THE MESSAGE OF ACTS

A Commentary by John Stott

(Study 31)

Acts 24: 1 - Acts 26: 32 - Paul on Trial
Acts 24: 1-27 - 1 Paul before Felix
 Acts 25: 1-22  - 2) Paul before Festus

Jerusalem and Rome were the centres of two enormously strong power blocs.  The faith of Jerusalem went back two millennia to Abraham.  The rule of Rome extended some three million square miles round the Mediterranean Sea.  Jerusalem's strength lay in history and tradition, Rome's in conquest and organization.  The combined might of Jerusalem and Rome was overwhelming.  If a solitary dissident like Paul were to set himself against them, the outcome would be inevitable.  His chances of survival would resemble those of a butterfly before a steamroller.  He would be crushed, utterly obliterated from the face of the earth.

Yet such an outcome, we may confidently affirm, never even entered Paul's mind as a possibility.  For he saw his situation from an entirely different perspective.  He was no traitor to either church or state, that he should come into collision with them, although this is how his accusers tried to frame him.  The enemies of Jesus had followed the same ploy.  In their own court they had accused him of threatening to destroy the temple and of blaspheming, while before Pilate they had represented him as guilty of sedition - subverting the nation, opposing taxes to Caesar and claiming to be himself a king.  Now Paul's enemies laid similar charges against him, namely that he had offended 'against the law of the Jews', 'against the temple' and 'against Caesar' (25: 7-8).

But Paul was as innocent in these areas as Jesus had been.  He had no quarrel with the God-given status of either Rome or Jerusalem.  On the contrary, as he had written to the Roman Christians, he recognized that the authority given to Rome came from God and that privileges given to Israel came from God also.  The gospel did not undermine the law, whether Jewish or Roman, but rather 'upheld' it.  To be sure, the Romans might misuse their God-given authority and the Jews might misrepresent their law as the means of salvation.  In such situations Paul would oppose them.  But that was not the issue now.  Paul's contention, while on trial, was that in principle the gospel both supports the rule of Caesar (25: 8-12) and fulfils the hope of Israel (26:6ff).  His defence before his judges was to present himself as a loyal citizen of Rome and a loyal son of Israel.

 Paul's double denial of treason and double insistence on loyalty is the thread which runs through these chapters.  So far he has defended himself before a Jewish crowd (21:40ff.) and the Sanhedrin (23:1ff.).  Now he will stand trial before the procurator Felix (24:1ff.), the procurator Festus (25:1ff.) and King Agrippa II (25:23ff.).  In each of these five trials, in which the charge was now political (sedition), now religious (sacrilege), the judging audience was part Roman and part Jewish.  Thus, when Paul spoke to the Jewish crowd and the Jewish Council, Claudius Lysias, the Roman tribune, was present and listening, while when Paul stood before Felix and Festus, the representatives of Rome, it was the Jews who were prosecuting.  Then in the fifth trial, which was the grand finale, King Agrippa II combined both authorities within himself, for he had been appointed by Rome but was also an acknowledged authority on Jewish affairs.

1. Paul before Felix (24: 1-27)

At the end of the previous chapter Felix, having read the letter from Claudius Lysias, sent to Jerusalem for Paul's accusers and meanwhile kept him in custody in Caesarea.  Five days later, dating presumably from Paul's arrival, the high priest Ananias  responded to the procurator's summons and went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus.  As soon as the court convened, they brought their charges against Paul before the governor (1).  Whether they made their accusations in speech or in writing we are not told, but after the procurator had received them, Paul was called and Tertullus presented his case before Felix (2a), or 'opened for the prosecution'(JB).

a. The prosecution by Tertullus (24: 2b-9)
As a trained and experienced professional lawyer, Tertullus began with what was called a captatio benevolentiae, that is, an endeavour to capture the judge's good will.  Traditionally, it was complimentary to the point of hypocrisy and often included a promise of brevity, but on this occasion it descended to 'almost nauseating flattery'.  For Tertullus expressed gratitude for the 'peace' Felix had secured and the 'reforms' he had introduced, whereas in reality he had put down several insurrections with such barbarous brutality that he earned for himself the horror, not the thanks, of the Jewish population.  Here are Tertullus' words:  ' We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation.  Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude.  But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly' (2b-4).

Tertullus went on to enumerate three charges against Paul.  First, we have found this man to be a troublemaker ('a perfect 'pest', NEB, JB), stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world (5a).  This was a serious accusation because of its political overtones.  There were many Jewish agitators at that time, Messianic pretenders who threatened the very 'peace' which Tertullus had attributed to Felix.

Secondly, Tertullus continued Paul is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect (5b).  The word hairesis meant 'sect, party, school' and was applied to both the Sadducees (5:17) and the Pharisees (15:5; 26:5) as traditions within Judaism.  It is in this sense that it is now used of Christians.  It had not yet come to mean 'heresy', although its use in this chapter (5, 14) and its recurrence in 28:22 'incline towards' the rendering 'heretical sect' (BAGD).

The third charge against Paul was that he even tried to desecrate the temple (6), a reference to the belief that he had brought Trophimus the Ephesian within the prohibited precinct (21:29).  This was a particularly damaging and dangerous accusation, because the Romans had given the Jews wide powers in dealing with offences against their temple.  So we seized him, said Tertullus in a dishonest euphemism for the Jews' attempt to lynch him (21:30-31).  The Western reading then adds verses 6b-8a, which AV and JB include in their text but NIV relegates to the margin: 'and wanted to judge him according to our law.  But the commander, Lysias, came and with use of much force snatched him from our hands and ordered his accusers to come before you'.  The effect of this addition is to complete the reversal of the facts, attributing the violence to Lysias instead of to the Jewish crowd, as the orderly arrest had been ascribed to the crowd instead of to Lysias.

Tertullus concluded his prosecution with a direct appeal to Felix:  By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him (8).  When he had finished, the Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true (9).

b.  The defence by Paul (24: 10-21)
As soon as the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul launched into his defence.  He began with a captatio benevolentiae, although it was considerably more modest and moderate than Tertullus' had been:    I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defence (1).  He then proceeded to refute the prosecution's allegations one by one.

First, he was emphatically not a troublemaker.  You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship (11).  My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city (12).  And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me (13).  In other words, in the few days at his disposal he had had no time to foment an insurrection; he had had no intention of doing so either, since he went to Jerusalem as a pilgrim to worship, not as an agitator to cause a riot; and his accusers could produce no evidence that in temple, synagogue or city he had caused a disturbance or even engaged in an argument.

Secondly, Paul addressed himself to the charge that he was 'a ringleader of the Nazarene sect'.  This led him to affirmation as well as denial.  Although he was indeed 'a follower of the Way', this was not a 'sect', as they called it, for he worshipped the God of their fathers and believed the teaching of the Scriptures.

'However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.  I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.  So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.'

Here was Paul's public confession of faith (homologo, 'I confess', 14).  It consisted of four affirmations:  (i) 'I worship the God of our fathers'; (ii) 'I believe everything that agrees with the Law and the Prophets'; (iii) 'I have the same hope in God as these men'; and (iv) 'I strive always [JB, "as much as they"] to keep my conscience clear...'.  Paul's purpose in this was not just to make a personal declaration, however, but to insist that he shared it with the whole people of God.  He worshipped the same God ('the God of our fathers'), believed the same truths (the Law and the Prophets), shared the same hope (the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked) and cherished the same ambition (to keep a clear conscience).  He was not an innovator, therefore, but loyal to the ancestral faith.  Nor was he a sectarian or heretical deviant, for he stood squarely in mainstream Judaism.  His worship, faith, hope and goal were no different from theirs.  'The Way' enjoyed a direct continuity with the Old Testament, for the Scriptures bore witness to Jesus Christ as the one in whom God's promises had been fulfilled.

The third accusation against Paul was that he had profaned the temple (7).  This the apostle strenuously denied.

'After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.  I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this.  There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance.  But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me.  Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin - unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence:  "It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today"'.

Far from desecrating the temple, Paul's purpose in visiting Jerusalem had been religious ('to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings', 17) and his condition, when he was found in the temple doing this, had been one of ceremonial purity (18).  There was no crowd and no disturbance.  It was certain Asian Jews who had interfered with him and caused a riot (though Paul left his sentence unfinished) just when he was demonstrating his love for his nation and his respect for its laws.  Why were these men not in court to press their charges? (19).  Their absence was a serious breach of Roman law, which 'was very strong against accusers who abandoned their charges'.  Since those Asian Jews were not there as witnesses, then those who were there should state of what crime the Sanhedrin had convicted him (20).  The fact is that the Pharisees had declared him innocent of any crime (23:9); only the Sadducees thought him guilty, and that only of a theological belief concerning the resurrection of the dead (21).

c.  The adjournment by Felix (24:22-27)
Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way (perhaps through his Jewish wife, Drusilla), adjourned the proceedings.  He found himself on the horns of a dilemma.  He could not convict Paul, since Lysias the tribune had found no fault in him (23:29), nor had the Sanhedrin (23:9), nor had Tertullus been able to substantiate his charges.  On the other hand, Felix was unwilling to release Paul, partly because he hoped for a bribe (26) and partly because he wanted to curry favour with the Jews (27).  The only other option was to postpone his verdict on the pretext that he needed the tribune's advice:  When Lysias the commander comes, I will decide your case (22).  Meanwhile, Felix ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs (23).  The Romans had different degrees of imprisonment.  Because Paul was a Roman citizen, who had not been convicted of any offence, Felix issued instructions that he should be given custodia libera, in which, although he was never left unguarded, his friends enjoyed free access to him.  We may guess that Luke visited him, and Philip the evangelist with his four daughters who lived in Caesarea (21: 8-9), together with others who were members of the local church.

There was to be no further public hearing for two years (27).  During this period, however, Felix conducted a kind of private investigation of his own.  The Western text ascribes the initiative to his wife Drusilla, 'who asked to see Paul and hear the word'.  'Wishing therefore to satisfy her', Felix summoned Paul.  Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, whose opposition and death Luke has described earlier (12: 1-23).  She was therefore the sister of King Agrippa II and of Bernice, to whom Luke will introduce us in the next chapters (25:13, 23; 26:30).  She had a reputation for ravishing youthful beauty, on account of which Felix, with the aid of a Cypriot magician, had seduced her from her rightful husband and secured her for himself.  She was, in fact, his third wife.  The lax morals of Felix and Drusilla help to explain the topics on which Paul spoke to them.

Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess.  He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus.  As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said 'That's enough for now!  You may leave.  When I find it convenient, I will send for you.'  At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favour to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.

In general, Paul focused on faith in Christ Jesus (24).  Since Drusilla was a Jewess, he must have rehearsed the facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and deployed his customary arguments that this Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ of Scripture.  He will also have presented Jesus not only as a figure of history and the fulfilment of prophecy, but also as the Saviour and Lord in whom Felix as well as Drusilla should put their trust.  Paul never proclaimed the good news in a vacuum, however, but always in a context, the personal context of his hearers.  So he went on to discourse on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come (25).  Most commentators relate 'righteousness' or 'justice' to the well-known cruelty and oppression of which Felix was guilty, and 'self-control' to the unbridled lust which had drawn and united him to Drusilla, while 'judgment to come' would be the inevitable penalty for their injustice and immorality.  And this may be correct.  But it seems to me possible that the dikaiosyne ('righteousness') of which Paul spoke was precisely that 'righteousness from God' or divine act of justification which he had elaborated in his Letter to the Romans.  In this case the three topics of conversation were what are sometimes called the 'three tenses of salvation', namely how to be justified or pronounced righteous by God, how to overcome temptation and gain self-mastery, and how to escape the awful final judgment of God.  it is not surprising that, as these solemn subjects were opened up and pressed home, Felix was afraid ('alarmed', RSV, NEB) and declared that he had had enough for the time being.

During the succeeding months, however, Felix (though now, it seems, without Drusilla) sent for him frequently and talked with him (26).  Luke is explicit that he hoped for a bribe, a practice as common as it was illegal.  Ramsay even argued from the heavy expenses Paul must have paid for the purification rites (21:23), the long lawsuit, the appeal to Caesar and his rented accommodation in Rome (28:30), in addition to Felix's hope for a bribe, that the apostle must recently have inherited some family property.  At all events, the governor's greed (for which he also had a reputation) was aroused.  It would be cynical to suppose, however, that Felix's only motive was to hold Paul to ransom.  I think he knew that Paul had something more precious than money, something which money cannot buy.  If his conscience had been aroused by Paul's teaching, then he must have been seeking forgiveness and peace.  Certainly the release of Felix from sin meant more to Paul than his own release from prison.  But unfortunately there is no evidence that Felix ever capitulated to Christ and was redeemed.  On the contrary, when Porcius Festus succeeded to the procuratorship, Felix still left Paul in prison (27), even beyond the two-year period which was 'the maximum duration of preventive custody', in order to win the Jews' favour, which means that 'he not only coveted money, but also glory'.


Acts 25: 1-22  - 2) Paul before Festus
According to Josephus, Felix was recalled to Rome in order to explain his savage suppression of a dispute between Jews and Syrians over their respective civil rights in Caesarea, and would have been severely punished but for his brother Pallas' appeal to Nero. Not much is known about Porcius Festus, who replace him for he died in office two years later. But he seems to have been more just and moderate than either his predecessor or his successors.  The new procurator lost no time in acquainting himself with Jewish affairs, including the case against Paul. Luke presents him to his readers as `a brisk and energetic worker' and summarizes his involvement with the case: (a) he refused the Jewish leaders' request to be allowed to try Paul in Jerusalem, (b) he heard Paul's defence and appeal to Caesar, and (c) he consulted King
Agrippa II as to what he should do next.

a). Festus refuses the Jewish leaders' request (25:1-5).
Although Festus was a more conciliatory man than Felix, yet on his first visit to Jerusalem he stood firm. In spite of the urgent pleas of the Jewish leaders to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem to be tried there, Festus refused. Had his suspicions been aroused that they had ulterior motives, even (as Luke divulged) that they were preparing an ambush to kill him (3)?  We do not know. What is apparent is that Festus was determined to allow justice to take its course. Roman procedure followed three stages. First, charges had to be formulated and sustained by the prosecutor. Secondly, there would be `a proper formal act of
accusation by the interested party'. Thirdly, the case was heard by `the holder of the imperium in person', in this case the procurator. In this way the accused and his accusers would come face to face (15-16)..

b). Festus hears Paul's defence and appeal to Caesar (25:6-12).
Luke does not specify what the many serious charges were (7), but Paul's defence indicates that he was accused of offending in three ways, namely against the Jewish law, the temple and the emperor (8). Once again religious and political charges were combined, but on this occasion Caesar is mentioned for the first
time. The disturbances which Paul was alleged to have caused were religious in their origin but civil in their character. That is why Caesar's representative was obliged to take note of them. The Jews knew that the Roman governors `were unwilling to convict on purely religious charges and therefore tried to give a political twist to the religious charge'. And the prolongation of the trial was due the fact that `the charge was political...and yet the evidence was theological'.

It was this mention of Caesar that determined the course of Paul's trial before Festus. For some reason that is not apparent, except that he wished to do the Jews a favour, Festus gave Paul the option of being tried before him in Jerusalem (9). In making this offer he was within his rights. `Nothing prevented him from using the Sanhedrin, or members of it, as his own concilium.  That is what Paul feared'. Paul saw clearly that he could hope for justice and for acquittal only from the Romans, not from the Jews.  He had committed no offence against the Jews, as Festus knew perfectly well. If he were guilty of a capital offence, he was willing to bear the penalty. But if the Jewish accusations were false, no-one - not even the procurator - had the right to hand him over to them. So he had only one option left: *I appeal to Caesar!* (11). Festus seems to have been quite unprepared for this development. What would he do now? He could neither convict and sentence Paul, for fear of offending against Roman justice, nor release him, for fear of offending the Jews. So, after conferring with his concilium, his legal advisers, he realized that he had no alternative but to allow the prisoner's appeal to go forward. `*You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!*' (12).  This was not the appellatio of a later period, which was an appeal to a higher court against a sentence passed by a lower one, but rather the Roman citizen's ancient right of provocatio, which protected him `from summary punishment, execution or torture without trial, from private or public arrest, and from actual trial by magistrates outside Italy.

If in his trail before Felix Paul had emphasized the continuity of `the Way' with Judaism, in his trial before Festus he stressed his loyalty to Caesar. Caesar is mentioned eight times in this chapter, five times as Kaisar, twice as Sebastos (21,25), the Greek equivalent of Augustus, and once as ho Kyrios (26), `the Lord'. Paul knew that he had not offended against Caesar (8) and that he stood in Caesar's court (10). It was only logical that he should exercise his citizen's rights to appeal to Caesar (11, 12, 21).


 

These studies are part of the ministries of the John Stott web site at
http://www.JohnStott.org  Interested readers should refer to
John Stott's original work for a complete citation
(The Message of Acts - ISBN  0-85110-962-4 -
published by Inter-Varsity Press)