CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 24:10. Many years meant about six or seven, since Felix became procurator about A.D. 52 or 53 (Jos., Ant., XX. Acts 7:1). Before his elevation to the procuratorship of Judæa he had governed Samaria under his predecessor Cumanus.
Acts 24:11. The charges against him might be the more easily and accurately investigated since they were not of long standing, but of recent date. The twelve days were thus accounted for:
1. The day of arrival in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17).
2. The interview with James (Acts 21:18).
3. The assumption of the vow (Acts 21:26).
4, 5, 6, 7. The keeping of the vow, which was interrupted before its completion.
8. The appearance of Paul before the Sanhedrim.
9. The plot of the Jews and the journey to Antipatris (Acts 23:12; Acts 23:31).
10, 11, 12, 13. The days at Cæsarea, on the last of which the trial was proceeding. The day of the trial would not be counted among the twelve (Hackett, Meyer, and others).
Acts 24:12. Raising up the people.—Lit., making or causing a concourse of the people, ἐπισύστασις ὄχλου; though the more approved text reads ἐπιστασίς ὅχλου, a stopping of the people, of course so as to form a crowd.
Acts 24:13. Some texts insert to thee after prove.
Acts 24:14. For heresy translate sect as in Acts 24:5, and for worship, serve. In, according to (R.V.), but better “throughout” (Hackett, Holtzmann), the law—i.e., of Moses.
Acts 24:15. Which they themselves.—I.e., his accusers, who appear to have been mostly Pharisees, so that the breach between them and the Sadducees (Acts 23:7) must have been made up. Allow, rather, look for, expect, or entertain.
Acts 24:16. Herein.—In this, as in John 16:30. Meaning either in anticipation of such a day” (Hackett), or “since such is my religious position” (Holtzmann), or “in this belief” (Plumptre).
Acts 24:17. After many years.—Viz., of absence from Jerusalem. It was now A.D. 58 or 59. My nation really signified the believers in its midst. Alms.—Not Paul’s usual way of referring to the collections he had taken for the poor saints at Jerusalem (see Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:9); but the auditors to whom he spoke were widely different from the readers for whom he wrote. To bring alms and offerings.—The first mention in the Acts by Paul that he had been taking up contributions from the Gentile Churches for the relief of the poor Christians in Jerusalem.
Acts 24:18. Whereupon.—Lit., “in which”—i.e., while presenting which offerings, some MSS. giving ἐν αῖς (to agree with “offerings”) instead of ἐν οῖς. The translation in the R.V. is more accurate. “They”—i.e., the Jews of course, “found me …; but there were certain Jews from Asia.” The abrupt manner in which this sentence breaks off was unquestionably designed to suggest that these Jews from Asia, and not he had been the true authors of the tumult.
Acts 24:19. “These also should have been present in court to object or (better) to make accusation, as they, the instigators of the riot, were the persons to testify how it arose” (Hackett).
Acts 24:20. In default of them these same here, or, these men themselves—i.e., the high priest and the elders should say, not if they have found any evil doing, since εἰ “if” is unauthorised, but what wrong-doing they found in me.
Acts 24:21. Except it be for this one voice.—The sentence is framed as if τί ἄλλο� had preceded (Meyer, De Wette, Holtzmann).
Acts 24:22. Having more perfect, or exact knowledge of that, rather “the” way.—This Felix could easily have got during the six or seven years of his procuratorship. Such knowledge as he had of Christianity enabled him to perceive that the Sanhedrists’ account of Paul was not to be accepted without more minute investigation. Consequently he deferred them—i.e., put off both parties till Lysias should come down to Cæsarea.
Acts 24:23. A, better the, centurion was the officer who had charge of Paul—not necessarily the same who had conducted him to Cæsarea. Liberty meant indulgence, such as the next clause indicates. Imprisonment among the Romans was of three kinds:
1. Custodia publica, or confinement in the common cells, which Paul and Silas suffered at Philippi (Acts 26:23).
2. Custodia militaris, in which the prisoner was bound or chained to the soldier who kept him, as Paul was in Rome (Ephesians 6:20; Colossians 4:3). And
3. Custodia libera, or free custody, such as was frequently practised with persons of high rank. Paul’s Cæsarean imprisonment was obviously of the second sort.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 24:10-23
The Answer of Paul; or, the Lofty Oration of a Christian Apostle
I. The unvarnished exordium.—
1. A frank recognition. Paul declines to imitate the heathen orator in burning incense before his judge. Neither does he rush to the opposite extreme, and denounce Felix as one utterly unworthy to sit upon the bench or pronounce a verdict upon him. Remembering his own doctrine that “the powers which be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1), and following his own precept “to speak evil of no man” (Titus 3:2), though doubtless aware of the personal and public character of the governor, he passes over it in silence and contents himself with frankly acknowledging that for many—at least six—years Felix had been a judge unto the nation and could neither be ignorant of the forms of judicial process nor unqualified to sift the merits of causes when these were brought before him. In this sounded neither flattery nor depreciation, but respectful acceptance of his fellow-man at his best.
2. A cheerful assent. Paul might easily have had, and probably could have wished, a better man than Felix to try his cause; but such as Felix was, Paul willingly laid before him a plain and unadorned statement of his proceedings since he arrived in Jerusalem till that moment when he stood on his defence. Out of these proceedings his alleged offences were said to have arisen, and Felix could understand them as well as anybody else. Paul had nothing to conceal, and required no arts beyond those of an honest mind and a truth-loving tongue.
II. The simple refutation.—
1. To the charge of sedition he had merely to state that, so far as his accusers were concerned, they could not have much personal or direct knowledge of his revolutionary procedure, since not more than twelve days had elapsed since he went up to Jerusalem to worship, which worship he performed with so much quietness and order that neither they nor others found him either in the temple, or in the synagogues, or in the city, creating a disturbance—either disputing or stirring up a crowd. As for the allegation that he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among the Jews throughout the world, that lay beyond their ability to prove, for the reason that it accorded not with fact. That his preaching had aroused excitement among the Jews he could not and would not deny, but that he had never breathed a syllable which could be construed into hostility to Cæsar he would with equal readiness maintain.
2. To the charge of heresy his answer was that he certainly adhered to the despised sect of the Nazarenes, but that in doing so he had not departed from the ancestral law which his countrymen observed. These might scornfully denounce him as a heretic, but precisely like themselves he believed “all things” which were “according to the law” and which were written in the prophets, “and like them had hope toward God, that there should be and would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust.” The gospel preached by him deviated not from that true Judaism which his persecutors (the most of whom must have been Pharisees) professed, but fulfilled its innermost spirit, while the resurrection which formed its culminating theme constituted the very hope for which they themselves were looking. And so far from repudiating this hope, or deviating from it, he made it his constant endeavour with regard to it to have a conscience void of offence both toward God and toward men.
3. To the charge of sacrilege he replied that the thought of violating the sanctity of the temple had never entered his mind. His presence in the sacred edifice could easily be explained. He had brought with him to Jerusalem money contributions from the friends amongst whom he had laboured for many years, to be expended in relieving his poor brethren in the city and in the presentation of offerings in the temple. These offerings he was busily engaged in presenting in the temple, with no tumult or noise, with not even a crowd around him, when certain Jews from Asia, having entered, seized him and gave occasion to the tumult. Why were these Asiatic Jews not present? These could have told better than he the cause of the uproar, for they had made it; and in any case they should have been in court to accuse him if they had aught to lay to his charge. Nothing could have been more noble, manly, straightforward, or convincing, than this candid and ingenuous statement. Conduct like Paul’s needed no apology.
III. The noble confession.—
1. The implied assumption. That no one had been able to establish any charge of wrong-doing against him.
(1) The orator had not been successful. He had only repeated, parrot-like, what had been put into his mouth by his employers, the high priest and the elders.
(2) The high priest and the elders had not, because they knew nothing about Paul’s doings throughout the world, and had not come upon the scene in Jerusalem till after he had been rescued by Lysias.
(3) The Jews from Asia had manifestly nothing they could prove against him, else they would not have been conveniently left behind in Jerusalem, but would have been fetched down to Cæsarea along with Tertullus.
2. The courageous challenge. If the high priest and elders had anything to urge against him with reference to that part of his conduct which came under their inspection, he was willing they should not keep it back, but openly advance it. Let them say what wrong-doing they found in him when he stood before the council. He was not afraid to hear the worst that could be alleged against him; if he could not honestly and honourably reply to it, he would promptly and humbly acknowledge his offence.
3. The manly avowal. So far from putting obstacles in their way, he would cheerfully assist them. There was one part in his behaviour on that memorable occasion to which they might wish to take exception. He referred to the voice which he cried among them, “Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.” That voice had set his judges at variance with one another, and had practically resulted in his release for the moment from their grasp. He did not admit that it was only and wholly wrong for him to have so acted. But possibly on reflection it may have seemed so to them. To them perhaps it was not so clear as it was to him that the real gravamen of his offence was his preaching the doctrine of the resurrection. Then he was ready to concede that it may have seemed to them that his voice about the resurrection had been dictated not so much by a desire to enlighten them as by a perception (which suddenly flashed upon him) that the mention of this word would divide their counsels. If it was so (and he was not careful to deny this impeachment), it was wrong. A man who was solicitous about keeping a conscience void of offence towards both God and man would not have acted so. Beyond this, however, he was conscious of no fault on that trial-day before the council.
IV. The disappointing-result.—Felix deferred giving judgment, on the pretext that he wished to wait for the coming down of Lysias, the chief captain, and recommitted Paul to confinement in Herod’s palace, at the same time issuing orders to the centurion who kept him to grant him indulgence and not forbid any of his friends to minister unto him. This result must have been disappointing to all concerned.
1. To Tertullus the hired advocate, who had lost his case, whose eloquence, though sweetened with flattery, had not carried conviction to the judge’s judgment, and whose plausible invectives had all been swept aside by the plain, unvarnished tale of the prisoner at the Baruch
2. To the high priest and the elders, whose designs against the apostle had been thwarted, in, to them, a most unexpected manner, first by Claudius Lysias and then by Felix, both of whom, though the high priest and the elders knew it not, were in the hands of a higher than themselves, even of Him who holdeth men’s hearts in the hollow of His hand and turneth them whithersoever He will.
3. To Paul, who probably expected to be set at liberty, though he was only granted a mitigation of his imprisonment—which was something, no doubt, to be thankful for, though vastly less than what he was entitled to. To be sure, Paul had learnt in whatsoever state he was to be content (Philippians 4:11), yet must he have been more than human if he felt no pang of regret that his trial had not resulted more favourably for himself.
4. To Felix. Had Paul himself, or his friends, proposed to purchase his freedom by means of a bribe, there can be little doubt that Paul would have won the day and obtained a verdict in his favour. As much as this may almost be inferred from Felix’s well-known covetous disposition (Acts 24:26). That no such proposition was made by the apostle may well be imagined was a grief of heart to the money-loving procurator.
Learn.—
1. That truth is always the Christian’s best defence. Paul’s simple story proved more successful than Tertullus’s polished rhetoric.
2. That charges which cannot be established are often advanced against Christians. Accusations are not the same things as convictions.
3. That doctrines which are developments of recognised truths are not heresies. A proposition is only, then, heretical when it contradicts accepted truth.
4. That good men may habitually act according to conscience, and yet go astray. Conscience sometimes requires to be enlightened, and its voice may occasionally fail to be heard.
5. That Christians have often to put up with and be thankful for less than they deserve. Paul ought to have been set at liberty, but only got indulgence in his captivity.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 24:11-17. Some Thoughts about Divine Worship.
I. The place.—This should always be that which God Himself has pointed out. Under the Hebrew economy, Jerusalem and the temple were the chosen spots in which Jehovah elected to be honoured (Psalms 132:13-14); under the Christian economy God may be worshipped anywhere, provided the subjective conditions of worship are present in the individual heart (John 4:23-24).
II. The manner.—Neither noisily nor tumultuously, but ever orderly, quiet, and reverent. “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools” (Ecclesiastes 5:1). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40).
III. The form.—
1. In accordance with the appointments of Scripture. For Hebrew worship the law and the prophets constituted the sources of authority; for Christian worship these give place to the gospels and epistles. Whatever lies outside of these is will worship (Colossians 2:23).
2. In harmony with the continuity of the Church. Unless where the Church has for a time gone wrong. The probability, however, is that the individual, rather than the Church, will err. Hence any form of worship that essentially deviates from that observed by past ages of God’s people is, ipso facto, open to suspicion.
IV. The spirit.—
1. Faith. Believing in the Scriptures—i.e., in the facts and doctrines revealed therein. As the Hebrew worshipper believed all things which were according to the law and written in the prophets, so must the Christian worshipper credit all things that accord with the gospel of Jesus Christ and that are contained in the writings of His apostles.
2. Hope. With the Christian as with the Hebrew all true worship had an outlook towards the future life, and in particular towards a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust. Blot out this hope or fear from the minds of men and it will be difficult to impel either good men or bad to worship.
3. Charity. A spirit of love and good-will towards all, but especially towards the household of faith, an indispensable characteristic of acceptable worship.
Acts 24:14. Paul’s God and Paul’s Religion.
I. Paul’s God.—
1. Not a new, but an old God. The god of his fathers, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, of David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, etc. Christianity not a new religion, but the full development of that which was first revealed in Eden.
2. Not a false, but the true God. Not always an advantage to have an old god: not always wrong to have a new god. Depends on whether the old be the true and the new the false god. If men’s old gods are false, they should be abandoned. So said Elijah. If men’s new god is true he should be embraced. So teach Christian missionaries. Paul’s God was old and true.
3. Not a manufactured, but an inherited God. Paul’s God was received by him from his fathers. What a tremendous advantage for a child to receive a knowledge of the true God from his parents! What a responsibility for parents to see that they hand on the knowledge of God to their children! What a powerful argument for God when parents so live as to recommend Him to their children! What a grip God gets upon children to whom He is recommended in this way!
4. Not a blindly accepted, but a deliberately chosen God. Paul had made his father’s God his own by personal choice. This was indispensable. Many have no higher reason for believing in God than just that their parents did so before them. Every one is responsible for making an intelligent and free choice of his own God.
II. Paul’s religion.—Contained three things.
1. Faith. “Believing all things,” etc. Paul accepted all that was asserted in the law and the prophets about the ancient history of Israel. So must the Christian accept all that is written in the gospels and epistles about Jesus Christ and His salvation. Religion rests on faith; faith on revealed truth.
2. Hope. “Having hope towards God,” etc. Paul believed in a future resurrection of just and unjust. Believed it to be taught in Scripture, and looked forward to it as the goal of history. A terrible thought for sinners (Hebrews 10:27), but not for believers (1 John 3:3).
3. Charity. Paul’s religion impelled him to works of faith and labours of love (Acts 24:17).
4. Holiness. Paul studied to keep a conscience void of offence (Acts 24:16).
Acts 24:15. The Doctrine of a Resurrection.
I. Involved in the Mosaic legislation.—If not expressly stated therein, that was because of the peculiar character of the Hebrew economy, which regarded the nation as a whole rather than its component parts as individuals. But the ideas of sin and forgiveness which lay at the foundation of that economy must have been entirely meaningless if the individual had no other existence than this terrestrial and temporal one. This, however, it may be urged, only proves a doctrine of continued existence after death, a doctrine of immortality without involving the notion of a bodily resurrection. But as it is certain that this latter notion was not unknown to the Egyptians, it is at least highly probable that though unexpressed in the Pentateuchal Legislation, it was tacitly assumed to lie at its foundation.
II. Proclaimed in the writings of the prophets.—As, for instance, by David (Psalms 17:15); by Isaiah (Isaiah 26:19); by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 37:1-14); by Daniel (Daniel 12:2); and by the writer of the Book of Job (Job 19:26). It was far, indeed, from being either clearly or widely apprehended in pre-Christian times; but that the finer and more religious spirits of the nation apprehended it, at least dimly, can hardly be questioned.
III. Taught by Christ and His apostles.—By Christ in such statements as these (Matthew 22:31; Luke 14:14; John 5:28; John 11:23); by Peter (Acts 4:2; 2 Peter 1:11); by Paul (Acts 17:18; Acts 16:8; Romans 6:5; Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:20-21; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Philippians 3:20; Colossians 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:23); by John (1 John 3:2); and by the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews 6:2).
IV. Confirmed by the resurrection of Christ.—Which not only demonstrated the possibility of a resurrection, but guaranteed at least the rising of all His people (1 Corinthians 15:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:14).
Acts 24:18. Certain Jews from Asia; or, Men who Make Reckless Charges.
I. Such men never stop to think whether their charges are true before making them.—The Asiatic Jews in question, having seen Paul in the city along with Trophimus (Acts 21:28-29), jumped to the conclusion that Paul had taken his Greek friend into the holy place, or women’s court, and so desecrated Jehovah’s sanctuary. Had they inquired—and this they probably would have done had they not been actuated by malice against Paul—they would have ascertained that their conclusions were incorrect. Yet thousands of persons, not excluding Christians, unwarned by their example, have done the same thing, hurled baseless charges at the heads of their fellow-men, with regardless indifference as to their truth.
II. Such men never reflect beforehand upon the consequences that may result from their reckless procedure.—Had these Asiatic Jews foreseen the complications that arose from their baseless outcry, they would probably have paused. No doubt they were hostilely disposed towards Paul, and intended to do him hurt; but they probably never imagined it would involve such troubles as had been set in motion. Perhaps they designed no more than that Paul should get a good beating; but no sooner had they unleashed the hounds of persecution than Paul came near to losing his life, and probably would have lost it in reality, either by open or secret assassination, had not a watchful Providence protected him. Even so, persons who allow their tongues to run faster than their judgments seldom consider how great a fire a small spark may kindle (James 3:5).
III. Such men are seldom at hand when wanted to undo the mischief they have raised.—The Asiatic Jews, had they been present at Caesarea, could easily have confirmed Paul’s story, and shown that they, and not he, had been the real authors of the uproar in the temple. But, like most of their kidney who scatter abroad firebrands and cry, “Am not I in sport?” they took good care to save their own skins by keeping out of the way and leaving the innocent man to suffer. What cared they, the cowards? Unfortunately, mean cowards of their type have not disappeared from among men.
Acts 24:22-23. Good Points in Bad Men.—Few persons are utterly bad. Not even Felix, who surpassed both Tertullus and his employers, Ananias and the elders, in—
I. Knowledge.—He knew more exactly than they did the truth about the Way. He had probably taken more pains than they to ascertain the doctrines and practices of the Nazarenes.
II. Honesty—They wished to push the trial to a verdict against Paul without troubling either Felix or themselves about evidence; he declined to proceed to an issue until the case was more investigated. This showed that Felix had still some rag of conscience within his bosom.
III. Kindness.—They would have hurried off the apostle to the stake without compunction, or at least would have loaded him with more and heavier chains. Felix commanded the centurion who kept Paul to grant him as much indulgenœ—lighter chains, and visits from friends—as was consistent with safety. “The attribute of ‘clemency’ on which the orator had complimented Felix was not altogether dead, but it was shown to the accused and not to the accusers” (Plumptre).
Acts 24:23. Paul’s Imprisonment at Cœsarea.
I. Its occasion.—The accusation preferred against him by the Jews.
II. Its reason.—Ostensibly that Felix might be able, on the arrival of Lysias, to determine more accurately the truth of the charges preferred against the apostle; really, that Felix might induce either Paul or his friends to purchase his liberty.
III. Its continuance.—Two years, which meant two years’ endurance of unjust oppression, and two years’ arrest of his missionary labours—the second a greater trial to the apostle than the first.
IV. Its mitigations—
1. A relaxation of the customary severities inflicted on prisoners—such a relaxation of his chain at meal times, for instance, as Josephus (Ant., XVIII. vi. 10) says was granted to Agrippa at Rome; and
2. The permission of friends to visit him.
V. Its utilisation.—That Paul allowed this period of enforced retirement from his active missionary propagandism to pass unimproved cannot be supposed. How he employed it may even be conjectured with some degree of probability.
1. In meditation and prayer. Communing with his own heart (Psalms 77:6), searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; John 5:39), and pouring out his heart before the Lord (Philippians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:17); thus advancing his own personal sanctification (Philippians 3:12-14), and preparing for whatever service he might afterwards be summoned to (compare Romans 1:15).
2. In holding intercourse with his friends. Who these friends were are not named. But probably his companions who had been with him at the time of his arrest should be reckoned to their number—Silas, Trophimus, Luke, Mnason, and others, with not a few of the Christian disciples at Cæsarea. Sympathy from, and converse with, these would alleviate the apostle’s bonds.
3. In writing letters to the Churches. If the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were not, as some suppose (Meyer, Reuss, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld and Weiss), composed during this period of incarceration, it is not a violent hypothesis that he who had the care of all the Churches on his heart (2 Corinthians 11:28) was frequently consulted by his spiritual children, the infant communities he had founded, or in which he had laboured, and that he wrote to them letters full of counsel and admonition, which, though they have not been preserved till our day, were then received by those to whom they were sent as messages of love from their spiritual father and instructor.
4. In instructing Luke about the details of gospel and apostolic history. Which have been set down—perhaps under Paul’s immediate superintendence—in the gospel of Luke and in the Acts. “The ideas that the narrative of St. Paul’s journeys, or at least parts of it, had an independent existence before it was utilised or incorporated in the Acts,” and that this, “Travel-Document,” as it is styled, was composed under the immediate influence of Paul himself (Ramsay, The Church in Asia Minor, pp. 6, 7), shed light on a part, at least, of Paul’s occupation during the two years of imprisonment at Cæsarea.