Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Acts 24:7

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Acts 24:7. With great violence — μετα πολλης βιας, I rather think, means with an armed force. Tertullus intimates that Lysias interfered contrary to law, and brought soldiers to support him in his infringement on their constitution. This is what he seems to say and complain of; for the Jews were vexed with Lysias for rescuing the apostle from their hands.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

24:1-28:31 PAUL FAREWELLS THE EAST; GOES TO ROME

Imprisoned in Caesarea two years (24:1-27)

In the trial before Felix, the Jews used a professional lawyer to present their case (24:1-4). They made three accusations against Paul. Firstly, he created uprisings among the Jews, the suggestion being that he was stirring up rebellion against Rome. Secondly, he was a leader of the Nazarenes, a religious group that operated without government permission and therefore was probably rebellious against Rome. Thirdly, he had defiled the temple in Jerusalem (5-9).
Paul began his defence by denying that he had stirred up the people in Jerusalem. No one could prove such a claim (10-13). Secondly, he admitted that he was a follower of ‘the Way’, but this was the true continuation and completion of the ancient Israelite religion. It was not a new sect, neither was it false. Paul believed in the resurrection of the dead, as did most Jews, and he worshipped the same God as they did (14-16). Finally, he had not defiled the temple; in fact, he had carried out a ceremony of purification. In addition he had brought gifts to help his fellow Jews in their need. The Sanhedrin’s only accusation against him concerned his belief in the resurrection, and even that was supported by only one section of it (17-21).
Felix knew the Jews well and plainly saw that Paul was not guilty, but out of fear of the Jews he would not release him. So Paul spent the next two years in prison, though he was allowed to receive visits from friends (22-23; see v. 27). Felix wanted to find out more about Paul’s Christian beliefs, but he became uncomfortable when Paul spoke of the need for right behaviour and the certainty of coming judgment. Paul could have been released had he been willing to pay the bribe Felix was seeking, but he refused. Felix therefore left him in prison till the arrival of the next governor, who could handle the case as he wished (24-27).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrection among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: who moreover assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold: … from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.

Briefly stated: Paul was accused of being (1) a pest, (2) an insurrectionist, (3) a ringleader of the Nazarenes, and (4) one who had attempted to profane the temple. All these charges except No. 3 were unspecific, and even it was unsupported by any evidence whatever. "The weak part of Tertullus' case was that he produced no evidence to support his charges." Sir William M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 290.

The sect of the Nazarenes … "This is the only place in the New Testament where this term is used of the followers of Jesus." F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 465. In no sense whatever is Christianity "a sect."

Assayed to profane the temple … Note how this is changed from "profaning the temple" as they at first alleged (Acts 21:28).

By examining him thyself … Agreement is felt with McGarvey who construed this as "a hint of examination by scourging," J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company), ii, p. 235. as indicated by their careful avoidance of giving any information regarding Paul's Roman citizenship, not knowing, of course, that Lysias had already informed the governor on that point. The resolution of the question, however, would have to turn finally on the verses left out of our text, appearing in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. The words left out are:

Acts 24:6 b-8a, And we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came, and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before thee.

If these words from the English Revised Version (1885) margin were allowed, of course, "examining him" would then be a reference to Lysias; and the fact of Felix mentioning Lysias in Acts 24:22 seems to indicate (but does not prove) that the words belong. It is a problem we must leave with the scholars.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

But the chief captain ... - Tertullus pretends that they would have judged Paul righteously if Lysias had not interposed; but the truth was, that, without regard to law or justice, they would have murdered him on the spot.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Shall we turn now to chapter twenty-four in the book of Acts.

Paul had been seen in the temple worshipping God by some of the Jews that were from Asia who were familiar with Paul's ministry among the Gentiles. They immediately began to cry out against his being there in the temple, stirring up the Jews who grabbed hold of Paul and were in the process of beating him to death when Paul was rescued by those Roman soldiers, the guards who were dispatched from Antonial fortress to free him from this angry mob there on the temple mount.

Paul attempted to talk to the people from the steps of the Antonio fortress recounting for them his conversion. But when he made mention of the Gentiles, it just created a riot. The next day, the Roman captain Lysias wanted to find out just what the raucous was all about, so he called for the Sanhedrin and had Paul appear before them that they might make their charges. Paul, in giving his defense, knowing that they were divided between the Sadducees and Pharisees, said, "I am a Pharisee, the son of the Pharisee, and because I believe in the resurrection from the dead, I'm here before you" ( Acts 23:6 ). And the Pharisees immediately took his part, the Sadducees took out against him. They had such a rabble between themselves. The captain thought they were going to tear Paul to pieces, so the second time he rescued them from the Jewish people.

And then Paul's nephew heard that forty men had taken a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. And so they went to the high priest, exposed their vow and their plot, and they said, "Now you call for Paul tomorrow afternoon like you want to ask him some questions, and while they're bringing him to you, we're going to jump him and kill him." So the nephew came in and told Paul. Paul sent his nephew to the captain, who then commanded that in the middle of the night some two hundred spearmen, seventy cavalrymen and two hundred foot soldiers accompany Paul from Jerusalem to take him to Caesarea under the protective custody of the Roman government. And now Paul has come down to Caesarea, and the elders of Israel are invited to come down and prefer their charges against Paul there.

So that brings us to the beginning of chapter twenty-four.

After five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul ( Acts 24:1 ).

Now we have this fellow Tertullus, the orator, who is so flattering to this wicked man Felix that it is nauseating.

And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse Paul, saying [first of all to Felix], Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes ( Acts 24:2-5 ):

These are very serious charges that Tertullus is pressing against Paul, because one thing that the Roman government did not tolerate and that was an uprising in the provinces against Rome. The Jews had a history of rebellion that the Roman Empire had to already put down in the past, and they knew that there were those who were constantly inciting the people to riot against the Roman rule. And so the charges of a pestilent fellow, one who stirs up sedition among the Jews--the idea is that he is stirring up sedition against the Roman rule and he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

There were many religious uprisings in Israel, many men who would gather together groups of men around them and who would then in their religious fanaticism inspire them to rebel against Rome. So he is saying, "You've got a fellow here who is the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes and as such, he is apt to stir them into a religious fervor to rebel against Rome."

Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law ( Acts 24:6 ).

It sounds from Tertullus that they arrested Paul and were going to bring him to trial. Far from the truth. Paul was caught by a mob and it was a lynching mob. They were going to lynch him. And so he is certainly misrepresenting the truth to Felix.

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands ( Acts 24:7 ),

In reality, Lysias rescued Paul from being beaten to death by the mob.

And then he commanded his accusers to come unto thee: and by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all of the things, whereof we accuse him. And all of the Jews that had come with him were assenting, saying that these things were so ( Acts 24:8-9 ).

Notice that all of the charges were without substantial witnesses. Everything that they were declaring was hearsay. None of them could give actual testimony against Paul in these things.

So Paul [speaking in his own defense], after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, he answered, Forasmuch as I know that you have been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: because that you may understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship ( Acts 24:10-11 ).

It was just twelve days earlier Paul had gone to Jerusalem from Caesarea, or actually it was just twelve days that he had been in Jerusalem, he had five and fifteen days from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and "it was just twelve days that I was in Jerusalem. I had gone to worship the Lord."

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 ( Acts 24:12 ):

They didn't find me doing any of these things.

Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me ( Acts 24:13 ).

Paul is denying the charges that are made against him, declaring that they are not able to prove any of them. "They have not found me doing these things that they declare so that their declarations would only be hearsay."

This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers ( Acts 24:14 ),

The term "the way" was the term used in the early church to describe themselves. They were living a new way of life with Jesus at the center of their life. Jesus had said to His disciples, "I am the way: no man comes to the Father but by me" ( John 14:6 ). And so they picked up this term "the way" and they used it to describe the Christian fellowship in the early years of the church. At least six times this term "the way" is used to describe the believers in the book of Acts.

The term "Christian" was not at all a common term nor really a biblical term for Christianity in the beginning. It became a term used ultimately because Peter in writing his epistle said, "If any of you suffer as a Christian" ( 1 Peter 4:16 ). But that is the only time the term "Christian" was used by Christians in the New Testament; whereas the term "the way" was used many different times and was a far more common name for the followers of Jesus Christ than the name "Christian." The name "Christian" is used only three times in all of the New Testament, where it mentions in Antioch that there the disciples were first called Christians.

Next week in the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts, as Agrippa challenges Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian" ( Acts 26:28 ). So that there it was used not by the Christians themselves, but by others who were referring to those who were believers in Jesus Christ. But "the way"--the way to God through Christ. And so, "after the way which they call heresy, I worship the God of my fathers." Or, he had come to worship God through Jesus Christ recognizing that Jesus is the only way by which a man can approach God.

The second thing Paul confessed:

I believe all the things which are written in the law and in the prophets ( Acts 24:14 ):

In making this declaration, he is declaring his belief in all of those prophecies concerning the Messiah and then his belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Old Testament is full of prophecies all relating to the Messiah, prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled. And if you will just take the chance factors of one man fulfilling these prophecies, you will find that it becomes solid proof that Jesus indeed was the Messiah. Could not have fulfilled these unless He was indeed the Messiah. His place of birth, "And thou, Bethlehem, though thou be little among the provinces of Judah, yet out of thee shall come He who is to rule my people whose going forth is from old, from everlasting"( Micah 5:2 ). There's only one chance in 250,000 for a person to be born in Bethlehem. A little village, and yet, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And right on down the line you can take prediction after prediction and find out that Jesus literally fulfilled them.

Paul said, "I believe the prophets and the law." All of the things which are written in the law and in the prophets. That's more than what you can say for a lot of ministers today who have sought to eliminate much of the law and the prophets, as well as much of the New Testament. Paul declared himself to be a believer in all of these things.

Paul the apostle, when he would go into a new community, would usually go into the synagogue and just take their scriptures and teach them concerning the Messiah out of their own scriptures, and then he would go about to show that Jesus was the Messiah. That can be done very easily with the scriptures of the Old Testament.

Jesus said, "You do search the scriptures because in them you think you have life, but actually they testify of Me" ( John 5:39 ). And again, "I have come as it is written of Me in the volume of the book to do Thy will, O Lord" ( Hebrews 10:7 ). And as you go through the Old Testament with the anointing and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, you find that Jesus is there in every page.

You remember how the Ethiopian eunuch was on his way back, and there in the Gaza strip when Philip met him, he was reading the scriptures and Philip began at that place and preached Christ unto him. That would be possible in just about any place in the Old Testament; you could begin at that verse and preach Christ. The volume of the book is written of Him.

Paul just declares, "I believe in those prophecies." And even in the law there were so many prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. And then Paul confessed:

And I have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust ( Acts 24:15 ).

So Paul's belief in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust. Of course, in the book of Revelation we find out that there will be actually two resurrections--one of the just and the second of the unjust. And there will be approximately a thousand years intervening between the two resurrections. "The rest of the dead live not until the thousand years were expired. Blessed is he who taketh part in the first resurrection; over him the second death has no power" ( Revelation 20:5-6 ).

I believe that the first resurrection takes place over a period of time. That Jesus was indeed the firstfruits of those who rise from the dead and as He said, "He who lives and believes in Me shall never die" ( John 11:26 ). And that for the child of God, death is an immediate transition from this old tent into the new house, and that Revelation chapter nineteen is in fact the account of the first resurrection. That is, the completion of it. The final ones to enter into that first resurrection are those martyred saints during the tribulation period, and they complete the first resurrection.

But I believe that the minute a person's spirit has moved out of this body that it moves in to the new building of God, not made with hands. Paul the apostle, writing his Corinthian epistle, the second one, said that, "We know that when this earthly tabernacle or this earthly tent, our earthly body, this tabernacle, is dissolved" (that is, when my body goes back to dust), "that we have a building of God, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So then we who are in these bodies do often groan earnestly desiring to be delivered or earnestly desiring to move out of them, not that I would become unclothed, or not that I would be an unembodied spirit (my earnest desire isn't to be some ether essence in the atmosphere, unembodied spirit), but I desire to be clothed upon with a body which is from heaven or I desire to move into my new house, the building of God not made with hands; so then we who are in this body do often groan earnestly desiring to be delivered, not that we would be unclothed but to be clothed upon with a body which is from heaven. For we know that as long as we are living in these bodies, at home in these bodies, we are absent from the Lord but we would choose rather to be absent from these bodies and be present with the Lord" ( 2 Corinthians 5:1-6 ).

Someday when you read in the paper, "Chuck Smith died," don't believe that. Jesus said, "If I live and believe in Him, I'll never die.". So call the reporters and say, "That's poor reporting. Chuck Smith moved, out of an old worn out tent and into a beautiful new house." Building of God not made with hands.

The Bible teaches that man basically is spirit, not body. We relate to each other through our bodies and we've come to associate each other with our bodies, but the real me is spirit. The body is just the instrument by which my spirit can express itself. But the body isn't me, and one day I'm going to leave this body and I'm going to move in to a new house. This is an old tent; it's wearing out. But I'm going to move into the building of God.

Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions" ( John 14:2 ). People, I am sure, have a wrong concept of that, as you think of some beautiful estate on ten acres with beautiful gardens and a ten-bedroom mansion. Big columns in the front, and you each have your green mansion. I really believe that Jesus was referring to the building of God not made with hands, that new body that He has for me. He said, "I'm going to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I'm going to come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also" ( John 14:2-3 ).

In my new body I'm not going to need a bathroom. Or a bedroom. So He's talking about the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Notice the contrast: a tent is always considered as transient, temporal; the building of God, eternal in the heavens. The tent to the building of God.

Paul in writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen, uses nature to illustrate the principle of resurrection. How that the persons were asking, "How are the dead raised and with what body will they come?" And that is a question that people often ask. What kind of a body am I going to have and when this body is changed? A lot of people seem to be quite attached to these bodies, in their minds at least, and they want to somehow hold on to this body. I've held on to mine long enough. I'm ready to discard it for the new building of God not made with hands.

Paul said, "Don't you realize that when you plant a seed into the ground, the seed does not come forth into new life until it first of all dies? And then the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted. Take special note of that. The body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted. For all you planted was a bare grain and now God has given to it a body that pleases Him; and so is the resurrection from the dead. You are planted in weakness but you'll be raised in power. You are planted in corruption; you'll be raised in incorruption. You're planted in dishonor; you'll be raised in glory. You're planted as a natural body; you'll be raised in a spiritual body" ( 1 Corinthians 15:36 , 1 Corinthians 15:38 , 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 ).

For there is a natural body and a spiritual body and the difference between the celestial and the terrestrial. So that "even as we have borne the image of the earthen and have been earthy, so shall we bear the image of the heavens" ( 1 Corinthians 15:49 ). When God made this body for me, He made it and adapted it for the environmental conditions of the earth. My body withstands fourteen pounds of pressure per square inch. My body takes the oxygen out of the seventy-nine/twenty nitrogen-oxygen balance of the atmosphere. God designed the body for the earth. He didn't design it for heaven.

If man takes his body out of the earth's environmental conditions, he can only do it by taking artificial environment with him. Now God could give you a pressurized space suit, and He could give you nitrogen and oxygen tanks and He could revive this old body if He so desired. And you could go clomping around heaven with your weighted shoes to hold you down in the clumsy, awkward spacesuit with the tanks on your back. But I would just as soon have that new building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. A new body designed for the heavenly conditions.

God wants me to be with Him in His kingdom. And so in order that I might transfer from the environment of the earth into the heavenly kingdom, I need this change of body, which shall take place at death when the earthly tent is dissolved and I move into the building of God not made with hands. Man says he died, the Bible says I moved.

So Paul said, "I believe in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust." We will have part in the first resurrection. "Blessed is he for over him the second death has no power".

This concept immediately puts to silence the ridicule of the atheist and the unbeliever who foresee horrible problems in the resurrection day when the bodies are trying to assemble themselves together again. Those that have been cremated and their ashes spread, or those that have been buried and their bodies decomposed and become a part of the soil, and the nutrients from their bodies feeding the roots of the grass that the cows eat to produce the milk, that you drink which assimilates and becomes a part of your body. So actually in your body are possibly chemicals from someone else's body of some previous age. Now in the resurrection, where do these chemicals go? Or more recently in the case of kidney transplants and heart transplants, who gets it? And so they foresee all kinds of problems with the resurrection. There would be if this body were to be the instrument in which I live. But thank God it isn't. I have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Paul said to the Philippians, "I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better. Nevertheless, for your sakes, I need to stick around a while longer". But, "I believe," Paul said, "in the resurrection both of the just and the unjust."

The unjust will be resurrected at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ. "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the great white throne" ( Revelation 20:11 , Revelation 20:12 ). Death and hell gave up the dead which were in them. The sea gave up the dead which was in it. And they all stood there before the throne of God and the books were opened and they were judged. This is the second resurrection, the resurrection of the unjust unto everlasting shame and contempt. So Paul believes in the resurrection, both of the just and the unjust, even as was declared by Daniel chapter twelve, verse two.

And herein do I exercise myself ( Acts 24:16 ),

Because I believe in the resurrection, because I believe that there is a day of accounting for all men, when every man shall give an account of himself before God, he said, "I exercise myself,"

to always have a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men ( Acts 24:16 ).

That is something that is quite remarkable and, as we were pointing out Thursday night, Paul had to be quite a remarkable person. Surely I cannot with Paul say that I have a conscience void of offense before God and man. Paul, testifying of his life as a Pharisee said, "And concerning the righteousness which is of the law, blameless." No way can I say that. But Paul's strong belief and conviction in the resurrection, knowing that a man is going to have to make an accounting of his life, sought, exercised himself to always have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men.

I believe that the realization that this life is not all but only a preparation for eternity is one of the safeguards to pure living. And where people truly believe in a heaven to gain and a hell to shun, there is a much greater endeavor to live the right kind of life.

But there has been so many dispersions cast at the concept of hell, and even the concept of heaven that people are prone to believe as the naturalist or the humanist that this life is all she wrote. So you live like a hog and die like a dog and that's the end. We see the effect in our society as people are following that concept and living like animals. Getting by with just as much as they possibly can, feeling this is all I've got, I'm going to make the most of it because death is an end. No way--death is just the beginning for the child of God of a more complete, fuller revelation of God's grace and goodness to us. Death is just the beginning. For that one who has rebelled against God, of the fearful certain looking forward to the fiery indignation of God's wrath that will devour His adversaries.

Paul goes on.

Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings ( Acts 24:17 ).

You remember Paul had gone among the Gentile churches and had collected offerings for the poor saints in Jerusalem which he had brought to them from the generosity of the churches in Macedonia and Greece. And so, "after many years I came to bring these alms and offerings to my nation."

Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple ( Acts 24:18 ),

Paul had gone through the rites of purification and he was there worshipping God in the temple.

and I was neither with multitude, nor with tumult ( Acts 24:18 ).

I was minding my own business just worshipping God.

And these men actually should be here before you if they object, or if they have anything against me ( Acts 24:19 ).

You don't have any actual witnesses, Felix. The men that should be here bearing witness if I am a pestilent fellow and a rebel rouser are the men who saw me there worshipping God in the temple. They're the ones that ought to be here making accusations.

Or else let these same ones who are here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council ( Acts 24:20 ),

I stood before these guys the other day and if I did any evil while I was there, let them go ahead and testify of it now.

Except [the only thing I did] for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day ( Acts 24:21 ).

That's all I said, and if they find offense in that, let them speak up.

And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way ( Acts 24:22 ),

Again, Felix had a knowledge of the Christians. Where he received the knowledge is not known from the Bible. But Felix knew about the way, he knew about Jesus Christ and those who believed in Jesus Christ.

There is in secular history a story that somehow Simon Magus got together with Felix and shared with him his experiences and that they became close friends. It is from him that he got his understanding of Christianity, for they would sit up late hours in the night talking about it. That is from secular history, and whether or not that is the actual source of his knowledge of Christianity, we do not know for certain. But he did have a good understanding of Christianity. And because he had this good understanding,

he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the complete story ( Acts 24:22 ).

I'll get his side of the story. Lysias was the captain who rescued Paul from the mob. Here we see a weakness in Felix who, before becoming governor, was actually a slave. But his brother Pallus was a close confidant of Nero and through the influence of his brother Pallus, Nero made him the ruler, the governor over the province, which was a unique situation because never before had a slave become a governor in the Roman empire. But Tachitus, the Roman historian, said that he ruled over the people with tyranny and violence as a slave. His weakness, though, was his always deferring an issue, postponing decisions.

There are some people that have that same weakness. Postponing. Procrastinating. There was an interesting article in the Reader's Digest a year or so ago on procrastination. It talks about those people who have difficulty doing something now. They always seem to want to put off the decision or put off the action. And my wife was talking to my daughter about the article and she said, "Did you notice that article in Reader's Digest on procrastination?" My daughter said, "Oh yeah, I intend to read that one day."

He deferred making the decision. He said, "I'll wait until Lysias comes down and then I'll hear the uttermost of the matter from him."

And so he commanded the centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintances to minister or to come unto him ( Acts 24:23 ).

So Paul had sort of a free run. He was in the protective custody of the Roman government, but had freedom. His friends could come any time and minister to him and all.

Now after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess ( Acts 24:24 ),

Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa I was the Herod who had beheaded James, the brother of John, and had Peter put in prison intending to bring him forth, but the Lord delivered Peter out of the jail at night. He then went down to Caesarea where he made the great oration and the men of Tyre began to cry, "It's the words of a god and not man." And the angel of the Lord smote him and his body was eaten by worms. That's Herod Agrippa I; Drusilla was his daughter. Drusilla had been married to a King Azisas but through the help of the magician, Felix had enticed her away from her husband and now she had become the wife of this slave-made-governor Felix.

Felix came with his wife Drusilla and,

he sent for Paul, and he heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as Paul reasoned of righteousness, of temperance, and of judgment to come, Felix trembled ( Acts 24:24-25 ),

Paul began to witness to this man Felix of righteousness, the way that God would have a man to live. Of temperance. Felix was a very intemperate man. And Paul was laying on him, there is a judgment day coming for all men. And as Paul reasoned with him of these things, Felix began to tremble because he had a lot to fear from the coming day of judgment for the things that he had done, for the way that he had lived. He began to tremble, no doubt with the conviction of the Spirit upon his heart.

and he answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a more convenient season, I will call for thee ( Acts 24:25 ).

The man who defers making decisions. The man who postpones. Felix continued to postpone, until finally, there was always a conflict in Caesarea between the Greeks and the Jews as to whose city it was. There broke out, some two years after this incident of Felix's procrastination, a big fight, mob violence, the Jews against the Greeks over the control of the city of Caesarea. The Jews were victorious in the fight, and so Felix ordered the Roman soldiers to side with the Greeks and destroy the Jews. They killed hundreds of Jews, and then he encouraged them to go ahead and sack the houses of the wealthy Jews, going in, killing them and just spoiling their goods.

The Jews reported this to Nero and Felix lost his authority, was stripped of the authority, would have been executed but his brother Pallus interceded for him, and instead he was banished. His more convenient time never came, as is often the case of a person who defers his decision for Jesus Christ. Waiting for some more convenient day. It will never be easier than today.

There is a law of metaphysics concerning repeated action and how it creates pattern responses in our brains. You ever watch a lady knit who had been knitting for years? They don't even look. What has happened is that they've got grooves in their brain so deep, all they have to do is set the pattern in their brain and turn the switch and their hands go, and it's just automatic pattern responses because it's been done so much, they can do it. They can watch TV or they can sit there and talk with you, and yet be doing their knitting because of these patterns that have been established in the brain. The grooves or the patterns are so deeply imbedded that it becomes an automatic action. One that you don't even have to think to do.

Have you ever noticed that many times when you were fighting with your own conscience concerning a wrong deed what a fight and what a struggle it was for you, and after you did it how bad you felt, how guilty you felt? Vowing to yourself, "That's terrible; I'll never do that again." But the next time the issue came up, it wasn't quite so hard to you. You didn't have quite a battle as you did before against the evil. And it continues to create the patterns, until finally a person can do without any pangs of conscience that which one time disturbed him tremendously. Paul calls that a seared conscience with a hot iron. That is, you've destroyed the sensitivity against evil and that's always a sad case to observe.

Any repeated action becomes patterned in the brain so that it becomes harder to break. Relearning is always a more difficult process than learning. That's why if you take up golf, you should spend the first few hours with a pro to get your stroke correct, because if you learn the wrong stroke, it's awfully hard to correct and to get into that groove type swing. Bad habits are hard to break because they've set the pattern in your brain.

Now when you continually are deferring your decision for Jesus Christ, you're setting a pattern, making it more difficult to accept. Each time you say no, it will become harder to say yes. That is why 9/10ths of the decisions made for Jesus Christ are made while in the teenage years. Nine out of ten Christians became Christians while they were teenagers, before they had set these negative brain patterns.

Felix, though he trembled under conviction, passed off the decision.

He also had hoped for bribery, that money should have been given to him from Paul, that he might loose him ( Acts 24:26 ):

He had heard that Paul had brought this offering to the poor saints. Why not for poor Felix? He was looking for a bribe.

wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him ( Acts 24:26 ).

Kept giving Paul an opportunity to bribe him. He was looking for an excuse to release Paul.

But after two years Porcius Festus replaced Felix: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound ( Acts 24:27 ).

"

Contending for the Faith

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Tertullis makes an attempt to show the Roman chief captain to be the problem in dealing with this situation. The impression given is that all was proceeding judiciously in Paul’s arrest and trial until Lysias interferes with the business of the Jewish court "with great violence." The truth of the matter is the Jews "were about to kill" Paul and would have done so had it no been for the intervention of the chief captain (21:31).

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

The presentation of charges against Paul 24:1-9

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Third, Tertullus claimed Paul had tried to desecrate the temple, allegedly by bringing a Gentile into its inner precincts (Acts 21:28). This was a softening of the Asian Jews’ earlier charge that Paul had indeed brought Trophimus into the inner precincts of the temple (Acts 21:28-29). Tertullus’ statement that the Jews had arrested Paul harmonized with Lysias’ report (Acts 23:27). The Jews had tried to kill Paul on the spot too (Acts 21:31-33). Perhaps Tertullus did not mention that because it would have put the Jews in a very bad light. This third charge implied that Felix should put Paul to death since Rome had given the Jews the right to execute temple desecrators.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 24

A FLATTERING SPEECH AND A FALSE CHARGE ( Acts 24:1-9 )

24:1-9 Five days afterwards Ananias the high priest came down with some of the elders and with a pleader called Tertullus. They laid information against Paul before the governor. When Paul was called, Tertullus began to accuse him in these terms, "Since through you we enjoy much tranquillity and since through your foresight many reforms have been brought about for this nation in every place and in every way, Felix, your excellency, we welcome it all with gratitude. But not to trouble you any longer, I ask you in your kindness briefly to hear us. When we had found this fellow a pest, a man who fomented disturbances among all the Jews throughout the civilized world, a man who is the ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes--and he tried to defile the Temple, too--we arrested him. By examining him yourself, you can learn from him the charges of which we accuse him"; and the Jews agreed with him, alleging that the facts were as stated.

Tertullus ( G5061) began his speech with a passage of almost nauseating flattery, every word of which he and Felix knew was quite untrue. He went on to state things which were equally untrue. He claimed that the Jews had arrested Paul. The scene in the Temple court was far closer to being a lynching than an arrest. The charge he levelled against Paul was subtly inaccurate; it fell under three heads.

(i) Paul was a fomenter of troubles and a pest. That classed Paul with those insurrectionaries who continually inflamed the inflammable populace into rebellion. Tertullus well knew that the one thing that tolerant Rome would not stand was civil disorder, for any spark might become a flame. Tertullus knew it was a lie but it was an effective charge.

(ii) Paul was a leader of the sect of the Nazarenes. That coupled Paul with Messianic movements; and the Romans knew what havoc false Messiahs could cause and how they could whip the people into hysterical risings which were only settled at the cost of blood. Rome could not afford to disregard a charge like that. Again Tertullus knew it was a lie but it was an effective charge.

(iii) Paul was a defiler of the Temple. The priests were Sadducees, the collaborationist party; to defile the Temple was to infringe the rights and laws of the priests; and the Romans, Tertullus hoped, would take the side of the pro-Roman party. The charge was that most dangerous of things--a series of half-truths and of twisted facts.

PAUL'S DEFENCE ( Acts 24:10-21 )

24:10-21 When the governor had given him the sign to speak, Paul answered, "In the knowledge that you for many years have been a judge of this people, I confidently offer my defence of my case, for you can ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I came up to Jerusalem to worship. Neither in the Temple nor in the synagogues nor throughout the city did they find me arguing with anyone or collecting a crowd; nor can they provide any truth of the accusations which they make against me. This I do admit to you--that, according to The Way, which they call a sect, I worship my ancestral God. At the same time I believe in all things that are written throughout the Law and in the prophets, and I have the same hope towards God as they themselves accept--I mean that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust. Because of this, I too train myself that I may always have an unharmed conscience towards God and towards men. After many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my people. In the course of these offerings they found me purified in the Temple, not with a crowd and not the centre of any disturbance. But some Jews from Asia--who ought to be present before you and who ought to be bringing whatever accusation they had against me--or let they themselves say what offence they found in me as I stood before the Sanhedrin, other than in regard to this one expression I used as I stood amongst them--'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am on trial today before you.'"

Beginning at the passage, "But some Jews from Asia Paul's grammar went wrong. He began to say one thing and in mid-career changed over to another so that the sentence became quite disconnected. But its very disconnection shows vividly the excitement and tension of the scene. Paul's defence is that of a man whose conscience is clear--it is simply to state the facts. The tragedy was that it was when he was bringing the contributions from his churches for the poor of Jerusalem and when he was meticulously observing the Jewish Law that arrest came. One of the greatest things about Paul is that he speaks in his own defence with force and sometimes with a flash of indignation, but never with the self-pity or bitterness that would have been so natural in a man whose finest actions had been so cruelly and deliberately misinterpreted.

PLAIN SPEAKING TO A GUILTY GOVERNOR ( Acts 24:22-27 )

24:22-27 But Felix, who had a very good knowledge of the facts about The Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will go into your case." He instructed the centurion that Paul was to be held under guard, that he was to be allowed some freedom, and he instructed him not to hinder any of his friends from rendering him service. Some days after, Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and listened to him about the faith in Christ Jesus. While Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and judgment to come Felix was afraid and said, "For the present, go your way. When I have time I will send for you." At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul so he sent for him quite often and used to have conversation with him. At the end of two years Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; but Felix, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Jews, left Paul a prisoner.

Felix ( G5344) was not unkind to Paul but some of Paul's admonitions struck terror into his heart. His wife Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa the First. She had been married to Azizus, King of Emesa. But Felix, with the help of a magician called Atomos, had seduced her from Azizus and persuaded her to marry him. It is little wonder that when Paul presented him with the high moral demands of God he was afraid.

For two years Paul was in prison and then Felix went too far once too often and was recalled. There was a longstanding argument as to whether Caesarea was a Jewish or a Greek city and Jews and Greeks were at daggers drawn. There was an outbreak of mob violence in which the Jews came off best. Felix despatched his troops to aid the Gentiles. Thousands of Jews were killed and the troops, with Felix's consent and encouragement, sacked and looted the houses of the wealthiest Jews in the city.

The Jews did what all Roman provincials had a right to do--they reported their governor to Rome. That was why Felix left Paul in prison, even though he was well aware that he should be liberated. He was trying to curry favour with the Jews. It was all to no purpose. He was dismissed from his governorship and only the influence of his brother Pallas saved him from execution.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us,.... Suddenly, and at unawares, immediately, and with great haste, before they could execute their designs; which were not to judge Paul according to law, but to kill him, in the manner the zealots did:

and with great violence took him away out of our hands; for he came with an army, and rescued him, Acts 23:27 Some copies add, "and sent him to thee"; and so the Syriac version reads.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.   2 And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,   3 We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.   4 Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.   5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:   6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.   7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,   8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.   9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

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

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

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

      1. One of the worst of men is here applauded as one of the best of benefactors, only because he was the judge. Felix is represented by the historians of his own nation, as well as by Josephus the Jew, as a very bad man, who, depending upon his interest in the court, allowed himself in all manner of wickedness, was a great oppressor, very cruel, and very covetous, patronising and protecting assassins.--Joseph. Antiq. 20. 162-165. And yet Tertullus here, in the name of the high priest and elders, and probably by particular directions from them and according to the instructions of his breviate, compliments him, and extols him to the sky, as if he were so good a magistrate as never was the like: and this comes the worse from the high priest and the elders, because he had given a late instance of his enmity to their order; for Jonathan the high priest, or one of the chief priests, having offended him by too free an invective against the tyranny of his government, he had him murdered by some villains whom he hired for that purpose who afterwards did the like for others, as they were hired: Cujus facinoris quia nemo ultor extitit, invitati hac licentia sicarii multos confodiebant, alios propter privatas inimicitias, alios conducti pecunia, etiam in ipso templo--No one being found to punish such enormous wickedness, the assassins, encouraged by this impunity, stabbed several persons, some from personal malice, some for hire, and that even in the temple itself. An yet, to engage him to gratify their malice against Paul, and to return them that kindness for their kindness in overlooking all this, they magnify him as the greatest blessing to their church and nation that ever came among them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

The closing chapters from 21 to the end of the book are devoted to an episode full of interest and profit Paul's course from Jerusalem to Rome. And here we find ourselves in an atmosphere considerably different from what we have had before. It is no longer the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, either inaugurating the great work of God on the earth at Jerusalem, nor His equally wonderful energy in breaking through the old bottles of Judaism, when grace flowed freely, first to Samaria, then to the Gentiles, and in principle, as we know, in due time to the ends of the earth. Neither have we the apostle separated, as it is said, unto the gospel of God. These were the three great divisions and the main contents of the book up to the point we are arrived at. But now the apostle is about to become a prisoner, nor this without warning. The Holy Ghost, as we may see on the surface of the verses I have read, admonished the apostle time after time; but the apostle shows us the most striking combination of what was truly heavenly in faith and life with the strongest clinging of heart to his brethren after the flesh. This is what makes the difficulty of appreciating his history by no means small. But one may say that what was infirmity must be allowed to be infirmity on the noblest side (if any thing be so, which I do not deny,) of the human heart. Nevertheless we have the immediate effect in the lesson that even this does force us into altogether new circumstances wherein God never fails to magnify Himself. He knows how to turn even that which may have been in itself mistaken to His own glory, and then He in grace forms new channels and suited ways, not without a righteous judgment of the error even if it were in the best, and so much the more remarkably because it was in the best. And this I believe to be the prominent lesson of these later chapters of the Acts.

Let us, however, pursue the course of the divine instruction.

The apostle goes on his way and finds disciples, and tarries among them, as we are told, at Tyre for "seven days." This seems to have been a common term of stay we can readily conceive why. One great reason, I do not doubt, was to enjoy the fellowship of the saints together, to spend with the Christians in a new place that day which has the strongest possible claim on the heart that is true to Jesus the first day of the week. This was expressly shown in Acts 20:1-38. The Spirit of God does not repeat the same express statement here. Nevertheless I do not think we are far astray if we connect the seven days of the apostolic visit with that which was stated plainly in verses 6, 7, of that chapter. At Troas it was said that "we abode seven days; and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples (or rather, we) came together to break bread, Paul preached." Here there is no such positive affirmation, but still the mention in a similar way of seven days with the disciples may well open a question for spiritual judgment what the motive was for such a term. I do not doubt myself that it was to have the joy of meeting all saints in each locality as opportunity served, and of cheering and strengthening them on their course.

No doubt the spiritual instincts of the children of God would lead them always to desire to be together. For my own part I cannot understand a child of God who on principle could abstain from any occasion that summoned round the name of the Lord the members of the household of faith. It appears to me that, far from being a waste of time or from any other object being of the same moment, it is simply a question whether we value Christ, whether we truly are walking in the Spirit, if we live in the Spirit, whether the objects of the constant active love of God are also in measure the objects of our love in Christ's name.

I think therefore that it is according to the Lord that the children of God should if practicable be together every day. To this the power of the Spirit would lead: only the circumstances in which we are placed in this world necessarily hinder it. Therefore the true principle according to the word of God is a coming together whenever it is practicable; and we do well to cherish a real exercise of heart and conscience in judging what the practicability is, or rather whether the impracticability be real or imaginary. Very often it will turn out to be in our will, an excuse for spiritual idleness, a want of affection to the children of God, and a want of sense of our own need. Accordingly obstacles are allowed in own minds, such as the claims of business, or the family, or even the work of the Lord. Now all these have their place. Surely God would have all His children to seek to glorify Him, whatever may be their duty. They have natural duties in this world; and the wonderful power of Christianity is seen in filling with what is divine that which without Christ would be merely of nature; and this should ramify the whole course of a man's life after he belongs to Christ. And so again the claims of children for instance, or parents, or the like, cannot be disputed; but then if they are really taken up for Christ, I do not think it will be found that it is to the loss of either parents or children, or that the little time is missed in the long run that is spent in seeking the strength of the Lord, and in communion according to our measure. We ought to be open for both; and we shall ourselves never have any power to help unless we have the sense of the need of help from others; but both will be found together.

It appears to me that through the blessed apostle the Spirit of God gives us in these passing touches, and in recounting them valuable hints as to the spirit that animated him in his course. We may know in some slight degree what it is to be long on a journey without due rest, food, or shelter; and passing from one country and continent to another was by no means then the easy thing that it is in modern times. We have all the habit of being rapidly enough in motion, and anxious to get to the end. We can understand how the apostle, with so many hindrances in the way, might feel the comfort of these repeated stays, seven days in one place, seven days in another, as we have seen, expressly showing. the desire of his heart. after communion as well as confirming their souls. Such is what we find in this blessed man's course: in our little measure surely it ought to be so with us.

On this occasion, however, the disciples told Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem. This was serious. There is no other comment upon it. We know not what the apostle said or did, further than this, that the apostle certainly went up to Jerusalem all the same. "When we had accomplished these days, we departed and went our way." Then we have the beautiful scene of the wives and the children. This has its value. There is a marked absence of allusion to children in the Acts of the Apostles, where much is said among men and saints and servants of God. But we do hear of them in that, which is confessedly suitable. Here they are brought forward, but not as a superstitious church ere long did, among other things, to receive a portion from the table of the Lord: things were soon to change if not to arrive at that pass yet; but we do see them in the expression of the love that filled all, and the desire to reap to the very last moment the blessing of having an apostle in their midst. In short, the children were there no less in token of respectful love to him who was going, but also set in the attitude to receive whatever blessing the Lord might be pleased to bestow upon them. "And they all brought us on our way with wives and children," it is said, "till we were out of the city, and we kneeled down and prayed, and, when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship, and they returned home again."

Another means of letting us into the ways of God among His people is found at Caesarea. "We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven." We cannot well have forgotten his labours in earlier days at Samaria, and round about. But we are told here what we had not learnt then, that "the same man had four daughters." As unmarried, they were remaining in their father's house; and they prophesied. There is no reason why a woman should not have this or most other gifts as much as a man. I do not say the same kind of gift always. Surely God is wise and gives suited gifts whether to men or women, or, it may be, I was going to say, to children. The Lord is sovereign and knows how, as putting all who now believe in the body of Christ, so also to give them a work suitable to the purposes of His own grace. Certainly He did clothe these four daughters of Philip with a very special spiritual power. They had one of the highest characters of spiritual gift they prophesied. And if they were invested with this power, certainly it was not to be put under a bushel but to be exercised: the only question is how.

Now scripture, if we be but subject, is quite explicit as to this. In the first place, prophecy stands confessedly in the highest rank of teaching, but it is teaching. Next, the apostle is himself the person who tells us that he does not suffer a woman to teach. This is clearly decisive; if we bow to the apostle as inspired to give us God's mind, we ought to know that it is not the place of a Christian woman to teach. He is speaking on this topic, not in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, but in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 He is drawing the line between men and women in 1 Timothy 2:1-15. The latter epistle forbids the women as a class to teach. The other and still closer word in the former epistle, commands them to be silent in the assembly. At Corinth, apparently, there was some difficulty as to godly order and the right relations of men and women, because the Corinthians, being a people of speculative habits, instead of believing, reasoned about things. It was the tendency of the Greek mind to question everything. They could not understand that, if God had given a woman as good a gift as a man, she was not equally to use it. We can all feel their difficulty. Such reasoners are not wanting now. The fault of it all was, and is, that. God is left out. His will was not in the thought of the Corinthians. There was no waiting on the Lord to ascertain what was His mind. Clearly, if He has called the church into being, it cannot but be made for His own glory. He has His own mind and will about the church, and He has therefore spread out in His word how all the gifts of His grace are to be exercised.

Now the passages in1 Corinthians 14:1-40; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 and in 1 Timothy 2:1-15 appear to me to be perfectly plain as to the relative place of the woman, whatever may be her gift. This may be said to decide only as to one sphere the assembly where the woman, according to scripture, is precluded from the exercise of her gift. I may say further, that in those days it did not occur to them that women. would go forth publicly to preach the word. Bad as the state of things was in early days, they seem to me to have looked for a greater sense of modesty on the part of women. There is not the slightest doubt that many females with the best intentions have thus preached, as they do still. They, or their friends, defend their course by appeals to the blessing of God on the one hand, and on the other to the crying need of perishing sinners everywhere. But nothing can be more certain than that scripture (and this is the standard) leaves them without the slightest warrant from the Lord for their line of conduct. Public preaching of the gospel on the part of women is never contemplated in scripture. It was bad enough for the Corinthians to think that they might speak among the faithful. It might have seemed that there women had the shelter of godly men; that there they were not offensively putting themselves forward before all sorts of people in the world, as must be the case in evangelising. Among the godly they may have imagined a veil, so, to speak, drawn over them more or less. But in modern times the end is supposed to justify the means. Gross as the Corinthians were, I must confess that to my mind the plans of our own day seem even more grievous, and with less excuse for them.

However this may be, we see here that the daughters of Philip did prophesy. No doubt it was in their father's house, as already intimated: otherwise the word of God would thus be set one part against another.

While they tarried there, a certain prophet came down from Judea, who repeats the warning to the apostle. Binding his own hands and feet with Paul's girdle he declares, "So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." And thus it was accomplished to the letter. Nevertheless, spite of the tears of the saints, spite of the warning of this prophet, as of others before, Paul, with mind made up, answers, "What mean ye to weep and to break my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

After all the apostle goes accordingly, and in Jerusalem the brethren receive him gladly. "And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present." It is evident from this picture that all ecclesiastically was in due order at Jerusalem. An apostle was there who had an apparently high place of local dignity. Besides there were the ordinary overseers whom the Holy Ghost had set as guides and leaders in the assembly (that is, the local charge of elders). "And when Paul had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." They owned the way in which the Lord had been glorified. At the same time their word to him is, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands" (the true meaning is tens of thousands, myriads, which may probably give some a larger thought than is familiar of the vast and rapid spread of the gospel at that time among that nation) "of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." This was a mistake. Such was not the course of the apostle.

What Paul really taught was the impropriety of putting Gentiles under the law: he did not interfere with the Jews at this time, Later a distinct and peremptory message came from the Holy Ghost; but the process of the Lord with them was gradual His method with His ancient people I deem of importance for us to learn and imitate. It is perfectly true that it was in the mind of God in due time to bring out fully the deliverance of both Jew and Gentile from the law; but this was not done all at once, at least as regards the Jew. What the apostle set himself decidedly against was the effort to bring the Gentiles under law; and this was precisely what Pharisaic brethren were zealous for. Whether Judaizing Christians or the Gentiles themselves took up the law, the apostle did most resolutely reject and condemn the fatal error. But as regarded the Jews themselves there was the truest forbearance, flowing from, not characteristic largeness of heart only, but tender consideration for scrupulous consciences. If God had not yet sent out the final word that told them the old covenant was ready to vanish away, how could he who so closely followed His ways be hasty? The early days were really a time of transition, where Christ was ministered first to Jew and then to Gentile. The Gentile, never having been under law, was far more simple than the Jew in appreciating the liberty of the gospel. The Jew was tolerated in his prejudices until the closing message came from God, warning them of the danger of apostasy from the gospel through their adhesion to the law.

Having dwelt on this in sketching the epistle to the Hebrews, there is the less reason to say more about it now. But that epistle was to the Hebrew believers the last trumpet which summoned them to renounce all connection with the old system. Up to that time there had been a gradual transition, the gap widening, the difference more pronounced, but still every tie was not broken till this the final call. Such a way strikes me as worthy of our God a way which to our precipitate minds might seem somewhat difficult, because we have been mostly trained as Gentiles. Since we have entered into the truth of God more perfectly, we have seen the enormous mischief of bringing in the law and mixing it up with the gospel.

Let us remember then that, whilst the Holy Ghost always maintained liberty for the Gentile, there was unquestionably a time of waiting on the Jew. Even the apostle Paul was no exception to patience with their prejudices. As to the twelve, they seem to have feebly enough entered into this liberty from the law. Doubtless Paul, as being apostle of the Gentiles, called from heaven by the risen Jesus, and witness of sovereign grace, apprehended it after a different sort and richer measure; but we shall find that even he could warmly sympathise to a great extent with the feelings of a Jew. He is the one to whom, under God, we are indebted for knowing anything about Christianity in its full form and real strength; yet, for all that, it is quite evident that he had, if not Jewish prejudice, certainly the warmest Jewish attachments; and, in point of fact, it was the strength of his affection to the ancient people of God that brought him into the trouble recorded in these concluding chapters of this book, the Acts of the Apostles.

This, we must remember, to a certain extent, may be viewed as an answer to the love found in our blessed Lord Himself; but then there were striking differences. In our Lord, love for Israel was, as all else, perfect: there was not, nor could be, the faintest admixture of a blemish. We know well the bare hint of such a thought would be repulsive to our faith and our love for His person. To the Christian it is impossible to conceive it for an instant. At the same time, we know His love for that people was felt and expressed up to the last. It was His persistent love which brought Him into the circumstances of utter rejection when God's time was come, and He suffered all the consequence of their hatred (though infinitely more also for sin in atonement, which was His alone). Now the apostle knew what it was to love Israel and suffer for that love. Not only among the Gentiles, but among the saints, the more he loved the less, he was loved. This was true; but, if in general true there, emphatically was it to be verified among the Jews. Thus stands the wonderful fact in the history of the apostle Paul: the very man who brought out the church distinctly, and showed its heavenly character as none other approached; the very man that proved the absolute abolition of the old ties and relations, swallowing. up all in Christ exalted to the right hand of God: he is the man whose heart retained the strongest attachment of love to the ancient people of God. And I have not the smallest doubt that God gives us in this case a grave but gracious warning of its danger. Were it an apostle, were it the greatest of the apostles, still Paul was not Christ, and what in Christ could be and was absolute perfection, in Paul was not. Yet Paul was a man who puts all that have been since that day into the shade.

If I may express my feelings here, let me say that I felt nothing a greater trial to my own spirit than touching on this very theme. I could not point out any one thing I shrink from more than having the appearance of reflecting on such a servant of Christ. Yet God has written the history of all this, and He has written it surely not for sentiment and silence, but for utterance and common profit. He has written it, no doubt, that we should feel our own great shortcomings, end that we should beware of our spirit in setting up to condemn such an one as the great apostle of the Gentiles.

Still, I repeat, the Holy Ghost has recorded here His own warnings on the one side, and on the other the refusal of the apostle to act on them, if I may venture so to say, though it were through fulness of tender love, and an ever-burning affection for his brethren after the flesh. Alas! when we think of our faults; when we reflect how little they spring from anything that is lovely; when we recollect how much they are mixed with. worldliness, and impatience, and pride, and vanity, and self; when we observe that he was so deeply chastened, and met with such a distressing stop to the world-wide work which God had given him, in what a light do our faults appear! He had a pressure of trial such as few men ever knew beside himself; and, what might embitter it to him, all this the natural effect of slighting the admonitions of the Spirit of God by yielding to his undying love for a people out of whom, after all, he had been divinely separated to the work the Lord had given him to do. God having given us the account, whatever may be one's own feelings, can it be doubted that we are bound to read, and by grace to seek to understand? Yea, not this only, but may we apply it for the present blessing of our souls, and for our progress in the path of Christ here below, whatever it may be. We may have the smallest possible sphere; but, after all, a saint is a saint, and very dear to God, who magnifies Himself in the least of those that are His.

It is assuredly for our profit and to God's own glory that the Holy Ghost has written this remarkable appendix to the history the onward history of the Acts of the Apostles. Here we have a check which brings in new things, the fruit of persisting in going up to Jerusalem spite of the Spirit's testimony against it. The more blessed the man, the more serious the miss of firm footing. There is one step outside what the Spirit enjoined, whatever may be the mingling of that which is beautiful and lovely; at the same time, it was not the full height, so to speak, of the guidance of the Spirit of God. This exposed the apostle to something more, as it always does; and, indeed, so much the more, because it was such an one as Paul. The same principle is plain in David's life. The lack of energy, which might have been comparatively a little hurt to another, became the gravest snare to David; and, found out of the path of the Lord, he soon slips into the meshes of the devil. Not that I mean anything in the least degree tantamount in the apostle Paul; far from it; for, indeed, in this case the apostle was mercifully preserved from anything that gave the smallest activity to the corruption of nature. It was simply a defect, as it appears to me, of watching against his own love for Israel, and thus setting aside, consequently, the warnings that the Spirit gave. The tears and appeals seem to have rather stimulated and strengthened his desire, and accordingly this exposed him to what was a snare, not immoral but religious, through listening to others below his own measure. He took the advice of James.

"What is it, therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads" what a position for the apostle to find himself in! "and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning. thee, are nothing." Without pretending that there was nothing in the previous line of Paul tending to this (compare Acts 18:18), it is evident that the object was to give the appearance that he was a very good Jew indeed. Was this warrantable, or the whole truth? Was he not a somewhat ambiguous Jew? I believe that, as we have seen, there was an undisguised respect for what once had the sanction of God. And here was just the difference in his case from our blessed Lord's perfect ways. Up to the cross, we all know, the legal economy or first covenant had the sanction of God; after the cross, in principle it was judged. The apostle surely had weighed and appraised it all; he did not require any man to show him the truth. At the same time there was no small mingling of love for the people; and we know well how it may intercept that singleness of eye which is the safeguard of every Christian man.

The apostle then listens to his brethren about a matter in which he was incomparably more competent to form a sound judgment than any of them, Accordingly he suffers the consequence. He is found purifying himself along with the men who had a vow. He enters the temple, "to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended" which it is well known had to do with the Nazarite vow "the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place; and further brought Greeks also into. the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." The next verse shows us why. It was a mistake; nevertheless it was enough to rouse the feelings of all Israel. "All the city was moved, and the people ran together," and the issue was a frightful tumult, and the apostle was in danger of being killed by their violent hands, when the chief captain comes and rescues him. This paves the way for the remarkable address which the apostle delivers in the Hebrew tongue, given in the next chapter. Acts 22:1-30.

The mention of the Hebrew tongue appears to confirm the true key to the difference between this account of the apostle's conversion and others. It is not precisely in this book as in the gospels, where a different. way of presenting the same fact or discourse of our Lord Jesus obtains, according to the character of the design in hand; yet is it the same principle at bottom. Even in the same book a difference of design may be traced. There may be observed this in the three accounts in which Paul's conversion is given: first, the historical. account; secondly, Paul's own statement to the Jews; and, thirdly, Paul's to the Jews and Gentiles as to the Roman governor and king Agrippa. This is the true reason of the difference there is in the manner in which facts are presented. We need not enter minutely into detail.

On examination you will find what is said to be correct, that here as is evident he adopts a language which was for the very purpose of arresting the attention in appealing to the affections of the Jew; he speaks in their familiar tongue, and accordingly gives an account of his conversion in such a way as he considered conciliatory to the feelings of the Jews. To these there was one thing which was unpardonable; but this was the very glory of his apostleship, the direct object for which God raised him up. Thus, with the most gracious of intentions, and with the warmest love towards his countrymen after the flesh, the apostle gives an account of his conversion and the miraculous circumstances that attended it, of his meeting with Ananias, a devout man according to the law, which he takes particular pains to state there, and of the trance into which he afterwards fell at Jerusalem in the temple whilst praying. But he tells them out that which he must easily have known (and so much the more because of his accurate understanding of the feelings of the Jews) would rouse them to the uttermost: in short, he lets them know that the Lord called him and sent him to the Gentiles.

It was quite enough. The moment the sound of "Gentiles" reached their ears, all their feelings of Jewish pride took fire, and at once they cried out, "Away with such a fellow from the earth! It is not fit that he should live." As they cried and cast off their clothes to throw dust into the air, the chiliarch commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging. There he put himself in the wrong; for Paul was not only a Jew but a citizen of Rome; and he was so by a better title than the commandant who thus ordered him to be bound. The apostle quietly states the fact. I dare not judge him, though there may be some Christians who would: he was clearly entitled to remind those that were the guardians of the law of their own transgression. He uses no means further, but merely tells them how things stood.

It appears to me that it is a morbid squeamishness rather than true spiritual wisdom that would cavil at such an act on the part of the apostle. Every one knows that it is easy to be a martyr in theory, and that those who are martyrs in theory are seldom so in practice. Here was one destined to torture, and really one of the most blessed witnesses of the Lord all through. Faith enables one to see things clearly. Should the guardians of law break the law? Faith never teaches one to court danger and difficulty, but to walk the path of Christ in peace and thankfulness. The Lord has not called His servants to desert it. I dare say some of us may have been struck with the fact that the Lord told them when they were persecuted in one city to flee to another. Assuredly this is not courting martyrdom, but the very reverse; and if the Lord Himself gave such a word to His servants in Judea and to His disciples (as is well known), it appears to me that it is at least hazardous without grave spiritual ground to face a danger so decided of condemning the guiltless who are entitled to our reverence. Here we have no sign of anything said by the Holy Ghost in the form of warning; and therefore, observe, it is not in the least degree a setting aside what is clearly laid down elsewhere. We have seen the Holy Ghost admonishing the apostle, when carried far in ardent love, and we can easily see that He had a sovereign title, both to guide and to correct even if it were an apostle.

Nothing of the kind appears here. It was a fact which the Roman officer had overlooked illegally, and the apostle was entitled to state the fact. It was in no way a going to law. Need it be said that such a recourse to the powers that be would have little become a follower and servant of Jesus? It was in no way using such means as man would have employed; it was the simplest possible statement of a circumstance serious in the eye of the law, and it had its effect. "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman." The chiliarch enquires accordingly. You must remember that to say you were a Roman, if you were not, was a capital offence against the government, which of course they never failed to visit with the severest punishment. To claim it untruly was too dangerous to be often attempted, as it exposed a man to the imminent risk of death. The officials of the Roman empire were rarely disposed therefore to question such a claim, especially where it was made by a man who, on the face of it, was such a character as the apostle, little as he might be known to any of them.

So "straightway," it is said, "they departed from him which should have examined him, and the chiliarch also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." However, man strives to preserve his dignity after his own fashion. "On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands," (that is to say, he leaves him still a prisoner which he had no right to do,) "and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them." The apostle seeks no further redress, and was as far as possible from the desire or thought of punishing the man for the mistake he had made. For this evidently would have been a departure from grace: but the occasion helps to give a little insight into this wonderful man of God. For when the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by to smite him that said he had lived in all good conscience, Paul turns quickly upon him with the words "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (and so He did); "for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Acts 23:1-35.

This is a fine instance of the most simple, and at the same time admirable, way in which grace recovers, even if there be a momentary slip of haste mingling with it. There can be no doubt at all that the high priest had acted in a way entirely contrary to the law. There was therefore an indisputable right to rebuke him. At the same time I suppose that his decided character, and his keen sense of the glaring injustice, did betray itself in his utterance. Further, it is an instance of what is found often elsewhere in Scripture. God may be with a deed which on one side of it may have haste mingling with it, but on the other real truth and righteousness. What was done here by the high priest was glaringly contrary to the law of which he was the professed administrator. Nor certainly did God permit these solemn words to fall to the ground without bearing fruit. Paul at once, however, corrects himself, and owns that had he known him to be the high priest, he would not have spoken so; that is to say, whatever might be the character of the man, Paul was not one to lower the office. He would leave it to God to judge that which was unworthy of it.

There is another thing that claims our notice. Is there not a certain peculiarity discernible in a measure in the apostle now? First of all there was haste of spirit. Is there as firm treading as before in the path where the power of the Spirit of God rested on him? Do we not find an adroitness, may I venture to say, though wishing in no way to utter a word too much, as is easily done? But still is there not a cleverness in the way in which the apostle, when he perceived that one part of the council were Sadduccees and the other Pharisees, cried out, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees;* of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"?

*The plural form is recommended to us by the most ancient uncials, some good cursives, the Vulgate and the Syriac; the singular prevails in the great majority of copies and versions. Being more natural or customary, though far less energetic, we can understand copyists falling into it.

This does not seem according to the simple and full activity of the Spirit of God that we have seen in the apostle when he was away from Jerusalem. He had gone where he had been divinely warned not to go; and it matters not who it is, if it were even the greatest of the apostles, is there not a sensible difference when there is the smallest divergence from the peaceful guidance of the Holy Ghost? And if this is true of him, what shall we say of ourselves? Do not allow your lips to utter strong things about the apostle Paul; but let your own consciences, and let mine, take heed to our own ways, and above all beware of this that we be not found slighting one word that comes to us from the Holy Ghost. Let us weigh and cherish every expression of God's mind. In this ease the apostle Paul could not doubt it. It was not doubt; but he strengthened himself now that the time was come to suffer. He had made up his mind for the worst that man might or could do. Was it all that was there? In truth there was more than this; but I think the comparative lack of calm, the exposure to haste, and the other features that appear in this remarkable history, are meant to be signs to our souls of the real truth of the case as it now stood.

The consequence was soon apparent on this occasion. The diversion produced was no doubt what men would call politic; that is, the apostle designed to divide and conquer. He made good use of the one party that had whatever there was of zeal and orthodoxy. There is not the smallest pandering to the Sadducees, which would have been far from the Spirit of God. Now I am very far from saying or implying any unworthy ways; but I do mean that there was a kind of availing himself of the difference that reigned between these that held to the word of God with, at any rate, an outward religious respect, and those that despised it; and this is a danger that no man is free from, particularly in circumstances of danger. The apostle yielded to it then. He stated the fact that the hope and resurrection of the dead were in question; but still the question arises, What was his motive for putting it so? What does the Spirit of God bring out before us here? Was it simply the truth? Was it only Christ? I doubt so.

It seems clear that the discerning eye of the apostle saw the horrible state of the high priest and his party, that whatever might be the honour of the office, yet, in the defiled and defiling hands that now held it, it was only used for their own worst purposes against the truth and grace of God. Accordingly he availed himself of the strong feeling of the sounder part of the nation, and thus gained what might have seemed unexpected adherents among the Pharisees. It did not give him after all the advantage. To the believer is not this always the result? I doubt very much the weight of such a gain. Have we not learnt that the true gain is Christ? and that to take our side unqualifiedly with the Lord, by God's grace to shut our eyes to all consequences, and our ears to all censure, and just go on holding to that which we know is acceptable in His eyes and for His own glory, is not this the only true path of service, as it certainly is the precursor of victory? In this case it would be a victory unmixedly for the Master. Such an idea as one's own victory ought not to be in a Christian man's mind. Let our desires be simply for the Lord for His grace and truth, for His own work and glory in the church. His name is ill-served by making use even of the most reputable of His adversaries. Those zealous for the law, one cannot but know, are opposed to the gospel, the Pharisee no less than the Sadducee. The apostle presents to the multitude "the hope and resurrection of the dead." He does not commit himself to speaking about Jesus; he does not say a word of the gospel. Had he brought in either, all would have come to nothing: the Pharisee would have resented the word just as much as the Sadducee. Leaving out what was adverse to his purpose, he puts forward that which he knew would set one part of his enemies against the other.

Yet here was vouchsafed no small comfort from the Lord to His servant. "And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." What a proof of what the Lord is, even in (yea, because of) those very circumstances when the apostle's heart might have been exceedingly cast down! He had persisted in going up to Jerusalem, and brought himself into what certainly looks like a false position, and as a fact exposed him to a number of disasters and painful oppositions. The Lord at this very time, when things looked gloomiest, appeared to His servant, and comforted him. Instead of a word of reproach, on the contrary it is all that could bid him good cheer.

How good the Lord is! How perfect in His ways! He knows how to deal with a mistake whenever there is one, while He righteously deals with it so much the more in one who ought not to have made it, a mistake in his case being a thousand times more serious than in another. Nevertheless, the Lord has nothing but comfort to administer at such a time. "Be of good cheer, for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness of me in Rome." He was not going to be killed. This was just before the conspiracy appeared. What could man do? Why should he be afraid then? The Lord meant him to go to Rome: his heart's desire was to go there. That is what his heart was set upon next to Jerusalem; and he had his way in going to Jerusalem; and now the Lord was about to take him to Rome. To Rome he was going, but he was to visit it bearing the marks of having been up to Jerusalem. He was going to Rome a prisoner; bringing the message surely of the grace of God, but not without the experience of what it cost to have yielded to his love for the ancient people of God. He was going to Rome with a deeper sense of what his true calling was. His allotted work lay among the Gentiles pre-eminently and especially among the uncircumcision. Why did he not cleave simply and solely to his calling?

Nor were the foes of the gospel scrupulous, spite of their boasted attachment to the law of God. A conspiracy was forming among the unhappy Jews, and the Lord in His providence brings it to light by one that was kinsman of the apostle, to whose heart the ties of flesh and blood appealed with some strength, if there were no higher motive. No doubt he must have been a Jew to have been in the secrets of that portion of the nation which was bent upon the destruction of the apostle. He divulges the secret, first to Paul, subsequently to the chiliarch. Accordingly Lysias (for this was his name) gets ready a detachment of soldiers, and horsemen, and spearmen, during the night, and sends Paul to Felix the governor with a letter. Little did the Roman think that his letter was to be read by you and me; little did he know that there was an eye that looked him through and through as he wrote. That the false and the true should be proclaimed on the housetops he never counted on. "Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, sendeth greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them; then came I with the troop and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman." He understood nothing of the sort; he was merely deceiving his superior, seeking in fact to make capital out of that which was error and fault; for, as we have seen, he began with a positive infraction of Roman law. He had bound, and this for the purpose of scourging, one no less a citizen than himself. He was guilty of claiming credit and zeal, where he had been both remiss and hasty. Oh, how little does the world think that the secrets of the most private letter, the counsels of the cabinet, the movements of kings, of governors, and ministers of state, of military chiefs and their men, no matter who or what, are all before One who sees all and forgets nothing.

Acts 24:1-27. Paul, however, is rescued; and now comes another scene. Ananias, the high priest, descends with the leaders to try their fortune before the governor with the captive. On this occasion they hire an orator to plead for them. If he begins with the grossest flattery and pomposity of speech, the apostle answers with as strikingly admirable and quiet dignity, exactly suited to the circumstances.

Here the apostle, then, when the governor beckoned him to speak, explains how utterly false were all the charges of this hired rhetorician. He loved his nation too well instead of being in anywise their troubler, as he had been represented. "As thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogue, nor in the city." There was therefore no such case as Tertullus had set forth: "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; who also hath gone about to profane the temple." He had only been a few days in Jerusalem, and was there worshipping, not seeking to trouble anybody. "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Then he frankly states what had brought him up on this occasion. "I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings." He really did love them. "Whereupon," he says, "certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult; who ought to have been here before thee, and object what wrong they had against me." But the witnesses were not found. In point of fact, there was nothing tangible to allege against him. It was merely the outburst of priestly hatred and popular fury, followed by a conspiracy formed to murder; and when this failed, the effort was to bring about a judicial condemnation. Who could fail to see the mere will and malice of man? It had no other origin or character.

"When Felix heard these things, he adjourned them, saying, When Lysias the chiliarch shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter. And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty." His wise experienced eye at once saw how things were: there was not the slightest ground for the charges against the apostle. Hence the unusual order not of liberty only, but. that none of his acquaintance were to be forbidden to come or to minister to him. Nay, more than this: "When Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith of Christ." But there was no compromise: he heard what he did not expect. It was not the resurrection now; it was an appeal to conscience morally, or, as it is said here, "He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." All has its season, and this was a word exactly suited to the man and the woman to whom Paul preached. It was well timed. Any one who is at all acquainted with the history of this personage for he is an historical character knows that he was peculiarly guilty, and that these words of the apostle were directly levelled at, and a condemnation therefore of, his moral delinquency.

Felix trembles, accordingly, and talks about hearing him at another time; but that convenient time never came. "He hoped also that money should have been given him." How truly, therefore, and how seasonably, had Paul "reasoned to him of righteousness!" "He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him." Besides, you see the character of the man in what follows. "After two years Porcius Festus came in Felix's room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound." There was no justice to be got out of this unjust judge. It was not that he wanted sense, or wisdom, or judgment. He had all these, and so much the worse for him; but he was willing to sacrifice everything for his own ends. He had been foiled in his desire for money; and now to please those Jews whom he heartily despised willing to do something that would ingratiate himself with them without costing him anything he leaves Paul bound.

Festus in due time appears to our view in the next chapter (Acts 25:1-27) He had the same desire. He was no better than his predecessor. Festus proposes in a singular way that Paul should go up to Jerusalem. This, was an unheard of thing for a Roman governor the chief representative of the empire to send one who had been brought before him back to Jerusalem to be judged by the Jews. Paul at once takes his stand on the well-known principle of the Roman empire that ought to have guided Festus. He says, "I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. But if I be an offender, and have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." This is clearly a matter of spiritual judgment. Paul had now committed himself to this course, as later he actually went before Caesar. It was irrevocable. There was no human possibility of change now. He had uttered the word; before Caesar he must go. Nevertheless, a short time after this we find Agrippa comes down, and the Roman governor, knowing well the active mind of the king, tells him the story of Paul. He felt his own weakness in having to do with such a case, and he knew the interest of Agrippa. Agrippa accordingly tells the governor that he would like to hear the man himself.

On the next day, "when Agrippa therefore was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chiliarchs and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth." And here we find a remarkably fine contrast with all the glitter and pomp of the court. The king himself was a most capable man, but destitute of moral purpose. His wife, however she might be favoured naturally, was alas! a woman of no character whatever. Both of them were under the most painful cloud of suspicion even in the minds of the heathen themselves, not to speak of the Jews. These are the persons who, with the Roman governor, sit in judgment upon the apostle. And then comes forth the prisoner bound with chains. But oh what a chasm separated them from him! What a difference in the eyes of God! What a sight it was to Him to behold these judges dealing with such a man without one shred to cover them of what was of Himself nay, with that which was most shameful and debasing. In all the splendour of earth's rank and dignity they sat to hear the poor but rich prisoner of the Lord. And Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32) said to him, "Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee." If we find the full peace and blessedness of this honoured man of God, what the Lord wrought, and the mighty power of His grace, we see the most dignified yet lowly courtesy towards those who listened, Agrippa especially. "Because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently."

He expounds therefore all his history, how he had been trained from his youth in the strictest sect among the Jews, and again mentions how he was judged for the hope of the promise made of God to "our" fathers, Thus he reasons on the resurrection: "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you if God raises the dead?" He at once brings in this which every Pharisee acknowledged, and which was the main test of orthodoxy among the Jews. This is applied to the history of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, all turned on it. If it was true that God had raised Him from the dead, what was the position of the Jews, and what the glory of Jesus? All turned therefore on the resurrection.

Then he points out the facts of his own conversion. It was not favourable circumstances that had thrown him in the way of the gospel; it was the very reverse of attachment to the Christians or of any lukewarmness toward the law. All his prepossessions were for Israel, all his prejudices against the gospel. Nevertheless while he had carried this to the uttermost, while with the authority of the chief priests he had sought to persecute them to death, the grace of God surmounted all either of religious ties or religious hatred in the heart of Paul. "When I went to Damascus," he says, "with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun."

And not more surely was the heavenly light which streamed upon the apostle above all nature's light, than the grace which God showed that day completely eclipsed all that was of man in his heart and previous history. All disappeared before the all-overcoming strength of the goodness of God in Christ. "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against goads. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." The work was done. I say not that there was all the peace and blessedness he was afterwards to enjoy, but there was effected then the entrance of that spiritual light of Christ that dealt with his conscience in all its depths. At once, down to the very roots of his moral being, all was stirred up, and the good seed, the seed of everlasting life, was sown underneath. He is bidden to rise and stand upon his feet. "For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee."

The word is not exactly as we have it "delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles." It is hard here to see the propriety of that term "delivering" in our common Bibles. In this connection it was not a question so much of a rescue as of taking him out from the people and from the Gentiles. The Lord was severing him from the Jew no less than the Gentile. It is also more than Peter speaks of inActs 15:1-41; Acts 15:1-41 (taking out from the Gentiles a people for His name); which we have seen already, as it was of prime importance to insist on it at the great council of Jerusalem. It was of course still true that God is taking out a people for His name; but in the case of Saul of Tarsus the Lord speaks of taking him out from the Jew no less than the heathen. It is a separation therefore unto the new work of God from both Jew and Gentile. "Unto whom," speaking of the Gentiles, "now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified through faith that is in me."

Nor was Paul disobedient to the heavenly vision. He bowed to the Lord. He was right, as became a man taught of God. And he "showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they, should repent and turn to God, and do works worthy of repentance." For these were the true causes of Jewish hostility.

There was no setting himself up against the law. God forbid that this should ever be an object for a Christian man! He does not call us to a negative testimony, even if legitimate; He calls us to a task far more truly of Himself. It is not against evil so much as for good that God gives us a mission. We must hold this fact always as a fixed principle. I grant you that he who is called out to a purpose that is worthy of God does judge what is evil; nay, not merely this, but judges especially what looks ever so good. Correcting evil by power is not the present purpose of God for the Christian or the church; and be assured His will is the only true directory and the only safe ground for us in everything.

Let us then always enquire, what according to scripture does God design and desire for His people now? What is His real revealed work now? To what therefore is He calling you and me? To what did He set apart the apostle then? It was certainly not the pulling down of the Jews or their legal economy. Judgment was coming on that nation soon, but as long as God forbore Paul lingered over them in patient love; and was he not quite right? But God was calling out a people from the Gentiles as well as from the Jews, and separating him from all his antecedents, from everything that his heart was so fondly bound up in: for never was mortal man that loved Israel more than the apostle Paul did. But God took him out of all his old Jewish associations as well as the Gentiles, to whom now He sent him.

It is evident that we must be separated from human influences even of the best kind, in order to be a fit vessel for God's purposes where the need is greatest. If you would effectually help others, you must always be above the motives and ways that sway them. Impossible to deal rightly with a person if you are merely on the same level with him. This is the reason why, if a brother be overtaken in a fault, what is wanted is a truly spiritual soul to seek his restoration. A careless Christian would spoil the case; because, if he who is in fault can put his finger on something like his own shortcoming in the one who deals with him, it gives him an excuse for his own sin, and a ground for censuring, his censor. Whereas, if there had been the true effect of the grace of God in him who appeals to his soul; if grace has both brought out from all that is evil and sustained in good, so that he can be accused of nothing against the Lord, I need not say how God honours it as His will and special provision for dealing with those who are involved in any fault. Here, in the apostle Paul, is the same principle, though in a far deeper and larger way. Indeed, it is but the assertion of grace that mighty principle of God's goodness in power, working spite of evil according to all that is in His heart.

Paul, then, was taken clean out of everything, both Jew and Gentile, but sent to the Gentile especially. "And the bare sound of this it was that horrified the Jews; nor could they reconcile how one who had burning love to the Jew could at the same time be the prominent, untiring witness of grace to the Gentiles. In their legal pride they could not forgive it. The most hostile feelings broke out against Paul, coupled with the madness of envy and jealousy against the Gentiles. So he tells them, "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having, therefore, obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing else than those things which Moses and the prophets did say should come; whether Christ should suffer; whether he should be the first through resurrection of the dead to announce light," etc.

As he thus explains, the Roman governor interrupts him in the exclamation, that much learning had made him mad. Paul replies, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness." There is all possible respect, it will be observed; at the same time, he could not without protest allow the ignorance of a blind heathen to put such a stigma on the truth. He appeals to one beside Festus certainly an impartial witness as far as Christianity was concerned. "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." The alleged facts of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus were not unknown to Herod Agrippa. They were universally talked of by all who concerned themselves with Israel.

Suddenly he turns with a direct question: "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest them. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Though I do not agree with some modern efforts as to this clause, I admit that the word "almost" hardly gives the true force. "In a little degree you are persuading me." In what spirit was this said? It seems to be a sentiment into which he was surprised, and in this sense wrung out from him. He could not deny the truth of what the apostle asserted. He would not disclaim his own prophets. He was, in point of fact, shut up in a corner as far as regarded the facts and the prophecies that spoke of them beforehand. Thus, cool a man of the world as he was, the surprise of the pointed enquiry of the apostle obliged him to acknowledge that in a little degree Paul was persuading him to be a Christian. This does not intimate, of course, that he really believed in the Lord Jesus; but the premisses of the apostle did involve the conclusion that Jewish prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ, so that Agrippa could not but own a certain impression made on his mind.

But Paul answers in a spirit truly admirable, and this not alone with wisdom, nor with loving desire only. There is another element, too, exceedingly sweet, as showing the state of the apostle at this time, and his own soul's deep present enjoyment of the Lord and of His grace. "I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both in a little and in a great degree such as I am, except these bonds." I hardly know such an answer from man's lips. We have wonderful words of others as well as of Paul elsewhere; but to my mind, throughout the compass even of this blessed book, it would be hard to find an expression of grace and truth, with the condition of happiness which the Spirit vouchsafes, more admirably suited to the circumstances of all concerned more perfectly reflecting what God gives by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul could not wish his bonds for any, however he might glory in them for himself. He boasted to be a prisoner of Jesus Christ; but he could not desire such fare then at least for such as he desired to be brought to the Lord. The time might come, no doubt, when those who proved good soldiers in that warfare might rejoice, even as he rejoiced, in his sufferings for Christ's sake and for his body's sake, as well as for the gospel. But this he could with all his heart wish, that they might be, not only in some measure (even if it were only a little), but in a great degree such as he was. It is not merely that they might be Christians; still less that they might be converted; but "such as I am."

The wish embraces both the reality or standing and the state of the Christian; yea, such enjoyment as filled Paul's own heart at the very moment when he stood in bonds before this splendid court. Did not Paul know the dark cloud that hung over Agrippa and Bernice, not to speak of others? Grace surmounts all evil, as it overcomes and forgives the worst enemies. There is not one bitter reflection, nor a denunciatory word. Grace wishes its best even for those who are bent on the pleasures of sin for a season. We know that judgment is sure and just; but grace can rise to a higher kind of justice not that of earth or of man, but of God, who can be just, and justify him that believes "the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ." This was what filled his heart, and it was the full unhindered strength of God's own grace made good and seen in Christ that was now working in his own soul. It was drawn out by his delight and enjoyment of the Christ to whom he had been bearing witness, whose glory made pale all that a Roman governor or a Jewish king could boast. It was not the surprise, but the overflowing heart of one who looked right into eternity who recalled once more the brightness of the glory of heaven, wherein he had seen Christ Himself brighter than all that glory the source, power, and fulness of it all, and the giver of it also to those who believe. It was this that filled him then, and strengthened him to utter such an expression of divine love.

The court breaks up, Agrippa acknowledging himself that Paul might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar. This is to be noted.

Acts 27:1-44. The next chapter details the singularly instructive voyage of the apostle: where, instead of being a prisoner, he looks as if he was really the master of the ship; and, indeed, had his word been duly heeded in time, they would have been preserved in safety. How wonderful a thing faith is! How blessed the faithfulness that flows from faith; how completely it is the power of God in whatever position a man may be!

Here you find the apostle on his way to the Gentiles. All was clear now. He is away from that which was a charmed circle to him, where his bow did not abide in strength, but now, as before Festus and Agrippa, has returned to his old vigour. All is found in its place: no proofs are wanted where every fact proves it.

Acts 28:1-31. The last chapter shows us not only the journey to Rome, but the apostle reaching it. There, too, we find how truly the power of God is with him. He is received and no small kindness shown by the inhabitants in the island of Malta. And Paul illustrates how far any word of the Lord is in vain by accomplishing one of the peculiar promises in the disputed verses at the end of Mark. This strikes the minds of these heathen, so that afterwards we find the father of the great man in the island with Paul, who prays and lays his hands upon him and heals him. "When this was done, others also which had diseases in the island came, and were healed: who also honoured us with many honours; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary."

Arrived in Italy, they taste the comfort of brotherly love. "We found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days; and so we went toward Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii Forum, and Tres Tabernae; whom, when Paul saw, he thanked God and took courage." What a joy it is for a humble brother to be the means of inspiring the apostle Paul with fresh cheer along the road of Christ; and how we defraud ourselves as well as our brethren of so much blessing by our little faith and scanty love in identifying ourselves with the most despised and suffering for the name of the Lord! To what a work are we not called! What a wonderful mission is that which the Lord confers upon the simplest soul that names the name of Jesus! May He wake us up to feel how blessed we are, and what a spring of blessing He is! Out of them, it is said, "shall flow rivers of living water." Here, observe, it was the apostle himself; and, though it may seem strange to some, even he could find the sweetness and the power of the ministry of love.

To Rome Paul goes, and there he dwells with a soldier that keeps him; and in due time he sees the Jews, and lays before them the gospel at full length. Alas! it was the same tale; for man is everywhere the same, but God is too. "Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive."

The sentence, the long-suspended sentence, of judicial hardening was now about to fall in all its withering strength. It had been hanging over the nation ever since the days of Isaiah the prophet; for not without ground was it uttered then. Still the patience of God pursued its way, till Jesus came and was rejected, when the clouds gathered more thickly. Now not only the Holy Ghost was come, but He had testified of the risen glorified man, from Jerusalem to Rome. But if He had testified, the Jews, instead of being, as they ought to have been, the first to receive God's testimony, were in point of fact the first to refuse the most active and obstinate emissaries of unbelief and of Satan's power, not only not entering in themselves, but forbidding those who would. Accordingly, then and most justly fell that pall of judgment because of unbelief under which they lie to this day. But the gospel goes to the Gentiles; and spite of all that had wrought hitherto, or might work hereafter, they were to hear, and they have heard; and we are ourselves, thanks be to God, the witnesses of it.