Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 24:10

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:

10 21. St Paul’s answer to the charge

10. Then Paul, &c.] When the governor had given him leave to speak the Apostle addressed his defence to the points charged against him. He had not excited the people, nor been the leader of any body of Nazarenes, nor had he polluted the temple.

thou hast been of many years a judge ] We have arrived in the history at about a.d. 58 or 59, and Felix had been made procurator in a.d. 52. So that “many years” is about six or seven. But many of the governors were recalled before they had held office so long. In Act 24:17 “many years” must be about four or five.

I do the more cheerfully, &c.] The best MSS. have the positive, “I cheerfully make my defence.” St Paul was so far of good courage, because the experience of Felix, and his knowledge of Jewish manners and customs, would enable him to appreciate the statements which related to the Apostle’s presence in Jerusalem.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Had beckoned unto him to speak – Either by a nod or by the hand,

Hast been of many years – Felix and Cumanus had been joint governors of Judea; but after Cumanus had been condemned for his bad administration of affairs, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix. This was about seven years before Paul was arraigned, and might be called many years, as he had been long enough there to become acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews; and it might also be called long in comparison with the short time which his immediate predecessors had held the office. See Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapters 7 and 7.

A judge – This word is evidently used here in the sense of magistrate, or one appointed to administer the affairs of government. To determine litigated matters was, however, one part of his office. It is remarkable that Paul did not begin his speech, as Tertullus had done, by any flattering address, or by any of the arts of rhetoric. He founded his plea on the justice of his cause, and on the fact that Felix had had so much experience in the affairs of Judea that he was well qualified to understand the merits of the case, and to judge impartially. Paul was well acquainted with his character (see the notes on Act 24:25), and would not by flattering words declare what was not strictly true.

I do the more cheerfully … – Since you are so well acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews, I the more readily submit the case to your disposal. This address indicated great confidence in the justice of his cause, and was the language of a man bold, fearless, and conscious of innocence.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 24:10-21

Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered.

Pauls defence before Felix

Note–

I. The Christianity of old Judaism. The apostle–

1. Worshipped the Jews God. So worship I the God of my fathers. He propounded no new Divinity.

2. Believed in the Jews Scriptures. In all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. He not only did not reject them; through Christ he saw them in a new and higher light.

3. Believed in the Jews resurrection (Act 24:15). The resurrection, which was dimly seen by the Hebrews, he saw in clear reality through the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is Judaism ripened into fruit, and brightened into noon.

II. The characteristics of a great man.

1. He is not ashamed of an unpopular cause (Act 24:14). All new sects have been heretics, seceders, schismatics. Thus Luther and Calvin were rank heretics in the eyes of Rome; the Puritans and Methodists in the eyes of the Episcopal Church. Thus every new offshoot is a sect, a heresy from the old stock. Providence permits all this refinement from age to age in order that the Church at last might be without spot or blemish.

2. His highest aim is moral rectitude (Act 24:16). Note here–

(1) The greatest power in man. Conscience is not so much a faculty, a law, or a function of the soul, as its very essence, the moral self. That which connects us with moral government, constitutes our responsibility, and originates our weal or our woe. As is a mans conscience, so is he. The New Testament attaches immense importance to conscience; no less than thirty times is it mentioned. Wherever he went Paul sought to commend himself to every mans conscience in the sight of God.

(2) The divinest condition of man. What is this? To have a conscience void of offence, i.e., not striking against stumbling stones. It is formed from that verb in Psa 91:1-16 (as quoted in our Lords temptation), In their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy toot against a stone. St. Paul desires to have a conscience free from collision with rocks impeding its course. The conscience, not the life only, must be kept void of offence. He would be able to say, I know nothing by [against] myself. The two chief departments of this unstumbling conscience correspond to the two great divisions of human duty–toward God and toward man. The apostle does not say he has gained this blessed condition, but it was his grand aim. When a mans conscience gets into this state, he has reached the true blessedness of his being. A good conscience is heaven.

(3) The chief work of man–to get into this state. Herein do I exercise myself by methodical and systematic effort. The greatest work that a man has to do is with his moral self. Paul felt this; his outward battles were as nothing compared to those that he fought on the arena of his own soul. So fight I as not beating the air.

3. He is frank in explanation of himself. The apostle now reverts to the purpose of his journey to Jerusalem, and to the charge as having come as a mover of sedition.

(1) That his recent visit to the metropolis, after many years, was a benevolent one (verse 17).

(2) That he was found in the temple by certain Jews from Asia purified, not gathering a multitude and creating a tumult, and that those Jews who found him there ought to have been present (verses 18-21). (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul before Felix

In this straightforward narrative two characters are disclosed in sharp contrast. The outlines of each are made distinct by the presence of the other. Paul is the embodiment of moral strength. He shows the manly vigour of an ideal Christian. Each spectacle is valuable. The example of Paul attracts to an earnest and courageous Christian life; the example of Felix repels from a career of sin.

I. Paul, the strong servant of God. Paul stood before the highest tribunal in Judaea. His accusers were his own countrymen, his judge was an unprincipled Roman. According to Tacitus, Felix exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave. Drusilla was another mans wife whom he bad enticed from her husband. Jonathan, the high priest, had ventured to remonstrate with this immoral ruler, and forthwith assassins sought out the reprover and struck him down in the sanctuary. It required fortitude for an accused Jew to be calm before Felix the unrighteous. Of justice for Paul there was no hope; a low self-interest would shape this judges decision. Paul had no Tertullus to speak for him; he made no plea for clemency, but boldly maintained his innocence. Here was genuine courage. Before this example of heroism all shivering cowardice in the Lords service should loathe itself. Something braver than running to a hiding place when threatened is expected of true Christians. Christ is not satisfied merely with our repentance and submission. He would arouse us to lofty and Divine courage. Be not afraid of them that kill the body. The example of Paul in the circumstances before us ought to impel us to the active virtues, courage, self-reliance, zeal. We cannot but admire it, and we ought to be moved to imitate what we admire.

1. There is pressing need of such virtues. Sin is about us in force: it must be resisted and put down. Are we to wait motionless for a deliverer? We do ourselves and others a deep wrong when we represent the power of sin, strong as it is, as so great that the soul is helpless before it. Besides this personal struggle against evil, there is an arduous positive work to be done for righteousness on earth. The conflict between good and evil is continually at full heat. Here is the gospel: it must be lived and preached. Multitudes around us wait to be won to God. Earnestness and self-sacrifice must be had for their salvation. What labour, demanding zeal and persistency, is called for to evangelise the world!

2. Such courage and self-reliance are not opposed to reliance on God. Precisely with the men who have self-reliance God elects to work, men who count it but reasonable that they should put their utmost exertion into effort on which they crave the blessing of Heaven. God will bless our efforts if there are any worthy efforts to be blessed. Why the perpetual complaint by Christians of deficiency and weakness? Are Gods people the feeblest folk on earth? Who is not weary of this plaintive cry of feebleness from the lips of Gods saints? Moral strength does not come up in a night even in the heart of a saint. The shout of courage should be oftener heard in our camp. A different ideal of true humility must grow luminous before our imagination. The apostle supplies this. He deemed a certain reliance on self justifiable and obligatory, because into that self God had put so much of His own power. Is the sacred fire burned in vain? Is there not a new heros devotion kindled, a new conqueror fitted for achievement? Manly reliance on self is, for the Christian, only reliance on what God has already done to equip him for service.

II. Felix, bold only in delay. The preacher had not left it uncertain that what God demands is repentance. Felix trembled, but he did not repent. Sin never before seemed to him so perilous, and he decided that sometime he must leave it. There is not one hint in Scripture that Felix ever became a Christian. Here is warning against putting off repentance.

1. Repentance may never come.

2. With Felix before us, we will consider this weighty truth, too seldom urged, that impenitence every day it lasts produces irreparable loss. Delayed conversion means continued sin, and sin damages the sinner himself and others. We drag along into the Christian life the enfeebled will, the grown-up selfishness, the impaired capacity which we acquired in the years of impenitence. Forgiveness releases us from Divine condemnation; it does not at once, if ever, repair the damage of a sinful course.

3. Again, the ill influence of the old bad life on others is not arrested. Delaying repentance, we throw the weight of our example against our friends conversion and encourage others in sin, and our pardon does not undo what we have thus done.

4. Delayed conversion means lost opportunities. Along our path from childhood to age there are many occasions for heavenly deeds. The hours require a soul loyal to God, instantly ready to speak and act with firm courage, able to look sin into shame. How often, when called, have we been unprepared for such holy achievements? We could not be heroic, for we still wore captives chains, and the opportunities were lost. The precious season of preparation for future power may be wasted by daily disobedience to Gods call. It is clear that in secular life neglect of preparation in youth stands at many a parting of ways in later years and forbids a mans choice, saying, You cannot take the path up the heights. You must go the lower road. Many a man in such case has bowed to the inevitable, sorrowing in vain over his loss. But men dream that in the spiritual life, under redemption, they may escape in later years the weakness resulting from youthful impenitence. (T. E. Bartlett.)

Paul before Felix

I. Felixs impression of Paul.

1. Pauls address. He was in trouble. There had been a tumult. As to the cause of it there were two sides to be heard. Every advantage had been taken of whatever in the circumstances seemed against Paul. Pauls reply has in it four heads.

(1) Introduction. Tertullus had begun with flattery. Paul begins with respect.

(2) Rebuttal. He mentions the brief time he had been in Jerusalem–entirely insufficient to accomplish all the deep plots alleged against him by the Jews.

(3) Explanation. How had he happened to be in Jerusalem at all, and what was he doing in the temple?

(4) Demand for evidence.

2. The characteristics of this speech probably made a deeper impression on Felix than its contents.

(1) Candour. Paul was evidently telling as plainly, fully, and simply as he could the very truth. He did not overdo the matter. An experienced judge is not often deceived as to the honesty of a witness.

(2) Fearlessness was evident in every word of Pauls. He was not overcome by the danger of his situation.

(3) Uprightness was written over every word which Paul uttered. Paul was one who, without counsel, might say all he would; for he was a good man.

3. What was the effect of this speech upon Felix?

(1) He recognised that no case had been made out against Paul. The main witnesses had, for some unaccountable reason, not been brought into court.

(2) A postponement for further inquiry followed.

(3) At the same time his sense of right, being still feebly operative (as in Pilate), will not allow him to treat the prisoner as though he had been convicted of crime.

II. Felixs impression of Christianity.

1. He had some curiosity about it, and after certain days came and sent for Paul and heard him speak about Jesus Christ.

2. Pauls speech.

(1) The subject. The whole of Pauls address is not preserved.

(a) Righteousness is the aim of the Christian life. Christ died that He might purify from us the guilt of sin and impute to us His own righteousness. To be holy as God is holy, and so to glorify Him by reflecting His excellence, is the chief end of man.

(b) Temperance, or self-control; referring to the subjugation of the passions and the holding of the whole life in submission to the will of God. This in a certain sense is the negative side of the righteousness which Paul has just mentioned.

(c) Judgment to come. Christianity derives its hold upon many men by appealing to high motives and ambitions.

(2) These themes, doubtless treated in a general way, had also their personal application. Preaching truth is preaching such truth as the hearers ought to have preached to them. Yet Paul was not offensive. He was personal in the way he chose his subject, but not in the manner of its delivery, so far as we can see.

3. No wonder that Felix was convicted by this address, No wonder his heart was smitten with fear. He had been used to association with sycophants, who would flatter him in the face and stab him in the back. What a privilege to truly know ones self, even if it be to find defects, for that is the way to perfection. But such an experience is not comfortable.

III. Felixs disposal of Christianity.

1. He let the bad elements in him prevail.

2. Consequently he was led to postpone his dealing with the matter of his relation to God.

3. Why is it that postponing the receiving of salvation is so apt to be its complete rejection? Because–

(1) It is going back again to the ever-increasing domination of sin;

(2) Conscience unanswered becomes deadened and its voice is more and more feeble;

(3) The desire for a nobler life awakened in us by the Holy Spirit is subdued when unsatisfied;

(4) We are not so susceptible to the presence of the Spirit when we do not obey Him. So far as we know men, they do not mean to be lost.

IV. Lessons.

1. The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword. It searches us out. It finds us (as Coleridge said).

2. Selfishness is the cause of mens rejection of Christ. They love their sinful ways too well to deny self and follow Him.

3. The great lesson is that postponing the acceptance of Christ is eternally dangerous. Suspect every motive that keeps you from Christ. No such motive is adequate and justifiable. (D. J. Burrell, D. D.)

Pauls defence before Felix

I. Generally. Paul defended himself–

1. Cheerfully, because he knew he was defending a good cause.

2. Skilfully, knowing that one is not excused for using bad arguments, because he is engaged in defending a good cause.

3. Confidently, having already been tried and acquitted at the bar of his own conscience.

4. Defiantly. Right-doing calls for no apologising. To submit is to admit, when one is openly charged with evil-doing.

5. Paul made his defence defiantly, knowing that he had given no occasion for the accusations brought against him. Conscious innocence makes a man bold; conscious guilt makes a man bluster.

II. Specifically.

1. He confessed Christ (verse 14).

2. He served God (verse 14).

3. He reverenced the Old Testament (verse 14).

4. He believed in the resurrection (verse 15).

5. He sought a clear conscience (verse 16).

6. He helped the needy (verse 17).

III. Lessons.

1. I confess. What Paul had done he was ready to acknowledge. No man should be slow in pleading guilty when he is charged with being a follower of Christ.

2. They call a sect. What if they do? Fear not the cry of sectarianism so long as only Christs enemies are raising it against you.

3. Believing the law. Has that law been repealed? Then remember that it demands your allegiance as much as it did Pauls.

4. Hope toward God. Toward God is the true direction for hoping. Hopelessness Godward means blank despair manward.

5. Exercise myself. It requires constant effort to follow Christ closely. But it is the best kind of exercise. It made of Paul a giant in moral strength.

6. Conscience void of offence alway. Some one has wisely said, It is always term time in the court of conscience.

7. I came to bring alms. Paul had come among the Jews on an errand of mercy, and the merciless Jews had straightway sought to slay him.

8. Certain Jews ought to have been here. But they were not there. Such men prefer haranguing a lawless mob to testifying in a court of law. The devils agents are constitutional cowards. (S. S. Times.)

Pauls defence before Felix

1. A straightforward account is an honest mans best defence.

2. In such a case it is in the knowledge and not the ignorance of a judge that safety will lie (verse 10,11). Apply this to the Great Judgment Day.

3. Christianity is involved in and anticipated Judaism (cf. Heb 11:1-40)

.

4. The Christian believes not less, but more than the Jew (verses 14, 15).

5. Whatever our intellectual opinions may be, our moral character should be blameless (verse 16).

6. Never does the world commit greater blunders in violation even of its own laws, than in persecuting the faith (verse 19).

7. Many inquiries are made about the gospel through curiosity, and without a personal concern for sin (verse 24).

8. A true preacher will seize every available opportunity for proclaiming the gospel; every sinner ought to fear the gospel; we ought not to delay coming to Christ (verse 25).

9. Peoples motives with respect to Christ and His cause often get strangely mixed (verses 25, 26).

10. In religion, as in many other things, it is true that he that delays is lost. His heart hardens, and circumstances entangle him.

11. Christians are called into various experiences and situations for testimony and service (verse 27). (A. F. Muir, M. A.)

Pauls defence before Felix

I. That God protects His messengers. On one side was a multitude of enraged Jewish rulers, who had wealth, prestige, power, an eloquent advocate to plead their cause. On the other side, Paul alone was accused before a corrupt judge. How small the possibilities of his success! Yet God had promised that His messengers, when brought before governors, should be taught by the Spirit what to say. Here is one actual fulfilment of that promise. Paul showed triumphantly that what was criminal in the charge against him was not true, and that what was true was not criminal.

1. He was accused of exciting seditions among the Jews; but he showed that only twelve days before he had passed through Caesarea on his way to visit Jerusalem for the first time in many years.

2. He was accused of heresy. He replied, I confess that I follow the opinion which they call a sect, and thus worship the God of my fathers.

3. He was accused of profanation of the temple. He replied that the object of his pilgrimage to Jerusalem was to worship in the temple; that the Jews found him in it purified in fulfilment of a special vow. The bold way was the safe way. If he had secretly gone to Jerusalem, and had secretly taught, he would have thrown away his defence, and have prejudiced his cause. The cause of Christ has nothing to do with secrecy. Only the open follower of Christ can claim His promises of protection.

II. God furnishes His messengers with opportunities to do His work. Pauls object was to spread the gospel through the world. But how could the gospel have reached the ears of Roman rulers except through Christian prisoners? Paul used his defence as an opportunity to preach Christ. The Christian measures his success by opportunities to spread saving truth. Pauls most glorious opportunities were in prison. The Christian often remembers scenes of suffering as the most wonderful marks of Gods favour.

III. The Christian grows in grace while fighting outward foes (verse 16). If you press the gospel on others, you will have the greater motive to illustrate its power over yourself by abstaining from sin, and showing the peace, joy, charity, which are its fruits. (A. E. Dunning.)

The Christians defence against the accusations of the world

I. When should he defend himself.

1. If the Lord is reviled and not himself.

2. If he may hope to conciliate mens minds and not to increase their bitterness.

II. How should he defend himself.

1. Without fear of men.

2. Convincingly by a good conscience. (K. Gerok.)

The Christians defence against the accusations of the world

1. The Christian will keep himself pure from reproach, that the gospel be not blasphemed on his account.

2. He will, by the joyful confession of his faith, put to shame the groundless enmity of the world.

3. He will point to his life, that it may bear witness to the truth of his faith. (Lisco.)

The Christians best defence against calumny

I. A joyful confession (verse 14).

II. An UNVIOLATED conscience (verse 16).

III. A blameless life (verses 17-20).

IV. A righteous judgment of God (verse 15). (K. Gerok.)

Pauls encouragement in Felixs intelligence

Paul was encouraged, while on trial, by the fact that he was before an intelligent judge. It is always a satisfaction to know that a man whom you want to convince of a truth is well informed on the subject in question. As a rule, the less a man knows, the more bigoted he is. And the more he knows, the readier he is to revise his opinions on fair evidence or sound argument. A lawyer with a good case prefers a learned judge or a well-informed jury. A clergyman has hope of convincing his hearers just in proportion to their intelligence. A competent teacher finds that the more his scholars know to begin with, about the lesson, the more he can teach them. There is nothing more discouraging, when you want to get a new idea into a mans head, than to find that his head is now empty. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

Pauls inspired method

We begin to see the gigantic stature of Pauls mind; but the loftiness of the mountain must not lead us to overlook the fine mosses and delicate flowers with which its base is so exquisitely enamelled. The character of Paul is as fine in texture as it is vast in bulk. Observe–

I. The contrast between Pauls introduction and the preface of Tertullus. Christianity makes gentlemen; it is the religion of refinement. Wherein we are vulgar, we do but show the space which Christianity has yet to conquer. Tertullus began cringingly, fulsomely, falsely. Felix had been judge more than about twice the usual time, and Paul recognised that fact, as it was the only compliment he was able to pay the corrupt governor. Christianity is courteous–never rough; recognising whatever can be recognised in the way of excellence, or continuance of service, but never stooping to drag its own crown in the mire.

II. The temper which Paul displayed under Tertullus hurricane of abuse. There is no excitement in his reply, no resentment; he contents himself with denial and with challenging proof. Fury would have created suspicion, and resentment would have been an argument on the other side; but the quietness of the consciousness of innocence must be taken as contributing to the establishment of an irrefragable proof that an innocent man was in the presence of Felix.

III. The manner in which the personal defence is made to create room for the doctrinal exposition. Paul does not spend much time upon himself. He will not tarry over little things; he is in haste to accomplish a sublime purpose. In his view, the whole world was only made for the one purpose of receiving the kingdom of Christ. Why do we not take our rule from his magnanimous method? Do not defend yourself, but preach and live, expound and exemplify the truth. The cruel part of it all is that some persons imagine that if stones are thrown at you, you deserve to be stoned. Do not let that trouble you.

IV. How Paul keeps hold of his audience, by preaching Christianity without so much as naming Christ. That would not suit a modern audience, because a modern audience is foolish. Inspiration guides a man quite as much in teaching him what not to say as in teaching him what to say; inspiration has to do with method as well as with matter. Is Paul, then, not preaching Christ? He is preaching Him all the time. He is developing a certain state of mind; he says mentally, It is enough now to touch curiosity, to create interest; by and by I shall speak to that procurator in a way he never heard mortal tongue deliver itself; but now I have to answer this mean hireling, who would plead my cause if I only paid him enough to do so. So the merchant can be preaching Christianity in his business without ever letting it be known that he ever spent one moment on his knees. Men can preach Christianity and defend the Cross in temper, actions, family and commercial relations, and beget a state of mental wonder on the part of the observers as to how such things happen to be as they are. By and by such men may be sent for, that they may speak concerning the mystery.

V. How Paul keeps to the Scriptures (verse 14). This was so much gained; but it was a generality that wanted accent, so he proceeds, in verse 16, to supply the accent which was required. This was moral preaching? I would to God we had more moral preaching, then! The man who is severe with his own conscience will know how to treat the consciences of other men. Paul gives us a hint of the power which he will exercise by and by when he confronts Felix alone. Nothing will stand in the worlds estimation forever but down-right in-and-out goodness. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The good confession

The charge brought against Paul included three particulars. He was guilty of sedition, and so of disloyalty to the Roman government; of heresy, the ringleader of a sect, and so a renegade from Judaism; of profaning the temple, and thus of affronting a worship which was under the protection of Rome. The charges were the old ones: familiar to us already in the cases of Stephen and Christ. The time came for the apostles defence. He begins by selecting the only ground on which he could count himself fortunate in being tried before Felix. He could depend at least upon his acquaintance with the rites and customs of Judaism. Felix knew the day of that feast of Pentecost for which St. Paul had gone up to Jerusalem, and that it was but twelve days since. It was a short time for the commission of this triple crime; and already five of them in prison! How had the other seven been spent (verses 12, 13)? Note–

I. The manner of his address.

1. He stands before a wicked ruler; yet he pays to him the respect due to his office. It is the same man who wrote lately to the Romans, Render therefore to all their dues; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour. There is all the difference in the world between servility and courtesy; between the flattery of Tertullus, and the manly respectfulness of St. Paul. Insolence to rulers is no part of the religion of Christ. Render unto Caesar, our Lord said, the things which are Caesars, etc.

2. The present was dark, the future was ambiguous: and yet he answers for himself cheerfully. If we are in Christs hands, on Christs side, what circumstance is enough to justify despondency? Pain of mind or body, want, weakness, anguish, impending death; all shall be well: for I am Christs, and Christ is Gods.

II. The matter.

1. We find two of the three charges calmly and earnestly repelled. The charges of sedition and sacrilege are refuted by an appeal to fact. None can dare to say of him, that his brief time in Jerusalem had been spent in creating insurrection. His supposed desecration of the temple was the opposite of truth, for he had frequented its courts to show his respect for the law.

2. But one charge he rather qualifies than repels. If it be a schismatical thing to be a Christian, then he avowed it and gloried in it. St. Paul worshipped God according to a particular system; not vaguely as the Creator and Preserver, not merely as the Lawgiver and the Judge, but definitely and precisely as revealed in Christ. What is there to mark our confessions, prayers, praises, thanksgivings, as offered according to the way of Christ? Does Christ really enter into all? And is there anything in our habits of speech and action which recognises and reminds men of our faith in the way of Christ?

3. But observe how Paul claims for himself, all the time, the position of the truly orthodox; the God whom he worships is the God of his fathers. He believes all things written in the Old Testament Scriptures, and it is just because he does so he is a Christian. The true revelation of God is never at variance with itself. Everything which God has ever spoken will be true forever. His voice in nature, in reason, in conscience, to the Patriarchs, in the law, the prophets, the gospel, are all consistent and harmonious. Each one of these completes, fulfils something, in the one before it; but it destroys and it contradicts nothing. He who affects, unlike St. Paul, to despise Old Testament Scriptures, proves himself by that contempt to be not a full-grown man, but a very babe in Christ.

4. Paul claims for Israel under the law a glimmering at least of that hope, for which, as a Christian and an apostle, he was himself bound with his chain (verse 15). It suited the occasion and the purpose of this heroic defence, to trace the hope of the resurrection to a dispensation earlier than the Christian. And we too must accept the declaration, and give thanks for it, that even the Old Testament is not silent as to this great restitution of all things.

5. The resurrection of the just is an expression used by our Lord. But He stopped not there, nor could Paul. There is also a resurrection of the unjust. The resurrection must be either the hope, or the fear, of each one of us. And which? (Dean Vaughan.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 10. Then Paul – answered] The apostle’s defence consists of two parts: –

1. The exordium, which has for its object the praise of his judge, whose qualifications to discern and decide on a question of this nature he fully allows; and expects, from this circumstance, to have a favourable hearing.

2. The tractation, which consists of two parts:

I. REFUTATION:

1. of the charge of polluting the temple;

2. of stirring up sedition;

3. of being a leader of any sect who had a different worship from the God of their fathers.

II. AFFIRMATION:

1. that he had lived so as to preserve a good conscience towards God, and towards men;

2. that so far from polluting the temple, he had been purified in it, and was found thus worshipping according to the law of God;

3. that what Tertullus and his companions had witnessed was perfectly false; and he defied them to produce a single proof, and appeals to those who had been witnesses of his conduct in Jerusalem, who should have been there could they have proved any thing against him.

Thou hast been of many years a judge] Cumanus and Felix were, for a time, joint governors of Judea; but, after the condemnation of Cumanus, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix; and from Josephus we learn that this was now the sixth or seventh year of his administration, which might be called many years, when the very frequent removals of the governors of the provinces are considered. See Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. 7, and see the margin.

A judge – , the same here in signification as the Hebrew shophet, which means a ruler or governor. This was the title of the ancient governors of Israel.

The more cheerfully] , With a better heart or courage, because, as thy long residence among us has brought thee to a thorough acquaintance with our customs, I may expect a proper decision in my favour, my cause being perfectly sound.

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

Beckoned unto him, by some sign with his hand. Though St. Paul would not flatter Felix with notorious untruths, as Tertullus had done, yet he speaks very respectfully, and mentions his continuance in the government; the rather, because, if he had been so seditious a person as Tertullus would have represented him to have been, Felix could not but have heard of him, and of any mischief that had been done by him.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

10. thou hast been many years ajudge to this nationHe had been in this province for six orseven years, and in Galilee for a longer period. Paul uses noflattery, but simply expresses his satisfaction at having to pleadbefore one whose long official experience of Jewish matters wouldenable him the better to understand and appreciate what he had tosay.

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

Then Paul, after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak,…. Tertullus having finished his account, Paul was silent to his charge and calumnies, until the governor beckoned with his hand or head, or made some sign to him to speak for himself; which he might not do, until leave was given him; and then he

answered as follows:

forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation; some say he was in the thirteenth, others in the tenth year of his government; some copies read a “just judge”; but this does not so well agree with the character of Felix;

[See comments on Ac 24:27].

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself; since if he had been such a mover of sedition everywhere, he must in this course of years have known or heard something of it; and seeing also he could be no stranger to the temper of the Jews, that they were given to envy, revenge, lying, and perjury, and therefore would not easily believe all they said, or rashly take their part, but rather would pity the apostle, who had fallen into such hands, and do him justice.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul’s Third Defence.

      10 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:   11 Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.   12 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:   13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.   14 But 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:   15 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.   16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.   17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.   18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.   19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.   20 Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,   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 by you this day.

      We have here Paul’s defence of himself, in answer to Tertullus’s charge, and there appears in it a great deal of the spirit of wisdom and holiness, and an accomplishment of Christ’s promise to his followers that when they were before governors and kings, for his sake, it should be given them in that same hour what they should speak. Though Tertullus had said a great many provoking things, yet Paul did not interrupt him, but let him go on to the end of his speech, according to the rules of decency and the method in courts of justice, that the plaintiff be allowed to finish his evidence before the defendant begins his plea. And when he had done, he did not presently fly out into passionate exclamations against the iniquity of the times and the men (O tempora! O mores!–Oh the degeneracy of the times!) but he waited for a permission from the judge to speak in his turn, and had it. The governor beckoned to him to speak, v. 10. And now he also may have leave to speak out, under the protection of the governor, which was more than he could hitherto obtain. And, when he did speak, he made no reflections at all upon Tertullus, who he knew spoke for his fee, and therefore despised what he said, and levelled his defence against those that employed him. And here,

      I. He addressed himself very respectfully to the governor, and with a confidence that he would do him justice. Here are not such flattering compliments as Tertullus soothed him up with, but, which was more truly respectful, a profession that he answered for himself cheerfully, and with good assurance before him, looking upon him, though not as one that was his friend, yet as one that would be fair and impartial. He thus expresses his expectation that he would be so, to engage him to be so. It was likewise the language of one that was conscious to himself of his own integrity, and whose heart did not reproach him, whoever did. He did not stand trembling at the bar; on the contrary, he was very cheerful when he had one to be his judge that was not a party, but an indifferent person. Nay, when he considers who his judge is, he answers the more cheerfully; and why so? He does not say, “Because I know thee to be a judge of inflexible justice and integrity, that hatest bribes, and in giving judgment fearest God, and regardest not man;” for he could not justly say this of him, and therefore would not say it, though it were to gain his favour ever so much; but, I the more cheerfully answer from myself, because I know thou hast been many years a judge to this nation, and this was very true, and being so, 1. He could say of his own knowledge that there had not formerly been any complaints against Paul. Such clamours as they raised are generally against old offenders; but, though he had long say judge there, he never had Paul brought before him till now; and therefore he was not so dangerous a criminal as he was represented to be. 2. He was well acquainted with the Jewish nation, and with their temper and spirit. He knew how bigoted they were to their own way, what furious zealots they were against all that did not comply with them, how peevish and perverse they generally were, and therefore would make allowances for that in their accusation of him, and not regard that which he had reason to think came so much from part-malice. Though he did not know him, he knew his prosecutors, and by this might guess what manner of man he was.

      II. He denies the facts that he was charged with, upon which their character of him was grounded. Moving sedition, and profaning the temple, were the crimes for which he stood indicted, crimes which they knew the Roman governors were not accustomed to enquire into, and therefore they hoped that the governor would return him back to them to be judged by their law, and this was all they wished for. But Paul desires that though he would not enquire into the crimes he would protect one that was unjustly charged with them from those whom he knew to be spiteful and ill-natured enough. Now he would have him to understand (and what he said he was ready, if required, to make out by witnesses),

      1. That he came up to Jerusalem on purpose to worship God in peace and holiness, so far was he from any design to move sedition among the people or to profane the temple. He came to keep up his communion with the Jews, not to put any affront upon them.

      2. That it was but twelve days since he came up to Jerusalem, and he came up to Jerusalem, and he had been six days a prisoner; he was alone, and it could not be supposed that in so short a time he could do the mischief they charged upon him. And, as for what he had done in other countries, they knew nothing of it but by uncertain report, by which the matter was very unfairly represented.

      3. That he had demeaned himself at Jerusalem very quietly and peaceably, and had made no manner of stir. If it had been true (as they alleged) that he was a mover of sedition among all the Jews, surely he would have been industrious to make a party at Jerusalem: but he did not do so. He was in the temple, attending the public service there. He was in the synagogues where the law was read and opened. He went about in the city among his relations and friends, and conversed freely in the places of concourse; and he was a man of a great genius and an active spirit, and yet they could not charge him with offering any thing either against the faith or against the peace of the Jewish church. (1.) He had nothing in him of a contradicting spirit, as the movers of sedition have; he had no disposition to quarrel or oppose. They never found him disputing with any man, either affronting the learned with captious cavils or perplexing the weak and simple with curious subtleties. He was ready, if asked, to give a reason of his own hope, and to give instruction to others; but he never picked a quarrel with any man about his religion, nor made that the subject of debate, and controversy, and perverse dispute, which ought always to be treated of with humility and reverence, with meekness and love. (2.) He had nothing in him of a turbulent spirit: “They never found me raising up the people, by incensing them against their governors in church or state or suggesting to them fears and jealousies concerning public affairs, nor by setting them at variance one with another or sowing discord among them.” He behaved as became a Christian and minister, with love and quietness, and due subjection to lawful authority. The weapons of his warfare were not carnal, not did he ever mention or think of such a thing as taking up arms for the propagating of the gospel or the defence of the preachers of it; though he could have made, perhaps, as strong a party among the common people as his adversaries, yet he never attempted it.

      4. That as to what they had charged him with, of moving sedition in other countries, he was wholly innocent, and they could not make good the charge (v. 13): Neither can the prove the things whereof the now accuse me. Hereby, (1.) He maintains his own innocency; for when he says, They cannot prove it, he means, The matter is not so. He was no enemy to the public peace; he had done no real prejudice, but a great deal of real service, and would gladly have done more, to the nation of the Jews. He was so far from having any antipathy to them that he had the strongest affection imaginable for them, and a most passionate desire for their welfare, Rom. ix. 1-3. (2.) He bemoans his own calamity, that he was accused of those things which could not be proved against him. And it has often been the lot of very worthy good men to be thus injured, to have things laid to their charge which they are the greatest distance from and abhor the though of. But, while they are lamenting this calamity, this may be their rejoicing, even the testimony of their consciences concerning their integrity. (3.) He shows the iniquity of his prosecutors, who said that which they knew they could not prove, and thereby did him wrong in his name, liberty, and life, and did the judge wrong too, in imposing upon him, and doing what in them lay to pervert his judgment. (4.) He appeals to the equity of his judge, and awakens him to look about him, that he might not be drawn into a snare by the violence of the prosecution. The judge must give sentence secundum allegata et probata–according to that which is not only alleged but proved, and therefore must enquire, and search, and ask diligently, whether the thing be true and certain (Deut. xiii. 14); he cannot otherwise give a right judgment.

      III. He gives a fair and just account of himself, which does at once both clear him from crime and likewise intimate what was the true reason of their violence in prosecuting him.

      1. He acknowledges himself to be one whom they looked upon as a heretic, and that was the reason of their spleen against him. The chief captain had observed, and the governor now cannot but observe, an uncommon violence and fury in his prosecutors, which they know not what to make of, but, guessing at the crime by the cry, conclude he must needs have been a very bad man only for that reason. Now Paul here unriddles the matter: I confess that in the way which they call heresy–or a sect, so worship I the God of my fathers. The controversy is in a matter of religion, and such controversies are commonly managed with most fury and violence. Note, It is no new thing for the right way of worshipping God to be called heresy; and for the best of God’s servants to be stigmatized and run down as sectaries. The reformed churches are called heretical ones by those who themselves hate to be reformed, and are themselves heretics. Let us therefore never be driven off from any good way by its being put in to an ill name; for true and pure Christianity is never the worse, nor to be the worse thought of, for its being called heresy; no, not though it be called so by the high priest and the elders.

      2. He vindicates himself from this imputation. They call Paul a heretic, but he is not so; for,

      (1.) He worships the God of his fathers, and therefore is right in the object of his worship. He does not say, Let us go after other gods, which we have not known, and let us serve them, as the false prophet is supposed to do, Deut. xiii. 2. If so, they might justly call his way heresy, a drawing of them aside into a by-path, and a dangerous one; but he worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not only the God whom they worshipped, but the God who took them into covenant with himself, and was and would be called their God. Paul adheres to that covenant, and sets up no other in opposition to it. The promise made unto the fathers Paul preached as fulfilled to the children (Act 13:32; Act 13:33), and so directed both his own devotions and those of others to God, as the God of their fathers. He also refers to the practice of all his pious ancestors: I worship the same God that all my fathers worshipped. His religion was so far from being chargeable with novelty that it gloried in its antiquity, and in an uninterrupted succession of its professors. Note, It is very comfortable in our worshipping God to have an eye to him as the God of our fathers. Our fathers trusted in him, and were owned by him, and he engaged to be their God, and the God of their seed. He approved himself theirs, and therefore, if we serve him as they did, he will be ours; what an emphasis is laid upon this, He is my father’s God, and I will exalt him! Exod. xv. 2.

      (2.) He believes all things which are written in the law and the prophets, and therefore is right in the rule of his worship. His religion is grounded upon, and governed by, the holy scriptures; they are his oracle and touchstone, and he speaks and acts according to them. He receives the scriptures entire, and believes all things that are there written; and he receives them pure, for he says no other things than what are contained in them, as he explains himself, ch. xxvi. 22. He sets not up any other rule of faith, or practice but the scriptures-not tradition, nor the authority of the church, nor the infallibility of any man or company of men on earth, nor the light within, nor human reason; but divine revelation, as it is in the scripture, is that which he resolves to live and die by, and therefore he is not a heretic.

      (3.) He has his eye upon a future state, and is a believing expectant of that, and therefore is right in the end of his worship. Those that turn aside to heresy have a regard to this world, and some secular interest, but Paul aims to make heaven of his religion, and neither more nor less (v. 15): “I have hope towards God, all my expectation is from him, and therefore all my desire is towards him and all my dependence upon him; my hope is towards God and not towards the world, towards another world and not towards this. I depend upon God and upon his power, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead at the end of time, of all, both the just and unjust; and the great thing I aim at in my religion is to obtain a joyful and happy resurrection, a share in the resurrection of the just.” Observe here, [1.] That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, the dead bodies of men, of all men from the beginning to the end of time. It is certain, not only that the soul does not die with the body, but that the body itself shall live again; we have not only another life to live when our present life is at an end, but there is to be another world, which shall commence when this world is at an end, into which all the children of men must enter at once by a resurrection from the dead, as they entered into this, one after another, by their birth. [2.] It shall be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, the sanctified and the unsanctified, of those that did well, and to them our Saviour has told us that it will be a resurrection of life; and of those that did evil, and to them that it will be a resurrection of condemnation, John v. 29. See Dan. xii. 2. This implies that it will be a resurrection to a final judgment, by which all the children of men will be determined to everlasting happiness or misery in a world of retribution, according to what they were and what they did in this state of probation and preparation. The just shall rise by virtue of their union with Christ as their head; the unjust shall rise by virtue of Christ’s dominion over them as their Judge. [3.] God is to be depended upon for the resurrection of the dead: I have hope towards God, and in God, that there shall be a resurrection; it shall be effected by the almighty power of God, in performance of the word which God hath spoken; so that those who doubt of it betray their ignorance both of the scriptures and of the power of God, Matt. xxii. 29. [4.] The resurrection of the dead is a fundamental article of our creed, as it was also of that of the Jewish church. It is what they themselves also allow; nay, it was the expectation of the ancient patriarchs, witness Job’s confession of his faith; but it is more clearly revealed and more fully confirmed by the gospel, and therefore those who believed it should have been thankful to the preachers of the gospel for their explications and proofs of it, instead of opposing them. [5.] In all our religion we ought to have an eye to the other world, and to serve God in all instances with a confidence in him that there will be a resurrection of the dead, doing all in preparation for that, and expecting our recompence in that.

      (4.) His conversation is of a piece with his devotion (v. 16): And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men. Prophets and their doctrine were to be tried by their fruits. Paul was far from having made shipwreck of a good conscience, and therefore it is not likely he has made shipwreck of the faith, the mystery of which is best held in a pure conscience. This protestation of Paul’s is to the same purport with that which he made before the high priest (ch. xxiii. 1): I have lived in all good conscience; and this was his rejoicing. Observe, [1.] What was Paul’s aim and desire: To have a conscience void of offence. Either, First, “A conscience not offending; not informing me wrong, nor flattering me, nor dealing deceitfully with me, nor in any thing misleading me.” Or, Secondly, A conscience not offended; it is like Job’s resolution, “My heart shall not reproach me, that is, I will never give it any occasion to do so. This is what I am ambitious of, to keep upon good terms with my own conscience, that it may have no cause either to question the goodness of my spiritual state or to quarrel with me for any particular action. I am as careful not to offend my conscience as I am not to offend a friend with whom I daily converse; nay, as I am not to offend a magistrate whose authority I am under, and to whom I am accountable; for conscience is God’s deputy in my soul.” [2.] What was his care and endeavour, in pursuance of this: “I exercise myself—asko. I make it my constant business, and govern myself by this intention; I discipline myself, and live by rule” (those that did so were called ascetics, from the word here used), “abstain from many a thing which my inclination leads me to, and abound in all the exercises of religion that are most spiritual, with this in my eye, that I may keep peace with my own conscience.” [3.] The extent of this care: First, To all times: To have always a conscience void of offence, always void of gross offence; for though Paul was conscious to himself that he had not yet attained perfection, and the evil that he would not do yet he did, yet he was innocent from the great transgression. Sins of infirmity are uneasy to conscience, but they do not wound it, and waste it, as presumptuous sins do; and, though offence may be given to conscience, yet care must be taken that it be not an abiding offence, but that by the renewed acts of faith and repentance the matter may be taken up again quickly. This however we must always exercise ourselves in, and, though we come short, we must follow after. Secondly, To all things: Both towards God, and towards man. His conscientious care extended itself to the whole of his duty, and he was afraid of breaking the law of love either to God or his neighbour. Conscience, like the magistrate, is custos utriusque tabul–the guardian of each table. We must be very cautious that we do not think, or speak, or do any thing amiss, either against God or man, 2 Cor. viii. 21. [4.] The inducement to it: Herein, en touto, for this cause; so it may be read. “Because I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, therefore I thus exercise myself.” The consideration of the future state should engage us to be universally conscientious in our present state.

      IV. Having made confession of his faith, he gives a plain and faithful account of his case, and of the wrong done him by his persecutors. Twice he had been rescued by the chief captain out of the hands of the Jews, when they were ready to pull him to pieces, and he challenges them to prove him guilty of any crime either time.

      1. In the temple. Here they fell furiously upon him as an enemy to their nation and the temple, ch. xxi. 28. But was there any colour for the charge? No, but evidence sufficient against it, (1.) It was very hard to accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when after long absence from Jerusalem he came to bring alms to his nation, money which (though he had need enough himself of it) he had collected among his friends, for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem. He not only had no malice to that people, but he had a very charitable concern for them, and was ready to do them all good offices; and were they his adversaries for his love? Ps. cix. 4. (2.) It was very hard to accuse him of having profaned the temple when he brought offerings to the temple, and was himself at charges therein (ch. xxi. 24), and was found purifying himself in the temple, according to the law (v. 18), and that in a very quiet decent manner, neither with multitude nor with tumult. Though he was a man so much talked of, he was far from coveting to show himself when he came to Jerusalem, or to be crowded after, but went to the temple, as much as was possible, incognito. They were Jews from Asia, his enemies, that caused him to be taken notice of; they had not pretence to make a tumult and raise a multitude against him, for he had neither multitude nor tumult for him. And as to what was perhaps suggested to Felix that he had brought Greeks into the temple, contrary to their law, and the governor ought to reckon with him for that, the Romans having stipulated with the nations that submitted to them to preserve them in their religion, he challenges them to prove it (v. 19): “Those Jews of Asia ought to have been here before thee, that they might have been examined, whether they had aught against me, that they would stand by and swear to;” for some that will not scruple to tell a lie have such heavings of conscience that they scruple confirming it with an oath.

      2. In the council: “Since the Jews of Asia are not here to prove any thing upon me done amiss in the temple, let these same that are here, the high priest and the elders, say whether they have found any evil doing in me, or whether I was guilty of any misdemeanor when I stood before the council, when also they were ready to pull me in pieces, v. 20. When I was there, they could not take offence at any thing I said; for all I said was, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day (v. 21), which gave no offence to any one but the Sadducees. This I hope was no crime, that I stuck to that which is the faith of the whole Jewish church, excepting those whom they themselves call heretics.”

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

When the governor had beckoned to him ( ). Genitive absolute again with first aorist active participle of , to give a nod, old word, in N.T. only here and Joh 13:24. “The governor nodding to him.”

Forasmuch as I know (). Knowing, from .

That thou hast been of many years a judge ( ). The participle in indirect assertion after (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1041). Paul goes as far as he can in the way of a compliment. For seven years Felix has been governor, being a sort of progressive present participle with (Robertson, Grammar, p. 892).

Cheerfully (). Old adverb from ( and , good spirit), here only in N.T.

Make my defence (). Old and regular word for this idea as in Lu 21:14 which see.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The more cheerfully [] . The best texts read the positive of the adverb, eujqumwv, cheerfully.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE FELIX V. 10-23

1) “Then Paul answered,” (apekrithe to ho Paulos) “Then Paul replied,” to the charges, responded after the prosecution had rested its case, without putting up a single witness, subject to cross examination.

2) “After that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak,” (neusantos auto tou hegemonos legem) “When the governor had beckoned him to proceed to speak,” to reply, to give his testimony regarding the charges of religious desecration of the temple, and his being a roving seditionist, etc., and an heretic.

3) “Forasmuch as I know,” (epistagmenos) “Because I well know or understand,” recognize from your experience in matters of adjudication of legal matters, of your judicial experience.

4) “That thou hast been of many years,” (ek pollon eton onta) “That you have been (for) many years,” out of many years of experience, some six or seven years, as Felix became governor in A.D. 52 and this was A.D. 58 or 59.

5) “A judge unto this nation,” (se krite to ethnei touto) “You have been a judge to this nation;” There is no flattery here, but an acknowledgment of experience.

6) “I do more cheerfully answer for myself:” (euthomos ta peri emautou apologoumai) “I cheerfully defend myself, on my own, concerning (as to) the things brought against me;” being innocent, as I plead, I do not need an orator, you see! 1Pe 3:15; 2Ti 2:15; 2Ti 3:16-17.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

10. And Paul. The state of Paul’s defense is not conversant in the quality; but he denieth the crime that was laid to his charge; not that he was ashamed of the gospel, or afraid of the cross, but because that was no place to make any full confession of faith in. Therefore, omitting the cause of the gospel, which his accuser had not touched, he answereth simply unto the crimes whereof he was accused. But before he come thither, he saith that he doth the more willingly answer for himself before Felix, because he had long time been governor of Judea; because, peradventure, some new governor − (573) would have been sore moved hearing such things laid to his charge. He doth not commend the virtues of the governor, but he saith that he is glad, because he is of great experience, that he may judge more justly. − (574) This is surely a sincere and free manner of defending, to set matter against words. Yet Paul seemeth to gather amiss, that Felix can know the time of his coming, because he had been governor many years. I answer, that this is said therefore, because it is likely that he will deal more moderately; as if he should say, Because thou hast been acquainted with their conditions long time, I have the better hope that they shall not deceive thee. For want of skill doth make judges too credulous, and doth enforce them to make too much haste. −

(573) −

“

Propter inscitiam,” through ignorance, omitted.

(574) −

“

Composite,” calmly.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 24:10. Many years meant about six or seven, since Felix became procurator about A.D. 52 or 53 (Jos., Ant., XX. Act. 7:1). Before his elevation to the procuratorship of Juda he had governed Samaria under his predecessor Cumanus.

Act. 24:11. The charges against him might be the more easily and accurately investigated since they were not of long standing, but of recent date. The twelve days were thus accounted for:

1. The day of arrival in Jerusalem (Act. 21:17).

2. The interview with James (Act. 21:18).

3. The assumption of the vow (Act. 21:26).

4, 5, 6, 7. The keeping of the vow, which was interrupted before its completion.
8. The appearance of Paul before the Sanhedrim.

9. The plot of the Jews and the journey to Antipatris (Act. 23:12; Act. 23:31).

10, 11, 12, 13. The days at Csarea, on the last of which the trial was proceeding. The day of the trial would not be counted among the twelve (Hackett, Meyer, and others).

Act. 24:12. Raising up the people.Lit., making or causing a concourse of the people, ; though the more approved text reads , a stopping of the people, of course so as to form a crowd.

Act. 24:13. Some texts insert to thee after prove.

Act. 24:14. For heresy translate sect as in Act. 24:5, and for worship, serve. In, according to (R.V.), but better throughout (Hackett, Holtzmann), the lawi.e., of Moses.

Act. 24:15. Which they themselves.I.e., his accusers, who appear to have been mostly Pharisees, so that the breach between them and the Sadducees (Act. 23:7) must have been made up. Allow, rather, look for, expect, or entertain.

Act. 24:16. Herein.In this, as in Joh. 16:30. Meaning either in anticipation of such a day (Hackett), or since such is my religious position (Holtzmann), or in this belief (Plumptre).

Act. 24:17. After many years.Viz., of absence from Jerusalem. It was now A.D. 58 or 59. My nation really signified the believers in its midst. Alms.Not Pauls usual way of referring to the collections he had taken for the poor saints at Jerusalem (see Rom. 15:25; 1Co. 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8, 9); but the auditors to whom he spoke were widely different from the readers for whom he wrote. To bring alms and offerings.The first mention in the Acts by Paul that he had been taking up contributions from the Gentile Churches for the relief of the poor Christians in Jerusalem.

Act. 24:18. Whereupon.Lit., in whichi.e., while presenting which offerings, some MSS. giving (to agree with offerings) instead of . The translation in the R.V. is more accurate. Theyi.e., the Jews of course, found me ; but there were certain Jews from Asia. The abrupt manner in which this sentence breaks off was unquestionably designed to suggest that these Jews from Asia, and not he had been the true authors of the tumult.

Act. 24:19. These also should have been present in court to object or (better) to make accusation, as they, the instigators of the riot, were the persons to testify how it arose (Hackett).

Act. 24:20. In default of them these same here, or, these men themselvesi.e., the high priest and the elders should say, not if they have found any evil doing, since if is unauthorised, but what wrong-doing they found in me.

Act. 24:21. Except it be for this one voice.The sentence is framed as if had preceded (Meyer, De Wette, Holtzmann).

Act. 24:22. Having more perfect, or exact knowledge of that, rather the way.This Felix could easily have got during the six or seven years of his procuratorship. Such knowledge as he had of Christianity enabled him to perceive that the Sanhedrists account of Paul was not to be accepted without more minute investigation. Consequently he deferred themi.e., put off both parties till Lysias should come down to Csarea.

Act. 24:23. A, better the, centurion was the officer who had charge of Paulnot necessarily the same who had conducted him to Csarea. Liberty meant indulgence, such as the next clause indicates. Imprisonment among the Romans was of three kinds:

1. Custodia publica, or confinement in the common cells, which Paul and Silas suffered at Philippi (Act. 26:23).

2. Custodia militaris, in which the prisoner was bound or chained to the soldier who kept him, as Paul was in Rome (Eph. 6:20; Col. 4:3). And

3. Custodia libera, or free custody, such as was frequently practised with persons of high rank. Pauls Csarean imprisonment was obviously of the second sort.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 24:10-23

The Answer of Paul; or, the Lofty Oration of a Christian Apostle

I. The unvarnished exordium.

1. A frank recognition. Paul declines to imitate the heathen orator in burning incense before his judge. Neither does he rush to the opposite extreme, and denounce Felix as one utterly unworthy to sit upon the bench or pronounce a verdict upon him. Remembering his own doctrine that the powers which be are ordained of God (Rom. 13:1), and following his own precept to speak evil of no man (Tit. 3:2), though doubtless aware of the personal and public character of the governor, he passes over it in silence and contents himself with frankly acknowledging that for manyat least sixyears Felix had been a judge unto the nation and could neither be ignorant of the forms of judicial process nor unqualified to sift the merits of causes when these were brought before him. In this sounded neither flattery nor depreciation, but respectful acceptance of his fellow-man at his best.

2. A cheerful assent. Paul might easily have had, and probably could have wished, a better man than Felix to try his cause; but such as Felix was, Paul willingly laid before him a plain and unadorned statement of his proceedings since he arrived in Jerusalem till that moment when he stood on his defence. Out of these proceedings his alleged offences were said to have arisen, and Felix could understand them as well as anybody else. Paul had nothing to conceal, and required no arts beyond those of an honest mind and a truth-loving tongue.

II. The simple refutation.

1. To the charge of sedition he had merely to state that, so far as his accusers were concerned, they could not have much personal or direct knowledge of his revolutionary procedure, since not more than twelve days had elapsed since he went up to Jerusalem to worship, which worship he performed with so much quietness and order that neither they nor others found him either in the temple, or in the synagogues, or in the city, creating a disturbanceeither disputing or stirring up a crowd. As for the allegation that he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among the Jews throughout the world, that lay beyond their ability to prove, for the reason that it accorded not with fact. That his preaching had aroused excitement among the Jews he could not and would not deny, but that he had never breathed a syllable which could be construed into hostility to Csar he would with equal readiness maintain.

2. To the charge of heresy his answer was that he certainly adhered to the despised sect of the Nazarenes, but that in doing so he had not departed from the ancestral law which his countrymen observed. These might scornfully denounce him as a heretic, but precisely like themselves he believed all things which were according to the law and which were written in the prophets, and like them had hope toward God, that there should be and would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. The gospel preached by him deviated not from that true Judaism which his persecutors (the most of whom must have been Pharisees) professed, but fulfilled its innermost spirit, while the resurrection which formed its culminating theme constituted the very hope for which they themselves were looking. And so far from repudiating this hope, or deviating from it, he made it his constant endeavour with regard to it to have a conscience void of offence both toward God and toward men.

3. To the charge of sacrilege he replied that the thought of violating the sanctity of the temple had never entered his mind. His presence in the sacred edifice could easily be explained. He had brought with him to Jerusalem money contributions from the friends amongst whom he had laboured for many years, to be expended in relieving his poor brethren in the city and in the presentation of offerings in the temple. These offerings he was busily engaged in presenting in the temple, with no tumult or noise, with not even a crowd around him, when certain Jews from Asia, having entered, seized him and gave occasion to the tumult. Why were these Asiatic Jews not present? These could have told better than he the cause of the uproar, for they had made it; and in any case they should have been in court to accuse him if they had aught to lay to his charge. Nothing could have been more noble, manly, straightforward, or convincing, than this candid and ingenuous statement. Conduct like Pauls needed no apology.

III. The noble confession.

1. The implied assumption. That no one had been able to establish any charge of wrong-doing against him.

(1) The orator had not been successful. He had only repeated, parrot-like, what had been put into his mouth by his employers, the high priest and the elders.
(2) The high priest and the elders had not, because they knew nothing about Pauls doings throughout the world, and had not come upon the scene in Jerusalem till after he had been rescued by Lysias.
(3) The Jews from Asia had manifestly nothing they could prove against him, else they would not have been conveniently left behind in Jerusalem, but would have been fetched down to Csarea along with Tertullus.
2. The courageous challenge. If the high priest and elders had anything to urge against him with reference to that part of his conduct which came under their inspection, he was willing they should not keep it back, but openly advance it. Let them say what wrong-doing they found in him when he stood before the council. He was not afraid to hear the worst that could be alleged against him; if he could not honestly and honourably reply to it, he would promptly and humbly acknowledge his offence.

3. The manly avowal. So far from putting obstacles in their way, he would cheerfully assist them. There was one part in his behaviour on that memorable occasion to which they might wish to take exception. He referred to the voice which he cried among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day. That voice had set his judges at variance with one another, and had practically resulted in his release for the moment from their grasp. He did not admit that it was only and wholly wrong for him to have so acted. But possibly on reflection it may have seemed so to them. To them perhaps it was not so clear as it was to him that the real gravamen of his offence was his preaching the doctrine of the resurrection. Then he was ready to concede that it may have seemed to them that his voice about the resurrection had been dictated not so much by a desire to enlighten them as by a perception (which suddenly flashed upon him) that the mention of this word would divide their counsels. If it was so (and he was not careful to deny this impeachment), it was wrong. A man who was solicitous about keeping a conscience void of offence towards both God and man would not have acted so. Beyond this, however, he was conscious of no fault on that trial-day before the council.

IV. The disappointing-result.Felix deferred giving judgment, on the pretext that he wished to wait for the coming down of Lysias, the chief captain, and recommitted Paul to confinement in Herods palace, at the same time issuing orders to the centurion who kept him to grant him indulgence and not forbid any of his friends to minister unto him. This result must have been disappointing to all concerned.

1. To Tertullus the hired advocate, who had lost his case, whose eloquence, though sweetened with flattery, had not carried conviction to the judges judgment, and whose plausible invectives had all been swept aside by the plain, unvarnished tale of the prisoner at the Baruch

2. To the high priest and the elders, whose designs against the apostle had been thwarted, in, to them, a most unexpected manner, first by Claudius Lysias and then by Felix, both of whom, though the high priest and the elders knew it not, were in the hands of a higher than themselves, even of Him who holdeth mens hearts in the hollow of His hand and turneth them whithersoever He will.

3. To Paul, who probably expected to be set at liberty, though he was only granted a mitigation of his imprisonmentwhich was something, no doubt, to be thankful for, though vastly less than what he was entitled to. To be sure, Paul had learnt in whatsoever state he was to be content (Php. 4:11), yet must he have been more than human if he felt no pang of regret that his trial had not resulted more favourably for himself.

4. To Felix. Had Paul himself, or his friends, proposed to purchase his freedom by means of a bribe, there can be little doubt that Paul would have won the day and obtained a verdict in his favour. As much as this may almost be inferred from Felixs well-known covetous disposition (Act. 24:26). That no such proposition was made by the apostle may well be imagined was a grief of heart to the money-loving procurator.

Learn.

1. That truth is always the Christians best defence. Pauls simple story proved more successful than Tertulluss polished rhetoric.
2. That charges which cannot be established are often advanced against Christians. Accusations are not the same things as convictions.
3. That doctrines which are developments of recognised truths are not heresies. A proposition is only, then, heretical when it contradicts accepted truth.
4. That good men may habitually act according to conscience, and yet go astray. Conscience sometimes requires to be enlightened, and its voice may occasionally fail to be heard.
5. That Christians have often to put up with and be thankful for less than they deserve. Paul ought to have been set at liberty, but only got indulgence in his captivity.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 24:11-17. Some Thoughts about Divine Worship.

I. The place.This should always be that which God Himself has pointed out. Under the Hebrew economy, Jerusalem and the temple were the chosen spots in which Jehovah elected to be honoured (Psa. 132:13-14); under the Christian economy God may be worshipped anywhere, provided the subjective conditions of worship are present in the individual heart (Joh. 4:23-24).

II. The manner.Neither noisily nor tumultuously, but ever orderly, quiet, and reverent. Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools (Ecc. 5:1). Let all things be done decently and in order (1Co. 14:40).

III. The form.

1. In accordance with the appointments of Scripture. For Hebrew worship the law and the prophets constituted the sources of authority; for Christian worship these give place to the gospels and epistles. Whatever lies outside of these is will worship (Col. 2:23).

2. In harmony with the continuity of the Church. Unless where the Church has for a time gone wrong. The probability, however, is that the individual, rather than the Church, will err. Hence any form of worship that essentially deviates from that observed by past ages of Gods people is, ipso facto, open to suspicion.

IV. The spirit.

1. Faith. Believing in the Scripturesi.e., in the facts and doctrines revealed therein. As the Hebrew worshipper believed all things which were according to the law and written in the prophets, so must the Christian worshipper credit all things that accord with the gospel of Jesus Christ and that are contained in the writings of His apostles.

2. Hope. With the Christian as with the Hebrew all true worship had an outlook towards the future life, and in particular towards a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust. Blot out this hope or fear from the minds of men and it will be difficult to impel either good men or bad to worship.

3. Charity. A spirit of love and good-will towards all, but especially towards the household of faith, an indispensable characteristic of acceptable worship.

Act. 24:14. Pauls God and Pauls Religion.

I. Pauls God.

1. Not a new, but an old God. The god of his fathers, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, of David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, etc. Christianity not a new religion, but the full development of that which was first revealed in Eden.

2. Not a false, but the true God. Not always an advantage to have an old god: not always wrong to have a new god. Depends on whether the old be the true and the new the false god. If mens old gods are false, they should be abandoned. So said Elijah. If mens new god is true he should be embraced. So teach Christian missionaries. Pauls God was old and true.

3. Not a manufactured, but an inherited God. Pauls God was received by him from his fathers. What a tremendous advantage for a child to receive a knowledge of the true God from his parents! What a responsibility for parents to see that they hand on the knowledge of God to their children! What a powerful argument for God when parents so live as to recommend Him to their children! What a grip God gets upon children to whom He is recommended in this way!

4. Not a blindly accepted, but a deliberately chosen God. Paul had made his fathers God his own by personal choice. This was indispensable. Many have no higher reason for believing in God than just that their parents did so before them. Every one is responsible for making an intelligent and free choice of his own God.

II. Pauls religion.Contained three things.

1. Faith. Believing all things, etc. Paul accepted all that was asserted in the law and the prophets about the ancient history of Israel. So must the Christian accept all that is written in the gospels and epistles about Jesus Christ and His salvation. Religion rests on faith; faith on revealed truth.

2. Hope. Having hope towards God, etc. Paul believed in a future resurrection of just and unjust. Believed it to be taught in Scripture, and looked forward to it as the goal of history. A terrible thought for sinners (Heb. 10:27), but not for believers (1Jn. 3:3).

3. Charity. Pauls religion impelled him to works of faith and labours of love (Act. 24:17).

4. Holiness. Paul studied to keep a conscience void of offence (Act. 24:16).

Act. 24:15. The Doctrine of a Resurrection.

I. Involved in the Mosaic legislation.If not expressly stated therein, that was because of the peculiar character of the Hebrew economy, which regarded the nation as a whole rather than its component parts as individuals. But the ideas of sin and forgiveness which lay at the foundation of that economy must have been entirely meaningless if the individual had no other existence than this terrestrial and temporal one. This, however, it may be urged, only proves a doctrine of continued existence after death, a doctrine of immortality without involving the notion of a bodily resurrection. But as it is certain that this latter notion was not unknown to the Egyptians, it is at least highly probable that though unexpressed in the Pentateuchal Legislation, it was tacitly assumed to lie at its foundation.

II. Proclaimed in the writings of the prophets.As, for instance, by David (Psa. 17:15); by Isaiah (Isa. 26:19); by Ezekiel (Eze. 37:1-14); by Daniel (Dan. 12:2); and by the writer of the Book of Job (Job. 19:26). It was far, indeed, from being either clearly or widely apprehended in pre-Christian times; but that the finer and more religious spirits of the nation apprehended it, at least dimly, can hardly be questioned.

III. Taught by Christ and His apostles.By Christ in such statements as these (Mat. 22:31; Luk. 14:14; Joh. 5:28; Joh. 11:23); by Peter (Act. 4:2; 2Pe. 1:11); by Paul (Act. 17:18; Act. 16:8; Rom. 6:5; Rom. 8:11; 1Co. 15:20-21; 2Co. 4:14; Php. 3:20; Col. 3:3; 1Th. 4:15; 1Th. 5:23); by John (1Jn. 3:2); and by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb. 6:2).

IV. Confirmed by the resurrection of Christ.Which not only demonstrated the possibility of a resurrection, but guaranteed at least the rising of all His people (1Co. 15:20-21; 1Th. 4:14).

Act. 24:18. Certain Jews from Asia; or, Men who Make Reckless Charges.

I. Such men never stop to think whether their charges are true before making them.The Asiatic Jews in question, having seen Paul in the city along with Trophimus (Act. 21:28-29), jumped to the conclusion that Paul had taken his Greek friend into the holy place, or womens court, and so desecrated Jehovahs sanctuary. Had they inquiredand this they probably would have done had they not been actuated by malice against Paulthey would have ascertained that their conclusions were incorrect. Yet thousands of persons, not excluding Christians, unwarned by their example, have done the same thing, hurled baseless charges at the heads of their fellow-men, with regardless indifference as to their truth.

II. Such men never reflect beforehand upon the consequences that may result from their reckless procedure.Had these Asiatic Jews foreseen the complications that arose from their baseless outcry, they would probably have paused. No doubt they were hostilely disposed towards Paul, and intended to do him hurt; but they probably never imagined it would involve such troubles as had been set in motion. Perhaps they designed no more than that Paul should get a good beating; but no sooner had they unleashed the hounds of persecution than Paul came near to losing his life, and probably would have lost it in reality, either by open or secret assassination, had not a watchful Providence protected him. Even so, persons who allow their tongues to run faster than their judgments seldom consider how great a fire a small spark may kindle (Jas. 3:5).

III. Such men are seldom at hand when wanted to undo the mischief they have raised.The Asiatic Jews, had they been present at Caesarea, could easily have confirmed Pauls story, and shown that they, and not he, had been the real authors of the uproar in the temple. But, like most of their kidney who scatter abroad firebrands and cry, Am not I in sport? they took good care to save their own skins by keeping out of the way and leaving the innocent man to suffer. What cared they, the cowards? Unfortunately, mean cowards of their type have not disappeared from among men.

Act. 24:22-23. Good Points in Bad Men.Few persons are utterly bad. Not even Felix, who surpassed both Tertullus and his employers, Ananias and the elders, in

I. Knowledge.He knew more exactly than they did the truth about the Way. He had probably taken more pains than they to ascertain the doctrines and practices of the Nazarenes.

II. HonestyThey wished to push the trial to a verdict against Paul without troubling either Felix or themselves about evidence; he declined to proceed to an issue until the case was more investigated. This showed that Felix had still some rag of conscience within his bosom.

III. Kindness.They would have hurried off the apostle to the stake without compunction, or at least would have loaded him with more and heavier chains. Felix commanded the centurion who kept Paul to grant him as much indulgenlighter chains, and visits from friendsas was consistent with safety. The attribute of clemency on which the orator had complimented Felix was not altogether dead, but it was shown to the accused and not to the accusers (Plumptre).

Act. 24:23. Pauls Imprisonment at Csarea.

I. Its occasion.The accusation preferred against him by the Jews.

II. Its reason.Ostensibly that Felix might be able, on the arrival of Lysias, to determine more accurately the truth of the charges preferred against the apostle; really, that Felix might induce either Paul or his friends to purchase his liberty.

III. Its continuance.Two years, which meant two years endurance of unjust oppression, and two years arrest of his missionary laboursthe second a greater trial to the apostle than the first.

IV. Its mitigations

1. A relaxation of the customary severities inflicted on prisonerssuch a relaxation of his chain at meal times, for instance, as Josephus (Ant., XVIII. vi. 10) says was granted to Agrippa at Rome; and

2. The permission of friends to visit him.

V. Its utilisation.That Paul allowed this period of enforced retirement from his active missionary propagandism to pass unimproved cannot be supposed. How he employed it may even be conjectured with some degree of probability.

1. In meditation and prayer. Communing with his own heart (Psa. 77:6), searching the Scriptures (Act. 17:11; Joh. 5:39), and pouring out his heart before the Lord (Php. 4:6; 1Th. 5:17); thus advancing his own personal sanctification (Php. 3:12-14), and preparing for whatever service he might afterwards be summoned to (compare Rom. 1:15).

2. In holding intercourse with his friends. Who these friends were are not named. But probably his companions who had been with him at the time of his arrest should be reckoned to their numberSilas, Trophimus, Luke, Mnason, and others, with not a few of the Christian disciples at Csarea. Sympathy from, and converse with, these would alleviate the apostles bonds.

3. In writing letters to the Churches. If the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were not, as some suppose (Meyer, Reuss, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld and Weiss), composed during this period of incarceration, it is not a violent hypothesis that he who had the care of all the Churches on his heart (2Co. 11:28) was frequently consulted by his spiritual children, the infant communities he had founded, or in which he had laboured, and that he wrote to them letters full of counsel and admonition, which, though they have not been preserved till our day, were then received by those to whom they were sent as messages of love from their spiritual father and instructor.

4. In instructing Luke about the details of gospel and apostolic history. Which have been set downperhaps under Pauls immediate superintendencein the gospel of Luke and in the Acts. The ideas that the narrative of St. Pauls journeys, or at least parts of it, had an independent existence before it was utilised or incorporated in the Acts, and that this, Travel-Document, as it is styled, was composed under the immediate influence of Paul himself (Ramsay, The Church in Asia Minor, pp. 6, 7), shed light on a part, at least, of Pauls occupation during the two years of imprisonment at Csarea.

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

(10) Forasmuch as I know . . .We note at once the difference between St. Pauls frank manliness and the servile flattery of the advocate. He is content to appeal to the experience of the many years (really about six, but this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship, and the words might, therefore, be used without exaggeration) during which he had held office. Such a man was not likely to attach too much weight to the statements of Tertullus and Ananias. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with a divided authority (see Note on Act. 24:2), had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.The verb for answer is connected with our English apology in its older sense of vindication or defence.

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

10. Beckoned The prosecutor is silent and seated. A nod from the judge permits Paul to speak. So veteran a pleader needs not, like the high priest and his elders, a lawyer to put his case.

Many years a judge Paul has not much material for compliment, for he must confine himself to truth; but he makes a most dexterous use of what he has. He compliments the judge on his long tenure of office. Felix had ruled six or seven years; a long period for those times of rapid change by imperial caprice.

The more cheerfully Skilful truth again. Felix had during his six years’ residence in Cesarea doubtless become familiar with the Christian Church there, where Philip the evangelist had long preached and where Paul had so lately visited, (Act 21:8-15.) He had a Jewish wife, who evidently knew the history of Christ and of Christianity. (See note on Act 24:24.)

Paul now in his reply answers to the charge of sedition, (11-13;) to the charge of heresy, (14-16;) to the charge of sacrilege, (17-21.)

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

‘And when the governor had beckoned to him to speak, Paul answered,’

The governor then turned to Paul and beckoned him to speak and give his defence.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul too recognises the need to win the judges confidence. So he states how gladly he makes his defence in front of such an experienced and knowledgeable judge. ‘Many years.’ Prior to being procurator Felix had been an administrator in the area.

Then he informs him that he can soon if he wishes discover the facts, and that is that Paul had come to Jerusalem in order to worship God and had only been in Jerusalem twelve days, and that he had done no disputing or ‘rousing up’ in either the Temple, or the synagogues, or the city. So the claims were simply untrue. And it would not take long to make enquiries and prove it.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul denies the charges:

v. 10. 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,

v. 11. because that thou mayest understand that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.

v. 12. 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;

v. 13. neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

Paul’s position in this matter was very unpleasant, for he was suddenly, by the beckoning hand of the governor, placed face to face with the necessity of answering to charges of a very grave nature, some of which, in fact, were serious enough, if sustained, to result in severe, punishment, if not in death. But he relied upon the promise of the Lord for mouth and wisdom, Luk 21:16. His answer is conspicuously free from the fawning flattery that had been the outstanding feature of the speech of Tertullus. He relied upon the fact, which he knew to be true, that Felix had for many years been a judge to this people, that he had been the highest judicial authority in the country for some time, and had thus acquired a personal knowledge of its public affairs and some insight into the religious customs of the Jews. Felix had now been procurator of Judea some six or seven years, a comparatively long period as governorships went in that country, and was bound to have been in constant touch with Jewish life and manners. This fact therefore gave Paul the necessary courage to make his defense with all openness and confidence. As his first point Paul stated, since Felix therefrom could gain accurate knowledge of the situation, that it was not more than twelve days since he had gone up to Jerusalem to worship. This statement may easily be justified in various ways, as a number of historians have shown, the exact sequence of events being immaterial. Two facts stand out in this sentence, namely, that the express purpose of Paul in going to Jerusalem was to worship, and that the shortness of the time would not possibly have permitted him to foment an uprising. And therefore he flatly denies the charges which had been preferred by the Jews through their attorney. They had not found him disputing, arguing, quarreling with any one; they hub not come upon him in the act of inciting an uprising of the people, neither in the synagogues nor in any part of the city. They could not offer or furnish any proofs to the governor concerning any of the charges which they were now bringing against him. Paul’s simple assertion of the truth was not only a general denial of the charge that he had been an agitator among the Jews in all parts of the empire, but it, incidentally challenged the opponents to bring proofs of their accusations. Thus Paul had disposed of the opening charges of Tertillus in a form of self-evident truthfulness which could not fail of making a deep impression. If the same methods are followed by the Christians in our days, they will usually aid their cause better than by cowering fear and false submission.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 24:10. Then Paulanswered, Forasmuch, &c. It was now about seven years since Felix entered on his government. The three articles of Tertullus’s charge were sedition,heresy,and a profanation of the temple. St. Paul’s answer exactly corresponds to each of these. As to the first he suggests, that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; and challenges his accusers, in fact, to produce any evidence of such practices, Act 24:11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian, but maintains that Christianity is a religion perfectly agreeable to the revelation of Moses and all the prophets, and consequently not deserving to be branded with any infamous or invidious title, Act 24:14-16. And as for the profanation of the temple, he tells them, that on the contrary he had entered it with some peculiar rites of religious purification, and had behaved himself therein in a most peaceful and regular manner; so thathis innocence had been evident even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him; Act 24:17-21.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 24:10 . In what a dignified, calm, and wise manner does Paul open his address!

] therefore thou hast an ample judicial experience as regards the circumstances of the nation and their character. “Novus aliquis praeses propter inscitiam forte perculsus esset tam atroci delatione,” Calvin.

Felix entered on the procuratorship after the banishment of his predecessor Cumanus , in the year 52 (according to Wieseler, 53); see Joseph. Antt . xx. 7.1. Even in the time of Cumanus he had great influence, particularly in Samaria, without, however, being actually governor of that country, as is incorrectly stated in Tac. Ann . xii. 54 in contradiction to Josephus, or of Upper Galilee (as is erroneously inferred by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, and others, from Joseph. Bell . ii. 12. 8). See Anger, de temp. rat . p. 88; Wieseler, p. 67 f.; comp. also Gerlach, l.c. , p. 75; Ewald, p. 549. He was thus at this time (see Introduction, 4) probably in the seventh year of his procuratorship. [153]

] is not, with Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others (after ), to be taken generally as praefectus, rector , but specially as judge ; for the judicial position of Felix in his procuratorship was the point here concerned. On the participle with . , see Winer, p. 324 [E. T. 435].

] the more cheerfully , namely, than I would be able to do if thou wert still new in this judicial office.

] I bring forward in defence the things concerning myself. Comp. Plat. Crit . p. 54 B, Phaed. p. 69 D, Conv. p. 174 D, and Stallb. in loc. , Pol . iv. p. 420 B, 453 C; Dem. 227. 13, 407. 19; Thuc. iii. 62. 4.

[153] To reduce the to three years (Stlting, Beitr. z. Exeg. d. Paul. Br . p. 192), even apart from the duration of the government of Felix being thereby assumed as much too short (ver. 27), is rendered exegetically impossible by the expression itself. For a captatio benevolentiae, so definite ( ) a statement of time, if by were meant only three years, would be very inappropriate, as the words would contain a flat untruth. How easily would a more flexible expression have presented itself for such a purpose, such as , or (or ) !

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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: (11) Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. (12) 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: (13) Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. (14) But 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: (15) 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. (16) And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men. (17) Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. (18) Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. (19) Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me. (20) Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, (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 by you this day.

Let the Reader behold the composedness which marked Paul’s conduct before this unjust assembly. Until Felix waved his hand to him to speak, the Apostle stood silent. Indeed there was nothing to answer. For if the Reader will count the time as Paul stated, from the day he left Caesarea, to the then present hour, it was only twelve days, nine of which they had confined him. What pestilence or sedition could he have been guilty of in such an interval, three-fourths of which he had been a prisoner. And the three first days he was engaged in performing the religious worship in the temple, for which he came up to Jerusalem. But I hope the Reader will not overlook the chief and leading point which Tertullus labored at, which was to insinuate, that this sect, as he called the followers of the Lord Jesus, were enemies to government. This was the master-piece of Satan, in the accusation brought against our Lord, Luk 23:2 ; Joh 19:12 . And this, more or less, in every age of the Church, hath been the grand means made use of to undermine the cause of Christ, Psa 2:1-2 ; Exo 1:10 ; Neh 5:17 . How little do these men know that the real stability of earthly kingdoms is founded in the interests of Christ’s. Indeed the very purposes for which all monarchies of the world are carried on, are in a way of ministry to promote the ultimate end of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The earth helped the Woman, Rev 12:16-17 ; Pro 8:15-16 .

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

Chapter 88

Prayer

Almighty God, we would hide ourselves in thy love. Thy love is an infinite pavilion in which there is defence for every trustful soul. We say this in the triumph given unto us by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. We need no other refuge; we are at rest in thy love. Receive us, every one, and give every heart to feel the joy of Divine and infinite security. We love thy name. We look up unto the hills whence cometh our help, and, behold, they are higher than our imagining, stronger than all we can think the hills of God, the mountains of light, the everlasting fortresses which give protection to the souls loving the Saviour and living in him. Come to us this new year and make it the brightest of all our time. Thou hast yet more wondrous things to do in us and by us and for us. Thy miracles are not ended; thy revelations are not spent; thou still hast the light that can enlarge our outlook and make us glad with higher joy. We will not believe that the fountain of thy grace can be dried up; we will look for the living water, and looking, we shall surely find it there is a look of the heart which thou canst not deny. We, therefore, come in quest of the living stream, the holy river the blessed gift of God to the thirst of the immortal soul. We come in the name that is above every name, and, therefore, we shall not be sent empty away. We have victory assured in the name which we breathe. The name of Jesus cannot fail if we pronounce it with our faith and love; it is an answer to our prayer, a fulfilment of our desire, an inspiration of our truest hope. Show us that the name of Jesus Christ is full of riches, full of grace, full of meaning. May we dwell upon it; may we appeal to it continually that it may answer us with great replies and satisfy us with infinite satisfactions. We would be led farther into the heavenly fields than yet we have travelled; we would see brighter visions than yet we have gazed upon; we would hear the innermost voice and music of thy truth that steals upon the listening soul and gives delight in secret, causing the life to be filled with new courage that it may fight God’s battles in the open day. Wherein we have done evil, let the Lord be pitiful unto us, and astonish us by renewals of grace; may the hill of our sin be overshadowed by the infinite mountains of God’s grace. Where sin abounds, may grace much more abound, so as to cast into forgetfulness the mistakes, the infirmities, the errors, and the crimes of our life. This is our one hope: that Christ is stronger than our enemy, Christ is richer in resources than the foe plighted to be against us evermore. We will trust in Christ, we will rest in Christ, we will hide ourselves behind Christ; we have no other hope; we ask no other defence. Thou knowest our desires, our necessities; thou knowest our innermost thought and wish. Thou wilt give us answers according to thy reading of our hearts, lather than to our utterance of desire. Thou wilt say, “No,” where it is good for us that our prayer should be rejected. Thou wilt correctly read all the circumstances which make up our life, and to them, in all their wondrous combination and inexpressible meaning, thou wilt give the answer of thy love. Hold thou us up, and we shall be safe. Wherein we have done wrong, pity us; wherein we have done aright, the praise be thine, for we did it against ourselves and against an infinite pressure. This is thy miracle, and we will praise it as the wonder of heaven. Wherein thou hast said in thy counsel, “This year thou shalt die,” make the way easy, make the downward slope a gentle one, and send such mitigations of fear as shall turn apprehension into triumph. Wherein thou hast called any of us to new trial or suffering or endurance, may we bear it heroically as men sustained by grace Divine, and encouraged by exceeding great and precious promises. Let thy blessing go forth to our houses, to our sick-chamber, to all the little ones, whose prayers are best because they are wordless, and are but upward looks with meaning in them thou alone canst understand. Go with those who have gone far away, who have joined themselves unto citizens in countries where there is no cross, no Christ, no knowledge of God. Bring back the wanderer whilst we hold the door open to receive him. The Lord make us glad this year because lost children are born again unto us, and wanderers are come home. Upon the whole Church, redeemed with blood, let the mercy and the grace and the peace of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost rest in multiplied abundance. Bring all believing hearts nearer to God. Establish in love and confidence and union all who name the name of Jesus Christ. And thus, as the years come and go yea, go in their coming-may we grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and find, at last, that we have been all the while undergoing preparation, not for death, but for higher life, for wider service, for profounder worship. Amen.

Act 24:10-25

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

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

12. 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:

13. Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

14. But 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:

15. 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.

16. And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.

17. Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.

18. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult,

19. Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.

20. Or else let these same here say if they have found any evil-doing in me while I stood before the council,

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 by you this day.

22. And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.

23. And 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.

24. And 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.

25. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Paul’s Inspired Method

This whole chapter may enable us to see some new and illustrative views of the spirit and character of the Apostle Paul. We begin to see somewhat of the gigantic stature of his mind; but the loftiness of the mountain must not lead us to overlook the fine mosses and delicate flowers with which its base is so exquisitely enamelled. It is difficult for many people to see more than one feature in a character; they become prejudiced in favour of one view of the mind, and that prejudice excludes features quite as great as any which have been perceived. The character of Paul, for example, is as fine in texture as it is vast in bulk. When men speak of Jeremiah, they think of him as the weeping prophet, forgetting that in the prophecies of Jeremiah are some of the finest poems ever dreamed by human imagination. But you will never persuade the world that Jeremiah did anything but cry. So with the Apostle Paul: a prejudice has been formed respecting him as a reasoner, a theologian, a man mighty in debate. The truth is, no man in all the New Testament but One had a heart so great, so tender, so womanly; but you will never persuade the Church that Paul was anything but a theological fighter. This is distressing: it hinders the progress of Christian education. It represents our own nature, nevertheless, and shows us to ourselves, revealing the impossibility of our taking in more than one view of any many-sided character. Look at the incident before us as contributing somewhat to the elucidation of the finer and more fibrous lines that made up the life, the soul, the inspiration, and the service of the great Apostle.

Look at the contrast between Paul’s introduction and the preface of Tertullus. Christianity makes gentlemen; Christianity is the religion of delicateness, refinement, subtlety of spiritual excellence. It put a fire into Paul’s weak eyes that nothing else could have put there. Christianity changes the visage, the voice, the touch; it makes new creatures. Wherein we are vulgar, common, ill-looking, we are not Christians; we do but show the space which Christianity has yet to cover and to conquer, and, blessed be God, it will do so. It will change our vile body and make it like unto the typical Body, full of glory; on the road it performs intermediate miracles and sets up symbolic signs, full of earnest and pledge. Tertullus began cringingly, fulsomely, falsely. He told Felix things which Felix knew were not true, but they were men standing on the same level, and they were not critical when the vanity of the one was excited and the falsehood of the other was prepared to minister to it.

The governor having haughtily inclined his head towards the prisoner in sign that he might speak now a haughty Roman nod Paul 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.” Felix had not been judge a great many years, but he had been judge more than about twice the usual time, and Paul recognised that fact, forasmuch as it was the only compliment he was able to pay the corrupt governor. It was a circumstance over which Felix had next to no control. A man cannot help being the senior member of a company. Beautiful the genius, subtle and not false the flattery, which recognises his seniority as if it were an excellence! Christianity is courteous never rough; recognising whatever can be recognised in the way of excellence, or continuance of service, but never stooping to drag its own crown in the mire.

In this introduction you have one of the lines in Paul’s character. Look at the temper which Paul displayed under what we may call this hurricane of abuse. He has just been called “a pestilent fellow,” “a mover of sedition,” and “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” a profaner of the temple, and then he is asked to speak for himself. There is no excitement in his reply, there is no resentment; he contents himself with denial and with challenging proof. Some charges you can only deny. There is nothing so easy as to bring a charge against a man, and all that is left to him, in proportion to his innocence, is the poor opportunity of saying, “This is not true.” But the world is slow to learn that lesson. The world has read the Bible, and has been struck with the instances in which innocent men have been basely charged with infamous crimes, and, whilst the world is quite willing to believe that four thousand years ago innocent men may have been charged falsely, the world will not believe that about its own contemporaries. It is a wicked world! What has Paul to say in reply to these accusatory statements? Nothing, except, to say they are not true, any one of them, and, therefore, the men who speak them are liars. That is a poor defence; yet that is the only defence possible. Any man is placed at an infinite disadvantage who has to answer charges in which there is no truth. Were there the slightest particle of truth, he could out of that particle make a great defence; but when the charges of pestilence, sedition, ringleadership, profanity, are only pure and simple lies from end to end, part of his defence is in his quietness, no small part of his defence is in the absence of vindictive-ness. Fury would have created suspicion, and resentment would have been an argument on the other side; but the quietness of the consciousness of innocence and utter absence of anything like undignified feeling these must be taken as contributing to the establishment of an irrefragable proof that an innocent man was in the presence of Felix.

Look at the manner in which the personal defence is made to create room for the doctrinal exposition. Paul does not spend much time upon himself: he hastens away to speak of larger things and larger interests. We have seen this to be the habit of Paul; he will not tarry over little things; he is in haste to accomplish a sublime purpose and issue. This is his spirit now. The larger consideration always ruled Paul; in his view, the whole world was only made for the one purpose of receiving the kingdom of Christ. Why do we not take our rule from his magnanimous method? Do not defend yourself, but preach and live, expound and exemplify the truth. There is a view in which it is a very small thing as to what any man is or does; when the man is innocent, there is nothing more trifling than that he should begin to defend himself. Rest in your innocence. Many stones may be thrown at you, but every one of them will miss the mark; the cruel part of it all is that some persons imagine that if stones are thrown at you, you deserve to be stoned. Do not let that trouble you; such men are not to be convinced; they are amongst the people who are elected by a sovereignty we cannot control to be the victims of their own prejudices. They have only one idea in their heads, and it is impossible to get another into them; you may silence them, but never convince them. Do not waste your time over them, but exemplify the Gospel, expound the larger truth, live in the larger element, and in due time all will be brought to a peaceful and happy issue. Paul never failed to proceed from the little personal to the infinite impersonal. A moment’s wave of the hand that perhaps he might remove a particle of the mud, and away he went broad-souled, mind on fire to tell what he knew about the kingdom of his blessed Lord and Master. To each of us the Spirit says, “Go thou and do likewise.”

Observe, in the fourth place, how Paul keeps hold of his audience, by preaching Christianity without so much as naming Christ. This is the mystery which modern times cannot handle. Read Paul’s defence and tell me where Christianity can be found in it in any doctrinal and positive form. Is there not genius here? Is there not inspiration in knowing where to stop, how to draw your lines, how to adapt resources to necessities? Paul might have been the orator on the other side; Paul might have been simply a Roman addressing a Roman, so far as the name, the priesthood, and the deity of Jesus Christ are concerned. As we now understand or misunderstand the matter, there is not one evangelical sentence in the whole speech. That would not suit a modern audience, because a modern audience is foolish. Inspiration guides a man quite as much in teaching him whatnot to say as in teaching him what to say; inspiration has to do with method as well as with matter. I know not whether there can be found any instance of Divine inspiration more patent and satisfactory than the one which we find in this speech of Paul. Is he then not preaching Christ? He is preaching him all the time. He is creating a wonder; he is developing a certain state of mind; he says mentally, “This is not the whole affair. I shall have more chances; it is enough now to touch curiosity, to excite surprise, to create interest in me and in my message; by-and-by I shall speak to that procurator in a way he never heard mortal tongue deliver itself; but now I have to answer this mean hireling, who would plead my cause if I only paid him enough to do so. I have to do a little preliminary work; the Holy Ghost bids me say this and say no more.” We might do a great deal of preaching in that way if the Church would allow us; but the Church always brings its own thermometer and barometer along with it, for the purpose of measuring heats and temperatures and weights and atmospheric conditions. The merchant can be preaching Christianity in his business without ever letting it be known that he ever spent one moment on his knees. It is not necessary to be a theologian to be a great preacher. Men can preach Christianity and defend the Cross in temper, actions, family and commercial relations, and beget a state of mental wonder on the part of the observers as to how such things happen to be as they are. By-and-by such men may be sent for, that they may speak concerning the mystery; that they may tell how it is that they did not take all that they might have clutched; how it was that honesty triumphed over perfidy, and how it could possibly be that a man could say, “No,” when by saying “Yes” he might have secured a competence. In the after-talks, when the babbling Tertullus has gone, the great mystery of personal consciousness, personal honour, and personal sacrifice may be revealed and declared.

In making his defence, Paul keeps to the Scriptures: “believing,” said he, in the fourteenth verse, “all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” This was so much gained; but it was a generality that wanted accent, so he proceeds, in the sixteenth verse, to supply the accent which was required: “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.” There you have the complete character the student plunged in the mysteries of the Scriptures the man drilling himself, under Divine inspiration and encouragement, in moral integrity and sanctity; recognising the supremacy of conscience and training the ethical faculty to the highest sensitiveness and the most penetrating discernment.

This was moral preaching? I would God we had more moral preaching, then! The man who is severe with his own conscience will know how to treat the consciences of other men; the man who lives in conscience will be a tremendous preacher when the occasion arises for him to address conscience. Paul, at this stage in the speech, gives us a hint of the power which he will exercise by-and-by when he confronts Felix alone. No man can preach to the conscience, with any truly gracious and happy effect, who does not attend to his own conscience. Herein have we confidence in the great Apostle. His genius we might have learned to neglect, his great intellectual sagacity might have fallen into the familiarity which brings with it indifference, if not contempt; but so long as he stands up a conscientious man, a righteous man, we cannot but respect and venerate him. Nothing will stand in the world’s estimation for ever but downright in-and-out goodness. No preacher can live on mere foam of words; no lecturer on the platform can have an everlasting reputation who neglects the moral nature of his audiences; no book can be a perpetual monitor that has in it only flippancy and humour and laughter. He will have supreme influence whose character is like a pillar on the top of which there is lily-work. The lily-work does nothing for the pillar: the pillar does its own bearing work: it has the weight upon it; and yet the lily-work is praised by the children, praised by infantile minds; the little, frail, pretty lily-work will attract more attention than the upright, solid, all-bearing pillar. Never mind, pillar; we rest on thee, we trust to thee. There are temporary reputations which will pass away; but at the last the pillar may be spoken of, because it so nobly, strongly, and quietly carried the whole burden. So it is with conscience. It is the righteousness of the world that saves it, not ten geniuses, ten poets, ten dreamers, ten defenders, but ten righteous men. Whilst they pray, the fire-shower, the fire-storm, will not descend.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

10 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:

Ver. 10. Forasmuch as I know, &c. ] Paul was a stately orator when he listed, as here. Porphyry said it was a pity that such a man as Paul should be bestowed upon our religion. How bravely doth he here unstarch the orator’s speech, and make his own defence.

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

10. ] Felix was now in the seventh year of his procuratorship, which began in the twelfth year of Claudius, A.D. 52.

The contrast between Tertullus’s and Paul’s ‘captatio benevolenti’ is remarkable. The former I have characterized above. But the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges the one point which could really win attention to him from Felix, viz. his confidence arising from speaking before one well skilled by experience in the manners and customs of the Jews .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 24:10 . On the language of the speech see Bethge, p. 229. This short apology before Felix is not without its traces of Paul’s phraseology, e.g. , , Act 24:15 , with which we may compare Rom 15:4 , 2Co 3:12 ; 2Co 10:15 , Eph 2:12 , 1Th 4:13 , in all of which we have the phrase . (only once elsewhere in N.T., 1Jn 3:3 ); in Act 24:15 , with which we may compare Tit 2:13 ; , Act 24:17 , cf. Rom 15:16 ; , Act 24:17 , with Gal 2:1 ( with genitive of time, only once elsewhere in N.T., Mar 2:1 ), and more especially ., cf. 1Co 10:32 , Phi 1:10 , and for , see Act 23:1 ( cf. Nsgen, Apostelgeschichte , p. 54, and Alford, Acts , Introd., p. 14). Wendt regards the whole speech as a free composition of the author of Acts, and even this view contrasts favourably with what Wendt himself calls the wilful attempts to refer different words and phrases in the speech to various Redactors, see for illustrations of this arbitrariness his note on p. 369 (1899). : in N.T., elsewhere only Joh 13:24 . Friedrich draws attention to the frequent mention of beckoning, or making signs, as characteristic of Luke’s writings, p. 29, cf. Luk 1:22 ; Luk 1:62 ( , ), Act 5:7 ( ); Act 13:16 ; Act 26:1 ; Act 24:10 , etc. : in view of the constant change of procurators a period of five to seven years would quite justify St. Paul’s words. Ewald argued for ten years from the statement, Tac., Ann. , xii., 54, that Felix had been joint procurator with Cumanus before he had been appointed sole procurator of Juda, Samaria, Galilee, Pera. But no mention is made of this by Jos., Ant. , xx., 7, 1. If, however, so it is argued, Felix had occupied a position of importance in Samaria in the time of the rule of Cumanus without being himself actually joint procurator, this would perhaps account for Jonathan the high priest asking that he might be appointed procurator after the departure of Cumanus (Jos., Ant. , xx., 8, 5, B.J. , ii., 12, 6); such a request is difficult to understand unless Jonathan had some ground for supposing that Felix would be acceptable to the Jews. But the description of Tacitus, l.c. , is also difficult to understand, since we naturally ask what was the relative rank of Felix and Cumanus? or were there two procuratorial districts? and the statement of Josephus seems clearly to intimate that Felix was first appointed to the province after the deposition of Cumanus, and that he went to Palestine as his successor, B.J. , ii., 12, 6, cf. Ant. , xx., 8, 5, Schrer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 ff., and “Felix,” Hastings’ B.D. Both Tacitus and Josephus are taken to imply that Felix succeeded Cumanus in 52 A.D. as procurator, Ann. , xii., 54, Jos., Ant. , xx., 7, 1. But if O. Holtzmann and McGiffert are right in placing St. Paul’s imprisonment in Csarea in 53 55 A.D., it seems scarcely intelligible that St. Paul should speak of the “many years” of the rule of Felix, unless on the supposition that Tacitus is right and that Felix had ruled in Samaria and Juda whilst Cumanus had ruled in Galilee. Harnack, Chron. , i., 236, following Eusebius, assigns the eleventh year of Claudius, 51 A.D., as the year in which Felix entered upon office, and thinks that a procuratorship lasting from 51 54 might be described in St. Paul’s words, but, as Wendt justly points out (1899), the expression is much more fitting if spoken some years later. Schrer follows Josephus, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 ff., and so more recently Dr. A. Robertson, “Felix,” Hastings’ B.D., and Dr. Zahn, Einleitung , ii., p. 635 (so also article, Biblical World , Nov., 1897), whilst Wendt, p. 58 (1899), would appear to incline to the same view. But it is to be noted that St. Paul speaks of Felix as , and in this expression it may be possible to find a point of reconciliation between the divergencies resulting from a comparision of Josephus and Tacitus. Felix may have held an office during the procuratorship of Cumanus which may have given him some judicial authority, although of course subordinate to the procurator, whilst on the other hand his tenure of such an office may well have prompted Jonathan’s request to the emperor that Felix should be sent as procurator (a request upon which both Schrer and Zahn lay such stress). The phrase may thus be further extended to include the tenure of this judicial office which Felix held earlier than 52 A.D., see also Turner, “Chronology,” Hastings’ B.D., i., 418, 419, McGiffert, Apostolic Age , p. 358, O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , p. 128, Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 313, Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul , p. 249 ff., 1899. , see above, p. 480; on the addition , defended by St. Chrysostom (so , Syr. H.), Blass remarks “continet adulationem qu Paulum parum deceat, quidquid dicit Chrysostomus”. : St. Paul is speaking of the Jews as a nation in their political relationship, in addressing a Roman governor, not as God’s people, . : adverb only here in N.T., not in LXX, but in classical Greek, for the adjective see Act 27:36 ( 2Ma 11:26 ), and the verb , Act 24:22 . St. Paul also begins with a captatio benevolenti , but one which contains nothing but the strict truth; he might fairly appeal to the judicial experience of Felix for the due understanding of his case. : for the phrase as characteristic of St. Luke, three times in Gospel, eight times in Acts (six times in St. Paul’s Epistles and not in other Gospels, except Mar 5:27 , R.V.), cf. Hawkins, Hor Synoptic , p. 38, Friedrich, p. 10 (so Lekebusch and Zeller). : only in Luke and Paul, Luk 12:11 ; Luk 21:14 , Act 19:33 ; Act 25:8 ; Act 26:1-2 ; Act 26:24 ; Rom 2:15 , 2Co 12:19 , each time in Acts, except Act 19:38 , with reference to Paul: R.V. “I make my defence”; see Grimm-Thayer, sub v. , for the construction of the verb, in classical Greek as here, Thuc., iii., 62, Plat., Phdo , 69 D. In LXX, cf. Jer 12:1 , 2Ma 13:26 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts

PAUL BEFORE FELIX

Act 24:10 – Act 24:25 .

Tertellus made three charges against Paul: first, that he incited to rebellion; second, that he was a principal member of a ‘sect’; third with a ‘moreover,’ as if an afterthought, that he had profaned the Temple. It was more clever than honest to put the real cause of Jewish hatred last, since it was a trifle in Roman eyes, and to put first the only thing that Felix would think worth notice. A duller man than he might have scented something suspicious in Jewish officials being so anxious to suppress insurrection against Rome, and probably he had his own thoughts about the good faith of the accusers, though he said nothing. Paul takes up the three points in order. Unsupported charges can only be met by emphatic denials.

I. Paul’s speech is the first part of the passage.

Its dignified, courteous beginning contrasts well with the accuser’s dishonest flattery. Paul will not lie, but he will respect authority, and will conciliate when he can do so with truth. Felix had been ‘judge’ for several years, probably about six. What sort of a judge he had been Paul will not say. At any rate he had gained experience which might help him in picking his way through Tertullus’s rhetoric.

The Apostle answers the first charge with a flat denial, with the remark that as the whole affair was less than a fortnight old the truth could easily be ascertained, and that the time was very short for the Jews to have ‘found’ him such a dangerous conspirator, and with the obviously unanswerable demand for proof to back up the charge. In the absence of witnesses there was nothing more to be done about number one of the accusations, and a just judge would have said so and sent Tertullus and his clients about their business.

The second charge Paul both denies and admits. He does belong to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. But that is not a ‘sect’; it is ‘the Way.’ It is not a divergence from the path in which the fathers have walked, trodden only by some self-willed schismatics, but it is the one God-appointed path of life, ‘the old way,’ the only road by which a man can walk nobly and travel to the skies. Paul’s whole doctrine as to the relation of Judaism to Christianity is here in germ and in a form adapted to Felix’s comprehension. This so-called sect Act 24:14 takes up Tertullus’s word in Act 24:5 is the true Judaism, and its members are more truly ‘Jews’ than they who are such ‘outwardly.’ For what has Paul cast away in becoming a Christian? Not the worship of the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, not the law, not the prophets, not the hope of a resurrection.

He does not say that he practises all the things written in the law, but that he ‘believes’ them. Then the law was revelation as well as precept, and was to be embraced by faith before it could be obeyed in practice; it was, as he says elsewhere, a ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.’ Judaism is the bud; Christianity is the bright consummate flower. Paul was not preaching his whole Gospel, but defending himself from a specific charge; namely that, as being a ‘Nazarene,’ he had started off from the main line of Jewish religion. He admits that he is a ‘Nazarene,’ and he assumes correctly that Felix knew something about them, but he denies that he is a sectary, and he assumes that the charge would be more truly made against those who, accusing him, disbelieved in Christ. He hints that they did not believe in either law or prophets, else they would have been Nazarenes too.

The practical results of his faith are stated. ‘Herein’; that is in the faith and hope just spoken of. He will not say that these make him blameless towards God and men, but that such blamelessness is his aim, which he pursues with earnest toil and self-control. A Christianity which does not sovereignly sway life and brace its professor up to the self-denial needful to secure a conscience void of offence is not Paul’s kind of Christianity. If we move in the circle of the great Christian truths we shall gird ourselves to subdue the flesh, and will covet more than aught else the peace of a good conscience. But, like Paul, we shall be slow to say that we have attained, yet not afraid to say that we strive towards, that ideal.

The third charge is met by a plain statement of his real purpose in coming to Jerusalem and frequenting the Temple. ‘Profane the Temple! Why, I came all the way from Greece on purpose to worship at the Feast; and I did not come empty-handed either, for I brought alms for my nation’-the contributions of the Gentiles to Jews-’and I was a worshipper, discharging the ceremonial purifications.’ They called him a ‘Nazarene’; he was in the Temple as a ‘Nazarite.’ Was it likely that, being there on such an errand, he should have profaned it?

He begins a sentence, which would probably have been an indignant one, about the ‘certain Jews from Asia,’ the originators of the whole trouble, but he checks himself with a fine sense of justice. He will say nothing about absent men. And that brings him back to his strong point, already urged, the absence of proof of the charges. Tertullus and company had only hearsay. What had become of the people who said they saw him in the Temple? No doubt they had thought discretion the better part of valour, and were not anxious to face the Roman procedure.

The close of the speech carries the war into the enemy’s quarters, challenging the accusers to tell what they had themselves heard. They could be witnesses as to the scene at the Council, which Tertullus had wisely said nothing about. Pungent sarcasm is in Paul’s closing words, especially if we remember that the high officials, like Ananias the high-priest, were Sadducees. The Pharisees in the Council had acquitted him when they heard his profession of faith in a resurrection. That was his real crime, not treason against Rome or profanation of the Temple. The present accusers might be eager for his condemnation, but half of their own Sanhedrim had acquitted him. ‘And these unworthy Jews, who have cast off the nation’s hope and believe in no resurrection, are accusing me of being an apostate! Who is the sectary-I or they?’

II. There was only one righteous course for Felix, namely, to discharge the prisoner.

But he yielded to the same temptation as had mastered Pilate, and shrank from provoking influential classes by doing the right thing. He was the less excusable, because his long tenure of office had taught him something, at all events, of ‘the Way.’ He had too many crimes to venture on raising enemies in his government; he had too much lingering sense of justice to give up an innocent man. So like all weak men in difficult positions he temporised, and trusted to accident to make the right thing easier for him.

His plea for delay was conveniently indefinite. When was Lysias coming? His letter said nothing about such an intention, and took for granted that all the materials for a decision would be before Felix. Lysias could tell no more. The excuse was transparent, but it served to stave off a decision, and to-morrow would bring some other excuse. Prompt carrying out of all plain duty is the only safety. The indulgence given to Paul, in his light confinement, only showed how clearly Felix knew himself to be doing wrong, but small alleviations do not patch up a great injustice.

III. One reading inserts in Act 24:24 the statement that Drusilla wished to see Paul, and that Felix summoned him in order to gratify her.

Very probably she, as a Jewess, knew something of ‘the Way,’ and with a love of anything odd and new, which such women cannot do without, she wanted to see this curious man and hear him talk. It might amuse her, and pass an hour, and be something to gossip about.

She and Felix got more than they bargained for. Paul was not now the prisoner, but the preacher; and his topics were not wanting in directness and plainness. He ‘reasoned of righteousness’ to one of the worst of unrighteous governors; of ‘temperance’ to the guilty couple who, in calling themselves husband and wife, were showing themselves given over to sinful passions; and of ‘judgment to come’ to a man who, to quote the Roman historian, ‘thought that he could commit all evil with impunity.’

Paul’s strong hand shook even that obdurate soul, and roused one of the two sleeping consciences. Drusilla may have been too frivolous to be impressed, but Felix had so much good left that he could be conscious of evil. Alas! he had so much evil that he suppressed the good. His ‘convenient season’ was then; it never came again. For though he communed with Paul often, he trembled only once. So he passed into the darkness.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 24:10-21

10When the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, 11since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. 13Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. 14But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. 17Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; 18in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia19who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. 20Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, 21other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.'”

Act 24:10 As the attorney for the Sanhedrin used a formal introduction (probably culturally expected), so too, does Paul.

“defense” We get the English term “apology” or “apologetics” from this Greek term. It originally meant a legal oral defense in court.

Act 24:11-12 Paul asserts that his public activities in Jerusalem were anything but abnormal and contentious. He was accused of desecrating the temple, but in reality, he was performing an acceptable ritual.

Act 24:14 “The Way” This was the early title for Christians which emphasized that Jesus is the way to God (Joh 14:6) and a lifestyle fellowship (cf. Act 9:2; Act 19:9; Act 19:23; Act 22:4; Act 24:22 and possibly Act 18:25-26).

“I do serve the God of our fathers” Paul clearly asserts in this verse that what he preaches about Jesus in no way violates the OT. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and promises. He does not see Christianity as something new and different but a fulfillment (cf. Jesus in Mat 5:17-19).

“the Law. . .the Prophets” These are two of the threefold divisions of the OT canon:

1. The Torah (Law) Genesis – Deuteronomy

2. The Prophets

a. former prophets Joshua – Kings (except Ruth)

b. latter prophets Isaiah – Malachi (except Lamentations and Daniel)

3. The Writings

a. megiloth Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations

b. wisdom literature Job, Psalms, Proverbs

c. post-exilic history I & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah

Act 24:15 “having a hope in God which these men cherish themselves” Paul is asserting that his religious orientation is the same as these accusers (cf. Act 24:16), except in his view of the resurrection. Paul is trying to defend himself by showing that the conflict is over theological issues within Judaism, which Rome did not want to become involved with.

For “hope” see SPECIAL TOPIC: HOPE at Act 2:25.

“there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” This refers to the theology of the Pharisees, not the Sadducean leadership of the temple. Josephus, Antiq. 18.1.3, even asserts that some Pharisees denied the resurrection of the wicked (for a modern view of annihilation see Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes). The Bible is replete with this concept of a general resurrection (cf. Isa 25:8; Dan 12:2; Mat 25:46; Joh 5:29; Rom 2:6-11; Rev 20:11-15). Paul saw Christianity as the natural fulfillment of the OT (cf. Mat 5:17-19). It was not something new!

Act 24:16 “I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience” This same phrase is what angered the High Priest so much in Act 23:1-2. Paul repeats it again in his presence. It is similar to his discussion of personal effort in 1Co 9:24-27. The self-control he preached to Felix (cf. Act 24:25) was not an easy thing to accomplish and maintain. Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22 and possibly the capstone of the list of fruits!

Act 24:17 “I came to bring alms to my nation” For “alms” see Special Topic at Act 3:2. This probably refers to the contribution from the Gentile churches to the church in Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:25-27; 1Co 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9). It is surprising it is not mentioned in Act 21:15 ff. This may show that it was not received well by all of the church in Jerusalem (see James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament). Intrenched racism is hard to deal with even for believers.

“and to present offerings” This refers to

1. the conclusion of Paul’s limited Nazarite vow (cf. Act 21:24)

2. his paying for others’ limited Nazarite vows (cf. Act 21:24)

Because this phrase seems to be linked grammatically to “bring alms,” it is possible that they both refer to Jewish rituals, not the offerings from the churches.

Act 24:18 “they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified” This Jewish ritual procedure was at the instigation of James and the elders of the church (cf. Act 21:17-26). It was meant to placate the legalistic Jewish believers in the church, but in reality, it inflamed the Greek-speaking Jews from Asia.

Act 24:18-19 “Jews from Asia who ought to have been” This was an important legal point in Paul’s defense (cf. Act 24:19). The eyewitnesses’ accusers were not present! Those who were accusing Paul of world-wide mischief had no experiential evidence (cf. Act 24:20)!

Asia is a geographical reference to Jewish people from southern and western Turkey, then called Asia Minor.

Act 24:19 b “if” This is a fourth class conditional, a way to express a contingency which is the farthest removed from possibility. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 420, calls it a mixed condition with a second class conclusion (i.e., but they are not present, Act 24:19 a). His Grammar (p. 1022) lists other mixed conditional sentences in Luke’s writings (cf. Luk 17:6 and Act 8:31).

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

Then = And.

after that, &c. Literally the governor having nodded. See note on Joh 13:24.

answered. Greek. apokrinomai. App-122.

Forasmuch as, &c. = Knowing (as I do).

know. Greek. epistamai. App-132.

many years. About seven; i.e. since A.D. 52.

judge. See note on Act 18:15.

the more cheerfully. Greek. euthumoteron. Only here. The texts read the adverb euthumos. Compare Act 27:22, Act 27:36.

answer. Greek. apologeomai. See note on Act 19:33.

for, &c. = in regard to the things concerning (Greek. peri. App-104.) myself.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10. ] Felix was now in the seventh year of his procuratorship, which began in the twelfth year of Claudius, A.D. 52.

The contrast between Tertulluss and Pauls captatio benevolenti is remarkable. The former I have characterized above. But the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges the one point which could really win attention to him from Felix, viz. his confidence arising from speaking before one well skilled by experience in the manners and customs of the Jews.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 24:10. [ , Paul) By a simple narrative Paul overthrows the exaggerated accusation.-V. g.]-, having beckoned to him) A gesture becoming the gravity of a judge.- , for many years) Six or seven. Experience on the part of a judge is desired by one who has a good cause: ch. Act 26:3.-, a judge) Paul does not flatter (by adding any complimentary epithet).-) So the old MSS.[138] Afterwards more recent MSS. have .

[138] Thence the reading , formerly marked with the sign , has been elevated in the margin of Ed. 2 to the sign , with the consent of the Germ. Vers.-E. B.

ABE Vulg. read ; but Rec. Text, , without the oldest authorities sanction.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 24:10-27

PAULS DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX

Act 24:10-27

10 And when the governor had beckoned-There is a wide contrast between Pauls defense and the accusation that Tertullus made against him. Tertullus had begun his speech with lying flatteries and distorted facts. Pauls tone was that of frankness and truthfulness. When the governor signified that Paul could speak, he began by courteously acknowledging the facts concerning Felix. Felix had now been judge for about six years; this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship. Hence, Pauls expression, many years, was not an exaggeration. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with divided authority, had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53. Paul did not stand before Felix as a criminal ; he was glad of the opportunity to speak; he cheerfully made his defense.

11 seeing that thou canst take knowledge-Felix knew many of the facts and could ascertain the truthfulness of Pauls statements. He refuted the general charge of Tertullus by appealing to the facts which Felix knew. Paul had arrived in Jerusalem, had an interview with the elders of the church there, and had begun the seven days of purification. The seven days were almost ended when Paul was arrested; he was then brought before the Sanhedrin, and a conspiracy was formed against him and he was sent to Caesarea. He was now brought before Felix, and the trial seems to have taken place on the fifth day after he left Jerusalem. These twelve days may be reckoned as follows: first day, Paul arrived at Jerusalem and met with James (Act 21:15) ; second day, he had made his first visit to the temple as a Nazirite; third to seventh days, he performed the Nazirite ceremonies and was arrested by Claudius Lysias; eighth day, he was brought before the Sanhedrin; ninth day, he was informed of the assassination plot and left that night for Caesarea; tenth day, he arrived at Antipatris; eleventh day, he was delivered over to Felix in Caesarea; twelfth day, he was in the palace of Herod, thirteenth day, he appeared before Felix.

12 and neither in the temple did they find me-Paul here urged that the accusation of exciting sedition was incapable of proof; nowhere had he publicly disputed with the purpose of exciting a tumult; nor had he gone preaching and speaking up and down the streets of the city. Felix had been governor between six and seven years and was well acquainted with all the seditions, and from personal knowledge could say that Paul had not been engaged in any of the insurrections. He had only been in Palestine or in Jerusalem about twelve days, and five of these he had spent as a Roman prisoner; he simply had not had time, even if he had been so disposed, to engage in plots against the Roman government. On the contrary, he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and had not come to engage in discussion; neither had he gathered a crowd in the synagogue or the city. He did not belong to any mob; neither had he engaged in any plot.

13 Neither can they prove to thee-Paul flatly denies their charges by appealing to the facts which were known to Felix. The charges that Tertullus and the Jews had made were mere assertions ; they did not have the proof of their charges; neither could they produce the proof, as the accusations were contrary to the well-known facts. Paul had no hired lawyer to plead for him, but the simple facts recited by him spoke eloquently for his freedom.

14 But this I confess unto thee,-Paul had nothing to keep back; he had nothing in his life as a Christian for which he was ashamed. But this I confess unto thee; Paul acknowledged that he was a Christian and that Tertullus and the Jews called Christianity a sect. Paul did not call the church a sect; it was not a sect, but after the way which they called a sect he worshiped God. Christianity was never a sect; it is not a sect today. Sect means a division and a divergence. Tertullus had used the term in a bad sense (verse 4), of which the Nazarenes were a schismatic offshoot from the body of the Jewish worshipers. The word translated heresy is the same that is here translated sect. Paul here claims Christianity to be the real, whole of Judaism, and not a sect of it. The essence of the law of Moses pointed to Christianity ; the only use of the law of Moses was to bring the people to Christ. Christianity was the full, ripe fruit of Jerusalem. Paul believed in the law of Moses and in the prophets; he knew that Christianity was set forth both by the law and by the prophets.

15 having hope toward God,-Paul presented three reasons why his way of worship was not a sect or heresy; it was the only righteous and living way. First, he served the same God that our fathers served; this meant that Christianity was of God, as was the law of Moses. He had the same hope that the fathers and the prophets had, and this hope was to be realized through Christianity. The Jews were at that time looking for a Messiah; Paul pointed out that this Messiah had already come. The difference between Paul and the Jews was that they were looking for the Messiah, and Paul had already received him. Paul furthermore reaffirmed his belief in the resurrection both of the just and unjust. He affirmed that belief in the resurrection was a cardinal teaching of the Jewish faith, from which he had never swerved. He was really more orthodox with respect to the law and the prophets than were the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.

16 Herein I also exercise myself-Herein Paul exercised himself in the belief as stated in verses 14 and 15. He had been faithful in believing and practicing all that the law and the prophets taught; he had been conscientious in this, and had a clear conscience toward God and men. His belief in the resurrection was the field in which he trained himself to live a becoming life in Gods presence with the expectation of judgment before God. The fact of the resurrection was with Paul a stern solemnity and modified his whole life and conduct. Pauls words must have been bitter to Ananias; however, Paul was courageous enough to speak the truth without fear or favor. Pauls rule of life was to keep himself from sin, knowing that he should be judged according to the deeds done in the body. A belief in the resurrection implied a belief in a future life.

17 Now after some years I came-If Paul went up to Jerusalem in Act 18:22, which it seems that he did, it was some five years ago. At least four years had elapsed since he had been to Jerusalem. The alms which Paul here mentions were the sums of money that he and his companions had collected in the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the relief of the church at Jerusalem. This is the only mention in the Acts of Pauls generous work of which we hear so much in Pauls epistles. (Rom 15:25; 1Co 16:1-4; 2Co 8:1-4.) Paul mentions this to show that he had been interested and engaged in a good work of collecting sums of money to disperse among the poor brethren, and was not what the Sadducees represented him to be. Every statement that Paul makes is a clear refutation of the charges made against him.

18 amidst which they found me purified in the temple,-Paul here states the facts with respect to his visit to Jerusalem and his manner of life while in the city. Paul was keeping his vow of a Nazirite (Act 21:23-26) when he was arrested. In fact, he was engaged in this service when they seized him. He had no crowd, neither had he excited any tumult. Paul stated that there were certain Jews from Asia; this either means that those who found Paul in the temple were Jews from Asia Minor (Act 21:27), or else it may be a more general statement.

19 who ought to have been here-It is to be observed that none of those forty Jews who had banded themselves together not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul were here to make charges against him. Possibly Felix did not know of this plot against Paul, but the high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin who were present before Felix did know of it. Those who were present and preferring charges against Paul were not present when he did that of which they were assusing him. The present witnesses did not have firsthand evidence; those who had any evidence at all were not present. These Asiatic Jews are not mentioned after the riot, though they almost succeeded in having Paul put to death.

20 Or else let these men themselves say-Paul had stood before the council; the high priest and some members of the council were present now before Felix. Paul reminds them that no charges were proved against him while he stood before the counthe high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin to state any charges that were proved against him in his trial before the Sanhedrin. His argument is that those who first preferred charges against him and caused him to be brought before the Sanhedrin were not now present, but members of the Sanhedrin are present, and even these cannot state any charges that were proved against him.

21 except it be for this one voice,-Paul here makes an exception to his statement above. He was charged by the Sadducees as teaching the resurrection from the dead. It is noticeable how often Paul refers to this point. Even in his legal defense Paul drives the wedge between Pharisees and Sadducees; if he can by any means show how near the truth the Pharisees are by their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he can more easily bring them to believe in the Christ who has been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Paul knew that some members of the Sanhedrin, and many of the Jews, would sympathize with him in his preaching the resurrection from the dead. His preaching the resurrection from the dead was the only thing that had come directly under the notice of the Sanhedrin, and it had been the cause of division in the Sanhedrin itself. Paul understood clearly his case, and did not waste words; he presented his case truly and accurately and briefly before Felix. Tertullus and the Jews had no case at all.

22 But Felix, having more exact knowledge-Felix was not ignorant of the teachings of Christ; during the years he had held office in Judea and Samaria, at Jerusalem as well as Caesarea, he had frequent opportunities to learn what Christians taught and how they lived; even Philip, one of the seven (Act 6:5), lived at Caesarea. Felix had a more exact knowledge of Christianity than the high priest and other Jews gave him credit of having. He should have released Paul, and would have done so, had he not sought to please the Jews. After hearing Pauls defense he knew that he was innocent. However, he could not condemn Paul, but he could compromise with the Jewish party by retaining Paul as a prisoner. We do not know that Lysias the chief captain ever came to Felix; we hear no more of him. This was Felixs way of conciliating the Jews. Felix had another motive in retaining Paul as a prisoner.

23 And he gave order to the centurion-While Felix retained Paul as a prisoner, he gave orders to the centurion to show Paul kindness, and to permit Pauls friends to minister unto him. There were three kinds of imprisonment among the Romans: (1) the imprisonment in the common prison as Paul and Silas were kept at Philippi; (2) the military arrest, when the prisoner was chained to a soldier; this appears to have been the form of imprisonment to which Paul was relegated during his Roman confinement ; (3) the free custody in which the arrested party was usually released on bail. Paul speaks of his chains in Act 28:20, this shows the kind of imprisonment that Paul had. Indulgence was given Paul in respect to food, lodging, and friends, but this did not include removal of his chains.

24 But after certain days,-We do not know how long the certain days were. Some think that Felix had been away from Caesarea for a time, and when he returned he sent for Paul. He brought his wife, Drusilla, who was a Jewess. Under the influence of Felix she had left her former husband. She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I; her sisters were Marianne and Bernice: her father murdered James; her great-uncle, Herod Antipas, beheaded John the Baptist; her great-grandfather, Herod the Great, had the babes of Bethlehem killed. It is said that Drusilla was gifted with great beauty. It is said that she perished at the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Felix sent for Paul to hear him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. It may be that since he had his wife with him she was also eager to learn more of the faith in Christ Jesus. It seems that Felix and Drusilla were in earnest in their inquiry about the Christ. We may know that Paul was glad of the opportunity to preach Christ to these wicked rulers.

25 And as he reasoned of righteousness,-Perhaps Felix and Drusilla did not hear just what they wanted to hear. After presenting Christ to them Paul reasoned of righteousness. Righteousness is from the Greek dikaiosmes, which meant upright conduct; this condemned Felix who had murdered a high priest, had been tyrannical, had taken bribes, and had been an unrighteous ruler. Paul also reasoned with him about self-control. Self-control is from the Greek egkrateias, which means temperance in this life, including especially continence and chastity. Drusilla in his presence was a witness of Felixs unbridled passions. Again, Paul reasoned to these unrighteous and intemperate rulers of the judgment to come. He pointed out that certain judgments would overtake them, and that they would not escape punishment for their wickedness. Felix and Drusilla had lived as though they would never have to give an account for their deeds; Paul very forcibly brings them to face the consequences of their wicked deeds. Felix seems to have been brought under conviction, but Drusilla does not seem to have been affected. Felix knew himself to be a profligate, avaricious and mean; his conscience was awakened only to be stilled. He was terrified, frightened, and dismissed Paul, saying that he would call for him at a convenient season. That season never came. Felix becomes an example of the many millions who are lost by procrastination.

26 He hoped withal that money would be given him-Here we have another motive of Felix for keeping Paul in prison. Paul had mentioned in the presence of Felix that he had taken alms to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Felix evidently drew the idea that Paul or his friends would give him money to release him. This greed of gain in the very act of administering justice was the root evil of the weak and wicked character. Since Paul had money, or some of his friends were wealthy, why should not Felix get money from one or both of them? He sent for Paul often and communed with him. Perhaps Felix would have passed sentence and released Paul, if it had not been that he hoped to get some money from Paul. Paul did not offer any bribe, and so Felix continued to have hope that he would buy his freedom.

27 But when two years were fulfilled,-Paul lingered in prison in Caesarea for two years; he was waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea became the compulsory headquarters for Paul for two years. We know nothing of his history during this period; some think that Luke was with him, and that Paul and Luke had repeated conversations together; from these conversations, guided by the Holy Spirit, Luke was enabled to write at least the latter portion of the book of Acts, which tells about Paul and his missionary labors. Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews and left Paul a prisoner to be disposed of by Festus. The change of administration was caused by the complaints which the Jews brought against Felix, and which led Nero to recall him. This was about A.D. 60.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 24

What priest came in a few days?

Who are meant by the elders here?

Who was Tertullus?

What part did he have in the case?

By what did he introduce his speech?

Was this introduction truthful?

Did he state any truth about Paul?

Correct the statement in the 6th verse.

And the one in verse seven.

Who endorsed the speech of Tcrtullus?

What indicates Paul’s orderliness?

State the fact which encouraged him to answer.

How recent were his activities at Jerusalem?

Why had he gone to Jerusalem?

What disorder does he deny?

Tell what proof he demands.

State the confession he makes.

To what does he refer in support of his belief?

What classes are to be in the resurrection?

Who believed this in common with Paul?

Then why were they opposing him?

State his concern about his conscience.

Would God and man always be alike offended?

What did he come to bring?

State the law that called for these things.

How could Paul, being a Christian, do this?

Find similar obligation on Christians in Rom. 13.

Who observed Paul in the temple?

What was he doing then?

State the point of justice he now cites.

What call does he make on the ones present?

State Paul’s one exception to his general denial.

How had this cry resulted?

To what extent did Paul’s speech impress Felix?

Why did he take the case under advisement?

What officer was given charge of Paul?

Was he put into solitary confinement?

What about his friends?

Who came in a few days?

State the nationality of Felix’ wife.

Was the case against Paul now resumed?

On what general subject did Felix wish to hear?

Which parts of that subject did Paul select?

Give another word for temperance.

Did Felix obey?

Was he wanting a more convenient season?

What did he promise to do?

Did he call for Paul more than once?

What indicates his lack of sincerity?

How did he try to please the Jews?

Acts Chapter Twenty-Four

Ralph Starling

When his accusers arrived from Jerusalem,

They brought Tertullus, an orator, with them.

Meeting with Felix, they buttered him up.

Knowing he was one who could help them so much.

This Paul has become a problem to all men.

A problem we believe you can help mend.

His teachings in the Synagogues and even in the Temple,

Awe just cannot tolerate, its that simple.

The governor arranged for Paul to speak

And asked, What is this information they seek?

They accuse me of being unlawful and out of line,

But they havent seen me in a long time.

I confess we worship the same God seriously,

But they call my teachings and worship heresy.

In all of this I have a clear conscience,

And have steered away from all nonsense.

Let them speak to those Jews in Asia,

Who observed my vow of purification.

Now with better knowledge of Pauls position,

Felix needed Lysias before making a decision.

As Felix pondered the decision to be coming,

Paul might be willing to pay him some money.

But when his plans ran aground,

To please the Jews he left Paul bound.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

68. “THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD”

Act 24:10-21

Throughout the Book of Acts, the apostles constantly emphasized the resurrection of Christ and the consequent resurrection of the dead by his power. When Matthias was chosen to replace the apostate Judas, Peter said, one must be “ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection” (Act 1:22). A primary function of an apostle was being a witness of the Lord’s resurrection. On the day of Pentecost, the apostle showed the multitude how that David by the Spirit “spoke of the resurrection of Christ” (Act 2:31). When Peter and John were arrested and brought before the council, the reason given for their arrest was that “they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (Act 4:2). When they were set free, we are told, “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (Act 4:33). It was the preaching of the resurrection that aroused the curiosity of the Athenians. They said, Paul seemed “to be a setterforth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection” (Act 17:18). And when Paul answered the Jewish council which accused him before Felix, he said, I “have hope toward God…that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust” (Act 24:15).

The resurrection of the dead is a blessed gospel doctrine believed by and full of comfort for all God’s saints. We believe, according to the Word of God, that every person who ever lived shall live forever, not only in the immortality of his soul, but also that his body shall be raised from the dead in the last day. The very flesh in which you now live shall be raised to life again and you shall live forever, either in the bliss of heaven, in the presence of God, the holy angels, and “just men made perfect,” or in torments of hell, in the company of satan, demons, and ungodly sinners, enduring the fires of the wrath of God which cannot be quenched!

THERE SHALL BE A RESURRECTION OF THE JUST. The light of nature tells all men that the soul is immortal. Even the heathen acknowledge that the soul of man is something so wonderful and mysterious that it must endure forever. Both pagan religion and pagan philosophy acknowledge the immortality of the soul. But the resurrection of the body is another matter. This is not something that can be discovered and proved by science and philosophy. It is something that can be known only by divine revelation and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Word of God speaks of the resurrection of the just, it is referring to the resurrection of those people who have been justified and made righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them. When Christ comes again, all who trust him, all who have been redeemed by his blood and saved by his grace, shall be raised to immortal life and eternal joy.

The saints of God in all ages have lived in hope of the resurrection. The faith of God’s elect regarding the resurrection has been a matter of constant, unwavering confidence from the beginning. Job, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Hannah, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel all spoke of it with confidence and joy (Job 14:12; Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Heb 11:19; Heb 11:22; Deu 32:39; 1Sa 2:6; Psa 16:8-11; Psa 17:15; Isa 26:19; Eze 37:11-14; Dan 12:2). In the New Testament, references to the resurrection are so numerous that they simply cannot be listed in the space of this study. But two passages from the lips of our Savior will suffice to declare his doctrine. Read Joh 5:25-29; Joh 11:23-26. The first resurrection, spoken of in Joh 5:25 and Rev 20:6, is a spiritual resurrection. It is the new birth, regeneration, the resurrection of chosen, redeemed sinners from spiritual death to spiritual life by the irresistible power and grace of God the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:1-4). But there shall also be the literal resurrection of the body at Christ’s second coming (Joh 5:28-29; Joh 11:23-26). The translations of Enoch and Elijah stand as pledges of every believer’s resurrection (Gen 5:24; 2Ki 2:11). As those two men were translated from earth to heaven, so all believers living on the earth when Christ comes again shall be taken up to glory, but only after the dead in Christ have been raised (1Th 4:13-18). The angels of God watching over the bodies of God’s saints also assure us of the resurrection (Jud 1:9). Though our bodies must sleep for a while beneath the sod, God’s angels watch over them to protect them until the trump of God shall sound. The many resurrections of the dead recorded in the Scriptures are visible, documented assurances of the resurrection to come. Our God has given us proof over and over again that he is able to raise the dead to life again (1Ki 17:21; 2Ki 13:21; Mat 27:50-54; Luk 7:14; Luk 8:54-55; Joh 11:43-44; Act 9:40; Act 20:9).

Our bodies as well as our souls belong to Christ and must be with him in glory (1Co 6:13). Christ does not save the souls of his elect alone, but their bodies too. His work of redemption will not be complete until he has raised the bodies of all for whom he made atonement at Calvary (Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14). The body is for the Lord; and he shall have it. “Your bodies are the members of Christ” (1Co 6:15). Not only are our souls vitally joined to him, but our bodies as well (Eph 5:30-32). The believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co 6:19-20). The fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in the body of a saint not only sanctifies it, but also renders it immortal. Though this temple must go to the dust, it shall be rebuilt in “the resurrection of the just!”

Above all else, our hope of the resurrection is built upon the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, arose from the dead (1Co 15:1-23; 1Co 15:49). If Christ arose from the dead as our Head and Representative, then all his people must also be raised. And if there is no resurrection, then Christ did not arise and we are yet in our sins. If there is no resurrection, then there is…no atonement for sin, for justice is not satisfied…no righteousness to impute to us…no acceptance with God…and no salvation! But since Christ did die for us and did rise from the dead, we are assured that…our sins which were imputed to him are gone, washed away by his blood. Justice is satisfied!…His righteousness is of infinite merit for all who trust him…And all his people, all who are one with him, must be raised from the dead. Christ is the firstfruit of the resurrection; but the firstfruit is the pledge of more to come. There shall be a resurrection of the just. This is the faith of the gospel. If you do not believe it, you have not been taught of God.

THERE SHALL ALSO BE A RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST. At the Lord’s second coming, both the righteous and the wicked, the believing and the unbelieving, the living and the dead, the sheep and the goats shall be raised. Those who stand before God in the spotless garments of Christ’s imputed righteousness, whose sins have been put away by his substitutionary sacrifice will enter into and forever enjoy the glory of heavenly bliss in their bodies. But all who stand before God naked, polluted in their sins, without a Substitute will be cast body and soul into hell to eternally endure the torments of God’s holy and just wrath. This is the second death. By some means, known only to himself, the Lord God will sustain the bodies and souls of the damned eternally, so that, though his unmitigated wrath is poured out upon them, they will not die (Mat 5:27-30; Mat 10:28). Realizing these things, Paul wrote, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2Co 5:11). There will be a resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked. You shall be damned forever, body and soul, if you are not washed in the blood of Christ and robed in his righteousness. I urge you therefore, if you are yet without Christ, even as you read these lines, to be reconciled to God. Trust his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and live forever.

“Ye sinners, seek His grace, whose wrath ye cannot bear;

Fly to the shelter of His cross, and find salvation there!” LET ALL WHO ARE WISE LIVE CONSTANTLY IN THE IMMEDIATE PROSPECT OF DEATH, THE RESURRECTION, JUDGMENT, AND ETERNITY (Mar 8:35-37; 2Co 4:18 to 2Co 5:21).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the governor

Felix made procurator over Judaea, A.D. 53.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

had: Act 12:17, Act 13:16, Act 19:33, Act 21:40, Act 26:1

many: “Felix, made procurator over Judea, ad 53.”

a judge: Act 18:15, 1Sa 2:25, Luk 12:14, Luk 18:2

I do: 1Pe 3:15

Reciprocal: Dan 3:15 – we are Act 22:1 – my Act 23:24 – Felix Act 23:29 – questions Act 23:35 – when Act 24:22 – having Act 26:3 – because Act 28:17 – though Act 28:18 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

0

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

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Pauls Defence against the Sanhedrims Accusation before Felix; Procurator Juda, 10-21.

Act 24:10. Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered. Pauls defence was a strange contrast to the lying flatteries and the distorted accusations which made up the speech of the Sanhedrim advocate Tertullus. He prefaces his masterly address by a few graceful, well-chosen words of courtesy to the Roman official presiding over the court, in which he simply expresses his contentment at having to defend himself before a judge who had had such ample opportunities of making himself acquainted with the condition of the Jewish nation and its varied schools of thought: in the present instance, he added, the task of the judge would be an easy one; for only twelve days had elapsed since he, Paul, had arrived at Jerusalem as a pilgrim, and in that time he had certainly engaged in no dispute ox argument which could possibly stir up sedition. The prisoner then passed to the second charge, the being a Nazarene ringleader. He certainly did belong to that sect, but he worshipped no strange Gods. His God was the God of his fathers; his creed, the creed of the great bulk of the Jewish nation, a religion acknowledged and sanctioned by Roman lawthe central point of which creed was the belief in the resurrection of the dead, in which belief, surely, his accusers shared.

From this he turned to the third and last charge pressed against him, the profanation of the temple, Far from having profaned that sacred house, his very object in coming to Jerusalem was, after distributing the alms he had collected in far lands for the poor of his people, to perform certain holy rites enjoined on pilgrims in connection with the temple; and it was in the carrying of these out in the temple, that some foreign Jews from Asia seized him and accused him of profanity. Where were these men who had brought such strange meaningless charges against him? Surely they ought to have been present in person. If they, the real accusers, however, have for some unknown reason not chosen to present themselves, let these, pointing to the Sanhedrim representatives, say plainly what evil they have found me doing or saying, except that one assertion of mine respecting the resurrection of the dead.

Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation. We know Felix had been procurator since A.D. 51-52; he had therefore been judge now six or seven years, a comparatively long period at a time when these higher magistrates were changed and shifted so constantly. It is, however, probable that he had held office among the Jewish people for even a much longer time, for Tacitus speaks of him as governor of Samaria when Cumanus was Procurator of Juda. If this were the case, it would give him some four years more experience of Jewish manners and customs.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself. Paul felt at least his judge had had, during his long years of office, ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with the character of the leaders of the Jews, with their jealousies and narrowness, and with the peculiarities of the people generally. Possibly, too, in the background the apostle felt that Felix knew something, from his long residence in the province, of the Christians, and of their harmless, blameless lives; and how unlikely it was that one of their leaders should ever wish to stir up sedition.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our apostle, being accused of three notorious crimes, namely, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple, answers distinctly to every one of them.

Where observe, 1. How undaunted innocency is in a good person, and in a good cause; St. Paul was so far from being daunted by the greatness of his enemies, or by the vehemency of their accusation, that he tells the governor, he did with all cheerfulness undertake his defence.

Observe, 2. How the apostle answers distinctly to the particulars of his accusation. And first, As to the crime of sedition, charged upon his person. Secondly, as to the crime of heresy, charged upon his religion.

As to the former, the crime of sedition, this is a very infamous charge; what schism is in matters ecclesiastical, that is sedition in matters temporal and civil. As the one violates the peace of the church, so doth the other the peace of the commonwealth.

Sedition is committed three ways; by the head, by the tongue, and by the hand. A seditious head plots and contrives mischief, a seditious tongue vents it, and a seditious hand executes it.

None of these ways was the apostle guilty of sedition, he never employed his head to contrive, nor his tongue to utter, nor his hand to practise, any thing that tended that way; yet he is charged with it, We have found this fellow a mover of sedition.

Learn thence, It is no new stratagem to represent the faithful servants of God as enemies to states and kingdoms, as disturbers of the peace, as troublers of Israel, as trumpets of rebellion, as movers of sedition, on purpose to bring them into hatred with princes, that they may fall under the sword of the magistrate as malefactors, and be looked upon as persons unworthy to live.

But how does St. Paul free himself from the charge and imputation of sedition?

Thus, 1. By demonstrating the improbability of it; how unlikely it was, that he who came up to the temple to worship God, and to bring alms to the poor, and was in Jerusalem but a very few days, and did not so much as dispute either in the temple or in the synagogues, should yet stir up the people to sedition.

2. He puts his adversaries upon proof of their articles, Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

From the apostle’s practise in clearing his own innocency, we learn, That it is a piece of justice which every man owes to himself, to vindicate and clear his reputation from all guilt falsely imputed to him, and especially from that of sedition.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Paul’s Defense Before Felix

Once the governor nodded to him, Paul began his defense. He expressed pleasure at getting to state his case before one who had years of experience in judging on matters involving the Jews. In answer to (1), the apostle noted he had only been back in Judea for 12 days, with the last 5 of those being spent in custody. It would have been hard to be a plague in such a short time. They had not found him in the temple either disputing with others or stirring up the crowd, as was suggested in (2), so there was neither time nor evidence of rebellion against Rome, which even Felix knew the Jews would have welcomed. Paul also said they could not prove their charge of (4) trying to desecrate the temple. However, concerning (3), he did worship God according to the Way, which his Jewish accusers called a sect, or party. Coffman notes, “Implicit in such a name is the trueness and rightness of it. There are many ways of sin, but only one way of eternal life.”

Paul did plead guilty to worshipping the God of the Jewish fathers and believing all that was written in the law of Moses and the prophets. He readily admitted that he based his hope in God, as his accusers also did, who would raise both the righteous and wicked from the dead. Because of that belief, Paul said he tried to live as his conscience directed, so he would not offend God or man. After some five years in other parts of the world, Paul had returned to Jerusalem with a gift for the needy of the Jewish nation. Instead of profaning the temple, they found him there after he had completed his vow of purification. The apostle suggested that the Asian Jews who brought the original charges against him, and stirred up the mob, should have been present to refute the facts which he presented. He even invited those Sadducean accusers who were present to step forward and show the error in his one statement before the Sanhedrin, “Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day” ( Act 24:10-21 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 24:10-13. Then Paul Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertulluss charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, Act 24:11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, Act 24:14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

10-21. (10) “Then Paul answered (the governor nodding to him to speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, I do the more cheerfully defend myself: (11) for you are able to know that there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. (12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) having hope toward God, which they themselves also entertain, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these themselves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question by you this day.”

This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have been only six days, which would have afforded no sufficient time for stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the synagogues, or in any party of the city. As to being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the offerings of the temple. In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, that those who first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, in the resurrection of the dead. The last point was made, and presented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Act 24:10-21. Pauls Speech.Paul does not speak till the procurator invites him to do so, according to the necessary order of all judicial proceedings. His speech is not quite so fine as that of Tertullus, yet while strictly to the point, as was necessary in the circumstances, it is full of elegant turns which have to some extent confused the scribes, so that the text is at some points uncertain. Felix has been for many years procurator; no further compliment is paid him.

The twelve days of Act 24:11 are apparently the sum of the seven days of Act 21:27, and the five of Act 24:1. But a few more must be added (Act 21:17-18; Act 21:26, Act 23:11). Pauls visit to Jerusalem was made from a religious motive, and he was not involved in any disturbance or debate there, in Temple or synagogue or street. The accusations are denied, as incapable of proof; except that which charges him with belonging to a sect. He calls it the Way, the method, and claims that it does not prevent him from being a good Jew, nor from believing all that is contained in the Law and the Prophets, nor from the belief of the Pharisees, who are accusing him, in the coming resurrection of just and unjust. His principles are those of all good Jews, and he has striven to act up to them (Act 24:16). He then speaks (Act 24:17) of the errand which after an absence of years brought him to Jerusalem, of which in all the exciting days there no mention was made. Having come to Jerusalem with alms and offerings for his people, he was quietly discharging in the Temple, in the course of that undertaking, a vow of purification; here the grammar breaks down; he thinks of the Jews of Asia (Act 21:27) who raised the outcry against him, and they are left without a verb to say what they did; they should have been present before Felix to substantiate the charges they made. The Pharisees who appear as his accusers were not present, but they had him before them in the Sanhedrin. Can they bring any charge against him on the ground of what took place there? On one point perhaps they can; the apostle apologises for having said he was being tried for believing in the resurrection (Act 23:6), which shows the artificial nature of this speech and of the part of the narrative on which it is based.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

24:10 {2} Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of {g} many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

(2) Tertullus, by the devil’s rhetoric, begins with flattery and finishes with lies: but Paul using heavenly eloquence, and but a simple beginning, casts off from himself the crime of sedition, with which he was being charged, with a simple denial.

(g) Paul pleaded his cause two years before Felix departed out of the province, see Act 24:27 , but he had governed Trachonite, and Batanea, and Galavnite, before Claudius made him governor of Judea; see Josephus in the History of the Jewish War, lib. 2, cap. 11.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul’s defense before Felix 24:10-21

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

Paul’s complimentary introduction was sincere and truthful. Felix had had contact with the Jews in Palestine for over 10 years, first in Samaria and then in Judea. Paul’s introduction was also briefer than Tertullus’ opening statement.

"Although Tertullus is supposed to be a skilled orator, Paul demonstrates his superior skill by making use of Tertullus’ words to build his own case." [Note: Tannehill, 2:298.]

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