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.
1. Why would the high priest come down all the way from Jerusalem?
The chief captain would give notice to the high priest of what he had done as soon as it was safe to do so. After learning that they must go to Cæsarea with their accusation, the enemies of St Paul would spend some little time in preparing their charge for the hearing of Felix, and in providing themselves with an advocate. And as they would not probably travel with as much haste as St Paul’s convoy did, five days is not a long interval to elapse before they arrived in Cæsarea.
Ananias the high priest would be sure to be hot against the Apostle after that speech about the “whited wall.” CBSB
2. Who is this Tertullus Fellow?
“Tertullus” This was a hired lawyer (advocate) or orator (cf. NKJV). It is a form of the Greek word rçma or “spoken word.” Apparently he presented the Sanhedrin’s case in an acceptable Roman legal form, possibly in Latin. UCNT
Luke’s report of the case against Paul followed standard Roman legal procedure. Included in this was the prosecution brought by a “rhetor” (lawyer). Tertullus (a well- known Roman name) may have been a Jew (v. 6), although he referred to the Jews (in vv. 5, 9) more objectively. He delivered his speech, though abbreviated by Luke, with the conventional concessions to Felix. ASBN
(2) 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.
3. Who was Felix?
Felix began life as a slave. His brother Pallas was a friend of the emperor Claudius; through such influence, he rose in status as a free man became the first slave in history to become a governor of a Roman province. But his slave mentality stayed with him; Tacitus, the Roman historian, describes Felix as “a master of cruelty and lust who exercised the powers of a king with the spirit of a slave”
“The picture drawn by Tacitus of Felix’s public and private life is not a pretty one. Trading on the influences of his infamous brother [Pallas, a favorite of the emperor Claudius], he indulged in every license and excess, thinking ‘that he could do any evil act with impunity’ (Tacitus, Annals 12.54).” (Williams) GC
Flattery of officials in formal speeches was fashionable in Paul’s day, and Tertullus heaped praise on Felix. The title “most excellent” usually applied to men who enjoyed a higher social rank than Felix. Felix was a fierce ruler and the “peace” that existed was a result of terror rather than tranquillity. Tertullus praised Felix for being a peacemaker in preparation for his charge that Paul was a disturber of the peace (vv. 5-6). Felix’s “reforms” were more like purges. Speakers also usually promised to be brief, which promises then as now they did not always keep. CN
“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. (6) “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.
4. What were the charges against Paul?
Tertullus accused Paul of far more than simply bringing a Gentile into the temple:he was, the Jews charged, an agitator of Jews throughout the empire, a ringleader of the Nazarene sect (on this, cp. 3:1), and a desecrater of the temple. Although the first two would have aroused a Roman governor’s curiosity and suspicion, only the last would have had real significance. Tertullus implied that the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would have been able to handle the situation if the Roman commander, Lysias, had not interfered. Perhaps so, but this clearly glossed over Paul’s innocence and that he would have been unfairly convicted by a lynch- mob. ASBN
1. Tertullus leveled three specific charges against Paul: a personal charge, a political charge, and a doctrinal charge. First, he was a troublemaker in the Roman Empire having stirred up Jews wherever he went. This was a serious charge because Rome sought to preserve peace in the world, and Jewish uprisings were a perennial problem to Roman officials
2. Second, Tertullus pictured Paul as the leader of a cult outside mainstream Judaism. The Roman Empire tolerated Judaism, but the “sect of the Nazarenes” was not a part of Judaism to the Jewish leaders. This title is a unique name for Christianity found nowhere else in the New Testament. Tertullus evidently used this name to make “the Way” sound as bad as possible.
“That [second charge] 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.”
Tertullus’ statement that the Jews had arrested Paul harmonized with Lysias’ report (23:27). The Jews had tried to kill Paul on the spot too (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.
All of Paul’s accusers confirmed Tertullus’ charges. They undoubtedly expected Felix to dispatch Paul quickly since Felix had repeatedly crucified the leaders of uprisings for disturbing the peace of Rome. CN
(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, (11) 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. (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; (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.
5. What is the crux of Paul defense.
Paul gives a summary of his defense. It was only 12 days ago that he had gone up to Jerusalem to worship. That was hardly enough time to create the kind of disturbance that his accuser has just described. There simply wasn’t enough time for Paul to do those things for which he was indicted.
Beyond this, Paul had come to Jerusalem to worship, not to cause trouble. He was not arguing or debating with others in the normal places for such activities. Let those who were accusing him prove otherwise. (This would be hard to do, since his accusers had not witnessed Paul committing the alleged crimes in the temple. And those who had falsely accused him were not present.)
Paul answers the charge that he was a cult leader, someone outside the boundaries of Jewish orthodoxy. If it could be shown that Paul was not really a Jew, but some kind of cult leader, his religious freedoms would be revoked, and he would no longer be able to preach the gospel under the protection of Rome. You will recall that a similar charge was leveled at Paul in Corinth, but Gallio threw it out of court (Acts 18:12-17).
12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. 13 “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.” 14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” 16 So he drove them off. 17 Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever.
Gallio recognized that there were strong factions within Judaism. Now the same charge is raised again, and Paul will skillfully refute it.
Tertullus accused Paul of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Paul does not deny that he is a follower of “the Way” and that it is regarded by some as a sect. But he refuses to grant that “the Way” is a departure from true Judaism. He worships “the God of our ancestors”. He believes everything written in the law and in the prophets. His faith does not deny or denounce the Old Testament Scriptures; instead, his faith is the fulfillment of these Scriptures. RD
“In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. (17) “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; (18) 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. (20) “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.'”
6. How does Paul use his defense as an opportunity to witness?
a. Paul makes it clear that he has not abandoned the God of my fathers or the Law and the Prophets; instead he is acting in fulfillment of them both.
b. The basis of Paul’s belief is founded on something accepted by a large segment of devout Jews: The resurrection of the dead (specifically, the resurrection of Jesus).
i. Both of the just and the unjust: Paul clearly believed in a resurrection for both the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of soul-sleep or annihilation for the unrighteous is not accurate according to New Testament teaching.
c. I came to bring alms and offerings refers to the collection Paul made for Judean Christians among the Gentile churches of the West (Gal_2:10; Rom_15:26; 2 Corinthians 8-9).
d. They ought to have been here before you to object: In this, Paul reminds Felix that there is no eyewitness testimony to prove the charges of Paul’s accusers.
i. “This was a strong point in his defense: the people who had raised the hue and cry in the first instance, claiming to be eyewitnesses of his alleged sacrilege, had not troubled to be present.” (Bruce) Because Paul is in the right, he consistently calls the case back to the evidence, the very thing his accusers avoided.
ii. Christians should never be timid about or ashamed of the truth, or of the evidence. If we are truly following God, the truth and evidence are our friends, not our accusers. GC
What was the source of the anger and animosity toward Paul? It was not some terrible crime, but rather Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the dead. All of this is about theological differences among Jews. That is what caused the riot in the Sanhedrin. It is what caused the riot in the temple. It is what Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaia, had concluded when Paul was tried before him in Corinth: RD
(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.” (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.
7.So what decision did Felix come to?
The witnesses to Paul’s alleged crime (the Jews from Asia) had failed to show up for the hearing. Nor could the Jewish leaders prove him guilty of a crime. The only verdict Felix could render consistent with Roman law was not guilty, which would infuriate the Jews, and possibly lead to further trouble. Since as governor, Felix’s primary responsibility was to maintain order, he decided the best decision was no decision, and adjourned the proceedings on the pretext of needing further information from Lysias. commander comes down. Lysias’ written report had already stated that the dispute involved questions of Jewish law (23:29), and that Paul was not guilty of any crime (23:29). It is difficult to see what more he could have added, and there is no evidence that Felix ever summoned him. MSBN
(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. (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.” (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. (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.
8. For two years Felix questioned Paul?
Both Paul (Acts 24:10) and Luke (Acts 24:22) have already told us that Felix was well informed concerning Judaism and Christianity (“the Way”). One reason for his understanding of Judaism is that his wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess (Acts 24:24). RD
Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I who had been king over Palestine from A.D. 37-44. It was he who had authorized the death of James, the son of Zebedee (12:1-2), and had imprisoned Peter (12:3-11). Drusilla was Felix’s third wife whom he had married when she was 16 years old. She was now (A.D. 57) 19. She had previously been the wife of Azizus, the king of Emesa, a state within Syria, but Felix broke up that marriage to get her. Felix himself had been married twice before to princesses the first of which was the granddaughter of Anthony and Cleopatra. Felix used his marriages to advance his political career. The Herods were, of course, Idumeans, part Israelite and part Edomite.
Something about Paul and or his gospel seems to have fascinated Felix. Someone commented that when Paul talked to Felix and Drusilla, enslaved royalty was addressing royal slaves.
Paul’s emphases in his interview with Felix and Drusilla were those things Jesus Christ had promised the Holy Spirit would convict people of to bring them to faith. These things were sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11).
8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
Felix and Drusilla were notoriously deficient in all three of these areas. It is not surprising that Felix became uneasy. He apparently was willing to discuss theology but not personal morality and responsibility. These subjects terrified him (Gr. emphobos).
Felix’s decision to postpone making a decision about his relationship to God is a common one. Often people put off this most important decision until they cannot make it. This is probably why most people who make decisions for Christ do so when they are young. Older people normally get harder to the gospel. We do not know if Felix ever did trust Christ; there is no evidence that he did.
We do not know for sure where Paul got the money Felix hoped he would give him or if he had it. Perhaps the Christians who heard of his imprisonment contributed to his support.
“. . . although provincial governors were prohibited by law from taking bribes from prisoners, the practice was common and, in the case of Felix, quite in character.” CN
- ·ESVN………….ESV Study Bible Notes
- MSBN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes
- ·NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.
- ·JVM ……………..J Vernon McGee,
- ·ACC ……………. Adam Clarke’s Commentary
- ·BN ……………..Barnes Notes
- WBC……………. Wycliffe Bible Commentary
- CN …… …………..Constables Notes
- ·IC………………….Ironside Commentary
- ·NET……………….Net Bible Study Notes.
- JFB…………..Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary
- ·VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies
- ·CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark
- BDB………….. Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
- ·Darby………..John Darby’s Synopsis of the OT and NT
- ·Johnson………Johnson’s Notes on the New Testament.
- NTCMM…………..The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark.
- ·EHS………………….Expositions of the Holy Scriptures
- ·CPP…………………The Complete Pulpit Commentary
- ·SBC…………………Sermon Bible Commentary
- ·K&D……………….Keil and Deilitzsch Commentary on the OT
- ·EBC…………………Expositors Bible Commentary
- ·CBSC…………….Cambridge Bible for Schools and College
- · GC……………………Guzik Commentary
- · RD……………………. Robert Deffinbaugh
- UCNT……………..Utley NT Commentary
- ASBN……………..Apologetics Study Bible Notes
- ·http://augustine1-defendingthefaith.blogspot.com/
- ·https://augustine1blog.wordpress.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,