Acts 24

Governor Felix

(24:1) After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul.

The Sanhedrin hires an attorney (Tertullus) to formally prosecute Paul. Tertullus may have been a Gentile “attorney” (rhētōr) hired by the Sanhedrin to stand in court with a Roman procurator. Though, Bruce holds that Tertullus was “probably a Hellenistic Jew; his name was a common one throughout the Roman world.” The Jews couldn’t kill their own citizens, so they needed to convince Rome that Paul wasn’t under the protective umbrella of the religio licita (“legal religion”) of Judaism.

(24:2-4) After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, “Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, ³ we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. ⁴ But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing.”

Tertullus seems to be buttering up Felix before he brings his charges. Tertullus tells Felix that he “attained much peace.” In reality, there was “less peace in Judea during Felix’s administration than for any procurator until the final years before the outbreak of the war with Rome.” Tertullus likely thought Felix would be sympathetic to his cause, because Felix quelled several rebellions from the zealot party (Josephus, Jewish War, 2.13.2; Antiquities, 20.8.5). At the same time, this was a steaming load of flattery on Tertullus’ behalf. Marshall writes, “It is true that coins issued by the Roman government made claims of a similar kind, but that was simply propaganda.”

 (24:5) “For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

Tertullus doesn’t mind using name-calling as rhetoric. He accuses Paul of being a “pest” (loimos) which can be rendered “diseased” or in this context a “public menace or enemy” (BDAG, p.602; Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrines, AD 41.). Paul is like a cancerous tumor that needs to be put into remission. This is character assassination—pure and simple.

“Nazarenes” is the only usage of this word to refer to Christians in the NT. It obviously comes from Jesus’ identity (Acts 2:22). Because Nazareth was a backwater town (Jn. 1:46), this is likely a pejorative term (Jn. 1:46).

“[Paul] stirs up dissension.” Paul wasn’t the one to start the riots—the religious leaders were. Tertullus seems to be equating Paul with the Zealots, because he knows Felix hates the zealots (see comments on v.2).

(24:6-9) And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [We wanted to judge him according to our own Law. ⁷ But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ⁸ ordering his accusers to come before you.] By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” ⁹ The Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so.

If Paul “desecrated the Temple” by bringing Gentiles into the Temple, then this would be a capital crime.

“Joined in the attack” (synepethento) is a military term (Josephus, Antiquities, 10.7.4). The implication is that Paul is being painted as a violent Zealot—a threat to the State. Tertullus wants Paul’s blood!

Paul’s defense

(24:10) When the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense.”

“Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation.” Paul’s respectful comments differ from Tertullus’ flattery. Paul doesn’t lie about what a great leader Felix had been. Instead, he merely acknowledges him as a ruler, and nothing more.

The religious leaders had an attorney or advocate to accuse Paul, but who did Paul have? To the naked eye, it seems like Paul was defending himself. But looks can be deceiving. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would show up at these times to give his disciples the right words to defend themselves (Lk. 12:11-12; 21:14). In his “defense,” Paul argues that (1) he is peaceful, (2) Christianity is not different than true Judaism, and (3) the plaintiff has no evidence for his charges.

(24:11-13) “Since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. ¹² Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. ¹³ Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me.”

Paul argues that he wasn’t causing a riot or starting trouble (vv.11-12). He was minding his own business, and the plaintiff doesn’t have any evidence otherwise, because Paul had been in Jerusalem for only twelve days.

(24:14) “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.”

Paul admits that he’s part of the Jewish “sect” called “the Way,” but he argues that they both believe in the same God, the same Law, and the same Bible.

“The Way” of Jesus is used six times in the book of Acts. They talked about their faith as “the Way,” because Jesus was at the center of their lives. This was a new way of life and a new way to God (cf. Jn. 14:6). Ironically, Paul had been a persecutor of “the Way” (Acts 9:2), but now he was being persecuted for being a part of “the Way.”

(24:15) “Having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.”

Paul emphasizes their points of agreement: for instance, their mutual belief in the resurrection of the dead.

(24:16) “In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men.”

Paul believed in keeping a clear conscience before God and people, because he was thinking about the resurrection (“in view of this…”). It’s important to life honestly and sincerely before God now because we know we will stand before him later.

(24:17) “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.”

Paul still calls Israel “my nation.” He is still a loyal Jewish man. Paul points out that he didn’t come to bring violence, but to bring “alms” (i.e. gifts of charity for the poor). In a sense, the assembly wanted to kill him for being a relief worker! (cf. Rom. 15:26)

(24:18-19) “In which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia— ¹⁹ who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me.”

Paul is showing that the prosecution is lacking key witnesses. Marshall notes, “Roman law did not like persons who made accusations and then failed to carry them through in court.”

(24:20-21) “Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, ²¹ other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’”

Paul asks, “Where is the evidence? Where are the witnesses?” Indeed, if Felix wanted witnesses, the members of the Sanhedrin could verify this part of Paul’s account (!!). Paul continues to cliam that he’s a faithful Jewish man, who believes in the resurrection of the dead (cf. Acts 23:6).

(24:22) But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.”

Where did Felix learn about “the Way”? Extrabiblical history claims that Simon Magus witnessed to Felix, but this isn’t certain.

Felix says that he’ll wait to decide Paul’s case until Lysias arrives. He delays the acquittal, instead of making a decision.

(24:23) Then he gave orders to the centurion for him to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him.

He keeps Paul locked up. Yet he allows certain freedoms for Paul like house guests, which was common for a prisoner in Paul’s situation (Josephus Antiquities 18:204). We never hear if Lysias ever comes to give his testimony…

Drusilla

(24:24) But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (the man who killed James of Zebedee in Acts 12). Regarding Drusilla, Bock writes, “Born in AD 38, she is not yet twenty years old, the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I and sister to Agrippa II. This is her second marriage. She left her first husband, whom she had married in a customary, arranged marriage at fourteen. She is Felix’s third wife. Josephus (Antiquities 20.7.2 §§141-44) notes that she was beautiful and was persuaded by Felix to leave her first husband (also Antiquities 19.9.1 §354; Jewish War 2.1.6 §220; Suetonius, Claudius 28; Tacitus, Roman History 5.9).” In addition to their marital problems, the people in this family were brutal killers.

(24:25) But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.”

Paul uses this arrest as an opportunity to speak to Felix and Drusilla about Christ. Felix becomes “frightened” hearing about this, and tells him to leave. He postponed the decision, instead of making a decision on the spot. Chuck Smith notes that Felix’s “more convenient time never came.” He was stepped down in disgrace under Nero for raiding wealthy Jewish homes.

• “Righteousness.” Felix realized that he wasn’t a righteous man.

• “Self-control.” He was an adulterer, stealing Drusilla from her first husband.

• “Judgment to come.” Consequently, Felix was “frightened” about the prospect of facing God’s judgment. Paul talked about judgment with his judge (Felix). It’s as if Paul was saying, “I’m on trial now… but you will be the one on trial later.”

Felix heard the gospel from the apostle Paul, and he still rejected it. Felix probably could’ve recited the gospel backwards and forwards, but he still chose to reject it. It’s possible to have a “seared conscience” to the gospel. When you continually say, No, to Jesus Christ, this sets a pattern in your life that has consequences.

(24:26) At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him.

Felix’s motive for keeping Paul was to try and squeeze a bribe out of him. This is ironic in light of Paul’s teaching regarding “righteous, self-control, and judgment.” Bock writes, “Felix knows from Paul’s remarks about alms and offerings that Paul has access to large amounts of money, and he may assume that Paul can get more.”

(24:27) But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned.

Porcius Festus takes over after Felix (AD 59-60). How was Paul feeling as he sat imprisoned and stationary for two years?? No one was receiving the message of Christ, but instead, they were only trying to get money out of him.

Questions for Reflection

Verses 13-21. What arguments and evidence does Paul give to show that he’s innocent?

Verses 24-27. Why did Festus find it so difficult to come to faith in Christ?

Verse 27. How do you think Paul felt languishing in prison for two years? What sort of thoughts and feelings do you think were running through his mind?

• Paul saw little or no visible fruit for two years. Yet, today, we have a different picture. If it wasn’t for this imprisonment, Paul wouldn’t have had time to write multiple epistles, and Luke recorded his biography of Jesus’ life and his writing of Acts.