilege. As to being sacrilegious Paul had this to say of his relationship to the temple at Jerusalem: I was in the temple to worship. I had no thought of profaning the temple or insulting my people. Indeed, I brought alms and offerings to them from foreign places. There was no tumult or crowd. This was how they found me in the temple. Certain Jews from Asia also found me in the performance of these rites. They should be here today to accuse me now as they accused me then. But since they are not here let the ones that are here say what wrong I have done. I was examined before the Sanhedrin and they found nothing against me. On only one point could I be called in question and that has to do with a point of doctrine and not of law. I cried before the council: Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.

902.

Show the advantage of the introduction given by Paul?

903.

Why not answer the first charge?

904.

How did the mention of the twelve days answer the charge of insurrection.

905.

How did Paul show that being a Nazarene was no offense against God?

906.

Who should have been present at the trial to substantiate the charges?

907.

Why make the point that the charge was not one of law but rather of doctrine?

Act. 24:22 If either Paul or Ananias thought a decision was to be made at this time they were to be disappointed. Felix knew very well of the relationship of Christianity and Judaism. Felix was not thinking primarily of justice, but like a certain other, Pilate, about his job. He was afraid to incur the disfavor of the Sanhedrin and yet he could not condemn this innocent man. A pretext was used to relieve the pressure.

When Lysias the chief captain shall come down I will determine your matter.
He was a long time in coming for Paul stayed two years in Caesarea.

908.

How account for the indecision of Felix?

909.

Why did Felix make the statement that he did?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XXIV.

(1) After five days.The interval may have just allowed time for messengers to go from Csarea to Jerusalem, and for the priests to make their arrangements and engage their advocate. Possibly, however, the five days may start from St. Pauls departure from Jerusalem and this agrees, on the whole, better with the reckoning of the twelve days from the Apostles arrival there, in Act. 24:11.

Descended.Better, came down, in accordance with the usage of modern English.

A certain orator named Tertullus.Men of this class were to be found in most of the provincial towns of the Roman empire, ready to hold a brief for plaintiff or defendant, and bringing to bear the power of their glib eloquence, as well as their knowledge of Roman laws, on the mind of the judge. There is not the slightest ground for supposing, as some have done, that the proceedings were conducted in Latin, and that while the chief priests were obliged to employ an advocate to speak in that language, St. Paul, who had never learnt it, was able to speak at once by a special inspiration. Proceedings before a procurator of Juda and the provincials under him were almost of necessity, as in the case of our Lord and Pilate, in Greek. Had St. Paul spoken in Latin, St. Luke, who records when he spoke in Hebrew (Act. 21:40), and when in Greek (Act. 21:37), was not likely to have passed the fact over; nor is there any evidence, even on that improbable assumption, that St. Paul himself, who was, we know, a Roman citizen, had no previous knowledge of the language. The strained hypothesis breaks down at every point. The name of the orator may be noted as standing half-way between Tertius and Tertullianus.

Who informed the governor against Paul.The word is a technical one, and implies something of the nature of a formal indictment.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 24

A FLATTERING SPEECH AND A FALSE CHARGE ( Act 24:1-9 )

24:1-9 Five days afterwards Ananias the high priest came down with some of the elders and with a pleader called Tertullus. They laid information against Paul before the governor. When Paul was called, Tertullus began to accuse him in these terms, “Since through you we enjoy much tranquillity and since through your foresight many reforms have been brought about for this nation in every place and in every way, Felix, your excellency, we welcome it all with gratitude. But not to trouble you any longer, I ask you in your kindness briefly to hear us. When we had found this fellow a pest, a man who fomented disturbances among all the Jews throughout the civilized world, a man who is the ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes–and he tried to defile the Temple, too–we arrested him. By examining him yourself, you can learn from him the charges of which we accuse him”; and the Jews agreed with him, alleging that the facts were as stated.

Tertullus ( G5061) began his speech with a passage of almost nauseating flattery, every word of which he and Felix knew was quite untrue. He went on to state things which were equally untrue. He claimed that the Jews had arrested Paul. The scene in the Temple court was far closer to being a lynching than an arrest. The charge he levelled against Paul was subtly inaccurate; it fell under three heads.

(i) Paul was a fomenter of troubles and a pest. That classed Paul with those insurrectionaries who continually inflamed the inflammable populace into rebellion. Tertullus well knew that the one thing that tolerant Rome would not stand was civil disorder, for any spark might become a flame. Tertullus knew it was a lie but it was an effective charge.

(ii) Paul was a leader of the sect of the Nazarenes. That coupled Paul with Messianic movements; and the Romans knew what havoc false Messiahs could cause and how they could whip the people into hysterical risings which were only settled at the cost of blood. Rome could not afford to disregard a charge like that. Again Tertullus knew it was a lie but it was an effective charge.

(iii) Paul was a defiler of the Temple. The priests were Sadducees, the collaborationist party; to defile the Temple was to infringe the rights and laws of the priests; and the Romans, Tertullus hoped, would take the side of the pro-Roman party. The charge was that most dangerous of things–a series of half-truths and of twisted facts.

PAUL’S DEFENCE ( Act 24:10-21 )

24:10-21 When the governor had given him the sign to speak, Paul answered, “In the knowledge that you for many years have been a judge of this people, I confidently offer my defence of my case, for you can ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I came up to Jerusalem to worship. Neither in the Temple nor in the synagogues nor throughout the city did they find me arguing with anyone or collecting a crowd; nor can they provide any truth of the accusations which they make against me. This I do admit to you–that, according to The Way, which they call a sect, I worship my ancestral God. At the same time I believe in all things that are written throughout the Law and in the prophets, and I have the same hope towards God as they themselves accept–I mean that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust. Because of this, I too train myself that I may always have an unharmed conscience towards God and towards men. After many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my people. In the course of these offerings they found me purified in the Temple, not with a crowd and not the centre of any disturbance. But some Jews from Asia–who ought to be present before you and who ought to be bringing whatever accusation they had against me–or let they themselves say what offence they found in me as I stood before the Sanhedrin, other than in regard to this one expression I used as I stood amongst them–‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am on trial today before you.'”

Beginning at the passage, “But some Jews from Asia Paul’s grammar went wrong. He began to say one thing and in mid-career changed over to another so that the sentence became quite disconnected. But its very disconnection shows vividly the excitement and tension of the scene. Paul’s defence is that of a man whose conscience is clear–it is simply to state the facts. The tragedy was that it was when he was bringing the contributions from his churches for the poor of Jerusalem and when he was meticulously observing the Jewish Law that arrest came. One of the greatest things about Paul is that he speaks in his own defence with force and sometimes with a flash of indignation, but never with the self-pity or bitterness that would have been so natural in a man whose finest actions had been so cruelly and deliberately misinterpreted.

PLAIN SPEAKING TO A GUILTY GOVERNOR ( Act 24:22-27 )

24:22-27 But Felix, who had a very good knowledge of the facts about The Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will go into your case.” He instructed the centurion that Paul was to be held under guard, that he was to be allowed some freedom, and he instructed him not to hinder any of his friends from rendering him service. Some days after, Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and listened to him about the faith in Christ Jesus. While Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and judgment to come Felix was afraid and said, “For the present, go your way. When I have time I will send for you.” At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul so he sent for him quite often and used to have conversation with him. At the end of two years Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; but Felix, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Jews, left Paul a prisoner.

Felix ( G5344) was not unkind to Paul but some of Paul’s admonitions struck terror into his heart. His wife Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa the First. She had been married to Azizus, King of Emesa. But Felix, with the help of a magician called Atomos, had seduced her from Azizus and persuaded her to marry him. It is little wonder that when Paul presented him with the high moral demands of God he was afraid.

For two years Paul was in prison and then Felix went too far once too often and was recalled. There was a longstanding argument as to whether Caesarea was a Jewish or a Greek city and Jews and Greeks were at daggers drawn. There was an outbreak of mob violence in which the Jews came off best. Felix despatched his troops to aid the Gentiles. Thousands of Jews were killed and the troops, with Felix’s consent and encouragement, sacked and looted the houses of the wealthiest Jews in the city.

The Jews did what all Roman provincials had a right to do–they reported their governor to Rome. That was why Felix left Paul in prison, even though he was well aware that he should be liberated. He was trying to curry favour with the Jews. It was all to no purpose. He was dismissed from his governorship and only the influence of his brother Pallas saved him from execution.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

VI. PAUL’S TWO YEARS AT CESAREA, Act 24:1 to Act 26:32.

1. Paul’s First Roman Arraignment and Third Defence Before Felix , Act 24:1-21 .

Six arraignments did Paul encounter in a degree of climax; two before the Jews, and perhaps four before the Roman courts.

The first was on the stairs of Fort Antonia, (Act 22:1😉 the second before the Sanhedrin, (Act 23:1😉 the third (this) before Felix; the fourth before Festus and Agrippa, (Act 26:2😉 the fifth before Nero, with acquittal; and the sixth before Nero, resulting in the crown of martyrdom. In the present arraignment he is forever released from the Jewish, and fairly in the hands of the Pagan, power. Gentilism, unconscious as ever, has fairly rescued her apostle from Judaism, no more to surrender him. For awhile she will protect him from assault, but finally finish his career with the bloody axe.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. After five days Reckoned, doubtless, after the completion of the last transaction, namely, Paul’s arrival in Cesarea. Both Paul’s and Luke’s standpoint is at Cesarea.

Ananias the high priest It is probably true that the rebuke of Paul in the Sanhedrin (Act 22:3) rankled in the breast of the high priest; but it is also probable that the reports brought in from various directions at that Passover of the growth of Christianity, the diminution of the synagogues, and Paul’s leadership in the work, had produced in the rulers a strong sense of the necessity of striking him down. It is now the head of the Jewish State confronting the chief leader of the Christian Church before the Pagan court, (three great religions in triangular contact,) demanding his sacrifice.

Elders The high priest is the prosecutor; the rest are his retinue.

Orator Tertullus A diminutive of Tertius; it is lengthened also into Tertullianus. The Greek for orator is , rhetor; (whence our word rhetoric,) originally meaning any public speaker, came to signify a professional pleader. In all the provinces there were numbers of Greek and Roman lawyers who made a living by managing the cases of the natives before the Roman courts. Indeed, it was the custom for young Roman lawyers to practice thus awhile in the provinces as a training for a higher practice in Rome. In Paul’s trial the only language understood by all was no doubt the Greek.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

PART THIRD.

CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.

Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.

I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And 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.’

The importance attached to Paul comes out in that the High Priest came in person together with some leading elders and with a trained advocate in order to charge Paul. And there they laid the case against him. ‘After five days.’ See Act 24:11. This will be calculated from when the trouble first began. Note that Luke is able to give the name of the advocate.

After arriving in Jerusalem Paul had met with the church, immediately spent a few days of purifying, and had five days earlier been initially arrested by the Romans, making ‘twelve days’ in all.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

PAUL’S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AND THEN TO ROME (19:21-28:31).

Here we begin a new section of Acts. It commences with Paul’s purposing to go to Jerusalem, followed by an incident, which, while it brings to the conclusion his ministry in Ephesus, very much introduces the new section. From this point on all changes. Paul’s ‘journey to Jerusalem’ and then to Rome has begun, with Paul driven along by the Holy Spirit.

The ending of the previous section as suggested by the closing summary in Act 19:20 (see introduction), together with a clear reference in Act 19:21 to the new direction in which Paul’s thinking is taking him, both emphasise that this is a new section leading up to his arrival in Rome. Just as Jesus had previously ‘changed direction’ in Luke when He set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51), so it was to be with Paul now as he too sets his face towards Jerusalem. It is possibly not without significance that Jesus’ ‘journey’ also began after a major confrontation with evil spirits, which included an example of one who used the name of Jesus while not being a recognised disciple (compare Act 19:12-19 with Luk 9:37-50).

From this point on Paul’s purposing in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome takes possession of the narrative (Act 19:21; Act 20:16; Act 20:22-23; Act 21:10-13; Act 21:17), and it will be followed by the Journey to Rome itself. And this whole journey is deliberately seen by Luke as commencing from Ephesus, a major centre of idolatry and the of Imperial cult, where there is uproar and Paul is restricted from preaching, and as, in contrast, deliberately ending with the triumph of a pure, unadulterated Apostolic ministry in Rome where all is quiet and he can preach without restriction. We can contrast with this how initially in Section 1 the commission commenced in a pure and unadulterated fashion in Jerusalem (Act 1:3-9) and ended in idolatry in Caesarea (Act 12:20-23). This is now the reverse the same thing in reverse.

Looked at from this point of view we could briefly summarise Acts in three major sections as follows:

The Great Commission is given in Jerusalem in the purity and triumph of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as King. The word powerfully goes out to Jerusalem and to its surrounding area, and then in an initial outreach to the Gentiles. Jerusalem reject their Messiah and opt for an earthly ruler whose acceptance of divine honours results in judgment (Act 19:1-12).

The word goes out triumphantly to the Dispersion and the Gentiles and it is confirmed that they will not be required to be circumcised or conform to the detailed Jewish traditions contained in what is described as ‘the Law of Moses’ (Act 13:1 to Act 19:20).

Paul’s journey to Rome commences amidst rampant idolatry and glorying in the royal rule of Artemis and Rome, and comes to completion with Paul, the Apostle, triumphantly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingly Rule of God from his own house in Rome (Act 19:21 to Act 28:31).

It will be seen by this that with this final section the great commission has in Luke’s eyes been virtually carried out. Apostolic witness has been established in the centre of the Roman world itself and will now reach out to every part of that world, and the command ‘You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth’ is on the point of fulfilment.

This final section, in which Paul will make his testimony to the resurrection before kings and rulers, may be analysed as follows.

a Satan counterattacks against Paul’s too successful Ministry in Ephesus and throughout Asia Minor and causes uproar resulting in his ministry being unsuccessfully attacked by the worshippers of ‘Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians’. This city, with its three ‘temple-keepers’ for the Temple of Artemis and the two Imperial Cult Temples, is symbolic of the political and religious alliance between idolatry and Rome which has nothing to offer but greed and verbosity. It expresses the essence of the kingly rule of Rome. And here God’s triumph in Asia over those Temples has been pictured in terms of wholesale desertion of the Temple of Artemis (mention of the emperor cult would have been foolish) by those who have become Christians and will in the parallel below be contrasted and compared with Paul freely proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God in Rome (Act 19:21-41).

b Paul’s progress towards Jerusalem is diverted because of further threats and he meets with disciples for seven days at Troas (Act 20:1-6).

c The final voyage commences and a great sign is given of God’s presence with Paul. Eutychus is raised from the dead (Act 20:7-12).

d Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus who meet him at Miletus and he gives warning of the dangers of spiritual catastrophe ahead and turns them to the word of His grace. If they obey Him all will be saved (Act 20:13-38).

e A series of maritime stages, and of prophecy (Act 19:4; Act 19:11), which reveals that God is with Paul (Act 21:1-16).

f Paul proves his true dedication in Jerusalem and his conformity with the Law and does nothing that is worthy of death but the doors of the Temple are closed against him (Act 21:17-30).

g Paul is arrested and gives his testimony of his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 21:31 to Act 22:29).

h Paul appears before the Sanhedrin and points to the hope of the resurrection (Act 22:30 to Act 23:9).

i He is rescued by the chief captain and is informed by the Lord that as he has testified in Jerusalem so he will testify in Rome (Act 23:11).

j The Jews plan an ambush, which is thwarted by Paul’s nephew (Act 23:12-25).

k Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea (Act 23:26-35).

l Paul makes his defence before Felix stressing the hope of the resurrection (Act 24:1-22).

k Paul is kept at Felix’ pleasure for two years (with opportunities in Caesarea) (Act 24:23-27).

j The Jews plan to ambush Paul again, an attempt which is thwarted by Festus (Act 25:1-5).

i Paul appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar. To Rome he will go (Act 25:6-12).

h Paul is brought before Agrippa and gives his testimony stressing his hope in the resurrection (Act 25:23 to Act 26:8).

g Paul gives his testimony concerning his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 26:9-23).

f Paul is declared to have done nothing worthy of death and thus to have conformed to the Law, but King Herod Agrippa II closes his heart against his message (Act 26:28-32).

e A series of maritime stages and of prophecy (Act 19:10; Act 19:21-26) which confirms that God is with Paul (27.l-26).

d Paul speaks to those at sea, warning of the dangers of physical catastrophe ahead unless they obey God’s words. If they obey Him all will be delivered (Act 27:27-44).

c Paul is delivered from death through snakebite and Publius’ father and others are healed, which are the signs of God’s presence with him, and the voyage comes to an end after these great signs have been given (Act 28:1-13).

b Paul meets with disciples for seven days at Puteoli and then at the Appii Forum (Act 28:14-15).

a Paul commences his ministry in Rome where, living in quietness, he has clear course to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God (Act 28:16-31).

Thus in ‘a’ the section commences at the very centre of idolatry which symbolises with its three temples (depicted in terms of the Temple of Artemis) the political and religious power of Rome, the kingly rule of Rome, which is being undermined by the Good News which has ‘almost spread throughout all Asia’ involving ‘much people’. It begins with uproar and an attempt to prevent the spread of the Good News and reveals the ultimate emptiness of that religion. All they can do is shout slogans including the name of Artemis, but though they shout it long and loud that name has no power and results in a rebuke from their ruler. In the parallel the section ends with quiet effectiveness and the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God being given free rein. This is in reverse to section 1 which commenced with the call to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (Act 1:3) and ended with the collapse of the kingly rule of Israel through pride and idolatry (Act 12:20-23).

In ‘b’ Paul meets with God’s people for ‘seven days, the divinely perfect period, at the commencement of his journey, and then in the parallel he again meets with the people of God for ‘seven days’ at the end of his journey. Wherever he goes, there are the people of God.

In ‘c’ God reveals that His presence is with Paul by the raising of the dead, and in the parallel His presence by protection from the Snake and the healing of Publius.

In ‘d’ we have a significant parallel between Paul’s warning of the need for the church at Ephesus to avoid spiritual catastrophe through ‘the word of His grace’ and in the parallel ‘d’ the experience of being saved from a great storm through His gracious word, but only if they are obedient to it, which results in deliverance for all.

In ‘e’ and its parallel we have Paul’s voyages, each accompanied by prophecy indicating God’s continuing concern for Paul.

In ‘f’ Paul proves his dedication and that he is free from all charges that he is not faithful to the Law of Moses, and in the parallel Agrippa II confirms him to be free of all guilt.

In ‘g’ Paul give his testimony concerning receiving his commission from the risen Jesus, and in the parallel this testimony is repeated and the commission expanded.

In ‘h’ Paul proclaims the hope of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin, and in the parallel he proclaims the hope of the resurrection before Felix, Agrippa and the gathered Gentiles.

In ‘i’ the Lord tells him that he will testify at Rome, while in the parallel the procurator Festus declares that he will testify at Rome. God’s will is carried out by the Roman power.

In ‘ j’ a determined plan by the Jews to ambush Paul and kill him is thwarted, and in the parallel a further ambush two years later is thwarted. God is continually watching over Paul.

In ‘k’ Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, and in the parallel spends two years there with access given to the ‘his friends’ so that he can freely minister.

In ‘l’ we have the central point around which all revolves. Paul declares to Felix and the elders of Jerusalem the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust in accordance with the Scriptures.

It will be noted that the central part of this chiasmus is built around the hope of the resurrection which is mentioned three times, first in ‘h’, then centrally in ‘l’ and then again in ‘h’, and these are sandwiched between two descriptions of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Jesus (in ‘g’ and in the parallel ‘g’). The defeat of idolatry and the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God have as their central cause the hope of the resurrection and the revelation of the risen Jesus.

We must now look at the section in more detail.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Third Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before Felix the Governor (A.D. 58-60) Act 24:1-27 gives us the testimony of Paul standing before Felix the governor and defending himself against the accusation of sedition. This is the third speech that Luke records of Paul’s defense of the Christian faith. Paul has spoken before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he has been taken before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he now stands before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he will stand before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12), and he will stand before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.

Act 24:1 Comments Although Tertullus is a Roman name, and this orator appears to be hired by the Jewish leaders to argue in behalf of Sanhedrin, he was not necessarily a Roman or Greek. C. M. Kerr says there were many Jews that bore Latin names during this period of Jewish history, and he was very likely trained in the East. [294]

[294] C. M. Kerr, “Tertullus,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).

Act 24:10 Comments Each of Paul’s opening speeches reveals a man unashamed and confident of his innocence. In Act 21:40 he turns to address the Jewish mob rather than accept deliverance from the Roman soldiers, as would be typical for someone who had committed a crime and wanted to escape punishment. In Act 23:1 he looks intently upon the Sanhedrin and speaks boldly rather than hanging his head down in shame and guilt. In Act 24:10 he addresses Felix the governor with cheer. In Act 25:11 Paul boldly declares to Festus that if any wrong can be found in him, he is ready to die. In Act 26:1-2 he stretches forth his hand as an orator and speaks unto King Agrippa.

Act 24:14 “that after the way which they call heresy” – Comments – This verse reveals the atmosphere in which Paul was preaching the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. To the Jews, Christianity was a Jewish heresy, and to the Romans, it had not yet been recognized as a group of legal status as the Jews had been recognized. It was Paul’s intent to stand before Caesar and appeal the legality of the Christian faith so that it might become recognized and acceptable throughout the Empire. This was his underlying motive for appealing to a higher court as he stood in defense of the legality of the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While in prison at Rome, he wrote to the church at Philippi and said, “I am set for the defence of the Gospel.”

Php 1:17, “But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel .”

Act 24:16 Comments – The voice of our hearts, or spirits, is our conscience. Thus, Paul reveals in Act 24:16 that he learned how to follow his conscience rather than the voice of his mind, which is human reason, or the voice of his physical body, which are our senses, or our feelings. Paul tells us in this verse that he exercised himself, or trained himself, to follow his conscience, which is the same as being led by the Spirit. For the Holy Spirit speaks to us and guides us through our spirits.

Act 23:1, “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

2Ti 1:3, “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28

2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35

3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22

4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38

5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32

6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29

A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.

2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”

Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.

Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”

In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.

Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”

Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”

Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witness of Paul’s Arrest, Imprisonment, and Trials (A.D. 58-62) The final major division of the book of Acts (Act 21:1 to Act 28:31) serves as Luke’s testimony of the arrest and trials of Paul the apostle, his trip by sea to Rome, and preparation for a hearing before the Roman emperor, the highest court in the Roman Empire. G. H. C. MacGregor notes that this large portion of material devoted to Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and journey to Rome fills about one fourth of the book of Acts. He suggests several reasons. (1) Luke was an Eyewitness of these Events Luke was an eye witness of these dramatic events of Paul’s arrest, trials and journey to Rome. The nature of such events must have created a strong impact upon his life. (2) The Gospels are Structured with a Similar Disproportion of Jesus’ Arrest, Passion and Resurrection – By comparing this large portion of material to a similar structure in the Gospels, MacGregor suggests that Luke draws a parallel plot with the story of Paul. (3) Luke is Writing an Apology for Paul Many scholars believe Luke is writing an apology in defense of Paul. MacGregor bases this view upon the five speeches of Paul’s defense that are recorded in this section of Acts: Paul’s speech to the Jewish mob (Act 22:3-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix, the Roman governor (Act 24:10-21), to Festus, the Roman governor (Act 25:8-11), and to King Herod (Act 26:2-23). A number of scholars support the proposition that the impetus behind these events was an effort to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, which leads to the suggestion that Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke as a legal brief in anticipation of Paul’s trial before the Roman court. MacGregor argues that this motif is woven throughout Paul’s missionary journeys when Luke carefully records his encounters with Roman authorities in various cities. He notes that Luke records statements by Lysias, Festus, and Felix regarding the failure by the Jews to prove Paul’s guilt under Roman Law. He adds that Luke ends the book by portraying Paul as a peaceful man entertaining guests while imprisoned in Rome, in stark contrast to the zealous violence of the Jews that Rome was accustomed to encountering. [258] We may add that Luke’s opening to his Gospel and Acts serve as a petition to Theophilus.

[258] G. H. C. MacGregor and Theodore P. Ferris, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1954), 284-285.

The accounts of Paul’s five trials and apologetic speeches recorded in Act 21:1 to Act 26:32 show that Paul had exhausted the judicial systems in Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, before departing for Rome. In each of these trials, Luke proves Paul’s innocence. The only court left was an appeal to the highest court in Rome. These five trials serve as a testimony that Paul had a legal right to appeal unto Caesar, and that he was beyond doubt innocent of his allegations by the Jews.

One more important aspect of this passage is that divine oracles are embedded within the narrative material of Act 21:1 to Act 28:31. For example, Paul received divine oracles from the seven daughters of Philip the evangelist and the prophet Agabus (Act 21:8); he testifies of his divine vision on the road to Damascus and of the prophecy of Ananias (Act 22:6-16); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation while in prison at Caesarea (Act 23:11); Paul testifies again of his divine vision on the road to Damascus (Act 26:12-19); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation at sea (Act 27:20-26).

Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:1 to Act 28:31:

1. Prophecies of Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem Act 21:1-14

2. Paul’s Arrest and First Speech to Jewish Mob Act 21:15 to Act 22:29

3. Paul’s Second Speech Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:35

4. Paul’s Third Speech Before Felix the Governor Act 24:1-27

5. Paul’s Fourth Speech Before Festus the Governor Act 25:1-12

6. Paul’s Fifth Speech Before King Agrippa Act 25:13 to Act 26:32

7. The Witness of Paul’s Trip to Rome Act 27:1 to Act 28:29

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Paul’s Trial before Felix.

The delegation of Jews from Jerusalem:

v. 1. And after five days Ananias, the high priest, descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

v. 2. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,

v. 3. we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

v. 4. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.

Paul was now once more in Caesarea, in the very city where the prophet Agabus had predicted his capture by the Gentiles, chap. 21:11. A few short weeks ago he had here enjoyed the hospitality of Philip and the friendly society of the disciples of the city, and now he was a prisoner in the hands of the Romans and for the present kept in close confinement in the palace of Herod. But after five days, counting from the day after Paul had left Jerusalem, when the Jews received formal notice from Lysias, the high priest Ananias with several of the elders and a certain orator, Tertullus, made the journey from Jerusalem down to Caesarea. So the Jewish leaders had lost no time in selecting a representative delegation from the Sanhedrin, with Ananias himself as the head; and they had engaged the services of a Roman attorney, Tertullus, as they now had to appear in a regular Roman court and therefore must have a lawyer familiar with the procedure of such a court. This delegation, through its attorney, formally laid information against Paul before the procurator, stating their charges in the manner demanded by the Roman legal practice. When Paul was then summoned to appear before these accusers, Tertullus, with great oratorical exertion, began his speech of accusation against the prisoner. It is significant that the attorney tries to bolster up the weakness of the cause he represents by a great mass of words. The introduction of his speech was intended exclusively to flatter the governor and to engage his good will in behalf of the Jews. The speaker, in gushing terms, praised the uniform, complete peace which had come upon them, which they were enjoying through him, and the improvements, reforms, or very worthy deeds which had become the property of the people through his foresight, who had planned all these benefits for the nation in advance. And all this, as Tertullus emphasizes with great show of servility, the Jews accepted at all times and in all places, with all proper gratefulness. The full name of the most honorable Felix, as Tertullus calls the governor, the procurator of Judea, was Antonius Felix. He was a freedman of the emperor Claudius and a brother of Pallas, who was a favorite of Nero. He entered upon his duties in A. D. 53, after the deposition of Cumanus, but, as the historian Tacitus says, he exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave, a fact which later caused his recall. The first statement of Tertullus, that Felix had restored and maintained peace in the province, was true, in a measure, since he had suppressed some bands of robbers that had infested the country; but it was offset by the fact that he employed assassins to murder the high priest Jonathan, and that he was subject to violent and selfish passions. The attorney’s next reference to measures of reform must be discounted by the fact that the historians picture his arbitrariness, which finally made unrest and rebellion permanent. And the assertion that the Jewish nation was everywhere and always grateful to Felix for his services was afterwards shown to be untrue by the fact that the Jews themselves were his accusers in Rome. We can therefore, at best, regard the title as merely an empty form. When politeness and tact degenerate into base flattery and mock servility, truth and honesty are inevitably driven away. This impression is heightened by the next words. For Tertullus now acts as though he had not really begun to mention all the praiseworthy deeds of Felix, that, if time but permitted, he would gladly continue in the same strain indefinitely. But he intimates that the governor is so busy with all his plans for further reforms that he must not hinder and weary him by a tedious recital of all his excellencies. He will therefore consider that enough has been said, and merely beg that the governor would kindly listen to them, and, if possible, grant their desire according to his clemency. He promises to be brief. In order not to strain the courteous attention of Felix. An example of fawning, sickening hypocrisy.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Act 24:1

The high priest Ananias came down for Ananias the high priest descended, A.V.; certain elders for the elders, A.V. and T.R.; an orator, one Tertullus for a certain orator named Tertullus, A.V.; and they for who, A.V. After five days. Of which the first was the day on which St. Paul left Jerusalem, and the fifth that on which Ananias and his companions appeared before Felix (see Act 24:11, note). Tertullus. A Latin name, formed from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius, Catullus from Catius, etc. Informed; , in the sense of “laying an information” before a magistrate, only occurs elsewhere in Act 25:2, Act 25:15 (see above, Act 23:15, note).

Act 24:2

Called for called forth, A.V.; much peace for great quietness, A.V.; evils are corrected for for very worthy deeds are done unto, A.V. and T.R.; there is also a change in the order of the words, by thy providence is placed at the beginning instead of at the end of the sentence. When he was called. We see here the order of the trial. As soon as the charge is laid against, the prisoner, he is called into court, to hear what his accusers have to say against him, and as it follows at Act 24:10, to make his defense (see Act 25:16). We enjoy much peace. The groan flattery of this address of the hired orator, placed at the beginning of his speech, in order to win the favor of the judge, is brought into full light by comparing Tacitus’s account of the misconduct of Felix in Samaria in the reign of Claudius, who he says, thought he might commit any crime with impunity, and by his proceedings nearly caused a civil war (‘Annah,’ 12.54); and his character of him as a ruler of boundless cruelty and profligacy, using the power of a king with the temper of a slave (‘Hist’ 5. 9.); and Josephus s statement that no sooner was Felix recalled from his government than the chief men among the Jews at Caesarea went up to Rome to accuse him before Nero, when he narrowly escaped punishment through the influence of his brother Pallas. By thy providence. “Providentia Caesaris” is a common legend on Roman coins (Alford). Evils are corrected. The reading of the R.T., , meaning “reforms,” occurs only here, but, like the kindred of the T.R., is a medical term. , reformation, is found in Heb 9:10. The of the T.R. (which also occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) means, in its classical use, either “successful actions” or “right actions;” is to “bring things to a successful issue.” Possibly Tertullus may have had in view the successful attack on the Egyptian impostor (see Act 21:38, note), or the wholesale crucifixion of Sicarii and other disturbers of the public peace.

Act 24:3

In all ways for always, A.V.; excellent for noble, A.V. Meyer connects in all ways and in all places with the preceding : “reforms and improvements that have taken place on all sides and in all places.” or , found only here in the New Testament, means “on all sides,” ” in every direction.”

Act 24:4

But for notwithstanding, A.V.; I entreat thee for I pray thee, A.V.; to hear for that thou wouldest hear, A.V. Of thy clemency ( ). The word is rendered “gentleness” in 2Co 10:1, where alone it occurs in the New Testament; is most frequently rendered “gentle” (l Timothy 2Co 3:3 (R.V.); Tit 3:2; Jas 3:17; 1Pe 2:18). A few words. The Greek has , briefly, concisely, found only here in the New Testament, but common in classical Greek and especially in medical writers, where it means “rapidly,” “in a short time.”

Act 24:5

Insurrection for sedition, A.V. and T.R. We have found (). The construction of the sentence is an anacoluthon. The participle is not followed, as it should be, by a finite verb, (in Act 24:6), but the construction is changed by the influence of the interposed sentence, “who moreover assayed to profane the temple,” and so, instead of , we have . A pestilent fellow (); literally, a pestilence; as we say, “a pest,” “a plague,” or “a nuisance,” like the Latin pestis. It only occurs here in the New Testament, but is of frequent use in the LXX., as e.g. 1Sa 2:12, 1Sa 10:27, and 1Sa 25:25, , “sons of Belial;” 1 Macc. 10:61; 15:3 : and 15:21, simply (rendered “pestilent fellows” in the A.V.), and elsewhere as the rendering of other Hebrew words. It is occasionally used also in this sense by classical writers. A mover of insurrections (, R.T.). This was the charge most likely to weigh with a Roman procurator in the then disturbed and turbulent state of the Jewish mind (camp. Luk 23:2; Joh 19:12). Felix himself had had large experience of Jewish insurrections. The Jewish riots at Philippi (Act 16:20), at Thessalonica (Act 17:6), at Corinth (Act 18:12), at Ephesus (Act 19:29), and at Jerusalem (Act 21:30), would give color to the accusation. The world ( ). The Roman, or civilized, world (Luk 2:1; Luk 4:5, etc.). Ringleader; , only here in the New Testament, but used by the LXX. in Job 15:24, and not uncommon in classical Greek, as a military term, equivalent to the first, i.e. the right-hand man in the line. Also, in the plural, the soldiers in the front rank. The sect of the Nazarenes. As our Lord was contemptuously called “The Nazarene “(Mat 26:71), so the Jews designated his disciples” Nazarenes.” They would not admit that they were Christians, i.e. disciples of the Messiah.

Act 24:6

Moreover assayed for also hath gone about, A.V.; on whom also we laid hold for whom we took, A.V. To profane the temple. The same false charge as was made in Act 21:28. The remainder of Act 21:6, after the words “on whom we laid hold,” the whole of Act 21:7, and the first clause of Act 21:8, are omitted in the R.T. on the authority of , A, B, G, H, etc. But the propriety of the omission is doubtful (Alford, Bishop Jacobson, Plumptre), though sanctioned by Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tisehendorf (Meyer). If the words are not genuine, it is a marvelously skilful interpolation, fitting into the place so exactly both at the beginning and at the end, and supplying a manifest want in the speech of Tertullus. (For the statement in Act 21:8 A.V., camp. Act 23:30.)

Act 24:8

From whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take for by examining of whom thyself mayest take, A.V. According to the R.V., whom refers to St. Paul, but according to the A.V., to Lysias. This last agrees with Act 24:22. By examining him; (Luk 23:1-56. 14; Act 4:9; Act 12:19; Act 17:11; Act 28:18; elsewhere only in St. Paul’s Epistles). In Act 25:26 the kindred , examination, is used.

Act 24:9

Joined in the charge for assented, A.V. and T.R.; affirming for saying, A.V. Joined in the charge. The reading of the R.T., , means “joined in the attack upon,” as in the LXX. of Deu 32:27 (“behave themselves strangely,” A.V.); Psa 3:6 (Codex Alexandrinus; “set themselves against me,” A.V.) The of the T.R. means “agreed” (as Joh 9:22), “assented.”

Act 24:10

And when the governor, etc., Paul answered for then Paul, after that the governor, etc., answered, A.V.; cheerfully for the more cheerfully, A.V. and T.R.; make my defense for answer for myself, A.V. Forasmuch as I know, etc. St. Paul, with inimitable skill, pitched upon the one favorable side of his judge’s person, viz. his long experience in Jewish affairs, and made it the subject of his opening referencea courteous and conciliatory reference, in striking contrast with the false, fulsome flattery of Tertullus. Of many years. If Paul was speaking in the year A.D. 58, and Felix had been governor only since A.D. 53, “many years” was rather an hyperbole. But Tacitus expressly states that Felix was joint procurator with Cumanus; and therefore he had been a judge to the Jewish nation long before the banishment of Cumanus. Tacitus’s authority is infinitely superior to that of Josephus, and this passage strongly supports the statement of Tacitus (‘Annal.,’ 12.54). Make my defense ( ). For the word , and for the situation of St. Paul, and for the gracious promise provided for such situation, see Luk 12:12; Luk 21:15; see too Act 19:33; Act 25:8; Act 26:1-32. l, 2; and for the use of , see Act 22:1, note.

Act 24:11

Seeing that thou canst take knowledge for because that thou mayest understand, A.V. and T.R.; it is act more than for there are yet but, A.V.; I went up to worship at Jerusalem for I went up to Jerusalem for to worship, A.V. Twelve days. These days may be thus reckoned:

(1) arrival at Jerusalem (Act 21:15);

(2) Visit to James and the ciders (Act 21:18);

(3) first day of purification (Act 21:26);

(4) second day of purification;

(5) the third day;

(6) the fourth day;

(7) the fifth day, when the tumult took place (Act 21:27);

(8) Paul brought before the Sanhedrim;

(9) the conspiracy of the forty Jews, Paul leaves Jerusalem for Caesareathe first of the five days mentioned in Act 24:1;

(10) arrival of St. Paul” next day” at Caesarea, and lodged in the pretoriumsecond of the five days (Act 23:1-35. 32, 35);

(11) Paul in Herod’s judgment hallthird of the five days;

(12) dittofourth of the five days;

(13) the current day, being also the fifth day of those mentioned in Act 24:1. The mention of the brief time of twelve days shows the narrow limits of time within which the crime must have been committed, while the adroit mention of the purpose of his visit, to worship, would show how unlikely it was that he should have gone with any evil intent.

Act 24:12

Neither in the temple did they find me for they neither found me in the temple, A.V.; or stirring up a crowd for neither raising up the people, A.V.; nor nor for neither nor, A.V. Stirring up a crowd. The reading of the R.T. is , which must mean “a stoppage of the crowd,” in which sense it is a medical term. But Meyer thinks it is a mere clerical error for the reading of the T.R. , which is used in the LXX for “a tumultuous assembly” (Num 26:9; 3 Esdr. 25:9), and in Josephus, ‘Contr. Apion.,’ 1.20, of a conspiracy or revolt. In the LXX. also the verb means “to rise in revolt against” (Num 14:25; Num 16:19; Num 26:9).

Act 24:13

Prove to thee for prove, A.V. Prove (); see Act 1:3, note.

Act 24:14

A sect for heresy, A.V.; serve for worship, A.V.; our for my, A.V. (my is better, as following “I serve,” and addressed to a Roman judge); which are according to the Law, and which are written in the prophets for which are written in the Law and in the prophets, A.V. A sect, This, of course, refers to this expression of Tertullus in Act 24:5, , “Ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” The word , which means primarily “choice,” has not necessarily or even ordinarily a bad sense. In classical Greek its secondary sense was a “sect” or “school” of philosophy, Academics, Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans, etc. The Jews applied it to their own different schools of thought. So in Act 5:17 we read, , “The sect of the Sadducees;” in Act 15:5, , “The sect of the Pharisees;” in Act 26:5 St. Paul speaks of himself as having been a Pharisee, , “After the straitest sect of our religion” (see too Act 28:22). It begins to have a bad sense in St. Paul’s Epistles (1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20; and 2Pe 2:1, , where, however, it gets its bad sense from the joined to it). In ecclesiastical writers it came to have its worst sense of “heresy” as something worse even than “schism.” In this reference to Tertullus’s phrase, St. Paul seems hardly to admit that Christianity was properly called “a sect” by the Jews, but gives it the milder term of “the Way” (see Act 9:2, note). The God of our [my] father ( ); comp. Gal 1:14; and Act 22:3; Act 28:17. Observe how St. Paul throughout insists that, in becoming a Christian, he had not been disloyal to Moses, or the Law, or the prophets, or to the religion of his fathers, but quite the contrary. According to the Law. may mean either, as in the R.V., “according to the Law,” or, as Meyer takes it, “throughout the Law,” and then is better coupled, as in the A.V., with . The Law, and the prophets (as Mat 5:17; Luk 24:27, Luk 24:44).

Act 24:15

Having for and have, A.V.; these also themselves look for for they themselves also allow, A.V.; resurrection for resurrection of the dead, A.V. and T.R. Which these also themselves look for (see Act 23:6). Both of the just, etc. This is distinctly taught in Dan 12:2 (comp. Mat 25:46; Joh 5:29).

Act 24:16

Herein also for and hereby, A.V. and T.R.; to have a conscience always for to hare always, etc., A.V.; and men for and toward men, A.V. (For the sentiment, comp. Act 23:1.) Herein ( ); i.e. on this account, under these circumstances supplying the ground and cause of my action (comp. Joh 16:30). So, too, Mat 6:7, means “On account of their much speaking.” I exercise myself; , here only in the New Testament, but frequent in medical writers for “to practice” the medical art.

Act 24:17

After many years; or, several years. St. Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem was that mentioned in Act 18:22. Since then he had spent “some time” ( ) at Antioch, had gone over all the country of Phrygia and Galatia, had come to Ephesus, and stopped between two and three years there, had gone through Macedonia, had spent three months at Corinth, had returned to Macedonia, and from thence had come to Jerusalem in about fifty days. All which must have occupied four or five yearsfrom A.D. 54 to A.D. 58according to most chronologers. Evidently Paul had not been plotting seditious movements at Jerusalem, where he had only ,arrived twelve days before, for a purely benevolent and pious purpose, after an absence of four or five years Alms and offerings. Those of which he speaks in 1Co 16:1-4; 2Co 8:1-24; Rom 15:25, Rom 15:26, Rom 15:31. To this may be added “the charges” for which he made himself answerable for the poor Nazarites (Act 21:24, Act 21:26).

Act 24:18

Amidst which for whereupon, A.V. and T.R.; they found me purified in the temple with no crowd, nor yet with tumult: but there were certain Jews from Asia for certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult, A.V. and T.R. Amidst which ( , R.T.) refers to the alms and offerings The T.R. has , “under which circumstances,” “at the transaction of which deeds,” or, briefer, “whereupon,” A.V. But there were. Most manuscripts followed by the R.T., read , thus giving a broken unfinished sentence instead of the plain and complete one of the T.R., which agrees, moreover, exactly with Act 21:27.

Act 24:19

To make accusation for object, A.V. The sense is exactly the same.

Act 24:20

Men themselves for same here, A.V.; what wrong-doing they found for if they have found any evil doing in me, A.V. and T.R.; when for while, A.V. Let these men themselves. Since the Asiatic Jews are not here to bear witness, let these men who are here speak for themselves as to what they witnessed in the Sanhedrim.

Act 24:21

Before you for by you, A.V. and T.R. ( for ). Except (): , else, is understood after , so that is equivalent to . Touching the resurrection (see Act 23:6, where the exact words are,” Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question “).

Act 24:22

But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the Way, deferred them, saying for and whoa Felix heard these things having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, A.V. and T.R.; determine for know the uttermost of, A.V. Having more exact knowledge, etc. At Caesarea, Felix must have seen and heard something of Christianity. The conversion of Cornelius with his household and friends, men belonging to the dominant Roman power; the work of Philip the evangelist, residing probably for some years at Caesarea, and working among Romans as well as Jews, must have given Felix some knowledge of “the Way.” He would learn something, too, both of Judaism and Christianity from Drusilla, his wife (verse 24, note). When Lysias shall come (see verses 7, 8, and note). I will determine (); see above, Act 23:15, where the verb is in the active voice, and is rendered in the R.V. “to judge.” The idea of the word is “to know with discrimination;” and this is the sense it has in medical writers, who use it very frequently; as e.g. Galen says, (quoted by Hobart). Hence the “diagnosis” of an illness (Act 23:1-35. 15).

Act 24:23

Gave order to the for commanded a, A.V.; that he should be kept in charge for to keep Paul, A.V. and T.R.; and should hare indulgence for and to let him have liberty, A.V.; not to forbid any of his friends for that he should forbid none of his acquaintance, A.V.; to minister unto him for to minister or come unto him, A.V. and T.R. Indulgence (); literally, relaxation, viz. of the prison restraints and confinement. The word is used in the LXX. of 2Ch 23:15, , i.e. those who had taken Athaliah prisoner, “let her loose” till she got out of the temple court. It is also a common medical term for the cessation or remission of pain or disease. St. Paul uses it four times in his Epistles for “rest” or “ease” (2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:5; 2Co 8:13; 2Th 1:7). Doubtless St. Luke was thus enabled to be much with St. Paul during his imprison merit, and, as suggested above, to have his help in writing his Gospel.

Act 24:24

But for and, A.V.; Felix came for when Felix came, A.V.; Drusilla, his wife for his wife Drusilla, A.V.; and sent for he sent, A.V.; Christ Jesus for Christ, A.V. and T.R. Came; , a very favorite word with St. Luke, occurring twenty-nine times in his Gospel and the Acts. It implies that Felix had been absent from Caesarea for some days after the trial. Drusilla. She was, according to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 7.1, 2) the daughter of Herod Agrippa I., who “killed James with the sword” (Act 12:1, Act 12:2), and died shortly afterwards. She was first the wife of Azizus, King of Emesa; but Felix, becoming enamored of her on account of her singular beauty, employed a certain magician, a Jew named Simon, to entice her away from her husband, and persuade her to marry him, contrary, as Josephus says, to the institutions of her country. She perished, with Agrippa, her only son by Felix, in the eruption of Vesuvius, in the reign of Titus (Josephus, as above). Tacitus says that Drusilla, the wife of Felix, was granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. But he seems to have confounded her with another of the three royal wives of Felix, mentioned by Suetonius in ‘Claudius;’ unless, perchance, as has been conjectured, be had two wives of the name of Drusilla, of whom one was, as Tacitus says, granddaughter of Antony, by being the daughter of King Juba and Cleopatra Selene, Antony’s daughter (see note in Whiston’s ‘Josephus,’ and in Kuinoel, on Act 23:24). But there is no certainty on the subject. Only Josephus’s detailed account of Drusilla, the wife of Felix, agrees with St. Luke’s statement that she “was a Jewess,” and is beyond doubt true.

Act 24:25

And temperance for temperance, A.V.; the judgment for judgment, A.V.; was terrified for trembled, A.V.; and when for when, A.V.; call thee unto me for call for thee, A.V.

Act 24:26

Withal for also, A.V.; would be for should have been, A.V.; that he might loose him is omitted in the R.T. and R.V.; wherefore also for wherefore, A.V. Sent for him the oftener. The mixture of conviction with covetousness in the mind of Felix as the motive for seeing Paul is observable. As in other cases of double-mindedness, the convictions were doubtless stifled by the corrupt avarice, and so came to nothing.

Act 24:27

When two years were fulfilled for after two years, A.V.; Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus for Porcius Festus came ,into Felix‘ room, A.V.; desiring to gain favor with the Jews for willing to show the Jews a pleasure, A.V.; in bonds for bound, A.V.; Felix is also transposed. Was succeeded by; . This word occurs only here in the New Testament, but is used twice in Ecclesiasticus. It is also, as above noted, the identical word used by Josephus of Festus. But in Act 25:1 Festus’s government is called an , and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 8.11) calls Festus an , instead of the more usual . Could Josephus have seen the Acts of the Apostles? Porcius Fetus. Josephus speaks of him as sent by Nero to be the “successor” () of Felix (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 8.9; ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 2. 14.1). Nothing is known of him from Tacitus or other Latin historians, and he appears from Josephus’s account to have held the government for a very short time, probably less than two years, when he died (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 9.1). But the impression derived from Josephus is the same as that conveyed by St. Luke, that he was a just and upright ruler, in marked contrast with Felix his predecessor, and his successors Albinus and Gessius Florus. Desiring to gain favor ); literally, to lay up in store good will, or favor, or a boon, to be requited at some future period. A frequent phrase in the best classical authors. Felix had good reason thus to try and put the Jews under obligation to him at the close of his government. For the danger was great to the retiring governor of complaints being sent to the emperor of oppression and plunder, which were often listened to and punished. Josephus relates, in point of fact, that the chief Jews in Caesarea sent an embassy to Rome to lodge a charge against Felix before Nero; and that he only escaped punishment by the influence of his brother Pallas (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 8.9).

The scene in this chapter is a very striking one, depicted with admirable simplicity and force. The bloated slave sitting on the seat of judgment and power, representing all the worst vices of Roman degeneracy. The beads of the sinking Jewish commonwealth, blinded by bigotry and nearly mad with hatred, forgetting for the moment their abhorrence of their Roman masters, in their yet deeper detestation of the Apostle Paul. The hired advocate with his fulsome flattery, his rounded periods, and his false charges. And then the great apostle, the noble confessor, the finished Christian gentleman, the pure-minded, upright, and fearless man, pleading his own cause with consummate force and dignity, and overawing his heathen judge by the majesty of his character. It is a graphic description of s very noble scene.

HOMILETICS

Act 24:1-27

“Not this man, but Barabbas.”

There are many gradations of the truth stated in 1Sa 21:7, “The Lord sooth not as man seeth,” and the corresponding truth, “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” But both passages mark distinctly how often the judgment of man diverges from the judgment of God, or in other words, how far men often are from “judging righteous judgment” concerning persons and things which come under their notice. This false or erroneous judgment proceeds from two causes. The first is the comparative ignorance of man. He forms his judgment oftentimes on insufficient grounds. His mental vision only takes in a portion, sometimes a very small portion, of the materials upon which a sound judgment should be based. In the instances to which 1Sa 16:7 refers, Samuel, judging by the fair looks and commanding stature of Eliab, thought he must be fit to be the ruler of Israel. His eye could not discern the heart, the hidden character of the man. And so it continually happens. We base our judgments on insufficient premises, being ignorant of those things which, if known, would influence them m an opposite direction. The practical lesson to be drawn from this view of the erroneous judgments of men is threefold.

1. To be diligent in adding to our knowledge whenever we are called upon to form a judgment.

2. To be always diffident and modest in regard to our own conclusions.

3. Whenever our judgments do not agree with those of Holy Scripture, to be sure that the disagreement arises from our own ignorance, and to submit ourselves accordingly. But the second cause of men’s erroneous judgments is not mere ignorance, but injustice and unfairness of mind. Men misjudge others because they are influenced by hatred, prejudice, self-interest, and other corrupt motives. They are like the unjust judges spoken of by Isaiah (v. 23), “who justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him.” A large part of the favorable and unfavorable judgments of the world are of this character. We have a typical example of this in the chapter before us. Here are two men standing on the stage of observation. One is Felix. We know him as a cruel, licentious, unrighteous man, steeped in blood, rich by oppression, profligate in conduct. We know him as one the meanness of whose servile origin broke through the crust of the splendor of his official greatness. We know him as a man raised to power by the most corrupt and shameful influences which have ever prevailed in national affairs, and abusing that power to the utmost under the screen of an infamous security. By his side stands another man, certainly one of the greatest figures among the great men of the world, and one of the very best among the very good of the children of men. It is the Apostle Paul. For his mighty victories in the world of mind and spirit he might have borne surnames from provinces of the Fast and of the West, more glorious than those of the Africani and Germanici of the Roman commonwealth. For energy of action, for dauntless courage, for inexhaustible resource, for masterful vigor of character, for lofty eloquence, for influence over the minds of other men, he stands abreast with the greatest of the earth’s heroes. For absolute disinterestedness, for unsullied purity, for overflowing benevolence, for ardent and glowing kindness, for self-sacrifice, for self-restraint, for uprightness, for truth, for generosity, for laborious well-doing, for consistency of life, for perseverance through every hindrance and contradiction in a sublime and noble purpose, for tenderness and faithfulness to friends, and for ungrudging service to his Divine Master, where shall we find his equal? What, then, was the judgment passed on these men respectivelythis Felix and this Paul? Felix is thanked and belauded for his “very worthy deeds;” Paul is “a pestilent fellow;” “Away with him from the earth: it is not fit that he should live!” And so we are reminded of another judgment, the unanimous judgment of a great multitude: “Not this man, but Barabbas!” and we are rut upon our guard against the judgments of men.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Act 24:1 -28, 26, 27

Malice, innocence, and power.

We have illustrated here

I. THE WEAPONS OF MALICE.

1. Persistent hatred. It was a long journey to Caesarea, and it was a most humiliating thing, to which they were utterly averse, for the high priest and the elders to appear before the Roman judge to get their countrymen into their own power; nevertheless the undying hatred, the animosity which did not diminish by time carried them through their distasteful work.

2. Disgusting flattery (Act 24:2, Act 24:3).

3. Gross misrepresentation (Act 24:5). Paul had caused no little dissension and conflict among his fellow-countrymen, but it was simple perversion of the truth to call him a “pestilent fellow,” etc.

4. Offensive characterization (Act 24:5). Paul was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes;” but malice put his position into the most offensive form it could command.

5. Downright falsehood (Act 24:6). He had not “gone about to profane the temple.” These various falsities came from the lips of Tertullus, but they were owned and adopted by the Jews (Act 24:9). To such baseness malice will stoop to compass its ends; to such iniquity professed piety will condescend when inflamed by the unholy heats of bigotry.

II. THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENCE.

1. Courtesy (Act 24:10). We may not flatter, but we must be courteous and conciliatory (1Pe 3:8; 1Sa 25:23-33).

2. Straightforward statement (Act 24:11, Act 24:14-17). There is no better way by which to prove our integrity than telling the whole truth from beginning to end, with perfect frankness.

3. Fearless denial (Act 24:12, Act 24:13, Act 24:18). We should solemnly deny, in calm and dignified language, that which is falsely alleged against us; in quietness and composure rather than in vehemence and loud protestation, is our strength.

4. Righteous challenge (Act 24:19, Act 24:20). We may do well to face our accusers with bold and righteous challenge (Joh 8:46).

III. THE PITIFULNESS OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IN POWER. Felix

(1) gave an unrighteous decision, for the case had broken down, and Paul should have been released,

(2) hankered after a bribe (Act 24:26); was willing to sell justice for money;

(3) left his position with an act of selfish injustice (Act 24:27). He presents a pitiful picture both as a public administrator and as a private individual. How little to be envied are those who climb to high stations! How contemptible is power when it is perverted to mean and selfish ends! How admirable, how enviable in comparison, is innocence in insignificance or even in bonds!C.

Act 24:15, Act 24:16

A powerful incentive to a noble life.

Between the life of the meanest and basest men on the one hand, and that of the purest and noblest on the other, what an immeasurable spiritual space intervenes! We look here at

I. A NOBLE HUMAN LIFE. There are those who, in the ordering of their life, never rise above

(1) a consideration of their own enjoyment or acquisition. There are others who never rise higher than

(2) the consideration of others which is born of natural affection; that which springs from the tics of kindred and, perhaps, common interest or companionship. Others again there are who get as far as

(3) political or national enthusiasm. But they only are worthy of the One “with whom they have to do” and reach the full stature of their manhood, who are constrained by

(4) the sense of obligation to God and to man. Paul “exercised himself to have always a conscience,” etc. Here was:

1. A lofty aim. “To have a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” This means something more than the avoidance of the darker sins and the greater crimes, of those misdeeds which stamp a man as a sinner and a criminal in the eyes of the world. It means

(1) righteousness in the sight of the Supreme; the being counted righteous by God, and the attainment of positive righteousness like his own; so that a man is living in a state of abiding acceptance with God, and is also walking before him in uprightness and integrity of heart and life. It means also

(2) recognition of the claims of men on our regard, and the consequent shaping of our life in purity, honesty, truthfulness, helpfulness; so that a man has not to reproach himself either with acts of injury or with negligence and inconsiderateness; he has a “conscience void of offence” toward men as well as toward God.

2. A comprehensive view. Paul aimed to be conscientious at all times, m all things ( ). And we know that this was more than a figure of speech; it could hardly be said to be in any way hyperbolical. He did strive to act with a good conscience always. With whomsoever he had to do, in whatsoever he was engaged, he sought to act faithfully. And the truly noble life is one in which the humbler as well as the higher activities and endurances are regulated by holy and heavenly principles.

3. An earnest endeavor; “I exercise myself,” i.e. “I strenuously endeavor,” “I put forth my whole energy,” “I labor.” Paul’s action amounted to something vastly more than an occasional sentiment or a feeble futile effort; it was an earnest aspiration spending itself in vigorous exertion. He cultivated his spiritual powers; he trained himself in holy habits; he wrestled with the adversaries of his soul; he did stern battle with the lower propensities; he strove to exhibit the graces which are dear to God, the virtues which are valuable to men.

II. A POWERFUL INCENTIVE TO LIVE IT. (Act 24:15.) We may draw many powerful and all-sufficient incentives to rectitude from considerations which are at hand.

1. Our supreme obligation to God, the Divine Author of our being and Source of all our joy.

2. Our influence upon our fellow-men, and the effect our life has on theirs.

3. The elevated joy we have in the consciousness of rectitude, both of integrity of heart and innocency of life. But we shall do well to add this other also:

4. The hope of future blessedness; including

(1) the approval of the Divine Master; his “Well done” (Mat 25:21); and

(2) the extended sphere he wilt appoint the faithful (Mat 25:21).C.

Act 24:24, Act 24:25

Rare heroism and common folly.

There are two main points well worthy of attention.

I. AN ACT OF MORAL HEROISM PARTICULARLY RARE. Paul “reasoned of righteousness, continence, and judgment to come.” It requires some courage for a man to address a company of his fellows, even when he feels sure that they will be sympathetic; it demands other and far higher courage to address a number of men, when it is certain they will be unsympathetic; but it requires higher devotedness still, it demands heroism of a rare order for one man to use the language of remonstrance and rebuke when speaking to another man, particularly when that other is the stronger and higher of the two. For the poor man, the captive, the accused, the one who stood absolutely in the other’s power, to “reason of righteousness, continence, and judgment to come,” to the unrighteous and dissolute judge, who had so much ground for dreading the future,for Paul thus to expostulate with Felix was heroism itself. Let us thank God that he gave us such a man, to do such a work, at such a time in the history of our race. Let us emulate his spiritual nobility. High courage is, in part, a gift to be thankfully accepted; but it is also, in part, a grace to be studiously acquired. Paul was the faithful man he proved himself at Caesarea, not only because his Creator endowed him with a fearless spirit, but because

(1) he placed himself on the right sideon the side of truth, of righteousness, of God; and because

(2) he cultivated carefully the conviction that infinite power and love surrounded him with its constant care. He could always say, “The Lord stood by me.” This is the secret of spiritual nobility, of moral heroism.

II. AN ACT OF SPIRITUAL FOLLY PAINFULLY COMMON. “Felix trembled.” His agitation should have passed at once into resolution; he should have said at once, “I will return on my way; I will turn my back on my old sins; I will be a new man, living a new life.” But he did not; he made terms with his old self; he temporized; he played with his opportunity; he resorted to evasion, to self-deception; he excused himself; he said, “Go thy way; when I have,” etc. O well-worn, much-trodden path of self-excuse, along whose pleasant way such thousands of travelers have gone on to their ruin! This is how we commit spiritual suicide, how we go to our death! We do not say presumptuously, “I will not;’ we say feebly, falsely, fatally, “I will soon,” “I will when.” There are three strong reasons against delay under religious conviction.

1. It is a guilty thing. We blame our children when they hesitate or linger instead of rendering prompt and unquestioning obedience; but we are more bound than they to implicit and unhesitating obedience to the Supreme. “I will when”means “I will not now.“ It is rebelliousness of spirit put in the least flagrant form; but it is still rebellion; it is a state of sin.

2. It is a delusive thing. We defer, imagining that we shall find ourselves able and willing to do the right thing further on. But we have no right to reckon on this; for:

(1) Outward hindrances tend to become stronger rather than weaker. Life becomes more and more complicated, companions grow more numerous and urgent, difficulties and entanglements thicken, as our days go by; the hedge before us becomes thicker and higher continually.

(2) And inward and spiritual obstacles become more difficult to surmount; the habit of the soul today is the finest silken thread which the child’s finger may snap, but it will shortly become the strong cable which the giant’s strength will be unable to divide. Well does Scripture speak of “the deceitfulness of sin.”

3. It is a fatal thing. If vice has slain its thousands, and pride its thousands, surely procrastination has slain its tens of thousands. The man who is consciously and determinately refusing to serve God knows where he stands and what he is; he knows that he is a rebel against God, standing on perilous ground. But he who thinks he is about to enter the kingdom, or even dreams of so doing, shelters himself under the cover of his imaginary submission, and goes on and on, until sinful habit has him in its iron chain, or until “pale-faced Death” knocks at his door, and he is found unready.

“Oh, ’tis a mournful story,
Thus on the ear of pensive eve to tell,
Of morning’s firm resolve the vanished glory,
Hope’s honey left to wither in the cell,
And plants of mercy dead that might have bloomed so well.”

C.

Act 24:1-23

HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON

Paul before Felix.
I. TERTULLUS AND PAUL: A CONTRAST. Between false and spurious eloquence. False rhetoric, as Plato taught, always owes its power to its flattering the passions of the audience. So here the orator addresses himself directly to the magistrate’s self-love. It is pretty clear that Felix, instead of being the beneficent ruler he is described as being, must have been well hated by the people for his vices and oppression. Later they accused him to the emperor. Flattery is a great solvent. The great gain the little, and not less the little gain the great to their ends by it. “Great lords, by reason of their flatterers, are the first to know their own virtues, and the last to know their own vices” (Selden). “Know that flatterers are the worst kind of traitors” (Sir W. Raleigh). On the other hand, true eloquence speaks to the heart and conscience (Act 24:10). Paul indulges Felix in no flattering complimentary titles. He respects the office and the existing order which it represents, true to his teaching in Rom 13:1-14.; but not the bad man in the office. He speaks with freedom and boldness. He avows himself the member of a despised sect. He is a Nazarene. But Christianity is no newly invented heresy, nor does the gospel depart from the faith of the fathers. Rather Christ’s gospel their spiritual sum and substance, the end and goal of the old covenant. All that is true in any of our sects is continuous with the old; what is quite novel is probably not true. The simple words of Paul contain a fine defense of persecuted opinions.

1. They are not of yesterday.

2. The future belongs to them.

3. Meanwhile, the great thing we exercise is a good conscience. If they are really conscientious, force cannot put them down.

II. THE CHRISTIAN‘S BEST DEFENSE.

1. “To have a conscience void of offence.” Religion which does not aim at this and end in this, is vain; otherwise a mere matter of the head, or of hereditary habit, an occasion of contention and source of division, chaff without wheat, and a shadow without life. A life that will bear the inspection of men and of God, the only certificate of true religion; or rather, the endeavor for such a life. The “exercise of one’s self” in worthy habits, to noble ends.

2. Hope is ever connected with the good conscience. The hope of the resurrection not a doctrine the splendor of which first appears in the New Testament pages; it appears in bright glimpses in the Old from the time of the Babylonian Captivity onward. In some form it lives and burns at the heart of all genuine faith and religion. With a joyous confession on the lips, a clear conscience in the bosom, an innocent life-record behind one, the just judgment of God before one’s expectation,here are the defenses of the Christian against the arrows of calumny.J.

Act 24:24-27

The Divine Word and the conscience.

I. LOVING THE SOUND OF THE GOSPEL, BUT NOT THE GOSPEL ITSELF. There is silver music in the message of reconciliation to man’s distracted heart; but the call to repentance as the necessary condition of peace, this is discordant with passion and self-will. And there are grave errors here. Some suppose that the gospel renders the moral law superfluous; others, that the freedom of the conscience under the gospel means license; others take faithful reproof as personal affront; many are under the dominion of sense, and the will is captive to the lusts of the flesh.

II. WHY MANY NEVER BECOME SERIOUS CHRISTIANS.

1. They have not the resolution for thorough repentance, to break utterly with the evil past.

2. They neglect the acceptable time and the day of salvation. “The golden grace of the day” flees, and never comes back to them.

3. They thrust aside the thought of judgment to come. Though they know the vanity of the world, they are too indolent to tear themselves from its deceptive pleasures. Disgusted with the hateful bondage of sin, they are too weak to break off their fetters. Superficial impressions are felt, but frivolity admits no deep impressions.

III. THE EXCUSES OF THE SINNER.

1. Certain subjects are not in good taste. Speak to me of everything but that! Generalize on virtue and goodness, but let my favorite weaknesses or vices alone!

2. Procrastination. “Tomorrow!”

“To-morrow and to-morrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.”
“Procrastination is the thief of time.
Year after year it steals till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves
The vast concerns of an eternal time.”

The time of repentance is now and always for him who is willing. For God is ever calling, inwardly and outwardly; in every circumstance time can be found to obey. But never for him who cannot find it seasonable to listen to God at any time. “Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me, and shall die in yore’ sins” (Joh 8:21).

IV. AN EXAMPLE OF GENUINE PREACHING.

1. He speaks of repentance and its fruits; justice towards our neighbor; personal purity; sober recollection of the Divine judgment.

2. Its powers. The preacher is a slight and insignificant man, yet he makes the powerful magistrate tremble. He is bound in one sense, yet in another free, and the lord is the real slave. He is the accused; yet quickly he changes parts with Felix. Paul is the hero in the light of truth and of eternity, Felix the coward and the abject. If we are on the side of truth, the Word of God becomes a sword in our hand. If we are opposed to it, we must be fatally pierced by it.J.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Act 24:1-9

The governor’s court.

Time given to Paul for special preparation, possibly for communication with fellow-believers in Caesarea. The relation of the parties to one another. The Roman ruler; his character one of the blackest: “In the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty, he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave” (Tacitus). The calm, heroic, lofty-minded apostle; rejoicing that an opportunity would be given him of proclaiming the gospel in such a place, and upheld by the Divine assurance that he was safe. The representatives of the Sanhedrim; Ananias, the elders, and the paid orator Tertullus, evidently feeling the weakness of their cause, half ashamed of their position in attacking a defenseless man, ready for hypocritical plotting, and yet knowing that no dependence could be placed on Felix.

I. A SAD PICTURE OF THE WORLD as it was at that time. The corruption of judges, the despotism of rulers, the furious hatreds and evil passions at work, the blindness of fanaticism, the decay of religious life in the nation which had received most religious teaching and privileges.

II. AN EXAMPLE OF CALUMNY AND MISREPRESENTATION. The charges made were of political rebellion, of heresy, of sacrilege, of disorder. The first was insincere; for the priests among the Jews cared nothing about preserving Roman rule. The others were instigated by fear of Paul’s teaching, partly due to ignorance, but mainly to bigotry and jealousy. They knew that if the gospel was accepted, their own priestly power was gone. Truth is always stronger than falsehood.R.

Act 24:10-21

The just man’s defense.

Twofoldnegative; positive. The accusations met by a clear and bold denial. Over against the false representation a simple and candid statement of his position as a private and public man. Notice

I. The apostle stood firmly on the ground of LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. They accused him of heresy; he maintained that his conscience was void of offence towards God and man.

II. The foundation of confidence is THE WORD OF GODthe Law, the prophets, the true tradition of the fathers. All these things the apostle believed.

III. THE RESURRECTION was the great stumbling-block to the Jews, but the great support of the apostolic faith. The position taken in the Sanhedrim is maintained before Felix. The resurrection is the vital point of the new faith.

IV. The zeal of the Christian was quite consistent with PATRIOTISM. There was nothing revolutionary in the method of Christian teaching. The disturbance was simply due to the presence of a new element of life among old corruption. So always, the world is turned upside down by earnestness, because it is already the wrong side upwards.R.

Act 24:16

Practical religion.

“And herein do I exercise myself,“ etc. Circumstances of the case justify the self-assertion. We must not be afraid to give our own example as a testimony to the truth.

I. Practical religion is founded on THE HEARTFELT ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORD OF GOD. “Herein,” i.e. in the faith just described, distinguished from:

1. The irreligion of Felix; indifference and direct opposition to God.

2. The blind bigotry of Pharisaism; mere worship of the letter of Scripture and tradition; an excuse for conscientious life.

3. The speculative unbelief of Sadducees. Rationalism. Intellectual pride. Faith made living in Christ. The facts of the gospel opened the secrets of the Scriptures to Paul. Jesus became to him the Word of Life.

II. Practical religion demands CONSTANT EFFORT. “I exercise myself.”

1. Not asceticism, but zealous endeavor to do good. in proclamation of the gospel.

2. Faithful and heroic patience under the trials of life.

3. The showing forth of Christian character before the world for a testimony, both by the blameless conduct, and by the calm and bold defense of the truth when necessary. The secret of strength and courage is a conscience void of offence. Those who do not exercise themselves both give offence and find offence. “If God be for us, who can be against us? “R.

Act 24:22-27

(or Act 24:25).

The character of Felix in the light of Christianity.

I. THE CORRUPT JUDGE. Selling justice for bribes, delaying sentence in hope of gain, either from the Jews or from Paul. The influence of Christianity in purifying courts of law. Judge Hale. Room for improvement still as Christian equality banishes all distinctions between rich and poor. Justice is still too dear.

II. THE MAN WITH SEARED CONSCIENCE. In contrast with him who exercises himself to have a conscience void of offence. The light of education, of contact with Judaism through Drusilla, of knowledge of facts at Caesarea, all darkened by sensuality, avarice, worldly power, constant trifling with conscience. He could tremble at truth, but even while trembling was ready to sell it for his own vicious pleasures. He felt its force, but steadfastly resisted it, and even sent again and again for Paul, in hope to make gain out of him.

III. THE TRIFLER WITH OPPORTUNITY. Preaching may move the feelings without changing the heart. Behind the procrastination there is generally a moral corruption hidden. The opportunities which are trifled with harden the heart and hasten the judgment. Felix knew not the time of his visitation. Judgment fell on him, and the Jews, to whose wickedness he pandered, became his accusers before Caesar. No season is more convenient than the present, when the voice of God says, “Repent!”R.

HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER

Act 24:5

The indictment that was a self-indictment.

The preparations for the indictment of Paul before Felix had been well considered. Somewhat formidable, save to the strong heart, and that divinely refreshed (Act 23:11), most concerned in the matter, must the legal phalanx have appeared, when Ananias the high priest, and the elders, and their practiced professional helper Tertullus, and others of the Jews, made their appearance. The speech containing the accusation against Paul, which began with flattery for a Felix, not unnaturally culminates in falsehood hurled at Paul, and mockery flung at the Nazarene. The portraiture of perverseness such as this is no novelty; yet some peculiarity in the featuring may be found here, A new touch or two fails not to give some new expression to the countenance. What a mournful commentary on human nature, that it is necessary to contemplate its worst expression of countenance, and to study, not the model to copy, but the type false and debased to avoid! Consider, therefore

I. WHAT IT IS THAT IS UNDERLYING THE FACT THAT THE FAITHFUL TEACHER OF CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS “PESTILENT.” These are the two things that underlie the ugly fact.

1. That it is the depths of a muddy nature that are reached.

2. That it is something that has the undisputed power to reach those depths that is present and working. The “pestilence” was all subjective to Tertullus and friends. The strong force was the force of Christ.

II. WHAT IT IS THAT UNDERLIES THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPING MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD‘S MIND TO THE WORLD HAVE SO UNIFORMLY FROM THE FIRST PROVOKED NOT A FEW TO VOTE THEM NOTHING BETTER THAN THE SIGNS OF SEDITION. These are at least some of the things that underlie the fact.

1. That the unfolding of God’s mind and purpose to the world always means war with its inertness. The keen appetites of the world are not to true knowledge, not to godly activity, not to wisdom’s perfect work.

2. That the growing manifestation of God to mankind always means a summons to simpler, purer, more determined holiness and height of life. The stir and report that swell round the echoes of the voice summoning men in this sort are indeed sedition to their stifled order of life and of habit and of affection. It is not in them to “seek for honor, glory, and immortality.” God’s greater, better, clearer gifts necessarily postulate a truer human return of them, and a correcter reflection.

III. WHAT IT IS THAT UNDERLIES THE FACT THAT THE PUREST FOLLOWING OF THE PUREST TRUTH AND OF THE HIGHEST IDEAL WHICH GOD HAS GIVEN TO MEN HAS SO OFTEN GATHERED OVER ITS INNOCENT HEAD THE WORST ACCUMULATIONS OF MISCONSTRUCTION, MISREPRESENTATION, AND FALSEHOOD. A notable instance is here before us. The polished orator, the trained and keen lawyer, heaps the epithets, every one ill or of ill omen, “pestilence,” “sedition,” “ringleader,” “sect,” “the Nazarenes.” These were the fruit of a tongue rather than merely a pen “dipped in gall.” And false is the word stamped, as a monogram is stamped, on every one of them. These are some at least of the causes at work under the fact.

1. That reason, opportunities of knowledge, convictions, conscience injured, ignored, insulted, know terrible ways of revenge, and a terrible force of revenge. Obscurity becomes thick darkness; mistake becomes willful preference for the wrong; one sin becomes a multitude.

2. That a certain sort of heart, once deeply conscious, without the slightest readiness to acknowledge it, that it is losing, loses also itself, loses its self-control, and finds itself drifted, hurried, hounded on to senseless lengths. Heaven’s sweetest beneficencefor this it has nothing but the vocabulary of traducing slander.

CONCLUSION. These things are not the necessities and inevitable things of human nature. They are results of permitted unfaithfulness, condoned infidelities, encouraged willfulness, and deliberate defiance of truth, in place of devoted affiance to it. Deep need the roots of them to be sought, that without mercy they may be uprooted and exterminated. And they need the prayer earnestly offered, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”B.

Act 24:10-21

The defense of Paul.

The simplest analysis of the defense which Paul here made for himself is its highest praise. The matter of it must be closely dependent upon the occasion, but the characteristics of its method must be good for all occasion, and imitable to all generations. Notice in this defense

I. ITS ADDRESS TO THE JUDGE, UNGARNISHED BY A HOLLOW COMPLIMENT. The contrast which is presented in this respect to the introduction of Tertullus speaks for itself. There is here nothing, but simple truth.

II. THE HONEST BUSINESSLIKE POINTEDNESS WITH WHICH IT PROCEEDS TO ITS ONE TASK. “I do the more cheerfully answer for myself,” says Paul. He could never answer for himself with hope of any ordinary justice before a council of his own people. But now, while this is his one task to answer for himself, and he takes to it immediately, he does not refrain from saying that there are aspects of the case which enable him to throw himself with spirit into his work.

III. ITS ENTIRE ABSTINENCE FROM ANYTHING BEARING THE REMOTEST RESEMBLANCE TO ABUSE OF HIS ACCUSERS. Paul denies the allegations laid to his charge, shows to an experienced judge that there was very little time in which the things alleged could possibly have occurred, and challenges, by a direct contradiction, the ability of his highly respectable accusers to prove their assertions and make out their charges. But through all there is not a word that sounds like “pestilent fellow,” or “sedition,” or “ringleader.”

IV. ITS DIRECT PENETRATING TO WHAT LAY AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER. This was a difference “in the way of worshipping God.” The keen Roman judge (and Paul knew it and correctly took advantage of his knowledge) was not likely to be so very anxious to lend the force of Roman law and a Roman executive to the mere bidding of Jewish bigotry and ecclesiasticism.

V. ITS HONORING BEFORE ONE WHO KNEW LITTLE AND THOUGHT LESS OF IT, CONSCIENCE TILE FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE OF ALL RELIGION. Paul does not blow contempt upon the truths or methods of religion, even in that shape of religion least understood or honored by Felix, revealed religion. He declares:

1. His conscience.

2. His living constant care of it.

3. His acknowledgment of the necessity of training it to correctness and to vigor.

4. His recognition of its twofold duty,

(1) toward God and

(2) toward man. In all this, there can be no doubt that Paul honored his God, his religion, and his individual conscience, with no hope of any deep sympathy, on the part of Felix indeed, but also without any tear of the high priest Ananias again daring to order them to “smite him on the mouth.”

VI. ITS VERY EVIDENT BUT NONE TITLE LESS CONSUMMATE STROKE OF POLICY, IN POINTING TO THE FACT OF THE STRANGE ABSENCE OF SOME WITNESSES, AND TILE STRANGER SILENCE OF OTHERS ALTHOUGH THEY WERE PRESENT. Paul calls attention to the fact that these two things speak for themselves. And finally challenges once more contradiction of this position, that he had not been the originator of any disturbance whatever, much less seditious disturbance in Jerusalem, unless his famous interpolation, “Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day,” could be interpreted as such. But Paul knew this challenge could not be taken up, both because the Pharisees sided with him in the matter on the very occasion, and because the disturbance was one as between the rival theologies of the Jews, and not as between mere civilians. The correctness, cogency, calmness, of this defense made up its masterly convincingness. There could be no doubt which party had the moral victory of the day. There can be no doubt of the fallen countenances of Ananias and elders and Tertullus. And there can be no doubt that, in this very defense, the accused Christian may hear to the end of the world words not altogether unlike these: “After this manner, therefore, defend ye yourselves.”B.

Act 24:14

The confession of a coherent worship and faith.

Paul is, of course, at no loss to account for the enmity of the Jews manifested toward him. And it is his intention that his judge shall overhear, if not hear, the true state of the case. He has vindicated himself and will still vindicate himself against the ostensible accusations laid to his charge. But now he pierces beneath all pretences and appearances, and touches firm ground. And the concisest way of conveying his view of the state of things to his judge lies in a very simple confession of his religion. To which we may consider (as suggested by Paul’s language here) two things to be essential. They are

I. WORSHIP. And Paul is able to say these three things all distinctly germane to the confession.

1. That he worships.

2. That he worships God.

3. That he worships the God of his fathers, i.e. the very same God whom his accusers profess to worship.

II. A DEFINITE FAITH. An intelligible faith makes an informed instead of a superstitious worship. There are ways and ways, of worship. And these follow very consistently the faith that is held. Notice:

1. That Paul very decidedly pronounces tot himself that his faith embraces “all things written in the Law and the prophets.”

2. He implies that the faith of his enemies failed of this. It felt short, perhaps, partly in its very character, but probably much more seriously in its compass. The typical Jew of the days of Jesus prided himself in reading the Law literally and fully, though with many a corrupt addition. His “way” of interpreting the prophets was of a far more eclectic character. He couldn’t see, because he wouldn‘t believe, the humble and the humbling prophecies of the Messiah. Paul’s “heresy” was, in fact, that he believed “all.“ The Jews’ ruining sin was that they would not believe “all.” This quietly spoken sentence of Paul gave the key to all. And it is another comment upon the Jews in harmony with that uttered by Jesus himself, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me,” etc. (Joh 5:46).B.

Act 24:15

(see also previous Homily on Act 23:1-35. 6).

A hope grown from a deep add man old root.

The hope that there shall be a resurrection of the dead is here described as a “hope toward God.” It is hope pre-eminently resting upon God. For

I. IT IS THE INSTINCTIVE HOPE TOWARD GOD OF OUR NATURE GIVEN BY HIM. The deep-seated instincts of nature are necessarily among the strongest moral arguments of which we can take cognizance.

II. IT IS THE HOPE TOWARD GOD THAT COMES OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF OUR TRAINED REASON, A REASON GIVEN ALSO BY HIM. Reason’s arguments upon certain highest subjects, by themselves, may easily be uncertain and fallacious. But as guides on the way to other arguments, and as supports of other arguments, they are often very significant, very suggestive, very helpful. And it is so to a high degree in this instance.

III. IT IS THE HOPE OF THE CHRISTIAN HEART TOWARD GOD. It is the end of the gospel to him who believeth. If this hope fall through, all falls through. The Christian’s deception becomes an absolutely typical and leading instance of deception for the whole world’s whole length of history; and the Christian’s disappointment the keenest of all disappointmentshis collapse making him the most miserable of all men.

IV. The hope that this resurrection shall include allthe “unjust“ as the “just” IS A HOPE TOWARD GOD NESTING EMPHATICALLY ON THE TESTIMONY OF HIS OWN REVELATION, AND CONTRIBUTED TO LARGELY BY CERTAIN ASPECTS OF HIS JUSTICE WITH. WHICH THAT REVELATION MAKES US FAMILIAR. In this theme the mystery of unfathomable depths of unsearchable wisdom is before us. It enwraps the height of highest hope, the deepest things of fear.B.

Act 24:24, Act 24:25

The highest powers eluded by the heart’s subterfuges.

The immediate connection reminds us very forcibly how the man who is the worst friend to himself is sometimes environed with opportunities charged with the offer of mercy, Providence and the God of all providence long wait upon him in natural relationships, in his very weaknesses, in suggestions and inducements of almost every various kind. How many things conspired now to give Felix the opportunity of hearing and knowing the truth! His position, his popularity, his knowledge “of that Way,“ the fact of his having married a Jewess, and even the itching of his hand for a bribe (Act 24:26)things so strangely at variance with one another and some of them with goodnessdid nevertheless all combine to make him a hearer of the things greatest and best to be heard. He heard, felt, resisted, and lost. And Felix is a great and long-enduring illustration of

I. THE POWER THAT LIES IN THE APPEALS OF RELIGIOUS, AND SPECIALLY OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH. There are deep valid reasons for this.

1. Right lies with them, by the verdict of

(1) even reason;

(2) conscience;

(3) experience of practical life.

In every one of these directions, even to all their ramifications, there is nothing like a mere beating of the air, nothing like mere sound and fury, nothing like vox et praeterea nihil, in the appeals of religious truth. Each appeal is a home-thrust, that purports to reach and is fitted to reach what is deepest and most enduring in a man. And each appeal is a manifesto in the name of one or more of these grand authorities and arbiters of human life.

2. The imaginings, as just as they are instructive (if not flint stifled) of the mysterious looming future, lend a large contribution to the power of religious appeal Sometimes they are roused as by the mutterings of distant thunder, sometimes as by strains and snatches of celestial music. The echoes are for some so rich with sound, so mellow; or for others they wander as though haunting the empty chambers of hollow hearts. The apprehension of the infinite and the infinite future “hangs in doubt” before many eyes. But it is not always the apprehension of fear, and whether one or the other it does its work.

3. Love, and of an unusual kind, dwells in them. The interference with the sacredness and the retiredness of individual thought and feeling which is offered by religious appeal, and offered also with a certain appearance of arbitrary authority, is remarkably counterbalanced by its undisputed disinterestedness, men would never bear to be addressed on any other subject whatsoever in the way and in the tone and with the persistency to which they readily yield themselves in the matter of the appeals of religion. And that they sufficiently know nothing but their own deepest advantage is aimed at, is the sufficient account of it.

4. No doubt the commanding power of religious appealin the sense of convincing poweris due to the operation of the Holy Spirit.

II. THE POWER OF RESISTANCE TO THE APPEALS OF RELIGION, WHICH EMPHASIZES SO TERRIBLY HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. The deep reality of such power of resistance is testified with certainty from the too well-known fact of it. Notice such causes of it as are traceable amid the deeper and inscrutable mysteries that cloud the subject.

1. A mind really turned from the light and truth.

2. A heart that is strong in its own pride. How many a heart knows the love that is intended for it, yet of pride refuses it!

3. An aversion to effort, specially moral effort; and to the demand of change which it involves in habit and action, specially that form of change called reform.

4. The grievous facilities for yielding to temptation. Legion is the name of subterfuge in things moral. The wide sweep of opportunity for resisting, courts the very spirit of him who is open at all to the approach of temptation. The shifts to which such will condescend to have recourse are innumerable, unaccountable, and find their strict description only as of those “devices of Satan, of which we are not ignorant,” indeed”not ignorant” in a double sensebut against which so many are unarmed and irresolute in their presence. The versatility also of subterfuge in order to gain the cud of resistance is amazing. It can blind the eyes of reason and of self-interest. It can stifle the conscience and hush to silence the deepest, justest sources of fear. It can defy the lessons of practical life. It will induce a man to use the responsible advantages of his own highest position to stay, in feeling’s most favored and critical moment, the pressure and all the persuasion of moral importunity itself. And to all else, to elude the one precious moment of grace, temporizing, procrastinating, playing with time, it condescends to the mournfully vain expedient of attempting to throw dust with one hand into the eyes of others, and into its own with the other. The moment when Felix trembled as he heard the great verities of life announced and urged, was the fairest moment of his life. But it vanished. And the darkest moment succeeded it all swiftly, when Felix not only resisted the pleadings of knowledge, of truth and grace, and of the Spirit, but resisted them by the aid of the subterfuges of procrastinating, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.”B

HOMILIES R. TUCK

Act 24:2

The influence of a good ruler on national evils.

See the rendering in the Revised Version, “Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by thy providence evils are corrected for this nation.” How far this may be a true description of Felix it may be difficult to decide. The only good thing known of his rule is the energetic effort which he made to put denim the gangs of Sicarii (Assassins) and brigands by whom Palestine was infested. Within two years of this very time Felix was recalled from his province, and accused by the Jews at Rome. He only escaped punishment by the intervention of his brother Pallas, then as high in favor with Nero as he had been with Claudius. But Tertullus describes the proper influence of good rulers, and so suggests a subject on which we may profitably dwell.

I. THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL EVILS, ESPECIALLY IN A CONQUERED NATION. Certain forms of lawlessness are only kept in check by the strong hand of an active, vigorous government. In every land there are criminal classes and revolutionary classes, and these make headway as soon as, from any cause, the pressure of authority and national police is relieved. In a conquered nation there is always a dangerous sympathy with the revolutionary classes, which increases burglary, brigandage, and murder. Effective illustration may be taken from the recent history of Ireland.

II. THE MODES IN WHICH SUCH NATIONAL EVILS MAY BE CORRECTED.

1. There is the simple, but harsh method of conquest by armies, and the crushing down of all expressions of life by brute force. This, however, never really succeeds.

2. There is the slow method of forming aright public opinion, which makes the nation become its own police. This often fails, because the demagogue creates an opposing and unworthy public opinion.

3. There is the influence gained by the good ruler who can be prompt and strong, wise and far seeing, who loves the people, and masters the evils for the people’s sakes. Such a ruler secures peace from external quarrels and internal dissensions, and, in securing peace, bears directly on the people’s well being. He effects all reasonable reforms, so as to remove everything that hinders the national prosperity. Show that it becomes us to pray for good rulers; to seek grace and help for them that they may rule well; and to aid them in carrying out all good schemes.R.T.

Act 24:3

“Most noble Felix;” or, the power of the flatterer.

Felix was not noble at all. Tacitus says of him that “in the practice of all kinds of lust, crime, and cruelty, he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave.” Tertullus had an end to gain, and adopted flattery as a means. He was a hired pleader, and selected for the sake of his glib eloquence. He could talk well. Men of his class were found in most of the provincial towns of the Roman empire, They were necessary because the local lawyers would not be sufficiently familiar with the proceedings at the Roman courts, or with the minute details of Roman law. Tertullus had “learned the trick of his class, and began with propitiating the judge by flattery.” Canon Farrar says, “Tertullus was evidently a practiced speaker, and St. Luke has faithfully preserved an outline of his voluble plausibility. Speaking with polite complaisance, as though he were himself a Jew, he began by a fulsome compliment to Felix, which served as the usual captatio benevolentiae. Alluding to the early exertions of Felix against the banditti, and the recent suppression of the Egyptian false Messiah, he began to assure his excellency, with truly legal rotundity of verbiage, of the quite universal and uninterrupted gratitude of the Jews for the peace which he had secured to them, and for the many reforms which had been initiated by his prudential wisdom.” The subject suggested for our consideration is thisWhat are the limits of praise? How far may we go in conciliating others by words of approval and congratulation? At once it may be answered that no praise may go beyond the truth or be out of harmony with the truth. But in practical life we have to remember that different persons have different estimates of personal character.

1. Some are incompetent to form sound judgment, and such persons give praise that is simply unsuitable, but is not spoken with any purpose of flattering.

2. Others are prejudiced, and can only see the evil sides of a man’s character and actions. Their estimates are wholly unworthy.

3. Others are just as blind to the evil and as prejudiced to the good, and their estimates, though seemingly flattering, are really only exaggerated and untrustworthy; they lack criticism, but are not insincere.

4. Yet others praise with some object which does not appear; they have an end to gain, and the praise is regarded simply as a means towards obtaining the end. These are the flatterers, and their characteristic is insincerity. The following points may be illustrated concerning the power of the flatterer:

I. HIS MOTIVES. Always some personal end is in view. Usually the flatterer seeks to get something that is not in itself right. It is an agency to use when a man’s case is bad. If a man lacks arguments, he will flatter the judge. He means to throw him off his guard, and to get him into a favorable mind by praises.

II. HIS AIDS IN THE PERSON FLATTERED. There is in us all, even in the best of men, a self-love that makes praise pleasant. If the flattery is kept well in hand and skillfully disguised, even noble natures, even humble natures, may be swayed by it. If the flattery is too open and intense, good men are put on their guard and resent the insult.

III. THE MORAL MISCHIEF OF HIS WORK. Show the injury that is done to the flatterer himself, who is confirmed in his insincerity when he finds flattery succeed. A man may get into such a habit of flattering that he will lose the power to recognize the truth, and come to believe in his own exaggerations. Show the injury that is done to the person flattered, who may be led to form an undue estimate of himself, and so be placed in positions of extreme moral peril when the hour of temptation comes. If it is wrong for us to think of ourselves above that which we ought to think, it must be wholly wrong for any one to flatter us so that our self-opinion is unduly raised. Felix was really pushed a little nearer to his fall by. this flattery of Tertullus. For Scripture teachings concerning flattery, see Psa 36:2; Psa 78:36; Pro 2:16; Pro 20:19; Pro 26:28; Pro 29:5, etc. Press the apostolic counsel, “Speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph 4:25).R.T.

Act 24:14

The way called heresy.

The Revised Version reads, “After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers.” St. Paul’s teachings the Jewish party certainly regarded as heresy, and did not hesitate to call heresy. St. Paul urges that he did no more than belong to a sect, or section, of the Jews, who, while worshipping according to the Mosaic system, had received, as they believed, some further light by the direct revelation of God. To some Jews St. Paul’s doctrine of resurrection, based upon the fact of the resurrection of Christ, was a heresy. To others his free announcement of gospel blessings to the Gentiles was a heresy. But his chief offence in the eyes of the more bigoted Jews lay in this, that he freed his Jewish converts from the characteristic demands of the Jewish ritual. This was, in their eyes, heresy indeed. As indicating a wider use of the term sect than that with which we are familiar, it may be noticed that it was used of Jewish sects by Josephus, of schools of philosophy by Greek writers generally, and of schools of medicine by Galen. There are four sides from which heresy, as a misrepresentation or perversion of accepted truth, may be viewed.

I. HERESY AS IMPERILLING THE TRUTH. The apostle speaks distinctly of false doctrine, which puts the Christian truth in peril. There are great first principles, great foundation truths, and for these we do well to be jealous. But we must clearly see that while heresy on these points is dangerous to the Christian faith and life, heresy on points which men have been pleased to elaborateon mere details and accepted formulaehave never shaken the rock-built house of truth, and never will. God has given us two all-sufficient tests of moral and religious truth. No heresy ever vet has stood the application of these two tests.

1. Is the statement in harmony with God’s revealed Word?

2. Does it practically work out into that which is goodmorally pure and good? We need never fear any presentation of so-called truth that is in accord with God’s Word, and is manifestly “unto holiness.” It is God’s truth, whatever some may call it, if it helps to make men holy.

II. HERESY AS A SYNONYM FOR INDIVIDUALITY. This it very often is. A man expresses a well-established truth in some new form or new phraseology, and, without waiting to examine it, and see if it was only new clothing on the old body of truth, his fellow-men raise the heresy shout, and create prejudice against him. St. Paul’s heresy was only individuality, and God gave him that individuality in order that it might make him a holy power. Jews called it heresy, but we have learned to glory in the gospel with the Pauline stamp upon it. The lesson taught by the Christian records of nearly two thousand years, hut which we are strangely unwilling to learn to-day, is that we must never crush individuality by the shout of heresy, but thank God for sending men who can clothe his old truth in adaptation to the thought and life of each succeeding age.

III. HERESY AS REQUIRING JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE. This men think it does. This it never does. God’s truth never wants the bolstering of any human courts or judges. God’s truth asks only one thing from the world’s powers and potentatesto be let alone. Truth wants the open air and the sunshine, that is all. It can win its own way. It can carry its own conviction. It can take care of its own purity. It can cast off all unworthy additions. We greatly need an absolute and unquestioning confidence that God’s truth is in no danger. It smiles at unbelief and over self-reliant science, much as the granite rocks seem to do at the wild careering waves.

IV. HERESY AS THE HEALTHY ASSERTION OF NEGLECTED SIDES OF TRUTH. Truthrevealed truthis a great whole, but no one age seems able to take in the whole; some parts are always prominent and some are always in the background; and there is this constant peril, that the truths in the foreground are treated as if they were the whole, and any one who brings up to view the neglected aspects is liable to the charge of heresy. Many a so-called heresy is only a missed truth or a half-truth; and then, after men have done “calling names,” they are glad to accept the teaching. One rule is set before us, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good,” whatever may be the name by which men call it.”R.T.

Act 24:16

Loyalty to God and men.

“A conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” Bishop Butler’s definition of “conscience” can hardly be surpassed. He says, “There is a principle of reflection in men, by which they distinguish between, approve and disapprove, their own actions. We are plainly constituted such sort of creatures as to reflect on our own nature. The mind can take a view of what passes within itself, its propensions, aversions, passions, affections, as respecting such objects and in such degrees, and of the several actions consequent thereupon. In this survey it approves of one and disapproves of another, and toward a third is affected in neither of these ways, but is quite indifferent. This is strictly conscience.” (See previous Homily on Act 23:1.) This subject may be fitly introduced by discussingWhat is conscience? What is its sphere? and What are its limitations? The expressions in the text remind us that the testimonies of our conscience depend upon our cherished standards. There ought to be a due recognition of both Divine and human rules, and our conduct has to be regulated in view of both. St. Paul presents us the example of the man who is loyal to the revealed will of God, and loyal also to the rules which men make for the regulation of their social relations. These may indeed sometimes clash, and then the true-hearted man must follow out the Law of God, whatever may be the consequences. But usually there is found a practical harmony between the two, so that the moral life is acceptable both to God and man. In estimating the value of others’ opinion of us, let us remember that the great thing to cherish is our will to that which is right, and our inward consciousness of being right. That conviction was the strength of St. Paul. When Plato was told that he had many enemies who spoke ill of him, “It is no matter,” he said, “I would so live that none should believe them.” It may be impressed, in conclusion, that the merely natural conscience is practically insufficient and untrustworthy as a guide of life; and it absolutely needs spiritual illumination, a quickening by the power of the Holy Ghost.R.T.

Act 24:23

St. Paul’s liberty.

“He commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty.” It is evident that the prosecution of the apostle by the Jewish party had utterly broken down. No charge could be substantiated which made him amenable to punishment according to Roman law. If Felix had been a free man, and, as a judge, free of all other considerations than the doing of justice, he would have liberated St. Paul at once, declaring publicly his innocence. But Felix was not free. No man is really free who does not dare to do the right. And we can recognize a gracious overruling providence in St. Paul’s being kept for a while longer under Roman protection. So great was the enmity against him of the Jewish party, that his life would have been in extreme peril if he had been liberated. Knowing that he was dealing unfairly by the prisoner, and impressed by his dignity of bearing, Felix compromised matters with himself, persuaded himself that he could secure Paul from the schemes of the Sanhedrim by keeping him prisoner; put off Paul’s enemies by an excuse that he would confer with Lysias; and privately arranged for Paul to have a real, though not an apparent, liberty. Through all the ages some of the worst wrongs have been done in the name of compromise, which is too often the weak device of those who cannot “stand firm to the right.”

I. FELIX BOUND.

1. By the weakness of his moral character.

2. By the desire to please an important section of those whom he had to govern.

3. By the consequences of his own wrong-doings, which it cost him all his effort to keep off as long as possible.

4. By the circumstances in which he found himself placed, and which he had no strength of will or purpose to master. The man of vice and self-indulgence enervates his will, and becomes the slave of his sin as truly as does the drunkard.

II. PAUL APPARENTLY BOUND. He had been tied by a chain to a Roman soldier day and night, according to the usual Roman custom, and if Felix relaxed this, still Paul was a prisoner in the barracks, and probably a soldier-guard waited on him constantly. If his friends were free to come to him, he was not free to go out to them. If we estimate his character aright, we shall feel that even the slightest form of bondage must have been most painful to him. His was a soul so noble than even the limitations of a frail body were to him an agony.

III. FELIX GETTING AS FREE AS POSSIBLE FROM HIS BONDS. Not free enough to say, honestly and. honorably, “This man is innocent of all crime against the state, and must be set at liberty at once.” Only able to shake the fetters off enough to say, “Forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him,” and only able to give this order in a private way to the centurion.

IV. PAUL REALLY FREE. However he might seem to be still set under outward limitations, nothing can imprison a man save his own wilful sin. Nobody can put any real fetters on any fellow-man. Each man who wears fetters puts them on himself; each man who dwells in a prison goes in himself, and himself bolts the door.

“Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage.”

But “whosoever committeth sin becomes the slave of sin.” So, whatever may have been the limitations of the apostle’s circumstances, there was no bondage, for there was no conscience of sin. The freedom of Paul

(1) to commune with God,

(2) study the truth,

(3) to serve the Churches, maybe shown; and it may be pointed out how often the very limitations of a man’s circumstances, through sickness or persecution, has found him the freedom for some great and noble service, as may be illustrated from Luther’s work while in the Wartburg, and from John Bunyan’s work while in Bedford jail.R.T.

Act 24:24, Act 24:25

The substance of the faith in Christ.

From Farrar’s ‘Life of St. Paul,’ note to p. 340, vol. 2., see the relations of Felix to this Drusilla. She was a Jewess by birth, and would be interested in a man who was the object of such virulent persecution. She had, no doubt, heard of the Prophet of Nazareth, and was likely to show some curiosity when one of his leading disciples was a prisoner at the court. Private audiences were given to Paul, and he was invited to speak freely concerning “the faith in Christ.” It is a side light thrown upon the greatness of St. Paul’s nature, that he used his opportunities at once so skillfully and so nobly. “With perfect urbanity, and respect for the powers that be, he spoke of the faith in Christ which he was bidden to explain, in a way that enabled him to touch on those virtues which were most needed by the guilty pair who listened to his words. The licentious princess must have blushed as he discoursed of continence; the rapacious and unjust governor as he spoke of righteousness; both of them as he reasoned of the judgment to come. Whatever may have been the thoughts of Drusilla, she locked them up in her own bosom; but Felix, unaccustomed to such truths, was deeply agitated by them” (Farrar). The word “faith” is employed in Scripture with several distinct meanings; here it is used of the Christian doctrine, but St. Paul deals with the practical rather than the theoretical aspects of it. His remarks bore upon that first necessity of Christianity, the conviction of sin. Bungener puts the point of his preaching both succinctly and forcibly when he says, “Paul, as usual, wished to press certain consequences; and it is always against these that people resist, even when they are far better than Felix and Drusilla. ‘He heard him concerning the faith in Christ; and as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come’of righteousness, to a cruel and unjust despot; of temperance, to a debauchee whose very marriage had been but one scandal the more; and of judgment to come, to a man who had doubtless sought in Epicurean negations a refuge from the gods‘then Felix trembled.‘ St. Paul’s theme finds expression in three words: righteousness, full and honorable discharge of all the duties which man owes to God, and man owes to man; temperance, or the due control of all the appetites and passions of the body; judgment to come, or the certainty that all life-conduct must, sooner or later, be perfectly appraised, and due punishment be inflicted. “St. Paul does not confine himself, as a merely ethical teacher might have done, to abstract arguments on the beauty or the utility of ‘justice’ and ‘temperance.’ Here, also, his own experience was his guide, and he sought to make the guilty pair before whom he stood feel that the warnings of conscience were but the presage of a Divine judgment which should render to every man according to his deeds. It will be noted that there is here no mention of the forgiveness of sins, nor of the life of fellowship with Christ. Those truths would have come, in due course, afterwards. As yet they would have been altogether premature. The method of St. Paul’s preaching was like that of the Baptist and of all true teachers” (Plumptre). The three topics may be treated in a more general way if presented thus:

1. Righteousness, or the Divine ideal of a human life.

2. Temperance, or a man’s personal responsibility in the use of his body, and the shapings of his human relationships.

3. Judgment to come, or the appalling fact for all who follow their own willful ways, that results must be divinely recognized. Compare the convincing of the Spirit, which is of sin, righteousness, and judgment; and press that only upon the conviction of sin can the message of a Savior from sin come with power to any one of us.R.T.

Act 24:25

Convenient seasons.

This familiar topic needs but a brief outline. Procrastination is one of man’s chief perils. It is the “thief of time,” the “delusion of the evil one.” No man has any “by-and-by,” any “tomorrow” to which he can trust. “Now” is our accepted time, our day of salvation. A man has nothing but the passing moment; yet he comfortably shifts off the duty of today by the vain fancy that it can be done to-morrow. “Felix is the type of the millions whose spiritual life is ruined by procrastination.” Philip Henry says, “The devil cozens us out of all our time by cozening us out of the present time.” Archias, a supreme magistrate of the city of Thebes, was seated at a feast, surrounded by his friends, when a courier arrived in great haste, with letters containing an account of a conspiracy formed against him. “My lord,” said the messenger,” the person who wrote these letters conjures you to read them immediately, being serious things.” “Serious things to-morrow,” replied Archias, laughing, and then put the letters under his pillow. This delay was fatal. The conspirators that evening rushed into the banqueting-room, and put the careless Archias, with all his guests, to the sword.

I. CONVENIENT SEASONS MAY EXCUSE DELAY. Better opportunities always seem to be away in the future. The pressure of daily business or daily pleasure will surely be lightened some day. We all have our eye upon some distant time when we mean to be in earnest about religion, and our sincere intent excuses our present delay.

II. CONVENIENT SEASONS MAY EASE THE CONSCIENCE. This is what we have in the case of Felix. He was smitten, but was purposed not to yield, so quieted conscience with a vague promise.

III. CONVENIENT SEASONS MAY NEVER COME. They seldom do. Press that the only convenient seasons for us are just those in which God brings home to our souls his truth, and urges us to its acceptance. Could Felix only have seen it, the most convenient season for him was the hour when Paul urged upon him the “faith in Christ.”R.T.

Act 24:26

Covetousness excusing injustice.

Felix proved utterly ignoble. His reasons for leaving a man prisoner whom he knew to be altogether innocent, are base. “Willing to do the Jews a pleasure.” “Hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul.” Felix is stamped as

(1) a time-server, and

(2) as a corrupt judge.

“Felix, well knowing how the Christians aided one another in distress, and possibly having some information of the funds with which St. Paul had been recently entrusted, and ignorant of those principles which make it impossible for a true Christian to tamper by bribes with the course of the law, might naturally suppose that he had here a good prospect of enriching himself.” Nothing so quickly and so utterly debases a man as the cherished spirit of covetousness. This, however, is a somewhat unusual form and expression of the many-sided evil. Olshausen says, “The sword of God’s Word pierced deep into the heart of Felix, but for this very reason he suddenly broke off the conference. But his moral baseness betrayed itself strikingly in this, that he could still hold fast his prisoner for the mere purpose of obtaining money for his release, yea, that at his departure from the province, he left him in prison, out of complaisance to the Jews.” Illustrate

(1) that Felix knew the right;

(2) but that, nevertheless, he did the wrong; and

(3) that the love of money in part explains his choosing the wrong.

The following incident may be helpful in the illustration of this third point:“A case was tried before a young cadi at Smyrna, the merits of which were these. A poor man claimed a house which a rich man usurped. The former held his deeds and documents to prove his right; but the latter had provided a number of witnesses to invalidate his title. In order to support their evidence effectually, he presented the cadi with a bag containing five hundred ducats. When the day arrived for hearing the cause, the poor man told his story, and produced his writings, but could not support his case by witnesses; the other rested the whole case on his witnesses, and on his adversary’s defect in law, who could produce none; he urged the cadi, therefore, to give sentence in his favor. After the most pressing solicitations, the judge calmly drew out from under his sofa the bag of ducats which the rich man had given him as a bribe, saying to him very gravely, ‘You have been much mistaken in the suit, for if the poor man could produce no witnesses in confirmation of his right, I myself can produce at least five hundred.’ He then threw away the bag with reproach and indignation, and decreed the house to the poor plaintiff.”R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Act 24:1. Ananiasdescended Or, Went down.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 24:1 . .] The point of commencement is not to be reckoned, with Cajetanus, Basnage, Michaelis, Stolz, Rosenmller, Morus, Hildebrand, as the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem, an opinion which has arisen from an erroneous computation of the twelve days in Act 24:11 , nor yet with Calovius, Wetstein, and others, as the arrival of Paul at Caesarea , but as (see on Act 24:11 ) his departure for Caesarea. We may add that the popular mode of expression does not necessarily denote that the fifth day had already elapsed, but may just as well denote on the fifth day (comp. Mat 27:63 , and see on Mat 12:40 ). That the latter view is to be assumed here, see on Act 24:11 .

.] of course, not the whole Sanhedrists, but deputies who represented the council. It is obvious, withal, that the two parties in the Sanhedrim, after the variance temporarily aroused between them (Act 23:6 ff.), had in the interval bethought themselves of the matter, and united against the common enemy, in order to avert his eventual acquittal by the Roman authority.

Tertullus (a common Roman name, see Wetstein) was an orator forensis (see Barth, ad Claudian. p. 76), a public causidicus. Such speakers, who were very numerous in Rome and in the provinces, bore the classical name of the public orators: (see Photius, p. 488, 12; Thomas Mag., Suidas), in the older Greek (Dem. 1137. 5, 1349. pen.; Lucian. Tox. 26; Hermann, Staatsalterth. 142, 14),the advocates of the accusers.

. . .] they laid information before the procurator against Paul. That this took place in writing , by a libel of accusation (Camerarius, Grotius), is not affirmed by the text, which, by and the immediately following, does not point to more than oral accusation. Comp. Act 23:15 , Act 25:2 ; Act 25:15 . The reciprocal rendering, comparuerunt (Beza, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others, following the Vulgate), is an unnecessary deviation from the usage in the N.T., Act 23:15 ; Act 23:22 , Act 25:2 ; Act 25:15 ; Joh 14:21 f.; Heb 11:14 , and elsewhere also not capable of being made good. Comp. Borne-mann in Rosenmller, Repert . II. p. 271; Krebs, p. 252 f.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B.JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FELIX; PAUL DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGES THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD; THE DECISION IS, HOWEVER, POSTPONED

Act 24:1-23

1And [But] after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders1, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who [Tertullus, and] informed the governoragainst Paul. 2And when he was called forth [summoned], Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness [peace], and that very worthy deeds are done unto [that excellent arrangements are made for] this nation by thy providence [foresight), 3We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, withall thankfulness. 4Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto [But in order that I may not longer detain] thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemencya few words [wouldest in thy clemency for a brief season listen to us]. 5For we have [We have, namely,] found this man a pestilent fellow [man to be a pest], and a mover of sedition2 among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader ofthe sect of the Nazarenes: 6Who also hath gone about [attempted] to profane the temple: whom we took [we also () seized; Om. here the remainder of Act 24:6, the whole of Act 24:7, and the first clause of Act 24:8, ending with unto thee3], and wouldhave judged according to our law. 7But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, andwith great violence took him away out of our hands, 8Commanding his accusers to come unto thee [here the version continues, after seized, Act 24:6]: by examining of whom, thyself mayest take knowledge of [and thou canst thyself, if thou examinest him, learn from him] all these things, whereof we accuse him 9And [But] the Jews also assented [Jews immediately joined in4], saying that these things were so.

10Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as [As] I know that thou hast been of [for] many years a judge unto [over] this nation, I do [can] the more [om. the more5] cheerfully answer for myself: 11Because that thou mayest understand [For thou canst ascertain], that there are yet but [that it is not more than] twelve days since I went [came] up to Jerusalem for [in order] to worship. 12And they neither found me in the temple [And neither in the temple did they find me] disputing with any man, neither [or] raising up [a tumult of]the people, neither [nor] in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13Neither [Nor] can theyprove the things whereof [of which] they now accuse me. 14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy [a sect (as in ver 5)], so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in theprophets: 15And have hope toward God, [for] which they themselves also allow [wait, namely], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead [om. of the dead6], both of the just and [of the] unjust. 16And herein [at the same time] do I exercise myself,7 to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. 17Now [But] after many [several] years I came [in order] to bring alms to my nation, andofferings. 18Whereupon certain Jews from Asia [Wherein8 they] found me [after I had] purified [myself] in the temple, neither with multitude [noise, ], nor with tumult. 19Who [But they were certain Jews from Asia, who] ought9 to have been here [have appeared] before thee, and object [accused me], if they had aught againstme. 20Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing [wrong act]in me, while [when] I stood before the [chief] council, 21Except it be for this one voice [word, ], that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection ofthe dead I am called in question [I am tried] by you this day. 22And when Felix heard these things [But Felix deferred their case10], having [because he had a] more perfect knowledge of that [the ] way, he deferred them [om. he deferred them], and said, When Lysias the chief captain [tribune] shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter [I shall inquire fully into your case]. 23And he [He also, ] commanded a [the, ] centurion to keep Paul [guard him11], and to let him have liberty [relief], and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance [friends, ] to minister or come12 [om. or come] unto him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 24:1-4. a. And after five days.The other party very speedily obeyed the instructions of the tribune, Act 23:30. It was not more than five days after the arrival of Paul at Cesarea [or, rather, after his departure from Jerusalem (Meyer, de Wette).Tr.], when the high priest, with a deputation of the elders ( . who were the representatives of the whole body of elders), also proceeded to that city. They took with them the rhetorician Tertullus, who was appointed to act as their counsel, and, in their name, to lodge a complaint against Paul. His name is a diminutive of Tertius [like Lucullus from Lucius], and, in its turn, furnishes the derivative Tertullianus; the name, which was often adopted by the Romans, indicates his Italian origin. was at that time frequently applied as a title to professional advocates, who pleaded for clients before a court of justice. is here, as well as in Act 23:15, to be taken transitively, in accordance with the established usus loquendi, in the sense of: to make known, to inform, [in the forensic or judicial sense (Alex.).Tr.], and not in that of: to appear before (Vulg., Luther, Bengel), as, in the latter case, the middle voice would have necessarily been employed.

b. That by thee we enjoy great quietness[peace].The rhetorician commences his address with gross flatteries, designed to secure the favor of the judge for the party which he represents. 1. He extols the profound peace, for which they are indebted to Felix. It was, in truth, the primary duty of a procurator to secure peace for his country, and his chief distinction, when he succeeded. Congruit bono et gravi prsidi, ut pacata sit provincia. (Ulpianus, De officio prsidis). Now Felix had, to a certain extent, put an end to the disturbances which had been caused in part by political discontent, and in part by a depraved thirst for plunder. But he did not hesitate, on the other hand, to employ sicarii in assassinating the high priest Jonathan; and his general conduct was characterized by such violent passions and such selfishness, that he rather aroused than calmed the spirit of rebellion. Hence the first sentence of Tertullus contained a falsehood. 2. The orator next mentions the excellent arrangements, the happy results (), which the provident administration of Felix had secured for the people of Israel. [The Vulgate version (multa corrigantur) which makes it mean reformatory measures, rests upon another reading ( for )found in several of the oldest manuscripts, but not regarded by the critics as the true text. (Alex.).Alf. retains . of text. rec. with G. H., but Lach., Tisch., and Born., read . with A. B. E. and also Cod. Sin.Tr.]. This statement, too, was, in view of the arbitrary rule of the man, and his base character (servile ingenium, libido, Tac. Hist. V. 9.) an impudent falsehood. 3. The falsity of the assertion that the Jewish nation was, at all times and in all places, grateful to Felix for his services, was subsequently demonstrated, when the Jews themselves accused him at Home, after he had been recalled (Jos. Antiq. xx. 8. 9.). , Act 24:4, means to hinder, interrupt, detain. [The promise (of Tertullus) to be brief () might almost seem to have been caused by some appearance of impatience in the Procurator, at the prospect of a formal and elaborate harangue. (Alex.).Tr.]. And the to which the speaker appeals, as a well-known feature of the character of the procurator ( ) was by no means one for which he was distinguished.

Act 24:5-9. For we have found this man. is not employed, as Bengel and others have supposed, for , but is anacoluthic.[The regular construction would be: , in Act 24:6; see Winer: Gram. on the passage, 45. 6. b., and 63. I. 1.Tr.]. The heavy charge here brought against the apostle, contains three specifications: 1. That he created disturbances in the Roman empire, among the Jews; comp. Act 17:6; Acts 2. That he was a leader of the sect of the Christians; 3. That he had attempted to profane the temple. This is the first occasion on which the name Nazarenes is introduced, as that of a sect, i.e., of the adherents of Jesus of Nazareth; it originated in Jewish views. [His supposed birth in Nazareth was regarded as evidence that he was a false Messiah, Joh 7:42. (Meyer).Tr.]. was originally a military term, applied to a soldier at the front of the army, a file-leader. [For sect, , Act 24:5, see below, Exeg. note on Act 24:14-16.Tr.]. The expression , Act 24:6he attemptedis, in a juridical point of view, very skilfully chosen; it charges the prisoner only with the attempt, and not with the [overt] act itself, as was done in Act 21:28; if the prisoner should deny even the attempt, the expression would at least indicate his animus. – – , i.e., Paul himself would not be able to deny the facts as stated by Tertullus. [But if the disputed words (see note 3 above, appended to the text) be inserted, refers naturally enough to Lysias, (Alf.).Tr.]. means: to join in the attack; the Jews united, at the close of the speech of their advocate, in making the same complaints. [The drift of this representation (of Tertullus) was evidently to persuade Felix to give up St. Paul to the Jewish courts, in which case his assassination would have been easily accomplished.Compare the two attempts, Act 23:15, and Act 25:3. (Conyb. and H. II. 291.)Tr.]

Act 24:10, Forasmuch as I know, etc.Paul does not, like his opponent, commence with flatteries, but, by way of introduction, mentions a single well-known fact, namely, that Felix had already for a considerable time possessed the highest judicial authority in the country; he had thus acquired a personal knowledge of its public affairs, and this circumstance enables Paul, as he now remarks, to defend his cause with confidence before Felix. As the latter had obtained the office at the close of A. D. 52, or the beginning of A. D. 53 [Jos. Ant. xx. 7. 1; War, ii. 12. 8, during the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius (de Wette).Tr.], and as the occurrence here related took place in A. D. 58, the are, to speak more definitely, about six yearsa comparatively long period, when it is considered that frequent changes of governors constituted at that time the rule. Felix had undoubtedly found many favorable opportunities for becoming acquainted with the character of the leaders of the Jews, and of the people generally; and Luke himself remarks, Act 24:22, that he had also a certain amount of knowledge respecting Christianity.

Act 24:11. Because that thou mayest understand [For thou canst ascertain] that, etc.Paul refers to an additional circumstance which aids him in making his defence, namely, that he had very recently reached Jerusalem, and that it would therefore be very easy to investigate his whole course of procedure during the short period which had succeeded his arrival at Jerusalem. The twelve days which the apostle mentions as having since elapsed, are to be reckoned, in the following manner:

I. The day after the arrival; visit to James, Act 21:18.

II. Levitical purification, and first visit to the temple, Act 21:26.

III. IV. V. VI. VII. The days of the Nazarite-offerings; assault on Paul, and seizure of his person, Act 21:27 ff.

VIII. The apostle before the Great Council Act 22:30; Act 23:1 ff.

IX. The conspiracy, and the discovery of it; in the evening Paul is removed from Jerusalem. Act 23:12 ff., Act 23:23; Act 23:31.

X. Arrival at Antipatris, Act 23:31.

XI. Arrival at Cesarea, Act 23:32 ff.

XII.

XIII. Proceedings before Felix, Act 24:1 ff.

Hence, the last was the fifth day ( , Act 24:1) since Paul had been removed from Jerusalem, if the day of his departure be included; but the fifth had not yet elapsed, and, therefore, is not one of the whole number of twelve days; the day of his arrival at Jerusalem is also excluded. Anger: De temp. rat. p. 109 f. [The computations of various writers are noticed by Meyer, de Wette, etc.; on 1 of these Alexander remarks: A vast amount of calculation and discussion has been lavished on the question, how these twelve days are to be reckoned, all agreeing in the only point of any moment, namely, that Pauls statement may be justified in several ways, the variation having reference chiefly to the seven days spoken of in Act 21:27, and to the admission or exclusion of the days which had elapsed since his return to Cesarea.Tr.]

Act 24:12-13.And they neither found me in the temple, etc.[In Act 24:13, the reading of text. rec. is , with A. E. G. H., while Lach. and Born, read with B. which is also the reading of Cod. Sin. Winer remarks, (Gram. N. T. 55. 6) on the passage: is not here used like , but begins a new proposition thus: neither in the temple did they find me nor in the synagogues and they can also not prove, etc. But most of the manuscripts read in Act 24:13. If that be the correct reading, , in Act 24:12, and , in Act 24:13, regularly correspond, and the words constitute subordinate members of the former proposition.Tr.]. With respect to the occurrence itself, and to the accusation founded upon it, to which latter Paul now replies, he emphatically declares that he had come to Jerusalem in order to worship (); he had, therefore, not opposed the worship of God in the sanctuary, as appointed by the law, but had, on the contrary, engaged in it himself; his journey had been, according to its design, a pilgrimage to the place of worship. He also denies in direct terms that he had in any manner polluted the temple, or had been the author of any disturbance, [after which supply (de Wette)Tr.], is occasionally employed by classic writers in the sense of ostendere, persuadere, probare.

Act 24:14-16. But this I confess unto thee.These verses contain Pauls reply to the invidious charge of Tertullus, that he was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He boldly and joyfully confesses () that he is a Christian, but at the same time declines, in mild terms, to acknowledge the term , which had been used by Tertullus in an unfavorable sense, as descriptive of a sect of separatists, (; opponentsPaul meansgive that name to Christianity, but it is not, in reality, a sect). [It is a vox media, indicating a school, party, but had been used by Tertullus, Act 24:5, in a bad sense, i, e., a schismatic sect. (Meyer).Tr.]. While he confesses his faith, and describes his Christianity, he intentionally and unequivocally avows the unity of the new covenant with the old. . , i.e., his religion is not an apostasy from the God of his fathers, but is, on the contrary, fidelity to Him. , i.e., his religion does not teach him to regard the sacred writings of Israel with doubt and unbelief, but requires him to receive the Scriptures with entire faith. When he proceeds to state the subject-matter of his faith, he describes it as a devout hope of the resurrection, and here again he lays stress on his agreement with Israel i.e., my opponents also entertain this expectation. Here, however, and differ subjectively; the former denotes rather an external attitude with respect to the truth in question, without indicating warmth of feeling, but the latter, . ., describes that hope as a personal and very precious treasure. The confession, finally, Act 24:16, refers to the practical, the moral, features of his Christianity. The words are not to be restricted in their application, to the hope already mentioned (Bengel), but refer to the whole foundation of the apostles faith, as far as he had hitherto indicated it. , i.e., I, too, like all my brethren in the faith.

Act 24:17-21. Now after many [several] years. [, not so strong as many, (Conyb. etc. II. 292. note).Paul refers to the four years which had elapsed since his last visit to Jerusalem, Act 18:22. (Meyer).Tr.]. The apostle here recurs to the complaint of his enemies that he had defiled the temple, and, with his answer to it, combines a refutation of the charge that he had created a tumult. He states that he had recently returned to Jerusalem, partly for the purpose of bringing relief to his people, (that is, the collections which had been appointed in Gentile congregations for the Judo-Christians [1Co 16:1 ff.; 2Co 8:1-8; Rom 15:25 (Meyer).Tr.]), and of thus demonstrating his love to his people, and, partly, for the purpose of offering sacrifices at the temple [the sacrifices usual at festivals, (Meyer).Tr.]; comp. in Act 24:11. The latter, the act of worship, corresponds, at the same time, to . . , in Act 24:16, while the former, the alms, correspond to . While I was thus engaged ( , Act 24:18)he saysand after the requisite purificatory rites (), but not in a profane manner, I entered the temple, which, moreover, I did not pollute with tumult and noise. This statement also refutes the charge that he had disturbed the public peace. , Act 24:19, belongs to , Act 24:18. [A comma should be placed after , as Lachmann, Tischendorf and Bornemann (and Alford) have done, and not a full stop or period, which is the punctuation adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, and de Wette (and also the text. rec.), (Meyer.).Tr.]. The sense is: Certain Jews found me, not those who are here present (as they seem to say, Act 24:5), but others who came from Asia, and these are precisely the persons who have not presented themselves here.Paul refers, in conclusion, to his opponents who are present, for the proof that the assembled Sanhedrin could not convict him of any offence, , i.e., unless it was the exclamation which he had uttered in the midst of the assembly, Act 23:6.

Act 24:22-23. Felix having more perfect knowledge deferred them. was the current technical term for to adjourn; this verb is usually followed, it is true, by sentence, decision, as its object, but occasionally also, as in this instance, by , referring to an assembly which is adjourned. The words , etc., can be only intended (as the construction of the sentence shows), to assign the reason of the act implied by , that is, Felix adjourned the meeting, because he had a fuller knowledge of Christianity [than that with which the present proceedings could furnish him. (Meyer).Tr.]. This is the interpretation of Chrysostom, Luther, Wetstein, Meyer, and others. It is an error to suppose, with Beza, Grotius and Ewald, that these words themselves belonged to the concluding sentence of Felix, as if he should have said: After I shall have more perfectly acquainted myself with this way, and after the arrival of Lysias, etc. For if that were the sense, could not possibly have been introduced at such a distance from the beginning of the sentence. The procurator must have acquired a more than mere general knowledge of Christianity during his administration, which had already lasted at least six years, [The Christian religion had been known for many years in Cesarea (Act 8:40), where Felix resided, and had penetrated even among the troops (Acts, Acts 10). (Conyb. et. II. 293).Tr.]. Hence he did not condemn Paul. Still, he did not acquit him, on account of considerations connected with the Jews. He accordingly postponed the matter, on the pretext that he was desirous of hearing the tribune Lysias, before he decided. Thus Paul remained in military custody ( ), but with a certain alleviation () of his confinement, since he was permitted to receive the visits of his own people ( ), i.e., no doubt, of intimate Christian friends, and of relatives, like the nephew mentioned in Act 23:16; their personal services in unimportant matters were also allowed (). Perhaps, too, there was a certain relaxation manifested in the manner in which he was guarded and shackled. See Wieseler: Apost. Chron., p. 380 ff.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The speech of Tertullusthe only man who receives in the Scriptures the professional title of an orator (rhetorician),is an example of that eloquence which should not be regarded as genuine; it is insincere and untrue in its matter, and artful and tinselled in its form. The address of the apostle resembles the discourses of Jesus, and all the discourses and writings of the other apostles; its matter is characterized by truth and sincerity, and its form by plainness and simplicity.

2. The apostle demonstrates that godly sentiments control him, by not being satisfied with merely refuting the false charges brought against him, and defending himself personally, but by also availing himself of the earliest opportunity for confessing and defending the Christian faith. It is not so much his own honor, as the honor of God and of His appointed way of salvation, for which he is concerned.

3. The confession of faith made by the apostle furnishes a sketch of the reply which Christianity makes to Judaism, and, specially, it shows that the former is not an apostasy from the old covenant, but rather the fulfilment of it. The fundamental principle of the apostle is, in reality, precisely that which is expressed in the words of Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil, Mat 5:17. In perfect accordance with these words of the Master, his disciple confesses that he believes all that is written in the law and in the prophets, that he holds fast to the hope, which Israel also entertertains, as to a precious treasure, and that he serves none other than Jehovah, the God of his fathers. This is precisely the position which the Reformers assumed in the Augsburg Confession, in opposition to the Catholic church; it was the main object of that Confession of faith, on the one hand, to refute the charge of sectarianism and of apostasy on the part of the evangelical Christians, and, on the other hand, to demonstrate the unity of the latter with the ancient, true, apostolical, and catholic Church.

4. There is a deep meaning in the apostles declaration that, with regard to his faith and his hope, he endeavored to maintain a good conscience in his relations both to god and to men. Such a statement was not only of great importance with respect to his defence of himself against the several charges of profaning the temple, and of creating tumults; it was also of the highest value as honorable testimony in favor of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity is the conscience of the conscience. When the Gospel of Christ reaches man, it does not fully control him, until it penetrates his conscience. And man does not fully take hold of Christianity, and appropriate it to himself, until be avails himself of it as a power of God in his moral exercisesin preserving a conscience void of offence. In every other case, Christianity is only a color, a form, mere chaff, and not the substance, the power, the essence, and the life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act 24:1. The high priest with a certain orator named Tertullus.This is the only passage in the Scriptures in which an orator and the name of an orator are introduced. (Bengel).The preachers of God are not speakers who utter words which they have merely learned, but who are witnesses of things revealed. (Besser).No cause is so bad that it cannot find an advocate. (Starke).Eloquence is a gift of God (Exo 4:11), but the eloquence of a bad man is poison in a golden cup. (Augustine).Malice continually adorns itself with new colors, and adopts new weapons. When cunning, assassination, and conspiracy are of no avail, it employs the tinsel of oratory, and attempts to gain its object by means of the weapons of flattery. But faith and truth retain their simplicity and integrity. The high priest appears with his orator Tertullus, but Paul meets them with his good conscience and his believing heart. (Ap. Past.).

Act 24:2-3. Tertullus began to accuse him.How artful and cunning are the children of darkness! As a cage is full of (decoy) birds, so are their houses full of deceit. Jer 5:27. They hope to oppress the innocent and the poor. But are not the palaces of princes and great lords, and the offices of judges and counsellors full of such decoy-birds? (Starke).Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness [peace].Tertullus overwhelms Felix with compliments, in order to gain his favor. (Starke). Wicked men never utter the word peace more loudly, than when they intend to disturb the peace, and to create confusion, Psa 55:21. (id.).Tertullus prepares the way for his accusation by base flattery. Felix was enslaved by vice, and was hated by the people; they subsequently complained of him to the emperor. And yet this flatterer deifies him, in order to gain his favor, and declares that he is the author of blessings for which the Jews were indebted to God alone. This desire to flatter men still governs false and unfaithful teachers. (Ap. Past.).How great an influence flattery exercises in the world! It is a wonderful instrument in the hands of men. Great men employ it, when they wish to gain their ends, and avail themselves of the infirmities of inferior men; and, on the other hand, inferior men discover a weak side in a great man, and thus acquire power over him. (Rieger).

Act 24:4. That I be not further tedious unto thee.This course was very welcome to Felixan introduction, full of flattering expressions, and then a statement of the case as brief as possible; he disliked business (Act 23:35), and now received the promise that he should not be long detained. (Williger).

Act 24:5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow [to be a pest].The beautiful image of a witness of Jesus seems to the world to exhibit distorted features. His gracious message is called a pest; his zeal in addressing those who are spiritually dead, results in giving him the character of a mover of sedition. To preach Jesus is sectarianism; to build up the kingdom of God is to profane the temple.If such was the experience of Christ and his apostles, why should it not be our own? But we are consoled when the Spirit of truth gives us the testimony: as deceivers, and yet true. [2Co 6:8]. (Ap. Past.).

Act 24:6. Whom we took.Tertullus does not even remotely refer to the intended assassination; over all these iniquities he artfully spreads a veil. (Ap. Past.).

Act 24:9. And the Jews also assented.They said Amen! to the edifying sermon of Tertullus! (Williger).Falsehood finds supporters sooner than the truth. But if even thousands assent to a lie, it still remains a lie. (Starke).

Act 24:10. Then Paul answered, Forasmuch as I know a judge unto this nation.Be sparing in giving titles, as Paul here was. When an enemy of God, an unrighteous judge, an arrogant Haman, or an Ahab, a slave of sin, is before thee, shouldst thou tell him that he is an excellent, highly esteemed, and incomparable man? Shouldst thou talk of his great merits? He shall never be moved, in whose eyes a vile person is contemned. Psa 15:4-5. (Starke).Paul undoubtedly shows respect to Felix, in so far as he holds a public office, the dignity of which is not derived from the personal merits of the person who is invested with it, but from the ordinance of God; nevertheless, when he addresses Felix as a judge, he reminds him of law and justice. Thus he practises himself all that he teaches us in Rom. Acts 13. (Leonh. and Sp.).

Act 24:11. I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.Paul does not here employ a common mode of expression; he really intended, if it were possible, to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; Act 20:16.

Act 24:12-13. And they neither found me in the temple, etc.Observe the course which Paul adopts. He modestly expresses his respect for the office of the judge; he honestly and briefly states the case; he calmly denies the truth of the charge, and as calmly asserts that the opposite is the truth; he boldly demands an investigation and the proof; he distinctly exposes the true reason of the complaint. Take the same course before a court of justice. (Starke).

Ver 14. But this I confess unto thee, etc.When Paul was allowed by Felix to speak, he replied to the accusations of his enemies, but, above all, availed himself of the opportunity to witness a good confession [1Ti 6:13]. (Rieger).That after the way which they call heresy [a sect], so worship I the God of my fathers.Paul is not ashamed of being a Nazarene, but he denies that Christianity is a false doctrine recently introduced, and that the church of God is a sect that has apostatized from the faith of the fathers, inasmuch as the Gospel of Christ is the heart and soulthe great object and endof the entire old covenant. (Leonh. and Sp.).The true church of God has always produced the same evidence, whenever it was called a sect. Thus the Evangelical Church could always with confidence reply to the Catholic, when the latter termed it a new party, that it was precisely the old, apostolical church. (Williger).Thus Christians of our day, who possess spiritual life, may demonstrate, when they are termed sectarists, pietists, etc., that, according to the Scriptures, their sectarism, or their pietism, is simply the imitation of Christ, an earnest walk in that way of salvation which Jesus has marked out in His word, in His own walk, and in His blood.

Act 24:15. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow.The hope of the resurrection is established on a doctrine, the glory of which did not arise for the first time in the New Testament; this golden thread of eternal life passes, on the contrary, through the whole of the Old Testament. The Creator, who animated the dust of the ground with His breaththe covenantal God, who made an everlasting covenant [Gen 17:7] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not a God of the dead, but of the living. That hope was a source of comfort to Job (Act 19:25-27); Isaiah (Act 26:19) foretold it; Daniel (Act 12:2) bore witness to it. It is, however, true, that, in the case of Paul, this hope first of all acquired a firm foundation, and was endowed with life and productive power through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead [2Ti 1:10]. (Leonh. and Sp.).The resurrection is the foundation on which our Christianity rests; if the former yields, the latter would pass away with it [1Co 15:14]. (Starke).I have hope toward God, etc.Hast thou this hope? If the Spirit has not yet imparted it to thee, pause not until thou art assured of thy blessed resurrection; pause not, for there can be nothing more awful than to die without the hope of the resurrection. (Kapff.).

Act 24:16. And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.The apostle shows us the use which he makes of his religion. Here is the true object or aim of all religion. As long as our confession of faith is merely a matter of the judgment, or an inherited custom, or an apple of discord and source of contention, it is chaff without grain, a shadow without life. It then only deserves the name of a true faith, when it urges and assists us in so exercising ourselves that we may become righteous, devout, and holy before God. (Ap. Past.).Why should that man not love God with all his heart, who believes in God and has an assurance of His gracious purposes, since He has given us His Son, and with him the hope of eternal life? Why should he not fear and honor Him? Why should he not make every effort, in order to show his gratitude for such great gifts and mercies? Why should he not exhibit patience and obedience in seasons of affliction? Thus faith is always accompanied by many very brilliant and exalted virtues, and is never alone. (Luther).Although Paul deals very strictly with his conscience, insomuch that he desires it to be void of offence at all times both toward God and toward men, he nevertheless speaks with great humility. He does not say that he has or possesses such a conscience, but, with great consideration, says that he exercises himself to have it. It is very profitable to deal strictly with the conscience and never allow it to relax its watchfulness. (Ap. Past.).

Act 24:17-18. I came to bring alms to my nation found me purified in the temple.If he, who thus confers benefits on his neighbor, is called a pest [Act 24:5] of the community, what must that man be, who does injury to his neighbor? And if he who thus keeps his vow in the temple, is described as a man who profanes the temple, what name shall be given to the man, who, in the temple, violates his baptismal vow? (Starke).

Act 24:20. Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me.The apostle, in his defence, demands of all those who had seen and known him, or had associated with him, and been witnesses of his conduct, whether they can lay anything to his charge. He was impelled to adopt this course by a good conscience, which was void of offence toward God and men. Many a teacher would be put to shame if his acquaintances, or those confidential friends who are aware of his secret acts, should arise and bear witness against him. But it is precisely from sources like these that the dread or fear proceeds, in consequence of which the duties of the sacred office are fulfilled in such a lukewarm manner. (Ap. Past.).The whole discourse of the apostle shows the calmness of a heart which the Lord had strengthened. Here notice, I. The composure with which he listens to the accusasation of Tertullus; he does not open his mouth, until Felix beckons to him to speak; II. The uprightness, which leads him to avoid all flattering terms in addressing Felix, while he shows respect to his office; III. The fearlessness with which he repels every unjust charge; IV. The simplicity of the manner in which he states the facts, without resorting to any artifice; V. His courage as a witness; the defence which he makes, affords him an opportunity also to make a confession, with a joyful spirit, of his faith, of his hope, and of his love to God and man, and, indeed, of his whole true and life-giving religion. (From Ap. Past.).

Act 24:22. Felix deferred them.Various forms of the natural heart, which a teacher, to whom the care of souls is intrusted, should thoroughly understand, are developed in Felix. He presents an image of a man of the world, and illustrates by his conduct the manner in which such men deal with the Gospel. They have a knowledge of that way, but their knowledge exercises no influence on their hearts. Even when they occupy themselves with the things which belong to the kingdom of God, they are actuated solely by curiosity. They wish to be regarded as impartial, but their only object is to derive advantage from the one party or the other. Such is the character of the men of the world; and here a teacher needs great wisdom and godly sincerity, when he is in their presence, so that he may be neither too credulous, nor too timid. (From Ap. Past.).Felix here exhibits himself, to a certain extent, as a second Pilate. (Besser).

Act 24:23. And to let him have liberty [relief]; (repose, in Luthers version). A servant of Jesus at length grows weary, when he has been long occupied in the world, and has struggled amid the tumult and confusion of its carnal passions. Happy is he when his Saviour grants him repose, so that, in communion with other members of Jesus, his soul may be refreshed and strengthened in faith and grace. (Ap. Past).

ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act 24:1-23.The sect that is every where spoken against. [ch. Act 28:22], Act 24:5 : I. It believes all that is written in the word of God, Act 24:14; II. It confesses all that for which the grace of God permits it to hope, Act 24:15; III. It exercises itself in all those duties which the commandments of God have established, Act 24:16. (Florey).

By what means does the Christian refute the groundless accusations of his enemies? I. By unfeigned faith, Act 24:14; II. By a joyful hope, Act 24:15; III. By a godly life, Act 24:16 (Leonh. and Sp.).

The power of the hope of a resurrection of the dead: it endows us, I. With courage and wisdom in our labors; II. With patience and strength in our afflictions; III. With steadfastness and joy in the hour of death, (id.).

How does the Christian defend himself against the charges which the world so often makes against him? I. He avoids all well-deserved reproach, so that the Gospel may not be blasphemed on his account; II. He puts the causeless enmity of the world to shame by a joyful confession of his faith; III. He directs attention to his life, which furnishes the evidence of the truth of his faith. (Lisco).

The Christians answer to the accusations of the world: I. When should he answer them? (a) When the Lord, and not he himself, is reviled; (b) when he can hope to pacify his accusers, and not increase their animosity. II. How should he answer them? (a) Without the fear of man; (b) convincing them by witnessing a good confession. (Langbein).

The orator Tertullus, and the preacher Paul, or, False, and true, eloquence: I. False eloquence resorts to flattery, and addresses the self-love of the hearer, Act 24:3; true eloquence does not flatter, but addresses the heart and the conscience, Act 24:10; II. False eloquence is hypocritical; it dwells only on the lips; it carries honey in the mouth, but gall in the heart, Act 24:5-6; true eloquence never flatters; it proceeds from the heart, and its words are those of truth and uprightness, Act 24:10; Act 24:14-16; III. False eloquence is deceitful; it misrepresents the facts, and distorts the truth, Act 24:5-6; true eloquence never resorts to falsehood; it only repels false accusations, (Act 24:13), while it confesses the truth (Act 24:14-15), and presents facts rather than mere words, Act 24:16-20.

Are upright Christians the sectarians which the world represents them to be? No! For, I. The Leader whom they follow, is not the founder of a sect, but Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church; II. The communion from which they withdraw, is not the church of the Lord, but only the ungodly world, within and without the church; III. The way in which they walk, is not a worship devised by men, but the original way of salvation appointed by the word of God; IV. The glory which they seek, is not empty worldly honor, but that of having a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men, Act 24:16.

The Christians true glory consists in the possession of a conscience void of offence, Act 24:16. I. When has he such a conscience? (a) When it is void of offence not only toward men, who look on the outward appearance, but also toward God, who looketh on the heart [1Sa 16:7]; (b) when it is also void of offence, not only toward God, whose judgment will be hereafter revealed in the eternal world, but also toward men, who judge him at present according to his fruits, Act 24:13; Act 24:17-20. II. How may such a conscience be acquired? (a) By first gaining a knowledge of the way of salvation from the word of God, and by receiving that knowledge with faith, Act 24:14-15; (b) by diligently walking in that way, and by exercise in godliness, Act 24:16.

The Christians best defence against the poisoned darts of calumny: I. A joyful confession made with the mouth, Act 24:14; II. A conscience void of offence, and a peaceful heart. Act 24:16; III. A blameless life, in the past, Act 24:17-20; IV. A righteous judgment of God in the future, Act 24:15.

Footnotes:

[1]Act 24:1. The reading [of text. rec.] is attested only by G. H., and most of the minuscules, but is sustained by internal evidence, rather than the reading . , as the latter very distinctly appears to be an attempt to correct the original text. [The latter reading is adopted by Lach., Tisch. and Born., on the authority of A. B. E. several minuscules, and Vulg.; it is also found in Cod. Sin.Alf. adheres to the text. rec.Tr.]

[2]Act 24:5. [text. rec., with G. H.], should be preferred to the plural [of A. B. E. Vulg.], as the latter seemed [to copyists] to be the better suited to, and, indeed, required by, . [Alf. retains the sing., but Lach., Tisch. and Born. adopt the plural. Cod. Sin. exhibits a defective form of the plural.Tr.]

[3]Act 24:6-8. The textus receptus here exhibits an interpolation of considerable length, which is found only in one of the uncial manuscripts [E.]; all the others [A. B. G. H.] together with that classic witness, the Cod. Sin., omit the passage. [The Vulg. introduces it in the printed editions, but some of the MSS. omit it.Tr.]. Besides, the uncommonly numerous variations in the readings [in the minuscules], betray that the whole is spurious. The words are: , . If these words had been genuine, the omission of them would be inexplicable, while the insertion may be readily explained from Act 21:32; Act 23:27; Act 23:30. Mill, Bengel and Griesbach had, already at an earlier period, regarded the whole as an interpolation, and, more recently, Lach. and Tisch. erased it from the text. [Alford introduces the passage into the text, but incloses it in brackets.Cod. Sin. exhibits no traces of the insertion of any part of the words by a later hand.Tr.]

[4]Act 24:9. [Instead of , of text. rec. with some minuscules, recent editors read with A. B. E. G. H. Cod. Sin.Tr.]

[5]Act 24:10. The weight of authority is in favor of [found in A. B. E., and Cod. Sin. Vulg. (bono animo)]. The comparative, [text. rec.], which is found only in two uncial manuscripts [G. H.], seems to be a well-meant attempt to improve the text, in so far, namely, as it was supposed that, while the circumstances stated in the verse, might in truth enable the apostle to speak more cheerfully, he was, independently of them, already cheered in spirit. [Lach., Tisch. and Born. adopt the positive; Alf. retains the comparative, and Meyer also regards it as probably the original reading.Tr.]

[6]Act 24:15. [of text. rec. with E. G. H.], is wanting in several of the oldest manuscripts [in A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Vulg.]; as the external authorities in favor of the word, and those against it, seem to be evenly balanced, we had decided against the insertion of the word, on internal evidence, as it would assuredly not have been dropped, if it had been originally employed. Recently, however, the testimony of Cod. Sin., which also omits the word, has been received, so that the weight of external testimony is against . [Omitted by Lach., Tisch.. Born. and Alf.Tr.]

[7]Act 24:16. The authorities are decidedly in favor of , rather than [of text. rec. with H.; recent editors adopt the former in accordance with A. B. C. E. G., Cod. Sin., Vulg. (et ipse).Tr.]

[8]Act 24:18. The reading [of text. rec. with G. H.], is preferable to , which is unquestionably a correction [to suit the gender of ; Lach. and Tisch. read with A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. but Alf. retains , and, with Meyer, regards the other, as a correction.Tr.]

[9]Act 24:19. [found in A. C. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. (oportebat), and generally adopted by critics, except Alf.] should be regarded as the genuine reading rather than [of text. rec. with B. G. H.], although the testimony in favor of the respective readings is evenly balanced.

[10]Act 24:22. Five uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E. H., also Cod. Sin. and Vulg.] exhibit the following reading; .; whereas the more extended reading which has been introduced into the textus receptus, namely: . . . is supported by only one uncial manuscript [G.], and is unquestionably an interpolation; it is, besides, not found in Cod. Sin. [Recent editors generally adopt the former reading.Tr.]

[11]Act 24:23. a. [found in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. (eum)] is undoubtedly the original reading, and [of text. rec. with G. H.], is spurious. [This is the view of recent editors generally.Tr.]

[12]Act 24:23. b. [of text. rec. with G. H.], is a later addition, and is wanting in four uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E., and also Cod. Sin., Vulg.perhaps derived from Act 10:28. (Meyer).Tr.].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

Paul accused by Tertullus, answereth in his Defence. Felix defers judgment. Paul preacheth before Felix and his Wife. The Governor is superseded in Office, and leaves Paul in Bonds.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. (2) And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, (3) We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. (4) Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. (5) For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: (6) Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judge d according to our law. (7) But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, (8) Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him. (9) And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

In all this flaming speech there is not a single charge except that of being a follower of Christ, whom by way of contempt they called the Nazarene. A pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition, were general words of abuse, and without proof. And although this orator prefaced his accusation of Paul with a fulsome compliment to Felix, yet the whole offence of the Apostle was for preaching Christ. And the chief priest, Ananias, and the Jews, could find nothing beside to criminate the Apostle!

But they were all unconscious, while charging Paul as a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, what indirect honor they were thereby conferring on the Apostle. If the Reader will consult my Poor Man’s Concordance, under the article Nazarene, he will there see the subject treated somewhat largely. I shall only here therefore observe, that as the Lord Jesus was specially and peculiarly called the Nazarene, being in fact in his human nature the only Nazarite to God; it was the highest of all possible honors to call Paul a ringleader of the holy order. The word is derived from Netzar, signifying separated. And in reference to Christ, it means the peculiar separation of that holy portion of our nature, underived from the fallen stock, but formed by the overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to the vast purpose of union with the Godhead. So personally and peculiarly is Christ, as Christ, the true Nazarite, yea, the only Nazarite, to whom all others were but types and shadows, Lam 4:7 .

And it is worthy our closest observation, in proof of this, as if Jehovah would have Christ specially known by this name, that the Lord Jesus is by way of eminency so distinguished both in heaven and earth, by angels, devils, yea, by the Lord himself, who sweetly called himself by the name from heaven, when speaking to the Apostle Paul, The Apostles: Joh 1:45 , Angels: Mar 16:6 , Roman soldiers: Joh 18:5 , The servant maid in Pilate’s hall: Mat 26:71 , Pilate himself: Joh 19:19 , Christ’s servants in working miracles: Act 3:6 and Act 4:10 , Devils: Mar 1:24 , And our dear Lord himself: Act 22:8 . Reader! these are sweet testimonies to this one great point, when that point is considered in terms equal to its importance, that Jesus Christ is the one and only Nazarite to God.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Act 24:5

Compare Clarendon’s description of Cromwell: ‘Without doubt, no man with more wickedness, ever attempted anything, or brought to pass what he desired, more wickedly, more in the face and contempt of religion and moral honesty’.

References. XXIV. 5. F. D. Maurice, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 325. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii. No. 1632. Expositor (6th Series), vol. v. p. 116.

The Resurrection of the Body

Act 24:15

The differences between our bodies as they are now and as they will be in the resurrection are only three; let us see what they are.

I. In the first place, they can no more sin. This is certain, because, if they could sin, we might be cast out of heaven. But if we once enter that blessed place, we can never be driven out. Heaven would be no heaven if we could lose it. But we are told expressly that ‘he that is dead hath ceased from sin’. The body, which was always hindering us in God’s service here, will there help us in it. It cannot grow weary, it cannot interrupt us by its own feelings; there we shall truly and perfectly ‘glorify God in our body and in our spirit, which are God’s’.

II. The next great difference is that the body will be incorruptible. This does not only mean that it will never die, but it tells us a great deal more. Here, in this world, our bodies are wearing out day by day, and therefore day by day we have to keep them up by food and by rest. But there they cannot wear out, therefore they will not want food nor rest; at least, that is the belief of the Church. It is certain there can be no weariness; it is certain there can be no sickness; ‘the inhabitant,’ says Isaiah, ‘shall not say I am sick’; it is certain there can be no old age or decay.

III. All in heaven will be perfect. The belief of the Church is that the old will be raised again, not withered and decayed and worn out, but as they were when they were in the best part of their earthly lives; and that children will be raised, not as they were when they were laid in the grave, but as they would have been if they had been spared to their full growth and strength. Isaiah, speaking of heaven, says: ‘There shall be no more thence an infant, nor an old man’. And St. Paul says that we shall all be in ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ’. Now our Lord died for us in the very prime of life at thirty-three years of age according to the flesh, therefore holy men have thought that at our resurrection we also shall wake up in the prime of life, even as our Lord did at His.

J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College Chapel, vol. iv. p. 46.

References. XXIV. 16. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii. No. 66. XXIV. 15, 16. J. J. Blunt, Plain Sermons (2nd Series), p. 86.

Act 24:16

This text is associated with the dying moments of Sir Harry Vane. Dr. Stoughton gives the following description of his end: ‘A noble victim perished two months afterwards. It has been with Sir Henry Vane as with Oliver Cromwell: having disliked each other in life, they have shared a common fate in the judgment of posterity: for, after years of odium, the names of both are raised to honour. Vane’s Republicanism rendered him impracticable, and his mysticism, although undeserving the reproaches of Baxter and Burnet, threw a haze over his speculations, which makes them somewhat unintelligible; but the piety and genius of his Meditations, and the purity and virtue of his life, render him an object of reverence and love He was tried for compassing the death of the King; yet, whatever he might be in other respects, he was no regicide. The evidence on his trial only proved that he had held office under the Commonwealth, that he had been a member of the Council of State in 1651, and had belonged to the Committee of Safety in 1659. To make the condemnation and sentence of Vane the more unrighteous, the King, after solemnly promising to spare the life of the Republican, had written to Clarendon, saying Vane “is too dangerous a man to let live, if we can honestly put him out of the way”. The spirit of the prisoner appears in a letter which he wrote to his wife. “This dark night, and black shade,” he observes, “which God hath drawn over His work in the midst of us, may be, for aught we know, the ground colour to some beautiful piece that He is now exposing to the light.” His execution was an ovation. From the crowded tops and windows of the houses, people expressed their deep sympathy, crying aloud, “The Lord go with you, the great God of heaven and earth appear in you and for you”; signs of popular feeling which sustained the sufferer, who gratefully acknowledged them, “putting off his hat and bowing”. When asked how he did, he answered, “Never better in all my life”; and on the scaffold his noble bearing so affected the spectators that they could scarcely believe “the gentleman in the black suit and cloak, with a scarlet silk waistcoat (the victorious colour) showing itself at the breast, was the prisoner”. Frequent interruptions from the sound of drums drowned his voice, which, as Burnet says, was “a new and very indecent practice”. The officers, as they put their hands in his pockets, searching for papers, exasperated the populace, whilst Vane’s calmness led a Royalist present to say, “he died like a prince”. Before receiving the last stroke, he exclaimed, “I bless the Lord, who hath accounted me worthy to suffer for His name. Blessed be the Lord, that I have kept a conscience void of offence to this day. I bless the Lord I have not deserted the righteous cause for which I suffer.” “Father, glorify Thy servant in the sight of men, that he may glorify Thee in the discharge of his duty to Thee and to his country.” One blow did the work. “It was generally thought,” remarks Burnet, “the Government had lost more than it had gained by his death.” Pepys declares the people counted his constancy “a miracle”; adding, “The King lost more by that man’s death than he will get again for a good while”. Thus fell the noblest mystic of the age, next to George Fox.’

History of Religion in England, vol. iii. pp. 253-255.

References. XXIV. 16. J. H. Holford, Memorial Sermons, p. 41. R. J. Wardell, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xix. p. 266. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lessons for the Christian Year, pt. iii. p. 161. J. H. Jowett, From Strength to Strength, p. 29. XXIV. 17 Expositor (4th Series), vol. viii. p. 331. XXIV. 24. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. x. p. 277.

Bidding Good-bye to God

Act 24:25

What would you think of a man who had plainly heard the voice of God heard it so plainly that it made him tremble and who yet had the awful courage to reply, ‘Go away for the present. When I have a convenient season, I will send for thee’? We hold our breath at the very thought of such stupid, lordly defiance of Almighty God; and then we breathe more freely again as we bethink ourselves that such a thing could not be. It could not be? Nay, but it has been. There was a man who rolled those very words off his thoughtless tongue, and there are other men have we not ourselves been among them? who have cherished such thoughts in our hearts, and sighed for God to go away, though the blasphemous words may never actually have crossed our lips.

I. Felix was the man the cruel, the powerful, the gorgeous Felix. Beside him is a prisoner speaking to him with deadly earnestness of a judgment to come. The voice is Paul’s but the words are God’s, and they smite with terror into his seared Roman conscience. Paul is right, God is right, and Felix can stand it no longer. ‘Go away,’ he says, in a sudden access of terror. ‘Go away for the present. When I have a convenient season, I will send for thee.’ It is to Paul that he is speaking, but what are those awful words but a tragic farewell to God, the God who was pleading with him through the mighty presence of Paul?

What a prayer! ‘O God! go away.’ It is a fearful thing to bid good-bye to God, but, oh! the presumption, the pathetic, the unspeakable presumption, of expecting that the God to whom we have haughtily said good-bye will come back at our summons, and alter His plans to suit our convenient season!

II. Procrastination is the secret of failure. A noble thought, a holy resolution, visits us. It stands knocking at the door. But it will disturb our comfort if we suffer it to enter and possess our life, and that will not do. So we give it a courteous dismissal. ‘Go thy way for the present. When I have a convenient season, I will send for thee.’ And before that season comes, we may have reached some place where there is no repentance though we seek it carefully with tears.

III. Warnings enough there come to every man. Every time we are appalled, like Felix, at the thought of the judgment to come; every terror that shakes our conscience; every funeral procession that passes up the busy streets, with its silent mockery of their crowded haste; every experience that awes and humbles us is another voice of the God who loves us too dearly to leave us alone. The man who says to such a voice, ‘Go thy way for the present,’ is either a coward or a fool a coward if he cannot bear to look at those stern facts with which he will one day have to make his bed, and a fool if he supposes that the God whom he is deliberately rejecting will come in mercy when he summons Him. ‘When I have a more convenient season I will send for Thee.’ Yes, but will He come? He will come indeed, be sure of that; but, when He comes, He will demand the uttermost farthing.

J. E. Macfadyen, The City With Foundations, p. 221.

Act 24:25

The observation of every day will give new proofs with how much industry subterfuges and evasions are sought to decline the pressure of resistless arguments.

Dr. Johnson.

References. XXIV. 25. G. W. Brameld, Practical Sermons (2nd Series), p. 19. R. W. Hiley, A Year’s Sermons, vol. iii. p. 105. W. Brock, Midsummer Morning Sermons, p. 127. R. W. Church, Village Sermons, p. 231. W. H. Evans, Short Sermons for the Seasons, p. 62. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv. No. 171. Expositor (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 12. XXV. 1. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 98. XXV. 13. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. x. p. 17; ibid. (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 293; ibid. vol. x. p. 444. XXV. 18, 19. J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son, p. 175. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiv. No. 2016. XXV. 22. Expositor (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 288. XXVI. 5. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. x. p. 132.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Chapter 87

Prayer

Almighty God, because of thy good hand upon us we find ourselves in the house of prayer, and in the place of Christian home. Thou hast brought our wandering feet into the secure place; we are no longer out upon the cold rocks seeking rest and finding none: we are in our Father’s house, bright with his mercy, warm with his love, strong with his almightiness. So will we sing a new song unto thee, and a loud psalm, and will not spare our voices in the cry which expresses the praise of our hearts. Thou hast done great things for us, whereof we are glad. Thou hast planted flowers in places in which we thought no beauty could grow; thou hast supplied us with water in the land of thirst; thou hast made our bed in our affliction; thou hast turned our loss into gain; and when we have said, in want of faith which was well-nigh despair, “All these things are against me,” thou hast turned them round and made them friends of ourselves, so that the things which had happened unto us of a perverse and trying kind have turned out rather to the furtherance of the Gospel in our hearts. The year which we hailed with joy is now passing silently and gloomily away. It lingers like a friend loath to go still its last few hours are round about us waiting for some good inscription, for some holy vow, for some new confession, for some bolder prayer. Is there not yet time for victory? Shall the battle of the year close in our defeat? or shall we not, by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, stand up at the last and be more than conquerors through him who loved us? Wilt thou work this miracle in our life? Wilt thou, ere the hours quite go, show us the way of salvation and lead us into the temple of thy peace? That we can pray is truly not the least of thy miracles. That we have any desire rising upwards to the light of heaven is truly the gift and the doing of God. So will we hope in thee evermore. Our dying breath may be a prayer; our last look may be towards the places of the stars, and far away beyond their dim shining into the infinite light. This is our hope in Christ; this is the victory of faith. Lord, give us. through the Cross, the mystery and the jewel of thine own peace. Great peace have they that love thy law: they have peace that passeth understanding. Lord, grant us thy peace. May the Son of peace dwell in us; may we know the meaning of reconciliation through the blood of the Cross and so know it as to be unable to explain it in words which would but mock the mystery. Help us to lean upon thee, to cling to thee, to rest in thee, to have no will of pur own, but to wish to be what thou wouldst have us be, amid all the temptings of time and all the strain and trial of changing life. Thou hast been with us in the wilderness and on the tea. and in the garden of flowers and on the hills of frankincense. Thou wilt not disappoint us now; thou wilt never leave us or forsake us, for thou lovest us as we cannot love thee. The love is all on thy side; therefore are we safe. The love is not the flicker of our affection, but the eternal sacrifice of thine own. We love thee because thou didst first love us wondrous love! the love unto death, having in it the mystery of blood, the gift of the heart. We cannot follow it: it is like thyself. And now let the mystery of thy grace appear unto us more clearly than ever. In its inspiration we shall encounter the year that is just coming. No terror shall that year bring with it if our hearts are fortified with thy grace; it shall be our year the year of jubilee and victory upon victory; of such exaltation of the soul in Christ as shall turn the old earth into new heavens. The Lord withhold not from us the blessing without which the year is a great void. Comfort thy people with heavenly solaces; and when the banner dips in the mire and is bedraggled there, and they are ashamed of it because they have let it fall, give them lifting up of heart and renewal of courage, and may they shake out the banner in the wind and dry it in the sun of thy grace. The Lord rebuild our house for us every year; the Lord light the fire in the house every morning; the Lord see to it that we have bread enough; the Lord clothe us with garments sufficient for us; the Lord be our Servant because he is our Sovereign, and the Lord be unto us all we need because he is the Infinite. We gather at the Cross; we touch the holy tree; we look, but speak not, for our hearts are too full for speech. We know the meaning of thy languid eye, thou dying One; we know the meaning of the flowing blood, thou Priest, thou Victim. We will not speak we will look and touch and wait. Amen.

Act 24:1-9

1. And after five days Ananias the high-priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

2. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,

3. We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

4. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldst hear us of thy clemency a few words.

5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

6. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

7. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

8. Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

9. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

Paul Misunderstood

We seem to know something about the Apostle Paul ourselves, having spent many weeks, as it were, in his living society. We have learned to love him; we have felt ourselves in the presence of a strong and gracious nature. Today we may hear what another man has to say about him. Once before we were struck almost to the point of amusement when Paul was mistaken for “that Egyptian, which before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers.” Today a hired orator describes Paul the very Paul with whom we have companied all this time as “a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Does this tally with what you know about him? As we have read the exciting story from page to page, has it ever occurred to you to say, respecting the living hero, “pestilent fellow”? When he preached upon Mars’ Hill, when he comforted the sick and the desolate, when he prayed his great prayers, when he charged the elders of the Church at Ephesus, did it ever occur to you to characterise him as “a mover of sedition”? Here is a man who was paid to abuse Paul. There is no cause too bad not to hire an advocate to represent it. Abuse is the easiest of all human tasks. It falls in, too, with a natural rhythm, with the disposition and tendency of some natures. They would not speak their mother tongue if they did not speak vituperatively: they would stammer like men unused to the language if they began to approve and to praise and to characterise any human service in grateful terms. This Tertullus was the genius of abuse; the worse the cause the glibber his tongue. He lives today, and takes the same silver for his flippant eloquence.

How possible it is utterly to misconceive a great character! Paul was utterly misconceived even by some persons who were not viciously dishonest. There is a key to every character, and if you do not get the key of the character, you never can understand the character itself. We must not condemn all men as hypocrites whom we cannot comprehend. Let us own that very much of what they do looks suspicious, self-seeking, ambitious, ignoble. It may not be so. The difficulty of the man of one idea is to understand any other man who has two: the man of one idea has a short and chopping way of speaking about other people, not knowing that, when he pronounces them dishonest, he is proclaiming himself a most virtuous person. Let us understand that there are some men in history, alike in the Church and in the State, whom we are unable to comprehend; but let us not, therefore, imagine that they are bad men. Illustrious names, which cannot be mentioned in church without being misunderstood, will at once occur to every man. Some of us are so easy to understand, simply because there is so little to be comprehended. Then it is so easy to wash our hands in innocency by condemning the ambiguousness or ambitiousness of other people. Paul could not be understood by any man who for one single moment ever considered his own happiness; that consideration would disentitle the critic to a place on the judgment-seat. If any man let me say it again, until we become familiar with the distressing truth can for one single instant consider his own advantage, good, place, or security, he cannot read the life of the Apostle Paul with the smallest comprehension of its meaning. Cowardice cannot understand heroism; selfishness cannot comprehend self-sacrifice; self-idolatry cannot understand the Cross. We should try to find the key of every character in other words, the starting-point, or the basis-principle, and, having secured that, all the rest will be easy of interpretation. Start with the idea that Christ’s kingdom was of this world, and the New Testament is a maze of contradiction, a labyrinth of perplexity. No character was so much misunderstood as Jesus Christ’s: he knew it, he said it; he made that fact into a source of comfort to all who should follow him in its representation; said he, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household!” When blasphemy culminates in some daring act, all the actions which lie under that deed become quite easy tricks. Blasphemy culminated in calling the master of the house “Beelzebub” after that all other abuse was an easy performance, a small and pitiable miracle. Conscience itself may start from a wrong point in the estimation of character, and “if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” To have a conscience that does not rest on reason, to have a court in which there is no daylight how immediate and tremendous the moral consequences! Even conscience may be twisted, perverted, poisoned. When that is the case it is impossible to understand childhood, simplicity, purity, unselfishness, and sacrifice.

Here, too, is the possibility of excluding from the mind every thought characterised by breadth and charity. It does not occur to the paid pleader to say, “This man is insane; this man is afflicted with the disease of romance; this prisoner has a craze about a theory too lofty or too immaterial for the present state of things.” Sometimes a charitable spirit will take some such view. No such estimate is formed by Tertullus respecting Paul. Paul is to the orator “a pestilent fellow” and “a mover of sedition” and “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,’ for he knew that he was talking to a man who could only understand coarse epithets, for he himself, though a judge in those times, was the basest of his tribe. There was no meaner soul in all the Roman service than Felix. He, with his brother Pallas, had been a slave; by a cunning equal to Iscariot’s own, he had worked himself up to a rulership, to high influence in the court, and his one object, as we shall find presently, was to be paid for his acquittals. Had not Paul dropped a word about some collection, or offering, which he had been making for the poor saints? Had the chink of money been heard at all? If so, the explanation is at hand which will characterise the whole policy of Felix. Meanwhile, we know nothing about that; but we do know, from history, that Felix was the most venal and detestable of his kind. To have spoken to Felix, therefore, about romance, extravagance, mental hallucination, would have been to throw straw to a tiger. Tertullus had head enough to know that only such words as “pest,” “insurrectionist,” and “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” could touch the base mind of the judge.

Yet, without viciousness, there may be great narrowness of mind, which excludes all great ideas and sublime possibilities. You will contract that narrowness if you do not sometimes come out of your little village into great London. You will doze so long over your own parochial placidity and security, until you for get that there is a solar system. Meet men who will contradict you; speak in companies that dare oppose you. Never assume finality of judgment. The Bible itself is a book of beginnings without endings. We may so live in a little, narrow, murky sphere as to mistake the very truth which it is our wish to serve. That is an instance of the light within being darkness. I know not of any more distressing spectacle than for a man to be using great words with little meanings. There is nothing so pitiful, so heart-breaking, to the apostolic mind, the heroic soul, as to hear infinite words without infinite meanings. So the words “God,” “Christ,” “Cross,” “forgiveness,” “immortality,” “heaven” we have all heard these immeasurable terms employed with measurable meanings. I venture this line of remark to show that I am not wishful to make every man into a Tertullus who opposes apostolic life and thought. It is possible honestly to oppose even the Apostle Paul, but the honesty itself is an expression of mental contractedness. What is perfectly right to the eye within given points may be astronomically wrong when the whole occasion is taken in. You would not find fault with a child who said, “The earth is stable, immovable.” Within given points the child is talking sense; yet the earth never stands still; if she paused one moment, she would drop out of her sphere and be lost. So men may be parochially right and imperially wrong; men may be perfectly orthodox within the limits of a creed and unpardonably heterodox within the compass of a faith.

How wonderful it is that even Tertullus is obliged to compliment the man whom he was paid to abuse! Let us hear what Paul was on the showing of Tertullus. First, he was “a pestilent fellow.” We have seen there was nothing negative about Paul, and Tertullus confirms that view. Paul was not a quiet character; wherever he was he was astir; the spirit of seven men was in him. His was an active faith; it was not like the faith of some of us a quietly rotting thing, sending up or rather allowing to escape from it odours of an unhealthy and poisonous kind. Paul was always alive. If he slept, we know nothing about it: we have no diary of his sleep; the pages are alive with his activity. If he was a bad man, there was nothing like him in the whole market place of badness.

According to Tertullus, Paul was also “a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world” a sentence intended to touch the ear of the Roman judge. As to being “a pestilent fellow,” the phrase was vague, but now Felix might well listen with double attention, when the man before him was accused of being an insurrectionist, stirring up the Jews against the Roman rule. We have found that Paul was a moving man. Tertullus again confirms our impression. That he was “a mover of sedition” in the sense implied by Tertullus when using the word we have not found, but that he was the prince of revolutionists we do know. Every Christian is a revolutionist. Christianity does not plaster walls that are falling; it pulls them down; it tears up the foundations, uproots them; and, after this disestablishment, it begins to build up, and it builds for eternity.

There was a third qualification which Tertullus could not omit: Paul was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” So the prisoner is not made into a little man even by the paid accuser. We felt that he never could be held in contempt. There is no contempt in the impeachment of Tertullus; the man is a great man “pestilent,” “seditious,” “a ringleader” of whatever sect he enters. Put him where you will, he becomes the principal man in that company ere the sun go down. A rich banker said, when some one asked him questions regarding the wondrous fortune which he had amassed, “I cannot help it; if I were tonight stripped and turned into the streets of Copenhagen, I would be as rich in ten years as I am now I cannot help it.” Paul could not help being the first man of every company. He was not a whit behind the very chief of the apostles; without asserting a claim, he entered into a sovereignty. So even Tertullus is obliged to eulogise the man he was hired to calumniate.

What is the inevitable issue of all narrow-mindedness? That issue is stated in the text that issue, indeed, is falsehood. The proof you find in the sixth verse: “who also hath gone about to profane the temple.” That was a lie; but that is the inevitable outcome of narrow-mindedness. The narrow-minded man must either end his days in falsehood or in insanity. If you have a narrow mind, you may be kept tolerably right so long as you are kept in activity your fussiness will save you but if anything should occur to lay you on one side, you will become melancholy and insane. Entertain liberal ideas; live under the whole sky; go out in rainy weather as well as in sunshine and say, “All this is under the same blue, kind, warm heaven.” Do not fix yourselves in relation to some particular point as if that were the universe. The garden is all God’s, and you may eat of every tree that is in it, and the proof of that liberality is in the fact that there is one tree you may not touch. That is the security of liberty; that is the centre that binds all the points of the circumference into one solid and radiant cohesion.

Imagine Tertullus being excited regarding the purity of the temple! Look at him as he refers with tears in his musical voice to the possibility of the temple being profaned! How suddenly some men become pious! How wonderfully they are excited about the temple under some circumstances! What a genius is hypocrisy! What a splendid gift of concealment it possesses! You cannot misrepresent the people in the temple and yet be concerned honestly for the temple itself; if you can tell what is not true about any brother who is in the house along with you, you cannot feel honestly about the house itself. The truth is one; we cannot be true in one point out of ten; herein is the philosophy of that marvellous saying, “He that offends in one point offends in all,” because truth is an infinite solid: it cannot be disintegrated into particles, in some of which we claim a right of proprietorship.

The incident would hardly be worth dwelling upon were it confined to its own four corners, but it is a typical instance repeated continually in our day. Whenever the enemy represents the Christian cause he cannot get away from the lines of this dazzling impeachment. This is the model speech the accidents vary, the fervour of the speaker goes up or down according to individual temperament; but the speech is the same. Should there arise a burning evangelist in our days, accounting all things loss that he may win Christ, having one object, and that to bless men, Tertullus is instantly developed by his presence. The good develops the bad: the explanation of the devil is in God. Let a George Fox arise the founder of the sect of the Quakers or Friends and how will he be characterised, except as “a pestilent fellow,” “a mover of sedition,” and “a ringleader of a sect”? There are no other words; this is the brief vocabulary. The devil is as poverty-stricken in language as he was in original invention; he has only one lie to tell, and what genius he has is to be found in the art with which he varies the telling of it. Let a John Wesley arise, or a George Whitefield, a John Bunyan or a John Nelson; read the early annals of English Christianity and evangelism; read the history of the early Methodist preachers, and you will find that every age that has brought a Paul has brought along with him a Tertullus. Thank God! nothing but epithets can be hurled against Christianity and its teachers; epithets are bruised by the very violence which throws them hard words enough, biting sarcasms enough, great swelling words of impeachment enough; but epithets only. Christianity stands up today queenly, royal, pure, stainless every stone thrown at her lying at her feet: herself untouched, unharmed; still putting out her arms, welcoming men to redemption, forgiveness, and heaven.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

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

1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

Ver. 1. With a certain orator ] One of those sordida poscinummia (as Plautus phraseth it), those leguleiorum faeces decem drachmariae, as another styleth these mercenary orators, qui linguas habent venales. It is reported of Nevessan (a better lawyer than an honest man) that he should say, he that will not venture his body shall never be valiant: he that will not venture his soul, never rich.

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

1. .] After five days or on the fifth day from Paul’s departure for Csarea . This would be the natural terminus a quo from which to date the proceedings of the High Priest, &c., who were left in Jerusalem. That it is so, appears from Act 24:11 . See note there.

. ] The more ancient MSS. reading this, all we can say is that we have not sufficient authority to retain the reading of the rec. , though it appears more likely to be original, and to have given offence as seeming to import that the whole Sanhedrim went down. This is one of the cases where, in the present state of our evidence, we are obliged to adopt readings which are not according to subjective canons of criticism.

] An orator forensis or causidicus , persons who abounded in Rome and the provinces; sometimes called , or . Kuin. says: ‘Multi adolescentes Romani qui se foro dederant, cum magistratibus in provincias se conferebant, ut caussis provincialium agendis se exercerent, et majoribus in urbe actionibus prpararent.’ So Clius (see Cic. pro Clio, c. 30), in Africa.

] A diminutive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius, Catullus from Catius. The name occurs Plin. Eph 5:15 ; and Tertulla , Suet. Aug [149] 69 (Wetst.).

[149] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

] (not, ‘ appeared ,’ , sub.; see reff.) laid information ; and, as it seems, not by writing, but by word of mouth, since they appeared in person, and Paul was called to confront them.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

CHAP. Act 24:1 to Act 26:32 . ] PAUL’S IMPRISONMENT AT CSAREA.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 24:1 . : most probably to be reckoned from the arrival of St. Paul at Csarea, not from his apprehension in Jerusalem, or from his start from Jerusalem on the way to Csarea. This latter view is that of Mr. Page, who takes , Act 23:31 , as answered by the in this verse. But , Act 23:32 , seems quite sufficiently to answer to in the previous verse. Wendt reckons the days from the arrival of Paul at Csarea, and regards the day of the arrival of the high priest as the fifth day, cf. Mar 8:31 . = Mat 16:21 , Luk 9:22 , ., see below, Act 24:11 . On the truthfulness of the narrative see also on same verse. : “came down,” R.V., i.e. , from the capital. , see on Act 23:2 . If we read . , see critical note, “with certain elders,” R.V., i.e. , a deputation of the Sanhedrim. . : “an orator, one Tertullus,” R.V., . here = causidicus , a barrister; here the prosecuting counsel (as opposed to the defendant’s advocate), see note, Blass, in loco . .: a common name, diminutive of Tertius; but it does not follow from the name that he was a Roman, as both Greeks and Jews often bore Roman names. Blass speaks of him as a Jew “erat Judus et ipse” (so Ewald, Bethge), whilst Wendt (1899) inclines against this view, although if the words in Act 24:6 , , are retained, he admits that it would be correct; in addition to this the expression , Act 24:3 , seems in Wendt’s view to indicate that the speaker was not a Jew (so too Wetstein). Tertullus was apparently one of the class of hired pleaders, often employed in the provinces by those who were themselves ignorant of Roman law. The trial may have been conducted in Greek, Lewin, St. Paul , ii. 684, Felten, in loco . , cf. Act 25:2 ; Act 25:15 , the verb appears to be used in these passages as a kind of technical term to indicate laying formal information before a judge, cf. Jos., Ant. , xiv., 10, 8, in LXX, Esther, Est 2:22 . Blass takes it here = , see also Wetstein.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts Chapter 24

Religious rancour is prompt and indefatigable. Disappointed of its prey by lawless violence, it loses no time in availing itself of legal processes, where unscrupulous abuse may succeed, even if the judge were not venal but only disposed, like human nature in general, to take the popular side against the righteous and godly.

‘And after five days came down the high priest Ananias with certain1 elders and an orator, one Tertullus, and they [the which] laid an information before the governor against Paul. And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great peace, and by thy providence reforms2 are made for this nation, we accept [it] every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But that I be not further tedious to thee, I entreat thee to hear us briefly in thy clemency. For we found this man a pest, and moving imsurrections3 among all the Jews throughout the world [inhabited earth], and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also attempted to profane the temple; whom we also seized (and would have judged according to our law. But Lysias the commander [or chiliarch] came and with great violence took [him] away from our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee); from whom thou wilt be able, by examining, thyself to take knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. And the Jews joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so’ (vers. 1-9).

1 ABE, et al.

2 the more ancient reading, rather than as in the Text. Rec.

3 The plural form is best attested, though Dean Alford will have it to be a correction.

The importance attached to the trial is evident from the going down of the high priest so great a distance and with so little delay, though we may well receive the more ancient witnesses which speak only of certain elders, instead of the Sanhedrim as a whole as in the Received Text. But the more modern copies in this case present without doubt the more difficult reading. Had the authorities been reversed, the critics would probably have regarded as a softened correction of .

The orator from his name (a diminutive of Tertius like many others so formed in Latin) seems to have been one of the young Romans or Italians found wherever there was a court of justice in the provinces, and the Jews in all probability employed him as being versed in the methods of procedure before the governor. Certainly his opening is as servile as his statement is false and scurrilous. The flattery of Felix is in flagrant contrast with the grave censure of the historian Tacitus (Annales xii. 54, Historia v. 9, as naturally referred to), while there was enough in the vigorous putting down of plotters and rebels to give some semblance of reason. What the alleged ameliorations or good measures were does not appear. Josephus does not differ from the Romans in an evil report of Felix, who only escaped condemnation for his misgovernment in Syria through the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero.

‘Providence’ is given here, rather than ‘forethought’, as it was apparently borrowed from the application of the more high-sounding term, common on the imperial coins, as Eckhel shows in his ‘Doctrina Vet. Num.’ passim.

Having thus and yet more grossly sought to conciliate the governor, Tertullus after verse 4 turns to the calumniating of Paul. He represents the apostle not merely by the vague but most injurious appellation of a pest or pestilent fellow, but more definitely as moving seditions among all the Jews throughout the world, notoriously open to such mischievous excitement beyond all others through their untoward circumstances as well as their presence everywhere since their dispersion. Next, he taxes Paul as an heresiarch, or rather sectarian chief, employing (here only in the New Testament) against the Christians that name of contempt which they fixed on their Master – ‘a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.’ Lastly, he renews the old accusation of profaning the temple: the unfounded rumour which had originally set on the Jews to slay Paul in Jerusalem.

The bracketed passage in verses 6-8 may be questioned fairly. It is omitted by the witnesses of chief value, and consequently is not received by the Editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, nor by Mill and Bengel before them. Alford writes undecidedly. Undoubtedly the variations are great in the manuscripts which have the substance. De Wette represents a class of men usually bold: but here it is admitted that it is hardly to be supposed that Tertullus should have said so little, or that Luke should have omitted if he said more; and again it is plain that to stop at the seizure of Paul by the Jews, without explaining how he got rid of them and came into the custody of Lysias before being taken to Caesarea, leaves the speech remarkably abrupt. But Alford sees in verse 22 a strong argument for the genuineness of the words in debate, because , if the words be inserted, refer, naturally to Lysias, and we find Felix there putting off the final hearing and decision till the arrival of Lysias. If the words are not genuine, would rather refer to Paul which the Dean considers unlikely. Others on the contrary allow that at an anacrisis, or first hearing, this is quite correct, and altogether independent of torture, which in the case of a Roman was of course illegal. More might be added in evidence of the uncertainty which hangs over the bracketed words; but it seems unedifying to say more, if one cannot adduce proof enough to clear up the question either way. Abridgment is at least a rare fault in the copyists, who were more prone to venture on insertions in order to ease the sense when it seemed obscure.

It is sad to see how contemptible the Jewish party, high priest and elders. made themselves, even in Roman eyes, through spite against the gospel (ver 9). There they all were not only assenting to the base servility and downright falsehood of Tertullus (indeed they had instructed him), but now they joined in his attack against all truth and justice. And so the Lord had forewarned His followers. ‘Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for My name’s sake; because they know not Him that sent Me’ (Joh 15:20 , Joh 15:21 ). Yes, there is the secret. The people who claimed to be His witnesses, and were so responsibly knew Him not, and proved it by rejecting Him Who is the image of the invisible God, the true and faithful Witness, His only and beloved Son. Hence their enmity against a servant of His, who made their consciences feel the truth they could not overthrow and would not believe or confess. Deadly hatred ensues: the way of Cain against the accepted and righteous Abel, which stops not short of death. Therefore the Lord went on to say in Joh 16:2 , Joh 16:3 , ‘They shall put you out of the synagogues, yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor me.

It has been not otherwise in Christendom, and from the same source. Men have gone back to Jewish elements (now no better than Gentile idols as the apostle tells us in Gal 4:1-9 ), and lost all true knowledge of the Father and the Son, as well as of every gospel privilege and blessing. This has ever led to enmity against those who abide in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. For man is at bottom the same everywhere and at all times. But far be it from the Christian to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to him, and he unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Gal 6:14-16 ).

The defence of the apostle is characterized by straightforward truth and courteous dignity, as the accusation had been by servility to the governor and abuse of the accused. It is noticed, on the one hand, as the Jews joined in their venal advocate’s assault, affirming that his falsehoods were fact (ver. 9), that, on the other (ver. 10), there was no haste to reply till the governor gave the sign to that effect.

‘And when the governor beckoned him to speak, Paul answered, Knowing that since many years thou art judge to this nation, I 1 cheerfully make my defence: as thou canst ascertain2 that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem; and neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with anyone or making a tumult of a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city. Neither can they prove to thee3 the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to thee, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I serve the God of the fathers believing all things that are according to the law and that are written in the prophets, having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that a resurrection4 is to be of both just and unjust. Herein also do I exercise myself to have a conscience without offence toward God and men continually. Now after several years I arrived to bring alms unto-my nation and offerings; in which they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult but5 certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had aught against me. Or let these themselves say what6 wrong they found in me when I stood before the council [other] than for this one voice that I cried out standing among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you’ (vers. 10-21).

1 ‘The more’ is not sustained by the best copies (ABE, et al.).

2 ‘To know fully’, ‘recognize’, or ‘ascertain’, is the preferable reading (ABE, et al.).

3 ‘To thee’ is omitted wrongly in the Text. Rec.

4 The best MSS. (ABC et al.) omit ‘of dead’.

5 ‘But’ is in verse 18 read by the better authorities, as in verse 16 it should be omitted.

6 ‘What’, not ‘if’, is right.

The length of time that Felix had passed in official relation to the Jews was a plain matter of fact, of which the apostle justly availed himself. Their feeling, habits, and prejudices were thus necessarily more familiar than to a new procurator. On this circumstance the apostle grounds his cheerfulness in making his plea. Flattery is wholly absent.

As to himself, it was so brief a space since he went up to Jerusalem that his course there could easily be traced. And when he did go – but twelve days before, it was ‘to worship’, the very reverse of moving sedition or other pestilent conduct, least of all to profane the temple. On the contrary he brought ‘alms to his nation, and offerings’. Could anything be more opposed, either to riot, or to profanation? He was at liberty to discourse if he had judged meet, but in point of fact ‘neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with any one, or making a tumult of a crowd’, common as this was in a people so zealous and so excitable, ‘nor in the synagogues’, numerous as they were, ‘nor throughout the city’. What could be less like an agitator? ‘Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.’ More than this distinct challenge, or at best denial, of the vague and general calumny the apostle does not allege. The facts stated, of which the evidence was easy and ample, refuted the talk of Tertullus.

But far from denying what was said of ‘the sect’ (ver. 5), he avows it openly. ‘But this I confess to thee, that according to the Way which they call sect, so I serve the [or, our] fathers’ God.’ This was of moment for the governor. Tolerant as the Romans were toward the religious convictions of the nations they ruled, they were stern in disallowing innovations, especially such as tended to stir up civil discord. The apostle accordingly prefers here, as on two other occasions not quite similar, to depart from the usual phrase, and says rather than as K?hn?l and others have noticed. As the heathen, without God themselves, called the Christians godless or Atheists, because they had no idols, so the Jews called the church ‘a sect’. Yet was it the only institution on earth that could not be a sect while true to Christ. The apostle goes farther however, and confesses his faith in all things according to the law and in the things written in the prophets. There is no hesitation in declaring boldly his faith in all the ancient oracles before the high priest and the Sadducean party, who notoriously slighted the prophets, as they had no real reverence for the law. If any Pharisees were in alliance with them as ‘elders’ of Israel, what a position in confederating with infidels against a more thorough believer than themselves!

Further, there is nothing left indistinct here. For the apostle adds, ‘having hope toward God, which they themselves also look for, that a resurrection is to be of both just and unjust.’ This could hardly have been said if there had not been then present Pharisees who confessed the resurrection of the dead. They must therefore have made up their difference with the heterodox Sadducees in their eagerness to put down and punish Paul. The tendency among the Jews seems to have been to regard resurrection as the privilege of the righteous simply, which would be sure to degenerate into the reward of Israel in the kingdom of Messiah. But the apostle, guided of the Holy Spirit, shows its universal character ‘of both just and unjust’.

So this was to be inferred even from a book so ancient as that of Job, which was of the deeper interest in this respect as evidence of the faith of Gentile believers before the law. Yet it is certain that in Job 14:12 Job speaks of man’s resurrection (i.e., of man, as such) when the heavens are no more and eternity begins, contradistinguished from the rising of the righteous like himself, to enjoy their hope when the Kinsman-Redeemer shall stand on the earth, which is clearly for the kingdom. Naturally the resurrection of the just, the resurrection from among the dead, the better resurrection, and other kindred phrases, are more frequent as a cheer and incentive to saints in present suffering; but Joh 5:28 , Joh 5:29 , and Rev 20:4-6 , Rev 20:12 , Rev 20:13 , give doctrinally and prophetically the twofold resurrection, severed by a thousand years, to which Paul here alludes as that which had roused so much feeling on the part of his Sadducean adversaries.

Nor this only, for he lets them know by the way that on himself the hope of resurrection was most influential practically. ‘In this [Therefore, or Accordingly] I also exercise myself to have a conscience without offence toward God and men continually.’ Here not only were the Jews, but Christians for the most part are, weak indeed, rising in faith but little beyond thoughtful heathen who reason on the immortality of the soul. No doubt the God-inbreathed soul, the inner man, is immortal; but as this is no security against sin, so neither does it involve immunity from judgment. Indeed it is rather the ground why sinful man, alone of beings on the earth, has moral responsibility, from which he cannot disengage himself; for, if he refuse life eternal in the Son, he must be judged by Him at the last, as Scripture abundantly testifies. The believer of course needs no such awful measure to vindicate the rights of Christ, but, what is far better, honours Him now in the day that follows His cross, honours Him not by that tremendous and irresistible constraint, but with a ready mind as the One Who for him died and rose that he might live no longer to himself but to Christ.

People may reason, as alas! not a few in Christendom have not been ashamed to do, that the blessing of the soul is of a more spiritual nature and that any hope associated with the resurrection of the body is external. But they are beguiled of the enemy in thus preferring their own thoughts to God’s word which insists on the fullest blessing for the soul now, even salvation in the richest way, but on resurrection or change at Christ’s coming as our proper hope. Then only shall we be like Him when the body of humiliation is conformed to the body of His glory. It is this hope which gives power in the Spirit to mortify our members on the earth, instead of indulging the common dream of present ease and honour here before the soul goes to heaven for its glory. Never does Scripture so speak It does declare the superior blessedness of departing to be with Christ, as compared with remaining here. But it never stops short of Christ’s coming for our everlasting and glorious change as the true hope which purifies us meanwhile on the earth.

The apostle next states that after a lapse of several years he arrived bringing alms to his nation, and offerings. Was this the action of a seditious pestilent man? ‘In which [business of the offerings] they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult.’ Was this again profaning the temple? ‘But certain Jews from Asia’ – they were the true culprits in the matter. It was they whose guilty rashness imputed the false charge. For the four men under the vow were not Greeks, but Jews; and with these only was Paul associated in the temple at the instance of James. Why were these Asiatic Jews not here face to face, as Roman law required? ‘Who ought,’ as the apostle here quietly adds, ‘to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had anything against me. Or let these themselves (the Jews then present) say what wrong they found in me when I stood before the council, [other] than for this one voice which I cried out among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you.’

It was irrefragably and solely the Jews themselves who made the riot (stirred up by the blunder about those brethren from Asia), who were not there to be convicted that day, as Felix could not but see. Even though the witnesses were not present, those actually there were challenged to state any wrong whatever done by the apostle, unless it was his putting forward the great truth of the resurrection: as really embarrassing to the Pharisee elders now as before; for they assuredly would regard such a cry as true and right, and in no way a fault. But ‘evil communications corrupt good manners’; and those who at first felt sympathy for the truth at stake, now give their support to the enemy against the great representative of the gospel, even when they all were convicted of the grossest mistake, and of unfounded calumny. So hard is it for men engaged in a campaign, above all a religious one, to stop short of glaring injustice when arrayed on an evil side. When men are right, they can afford to be gracious. Wrongdoers and malicious men add turbulence also.

The procurator had more now to help him than his considerable experience of the Jews in the past. He had just heard an eminently and transparently truthful reply of Paul to the speech of Tertullus. He could well enough have decided on the merits of it, had it pleased him. But he was a governor as well as judge, and had to do with a people ever refractory. Policy dictated his course, not justice, as too often happens in this world, to say nothing of the heathenism of the Romans and the unscrupulousness of Felix in particular. Bright the day, when judgment shall return to righteousness. Even now’ though Christianity has raised the moral standard of men in certain respects, we are far from that state when a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes rule in judgment.

Nor does the gospel indeed propose any such present amelioration of the world. It is the proclamation of grace to the ungodly in the name of Jesus, which shows us the heavens opened for all that believe made one with Him glorified above. The Christian is called therefore to glory in nothing but the cross of Christ, whereby he is crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to him. There is no common ground therefore possible between the world and the Christian if consistent. For the world adjudged to a death of guilt and shame and suffering Him Whom the Christian confesses as the Lord of glory, alone righteous, holy and true. The world would cease to be the world if in deed and in truth it confessed Him. Not only so: the Christian sees in the cross not only the world’s misjudgment of the only worthy One, but God’s judgment of himself as only and altogether evil before Him, but that evil laid on Christ to be not only judged but effaced righteously. And he sees further the unbelieving world judged with its prince, though the inevitable and irreversible sentence be not executed till the Lord Jesus appear in His glory, and we too along with Him in the same glory, Thus separation from the world is alone according to truth for the Christian, as the world abides the sure object of divine vengeance. ‘Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?’

It was this that made Felix unjust toward Paul, as it had decided Pilate to let the Lord Jesus suffer. ‘But Felix, having more accurate knowledge concerning the Way, adjourned them, saying, When Lysias the commander [or, chiliarch] is come down, I will determine your matter. And he ordered the centurion that he should be kept in charge and should have indulgence, and not to hinder any of his friends from ministering to him’ (vers. 22, 23). The latitude allowed indicated not obscurely the mind of the unjust judge, if he had chosen to judge according to his convictions. But we learn also how God took care of His servant, and, while granting him to suffer for Christ’s sake, assuaged the captivity through the judge himself, not on His servant’s petition. Truly all things work together for good to them that love God, Who is honoured by their faith.

‘And after certain days Felix, having arrived with Drusilla his wife being a Jewess, sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come, Felix became terrified and answered, For the present go, and when I get a convenient season, I will send for thee, hoping at the same time that money would be given him by Paul; wherefore also he sent for him the oftener and communed with him. But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and Felix, willing to gain favour with the Jews, left Paul in bonds’ (vers. 24-27).

The essence of unbelief is that, even if God be owned in word or theory He is in fact wholly excluded. And so it was evident in the next incident, where Felix with the beautiful wife of Azizus, king of the Emesenes, whom he had seduced and taken as ‘his own’, had the apostle before them to hear of the faith in Christ. Little was the guilty Roman prepared for the many sides of the truth, which the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven turns to deal with the hearer as he is. Paul discoursed, not on the prophets as with Jews, nor on the resurrection as with Athenians, nor on the cross even as at Corinth, but about righteousness, and self-control, and the coming judgment. A bad woman, they say, is more shameless than a bad man. Certainly if Drusilla knew more than Felix, she appears to have felt less. The inspiring Spirit records the alarm of the man, not of the woman. But it was no more than a passing terror. There was no repentance toward God; else he would not have got rid of the searching, yet saving, word of the gospel; he would not have been content to wait for a ‘more convenient season’, which never really comes.

But a baser motive rises up to prompt frequent interviews afterward – that love of money which is a root of all evil. Therefore was it Paul’s lot to remain a prisoner for two years of enforced separation from those active and free and wide labours of love so precious to his spirit, because Christ filled him to overflowing. But the same Christ strengthened him to accept his bonds patiently, as Felix fully proved his depravity. Indeed, Felix was only screened from the just punishment of his manifold atrocities by the influence of his brother with the emperor.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 24:1-2 a

1After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. 2After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor,

Act 24:1 “the high priest Ananias” See full note at Act 23:2. Wow! The high priest himself came from Jerusalem to Caesarea. Paul was really a thorn in their flesh!

“came down” For Jews, Jerusalem is always “up” and all other geographical locations are “down.”

“elders” In the OT this term referred to older tribal leaders. By the post-exilic time it began to be used of wealthy, influential people of Jerusalem. Often in the NT the Sanhedrin is described as “the High Priests, scribes, and elders.” These were probably members of the Sanhedrin who were supporters of the Sadducees. The temple leadership had seen the potential problem when Pharisees were present (cf. Act 23:6-10).

“Tertullus” This was a hired lawyer (advocate) or orator (cf. NKJV). It is a form of the Greek word rma or “spoken word.” Apparently he presented the Sanhedrin’s case in an acceptable Roman legal form, possibly in Latin.

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

Ananias. See note on Act 23:2.

descended = came down.

the = certain. Greek. tis. App-123.

elders. See App-189.

certain. Greek. tis, as above.

orator = advocate. Greek. rhetor. Only here. The adverb, in 1Ti 4:1 (expressly).

who. Plural, referring to the Jews (Act 24:9) as well as their spokesman.

informed. Greek. emphanizo. App-106.

governor. See note on Act 23:24.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

CHAP. Act 24:1 to Act 26:32.] PAULS IMPRISONMENT AT CSAREA.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn now to chapter twenty-four in the book of Acts.

Paul had been seen in the temple worshipping God by some of the Jews that were from Asia who were familiar with Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles. They immediately began to cry out against his being there in the temple, stirring up the Jews who grabbed hold of Paul and were in the process of beating him to death when Paul was rescued by those Roman soldiers, the guards who were dispatched from Antonial fortress to free him from this angry mob there on the temple mount.

Paul attempted to talk to the people from the steps of the Antonio fortress recounting for them his conversion. But when he made mention of the Gentiles, it just created a riot. The next day, the Roman captain Lysias wanted to find out just what the raucous was all about, so he called for the Sanhedrin and had Paul appear before them that they might make their charges. Paul, in giving his defense, knowing that they were divided between the Sadducees and Pharisees, said, “I am a Pharisee, the son of the Pharisee, and because I believe in the resurrection from the dead, I’m here before you” ( Act 23:6 ). And the Pharisees immediately took his part, the Sadducees took out against him. They had such a rabble between themselves. The captain thought they were going to tear Paul to pieces, so the second time he rescued them from the Jewish people.

And then Paul’s nephew heard that forty men had taken a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. And so they went to the high priest, exposed their vow and their plot, and they said, “Now you call for Paul tomorrow afternoon like you want to ask him some questions, and while they’re bringing him to you, we’re going to jump him and kill him.” So the nephew came in and told Paul. Paul sent his nephew to the captain, who then commanded that in the middle of the night some two hundred spearmen, seventy cavalrymen and two hundred foot soldiers accompany Paul from Jerusalem to take him to Caesarea under the protective custody of the Roman government. And now Paul has come down to Caesarea, and the elders of Israel are invited to come down and prefer their charges against Paul there.

So that brings us to the beginning of chapter twenty-four.

After five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul ( Act 24:1 ).

Now we have this fellow Tertullus, the orator, who is so flattering to this wicked man Felix that it is nauseating.

And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse Paul, saying [first of all to Felix], Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes ( Act 24:2-5 ):

These are very serious charges that Tertullus is pressing against Paul, because one thing that the Roman government did not tolerate and that was an uprising in the provinces against Rome. The Jews had a history of rebellion that the Roman Empire had to already put down in the past, and they knew that there were those who were constantly inciting the people to riot against the Roman rule. And so the charges of a pestilent fellow, one who stirs up sedition among the Jews–the idea is that he is stirring up sedition against the Roman rule and he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

There were many religious uprisings in Israel, many men who would gather together groups of men around them and who would then in their religious fanaticism inspire them to rebel against Rome. So he is saying, “You’ve got a fellow here who is the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes and as such, he is apt to stir them into a religious fervor to rebel against Rome.”

Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law ( Act 24:6 ).

It sounds from Tertullus that they arrested Paul and were going to bring him to trial. Far from the truth. Paul was caught by a mob and it was a lynching mob. They were going to lynch him. And so he is certainly misrepresenting the truth to Felix.

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands ( Act 24:7 ),

In reality, Lysias rescued Paul from being beaten to death by the mob.

And then he commanded his accusers to come unto thee: and by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all of the things, whereof we accuse him. And all of the Jews that had come with him were assenting, saying that these things were so ( Act 24:8-9 ).

Notice that all of the charges were without substantial witnesses. Everything that they were declaring was hearsay. None of them could give actual testimony against Paul in these things.

So Paul [speaking in his own defense], after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, he answered, Forasmuch as I know that you have been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: because that you may understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship ( Act 24:10-11 ).

It was just twelve days earlier Paul had gone to Jerusalem from Caesarea, or actually it was just twelve days that he had been in Jerusalem, he had five and fifteen days from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and “it was just twelve days that I was in Jerusalem. I had gone to worship the Lord.”

And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city ( Act 24:12 ):

They didn’t find me doing any of these things.

Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me ( Act 24:13 ).

Paul is denying the charges that are made against him, declaring that they are not able to prove any of them. “They have not found me doing these things that they declare so that their declarations would only be hearsay.”

This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers ( Act 24:14 ),

The term “the way” was the term used in the early church to describe themselves. They were living a new way of life with Jesus at the center of their life. Jesus had said to His disciples, “I am the way: no man comes to the Father but by me” ( Joh 14:6 ). And so they picked up this term “the way” and they used it to describe the Christian fellowship in the early years of the church. At least six times this term “the way” is used to describe the believers in the book of Acts.

The term “Christian” was not at all a common term nor really a biblical term for Christianity in the beginning. It became a term used ultimately because Peter in writing his epistle said, “If any of you suffer as a Christian” ( 1Pe 4:16 ). But that is the only time the term “Christian” was used by Christians in the New Testament; whereas the term “the way” was used many different times and was a far more common name for the followers of Jesus Christ than the name “Christian.” The name “Christian” is used only three times in all of the New Testament, where it mentions in Antioch that there the disciples were first called Christians.

Next week in the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts, as Agrippa challenges Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian” ( Act 26:28 ). So that there it was used not by the Christians themselves, but by others who were referring to those who were believers in Jesus Christ. But “the way”–the way to God through Christ. And so, “after the way which they call heresy, I worship the God of my fathers.” Or, he had come to worship God through Jesus Christ recognizing that Jesus is the only way by which a man can approach God.

The second thing Paul confessed:

I believe all the things which are written in the law and in the prophets ( Act 24:14 ):

In making this declaration, he is declaring his belief in all of those prophecies concerning the Messiah and then his belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Old Testament is full of prophecies all relating to the Messiah, prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled. And if you will just take the chance factors of one man fulfilling these prophecies, you will find that it becomes solid proof that Jesus indeed was the Messiah. Could not have fulfilled these unless He was indeed the Messiah. His place of birth, “And thou, Bethlehem, though thou be little among the provinces of Judah, yet out of thee shall come He who is to rule my people whose going forth is from old, from everlasting”( Mic 5:2 ). There’s only one chance in 250,000 for a person to be born in Bethlehem. A little village, and yet, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And right on down the line you can take prediction after prediction and find out that Jesus literally fulfilled them.

Paul said, “I believe the prophets and the law.” All of the things which are written in the law and in the prophets. That’s more than what you can say for a lot of ministers today who have sought to eliminate much of the law and the prophets, as well as much of the New Testament. Paul declared himself to be a believer in all of these things.

Paul the apostle, when he would go into a new community, would usually go into the synagogue and just take their scriptures and teach them concerning the Messiah out of their own scriptures, and then he would go about to show that Jesus was the Messiah. That can be done very easily with the scriptures of the Old Testament.

Jesus said, “You do search the scriptures because in them you think you have life, but actually they testify of Me” ( Joh 5:39 ). And again, “I have come as it is written of Me in the volume of the book to do Thy will, O Lord” ( Heb 10:7 ). And as you go through the Old Testament with the anointing and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, you find that Jesus is there in every page.

You remember how the Ethiopian eunuch was on his way back, and there in the Gaza strip when Philip met him, he was reading the scriptures and Philip began at that place and preached Christ unto him. That would be possible in just about any place in the Old Testament; you could begin at that verse and preach Christ. The volume of the book is written of Him.

Paul just declares, “I believe in those prophecies.” And even in the law there were so many prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. And then Paul confessed:

And I have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust ( Act 24:15 ).

So Paul’s belief in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust. Of course, in the book of Revelation we find out that there will be actually two resurrections–one of the just and the second of the unjust. And there will be approximately a thousand years intervening between the two resurrections. “The rest of the dead live not until the thousand years were expired. Blessed is he who taketh part in the first resurrection; over him the second death has no power” ( Rev 20:5-6 ).

I believe that the first resurrection takes place over a period of time. That Jesus was indeed the firstfruits of those who rise from the dead and as He said, “He who lives and believes in Me shall never die” ( Joh 11:26 ). And that for the child of God, death is an immediate transition from this old tent into the new house, and that Revelation chapter nineteen is in fact the account of the first resurrection. That is, the completion of it. The final ones to enter into that first resurrection are those martyred saints during the tribulation period, and they complete the first resurrection.

But I believe that the minute a person’s spirit has moved out of this body that it moves in to the new building of God, not made with hands. Paul the apostle, writing his Corinthian epistle, the second one, said that, “We know that when this earthly tabernacle or this earthly tent, our earthly body, this tabernacle, is dissolved” (that is, when my body goes back to dust), “that we have a building of God, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So then we who are in these bodies do often groan earnestly desiring to be delivered or earnestly desiring to move out of them, not that I would become unclothed, or not that I would be an unembodied spirit (my earnest desire isn’t to be some ether essence in the atmosphere, unembodied spirit), but I desire to be clothed upon with a body which is from heaven or I desire to move into my new house, the building of God not made with hands; so then we who are in this body do often groan earnestly desiring to be delivered, not that we would be unclothed but to be clothed upon with a body which is from heaven. For we know that as long as we are living in these bodies, at home in these bodies, we are absent from the Lord but we would choose rather to be absent from these bodies and be present with the Lord” ( 2Co 5:1-6 ).

Someday when you read in the paper, “Chuck Smith died,” don’t believe that. Jesus said, “If I live and believe in Him, I’ll never die.”. So call the reporters and say, “That’s poor reporting. Chuck Smith moved, out of an old worn out tent and into a beautiful new house.” Building of God not made with hands.

The Bible teaches that man basically is spirit, not body. We relate to each other through our bodies and we’ve come to associate each other with our bodies, but the real me is spirit. The body is just the instrument by which my spirit can express itself. But the body isn’t me, and one day I’m going to leave this body and I’m going to move in to a new house. This is an old tent; it’s wearing out. But I’m going to move into the building of God.

Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” ( Joh 14:2 ). People, I am sure, have a wrong concept of that, as you think of some beautiful estate on ten acres with beautiful gardens and a ten-bedroom mansion. Big columns in the front, and you each have your green mansion. I really believe that Jesus was referring to the building of God not made with hands, that new body that He has for me. He said, “I’m going to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I’m going to come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also” ( Joh 14:2-3 ).

In my new body I’m not going to need a bathroom. Or a bedroom. So He’s talking about the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Notice the contrast: a tent is always considered as transient, temporal; the building of God, eternal in the heavens. The tent to the building of God.

Paul in writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen, uses nature to illustrate the principle of resurrection. How that the persons were asking, “How are the dead raised and with what body will they come?” And that is a question that people often ask. What kind of a body am I going to have and when this body is changed? A lot of people seem to be quite attached to these bodies, in their minds at least, and they want to somehow hold on to this body. I’ve held on to mine long enough. I’m ready to discard it for the new building of God not made with hands.

Paul said, “Don’t you realize that when you plant a seed into the ground, the seed does not come forth into new life until it first of all dies? And then the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted. Take special note of that. The body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted. For all you planted was a bare grain and now God has given to it a body that pleases Him; and so is the resurrection from the dead. You are planted in weakness but you’ll be raised in power. You are planted in corruption; you’ll be raised in incorruption. You’re planted in dishonor; you’ll be raised in glory. You’re planted as a natural body; you’ll be raised in a spiritual body” ( 1Co 15:36 , 1Co 15:38 , 1Co 15:42-44 ).

For there is a natural body and a spiritual body and the difference between the celestial and the terrestrial. So that “even as we have borne the image of the earthen and have been earthy, so shall we bear the image of the heavens” ( 1Co 15:49 ). When God made this body for me, He made it and adapted it for the environmental conditions of the earth. My body withstands fourteen pounds of pressure per square inch. My body takes the oxygen out of the seventy-nine/twenty nitrogen-oxygen balance of the atmosphere. God designed the body for the earth. He didn’t design it for heaven.

If man takes his body out of the earth’s environmental conditions, he can only do it by taking artificial environment with him. Now God could give you a pressurized space suit, and He could give you nitrogen and oxygen tanks and He could revive this old body if He so desired. And you could go clomping around heaven with your weighted shoes to hold you down in the clumsy, awkward spacesuit with the tanks on your back. But I would just as soon have that new building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. A new body designed for the heavenly conditions.

God wants me to be with Him in His kingdom. And so in order that I might transfer from the environment of the earth into the heavenly kingdom, I need this change of body, which shall take place at death when the earthly tent is dissolved and I move into the building of God not made with hands. Man says he died, the Bible says I moved.

So Paul said, “I believe in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust.” We will have part in the first resurrection. “Blessed is he for over him the second death has no power”.

This concept immediately puts to silence the ridicule of the atheist and the unbeliever who foresee horrible problems in the resurrection day when the bodies are trying to assemble themselves together again. Those that have been cremated and their ashes spread, or those that have been buried and their bodies decomposed and become a part of the soil, and the nutrients from their bodies feeding the roots of the grass that the cows eat to produce the milk, that you drink which assimilates and becomes a part of your body. So actually in your body are possibly chemicals from someone else’s body of some previous age. Now in the resurrection, where do these chemicals go? Or more recently in the case of kidney transplants and heart transplants, who gets it? And so they foresee all kinds of problems with the resurrection. There would be if this body were to be the instrument in which I live. But thank God it isn’t. I have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Paul said to the Philippians, “I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better. Nevertheless, for your sakes, I need to stick around a while longer”. But, “I believe,” Paul said, “in the resurrection both of the just and the unjust.”

The unjust will be resurrected at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ. “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the great white throne” ( Rev 20:11 , Rev 20:12 ). Death and hell gave up the dead which were in them. The sea gave up the dead which was in it. And they all stood there before the throne of God and the books were opened and they were judged. This is the second resurrection, the resurrection of the unjust unto everlasting shame and contempt. So Paul believes in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust, even as was declared by Daniel chapter twelve, verse two.

And herein do I exercise myself ( Act 24:16 ),

Because I believe in the resurrection, because I believe that there is a day of accounting for all men, when every man shall give an account of himself before God, he said, “I exercise myself,”

to always have a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men ( Act 24:16 ).

That is something that is quite remarkable and, as we were pointing out Thursday night, Paul had to be quite a remarkable person. Surely I cannot with Paul say that I have a conscience void of offense before God and man. Paul, testifying of his life as a Pharisee said, “And concerning the righteousness which is of the law, blameless.” No way can I say that. But Paul’s strong belief and conviction in the resurrection, knowing that a man is going to have to make an accounting of his life, sought, exercised himself to always have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men.

I believe that the realization that this life is not all but only a preparation for eternity is one of the safeguards to pure living. And where people truly believe in a heaven to gain and a hell to shun, there is a much greater endeavor to live the right kind of life.

But there has been so many dispersions cast at the concept of hell, and even the concept of heaven that people are prone to believe as the naturalist or the humanist that this life is all she wrote. So you live like a hog and die like a dog and that’s the end. We see the effect in our society as people are following that concept and living like animals. Getting by with just as much as they possibly can, feeling this is all I’ve got, I’m going to make the most of it because death is an end. No way–death is just the beginning for the child of God of a more complete, fuller revelation of God’s grace and goodness to us. Death is just the beginning. For that one who has rebelled against God, of the fearful certain looking forward to the fiery indignation of God’s wrath that will devour His adversaries.

Paul goes on.

Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings ( Act 24:17 ).

You remember Paul had gone among the Gentile churches and had collected offerings for the poor saints in Jerusalem which he had brought to them from the generosity of the churches in Macedonia and Greece. And so, “after many years I came to bring these alms and offerings to my nation.”

Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple ( Act 24:18 ),

Paul had gone through the rites of purification and he was there worshipping God in the temple.

and I was neither with multitude, nor with tumult ( Act 24:18 ).

I was minding my own business just worshipping God.

And these men actually should be here before you if they object, or if they have anything against me ( Act 24:19 ).

You don’t have any actual witnesses, Felix. The men that should be here bearing witness if I am a pestilent fellow and a rebel rouser are the men who saw me there worshipping God in the temple. They’re the ones that ought to be here making accusations.

Or else let these same ones who are here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council ( Act 24:20 ),

I stood before these guys the other day and if I did any evil while I was there, let them go ahead and testify of it now.

Except [the only thing I did] for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day ( Act 24:21 ).

That’s all I said, and if they find offense in that, let them speak up.

And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way ( Act 24:22 ),

Again, Felix had a knowledge of the Christians. Where he received the knowledge is not known from the Bible. But Felix knew about the way, he knew about Jesus Christ and those who believed in Jesus Christ.

There is in secular history a story that somehow Simon Magus got together with Felix and shared with him his experiences and that they became close friends. It is from him that he got his understanding of Christianity, for they would sit up late hours in the night talking about it. That is from secular history, and whether or not that is the actual source of his knowledge of Christianity, we do not know for certain. But he did have a good understanding of Christianity. And because he had this good understanding,

he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the complete story ( Act 24:22 ).

I’ll get his side of the story. Lysias was the captain who rescued Paul from the mob. Here we see a weakness in Felix who, before becoming governor, was actually a slave. But his brother Pallus was a close confidant of Nero and through the influence of his brother Pallus, Nero made him the ruler, the governor over the province, which was a unique situation because never before had a slave become a governor in the Roman empire. But Tachitus, the Roman historian, said that he ruled over the people with tyranny and violence as a slave. His weakness, though, was his always deferring an issue, postponing decisions.

There are some people that have that same weakness. Postponing. Procrastinating. There was an interesting article in the Reader’s Digest a year or so ago on procrastination. It talks about those people who have difficulty doing something now. They always seem to want to put off the decision or put off the action. And my wife was talking to my daughter about the article and she said, “Did you notice that article in Reader’s Digest on procrastination?” My daughter said, “Oh yeah, I intend to read that one day.”

He deferred making the decision. He said, “I’ll wait until Lysias comes down and then I’ll hear the uttermost of the matter from him.”

And so he commanded the centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintances to minister or to come unto him ( Act 24:23 ).

So Paul had sort of a free run. He was in the protective custody of the Roman government, but had freedom. His friends could come any time and minister to him and all.

Now after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess ( Act 24:24 ),

Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa I was the Herod who had beheaded James, the brother of John, and had Peter put in prison intending to bring him forth, but the Lord delivered Peter out of the jail at night. He then went down to Caesarea where he made the great oration and the men of Tyre began to cry, “It’s the words of a god and not man.” And the angel of the Lord smote him and his body was eaten by worms. That’s Herod Agrippa I; Drusilla was his daughter. Drusilla had been married to a King Azisas but through the help of the magician, Felix had enticed her away from her husband and now she had become the wife of this slave-made-governor Felix.

Felix came with his wife Drusilla and,

he sent for Paul, and he heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as Paul reasoned of righteousness, of temperance, and of judgment to come, Felix trembled ( Act 24:24-25 ),

Paul began to witness to this man Felix of righteousness, the way that God would have a man to live. Of temperance. Felix was a very intemperate man. And Paul was laying on him, there is a judgment day coming for all men. And as Paul reasoned with him of these things, Felix began to tremble because he had a lot to fear from the coming day of judgment for the things that he had done, for the way that he had lived. He began to tremble, no doubt with the conviction of the Spirit upon his heart.

and he answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a more convenient season, I will call for thee ( Act 24:25 ).

The man who defers making decisions. The man who postpones. Felix continued to postpone, until finally, there was always a conflict in Caesarea between the Greeks and the Jews as to whose city it was. There broke out, some two years after this incident of Felix’s procrastination, a big fight, mob violence, the Jews against the Greeks over the control of the city of Caesarea. The Jews were victorious in the fight, and so Felix ordered the Roman soldiers to side with the Greeks and destroy the Jews. They killed hundreds of Jews, and then he encouraged them to go ahead and sack the houses of the wealthy Jews, going in, killing them and just spoiling their goods.

The Jews reported this to Nero and Felix lost his authority, was stripped of the authority, would have been executed but his brother Pallus interceded for him, and instead he was banished. His more convenient time never came, as is often the case of a person who defers his decision for Jesus Christ. Waiting for some more convenient day. It will never be easier than today.

There is a law of metaphysics concerning repeated action and how it creates pattern responses in our brains. You ever watch a lady knit who had been knitting for years? They don’t even look. What has happened is that they’ve got grooves in their brain so deep, all they have to do is set the pattern in their brain and turn the switch and their hands go, and it’s just automatic pattern responses because it’s been done so much, they can do it. They can watch TV or they can sit there and talk with you, and yet be doing their knitting because of these patterns that have been established in the brain. The grooves or the patterns are so deeply imbedded that it becomes an automatic action. One that you don’t even have to think to do.

Have you ever noticed that many times when you were fighting with your own conscience concerning a wrong deed what a fight and what a struggle it was for you, and after you did it how bad you felt, how guilty you felt? Vowing to yourself, “That’s terrible; I’ll never do that again.” But the next time the issue came up, it wasn’t quite so hard to you. You didn’t have quite a battle as you did before against the evil. And it continues to create the patterns, until finally a person can do without any pangs of conscience that which one time disturbed him tremendously. Paul calls that a seared conscience with a hot iron. That is, you’ve destroyed the sensitivity against evil and that’s always a sad case to observe.

Any repeated action becomes patterned in the brain so that it becomes harder to break. Relearning is always a more difficult process than learning. That’s why if you take up golf, you should spend the first few hours with a pro to get your stroke correct, because if you learn the wrong stroke, it’s awfully hard to correct and to get into that groove type swing. Bad habits are hard to break because they’ve set the pattern in your brain.

Now when you continually are deferring your decision for Jesus Christ, you’re setting a pattern, making it more difficult to accept. Each time you say no, it will become harder to say yes. That is why 9/10ths of the decisions made for Jesus Christ are made while in the teenage years. Nine out of ten Christians became Christians while they were teenagers, before they had set these negative brain patterns.

Felix, though he trembled under conviction, passed off the decision.

He also had hoped for bribery, that money should have been given to him from Paul, that he might loose him ( Act 24:26 ):

He had heard that Paul had brought this offering to the poor saints. Why not for poor Felix? He was looking for a bribe.

wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him ( Act 24:26 ).

Kept giving Paul an opportunity to bribe him. He was looking for an excuse to release Paul.

But after two years Porcius Festus replaced Felix: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound ( Act 24:27 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Act 24:1. , fire) They make all haste. A Sabbath seems to have intervened.-, Ananias) who was hostile to Paul.-, orator) This is the only passage in the whole of Scripture in which an orator, and the term orator, present themselves.-, Tertullus) He seems to have been an Italian.-) Intransitive: ch. Act 25:2; Act 25:15, Act 23:15, : 2Ma 3:1; 2Ma 11:29.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 24:1-9

PAUL AT CAESAREA

Act 24:1 to Act 26:32

PAULS ACCUSERS BEFORE FELIX

Act 24:1-9

1 And after five days the high priest Ananias-After five days may mean either after five days from Pauls 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 Felixs 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 Luk 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 (Act 17:6) and at Ephesus (Act 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 Luk 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.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Tertullus, who appeared here, was a Roman barrister, it being necessary for the Jews to employ such in presenting their cases before a Roman tribunal. The charges he made were palpably false. His description of Paul as a “pestilent fellow” had no justification whatever. The chief charge was that he was “a mover of insurrections.” The baselessness of this charge also is apparent, but the subtlety of it is clear. The only charge which could be substantiated was that Paul was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

Paul’s defense is a splendid illustration of the strength and dignity of one who is conscious that he has nothing to hide. His address to Felix was courteous, courageous, and clear. With quiet scorn he denied the charges preferred against him except the one, for he freely confessed that he was “of the Way, which,” and there is an evident touch of irony in his words, “they call a sect.”

The sequel is full of interest. The decision of Felix was favorable to Paul, who was committed to an indulgent imprisonment, and so protected from his enemies. Felix’s subsequent action was prompted by mixed motives, and resulted in his arraignment of Paul before himself and Drusilla, who was the daughter of Herod, who had slain James and was herself a wanton. Paul’s reasoning here was characterized by such faithfulness and force as to produce terror in the mind of Felix. Paul remained for two years at Caesarea. Then Felix being recalled he left Paul in bonds.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Truth against Slander

Act 24:1-16

Paul was always on the lookout for the one ray of light in murky skies. He found a reason for counting himself happy in this dark hour, Act 24:10. He held himself with great dignity. He remembered that he was always Gods ambassador, representing the court of heaven amid the perverse courts of human government. As for the charge of sedition, he challenged his adversaries to prove it. He pointed out that as the nation was already divided into Pharisees and Sadducees, they could hardly find fault with him for belonging to a third sect-that of the Nazarenes. After the way which they called a sect, Act 24:14, r.v., he worshipped God, but he had never stirred up strife in temple or synagogue. He protested that it had been the aim of his life to keep a conscience void of offense toward God and man.

In Act 23:1 he had made a similar statement. Well would it be for us if only we would devote a few minutes at the close of each day to discover whether our conscience accused us of failure in heart, thought, or behavior. The Holy Spirit pleads in the court of conscience. We would be kept from many a fall, if we would be more careful to watch against the little rifts.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Saved from the ferocity of the Jewish elders who hated him, Paul was sent down to Caesarea and there in due time he appeared in the courtroom before Felix, the Roman governor. His accusers sent a deputation to Caesarea, headed by Ananias, the Jewish high priest. A man whose name indicates that he was perhaps a Gentile by birth, Tertullus, an orator or really a lawyer, came with them. He was one of those very wordy lawyers who can paint a picture to suit himself; who call good evil and evil good, and make white black and black white.

When he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse Paul, but first he praised Felix, a man whom the Jews themselves bitterly hated. With the fawning words of one seeking to curry favor, he said, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

I think Felix must have put his tongue in his cheek when he heard Tertullus speaking like this on behalf of these Jews from Jerusalem, for he knew pretty well how much they detested him. He must have known too that they were thoroughly aware of his own wicked, godless life, so that even to address him as most noble Felix was in itself a misnomer. He was anything but noble. This governor was a most ungodly man, one whose whole life was a reproach to the high office he held.

Tertullus proceeded to accuse Paul, and brought four charges against him, one of which was true, the other three absolutely false. He said, We have found this man a pestilent fellow. He used the word pestilent in the sense of a disrupter of the peace. Paul was not that. Then he accused Paul of being a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world. That, of course, was totally untrue. Thirdly, he declared him to be a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. That was a fact, for Paul was a Christian and Christians were called Nazarenes, after Christ their Savior who was so designated. But the fourth charge is again false: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple-something that Paul never even thought of doing.

Let us review these charges brought against Paul. First, they insisted that he was a pestilent fellow, a disturber of the peace. Yet this man had lived a devoted, faithful life for nearly thirty years, seeking in all his ways to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. He labored with his own hands whenever there was a temporal need to be met, never depending on the church at home to support him. If they did not send what might be required to sustain him and his companions, he would simply work as a tentmaker in order to provide for the needs of himself and those working with him. But he went everywhere, witnessing, ministering Christ, and told both Jew and Gentile of the wonderful change that had come over his own life.

Paul was anything but a pestilent fellow, a disturber of the peace; unless one is speaking of the false peace in which men exist who are strangers to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. These Paul tried to arouse to see their danger and to show them that they were lost and needed a Savior. The world has always been quick to say that people who preach against its ways and expose its sins and its faults are disturbers of the peace. You remember how they said before of Paul and his companions, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also. There was a sense in which that was true, because through sin the world had been turned wrong side up. So Paul and his companions preached the message that turned the world right side up, and of course the devil and his followers consider that as disrupting the peace.

Satan has held men captive so long that I think none of us should be concerned about disturbing his peace. Indeed, if we are able to do something that will disrupt his peace and deliver captives from his snare, whatever charges the world may bring against us, we shall feel we have done something worthwhile and we can thank God for the privilege of doing it.

Then they charged Paul with being a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and that was very far from the truth. He never moved anybody to sedition. He always insisted, when addressing Christians, that they must be subject to the powers that be, that they must always pray for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty (1Ti 2:2).

We may see in the governments of this world things that are contrary to the mind of God, but we seek to overcome them by methods that are in accordance with the spirit of the gospel. The remarkable thing is that the preaching of the Word throughout the Roman empire was used by God to overturn many things that oppressed men and brought distress on the world. In fact, practically all of the great reforms that have occurred throughout the centuries owe their existence to the proclamation of the liberty-giving message of the gospel of the grace of God.

Paul was not a mover of sedition but, on the other hand, he was indeed well known as a ringleader of the sect [or heresy] of the Nazarenes. That word translated sect, which is also rendered heresy later in the chapter, really means a school of opinions. The followers of the Lord Jesus Christ were considered just another little, peculiar school of opinions. So the Nazarenes were contemptuously called a sect because they followed Him who was called a Nazarene.

There was a time when Paul was bitterly opposed to this group, when he as Saul of Tarsus sought to destroy everyone who preached the way of Christianity. He never forgave himself for that (1Co 15:9). But what caused the change in this man? The wonderful fact that he had a glimpse of Christ in glory. He was never the same afterward. From the very moment he was brought to know Him, he was commissioned to proclaim the faith that once he had sought to destroy. Indeed he became an outstanding leader and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, the rejected Messiah. He faithfully proclaimed the One who came in lowly grace to Israel, was refused by His own people, died on the cross for their sins, and ascended to Gods right hand.

Paul had proved the reality of the gospel message in his own life so he declared to others the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when they charged him with going about to profane the temple, that was untrue. For although he had been separated from that temple by the revelation of Jesus Christ, he always had the greatest respect for everything connected with the religion of his youth. The temple in this sense was still the house that God had established in Israel, and Paul knew that many who worshiped there had a zeal of God though not according to knowledge. He would never have thought of profaning it. In fact, at the very time he was arrested he had gone almost beyond what you might have expected of him. Knowing the high standing of the temple in Jewish thinking, he had entered the temple with several men who were just completing their days of Nazariteship. He had arranged to pay for the sacrifices that they were to offer, and he would have done so had not God Himself, I believe, intervened by causing the riot and his arrest (see Acts 21).

No, he was not a profaner of the temple. He revered and honored the God of the temple too much for that. But they did not understand. They were so bound by the shackles of legality that, when Paul came preaching salvation by the free grace of God, they could not comprehend it. They thought of him as an enemy of the old religion and an enemy of their people. Actually he was simply bringing a message that was the fulfillment of all the forms and ceremonies of the legal dispensation. He was there as the personal representative of the One who is pictured in every sacrifice ever offered on Jewish altars, our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally, the Jews declared that Tertullus had presented the case fairly, so Felix gave Paul an opportunity to defend himself. Notice how Paul began. He did not descend to flattering words, but said, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself. In other words, he realized that Felix knew the people who were accusing him, and the strong prejudices and bigotry that characterized them; therefore Paul felt all the more ready to state his own case in the presence of this Roman judge.

He told him that just twelve days had elapsed since he went to Jerusalem, not to cause a riot or stir people up, but to worship God. No one had found him in the temple disputing with anybody, or inciting the people, nor did they find him misbehaving in the synagogues or in the city. He went about continually ministering in grace to any who were willing to listen to him. Neither can they prove, he said, the things whereof they now accuse me. But on the other hand, he acknowledged the third charge, declaring: This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.

I like to think of Paul standing there before that august assemblage, hiding nothing, covering nothing, majestic as he proclaimed himself a follower of the crucified Lord Jesus Christ. The Way was the term used generally in those days for Christianity, simply because the following of Jesus was taught as the way to life and blessing. And, thank God, it is, for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Lord Jesus added, No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So Paul went everywhere proclaiming the Way, and we today have the same blessed privilege. We are here to tell men there is only one way to God. Men do not like that. They say something like this: We are all trying to get to the same place. There are many different ways, but they all end up at the same place. Who says so? Our Lord Jesus declared, I am the way. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. The apostle Peter said, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Act 4:12). You say, But there are so many ways. Yes, the Old Testament tells us in the book of Proverbs, There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (14:12). People say, But I have my religion and you have yours, and my religion is good enough for me: it satisfies me. Oh, but that is hardly the question. Is it good enough for God? Does it satisfy God? It is God who has declared that there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved but the name of Jesus. Do you know Him? Have you trusted Him? He is the Way.

Paul was not ashamed to declare that he recognized no other way to God, no other way to Heaven, than through the Lord Jesus Christ, Further he said that in the truth revealed in Christianity we have the completion of all that was set forth in type and shadow in the Old Testament: After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.

Do you believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets? Sometimes I tell my Jewish friends that I am a better Jew than they are! Because I find that many Jews doubt much of the Holy Scriptures, and take almost a modernistic attitude toward the whole Bible. They question whether the prophecies will ever be fulfilled.

I believe it all. I believe that all things written in the law and the prophets and the Psalms are true. I believe that the Old Testament, from the book of Genesis to the book of Malachi, is the very Word of the living God. And in that I stand with the apostle Paul who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. But I also believe this, that all the ritual service, all that was written concerning the tabernacle and the temple in the Old Testament, pointed forward to the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. His cross is the true altar; He Himself is the true sacrifice. He is the Light of the world; He is the Bread of Life on the table in the holy place. He is the Ark of the Covenant. On His heart was written the law. He has offered Himself without spot unto God and it is through His blood alone that we approach God. And it seems to me, the more one studies the Old Testament and considers not only its types and shadows but its prophecies, the more one must come to see that the Lord Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of them all.

That was the stand Paul took. That is what made him a Christian. That was why he became from the time of his conversion such a remarkable exponent of the grace of God. Here was a man who believed for years in the Old Testament economy. When he got the fuller revelation, he believed that. He said, I believe, therefore have I spoken. God pity the men who stand in pulpits today ministering to people, yet have not themselves real faith in the truth revealed in Gods Word.

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the [dynamics] of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written [in the Old Testament], The just shall live by faith (Rom 1:16-17).

This was Pauls declaration: I believe all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. He used the word hope with the sense of full assurance. And he recognized the close link between Judaism and Christianity, so that Christianity is the full flower of which Judaism was the bud.

You see, the charge they brought against him was this: He is preaching that Jesus who died has risen again. Paul replied in essence, But I am not preaching anything that my Jewish brethren ought to think impossible. They profess to believe in resurrection, unless they are of the Sadducean sect. They believe there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. So do I. The future for man is based on this great fact. Does this truth of the resurrection bring real joy to your heart?

Notice the two kinds of people who are going to be raised-the just and the unjust. As surely as there are two ways to live and two ways to die, so are there to be two resurrections. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has said,

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation [or condemnation] (Joh 5:28-29).

A resurrection of the just and of the unjust! And who are the just? The just shall live by faith. They are those who have believed God even as Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness or justice. And so when men put their trust in the Lord Jesus, receive Him as Savior, they are numbered among the just. Those who refuse Him and go on in their sinful way are numbered among the unjust; but whether just or unjust, after they leave this world they must rise in resurrection. If they leave this world in their sins, they will rise among the unjust unto condemnation. But if they leave this world cleansed by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus, they rise among the just to have part in eternal bliss.

Do not forget that there are two resurrections. We would like to believe that there is something about death so purifying and so ennobling that in the very hour of death, no matter what manner of lives men have lived, they are suddenly changed so that they pass out into eternity clean and pure and fit for the presence of God. But our Bibles forbid us to believe that. Our Lord Jesus said, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: [and if you die in your sins] whither I go, ye cannot come (Joh 8:21).

If men die in their sins, they will be raised in their sins, and in their sins they will stand before the great white throne and be judged for their sins and condemned throughout eternity. But, on the other hand, we read, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them (Rev 14:13). It is possible to die in the Lord, and those who die in the Lord enter into rest.

Who are they who die in the Lord? They are those who trust the Lord, those who receive the Lord as their own Savior. They reveal by devoted, godly lives that they have really been born from above. These die in the Lord, and these are raised in the Lord, and spend eternity with the Lord; for of these it is written, They shall not come into condemnation, but [are] passed from death unto life.

Paul continued his defense by saying, And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. In other words, these truths that meant so much to him had gripped his conscience and made him concerned about his manner of life. He sought so to behave that none could accuse him honestly of any ill-doing, and that God might ever be glorified in him. People say sometimes that we Christians are interested in only one thing and that is that men accept Christ as Savior. But that is because we believe that if men definitely put their faith in the truth that God has revealed in His Word, it is going to work a miracle within them. They will receive a new life and nature, and will be concerned about living a holy way. A love for holiness always follows new birth.

Then Paul told Felix what it was that brought him to Jerusalem: Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. He had not gone to create trouble, or even to proselyte them to his doctrines or peculiar views. Famine prevailed, and he came to bring gifts that Christian people had given to him for those in need. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult, Who ought to have been here before thee, if they had ought against me; but they were not there. When Paul stood before the Jewish council, they could not find any evil in him unless it was this, that he had interrupted the peace by crying out, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. The whole matter of whether Christ is Messiah or not is linked with the question of whether resurrection is possible. Every orthodox Jew said it is possible. Paul said it was not only possible but it had taken place, for Jesus had risen from the dead. And this was the message that he carried throughout the world.

When Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way-he had evidently come in contact with Christians before-he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter. In other words, We will wait. He should have cleared Paul, but this man Felix was given to procrastination. It characterized him throughout. He put off setting Paul free. In the meantime, he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him.

It was very evident that Felix knew Paul was innocent of the charges brought against him. As one set to administer the law, he should have freed him. He was like Pilate, who said of Christ, I find no fault in this man, yet allowed His accusers eventually to carry out their will against Him.

As you think back, what a record Paul has had! How he delighted to go from land to land, glorifying Christ! As we continue our study of Acts, we see that God had in store for him, although a prisoner, still greater opportunities to magnify the One who had redeemed him.

In the closing verses of Acts 24 we have a very special message for any who have not yet definitely decided for Christ yet intend to so decide some day. Gods Word says, Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation. But it seems so natural for us to put off the settlement of this greatest of all questions, Felix took that attitude of procrastination and, so far as we have any record, he lived and died a Christ-rejecter.

We read, After certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. Antonius Felix- to give him his full name-was appointed by Claudius Caesar to be procurator in Judea some two years before Paul was arrested and brought to stand before him, He was a most unprincipled man, an ungodly, scheming politician who stooped often to the very lowest of methods in order to bring about his own purposes.

It is recorded of him in history that when he could not accomplish his purposes, he would not hesitate to call into his service a group of assassins-a secret order bound together by an oath, who were pledged to undertake to destroy anyone for whose death they were paid. Felix in this way managed to remove a great many of his enemies and, as he fancied, to secure his own position. But he failed dismally, as men always do who stoop to cruel and wicked methods to obtain and hold power. Scarcely a few more years had passed before he was in disgrace and, so far as we know, died a suicide.

The Spirit of God mentioned his wife Drusilla, evidently in order that we might realize something of a power over this man that kept him from making a definite decision for Christ. Who was Drusilla? She was the youngest daughter of King Agrippa I. It was a sad family-three sisters, every one of whom lived a life of infamy-Bernice, Miriam, and Drusilla.

Drusilla at fourteen became the wife of Azizus, the king of Emesa, but some years afterwards Felix met her and lured her away from her husband. Then in defiance of all law, both human and divine, betook her as his own wife. And so as Paul stood before Felix there sat with him on the judgment seat this woman, the partner of his life of sin and corruption. God draws special attention to Drusillas presence with him. Her father was of Edomite and Jewish extraction. She was brought up in the religion of Israel. Felix was a heathen; Drusilla knew better. She had been instructed in her earliest days in the knowledge of the one true and living God. She knew something of the high standards set forth in the law of God, and she must have been conscious that she was flaunting them all in the life she lived.

These two sent for Paul from time to time in order that they might discuss with him or hear him tell of the faith in Christ. Evidently Felixs interest was something like that of Herods some years before. Herod was curious about Jesus and desired to see Him. He had heard of His wonderful miracles. But at last he was instrumental in putting Jesus to death; that is, his attitude helped in the final rejection of Jesus.

And so here Felix was interested in Paul and his message. He evidently knew a great deal about what had happened in Palestine, particularly in Judea where he was procurator. He knew about Jesus; he knew about His crucifixion. He knew that it was commonly reported that He had risen in triumph from the dead. He knew how the gospel was spreading through all that part of the world, and how it was reaching out even to distant lands. Undoubtedly deep in his heart he wondered whether Jesus was not what He professed to be-the Son of the living God. If so, Felix must have felt that he owed allegiance to this blessed One. But to step right out and accept Christ, to yield his heart to Christ, would mean facing the sin in which he was living. Drusilla, too, would have to face her sin.

I do not know of any harder test for a man or woman today than this. It is difficult for people when they know they have violated Gods holy law and entered into a relationship contrary to God and are living in sin-hard for them to judge their sin and get right with God. So Felix, while interested, yet shrank from taking the step of full allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.

We read that as Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled. No wonder he shuddered, with another mans wife sitting there beside him on the throne! When Paul reasoned of righteousness, he must have brought before Felix the fact that he had no righteousness. I imagine that Paul used the line of reasoning that he presented in the Epistle to the Romans- that is, that the judgment of God is against all unrighteousness, and that all men everywhere are sinners and in need of a Savior. And then he would not hesitate to witness to the fact that Felix, instead of holding his physical passions in subjection, had allowed them to ran away with him and dominate his reason; so that, instead of living in self-control, he was controlled by evil.

And Paul went on to tell of judgment to come. It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Heb 9:27). There was no sugar-coating here. There was no palliating the message; no soft-pedaling. It took tremendous courage for this little Christian Jew to stand there before that Roman governor and his paramour, and press home the corruption of their lives and the wickedness of their hearts; then to insist that for all these things God was going to bring them into judgment!

And yet we do not read that Felix responded in repentance. He realized the truth of much of Pauls words, and he shuddered. The memory of his sins rose up before him, and as he sat there facing God about those sins, he was in trouble and distress, but there was no repentance.

What folly it is to try to cover up and forget our sins! Remember, if our sins go unconfessed, God does not forget them. He said, I will not forget any of their sins. They are there in His books of record, and in His judgment day they will be revealed. We are told that some mens sins are open beforehand, going before them to judgment; and some men they follow after (1Ti 5:24). Whether hidden and covered here on earth or not, they will come out there. You say: Well is there no way of deliverance? Is there no way of salvation, for I have sinned? I have violated Gods holy law, but is there no forgiveness?

Ah, yes. And as Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, he must have put clearly before Felix the glorious message of the gospel. It is not necessary that the sinner go on to meet God in judgment-that is, if he is willing to judge his sins now and come into the presence of God now and face those sins. But men need to remember this: the first time that a man comes into the presence of God, he must come with all his sins upon him. If he never comes into the presence of God until the day of judgment, he will stand there with all his sins upon him, and he will hear that voice saying, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

On the other hand, if you are ready to come now into the presence of God, you must come with all your sins upon you. You can not get rid of them otherwise. You cannot cleanse your own heart. Job says, If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean; Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me (9:30-31). It is absolutely impossible for you to cleanse yourself, to wash out the stains of sin. But thank God, if you are ready to come to Him in repentance-and repentance involves a complete change of attitude in regard to sin-if you are ready to come now, earnestly desiring the forgiveness of sins, there is forgiveness with Him, thank God. For if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We read in the book of Proverbs, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy (28:13). That mercy was offered to Felix. That mercy was extended to Drusilla, but this impenitent couple, doubtless putting their heads together, said in effect: We are not ready to face this thing; we are not ready to separate one from another; we are not ready to break the tie that binds us in our unholy union. So we read that though Felix shuddered, he answered Paul, saying, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

That is the answer that so many make. Felix, the procrastinator! We have a saying that Procrastination is the thief of time; and the Spaniards say, The road of by-and-by leads to the house of never. And here is this man, realizing his lost condition, knowing that he is not right in the sight of God, knowing that he should put his trust in the Lord Jesus, yet he puts it off.

Forget Felix for a moment and let me ask you, reader, to face this question honestly. Are you saying as Felix did, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee? You fully expect to be saved sometime. Perhaps a dear father or mother has gone on to Heaven, and you promised before they left that you would meet them there later on. Perhaps they are still living, and again and again they have prayed for you and pleaded with you to come to Christ, and you have said, Oh yes, some day, some time, but not now. When I have a more convenient season, then I will get right with God.

When do you think that more convenient season will arrive? When will you ever have a better opportunity of coming to Christ than you have today? When will it ever be easier to repent of your sins, to confess your need, to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, than it is now? Do you think it may be a more convenient season when perhaps the health that you now enjoy is taken from you and you toss on a bed of sickness? I have ministered to hundreds on sickbeds, but I have never yet been at a sickbed of a Christian who was not glad that he had trusted Christ when he was well and strong. I have had many say to me, I am so thankful that I do not have that matter to settle now when my body is racked with pain, when my poor mind is troubled and distressed, I am so thankful that I knew Christ as my Savior before I became ill.

Often when I have stood by the sickbed of an unsaved one, I have been stirred to indignation when some doctor or nurse has said, Dont talk religion to him. Dont disturb him. He is too sick to be bothered by anything that might excite him. I know what they mean. They mean that we are not to tell dying men and women that it will be Christ or Hell, and that to reject the one is to choose the other. And I admit that it is hard to go into the room of one who is lying low in weakness, and faithfully present the great realities of eternity. It is only occasionally that I have seen one in such a condition ready to listen and to turn to God for salvation.

Do not be guilty of the inexcusable folly of saying, When I have a more convenient time, I will call for you-when I am laid aside on a bed of sickness, then I will face the question of my souls salvation.

I wonder if someone is saying, When I can take life more leisurely, then will I consider this question. Today I am engrossed in study; I am overwhelmed with the pressure of things at school. Or, I am out in the business world and occupied with all that I have to face day by day. Give me a better opportunity. When I have finished training, or when I have reached the place where I can retire from the activities of business and can look at things more thoughtfully, then I will call for you. Let me tell you this: The average person who spends a lifetime occupied with the things of this world will not leave all those for the things of God when it comes to what he calls a time of leisure. Oh, the elderly men and women whose spiritual sensibilities seem to be absolutely atrophied! They never seem to have interest in eternal things. They remind one of a solemn verse in the book of Revelation, which literally translated reads, And the fruit season of thy souls desire has gone from thee (18:14).

Now is the time to get right with God-in the midst of study, in the midst of business, in the midst of all the various things you have to face. Take time to settle this greatest of all questions-that of your souls salvation. People say, When I am old it will be time enough; after I have had my fling, after I have enjoyed the things of the world, then as an old man or woman I will turn to Christ. Oh, the wretched hallucination that leads one to be so foolish as to speak like that! Think of the Lord of glory as a young man, in the very prime of life, dying for you. Yet you say to yourself After I have drunk the cup of sin to the full, I will give the dregs of my life to Him. Could there be baser ingratitude than that? Old men seldom turn to Christ.

When I was only twelve I went into a meeting in an auditorium in Los Angeles. About ten thousand people were gathered in the building which had two galleries-a building that has since been torn down to make way for another. I went to hear D. L. Moody preach. Because I could find no other place, I crawled out on a rafter beneath the ceiling. I remember how in the course of his address he said, I want everyone in this auditorium who is a Christian, who knows he is a Christian, to stand up. Now, remain standing until the ushers can tell me about how many are on their feet. Then he said, There are between five and six thousand people standing. What a testimony-five to six thousand Christian people in this building! Now, he said, I want everyone here who became a Christian before he was fifteen years of age to sit down. And over half of that company sat down. Then he said, Now how many of those who remain standing accepted Christ before they were twenty? More than half of those remaining sat down. And then he went on, moving up the years by tens. By the time he got to fifty, there were only about twenty left standing in that great congregation who had trusted Christ after they were fifty years of age! It was an object lesson I have never forgotten.

Youth is the time to serve the Lord, the time to win the great reward. But if you are past your youth, thank God, He still waits for you to come, Yield to Him now. Do not say, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee, lest when you call He is no longer listening to your cry, For we read in the Word that Wisdom speaks to those who refuse her voice and says, Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me (Pro 1:28).

Felix lost his opportunity. Act 24:26 suggests another reason why he did not decide. Not only lustful, he was a covetous man. He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. A judge on the bench, he was corrupt, wicked, hoping that this poor, penniless prisoner would perhaps raise money from his friends in order to bribe the judge for his deliverance! Of course Paul would not resort to that. He would rather have remained in prison for years than to buy his way out. So he stayed in jail, but Felix sent for him the oftener, and communed with him, I imagine every time he spurned the voice of God, his conscience grew harder, his spirit more indifferent.

After two years Porcius Festus came into Felix room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound. So Felix passed off the page of Holy Scripture, but he did not pass out from under the eye of God. He lived and died in wickedness and corruption. Some day he will stand before a Judge who can never be bribed, and he will have to answer Him for refusing the message of grace.

What about you, dear friend? Have you been refusing to yield to the Spirit of God? Have you been waiting for a more convenient season? Oh, will you not believe God when He says, Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation?

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Act 24:24-27

The Character of Felix.

Felix was not a man altogether ignorant of the religion which Paul preached; he is, on the other hand, spoken of as one who had a more perfect knowledge of that way-that is, of the religion of Christ. Felix’ heart was not wholly hardened; his conscience not wholly seared; he was a man who had sinned grievously, who sinned against light and knowledge, and therefore was, so to speak, on the high road to utter hardness and blindness of heart; but he had not arrived at that condition yet-if he had he would not have trembled when Paul spoke of judgment to come. And we must also remark, that although Felix was not ignorant of the claims of the gospel, and was not utterly beyond hope as being spiritually dead, still he was able to make the warnings of St. Paul utterly useless. Felix trembled, but he did nothing more; his mind was disturbed as by the sudden gust of a storm, but there was no abiding impression, no deep, lasting effect; and so the storm passed over, and he rested in his sins unchanged. We gather these lessons from his story:-

I. Is it not a besetting sin of us all to be afraid or to be too idle to look into our consciences to examine our acts, our thoughts, our words, and see whether in each day they have been such as God will approve? Is it not, in fact, the very tendency of fallen man ever to follow the example of his first parents and hide himself from the searching eye of God?

II. Again, are there not many who listen weekly to sermons, and in them hear Christ’s ministers, as Felix heard St. Paul, “concerning the faith of Christ,” who yet are none the better for what they hear?

III. Again, is there nothing Felix-like in the manner in which people very often treat this warning of God, which more clearly than any human words speaks of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come?

IV. May we not see in Felix generally a type of want of seriousness in religion? His was a character wanting in deep solemn feeling, wanting in judgment as to the value of things, unable to see for more than a transient moment the awfulness of these thoughts, which made him tremble when they were uttered by St. Paul. Felix must for ever be a type a many within the Christian Church.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 182.

Reference: Act 24:24-27.-J. Fraser, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 385.

Act 24:25

I. Felix made two great mistakes. He did not know what constituted a convenient season, and he presumed he might repent and turn to God whenever he pleased. We are all apt to give too much weight-whether in help or hindrance-to external circumstances. It is a testimony to true religion, that almost every one will say that he hopes and means some day or other to be, if not very religious, yet certainly more religious than he is now. But then, all fancy that by-and-bye they will be in a position which will be more favourable to make a beginning. They will be holier, or their anxieties will be fewer, or their temptations will be less, or their religious advantages will be greater, or their associations in life will be more fitting, so their state of mind will be better prepared. They picture a certain future which wears a sober and almost a religious aspect, and then they call that a convenient season.

II. It is the felt willingness of God to receive us, it is the still small voice consciously heard within, it is the drawings of the secret constraining power which is the operation of the Spirit of God upon the conscience and the affections,-these make the convenient season. Where these are everything is sure to be convenient-God will make it convenient, how unlikely soever it be. Where these are not, there will be an inconvenience-an utter impossibility. All religious procrastination is an insult to the Holy Ghost. The only time to keep a resolution is the moment that it visits you; and he who does not turn to God when he is drawn, increases each time, tremendously, the risk that he will never turn at all.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 166.

Now-not By-and-bye.

I. Men lull awakened consciences to sleep, and excuse delay in deciding for Christ by half-honest promises to attend to religion at some future time.

II. Note reasons for this attitude. (1) There is the instinctive natural wish to get rid of a disagreeable subject; (2) many think it will be time enough to think about serious things and be religious when they get older; (3) many let the impressions made on their hearts and consciences be crowded out by cares and enjoyments and pleasures and duties of this world; (4) some do not like to give up something which is inconsistent with God’s love and service.

III. Delay is really decision the wrong way. It robs us of large blessings. It is gambling with a very uncertain thing-our life and its future opportunities.

A. Maclaren, A Year’s Ministry, 1st series, p. 165.

References: Act 24:25.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 171; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. ii., p. 80; Talmage, Old Wells dug Out, p. 94. Act 24:27.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 249. Act 25:8.-Ibid., vol. x., p. 57. Act 25:9.-Ibid., vol. ii., p. 249.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 23

1. Paul before the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-10).

2. The vision of the Lord (Act 23:11).

3. The Conspiracy against Paul (Act 23:12-22).

4. Paul taken to Caesarea (Act 23:23-35).

And now we find him addressing the Sanhedrin. For the last time the Jewish council is mentioned in this book. Three times before the Sanhedrin had been called together in connection with those who believed in the Lord Jesus (Act 4:5; Act 5:21; Act 6:12-15). Looking straight at the council, Paul did not wait for the formalities connected with the proceedings, but addressed the gathered Sanhedrin as men and brethren. And strange are the words with which he opened his defense: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. In this he made a public declaration of his righteousness, which reminds us of his confession as a Pharisee (Php 3:4-6). This self-justification shows that he was not acting under the leading of the Holy Spirit. This bold language resulted in stirring up the anger of the high priest Ananias, who commanded that the bystanders should smite the Apostle on the mouth. And Paul was not slow to reply with a harsh word, calling the high priest a whited wall and demanding of God to smite him. No doubt the high priest was indeed a whited wall and fully deserved the judgment from God. But did Paul in speaking thus show the meekness of Him, whose servant he was?

In a clever way he tries to bring in dissension by his statement of being a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. A big commotion followed. Some of the scribes belonging to the Pharisees cried loudly in defense of the prisoner–We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. The latter sentence was a faint echo of the advice given by Gamaliel. The scene which followed beggars description. The shouting must have been terrific and Paul was in danger of being pulled to pieces by the council mob. Lysias, the chief captain, was obliged to interfere. The soldiers, at his command, came down and rescued Paul and brought him into the castle. The cleverness of Paul had been the means of liberating him from the hands of the Sanhedrin.

The night following the Lord appeared unto him and comforted him. No doubt he had sought before His face in confession and self-judgment. He is in the Lords hands. Forty men had made a conspiracy not to eat and to drink till they had killed him.

The prisoner of the Lord is now delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. A large force of soldiers accompanied Paul for his protection. The danger was great, hence the great precaution the chief officer, whose name is now mentioned, Claudius Lysias, had taken. Could we have read in Pauls own heart we would have seen there the peace of Christ; the words of His Lord still resounded in that faithful and devoted heart–Be of good cheer.

The letter of Claudius Lysias to the governor Felix is interesting. It shows how Lysias claims the full credit of having rescued Paul, because he was a Roman. He declares him innocent, yet delivers him into the hands of the governor.

One would also like to know what had become of the forty conspirators. If they were true to their vow not to eat nor to drink till Paul had been killed, they must have starved to death, which, we are sure, did not happen. Caesarea is reached in safety and Paul is delivered into the hands of the governor, who promised him a hearing as soon as the accusers would arrive. Jerusalem now laid forever behind him. Rome was before him.

CHAPTER 24

1. The indictment of Paul (Act 24:1-9).

2. The defense of the Apostle (Act 24:10-21).

3. How Felix disposed of the case (Act 24:22-23).

4. Paul addresses Felix (Act 24:24-27).

If the Jews, after Pauls removal from Jerusalem, had not pressed the case against him, he would have been liberated. As he had gone years ago to Damascus to persecute the Christians there, so now the Jews follow him to Caesarea to accuse him before the Roman governor. They evidently did not lose any time. Only a few days had elapsed when a strong deputation from Jerusalem appeared in Caesarea. The high priest filled with much hatred against Paul had taken it upon himself to come in person. This must have been an unusual occurrence for a person of Ananias standing to leave Jerusalem.

They brought along a certain orator named Tertullus, who accused Paul in the presence of Felix. The words Tertullus used against the great man of God are extremely vile and manifest the hiss of the serpent. He calls him a pestilent fellow, a person whom Society may well be rid of. The indictment contains three counts. First stands a Political accusation. This, in presence of the high Roman officer, was of the greatest importance. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offense. The charge of sedition or treason was thus at once laid at the door of the Apostle. The second offense Tertullus brought against Paul was of a religious nature. As ringleader of the Nazarenes, presented by him as a sect of the Jews, he had abetted that which was against the peace of Judaism and introduced not alone a disturbing element, but had transgressed another Roman law, which forbade the introduction of an unrecognized religion. The third charge was the profanation of the temple. Paul answers the indictment in a masterly way. His address contains a denial of the first charge; a confession and admission concerning the second, and a complete vindication of the accusation of the temple profanation.

Felix knew the accusations were not true, but he refused decision. Paul should have been set at liberty. Felix defers it till Lysias the chief-captain came to Caesarea. But he never came, and Paul was kept a prisoner. Felix and his wife, Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, a wicked woman, heard Paul and Felix trembled. Later Felix left Paul behind a prisoner, when Porcius Festus became governor.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

67. “THE WAY WHICH THEY CALL HERESY”

Act 24:1-27

Acts 23 closed with Paul at Caesarea under arrest in Herod’s judgment hall. He had been brought there under cover of night and under the protection of 470 Roman soldiers by order of Claudius Lysias. Claudius Lysias wrote a letter to Felix, the Roman governor, explaining the unusual circumstances of Paul’s case and the reason for his actions (Act 23:25-30). When Paul arrived at Caesarea, Felix told him that he would hear his case once his accusers had arrived from Jerusalem. This historical narrative of what transpired at Caesarea is intended by the Holy Spirit to teach us specific spiritual truths which the wise will lay to heart.

First, the Jews’ accusations against Paul show us that IT IS EASY, THOUGH BASE, WORK TO SLANDER AND FALSELY ACCUSE UPRIGHT, HONEST PEOPLE OF WICKED DEEDS AND SINISTER MOTIVES (Act 24:1-9). Paul was an upright, honest man. He had done nothing wrong, certainly nothing criminal. He had done nothing, except faithfully preach the gospel of Christ to lost religionists. For that he was arrested and treated as a common criminal (2Ti 1:8-9).

When his accusers arrived, (Ananias the high priest, a delegation of the Sanhedrin {“the elders”}, and a slick, polished lawyer named Tertullus), Paul was brought to trial before Felix. Tertullus began with flowery accolades designed to bias Felix’s sentiment toward the Jews, knowing that proud men love the praises of men (Job 32:21-22; Psa 12:2-3; Pro 26:28). The accusations against Paul were narrowed down to three.

1. “We have found this man a pestilent fellow.” This charge was intended to identify Paul as a troublemaker, one who constantly stirred social unrest. Palestine was filled with such men, and the Governor would naturally be disposed against such.

2. “A mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here Tertullus brings to Felix’s attention the fact that Paul was connected with the followers of Jesus, the Nazarene. They were considered both by the Jews and the Romans to be a heretical sect. In those days, the preaching of the gospel met with such phenomenal success that both the political and ecclesiastical worlds feared ultimately being dominated by the church of God, though none of God’s servants sought to influence the world by political power. Then as now, God’s true people sought not moral, political, and social reform, but the conquest of men’s hearts and lives by the power of the gospel (2Co 10:3-5).

3. “Who also hath gone about to profane the temple.” This indictment seems to be the most serious. Yet, it states no specific charge. It is not charged that Paul had profaned the temple, but that he went about to do so. In an attempt to implicate the chief captain, Lysias, and put their own case in a more favorable light, Tertullus said, “You would not have been bothered with this matter if Lysias had left us alone.” Then he said, we are certain that your own examination of this man will prove our charges. And all the elders said, “Amen”.

These charges were made against Paul by religious men who knew they were not true. Their hatred for God, the gospel of his grace, and the man who stood on the front lines, leading the church of God against the gates of hell, allowed them to justify violating their own consciences, their own religious codes, and the law of God, all in the name of God and righteousness!

Second, when Paul stood to defend himself, he acknowledged one thing that must never be forgotten – TRUE RELIGION, THE GOSPEL OF GOD’S FREE, SOVEREIGN, SAVING GRACE IN JESUS CHRIST, IS ALWAYS REGARDED BY MAINSTREAM, HUMAN RELIGIOUS OPINION AS THE WAY OF HERESY (Act 24:10-21). Paul boldly declared to Felix, “This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers!”

Paul’s response was much more specific than Tertullus’s general charges. After briefly addressing the bench, giving honor to whom honor is due, but without flattery, Paul said to his accusers, “Prove it!” He knew they had no basis for their charges. He had been away from Jerusalem for a long time (Act 24:17). He had returned simply to worship God, bringing alms and offerings from the Gentile churches to their Jewish brethren (Act 24:17; Act 11:29-30; Rom 15:25; 2Co 8:4; Gal 2:10). He came in a quiet, lawful manner. He made no disturbance. The real culprits were the troublemakers who followed him from Asia Minor and spread slanderous rumors about him (Act 24:18-19).

Mainstream religion has always been opposed to the gospel of God. The message of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone offends man’s pride because it exposes his sin, his intelligence because it can only be known by revelation, his righteousness because it declares his righteousness to be filthy rags and reveals the necessity of a substitutionary atonement for sin and the imputed righteousness of an infinitely meritorious Representative, the Lord Jesus Christ. Though all the world, (academic, political, and religious), says otherwise, there is only one religion and one message that fully satisfies all that is written in the law and the prophets, honoring the justice and truth of God, while holding forth the hope of resurrection and eternal life to sinners who deserve the wrath of God. That message, the gospel of Christ, declares seven facts, seven spiritual truths, about which there can be no compromise, though all the world denounce them as heresy.

1. The Bible alone is the Word of God and as such must be our only rule of faith and practice (2Ti 3:16-17; 2Pe 1:19-21; Isa 8:20).

2. God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is absolutely sovereign over all things and constantly exercises sovereignty in creation, providence, and grace (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6; Rom 11:36).

3. All men and women by nature, since the fall of Adam are totally depraved, spiritually dead sinners (Psa 51:5; Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1-4).

4. By eternal, unconditional election, the Lord God chose a people before the world began, who must and shall be saved (Eph 1:3-6; 2Th 2:13).

5. The Lord Jesus Christ effectually redeemed all God’s elect, putting away their sins by the sacrifice of himself, and obtained eternal redemption for them (Isa 53:1-12; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13; Heb 9:12; 1Pe 2:24).

6. The grace of God is irresistible in its application, always effecting the salvation of chosen, redeemed sinners at the time appointed (Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3).

7. Every true believer shall persevere in grace and faith, being kept by the power and grace of God unto eternal salvation (Joh 10:28; Php 1:6; 1Pe 1:5).

Thirdly, Felix stands before us as a beacon to warn us that ALL WHO PUT OFF THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST TO “A MORE CONVENIENT SEASON” COURT DIVINE REPROBATION (Act 24:22-27). Paul spoke plainly to the Roman governor and his wife about “the faith of Christ,” about “that Way”, of which they had heard so much. He pressed home both the necessity of Christ’s imputed righteousness and the moral implications of the gospel. Felix was obviously moved, but not humbled. Confronted with the claims of Christ, he postponed commitment to him to “a more convenient season”. But “a more convenient season” never came. Today Felix is in hell because, having heard the gospel, he refused the claims of Christ in the gospel. Let all who are wise be warned!

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

five: Act 24:11, Act 21:27

Ananias: Act 23:2, Act 23:30, Act 23:35, Act 25:2

orator: Act 12:21, Isa 3:3, 1Co 2:1, 1Co 2:4

informed: Act 25:2, Act 25:15, Psa 11:2

Reciprocal: Ezr 4:5 – hired Psa 52:2 – Thy Jer 20:10 – Report Mat 10:18 – be Mat 26:59 – sought Mar 13:9 – take Mar 14:55 – sought Luk 21:12 – before Act 6:11 – they Rom 15:31 – I may

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE LETTER WRITTEN by Claudius Lysias is quite a typical document, in which he presented his own actions in the most favourable light; but on the other hand it entirely exonerated Paul of anything really evil or worthy of death. The only accusations against him were as to questions of their law. Thus it is made clear that the first Roman official into whose hands he fell was quickly convinced that the charges against him were as to his faith, and there was no fault in him as to matters of conduct. God evidently took care that this should be made abundantly plain.

Thus it was ordered that the forty men failed in their purpose in spite of their vow and curse. Paul was safely in the strong hands of Rome, and in due time would be able to state his case in a calmer atmosphere, and bear the Name of his Master before the Gentiles, and kings, as well as the children of Israel, as had been predicted to Ananias. First of all he had to appear before Felix, the governor.

The arraignment of Paul before him bears all the marks of bitter animus and prejudice. That not only elders but even Ananias the high priest should have thought it necessary to go down to appear against him, shows the importance they gave to his case. Then they employed an advocate who, to judge by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. Tertullus, they doubtless felt, would know better than themselves what would appeal to the Roman mind, and so be more likely to secure a conviction. Tertullus did know, and began with fulsome flattery, for the account given of Felixs administration in secular history is in flat denial of what he stated. This he followed by a fourfold charge against Paul. All four charges were vague, particularly the first, that he was a pest, and the second that he was a mover of sedition. Vague charges were preferred, for he knew they could not be easily disproved as plain definite charges often can be.

The third and fourth charges were a little more definite. The fourth, as to profaning the temple was false, as the previous chapter showed: the third was the only one with some semblance of truth. He had proved himself a leader amongst the Christians, who were known by the Jews as the sect of the Nazarenes. They were indeed followers of the despised Nazarene, but they were emphatically not just a new sect amongst the Jews. The book of Acts was written to show us they were not this but rather something entirely new. The world never understands any genuine work of God.

Tertullus took care to present the action of Lysias in an unfavourable light, since he had baulked the violence of the Jews; and the Jews supported the assertions of their advocate. The Jews supplied the animus and used the Gentile as their tool, as they did in the case of the Lord.

Pauls answer was in every way a contrast to the oration of Tertullus. He acknowledged that Felix had had many years experience as judge among the Jews, but he refrained from flattery. He avoided vague assertions, denying explicitly any disputations and sedition, and pointing out that only twelve days had elapsed from the moment he had set foot in Jerusalem. He showed that while they had made plenty of accusations they had furnished no proofs, and could not do so. Then by making a plain and simple confession of what had characterized him, and what lay really at the bottom of their hostility, he threw into relief that which lay at the foundation of the Gospel that he preached. They called it heresy, but it was the very foundation of the truth.

In this skilful way did Paul announce his belief in all that had been written in the Old Testament, and show that all Christian hopes are based upon the resurrection, which of course has been verified in Christ. And it is just as certain that there shall be a resurrection for the unjust. That was evidently a shot directed at the conscience of Felix, as well as all others present. No one shall remain buried in the grave to escape the mighty hand of God in judgment.

Having proclaimed his faith in the Scriptures and in the resurrection, Paul went on to affirm that his conduct had been in keeping with what he believed. His conscience was clear, and he had only come up to Jerusalem on a mission of mercy, and when in the temple his behaviour had been perfectly orderly and correct. It was the Jews from Asia who stirred up the tumult, not he; and now that there was opportunity for them to present their charges against him in an orderly way, they were not there to do so.

But there were Jews present who had seen him appear before the council, and he knew that they found no fault in him, save that he avowed his belief in the resurrection. Paul knew no doubt that it was the Sadducean faction who were pursuing him so relentlessly and appearing against him, and he took care to make it very plain to Felix that his belief in the resurrection of the dead, as verified in the resurrection of Christ, was the real matter at issue. It may be also that Paul wished to acknowledge that the way in which he had cried out in the council had not been quite free from blame.

Felix, as we learn from verse Act 24:24, had a Jewess as wife, and so was well informed as to things, and realized at once that there was nothing evil in Paul. He adjourned the court under pretext of waiting for Lysias the chief captain, so once more the accusers were foiled, especially as the adjournment was sine die, as our courts put it. Meanwhile Paul was given an extraordinary measure of liberty, in which again we may see the overruling hand of God.

There is no record of Lysias coming down, but we are told how Felix, with Drusilla his wife, sent for Paul and gave him a private audience while he testified of the faith in Christ. This was a great opportunity, and Paul evidently knew the weak and crooked character of the governor, and so he emphasized righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. We may take righteousness as summing up the Gospel message, as Rom 1:16, Rom 1:17, shows so clearly. Temperance or self-restraint is the result of the Gospel in the life of the one who receives it; and judgment to come is what awaits those who refuse it. So though the summary given of Pauls address is exceedingly brief, we can see that the three words are such as cover the salient facts of the Gospel.

There was great power with the message and Felix trembled, yet he deferred the matter to that convenient season, which so often never comes. It was so in this case. Though two years passed before Felix was superseded by Festus, and during that time there were a number of interviews, nothing came of them, and Felix left Paul bound in the effort to curry favour with the Jews. The real canker at the heart of Felix was the love of money. His case strikingly illustrates how there may be a powerful working of the Spirit through the Gospel from without upon a man, but how any working upon heart and conscience within may be smothered by some active lust, such as the love of money. True conversion takes place when the Spirits work from without is supplemented and answered by the Spirits work within.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

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.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Trial of St, Paul at Csarea before FelixTertullus, on the part of the Sanhedrim, accuses the Apostle, 1-9.

Act 24:1. And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders. That is to say, five days after Pauls departure with the armed escort from Jerusalem. Roman usage required that a case referred to the higher tribunal like this should be proceeded with as soon as possible. The high priest himself came in person with some of the sanhedrists, as the case was of great importance to the Sadducee party. Descended, more intelligibly rendered came down, the usual expression when a journey from the high land on which the old capital was built to the low coast district of Csarea is spoken of.

And with a certain orator named Tertullus. The orator or rhetorician was an advocate acquainted with the forms of Roman law, employed by the Sanhedrim to conduct their cases in the governors court at Csarea; the Latin term is orator forensis or causidicus. There were many of these men practising in the provincial governors courts, some of them thus training themselves for the more important contentions of the Forum in Rome (see Ciceros oration for Clius). It has been urged that this address of Tertullus was spoken in the Latin tongue, as originally Latin appears to have been insisted on as the language of the law courts throughout the Empire. But from a passage in Dio Cassius, it seems that under the emperors Greek was permitted, if more convenient to be used, even in Rome itself. It is most improbable that Latin could have been used in a provincial court of Juda; we may therefore conclude with some certainty that the language used on this occasion was Greek. The alleged Latinisms of the speech of Tertullus sprang naturally from the forms of procedure and certain of the technical terms being originally derived from Rome. The name Tertullus is a common one, being a diminutive of Tertius; Tertullianus, the famous Christian lawyer and writer (A.D. 190-200) in North Africa, is another form of the same name as Tertius or Tertullus. Ewald conjectures this lawyer, employed by the Sanhedrim, was one of the Jerusalem synagogue of the Libertines, mentioned in chap. Act 6:9, A.D. 33-34.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 4. (Act 24:1-27; Act 25:1-27; Act 26:1-32.)

Before the world’s tribunal.

1. Before the governor the Jewish charge is quickly estimated at its worth; but that does not end it. Self-interest governs all; though conscience may feebly make its voice heard. As before the Jewish council, the judges are really those that are being judged, although there is no denunciation of judgment, as in the high priest’s case. Christ came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Felix, the “happy,” the first of the two governors with whom we have here to do, does all that man’s will combined with power can do to make good his name. Man turned away from God, and disbelieving His love and care, necessarily cares for himself, and counts it pleasure to do his own will. Violence and corruption went together in him: the two characters of the world at large. His wife Drusilla, who is mentioned presently, a Jewess, and the sister of Agrippa, had been seduced by him from the king of Emesa, her former husband. “With all cruelty and licentiousness,” says the Roman historian, “he exercised the authority of a king in the spirit of a slave.” He was in fact a freedman of Claudius, who had appointed him governor; and through his brother’s influence with the emperor was able to retain his place. By Lysias Paul is presented to him as practically an innocent man; for questions of Jewish law meant little to the heathen. Still, if he were an object of interest to the Jew, the governor might find his own interest in it. His record was not good, and to please the people might be a point of wisdom; not, on the other hand, to give him up to them too easily: there might also be advantage on the other side. This is the way accordingly, in which we find him acting; and we are allowed to see his motives too.

(1) The importance of the prisoner is soon seen by the high priest coming down himself, with some of the elders, and a Latin orator to plead their cause; who with fulsome flattery sets the matter before Felix. “A mover of insurrection” is to appeal to the quick ears of the Roman; “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” shows his importance to themselves. They repeat also the false charge of profanation of the temple, -a matter which he would know was quite competent to cause grave trouble among a people as sensitive in religious externals as were the Jews. By examination the governor might soon convince himself of the truth of what they were saying.

(2) Paul, answering for himself, easily breaks through this web of sophistry. It was but twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem to worship. He had been neither disputing with any, nor making a tumult; and they had no witnesses to produce for the substantiation of their charges! His belonging to what was in their eyes a sect he owns, but a sect of the most perfect orthodoxy according to the law; and he names especially the doctrine of the resurrection (with a probe, perhaps, for the conscience of his judge) of the just and also of the unjust. And with him this was not unpractical creed-holding merely: he exercised himself always to have a conscience void of offence toward God and man.

What resurrection was for the apostle as the basis of Christian confidence and position those that were before him could not be expected to understand. Nor does he go on now to speak of Christ risen, but only urges the power of such a truth as the Roman and the Sadducean Jew alike knew nothing of. But the unjust were to rise, as well as the just. With him it was a sweet and purifying hope; for them what should be a warning of the most solemn character. But what did any of them know about an exercised conscience?

Such however was he; and as they had no witness as to things charged which they knew not, so as to what they did know -his conduct before the council, what complaint could they bring but one that condemned themselves as Jews, that he had declared that with regard to the resurrection of the dead he was called in question?

There was thus no case to decide; except the accusation were itself the proof. The only righteous judgment would be to discharge the prisoner; but that was too simple a solution of the matter for one who knew of nothing so simple as a bribe, and who had heard of alms and offerings for his people that Paul had had in hand. Spite therefore of his accurate knowledge of the “way,” as men styled Christianity (the way indeed of life and peace and holiness), Felix simply defers the case till Lysias should come down, though Lysias, judgment he well knew already, and Lysias does not appear even to have been sent for. Delay until on either side some advantage to be gained by him should help him to see better, -this is for him the only straightforward procedure.

Meanwhile, having no grudge against Paul, and a possible interest in his friends, ministering to him, he has his captivity made as light as possible, and would by no means prevent his friends doing this. God is plainly over it in mercy to His servant, while yet the way out of his prison which Felix would think so easy for him, is absolutely barred.

(3) Nevertheless there is with Felix also a certain desire to hear about the new teaching: and he and Drusilla his wife send for Paul to learn about that faith in Christ Jesus, of which at his trial he had said nothing directly. It were no wonder if he with the life that he had lived should be willing to hear of any way not too costly by which he could be given rest as to a future which for such as he can hardly fail to be more or less a subject of disquiet. But it is no wonder if he find in his quest something graver than he thought. Perhaps he had heard that here was a hope for sinners, though without any real apprehension as to the meaning of sin. Here then is his need; and Paul reasons with him of righteousness and temperance and judgment about to come, until the miserable man is frightened.* But he does not yield. The cost is greater than he supposed; he must consider it well, and will not come to any hasty decision. He had adjourned Paul’s case; he can adjourn his own: “For the present go thy way,” he concludes; “when I can get an opportunity, I will call thee again:” -too common an escape to elicit much wonder, though Felix’ words have become an every-day quotation. Opportunities come and go; the preacher is at his elbow, and he even sends for him, with an ulterior purpose in it of winning a bribe; but, of course, in vain: the preacher is incorruptible, like divine justice; for two years this goes on; at the end of which he is succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, he leaves Paul bound!

{*It is hardly necessary to add that the subject matter of Paul’s discourse here is personal righteousness, not “the righteousness of God.” Righteous was what Felix was not, nor temperate -therefore judgment to come was all he could look forward to. Well might he tremble. There is no account of what else Paul said, more specifically concerning the faith, it is enough to know Felix refused this testimony; how could he receive the gospel? -S.R.}

2. Another governor appears in Festus, a name singularly akin to Felix and which means “festive, joyous.” The world keeps holiday while the saints suffer. More respectable in character than Felix, he is yet not above desiring to do the Jews a favor at the expense of justice. The chief priests and elders would still get rid by foul means of one against whom they can establish nothing, and solicit Festus that he may be brought to Jerusalem for trial, intending to waylay and kill him on the road. But Festus, guided of God, whatever was his own motive, decides that having been taken to Caesarea, he shall remain there, and his accusers bring their charges against him there. The trial is a mere repetition of the former one, with the same utter lack of proof. But here the governor’s anxiety to please the Jews is shown, even while he knows, as Paul declares, that he had done them no wrong. Paul therefore appeals, according to his right as a Roman citizen, to Caesar’s own judgment and his appeal is admitted. The scene is to shift once more, and the Lord’s words to him are to be fulfilled: he is to testify to Him at Rome.

Another question, difficult to answer, has been raised here: Was this appeal according to the mind of God? It is certain that Festus and Agrippa unite to declare a short time after, that it was the only thing that hindered his being set free. This might be looked at as simply the excuse of one who did not want to take the responsibility himself of setting him free, but that it is Agrippa says it. Paul certainly had the assurance also from the Lord that he was to testify at Rome; so that he need not have apprehended anything from the plotting of the Jews. On the other hand, if he were to testify at Rome as at Jerusalem, did not this appeal, in virtue of which he was in fact taken there, seem to him perhaps only the acting in accordance with the divine will? How shall we decide that it was lack of faith, or lack of wisdom on the part of one who surely exceeded any of us in both respects, and who was in the circumstances as we are not, with more perfect knowledge of all that was implied?

If an appeal to Caesar were in itself contrary to Christian principle, then, of course, to make it could not be right under any circumstances, or whoever did it. Nor have we any reason to conclude that it was impossible for an apostle to go seriously astray, as we know Peter did. But, as already noticed, Paul elsewhere fully accepts the “powers that be” as those appointed of God to be the ministers of God for good to men, and there seems no difficulty really in his using them for that. If we know not his motive, in the case of one such as he was, it is merely justice to accredit him with the highest.

3. Before the council of the Jews, and in the two presentations of their charges against him, we do not see Paul free as usual to proclaim his theme. He is hindered by the dogged opposition of those he is meeting, and does little more than repel the accusations made against him. We are now, however, once more to hear him proclaim the grace of which he has been the subject, and before a Jewish king also, the last that was to be before they should be scattered over the face of the earth.

Festus, who is in perplexity as to what to signify concerning him when he is sent to Caesar, takes advantage of the coming of Agrippa to learn more than he has yet been able to do of one about whom the heads of the nation are so much excited, and yet whose main crime seems but to be believing that a man known to have died is alive. Resurrection seems to him to be too foolish a superstition for him to permit himself to say, “alive again.”

Agrippa, a Jew, is expert in all such questions; and to him therefore he narrates the case that gives him difficulty, which Felix has left upon his hands. Agrippa is interested in another manner, and would be glad to hear the man himself. Festus answers at once that he shall hear him; and a. public audience is given next day before which Paul shall plead his cause. Little they think of what it means for all there, the hearing they shall give to this poor prisoner!

Paul narrates his conversion, very much as he had narrated it to the crowd before the castle-stairs. The value of it is seen in the threefold account which is thus given us in this inspired book where every word is measured. The differences in these several narratives are not great, and in the last two have respect to the very different audience on each occasion. Agrippa is tolerant and not uninterested, with an air of candor, and an expert in all Jewish questions. Scandalous suspicions attached to his life; yet he was the guardian of the temple, and the high priestly office was in his appointment. Paul addresses him with confidence in his knowledge, and in his belief also in the prophets, while the issue shows a certain effect of the apostle’s words upon him, a certain accessibility to conviction, of which he appears himself aware, while he shrinks from it.

Behind him Festus is no bad representative of the Roman of his day, sceptical as the mass were, and proud as they could hardly help being. These two not inaptly stood forth as types of the world of that day, in which the cross was to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness, -little as Festus might have in him of the Greek philosopher, whom the apostle in the passage quoted had especially before him.

Behind these again were the heads in war and peace, the chief captains and magistrates, and all the parade and pomp which as needful to his dignity show man to be so little. The prisoner before them is to answer for himself. With him one soon sees that that is the least part of what he thinks of, though this necessarily gives the form to his address; but his testimony as he tells them before long, is very different from any testimony to himself. He is heaven’s ambassador, though in bonds; their own condition and not his is that which moves him. Upon him the light has shone which transfigures all things; while they are in the darkness, needing to be turned from it to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. Not that there is menace upon his lips, but persuasion: he is beseeching men in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to God.

The form of his address only adds to its effectiveness; with the chain upon his wrist, the guerdon that the world has given him for service done to it, the witness to them all of how fully he has accepted the costs of his great office. They may count him mad, but the fire in his eyes is true and steadfast, and fed by no fuel that their world can furnish; -a man who is beyond and inaccessible to them plainly; whose only wish for them -the highest he can wish them -is that they may just be as he is, except those bonds!

He begins with what the Jews in general knew, if only they cared to testify as to it, that he had been himself a Pharisee, one of the strictest sect in Judaism, the zealots of their religion. Now he was being judged, and by Jews! for the very hope which was their national one, secured by the promise of God unto their fathers, and which all their* twelve tribes confessed as their own; earnestly serving God in this assurance! How full of self-contradiction is man, and especially the religious man, in whom yet the power of the truth has not broken down the pride of nature, so as to bring into real subjection to it. Christ was indeed the fulfillment of God’s glorious promise, and in a more wonderful way than could have been anticipated by the firmest believer in what was the burden of the prophets. They had slain Him for the very claim He made (in every possible way confirmed) to fulfil this. And when, after the accomplishment of their awful will, the issue proved to have been overruled of God for fullest blessing, and His loving mercy, with increased evidence and miraculous attestation, was announced for their acceptance, they had still met it with malignant opposition, and slaughter of the messengers. Why but because they could not humble themselves to receive grace as grace?

{*Paul includes all Israel. Faith never recognizes anything short of God’s thoughts, and Paul here, as James in his epistle, includes all the Israel of God. The nation, to be sure, was scattered and to all appearances irretrievably destroyed, but as Elijah builds God’s altar of 12 stones, so Paul here, speaking for the remnant, looks forward to the restoration of blessing to the nation on the basis of resurrection: “After two days will He revive us in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight” (Hos 6:2). In the Revelation we see the 12,000 sealed from each tribe. -S.R.}

Thus Paul the Pharisee was condemned by Pharisees for faith in the fulfilment of their chiefest hope; his testimony also including that of resurrection, which the Pharisees confessed, and yet refused. But “why,” he asks, “should it be thought an incredible thing by you, if God raiseth the dead?” He appeals against the unbelief which constantly assumes to ground itself upon reason, to reason itself. Admit a God who once created all things, and the credibility of resurrection becomes merely a question of satisfactory testimony to it.

God had overthrown in his own case an opposition which exceeded. With him the call of duty itself urged him against every follower of the Nazarene; and beyond the land he pursued them in his madness to foreign cities. He was the apostle of Jewish hatred, with commission from the religious leaders of the people, when at midday, in the midst of his company, and in active prosecution of his self-sought mission, that took place which had changed all for him henceforth. Heaven from its home of light poured forth a radiance brighter than the sun -brightness not darkness, and not a vision of terror, though human strength collapsed under it; and prostrate on the earth, he heard from the glory revealed One who spoke in the tongue of the old revelation, and to him with familiar knowledge, Himself unknown: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”*

{*This last expression seems to suggest that the goad had been long applied, and that Paul had been resisting. Was not Stephen’s address a goad which Paul had resisted, and his testimony to the Lord’s being at the right hand of God? Surely these and doubtless the patience and the testimonies of many whom he had persecuted were divinely intended as goads for his conscience. But he had resisted all till this overwhelming testimony made it impossible to do so any longer. -S.R.}

How completely is grace joined with the authority which manifestly belongs to the glorious Speaker! and how unanswerable the question which might have been a sentence, but which seeks only the soul’s judgment of itself! Saul can plead, what indeed he afterwards declares to be the only ground upon which mercy could have been shown him, the ignorance which was nevertheless the result of unbelief. “And I said, Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.”

How wondrous a revolution in a few moments of time, from the fanatic pride of the legalist to the consciousness of one who is chief of sinners; from the ardent hunter down of Christians to the earnest disciple of Christ! How must the apostle have questioned, with his eyes upon the assemblage, whether the Lord were not revealing Himself in like manner to some there who were traveling with him as he spoke, to the place of unexpected meeting. And immediately he goes on to declare his commission to all such, as servant of this same Jesus, and witness of the things which then and afterwards he had learned of Him.

The next words define the new place of the Christian, taken out from Israel and from the Gentiles alike, to the latter of whom Paul is distinctly sent. It has been said that Paul was in fact taken out of Israel only, and not out of the nations; and that the thought therefore must be, as in the common version, that of delivering rather; but if he were taken out from Israel, it was important to say that this was not to give him the mere position of a Gentile. There might seem to be but the one or other, but the Christian has another and heavenly place, as on earth simply that of a pilgrim and a stranger. “They are not of the world,” says the Lord of His disciples, “even as I, am not of the world;” and how important for the one sent into it as the messenger of Christ to maintain this.

The purpose of the message is “to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light.” Light is come into the world; and although He who was the Light of it when in it is gone out of it again, rejected by it, yet the light streams now from an open heaven, in principle as Paul saw it. Thus men have only to have their eyes opened to see it too. Here is their responsibility, and here too is their guilt, that they love the darkness as in our Lord’s time, because their deeds are evil. Evil ever craves the cover of darkness; and there is one in the world, -alas, the prince of it, -who is ready effectually to blind the minds of those that believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them (2Co 4:4). So the Lord adds here, “that they may turn from the power of Satan unto God; that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in Me.”

If there were a weary heart under any of those brilliant masks which the apostle’s hearers wore that day, the account with its appealing commentary, the man himself, should surely have touched them. The glory of that grace, with its remission and sanctification -all man’s need met at once by faith in Him who had lifted this Saul the persecutor indeed into another sphere unknown to Jew or Gentile, was a thing unique, and which as yet had lost by repetition nothing of its freshness. He goes on to the effect upon himself, which was as lasting as it was immediate. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision: Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and the nations round were witnesses of that. The effect would be in souls repentant, turning to God, and in works answerable to repentance.

Here was the whole matter for which he was accused; for this the Jews had seized, and would have slain him. Yet what he witnessed was only the fulfilment of what Moses and the prophets said should come: the decision of the question of a Christ that was to suffer, and of His resurrection bringing light to Israel and to the nations.

It should be evident that the apostle does not mean that the revelation made to him was merely within the bounds of the older one. The things that are in his mind are summed up in the two points following, which he names. It is certain that there were mysteries now being revealed which had been kept secret during all time before, as that of the Church as the Body of Christ, which no Old Testament scripture even hints at. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, were already written more than two years when Paul said this. It is not the truth that Christianity is but an illuminated edition of Old Testament revelation; nor is it the truth that the distinctive features of Christianity had not yet been made known. It is not therefore the truth that the apostle means to say this. Both things have been inferred from the closing words here; but both are entirely wrong as to the foundation facts of which Paul is professedly speaking; they are indeed borne witness to by all Scripture from beginning to end.

Festus at this point breaks in with the loud confident voice of one who has heard enough, and is prepared with his verdict. With Roman haughtiness he conceives all this to be the superstition of a Jew, the dream of a man addicted to too much reading. Much learning, to his practical mind, when gained in such by-paths of knowledge, might naturally lead to madness. But Paul replies with a quiet and respectful appeal to the better knowledge of the Jewish king; in whose presence he had been speaking therefore freely. Neither the scriptures nor the facts of the life and death of Jesus could be hid from one so well known for his interest in Jewish affairs as king Agrippa. These things had been done before the whole people, in Jerusalem their chief city, and not in a corner. And the prophets were there to answer for themselves. He concludes by a bold appeal to the king himself to make known the belief which he is sure he has in them: “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.”

Doubtless the apostle saw that a powerful impression had been made upon the king, whose words in answer, with all their lightness, seem to deprecate being pressed further at this time. If on the one hand we cannot take them to be a confession of even half-conviction, yet they do seem a half-apology for saying no more. “With little effort thou art prevailing to make me a Christian,” leaves it still doubtful what a further effort might accomplish. But the more really touched he is, the more he would shrink from showing it before such an assemblage as this, while yet he is not broken down to self-forgetfulness. He seems not to have command enough over himself to say what an orthodox Jew could easily have done, that he does believe the prophets. He puts the whole question off in a way that most would think was simply banter, and which he might be glad to have taken for it, and which yet might be but a nervous plea for escape at this time. And the apostle sends after him in his retreat that memorable sigh of prayer, large enough to enfold the whole company among whom he would fain be hidden, “I would to God that with little effort or much, not only thou, but all that have heard me this day might become such as I also am, -except these bonds!”

No more effectual pleading could there be, with Agrippa as with all beside, than just this overflow of a heart so full that it cares to hide nothing! so pledged to and joyous in the truth to which it is pledged, that it need not and cannot refrain from the outpouring of its delight, in the longing that all men might share with him the plenteous blessing which chains could not restrain, though he could not wish these to any! There is no need to come between it and the reader with a comment which might rather lessen than bring home the power of that which interprets itself as the spontaneous testimony to a heart that divine grace has at once enlarged and filled to the overflow. The effect is immediate. The king rises up, as if he would not care to face a longer audience; and the whole company is dispersed. It is not saying too much, certainly, according to the evidence, but if the people are to be considered who pronounce the judgment, it is yet a testimony to the truth, that “they spake one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.” Agrippa adds to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” But who knows? Agrippa might safely say this: he was not governor of a people so well able to make trouble for him, as the men of Judea might prove to be for Festus; and if Caesar’s judgment seat were more what Paul calls it afterwards, “the mouth of the lion,” than the abode of justice, all the more would the Roman desire that Paul should test this rather than himself. There cannot be a doubt that the safe and happy prisoner was better prepared to do so than his judge; his case being after all in higher hands. The appeal was for the governor a not unfortunate circumstance. Paul goes on in peace whither God guides.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

PAUL A PRISONER AT CAESAREA

There are three dignitaries of the Roman Empire before whom Paul now has a hearing Felix, Festus and Agrippa.

The circumstances in the first instance show the great importance the Jewish leaders attached to the matter, since the high priest himself journeyed to Caesarea as an accuser of Paul, bringing with him not only a number of the elders but a Roman lawyer (Act 24:1). The latters indictment of Paul contains three counts, that of a political plotter, a religious heretic, and a violator of the temple (Act 24:5-6). Paul denies the first, admits the second, and challenges evidence of the third (Act 24:12-20). More perfect knowledge of that way (Act 24:22), means that Felix knew much about Christ and Christianity though himself not a follower of the Nazarene.

Drusilla was a sister of Agrippa of whom the next chapter speaks, and a daughter of the Herod who martyred James (chap. 12). She was not a lawful wife of Felix, having deserted her own husband to live with him. Of course the plot to kill Paul when he should return to Jerusalem (Act 25:3), was not known to Festus, which makes it the more remarkable that he decided to keep him in Caesarea, and shows the hand of God in the premises.

Agrippa was king of Chalcis, holding the title by the grace of the Roman Emperor, and Bernice was his sister. The hearing before them was made a great state occasion (Act 25:23). Pauls opening words are courteous and tactful (Act 26:2-3). He reviews his past life as a Pharisee (Act 26:4-11). He recounts once more his heavenly vision, his conversion and commission (Act 26:12-18). The last verse is a remarkably condensed statement of the Gospel, referring to (1) humanitys condition by nature, blinded, darkened and under the power of Satan; (2) the power of divine grace to give liberty and light to him including forgiveness, and an inheritance among the saints; and (3) the instrument of it all faith in Christ. Next, Paul speaks of his unjust treatment at the hands of the Jews, and the protection of God accorded him. The verdict follows in Act 26:30-32.

QUESTIONS

1. Name the Roman dignitaries of this lesson.

2. Give the specifications against Paul.

3. What biographical data can you give about Drusilla?

4. How is the hand of God seen in the action of Festus?

5. Give an exegesis of Act 25:18.

6. What was the verdict of Festus and Agrippa?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Observe here, How Ananias the high-priest, with the elders or heads of the Jewish council at Jerusalem, travel from thence to Cesarea, a great many miles, to inform the governor against St. Paul; After five days Ananias descended, &c.

The devil’s drudges stick at no pains, spare for no cost, in doing his drudgery. A persecuting spirit claps wings to a person, it makes him swift in his motion, and zealous in his application and endeavours.

Observe, 2. How the high-priest carrieth with him one of their most eminent and eloquent advocates, to implead the innocent apostle.

Satan never miscarries in any of his enterprises and wicked designs for want of fit tools to carry them on. He hath his Tertullus, an eloquent orator, ready, who could tune his tongue any way for a large fee. Ananias descended, with a certain orator named Tertullus, &c.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Jews Present the Case Against Paul

After five days, the high priest, elders and an orator, or, as Ash says was the case, an attorney, presented themselves before the governor to bring a formal charge against Paul. The orator, Tertullus, flattered Felix in referring to the peace he had brought the land under Roman authority, while also failing to mention the fact that the governor had been responsible for the murder of the high priest, Jonathan. Tertullus promised to state his case briefly, so as not to infringe on Felix time.

He accused Paul (1) of being a plague, (2) of stirring up rebellion among the Jews throughout the world, (3) of being a ringleader of the Nazarene party among the Jews, and (4) trying to desecrate the temple. He urged Felix to “examine” Paul, which may mean by scourging, without mentioning the apostle’s Roman citizenship. The high priest and elders affirmed the truthfulness of the case presented by their orator ( Act 24:1-9 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 24:1. After five days, Ananias Who would spare no trouble on the occasion; descended To Cesarea, seventy miles from Jerusalem; with several of the elders Members of the sanhedrim. It seems the commander of the horsemen, who brought Paul to Cesarea, was ordered, on his return, to inform the high-priest and elders at Jerusalem of the day which the governor should fix for hearing their accusation, and for trying the prisoner. With a certain orator named Tertullus Whose business it was to open the cause, and to harangue the governor in the most agreeable manner that he could; who That is, all who, as the word implies, not referring to Tertullus only, but to the high-priest and elders also; informed the governor against Paul Advanced a general accusation against him, on which they desired to be more particularly heard.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

XXIV: 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.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Acts Chapter 24

Paul appears before the governors in succession-the Sanhedrim, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and afterwards Caesar. And here, when occasion offers, we have striking appeals to conscience; when his defence is in question, the manly and honest declarations of a good conscience, that rose above the passions and interests that surrounded him. I pass over in silence the worldly egotism which betrays itself in Lysias and Festus, by their assumption of all sorts of good qualities and good conduct; the mixture of awakened conscience and absence of principle in the governors; the desire to please the Jews for their own importance, or to facilitate their government of a rebellious people; and the contempt felt by those who were not as responsible as Lysias for the public tranquillity. The position of Agrippa and all the details of the history have a remarkable stamp of truth, and present the various characters in so living a style that we seem to be in the scenes described. We see the persons moving in it. This moreover strikingly characterises the writings of Luke.

Other circumstances claim our attention. Festus, in order to please the Jews, proposed to take Paul to Jerusalem. But Rome was to have its share in the rejection of the gospel of grace, of the testimony to the assembly; and Paul appeals to Caesar. Festus must therefore send him thither, although embarrassed to know what crime he is to charge him with in sending him. Sad picture of mans injustice! But everything accomplishes the purposes of God. In the use of the means Paul succeed no better than in his attempt to satisfy the Jews. It was perhaps to the eye of man his only resource under the circumstances; but the Holy Ghost is careful to inform us that he might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar.

In Agrippa there was, I believe, more curiosity than conscience, though there may have been some desire to profit by the occasion to know what the doctrine was which had so stirred up peoples minds, a disposition to inquire which was more than curiosity. In general his words are taken as if he was not far from being convinced that Christianity was true: perhaps he would have been so if his passions had not stood in the way. But it may be questioned whether this is the force of the Greek, as generally supposed, and not, rather, In a little you are going to make a Christian of me, covering his uneasiness at the appeal to his professed Judaism before Festus, by an affected and slighting remark. And such I believe to be the case. The notion of an almost Christian is quite a mistake, though a mans mind may be under influences which ought to lead him to it, and yet reject it. He would have been glad for Paul to be set free. He expressed his conviction that it might have been done if he had not appealed to Caesar. He gives his opinion to Festus as a wise and reasonable man; but his words were in reality dictated by his conscience-words that he could venture to utter when Festus and all the rest were agreed that Paul had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

Act 24:1. After five days, Ananias descended with the elders; to intimidate the governor, and ensure the destruction of Paul, as they had done with Pilate in regard of the Saviour. They lost no time, being determined on his death. It was but twelve days, as in Act 24:11, from his coming to Jerusalem to his trial in Csarea, a port not forty miles north-west of Jerusalem. They took with them Tertullus, a Roman orator, to impeach Paul. Such lawyers were found in most courts, to acquaint them with Roman laws, and assist in correspondence with the senate. He understood his profession; he flattered Felix, he impeached Paul as exciting the jews to sedition, and profaning the temple by bringing an uncircumcised Greek into the inner courts, and as being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Act 24:10. Then Paul answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself. This is a concession of truth, destitute of flattery; it is a word of confidence, a great thing when a man is tried for his life, and that he should have the judge on his side. Paul, by a bold stroke of eloquence, not only denies all the charges, but he fully proves the contrary. Of the twelve days he had been in the country, since his arrival from Greece, he had spent about five in the temple, paying his vows; and not disputing with any man, nor exciting any tumult. What a conclusive argument: and no witness to prove the contrary. And by the bye, it proves that the church in Jerusalem, foreseeing the storm, had given him good advice to purify himself after so long a residence in gentile lands.

Act 24:14. But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers; and to a Roman, the sects of judaism might not appear, as one more faulty than another. The word , properly called sect, Act 24:5, designates an opinion, which a man irreclaimably follows, be it good or bad, right or wrong. In some places however it designates opinions repugnant to revelation. 1Co 11:19. Gal 5:20. 2Pe 2:1. It is also used for sectarians. Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 28:22.

Believing all things in the law and the prophets. Paul did not allow himself to be a heretic in doctrine. He names both the law and the prophets, as Christ had often done before, to show that he made the canonical scriptures the guide of his faith, and spake as the oracles of God; and as yet, the christians had made no schism with the Hebrew altar.

Act 24:17. Now after [an absence of] many years, I came to bring alms to my nation; and like all other sincere worshippers, offerings for the altar. All this demonstrates a fair and religious character. Felix well knew the great poverty of the lower orders of people in Jerusalem. Tertullus, by overcharging Paul, had enhanced the excellence of his character, and drawn it forth in self-defence.

Act 24:20-21. Let these same say, if they have found any evil doing in me except it be for this one voice that I cried, and no doubt he had cried with great emphasis, touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. St. Paul said this to anticipate an objection which the sadducees might have made against that vociferation. To anticipate is often equivalent to the disarming of an adversary.

Act 24:22. When Felix heard these things, he prudently deferred the matter. He wished to enquire whether the existence of the sect of the Nazarenes was a violation of the jewish law, and by consequence, whether it infringed on any grant of the Romans to allow them the full enjoyment of their religious rites; but especially whether the allegations were true, that Paul had excited tumult. The Romans mostly treated state prisoners with fairness and honour.

Act 24:24. After certain days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a jewess. Felix, a Roman, was viceroy, or king of the jews. He had formerly been a slave, but was freed, and advanced to the regal dignity by Claudius the emperor. Tacitus, lib. Act 1:5, calls him eques Romanus, a Roman knight, or one of the three orders in Rome, betwixt the senators and the common people, to whom Claudius had entrusted the province; and adds, that, per omnem svitiam, et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit. He exercised the imperial functions with a mercenary soul, and practised all manner of injustice and cruelty. St. Luke confirms this account by adding, he hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: Act 24:26. Josephus records an instance of his voluptuousness in his marriage with Drusilla, a princess of great personal beauty. She was the third daughter of Herod Agrippa, and sister of the younger Agrippa, who afterwards sat on Pauls case for a third hearing, the fame of his character, learning, and eloquence having spread through the Roman courts of Asia. Drusilla had been betrothed in early life to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Comagena; but the marriage never took place, in consequence of Epiphanes having refused to fulfil the stipulated condition of embracing the jewish religion. She was afterwards married to Azizus, king of Emesenes, who to obtain her hand, submitted to circumcision. Felix having seen her, became so enamoured of her beauty, that he employed Simon, a magician of Cyprus, to seduce her from her husband, and afterwards married her. Josephus, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 7. Suetonius informs us that Felix was three times married; and it would appear that two of his wives were named Drusilla. Drusilla Antonii et Cleopatr nepte in matrimonium accepta. He took in marriage Drusilla, the niece, or granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. Tacit. lib. 5. cap. 9.

Act 24:25. As he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled. See the eloquent reflections below, translated from Saurin.

Act 24:27. But after two years Felix, willing to show the jews a pleasure, left Paul bound. So in all, Paul suffered four years imprisonment, besides the long time occupied in a very disastrous voyage. The ship was wrecked, the cargo lost.

REFLECTIONS.

SAURIN exceeds all the preachers I have found on the subject of Pauls discourse before Felix: I have therefore translated the following remarks from his sermon.

Paul preached before Felix and Drusilla, of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. Felix was covetous, luxurious, and governor of Judea. Paul selected three subjects, correspondent to these characteristics. Addressing an avaricious man, he treated of righteousness. Addressing the governor of Judea, one of those persons who think themselves independent and responsible to none but themselves for their conduct, he treated of a judgment to come.

My brethren, when a man preaches for popularity, instead of seeking the glory of Christ, he seeks his own; he selects subjects calculated to display his talents, and flatter his audience. Does he preach before a professed infidel, he will expatiate on morality, and be ashamed to pronounce the venerable words, covenant satisfaction. Does he address an antinomian audience, who would be offended were he to enforce the practical duties of religion; he makes every thing proceed from election, reprobation, and the irresistibility of grace. Does he preach in the presence of a profligate court, he will enlarge on the liberty of the gospel, and the clemency of God. He has the art, (a most detestable art, but too well understood in all ages of the church) he has the art of uniting his interests and his ministry. A political preacher endeavours to accommodate his preaching to his passions. Minister of Christ, and minister of his own interests, to express myself with this apostle, he makes a gain of godliness. On this principle, had Felix expressed a desire to understand the gospel, St. Paul had a favourable opportunity of paying his court in a delicate manner. The christian religion has a gracious aspect towards every class of men. He might have discussed some of those subjects which would have flattered the governor. He might have discoursed on the dignity of princes, and on the relation they have to the supreme Being. He might have said, that the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain. Rom 13:4. That the Deity himself has said, ye are gods, and ye are all the children of the Most High. Psa 82:6. But all this adulation, all this finesse, were unknown to our apostle. He sought the passions of Felix in their source; he forced the sinner in his last retreat. He boldly attacked the governor with the sword of the Spirit, and with the hammer of the word. Before the object of his passion, and the subject of his crime, before Drusilla, he treated of temperance. When Felix sent for him to satiate his avarice, he talked of righteousness. While the governor was in his highest period of splendour, he discoursed of a judgment to come. Saurin next makes a find apostrophe to the court preachers of Louis 14. who had solicited the persecution of the Protestants, and banished all the ministers.

Preachers of the court, confessors to princes, pests of the public, who are the chief promoters of the present persecution, and the cause of our calamities! Oh that I could animate you by the example of St. Paul, and make you blush for your degeneracy and turpitude. My brethren, you know a prince: and would to God we knew him less. But let us respect the lustre of the diadem; let us venerate the Lords anointed in the person of our enemy. Examine the discourses delivered in his presence, read the sermons pompously entitled, Sermons preached before the king, and see those other publications dedicated to the perpetual conqueror, whose battles were so many victories, terrible in war, adorable in peace. You will there find nothing but flattery and applause. Whoever struck, in his presence, at ambition and luxury? Whoever ventured there to maintain the rights of the widow and the orphan? Who, on the contrary, has not magnified the greatest crimes into virtues; and by a species of idolatry before unknown, made Jesus Christ himself subservient to the vanity of a mortal man?

Oh, but St. Paul would have preached in a different manner! Before Felix, before Drusilla, he would have said, that fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Then speaking of the wicked in our own age he adds,

It behoves the ministers of Christ to maintain the dignity of their character. Never had orators a finer field for commanding attention. Never were subjects susceptible of a more grave and manly eloquence, than those which we discuss. They have motives the most powerful to press, and passions the most predominant to move. They have an eternity of glory to promise, and an eternity of misery to announce. They are ambassadors of a potentate, in whose presence all the kings of the earth are but as the small dust of the balance. Behold St. Paul, fully impressed with the grandeur of his mission. He forgot the majesty of Felix. He did more, he made him forget himself. He made him receive admonition with reverence. He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come.

Ministers of Jesus Christ, here is our tutor, who prepares us for the sanctuary. And you christians, here is our apology. You complain when we interfere with the shameful secrets of your vice: consider St. Paul. He is the model God has set before us. He requires us to speak with freedom and force; to exhort in season, and out of season; to thunder in our pulpits, to go even to your houses, and disturb that fatal security which the sinner enjoys in the commission of his crimes. He requires us to say to the revenue officers, exact no more than what is appointed; to the soldiers, do violence to no man, and be content with your wages; to Herod, it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother Philips wife. Luk 3:12-14. You are not higher than Felix, neither are we in chains like St. Paul. But though we were yet more deeply abased; and though the character we sustain seemed to you more vile; and though to the rank of jewish governor you shall superadd that of Roman emperor, and sovereign of the world; despising all this vain parade, we would maintain the majesty of our Master. So St. Paul conducted himself before Felix and Drusilla. He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come.

But who can here supply the brevity of the historian, and report the whole of what the apostle said to Felix on these important points? It seems to me in the reverie of thought, that I hear him enforcing these important truths he has left us in his works, and placing in the fullest lustre those divine maims interspersed in our scriptures.

He reasoned of righteousness. There he maintained the rights of the widow, and the orphan. He made it evident that kings and magistrates are established to maintain the rights of the people, and not to indulge their own caprice.

He reasoned of temperance. There he would paint the licentious effects of voluptuousness. There he would demonstrate how opposite this propensity is to the spirit of the gospel, which everywhere enjoins retirement, mortification, and self-denial. He would show how it degrades the finest characters, who have suffered it to predominate. Intemperance renders the mind incapable of reflection. It debases the heart. It debilitates the understanding. It unnerves the soul. He would demonstrate the meanness of a man called to preside over a great people, who should expose his foibles to public view; not having resolution to conceal, much less to vanquish them. With Drusilla, he would make human motives supply the defects of divine; with Felix, he would make divine motives supply the defects of human. He would make this imprudent woman feel that nothing on earth is more odious than a woman destitute of honour; that modesty is an appendage of the sex; that an attachment, uncemented by virtue, cannot long subsist; that those who receive illicit favours are the first, according to the fine remark of a sacred historian, to detest the indulgence. The hatred wherewith Amnon, son of David, hated his sister after the gratification of his brutal passion, was greater than the love wherewith he loved her. 2Sa 13:15. He would make Felix perceive, that however the depravity of the age might seem to tolerate a criminal intercourse with the sex; with God, who has called us all to equal purity, the crime was not less heinous.

He reasoned, in short, of a judgment to come: and here he would magnify his ministry. The idea of a future state, the solemnities of a general judgment supply our weakness. St. Paul enforced this motive; he proved its reality, he delineated its lustre, he displayed its pomp. He resounded in the ears of Felix the noise, the voices, and the trumpets. He showed him the small and the great, the rich man and Lazarus, Felix the favourite of Csar, and Paul the captive of Felix, awoke by that awful voice: Arise, ye dead, and come to judgment.

But let us not be precipitate in commending the apostles preaching. Its encomiums will best appear by attending to its effects on the mind of Felix. Jerome wished, concerning a preacher of his time, that the tears of his audience might compose the eulogy of his sermons. We shall find in the fears of Felix occasion to applaud the eloquence of our apostle. We shall find that his discourses were thunder and lightning in the congregations, as the Greeks used to say concerning one of their orators. While St. Paul preached, Felix felt indescribable emotions in his mind. The recollection of his past life, the sight of his present sins; Drusilla, the object of his passion, and subject of his crime; the courage of St. Paul all terrified him. His heart burned within him, while that disciple of Jesus Christ expounded the scriptures. The word of God was quick and powerful. The apostle, armed with the two-edged sword, dividing the soul, the joints, and the marrow, carried conviction to the heart. Felix trembled, adds our historian: Felix trembled.

What a surprising scene, my brethren, is here presented to your view. The governor trembled, and the captive spoke without dismay: the captive made the governor tremble. The governor shivered in the presence of the captive. It would not be surprising, brethren, if we should make an impression on your hearts; and we shall do so indeed, if our ministry is not as usual a sound of empty words. This sanctuary, these solemnities, these groans, this silence, these arguments, these efforts all aid our ministry, and unite to convince and persuade you. But here is an orator destitute of these extraneous aids: behold him without any ornament, but the truth he preached. What do I say, that he was destitute of extraneous aids? See him in a situation quite the reverse; a captive loaded, with irons, standing before his judge. Yet he made Felix tremble.

See my translation of vol. 7. of this great mans sermons.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Act 24:1-9. Hearing before Felix: Speech for the Prosecution.It would take five days (1) for the summons of Lysias (Act 23:30) to be acted on, and the prosecutors to travel down. The High Priest and some elders appear, to sustain a judgment they have not yet passed (cf. Act 24:6-8 mg., which may well be the true text) with an orator acquainted with the practice of Roman courts. Information is laid against Paul; Paul is called before the court, or the case is called in court (Act 24:2), and counsel appears for the prosecution. His speech is given in short; his compliments to the procurator (who had in truth done much to suppress piracy; what other evils we do not know), his desire to be brief, then the charge and the suggestion that the facts will come out in the examination of Paul himself. The charge is that of sedition, disturbance of order, and an offence against the Temple. He is a pest; he has created disorder all over the world; he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

The Jews did not delay long just taking enough time (5 days) to make plans by which to influence Felix against Paul. The high priest and elders of the people came down, bringing with them an orator named Tertullus, whose name means “triple-hardened.” He took the lead in speaking, beginning his flowery discourse by flattering Felix contrarily to what he, or any of the Jews would have done behind the governor’s back. He speaks of Israel enjoying great quietness through the authority of Felix, yet it had been they who had disquieted Jerusalem in their violence against Paul.

He first makes three charges against Paul personally, and then one charge that he had “gone about to profane the temple.” Of course the first three charges cannot even be considered by a court of justice. They considered Paul to be a pest. What difference would this make to a judge? They said he was a mover of sedition. But they have not one specific act of sedition to lay to his charge. They claimed that he was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” But this means nothing unless he had done something unlawful. The fourth charge does refer to his actions, but only that he had “gone about to profane the temple,” not even that he had actually profaned it. In Chapter 21:28 the Asian Jews had charged Paul with actually polluting the temple. By this time Tertullus had probably learned that this could not be substantiated, yet he realized he ought to have some charge against Paul, therefore put it in this indefinite way. He did not say that Paul may have brought a Gentile into the temple, for the Gentile Felix would hardly consider this a charge at all! The only thing that the Jews could count on having any effect at all on Felix was the smooth speech of Tertullus.

He adds a plain falsehood, that the Jews had taken Paul with the intention of trying him according to their law. They were beating him, hoping to kill him, when Lysias rescued him from them, though Tertullus claimed that it was Lysias who had used great violence! He ends his discourse by saying that Felix will find by examining Paul that the accusations he made were true. The Jews, ignoring any qualms of conscience, gave their word that these charges were true.

Of course Felix realized that there was virtually nothing about which it was necessary to examine Paul, for Tertullus had brought no definite charge that Paul had broken the law. However, the governor then gave Paul permission to speak. He did not at all flatter Felix, but told him he could more cheerfully speak for himself since Felix had for many years been a judge appointed over Israel, therefore would know something of the nation’s culture, etc.

Only twelve days previously he said he had come to Jerusalem to worship. He had not been found in the temple even disputing with anyone, nor raising up the people either in the synagogues or in the city. As to the Jews’ charges he said that they could produce no confirmation of them. However, he confessed what was the actual reason for their hostility, the fact that he worshiped the God of his (and their) fathers in a way they called heresy, believing all things written in the law and the prophets, and specifically having unquestioned hope toward God as regards the truth of the resurrection of the dead, both just and unjust, which in fact the Pharisees themselves professed to believe. He did not come out clearly to speak of his confession of Christ nor of his preaching Christ, which was the direct cause of the Jews being inflamed against him; but of course these things were rooted in the law and the prophets of which he spoke, and which the Jews claimed to believe. In defense of himself he adds that he exercised himself to always have a conscience honest and unoffensive as regards both God and man.

Now he says that after many years of absence from Jerusalem he had come to bring alms and offerings to his own nation. Rom 15:25-28 speaks of this, though no doubt Paul also desired to win the Jews to the Lord. But Jews from Asia, finding him in the temple, not engaged in any contention or controversy, had initiated his arrest. As Paul insists, these were the men who should be present to advance their charges against him. Or, let the Jews then present declare if they had found any criminal reason in Paul for arresting him, when he had stood before their council, unless it could be in his declaration, “Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you.”

After hearing both Tertullus and Paul, Felix ought to have had no difficulty in dismissing the case immediately, for the accusations themselves were of no significance to a court of law, but he delayed this by saying that when he conferred with Lysias he would have more full knowledge of the case. He did however put Paul into the care of a centurion, with instructions to allow him comparative liberty with full visitation privileges. Nothing more is said of Lysias coming down, and Felix shows no concern to free an innocent man. He may have given Paul such liberty because hoping for a bribe from him, as was the case later at least (v.26).

However, he had some interest in Paul and his teaching, possibly awakened through his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. Fausset’s Bible Encyclopedia reports that Felix had seduced her from her husband (Ps.229). It may be that Felix agreed that he and his wife should listen to Paul with the very intention of inducing Paul to bribe him. Still, God gave this opportunity to Paul to preach Christ with particular emphasis on righteousness, self-control and judgment to come. It was this that was needed to strike the conscience of this irresponsible man, and at least it produced such fear as to make him tremble. Yet neither fear nor conscience in him was sufficient to overcome the greed that still wanted money from Paul.

Politely he indicates to Paul his decision to procrastinate, for at the time it was evident that he preferred his sinful life-style to Christ. Yet he very often sent for Paul to talk with him, not because he had a concerned conscience, but a concerned lust for money. No doubt he remembered that Paul had said he came to Jerusalem to bring alms to his nation, and Felix was not averse to receiving alms. Two years of this unrighteous imprisonment passed by and Felix still left Paul bound when he was replaced by Festus. He did this merely to ingratiate the Jews.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

Descended; to Cesarea.–Orator, advocate. Tertullus, judging from his name, was a Roman: and he was employed probably on account of his acquaintance with the language and forms of procedure used at the Roman tribunals.

Acts 24:2,3. Contemporaneous history represents Felix as base and tyrannical, though efficient in his government. The obsequiousness of this orator’s introduction contrasts strongly with the honest dignity of that of Paul. (Acts 24:10.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

24:1 And {1} after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and [with] a certain orator [named] Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

(1) Hypocrites, when they can not do what they want to do by force and deceit, at length they go about to accomplish it by a show of law.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The presentation of charges against Paul 24:1-9

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

The heat of the Jews’ hatred of Paul is obvious from their speedy trip to Caesarea. The five days seem to describe the period from Paul’s arrest in the temple courtyard to this trial (cf. Act 24:11; Act 21:27). The Jews’ antagonism is also clear in that Ananias himself made the trip, and Paul’s accusers had hired a special attorney to present their case. Tertullus (a diminutive form of Tertius; Rom 16:22) was probably a Hellenistic Jew in view of his Roman name, though he could have been a Roman Gentile. "Attorney" is the translation of a Greek word that appears only here in the New Testament (rhetoros), which means a lawyer who was especially skillful in oratory.

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