Acts 24

The setting for his testimony shifted from Jerusalem to Caesarea, from the Jews to the Roman officials.

1Five 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. 2When 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. 3Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.5“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 6and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. 8By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.”9The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

Tertullus’s Accusation

In his letter to Felix, Lysias had related that he was sending Paul’s accusers to Caesarea to present their case before the governor. Now they arrived, evidently five days after Paul’s own arrival. The accusing party consisted of the high priest Ananias, some “elders” who probably were members of the Sanhedrin, and a lawyer named Tertullus
Tertullus began with a flattering appeal aimed at securing the goodwill of the governor. This portion of Tertullus’s address was particularly long and considerably stretched the truth of the matter. He praised the governor for the peace he had brought the nation. In fact, there was less peace in Judea during Felix’s administration than for any procurator until the final years before the outbreak of the war with Rome.

But the Romans prided themselves in preserving the peace (the pax Romana), and such a comment was sure to win the governor’s favor.

Strained was Tertullus’s appeal to Felix’s “foresight” in bringing many “reforms” to the Jewish nation. Felix had scarcely done this. He had, in fact, made life miserable for the Jews, as was witnessed by the proliferation of rebellious movements during his term in response to his total lack of sympathy for or understanding of them.
Few Jews would have felt much gratitude for Felix, and Tertullus’s bestowal of the title “most excellent” was hardly deserved.

Finally he set forth the Jewish charges against Paul

The first was that Paul was a “troublemaker”

(literally, a “pest” or “plague”), stirring up riots among the Jews throughout the entire civilized world. Tertullus attempted to broaden the scope a bit into that of provoking insurrection throughout the Roman world.

It was the charge of sedition, a charge the Romans would not take lightly. They would take seriously any threat to the pax Romana. Felix in particular would have become attentive at the hint of such a charge. His entire administration had been marked by having to put down one insurrection in Judea after another. He had done so decisively and cruelly. He maintained the peace at any cost.

Tertullus’s second charge

Paul was “a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” This was certainly true. Paul was a Christian leader. By linking the comment with the charge of provoking insurrection, however, Tertullus implied that the Christians as a whole were a dangerous and seditious sect and that Paul was one of their main collaborators. Tertullus could not substantiate the charge, and Felix was already too informed about Christians to take it seriously .

Tertullus’s third charge

He said Paul had violated the temple. The Romans did grant the Jews the right to enforce their ban on Gentile access to their sacred precincts as we saw several weeks ago.

Paul had been charged by the Asian Jews with violating the ban. Had Tertullus substantiated this charge, it would have obligated Felix to turn Paul over to jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin and almost certain death. The accusation, however, was totally false and based on an erroneous conclusion by the Asian Jews. This probably is why they were not present to substantiate the charge.

Paul’s Defense

10And when the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, Paul answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defense: 11seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem: 12and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city. 13Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.

Paul also began with, only a reference to Felix’s having for some time been judge over the Jewish nation, which should qualify him to handle the matter at hand

Paul then answered the charges.

The first charge was that of stirring up insurrection, a political agitator.

Paul answered; First, he had no history of inciting the Jews. He had only been in Jerusalem for twelve days at the time of his arrest and had been there solely to worship

Twelve days was scarcely time enough to organize a rebellion, and pilgrims are not generally rabble-rousers. Paul turned Tertullus’s word against him. The latter had said that by examining Paul, Felix would be able to verify the charges against him. Paul responded that the opposite was the case; Felix would verify that Paul was worshiping, not inciting sedition.
Second, Paul stated that he had not stirred up any crowds

Not in the temple area, not in the Jewish synagogues, not anywhere in the city. There had been quite a crowd in the temple area, but it was the Asian Jews—not Paul—who incited it. Paul replied with his third response, the Jews simply could not give any proof for their accusations that would stand up in court.

Paul responded to the charges that somehow his treasonous behavior was bound up with his being a ringleader of the “Nazarene sect.” Tertullus may have referred to the Christians as a “sect,” a party within Judaism. Paul would not deny his affiliation with the group, but he preferred another term. He preferred to be seen as a follower of “the Way,” not a party, not a “Jewish denomination,” but the true, the only way of the Lord for his people.

His was no offshoot of faith but right at the center of Jewish religion. He believed the Scriptures—just like the Pharisees—the Prophets as well as the Law. Just like the Pharisees, he shared the hope in the coming resurrection, the total resurrection of the wicked as well as the righteous. Paul’s words had a certain ominous tone. To mention the resurrection of the unjust could only imply one thing—the coming judgment.

Paul’s reference to the resurrection is the high point of his witness in all the speeches of Acts. Paul’s conviction in the resurrection constituted the real point of contention with the other Jews. In the present passage this was precisely Paul’s point. He believed the same Scriptures, worshiped the same God, shared the same hope. But it was precisely at this point that “the Way” parted ways with the rest of the Jews.

The Christians believed that the resurrection already had begun in Christ. This time it became clear that it was not resurrection in general but specifically the resurrection of Christ that separated him from the Jews and constituted the focal point of his witness

Tertullus’s third charge was that Paul had desecrated the temple.

Paul briefly summarized the events covered in Acts 21:27–30. The absence of the Asian Jews at his trial comes as no surprise. Luke already had explained that their accusation that Paul had violated the temple was based on a totally false conclusion drawn from having seen him earlier in the city with Trophimus.

Paul said, they should have been there and brought charges against him face-to-face. That was good Roman legal procedure. Instead, with their total lack of supporting evidence, they were now nowhere to be found. Paul had scored a rather telling legal point, and Felix was bound to have observed it. For Tertullus to have made an accusation against Paul with the total absence of the witnesses for the prosecution was a serious breach of court procedure.

There was simply no evidence to counter Paul’s own defense. Far from having defiled the temple, he was himself in a state of scrupulous ceremonial cleanness (v. 18). Far from desecrating the temple, he had come there to bring offerings

Having successfully demonstrated that all of Tertullus’s accusations were totally without supporting evidence, Paul proceeded to the one genuine charge that could be brought against him. There were even “witnesses for the prosecution” present to support this charge—namely, the high priest and elders who had come with Tertullus who had been present when Paul appeared before the Sanhedrin. The charge was, Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul now had the whole trial scene in his own control. He had broken no law—certainly no Roman law, and not even the Jewish religious law. The resurrection was the bone of contention with the Jews. And most Jews shared that conviction in principle. What separated him from his fellow Jews was that he was a follower of “the Way,” that he believed that the Messiah had come and the resurrection had begun in Christ.

Felix’s Decides not to Decide

The outcome of the trial could only be described in terms of the procurator’s indecision, his refusal to give a verdict. Felix refused to pass judgment until he had gathered further evidence. Manifestly, he was waiting for Lysias to come and give his report. Lysias had already sent his report and indicated that he saw the whole thing as a matter of Jewish religious law. Lysias had even stated that in his opinion Paul had done nothing deserving of death or imprisonment (23:29). Felix wasn’t waiting for Lysias’s report. There is no indication that Lysias ever came or that Felix even sent for him. Felix was putting the whole matter off. He didn’t want to pass a verdict, for the verdict would surely have been one of acquittal.

Felix was “well acquainted” with “the Way.”, he must have realized that Paul was guilty of no crime by Roman law. Still he ruled over the Jews and had to live with them. And there were powerful Jews in this delegation calling for Paul’s condemnation. He didn’t want to incur their wrath. It was easier to put off the whole matter, even if it meant that Paul would be jailed for it.

Paul and Felix in Private

24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25As Paul discoursed on 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.” 26At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

Josephus related the unusual circumstances of Felix’s marriage wife, Drusilla, the youngest daughter of Agrippa I the “Herod” of Acts 12

Whatever the driving force behind the desire of the couple to visit Paul, the apostle used the opportunity to share the gospel with them and “spoke about faith in Christ” (v. 24). For this particular couple, he focused on the prospect of the coming judgment (v. 25). It surely explains Felix’s alarm and abrupt curtailment of the conversation with Paul. Luke added an even more telling comment on the procurator by noting that he sent for Paul frequently in hopes of receiving a bribe.

In any event, Felix did nothing to hasten the disposal of Paul’s case. He played the delaying game, keeping the apostle in prison for two years, to the very end of his administration (v. 27). His desire for a bribe may have played a part in this long delay, but it is far more likely that the desire “to grant a favor to the Jews” was his primary motivation. On the one hand, knowing there was no real case against Paul, he was unwilling to turn him over to Jewish jurisdiction. On the other hand, fearful of the power of Paul’s Jewish opponents, he would not free the apostle either. So ultimately he took the safe way out and kept Paul in prison.

An incidence of civil strife in Caesarea between the Jewish and Gentile communities there, which Felix mismanaged with a decidedly anti-Jewish bias, led to his downfall. This provoked the Jews to send an angry delegation to Rome protesting his actions, which ultimately resulted in his removal.

Just tell the truth and live it out. God will take care of the rest and get he Glory.

That is exactly what Paul did, and we should also.