CHAPTER 24
Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. Acts 24:1
The five days mentioned here have brought about some discussion by commentators. They have wondered if this is a reference to five days from the Jerusalem departure or from the arrival at Caesarea. The scholar Sir William Ramsay deduced that it was speaking of five days from leaving Jerusalem.1 Several other commentators have agreed on this.
It was no small thing for the high priest of Israel to make a journey down to Caesarea, which was noted as a Gentile city. Utley remarks, “Wow! The high priest himself came from Jerusalem to Caesarea. Paul was really a thorn in their flesh!” 2 We have previously mentioned that when one traveled in any direction from Jerusalem the holy city, it was always considered “down.”
The high priest came with several elders from Jerusalem. In earlier times the elders would have referred to tribal leaders but by this time in history elders were usually wealthy and influential people of Jerusalem. They were likely also members of the Sanhedrin.3
Again, for such influential people to make such a journey speaks of the great significance they assigned to Paul.
With this impressive group came Tertullus the lawyer. His name was a common Roman one and he was likely a Hellenistic Jew. The Greek term describing him, rhētoros, is used only here in the New Testament and describes this man as a rhetorician.4 No doubt the party brought him along because he was familiar with the Roman courts and the Latin language that was common in the courts.5 They no doubt thought themselves well prepared to press charges against Paul.
This event gives us a unique picture of the Roman system of government. The Roman citizen was very important. The historian Will Durant once wrote “The first person in Roman law was the citizen.” Also, the genius of Roman government was based on the principle of indirect rule, and this placed the burden of administration pretty much on the shoulders of local authorities.6
“When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: ‘We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude’” (24:2-3). Stott says of this scene: “Tertullus began with what was called a captatio benevolentiae, that is, an endeavor to capture the judge’s good will…but on this occasion it descended to ‘almost nauseating flattery.’” 7 Of course, flattery was condemned by Jewish scriptures (Psa. 78:36; Prov. 26:28).
Very little of what Tertullus said was really true. Felix had put an end to the activities of a few rebels and troublemakers. However, he did so with barbarous brutality that left the Jewish population stricken with horror. He even plotted against the high priest Jonathan and had him murdered.8 The land had never been more dangerous except in times of actual war. 9 For his outright cruelty to the Jews and others, the Jewish people eventually requested that Felix be removed from power.
“But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly” (24:4). So Tertullus was simply a wind bag. Felix probably sensed that much and was likely already weary of him. Clarke says, “The orator had certainly a very bad cause, of which he endeavored to make the best…His oration has been blamed as weak, lame, and imperfect; and yet, perhaps, few, with so bad a cause, could have made better
of it.” 10
CHARGES AGAINST PAUL
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. Acts 24:5-6
Tertullus refers to Paul as a real troublemaker. The Greek word is loimon or pest. The NASB reads “a real pest” and the NJB has it, “a perfect pest.” This Greek word appears again only in Luke 21:11 and it has reference there to pestilence.11 Since Roman rulers were not concerned with the intricacies of Jewish religion, Tertullus knew that he had to speak in terms of civil disorder to get attention. This was the thing most feared by the Roman government. Paul was thus presented as one who stirred up riots and political sedition. Of course this first charge was patently untrue. However, his blundering efforts were a back-handed compliment to the vast work of the apostle. He had reached Jews with the gospel in much of the known world.12
The second charge against Paul was that he was a ringleader of the Nazarene sect. Several commentators have pointed out that this is the only place in the New Testament where “Nazarene” is used of the followers of Jesus. In other places it is used of Jesus himself.13 We remind ourselves again that this word is based on the Hebrew word netzer which refers to Jesus as the “Branch” (cf. 2:22; 22:8). Today in Israel the modern Hebrew word natzrut refers to “Christianity,” and Christians are commonly called notzrim. This charge against Paul was obviously true. He was indeed the ringleader of Christians worldwide. He certainly was not connected with what we might call political messianism, which was fermenting throughout the land of Israel and even in parts of the dispersion.14 That movement would swiftly develop into a fatal war against Rome.
Tertullus mentions the “Nazarene sect” here. The Greek word for sect is hairesis. In later times this word would come to mean “heresy.” However, at this early time it simply meant party or school. Both the Pharisees and Sadducees were referred to as sects.15 It is amazing that Christians still divide into groups and point to the other groups as heretics, when the original Greek word actually meant divisions or groups.
The third charge against Paul was that he had tried to desecrate the temple. Utley notes that the charge of desecrating the temple has now been downgraded. He was now charged with trying to desecrate the temple. This reflects the basic weakness of the case.16
We should note that verse seven appears only in the footnotes of the NIV. The text of verse seven does appear in the NKJ version. Utley notes how this text was a late addition from the eighth and ninth centuries.17 It thus seems better that it remain in the footnotes.
“By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him. The other Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true” (24:8-9). Tertullus and the Jews of Jerusalem really had no evidence to present. Their case was pitifully weak. No doubt, the group hoped that Paul would somehow incriminate himself in his defense but that was not about to happen. Bruce comments: “Tertullus’s speech seems to tail away in a lame and impotent conclusion that forms a striking contrast to the rhetorical flourish with which it starts…The deputation from the Sanhedrin appears at any rate to have been satisfied with his presentation of the case, for they affirmed their agreement with his statement of affairs.” 18
PAUL’S DEFENSE
When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense.” Acts 24:10
Paul also begins with a captatio benevolentiae, but it is much more modest than the one of Tertullus.19 He points out the long experience of Felix. He had been in his position for five or six years prior to Paul’s appearance before him. Coffman notes that he was also a joint procurator with Cumanus before the latter’s term ended in AD 52.20 Thus, Felix did have a great deal of experience in government. Obviously, Paul was not a lawyer like Tertullus. However, he did have this promise from the Lord: “For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Lk. 21:15).
Paul continues his defense: “You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship” (24:11). Paul had come to Jerusalem a mere twelve days before this event. Obviously, for five of those days he had been in Roman custody. This was hardly enough time for him to stir up a riot or an insurrection. This information could be easily verified with temple records and the account of Lysias. After an absence of some five years Paul had come to Jerusalem to worship. Wiersbe asks, “…How could Paul possibly be worshipping God and profaning God’s house at the same time?” 21 He had not been involved in Jewish evangelism or any other attempt to stir up the Jews.
“My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city” (24:12). Paul had quietly gone about his sacrifice and worship in the temple. He had not preached there nor had he tried to stir up trouble. Marshall says: “He had not come to Jerusalem to evangelize; by the terms of the agreement in Galatians 2:7-9 he would not have engaged in evangelism in Jerusalem unless invited to do so by the Jerusalem church.” 22
“And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,” (24:13-14). We cannot help but note that the charges against Paul were very weak. No evidence whatsoever was presented to Felix. No eye-witness was on hand to bring a case against the apostle. Simply, the charges could not be proven. Paul admits that he came to the temple to worship and that he was a member of the Way, an early name for the Christian movement. At this time it was merely a sect of Judaism, just as were the Pharisees and Sadducees. Felix was well acquainted with the Way (v. 22).
Paul continues saying, “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man” (24:15-16). Marshall says: “This passage… remains the only one in which Paul unequivocally asserts a belief in the resurrection of all kinds of men…Elsewhere, however the New Testament speaks of all men being raised up to face God’s judgment (Mt. 25:31ff; Jn. 5:28f; Rev. 20:12; cf. Lk. 10:12; Rom. 2:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1).” 23 Utley says, “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.” 24 Once again Paul claims that his conscience is clear in this matter (cf. 23:1-2).
PAUL CONTINUES HIS DEFENSE
After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. Acts 24:17
Paul had been absent from Jerusalem for perhaps five years. That in itself did not speak of one who was intent upon instigating a riot. Paul came to worship and he also came to present offerings and gifts to the Jerusalem saints. This offering is mentioned often in his later epistles. However, for some strange reason, Luke does not give it much attention. In fact, this is the only place in Acts where the offering is mentioned. Marshall writes, “…Luke’s motive in saying so little about the collection is unknown; he evidently did not see the same importance in it as Paul did.” 25 The apostle’s worship, meticulous efforts in seeking to keep the law, and his presentation of offerings for the poor were certainly not things by which he could be charged in court.
“I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance” (24:18). How amazing that Paul was arrested for defiling the temple when he himself had just gone through the process of ritual cleansing! His ritual cleansing could be ascertained from the nearby temple records.26 Of course bigotry has little use for truth. All of Paul’s actions were done in private, without a crowd.
“But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me” (24:19). The people who raised the initial cry against Paul were not to be found. No doubt they had quietly returned home to Asia (Asia Minor) after the feast. Pett says: “The whole case was trumped up…Roman law in fact imposed heavy penalties on accusers who abandoned their charges (destitutio), thus their absence suggested that they recognized that they had nothing against him that would stand up in a Roman court of law.” 27 Coffman adds: “…The mention of the Asian Jews imposed upon the plaintiffs the necessity of either producing the witnesses or withdrawing the charges. The whole trumped-up affair was, by this time, beginning to appear to the governor as fraudulent and irresponsible.” 28
“Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin—unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today’” (24:20-21).
Paul calls for a simple statement of his crime, with of course witnesses to that supposed crime. He thus puts the whole court on the spot. They needed to produce or shut up. Since the crowd from Jerusalem was now probably made up of Sadducees, Paul charges them again that the real problem with them was his preaching of the resurrection.
THE TRIAL IS CONCLUDED
Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” Acts 24:22
Felix was quite familiar with the Way to which Paul belonged. At this time he no doubt realized that the trial was a farce. He could have easily declared Paul acquitted and closed out the trial. However, he wanted somehow to keep the leaders of Jerusalem happy. Thus, he postponed the decision until he could supposedly talk with Lysias. We do not know that he ever did. He just left Paul in a legal limbo and kept him confined. Stott says of this situation that “Felix… found himself on the horns of a dilemma…Felix was unwilling to release Paul, partly because he hoped for a bribe (26) and partly because he wanted to curry favor with the Jews (27).” 29 “He could see that the Jewish charges against Paul were entirely religious in nature – even though presented in the guise of political sedition.” 30
Keener remarks about this trial saying: “The technical details of the trials here accord so well with other evidence on Roman legal procedure that noted Roman historians use them as major source material for understanding Roman provincial judicial proceedings.” 31
“He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs” (24:23). Paul was kept confined but with certain liberties. This situation was known to the Romans as custodia libera. There were a good number of Christians living in Caesarea. We think again of Philip and his daughters who may have come to visit Paul.32 Also, we remember the Roman Centurion who was dramatically converted by Peter (Ch. 10). He may have still served in the army there. “Meanwhile, Paul was treated in the manner appropriate to a Roman citizen against whom no crime had as yet been proved.” 33
“Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus” (24:24). Since Paul was held in the Caesarean headquarters, Felix had close access to him. Bruce remarks, “Having this eminent Christian in custody in Caesarea, Felix availed himself of the opportunity to improve his already ‘rather accurate’ knowledge of the Way.” 34
As he visited Paul he brought along his wife Drusilla. She was a young, beautiful but infamous woman. She was the third daughter of the deceased Herod Agrippa I, and sister of Agrippa II and Bernice, mentioned in the next chapter. She was first given in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesa, but that marriage was soon dissolved. While Felix was procurator he became enamored by the spectacular beauty of Drusilla and sent a Cypriot friend, who pretended to be a magician, to lure her away from her husband and to marry him. This was accomplished and she became his third wife.35
It seems that both Felix and Drusilla had good knowledge of Christianity. Certainly Drusilla had personal experience through her family. Wiersbe says: “Her great-grandfather tried to kill Jesus in Bethlehem (Matt. 2); her great-uncle killed John the Baptist and mocked Jesus (Lk. 23:6-12); and Acts 12:1-2 tells of her father killing the apostle James.” 36
We shudder to think of that large and influential Herod family at last coming before the great judgment seat of God.
“As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, ‘That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you’” (24:25). It seems that Paul was talking about the very things that were desperately needed by both Felix and Drusilla. She had forsaken her husband and he through unbridled lust had taken her as his wife. It did not take much of Paul’s preaching for the alarm bells to go off in the conscience of Felix. He soon had all he could take as he became terrified. He begged leave of Paul for some other convenient time. Barnes remarks: “How different is this answer from that of the jailor of Philippi when alarmed in a similar manner! He asked, “What must I do to be saved?” 37
Many are the sermons that have been preached on the subject of waiting for a convenient time to be saved. The convenient time or the “tomorrow” seems to never come. It is for this reason that Paul earlier says, “… I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). It appears from the next verse that Felix talked with Paul on other occasions, but perhaps Drusilla, like her relative Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas, nurtured her own grudge at Paul’s preaching. Herodias had done so concerning John the Baptist, and ultimately she caused his murder (Mk. 6:14ff.).
“At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him” (24:26). Like Herod Antipas before him, Felix seemed to have a strange interest and attraction to the gospel. However, his heart was stuck in the mud of worldly greed. He apparently liked the gospel but he liked the lust for money more. His real hope was that Paul would offer him a large bribe.
Pett says, “It is not surprising that Felix thought that Paul’s family was wealthy. After all he had been born a free Roman citizen, so his family must have been distinguished…Or Felix may have been impressed by the numbers of visitors who came to see Paul, and have thought that they would be able to raise a sufficient bribe…” 38 Also, Felix may have heard about the large offering Paul had brought to the Jerusalem church.
“When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison” (24:27). Felix by his indecision had thus sentenced Paul to two years in prison at Caesarea. Felix by his bungling had so infuriated the Jews that they demanded his recall. This resulted from an outbreak of strife that happened between the Jews and Gentiles at Caesarea. Felix had intervened with troops and caused the slaughter of numerous Jews. He would have suffered grave punishment for this act had it not been for the intervention of his influential brother Pallas. However, he was still removed from his office.39 In some vain hope to mollify the Jews he left Paul in prison when he vacated his office. Wiersbe remarks, “When Felix was replaced, he left Paul a prisoner, but it was Felix who was really the prisoner.” 40
The new governor Porcius Festus was much more capable as a leader, but unfortunately, he governed only two years before his death in office. The beginning of his term of service probably happened around AD 59-60. Little is actually known of this governor.
Commentators seem certain that Luke, who was left in Israel these two years, made effective use of his time in gathering materials for his gospel and the Book of Acts. It is suspected that he probably had first-hand interviews with people like Philip the Evangelist, James, the Lord’s brother and Mary, the mother of Jesus. He probably interviewed many Pharisees, priests and others as he gathered the stories of Jesus and the earliest church.41