Deeper Commentary

ACTS CHAPTER 24

24:1 And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus; and these gave evidence to the governor against Paul- These strict Jews hired a Gentile orator to help make their case. We will note on :2 that he uses language and approaches which no Jew should use. But these Jews, who would not even eat with gentiles and condemned those who did, sacrificed their own religious principles for the sake of destroying someone who threatened those principles. The same contradictions can be seen in the behaviour of all manner of religious extremists [including Christians]. If principles are taught by God Himself and His word, then these are to be abided by; the end [of defending them] cannot justify breaking them.

24:2 And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: Seeing that by you we enjoy much peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight- Tertullus follows the standard pattern of such a speech, beginning by praising the judge, as Paul does. The reference to peace was because Felix had succeeded in ending the fighting between Syrians and Jews in Caesarea, and had greatly reduced the brigand bands who roamed the countryside. "Foresight" is really "providence" (as AV); and alludes to how Caesar and his officials were seen as the source of providence within the imperial cult. Roman coins often carried the slogan Providentia Caesar. But God is the source of providence for His people. So to say this ought to have been unthinkable for a true Jew. But the Jews used Tertullus and were happy to give up their scruples for the sake of trying to get Roman power on their side in order to destroy Paul, Yahweh's servant. This is typical of how religious people can so easily forget and contradict the most elemental principles of their religion because of hate obsessions against those who have tweaked their consciences.

24:3 We accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness- The historical records of Felix, especially those of Tacitus, portray him as very far from "excellent". Such flattery is tedious, and :4 is almost worded so as to give the impression that Tertullus himself knew he was being tedious.

24:4 But, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us- The Greek for "courtesy" means kindness / fairness / mildness. The historical Felix was anything but any of these. Paul also opens his speech with the traditional praise of the judge, but he is far more realistic and honest. And it was that which contributed to Paul making Felix tremble.

24:5 For we have found this man to be a plague, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes- Paul was known throughout the Roman world; so the claim of the Roman Jews to have not heard of him was either untrue or meant that they did not recognize Paul. "Sect" has connotations of division; they were accusing Paul of being a sociopathic destroyer of their religion because he was causing division. And every shade of politics, every dictator, every stamp collectors club and religious denomination... have had this reasoning. The most awful abuse of a person who differs is justified on the basis of maintaining unity. Anyone who thinks out of the box or is 'different' is painted as someone who is destroying the group through creating disunity. The great paradox is that those who seek to destroy such people are themselves the ones causing disunity and fragmenting their society.

24:6 Who moreover tried to profane the temple. We laid hold on him, and we would have judged him according to our law- Profaning the temple was a capital offence; the Jews could ask the Romans to apply the death penalty for such cases. The Jews had raised riot against Paul by claiming that he had actually profaned the temple by bringing Gentiles into it. He had not done so; and now they reduce the charge to claiming that he had attempted to do so. Paul was falsely accused of profaning the temples in both Ephesus and Jerusalem. This was in order to help him enter into the feelings of Stephen, whom he had also falsely accused of profaning the temple by speaking "against this holy place". As Paul had whipped up Jewish sentiment against Stephen to the point of murdering him, so was done to him. This is far more than 'what goes around comes around', nor is it mere poetic justice. Situations repeat in our lives so that we may understand the feelings of those against whom we have sinned. This is to deepen our repentance, to ensure our repentance continues; and to prepare us for eternal fellowship with them in the Kingdom. See on :20.

24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands- The Jews were complaining that Lysias had over reacted, using violence against the Jews who had "laid hold" on Paul.

24:8 Commanding his accusers to come before you. You will be able, by examining him yourself, to gain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him- The charge of profaning the temple was just one of a number of "things of which we accuse him".

24:9 And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so- “The charge” singular presumably refers to that of trying to profane the temple (:6). This was hard to prove to the degree required to get Paul the death sentence. Their whole case was extremely weak, and clearly motivated by chronic personal jealousy. It is the inspired record which speaks in the singular, “the charge”, whereas the accusers speak in the plural (“all these things”, :8). But they didn’t boil down to any specific charge apart from that about the profaning of the temple.

24:10 And when the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul answered: Inasmuch as I do know you have been for many years a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defence- Speeches of this nature had a section devoted to praise of the judge. Tertullus spent a long time attempting to butter up Felix with vain praise. Paul is far more to the point, noting the qualification Felix actually had, rather than attempting to flatter the judge. All the way through we get the impression that Paul was more interested in using the trial in order to make a witness, rather than to just win his case.

24:11 You can verify that it was no more than twelve days ago that I went up to Jerusalem to worship- The accusations that Paul had been involved in long term agitation in Jerusalem and the temple could not have been true, since Paul had only arrived in Jerusalem 12 days previously. Paul still uses the Jewish idea of going 'up' to Jerusalem. And yet he elsewhere argues that sacred space is within the heart and of the Spirit, and is not now concerned with localities. But he seems to have had a great respect of the Jerusalem Jews and so wished to convert them; whereas the Lord had intended that his focus instead be upon the Gentiles.

24:12 And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city did they find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd- Paul had only been in Jerusalem a few days anyway (:11). It was the Jews, and not him, who had disputed and stirred by crowds, both in Jerusalem and in other cities, as Luke has recorded in Acts. So the emphasis may be upon "me"; it was not Paul, but the Jews who had done these things.

24:13 Neither can they prove to you the things of which they now accuse me- There was no evidence that Paul had brought any Gentile into the temple, nor that he even intended to do so. Paul comes over as very convinced that he is right and cannot be proven wrong; which was why his chain and time in prison was so frustrating for him, seeing he was so convinced of his innocence.

24:14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets- Paul can be sensed here almost panting after the chance to make a witness to the Gospel on a fairly high level, to both Jewish and Roman leaders. "The Way" was a term used to designate the Christian movement. Paul argues that it was not a divisive sect, because "the Way" involved belief of everything written in the law and prophets. Believing them does not of course mean 'obeying' them; for the issues of interpretation were so critical. People may insist that they "believe" the same source documents or God, but this does not mean that they are all going to be saved. For as demonstrated in this case, the critical issue is belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Belief in God alone will not save. Salvation is in Jesus, Yah's Salvation.

24:15 Having hope toward God, which these people also look for, that there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust- Paul stops short of implying that his Jewish enemies would be saved; but he says that "these people" were looking for a resurrection at the last day. Bearing in mind the issue between Sadducees and Pharisees over this very issue, it would seem that those who were taking the active part in the prosecution of Paul were Pharisees and not Sadducees. And yet at his previous trial, it was the Pharisees who had stood up for Paul. We see how fickle people are; and how the fact Paul was a former Pharisee was what drove the Pharisees to hate him even more. Another possibility is that Paul was still trying to exploit the tension between Pharisees and Sadducees over the resurrection issue.

24:16 Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always- see on Acts 23:1. "Herein" means that Paul lived under the perspective of knowing there will be a resurrection and a division of the just from the unjust. That understanding led him to exercise himself in his conscience. The implication is that his conscience was formed and dominated by an awareness that he was a man living under judgment, living in the light of the knowledge that he would be judged for the secret positions of his heart. And we are no different.

A personal focus upon the man Christ Jesus ought to lessen the degree to which our faith is focused upon the church, without making us out of church Christians. We need to toughen up, to realize more keenly the self-discipline and self-sacrifice which following the man Jesus requires of us. Paul "exercised" himself in his spiritual life (Acts 24:16), the Greek word asko being the source of the English word ascetic. It should not be that our Christianity gives us merely a headful of vital truths but a life unable to fend off sin. We must translate our doctrines into the practice of a transformed life. On-our-knees prayer, fasting, real sacrifice of time, money and human possibilities… this is what the life of Christ is about. This, too, is what forges real personality.

But Paul's efforts to make a conscience void of offence were not just in trying to obey the 'beep beep' of conscience. For in 1 Cor. 4:5,6 he observes that human conscience is not totally reliable ("I know nothing against myself, but I am not thereby justified"). Rather does he elsewhere write of how the conscience is cleansed in Christ. Our sin has been dealt with, and his 'exercising' was in keeping on believing this. Sin is dealt with for us. It is no longer a barrier. We are no longer offensive to God: "In the past he was patient and overlooked people's sins; but in the present time he deals with their sins, in order to demonstrate his righteousness. In this way God shows that he himself is righteous and that he puts right everyone who believes in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25,26 GNB). Daniel 9 had prophesied that Messiah would quite simply "make an end of sin". The Greek for "conscience" means literally a co-perception. We are to perceive ourselves as God does- counted right before Him. In this sense Paul elsewhere writes of how the conscience is cleansed in Christ. And this itself will lead us to not give offence, leading into sin, neither to ourselves ["before God"], nor leading others into sin ["before man"]. The context here is of judgment to come (:15). We can make others stumble so that they are condemned at that day. We have far more power and influence than we imagine. Knowing that, we are to be 'ascetic', make great effort, to never cause anyone to stumble. This is all an outflow from our belief in judgment to come.

24:17 Now after some years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation- The Jerusalem Poor Fund had been a major preoccupation of Paul, as witnessed especially in 2 Corinthians. "After some years" could suggest he had not been in Jerusalem for "some years" and should not therefore be accused of a program of stirring up trouble there. Paul had reasoned with the Corinthians that he was careful to be 'whiter than white' in handling their contributions, and that others and not himself would bring them to Jerusalem. But here he chooses to argue that he brought the offerings- because that angle of truth was more convenient in his legal case. Perhaps it is left as hanging question as to whether he was right or wrong to handle truth in the way he does.

24:18 Whilst doing this, they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor with uproar; but there were certain Jews from Asia- Paul emphasizes his legal obedience; he did not profane the temple, he was ritually clean ["purified"] in the temple. This sounds very much like a 'boast in the law', and confirms my earlier suggestion that his whole agreement to go through the purification rituals was a quite wrong tokenistic obedience to laws he had argued were obsolete. Once a political rather than spiritual approach is taken to issues, then a whole sequence of decision making is sparked off which makes it ever harder to pull out of the 'political' thinking and revert to spiritual perspectives.

24:19 Who should have been here before you and to make the accusation, if they had something against me- The "Jews from Asia" who had first made the false accusation were likely Jews who had followed Paul from Asia to Palestine in order to continue dogging and upsetting his ministry. What was done in Jerusalem is of exactly the same style to what the Jews of Asia had done in Asia- following Paul around, falsely accusing him, stirring up crowds against him, and pressurizing the Roman authorities to imprison or execute him.

24:20 Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council- Again, Paul's broad picture of total innocence is going too far. He says that he did nothing wrong during his trial "before the council" apart from shouting out that he was on trial because of his stance on resurrection. But of course he had shouted that out to deflect attention from the wrongdoing he had actually done "when I stood before the council"- which was to curse the judge. Given the religious implications, this was very serious contempt of court and was indeed "wrongdoing".

The word for "wrongdoing" is three times on Paul's lips in his defences (Acts 24:20; 25:10,11). And it was three times on the lips of Stephen as he made his defence (Acts 7:24,26,27 "seeing one of them suffer wrong... why do you do wrong to one another... he that did wrong to his neighbour"). And it is not a very common Greek word. Why was Stephen's defence in Paul's mind? I suggest this is an example of where we subconsciously use words which others have used, because they are in our mind. Thus a North American who has been thinking about an English or Australian friend may find themselves using the word "bloke" rather than "guy" in conversation with another North American. Because they have in mind their friend, in another context. This is a major factor in our word choice. So, I suggest Paul has Stephen in view here. This is because he is going through what he put Stephen through- false accusation about desecrating the temple. We are made to go through what we put others through. Not as punishment, nor as mere poetic justice for the sake of it; but so that we might better understand the results of our own actions. See on :6. And in the context here, Paul talks of his conscience, and we will read that the conscience of Felix was touched and he "trembled". But for Paul, the ultimate goad to his conscience had been Stephen's speech. This perhaps is why it is the longest speech recorded in the New Testament. That speech has at least 23 Greek words which never occur elsewhere in the New Testament; and various unique phrases and stylistic features, which all imply it is indeed a verbatim transcript. If we enquire from where Luke the historian got the transcript- humanly speaking [as Divine inspiration could have just beamed it to him], it is likely he got it from the mouth of Paul, whose photographic memory had correctly remembered every word of it. There was likely no other human source of it. Lk. 1:1 seems to be saying that Luke's material delivered to Theophilus [i.e. Luke-Acts] was a compliation of eyewitness material, provided by those who knew Jesus from "the very first" (i.e. the material in the Gospel of Luke), and who had been "ministers of the word" (i.e. the material in Acts, volume 2 of Luke's work).

24:21- see on Acts 22:6.

Except it be for one statement that I cried standing among them: Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day- There was actual wrongdoing by Paul in that courtroom; see on :20. His 'admission' of an 'error' in raising the resurrection issue is nothing less than a blind, distracting attention from the real issue about his contempt of court in cursing the judge.

24:22 But Felix, having more accurate knowledge concerning the Way, adjourned the proceedings, saying: When Lysias the chief captain shall come, I will decide your case- The "accurate knowledge" of Christianity had spread to high places; for Felix knew all about it. He seemed careful therefore not to judge this case with the brash haste for which Tacitus says he was famous. He delayed it until Lysias could come and testify. But Lysias was only a witness to the 'contempt of court' issue as Paul stood before the Jewish Council; and not to the original issue, which was that Paul had supposedly profaned the temple. That was the capital offence which the Jews were trying to push, and it should have been thrown out of court.

24:23 Then he gave orders to the centurion, that he should be kept in custody but have some liberty; and that none of his friends should be prevented from attending to his needs- Felix knew the Gospel, with "accurate knowledge" (:22). He had some conscience; and he therefore allowed Paul a very liberal regime in prison. There were clearly Christians in the area who were friendly towards Paul, who provided for his needs there- in contrast to how in 2 Tim. 4 we get the impression that the local church in Rome did not finally care for Paul in prison at the end of his life. Paul had boasted earlier that his "own hands" had "ministered unto my necessities [needs]" (20:34); and now he had to rely upon others to minister to his needs. This was all part of the same humbling process which we all pass through until we reach the acme of humility which the Lord has in view for us by the end of our lives. Felix is presented by Tacitus as being conscienceless; but the Gospel had power to reach even the most hardened heart, even if it is not positively responded to. Later, "Felix trembled" at the further challenge of the Gospel which Paul presented to him.

24:24 But after some days, Felix came with Drusilla his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus- Harry Whittaker [Studies in the Acts of the Apostles] cites historical evidence to the effect that Felix had only recently married her, and she was only 17.

24:25 And as he reasoned about righteousness, self control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid, and answered: Go away for now. When I have a convenient time I will call for you- The very fact of judgment to come is in itself a demand for righteousness and temperance. Felix realized this and trembled, in anticipation of rejection at the judgment. As the Lord had explained in Jn. 5, when a man hears the word of the Gospel, he hears the call to go to judgment. And if he rejects it, he rejects himself from the Lord's presence in the future. Likewise Acts 17:31 reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as judge of living and dead is a command to repent. Felix had good knowledge of "the way" (:22). He was responsible to judgment. And yet Felix is presented in history as a conscienceless man. But such people, indeed every man, can be touched by our message. And "Felix trembled", with the phobos [Gk.] associated with the pictures of the rejected at that day. We too have foretastes of judgment, and are to act accordingly. We can feel condemnation now- and change the verdict. But not then. "Knowing therefore the terror [phobos] of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5:11); and here is an example of Paul doing just that. Talking of the terror / phobos of the rejected in that day. And ahead of time, Felix started trembling [s.w. phobos]. As we come to the cross, we realize that before Him there, "now is the judgment of this world" and our response is a foretaste of the outcome of judgment day.

24:26- see on Acts 17:12.

He hoped meanwhile that money would be given to him by Paul. Therefore, he sent for him more often and conversed with him- Clearly Paul at this stage was not without access to money. When he first arrived in Rome, he was able to rent a house. At other times in his ministry, he had to work night and day at Thessalonica in order to support himself. The same wide range of experience, in financial and other areas of life, is often seen in the lives of believers. It was all part of Paul being taught (along with us) to "know" how to live in plenty or in want, that we might be spiritually developed. Our range of experience in life as believers is therefore typically far wider, at least in psychological terms, than that experienced by unbelievers in whom the Spirit is not at work in this way.

24:27 But after two years, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favour with the Jews, Felix left Paul in prison- Paul so often expresses frustration with his "chain", obviously thinking that he could have achieved far more for the Lord if he were free rather than imprisoned. We too chafe at the ties that bind in life. But in the bigger picture, all is for a purpose in our spiritual path. Unlike his time in Rome, we have no recorded letters written by Paul in these two years. He may have written some which are unrecorded; or it might be that during that time he was able to develop the ideas which he later expressed in his letters written from Rome. Tradition states that he and Luke spent this time composing the gospel of Luke and parts of Acts. Perhaps he needed that breather in his life's path. We may feel we need such breaks, but it is better to let the Lord give them to us than make the assumption that we can map out our own spiritual path.