Bible Commentaries
Acts 24

Verses 1-16

28 As in the case of our Lord, witness after witness testified that Paul had done nothing deserving the bonds he endured or the death with which he was threatened. All who heard his case concurred in the opinion that the accusations against him were unfounded and false. Yet it was in this way that he fulfilled that part of his ministry foretold by Ananias which he hitherto had no opportunity of carrying out. He had witnessed to the Jewish people and to the nations. Now he was to testify before kings ( Act_9:15 ) and thus close the kingdom testimony. His undoubted innocence, coupled with his Roman citizenship, greatly mitigated the terrors of a long imprisonment. The divine reason for this seems to be that the testimony to the Jews in the land was fulfilled, and Paul was, as a consequence, put beyond their power. All that they are allowed to do aids him in fulfilling his final kingdom testimony to the kings of the land, and provides for his journey to Rome, the greatest center of earthly power at the time, there solemnly to close up the kingdom proclamation altogether. Paul's imprisonment was a sign that the earthly kingdom was being withdrawn, otherwise its herald would be delivered from the earthly rulers. And this is emphasized by the fact that the nation who rejected it is the cause of his imprisonment.

34 It was a nice point with the Roman authorities not to interfere with one another's jurisdiction. Thus Pilate, when our Lord was brought before him, learning that he was of Galilee, which was in Herod's jurisdiction, sent Him to Herod ( Luk_23:7 ). Felix does not seem to have heeded Paul's Cilician origin, probably because the complaints against him were not sustained, and the alleged crimes were committed mainly in Jerusalem.

1 Ananias, the chief priest, lost no time in following the man who had called him a whitewashed wall. He hires a professional pleader against Paul, probably an Italian, acquainted more accurately with the Roman law, and the flattery to which governors were accustomed. As at the trial of the Master it was really Pilate before Christ, so now the judges are being judged, though judgment is not denounced here as in the Sanhedrin.

3 The smooth eulogy of Felix was most undeserved. He was a freedman of Claudius and brother of that Pallas who was a favorite of the emperor. Having been a slave and now owing his elevation to influence at Rome, it is no wonder Tacitus tells us that "in the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave." He had Jonathan, one of the high priests, assassinated because he protested against some of his practises. It must be acknowledged, however. that he did rid parts of Judea from robbers, and especially, at about this time, drove out the Egyptian for whom Paul was mistaken by Claudius Lysias. His acts stirred the Jews against the Roman rule so that. when he retired from the province and went to Rome, he was tried for maladministration, but acquitted by Nero through the influence of his brother Pallas.

5 Tertullus makes three charges against Paul. The first was against Roman law stirring up treason against the government. The second was against the law of Moses, as they supposed, a ring-leader of the Nazarenes. The third was against both Roman and Jewish law, profaning the sanctuary, for the Roman law protected the Jews in the exercise of their worship.

6-8 The omission of "and want to judge by a law of ours, yet captain Lysias, coming with much force, leading him away out of our hands, orders his accusers to come to you" is based on the evidence of almost all the ancient manuscripts and has the consent of almost all of the editors of the text. It is most unlikely that an orator like Tertullus would so damage his own influence as to accuse captain Lysias of a wrong, or suggest that Felix had no right to judge the case.

10 Paul quickly disposed of the two charges involving the Roman law. Since coming to Jerusalem only a few days before he had done nothing upon which they could base their charge of sedition. Neither had he profaned the temple, The other charge he admits, and makes it the occasion of his testimony. His dignified and truthful introduction is in marked contrast to that of his accuser.

Verses 17-27

17 To a man like Felix the accusation that Paul belonged to the sect of the Nazarenes would have little in it to incriminate him. And Paul, with marvelous wisdom, answers all that might be said against the sect by pointing out his mission to Jerusalem. He came bringing a vast sum of money for the poor, contributed by this same despised sect. Whatever their differences in doctrine they had as much right to their belief as the Jews. Viewed from the practical standpoint of a governor, their charitable act called for commendation. Paul came to Jerusalem with a gift for his nation. He engaged in the religious rites of their religion. The Jews of Asia, who started the riot against him should be present to say what he had done. Their absence was proof that he had done nothing.

20 Having thus defended himself of all but the theological charge against him, Paul dismisses that by showing that the fundamental doctrinal difference was the same as that which kept the Pharisees and Sadducees in continual strife with one another. If it was criminal to differ they should be indicted and one party punished. When they had settled their differences it would be in order to try the sect of the Nazarenes.

22 The "justice" of Rome, like all human justice, was based on expedience, rather than equity. Felix would have set Paul free, only he knew it would displease the Jews. He invents an excuse for deferring matters, for he evidently had no thought of consulting captain Lysias, who, on his own confession, could make nothing out of the case. One point seems to have impressed Felix. Paul had come to Jerusalem with much money. Could he or his friends be persuaded to part with some of it? This seems to have controlled his course until he was relieved of his place. On this account he not only lets Paul have much freedom but desires that he shall be able to get into communication with his friends. This is why he gives him audience and hints that, given occasion , he would call for him. It is not that he would hear him when he had a "convenient season," but that he would make any season convenient if given the proper encouragement. He was after a bribe. Yet the Lord used this mercenary motive to protect Paul from the Jews and to lead him before kings and to bring him to Rome.

24 The great moral courage of the apostle is manifest in his intercourse with Felix and his wife Drusilla, whom the king had enticed from her own husband by the help of a magician. To speak to such a notorious man, who slew the high priest for presuming to expostulate with him concerning his unlawful acts, while he was his prisoner and fully at his mercy, about righteousness, self-control and future judgment, so that the governor was affrighted, was to anticipate the powers of the coming kingdom, where righteousness shall reign.

1 Festus seems to have been a just man, though he tried to favor the Jews, as one in his position naturally would. The Jews had found that they could do nothing with Felix in Paul's case, and seem to have dropped the matter. But the accession of the new procurator gave them another opportunity to have him put to death and they are not slow to take advantage of it. Festus is more respectable than Felix. His name means "festive," and consistently with it he prefers the pleasurable to the right. He summarily disposed of the fact of Christ and His resurrection as a religious vagary because he was essentially worldly. The world holds festival while the saints suffer.

7 From Paul's reply we may imagine that the charges against him were much the same as those which had been preferred before. But they produced no evidence and the governor seems to have been convinced of his innocence. He should have freed Paul, but such a course would have brought his administration into disrepute at its very inception. Consequently he proposes a course which the Jews would approve, but he leaves it open to Paul to reject or accept. He proposes to bring the case back to Jerusalem. But Paul is through with Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. God has made it plain that his next testimony is in Rome.