Felix
FELIX
A Roman governor of Judea; originally a slave, but manumitted and promoted by Claudius Caesar, from whom he received the name of Claudius. He is described by the historian Tacitus as cruel, licentious, and base. In Judea he married Drusilla, sister of the younger Agrippa, having enticed her from her second husband Azizus. Paul having been sent by Lysias to Caesarea, then the seat of government, Felix gave him an audience, and was convinced of his innocence. Nevertheless he kept him a prisoner, though with many alleviation’s, in hopes that his friends would purchase his liberty by a heavy bribe. Meanwhile his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, desired to hear Paul explain the new religion; and the apostle being summoned before them, discoursed with his usual boldness on justice, chastity, and the final judgment. Felix trembled, but hastily remanded Paul to confinement, and stifled his convictions-a melancholy instance of the power of lust and the danger of delay. Two years after, A. D. 60, he was recalled to Rome; and left Paul in prison, in order to appease the Jews. He was brought to trial, however, for maladministration, found guilty, and barely escaped death through the intercession of his brother Pallas, another royal favorite, Mal 23:26 ; 24:1-27.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Felix
(Act 23:24 ff.)
A freedman, and a brother of Pallas, Felix was the favourite of the Emperor Claudius. Tacitus (Hist. Act 23:9) calls him Antonius Felix. Of his public life prior to his appointment to his procuratorship in Palestine, nothing is known; of his private life, only that he had married a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, whom Tacitus (loc. cit.) calls Drusilla, confusing her, no doubt, with the Jewish princess with whom Felix allied himself later. Suetonius knows of yet another marriage-also to a princess (Claud. 28).
Josephus and Tacitus are at variance as to the time and circumstance of the sending of Felix to Palestine. According to Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ii. 12; Ant. xx. 6f.), Fells was appointed to succeed the procurator Cumanus, when the latter was condemned and banished for his misrule. According to Tacitus (Ann, xii. 54), Cumanus and Felix were contemporaneously procurators, the one of Galilee, the other of Samaria. It seems reasonable to follow Schrer (History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] I. ii. [1890] 174) in giving preference in this matter to the very detailed narrative of Josephus. This fixes the arrival of Felix in Palestine in a.d. 52, or early in the following year.
The historians are entirely at one in their estimate of Felix and of the manner in which he exercised his functions. His countryman Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) describes him as using the powers of a king with the disposition of a slave, and says (Ann, xii. 54) he deemed that he might perpetrate any ill deeds with impunity. Under his government the state of Palestine grew rapidly worse. If there had been occasional disorders under Cumanus, under Felix rebellion became permanent. The boundless cruelty with which he repressed the more open opposition of the Zealots to the Roman rule stimulated the formation of the secret associations of the Assassins (Sicarii), whose hand was against all-Jew not less than Roman-who did not further their designs. Not less significant of the misery of the people was their readiness to answer the call of religious fanatics like the Egyptian mentioned in Act 21:38, whom Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiii. 5) credits with a following of thirty thousand. In any such movement Felix suspected the beginning of a revolt, and adopted measures which only served to increase the popular disaffection. For the intrigue by which he possessed himself of the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I.-the newly wedded wife of King Azizus of Emesa-see article Drusilla.
The cynical disregard of Felix for justice, and his inordinate greed are alike brought to view in his treatment of the Apostle Paul. Although possessed of information Concerning the Way, which would have justified him in releasing the prisoner when he was first brought before him, he decided to adjourn the case in definitely (Act 24:22), partly to curry favour with the Jews, and partly to serve his own rapacious ends. The interview with the Apostle recorded in Act 24:24 was probably intended by the procurator and his wife to be somewhat of a diversion-it ended for Felix in terror. He had frequent communing with St. Paul during the time he detained him as his prisoner at Caesarea; but seemingly on these later occasions Felix kept control of the conversation and directed it, though unavailingly, towards his mercenary aim.
Two years after St. Paul was brought to Caesarea, Felix was recalled to Rome in connexion with a strife which had broken out at Caesarea between the Jews and the Syrians in that town-the Jews asserting for themselves certain exclusive rights, which the others denied. The matter was referred to the Emperor. The investigation proved so damaging to Felix that he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas (Jos. Ant. xx. viii. 9).
Of the subsequent life of Felix, nothing is known.
Literature.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Apostles as traced by St. Luke, 1905, pt. ii. p. 243; A. Maclaren, Expositions: Acts, ch. xiii.-end,1907, pp. 281, 287: G. H. Morrison, The Footsteps of the Flock, 1904, p. 362; M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, 1910, p. 202; J. S. Howson, The Companions of St. Paul, 1874, p. 145: H. Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd ser. 3, 1861, p. 179; W, H. M. H. Aitken, The Glory of the Gospel, n.d., pp. 193, 208, 223; C. H. Turner, Eusebius Chronology of Felix and Festus in Journal of Theological Studies , iii. [1901-02] 120; S. Buss, Roman Law and History in the NT, 1901, p. 373.
G. P. Gould.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Felix
(happy, Graecized , Acts 23-24 in Tacitus, Hist. v, 9, called ANTONIUS FELIX; in Suidas, CLAUDIUS FELIX; in Josephus and Acts, simply FELIX: so also in Tacitus, Ann. 12:54), the Roman procurator of Judaea, before whom Paul so “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,” that the judge trembled, saying, ” Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season I will call for thee” (Act 24:25; see Abicht, De Claudio Felice, Viteb. 1732; Eckhard, Paulli oratio ad Felicem, Isen. 1779). The context states that Felix had expected a bribe from Paul; and, in order to procure this bribe, he appears to have had several interviews with the apostle. The depravity which such an expectation implies is in agreement with the idea which the historical fragments preserved respecting Felix would lead the student to form of the man. The year in which Felix entered on his office cannot be strictly determined. He was appointed by the emperor Claudius, whose freedman he was, on the banishment of Velatidius Cumanus, probably A.D. 53. Tacitus (Ann. 12:54) states that Felix and Cumanus were joint procurators, Cumanus having Galilee, and Felix Samaria. In this account Tacitus is directly at issue with Josephus (Ant. 20:6, 2), and is generally supposed to be in error; but his account is very circumstantial, and by adopting it We should gain greater justification for the expression of Paul (Act 24:10) that Felix had been judge of the nation “for many years.” Those words, however, must not even thus be closely pressed; for Cumanus himself only went to Judea in the eighth year of Claudius (Josephus, Ant. 20:5, 2). From the words of Josephus (Ant. 20:7, 1), it appears that his appointment took place before the twelfth year of the emperor Claudius. Eusebius fixes the time of his actually undertaking his duties in the eleventh year of that monarch. The question is fully discussed under SEE CHRONOLOGY, vol. ii, 311, 312.
Felix was a remarkable instance of the elevation to distinguished station of persons born and bred in the lowest condition. Originally a slave, he rose to little less than kingly power. For some unknown but probably not very creditable services, he was manumitted by Claudius Caesar (Sueton. Claudius, 28; Tacit-us, Hist. v, 9), on which account he is said to have taken the praenomen of Claudius. In Tacitus, however (1. c.), he is surnamed Antonius, probably because he was also a freedman of Antonia, the emperor’s mother. Felix was the brother of Claudius’s powerful freedman Pallas (Josephus, War, ii, 12, 8; Ant. 20:7,.1); and it was to the circumstance of Pallas’s influence surviving his master’s death (Tacitus, Ann xiv,65) that Felix was retained in his procuratorship by Nero. In speaking of Pallas in conjunction with another freedman, namely, Narcissus, the imperial private secretary, Suetonius (Claudius, 28) says that the emperor was eager in heaping upon them the highest honors that a subject could enjoy, and suffered them to carry on a system of plunder and gain to such an extent that, on complaining of the poverty of his exchequer, some one had the boldness to remark that he would abound in wealth if he were taken into partnership by his-two favorite freedmen.
The character which the ancients have left of Felix is of a very dark complexion. Suetonius speaks of the military honors which the emperor loaded him with, and specifies his appointment as governor of the province of Judaea (Claudius, 28), adding an innuendo, which loses nothing by its brevity, namely, that he was the husband of three queens or royal ladies (“trium reginarum maritum”). Tacitus, in his History (v, 9), declares that, during his governorship in Judaea, he indulged in all kinds of cruelty and lust, exercising regal power with the disposition of a slave; and, in his Annals (xii, 54), he represents Felix as considering himself licensed to commit any crime, relying on the influence which he possessed at court. The country was ready for rebellion, and the unsuitable remedies which Felix applied served only to inflame the passions and to incite to crime. The contempt which he and Cumanus (who, according to Tacitus, governed Galilee while Felix ruled Samaria; but see Josephus, Ant. xx. 7, 1) excited in the minds of the people, encouraged them to give free scope to the passions which arose from the old enmity between the Jews and Samaritans, while the two wily and base procurators were enriched by booty as if it had been spoils of war. This so far was a pleasant game to these men, but in the prosecution of it Roman soldiers lost their lives, and but for the intervention of Quadratus, governor of Syria, a rebellion would have been inevitable. A court-martial was held to inquire into the causes of this disaffection, when Felix, one of the accused, was seen by the injured Jews among the judges, and even seated on the judgment-seat, placed there by the president Quadratus expressly to outface and deter the accusers and witnesses. Josephus (Ant. 20:8, 5) reports that under Felix the affairs of the country grew worse and worse. The land was filled with robbers and impostors who deluded the multitude. Felix used his power to repress these disorders to little purpose, since his own example gave no sanction to justice. Thus, having got one Dineas, leader of a band of assassins, into his hands by a promise of impunity, he sent him to Rome to receive his punishment.
Having a grudge against Jonathan, the high-priest, who had expostulated with him on his misrule, he made use of Doras, an intimate friend of Jonathan, in order to get him assassinated by a gang of villains, who joined the crowds that were going up to the Temple worship-a crime which led subsequently to countless evils, by the encouragement which it gave to the Sicarii, or leagued assassins of the day, to whose excesses Josephus ascribes, under Providence, the overthrow of the Jewish state. Among other crimes, some of these villains misled the people under the promise of performing miracles, and were punished by Felix. An -Egyptian impostor, who escaped himself, was the occasion of the loss of life to four hundred followers, and of the loss of liberty to two hundred more, thus severely dealt with by Felix (Josephus, Ant. 20:8, 6; War, ii, 13, 5; comp. Act 21:38). A serious misunderstanding having arisen between the Jewish and the Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea, Felix employed his troops, and slew and plundered -till prevailed on to desist. His cruelty in this affair brought on him, after he was superseded by Festus, an accusation at Rome, which, however, he was enabled to render nugatory by the influence which his brother Pallas had, and exercised to the utmost, with the emperor Nero. Josephus, in his Life ( 3), reports that, “at the time when Felix was procurator of Judaea, there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were, whom, on a small and trifling occasion, he had put into bonds and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar.” At the end of a two years’ term Porcius Festus was appointed to supersede Felix, who, on his return to Rome, was accused by the Jews in Caesarea, as above noticed (Ant. 20:8, 9). This was in A.D. 55 (not in the year 60, as Anger, De temporum in Act. Apost. ratione, p. 100; Wieseler, Chronologie der Apostelgeschichte, p. 66-82).
While in his office, being inflamed by a passion for the beautiful Drusilla, a daughter of king Herod Agrippa, who was married to Azizus, king of Emesa, he employed one Simon, a magician, to use his arts in order to persuade her to forsake her husband and marry him, promising that if she would comply with his suit he would make her a happy woman. Drusilla, partly impelled by a desire to avoid the envy of her sister Berenice, was prevailed on to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and consented to a union with Felix. In this marriage a son was born, who was named Agrippa: both mother and son perished in an eruption of Mount Vesuvius;’ which took place in the days of Titus Caesar (Josephus, Ant. 20:7, 2). With this adulteress was Felix seated when Paul reasoned before the judge, as already -stated (Act 24:24). Another Drusilla is mentioned by Tacitus as being the wife (the first wife) of Felix. This woman was niece of Cleopatra and Antony. SEE DRUSILLA. By this marriage Felix was connected with Claudius. Of his third wife nothing is known. (See Salden, De Felice et Drusilla, Amst. 1684).
Paul, being apprehended in Jerusalem, was sent by a letter from Claudius Lysias to Felix at Caesarea, where he was at first confined in Herod’s judgment-hall till his accusers came. They arrived. Tertullus appeared as their spokesman, and had the audacity, in order to conciliate the good-will of Felix, to express gratitude on the part of the Jews, “seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence” (Acts 23, 24). Paul pleaded his cause in a worthy speech; and Felix, consigning the apostle to the custody of a centurion, ordered that he should have such liberty as the circumstances admitted, with permission that his acquaintance might see him and minister to his wants. This imprisonment the apostle suffered for a short period (not two years, as ordinarily supposed, that expression having reference to Felix’s whole term of sole office), being left bound when Felix gave place to Festus (q.v.), as that unjust judge “was willing,” not to do what was right, but “to show the Jews a pleasure” (Walch, De Felice procuratore, Jena, 1747; also in his Dissertt. in Act. iii, 29; Smith’s Dictionary of Classical Biography, s.v.).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Felix (2)
(Pratensis), an eminent Jewish scholar of the 16th century, was born in Prato, Tuscany. He was the son of a rabbi, who taught him the Oriental languages. He travelled in Italy after the death of his father, and, becoming convinced of the truth of Christianity, was baptized, and shortly after entered the order of St. Augustine. The date of his profession of Christianity is uncertain, but it probably took place before 1506. He translated the Psalms into Latin, dedicating the work to Leo X, and received authority from the pope to translate the other books of the Old Testament. v He revised the text of the two first Hebrew editions of the Bible published by Bomberg, carefully correcting the proofs himself. He died in 1557. His works are,
1. Psalterium ex hebraeo ad verbum fere tralatum adjectis notationibus (Venice, 1515, 4to): this version has been inserted in the Psalterium Sextuplex (Lyons, 15030, 830m):
2. Biblia sacra hebraea, cum utraque masora et targum, item cum Cossmentariis rabbinorum; cura et studio Felicis Pratensis, cum prafatione latina Leoni Anuncupata’ (Venice, 1518, 4 vols. fol.). There are- said to be versions of Job and other-books of the Bible by Felix, but they have never been published..-Biographie Universelle, 14:273.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Felix (3)
bishop of Urgel (Urgelis), in Spain, 9th century. Of his early life little is known. He became bishop of Urgel in 791. Elipandus of Toledo, who had been -his pupil, consulted him as to the doctrine of the person of. Christ, with regard to which he seems to have already embraced the so-called Adoptian doctrine. SEE ELIPANDUS. ” The answer of Felix was that Christ, with respect to his divine nature, was truly and properly the Son of God, begotten of the Father and hence he was the true God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the unity of the Godhead. But that, with respect to his humanity Christ was the Son of God by adoption, born of – the Virgin by the will of the Father, and thus he was nominally God. Hence, according to the opponents of the Felicians, it followed that there was a twofold Sonship in Christ, and that he must consist of two persons. The opinion of Felix was considered by the orthodox as nothing more than a development of the Nestorian heresy. The doctrine of Felix was adopted by Elipandus, who, being the’ primate of Spain, propagated it through the different provinces of Spain, while Felix himself contributed to spread it throughout Narbonne and other parts of Gaul” (Carwithen, Church History, p. 179). It appears to be clear that Felix had read some of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (q.v.), in which a similar doctrine is taught. Felix seems, moreover, to have engaged in controversy with the Mohammedans, and, according to Alcuin, he wrote a Dialogue against them; and it is not unlikely that he was led to the Adoptian view by his desire to render the doctrine of the Incarnation less offensive to the Mohammedans. Alcuin (q.v.) entered into controversy wit-h Felix, and we learn from him a large part of what is known about the controversy (Alcuin, Opera, ii, 760 sq.). Neander gives the following statement: “Felix distinguished between how far Christ was the Son of God and God according to nature (natura, genere), and how far he was so by virtue of grace, by an act of the divine will (gratia, voluntate), by the divine choice and good pleasure (elections, placito); and the name Son of God was given to him only in consequence of connection with God (nuncupative); and hence the expressions for this distinction, secundum naturam and secundum adoptionem. Felix appealed to the fact that, though the name of Son by adoption ( ) is not applied in the Bible to Christ, yet there are other designations which express the same idea.
He adduces Joh 10:34, when Jesus disputed with the Jews. ( ), and referred to the passage in the Old Testament, in which men are called Elohim, where Christ placed himself as a man in the category of those who were called ‘gods’ nuncupative, and not in a strict sense. Then as to the passage, ‘None is good save one, that is God,’ from this it appears that as man he was not to be called good in the Same sense as God, and that only the divine nature in him was the source of goodness. He would allow an interchange of the divine and human predicates only in the same manner as Theodore; it could not be made without limitation, but the different senses must be observed according as they were attributed to the divine or human natures. He charged his opponents with so confounding the two natures by their doctrine of the singularitas personae that they left no distinction between the suscipiens and the susceptum. Expressions that were then in common use, such as God was born and died, never occur in Scripture, which also never says that the Son of God, but that the Son of man was given for us. On the latter point Alcuin could easily have confuted Felix by other passages, but both were wrong in not distinguishing the various Biblical applications of the term Son of God from the Church use of it- and in taking the idea everywhere in a Church sense. Like Theodore, Felix asserted Agnoetism of Christ. It is also a point of resemblance between them that both sought for an analogy between the union of the man Christ with the divine Being and the relation of believers to God. Felix says .that Christ in as- improper sense (nuncupative) was called the Son of God conjointly with all who are not God according to their nature, but by the grace of God in Christ have been taken’ into communion with God (deificati). In this order also the Son of God is, is respect of his humanity, both according to nature and grace. He maintained that, as far as Christ as man is reckoned among the sons of God, all believers are his members; considered according to his divine nature, believers are the temple in which he dwells. He did not wish by that to deny the specific difference between Christ and believers; whatever resemblance existed between them belonged to him in a far higher sense; he was united to God by generation, and was the medium of the communion of the rest with God. Felix also perfectly agreed with Theodore in the thought that the communion with God into which Christ was received as a man might be represented as a revelation of the divine being according to the measure of the various stages of the development of his human nature, and thus supposed various degrees of it up to the highest revelation after the glorification of Christ. It might be peculiarly offensive that be should compare the baptism of Christ with the regeneration of believers; but he certainly did not mean to say that Christ thus became partaker of communion with the divine nature, but only to point out an analogy so far, as baptism marked a distinct stage in Christ’s life, after which the operation of the divine life in him was peculiarly conspicuous. It is therefore evident that the doctrine of Felix was altogether that of Theodore, excepting that the latter could express himself more freely in an age when the doctrines of the Church were less rigorously defined, while Felix was obliged to use a terminology which was opposed to his own system. The great importance of the antagonism in which he stood: to the Church doctrine is likewise manifest; it included not merely Christology, but also Anthropology; for the doctrine of the revelation of the Divine Being in Christ, conditioned by various stages of development, was connected with one of special importance the principle of free self-determination. It is uncertain how far Felix consciously developed his principles; but there is no question that these were throughout contradictory to the prevalent Augustinian doctrine. As Felix lived in the Frankish territory, the Frankish Church was drawn into the controversy. In A.D. 792, Charlemagne convoked an assembly at Ratisbon, at which Felix appeared, and was induced to recant. He was then sent to Rome, where he made similar explanations (Alcuinus adv. Elipandum, i, c. 16; Mansi, Concil. 13:1031). But, on being permitted to return home, he repented of the steps he had taken, took refuge in Saracenic Spain, and again promulgated his doctrine. Alcuin, who had been summponed to take a part in the controversy, endeavored to win him over by a friendly epistle; but Felix regarded the subject of the controversy as too important, afnd thus it was carried on in his writings (Alcuini Libellus adv. liceresin Felicis, Opp. A lc. i, pars ii, 759).
The Spanish bishops interceded for Felix with the emperor, and applied for a new investigation (Alcuin, Opera, ii, 567). In consequence, Charles called a second synod at Frankfort-on-the- Maine in A.D. 794, which again decided against Felix (Mansi, 13:863); and since the Adoptianists had spread themselves even as far as France, the emperor sent a commission of three persons into those parts in order to oppose them. Felix came with them, and was prevailed upon to appear before the synod at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aix), A.D. 799. After Alcuin had disputed with him for a long time, Felix declared himself: to be convinced. He made a recantation in Spain; yet he was not altogether trusted, and was placed under the oversight of Leidrad, bishop of Lyons. He could not at once give up a dogmatic tendency which was so deeply rooted; he still was always inclined to Agnoetism, and after his death a series of questions was found which showed that he firmly adhered to his fundamental views” (Hist. of Dogmas, tr. by Ryland, p. 444 sq.). Felix was deposed A.D. 799, and died about A.D. 818. His writings, whether in apology or retraction of his views, remain only in fragments; but his Profession of Faith, made at Aix-la-Chapelle in 799, is given in Alcuini Opera (Paris, 1617, fol.); in Mansi, Concil. 13:1035; in Labbe, Concil. p. 1171. See Dupin, Eccles. Writers, cent. viii; Neander, Ch. History, iii, 156, 158; Mosheim, Ch. ITistory, cent. 8:ch. v, 3; Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, 179; Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Edinb. transl. div. ii, vol. i, 248 sq. SEE ADOPTIANS; SEE CHRISTOLOGY.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Felix (4)
is the name of a very large number of early Christians. among whom we notice the following:
(1) Bishop of Aptunga, apparently in proconsular Africa prominent in the controversy concerning the ordination of Csecilianus (q.v.) to the see of Carthage, early in the 4th century.
(2) The apostle of the East Angles and first bishop of Dunwich; died cir. A.D. 647, and commemorated as a saint March 8.
(3) Donatist bishop of Idisia, in Numidia, in 361; guilty of great excesses.
(4) Saint, bishop of Nantes, in Brittany, in 550; died January 6, 582; commemorated July 7.
(5) First bishop of Nuceria (or Nocera), in Umbria, in 402.
(6) Archbishop of Ravenna in 708; carried to Constantinople and blinded, but afterwards restored, and died November 25, 724.
(7) Metropolitan bishop of Seville; confirmed by the Council of Toledo near the close of the 7th century.
(8) Bishop of Siponto; addressed by Gregory the Great in 591 and 593.
(9) Bishop of Treves in 386; resigned about 398.
(10) Bishop of Tubzoca, martyred under Diocletian in 303, and commemorated as a saint October 24.
(11) Abbot of a little monastery in Byzacena, to which Fulgentius (q.v.) retired early in the 6h century.
(12) Surnamed Octavius, a reader, of Abutina, in Africa, martyred at Carthage under Anulinus, the proconsul, with Dativus (q.v.), and commemorated as a saint February 12.
(13) A native of Scilita, martyred at Carthage under Severus (A.D. 200 or 202), along with Perpetua (q.v.) and others; commemorated July 17.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Felix
happy, the Roman procurator of Judea before whom Paul “reasoned” (Acts 24:25). He appears to have expected a bribe from Paul, and therefore had several interviews with him. The “worthy deeds” referred to in 24:2 was his clearing the country of banditti and impostors.
At the end of a two years’ term, Porcius Festus was appointed in the room of Felix (A.D. 60), who proceeded to Rome, and was there accused of cruelty and malversation of office by the Jews of Caesarea. The accusation was rendered nugatory by the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero. (See Josephus, Ant. xx. 8, 9.)
Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa, having been induced by Felix to desert her husband, the king of Emesa, became his adulterous companion. She was seated beside him when Paul “reasoned” before the judge. When Felix gave place to Festus, being “willing to do the Jews a pleasure,” he left Paul bound.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Felix
Antonius (Tacitus, Hist. 5:9) Claudius (Suidas), Roman procurator of Judaea, appointed by the emperor Claudius, whose freedman he was, to succeed Ventidius Cumanus, who was banished A.D. 53. Tacitus (Ann., 12:54) makes F. procurator of Samaria while Cumanus had Galilee. Josephus (Ant. 20:6, section 2, 7, section 1) makes him succeed Cumanus. Tacitus writes of Felix, “he exercised the authority of a king with the disposition of a slave in all cruelty and lust.” He and Cumanus were tried before Quadratus for winking at robbery and violence and enriching themselves with bribes, according to Tacitus, and Felix was acquitted and reinstated. Having the powerful support of his brother Pallas, Claudius’ freedman and favorite, he thought he could do what he liked with impunity. Pallas’ influence continuing, Felix remained procurator under Nero.
Felix crushed the Jewish zealots under the name of “robbers,” and crucified hundreds. He put down false Messiahs and the followers of an Egyptian magician (Josephus, Ant. 20:8, section 5, 6; Act 21:88) and riots, but he once employed the zealot assassins (Sicarii) to murder the high priest Jonathan. “By unseasonable remedies he only aggravated” the evils of Judaea (Tacitus, Annals 12:54). These were the “very worthy deeds done by Felix’s providence,” which gave the nation “great quietness” according to the lying flatterer Tertullus’ set oration against Paul (Act 24:2, etc.). Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, sent Paul for judgment to Felix at Caesarea.
There Paul had two hearings before Felix. After the first hearing, Felix deferred the Jews until Lysias the chief captain should come. At the second Paul, before Felix and Drusilla, Felix’s Jewish wife, who was curious to “hear him concerning the faith of Christ,” so reasoned of “righteousness and temperance (both of which Felix outraged as a governor and a man, having seduced from her husband) and judgment to come” that Felix “trembled” before his prisoner, but deferred repentance, saying, “when I have a convenient season I will call for thee.” (See DRUSILLA.) Greed of gain supplanted conscience, so that instead of repenting of his shameful life he would not even do common justice to Paul, but left him a prisoner because he got no bribe to set him free.
Felix could hardly have hoped for money from so poor looking a prisoner as Paul (which is implied in Lysias’ surprise, presuming Paul had like himself bought Roman citizenship, Act 22:27-28), had he not heard Paul stating in the former interview, “after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings.” This accounts for Felix “letting Paul have liberty and forbidding none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him.” He doubtless hoped they would supply the money wherewith to buy his deliverance, an undesigned coincidence and so a mark of the truth of the history. After two years Porcius Festus succeeded, and Felix was accused by the Jews of Caesarea, at Rome, but escaped through Pallas’ influence with the emperor Nero, A.D. 60.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
FELIX
As Roman governor of Judea from AD 52 to 60, Felix had some influence on Jewish affairs in Palestine. Early non-biblical records show that he was corrupt and cruel, characteristics that are well illustrated in the story about him in the Bible.
After a riot by the Jews in Jerusalem, Paul was sent to Caesarea to be judged by Felix (Act 23:26-35). Felix knew the Jews well, for he had a Jewish wife (Act 24:24). He also knew sufficient of Christianity to realize that Paul was innocent of the charges the Jews laid against him (Act 23:29; Act 24:22). Yet he kept Paul imprisoned for two years, simply to please the Jews and so prevent any further unrest (Act 24:23; Act 24:27). He was interested to hear of Pauls religious beliefs, and Paul could have gained his freedom had he paid the bribe Felix wanted (Act 24:25-26). Paul refused to cooperate, so the heartless Felix left him in prison. In due course Felix returned to Rome, leaving the next governor to deal with the matter as best he could (Act 24:27; Act 25:1-5).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Felix
Felix. A Roman procurator of Judea, before whom Paul so ‘reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,’ that the judge trembled, saying, ‘Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season I will call for thee’ (Act 24:25). The context states that Felix had expected a bribe from Paul; and, in order to procure this bribe, he appears to have had several interviews with the Apostle. The depravity which such an expectation implies is in agreement with the idea which the historical fragments preserved respecting Felix would lead the student to form of the man.
The year in which Felix entered on his office cannot be strictly determined. From the words of Josephus it appears that his appointment took place before the twelfth year of the Emperor Claudius.
Felix was a remarkable instance of the elevation to distinguished station of persons born and bred in the lowest condition. Originally a slave, he rose to little less than kingly power. For some unknown, but probably not very creditable services, he was manumitted by Claudius Caesar (Sueton. Claud. 28; Tacit. Hist. v. 9): on which account he is said to have taken the praenomen of Claudius.
The character which the ancients have left of Felix is of a very dark complexion. Suetonius speaks of the military honors which the emperor loaded him with, and specifies his appointment as governor of the province of Judea; adding an inuendo, which loses nothing by its brevity, namely, that he was the husband of three queens or royal ladies. Tacitus, in his History (v. 9), declares that, during his governorship in Judea, he indulged in all kinds of cruelty and lust, exercising regal power with the disposition of a slave; and, in his Annals (xii. 54) he represents Felix as considering himself licensed to commit any crime, relying on the influence which he possessed at court. The country was ready for rebellion, and the unsuitable remedies which Felix applied served only to inflame the passions and to incite to crime. Under his sway the affairs of the country grew worse and worse. The land was filled with robbers and impostors who do deluded the multitude. Felix used his power to repress these disorders to little purpose, since his own example gave no sanction to justice. Having a grudge against Jonathan, the high-priest, who had expostulated with him on his misrule, he made use of Doras, an intimate friend of Jonathan, in order to get him assassinated by a gang of villains, who joined the crowds that were going up to the temple to worshipa crime which led subsequently to countless evils, by the encouragement which it gave to the Sicarii, or leagued assassins of the day, to whose excesses Josephus ascribes, under Providence, the overthrow of the Jewish state. Among other crimes, some of these villains misled the people under the promise of performing miracles, and were punished by Felix. An Egyptian impostor, who escaped himself, was the occasion of the loss of life to four hundred followers, and of the loss of liberty to two hundred more, thus severely dealt with by Felix.
While in his office, being inflamed by a passion for the beautiful Drusilla, a daughter of King Herod Agrippa, who was married to Azizus, king of Emesa, he employed one Simon, a magician, to use his arts in order to persuade her to forsake her husband and marry him, promising that if she would comply with his suit he would make her a happy woman. Drusilla, partly impelled by a desire to avoid the envy of her sister, Berenice, was prevailed on to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and consented to a union with Felix. In this marriage a son was born, who was named Agrippa: both mother and son perished in an eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which took place in the days of Titus Caesar. With this adulteress was Felix seated when Paul reasoned before the judge, as already stated (Act 24:24).
Paul, being apprehended in Jerusalem, was sent by a letter from Claudius Lysias to Felix at Caesarea, where he was at first confined in Herod’s judgment-hall till his accusers came. They arrived. Tertullus appeared as their spokesman and had the audacity, in order to conciliate the good will of Felix, to express gratitude on the part of the Jews, ‘seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence’ (Acts 23; Acts 24). Paul pleaded his cause in a worthy speech; and Felix, consigning the Apostle to the custody of a centurion, ordered that he should have such liberty as the circumstances admitted, with permission that his acquaintance might see him and minister to his wants. This imprisonment the Apostle suffered for a period of two years, being left bound when Felix gave place to Festus, as that unjust judge ‘was willing,’ not to do what was right, but ‘to show the Jews a pleasure.’
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Felix
[Fe’lix]
One of the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius, and by him appointed to be procurator or governor of Judaea, A.D. 51. Paul, when sent a prisoner to Caesarea, appeared before Felix; and again before him and his wife Drusilla; and as Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance and judgement to come, Felix trembled, and said when he had a convenient season he would send for him. He showed his mercenary and unrighteous character in keeping Paul a prisoner two years in the hope of being bribed; and then leaving him a prisoner to please the Jews. Act 23:24; Act 23:26; Act 24:3-27; Act 25:14.
Tacitus says Felix ruled the province in a mean, cruel, and profligate manner. The country was full of sedition, among which Josephus speaks of ‘false messiahs’ being put down. Eventually he was accused before Nero by the Jews, and only escaped punishment by the intercession of his brother Pallas. He was superseded by Porcius Festus, A.D. 60.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Felix
Governor of Judea.
Paul tried before
Act 23:24-35; Act 24
Trembles under Paul’s preaching
Act 24:25
Leaves Paul in bonds
Act 24:26-27; Act 25:14
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Felix
Felix (f’lix), happy. A Roman procurator of Judea appointed by the emperor Claudius in a.d. 53. His period of office was full of troubles and seditions. Paul was brought before Felix in Csarea. Paul was remanded to prison, and kept there two years in hopes of extorting money from him. Act 24:26-27. At the end of that time Porcius Festus superseded Felix, who, on his return to Rome, was accused by the Jews in Csarea, and would have suffered for his crimes had not his brother Pallas prevailed with the emperor Nero to spare him. This was probably about a.d. 60. The wife of Felix was Drusilla, a daughter of Herod Agrippa I., who was his third wife and whom he persuaded to leave her husband and marry him.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Felix
Fe’lix. (happy). A Roman procurator of Judea, appointed by the emperor Claudius in A.D. 53. He ruled the province in a mean, cruel and profligate manner. His period of office was full of troubles and seditions. St. Paul was brought before Felix in Caesarea. He was remanded to prison, and kept there two years in hopes of extorting money from him. Act 24:26-27.
At the end of that time, Porcius Festus, see Festus, Porcius, was appointed to supersede Felix, who, on his return to Rome, was accused by the Jews in Caesarea, and would have suffered the penalty due to his atrocities had not his brother, Pallas, prevailed with the emperor Nero to spare him. This was probably about A.D. 60. The wife of Felix was Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who was his third wife and whom he persuaded to leave her husband and marry him.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
FELIX
a Roman governor of Judea
Act 23:24; Act 23:33; Act 24:3; Act 24:10; Act 24:24; Act 25:14
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Felix
CLAUDIUS. See CLAUDIUS.