Chapter Twenty-Four

Paul before Felix’s court is accused by the Jews (1–9). The apostle’s defense speech (10–21). Postponement of the case until Lysias’s arrival (22–23). Paul’s conversation with Felix and Drusilla; a change in the case with the arrival of the new procurator (24–27).

Acts 24:1. Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a certain rhetor named Tertullus, who brought charges against Paul before the governor. “Five days later” — after Paul’s departure from Jerusalem to Caesarea. “The high priest Ananias came with the elders,” that is, with members of the Sanhedrin. This was done, as is implied above, by order of Lysias (Acts 23:30), but it also accorded, of course, with their own wishes — to secure the apostle’s condemnation. It is unlikely that the entire Sanhedrin in its full complement came to Caesarea; it is far more probable that these were specially chosen representatives of the Sanhedrin, authorized to conduct the proceedings in its name. To increase their chances of success they brought along a certain “rhetor Tertullus” (a fairly common Roman name — a diminutive of Tertius, and from “Tertullus” another diminutive further — Tertullian). Who this Tertullus was by origin — whether a pagan from the Roman provinces or a Jew of the Diaspora bearing such a name — is unknown. The latter is more likely (cf. Acts 24 and Acts 24:8). The designation of Tertullus as a rhetor points to his specialty — conducting lawsuits and delivering speeches in favor of his clients: the same function performed today by an attorney or prosecutor. It was such a rhetor that the representatives of the Sanhedrin brought with them to accuse Paul.

Acts 24:2. When he was summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: Acts 24:3. We acknowledge, most excellent Felix, always and everywhere with all gratitude, that through you we enjoy profound peace, and that through your foresight this nation has been blessed with good order. Acts 24:4. But, in order not to burden you too much, I ask you to hear us briefly, with the gracious indulgence that is characteristic of you. Tertullus’s speech begins with the flattering compliments to the governor that are customary for a rhetor, counting on his goodwill, on which the outcome of the case depended. With brazen shamelessness the orator says that Felix, by universal acknowledgment, has given the Jews deep peace in the land and a prosperity that calls forth universal gratitude, and so on. How far these praises corresponded to the truth — beyond the testimonies of contemporaries about Felix already cited — may be judged by the fact that very soon afterward the Jews themselves brought bitter complaints against him to the emperor (Flavius, Antiquities, XX, 3, 9 ff.).

Acts 24:5. We have found this man a plague on society, a stirrer of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the Nazarene sect, “We have found this man a plague on society.” Here the guilt of Paul is presupposed as already proven, as having been sufficiently investigated by his accusers. The general charge is expressed by calling Paul a “plague” on society — that is, a man introducing a spiritual infection ruinous to society, by which is meant the Christian teaching, spreading rapidly and extending its influence over the surrounding environment. More specific charges: 1) “stirring up sedition” among the Jews of the empire (“the world,” cf. Luke 23:2; Acts 17:6) — a charge exaggerated, distorting reality especially as regards the character of Paul’s activity (cf. a similar accusation made by the Jews against the Lord, Luke 23:2; Acts 17:6); 2) being the ringleader of the “Nazarene sect,” that is, of the community of followers of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Matt 2:23) — an insufficiently substantiated and elucidated charge, really pointing only to a prejudiced hatred of Christianity on the part of the Jews; 3) a more definite charge of “an attempt to defile the temple” — though also inadequately proven (cf. Acts 21 and following; cf. Acts 24:13).

Acts 24:6. who even dared to defile the temple, and we seized him and intended to judge him according to our law. “We seized him and intended to judge him.” A new lie from the rhetor: they did not seize him to judge him — they grabbed him, beat him, and intended to kill him (Acts 21:31-32).

Acts 24:7. But the chiliarch Lysias came and with great force took him out of our hands and sent him to you, “Coming... took him.” Lysias’s action is here represented, albeit cautiously, as unlawful interference in a matter that supposedly concerned only the Sanhedrin. “It was not his place to do this, yet he did it... By this he implies that it was grievous for them to come before a foreign court, and that they would not have troubled him (the governor) had the chiliarch not compelled them and taken this man from them, which he ought not to have done; the insult, they say, was done to us, and therefore judgment over him should have been rendered among us” (Chrysostom).

Acts 24:8. commanding us, his accusers, to come to you. By examining him yourself you will be able to learn from him everything about the matters of which we accuse him. Acts 24:9. The Jews also confirmed this, asserting that these things were so. “By examining him yourself... you will be able to learn” — from the accused Paul himself — whether the charges brought against him are justified. Premature and excessive self-confidence, confirmed by all the Jews present, resting on the supposed irrefutability of the facts but forgetting the possibility of an entirely different presentation of them.

Acts 24:10. When the governor gave him a sign to speak, Paul replied: knowing that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I will defend my case with all the more confidence. “Have been a judge for many years.” The Russian translation (following the Slavonic) most inappropriately adds the word “justly” to “judge,” thereby spoiling the apostle’s altogether impartial, calm, and restrained speech, in which he does not imitate the flattering Tertullus by lavishing hypocritical praise on a governor who did not deserve it. On the contrary, he simply points to the single fact that Felix has already been judge over this people for many years, and this gives the apostle grounds to feel more at ease in defending his case. In this turn of phrase — if anything could seem like a compliment, it was only the comparatively long duration of Felix’s governorship, which hardly depended on him, and perhaps the hope of greater experience acquired through prolonged practice. That is all. Cautious, tactful, proper, and entirely sincere. “Many years” — by this time about six years of Felix’s procuratorship had passed, which — given the frequent turnover of procurators — represented a genuinely comparative length of service. “I will defend my case with all the more confidence” — “confidence” — ευθυμοτερον — properly, with greater cheerfulness, more assurance, than would be the case if the procurator were a new man, unfamiliar with the people and the country. The apostle implies that “the judge himself knows that he has done nothing of the kind of which he is accused. Had he ever caused a disturbance, the judge would have known it and it would not have escaped him” (Chrysostom).

Acts 24:11. You are able to ascertain that no more than twelve days ago I came up to Jerusalem to worship. “No more than twelve days ago” — so short a time that everything he did there can be investigated and established precisely, from fresh traces, so to speak, and the complete injustice of the charges brought against him would thereby become apparent. “To worship” — not to mock legitimate temple worship, and still less to defile the temple by a deliberate violation of its sanctity.

Acts 24:12. And they did not find me in the temple arguing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, neither in the synagogues nor throughout the city, Acts 24:13. nor can they prove to you the things of which they now accuse me. The complete lack of evidence for the charge of inciting the Jews of Jerusalem to sedition is pointed out. As for the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, this matter did not even fall under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin or the procurator at all, since it had taken place beyond the borders of their territory and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of other local judicial bodies.

Acts 24:14. But I do admit to you that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I truly serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is written in the Law and in the Prophets, Acts 24:15. having a hope in God, which these men themselves also hold, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. “They call a sect,” but in reality, it is implied, this is something entirely different — the true teaching, fully consonant with the ancient service of the God of the fathers and with everything written in the Law and the Prophets (cf. Matt 11:13). “When, after his call to be an apostle of Christ, Paul says that he serves ‘the God of the fathers,’ he shows thereby that the God of the Old and New Testaments is one and the same” (Chrysostom). Having touched on his teaching concerning the “resurrection of the dead,” Paul also in this teaching indicates a common ground with the teaching of the Jews (“which these men themselves also hold”), which by itself refutes any guilt on his part in this respect as well.

Acts 24:16. And so I strive always to have a blameless conscience before God and before people. Turning to the practical expression of his confession in his moral life, the apostle notes that it likewise excluded any possible grounds for discontent or sedition, having as its aim “always to have a blameless conscience before God and before people,” for perfect virtue, in the words of Chrysostom, “is achieved when we neither give others occasion for sin nor strive to be blameless before God.” Thus the apostle clearly and convincingly proved that the charge of following a teaching so consonant with the Old Testament is not a genuine charge, and that belonging to Christianity — which requires only a blameless conscience before God and before people — is not a crime.

Acts 24:17. Now after many years I came to bring alms to my people and to make offerings. Acts 24:18. In doing so, they found me purified in the temple, not with a crowd and not in an uproar. Acts 24:19. These were certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been present before you and to bring charges against me if they had anything against me. In conclusion of his speech the apostle dwells on the occasion for his arrest, proving from this angle too the complete groundlessness of the injustice done to him. “After many years.” As above (Acts 24:10), the expression denotes a comparative length of time. More precisely, this occurred about four years after his last — admittedly brief — visit to Jerusalem (Acts 23:22). Besides worshipping God, the apostle points to a new purpose for his arrival in Jerusalem, equally remote from any seditious intentions, and in relation to the people directly opposite to the charges of inciting them to riots and disorders. This was the bringing of alms and offerings to the people from fellow believers of other lands — what a contrast between Paul’s patriotic love for his people and the malicious slander of his enemies. Not only was he himself so far from any desire to cause harm to “his people,” but he had also moved others — Greek and Macedonian inhabitants — to such touching concern for the needs and afflictions of this people. “Found me purified in the temple, not with a crowd and not in an uproar.” By this the apostle proves that he not only made no attempt to defile the temple but, on the contrary, being reverent before its sanctity, entered it only after the legally prescribed purification, and moreover “not with a crowd” that he could have stirred up, “and not in an uproar” that is inevitable when a disturbance is raised. “How could he (Paul) have defiled the temple? It was impossible for one and the same person to be purifying himself and praying, and at the same time to come and defile the temple” (Chrysostom). “They found me” — not those who now accuse me and falsely declare “we seized him,” but entirely different people — “certain Jews from Asia,” with whom he ought properly to have dealings, and whose absence is the best proof that entirely different, unsavoury motives are being pursued here.

Acts 24:20. Or let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin, Acts 24:21. unless it be this one word that I cried out while standing among them: it is for the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today. Unprovable in itself, the apostle’s guilt remained unproven even at the trial before the Sanhedrin — the final and most forceful word of the defense and proof of the groundlessness of the further demands of Paul’s accusers. One cannot, after all, count as a crime of Paul the “word” that he loudly proclaimed about the resurrection of the dead and which found agreement from among their very own members!

Acts 24:22. Having heard this, Felix adjourned their case, saying: I will examine your matter when the chiliarch Lysias comes, and I will thoroughly inquire into this teaching. In the original text this verse reads considerably differently: ακούσας δέ ταῦτα ο Φῆλιξ ανεβάλετο αυτούς, ακριβέστερον ειδώς τά περί τῆς οδοῦ ειπών όταν Λυσίας ο χιλίαρχος καταβῆ διαγνώσομαι τά καθ’ υμᾶς, that is: “having heard this, Felix adjourned them (that is, their case), being better acquainted with this Way, saying: when Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will investigate everything concerning you...” (Slavonic text). Thus the matter here must be understood as follows: Felix, having obtained more precise information about “the Way,” that is, about Paul’s mode of thought and beliefs, and being convinced that the charges against him were entirely groundless, but at the same time not wishing by a blunt refusal to offend and rouse against himself the shamed accusers (cf. Acts 24:27), nonetheless does not release Paul, announcing a postponement of the case — ostensibly from a desire to learn more from Lysias. Besides his direct acquaintance with Paul’s Christian convictions from his speeches, Felix could have had sufficient information about Christianity from other sources. He had been procurator of Judea for quite some time, and had lived there even longer (see the note to Acts 23 and Acts 24:10); Christianity had by then spread throughout all of Palestine and in Caesarea, where the centurion Cornelius, converted by Peter, was perhaps still residing. Finally, Felix could have learned much also from his wife Drusilla, a native Jewess who took an interest in Christianity.

Acts 24:23. He also gave orders to the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to allow him some liberty and not to prevent any of his friends from attending to him or coming to him. “To allow him some liberty...” As later in Rome, Paul probably was kept under the supervision of a single soldier (Acts 23:16) and was able to receive everyone.

Acts 24:24. Some days later Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. “Drusilla” — Felix’s wife — was the daughter of King Herod Agrippa I, who killed the Apostle James and died in Caesarea (Acts 12). This beauty, famous at that time, had been married first to Azizus, king of Emesa (in Syria), but Felix, through the mediation of a certain sorcerer from Cyprus named Simon, charmed her, and — divorcing his first wife (also named Drusilla, the granddaughter of the well-known Antony and Cleopatra) — married her (Flavius, Antiquities XX, 7, 1 ff.). “Sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.” Felix summoned and listened to Paul not for the purposes of a judicial defense, but out of interest in his personality and Christian teaching. Drusilla in particular probably desired to see and hear Paul, being a former Herodian who had doubtless heard a great deal about Christianity.

Acts 24:25. And as he spoke about righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became alarmed and answered: go away for now, and when I find a convenient time I will summon you. Acts 24:26. He also hoped at the same time that money would be given to him by Paul, so that he might release him; therefore he used to send for him often and converse with him. “He spoke about righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment.” Paul’s conversation was specially adapted to the condition of the listeners, answering not only their interest in Christianity but also containing what they perhaps would not have wished to hear — yet the apostle with holy boldness spoke directly to their faces. The profligate Drusilla must especially have blushed when hearing about self-control. The rapacious and unjust governor could not help feeling pangs of conscience upon listening to the preaching about righteousness. For both, the announcement of the dreadful judgment must have appeared terrifying, although the proud governor did not give sufficient rein to this salutary feeling and hastened to cut short the apostle’s alarming words by sending him back under his former custody. Although afterward he summoned him often for conversation, it was no longer so much from a desire to hear the truth as from unworthy mercenary calculations, hoping for a bribe — if not from the apostle himself, then from his admirers. But Saint Paul was innocent and did not wish to purchase his freedom by any impermissible means; he did not allow himself to take advantage of the affection of the Caesareans either, who could certainly have collected money for his ransom, beyond his own means. He did not wish to mix dubious human means with the divine designs for his fate, and preferred an honorable captivity to a guilty freedom. Beside such beauty of Paul’s soul, the wretched unscrupulousness of Felix stands out all the more hideously — for he, knowing full well the prisoner’s innocence and his moral superiority, still continued to torment him in chains out of deference to the Jews and to appease their anger (v. 27).

Acts 24:27. But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in custody. “After two years had passed” since Paul was placed in chains (in the year 60 or 61 A.D.), Felix was recalled to Rome owing to the complaints of the Jews against him and was replaced by Porcius Festus. To win over the Jews to some degree and, on the other hand, to take revenge on the apostle for not satisfying his appetite for bribery, Felix — as he was departing to stand trial — left Paul in chains. The successor of Felix, who did little good for Judea, died the following year. He was succeeded by Albinus.