Cv – Paul’s Witness before Governor Felix 24: 1-27

Paul’s Witness before Governor Felix
24: 1-27

57-59 AD

Paul’s witness before Governor Felix DIG: Felix had a reputation of violently suppressing rebellions against Rome. How might Tertullus hope this would compensate for the lack of evidence he could offer? How might all the charges in verses 5-6 seem true to Ananias and Tertullus? What does their reference to believers as the Nazarene sect show about their view of the Way? How then does Paul defend himself in verses 11-19? Given what happened in Corinth (18:12-16), why might Paul want to shift the focus of the controversy to his belief in the resurrection? What do you learn about Felix from verses 22-26? Why does he merely put Paul under house arrest? In light of 23:11, what must Paul be feeling as time wears on and no progress at all is made?

REFLECT: How has your desire to serve Messiah been misunderstood by others? Why do you think God is willing to go to such lengths to have His gospel proclaimed to those who have no interest in hearing it? What’s the difference between being well acquainted with the Way in verse 22 and being a true believer? How long before you were saved? Have you ever felt there was a period in your life that was “dead time” – time when nothing seemed to be happening at all (as seems the case with Paul here)? Why do you think God allows such times to happen? Perhaps you, too, know someone who is waiting for a later time before they seriously consider the claims of Christ. What do you think they are waiting for?

This chapter presents one of the most tragic examples of missed opportunity in all of the Bible. Felix, the Roman governor of Judea, had the privilege of spending much time with the apostle Paul. Yet, sadly, he let the opportunity slip away, and there is no evidence that he ever accepted Yeshua Messiah as his personal Lord and Savior.

The Scriptures are full of examples of those who missed salvation opportunities. Some pagan philosophers, after hearing Paul’s defense of the faith on Mars Hill in Athens (to see link click Cb – An Unknown God in Athens), dismissed him with the words: We will hear from you again about this (17:32). But Paul soon left Athens, never to return, and the philosophers never heard him, or the gospel, again.

Yeshua was approached by a Torah-teacher who said that he would follow Him wherever He went, but when he learned that he had to deny himself; he had not counted the costs and faded away. Another potential recruit wanted to bury his father first; he was too slow, evidently never to return. Still another first wanted to say goodbye to his family; he spiritual priorities were out of order (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Gl – The Son of Man Has No Place to Lay His Head), and was lost. To all the excuses people come up with, the Bible has the answers. But there is no guarantee people will accept them.

The parable of the wise and foolish virgins (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Jw – The Parable of the Ten Virgins) also illustrates the tragedy of missed opportunity. So does the story of the rebellious Israelites who died in the wilderness and failed to enter the Promised Land (see the commentary on Hebrews As – Today, If You Hear His Voice, Do Not Harden Your Hearts). How many other untold stories like this have there ever been?

But the most striking example of lost opportunity is Judas. He was graciously granted the opportunity given to only eleven others – to live and minister with the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. He could have sat on one of the twelve thrones in the Messianic Kingdom, judging the twelve tribes of Isra’el (Matthew 19:28). His name could have been on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem (see the commentary on Revelation Fu – The New Jerusalem had a Great, High Wall with Twelve Gates). He could have been one of the most honored believers of all time. Instead, Judas became a thief, hypocrite, and a traitor. He threw away his opportunity for a paltry thirty pieces of silver, committed suicide (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Lm – Judas Hangs Himself), and was condemned to eternal damnation. Our Lord summed up Judas’ life this way: Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born (Mattityahu 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22).

Felix was tragically similar to Judas. Where Judas lived with Jesus for more than three years; Felix had Paul in his palace for two. Judas had many opportunities to talk with Yeshua; Felix sent for Paul frequently and would talk with him (24:26b).Judas betrayed the Son of God for money; Felix was hoping that money would be given to him by Paul (24:26a). Judas betrayed the Lord to the Jewish authorities; Felix fearing those same authorities, betrayed Paul by refusing to release him despite his innocence.⁵⁶⁵

The prosecution: Five days after Paul arrived at Caesarea the kohen gadol Ananias came down from Jerusalem with some of the elders, or leaders of the Sanhedrin (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Lg – The Great Sanhedrin). But they did not argue the case against Paul for themselves, they hired an attorney named Tertullus (24:1a). Whether he was a Roman or a Hellenistic Jew is not known, but he was likely chosen because he was well versed in Roman law. It was not unusual for Jews to hire such experts to represent them in Roman legal proceedings.

The Jews brought formal charges against Paul before the governor. When Paul was called in, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: We are enjoying much peace through you. This was careful flattery because there were two uprisings between Jews and Gentiles during his reign; in fact, he was eventually recalled because of them (see Cu – Paul Escorted to Caesarea for more details on governor Felix). And we are enjoying the reforms you introduced for this nation because of your foresight. This was no more than flattery because he actually encouraged bands of thieves and shared the spoil with them. We acknowledge this, most excellent Felix, in every way and every place with all gratitude. But then Tertullus made the transition to the actual case in hand. In order that I may not weary you any longer, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly (24:1b-4). His introductory comments were brief because there was little good he could say about Felix and little bad he could say about Paul.⁵⁶⁶

Paul stood in the great hall to face his accusers and his judge, on trial for his life. Always the Lord’s promise echoed in the back of his mind: So you must also testify in Rome (23:11). But the prosecutor’s accusations against Paul were no more truthful than his flattery. Tertullus went on to name three accusations against Paul.

First, Tertullus claimed to have found this man to be a troublemaker (24:5a). At first glance this seems to be a ridiculous charge, a bit of name-calling with nothing specific to back it up. But actually it was a carefully calculated move. Tertullus wanted to broaden the scope of his accusation into provoking insurrection throughout the Roman world. This was the charge of sedition. No Roman official wanted to be guilty of permitting anything that would threaten the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Felix in particular would have been sensitive to such a charge. His entire administration had been marked by having to put down one Jewish insurrection after another. He had done so decisively and cruelly. He maintained the peace at any cost.

The second charge was really a variation of the first. Tertullus accused Paul of being a ringleader of the Nazarene sect (the unbelieving Jews called the Jewish believers Nazarenes), stirring up riots among all the Jewish people throughout the Roman world (24:5b). It was certainly true that Paul was a leader in the Church. By linking the comment with the charge of provoking insurrection throughout the Roman world, Tertullus implied that the Nazarenes as a whole were a dangerous and seditious sect and that Paul was one of the main collaborators. The ramifications of the Jewish charges now became very clear. Should the charge be made to stick for Paul, the entire Church would be viewed as a dangerous, revolutionary movement. Fortunately, Tertullus could not substantiate the charge, and Felix was already too informed about the Nazarenes to take him seriously.

The third charge against Paul was that he even tried to defile the Temple (the Asian Jews thought Paul had actually done so, but by this time even his accusers realized that he had not), but we seized him (this is a gross understatement – they actually wanted to stone him to death). We wanted to judge him according to our own Torah. But the commander Lysias come along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. Had Tertullus substantiated this charge, it would have obligated Felix to turn Paul over to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin and almost certain death. The charge, however, was totally false and based on an erroneous conclusion by the Asian Jews (21:29). This was probably why they were not present before Felix to substantiate the charge. Tertullus concluded his accusations by telling Felix, “By examining Lysias yourself, you will be able to learn from him all these things about which we accuse him.” That would explain Felix’s decision to postpone a verdict until he heard from Lysias (24:22). Naturally, the Judean leaders also joined in the attack, affirming that these things were true (24:6-9).⁵⁶⁷

The defense: Perhaps suggestive of his sense of power, without a word, by a mere nod of the head, Felix gestured for Paul to begin his defense. He also began with some flattery towards Felix, although it was considerably more subdued than Tertullus’ opening remarks. Knowing that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I gladly make my own defense (24:10). Paul responded to each of Tertullus’ three accusations.

First, he was not a troublemaker, but went about his business quietly. As you can verify, it was no more than twelve days (which is not enough time to start a revolt) since I went up to Jerusalem to worship at the festival of Shavu’ot. Paul turned Tertullus’ words against him. The prosecutor had said that by examining Paul, Felix would be able to verify the charges against him (23:8). Paul, however, responded that the opposite was the case: Felix would be able to verify that Paul was worshipping, not inciting a riot. Contrary to their charges, Paul stated that they did not find me arguing with anyone or inciting a riot – not in the Temple or in the synagogues or anywhere else in the City. In short, Paul replied that the Jews couldn’t prove to you the charges they now bring against me (24:11-13).

In response to the second charge, Paul defended himself of being a ringleader of the Nazarenes. But in doing so, he used the opportunity to deliver a sort of mini-sermon, changing his defensive posture into more of a positive witness. He said: this I confess to you, that according to the Way (which they call a sect), I worship the God of our fathers. This is precisely the response a present-day Messianic Jews make to unbelieving Jews who consider them apostate. The God Messianic Jews worship is the only God, Elohei-avoteinu, or the God of our fathers (the phrase is found in the first blessing of the ‘Amidah, the central synagogue prayer). Likewise today’s Messianic Jew, with Paul, believes everything written in the Torah and the Prophets, including the prophecies pointing to Yeshua as the Messiah. In God I have a hope – which these Pharisees who are accusing me also wait for – that there will surely be a resurrection of both the righteous (see the commentary on Revelation Ff – Blessed and Holy are Those Who Have Part in the First Resurrection) and the unrighteous (see the commentary on Revelation Fn – The Second Resurrection) (24:14-15).⁵⁶⁸ In short, his being a Natzrati, or a follower of Yeshua from Natzeret, was no grounds for complaint.

The reference to the resurrection was the highpoint in Paul’s witness in all the speeches of Acts 23-26. This was not by accident. Paul’s conviction in the resurrection constituted the real point of contention with the unbelieving Jews. He believed in the same TaNaKh, worshiped the same YHVH, and shared the same hope. But it was precisely at this point
that the Way parted ways with the rest of the Jews. They believed that the resurrection had already begun in Messiah, the first-fruits of the faith (First Corinthians 15:23).

One should observe how the theme of the resurrection unfolds in Paul’s successive speeches. Before the Sanhedrin the theme was set, but there Paul merely spoke of the idea of a resurrection, the belief in, and hope for, the coming resurrection (23:6). Here, he is more explicit. The resurrection is more precisely defined as including both the righteous and the unrighteous, thereby implying a coming judgment. That Paul understood this is clear because he spoke of his own blameless conscience next – blameless, that is, with regard to the judgment that all would eventually face. What Paul was making clear at his Caesarean trial was that the real issue between him and his Jewish accusers was the resurrection (24:21). Nothing more – nothing less. For us today, this remains the primary dividing line between Messianic Gentiles and Jews, and unbelieving Jews.

In response to the third accusation, Paul stated that he did nothing wrong, either in the Temple or elsewhere. Therefore, I do my best always to have a clear conscience before both God and men, precisely because he had a clear awareness of the coming judgment (First Corinthians 3:10-15, 9:25-27). Now after my third missionary journey, I came to bring tzedakah to the poor in the Messianic Community in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-28; First Corinthians 16:1-4; Second Corinthians 8:13-14, 9:12-13 and Galatians 2:10) and to present offerings for the festival of Shavu’ot. As I was doing this, they found me in the Temple, having been purified (Greek: hagnizo, meaning a ritual bath outside the Temple Compound) – without any crowd or uproar (24:16-18). 

Then, Paul briefly summarized the events covered in 21:17-30: There were some Jewish people from Asia, who were the real instigators of the riot, they ought to be here before you to press charges if they have anything against me (24:19). That was standard Roman legal procedure. Instead, with their total lack of supporting evidence, they were nowhere to be found! Paul had scored an important legal point and Felix was sure to have noticed. For Tertullus to have made an accusation against Paul with the total absence of witnesses was a serious breach of court procedure. There was simply no evidence to counter what Paul had said. Far from defiling the Temple, he had come there to bring offerings!⁵⁶⁹

Having successfully demonstrated that Tertullus’ accusations were totally without supporting evidence, Paul proceeded to the one genuine charge that could be brought against him. There were even “eye-witnesses for the prosecution” present to support this charge, namely the high priest and the Sadducees who had come with Tertullus. Paul declared: Let these men themselves tell what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the Sanhedrin (see Cr – Paul’s Defense Before the Great Sanhedrin) – except for this one thing that I shouted out while standing among them, “It is about the resurrection of the dead (specifically the resurrection of Yeshua Messiah) that today I am on trial before you” (24:20-21). In other words, that which was criminal was not true of Paul, and that which was true of Paul (that of being a Nazarene) was not criminal.⁵⁷⁰

The verdict: Felix obviously viewed the conflict as a “no-win” situation. The anger of the Jews and the Roman citizenship of Paul left Felix on the horns of a dilemma. He lacked the wisdom to make the appropriate decision, so he did nothing.⁵⁷¹ But Felix, having a rather extensive knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will rule on your case.” There is no evidence that Lysias ever came or that Felix ever sent for him. He was merely putting off the whole matter. He didn’t want to pass a verdict, for the verdict would have surely been one of acquittal. Like Lysias before him and Festus after him, he must have realized that Paul was guilty of no crime by Roman law. Still, he ruled over the Jews and had to live with them. Therefore, he gave the centurion orders for Paul to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from attending to his needs. The awareness of Paul’s Roman citizenship probably contributed to the special courtesy he granted to this most unusual prisoner.⁵⁷²

Now some days later, Felix was hoping that money would be given to him by Paul; so he sent for him frequently and would talk with him. But after two years had passed, wishing to do the Judean leaders a favor, Felix left Paul in prison. At the same time too, after Paul’s Jewish accusers had gone back to Jerusalem, Felix came with his wife Drusilla. She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (see Bk – Peter’s Persecution and Deliverance). Since she was Jewish, she may have been the one gave him a rather extensive knowledge of the Way. He already knew some things about Yeshua; nevertheless, he sent for Paul and listened to him speak about faith in Messiah because he wanted to know more. But as Paul reasoned with the governor about righteousness (which he had none), self-control (again, he had none), and the coming judgment, Felix became afraid and said: Go away for now! A total skeptic would have dismissed Paul’s reference to judgment as sheer fantasy, but not Felix. His fear was genuine. He was at the point of conviction. But he was never willing to step over the line from knowledge to faith (see the commentary on Hebrews Al – How Shall We Escape If We Ignore So Great a Salvation). In the end his greed, lust, and desire to preserve his power overcame him, and he replied as he left Paul’s presence: When I find time, I will summon you (24:24-27).

On Sunday night, October 8, 1871, the well-known evangelist, D. L. Moody, preached to the largest congregation that he had yet addressed in Chicago. His text that evening was, “What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ” (Matthew 27:22)? And at the conclusion of his sermon he said, “I wish you would take this text home with you and turn it over in your mind during the week, and next Sunday we will come to Calvary and the Cross, and we will decide what to do with Jesus of Nazareth.” Then his song evangelist, Ira Sankey whose hymns are sprinkled throughout most evangelical hymnbooks, began to lead in singing the hymn,

Today the Savior calls;
For refuge fly;
The storm of justice falls,
And death is nigh.

But Sankey never finished the hymn, for while he was singing the rush and roar of fire engines whistled by the church on the street outside, and before morning much of the city of Chicago lay in ashes. To his dying day, Mr. Moody deeply regretted that he had told that congregation to come next Sunday and decide what to do with Jesus. “I have never since dared,” he said, “to give an audience a week to think of their salvation. If they were lost they might rise up in judgment against me. I have never seen that congregation since. I will never meet those people until I meet them in another world. But I want to tell you of one lesson that I learned that night which I have never forgotten, and that is, when I preach, to press Christ upon the people then and there and try to bring them to a decision on the spot. I would rather have that right hand cut off than to give an audience a week now to decide what to do with Jesus.” Like Moody before the great Chicago fire, we should not allow ourselves to say, “Tomorrow!” Because tragically for most, that day of grace never comes!⁵⁷³

Lord, I am so grateful that You are not slow in keeping Your promise, as some consider slowness. Rather, You are patient with us, not wanting anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance (Second Peter 3:9), to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (First Timothy 2:4). May many understand today – especially those I know and care about – that now is the day of salvation (Second Corinthians 6:2c).⁵⁷⁴