Acts 24:1

Act_24:1-9. Arrival of the Accusers. Speech of Tertullus, their advocate

1. And after five days] Most naturally this means after St Paul’s arrival in Cæsarea, and the events narrated at the end of chap. 23 But it may mean five days after the departure of the Apostle from Jerusalem. The chief captain would give notice to the high priest of what he had done as soon as it was safe to do so. After learning that they must go to Cæsarea with their accusation, the enemies of St Paul would spend some little time in preparing their charge for the hearing of Felix, and in providing themselves with an advocate. And as they would not probably travel with as much haste as St Paul’s convoy did, five days is not a long interval to elapse before they arrived in Cæsarea.

Ananias the high priest] He would be sure to be hot against the Apostle after that speech about the “whited wall.”

descended] Rev. Ver. [came down], i.e. from the capital to the sea-coast city of Cæsarea.

with the elders] The best MSS. have “with certain elders.” It is not likely that all the elders came. There would be some, who belonged to the Pharisees, who would rather have spoken in favour of St Paul. Those who came would be Sadducees, and so only a portion of the Council.

and with a certain orator named Tertullus] Rev. Ver. “and with an orator, one Tertullus.” This man, as we may judge from his name, which is a modification of the Latin Tertius, was a Roman, and would be chosen because of his knowledge of Roman law, and his ability to place the case before Felix in such a light as to make it seem that Paul was dangerous to the Roman power, and not merely a turbulent and renegade Jew. We see below that he endeavoured to do this.

who informed, &c.] Better with Rev. Ver. “And they informed.” Thus it is shewn that the relative in the original refers not merely to Tertullus but to the whole deputation. The verb is one which St Luke uses in other places (Act_25:2; Act_25:15) of the laying a formal information before a judge. It is also used, Est_2:22, of Esther laying the information of the plot of the two chamberlains before king Ahasuerus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_24:1-9

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended … with a certain orator named Tertullus.

Paul before Felix--a picture of barristerial depravity

1. From his Roman name we judge that Tertullus was a Roman barrister of signal abilities, and perhaps of great reputation. The Jews, probably, for the most part being ignorant of Roman law, employed Roman lawyers to represent them in the courts of justice.

2. The charge is threefold.

(1) Sedition. A mover of sedition, literally, a pestilence, or a pest. Demosthenes and Cicero speak of different persons as the pest of the Republic, the State, the Empire. All the commotions which Pauls enemies created were laid to his charge. To the Romans no crime was more heinous than that of sedition, for they seemed afraid that their vast empire might in some part give way.

(2) Heresy. A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This charge has the merit of truth.

(3) Sacrilege (verse 6). This was a foul calumny. After these charges this clever but unprincipled advocate does two things:

(a) Implies that the Sanhedrin would have judged Paul righteously if Lysias had not interposed.

(b) He gets the Jews to assent to all he had stated.

3. This piece of history presents to us a picture of a corrupt barrister. We see him doing things which disgrace his profession.

I. Venally adopting a bad cause. What was his motive? Love of right--chivalry? No, money. He sold his services to the cause--

1. Of the strong against the weak.

2. Of the wrong against the right. The English courts exhibit something analogous to this sometimes. There are eminent members of the bar, some of whom are wonderfully pious in public meetings, whose services in a bad cause can be easily secured by a handsome fee.

II. Wickedly advocating a bad cause. In his advocacy we discover--

1. Base flattery (verses 2, 3).

2. Flagrant falsehood. He lays, as we have seen, three false charges against him.

3. Suppressed truth. He said nothing about the conspiracy (Act_23:14-15). The man who suppresses a truth when its declaration is demanded by the nature of the case is guilty of falsehood, is a deceiver. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul misunderstood

The other day Paul was mistaken for that Egyptian, which before these days made an uproar, etc. Today a hired orator describes Paul as a pestilent fellow, etc. Does this tally with what you know about him?

1. There is no cause too bad not to hire an advocate to represent it. This Tertullus was the genius of abuse; the worse the cause the glibber his tongue. He lives today, and takes the same silver for his flippant eloquence.

2. How possible it is utterly to misconceive a great character! There is a key to every character, and if you do not get the one you never can understand the other. The difficulty of the man of one idea is to understand any other man who has two. Some of us are so easy to understand, simply because there is so little to be comprehended. No character was so much misunderstood as Jesus Christs; and He said, If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household!

3. Here, too, is the possibility of excluding from the mind every thought characterised by breadth and charity. It does not occur to the paid pleader to say, This man is insane, romantic, has a craze about a theory too lofty or immaterial for the present state of things. Sometimes a charitable spirit will take some such view. But Tertullus knew that he was talking to a man who could only understand coarse epithets, for he himself, though a judge in those times, was the basest of his tribe. Yet, without viciousness, there may be great narrowness. You will contract that narrowness if you do not sometimes come out of your little village into great London. I am not wishful to make every man into a Tertullus who opposes apostolic life and thought. It is possible honestly to oppose even Paul, but the honesty itself is an expression of mental contractedness. What is perfectly right to the eye within given points may be astronomically wrong when the whole occasion is taken in. So men may be parochially right and imperially wrong; men may be perfectly orthodox within the limits of a creed and unpardonably heterodox within the compass of a faith.

4. How wonderful it is that even Tertullus is obliged to compliment the man whom he was paid to abuse!

(1) He was a pestilent fellow. There was nothing negative about Paul, and Tertullus confirms that view. Paul was not a quiet character; wherever he was he was astir. According to Tertullus, Paul was also a mover of sedition, etc., among all the Jews throughout the world--a sentence intended to touch the ear of the Roman judge. Felix might well listen when the man before him was accused of being an insurrectionist. That he was a mower of sedition in the sense implied by Tertullus was not true, but Paul was the prince of revolutionists. Every Christian is a revolutionist. Christianity tears up the foundations, and, after this, begins to build for eternity.

(3) Paul was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. So the prisoner is not made into a little man even by the paid accuser. Paul never could be held in contempt. Put him where you will, he becomes the principal man in that company. A rich banker said, when someone asked him questions regarding his fortune, I cannot help it; if I were tonight stripped and turned into the streets of Copenhagen, I would be as rich in ten years as I am now--I cannot help it. Paul could not help being the first man of every company.

5. What is the inevitable issue of all narrow-mindedness. Falsehood (verse 6). Imagine Tertullus being excited regarding the purity of the temple! How suddenly some men become pious! What a genius is hypocrisy! You cannot misrepresent the people in the temple and yet be concerned honestly for the temple itself. Conclusion: The incident would hardly be worth dwelling upon were it confined to its own four corners, but it is a typical instance repeated continually in our day. The good develops the bad ever. Let a George Fox arise, and how will he be characterised, except as a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of a sect? Let a John Wesley arise, or a George Whitefield, a John Bunyan, or a John Nelson; read the early annals of English Christianity and evangelism; read the history of the early Methodist preachers, and you will find that every age that has brought a Paul has brought along with him a Tertullus. Thank God! nothing but epithets can be hurled against Christianity, yet Christianity stands up today queenly, pure, stainless--every stone thrown at her lying at her feet. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The opening statement of a prosecuting, counsel

The statement of Tertullus was supposed to convey to the judge an impartial description of the prisoner, and a just outline of his offence. Anyone not acquainted with Paul would conclude that he was a sort of Barabbas. And if one had remonstrated with the eloquent lawyer he, with a bland smile rippling over his countenance, would have justified himself by repeating the stereotyped phrase, Sir, I have spoken according to the instructions given me in my brief.

The speech of Tertullus

I. Shows that even then noble men connected with the gospel were branded with a name of scornful contempt. Coining a name of scorn is not a modern invention. As a rule--

1. In the name there lies concealed a pain-inflicting sting. What a sting was in the name Nazarenes!

2. And such names are generally published and circulated by persons who might be expected to act differently--Priests, Scribes, Pharisees and religious persons. And today it is not from atheists, but from persons nominally religious, that Christians receive the cruellest thrusts of scorn.

II. Reminds us that different interpretations may be given of the work done by one man. Here Paul was a walking pest, a scatterer of contagious evil; elsewhere men could not find words strong enough to express the grateful joy they felt as they witnessed the apostles work. Thus is it today.

III. Starts the reflection that the position and pursuits of a man may be the opposite at one period of life from what they have been at another. Twenty-five years before Paul was the ringleader of the opposition raised by priests and Scribes against the sect of the Nazarenes. Such a change is not of rare occurrence now.

IV. Gave indirect testimony to the thoroughness of the life and work of the apostle. As Paul heard himself spoken of as being a pestilent fellow, etc., a moments reflection would help him to gather the honey of consolation from the lawyers rhetoric. All that was said against Paul testified to his zeal and influence as a Christian worker. Had he been an idler the enemies of the Cross would not have thought it necessary to haul him to a bar of justice. If a man finds the world fraternising with him, he may suspect that he is not so loyally zealous in Christs cause as he should be; but if some worldly Tertullus storms at him he may console himself that his service is a work which incenses a sin-loving world.

V. Suggests that sectarian zeal may blind men to their true and best interest. The priests could not conceive it possible that Paul might be right, and they, after all, might be wrong. In fact, they would rather see Paul put to death than have their useless creed and ritual superseded by a gospel which would bring to light life and immortality. The same spirit reigns rampantly among the bigots who today ask, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? (C. Chapman, M. A.)

Paul and Tertullus: or false eloquence and true

1. False eloquence is flattering: it speaks to please the hearers (verse 3). True eloquence does not flatter: it addresses the heart and conscience.

2. False eloquence is hypocritical: it dwells only on the lips; it is honey in the mouth and gall in the heart (verses 5, 6). True eloquence does not dissimulate: it proceeds from the heart and speaks as it feels (verses 10, 14-16).

3. False eloquence is deceitful: it makes black white and white black (verses 5, 6). True eloquence does not lie: it denies only what is false (verse 13), but confesses what is true (verses 14, 15), and makes the matter speak instead of the words (verses 16-20). (K. Gerok.)

Eloquence true and false

Eloquence, considered as the power of giving a luminous and impressive statement of truth; of marshalling our arguments in distinct and forceable order; of portraying virtue in all its charms, and vice in all its deformity; of defending the innocent against oppression and calumny, and dragging forth the wicked to execration and punishment; eloquence employed in these important offices, and uniting with the clear deductions of reason and experience, all the energies of language, and all the ornaments of an ardent and cultivated imagination, is undoubtedly one of the noblest and most enviable talents which a mortal can possess. It may uphold the religion and morals of a nation; it may save a sinking state from ruin. But when it aims at exciting the passions, without enlightening the mind; when, with its false colouring, it makes the worse appear the better cause; when it corrupts the imagination and undermines the principles of morality; when, like a base prostitute, it offers itself to every person who demands its assistance; when it flatters where it should reprove, and condemns what it ought to applaud and defend; it is more noxious than the pestilence which infects the air that we breathe, or than the lightning which blinds us with its glare and overwhelms us with its irresistible force. (J. Dick, D. D.)

Eloquence perverted

Eloquence is the gift of God; but eloquence in a bad man is poison in a golden cup. (St. Augustine.)

Orators and preachers

Gods preachers are not orators of acquired words, but witnesses of revealed facts. (R. Besser, D. D.)

Sanguinary orators

We have a class of speakers in this country who are silent on all great social and cosmopolitan topics, but make themselves heard and felt the moment any matter of warlike fascination comes to the surface. All other questions float down the stream of public opinion without causing them even to indicate their existence. They remind one of those animals noted for their bloodthirstiness in the warm regions of Africa--the caribitos (Serrasalmo). Their haunts are at the bottom of rivers, but a few drops of blood suffice to bring them by thousands to the surface; and Humboldt himself mentions that in some part of the Apure, where the water was perfectly clear and no fish were visible, he could in a few minutes bring together a cloud of caribitos by casting in some bits of flesh. With equal ease we can collect all our war orators if we only give them one sanguinary pretext. (Scientific Illustrations.)

Lawyers without a perception of justice

Lawyers generally know too much of law to have a very clear perception of justice, just as divines are often too deeply read in theology to appreciate the full grandeur and the proper tendencies of religion. Losing the abstract in the concrete, the comprehensive in the technical, the principal in its accessories, both are in the predicament of the rustic who could not see London for the houses.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 24:1. After five days, Ananias — Who would spare no trouble on the occasion; descended — To Cesarea, seventy miles from Jerusalem; with several of the elders — Members of the sanhedrim. It seems the commander of the horsemen, who brought Paul to Cesarea, was ordered, on his return, to inform the high-priest and elders at Jerusalem of the day which the governor should fix for hearing their accusation, and for trying the prisoner. With a certain orator named Tertullus — Whose business it was to open the cause, and to harangue the governor in the most agreeable manner that he could; who — That is, all who, as the word οιτινες implies, not referring to Tertullus only, but to the high-priest and elders also; informed the governor against Paul — Advanced a general accusation against him, on which they desired to be more particularly heard.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

VI. PAUL’S TWO YEARS AT CESAREA, Act_24:1 to Act_26:32.

1. Paul’s First Roman Arraignment and Third Defence—Before Felix, Act_24:1-21.

Six arraignments did Paul encounter in a degree of climax; two before the Jews, and perhaps four before the Roman courts.

The first was on the stairs of Fort Antonia, (Act_22:1;) the second before the Sanhedrin, (Act_23:1;) the third (this) before Felix; the fourth before Festus and Agrippa, (Act_26:2;) the fifth before Nero, with acquittal; and the sixth before Nero, resulting in the crown of martyrdom. In the present arraignment he is forever released from the Jewish, and fairly in the hands of the Pagan, power. Gentilism, unconscious as ever, has fairly rescued her apostle from Judaism, no more to surrender him. For awhile she will protect him from assault, but finally finish his career with the bloody axe.

1. After five days—Reckoned, doubtless, after the completion of the last transaction, namely, Paul’s arrival in Cesarea. Both Paul’s and Luke’s standpoint is at Cesarea.

Ananias the high priest—It is probably true that the rebuke of Paul in the Sanhedrin (Act_22:3) rankled in the breast of the high priest; but it is also probable that the reports brought in from various directions at that Passover of the growth of Christianity, the diminution of the synagogues, and Paul’s leadership in the work, had produced in the rulers a strong sense of the necessity of striking him down. It is now the head of the Jewish State confronting the chief leader of the Christian Church before the Pagan court, (three great religions in triangular contact,) demanding his sacrifice.

Elders—The high priest is the prosecutor; the rest are his retinue.

Orator… Tertullus—A diminutive of Tertius; it is lengthened also into Tertullianus. The Greek for orator is ρητωρ, rhetor; (whence our word rhetoric,) originally meaning any public speaker, came to signify a professional pleader. In all the provinces there were numbers of Greek and Roman lawyers who made a living by managing the cases of the natives before the Roman courts. Indeed, it was the custom for young Roman lawyers to practice thus awhile in the provinces as a training for a higher practice in Rome. In Paul’s trial the only language understood by all was no doubt the Greek.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_24:1. After five days.—Reckoned from Paul’s departure from Jerusalem (Kuinoel, Meyer, De Wette, Hackett, Alford, Plumptre), though some (Holtzmann, Lechler, Zöckler, Olshausen, and others) prefer to count from Paul’s arrival at Cæsarea. The former agrees better with the statement that twelve days had elapsed since his arrival in Jerusalem (Act_24:11). The elders.—I.e., the Sanhedrists, who were probably represented by certain of their number. The oldest authorities read “some of the elders “which, however, has the appearance of being a correction (Hackett, Alford, Lechler). A certain orator, rhetorician, or advocate, acquainted with the forms of Roman law, which were not understood by the people of the provinces, who therefore had to employ such barristers or rhetoricians (=oratores forenses or causidici publici) to plead for them before Roman tribunals. Tertullus.—A. diminutive from Tertius. Probably a Roman. Had the trial been conducted in Latin, which cannot be proved, Luke would most likely have noted it (compare Act_22:2). Who.—I.e., not Tertullus, but Ananias and the elders through him. Informed the governor against Paul.—I.e., lodged their complaint against him.

Act_24:2. Called forth.—Or, simply called. After the charges against him had been lodged, and before the evidence was produced. Roman law secured that no prisoner should be condemned without hearing and having an opportunity to answer the indictment preferred against him (see Act_25:16). Tertullus’s indictment, which consisted of three charges—sedition, heresy, and sacrilege, or profanation of the temple (see Act_24:5-6)—was prefaced by the most undisguised flattery, in the hope of inducing Felix to condemn Paul. Great quietness, or much peace.—“The administration of Felix did not present much opening for panegyric, but he had at least taken strong measures to put down the gangs of Sicarii and brigands by whom Palestine was infested (Jos., Ant., XX. viii. 5; Wars, II. xiii. 2), and Tertullus shows his skill in the emphasis which he lays on “quietness.” By a somewhat interesting coincidence, Tacitus (Ann., xii. 54), after narrating the circumstances caused by a quarrel between Felix, backed by the Samaritans, and Ventidius Cumanus, who had been appointed as governor of Galilee, ends his statement by relating that Felix was supported by Quadratus, the president of Syria “et quies provinciæ reddita” (Plumptre). For very worthy deeds, κατορθωμάτων—i.e., things successfully achieved, the best MSS. read διορθωμάτων, improvements, emendations, betterments—i.e., corrections of evil (R.V.). How much truth there was in this the statement of Josephus (Ant., XX. viii. 9) shows, that after his removal from office “the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Cæsarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix,” and that “he had certainly been brought to punishment unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitation of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honour by him.” By thy providence.—“Tuâ providentiâ, providentia Cæsaris, is a common inscription on the coins of the emperors” (Spence).

Act_24:3. Always and in all places are better connected with “accept” (Hackett, Zöckler) than with “done” (Holtzmann, Wendt, Besser). Most noble Felix, κράτιστε Φῆλιξ: compare κράτιστε Θεόφιλε (Luk_1:3).

Act_24:4. A few words refer not to the flattering preamble (Meyer), but to the subsequent plea.

Act_24:5. A pestilent fellow.—Better, a pest, or plague; used as in English. The world meant the Roman empire. The sect of the Nazarenes.—A contemptuous expression, for the first time transferred from the Master to the disciples (compare Act_2:22, Act_6:14; Joh_1:46). The name is still applied to Christians by Jews and Mohammedans. During the Indian Mutiny of 1855 the Mohammedan rebels, it is said (Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible: art. Nazarene), relied on a supposed ancient prophecy that the Nazarenes would be expelled from the country after ruling for a hundred years.

Act_24:6. Who also hath gone about or assayed to profane the temple.—Shows that the original charge had been modified (see Act_21:28). Whom we took or laid hold of.—Through the change of construction at “whom” the preceding participial clause (Act_24:5) becomes an anakolouthon. The remaining words of this verse, with Act_24:7 and first part of Act_24:8, are omitted in the most approved texts. It is difficult to perceive why they should either have been inserted or left out. If genuine they show that Tertullus, instructed by the Sanhedrim, who were exceeding bitter against Lysias, wished to turn the tables against him by suggesting that had it not been for his interference the whole matter would have been disposed of without troubling the governor. Would have judged according to our law.—Does not square well with the facts as related in Act_21:31, Act_26:21.

Act_24:7. Represents Lysias as having rescued Paul with great violence, which also scarcely comports with truth (Act_21:32).

Act_24:8. Whom.—Has for antecedent Paul, if the intermediate clauses be rejected; but either the accusers (as the A.V. suggests), or more probably Lysias (as the Greek text indicates), if the clauses be retained.

Act_24:9. A better reading than assented, συνέθεντο, is assailed him at the same time, or joined in assailing him, συνεπέθεντο, by asserting that the charges were true.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.

Act_24:1-9. The Indictment of Tertullus: or, the Vapid Eloquence of a Heathen Lawyer

I. The judge upon the bench.—

1. His name. Felix. “One of the worst of Roman officials” (Ramsay). See on Act_23:24.

2. His dignity. Governor of the province of Judæa. Representative of Roman law and justice. Who should therefore have treated Paul with strictest equity—which he did not.

3. His character. Immoral, tyrannical, covetous, unjust. The opposite to that ascribed to him by Tertullus (see “Homiletical Analysis” on Act_23:23-35).

II. The prisoner at the bar.—Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, who had just been rescued from the violent hands of his countrymen, and who was now to be impeached in their name on three serious charges, of every one of which he was innocent. Had his countrymen only known they might have said, with perfect truthfulness, “This is the noblest Roman of them all.” Looking back upon his great career, impartial posterity can testify—

“His life was gentle, and the elements

So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up,

And say to all the world—This was a man!”

—SHAKESPEARE, Julius Cæsar, Act v., Sc. 5.

III. The prosecutors and their indictment.—

1. The prosecutors were Ananias the high priest (see Act_23:2), and the elders who had come down from Jerusalem to Cæsarea for the purpose of accusing Paul before the governor. Their state of mind may be imagined from the circumstance that they had, five days before, conspired with forty ruffians to assassinate the apostle, who only escaped their toils by a specially providential deliverance.

2. The indictment they were prepared to move against him consisted of three counts.

(1) Sedition. They alleged that the prisoner at the bar was a pestilent fellow, and a mover of seditions among all the Jews throughout the world—an old charge, which had been preferred against the apostle at Thessalonica (Act_17:6-7), which had never been established, and which was absolutely false.

(2) Heresy. They accused the prisoner at the bar of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, by which phrase they sought to pour contempt upon the followers of Christ, because of His supposed birth at Nazareth, which, in their judgment, stamped Him as a false Messiah. This charge the apostle did not seek to deny (Act_24:14).

(3) Sacrilege. They accused him of having profaned the temple. They asserted, not as they had done before (Act_21:28), that Paul had desecrated the holy place, but that he had attempted to do so, by introducing within its precincts Trophimus, the Ephesian—which the narrative shows he had not done.

IV. The advocate and his oration.—

1. The advocate. Tertullus by name, a diminutive from Tertius, was a Roman lawyer or rhetorician, whose trade it was to plead in courts of law throughout the empire. He was probably

(1) a person of considerable talent, else his services would not have been sought by the Sanhedrim, though if he was, his genius and eloquence might easily have been employed in a better cause than seeking the conviction of an innocent man. He was certainly

(2) a man of untruthful character, since he not only openly and unblushingly flattered the judge, in the hope of carrying his suit, but most likely also knowingly misrepresented the facts of the case he had in hand (if the clause about Lysias be retained). And in any case

(3) his employment by the Sanhedrim was a melancholy proof of the unspirituality of that high court, that it called in a heathen orator to help their bad cause by his crafty speech (Besser). This, remarks Bengel, is the only place in the whole of sacred Scripture in which the name of the orator is to be found. “The preachers of God,” adds Besser, “are not reciters of learned words, but witnesses of revealed things. The orator Tertullus steps forward to help the Godless Jews in place of the absent Holy Spirit.”

2. The oration which Tertullus pronounced consisted of three parts—flattery, falsehood, and misrepresentation.

(1) The flattery was offered as fragrant incense to the judge, to intoxicate his senses, becloud his understanding, pervert his judgment, and captivate his will. Felix was actually invited to believe that in the estimation of his admiring and devoted subjects he had been a veritable pacator provinciæ—yea, a kind of little god, through whose benign providence the welfare of his dependents had been highly advanced, and whose gracious clemency the speaker humbly entreated while intruding on his awful majesty with a few more words. It showed Tertullus to be far from a bungler at his trade that he contrived so smoothly to slide over “the difficult narration of the procurator’s misdeeds,” and to convert what was abominable cruelty into gracious clemency; and considering how dearly most men love to be flattered, when “the candied tongue” is not too apparent, one wonders that Tertullus did not meet with more success. Either there was in Felix, after all, some fragment of a noble manhood which taught him to despise the compliments he knew to be as insincere as they were undeserved, or there was a loftiness of thought and speech in Paul’s defence which completely neutralised the effect of the heathen lawyer’s rhetoric.

(2) The falsehood consisted in the repetition of the threefold charge of sedition, heresy, and sacrilege, which had been put into his mouth by the high priest and his unprincipled confederates. That Paul, who preached the gospel of peace and showed to men the way of salvation, promoted civil tumults and social revolutions, though an old charge (Act_17:7), was as ridiculous as it was untrue (compare Rom_13:1). That he was chargeable with heresy or schism could only be maintained by those who knew themselves to be in innermost accord with the truth, which Ananias and Tertullus were not—else, alas! for the truth. If to be a ringleader among the Nazarenes, as the Christians were then beginning to be styled (see Critical Remarks) was to be a heretic—which, however, Paul denied (Act_24:14)—then undoubtedly their allegation was true, and no lie. That he had attempted to desecrate the holy place by bringing Trophimus within its precincts strayed as widely from the truth as the assertion that he had actually committed this unholy deed. Well might Paul have exclaimed as he listened to the glowing periods of the orator—

“O hateful error …

Why dost thou show to the apt thoughts of men

The things that are not!”

—SHAKESPEARE, Julius Cæsar, Act v., Sc. 3.

(3) The misrepresentation lay in this, that Tertullus, instructed presumably by his employers, endeavoured to lay the blame of this intrusion on the noble Felix’s leisure on Lysias, the commandant of the Castle of Antonia, who, said the orator, stating incorrectly what had taken place, had pounced down upon the Sanhedrim and violently torn Paul from their hands when they were peacefully attempting to judge him according to their law. Whether Tertullus believed his own story may be doubted; that Felix did not, especially after hearing Paul’s defence, is almost certain—even though it was backed up by the strong asseverations of the high priest and the elders that the charges preferred against Paul, and the statements relative to Lysias, were correct.

Learn—

1. The badness of the cause that cannot establish itself without the help of worldly Wisdom

2. The weakness of the indictment that needs to be prefaced by flattering the Judges 3. The exaggeration which characterises the most of the world’s charges against Christians.

4. The violence which accusers commonly exhibit when they feel that they have no case.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_24:1. One Tertullus.

I. An obscure man providentially lifted into doubtful fame. Better for his reputation and character it would have been had he never emerged from the oblivion into which he had been born.

II. A lawyer, not without ability, employed in a bad cause.—His legal knowledge and forensic eloquence might easily have been consecrated to a nobler task than prosecuting Paul.

III. An undisguised flatterer, whose honeyed words were seen through.—Most men who use this contemptible weapon expect to succeed by it. So, doubtless, did Tertullus; but he did not.

IV. A paid advocate, who lost his cause.—From whatever motive, Felix, if he swallowed the flattery, did not condemn the apostle.

Act_24:5. The Sect of the Nazarenes; or the value of nicknames.—This appellation, like those applied to Christ—“The Nazarene,” “Friend of Publicans and Sinners,” etc., defeated its own end, which was to overwhelm the early Christians with shame and contempt. On the contrary, it was—

I. The confirmation of a valuable historical truth.—Viz., that Christ was brought up at Nazareth.

II. The recognition of what to them who uttered it must have been an unpleasant fact—Viz., that the cause which Jesus of Nazareth represented had not been extinguished by the crucifixion, but had, since that appalling tragedy, increased its hold upon the minds of the community.

III. The publication of what those against whom it was directed counted their highest honour.—Viz., that they were followers of the Nazarene. To this day the name of the Nazarene stands highest among the sons of men, and no commendation can be more acceptable to a sincere Christian than the suggestion that he is worthy of the name he bears.

Act_24:2-5. Mistaken Judgments.

I. Bad men are often credited with good deeds they never do.—Witness Felix, whom Tertullus lauded as a peace-maker and social reformer.

II. Good men are as often blamed for evil deeds of which they are entirely innocent.—For instance, Paul, who was charged by Tertullus with being “a mover of insurrections,” “a heretic” and “a profaner of the temple.”

III. These mistaken judgments, though considered just at man’s tribunals, are all wrong at God’s, and will eventually be reversed.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

B.—JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FELIX; PAUL DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGES THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD; THE DECISION IS, HOWEVER, POSTPONED

Act_24:1-23

1And [But] after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders1, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who [Tertullus, and] informed the governoragainst Paul. 2And when he was called forth [summoned], Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness [peace], and that very worthy deeds are done unto [that excellent arrangements are made for] this nation by thy providence [foresight), 3We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, withall thankfulness. 4Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto [But in order that I may not longer detain] thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemencya few words [wouldest in thy clemency for a brief season listen to us]. 5For we have [We have, namely,] found this man a pestilent fellow [man to be a pest], and a mover of sedition2 among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader ofthe sect of the Nazarenes: 6Who also hath gone about [attempted] to profane the temple: whom we took [we also (χαὶ) seized; … Om. here the remainder of Act_24:6, the whole of Act_24:7, and the first clause of Act_24:8, ending with “unto thee”3], and wouldhave judged according to our law. 7But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, andwith great violence took him away out of our hands, 8Commanding his accusers to come unto thee [here the version continues, after “seized,” Act_24:6]: by examining of whom, thyself mayest take knowledge of [and thou canst thyself, if thou examinest him, learn from him] all these things, whereof we accuse him 9And [But] the Jews also assented [Jews immediately joined in4], saying that these things were so.

10Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as [As] I know that thou hast been of [for] many years a judge unto [over] this nation, I do [can] the more [om. the more5] cheerfully answer for myself: 11Because that thou mayest understand [For thou canst ascertain], that there are yet but [that it is not more than] twelve days since I went [came] up to Jerusalem for [in order] to worship. 12And they neither found me in the temple [And neither in the temple did they find me] disputing with any man, neither [or] raising up [a tumult of]the people, neither [nor] in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13Neither [Nor] can theyprove the things whereof [of which] they now accuse me. 14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy [a sect (as in ver 5)], so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in theprophets: 15And have hope toward God, [for] which they themselves also allow [wait, namely], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead [om. of the dead6], both of the just and [of the] unjust. 16And herein [at the same time] do I exercise myself,7 to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. 17Now [But] after many [several] years I came [in order] to bring alms to my nation, andofferings. 18Whereupon certain Jews from Asia [Wherein8 they] found me [after I had] purified [myself] in the temple, neither with multitude [noise, ὄχλον], nor with tumult. 19Who [But they were certain Jews from Asia, who] ought9 to have been here [have appeared] before thee, and object [accused me], if they had aught againstme. 20Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing [wrong act]in me, while [when] I stood before the [chief] council, 21Except it be for this one voice [word, φωνῆς], that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection ofthe dead I am called in question [I am tried] by you this day. 22And when Felix heard these things [But Felix deferred their case10], having [because he had a] more perfect knowledge of that [the τῆς] way, he deferred them [om. he deferred them], and said, When Lysias the chief captain [tribune] shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter [I shall inquire fully into your case]. 23And he [He also, τε] commanded a [the, τῷ] centurion to keep Paul [guard him11], and to let him have liberty [relief], and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance [friends, τῶν ἰδίων] to minister or come12 [om. or come] unto him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_24:1-4. a. And after five days.—The other party very speedily obeyed the instructions of the tribune, Act_23:30. It was not more than five days after the arrival of Paul at Cesarea [or, rather, after his departure from Jerusalem (Meyer, de Wette).—Tr.], when the high priest, with a deputation of the elders (οἱ πρεσβ. who were the representatives of the whole body of elders), also proceeded to that city. They took with them the rhetorician Tertullus, who was appointed to act as their counsel, and, in their name, to lodge a complaint against Paul. His name is a diminutive of Tertius [like Lucullus from Lucius], and, in its turn, furnishes the derivative Tertullianus; the name, which was often adopted by the Romans, indicates his Italian origin. Ῥήτωρ was at that time frequently applied as a title to professional advocates, who pleaded for clients before a court of justice. Ἐμφανίζω is here, as well as in Act_23:15, to be taken transitively, in accordance with the established usus loquendi, in the sense of: to make known, to inform, [“in the forensic or judicial sense” (Alex.).—Tr.], and not in that of: to appear before (Vulg., Luther, Bengel), as, in the latter case, the middle voice would have necessarily been employed.

b. That by thee we enjoy great quietness[peace].—The rhetorician commences his address with gross flatteries, designed to secure the favor of the judge for the party which he represents. 1. He extols the profound peace, for which they are indebted to Felix. It was, in truth, the primary duty of a procurator to secure peace for his country, and his chief distinction, when he succeeded. Congruit bono et gravi præsidi, ut pacata sit provincia. (Ulpianus, De officio præsidis). Now Felix had, to a certain extent, put an end to the disturbances which had been caused in part by political discontent, and in part by a depraved thirst for plunder. But he did not hesitate, on the other hand, to employ sicarii in assassinating the high priest Jonathan; and his general conduct was characterized by such violent passions and such selfishness, that he rather aroused than calmed the spirit of rebellion. Hence the first sentence of Tertullus contained a falsehood. 2. The orator next mentions the excellent arrangements, the happy results (κατορθώματα), which the provident administration of Felix had secured for the people of Israel. [“The Vulgate version (multa corrigantur) which makes it mean reformatory measures, rests upon another reading (διορθωμάτων for κατορθωμάτων)found in several of the oldest manuscripts, but not regarded by the critics as the true text.” (Alex.).—Alf. retains κατορ. of text. rec. with G. H., but Lach., Tisch., and Born., read διορ. with A. B. E. and also Cod. Sin.—Tr.]. This statement, too, was, in view of the arbitrary rule of the man, and his base character (servile ingenium, libido, Tac. Hist. V. 9.) an impudent falsehood. 3. The falsity of the assertion that the Jewish nation was, at all times and in all places, grateful to Felix for his services, was subsequently demonstrated, when the Jews themselves accused him at Home, after he had been recalled (Jos. Antiq. xx. 8. 9.). Ἐγκόπτω, Act_24:4, means to hinder, interrupt, detain. [“The promise (of Tertullus) to be brief (συντόμως) might almost seem to have been caused by some appearance of impatience in the Procurator, at the prospect of a formal and elaborate harangue.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. And the ἐπιείκεια to which the speaker appeals, as a well-known feature of the character of the procurator (τᾖ σῇ ἐπιεικείᾳ) was by no means one for which he was distinguished.

Act_24:5-9. For we have found this man.—Εὑρόντες is not employed, as Bengel and others have supposed, for εὕρομεν, but is anacoluthic.—[The regular construction would be: ἐκρατήσαμεν αὐτόν, in Act_24:6; see Winer: Gram. on the passage, § 45. 6. b., and § 63. I. 1.—Tr.]. The heavy charge here brought against the apostle, contains three specifications: 1. That he created disturbances in the Roman empire, among the Jews; comp. Act_17:6; Acts 2. That he was a leader of the sect of the Christians; 3. That he had attempted to profane the temple. This is the first occasion on which the name Nazarenes is introduced, as that of a sect, i.e., of the adherents of Jesus of Nazareth; it originated in Jewish views. [“His supposed birth in Nazareth was regarded as evidence that he was a false Messiah, Joh_7:42.” (Meyer).—Tr.].—Πρωτοστάτης was originally a military term, applied to a soldier at the front of the army, a file-leader. [For sect, αἱρέσεως, Act_24:5, see below, Exeg. note on Act_24:14-16.—Tr.]. The expression ἐπείρασε, Act_24:6—he attempted—is, in a juridical point of view, very skilfully chosen; it charges the prisoner only with the attempt, and not with the [overt] act itself, as was done in Act_21:28; if the prisoner should deny even the attempt, the expression would at least indicate his animus. Παρʼ οὖ δυνήσῃ - - ἐπιγνῶναι, i.e., Paul himself would not be able to deny the facts as stated by Tertullus. [But “if the disputed words (see note 3 above, appended to the text) be inserted, παῤ οὖ refers naturally enough to Lysias,” (Alf.).—Tr.]. Συνεπιτίθεσθαι means: to join in the attack; the Jews united, at the close of the speech of their advocate, in making the same complaints. [“The drift of this representation (of Tertullus) was evidently to persuade Felix to give up St. Paul to the Jewish courts, in which case his assassination would have been easily accomplished.—Compare the two attempts, Act_23:15, and Act_25:3.” (Conyb. and H. II. 291.)—Tr.]

Act_24:10, Forasmuch as I know, etc.—Paul does not, like his opponent, commence with flatteries, but, by way of introduction, mentions a single well-known fact, namely, that Felix had already for a considerable time possessed the highest judicial authority in the country; he had thus acquired a personal knowledge of its public affairs, and this circumstance enables Paul, as he now remarks, to defend his cause with confidence before Felix. As the latter had obtained the office at the close of A. D. 52, or the beginning of A. D. 53 [Jos. Ant. xx. 7. 1; War, ii. 12. 8, during the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius (de Wette).—Tr.], and as the occurrence here related took place in A. D. 58, the πολλὰ ἔτη are, to speak more definitely, about six years—a comparatively long period, when it is considered that frequent changes of governors constituted at that time the rule. Felix had undoubtedly found many favorable opportunities for becoming acquainted with the character of the leaders of the Jews, and of the people generally; and Luke himself remarks, Act_24:22, that he had also a certain amount of knowledge respecting Christianity.

Act_24:11. Because that thou mayest understand [For thou canst ascertain] that, etc.—Paul refers to an additional circumstance which aids him in making his defence, namely, that he had very recently reached Jerusalem, and that it would therefore be very easy to investigate his whole course of procedure during the short period which had succeeded his arrival at Jerusalem. The twelve days which the apostle mentions as having since elapsed, are to be reckoned, in the following manner:—

I. The day after the arrival; visit to James, Act_21:18.

II. Levitical purification, and first visit to the temple, Act_21:26.

III. IV. V. VI. VII. The days of the Nazarite-offerings; assault on Paul, and seizure of his person, Act_21:27 ff.

VIII. The apostle before the Great Council Act_22:30; Act_23:1 ff.

IX. The conspiracy, and the discovery of it; in the evening Paul is removed from Jerusalem. Act_23:12 ff., Act_23:23; Act_23:31.

X. Arrival at Antipatris, Act_23:31.

XI. Arrival at Cesarea, Act_23:32 ff.

XII.

XIII. Proceedings before Felix, Act_24:1 ff.

Hence, the last was the fifth day (μετὰ πέντε ἡμέρας, Act_24:1) since Paul had been removed from Jerusalem, if the day of his departure be included; but the fifth had not yet elapsed, and, therefore, is not one of the whole number of twelve days; the day of his arrival at Jerusalem is also excluded. Anger: De temp. rat. p. 109 f. [The computations of various writers are noticed by Meyer, de Wette, etc.; on 1 of these Alexander remarks: “A vast amount of calculation and discussion has been lavished on the question, how these twelve days are to be reckoned, all agreeing in the only point of any moment, namely, that Paul’s statement may be justified in several ways, the variation having reference chiefly to the seven days spoken of in Act_21:27, and to the admission or exclusion of the days which had elapsed since his return to Cesarea.”—Tr.]

Act_24:12-13.—And they neither found me in the temple, etc.—[In Act_24:13, the reading of text. rec. is οὔτε παραστῆσαι, with A. E. G. H., while Lach. and Born, read οὐδέ with B. which is also the reading of Cod. Sin. Winer remarks, (Gram. N. T. § 55. 6) on the passage: “Οὐδέ is not here used like οὔτε, but begins a new proposition thus: ‘neither in the temple did they find me … nor in the synagogues … and they can also not prove, etc.’ But most of the manuscripts read οὔτε in Act_24:13. If that be the correct reading, οὔτε—εὖρόν με, in Act_24:12, and οὔτε παραστῆσαι—δύνανται, in Act_24:13, regularly correspond, and the words οὔτε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς οὔτὲ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν constitute subordinate members of the former proposition.”—Tr.]. With respect to the occurrence itself, and to the accusation founded upon it, to which latter Paul now replies, he emphatically declares that he had come to Jerusalem in order to worship (προςκυνήσων); he had, therefore, not opposed the worship of God in the sanctuary, as appointed by the law, but had, on the contrary, engaged in it himself; his journey had been, according to its design, a pilgrimage to the place of worship. He also denies in direct terms that he had in any manner polluted the temple, or had been the author of any disturbance, Παραστῆσαι [“after which supply ταῦτα” (de Wette)—Tr.], is occasionally employed by classic writers in the sense of ostendere, persuadere, probare.

Act_24:14-16. But this I confess unto thee.—These verses contain Paul’s reply to the invidious charge of Tertullus, that he was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He boldly and joyfully confesses (ὁμολογῶ) that he is a Christian, but at the same time declines, in mild terms, to acknowledge the term αἵρεσις, which had been used by Tertullus in an unfavorable sense, as descriptive of a sect of separatists, (λέγουσι; opponents—Paul means—give that name to Christianity, but it is not, in reality, a sect). [“It is a vox media, indicating a school, party, but had been used by Tertullus, Act_24:5, in a bad sense, i, e., a schismatic sect.” (Meyer).—Tr.]. While he confesses his faith, and describes his Christianity, he intentionally and unequivocally avows the unity of the new covenant with the old. Λατρεύω τῷ πατρ. θεῷ, i.e., his religion is not an apostasy from the God of his fathers, but is, on the contrary, fidelity to Him. Πιστέυων πᾶσι, i.e., his religion does not teach him to regard the sacred writings of Israel with doubt and unbelief, but requires him to receive the Scriptures with entire faith. When he proceeds to state the subject-matter of his faith, he describes it as a devout hope of the resurrection, and here again he lays stress on his agreement with Israel—καὶ αὐτοὶ οὖτοι i.e., my opponents also entertain this expectation. Here, however, προςδέχεσθαι and ἐλπίδα ἔχειν differ subjectively; the former denotes rather an external attitude with respect to the truth in question, without indicating warmth of feeling, but the latter, ἐλπ. ἐχ., describes that hope as a personal and very precious treasure. The confession, finally, Act_24:16, refers to the practical, the moral, features of his Christianity. The words ἐν τούτῳ are not to be restricted in their application, to the hope already mentioned (Bengel), but refer to the whole foundation of the apostle’s faith, as far as he had hitherto indicated it. Καὶ αὐτός, i.e., I, too, like all my brethren in the faith.

Act_24:17-21. Now after many [several] years. [“Πλειόνων, not so strong as ‘many’,” (Conyb. etc. II. 292. note).—“Paul refers to the four years which had elapsed since his last visit to Jerusalem, Act_18:22.” (Meyer).—Tr.]. The apostle here recurs to the complaint of his enemies that he had defiled the temple, and, with his answer to it, combines a refutation of the charge that he had created a tumult. He states that he had recently returned to Jerusalem, partly for the purpose of bringing relief to his people, (that is, the collections which had been appointed in Gentile congregations for the Judæo-Christians [1Co_16:1 ff.; 2Co_8:1-8; Rom_15:25 (Meyer).—Tr.]), and of thus demonstrating his love to his people, and, partly, for the purpose of offering sacrifices at the temple [the sacrifices usual at festivals, (Meyer).—Tr.]; comp. προςκυνήσων in Act_24:11. The latter, the act of worship, corresponds, at the same time, to ἀπρόςκοπον συνείδ. ἐχ. πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, in Act_24:16, while the former, the alms, correspond to πρὸς—τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ‘While I was thus engaged (ἐν οἶς, Act_24:18)’—he says—‘and after the requisite purificatory rites (ἡγνισμένον), but not in a profane manner, I entered the temple, which, moreover, I did not pollute with tumult and noise.’ This statement also refutes the charge that he had disturbed the public peace. Τινὲς δὲ, Act_24:19, belongs to εὖρον, Act_24:18. [A comma should be placed after θορύβου, as Lachmann, Tischendorf and Bornemann (and Alford) have done, and not a full stop or period, which is the punctuation adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, and de Wette (and also the text. rec.), (Meyer.).—Tr.]. The sense is: “Certain Jews found me, not those who are here present (as they seem to say, Act_24:5), but others who came from Asia, and these are precisely the persons who have not presented themselves here.”—Paul refers, in conclusion, to his opponents who are present, for the proof that the assembled Sanhedrin could not convict him of any offence, ἢ περὶ, i.e., unless it was the exclamation which he had uttered in the midst of the assembly, Act_23:6.

Act_24:22-23. Felix … having more perfect knowledge … deferred them.—Ἀναβάλλεσθαι was the current technical term for “to adjourn;” this verb is usually followed, it is true, by sentence, decision, as its object, but occasionally also, as in this instance, by αὐτούς, referring to an assembly which is adjourned. The words ἀκριβέστερον ἐιδώς, etc., can be only intended (as the construction of the sentence shows), to assign the reason of the act implied by ἀνεβάλετο, that is, Felix adjourned the meeting, because he had a fuller knowledge of Christianity [than that with which the present proceedings could furnish him. (Meyer).—Tr.]. This is the interpretation of Chrysostom, Luther, Wetstein, Meyer, and others. It is an error to suppose, with Beza, Grotius and Ewald, that these words themselves belonged to the concluding sentence of Felix, as if he should have said: “After I shall have more perfectly acquainted myself with this way, and after the arrival of Lysias,” etc. For if that were the sense, εἰπών could not possibly have been introduced at such a distance from the beginning of the sentence. The procurator must have acquired a more than mere general knowledge of Christianity during his administration, which had already lasted at least six years, [“The Christian religion had been known for many years in Cesarea (Act_8:40), where Felix resided, and had penetrated even among the troops (Acts, Acts 10).” (Conyb. et. II. 293).—Tr.]. Hence he did not condemn Paul. Still, he did not acquit him, on account of considerations connected with the Jews. He accordingly postponed the matter, on the pretext that he was desirous of hearing the tribune Lysias, before he decided. Thus Paul remained in military custody (ἑκατοντάρχῃ τηρεῖσθαι), but with a certain alleviation (ἄνεσις) of his confinement, since he was permitted to receive the visits of his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι), i.e., no doubt, of intimate Christian friends, and of relatives, like the nephew mentioned in Act_23:16; their personal services in unimportant matters were also allowed (ὑπηρετεῖν). Perhaps, too, there was a certain relaxation manifested in the manner in which he was guarded and shackled. See Wieseler: Apost. Chron., p. 380 ff.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The speech of Tertullus—the only man who receives in the Scriptures the professional title of an orator (rhetorician),—is an example of that eloquence which should not be regarded as genuine; it is insincere and untrue in its matter, and artful and tinselled in its form. The address of the apostle resembles the discourses of Jesus, and all the discourses and writings of the other apostles; its matter is characterized by truth and sincerity, and its form by plainness and simplicity.

2. The apostle demonstrates that godly sentiments control him, by not being satisfied with merely refuting the false charges brought against him, and defending himself personally, but by also availing himself of the earliest opportunity for confessing and defending the Christian faith. It is not so much his own honor, as the honor of God and of His appointed way of salvation, for which he is concerned.

3. The confession of faith made by the apostle furnishes a sketch of the reply which Christianity makes to Judaism, and, specially, it shows that the former is not an apostasy from the old covenant, but rather the fulfilment of it. The fundamental principle of the apostle is, in reality, precisely that which is expressed in the words of Jesus: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil,” Mat_5:17. In perfect accordance with these words of the Master, his disciple confesses that he believes all that is written in the law and in the prophets, that he holds fast to the hope, which Israel also entertertains, as to a precious treasure, and that he serves none other than Jehovah, the God of his fathers. This is precisely the position which the Reformers assumed in the Augsburg Confession, in opposition to the Catholic church; it was the main object of that Confession of faith, on the one hand, to refute the charge of sectarianism and of apostasy on the part of the evangelical Christians, and, on the other hand, to demonstrate the unity of the latter with the ancient, true, apostolical, and catholic Church.

4. There is a deep meaning in the apostle’s declaration that, with regard to his faith and his hope, he endeavored to maintain a good conscience in his relations both to god and to men. Such a statement was not only of great importance with respect to his defence of himself against the several charges of profaning the temple, and of creating tumults; it was also of the highest value as honorable testimony in favor of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity is “the conscience of the conscience.” When the Gospel of Christ reaches man, it does not fully control him, until it penetrates his conscience. And man does not fully take hold of Christianity, and appropriate it to himself, until be avails himself of it as a power of God in his moral exercises—in preserving a conscience void of offence. In every other case, Christianity is only a color, a form, mere chaff, and not the substance, the power, the essence, and the life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act_24:1. The high priest … with a certain orator named Tertullus.—This is the only passage in the Scriptures in which an orator and the name of an orator are introduced. (Bengel).—The preachers of God are not speakers who utter words which they have merely learned, but who are witnesses of things revealed. (Besser).—No cause is so bad that it cannot find an advocate. (Starke).—Eloquence is a gift of God (Exo_4:11), but the eloquence of a bad man is poison in a golden cup. (Augustine).—Malice continually adorns itself with new colors, and adopts new weapons. When cunning, assassination, and conspiracy are of no avail, it employs the tinsel of oratory, and attempts to gain its object by means of the weapons of flattery. But faith and truth retain their simplicity and integrity. The high priest appears with his orator Tertullus, but Paul meets them with his good conscience and his believing heart. (Ap. Past.).

Act_24:2-3. Tertullus began to accuse him.—How artful and cunning are the children of darkness! “As a cage is full of (decoy) birds, so are their houses full of deceit.” Jer_5:27. They hope to oppress the innocent and the poor. But are not the palaces of princes and great lords, and the offices of judges and counsellors full of such decoy-birds? (Starke).—Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness [peace].—Tertullus overwhelms Felix with compliments, in order to gain his favor. (Starke). Wicked men never utter the word peace more loudly, than when they intend to disturb the peace, and to create confusion, Psa_55:21. (id.).—Tertullus prepares the way for his accusation by base flattery. Felix was enslaved by vice, and was hated by the people; they subsequently complained of him to the emperor. And yet this flatterer deifies him, in order to gain his favor, and declares that he is the author of blessings for which the Jews were indebted to God alone. This desire to flatter men still governs false and unfaithful teachers. (Ap. Past.).—How great an influence flattery exercises in the world! It is a wonderful instrument in the hands of men. Great men employ it, when they wish to gain their ends, and avail themselves of the infirmities of inferior men; and, on the other hand, inferior men discover a weak side in a great man, and thus acquire power over him. (Rieger).

Act_24:4. That I be not further tedious unto thee.—This course was very welcome to Felix—an introduction, full of flattering expressions, and then a statement of the case as brief as possible; he disliked business (Act_23:35), and now received the promise that he should not be long detained. (Williger).

Act_24:5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow [to be a pest].—The beautiful image of a witness of Jesus seems to the world to exhibit distorted features. His gracious message is called “a pest”; his zeal in addressing those who are spiritually dead, results in giving him the character of “a mover of sedition.” To preach Jesus is “sectarianism”; to build up the kingdom of God is “to profane the temple.”—If such was the experience of Christ and his apostles, why should it not be our own? But we are consoled when the Spirit of truth gives us the testimony: “as deceivers, and yet true.” [2Co_6:8]. (Ap. Past.).

Act_24:6. Whom we took.—Tertullus does not even remotely refer to the intended assassination; over all these iniquities he artfully spreads a veil. (Ap. Past.).

Act_24:9. And the Jews also assented.—They said “Amen!” to the edifying sermon of Tertullus! (Williger).—Falsehood finds supporters sooner than the truth. But if even thousands assent to a lie, it still remains a lie. (Starke).

Act_24:10. Then Paul … answered, Forasmuch as I know … a judge unto this nation.—Be sparing in giving titles, as Paul here was. When an enemy of God, an unrighteous judge, an arrogant Haman, or an Ahab, a slave of sin, is before thee, shouldst thou tell him that he is an excellent, highly esteemed, and incomparable man? Shouldst thou talk of his great merits? ‘He shall never be moved, in whose eyes a vile person is contemned.’ Psa_15:4-5. (Starke).—Paul undoubtedly shows respect to Felix, in so far as he holds a public office, the dignity of which is not derived from the personal merits of the person who is invested with it, but from the ordinance of God; nevertheless, when he addresses Felix as a “judge,” he reminds him of law and justice. Thus he practises himself all that he teaches us in Rom. Acts 13. (Leonh. and Sp.).

Act_24:11. I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.—Paul does not here employ a common mode of expression; he really intended, if it were possible, to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; Act_20:16.

Act_24:12-13. And they neither found me in the temple, etc.—Observe the course which Paul adopts. He modestly expresses his respect for the office of the judge; he honestly and briefly states the case; he calmly denies the truth of the charge, and as calmly asserts that the opposite is the truth; he boldly demands an investigation and the proof; he distinctly exposes the true reason of the complaint. Take the same course before a court of justice. (Starke).

Ver 14. But this I confess unto thee, etc.—When Paul was allowed by Felix to speak, he replied to the accusations of his enemies, but, above all, availed himself of the opportunity to “witness a good confession” [1Ti_6:13]. (Rieger).—That after the way which they call heresy [a sect], so worship I the God of my fathers.—Paul is not ashamed of being a “Nazarene,” but he denies that Christianity is a false doctrine recently introduced, and that the church of God is a sect that has apostatized from the faith of the fathers, inasmuch as the Gospel of Christ is the heart and soul—the great object and end—of the entire old covenant. (Leonh. and Sp.).—The true church of God has always produced the same evidence, whenever it was called a sect. Thus the Evangelical Church could always with confidence reply to the Catholic, when the latter termed it a new party, that it was precisely the old, apostolical church. (Williger).—Thus Christians of our day, who possess spiritual life, may demonstrate, when they are termed “sectarists,” “pietists,” etc., that, according to the Scriptures, their sectarism, or their pietism, is simply the imitation of Christ, an earnest walk in that way of salvation which Jesus has marked out in His word, in His own walk, and in His blood.

Act_24:15. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow.—The hope of the resurrection is established on a doctrine, the glory of which did not arise for the first time in the New Testament; this golden thread of eternal life passes, on the contrary, through the whole of the Old Testament. The Creator, who animated the dust of the ground with His breath—the covenantal God, who made “an everlasting covenant” [Gen_17:7] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not a God of the dead, but of the living. That hope was a source of comfort to Job (Act_19:25-27); Isaiah (Act_26:19) foretold it; Daniel (Act_12:2) bore witness to it. It is, however, true, that, in the case of Paul, this hope first of all acquired a firm foundation, and was endowed with life and productive power through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead [2Ti_1:10]. (Leonh. and Sp.).—The resurrection is the foundation on which our Christianity rests; if the former yields, the latter would pass away with it [1Co_15:14]. (Starke).—I have hope toward God, etc.—Hast thou this hope? If the Spirit has not yet imparted it to thee, pause not until thou art assured of thy blessed resurrection; pause not, for there can be nothing more awful than to die without the hope of the resurrection. (Kapff.).

Act_24:16. And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.—The apostle shows us the use which he makes of his religion. Here is the true object or aim of all religion. As long as our confession of faith is merely a matter of the judgment, or an inherited custom, or an apple of discord and source of contention, it is chaff without grain, a shadow without life. It then only deserves the name of a true faith, when it urges and assists us in so exercising ourselves that we may become righteous, devout, and holy before God. (Ap. Past.).—Why should that man not love God with all his heart, who believes in God and has an assurance of His gracious purposes, since He has given us His Son, and with him the hope of eternal life? Why should he not fear and honor Him? Why should he not make every effort, in order to show his gratitude for such great gifts and mercies? Why should he not exhibit patience and obedience in seasons of affliction? Thus faith is always accompanied by many very brilliant and exalted virtues, and is never alone. (Luther).—Although Paul deals very strictly with his conscience, insomuch that he desires it to be void of offence at all times both toward God and toward men, he nevertheless speaks with great humility. He does not say that he has or possesses such a conscience, but, with great consideration, says that he exercises himself to have it. It is very profitable to deal strictly with the conscience and never allow it to relax its watchfulness. (Ap. Past.).

Act_24:17-18. I came to bring alms to my nation … found me purified in the temple.—If he, who thus confers benefits on his neighbor, is called “a pest” [Act_24:5] of the community, what must that man be, who does injury to his neighbor? And if he who thus keeps his vow in the temple, is described as a man who “profanes the temple,” what name shall be given to the man, who, in the temple, violates his baptismal vow? (Starke).

Act_24:20. Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me.—The apostle, in his defence, demands of all those who had seen and known him, or had associated with him, and been witnesses of his conduct, whether they can lay anything to his charge. He was impelled to adopt this course by a good conscience, which was void of offence toward God and men. Many a teacher would be put to shame if his acquaintances, or those confidential friends who are aware of his secret acts, should arise and bear witness against him. But it is precisely from sources like these that the dread or fear proceeds, in consequence of which the duties of the sacred office are fulfilled in such a lukewarm manner. (Ap. Past.).—The whole discourse of the apostle shows the calmness of a heart which the Lord had strengthened. Here notice, I. The composure with which he listens to the accusasation of Tertullus; he does not open his mouth, until Felix beckons to him to speak; II. The uprightness, which leads him to avoid all flattering terms in addressing Felix, while he shows respect to his office; III. The fearlessness with which he repels every unjust charge; IV. The simplicity of the manner in which he states the facts, without resorting to any artifice; V. His courage as a witness; the defence which he makes, affords him an opportunity also to make a confession, with a joyful spirit, of his faith, of his hope, and of his love to God and man, and, indeed, of his whole true and life-giving religion. (From Ap. Past.).

Act_24:22. Felix … deferred them.—Various forms of the natural heart, which a teacher, to whom the care of souls is intrusted, should thoroughly understand, are developed in Felix. He presents an image of a man of the world, and illustrates by his conduct the manner in which such men deal with the Gospel. They have a “knowledge of that way,” but their knowledge exercises no influence on their hearts. Even when they occupy themselves with the things which belong to the kingdom of God, they are actuated solely by curiosity. They wish to be regarded as impartial, but their only object is to derive advantage from the one party or the other. Such is the character of the men of the world; and here a teacher needs great wisdom and godly sincerity, when he is in their presence, so that he may be neither too credulous, nor too timid. (From Ap. Past.).—Felix here exhibits himself, to a certain extent, as a second Pilate. (Besser).

Act_24:23. And to let him have liberty [relief]; (repose, in Luther’s version). A servant of Jesus at length grows weary, when he has been long occupied in the world, and has struggled amid the tumult and confusion of its carnal passions. Happy is he when his Saviour grants him repose, so that, in communion with other members of Jesus, his soul may be refreshed and strengthened in faith and grace. (Ap. Past).

ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act_24:1-23.—‘The sect that is every where spoken against.’ [ch. Act_28:22], Act_24:5 : I. It believes all that is written in the word of God, Act_24:14; II. It confesses all that for which the grace of God permits it to hope, Act_24:15; III. It exercises itself in all those duties which the commandments of God have established, Act_24:16. (Florey).

By what means does the Christian refute the groundless accusations of his enemies? I. By unfeigned faith, Act_24:14; II. By a joyful hope, Act_24:15; III. By a godly life, Act_24:16 (Leonh. and Sp.).

The power of the hope of a resurrection of the dead: it endows us, I. With courage and wisdom in our labors; II. With patience and strength in our afflictions; III. With steadfastness and joy in the hour of death, (id.).

How does the Christian defend himself against the charges which the world so often makes against him? I. He avoids all well-deserved reproach, so that the Gospel may not be blasphemed on his account; II. He puts the causeless enmity of the world to shame by a joyful confession of his faith; III. He directs attention to his life, which furnishes the evidence of the truth of his faith. (Lisco).

The Christian’s answer to the accusations of the world: I. When should he answer them? (a) When the Lord, and not he himself, is reviled; (b) when he can hope to pacify his accusers, and not increase their animosity. II. How should he answer them? (a) Without the fear of man; (b) convincing them by witnessing a good confession. (Langbein).

The orator Tertullus, and the preacher Paul, or, False, and true, eloquence: I. False eloquence resorts to flattery, and addresses the self-love of the hearer, Act_24:3; true eloquence does not flatter, but addresses the heart and the conscience, Act_24:10; II. False eloquence is hypocritical; it dwells only on the lips; it carries honey in the mouth, but gall in the heart, Act_24:5-6; true eloquence never flatters; it proceeds from the heart, and its words are those of truth and uprightness, Act_24:10; Act_24:14-16; III. False eloquence is deceitful; it misrepresents the facts, and distorts the truth, Act_24:5-6; true eloquence never resorts to falsehood; it only repels false accusations, (Act_24:13), while it confesses the truth (Act_24:14-15), and presents facts rather than mere words, Act_24:16-20.

Are upright Christians the sectarians which the world represents them to be? No! For, I. The Leader whom they follow, is not the founder of a sect, but Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church; II. The communion from which they withdraw, is not the church of the Lord, but only the ungodly world, within and without the church; III. The way in which they walk, is not a worship devised by men, but the original way of salvation appointed by the word of God; IV. The glory which they seek, is not empty worldly honor, but that of having a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men, Act_24:16.

The Christian’s true glory consists in the possession of a conscience void of offence, Act_24:16. I. When has he such a conscience? (a) When it is void of offence not only toward men, who look on the outward appearance, but also toward God, who looketh on the heart [1Sa_16:7]; (b) when it is also void of offence, not only toward God, whose judgment will be hereafter revealed in the eternal world, but also toward men, who judge him at present according to his fruits, Act_24:13; Act_24:17-20. II. How may such a conscience be acquired? (a) By first gaining a knowledge of the way of salvation from the word of God, and by receiving that knowledge with faith, Act_24:14-15; (b) by diligently walking in that way, and by exercise in godliness, Act_24:16.

The Christian’s best defence against the poisoned darts of calumny: I. A joyful confession made with the mouth, Act_24:14; II. A conscience void of offence, and a peaceful heart. Act_24:16; III. A blameless life, in the past, Act_24:17-20; IV. A righteous judgment of God in the future, Act_24:15.

Footnotes:

[1]Act_24:1. The reading τῶν πρεσβυτέρων [of text. rec.] is attested only by G. H., and most of the minuscules, but is sustained by internal evidence, rather than the reading πρεσβ. τινῶν, as the latter very distinctly appears to be an attempt to correct the original text. [The latter reading is adopted by Lach., Tisch. and Born., on the authority of A. B. E. several minuscules, and Vulg.; it is also found in Cod. Sin.—Alf. adheres to the text. rec.—Tr.]

[2]Act_24:5. στάσιν [text. rec., with G. H.], should be preferred to the plural στάσεις [of A. B. E. Vulg.], as the latter seemed [to copyists] to be the better suited to, and, indeed, required by, οἰκουμένην. [Alf. retains the sing., but Lach., Tisch. and Born. adopt the plural. Cod. Sin. exhibits στασις—a defective form of the plural.—Tr.]

[3]Act_24:6-8. The textus receptus here exhibits an interpolation of considerable length, which is found only in one of the uncial manuscripts [E.]; all the others [A. B. G. H.] together with that classic witness, the Cod. Sin., omit the passage. [The Vulg. introduces it in the printed editions, but some of the MSS. omit it.—Tr.]. Besides, the uncommonly numerous variations in the readings [in the minuscules], betray that the whole is spurious. The words are: καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον νόμον ἐθελήσαμεν κρίνεινʼ παρελθὼν δὲ Λυσίας ὁ χιλίαρχος μετὰ πολλῆς βίας ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ἡμῶν ἀπηγάγε καὶ πρός σε ἀπέστειλε, κελεύσας τοὺς κατηγόρους αὐτοῦ ἔρχεσθαι ἐπί σε. If these words had been genuine, the omission of them would be inexplicable, while the insertion may be readily explained from Act_21:32; Act_23:27; Act_23:30. Mill, Bengel and Griesbach had, already at an earlier period, regarded the whole as an interpolation, and, more recently, Lach. and Tisch. erased it from the text. [Alford introduces the passage into the text, but incloses it in brackets.—Cod. Sin. exhibits no traces of the insertion of any part of the words by a later hand.—Tr.]

[4]Act_24:9. [Instead of συνέθεντο, of text. rec. with some minuscules, recent editors read συνεπέθεντο with A. B. E. G. H. Cod. Sin.—Tr.]

[5]Act_24:10. The weight of authority is in favor of εὐθύμως [found in A. B. E., and Cod. Sin. Vulg. (bono animo)]. The comparative, εὐθυμότερον [text. rec.], which is found only in two uncial manuscripts [G. H.], seems to be a well-meant attempt to improve the text, in so far, namely, as it was supposed that, while the circumstances stated in the verse, might in truth enable the apostle to speak more cheerfully, he was, independently of them, already cheered in spirit. [Lach., Tisch. and Born. adopt the positive; Alf. retains the comparative, and Meyer also regards it as probably the original reading.—Tr.]

[6]Act_24:15. νεκρῶν [of text. rec. with E. G. H.], is wanting in several of the oldest manuscripts [in A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Vulg.]; as the external authorities in favor of the word, and those against it, seem to be evenly balanced, we had decided against the insertion of the word, on internal evidence, as it would assuredly not have been dropped, if it had been originally employed. Recently, however, the testimony of Cod. Sin., which also omits the word, has been received, so that the weight of external testimony is against νεκρῶν. [Omitted by Lach., Tisch.. Born. and Alf.—Tr.]

[7]Act_24:16. The authorities are decidedly in favor of καὶ αὐτός, rather than δὲ αὐτός [of text. rec. with H.; recent editors adopt the former in accordance with A. B. C. E. G., Cod. Sin., Vulg. (et ipse).—Tr.]

[8]Act_24:18. The reading ἐν οἶς [of text. rec. with G. H.], is preferable to ἐν αἶς, which is unquestionably a correction [to suit the gender of προςφοράς; Lach. and Tisch. read ἐν αἶς with A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. but Alf. retains οἶς, and, with Meyer, regards the other, αἶς as a correction.—Tr.]

[9]Act_24:19. ἔδει [found in A. C. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. (oportebat), and generally adopted by critics, except Alf.] should be regarded as the genuine reading rather than δεῖ [of text. rec. with B. G. H.], although the testimony in favor of the respective readings is evenly balanced.

[10]Act_24:22. Five uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E. H., also Cod. Sin. and Vulg.] exhibit the following reading; Ἀνεβάλετο δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ Φ.; whereas the more extended reading which has been introduced into the textus receptus, namely: Ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Φ. ἀνεβ. αὑτ. is supported by only one uncial manuscript [G.], and is unquestionably an interpolation; it is, besides, not found in Cod. Sin. [Recent editors generally adopt the former reading.—Tr.]

[11]Act_24:23. a. αὐτον [found in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. (eum)] is undoubtedly the original reading, and τὸν Παῦλον [of text. rec. with G. H.], is spurious. [This is the view of recent editors generally.—Tr.]

[12]Act_24:23. b. ἤ προςέρχεσθαι [of text. rec. with G. H.], is a later addition, and is wanting in four uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E., and also Cod. Sin., Vulg.—“perhaps derived from Act_10:28.” (Meyer).—Tr.].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 23

1. Paul before the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-10).

2. The vision of the Lord (Act 23:11).

3. The Conspiracy against Paul (Act 23:12-22).

4. Paul taken to Caesarea (Act 23:23-35).

And now we find him addressing the Sanhedrin. For the last time the Jewish council is mentioned in this book. Three times before the Sanhedrin had been called together in connection with those who believed in the Lord Jesus (Act 4:5; Act 5:21; Act 6:12-15). Looking straight at the council, Paul did not wait for the formalities connected with the proceedings, but addressed the gathered Sanhedrin as men and brethren. And strange are the words with which he opened his defense: “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” In this he made a public declaration of his righteousness, which reminds us of his confession as a Pharisee (Php 3:4-6). This self-justification shows that he was not acting under the leading of the Holy Spirit. This bold language resulted in stirring up the anger of the high priest Ananias, who commanded that the bystanders should smite the Apostle on the mouth. And Paul was not slow to reply with a harsh word, calling the high priest “a whited wall” and demanding of God to smite him. No doubt the high priest was indeed a “whited wall” and fully deserved the judgment from God. But did Paul in speaking thus show the meekness of Him, whose servant he was?

In a clever way he tries to bring in dissension by his statement of being a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. A big commotion followed. Some of the scribes belonging to the Pharisees cried loudly in defense of the prisoner--”We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” The latter sentence was a faint echo of the advice given by Gamaliel. The scene which followed beggars description. The shouting must have been terrific and Paul was in danger of being pulled to pieces by the council mob. Lysias, the chief captain, was obliged to interfere. The soldiers, at his command, came down and rescued Paul and brought him into the castle. The cleverness of Paul had been the means of liberating him from the hands of the Sanhedrin.

The night following the Lord appeared unto him and comforted him. No doubt he had sought before His face in confession and self-judgment. He is in the Lord’s hands. Forty men had made a conspiracy not to eat and to drink till they had killed him.

The prisoner of the Lord is now delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. A large force of soldiers accompanied Paul for his protection. The danger was great, hence the great precaution the chief officer, whose name is now mentioned, Claudius Lysias, had taken. Could we have read in Paul’s own heart we would have seen there the peace of Christ; the words of His Lord still resounded in that faithful and devoted heart--”Be of good cheer.”

The letter of Claudius Lysias to the governor Felix is interesting. It shows how Lysias claims the full credit of having rescued Paul, because he was a Roman. He declares him innocent, yet delivers him into the hands of the governor.

One would also like to know what had become of the forty conspirators. If they were true to their vow not to eat nor to drink till Paul had been killed, they must have starved to death, which, we are sure, did not happen. Caesarea is reached in safety and Paul is delivered into the hands of the governor, who promised him a hearing as soon as the accusers would arrive. Jerusalem now laid forever behind him. Rome was before him.

CHAPTER 24

1. The indictment of Paul (Act 24:1-9).

2. The defense of the Apostle (Act 24:10-21).

3. How Felix disposed of the case (Act 24:22-23).

4. Paul addresses Felix (Act 24:24-27).

If the Jews, after Paul’s removal from Jerusalem, had not pressed the case against him, he would have been liberated. As he had gone years ago to Damascus to persecute the Christians there, so now the Jews follow him to Caesarea to accuse him before the Roman governor. They evidently did not lose any time. Only a few days had elapsed when a strong deputation from Jerusalem appeared in Caesarea. The high priest filled with much hatred against Paul had taken it upon himself to come in person. This must have been an unusual occurrence for a person of Ananias’ standing to leave Jerusalem.

They brought along a certain orator named Tertullus, who accused Paul in the presence of Felix. The words Tertullus used against the great man of God are extremely vile and manifest the hiss of the serpent. He calls him a pestilent fellow,” a person whom Society may well be rid of. The indictment contains three counts. First stands a Political accusation. This, in presence of the high Roman officer, was of the greatest importance. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offense. The charge of sedition or treason was thus at once laid at the door of the Apostle. The second offense Tertullus brought against Paul was of a religious nature. As ringleader of the Nazarenes, presented by him as a sect of the Jews, he had abetted that which was against the peace of Judaism and introduced not alone a disturbing element, but had transgressed another Roman law, which forbade the introduction of an unrecognized religion. The third charge was the profanation of the temple. Paul answers the indictment in a masterly way. His address contains a denial of the first charge; a confession and admission concerning the second, and a complete vindication of the accusation of the temple profanation.

Felix knew the accusations were not true, but he refused decision. Paul should have been set at liberty. Felix defers it till Lysias the chief-captain came to Caesarea. But he never came, and Paul was kept a prisoner. Felix and his wife, Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, a wicked woman, heard Paul and Felix trembled. Later Felix left Paul behind a prisoner, when Porcius Festus became governor.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 4. (Act 24:1-27; Act 25:1-27; Act 26:1-32.)

Before the world’s tribunal.

1. Before the governor the Jewish charge is quickly estimated at its worth; but that does not end it. Self-interest governs all; though conscience may feebly make its voice heard. As before the Jewish council, the judges are really those that are being judged, although there is no denunciation of judgment, as in the high priest’s case. Christ came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Felix, the "happy," the first of the two governors with whom we have here to do, does all that man’s will combined with power can do to make good his name. Man turned away from God, and disbelieving His love and care, necessarily cares for himself, and counts it pleasure to do his own will. Violence and corruption went together in him: the two characters of the world at large. His wife Drusilla, who is mentioned presently, a Jewess, and the sister of Agrippa, had been seduced by him from the king of Emesa, her former husband. "With all cruelty and licentiousness," says the Roman historian, "he exercised the authority of a king in the spirit of a slave." He was in fact a freedman of Claudius, who had appointed him governor; and through his brother’s influence with the emperor was able to retain his place. By Lysias Paul is presented to him as practically an innocent man; for questions of Jewish law meant little to the heathen. Still, if he were an object of interest to the Jew, the governor might find his own interest in it. His record was not good, and to please the people might be a point of wisdom; not, on the other hand, to give him up to them too easily: there might also be advantage on the other side. This is the way accordingly, in which we find him acting; and we are allowed to see his motives too.

(1) The importance of the prisoner is soon seen by the high priest coming down himself, with some of the elders, and a Latin orator to plead their cause; who with fulsome flattery sets the matter before Felix. "A mover of insurrection" is to appeal to the quick ears of the Roman; "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" shows his importance to themselves. They repeat also the false charge of profanation of the temple, -a matter which he would know was quite competent to cause grave trouble among a people as sensitive in religious externals as were the Jews. By examination the governor might soon convince himself of the truth of what they were saying.

(2) Paul, answering for himself, easily breaks through this web of sophistry. It was but twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem to worship. He had been neither disputing with any, nor making a tumult; and they had no witnesses to produce for the substantiation of their charges! His belonging to what was in their eyes a sect he owns, but a sect of the most perfect orthodoxy according to the law; and he names especially the doctrine of the resurrection (with a probe, perhaps, for the conscience of his judge) of the just and also of the unjust. And with him this was not unpractical creed-holding merely: he exercised himself always to have a conscience void of offence toward God and man.

What resurrection was for the apostle as the basis of Christian confidence and position those that were before him could not be expected to understand. Nor does he go on now to speak of Christ risen, but only urges the power of such a truth as the Roman and the Sadducean Jew alike knew nothing of. But the unjust were to rise, as well as the just. With him it was a sweet and purifying hope; for them what should be a warning of the most solemn character. But what did any of them know about an exercised conscience?

Such however was he; and as they had no witness as to things charged which they knew not, so as to what they did know -his conduct before the council, what complaint could they bring but one that condemned themselves as Jews, that he had declared that with regard to the resurrection of the dead he was called in question?

There was thus no case to decide; except the accusation were itself the proof. The only righteous judgment would be to discharge the prisoner; but that was too simple a solution of the matter for one who knew of nothing so simple as a bribe, and who had heard of alms and offerings for his people that Paul had had in hand. Spite therefore of his accurate knowledge of the "way," as men styled Christianity (the way indeed of life and peace and holiness), Felix simply defers the case till Lysias should come down, though Lysias, judgment he well knew already, and Lysias does not appear even to have been sent for. Delay until on either side some advantage to be gained by him should help him to see better, -this is for him the only straightforward procedure.

Meanwhile, having no grudge against Paul, and a possible interest in his friends, ministering to him, he has his captivity made as light as possible, and would by no means prevent his friends doing this. God is plainly over it in mercy to His servant, while yet the way out of his prison which Felix would think so easy for him, is absolutely barred.

(3) Nevertheless there is with Felix also a certain desire to hear about the new teaching: and he and Drusilla his wife send for Paul to learn about that faith in Christ Jesus, of which at his trial he had said nothing directly. It were no wonder if he with the life that he had lived should be willing to hear of any way not too costly by which he could be given rest as to a future which for such as he can hardly fail to be more or less a subject of disquiet. But it is no wonder if he find in his quest something graver than he thought. Perhaps he had heard that here was a hope for sinners, though without any real apprehension as to the meaning of sin. Here then is his need; and Paul reasons with him of righteousness and temperance and judgment about to come, until the miserable man is frightened.* But he does not yield. The cost is greater than he supposed; he must consider it well, and will not come to any hasty decision. He had adjourned Paul’s case; he can adjourn his own: "For the present go thy way," he concludes; "when I can get an opportunity, I will call thee again:" -too common an escape to elicit much wonder, though Felix’ words have become an every-day quotation. Opportunities come and go; the preacher is at his elbow, and he even sends for him, with an ulterior purpose in it of winning a bribe; but, of course, in vain: the preacher is incorruptible, like divine justice; for two years this goes on; at the end of which he is succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, he leaves Paul bound!

{*It is hardly necessary to add that the subject matter of Paul’s discourse here is personal righteousness, not "the righteousness of God." Righteous was what Felix was not, nor temperate -therefore judgment to come was all he could look forward to. Well might he tremble. There is no account of what else Paul said, more specifically concerning the faith, it is enough to know Felix refused this testimony; how could he receive the gospel? -S.R.}

2. Another governor appears in Festus, a name singularly akin to Felix and which means "festive, joyous." The world keeps holiday while the saints suffer. More respectable in character than Felix, he is yet not above desiring to do the Jews a favor at the expense of justice. The chief priests and elders would still get rid by foul means of one against whom they can establish nothing, and solicit Festus that he may be brought to Jerusalem for trial, intending to waylay and kill him on the road. But Festus, guided of God, whatever was his own motive, decides that having been taken to Caesarea, he shall remain there, and his accusers bring their charges against him there. The trial is a mere repetition of the former one, with the same utter lack of proof. But here the governor’s anxiety to please the Jews is shown, even while he knows, as Paul declares, that he had done them no wrong. Paul therefore appeals, according to his right as a Roman citizen, to Caesar’s own judgment and his appeal is admitted. The scene is to shift once more, and the Lord’s words to him are to be fulfilled: he is to testify to Him at Rome.

Another question, difficult to answer, has been raised here: Was this appeal according to the mind of God? It is certain that Festus and Agrippa unite to declare a short time after, that it was the only thing that hindered his being set free. This might be looked at as simply the excuse of one who did not want to take the responsibility himself of setting him free, but that it is Agrippa says it. Paul certainly had the assurance also from the Lord that he was to testify at Rome; so that he need not have apprehended anything from the plotting of the Jews. On the other hand, if he were to testify at Rome as at Jerusalem, did not this appeal, in virtue of which he was in fact taken there, seem to him perhaps only the acting in accordance with the divine will? How shall we decide that it was lack of faith, or lack of wisdom on the part of one who surely exceeded any of us in both respects, and who was in the circumstances as we are not, with more perfect knowledge of all that was implied?

If an appeal to Caesar were in itself contrary to Christian principle, then, of course, to make it could not be right under any circumstances, or whoever did it. Nor have we any reason to conclude that it was impossible for an apostle to go seriously astray, as we know Peter did. But, as already noticed, Paul elsewhere fully accepts the "powers that be" as those appointed of God to be the ministers of God for good to men, and there seems no difficulty really in his using them for that. If we know not his motive, in the case of one such as he was, it is merely justice to accredit him with the highest.

3. Before the council of the Jews, and in the two presentations of their charges against him, we do not see Paul free as usual to proclaim his theme. He is hindered by the dogged opposition of those he is meeting, and does little more than repel the accusations made against him. We are now, however, once more to hear him proclaim the grace of which he has been the subject, and before a Jewish king also, the last that was to be before they should be scattered over the face of the earth.

Festus, who is in perplexity as to what to signify concerning him when he is sent to Caesar, takes advantage of the coming of Agrippa to learn more than he has yet been able to do of one about whom the heads of the nation are so much excited, and yet whose main crime seems but to be believing that a man known to have died is alive. Resurrection seems to him to be too foolish a superstition for him to permit himself to say, "alive again."

Agrippa, a Jew, is expert in all such questions; and to him therefore he narrates the case that gives him difficulty, which Felix has left upon his hands. Agrippa is interested in another manner, and would be glad to hear the man himself. Festus answers at once that he shall hear him; and a. public audience is given next day before which Paul shall plead his cause. Little they think of what it means for all there, the hearing they shall give to this poor prisoner!

Paul narrates his conversion, very much as he had narrated it to the crowd before the castle-stairs. The value of it is seen in the threefold account which is thus given us in this inspired book where every word is measured. The differences in these several narratives are not great, and in the last two have respect to the very different audience on each occasion. Agrippa is tolerant and not uninterested, with an air of candor, and an expert in all Jewish questions. Scandalous suspicions attached to his life; yet he was the guardian of the temple, and the high priestly office was in his appointment. Paul addresses him with confidence in his knowledge, and in his belief also in the prophets, while the issue shows a certain effect of the apostle’s words upon him, a certain accessibility to conviction, of which he appears himself aware, while he shrinks from it.

Behind him Festus is no bad representative of the Roman of his day, sceptical as the mass were, and proud as they could hardly help being. These two not inaptly stood forth as types of the world of that day, in which the cross was to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness, -little as Festus might have in him of the Greek philosopher, whom the apostle in the passage quoted had especially before him.

Behind these again were the heads in war and peace, the chief captains and magistrates, and all the parade and pomp which as needful to his dignity show man to be so little. The prisoner before them is to answer for himself. With him one soon sees that that is the least part of what he thinks of, though this necessarily gives the form to his address; but his testimony as he tells them before long, is very different from any testimony to himself. He is heaven’s ambassador, though in bonds; their own condition and not his is that which moves him. Upon him the light has shone which transfigures all things; while they are in the darkness, needing to be turned from it to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. Not that there is menace upon his lips, but persuasion: he is beseeching men in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to God.

The form of his address only adds to its effectiveness; with the chain upon his wrist, the guerdon that the world has given him for service done to it, the witness to them all of how fully he has accepted the costs of his great office. They may count him mad, but the fire in his eyes is true and steadfast, and fed by no fuel that their world can furnish; -a man who is beyond and inaccessible to them plainly; whose only wish for them -the highest he can wish them -is that they may just be as he is, except those bonds!

He begins with what the Jews in general knew, if only they cared to testify as to it, that he had been himself a Pharisee, one of the strictest sect in Judaism, the zealots of their religion. Now he was being judged, and by Jews! for the very hope which was their national one, secured by the promise of God unto their fathers, and which all their* twelve tribes confessed as their own; earnestly serving God in this assurance! How full of self-contradiction is man, and especially the religious man, in whom yet the power of the truth has not broken down the pride of nature, so as to bring into real subjection to it. Christ was indeed the fulfillment of God’s glorious promise, and in a more wonderful way than could have been anticipated by the firmest believer in what was the burden of the prophets. They had slain Him for the very claim He made (in every possible way confirmed) to fulfil this. And when, after the accomplishment of their awful will, the issue proved to have been overruled of God for fullest blessing, and His loving mercy, with increased evidence and miraculous attestation, was announced for their acceptance, they had still met it with malignant opposition, and slaughter of the messengers. Why but because they could not humble themselves to receive grace as grace?

{*Paul includes all Israel. Faith never recognizes anything short of God’s thoughts, and Paul here, as James in his epistle, includes all the Israel of God. The nation, to be sure, was scattered and to all appearances irretrievably destroyed, but as Elijah builds God’s altar of 12 stones, so Paul here, speaking for the remnant, looks forward to the restoration of blessing to the nation on the basis of resurrection: "After two days will He revive us in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight" (Hos 6:2). In the Revelation we see the 12,000 sealed from each tribe. -S.R.}

Thus Paul the Pharisee was condemned by Pharisees for faith in the fulfilment of their chiefest hope; his testimony also including that of resurrection, which the Pharisees confessed, and yet refused. But "why," he asks, "should it be thought an incredible thing by you, if God raiseth the dead?" He appeals against the unbelief which constantly assumes to ground itself upon reason, to reason itself. Admit a God who once created all things, and the credibility of resurrection becomes merely a question of satisfactory testimony to it.

God had overthrown in his own case an opposition which exceeded. With him the call of duty itself urged him against every follower of the Nazarene; and beyond the land he pursued them in his madness to foreign cities. He was the apostle of Jewish hatred, with commission from the religious leaders of the people, when at midday, in the midst of his company, and in active prosecution of his self-sought mission, that took place which had changed all for him henceforth. Heaven from its home of light poured forth a radiance brighter than the sun -brightness not darkness, and not a vision of terror, though human strength collapsed under it; and prostrate on the earth, he heard from the glory revealed One who spoke in the tongue of the old revelation, and to him with familiar knowledge, Himself unknown: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me It is hard for thee to kick against the goads."*

{*This last expression seems to suggest that the goad had been long applied, and that Paul had been resisting. Was not Stephen’s address a goad which Paul had resisted, and his testimony to the Lord’s being at the right hand of God? Surely these and doubtless the patience and the testimonies of many whom he had persecuted were divinely intended as goads for his conscience. But he had resisted all till this overwhelming testimony made it impossible to do so any longer. -S.R.}

How completely is grace joined with the authority which manifestly belongs to the glorious Speaker! and how unanswerable the question which might have been a sentence, but which seeks only the soul’s judgment of itself! Saul can plead, what indeed he afterwards declares to be the only ground upon which mercy could have been shown him, the ignorance which was nevertheless the result of unbelief. "And I said, Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

How wondrous a revolution in a few moments of time, from the fanatic pride of the legalist to the consciousness of one who is chief of sinners; from the ardent hunter down of Christians to the earnest disciple of Christ! How must the apostle have questioned, with his eyes upon the assemblage, whether the Lord were not revealing Himself in like manner to some there who were traveling with him as he spoke, to the place of unexpected meeting. And immediately he goes on to declare his commission to all such, as servant of this same Jesus, and witness of the things which then and afterwards he had learned of Him.

The next words define the new place of the Christian, taken out from Israel and from the Gentiles alike, to the latter of whom Paul is distinctly sent. It has been said that Paul was in fact taken out of Israel only, and not out of the nations; and that the thought therefore must be, as in the common version, that of delivering rather; but if he were taken out from Israel, it was important to say that this was not to give him the mere position of a Gentile. There might seem to be but the one or other, but the Christian has another and heavenly place, as on earth simply that of a pilgrim and a stranger. "They are not of the world," says the Lord of His disciples, "even as I, am not of the world;" and how important for the one sent into it as the messenger of Christ to maintain this.

The purpose of the message is "to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light." Light is come into the world; and although He who was the Light of it when in it is gone out of it again, rejected by it, yet the light streams now from an open heaven, in principle as Paul saw it. Thus men have only to have their eyes opened to see it too. Here is their responsibility, and here too is their guilt, that they love the darkness as in our Lord’s time, because their deeds are evil. Evil ever craves the cover of darkness; and there is one in the world, -alas, the prince of it, -who is ready effectually to blind the minds of those that believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them (2Co 4:4). So the Lord adds here, "that they may turn from the power of Satan unto God; that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in Me."

If there were a weary heart under any of those brilliant masks which the apostle’s hearers wore that day, the account with its appealing commentary, the man himself, should surely have touched them. The glory of that grace, with its remission and sanctification -all man’s need met at once by faith in Him who had lifted this Saul the persecutor indeed into another sphere unknown to Jew or Gentile, was a thing unique, and which as yet had lost by repetition nothing of its freshness. He goes on to the effect upon himself, which was as lasting as it was immediate. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision: Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and the nations round were witnesses of that. The effect would be in souls repentant, turning to God, and in works answerable to repentance.

Here was the whole matter for which he was accused; for this the Jews had seized, and would have slain him. Yet what he witnessed was only the fulfilment of what Moses and the prophets said should come: the decision of the question of a Christ that was to suffer, and of His resurrection bringing light to Israel and to the nations.

It should be evident that the apostle does not mean that the revelation made to him was merely within the bounds of the older one. The things that are in his mind are summed up in the two points following, which he names. It is certain that there were mysteries now being revealed which had been kept secret during all time before, as that of the Church as the Body of Christ, which no Old Testament scripture even hints at. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, were already written more than two years when Paul said this. It is not the truth that Christianity is but an illuminated edition of Old Testament revelation; nor is it the truth that the distinctive features of Christianity had not yet been made known. It is not therefore the truth that the apostle means to say this. Both things have been inferred from the closing words here; but both are entirely wrong as to the foundation facts of which Paul is professedly speaking; they are indeed borne witness to by all Scripture from beginning to end.

Festus at this point breaks in with the loud confident voice of one who has heard enough, and is prepared with his verdict. With Roman haughtiness he conceives all this to be the superstition of a Jew, the dream of a man addicted to too much reading. Much learning, to his practical mind, when gained in such by-paths of knowledge, might naturally lead to madness. But Paul replies with a quiet and respectful appeal to the better knowledge of the Jewish king; in whose presence he had been speaking therefore freely. Neither the scriptures nor the facts of the life and death of Jesus could be hid from one so well known for his interest in Jewish affairs as king Agrippa. These things had been done before the whole people, in Jerusalem their chief city, and not in a corner. And the prophets were there to answer for themselves. He concludes by a bold appeal to the king himself to make known the belief which he is sure he has in them: "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest."

Doubtless the apostle saw that a powerful impression had been made upon the king, whose words in answer, with all their lightness, seem to deprecate being pressed further at this time. If on the one hand we cannot take them to be a confession of even half-conviction, yet they do seem a half-apology for saying no more. "With little effort thou art prevailing to make me a Christian," leaves it still doubtful what a further effort might accomplish. But the more really touched he is, the more he would shrink from showing it before such an assemblage as this, while yet he is not broken down to self-forgetfulness. He seems not to have command enough over himself to say what an orthodox Jew could easily have done, that he does believe the prophets. He puts the whole question off in a way that most would think was simply banter, and which he might be glad to have taken for it, and which yet might be but a nervous plea for escape at this time. And the apostle sends after him in his retreat that memorable sigh of prayer, large enough to enfold the whole company among whom he would fain be hidden, "I would to God that with little effort or much, not only thou, but all that have heard me this day might become such as I also am, -except these bonds!"

No more effectual pleading could there be, with Agrippa as with all beside, than just this overflow of a heart so full that it cares to hide nothing! so pledged to and joyous in the truth to which it is pledged, that it need not and cannot refrain from the outpouring of its delight, in the longing that all men might share with him the plenteous blessing which chains could not restrain, though he could not wish these to any! There is no need to come between it and the reader with a comment which might rather lessen than bring home the power of that which interprets itself as the spontaneous testimony to a heart that divine grace has at once enlarged and filled to the overflow. The effect is immediate. The king rises up, as if he would not care to face a longer audience; and the whole company is dispersed. It is not saying too much, certainly, according to the evidence, but if the people are to be considered who pronounce the judgment, it is yet a testimony to the truth, that "they spake one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds." Agrippa adds to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." But who knows? Agrippa might safely say this: he was not governor of a people so well able to make trouble for him, as the men of Judea might prove to be for Festus; and if Caesar’s judgment seat were more what Paul calls it afterwards, "the mouth of the lion," than the abode of justice, all the more would the Roman desire that Paul should test this rather than himself. There cannot be a doubt that the safe and happy prisoner was better prepared to do so than his judge; his case being after all in higher hands. The appeal was for the governor a not unfortunate circumstance. Paul goes on in peace whither God guides.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

24:1-27 Tertullus presented a legal case against Paul in a Roman court on behalf of the high priest (24:1-9). Then Paul cheerfully made his defense and defended his faith (24:10-21), and the governor adjourned the hearing without a decision and left Paul in prison for two years (24:22-27).

24:1-4 Tertullus presented the case for the prosecution, beginning with the customary speech of praise intended to attract the attention and sympathy of the governor, followed by the statement of charges (24:5-8).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 24:1. Πέντε, fire) They make all haste. A Sabbath seems to have intervened.—Ἀνανίας, Ananias) who was hostile to Paul.—ῥήτορος, orator) This is the only passage in the whole of Scripture in which an orator, and the term orator, present themselves.—Τερτύλλου, Tertullus) He seems to have been an Italian.—ἐνεφάνισαν) Intransitive: ch. Act 25:2; Act 25:15, Act 23:15, ἐμφανίσατε: 2Ma 3:1; 2Ma 11:29.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_24:1. Μετὰ δὲ πέντε ἡμέρ.] The point of commencement is not to be reckoned, with Cajetanus, Basnage, Michaelis, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Morus, Hildebrand, as the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem,an opinion which has arisen from an erroneous computation of the twelve days in Act_24:11,nor yet with Calovius, Wetstein, and others, as the arrival of Paul at Caesarea, but as (see on Act_24:11) his departure for Caesarea. We may add that the popular mode of expression does not necessarily denote that the fifth day had already elapsed, but may just as well denote on the fifth day (comp. Mat_27:63, and see on Mat_12:40). That the latter view is to be assumed here, see on Act_24:11.

μετὰ τῶν πρεσβ.] of course, not the whole Sanhedrists, but deputies who represented the council. It is obvious, withal, that the two parties in the Sanhedrim, after the variance temporarily aroused between them (Act_23:6 ff.), had in the interval bethought themselves of the matter, and united against the common enemy, in order to avert his eventual acquittal by the Roman authority.

Tertullus (a common Roman name, see Wetstein) was an orator forensis (see Barth, ad Claudian. p. 76), a public causidicus. Such speakers, who were very numerous in Rome and in the provinces, bore the classical name of the public orators: ῥήτορες (see Photius, p. 488, 12; Thomas Mag., Suidas), in the older Greek συνήγοροι (Dem. 1137. 5, 1349. pen.; Lucian. Tox. 26; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 142, 14),the advocates of the accusers.

ἐνεφ. τῷ ἡγ. κατὰ τοῦ Π.] they laid information before the procurator against Paul. That this took place in writing, by a libel of accusation (Camerarius, Grotius), is not affirmed by the text, which, by κατέβη and the κληθέντος δὲ αὐτοῦ immediately following, does not point to more than oral accusation. Comp. Act_23:15, Act_25:2; Act_25:15. The reciprocal rendering, comparuerunt (Beza, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others, following the Vulgate), is an unnecessary deviation from the usage in the N.T., Act_23:15; Act_23:22, Act_25:2; Act_25:15; Joh_14:21 f.; Heb_11:14, and elsewhere also not capable of being made good. Comp. Borne-mann in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 271; Krebs, p. 252 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 24:1 . πέντε ἡμέρας : most probably to be reckoned from the arrival of St. Paul at Cæsarea, not from his apprehension in Jerusalem, or from his start from Jerusalem on the way to Cæsarea. This latter view is that of Mr. Page, who takes οἱ μὲν οὖν , Act 23:31 , as answered by the δέ in this verse. But δέ , Act 23:32 , seems quite sufficiently to answer to μέν in the previous verse. Wendt reckons the days from the arrival of Paul at Cæsarea, and regards the day of the arrival of the high priest as the fifth day, cf. Mar 8:31 . μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας = Mat 16:21 , Luk 9:22 , τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμ ., see below, Act 24:11 . On the truthfulness of the narrative see also on same verse. κατέβη : “came down,” R.V., i.e. , from the capital. Ἀνανίας , see on Act 23:2 . If we read πρεσ . τινῶν , see critical note, “with certain elders,” R.V., i.e. , a deputation of the Sanhedrim. ῥήτορος Τ . τινὸς : “an orator, one Tertullus,” R.V., ῥη . here = causidicus , a barrister; here the prosecuting counsel συνήγορος (as opposed to σύνδικος the defendant’s advocate), see note, Blass, in loco . Τερτ .: a common name, diminutive of Tertius; but it does not follow from the name that he was a Roman, as both Greeks and Jews often bore Roman names. Blass speaks of him as a Jew “erat Judæus et ipse” (so Ewald, Bethge), whilst Wendt (1899) inclines against this view, although if the words in Act 24:6 , κατὰ τὸν ἡμετερον νόμον , are retained, he admits that it would be correct; in addition to this the expression ἔθνος τοῦτο , Act 24:3 , seems in Wendt’s view to indicate that the speaker was not a Jew (so too Wetstein). Tertullus was apparently one of the class of hired pleaders, often employed in the provinces by those who were themselves ignorant of Roman law. The trial may have been conducted in Greek, Lewin, St. Paul , ii. 684, Felten, in loco . ἐνεφάνισαν , cf. Act 25:2 ; Act 25:15 , the verb appears to be used in these passages as a kind of technical term to indicate laying formal information before a judge, cf. Jos., Ant. , xiv., 10, 8, in LXX, Esther, Est 2:22 . Blass takes it here = χάρτην ἔδωκαν , see also Wetstein.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 24:1-9. ARRIVAL OF THE ACCUSERS. SPEECH OF TERTULLUS, THEIR ADVOCATE

1. πρεσβυτέρων τινῶν for τῶν πρεσβυτέρων with אABE. Vulg. ‘cum senioribus quibusdam.’

1. μετὰ δὲ πέντε ἡμέρας, and after five days. Most naturally this means after St Paul’s arrival in Cæsarea, and the events narrated at the end of chap. 23. But it may mean five days after the departure of the Apostle from Jerusalem. The chief captain would give notice to the high priest of what he had done as soon as it was safe to do so. After learning that they must go to Cæsarea with their accusation, the enemies of St Paul would spend some little time in preparing their charge for the hearing of Felix, and in providing themselves with an advocate. And as they would not probably travel with as much haste as St Paul’s convoy did, five days is not a long interval to elapse before they arrived in Cæsarea.

κατέβη ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Ἀνανίας, Ananias the high priest came down. He would be sure to be hot against St Paul after that speech about the ‘whited wall.’

The verb καταβαίνω is used because the journey was from inland towards the seashore.

μετὰ πρεσβυτέρων τινῶν, with certain elders. It would only be a portion of the elders who came. Those of the Pharisees’ party would rather have spoken in favour of the Apostle. The persons likely to take the journey to Cæsarea would be the Sadducees.

καὶ ῥήτορος Τερτύλλου τινός, and with an orator, one Tertullus. This man, as we may judge from his name, which is a modification of the Latin Tertius, was a Roman, and would be chosen because of his knowledge of Roman law, and his ability to place the case before Felix in such a light as to make it seem that Paul was dangerous to the Roman power, and not merely a turbulent and renegade Jew. We see below that he endeavoured to do this.

οἵτινες ἐνεφάνισαν, and they informed. On the breaking up of the relative in translation see above on Act 23:33. If the relative rendering ‘who’ were kept, it might be supposed to refer only to Tertullus.

ἐμφανίζω St Luke uses in other places (Act 25:2; Act 25:15) of the laying a formal information before a judge. It is also used in LXX. (Est 2:22) of Esther laying the information of the plot of the two chamberlains before king Ahasuerus.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

24:1-26:32.] Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea.

1. μετὰ πέντε ἡμ.] After five days—or on the fifth day—from Paul’s departure for Cæsarea. This would be the natural terminus a quo from which to date the proceedings of the High Priest, &c., who were left in Jerusalem. That it is so, appears from ver. 11. See note there.

πρεσβ. τινῶν] The more ancient mss. reading this, all we can say is that we have not sufficient authority to retain the reading of the rec. τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, though it appears more likely to be original, and to have given offence as seeming to import that the whole Sanhedrim went down. This is one of the cases where, in the present state of our evidence, we are obliged to adopt readings which are not according to subjective canons of criticism.

ῥήτορος] An orator forensis or causidicus, persons who abounded in Rome and the provinces; sometimes called συνήγοροι, or δικολόγοι. Kuin. says: ‘Multi adolescentes Romani qui se foro dederant, cum magistratibus in provincias se conferebant, ut caussis provincialium agendis se exercerent, et majoribus in urbe actionibus præpararent.’ So Cælius (see Cic. pro Cælio, c. 30), in Africa.

Τερτύλλου] A diminutive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius,—Catullus from Catius. The name occurs Plin. Eph 5:15; and Tertulla, Suet. 69 (Wetst.).

ἐνεφάνισαν] (not, ‘appeared,’ ἑαυτούς, sub.;—see reff.) laid information; and, as it seems, not by writing, but by word of mouth, since they appeared in person, and Paul was called to confront them.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hypocrites, when they cannot do what they would do by force and deceit, at length they go about to compass it by a show of Law.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

We must suppose that Lysias, the chief captain, when he had sent away Paul to Caesarea, gave notice to the chief priests, and others that had appeared against Paul, that if they had any thing to accuse him of they must follow him to Caesarea, and there they would find him, and a judge ready to hear them - thinking, perhaps, they would not have given themselves so much trouble; but what will not malice do?

I. We have here the cause followed against Paul, and it is vigorously carried on. 1. Here is no time lost, for they are ready for a hearing after five days; all other business is laid aside immediately, to prosecute Paul; so intent are evil men to do evil! Some reckon these five days from Paul's being first seized, and with most probability, for he says here (Act 24:11) that it was but twelve days since he came up to Jerusalem, and he had spent seven in his purifying the temple, so that these five must be reckoned from the last of those. 2. Those who had been his judges do themselves appear here as his prosecutors. Ananias himself the high priest, who had sat to judge him, now stands to inform against him. One would wonder, (1.) That he should thus disparage himself, and forget the dignity of his place. She the high priest turn informer, and leave all his business in the temple at Jerusalem, to go to be called as a prosecutor in Herod's judgment-hall? Justly did God make the priests contemptible and base, when they made themselves so, Mal 2:9. (2.) That he should thus discover himself and his enmity against Paul!. If men of the first rank have a malice against any, they think it policy to employ others against them, and to play least in sight themselves, because of the odium that commonly attends it; but Ananias is not shamed to own himself a sworn enemy to Paul. The elders attended him, to signify their concurrence with him, and to invigorate the prosecution; for they could not find any attorneys or solicitors that would follow it with so much violence as they desired. The pains that evil men take in an evil matter, their contrivances, their condescensions, and their unwearied industry, should shame us out of our coldness and backwardness, and out indifference in that which is good.

II. We have here the cause pleaded against Paul. The prosecutors brought with them a certain orator named Tertullus, a Roman, skilled in the Roman law and language, and therefore fittest to be employed in a cause before the Roman governor, and most likely to gain favour. The high priest, and elders, though they had their own hearts spiteful enough, did not think their own tongues sharp enough, and therefore retained Tertullus, who probably was noted for a satirical wit, to be of counsel for them; and, no doubt, they gave him a good fee, probably out of the treasury of the temple, which they had the command of, it being a cause wherein the church was concerned and which therefore must not be starved. Paul is set to the bas before Felix the governor: He was called forth, Act 24:2. Tertullus's business is, on the behalf of the prosecutors, to open the information against him, and he is a man that will say any thing for his fee; mercenary tongues will do so. No cause so unjust but can find advocates to plead it; and yet we hope many advocates are so just as not knowingly to patronise an unrighteous cause, but Tertullus was none of these: his speech (or at least an abstract of it, for it appears, by Tully's orations, that the Roman lawyers, on such occasions, used to make long harangues) is here reported, and it is made up of flattery and falsehood; it calls evil good, and good evil.

1. One of the worst of men is here applauded as one of the best of benefactors, only because he was the judge. Felix is represented by the historians of his own nation, as well as by Josephus the Jew, as a very bad man, who, depending upon his interest in the court, allowed himself in all manner of wickedness, was a great oppressor, very cruel, and very covetous, patronising and protecting assassins. - Joseph. Antiq. 20.162-165. And yet Tertullus here, in the name of the high priest and elders, and probably by particular directions from them and according to the instructions of his breviate, compliments him, and extols him to the sky, as if he were so good a magistrate as never was the like: and this comes the worse from the high priest and the elders, because he had given a late instance of his enmity to their order; for Jonathan the high priest, or one of the chief priests, having offended him by too free an invective against the tyranny of his government, he had him murdered by some villains whom he hired for that purpose who afterwards did the like for others, as they were hired: Cujus facinoris quia nemo ultor extitit, invitati hac licentia sicarii multos confodiebant, alios propter privatas inimicitias, alios conducti pecunia, etiam in ipso templo - No one being found to punish such enormous wickedness, the assassins, encouraged by this impunity, stabbed several persons, some from personal malice, some for hire, and that even in the temple itself. An yet, to engage him to gratify their malice against Paul, and to return them that kindness for their kindness in overlooking all this, they magnify him as the greatest blessing to their church and nation that ever came among them.

(1.) They are very ready to own it (Act 24:2): "By thee we, of the church, enjoy great quietness, and we look upon thee as our patron and protector, and very worthy deeds are done, from time to time, to the whole nation of the Jews, by thy providence - thy wisdom, and care, and vigilance." To give him his due, he had been instrumental to suppress the insurrection of that Egyptian of whom the chief captain spoke (Act 21:38); but will the praise of that screen him from the just reproach of his tyranny and oppression afterwards? See here, [1.] The unhappiness of great men, and a great unhappiness it is, to have their services magnified beyond measure, and never to be faithfully told of their faults; and hereby they are hardened and encouraged in evil. [2.] The policy of bad men, by flattering princes in what they do amiss to draw them in to do worse. The bishops of Rome got themselves confirmed in their exorbitant church power, and have been assisted in persecuting the servants of Christ, by flattering and caressing usurpers and tyrants, and so making them the tools of their malice, as the high priest, by his compliments, designed to make Felix here.

(2.) They promise to retain a grateful sense of it (Act 24:3): "We accept it always, and in all places, every where and at all times we embrace it, we admire it, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. We will be ready, upon any occasion, to witness for thee, that thou art a wise and good governor, and very serviceable to the country." And, if it had been true that he was such a governor, it had been just that they should thus accept his good offices with all thankfulness. The benefits which we enjoy by government, especially by the administration of wise and good governors, are what we ought to be thankful for, both to God and man. This is part of the honour due to magistrates, to acknowledge the quietness we enjoy under their protection, and the worthy deeds done by their prudence.

(3.) They therefore expect his favour in this cause, Act 24:4. They pretend a great care not to intrench upon his time: We will not be further tedious to thee; and yet to be very confident of his patience: I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. All this address is only ad captandam benefolentia - To induce him to give countenance to their cause; and they were so conscious to themselves that it would soon appear to have more malice than matter in it that they found it necessary thus to insinuate themselves into his favour. Every body knew that the high priest and the elders were enemies to the Roman government, and were uneasy under all the marks of that yoke, and therefore, in their hearts, hated Felix; and yet, to gain their ends against Paul, they, by their counsel, show him all this respect, as they did to Pilate and Caesar when they were persecuting our Saviour. Princes cannot always judge of the affections of their people by their applauses; flattery is one thing, and true loyalty is another.

2. One of the best of men is here accused as one of the worst of malefactors, only because he was the prisoner. After a flourish of flattery, in which you cannot see matter for words, he comes to his business, and it is to inform his excellency concerning the prisoner at the bar; and this part of his discourse is as nauseous for its raillery as the former part is for its flattery. I pity the man, and believe he has no malice against Paul, nor does he think as he speaks in calumniating him, any more than he did in courting Felix; but, a I cannot but be sorry that a man of wit and sense should have such a saleable tongue (as one calls it), so I cannot but be angry at those dignified men that had such malicious hearts as to put such words into his mouth. Two things Tertullus here complains of to Felix, in the name of the high priest and the elders: -

(1.) That the peace of the nation was disturbed by Paul. They could not have baited Christ's disciples if they had not first dressed them up in the skins of wild beasts, nor have given them as they did the vilest of treatment if they had not first represented them as the vilest of men, though the characters they gave of them were absolutely false and there was not the least colour nor foundation for them. Innocence, may excellence and usefulness, are no fence against calumny, no, nor against the impressions of calumny upon the minds both of magistrates and multitudes to excite their fury and jealousy; for, be the representation ever so unjust, when it is enforced, as here it was, with gravity and pretence of sanctity, and with assurance and noise, something will stick. The old charge against God's prophets was that they were the troublers of the land, and against God's Jerusalem that it was a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces (Ezr 4:15, Ezr 4:19), and against our Lord Jesus that he perverted the nation, and forbade to give tribute to Caesar. It is the very same against Paul here; and, though utterly false, is averred with all the confidence imaginable. They do not say, "We suspect him to be a dangerous man, and have taken him up upon that suspicion;" but, as if the thing were past dispute, "We have found him to be so; we have often and long found him so;" as if he were a traitor and rebel already convicted. And yet, after all, there is not a word of truth in this representation; but, if Paul's just character be enquired into, it will be found directly the reverse of this.

[1.] Paul was a useful man, and a great blessing to his country, a man of exemplary candour and goodness, blessing to all, and provoking to none; and yet he is here called a pestilent fellow (Act 24:5): "We have found him, loimon - pestem - the plague of the nation, a walking pestilence, which supposes him to be a man of a turbulent spirit, malicious and ill-natured, and one that threw all things in disorder wherever he came." They would have it thought that he had dome a more mischief in his time than a plague could do, - that the mischief he did was spreading and infectious, and that he made others as mischievous as himself, - that it was of as fatal consequence as the plague is, killing and destroying, and laying all waste, - that it was as much to be dreaded and guarded against as a plague is. Many a good sermon he had preached, and many a good work he had done, and for these he is called a pestilent fellow.

[2.] Paul was a peace-maker, was a preacher of that gospel which has a direct tendency to slay all enmities, and to establish true and lasting peace; he lived peaceably and quietly himself, and taught others to do so too, and yet is here represented as a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout all the world. The Jews were disaffected to the Roman government; those of them that were most bigoted were the most so. This Felix knew, and had therefore a watchful eye upon them. Now they would fain make him believe that this Paul was the man that made them so, whereas they themselves were the men that sowed the seeds of faction and sedition among them: and they knew it; and the reason why they hated Christ and his religion was because he did not go about to head them in a opposition to the Romans. The Jews were every where much set against Paul, and stirred up the people to clamour against him; they moved sedition in all places where he came, and then cast the blame unjustly upon him as if he had been the mover of the sedition; as Nero not long after set Rome on fire, and then said the Christians did it.

[3.] Paul was a man of catholic charity, who did not affect to be singular, but made himself the servant of all for their good; and yet he is here charged as being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, a standard-bearer of that sect, so the word signifies. When Cyprian was condemned to die for being a Christian, this was inserted in hi sentence, that he was auctor iniqui nominis et signifer - The author and standard-bearer of a wicked cause. Now it was true that Paul was an active leading man in propagating Christianity. But, First, It was utterly false that this was a sect; he did not draw people to a party or private opinion, nor did he make his own opinions their rule. True Christianity establishes that which is of common concern to all mankind, publishes good-will to men, and shows us God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and therefore cannot be thought to take its rise from such narrow opinions and private interests as sects owe their origin to. True Christianity has a direct tendency to the uniting of the children of men, and the gathering of them together in one; and, as far as it obtains its just power and influence upon the minds of men, will make them meek and quiet, and peaceable and loving, and every way easy, acceptable, and profitable one to another, and therefore is far from being a sect, which is supposed to lead to division and to sow discord. True Christianity aims at no worldly benefit or advantage, and therefore must by no means be called a sect. Those that espouse a sect are governed in it by their secular interest, they aim at wealth and honour; but the professors of Christianity are so far from this that they expose themselves thereby to the loss and ruin of all that is dear to them in this world. Secondly, It is invidiously called the sect of the Nazarenes, by which Christ was represented as of Nazareth, whence no good thing was expected to arise; whereas he was of Bethlehem, where the Messiah was to be born. Yet he was pleased to call himself, Jesus of Nazareth, ch. 22:8. And the scripture has put an honour on the name, Mat 2:23. And therefore, though intended for a reproach, the Christians had not reason to be ashamed of sharing with their Master in it. Thirdly, It was false that Paul was the author of standard-bearer of this sect; for he did not draw people to himself, but to Christ - did not preach himself, but Christ Jesus.

[4.] Paul had a veneration for the temple, as it was the place which God had chosen to put his name there, and had lately himself with reverence attended the temple-service; and yet it is here charged upon him that he went about to profane the temple, and that he designedly put contempt upon it, and violated the laws of it, Act 24:6. Their proof of this failed; for that they alleged as matter of act was utterly false, and they knew it, Act 21:29.

(2.) That the course of justice against Paul was obstructed by the chief captain. [1.] They pleaded that they took him, and would have judged him according to their law. This was false; they did not go about to judge him according to their law, but, contrary to all law and equity, went about to beat him to death or to pull him to pieces, without hearing what he had to say for himself - went about, under pretence of having him into their court, to throw him into the hands of ruffians that lay in wait to destroy him. Was this judging him according to their law? It is easy for men, when they know what they should have done, to say, this they would have done, when they meant nothing less. [2.] They reflected upon the chief captain as having done them an injury in rescuing Paul out of their hands; whereas he therein not only did him justice, but them the greatest kindness that could be, in preventing the guilt they were bringing upon themselves: The chief captain Lysias came upon us and with great violence (but really no more than was necessary) took him out of our hands, Act 24:7. See how persecutors are enraged at their disappointments, which they ought to e thankful for. When David in a heat of passion was going upon a bloody enterprise, he thanked Abigail for stopping him, and God for sending her to do it, so soon did he correct and recover himself. But these cruel men justify themselves, and reckon him their enemy who kept them (as David there speaks) from shedding blood with their own hands. [3.] They referred the matter to Felix and his judgment, yet seeming uneasy that they were under a necessity of doing so, the chief captain having obliged them to it (Act 24:8): "It was he that forced us to give your excellency this trouble, and ourselves too; for," First, "He commanded his accusers to come to thee, that though mightest hear the charge, when it might as well have been ended in the inferior court." Secondly, "He has left it to thee to examine him, and try what thou canst get out of him, and whether thou canst by his confession come to the knowledge of those things which we lay to his charge."

III. The assent of the Jews to this charge which Tertullus exhibited (Act 24:9): They confirmed it, saying that those things were so. 1. Some think this expresses the proof of their charge by witnesses upon oath, that were examined as to the particulars of it, and attested them. And no wonder if, when they had found an orator that would say it, they found witnesses that would swear it, for money. 2. It rather seems to intimate the approbation which the high priest and the elders gave to what Tertullus said. Felix asked them, "Is this your sense, and is it all that you have to say?" And they answered, "Yes it is;" and so they made themselves guilty of all the falsehood that was in his speech. Those that have not the wit and parts to do mischief with that some others have, that cannot make speeches and hold disputes against religion, yet make themselves guilty of the mischiefs others do, by assenting to that which others do, and saying, These things are so, repeating and standing by what is said, to pervert the right ways of the Lord. Many that have not learning enough to plead for Baal yet have wickedness enough to vote for Baal.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XXIV.

After five days, Ananias the high priest, the elders, and one

Tertullus, an orator, come to Caesarea to accuse Paul, 1.

The oration of Tertullus, 2-9.

Paul's defence, 10-21.

Felix, having heard his defence, proposes to leave the final

determination of it till Claudius Lysias should come down;

and, in the mean time, orders Paul to be treated with humanity

and respect, 22, 23.

Felix, and Drusilla his wife, hear Paul concerning the faith of

Christ; and Felix it greatly affected, 24, 25.

On the expectation of obtaining money for his liberation, Felix

keeps Paul in prison, 26,

and being superseded in the government of Judea by Porcius

Festus, in order to please the Jews, he leaves Paul bound, 27.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV.

Verse 1. After five days] These days are to be reckoned from the time in which Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem, and twelve days after he had arrived in that city; see Ac 24:11. Calmet reckons the days thus:-St. Luke says that Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem when the seven days of his vow were nearly ended, Ac 21:27; that is, at the end of the fifth day after his arrival. The next day, which was the sixth, he was presented before the Sanhedrin. The night following, he was taken to Antipatris. The next day, the seventh, he arrived at Caesarea. Five days afterwards, that is, the twelfth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, the high priest and the elders, with Tertullus, came down to accuse him before Felix.-But See Clarke on Ac 23:32.

A certain orator named Tertullus] This was probably a Roman proselyte to Judaism; yet he speaks every where as a Jew. Roman orators, advocates; c., were found in different provinces of the Roman empire and they, in general, spoke both the Greek and Latin languages; and, being well acquainted with the Roman laws and customs, were no doubt very useful. Luitprandus supposed that this Tertullus was the same with him who was colleague with Pliny the younger, in the consulate, in the year of Rome, 852; who is mentioned by Pliny, Epist. v. 15. Of this there is no satisfactory proof.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Seeing Ananias goeth down to Cesarea to accuse Paul, it maketh the conjecture more probable, which I brought before touching his priesthood. For it was not meet for the highest priest to take such a journey. Therefore some other man was highest priest at that time; and Ananias being one of the chief priests, forasmuch as he was in great authority, and was withal a stout man, did take this embassage upon him. He bringeth with him a train, and that of the worshipful company of elders, that the governor might be moved with their very pomp to condemn Paul. But forasmuch as Paul did use no eloquence, they had no need to hire a rhetorician to contend with him in eloquence. Moreover, they did exceed both in dignity and also in multitude, so that it was an easy matter for them to oppress a poor man, and such a one as was destitute of man’s help. Therefore it was a sign of an evil conscience, in that seeing they were men of great experience, exercised in public affairs, and skillful in matters pertaining to courts, they hire a rhetorician. Eloquence is, I confess, the gift of God; but in this matter they went about nothing else but to deceive the judge therewith. And Luke declareth this, therefore, that we may know that the Jews did omit nothing whereby they might oppress Paul; and that they might not only prove him guilty, but so dash him out of countenance, that he might not be able to defend himself; and so let us consider that it came to pass by the wonderful providence of God, that Paul did so stoutly endure such sore assaults. Wherefore, if it so fall out at any time that a godly man being alone be beset with a great number of enemies, let him call to mind this history, and let him be of good courage. As David doth likewise exhort us by his own example,

“If tents were pitched about me, I will not fear, because thou art with me,” (Psalm 27:3).

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

XXIV.

(1) After five days.—The interval may have just allowed time for messengers to go from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, and for the priests to make their arrangements and engage their advocate. Possibly, however, the five days may start from St. Paul’s departure from Jerusalem and this agrees, on the whole, better with the reckoning of the twelve days from the Apostle’s arrival there, in Act_24:11.

Descended.—Better, came down, in accordance with the usage of modern English.

A certain orator named Tertullus.—Men of this class were to be found in most of the provincial towns of the Roman empire, ready to hold a brief for plaintiff or defendant, and bringing to bear the power of their glib eloquence, as well as their knowledge of Roman laws, on the mind of the judge. There is not the slightest ground for supposing, as some have done, that the proceedings were conducted in Latin, and that while the chief priests were obliged to employ an advocate to speak in that language, St. Paul, who had never learnt it, was able to speak at once by a special inspiration. Proceedings before a procurator of Judæa and the provincials under him were almost of necessity, as in the case of our Lord and Pilate, in Greek. Had St. Paul spoken in Latin, St. Luke, who records when he spoke in Hebrew (Act_21:40), and when in Greek (Act_21:37), was not likely to have passed the fact over; nor is there any evidence, even on that improbable assumption, that St. Paul himself, who was, we know, a Roman citizen, had no previous knowledge of the language. The strained hypothesis breaks down at every point. The name of the orator may be noted as standing half-way between Tertius and Tertullianus.

Who informed the governor against Paul.—The word is a technical one, and implies something of the nature of a formal indictment.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

Ver. 1. With a certain orator] One of those sordida poscinummia (as Plautus phraseth it), those leguleiorum faeces decem drachmariae, as another styleth these mercenary orators, qui linguas habent venales. It is reported of Nevessan (a better lawyer than an honest man) that he should say, he that will not venture his body shall never be valiant: he that will not venture his soul, never rich.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And after five days - This time was occupied, doubtless, in their receiving the command to go to Caesarea, and in making the necessary arrangements. This was the twelfth day after Paul’s arrival at Jerusalem. See Act 24:11.

Ananias, the high priest - See the notes on Act 23:2.

Descended - Came down from Jerusalem. This was the usual language when a departure from Jerusalem was spoken of. See the notes on Act 15:1.

With a certain orator named Tertullus - Appointed to accuse Paul. This is a Roman name, and this man was doubtless a Roman. As the Jews were, to a great extent, ignorant of the Roman laws, and of their mode of administering justice, it is not improbable that they were in the habit of employing Roman lawyers to plead their causes.

Who informed the governor against Paul - Who acted as the accuser, or who managed their cause before the governor.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ananias went down to Cæsarea, where Paul was then confined. This is the sense of the Greek.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

After five days, from the time that Paul was come to Caesarea: the malice and fury of the persecutors was very great, they stick not at any travail and pains to do mischief; and surely we ought to be as earnest in doing good, or their zeal will condemn us.

A certain orator; a lawyer to form the indictment against Paul, or to aggravate his fault, and to desire judgment upon him. Such advocates usually were the chiefest orators, as Demosthenes in Greece, and Cicero at Rome; and Tertullus seems to have been a crafts master, whom the Jews hired to draw up an accusation against Paul.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

St. Paul before felix

1-27. St Paul and Felix.

1. Tertullus] in spite of his Roman name may have been a Greek or even a Jew (cp.'our Law,' AV Act_24:6).

2. Great quietness] Felix really deserved some credit for his vigorous action against the brigands and zealots, when he first entered office, and for his suppression of the Egyptian false prophet. And would have judged.. his accusers to come unto thee] These words, though absent from many ancient authorities, seem from internal evidence to be genuine and authentic. They probably belong to the D text, but D is here deficient.

8. Of whom] i.e. of Paul, if the above words are omitted; but of Lysias, if they are retained.

9. Assented] RV 'joined in the charge.'

10-22. St Paul's Defence. St. Paul answered the charges as follows. (1) He had no seditious intentions, for he was found purified in the Temple 'neither with multitude, nor with tumult' (Act_24:18). (2) The sect of the Nazarenes, to which he belonged, was a perfectly orthodox and lawful combination of Jewish believers, accepting 'all things which are written in the law and the prophets,' accepting also the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection and the judgment, which some of his accusers (being Sadducees) denied (Act_24:14). (3) No evidence was produced of an intended pollution of the Temple (Act_24:19).

14. Heresy] RV 'a sect.' Tertullus had applied the word to the Christians in a bad sense.

15. Allow] rather, 'look for.'

16. Herein] i.e. reiving on this hope. But others understand it to mean 'during this earthly life.' 1] RV 'I also,'i.e. 'las well as they.'

17. Many years] or, 'some years.'

18. Whereupon] RV 'Amidst which.'

21. By you] RV 'before you.'

22. That (the) way] i.e. Christianity.

I will know the uttermost of] rather, 'I will determine.'

23. Liberty] rather, 'indulgence.'

24. Drusilla] The youngest of the three daughters of Agrippa I (the Herod of Act_12:1). She deserted her husband, Azizus, king of Emesa, to marry Felix.

25. Felix trembled] Instead of simply stating what the Christian faith was, St. Paul, after the manner of the Baptist and the ancient prophets, boldly called his august hearers to repentance. He reasoned of righteousness (condemning Felix's receipt of bribes and evil government: cp. Act_24:26); of temperance, or, rather,' continence' (with special reference to the adulterous union of Drusilla and Felix), and of the future judgment, which will be without respect of persons. The result was that Felix trembled, but delayed his repentance; and that Drusilla was made an irreconcilable enemy.

27. Porcius Festus] succeeded Felix as procurator of Judasa about 58 a.d. He died after a short tenure of office, having governed, upon the whole, well. He is credited with having (for a time) suppressed the Sicarii or Assassins.

And Felix.. Paul bound] For these words the Bezan text substitutes, 'but Felix left Paul in prison for the sake of Drusilla' (a very probable statement).

Remark. St. Paul spent two whole years in prison at Cæsarea. How was the time occupied? Some critics suppose that he wrote the third group of his Epistles (Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon). Much can be said for this view. E.g. in Php_1:13 he says, 'my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the prætorium (or palace),' and we know from Act_23:35 that he was confined in the prætorium (palace) of Herod. But upon the whole it seems more probable that all four were written at Rome (e.g. 'they of Cæsar's household,' Php_4:22, naturally, though not necessarily, suggests Rome). St. Luke was doubtless busy collecting materials for his Gospel and Acts, transcribing his own notes, etc. He probably obtained much information from Philip the Evangelist who resided at Cæsarea; from James the Lord's 'brother,' and from Mary the Virgin, or from some intimate female friend of hers.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The high priest Ananias came down for Ananias the high priest descended, A.V.; certain elders for the elders, A.V. and T.R.; an orator, one Tertullus for a certain orator named Tertullus, A.V.; and they for who, A.V. After five days. Of which the first was the day on which St. Paul left Jerusalem, and the fifth that on which Ananias and his companions appeared before Felix (see ver. 11, note). Tertullus . A Latin name, formed from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius, Catullus from Catius, etc. Informed; ejmfanizw, in the sense of "laying an information" before a magistrate, only occurs elsewhere in Act_25:2, Act_25:15. (see above, Act_23:15, note)

Vers. 1-27. Not this man, but Barabbas.

There are many gradations of the truth stated in 1Sa_21:7, "The Lord sooth not as man seeth," and the corresponding truth, "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." But both passages mark distinctly how often the judgment of man diverges from the judgment of God, or in other words, how far men often are from judging righteous judgment" concerning persons and things which come under their notice. This false or erroneous judgment proceeds from two causes. The first is the comparative ignorance of man. He forms his judgment oftentimes on insufficient grounds. His mental vision only takes in a portion, sometimes a very small portion, of the materials upon which a sound judgment should be based. In the instances to which 1Sa_16:7 refers, Samuel, judging by the fair looks and commanding stature ofEliab, thought he must be fit to be the ruler of Israel. His eye could not discern the heart, the hidden character of the man. And so it continually happens. We base our judgments on insufficient premises, being ignorant of those things which, if known, would influence them m an opposite direction. The practical lesson to be drawn from this view of the erroneous judgments of men is threefold.

1. To be diligent in adding to our knowledge whenever we are called upon to form a judgment.

2. To be always diffident and modest in regard to our own conclusions.

3. Whenever our judgments do not agree with those of Holy Scripture, to be sure that the disagreement arises from our own ignorance, and to submit ourselves accordingly. But the second cause of men"s erroneous judgments is not mere ignorance, but injustice and unfairness of mind. Men misjudge others because they are influenced by hatred, prejudice, self-interest, and other corrupt motives. They are like the unjust judges spoken of by Isaiah (v. 23), "who justify the wicked for reward, and take away therighteousness of the righteous from him." A large part of the favorable and unfavorable judgments of the world are of this character. We have a typical example of this in the chapter before us. Here are two men standing on the stage of observation. One is Felix. We know him as a cruel, licentious, unrighteous man, steeped in blood, rich by oppression, profligate in conduct. We know him as one the meanness of whose servile origin broke through the crust of the splendor of his official greatness. We know him as a man raised to power by the most corrupt and shameful influences which have ever prevailed in national affairs, and abusing that power to the utmost under the screen of an infamous security. By his side stands another man, certainly one of the greatest figures among the great men of the world, and one of the very best among the very good of the children of men. It is the Apostle Paul. For his mighty victories in the world of mind and spirit he might have borne surnames from provinces of the Fast and of the West, more glorious than those of the Africani and Germanici of the Roman commonwealth. For energy of action, for dauntless courage, for inexhaustible resource, for masterful vigor of character, for lofty eloquence, for influence over the minds of other men, he stands abreast with the greatest of the earth"s heroes. For absolute disinterestedness, for unsullied purity, for overflowing benevolence, for ardent and glowing kindness, for self-sacrifice, for self-restraint, for uprightness, for truth, for generosity, for laborious well-doing, for consistency of life, for perseverance through every hindrance and contradiction in a sublime and noble purpose, for tenderness and faithfulness to friends, and for ungrudging service to his Divine Master, where shall we find his equal? What, then, was the judgment passed on these men respectively this Felix and this Paul? Felix is thanked and belauded for his "very worthy deeds;" Paul is "a pestilent fellow;" "Away with him from the earth: it is not fit that he should live!" And so we are reminded of another judgment, the unanimous judgment of a great multitude: "Not this man, but Barabbas!" and we are rut upon our guard against the judgments of men.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON.

Vers. 1-28, 26, 27. Malice, innocence, and power.

We have illustrated here

I THE WEAPONS OF MALICE.

1. Persistent hatred. It was a long journey to Caesarea, and it was a most humiliating thing, to which they were utterly averse, for the high priest and the elders to appear before the Roman judge to get their countrymen into their own power; nevertheless the undying hatred, the animosity which did not diminish by time carried them through their distasteful work.

2. Disgusting flattery (vers. 2, 3).

3. Gross misrepresentation (ver. 5). Paul had caused no little dissension and conflict among his fellow-countrymen, but it was simple perversion of the truth to call him a "pestilent fellow," etc.

4. Offensive characterization (ver. 5). Paul was "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes;" but malice put his position into the most offensive form it could command.

5. Downright falsehood (ver. 6). He had not gone about to profane the temple." These various falsities came from the lips of Tertullus, but they were owned and adopted by the Jews (ver. 9). To such baseness malice will stoop to compass its ends; to such iniquity professed piety will condescend when inflamed by the unholy heats of bigotry.

II THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENCE.

1. Courtesy (ver. 10). We may not flatter, but we must be courteous and conciliatory (1Pe_3:8; 1Sa_25:23-33)

2. Straightforward statement (vers. 11, 14-17). There is no better way by which to prove our integrity than telling the whole truth from beginning to end, with perfect frankness.

3. Fearless denial (vers. 12, 13, 18). We should solemnly deny, in calm and dignified language, that which is falsely alleged against us; in quietness and composure rather than in vehemence and loud protestation, is our strength.

4. Righteous challenge (vers. 19, 20). We may do well to face our accusers with bold and righteous challenge. (Joh_8:46)

III THE PITIFULNESS OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IN POWER. Felix

(1) gave an unrighteous decision, for the case had broken down, and Paul should have been released,

(2) hankered after a bribe (ver. 26); was willing to sell justice for money;

(3) left his position with an act of selfish injustice (ver. 27). He presents a pitiful picture both as a public administrator and as a private individual. How little to be envied are those who climb to high stations! How contemptible is power when it is perverted to mean and selfish ends! How admirable, how enviable in comparison, is innocence in insignificance or even in bonds! C.

Vers. 1-23. HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON

Paul before Felix.

I TERTULLUS AND PAUL: A CONTRAST. Between false and spurious eloquence. False rhetoric, as Plato taught, always owes its power to its flattering the passions of the audience. So here the orator addresses himself directly to the magistrate"s self-love. It is pretty clear that Felix, instead of being the beneficent ruler he is described as being, must have been well hated by the people for his vices and oppression. Later they accused him to the emperor. Flattery is a great solvent. The great gain the little, and not less the little gain the great to their ends by it. "Great lords, by reason of their flatterers, are the first to know their own virtues, and the last to know their own vices" (Selden). "Know that flatterers are the worst kind of traitors" (Sir W. Raleigh). On the other hand, true eloquence speaks to the heart and conscience (ver. 10). Paul indulges Felix in no flattering complimentary titles. He respects the office and the existing order which it represents, true to his teaching in Romans 13.; but not the bad man in the office. He speaks with freedom and boldness. He avows himself the member of a despised sect. He is a Nazarene. But Christianity is no newly invented heresy, nor does the gospel depart from the faith of the fathers. Rather Christ"s gospel their spiritual sum and substance, the end and goal of the old covenant. All that is true in any of our sects is continuous with the old; what is quite novel is probably not true. The simple words of Paul contain a fine defense of persecuted opinions.

1. They are not of yesterday.

2. The future belongs to them.

3. Meanwhile, the great thing we exercise is a good conscience. If they are really conscientious, force cannot put them down.

II THE CHRISTIAN"S BEST DEFENSE.

1. "To have a conscience void of offence." Religion which does not aim at this and end in this, is vain; otherwise a mere matter of the head, or of hereditary habit, an occasion of contention and source of division, chaff without wheat, and a shadow without life. A life that will bear the inspection of men and of God, the only certificate of true religion; or rather, the endeavor for such a life. The "exercise of one"s self" in worthy habits, to noble ends.

2. Hope is ever connected with the good conscience. The hope of the resurrection not a doctrine the splendor of which first appears in the New Testament pages; it appears in bright glimpses in the Old from the time of the Babylonian Captivity onward. In some form it lives and burns at the heart of all genuine faith and religion. With a joyous confession on the lips, a clear conscience in the bosom, an innocent life-record behind one, the just judgment of God before one"s expectation, here are the defenses of the Christian against the arrows of calumny. J.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Vers. 1-9. The governor"s court.

Time given to Paul for special preparation, possibly for communication with fellow-believers in Caesarea. The relation of the parties to one another. The Roman ruler; his character one of the blackest: "In the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty, he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave" (Tacitus). The calm, heroic, lofty-minded apostle; rejoicing that an opportunity would be given him of proclaiming the gospel in such a place, and upheld by the Divine assurance that he was safe. The representatives of the Sanhedrim; Ananias, the elders, and the paid orator Tertullus, evidently feeling the weakness of their cause, half ashamed of their position in attacking a defenseless man, ready for hypocritical plotting, and yet knowing that no dependence could be placed on Felix.

I A SAD PICTURE OF THE WORLD as it was at that time. The corruption of judges, the despotism of rulers, the furious hatreds and evil passions at work, the blindness of fanaticism, the decay of religious life in the nation which had received most religious teaching and privileges.

II AN EXAMPLE OF CALUMNY AND MISREPRESENTATION. The charges made were of political rebellion, of heresy, of sacrilege, of disorder. The first was insincere; for the priests among the Jews cared nothing about preserving Roman rule. The others were instigated by fear of Paul"s teaching, partly due to ignorance, but mainly to bigotry and jealousy. They knew that if the gospel was accepted, their own priestly power was gone. Truth is always stronger than falsehood. R.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ananias - Who would spare no trouble on the occasion, with several of the elders, members of the sanhedrim.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Paul’s Trial before Felix.

The delegation of Jews from Jerusalem:

v. 1. And after five days Ananias, the high priest, descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.

v. 2. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,

v. 3. we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

v. 4. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.

Paul was now once more in Caesarea, in the very city where the prophet Agabus had predicted his capture by the Gentiles, chap. 21:11. A few short weeks ago he had here enjoyed the hospitality of Philip and the friendly society of the disciples of the city, and now he was a prisoner in the hands of the Romans and for the present kept in close confinement in the palace of Herod. But after five days, counting from the day after Paul had left Jerusalem, when the Jews received formal notice from Lysias, the high priest Ananias with several of the elders and a certain orator, Tertullus, made the journey from Jerusalem down to Caesarea. So the Jewish leaders had lost no time in selecting a representative delegation from the Sanhedrin, with Ananias himself as the head; and they had engaged the services of a Roman attorney, Tertullus, as they now had to appear in a regular Roman court and therefore must have a lawyer familiar with the procedure of such a court. This delegation, through its attorney, formally laid information against Paul before the procurator, stating their charges in the manner demanded by the Roman legal practice. When Paul was then summoned to appear before these accusers, Tertullus, with great oratorical exertion, began his speech of accusation against the prisoner. It is significant that the attorney tries to bolster up the weakness of the cause he represents by a great mass of words. The introduction of his speech was intended exclusively to flatter the governor and to engage his good will in behalf of the Jews. The speaker, in gushing terms, praised the uniform, complete peace which had come upon them, which they were enjoying through him, and the improvements, reforms, or very worthy deeds which had become the property of the people through his foresight, who had planned all these benefits for the nation in advance. And all this, as Tertullus emphasizes with great show of servility, the Jews accepted at all times and in all places, with all proper gratefulness. The full name of the most honorable Felix, as Tertullus calls the governor, the procurator of Judea, was Antonius Felix. He was a freedman of the emperor Claudius and a brother of Pallas, who was a favorite of Nero. He entered upon his duties in A. D. 53, after the deposition of Cumanus, but, as the historian Tacitus says, he exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave, a fact which later caused his recall. The first statement of Tertullus, that Felix had restored and maintained peace in the province, was true, in a measure, since he had suppressed some bands of robbers that had infested the country; but it was offset by the fact that he employed assassins to murder the high priest Jonathan, and that he was subject to violent and selfish passions. The attorney’s next reference to measures of reform must be discounted by the fact that the historians picture his arbitrariness, which finally made unrest and rebellion permanent. And the assertion that the Jewish nation was everywhere and always grateful to Felix for his services was afterwards shown to be untrue by the fact that the Jews themselves were his accusers in Rome. We can therefore, at best, regard the title as merely an empty form. When politeness and tact degenerate into base flattery and mock servility, truth and honesty are inevitably driven away. This impression is heightened by the next words. For Tertullus now acts as though he had not really begun to mention all the praiseworthy deeds of Felix, that, if time but permitted, he would gladly continue in the same strain indefinitely. But he intimates that the governor is so busy with all his plans for further reforms that he must not hinder and weary him by a tedious recital of all his excellencies. He will therefore consider that enough has been said, and merely beg that the governor would kindly listen to them, and, if possible, grant their desire according to his clemency. He promises to be brief. In order not to strain the courteous attention of Felix. An example of fawning, sickening hypocrisy.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 24:24-27

The Character of Felix.

Felix was not a man altogether ignorant of the religion which Paul preached; he is, on the other hand, spoken of as one who had a more perfect knowledge of that way—that is, of the religion of Christ. Felix’ heart was not wholly hardened; his conscience not wholly seared; he was a man who had sinned grievously, who sinned against light and knowledge, and therefore was, so to speak, on the high road to utter hardness and blindness of heart; but he had not arrived at that condition yet—if he had he would not have trembled when Paul spoke of judgment to come. And we must also remark, that although Felix was not ignorant of the claims of the gospel, and was not utterly beyond hope as being spiritually dead, still he was able to make the warnings of St. Paul utterly useless. Felix trembled, but he did nothing more; his mind was disturbed as by the sudden gust of a storm, but there was no abiding impression, no deep, lasting effect; and so the storm passed over, and he rested in his sins unchanged. We gather these lessons from his story:—

I. Is it not a besetting sin of us all to be afraid or to be too idle to look into our consciences to examine our acts, our thoughts, our words, and see whether in each day they have been such as God will approve? Is it not, in fact, the very tendency of fallen man ever to follow the example of his first parents and hide himself from the searching eye of God?

II. Again, are there not many who listen weekly to sermons, and in them hear Christ’s ministers, as Felix heard St. Paul, "concerning the faith of Christ," who yet are none the better for what they hear?

III. Again, is there nothing Felix-like in the manner in which people very often treat this warning of God, which more clearly than any human words speaks of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come?

IV. May we not see in Felix generally a type of want of seriousness in religion? His was a character wanting in deep solemn feeling, wanting in judgment as to the value of things, unable to see for more than a transient moment the awfulness of these thoughts, which made him tremble when they were uttered by St. Paul. Felix must for ever be a type a many within the Christian Church.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 182.

Reference: Act 24:24-27.—J. Fraser, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 385.

Act 24:25

I. Felix made two great mistakes. He did not know what constituted a convenient season, and he presumed he might repent and turn to God whenever he pleased. We are all apt to give too much weight—whether in help or hindrance—to external circumstances. It is a testimony to true religion, that almost every one will say that he hopes and means some day or other to be, if not very religious, yet certainly more religious than he is now. But then, all fancy that by-and-bye they will be in a position which will be more favourable to make a beginning. They will be holier, or their anxieties will be fewer, or their temptations will be less, or their religious advantages will be greater, or their associations in life will be more fitting, so their state of mind will be better prepared. They picture a certain future which wears a sober and almost a religious aspect, and then they call that a convenient season.

II. It is the felt willingness of God to receive us, it is the still small voice consciously heard within, it is the drawings of the secret constraining power which is the operation of the Spirit of God upon the conscience and the affections,—these make the convenient season. Where these are everything is sure to be convenient—God will make it convenient, how unlikely soever it be. Where these are not, there will be an inconvenience—an utter impossibility. All religious procrastination is an insult to the Holy Ghost. The only time to keep a resolution is the moment that it visits you; and he who does not turn to God when he is drawn, increases each time, tremendously, the risk that he will never turn at all.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 166.

Now—not By-and-bye.

I. Men lull awakened consciences to sleep, and excuse delay in deciding for Christ by half-honest promises to attend to religion at some future time.

II. Note reasons for this attitude. (1) There is the instinctive natural wish to get rid of a disagreeable subject; (2) many think it will be time enough to think about serious things and be religious when they get older; (3) many let the impressions made on their hearts and consciences be crowded out by cares and enjoyments and pleasures and duties of this world; (4) some do not like to give up something which is inconsistent with God’s love and service.

III. Delay is really decision the wrong way. It robs us of large blessings. It is gambling with a very uncertain thing—our life and its future opportunities.

A. Maclaren, A Year’s Ministry, 1st series, p. 165.

References: Act 24:25.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 171; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. ii., p. 80; Talmage, Old Wells dug Out, p. 94. Act 24:27.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 249. Act 25:8.—Ibid., vol. x., p. 57. Act 25:9.—Ibid., vol. ii., p. 249.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, How Ananias the high-priest, with the elders or heads of the Jewish council at Jerusalem, travel from thence to Cesarea, a great many miles, to inform the governor against St. Paul; After five days Ananias descended, &c.

The devil’s drudges stick at no pains, spare for no cost, in doing his drudgery. A persecuting spirit claps wings to a person, it makes him swift in his motion, and zealous in his application and endeavours.

Observe, 2. How the high-priest carrieth with him one of their most eminent and eloquent advocates, to implead the innocent apostle.

Satan never miscarries in any of his enterprises and wicked designs for want of fit tools to carry them on. He hath his Tertullus, an eloquent orator, ready, who could tune his tongue any way for a large fee. Ananias descended, with a certain orator named Tertullus, &c.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

XXIV: 1. When the Jews were commanded by Lysias to present their accusation before Felix, though disappointed in their first plot, they still hoped to accomplish his destruction, and made no delay in following up the prosecution. (1) “ Now, after five days, Ananias the high priest, with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus, came down, and informed the governor against Paul.” It is most natural to count these five days from the time that Paul left Jerusalem, as that was the date at which the Jews were informed by Lysias of the transfer of the case.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Acts Chapter 24

Paul appears before the governors in succession-the Sanhedrim, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and afterwards Caesar. And here, when occasion offers, we have striking appeals to conscience; when his defence is in question, the manly and honest declarations of a good conscience, that rose above the passions and interests that surrounded him. I pass over in silence the worldly egotism which betrays itself in Lysias and Festus, by their assumption of all sorts of good qualities and good conduct; the mixture of awakened conscience and absence of principle in the governors; the desire to please the Jews for their own importance, or to facilitate their government of a rebellious people; and the contempt felt by those who were not as responsible as Lysias for the public tranquillity. The position of Agrippa and all the details of the history have a remarkable stamp of truth, and present the various characters in so living a style that we seem to be in the scenes described. We see the persons moving in it. This moreover strikingly characterises the writings of Luke.

Other circumstances claim our attention. Festus, in order to please the Jews, proposed to take Paul to Jerusalem. But Rome was to have its share in the rejection of the gospel of grace, of the testimony to the assembly; and Paul appeals to Caesar. Festus must therefore send him thither, although embarrassed to know what crime he is to charge him with in sending him. Sad picture of man’s injustice! But everything accomplishes the purposes of God. In the use of the means Paul succeed no better than in his attempt to satisfy the Jews. It was perhaps to the eye of man his only resource under the circumstances; but the Holy Ghost is careful to inform us that he might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar.

In Agrippa there was, I believe, more curiosity than conscience, though there may have been some desire to profit by the occasion to know what the doctrine was which had so stirred up people’s minds, a disposition to inquire which was more than curiosity. In general his words are taken as if he was not far from being convinced that Christianity was true: perhaps he would have been so if his passions had not stood in the way. But it may be questioned whether this is the force of the Greek, as generally supposed, and not, rather, ‘In a little you are going to make a Christian of me,’ covering his uneasiness at the appeal to his professed Judaism before Festus, by an affected and slighting remark. And such I believe to be the case. The notion of an “almost Christian” is quite a mistake, though a man’s mind may be under influences which ought to lead him to it, and yet reject it. He would have been glad for Paul to be set free. He expressed his conviction that it might have been done if he had not appealed to Caesar. He gives his opinion to Festus as a wise and reasonable man; but his words were in reality dictated by his conscience-words that he could venture to utter when Festus and all the rest were agreed that Paul had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–9. After five days. Five days after Paul departed from Jerusalem. The Roman usage was to investigate a case promptly. The deep animosity of the Jews is shown by the fact that the high priest himself came down to prosecute, attended by a delegation from the Sanhedrim (elders). A certain orator named Tertullus. A lawyer acquainted with the forms of Roman courts. Some have supposed that he was not a Jew, from his name, but it is probable that he was a Jew who had been educated in Roman law, perhaps at Rome. The name signifies nothing. That of Paul (Paulus) was itself Roman. The first three verses of the address of Tertullus are compliments to Felix, intended to secure a favorable hearing. In fifth verse the charges begin, the first one of which is false.

A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This was the offence of Paul. All their hatred was due to the fact that he was the great Christian leader. The reason why this urged was to show that Paul preached a religion not authorized by Roman law. See notes on 18:13. Nazarenes was for hundreds of years the term was applied to Christians by the Jews. This is the only instance, however, in the New Testament where it so applied. The Mohammedans still use it.

Hath gone about to profane the temple. This false charge is repeated, because this was the cry when Paul was seized (21:28). Note that there are three charges: (1) That Paul was the author of sedition; (2) preached an unlawful religion; (3) profaned the temple. The penalty of the last by Jewish law was death, and the Romans usually permitted it to be enforced. Whom we took, and would have judged. This part of the sixth verse, all of the seventh, and the first clause of the eighth, are not found in the Revision, or the best MSS.

Whom (verse 8) in the Common Version becomes him in the Revision and refers to Paul.

And the Jews joined in the charge. Those who had come down from Jerusalem affirmed that Tertullus had spoken in the facts.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul is on trial in Caesarea. Tertullus presents Governor Felix with the charges against Paul.

General Information:

Here the word "you" refers to Felix, the governor. (See: Forms of You)

General Information:

Here "we" refers to the citizens under Felix. (See: Exclusive and Inclusive "We")

After five days

"five days after the Roman soldiers took Paul to Caesarea"

Ananias

This is the name of a man. This is not the same Ananias as in Acts 5:1 nor the same Ananias as in Acts 9:10. See how you translated this in Acts 23:1. (See: How to Translate Names)

an orator

"a lawyer." Tertullus was an expert in Roman law who was there to accuse Paul in court.

Tertullus

This is the name of a man. (See: How to Translate Names)

went there

"went to Caesarea where Paul was"

before the governor

"in the presence of the governor who was judge in the court"

brought charges against Paul

"began to argue the case before the governor that Paul had broken the law."

we have great peace

Here "we" refers to the citizens under Felix. AT: "we, the people that you govern, have great peace" (See: Exclusive and Inclusive "We")

and your foresight brings good reform to our nation

"and your planning has greatly improved our nation"

most excellent Felix

"Governor Felix who deserves greatest honor" Felix was the roman governor over the whole region. See how you translated a similar phrase in Acts 23:25.

translationWords

day

chief priests

elder

Paul

govern

nation

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

An orator [ρητορος] . An advocate. The Jews, being little acquainted with Roman forms and laws, had to employ Roman advocates.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.