Acts 24:10

We have here Paul's defence of himself, in answer to Tertullus's charge, and there appears in it a great deal of the spirit of wisdom and holiness, and an accomplishment of Christ's promise to his followers that when they were before governors and kings, for his sake, it should be given them in that same hour what they should speak. Though Tertullus had said a great many provoking things, yet Paul did not interrupt him, but let him go on to the end of his speech, according to the rules of decency and the method in courts of justice, that the plaintiff be allowed to finish his evidence before the defendant begins his plea. And when he had done, he did not presently fly out into passionate exclamations against the iniquity of the times and the men (O tempora! O mores! - Oh the degeneracy of the times!) but he waited for a permission from the judge to speak in his turn, and had it. The governor beckoned to him to speak, Act 24:10. And now he also may have leave to speak out, under the protection of the governor, which was more than he could hitherto obtain. And, when he did speak, he made no reflections at all upon Tertullus, who he knew spoke for his fee, and therefore despised what he said, and levelled his defence against those that employed him. And here,

I. He addressed himself very respectfully to the governor, and with a confidence that he would do him justice. Here are not such flattering compliments as Tertullus soothed him up with, but, which was more truly respectful, a profession that he answered for himself cheerfully, and with good assurance before him, looking upon him, though not as one that was his friend, yet as one that would be fair and impartial. He thus expresses his expectation that he would be so, to engage him to be so. It was likewise the language of one that was conscious to himself of his own integrity, and whose heart did not reproach him, whoever did. He did not stand trembling at the bar; on the contrary, he was very cheerful when he had one to be his judge that was not a party, but an indifferent person. Nay, when he considers who his judge is, he answers the more cheerfully; and why so? He does not say, "Because I know thee to be a judge of inflexible justice and integrity, that hatest bribes, and in giving judgment fearest God, and regardest not man;" for he could not justly say this of him, and therefore would not say it, though it were to gain his favour ever so much; but, I the more cheerfully answer from myself, because I know thou hast been many years a judge to this nation, and this was very true, and being so, 1. He could say of his own knowledge that there had not formerly been any complaints against Paul. Such clamours as they raised are generally against old offenders; but, though he had long say judge there, he never had Paul brought before him till now; and therefore he was not so dangerous a criminal as he was represented to be. 2. He was well acquainted with the Jewish nation, and with their temper and spirit. He knew how bigoted they were to their own way, what furious zealots they were against all that did not comply with them, how peevish and perverse they generally were, and therefore would make allowances for that in their accusation of him, and not regard that which he had reason to think came so much from part-malice. Though he did not know him, he knew his prosecutors, and by this might guess what manner of man he was.

II. He denies the facts that he was charged with, upon which their character of him was grounded. Moving sedition, and profaning the temple, were the crimes for which he stood indicted, crimes which they knew the Roman governors were not accustomed to enquire into, and therefore they hoped that the governor would return him back to them to be judged by their law, and this was all they wished for. But Paul desires that though he would not enquire into the crimes he would protect one that was unjustly charged with them from those whom he knew to be spiteful and ill-natured enough. Now he would have him to understand (and what he said he was ready, if required, to make out by witnesses),

1. That he came up to Jerusalem on purpose to worship God in peace and holiness, so far was he from any design to move sedition among the people or to profane the temple. He came to keep up his communion with the Jews, not to put any affront upon them.

2. That it was but twelve days since he came up to Jerusalem, and he came up to Jerusalem, and he had been six days a prisoner; he was alone, and it could not be supposed that in so short a time he could do the mischief they charged upon him. And, as for what he had done in other countries, they knew nothing of it but by uncertain report, by which the matter was very unfairly represented.

3. That he had demeaned himself at Jerusalem very quietly and peaceably, and had made no manner of stir. If it had been true (as they alleged) that he was a mover of sedition among all the Jews, surely he would have been industrious to make a party at Jerusalem: but he did not do so. He was in the temple, attending the public service there. He was in the synagogues where the law was read and opened. He went about in the city among his relations and friends, and conversed freely in the places of concourse; and he was a man of a great genius and an active spirit, and yet they could not charge him with offering any thing either against the faith or against the peace of the Jewish church. (1.) He had nothing in him of a contradicting spirit, as the movers of sedition have; he had no disposition to quarrel or oppose. They never found him disputing with any man, either affronting the learned with captious cavils or perplexing the weak and simple with curious subtleties. He was ready, if asked, to give a reason of his own hope, and to give instruction to others; but he never picked a quarrel with any man about his religion, nor made that the subject of debate, and controversy, and perverse dispute, which ought always to be treated of with humility and reverence, with meekness and love. (2.) He had nothing in him of a turbulent spirit: "They never found me raising up the people, by incensing them against their governors in church or state or suggesting to them fears and jealousies concerning public affairs, nor by setting them at variance one with another or sowing discord among them." He behaved as became a Christian and minister, with love and quietness, and due subjection to lawful authority. The weapons of his warfare were not carnal, not did he ever mention or think of such a thing as taking up arms for the propagating of the gospel or the defence of the preachers of it; though he could have made, perhaps, as strong a party among the common people as his adversaries, yet he never attempted it.

4. That as to what they had charged him with, of moving sedition in other countries, he was wholly innocent, and they could not make good the charge (Act 24:13): Neither can the prove the things whereof the now accuse me. Hereby, (1.) He maintains his own innocency; for when he says, They cannot prove it, he means, The matter is not so. He was no enemy to the public peace; he had done no real prejudice, but a great deal of real service, and would gladly have done more, to the nation of the Jews. He was so far from having any antipathy to them that he had the strongest affection imaginable for them, and a most passionate desire for their welfare, Rom 9:1-3. (2.) He bemoans his own calamity, that he was accused of those things which could not be proved against him. And it has often been the lot of very worthy good men to be thus injured, to have things laid to their charge which they are the greatest distance from and abhor the though of. But, while they are lamenting this calamity, this may be their rejoicing, even the testimony of their consciences concerning their integrity. (3.) He shows the iniquity of his prosecutors, who said that which they knew they could not prove, and thereby did him wrong in his name, liberty, and life, and did the judge wrong too, in imposing upon him, and doing what in them lay to pervert his judgment. (4.) He appeals to the equity of his judge, and awakens him to look about him, that he might not be drawn into a snare by the violence of the prosecution. The judge must give sentence secundum allegata et probata - according to that which is not only alleged but proved, and therefore must enquire, and search, and ask diligently, whether the thing be true and certain (Deu 13:14); he cannot otherwise give a right judgment.

III. He gives a fair and just account of himself, which does at once both clear him from crime and likewise intimate what was the true reason of their violence in prosecuting him.

1. He acknowledges himself to be one whom they looked upon as a heretic, and that was the reason of their spleen against him. The chief captain had observed, and the governor now cannot but observe, an uncommon violence and fury in his prosecutors, which they know not what to make of, but, guessing at the crime by the cry, conclude he must needs have been a very bad man only for that reason. Now Paul here unriddles the matter: I confess that in the way which they call heresy - or a sect, so worship I the God of my fathers. The controversy is in a matter of religion, and such controversies are commonly managed with most fury and violence. Note, It is no new thing for the right way of worshipping God to be called heresy; and for the best of God's servants to be stigmatized and run down as sectaries. The reformed churches are called heretical ones by those who themselves hate to be reformed, and are themselves heretics. Let us therefore never be driven off from any good way by its being put into an ill name; for true and pure Christianity is never the worse, nor to be the worse thought of, for its being called heresy; no, not though it be called so by the high priest and the elders.

2. He vindicates himself from this imputation. They call Paul a heretic, but he is not so; for,

(1.) He worships the God of his fathers, and therefore is right in the object of his worship. He does not say, Let us go after other gods, which we have not known, and let us serve them, as the false prophet is supposed to do, Deu 13:2. If so, they might justly call his way heresy, a drawing of them aside into a by-path, and a dangerous one; but he worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not only the God whom they worshipped, but the God who took them into covenant with himself, and was and would be called their God. Paul adheres to that covenant, and sets up no other in opposition to it. The promise made unto the fathers Paul preached as fulfilled to the children (Act 13:32, Act 13:33), and so directed both his own devotions and those of others to God, as the God of their fathers. He also refers to the practice of all his pious ancestors: I worship the same God that all my fathers worshipped. His religion was so far from being chargeable with novelty that it gloried in its antiquity, and in an uninterrupted succession of its professors. Note, It is very comfortable in our worshipping God to have an eye to him as the God of our fathers. Our fathers trusted in him, and were owned by him, and he engaged to be their God, and the God of their seed. He approved himself theirs, and therefore, if we serve him as they did, he will be ours; what an emphasis is laid upon this, He is my father's God, and I will exalt him! Exo 15:2.

(2.) He believes all things which are written in the law and the prophets, and therefore is right in the rule of his worship. His religion is grounded upon, and governed by, the holy scriptures; they are his oracle and touchstone, and he speaks and acts according to them. He receives the scriptures entire, and believes all things that are there written; and he receives them pure, for he says no other things than what are contained in them, as he explains himself, Act 26:22. He sets not up any other rule of faith, or practice but the scriptures - not tradition, nor the authority of the church, nor the infallibility of any man or company of men on earth, nor the light within, nor human reason; but divine revelation, as it is in the scripture, is that which he resolves to live and die by, and therefore he is not a heretic.

(3.) He has his eye upon a future state, and is a believing expectant of that, and therefore is right in the end of his worship. Those that turn aside to heresy have a regard to this world, and some secular interest, but Paul aims to make heaven of his religion, and neither more nor less (Act 24:15): "I have hope towards God, all my expectation is from him, and therefore all my desire is towards him and all my dependence upon him; my hope is towards God and not towards the world, towards another world and not towards this. I depend upon God and upon his power, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead at the end of time, of all, both the just and unjust; and the great thing I aim at in my religion is to obtain a joyful and happy resurrection, a share in the resurrection of the just." Observe here, [1.] That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, the dead bodies of men, of all men from the beginning to the end of time. It is certain, not only that the soul does not die with the body, but that the body itself shall live again; we have not only another life to live when our present life is at an end, but there is to be another world, which shall commence when this world is at an end, into which all the children of men must enter at once by a resurrection from the dead, as they entered into this, one after another, by their birth. [2.] It shall be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, the sanctified and the unsanctified, of those that did well, and to them our Saviour has told us that it will be a resurrection of life; and of those that did evil, and to them that it will be a resurrection of condemnation, Joh 5:29. See Dan 12:2. This implies that it will be a resurrection to a final judgment, by which all the children of men will be determined to everlasting happiness or misery in a world of retribution, according to what they were and what they did in this state of probation and preparation. The just shall rise by virtue of their union with Christ as their head; the unjust shall rise by virtue of Christ's dominion over them as their Judge. [3.] God is to be depended upon for the resurrection of the dead: I have hope towards God, and in God, that there shall be a resurrection; it shall be effected by the almighty power of God, in performance of the word which God hath spoken; so that those who doubt of it betray their ignorance both of the scriptures and of the power of God, Mat 22:29. [4.] The resurrection of the dead is a fundamental article of our creed, as it was also of that of the Jewish church. It is what they themselves also allow; nay, it was the expectation of the ancient patriarchs, witness Job's confession of his faith; but it is more clearly revealed and more fully confirmed by the gospel, and therefore those who believed it should have been thankful to the preachers of the gospel for their explications and proofs of it, instead of opposing them. [5.] In all our religion we ought to have an eye to the other world, and to serve God in all instances with a confidence in him that there will be a resurrection of the dead, doing all in preparation for that, and expecting our recompence in that.

(4.) His conversation is of a piece with his devotion (Act 24:16): And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men. Prophets and their doctrine were to be tried by their fruits. Paul was far from having made shipwreck of a good conscience, and therefore it is not likely he has made shipwreck of the faith, the mystery of which is best held in a pure conscience. This protestation of Paul's is to the same purport with that which he made before the high priest (Act 23:1): I have lived in all good conscience; and this was his rejoicing. Observe, [1.] What was Paul's aim and desire: To have a conscience void of offence. Either, First, "A conscience not offending; not informing me wrong, nor flattering me, nor dealing deceitfully with me, nor in any thing misleading me." Or, Secondly, A conscience not offended; it is like Job's resolution, "My heart shall not reproach me, that is, I will never give it any occasion to do so. This is what I am ambitious of, to keep upon good terms with my own conscience, that it may have no cause either to question the goodness of my spiritual state or to quarrel with me for any particular action. I am as careful not to offend my conscience as I am not to offend a friend with whom I daily converse; nay, as I am not to offend a magistrate whose authority I am under, and to whom I am accountable; for conscience is God's deputy in my soul." [2.] What was his care and endeavour, in pursuance of this: "I exercise myself - askō. I make it my constant business, and govern myself by this intention; I discipline myself, and live by rule" (those that did so were called ascetics, from the word here used), "abstain from many a thing which my inclination leads me to, and abound in all the exercises of religion that are most spiritual, with this in my eye, that I may keep peace with my own conscience." [3.] The extent of this care: First, To all times: To have always a conscience void of offence, always void of gross offence; for though Paul was conscious to himself that he had not yet attained perfection, and the evil that he would not do yet he did, yet he was innocent from the great transgression. Sins of infirmity are uneasy to conscience, but they do not wound it, and waste it, as presumptuous sins do; and, though offence may be given to conscience, yet care must be taken that it be not an abiding offence, but that by the renewed acts of faith and repentance the matter may be taken up again quickly. This however we must always exercise ourselves in, and, though we come short, we must follow after. Secondly, To all things: Both towards God, and towards man. His conscientious care extended itself to the whole of his duty, and he was afraid of breaking the law of love either to God or his neighbour. Conscience, like the magistrate, is custos utriusque tabulae - the guardian of each table. We must be very cautious that we do not think, or speak, or do any thing amiss, either against God or man, Co2 8:21. [4.] The inducement to it: Herein, en toutō, for this cause; so it may be read. "Because I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, therefore I thus exercise myself." The consideration of the future state should engage us to be universally conscientious in our present state.

IV. Having made confession of his faith, he gives a plain and faithful account of his case, and of the wrong done him by his persecutors. Twice he had been rescued by the chief captain out of the hands of the Jews, when they were ready to pull him to pieces, and he challenges them to prove him guilty of any crime either time.

1. In the temple. Here they fell furiously upon him as an enemy to their nation and the temple, Act 21:28. But was there any colour for the charge? No, but evidence sufficient against it, (1.) It was very hard to accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when after long absence from Jerusalem he came to bring alms to his nation, money which (though he had need enough himself of it) he had collected among his friends, for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem. He not only had no malice to that people, but he had a very charitable concern for them, and was ready to do them all good offices; and were they his adversaries for his love? Psa 109:4. (2.) It was very hard to accuse him of having profaned the temple when he brought offerings to the temple, and was himself at charges therein (Act 21:24), and was found purifying himself in the temple, according to the law (Act 24:18), and that in a very quiet decent manner, neither with multitude nor with tumult. Though he was a man so much talked of, he was far from coveting to show himself when he came to Jerusalem, or to be crowded after, but went to the temple, as much as was possible, incognito. They were Jews from Asia, his enemies, that caused him to be taken notice of; they had not pretence to make a tumult and raise a multitude against him, for he had neither multitude nor tumult for him. And as to what was perhaps suggested to Felix that he had brought Greeks into the temple, contrary to their law, and the governor ought to reckon with him for that, the Romans having stipulated with the nations that submitted to them to preserve them in their religion, he challenges them to prove it (Act 24:19): "Those Jews of Asia ought to have been here before thee, that they might have been examined, whether they had aught against me, that they would stand by and swear to;" for some that will not scruple to tell a lie have such heavings of conscience that they scruple confirming it with an oath.

2. In the council: "Since the Jews of Asia are not here to prove any thing upon me done amiss in the temple, let these same that are here, the high priest and the elders, say whether they have found any evil doing in me, or whether I was guilty of any misdemeanor when I stood before the council, when also they were ready to pull me in pieces, Act 24:20. When I was there, they could not take offence at any thing I said; for all I said was, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day (Act 24:21), which gave no offence to any one but the Sadducees. This I hope was no crime, that I stuck to that which is the faith of the whole Jewish church, excepting those whom they themselves call heretics."

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

Act_24:10-21

Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered.

Pauls defence before Felix

Note--

I. The Christianity of old Judaism. The apostle--

1. Worshipped the Jews God. So worship I the God of my fathers. He propounded no new Divinity.

2. Believed in the Jews Scriptures. In all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. He not only did not reject them; through Christ he saw them in a new and higher light.

3. Believed in the Jews resurrection (Act_24:15). The resurrection, which was dimly seen by the Hebrews, he saw in clear reality through the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is Judaism ripened into fruit, and brightened into noon.

II. The characteristics of a great man.

1. He is not ashamed of an unpopular cause (Act_24:14). All new sects have been heretics, seceders, schismatics. Thus Luther and Calvin were rank heretics in the eyes of Rome; the Puritans and Methodists in the eyes of the Episcopal Church. Thus every new offshoot is a sect, a heresy from the old stock. Providence permits all this refinement from age to age in order that the Church at last might be without spot or blemish.

2. His highest aim is moral rectitude (Act_24:16). Note here--

(1) The greatest power in man. Conscience is not so much a faculty, a law, or a function of the soul, as its very essence, the moral self. That which connects us with moral government, constitutes our responsibility, and originates our weal or our woe. As is a mans conscience, so is he. The New Testament attaches immense importance to conscience; no less than thirty times is it mentioned. Wherever he went Paul sought to commend himself to every mans conscience in the sight of God.

(2) The divinest condition of man. What is this? To have a conscience void of offence, i.e., not striking against stumbling stones. It is formed from that verb in Psa_91:1-16 (as quoted in our Lords temptation), In their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy toot against a stone. St. Paul desires to have a conscience free from collision with rocks impeding its course. The conscience, not the life only, must be kept void of offence. He would be able to say, I know nothing by [against] myself. The two chief departments of this unstumbling conscience correspond to the two great divisions of human duty--toward God and toward man. The apostle does not say he has gained this blessed condition, but it was his grand aim. When a mans conscience gets into this state, he has reached the true blessedness of his being. A good conscience is heaven.

(3) The chief work of man--to get into this state. Herein do I exercise myself by methodical and systematic effort. The greatest work that a man has to do is with his moral self. Paul felt this; his outward battles were as nothing compared to those that he fought on the arena of his own soul. So fight I as not beating the air.

3. He is frank in explanation of himself. The apostle now reverts to the purpose of his journey to Jerusalem, and to the charge as having come as a mover of sedition.

(1) That his recent visit to the metropolis, after many years, was a benevolent one (verse 17).

(2) That he was found in the temple by certain Jews from Asia purified, not gathering a multitude and creating a tumult, and that those Jews who found him there ought to have been present (verses 18-21). (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul before Felix

In this straightforward narrative two characters are disclosed in sharp contrast. The outlines of each are made distinct by the presence of the other. Paul is the embodiment of moral strength. He shows the manly vigour of an ideal Christian. Each spectacle is valuable. The example of Paul attracts to an earnest and courageous Christian life; the example of Felix repels from a career of sin.

I. Paul, the strong servant of God. Paul stood before the highest tribunal in Judaea. His accusers were his own countrymen, his judge was an unprincipled Roman. According to Tacitus, Felix exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave. Drusilla was another mans wife whom he bad enticed from her husband. Jonathan, the high priest, had ventured to remonstrate with this immoral ruler, and forthwith assassins sought out the reprover and struck him down in the sanctuary. It required fortitude for an accused Jew to be calm before Felix the unrighteous. Of justice for Paul there was no hope; a low self-interest would shape this judges decision. Paul had no Tertullus to speak for him; he made no plea for clemency, but boldly maintained his innocence. Here was genuine courage. Before this example of heroism all shivering cowardice in the Lords service should loathe itself. Something braver than running to a hiding place when threatened is expected of true Christians. Christ is not satisfied merely with our repentance and submission. He would arouse us to lofty and Divine courage. Be not afraid of them that kill the body. The example of Paul in the circumstances before us ought to impel us to the active virtues, courage, self-reliance, zeal. We cannot but admire it, and we ought to be moved to imitate what we admire.

1. There is pressing need of such virtues. Sin is about us in force: it must be resisted and put down. Are we to wait motionless for a deliverer? We do ourselves and others a deep wrong when we represent the power of sin, strong as it is, as so great that the soul is helpless before it. Besides this personal struggle against evil, there is an arduous positive work to be done for righteousness on earth. The conflict between good and evil is continually at full heat. Here is the gospel: it must be lived and preached. Multitudes around us wait to be won to God. Earnestness and self-sacrifice must be had for their salvation. What labour, demanding zeal and persistency, is called for to evangelise the world!

2. Such courage and self-reliance are not opposed to reliance on God. Precisely with the men who have self-reliance God elects to work, men who count it but reasonable that they should put their utmost exertion into effort on which they crave the blessing of Heaven. God will bless our efforts if there are any worthy efforts to be blessed. Why the perpetual complaint by Christians of deficiency and weakness? Are Gods people the feeblest folk on earth? Who is not weary of this plaintive cry of feebleness from the lips of Gods saints? Moral strength does not come up in a night even in the heart of a saint. The shout of courage should be oftener heard in our camp. A different ideal of true humility must grow luminous before our imagination. The apostle supplies this. He deemed a certain reliance on self justifiable and obligatory, because into that self God had put so much of His own power. Is the sacred fire burned in vain? Is there not a new heros devotion kindled, a new conqueror fitted for achievement? Manly reliance on self is, for the Christian, only reliance on what God has already done to equip him for service.

II. Felix, bold only in delay. The preacher had not left it uncertain that what God demands is repentance. Felix trembled, but he did not repent. Sin never before seemed to him so perilous, and he decided that sometime he must leave it. There is not one hint in Scripture that Felix ever became a Christian. Here is warning against putting off repentance.

1. Repentance may never come.

2. With Felix before us, we will consider this weighty truth, too seldom urged, that impenitence every day it lasts produces irreparable loss. Delayed conversion means continued sin, and sin damages the sinner himself and others. We drag along into the Christian life the enfeebled will, the grown-up selfishness, the impaired capacity which we acquired in the years of impenitence. Forgiveness releases us from Divine condemnation; it does not at once, if ever, repair the damage of a sinful course.

3. Again, the ill influence of the old bad life on others is not arrested. Delaying repentance, we throw the weight of our example against our friends conversion and encourage others in sin, and our pardon does not undo what we have thus done.

4. Delayed conversion means lost opportunities. Along our path from childhood to age there are many occasions for heavenly deeds. The hours require a soul loyal to God, instantly ready to speak and act with firm courage, able to look sin into shame. How often, when called, have we been unprepared for such holy achievements? We could not be heroic, for we still wore captives chains, and the opportunities were lost. The precious season of preparation for future power may be wasted by daily disobedience to Gods call. It is clear that in secular life neglect of preparation in youth stands at many a parting of ways in later years and forbids a mans choice, saying, You cannot take the path up the heights. You must go the lower road. Many a man in such case has bowed to the inevitable, sorrowing in vain over his loss. But men dream that in the spiritual life, under redemption, they may escape in later years the weakness resulting from youthful impenitence. (T. E. Bartlett.)

Paul before Felix

I. Felixs impression of Paul.

1. Pauls address. He was in trouble. There had been a tumult. As to the cause of it there were two sides to be heard. Every advantage had been taken of whatever in the circumstances seemed against Paul. Pauls reply has in it four heads.

(1) Introduction. Tertullus had begun with flattery. Paul begins with respect.

(2) Rebuttal. He mentions the brief time he had been in Jerusalem--entirely insufficient to accomplish all the deep plots alleged against him by the Jews.

(3) Explanation. How had he happened to be in Jerusalem at all, and what was he doing in the temple?

(4) Demand for evidence.

2. The characteristics of this speech probably made a deeper impression on Felix than its contents.

(1) Candour. Paul was evidently telling as plainly, fully, and simply as he could the very truth. He did not overdo the matter. An experienced judge is not often deceived as to the honesty of a witness.

(2) Fearlessness was evident in every word of Pauls. He was not overcome by the danger of his situation.

(3) Uprightness was written over every word which Paul uttered. Paul was one who, without counsel, might say all he would; for he was a good man.

3. What was the effect of this speech upon Felix?

(1) He recognised that no case had been made out against Paul. The main witnesses had, for some unaccountable reason, not been brought into court.

(2) A postponement for further inquiry followed.

(3) At the same time his sense of right, being still feebly operative (as in Pilate), will not allow him to treat the prisoner as though he had been convicted of crime.

II. Felixs impression of Christianity.

1. He had some curiosity about it, and after certain days came and sent for Paul and heard him speak about Jesus Christ.

2. Pauls speech.

(1) The subject. The whole of Pauls address is not preserved.

(a) Righteousness is the aim of the Christian life. Christ died that He might purify from us the guilt of sin and impute to us His own righteousness. To be holy as God is holy, and so to glorify Him by reflecting His excellence, is the chief end of man.

(b) Temperance, or self-control; referring to the subjugation of the passions and the holding of the whole life in submission to the will of God. This in a certain sense is the negative side of the righteousness which Paul has just mentioned.

(c) Judgment to come. Christianity derives its hold upon many men by appealing to high motives and ambitions.

(2) These themes, doubtless treated in a general way, had also their personal application. Preaching truth is preaching such truth as the hearers ought to have preached to them. Yet Paul was not offensive. He was personal in the way he chose his subject, but not in the manner of its delivery, so far as we can see.

3. No wonder that Felix was convicted by this address, No wonder his heart was smitten with fear. He had been used to association with sycophants, who would flatter him in the face and stab him in the back. What a privilege to truly know ones self, even if it be to find defects, for that is the way to perfection. But such an experience is not comfortable.

III. Felixs disposal of Christianity.

1. He let the bad elements in him prevail.

2. Consequently he was led to postpone his dealing with the matter of his relation to God.

3. Why is it that postponing the receiving of salvation is so apt to be its complete rejection? Because--

(1) It is going back again to the ever-increasing domination of sin;

(2) Conscience unanswered becomes deadened and its voice is more and more feeble;

(3) The desire for a nobler life awakened in us by the Holy Spirit is subdued when unsatisfied;

(4) We are not so susceptible to the presence of the Spirit when we do not obey Him. So far as we know men, they do not mean to be lost.

IV. Lessons.

1. The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword. It searches us out. It finds us (as Coleridge said).

2. Selfishness is the cause of mens rejection of Christ. They love their sinful ways too well to deny self and follow Him.

3. The great lesson is that postponing the acceptance of Christ is eternally dangerous. Suspect every motive that keeps you from Christ. No such motive is adequate and justifiable. (D. J. Burrell, D. D.)

Pauls defence before Felix

I. Generally. Paul defended himself--

1. Cheerfully, because he knew he was defending a good cause.

2. Skilfully, knowing that one is not excused for using bad arguments, because he is engaged in defending a good cause.

3. Confidently, having already been tried and acquitted at the bar of his own conscience.

4. Defiantly. Right-doing calls for no apologising. To submit is to admit, when one is openly charged with evil-doing.

5. Paul made his defence defiantly, knowing that he had given no occasion for the accusations brought against him. Conscious innocence makes a man bold; conscious guilt makes a man bluster.

II. Specifically.

1. He confessed Christ (verse 14).

2. He served God (verse 14).

3. He reverenced the Old Testament (verse 14).

4. He believed in the resurrection (verse 15).

5. He sought a clear conscience (verse 16).

6. He helped the needy (verse 17).

III. Lessons.

1. I confess. What Paul had done he was ready to acknowledge. No man should be slow in pleading guilty when he is charged with being a follower of Christ.

2. They call a sect. What if they do? Fear not the cry of sectarianism so long as only Christs enemies are raising it against you.

3. Believing … the law. Has that law been repealed? Then remember that it demands your allegiance as much as it did Pauls.

4. Hope toward God. Toward God is the true direction for hoping. Hopelessness Godward means blank despair manward.

5. Exercise myself. It requires constant effort to follow Christ closely. But it is the best kind of exercise. It made of Paul a giant in moral strength.

6. Conscience void of offence … alway. Some one has wisely said, It is always term time in the court of conscience.

7. I came to bring alms. Paul had come among the Jews on an errand of mercy, and the merciless Jews had straightway sought to slay him.

8. Certain Jews … ought to have been here. But they were not there. Such men prefer haranguing a lawless mob to testifying in a court of law. The devils agents are constitutional cowards. (S. S. Times.)

Pauls defence before Felix

1. A straightforward account is an honest mans best defence.

2. In such a case it is in the knowledge and not the ignorance of a judge that safety will lie (verse 10,11). Apply this to the Great Judgment Day.

3. Christianity is involved in and anticipated Judaism (cf. Heb_11:1-40)

.

4. The Christian believes not less, but more than the Jew (verses 14, 15).

5. Whatever our intellectual opinions may be, our moral character should be blameless (verse 16).

6. Never does the world commit greater blunders in violation even of its own laws, than in persecuting the faith (verse 19).

7. Many inquiries are made about the gospel through curiosity, and without a personal concern for sin (verse 24).

8. A true preacher will seize every available opportunity for proclaiming the gospel; every sinner ought to fear the gospel; we ought not to delay coming to Christ (verse 25).

9. Peoples motives with respect to Christ and His cause often get strangely mixed (verses 25, 26).

10. In religion, as in many other things, it is true that he that delays is lost. His heart hardens, and circumstances entangle him.

11. Christians are called into various experiences and situations for testimony and service (verse 27). (A. F. Muir, M. A.)

Pauls defence before Felix

I. That God protects His messengers. On one side was a multitude of enraged Jewish rulers, who had wealth, prestige, power, an eloquent advocate to plead their cause. On the other side, Paul alone was accused before a corrupt judge. How small the possibilities of his success! Yet God had promised that His messengers, when brought before governors, should be taught by the Spirit what to say. Here is one actual fulfilment of that promise. Paul showed triumphantly that what was criminal in the charge against him was not true, and that what was true was not criminal.

1. He was accused of exciting seditions among the Jews; but he showed that only twelve days before he had passed through Caesarea on his way to visit Jerusalem for the first time in many years.

2. He was accused of heresy. He replied, I confess that I follow the opinion which they call a sect, and thus worship the God of my fathers.

3. He was accused of profanation of the temple. He replied that the object of his pilgrimage to Jerusalem was to worship in the temple; that the Jews found him in it purified in fulfilment of a special vow. The bold way was the safe way. If he had secretly gone to Jerusalem, and had secretly taught, he would have thrown away his defence, and have prejudiced his cause. The cause of Christ has nothing to do with secrecy. Only the open follower of Christ can claim His promises of protection.

II. God furnishes His messengers with opportunities to do His work. Pauls object was to spread the gospel through the world. But how could the gospel have reached the ears of Roman rulers except through Christian prisoners? Paul used his defence as an opportunity to preach Christ. The Christian measures his success by opportunities to spread saving truth. Pauls most glorious opportunities were in prison. The Christian often remembers scenes of suffering as the most wonderful marks of Gods favour.

III. The Christian grows in grace while fighting outward foes (verse 16). If you press the gospel on others, you will have the greater motive to illustrate its power over yourself by abstaining from sin, and showing the peace, joy, charity, which are its fruits. (A. E. Dunning.)

The Christians defence against the accusations of the world

I. When should he defend himself.

1. If the Lord is reviled and not himself.

2. If he may hope to conciliate mens minds and not to increase their bitterness.

II. How should he defend himself.

1. Without fear of men.

2. Convincingly by a good conscience. (K. Gerok.)

The Christians defence against the accusations of the world

1. The Christian will keep himself pure from reproach, that the gospel be not blasphemed on his account.

2. He will, by the joyful confession of his faith, put to shame the groundless enmity of the world.

3. He will point to his life, that it may bear witness to the truth of his faith. (Lisco.)

The Christians best defence against calumny

I. A joyful confession (verse 14).

II. An UNVIOLATED conscience (verse 16).

III. A blameless life (verses 17-20).

IV. A righteous judgment of God (verse 15). (K. Gerok.)

Pauls encouragement in Felixs intelligence

Paul was encouraged, while on trial, by the fact that he was before an intelligent judge. It is always a satisfaction to know that a man whom you want to convince of a truth is well informed on the subject in question. As a rule, the less a man knows, the more bigoted he is. And the more he knows, the readier he is to revise his opinions on fair evidence or sound argument. A lawyer with a good case prefers a learned judge or a well-informed jury. A clergyman has hope of convincing his hearers just in proportion to their intelligence. A competent teacher finds that the more his scholars know to begin with, about the lesson, the more he can teach them. There is nothing more discouraging, when you want to get a new idea into a mans head, than to find that his head is now empty. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

Pauls inspired method

We begin to see the gigantic stature of Pauls mind; but the loftiness of the mountain must not lead us to overlook the fine mosses and delicate flowers with which its base is so exquisitely enamelled. The character of Paul is as fine in texture as it is vast in bulk. Observe--

I. The contrast between Pauls introduction and the preface of Tertullus. Christianity makes gentlemen; it is the religion of refinement. Wherein we are vulgar, we do but show the space which Christianity has yet to conquer. Tertullus began cringingly, fulsomely, falsely. Felix had been judge more than about twice the usual time, and Paul recognised that fact, as it was the only compliment he was able to pay the corrupt governor. Christianity is courteous--never rough; recognising whatever can be recognised in the way of excellence, or continuance of service, but never stooping to drag its own crown in the mire.

II. The temper which Paul displayed under Tertullus hurricane of abuse. There is no excitement in his reply, no resentment; he contents himself with denial and with challenging proof. Fury would have created suspicion, and resentment would have been an argument on the other side; but the quietness of the consciousness of innocence must be taken as contributing to the establishment of an irrefragable proof that an innocent man was in the presence of Felix.

III. The manner in which the personal defence is made to create room for the doctrinal exposition. Paul does not spend much time upon himself. He will not tarry over little things; he is in haste to accomplish a sublime purpose. In his view, the whole world was only made for the one purpose of receiving the kingdom of Christ. Why do we not take our rule from his magnanimous method? Do not defend yourself, but preach and live, expound and exemplify the truth. The cruel part of it all is that some persons imagine that if stones are thrown at you, you deserve to be stoned. Do not let that trouble you.

IV. How Paul keeps hold of his audience, by preaching Christianity without so much as naming Christ. That would not suit a modern audience, because a modern audience is foolish. Inspiration guides a man quite as much in teaching him what not to say as in teaching him what to say; inspiration has to do with method as well as with matter. Is Paul, then, not preaching Christ? He is preaching Him all the time. He is developing a certain state of mind; he says mentally, It is enough now to touch curiosity, to create interest; by and by I shall speak to that procurator in a way he never heard mortal tongue deliver itself; but now I have to answer this mean hireling, who would plead my cause if I only paid him enough to do so. So the merchant can be preaching Christianity in his business without ever letting it be known that he ever spent one moment on his knees. Men can preach Christianity and defend the Cross in temper, actions, family and commercial relations, and beget a state of mental wonder on the part of the observers as to how such things happen to be as they are. By and by such men may be sent for, that they may speak concerning the mystery.

V. How Paul keeps to the Scriptures (verse 14). This was so much gained; but it was a generality that wanted accent, so he proceeds, in verse 16, to supply the accent which was required. This was moral preaching? I would to God we had more moral preaching, then! The man who is severe with his own conscience will know how to treat the consciences of other men. Paul gives us a hint of the power which he will exercise by and by when he confronts Felix alone. Nothing will stand in the worlds estimation forever but down-right in-and-out goodness. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The good confession

The charge brought against Paul included three particulars. He was guilty of sedition, and so of disloyalty to the Roman government; of heresy, the ringleader of a sect, and so a renegade from Judaism; of profaning the temple, and thus of affronting a worship which was under the protection of Rome. The charges were the old ones: familiar to us already in the cases of Stephen and Christ. The time came for the apostles defence. He begins by selecting the only ground on which he could count himself fortunate in being tried before Felix. He could depend at least upon his acquaintance with the rites and customs of Judaism. Felix knew the day of that feast of Pentecost for which St. Paul had gone up to Jerusalem, and that it was but twelve days since. It was a short time for the commission of this triple crime; and already five of them in prison! How had the other seven been spent (verses 12, 13)? Note--

I. The manner of his address.

1. He stands before a wicked ruler; yet he pays to him the respect due to his office. It is the same man who wrote lately to the Romans, Render therefore to all their dues; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour. There is all the difference in the world between servility and courtesy; between the flattery of Tertullus, and the manly respectfulness of St. Paul. Insolence to rulers is no part of the religion of Christ. Render unto Caesar, our Lord said, the things which are Caesars, etc.

2. The present was dark, the future was ambiguous: and yet he answers for himself cheerfully. If we are in Christs hands, on Christs side, what circumstance is enough to justify despondency? Pain of mind or body, want, weakness, anguish, impending death; all shall be well: for I am Christs, and Christ is Gods.

II. The matter.

1. We find two of the three charges calmly and earnestly repelled. The charges of sedition and sacrilege are refuted by an appeal to fact. None can dare to say of him, that his brief time in Jerusalem had been spent in creating insurrection. His supposed desecration of the temple was the opposite of truth, for he had frequented its courts to show his respect for the law.

2. But one charge he rather qualifies than repels. If it be a schismatical thing to be a Christian, then he avowed it and gloried in it. St. Paul worshipped God according to a particular system; not vaguely as the Creator and Preserver, not merely as the Lawgiver and the Judge, but definitely and precisely as revealed in Christ. What is there to mark our confessions, prayers, praises, thanksgivings, as offered according to the way of Christ? Does Christ really enter into all? And is there anything in our habits of speech and action which recognises and reminds men of our faith in the way of Christ?

3. But observe how Paul claims for himself, all the time, the position of the truly orthodox; the God whom he worships is the God of his fathers. He believes all things written in the Old Testament Scriptures, and it is just because he does so he is a Christian. The true revelation of God is never at variance with itself. Everything which God has ever spoken will be true forever. His voice in nature, in reason, in conscience, to the Patriarchs, in the law, the prophets, the gospel, are all consistent and harmonious. Each one of these completes, fulfils something, in the one before it; but it destroys and it contradicts nothing. He who affects, unlike St. Paul, to despise Old Testament Scriptures, proves himself by that contempt to be not a full-grown man, but a very babe in Christ.

4. Paul claims for Israel under the law a glimmering at least of that hope, for which, as a Christian and an apostle, he was himself bound with his chain (verse 15). It suited the occasion and the purpose of this heroic defence, to trace the hope of the resurrection to a dispensation earlier than the Christian. And we too must accept the declaration, and give thanks for it, that even the Old Testament is not silent as to this great restitution of all things.

5. The resurrection of the just is an expression used by our Lord. But He stopped not there, nor could Paul. There is also a resurrection of the unjust. The resurrection must be either the hope, or the fear, of each one of us. And which? (Dean Vaughan.)

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

Act 24:10-13. Then Paul — Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. — Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation — And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself — And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus’s charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, Act 24:11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, Act 24:14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

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

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_24:10. Many years meant about six or seven, since Felix became procurator about A.D. 52 or 53 (Jos., Ant., XX. Act_7:1). Before his elevation to the procuratorship of Judæa he had governed Samaria under his predecessor Cumanus.

Act_24:11. The charges against him might be the more easily and accurately investigated since they were not of long standing, but of recent date. The twelve days were thus accounted for:

1. The day of arrival in Jerusalem (Act_21:17).

2. The interview with James (Act_21:18).

3. The assumption of the vow (Act_21:26).

4, 5, 6, 7. The keeping of the vow, which was interrupted before its completion.

8. The appearance of Paul before the Sanhedrim.

9. The plot of the Jews and the journey to Antipatris (Act_23:12; Act_23:31).

10, 11, 12, 13. The days at Cæsarea, on the last of which the trial was proceeding. The day of the trial would not be counted among the twelve (Hackett, Meyer, and others).

Act_24:12. Raising up the people.—Lit., making or causing a concourse of the people, ἐπισύστασις ὄχλου; though the more approved text reads ἐπιστασίς ὅχλου, a stopping of the people, of course so as to form a crowd.

Act_24:13. Some texts insert to thee after prove.

Act_24:14. For heresy translate sect as in Act_24:5, and for worship, serve. In, according to (R.V.), but better “throughout” (Hackett, Holtzmann), the law—i.e., of Moses.

Act_24:15. Which they themselves.—I.e., his accusers, who appear to have been mostly Pharisees, so that the breach between them and the Sadducees (Act_23:7) must have been made up. Allow, rather, look for, expect, or entertain.

Act_24:16. Herein.—In this, as in Joh_16:30. Meaning either in anticipation of such a day” (Hackett), or “since such is my religious position” (Holtzmann), or “in this belief” (Plumptre).

Act_24:17. After many years.—Viz., of absence from Jerusalem. It was now A.D. 58 or 59. My nation really signified the believers in its midst. Alms.—Not Paul’s usual way of referring to the collections he had taken for the poor saints at Jerusalem (see Rom_15:25; 1Co_16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8, 9); but the auditors to whom he spoke were widely different from the readers for whom he wrote. To bring alms and offerings.—The first mention in the Acts by Paul that he had been taking up contributions from the Gentile Churches for the relief of the poor Christians in Jerusalem.

Act_24:18. Whereupon.—Lit., “in which”—i.e., while presenting which offerings, some MSS. giving ἐν αῖς (to agree with “offerings”) instead of ἐν οῖς. The translation in the R.V. is more accurate. “They”—i.e., the Jews of course, “found me …; but there were certain Jews from Asia.” The abrupt manner in which this sentence breaks off was unquestionably designed to suggest that these Jews from Asia, and not he had been the true authors of the tumult.

Act_24:19. “These also should have been present in court to object or (better) to make accusation, as they, the instigators of the riot, were the persons to testify how it arose” (Hackett).

Act_24:20. In default of them these same here, or, these men themselves—i.e., the high priest and the elders should say, not if they have found any evil doing, since εἰ “if” is unauthorised, but what wrong-doing they found in me.

Act_24:21. Except it be for this one voice.—The sentence is framed as if τί ἄλλο ἀδίκημα had preceded (Meyer, De Wette, Holtzmann).

Act_24:22. Having more perfect, or exact knowledge of that, rather “the” way.—This Felix could easily have got during the six or seven years of his procuratorship. Such knowledge as he had of Christianity enabled him to perceive that the Sanhedrists’ account of Paul was not to be accepted without more minute investigation. Consequently he deferred them—i.e., put off both parties till Lysias should come down to Cæsarea.

Act_24:23. A, better the, centurion was the officer who had charge of Paul—not necessarily the same who had conducted him to Cæsarea. Liberty meant indulgence, such as the next clause indicates. Imprisonment among the Romans was of three kinds:

1. Custodia publica, or confinement in the common cells, which Paul and Silas suffered at Philippi (Act_26:23).

2. Custodia militaris, in which the prisoner was bound or chained to the soldier who kept him, as Paul was in Rome (Eph_6:20; Col_4:3). And

3. Custodia libera, or free custody, such as was frequently practised with persons of high rank. Paul’s Cæsarean imprisonment was obviously of the second sort.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_24:10-23

The Answer of Paul; or, the Lofty Oration of a Christian Apostle

I. The unvarnished exordium.—

1. A frank recognition. Paul declines to imitate the heathen orator in burning incense before his judge. Neither does he rush to the opposite extreme, and denounce Felix as one utterly unworthy to sit upon the bench or pronounce a verdict upon him. Remembering his own doctrine that “the powers which be are ordained of God” (Rom_13:1), and following his own precept “to speak evil of no man” (Tit_3:2), though doubtless aware of the personal and public character of the governor, he passes over it in silence and contents himself with frankly acknowledging that for many—at least six—years Felix had been a judge unto the nation and could neither be ignorant of the forms of judicial process nor unqualified to sift the merits of causes when these were brought before him. In this sounded neither flattery nor depreciation, but respectful acceptance of his fellow-man at his best.

2. A cheerful assent. Paul might easily have had, and probably could have wished, a better man than Felix to try his cause; but such as Felix was, Paul willingly laid before him a plain and unadorned statement of his proceedings since he arrived in Jerusalem till that moment when he stood on his defence. Out of these proceedings his alleged offences were said to have arisen, and Felix could understand them as well as anybody else. Paul had nothing to conceal, and required no arts beyond those of an honest mind and a truth-loving tongue.

II. The simple refutation.—

1. To the charge of sedition he had merely to state that, so far as his accusers were concerned, they could not have much personal or direct knowledge of his revolutionary procedure, since not more than twelve days had elapsed since he went up to Jerusalem to worship, which worship he performed with so much quietness and order that neither they nor others found him either in the temple, or in the synagogues, or in the city, creating a disturbance—either disputing or stirring up a crowd. As for the allegation that he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among the Jews throughout the world, that lay beyond their ability to prove, for the reason that it accorded not with fact. That his preaching had aroused excitement among the Jews he could not and would not deny, but that he had never breathed a syllable which could be construed into hostility to Cæsar he would with equal readiness maintain.

2. To the charge of heresy his answer was that he certainly adhered to the despised sect of the Nazarenes, but that in doing so he had not departed from the ancestral law which his countrymen observed. These might scornfully denounce him as a heretic, but precisely like themselves he believed “all things” which were “according to the law” and which were written in the prophets, “and like them had hope toward God, that there should be and would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust.” The gospel preached by him deviated not from that true Judaism which his persecutors (the most of whom must have been Pharisees) professed, but fulfilled its innermost spirit, while the resurrection which formed its culminating theme constituted the very hope for which they themselves were looking. And so far from repudiating this hope, or deviating from it, he made it his constant endeavour with regard to it to have a conscience void of offence both toward God and toward men.

3. To the charge of sacrilege he replied that the thought of violating the sanctity of the temple had never entered his mind. His presence in the sacred edifice could easily be explained. He had brought with him to Jerusalem money contributions from the friends amongst whom he had laboured for many years, to be expended in relieving his poor brethren in the city and in the presentation of offerings in the temple. These offerings he was busily engaged in presenting in the temple, with no tumult or noise, with not even a crowd around him, when certain Jews from Asia, having entered, seized him and gave occasion to the tumult. Why were these Asiatic Jews not present? These could have told better than he the cause of the uproar, for they had made it; and in any case they should have been in court to accuse him if they had aught to lay to his charge. Nothing could have been more noble, manly, straightforward, or convincing, than this candid and ingenuous statement. Conduct like Paul’s needed no apology.

III. The noble confession.—

1. The implied assumption. That no one had been able to establish any charge of wrong-doing against him.

(1) The orator had not been successful. He had only repeated, parrot-like, what had been put into his mouth by his employers, the high priest and the elders.

(2) The high priest and the elders had not, because they knew nothing about Paul’s doings throughout the world, and had not come upon the scene in Jerusalem till after he had been rescued by Lysias.

(3) The Jews from Asia had manifestly nothing they could prove against him, else they would not have been conveniently left behind in Jerusalem, but would have been fetched down to Cæsarea along with Tertullus.

2. The courageous challenge. If the high priest and elders had anything to urge against him with reference to that part of his conduct which came under their inspection, he was willing they should not keep it back, but openly advance it. Let them say what wrong-doing they found in him when he stood before the council. He was not afraid to hear the worst that could be alleged against him; if he could not honestly and honourably reply to it, he would promptly and humbly acknowledge his offence.

3. The manly avowal. So far from putting obstacles in their way, he would cheerfully assist them. There was one part in his behaviour on that memorable occasion to which they might wish to take exception. He referred to the voice which he cried among them, “Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.” That voice had set his judges at variance with one another, and had practically resulted in his release for the moment from their grasp. He did not admit that it was only and wholly wrong for him to have so acted. But possibly on reflection it may have seemed so to them. To them perhaps it was not so clear as it was to him that the real gravamen of his offence was his preaching the doctrine of the resurrection. Then he was ready to concede that it may have seemed to them that his voice about the resurrection had been dictated not so much by a desire to enlighten them as by a perception (which suddenly flashed upon him) that the mention of this word would divide their counsels. If it was so (and he was not careful to deny this impeachment), it was wrong. A man who was solicitous about keeping a conscience void of offence towards both God and man would not have acted so. Beyond this, however, he was conscious of no fault on that trial-day before the council.

IV. The disappointing-result.—Felix deferred giving judgment, on the pretext that he wished to wait for the coming down of Lysias, the chief captain, and recommitted Paul to confinement in Herod’s palace, at the same time issuing orders to the centurion who kept him to grant him indulgence and not forbid any of his friends to minister unto him. This result must have been disappointing to all concerned.

1. To Tertullus the hired advocate, who had lost his case, whose eloquence, though sweetened with flattery, had not carried conviction to the judge’s judgment, and whose plausible invectives had all been swept aside by the plain, unvarnished tale of the prisoner at the Baruch

2. To the high priest and the elders, whose designs against the apostle had been thwarted, in, to them, a most unexpected manner, first by Claudius Lysias and then by Felix, both of whom, though the high priest and the elders knew it not, were in the hands of a higher than themselves, even of Him who holdeth men’s hearts in the hollow of His hand and turneth them whithersoever He will.

3. To Paul, who probably expected to be set at liberty, though he was only granted a mitigation of his imprisonment—which was something, no doubt, to be thankful for, though vastly less than what he was entitled to. To be sure, Paul had learnt in whatsoever state he was to be content (Php_4:11), yet must he have been more than human if he felt no pang of regret that his trial had not resulted more favourably for himself.

4. To Felix. Had Paul himself, or his friends, proposed to purchase his freedom by means of a bribe, there can be little doubt that Paul would have won the day and obtained a verdict in his favour. As much as this may almost be inferred from Felix’s well-known covetous disposition (Act_24:26). That no such proposition was made by the apostle may well be imagined was a grief of heart to the money-loving procurator.

Learn.—

1. That truth is always the Christian’s best defence. Paul’s simple story proved more successful than Tertullus’s polished rhetoric.

2. That charges which cannot be established are often advanced against Christians. Accusations are not the same things as convictions.

3. That doctrines which are developments of recognised truths are not heresies. A proposition is only, then, heretical when it contradicts accepted truth.

4. That good men may habitually act according to conscience, and yet go astray. Conscience sometimes requires to be enlightened, and its voice may occasionally fail to be heard.

5. That Christians have often to put up with and be thankful for less than they deserve. Paul ought to have been set at liberty, but only got indulgence in his captivity.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_24:11-17. Some Thoughts about Divine Worship.

I. The place.—This should always be that which God Himself has pointed out. Under the Hebrew economy, Jerusalem and the temple were the chosen spots in which Jehovah elected to be honoured (Psa_132:13-14); under the Christian economy God may be worshipped anywhere, provided the subjective conditions of worship are present in the individual heart (Joh_4:23-24).

II. The manner.—Neither noisily nor tumultuously, but ever orderly, quiet, and reverent. “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools” (Ecc_5:1). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1Co_14:40).

III. The form.—

1. In accordance with the appointments of Scripture. For Hebrew worship the law and the prophets constituted the sources of authority; for Christian worship these give place to the gospels and epistles. Whatever lies outside of these is will worship (Col_2:23).

2. In harmony with the continuity of the Church. Unless where the Church has for a time gone wrong. The probability, however, is that the individual, rather than the Church, will err. Hence any form of worship that essentially deviates from that observed by past ages of God’s people is, ipso facto, open to suspicion.

IV. The spirit.—

1. Faith. Believing in the Scriptures—i.e., in the facts and doctrines revealed therein. As the Hebrew worshipper believed all things which were according to the law and written in the prophets, so must the Christian worshipper credit all things that accord with the gospel of Jesus Christ and that are contained in the writings of His apostles.

2. Hope. With the Christian as with the Hebrew all true worship had an outlook towards the future life, and in particular towards a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust. Blot out this hope or fear from the minds of men and it will be difficult to impel either good men or bad to worship.

3. Charity. A spirit of love and good-will towards all, but especially towards the household of faith, an indispensable characteristic of acceptable worship.

Act_24:14. Paul’s God and Paul’s Religion.

I. Paul’s God.—

1. Not a new, but an old God. The god of his fathers, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, of David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, etc. Christianity not a new religion, but the full development of that which was first revealed in Eden.

2. Not a false, but the true God. Not always an advantage to have an old god: not always wrong to have a new god. Depends on whether the old be the true and the new the false god. If men’s old gods are false, they should be abandoned. So said Elijah. If men’s new god is true he should be embraced. So teach Christian missionaries. Paul’s God was old and true.

3. Not a manufactured, but an inherited God. Paul’s God was received by him from his fathers. What a tremendous advantage for a child to receive a knowledge of the true God from his parents! What a responsibility for parents to see that they hand on the knowledge of God to their children! What a powerful argument for God when parents so live as to recommend Him to their children! What a grip God gets upon children to whom He is recommended in this way!

4. Not a blindly accepted, but a deliberately chosen God. Paul had made his father’s God his own by personal choice. This was indispensable. Many have no higher reason for believing in God than just that their parents did so before them. Every one is responsible for making an intelligent and free choice of his own God.

II. Paul’s religion.—Contained three things.

1. Faith. “Believing all things,” etc. Paul accepted all that was asserted in the law and the prophets about the ancient history of Israel. So must the Christian accept all that is written in the gospels and epistles about Jesus Christ and His salvation. Religion rests on faith; faith on revealed truth.

2. Hope. “Having hope towards God,” etc. Paul believed in a future resurrection of just and unjust. Believed it to be taught in Scripture, and looked forward to it as the goal of history. A terrible thought for sinners (Heb_10:27), but not for believers (1Jn_3:3).

3. Charity. Paul’s religion impelled him to works of faith and labours of love (Act_24:17).

4. Holiness. Paul studied to keep a conscience void of offence (Act_24:16).

Act_24:15. The Doctrine of a Resurrection.

I. Involved in the Mosaic legislation.—If not expressly stated therein, that was because of the peculiar character of the Hebrew economy, which regarded the nation as a whole rather than its component parts as individuals. But the ideas of sin and forgiveness which lay at the foundation of that economy must have been entirely meaningless if the individual had no other existence than this terrestrial and temporal one. This, however, it may be urged, only proves a doctrine of continued existence after death, a doctrine of immortality without involving the notion of a bodily resurrection. But as it is certain that this latter notion was not unknown to the Egyptians, it is at least highly probable that though unexpressed in the Pentateuchal Legislation, it was tacitly assumed to lie at its foundation.

II. Proclaimed in the writings of the prophets.—As, for instance, by David (Psa_17:15); by Isaiah (Isa_26:19); by Ezekiel (Eze_37:1-14); by Daniel (Dan_12:2); and by the writer of the Book of Job (Job_19:26). It was far, indeed, from being either clearly or widely apprehended in pre-Christian times; but that the finer and more religious spirits of the nation apprehended it, at least dimly, can hardly be questioned.

III. Taught by Christ and His apostles.—By Christ in such statements as these (Mat_22:31; Luk_14:14; Joh_5:28; Joh_11:23); by Peter (Act_4:2; 2Pe_1:11); by Paul (Act_17:18; Act_16:8; Rom_6:5; Rom_8:11; 1Co_15:20-21; 2Co_4:14; Php_3:20; Col_3:3; 1Th_4:15; 1Th_5:23); by John (1Jn_3:2); and by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb_6:2).

IV. Confirmed by the resurrection of Christ.—Which not only demonstrated the possibility of a resurrection, but guaranteed at least the rising of all His people (1Co_15:20-21; 1Th_4:14).

Act_24:18. Certain Jews from Asia; or, Men who Make Reckless Charges.

I. Such men never stop to think whether their charges are true before making them.—The Asiatic Jews in question, having seen Paul in the city along with Trophimus (Act_21:28-29), jumped to the conclusion that Paul had taken his Greek friend into the holy place, or women’s court, and so desecrated Jehovah’s sanctuary. Had they inquired—and this they probably would have done had they not been actuated by malice against Paul—they would have ascertained that their conclusions were incorrect. Yet thousands of persons, not excluding Christians, unwarned by their example, have done the same thing, hurled baseless charges at the heads of their fellow-men, with regardless indifference as to their truth.

II. Such men never reflect beforehand upon the consequences that may result from their reckless procedure.—Had these Asiatic Jews foreseen the complications that arose from their baseless outcry, they would probably have paused. No doubt they were hostilely disposed towards Paul, and intended to do him hurt; but they probably never imagined it would involve such troubles as had been set in motion. Perhaps they designed no more than that Paul should get a good beating; but no sooner had they unleashed the hounds of persecution than Paul came near to losing his life, and probably would have lost it in reality, either by open or secret assassination, had not a watchful Providence protected him. Even so, persons who allow their tongues to run faster than their judgments seldom consider how great a fire a small spark may kindle (Jas_3:5).

III. Such men are seldom at hand when wanted to undo the mischief they have raised.—The Asiatic Jews, had they been present at Caesarea, could easily have confirmed Paul’s story, and shown that they, and not he, had been the real authors of the uproar in the temple. But, like most of their kidney who scatter abroad firebrands and cry, “Am not I in sport?” they took good care to save their own skins by keeping out of the way and leaving the innocent man to suffer. What cared they, the cowards? Unfortunately, mean cowards of their type have not disappeared from among men.

Act_24:22-23. Good Points in Bad Men.—Few persons are utterly bad. Not even Felix, who surpassed both Tertullus and his employers, Ananias and the elders, in—

I. Knowledge.—He knew more exactly than they did the truth about the Way. He had probably taken more pains than they to ascertain the doctrines and practices of the Nazarenes.

II. Honesty—They wished to push the trial to a verdict against Paul without troubling either Felix or themselves about evidence; he declined to proceed to an issue until the case was more investigated. This showed that Felix had still some rag of conscience within his bosom.

III. Kindness.—They would have hurried off the apostle to the stake without compunction, or at least would have loaded him with more and heavier chains. Felix commanded the centurion who kept Paul to grant him as much indulgenœ—lighter chains, and visits from friends—as was consistent with safety. “The attribute of ‘clemency’ on which the orator had complimented Felix was not altogether dead, but it was shown to the accused and not to the accusers” (Plumptre).

Act_24:23. Paul’s Imprisonment at Cœsarea.

I. Its occasion.—The accusation preferred against him by the Jews.

II. Its reason.—Ostensibly that Felix might be able, on the arrival of Lysias, to determine more accurately the truth of the charges preferred against the apostle; really, that Felix might induce either Paul or his friends to purchase his liberty.

III. Its continuance.—Two years, which meant two years’ endurance of unjust oppression, and two years’ arrest of his missionary labours—the second a greater trial to the apostle than the first.

IV. Its mitigations—

1. A relaxation of the customary severities inflicted on prisoners—such a relaxation of his chain at meal times, for instance, as Josephus (Ant., XVIII. vi. 10) says was granted to Agrippa at Rome; and

2. The permission of friends to visit him.

V. Its utilisation.—That Paul allowed this period of enforced retirement from his active missionary propagandism to pass unimproved cannot be supposed. How he employed it may even be conjectured with some degree of probability.

1. In meditation and prayer. Communing with his own heart (Psa_77:6), searching the Scriptures (Act_17:11; Joh_5:39), and pouring out his heart before the Lord (Php_4:6; 1Th_5:17); thus advancing his own personal sanctification (Php_3:12-14), and preparing for whatever service he might afterwards be summoned to (compare Rom_1:15).

2. In holding intercourse with his friends. Who these friends were are not named. But probably his companions who had been with him at the time of his arrest should be reckoned to their number—Silas, Trophimus, Luke, Mnason, and others, with not a few of the Christian disciples at Cæsarea. Sympathy from, and converse with, these would alleviate the apostle’s bonds.

3. In writing letters to the Churches. If the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were not, as some suppose (Meyer, Reuss, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld and Weiss), composed during this period of incarceration, it is not a violent hypothesis that he who had the care of all the Churches on his heart (2Co_11:28) was frequently consulted by his spiritual children, the infant communities he had founded, or in which he had laboured, and that he wrote to them letters full of counsel and admonition, which, though they have not been preserved till our day, were then received by those to whom they were sent as messages of love from their spiritual father and instructor.

4. In instructing Luke about the details of gospel and apostolic history. Which have been set down—perhaps under Paul’s immediate superintendence—in the gospel of Luke and in the Acts. “The ideas that the narrative of St. Paul’s journeys, or at least parts of it, had an independent existence before it was utilised or incorporated in the Acts,” and that this, “Travel-Document,” as it is styled, was composed under the immediate influence of Paul himself (Ramsay, The Church in Asia Minor, pp. 6, 7), shed light on a part, at least, of Paul’s occupation during the two years of imprisonment at Cæsarea.

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.

Acts

PAUL BEFORE FELIX

Act 24:10 - Act 24:25.

Tertellus made three charges against Paul: first, that he incited to rebellion; second, that he was a principal member of a ‘sect’; third {with a ‘moreover,’ as if an afterthought}, that he had profaned the Temple. It was more clever than honest to put the real cause of Jewish hatred last, since it was a trifle in Roman eyes, and to put first the only thing that Felix would think worth notice. A duller man than he might have scented something suspicious in Jewish officials being so anxious to suppress insurrection against Rome, and probably he had his own thoughts about the good faith of the accusers, though he said nothing. Paul takes up the three points in order. Unsupported charges can only be met by emphatic denials.

I. Paul’s speech is the first part of the passage.

Its dignified, courteous beginning contrasts well with the accuser’s dishonest flattery. Paul will not lie, but he will respect authority, and will conciliate when he can do so with truth. Felix had been ‘judge’ for several years, probably about six. What sort of a judge he had been Paul will not say. At any rate he had gained experience which might help him in picking his way through Tertullus’s rhetoric.

The Apostle answers the first charge with a flat denial, with the remark that as the whole affair was less than a fortnight old the truth could easily be ascertained, and that the time was very short for the Jews to have ‘found’ him such a dangerous conspirator, and with the obviously unanswerable demand for proof to back up the charge. In the absence of witnesses there was nothing more to be done about number one of the accusations, and a just judge would have said so and sent Tertullus and his clients about their business.

The second charge Paul both denies and admits. He does belong to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. But that is not a ‘sect’; it is ‘the Way.’ It is not a divergence from the path in which the fathers have walked, trodden only by some self-willed schismatics, but it is the one God-appointed path of life, ‘the old way,’ the only road by which a man can walk nobly and travel to the skies. Paul’s whole doctrine as to the relation of Judaism to Christianity is here in germ and in a form adapted to Felix’s comprehension. This so-called sect {Act 24:14 takes up Tertullus’s word in Act 24:5} is the true Judaism, and its members are more truly ‘Jews’ than they who are such ‘outwardly.’ For what has Paul cast away in becoming a Christian? Not the worship of the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, not the law, not the prophets, not the hope of a resurrection.

He does not say that he practises all the things written in the law, but that he ‘believes’ them. Then the law was revelation as well as precept, and was to be embraced by faith before it could be obeyed in practice; it was, as he says elsewhere, a ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.’ Judaism is the bud; Christianity is the bright consummate flower. Paul was not preaching his whole Gospel, but defending himself from a specific charge; namely that, as being a ‘Nazarene,’ he had started off from the main line of Jewish religion. He admits that he is a ‘Nazarene,’ and he assumes correctly that Felix knew something about them, but he denies that he is a sectary, and he assumes that the charge would be more truly made against those who, accusing him, disbelieved in Christ. He hints that they did not believe in either law or prophets, else they would have been Nazarenes too.

The practical results of his faith are stated. ‘Herein’; that is in the faith and hope just spoken of. He will not say that these make him blameless towards God and men, but that such blamelessness is his aim, which he pursues with earnest toil and self-control. A Christianity which does not sovereignly sway life and brace its professor up to the self-denial needful to secure a conscience void of offence is not Paul’s kind of Christianity. If we move in the circle of the great Christian truths we shall gird ourselves to subdue the flesh, and will covet more than aught else the peace of a good conscience. But, like Paul, we shall be slow to say that we have attained, yet not afraid to say that we strive towards, that ideal.

The third charge is met by a plain statement of his real purpose in coming to Jerusalem and frequenting the Temple. ‘Profane the Temple! Why, I came all the way from Greece on purpose to worship at the Feast; and I did not come empty-handed either, for I brought alms for my nation’-the contributions of the Gentiles to Jews-’and I was a worshipper, discharging the ceremonial purifications.’ They called him a ‘Nazarene’; he was in the Temple as a ‘Nazarite.’ Was it likely that, being there on such an errand, he should have profaned it?

He begins a sentence, which would probably have been an indignant one, about the ‘certain Jews from Asia,’ the originators of the whole trouble, but he checks himself with a fine sense of justice. He will say nothing about absent men. And that brings him back to his strong point, already urged, the absence of proof of the charges. Tertullus and company had only hearsay. What had become of the people who said they saw him in the Temple? No doubt they had thought discretion the better part of valour, and were not anxious to face the Roman procedure.

The close of the speech carries the war into the enemy’s quarters, challenging the accusers to tell what they had themselves heard. They could be witnesses as to the scene at the Council, which Tertullus had wisely said nothing about. Pungent sarcasm is in Paul’s closing words, especially if we remember that the high officials, like Ananias the high-priest, were Sadducees. The Pharisees in the Council had acquitted him when they heard his profession of faith in a resurrection. That was his real crime, not treason against Rome or profanation of the Temple. The present accusers might be eager for his condemnation, but half of their own Sanhedrim had acquitted him. ‘And these unworthy Jews, who have cast off the nation’s hope and believe in no resurrection, are accusing me of being an apostate! Who is the sectary-I or they?’

II. There was only one righteous course for Felix, namely, to discharge the prisoner.

But he yielded to the same temptation as had mastered Pilate, and shrank from provoking influential classes by doing the right thing. He was the less excusable, because his long tenure of office had taught him something, at all events, of ‘the Way.’ He had too many crimes to venture on raising enemies in his government; he had too much lingering sense of justice to give up an innocent man. So like all weak men in difficult positions he temporised, and trusted to accident to make the right thing easier for him.

His plea for delay was conveniently indefinite. When was Lysias coming? His letter said nothing about such an intention, and took for granted that all the materials for a decision would be before Felix. Lysias could tell no more. The excuse was transparent, but it served to stave off a decision, and to-morrow would bring some other excuse. Prompt carrying out of all plain duty is the only safety. The indulgence given to Paul, in his light confinement, only showed how clearly Felix knew himself to be doing wrong, but small alleviations do not patch up a great injustice.

III. One reading inserts in Act 24:24 the statement that Drusilla wished to see Paul, and that Felix summoned him in order to gratify her.

Very probably she, as a Jewess, knew something of ‘the Way,’ and with a love of anything odd and new, which such women cannot do without, she wanted to see this curious man and hear him talk. It might amuse her, and pass an hour, and be something to gossip about.

She and Felix got more than they bargained for. Paul was not now the prisoner, but the preacher; and his topics were not wanting in directness and plainness. He ‘reasoned of righteousness’ to one of the worst of unrighteous governors; of ‘temperance’ to the guilty couple who, in calling themselves husband and wife, were showing themselves given over to sinful passions; and of ‘judgment to come’ to a man who, to quote the Roman historian, ‘thought that he could commit all evil with impunity.’

Paul’s strong hand shook even that obdurate soul, and roused one of the two sleeping consciences. Drusilla may have been too frivolous to be impressed, but Felix had so much good left that he could be conscious of evil. Alas! he had so much evil that he suppressed the good. His ‘convenient season’ was then; it never came again. For though he communed with Paul often, he trembled only once. So he passed into the darkness.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

24:10-21 Paul’s defense was that (1) he wasn’t in Jerusalem long enough to incite a riot; (2) none of his accusers had ever seen him stirring up a riot; and (3) he worshiped in accord with Jewish law and everything written in the prophets.

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

Act 24:10. [Ὁ Παῦλος, Paul) By a simple narrative Paul overthrows the exaggerated accusation.—V. g.]—νεύσαντος, having beckoned to him) A gesture becoming the gravity of a judge.—ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, for many years) Six or seven. Experience on the part of a judge is desired by one who has a good cause: ch. Act 26:3.—κριτὴν, a judge) Paul does not flatter (by adding any complimentary epithet).—εὀθύμως) So the old MSS.[138] Afterwards more recent MSS. have εὐθυμότερον.

[138] Thence the reading εὐθύμως, formerly marked with the sign δ, has been elevated in the margin of Ed. 2 to the sign β, with the consent of the Germ. Vers.—E. B.

ABE Vulg. read εὐθύμας; but Rec. Text, εὐθυμότερον, without the oldest authorities’ sanction.—E. and T.

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

Act_24:10. In what a dignified, calm, and wise manner does Paul open his address!

ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν] therefore thou hast an ample judicial experience as regards the circumstances of the nation and their character. Novus aliquis praeses propter inscitiam forte perculsus esset tam atroci delatione, Calvin.

Felix entered on the procuratorship after the banishment of his predecessor Cumanus, in the year 52 (according to Wieseler, 53); see Joseph. Antt. xx. 7.1. Even in the time of Cumanus he had great influence, particularly in Samaria, without, however, being actually governor of that country, as is incorrectly stated in Tac. Ann. xii. 54 in contradiction to Josephus, or of Upper Galilee (as is erroneously inferred by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, and others, from Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 8). See Anger, de temp. rat. p. 88; Wieseler, p. 67 f.; comp. also Gerlach, l.c., p. 75; Ewald, p. 549. He was thus at this time (see Introduction, § 4) probably in the seventh year of his procuratorship.[153]

κριτήν] is not, with Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others (after שׁפט), to be taken generally as praefectus, rector, but specially as judge; for the judicial position of Felix in his procuratorship was the point here concerned. On the participle with ἘΠΙΣΤΆΜ., see Winer, p. 324 [E. T. 435].

ΕὐΘΥΜΌΤΕΡΟΝ] the more cheerfully, namely, than I would be able to do if thou wert still new in this judicial office.

τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι] I bring forward in defence the things concerning myself. Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 54 B, Phaed. p. 69 D, Conv. p. 174 D, and Stallb. in loc., Pol. iv. p. 420 B, 453 C; Dem. 227. 13, 407. 19; Thuc. iii. 62. 4.

[153] To reduce the ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν to three years (Stölting, Beitr. z. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. p. 192), even apart from the duration of the government of Felix being thereby assumed as much too short (ver. 27), is rendered exegetically impossible by the expression itself. For a captatio benevolentiae, so definite (ἐτῶν) a statement of time, if by πολλῶν were meant only three years, would be very inappropriate, as the words would contain a flat untruth. How easily would a more flexible expression have presented itself for such a purpose, such as ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου, or ἐξ ἱκανῶν (or κλειόνων) ἐτῶν!

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 24:10 . On the language of the speech see Bethge, p. 229. This short apology before Felix is not without its traces of Paul’s phraseology, e.g. , ἐλπίδα ἔχων , Act 24:15 , with which we may compare Rom 15:4 , 2Co 3:12 ; 2Co 10:15 , Eph 2:12 , 1Th 4:13 , in all of which we have the phrase ἐλπ . ἔχειν (only once elsewhere in N.T., 1Jn 3:3 ); προσδέχονται in Act 24:15 , with which we may compare Tit 2:13 ; προσφοράς , Act 24:17 , cf. Rom 15:16 ; διʼ ἐτῶν , Act 24:17 , with Gal 2:1 ( διά with genitive of time, only once elsewhere in N.T., Mar 2:1 ), and more especially ἀπρόσκοπον συνειδ ., cf. 1Co 10:32 , Phi 1:10 , and for συνείδησις , see Act 23:1 ( cf. Nösgen, Apostelgeschichte , p. 54, and Alford, Acts , Introd., p. 14). Wendt regards the whole speech as a free composition of the author of Acts, and even this view contrasts favourably with what Wendt himself calls the wilful attempts to refer different words and phrases in the speech to various Redactors, see for illustrations of this arbitrariness his note on p. 369 (1899). νεύσαντος : in N.T., elsewhere only Joh 13:24 . Friedrich draws attention to the frequent mention of beckoning, or making signs, as characteristic of Luke’s writings, p. 29, cf. Luk 1:22 ; Luk 1:62 ( διανεύω , ἐννεύω ), Act 5:7 ( κατανεύω ); Act 13:16 ; Act 26:1 ; Act 24:10 , etc. Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν : in view of the constant change of procurators a period of five to seven years would quite justify St. Paul’s words. Ewald argued for ten years from the statement, Tac., Ann. , xii., 54, that Felix had been joint procurator with Cumanus before he had been appointed sole procurator of Judæa, Samaria, Galilee, Peræa. But no mention is made of this by Jos., Ant. , xx., 7, 1. If, however, so it is argued, Felix had occupied a position of importance in Samaria in the time of the rule of Cumanus without being himself actually joint procurator, this would perhaps account for Jonathan the high priest asking that he might be appointed procurator after the departure of Cumanus (Jos., Ant. , xx., 8, 5, B.J. , ii., 12, 6); such a request is difficult to understand unless Jonathan had some ground for supposing that Felix would be acceptable to the Jews. But the description of Tacitus, l.c. , is also difficult to understand, since we naturally ask what was the relative rank of Felix and Cumanus? or were there two procuratorial districts? and the statement of Josephus seems clearly to intimate that Felix was first appointed to the province after the deposition of Cumanus, and that he went to Palestine as his successor, B.J. , ii., 12, 6, cf. Ant. , xx., 8, 5, Schürer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 ff., and “Felix,” Hastings’ B.D. Both Tacitus and Josephus are taken to imply that Felix succeeded Cumanus in 52 A.D. as procurator, Ann. , xii., 54, Jos., Ant. , xx., 7, 1. But if O. Holtzmann and McGiffert are right in placing St. Paul’s imprisonment in Cæsarea in 53 55 A.D., it seems scarcely intelligible that St. Paul should speak of the “many years” of the rule of Felix, unless on the supposition that Tacitus is right and that Felix had ruled in Samaria and Judæa whilst Cumanus had ruled in Galilee. Harnack, Chron. , i., 236, following Eusebius, assigns the eleventh year of Claudius, 51 A.D., as the year in which Felix entered upon office, and thinks that a procuratorship lasting from 51 54 might be described in St. Paul’s words, but, as Wendt justly points out (1899), the expression πολλὰ ἔτη is much more fitting if spoken some years later. Schürer follows Josephus, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 173 ff., and so more recently Dr. A. Robertson, “Felix,” Hastings’ B.D., and Dr. Zahn, Einleitung , ii., p. 635 (so also article, Biblical World , Nov., 1897), whilst Wendt, p. 58 (1899), would appear to incline to the same view. But it is to be noted that St. Paul speaks of Felix as κριτής , and in this expression it may be possible to find a point of reconciliation between the divergencies resulting from a comparision of Josephus and Tacitus. Felix may have held an office during the procuratorship of Cumanus which may have given him some judicial authority, although of course subordinate to the procurator, whilst on the other hand his tenure of such an office may well have prompted Jonathan’s request to the emperor that Felix should be sent as procurator (a request upon which both Schürer and Zahn lay such stress). The phrase πόλλα ἔτη may thus be further extended to include the tenure of this judicial office which Felix held earlier than 52 A.D., see also Turner, “Chronology,” Hastings’ B.D., i., 418, 419, McGiffert, Apostolic Age , p. 358, O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , p. 128, Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 313, Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul , p. 249 ff., 1899. κριτὴν , see above, p. 480; on the addition δίκαιον , defended by St. Chrysostom (so , Syr. H.), Blass remarks “continet adulationem quæ Paulum parum deceat, quidquid dicit Chrysostomus”. τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ : St. Paul is speaking of the Jews as a nation in their political relationship, in addressing a Roman governor, not as God’s people, λαός . εὐθυμότερον : adverb only here in N.T., not in LXX, but in classical Greek, for the adjective see Act 27:36 ( 2Ma 11:26 ), and the verb εὐθυμεῖν , Act 24:22 . St. Paul also begins with a captatio benevolentiæ , but one which contains nothing but the strict truth; he might fairly appeal to the judicial experience of Felix for the due understanding of his case. τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ : for the phrase τὰ περί τινος as characteristic of St. Luke, three times in Gospel, eight times in Acts (six times in St. Paul’s Epistles and not in other Gospels, except Mar 5:27 , R.V.), cf. Hawkins, Horæ Synopticæ , p. 38, Friedrich, p. 10 (so Lekebusch and Zeller). ἀπολογοῦμαι : only in Luke and Paul, Luk 12:11 ; Luk 21:14 , Act 19:33 ; Act 25:8 ; Act 26:1-2 ; Act 26:24 ; Rom 2:15 , 2Co 12:19 , each time in Acts, except Act 19:38 , with reference to Paul: R.V. “I make my defence”; see Grimm-Thayer, sub v. , for the construction of the verb, in classical Greek as here, Thuc., iii., 62, Plat., Phædo , 69 D. In LXX, cf. Jer 12:1 , 2Ma 13:26 .

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

Tertullus by the devil’s rhetoric beginneth with flattery, maketh an end with lies: but Paul using heavenly eloquence, and but a simple beginning casteth off from himself the crime of sedition, wherewith he was burdened, with a simple denial.

Paul pleaded his cause two years before Felix departed out of the province, Acts 27, but he had governed Trachonite, and Batanea, and Galavnite, before that Claudius made him governor of Judea: Josephus in the History of the Jewish War, lib. 2, chap. 11.

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

thou hast been many years a judge to this nation--He had been in this province for six or seven years, and in Galilee for a longer period. Paul uses no flattery, but simply expresses his satisfaction at having to plead before one whose long official experience of Jewish matters would enable him the better to understand and appreciate what he had to say.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 10. Then Paul - answered] The apostle's defence consists of two parts: -

1. The exordium, which has for its object the praise of his judge, whose qualifications to discern and decide on a question of this nature he fully allows; and expects, from this circumstance, to have a favourable hearing.

2. The tractation, which consists of two parts:

I. REFUTATION:

1. of the charge of polluting the temple;

2. of stirring up sedition;

3. of being a leader of any sect who had a different worship from the God of their fathers.

II. AFFIRMATION:

1. that he had lived so as to preserve a good conscience towards God, and towards men;

2. that so far from polluting the temple, he had been purified in it, and was found thus worshipping according to the law of God;

3. that what Tertullus and his companions had witnessed was perfectly false; and he defied them to produce a single proof, and appeals to those who had been witnesses of his conduct in Jerusalem, who should have been there could they have proved any thing against him.

Thou hast been of many years a judge] Cumanus and Felix were, for a time, joint governors of Judea; but, after the condemnation of Cumanus, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix; and from Josephus we learn that this was now the sixth or seventh year of his administration, which might be called many years, when the very frequent removals of the governors of the provinces are considered. See Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. 7, and see the margin.

A judge - κριτην, the same here in signification as the Hebrew שפט shophet, which means a ruler or governor. This was the title of the ancient governors of Israel.

The more cheerfully] ευθυμοτερον, With a better heart or courage, because, as thy long residence among us has brought thee to a thorough acquaintance with our customs, I may expect a proper decision in my favour, my cause being perfectly sound.

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

10. And Paul. The state of Paul’s defense is not conversant in the quality; but he denieth the crime that was laid to his charge; not that he was ashamed of the gospel, or afraid of the cross, but because that was no place to make any full confession of faith in. Therefore, omitting the cause of the gospel, which his accuser had not touched, he answereth simply unto the crimes whereof he was accused. But before he come thither, he saith that he doth the more willingly answer for himself before Felix, because he had long time been governor of Judea; because, peradventure, some new governor would have been sore moved hearing such things laid to his charge. He doth not commend the virtues of the governor, but he saith that he is glad, because he is of great experience, that he may judge more justly. This is surely a sincere and free manner of defending, to set matter against words. Yet Paul seemeth to gather amiss, that Felix can know the time of his coming, because he had been governor many years. I answer, that this is said therefore, because it is likely that he will deal more moderately; as if he should say, Because thou hast been acquainted with their conditions long time, I have the better hope that they shall not deceive thee. For want of skill doth make judges too credulous, and doth enforce them to make too much haste.

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.

(10) Forasmuch as I know . . .—We note at once the difference between St. Paul’s frank manliness and the servile flattery of the advocate. He is content to appeal to the experience of the “many years” (really about six, but this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship, and the words might, therefore, be used without exaggeration) during which he had held office. Such a man was not likely to attach too much weight to the statements of Tertullus and Ananias. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with a divided authority (see Note on Act_24:2), had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.—The verb for “answer” is connected with our English “apology” in its older sense of “vindication” or “defence.”

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

10–21. St Paul’s answer to the charge

10. Then Paul, &c.] When the governor had given him leave to speak the Apostle addressed his defence to the points charged against him. He had not excited the people, nor been the leader of any body of Nazarenes, nor had he polluted the temple.

thou hast been of many years a judge] We have arrived in the history at about a.d. 58 or 59, and Felix had been made procurator in a.d. 52. So that “many years” is about six or seven. But many of the governors were recalled before they had held office so long. In Act_24:17 “many years” must be about four or five.

I do the more cheerfully, &c.] The best MSS. have the positive, “I cheerfully make my defence.” St Paul was so far of good courage, because the experience of Felix, and his knowledge of Jewish manners and customs, would enable him to appreciate the statements which related to the Apostle’s presence in Jerusalem.

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.

Then Paul, after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak,.... Tertullus having finished his account, Paul was silent to his charge and calumnies, until the governor beckoned with his hand or head, or made some sign to him to speak for himself; which he might not do, until leave was given him; and then he

answered as follows:

forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation; some say he was in the thirteenth, others in the tenth year of his government; some copies read a "just judge"; but this does not so well agree with the character of Felix; See Gill on Act 24:27.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself; since if he had been such a mover of sedition everywhere, he must in this course of years have known or heard something of it; and seeing also he could be no stranger to the temper of the Jews, that they were given to envy, revenge, lying, and perjury, and therefore would not easily believe all they said, or rashly take their part, but rather would pity the apostle, who had fallen into such hands, and do him justice.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

10 Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

Ver. 10. Forasmuch as I know, &c.] Paul was a stately orator when he listed, as here. Porphyry said it was a pity that such a man as Paul should be bestowed upon our religion. How bravely doth he here unstarch the orator’s speech, and make his own defence.

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.

Had beckoned unto him to speak - Either by a nod or by the hand,

Hast been of many years - Felix and Cumanus had been joint governors of Judea; but after Cumanus had been condemned for his bad administration of affairs, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix. This was about seven years before Paul was arraigned, and might be called many years, as he had been long enough there to become acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews; and it might also be called long in comparison with the short time which his immediate predecessors had held the office. See Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapters 7 and 7.

A judge - This word is evidently used here in the sense of magistrate, or one appointed to administer the affairs of government. To determine litigated matters was, however, one part of his office. It is remarkable that Paul did not begin his speech, as Tertullus had done, by any flattering address, or by any of the arts of rhetoric. He founded his plea on the justice of his cause, and on the fact that Felix had had so much experience in the affairs of Judea that he was well qualified to understand the merits of the case, and to judge impartially. Paul was well acquainted with his character (see the notes on Act 24:25), and would not by flattering words declare what was not strictly true.

I do the more cheerfully ... - Since you are so well acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews, I the more readily submit the case to your disposal. This address indicated great confidence in the justice of his cause, and was the language of a man bold, fearless, and conscious of innocence.

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

In the apostle’s speech we observe nothing of the flattery, which characterized the opposite party. It would have been unworthy of his just cause. (Calmet) --- He observes he had been governor of the province many (eight or nine) years, to insinuate, that had he been a seditious man, as he was accused, Felix would not have failed to have heard of his misdeeds before. (Menochius)

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).

Beckoned unto him, by some sign with his hand. Though St. Paul would not flatter Felix with notorious untruths, as Tertullus had done, yet he speaks very respectfully, and mentions his continuance in the government; the rather, because, if he had been so seditious a person as Tertullus would have represented him to have been, Felix could not but have heard of him, and of any mischief that had been done by him.

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

10. Beckoned—The prosecutor is silent and seated. A nod from the judge permits Paul to speak. So veteran a pleader needs not, like the high priest and his elders, a lawyer to put his case.

Many years a judge—Paul has not much material for compliment, for he must confine himself to truth; but he makes a most dexterous use of what he has. He compliments the judge on his long tenure of office. Felix had ruled six or seven years; a long period for those times of rapid change by imperial caprice.

The more cheerfully—Skilful truth again. Felix had during his six years’ residence in Cesarea doubtless become familiar with the Christian Church there, where Philip the evangelist had long preached and where Paul had so lately visited, (Act_21:8-15.) He had a Jewish wife, who evidently knew the history of Christ and of Christianity. (See note on Act_24:24.)

Paul now in his reply answers to the charge of sedition, (11-13;) to the charge of heresy, (14-16;) to the charge of sacrilege, (17-21.)

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

And when the governor, etc., Paul answered for then Paul, after that the governor, etc., answered, A.V.; cheerfully for the more cheerfully, A.V. and T.R.; make my defense for answer for myself, A.V. Forasmuch as I know, etc. St. Paul, with inimitable skill, pitched upon the one favorable side of his judge"s person, viz. his long experience in Jewish affairs, and made it the subject of his opening reference a courteous and conciliatory reference, in striking contrast with the false, fulsome flattery of Tertullus. Of many years. If Paul was speaking in the year A.D. 58, and Felix had been governor only since A.D. 53, "many years" was rather a hyperbole. But Tacitus expressly states that Felix was joint procurator with Cumanus; and therefore he had been a judge to the Jewish nation long before the banishment of Cumanus. Tacitus"s authority is infinitely superior to that of Josephus, and this passage strongly supports the statement of Tacitus ("Annal.," 12:54). Make my defense (ta peri ejmautou ajpologoumai). For the word ajpologoumai, and for the situation of St. Paul, and for the gracious promise provided for such situation, see Luk_12:12 Luk_21:15; see too Act_19:33 Act_25:8 Act_26:1, Act_26:2; and for the use of ajpologi see Act_22:1, note.

Vers. 10-21. The just man"s defense.

Twofoldnegative; positive. The accusations met by a clear and bold denial. Over against the false representation a simple and candid statement of his position as a private and public man. Notice

I The apostle stood firmly on the ground of LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. They accused him of heresy; he maintained that his conscience was void of offence towards God and man.

II The foundation of confidence is THE WORD OF GOD the Law, the prophets, the true tradition of the fathers. All these things the apostle believed.

III THE RESURRECTION was the great stumbling-block to the Jews, but the great support of the apostolic faith. The position taken in the Sanhedrim is maintained before Felix. The resurrection is the vital point of the new faith.

IV The zeal of the Christian was quite consistent with PATRIOTISM. There was nothing revolutionary in the method of Christian teaching. The disturbance was simply due to the presence of a new element of life among old corruption. So always, the world is turned upside down by earnestness, because it is already the wrong side upwards. R.

Vers. 10-21. The defense of Paul.

The simplest analysis of the defense which Paul here made for himself is its highest praise. The matter of it must be closely dependent upon the occasion, but the characteristics of its method must be good for all occasion, and imitable to all generations. Notice in this defense

I ITS ADDRESS TO THE JUDGE, UNGARNISHED BY A HOLLOW COMPLIMENT. The contrast which is presented in this respect to the introduction of Tertullus speaks for itself. There is here nothing, but simple truth.

II THE HONEST BUSINESSLIKE POINTEDNESS WITH WHICH IT PROCEEDS TO ITS ONE TASK. "I do the more cheerfully answer for myself," says Paul. He could never answer for himself with hope of any ordinary justice before a council of his own people. But now, while this is his one task to answer for himself, and he takes to it immediately, he does not refrain from saying that there are aspects of the case which enable him to throw himself with spirit into his work.

III ITS ENTIRE ABSTINENCE FROM ANYTHING BEARING THE REMOTEST RESEMBLANCE TO ABUSE OF HIS ACCUSERS. Paul denies the allegations laid to his charge, shows to an experienced judge that there was very little time in which the things alleged could possibly have occurred, and challenges, by a direct contradiction, the ability of his highly respectable accusers to prove their assertions and make out their charges. But through all there is not a word that sounds like "pestilent fellow," or "sedition," or "ringleader.

IV ITS DIRECT PENETRATING TO WHAT LAY AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER. This was a difference "in the way of worshipping God." The keen Roman judge (and Paul knew it and correctly took advantage of his knowledge) was not likely to be so very anxious to lend the force of Roman law and a Roman executive to the mere bidding of Jewish bigotry and ecclesiasticism.

V ITS HONORING BEFORE ONE WHO KNEW LITTLE AND THOUGHT LESS OF IT, CONSCIENCE TILE FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE OF ALL RELIGION. Paul does not blow contempt upon the truths or methods of religion, even in that shape of religion least understood or honored by Felix, revealed religion. He declares:

1. His conscience.

2. His living constant care of it.

3. His acknowledgment of the necessity of training it to correctness and to vigor.

4. His recognition of its twofold duty,

(1) toward God and

(2) toward man. In all this, there can be no doubt that Paul honored his God, his religion, and his individual conscience, with no hope of any deep sympathy, on the part of Felix indeed, but also without any tear of the high priest Ananias again daring to order them to "smite him on the mouth.

VI ITS VERY EVIDENT BUT NONE TITLE LESS CONSUMMATE STROKE OF POLICY, IN POINTING TO THE FACT OF THE STRANGE ABSENCE OF SOME WITNESSES, AND TILE STRANGER SILENCE OF OTHERS ALTHOUGH THEY WERE PRESENT. Paul calls attention to the fact that these two things speak for themselves. And finally challenges once more contradiction of this position, that he had not been the originator of any disturbance whatever, much less seditious disturbance in Jerusalem, unless his famous interpolation, "Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day," could be interpreted as such. But Paul knew this challenge could not be taken up, both because the Pharisees sided with him in the matter on the very occasion, and because the disturbance was one as between the rival theologies of the Jews, and not as between mere civilians. The correctness, cogency, calmness, of this defense made up its masterly convincingness. There could be no doubt which party had the moral victory of the day. There can be no doubt of the fallen countenances of Ananias and elders and Tertullus. And there can be no doubt that, in this very defense, the accused Christian may hear to the end of the world words not altogether unlike these: "After this manner, therefore, defend ye yourselves. B.

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

Knowing - for several years thou hast been a judge over this nation - And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this. It was a plain fact. He governed Judea six or seven years. I answer for myself - As it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus's charge: sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests, that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party and attempt an insurrection: (for it was about twelve days since he came up thither; five of which he had been at Cesarea, ver. 1; one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem.) And he challenges them, in fact, to produce any evidence of such practices, ver. 11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, ver. 14, 16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

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

the governor

Felix made procurator over Judaea, A.D. 53.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul denies the charges:

v. 10. Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself,

v. 11. because that thou mayest understand that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.

v. 12. And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city;

v. 13. neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

Paul’s position in this matter was very unpleasant, for he was suddenly, by the beckoning hand of the governor, placed face to face with the necessity of answering to charges of a very grave nature, some of which, in fact, were serious enough, if sustained, to result in severe, punishment, if not in death. But he relied upon the promise of the Lord for mouth and wisdom, Luk 21:16. His answer is conspicuously free from the fawning flattery that had been the outstanding feature of the speech of Tertullus. He relied upon the fact, which he knew to be true, that Felix had for many years been a judge to this people, that he had been the highest judicial authority in the country for some time, and had thus acquired a personal knowledge of its public affairs and some insight into the religious customs of the Jews. Felix had now been procurator of Judea some six or seven years, a comparatively long period as governorships went in that country, and was bound to have been in constant touch with Jewish life and manners. This fact therefore gave Paul the necessary courage to make his defense with all openness and confidence. As his first point Paul stated, since Felix therefrom could gain accurate knowledge of the situation, that it was not more than twelve days since he had gone up to Jerusalem to worship. This statement may easily be justified in various ways, as a number of historians have shown, the exact sequence of events being immaterial. Two facts stand out in this sentence, namely, that the express purpose of Paul in going to Jerusalem was to worship, and that the shortness of the time would not possibly have permitted him to foment an uprising. And therefore he flatly denies the charges which had been preferred by the Jews through their attorney. They had not found him disputing, arguing, quarreling with any one; they hub not come upon him in the act of inciting an uprising of the people, neither in the synagogues nor in any part of the city. They could not offer or furnish any proofs to the governor concerning any of the charges which they were now bringing against him. Paul’s simple assertion of the truth was not only a general denial of the charge that he had been an agitator among the Jews in all parts of the empire, but it, incidentally challenged the opponents to bring proofs of their accusations. Thus Paul had disposed of the opening charges of Tertillus in a form of self-evident truthfulness which could not fail of making a deep impression. If the same methods are followed by the Christians in our days, they will usually aid their cause better than by cowering fear and false submission.

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

Our apostle, being accused of three notorious crimes, namely, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple, answers distinctly to every one of them.

Where observe, 1. How undaunted innocency is in a good person, and in a good cause; St. Paul was so far from being daunted by the greatness of his enemies, or by the vehemency of their accusation, that he tells the governor, he did with all cheerfulness undertake his defence.

Observe, 2. How the apostle answers distinctly to the particulars of his accusation. And first, As to the crime of sedition, charged upon his person. Secondly, as to the crime of heresy, charged upon his religion.

As to the former, the crime of sedition, this is a very infamous charge; what schism is in matters ecclesiastical, that is sedition in matters temporal and civil. As the one violates the peace of the church, so doth the other the peace of the commonwealth.

Sedition is committed three ways; by the head, by the tongue, and by the hand. A seditious head plots and contrives mischief, a seditious tongue vents it, and a seditious hand executes it.

None of these ways was the apostle guilty of sedition, he never employed his head to contrive, nor his tongue to utter, nor his hand to practise, any thing that tended that way; yet he is charged with it, We have found this fellow a mover of sedition.

Learn thence, It is no new stratagem to represent the faithful servants of God as enemies to states and kingdoms, as disturbers of the peace, as troublers of Israel, as trumpets of rebellion, as movers of sedition, on purpose to bring them into hatred with princes, that they may fall under the sword of the magistrate as malefactors, and be looked upon as persons unworthy to live.

But how does St. Paul free himself from the charge and imputation of sedition?

Thus, 1. By demonstrating the improbability of it; how unlikely it was, that he who came up to the temple to worship God, and to bring alms to the poor, and was in Jerusalem but a very few days, and did not so much as dispute either in the temple or in the synagogues, should yet stir up the people to sedition.

2. He puts his adversaries upon proof of their articles, Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

From the apostle’s practise in clearing his own innocency, we learn, That it is a piece of justice which every man owes to himself, to vindicate and clear his reputation from all guilt falsely imputed to him, and especially from that of sedition.

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

10-21. (10) " Then Paul answered (the governor nodding to him to speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, I do the more cheerfully defend myself: (11) for you are able to know that there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. (12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) having hope toward God, which they themselves also entertain, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these themselves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question by you this day. "

This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have been only six days, which would have afforded no sufficient time for stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the synagogues, or in any party of the city. As to being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the offerings of the temple. In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, that those who first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, in the resurrection of the dead. The last point was made, and presented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors.

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.

10–21. Paul answered. He had the right to reply to his accusers. The Roman law condemned no one unheard. Thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation. For six or seven years Felix had been governor and was therefore familiar with the state of affairs in Judea. Upon this fact Paul courteously congratulates himself.

It is not more than twelve days. It would be easy for Felix to ascertain the facts, for only twelve days had passed since he returned to Judea, after many years absence. Of these twelve, the first is the day Paul meets James and the elders, the second he enters upon his vow, the seventh he is seized in the temple, the eighth tried before the Sanhedrim, the eleventh day he is delivered to Felix, and the thirteenth appears before his court.

Verse 12 is in answer to the first charge, that of sedition. He had been perfectly quiet in Jerusalem.

But this I confess. Verses 14, 15 and 16 are in answer to the second charge, that he is of the sect of Nazarenes.” He confesses that he worships God after that way they call a sect (see Revision). Yet he is a true Jew, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. In becoming a Christian, he had not, therefore, as they asserted, apostatized from the faith of his fathers.

And have hope toward God. This hope of the resurrection, the great doctrine of Christianity, was one that the law and the prophets foreshadow, and which they themselves also allow. The Jews held this same hope. Apart from the Sadducees, a small minority, the Jews believed in a future life and judgment. Hence, even in this matter, he was not preaching a new, unknown and illegal doctrine, for Judaism was acknowledged by Roman law. Josephus says, “The Sadducees were able to persuade none but the rich. The Pharisees had the multitude on their side.”

Herein do I exercise myself. In this belief of a resurrection. His belief was not a theory, but a life, and hence he sought to keep his conscience pure in the sight of God and man.

Now after many years I came. Here he begins his reply to the third charge, that of profaning the temple. He came to Jerusalem with the most benevolent motives, to bring alms to my own nation. These were the sums of money gathered in the Gentile churches for the poor in Jerusalem. See Rom. 15:25–31; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:9. Offerings. Such as were customary at the temple. It was while engaged in the preparations for a Nazarite offering that he was seized. He thus accounts for his presence in the temple.

Certain Jews from Asia found me. He states how these Jews who raised the outcry found him engaged. He was engaged in a Jewish rite.

Who ought to have been here. These foreign Jews were the legal accusers. The Sanhedrim was a court of trial, and its members present were not the accusers. The Roman custom required the accusers to face the accused.

Let these same here say. Let those present testify if they know one thing against me, save that I declared before the Sanhedrim that Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. This was the real offence in the eyes of the high priest and his fellow Sadducees.

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 responds to Governor Felix about the charges brought against him.

General Information:

Here the word "they" refers to the Jews who were accusing Paul.

the governor motioned

"the governor gestured"

a judge to this nation

Here "nation" refers to the people of the Jewish nation. AT: "a judge for the people of the Jewish nation" (See: Metonymy)

explain myself

"explain my situation"

twelve days since

"12 days since" (See: Numbers)

I did not stir up a crowd

"Stir up" here is a metaphor for agitating people into unrest, just as stirring a liquid agitates it. AT: "I did not provoke the crowd" (See: Metaphor)

the accusations

"the blames for wrongdoings" or "the charges for crimes"

translationWords

govern

year

judge, judges

nation

worship

Jerusalem

synagogue

accuse

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

10–21. ST PAUL’S ANSWER TO THE CHARGE

10. ἀπεκρίθη τε ὁ Παῦλος, and Paul answered. When the governor had given him leave to speak the Apostle addressed his defence to the points charged against him. He had not excited the people, nor been the leader of any body of Nazarenes, nor had he polluted the Temple.

ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, for many years. We have arrived in the history at about A.D. 58 or 59, and Felix had been made procurator in A.D. 52. So that ‘many years’ means about six or seven. But the governors were often recalled before they had held office so long. In Act 24:17 ‘many years’ must be about four or five.

εὐθύμως τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι, I cheerfully answer for myself. St Paul was so far of good courage, because the experience of Felix, and his knowledge of Jewish manners and customs, would enable him to appreciate the statements which related to the Apostle’s presence in Jerusalem.

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.

10. ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν] Felix was now in the seventh year of his procuratorship, which began in the twelfth year of Claudius, a.d. 52.

The contrast between Tertullus’s and Paul’s ‘captatio benevolentiæ’ is remarkable. The former I have characterized above. But the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges the one point which could really win attention to him from Felix, viz. his confidence arising from speaking before one well skilled by experience in the manners and customs of the Jews.

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

The more cheerfully [ευθυμοτερον] . The best texts read the positive of the adverb, eujqumwv, cheerfully.

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