The apostle Paul’s life was being threatened almost every day, and he was passed from pillar to post by the authorities. And although he had times in his life when he thought he would never fulfil his lifetime ambition to go to the greatest nation in the world, which was Rome at that time, to preach the Gospel.
He never lost his grip on the truth; he understood that pain and suffering don’t mean that God has left him. Paul learned that God was one step ahead of the game concerning his life, and when God said to him you’re going to Rome to preach, he understood that God stands by His promises.
In the previous chapter, we left the apostle Paul in Governor Felix’s palace under guard until the Jews arrived to present their case against him, but as we read here, the Jews didn’t come alone; they came fully prepared, and to such an extent, they had a very smart lawyer with them.
Luke tells us that after five days, Acts 24:11 / Acts 21:27, the high priest, elders and a lawyer presented themselves before the governor to bring a formal charge against Paul, Acts 24:1. I said this lawyer was smart, and he is. Notice in the text the way Tertullus, Romans 16:22, begins talking to Felix.
He uses flattery with Felix, or what we would say, he sweetens him up by telling him how wonderful he is, Romans 16:18 / Jude 1:16. He refers to the peace that Felix had brought to the land under Roman authority, Acts 24:2-3.
Like all smart lawyers who want people on their side, he doesn’t mention a thing about the fact that the governor had been responsible for the murder of the high priest, Jonathan, Psalm 5:9 / Acts 23:2.
Tertullus is very clever in choosing words to get Felix on side, even to the point where he tells Felix that he will state his case briefly, so he doesn’t take too much of his time, Acts 24:4. And so he presents his case before Felix.
Basically, he accused Paul of four things, Acts 24:5-7 / Luke 23:2 / Luke 23:5.
1. They accused him of being a troublemaker.
2. They accused him of stirring up rebellion among the Jews throughout the world.
3. They accused him of being a ringleader of the Nazarene party among the Jews.
4. They accused him of trying to desecrate the temple.
Note Acts 24:7, the footnote says the following.
‘Some manuscripts include him here, and we would have judged him in accordance with our law. But the commander Lysias came and took him from us with much violence, ordering his accusers to come before you.’
And so after hearing all the accusations, the lawyer urges Felix to ‘examine’ Paul, Acts 24:8. What does that mean? No one really knows, but one commentator suggests that examining Paul meant scourging him. In other words, they wanted Felix to beat the truth out of him.
Notice also how clever this lawyer is; he doesn’t even mention anything about Paul’s Roman citizenship, Acts 16:37-38 / Acts 22:25-28, which meant if they scourge him at this point, Felix would be guilty of breaking the Roman law.
He is very selective with the truth. And so the onslaught against Paul continues, but isn’t this just amazing? How far will people go to get rid of someone they don’t like? Acts 24:9.
People who are very selective with the truth will do anything and say anything to discredit someone. They will go to any lengths to get someone out of the way, especially if you say something against their traditions and practices. Especially if you say something which affects their comfort zones.
These people are happy with their traditions and practices, and they are comfortable with their beliefs. And now this guy named Paul from Tarsus comes along and basically starts rocking their boat a bit.
The truth will always rock our boat, especially if we don’t want to hear it. These religious leaders didn’t want to hear the truth because the truth hurt them, Acts 24:9.
And so while all these accusations were being presented to Felix, our dear friends, the high priest and elders affirmed the truthfulness of the case presented by their lawyer. But just like in any courtroom session, the judge needs to hear both sides of the story. So Luke continues and tells us about Paul’s defence.
Remember, even today in our courtrooms, no one is allowed to speak unless the judge says so. And so, as Felix was the judge on this occasion, Paul waited to get permission to speak from him before he began his defence, Acts 24:10.
And Paul began his defence by saying that it was a pleasure to be able to state his case before a person who had years of experience in judging matters involving the Jews, Luke 21:15.
Tannehill, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Although Tertullus is supposed to be a skilled orator, Paul demonstrates his superior skill by making use of Tertullus’ words to build his own case.’
Remember that the first accusation against Paul was they accused him of being a troublemaker, Acts 24:10. In defence of that Paul basically says, he had only been back in Judea for twelve days, with the last five of those being spent in custody, Acts 24:11. In other words, Paul would be hard pushed to be a troublemaker in such a short space of time.
Coffman, in his commentary, interprets Paul as saying the following.
‘You are far too intelligent to be taken in by the unsubstantiated charges and wild allegations of the plaintiffs.’
He said they didn’t find him in the temple either disputing with others or stirring up the crowd, Acts 24:12. And so, against the accusation of being a rebel against Rome, Paul basically says, he wouldn’t have had time for that, and not only that, there is absolutely no proof of that either.
Paul also said they couldn’t prove their charge of trying to desecrate the temple either, Acts 24:13 / Acts 21:26-29. Paul was telling the truth, and as we are about to read, he’s going to continue to tell the truth, even though he knows his accusers won’t like it.
When they accused him of being a ringleader of the Nazarene party among the Jews, Acts 24:5. Paul didn’t hide the fact that he did worship God according to the Way, Acts 9:2 / Acts 16:17 / Acts 16:25 / Acts 18:26 / Acts 19:9 / Acts 19:23 / Acts 20:4 / Acts 24:14 / Acts 24:2, which his Jewish accusers called a sect, Acts 24:14.
If Paul was going to plead guilty to anything, he pleaded guilty to worshipping the God of the Jewish fathers. He pleaded guilty to believing all that was written in the Law of Moses and the prophets, Acts 24:14.
He readily admitted that he based his hope in God, as his accusers also did, who would raise both the righteous and wicked from the dead, Acts 24:15 / Daniel 12:2 / Matthew 25:31-33 / Matthew 25:46 / John 5:28-29 / Acts 10:42 / Acts 17:31 / Revelation 20:12-15.
Remember, Ananias was a Sadducee, and the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, Acts 23:8. And so, because of that belief, Paul said he tried to live as his conscience directed, so he would not offend God or man, Acts 24:16 / Acts 23:1.
Paul gave them a reason for his hope, he was gentle in his approach, he showed them respect with his words, and he kept a clear conscience as these people were speaking maliciously against him, 1 Peter 3:15-16. Because that’s what speaking the truth does, the truth has nothing to hide. Truth exposes falsehood, and as we said, some people don’t like that.
God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us and spill His blood for us so that we can be free from a guilty conscience, Hebrews 10:19-23. A person doesn’t feel guilty when they have done nothing wrong; it’s only when their conscience is pricked that guilt comes along.
Paul did nothing wrong; that’s why he had a clear conscience. He lived his life to please God; that’s why he had a clear conscience. He didn’t rely on himself for it; he relied on the blood of Christ for a clear conscience.
But Paul also understood that a clear conscience didn’t make him innocent of sin, 1 Corinthians 4:4 / 1 Peter 2:21. Paul was clear in his mind about who he was and what he was.
After some five years in other parts of the world, Paul had returned to Jerusalem with a gift for the needy of the Jewish nation, Acts 24:17 / Galatians 2:10 / Romans 15:26 / 2 Corinthians 8-9.
He says in his defence that he didn’t defile the temple, they found him there after he had completed his vow of purification, which again we know as being true, Acts 24:18.
Longenecker, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Roman law imposed heavy penalties upon accusers who abandoned their charges (destitutio), and the disappearance of accusers often meant the withdrawal of a charge. Their absence, therefore, suggested that they had nothing against him that would stand up in a Roman court of law.’
Paul suggested that there were some Asian Jews who brought the original charges against him and stirred up the mob, Acts 24:19. He says the very ones who provided the bullets in the first place, should have been present to contest the facts which he presented, Acts 24:19. They are long gone, they simply passed on the bullets for someone else to fire.
These people who are firing are far from innocent, but they weren’t the ones who originally began this plot to get rid of Paul. And so Paul exposed what the real accusation was all about; he got to the point even when they wouldn’t.
He even invited those Sadducean accusers who were present to step forward and show the error in his one statement before the Sanhedrin, ‘concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day’, Acts 24:20-21. Paul knew exactly why he was there, even though they wouldn’t admit it.
McGarvey, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Paul made this last reference, not because he was conscious of any wrong in the matter, but in order to taunt his Sadduceean accusers, and to show Felix that they were moved against him by party jealousy.’
God sent the prophets with a message to His people, but they beat one, killed another, stoned a third, and shot the messengers. God sent His Son with a message for His people, but they killed him, they shot the messenger, Matthew 21:33-39.
They stoned Stephen to death, Acts 7:58-60; they shot the messenger, put James to death with the sword, Acts 12:2, they shot the messenger. Tradition says that Peter was crucified, upside-down on an X-shaped cross, in Rome, and they shot the messenger. The Apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67; they shot the messenger.
Today, we are God’s messengers, Matthew 28:19-20, and we, too, should not be surprised if people want to shoot us, too. But before we give them a chance to do that, just remind them, ‘don’t shoot the messenger’, we’re only telling them what God Himself says they need to know.
People say that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but in this case, we could safely say that a little knowledge can win the day. Luke tells Theophilus that Felix had a fairly good knowledge of the Way, Acts 24:22 / Acts 23:26-30, but just how did he get that knowledge?
If we remember, Philip and his four daughters lived in Caesarea, Acts 21:8-9, and Cornelius had been converted while he was living in the same city, Acts 10:1 / Acts 10:48, so it is possible he had some information about this new religion called Christianity through them. But like any ruler or judge, rather than judging the proceedings immediately, Felix delayed judgment until Lysias came to give his testimony, Acts 24:22.
Walker, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The best methods of court procedure are of less consequence than the right kind of judges.’
We may think that it was good of Felix to allow all the testimonies to be heard first before making any judgment, but there is a strong possibility that he was merely delaying the situation in the hope of receiving a bribe from the Christians, Acts 24:26.
But one thing we do know for sure is that Felix directed the centurion in charge of Paul to grant him basic freedom to be with his friends and have someone attend to his needs, Acts 24:23.
Before we make any judgments about anyone or any situation, we first need to know all the facts; if not, we’re nothing less than gossipers, Proverbs 18:8 / Matthew 7:1-5.
When Felix returned to Caesarea with his third wife, Drusilla, he called for Paul to come to tell him more about ‘the faith in Christ,’ Acts 24:24.
Coffman, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Drusilla was a sensuously beautiful person, one of the ten descendants of Herod the Great whose names appear in the New Testament, and, like all the Herods, possessed of a character marked by selfishness and profligacy. She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and at this time, 57 or 58 A.D., she was not yet twenty years old. Her brother Agrippa II gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa when she was only fourteen or fifteen years of age.’
Coffman continues in his commentary, and says the following.
‘The young queen was only sixteen when Felix, with the help of Atomos, a Cypriot magician, persuaded her to leave her husband and marry him. She was Felix’s third wife, and they had a son named Agrippa. After the recall of Felix, Drusilla and her only son were perished in the eruption of Vesuvius. She was one of three royal wives taken by Felix. According to the unanimous testimony of the ancients, she was a woman of spectacular beauty.’
Notice Luke mentions that Drusilla was Jewish, Acts 24:24; this may have influenced Felix’s decision to retain Paul in custody, Acts 24:27. Like all of us should be able to do, Paul was ready to give the reason for the hope that he had in Christ Jesus, 1 Peter 3:15.
And so he presented the case for righteous living and judgment, along with consideration of the importance of self-control in such living, Acts 24:25 / John 16:8-11.
Stott, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The lax morals of Felix and Drusilla help to explain the topics on which Paul spoke to them.’
Luke records that Paul also warned of the coming judgment, in which every man will be judged based upon his works, Acts 24:25. And that discussion terrified Felix and moved him to send Paul away, saying he would call for him again at a more convenient time, Acts 24:25 / 2 Corinthians 6:2.
It’s clear he was also looking for a bribe, Acts 24:26. Jewish historians tell us that Felix did call for Paul to come and converse with him often, secretly hoping to receive a bribe to release him, Acts 24:26.
It appears from our text that after two years of waiting, Felix was relieved by Festus, but Felix left Paul in prison in an effort to earn some special favour from the Jews, Acts 24:27. Historians also tell us that after Felix’s removal from office, Drusilla and their son, Agrippa, perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.
Coffman, in his commentary, says the following.
‘This was to be Paul’s home for two whole years, during which Luke would canvass the cities and villages of Galilee, Judaea, Samaria, etc., preparatory to writing the Gospel of Luke. Perhaps in that work of the incomparable Luke, one may read the purpose of that strange providence which left the greatest of apostles to suffer frustration and delay under the lock and key of Felix. For the benign character of Paul’s imprisonment in Herod’s palace, however, one may be grateful and thankful to the Lord.’