Acts Lesson Fifty-one

Acts Lesson Fifty-one: Acts 24:1-27 – Paul Before Felix

After five days Ananias  the high priest came down with some elders and a lawyer named Tertullus. These men presented their case against Paul to the governor. ² When he was called in, Tertullus began to accuse him and said: “Since we enjoy great peace because of you, and reforms are taking place for the benefit of this nation by your foresight, ³ we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with utmost gratitude. ⁴ However, so that I will not burden you any further, I beg you in your graciousness to give us a brief hearing. ⁵ For we have found this man to be a plague, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the Roman world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes! ⁶ He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we apprehended him [and wanted to judge him according to our law. ⁷ But Lysias the commander came and took him from our hands with great force, ⁸ commanding his accusers to come to you.] By examining him yourself you will be able to discern all these things we are accusing him of.” ⁹ The Jews also joined in the attack, alleging that these things were so. 

¹⁰ When the governor motioned to him to speak, Paul replied: “Because I know you have been a judge of this nation for many years, I am glad to offer my defense in what concerns me. ¹¹ You are able to determine that it is no more than 12 days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. ¹² They didn’t find me disputing with anyone or causing a disturbance among the crowd, either in the temple complex or in the synagogues or anywhere in the city. ¹³ Neither can they provide evidence to you of what they now bring against me. ¹⁴ But I confess this to you: I worship my fathers’ God according to the Way,  which they call a sect, believing all the things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets. ¹⁵ And I have a hope in God, which these men themselves also accept, that there is going to be a resurrection, both of the righteous and the unrighteous. ¹⁶ I always do my best to have a clear conscience toward God and men. ¹⁷ After many years, I came to bring charitable gifts and offerings to my nation, ¹⁸ and while I was doing this, some Jews from Asia found me ritually purified in the temple, without a crowd and without any uproar.  ¹⁹ It is they who ought to be here before you to bring charges, if they have anything against me. ²⁰ Either let these men here state what wrongdoing they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin, ²¹ or about this one statement I cried out while standing among them, ‘Today I am being judged before you concerning the resurrection of the dead.’ ” 

²² Since Felix was accurately informed about the Way, he adjourned the hearing, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.” ²³ He ordered that the centurion keep Paul under guard, though he could have some freedom, and that he should not prevent any of his friends from serving him. 

²⁴ After some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and listened to him on the subject of faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁵ Now as he spoke about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix became afraid and replied, “Leave for now, but when I find time I’ll call for you.” ²⁶ At the same time he was also hoping that money would be given to him by Paul. For this reason he sent for him quite often and conversed with him. ²⁷ After two years had passed, Felix received a successor, Porcius Festus, and because he wished to do a favor for the Jews, Felix left Paul in prison. (HCSB)

I’ll divide this lesson into three parts.

• The Sanhedrin’s accusation against Paul.
• Paul’s defense before Felix.
• Felix delays his decision.

The Sanhedrin’s Accusation Against Paul

As we begin this section, let’s break down three areas; the religious “team” that arrived from Jerusalem, a detailed look at Tertullus, and a look at the timeline involving Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem to this meeting before Felix.

• The religious team.
  • The high priest, Ananias.
  • Some elders who were likely members of the Sanhedrin.
  • A lawyer named Tertullus.
• Tertullus.
  • We can’t be certain whether he was a Jew or a Gentile hired by the Jews.
    • In verses three, four, and six, he identifies himself with the Jews by the use of the word “we.”
    • In verse nine, he seems to separate from “the Jews.”
    • It was not uncommon for Jews to hire pagan lawyers who were skilled in Roman law.
  • Tertullus showed himself to be skilled in Roman legal procedures.
    • He began the case against Paul with lengthy and bloated praise for the Roman governor, which considerably stretched the truth.
    • There was less peace in Judea during Felix’s rule than any Roman governor until the final years before the outbreak of war with Rome.
    • The Romans prided themselves on preserving the peace, and the comment would surely resonate with Felix.
    • Foresight and reforms were hardly a highlight during Felix’s reign. 
      • Felix had made life miserable for the Jews.
      • There was an increase in rebellions during his rule.
      • Felix had a complete lack of sympathy for the Jews and made no attempt to understand their positions.
    • There were few Jews who would feel a sense of gratitude towards him.
• Timeline of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem.
  • Day 1 – arrived in Jerusalem.
  • Day 2 – visited James.
  • Day 3 – visited the temple.
  • Days 4-6 – in the temple with the vow upon him.
  • Day 7 – arrested in the temple.
  • Day 8 – before the Sanhedrin.
  • Day 9 – the Jew’s plot and Paul’s escort to Caesarea.
  • Day 10 – presented to Felix.
  • Days 11-12 – waiting in Caesarea.
  • Day 13 – the hearing before Felix.

Tertullus presented three charges against Paul.

• A personal and political accusation – he is a plague and an agitator.
  • Paul stirred up riots throughout the civilized world.
  • This aligned with the Asian Jews’ charge in Acts 21:28.
  • Tertullus was attempting to connect this to the idea of insurrection in the Roman empire.
    • It was a charge of sedition.
    • Romans wouldn’t concern themselves with Jewish religious matters, but they would take a threat to Roman “peace” seriously.
  • Given Felix’s behavior in dealing with Jewish insurrections, this would have struck a nerve with him.
• A religious accusation – he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
  • This charge was true…in a sense. Paul was a Christian leader.
  • By linking this statement with the charge of insurrection, Tertullus was implying that Christians as a group were dangerous to the peace Rome sought, and Paul was one of the main instigators.
  • By linking the two, Tertullus was implying the charge against the entire Christian community, implying they were a danger and should be viewed as an insurrectionist movement.
  • Fortunately, Tertullus was unable to make this point stick, and Felix was already informed about Christians and wouldn’t have accepted this point anyway.
• He desecrated the temple.
  • The Romans delegated religious legal matters to the Sanhedrin and granted the Jews the right to ban Gentiles from sacred areas.
  • Paul was charged by the Asian Jews for violating the ban on Gentiles in sacred areas.
  • If Tertullus were able to prove this point, Felix would have been obligated to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin and almost certain death by stoning.
  • The charge was based on a false claim by the Asian Jews, which is likely the reason they were not present at this hearing.
• All three charges were false.
  • Paul was never a plague or an agitator. He only spoke the truth, which offended many. Also, Paul never sought to change anyone’s politics. However, he did preach the lordship of Christ, which would be in conflict with Caesar’s demand that he be worshipped as a god.
  • Since many Jewish Christians still participated in some aspects of temple worship, They were viewed as a subset of Judaism and not a new religion.
  • Paul never violated the temple. The charge by the Asian Jews was entirely baseless.

Tertullus also lied about Claudius Lysias.

• He described the mob action in the temple as an attempt to arrest Paul.
• He embellished the actions of Claudius by saying Paul was snatched from the Jews with great force.
• God used Claudius to rescue Paul, and the Jews hated him for that.

Paul’s Defense Before Felix

As this section begins, we get a sense of Felix’s attitude of superiority. He doesn’t ask Paul to speak; he merely gave a nod of his head or a wave of his hand. Paul begins his defense with the customary greeting, but it is markedly different from the one given by Tertullus.

• Paul didn’t appeal to Felix’s ego.
• He didn’t stretch the truth about Felix’s rule or accomplishments.
• Paul only acknowledged that Felix had been a governor for “many years.” 

Paul then begins his defense by making a response to each of the charges brought against him.

• The charge of stirring up an insurrection.
  • There was no history of Paul inciting the Jews in Jerusalem.
    • He had only been in the city for twelve days, and his sole reason for coming was to worship at the temple.
    • Twelve days is not enough time to organize a rebellion.
  • Pilgrims were generally not the ones who caused trouble.
• Paul stated that he had not stirred up any crowds.
  • He didn’t do it in the temple.
  • He didn’t do it in any synagogue.
  • He didn’t do it anywhere within the city.
• Paul concluded his response to the charges by stating the Jews had no proof to support their claims that would stand up in court.

Paul then moves on to address the issue of being a leader of the Nazarene sect.

• Paul uses the opportunity to give a mini-sermon, changing from a defensive posture to a positive witness for the Gospel.
• Tertullus tried to present Christians in a negative light as a subset within Judaism.
• Paul doesn’t deny his connection with the group but chooses another term instead of Nazarene.
  • Paul tells Felix he is a member of “the Way.”
  • He wasn’t part of a subset within Judaism.
  • Christ is the only way to the Father.
• Paul believed in Scripture, the prophets, and the Law, just as the Pharisees did.
• Paul also shared the Pharisees’ hope in the resurrection, both the wicked and the righteous.
  • The mention of the resurrection of the wicked implied judgment.
  • Even the Gentiles, who may not understand or believe in the resurrection, would have some understanding of judgment.
• Paul’s reference to the resurrection is the pinnacle of his witness contained in his speeches of Acts 23-26.
  • This was not an accident.
  • Paul’s absolute conviction in the truth of the resurrection was the real point of contention with the Jews.
  • Paul was trying to highlight this point with the Jews.
    • Paul believed in the same Scriptures.
    • Paul worshiped the same God.
    • Paul shared the same hope.
  • The Way diverged with the rest of the Jews on this very point.
    • Christians believed it had already begun with Christ.
    • The Jews were still waiting for it.
    • Christians also had a different definition for it.
      • Resurrection of the just.
      • Resurrection of the unjust.
      • Since both groups would be resurrected, judgment was implied.
    • Paul’s belief in Christ would make him blameless for the judgment he would face.
    • The resurrection of Christ was the dividing point between Paul and the Jews.
    • For Paul, the church, and contemporary Christians, this remains the division between Christian and Jew and the starting point for dialogue between the two groups.

Paul now moves on to answer Tertullus’s third charge, the desecration of the temple.

• Paul briefly summarized the events in Acts 21.
  • His presence in the temple for purification connected with the four Nazarites.
  • The Asian Jews created the disturbance under false pretenses.
  • The absence of the Asian Jews at this hearing underscores the fact their charges were baseless.
  • Paul was still upset over the fact they refused to confront him face-to-face in a formal hearing.
  • Paul was exercising proper Roman legal procedure. The failure to appear by those who brought the initial charges highlighted the falseness of their claims.
    • For Tertullus to make an allegation against Paul and then fail to produce the witnesses to the event was a serious breach of Roman court procedure.
    • There was no evidence to support the claim of Paul defiling the temple.
    • If anything, the opposite was the case. Paul was ceremonially clean and had traveled to Jerusalem to bring an offering.

Having successfully demonstrated that all of Tertullus’s charges lacked any supporting evidence, Paul moves on to confront the one charge which could be brought against him, Paul’s belief in the resurrection.

• The prosecution had witnesses present to support this charge.
  • The high priest.
  • The elders.
  • They could testify about the veracity of this charge since Paul had successfully refuted their other charges.
• Paul now was essentially in control of the trial.
  • He had broken no law.
    • Roman.
    • Jewish.
  • The resurrection was the only point of contention between Paul and the Jewish religious leaders.
    • Paul and the Christian church believed the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus.
    • The Jewish religious leaders were mistakenly still waiting for the Messiah to come.
    • Paul was on trial for his Christian faith.
• It was essential the Roman courts understood this was an issue of Jewish religious matters and not something to be decided under Roman law.

After Paul had finished giving his defense, Felix adjourned the day’s proceedings.

• Felix would pass his final judgment after he had gathered further evidence.
• In effect, he was waiting for Claudius Lysias to arrive and give his report of the events under dispute.
  • Lysias had already sent his report and stated he believed the entire matter was one of Jewish religious law.
  • He also believed that Paul had done nothing that deserved death or imprisonment.
  • However, there is no evidence that Lysias ever made the trip to Caesarea or gave a face-to-face account of the events in question.
• Felix was avoiding making a decision in the case.
  • Felix was already aware of the “Way.”
  • The Christian movement was not a group of revolutionaries.
  • The charges brought by the religious leaders weren’t supported by factual evidence.
  • The evidence from the trial only pointed to Paul’s acquittal.
  • Paul wasn’t guilty of breaking any Roman law.
  • However, Felix ruled over the Jews and had to live with them.
  • There were powerful Jews in the group who were calling for Paul’s condemnation.
  • Felix didn’t want to incur their anger, especially with the unrest that had already occurred under his watch.
  • It was easier to avoid making a decision, even if it meant Paul would continue to be jailed.
• Felix may have had a guilty conscience, or he may have considered Paul’s Roman citizenship.
  • Paul would be kept “under guard,” which should be interpreted as a liberal type of detainment.
  • It would allow Paul a certain level of freedom of movement.
  • It would allow friends and family to visit him.

Luke now gives a break of “some days” between the adjournment and Felix’s next meeting with Paul. This meeting introduces Felix’s wife, Drusilla, to the narrative. Let’s look at her background.

• She was the youngest daughter of Agrippa I, the “Herod” from Acts 12.
• At the age of fourteen, through an agreement by her brother Agrippa II, she was married to Azizus, the king of Emesa
• A short time after this, Felix saw her and was struck by her beauty, and was determined to make her his wife.
• Felix used a magician as an intermediary to convince Drusilla to leave Azizus for Felix.
• Drusilla was already unhappy in her marriage and readily agreed to the offer.
• Drusilla was sixteen when she married Felix.
• She may have been the source where Felix became knowledgeable regarding the “Way.”

Paul, never one to miss the opportunity for evangelism, spoke frankly with the couple.

• He spoke about faith in Christ.
• He focused on the coming judgment.
• Paul’s emphasis on righteousness was another way of saying each person would be held to God’s standard.
• The issue of self-control, whether intentional or not, would have struck a nerve considering Felix’s marital history and the circumstances surrounding his marriage to Drusilla.
• Felix was shaken by Paul’s message and quickly ended the conversation.
• Felix would call for Paul periodically in the hopes of receiving a bribe.
  • The practice of bribes was frowned upon and forbidden by law.
  • However, it was rampant in Roman administration.
  • Other Roman governors were known for taking bribes, and it appears Felix followed suit.
• Felix never did come to a decision in Paul’s case.
  • He kept Paul in prison for two years.
    • Felix may have desired to receive a bribe.
    • He may have desired to grant a favor to the Jews.
    • It could have been a combination of both.
  • Felix knew Paul hadn’t broken any Roman laws, and releasing him would almost certainly have resulted in Paul being handed over to the Jewish religious leaders.
  • Felix followed the safest, for him, course of action.

In the end, Felix’s role as governor was terminated.

• The corruption and brutality of his rule were finally his undoing.
• A civil incident in Caesarea between the Jewish and Gentile communities was handled with a heavy anti-Jewish bias.
• The incident provoked the Jews to send a delegation to Rome, protesting his action, which resulted in his removal.
• When the reader reflects on verses 24-26, we have to wonder how close Felix was to becoming a Christian.
  • Both Felix and Drusilla showed at least some level of interest in hearing about Christ.
  • It appears these conversations happened with some frequency, even if part of the reason was Felix’s hope of receiving a bribe.
  • The fact that Felix felt fear about a coming judgment indicated an understanding of his sinful behavior.
  • Tragically, this conviction never moved acknowledgment to a profession of faith in Jesus.

With Festus now in charge, there might be new hope for Paul. Often new procurators would quickly conclude any lingering cases left by their predecessors. However, that was not to be the case with Paul.

Applications

• When we face persecution or false charges, remain calm and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. In this narrative, we see Paul calmly waiting until called upon to testify. Once he was asked to speak, he calmly and effectively addressed each charge and refuted them with the facts.
• Never miss a chance, even under duress, to be an effective witness to the truth of the Gospel. After Paul gave his defense, he switched over to the offensive and attempted to evangelize the gathering.
• Never compromise your ethical or moral grounds. Paul could have given Felix a bribe and most likely been released. However, he trusted that God would take care of him, and he didn’t do anything to compromise his moral or ethical standing.
• Have patience as you go through any trial. The situation Paul endured lasted for years. Although it is likely we won’t go through a situation that long, we still need to exhibit self-control and patience as we face challenges.