Acts 24

Law was the most characteristic and lasting expression of the Roman spirit,” wrote historian Will

Durant in Caesar and Christ. “The first person in Roman law was the citizen.” In other words, it was the responsibility of the court to protect the citizen from the State, but too often various kinds of corruption infected the system and made justice difficult for the common man. Paul would soon discover how corrupt a Roman governor could be.

“The secret of Roman government was the principle of indirect rule,” wrote Arnold Toynbee. This meant that the real burden of administration was left pretty much on the shoulders of the local authorities. Imperial Rome got involved only if there was danger from without or if the local governing units were at odds with one another.

In this chapter we see the Roman legal system at work and three men each making his contribution.

In the Bible record, when people go to Jerusalem, they always go up, but when they go from Jerusalem, they always go down. This explains why the official Jewish party “descended” when they came to Caesarea. With Ananias the high priest were some of the Jewish elders as well as a lawyer to present the case and defend their charges. Roman law was as complex as our modern law, and it took an expert to understand it and know how to apply it successfully to his client’s case.

Tertullus began with the customary flattery, a normal part of the judicial routine. After all, before you can win your case, you must win over your judge. Tacitus, the Roman orator and politician, called flatterers “those worst of enemies,” and Solomon wrote that “a flattering mouth works ruin” (Prov. 26: nkjv).

The lawyer complimented Felix because the governor’s many reforms had brought quietness to the land. (Question: Why did it require nearly five hundred soldiers to protect one man in transit from Jerusalem to Caesarea?) It was true that Felix had put down some revolts, but he had certainly not brought peace to the land. In fact, during the time Felix was suppressing robbers in his realm, he was also hiring robbers to murder the high priest Jonathan! So much for his reforms.

But the prosecutor’s accusations against Paul were no more truthful than his flattery. He brought three charges: a personal charge (“he is a pestilent fellow”), a political charge (sedition and leading an illegal religion), and a doctrinal charge (profaning the temple).

As for Paul being “a pest,” it all depends on one’s point of view. The Jews wanted to maintain their ancient traditions, and Paul was advocating something new. The Romans were afraid of anything that upset their delicate “peace” in the empire, and Paul’s record of causing trouble was long and consistent. As Vance Havner used to say, “Wherever Paul went, there was either a riot or a revival!”

This personal charge was based on the Jews’ conflicts with Paul in different parts of the Roman world. I have already pointed out that it was his own countrymen, not the Roman authorities, who caused Paul trouble from city to city. The Jews from Asia (Acts 21:27) would certainly have stories to tell about Lystra, Corinth, and Ephesus! This first accusation reminds us of the charges brought against the Lord Jesus at His trial (Luke 23:1–2, 5).

The political charge was much more serious, because no Roman official wanted to be guilty of permitting illegal activities that would upset the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Rome had given the Jews freedom to practice their religion, but the Roman officials kept their eyes on them lest they use their privileges to weaken the empire. When Tertullus called Paul “an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the Roman Empire” (wuest), he immediately got the attention of the governor. Of course, his statement was an exaggeration, but how many court cases have been won by somebody stretching the truth?

Tertullus knew that there was some basis for this charge because Paul had preached to the Jews that Jesus Christ was their King and Lord. To the Romans and the unbelieving Jews, this message sounded like treason against Caesar (Acts 16:20–21; 17:5–9). Furthermore, it was illegal to establish a new religion in Rome without the approval of the authorities. If Paul indeed was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” then his enemies could easily build a case against him.

At that time, the Christian faith was still identified with the Jews, and they were permitted by the Romans to practice their religion. There had been Gentile seekers and God-fearers in the synagogues, so the presence of Gentiles in the churches did not create legal problems. Later, when the number of Gentile believers increased and more of the congregations separated from the Jewish synagogues, then Rome saw the difference between Jews and Christians and trouble began. Rome did not want a rival religion thriving in the empire and creating problems.

Tertullus’s third accusation had to be handled with care because it implicated a Roman officer who had saved a man’s life. For the most part, Roman officials like Felix did not want anything to do with cases involving Jewish law (John 18:28–31; Acts 16:35–40; 18:12–17). The fewer Jews who ended up in Roman courts, the better it would be for the empire. Tertullus had to present this third charge in a way that made the Jews look good without making the Romans look too bad, and he did a good job.

To begin with, he softened the charge. The accusation given by the Asian Jews was that Paul had polluted the temple (Acts 21:28), but Tertullus said, “He even tried to profane the temple” (Acts 24: nkjv). Why the change? For at least two good reasons. To begin with, Paul’s accusers realized that the original charge could never be substantiated if the facts were investigated. But even more, the Asian Jews who started the story seemed to have vanished from the scene! If there were no witnesses, there could be no evidence or conviction.

When you compare Luke’s account of Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:27–40) with the captain’s account (Acts 23:25–30) and the lawyer’s account (Acts 24:6–8), you can well understand why judges and juries can get confused. Tertullus gave the impression that Paul had actually been guilty of profaning the temple, that the Jews had been within their rights in seizing him, and that the captain had stepped out of line by interfering. It was Claudius, not the Jews, who was guilty of treating a Roman citizen with violence! But Felix had the official letter before him and was more likely to believe his captain than a paid Hellenistic Jewish lawyer.

Tertullus knew that the Jews had authority from Rome to arrest and prosecute those who violated Jewish law. True, the Romans thought that the Jews’ devotion to their traditions was excessive and superstitious, yet Rome wisely let them have their way. The Jews were even permitted to execute guilty offenders in capital cases, such as Paul’s “offense” of permitting Gentiles to cross the protective barricade in the temple (Acts 21:28–29). Tertullus argued that if Claudius had not interfered, the Jews would have tried Paul themselves, and this would have saved Felix and Rome a great deal of trouble and expense.

In closing his argument, Tertullus hinted that Claudius Lysias should have been there personally and had not just sent the Jewish leaders to present the case. Why was he absent? Could he not defend his case? Was he trying to “pass the buck” to others? As far as we know, during the two years Paul was detained in Caesarea, Claudius never did show up to tell his side of the story. We wonder why.

But Paul was there and Felix could get the truth out of him! “If you examine Paul,” the clever lawyer said, “you will find that what I am saying is true.” The other members of the Jewish delegation united in agreeing with their lawyer, which was no surprise to anybody.

But the governor did not examine Paul. He merely nodded his head as a signal that it was now Paul’s turn to speak. Paul did not flatter Felix (see 1 Thess. 2:1–6); he merely acknowledged that the governor was a man of experience and therefore a man of knowledge. After this brief but honest introduction, Paul then proceeded to answer the charges of Tertullus (Acts 24:10–16), the Asian Jews (Acts 24: 17–19), and the Jewish council (Acts 24:20–21).

As far as the temple charge was concerned, Paul was in the temple to worship and not to lead a disturbance. In fact, the temple records would show that Paul was registered to pay the costs for four Jews who had taken a Nazarite vow. Paul had not preached in the temple or the synagogues, nor had he preached anywhere in the city. (Years before, Paul had made an agreement with Peter and the Jerusalem elders that he would not evangelize the Jews in Jerusalem. See Gal. 2:7–10.) Nobody could prove that he was guilty of leading any kind of rebellion against the Jews or the Romans.

Furthermore, since he had been in Jerusalem only a week (the twelve days of Acts 24:11, minus the five days of Acts 24:1), there had hardly been time to organize and lead an assault on the temple! While students of Paul’s life do not agree on every detail, the order of events was probably something like this:

Day 1—Paul arrived in Jerusalem (21:17)

Day 2—Met with James and the elders (21:18)

Day 3—In the temple with the Nazarites (21:26)

Day 4—In the temple Day 5—In the temple Day 6—Arrested in the temple (21:27)

Day 7—Met with the Jewish council (23:1–10)

Day 8—Threatened; taken to Caesarea (23:12, 23)

Day 9—Arrived in Caesarea (23:33)

Day 10—Waited (Felix sent for the Jewish leaders)

Day 11—Waited for the Jewish leaders to arrive Day 12—Waited—they arrived—hearing scheduled

Day 13—The hearing conducted The four men who had taken the Nazarite vow were evidently already involved in their temple duties when James suggested that Paul pay their costs (Acts 21:24). If they had started the day before Paul arrived in Jerusalem, then the day of Paul’s arrest would have been the seventh day of their obligations (Acts 21:27). The New American Standard Bible translates Acts 21:27, “And when the seven days were almost over.” This implies that the events occurred on the seventh day of their schedule, Paul’s sixth day in the city.

It would probably take two days for the official Roman messenger to get from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and another two days for Ananias and his associates to make it to Caesarea. They were not likely to linger; the case was too important.

Having disposed of the temple charges, Paul then dealt with the charges of sedition and heresy. Even though the high priest was a Sadducee, there were certainly Pharisees in the official Jewish delegation, so Paul appealed once again to their religious roots in the Scriptures. The fact that Paul was a Christian did not mean that he worshipped a different God from the God of his fathers. It only meant he worshipped the God of his fathers in a new and living way, for the only acceptable way to worship the Father is through Jesus Christ (John 5:23). His faith was still founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, and they bore witness to Jesus Christ.

The Sadducees accepted the five Books of Moses (the law), but not the rest of the Old Testament. They rejected the doctrine of the resurrection because they said it could not be found anywhere in what Moses wrote. (Jesus had refuted that argument, but they chose to ignore it. See Matt. 22:23–33.) By declaring his personal faith in the resurrection, Paul affirmed his orthodox convictions and identified himself with the Pharisees. Once again, the Pharisees were caught on the horns of a dilemma, for if Paul’s faith was that of a heretic, then they were heretics too!

Paul and the early Christians did not see themselves as “former Jews” but as “fulfilled Jews.” The Old Testament was a new book to them because they had found their Messiah. They knew that they no longer needed the rituals of the Jewish law in order to please God, but they saw in these ceremonies and ordinances a revelation of the Savior. Both as a Pharisee and a Christian, Paul had “taken pains” always to have a good conscience and to seek to please the Lord.

Having replied to the false charges of Tertullus, Paul then proceeded to answer the false accusation of the Asian Jews that he had profaned the temple (Acts 24:17–19). He had not come to Jerusalem to defile the temple but to bring needed help to the Jewish people and to present his own offerings to the Lord. (This is the only mention in Acts of the special offering.) When the Asians saw him in the temple, he was with four men who were fulfilling their Nazarite vows. How could Paul possibly be worshipping God and profaning God’s house at the same time? A Jewish priest was in charge of Paul’s temple activities, so, if the holy temple was defiled, the priest was responsible. Paul was only obeying the law.

Now Paul reached the heart of his defense, for it was required by Roman law that the accusers face the accused at the trial, or else the charges would be dropped. Ananias had wisely not brought any of the Hellenistic Jews with him, for he was sure that their witness would fall down under official examination. These men were good at inciting riots; they were not good at producing facts.

Paul closed his defense by replying to the members of the Jewish council (Acts 24:20–21). Instead of giving him a fair hearing, the high priest and the Sanhedrin had abused him and refused to hear him out. Ananias was no doubt grateful that Paul said nothing about his slap in the face, for it was not legal for a Roman citizen to be treated that way.

Do we detect a bit of holy sarcasm in Paul’s closing statement? We might paraphrase it, “If I have done anything evil, it is probably this: I reminded the Jewish council of our great Jewish doctrine of the resurrection.” Remember, the book of Acts is a record of the early church’s witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:22). The Sadducees had long abandoned the doctrine, and the Pharisees did not give it the practical importance it deserved. Of course, Paul would have related this doctrine to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Sanhedrin did not want that.

They had accused Paul of being anti-Jewish and anti-Roman, but they could not prove their charges. If the Jewish leaders had further pursued any of these charges, their case would have collapsed. But there was enough circumstantial evidence to plant doubts in the minds of the Roman officials, and perhaps there was enough race prejudice in them to water that seed and encourage it to grow. After all, had not the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2)? Perhaps Paul would bear watching.

If ever a man failed both personally and officially, that man was Felix, procurator of Judea. He certainly could not plead ignorance of the facts, because he was “well acquainted with the Way” (Acts 24: niv). His wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess and perhaps kept him informed of the activities among her people, and as a Roman official, he would carefully (if privately) investigate these things. He saw the light, but he preferred to live in the darkness.

Felix saw to it that Paul was comfortably cared for while at the same time safely guarded. “Liberty” in Acts 24: means that he was not put in the common jail or kept in close confinement. He had limited freedom in the palace, chained to a soldier. (The guards were changed every six hours, a perfect captive congregation!) Paul’s friends were permitted to minister to him (Greek: “wait on him as personal servants”), so people could come and go to meet his needs. What Paul’s ministry was during those two years in Caesarea, we do not know, but we can be sure he gave a faithful witness for the Lord.

The record of one such witness is given by Luke, and it makes Felix’s guilt even greater. Not only was Felix’s mind informed, but his heart was moved by fear, and yet he would not obey the truth. It is not enough for a person to know the facts about Christ, or to have an emotional response to a message. He or she must willingly repent of sin and trust the Savior. “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5: nkjv).

It must have been the curiosity of his wife, Drusilla, that prompted Felix to give Paul another hearing. She wanted to hear Paul, for, after all, her family had been involved with “the Way” on several occasions. Her great-grandfather tried to kill Jesus in Bethlehem (Matt. 2); her great-uncle killed John the Baptist and mocked Jesus (Luke 23:6–12); and Acts 12:1–2 tells of her father killing the apostle James.

Dr. Luke has given us only the three points of Paul’s sermon to this infamous couple: righteousness, selfcontrol, and the judgment to come. But what an outline! Paul gave them three compelling reasons why they should repent and believe on Jesus Christ.

First, they had to do something about yesterday’s sin (“righteousness”). In 1973, Dr. Karl Menninger, one of the world’s leading psychiatrists, published a startling book, Whatever Became of Sin? He pointed out that the very word sin has gradually dropped out of our vocabulary, “the word, along with the notion.” We talk about mistakes, weaknesses, inherited tendencies, faults, and even errors, but we do not face up to the fact of sin.

“People are no longer sinful,” said Phyllis McGinley, noted American writer and poet. “They are only immature or underprivileged or frightened or, more particularly, sick.” But a holy God demands righteousness; that’s the bad news. Yet the good news is that this same holy God provides His own righteousness to those who trust Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–26). We can never be saved by our own righteousness of good works. We can be saved only through Christ’s righteousness made available by His finished work of salvation on the cross.

The second point in Paul’s sermon dealt with selfcontrol: we must do something about today’s temptations. Man can control almost everything but himself. Here were Felix and Drusilla, prime illustrations of lack of self-control. She divorced her husband to become Felix’s third wife, and though a Jewess, she lived as though God had never given the Ten Commandments at Sinai. Felix was an unscrupulous official who did not hesitate to lie, or even to murder, in order to get rid of his enemies and promote himself. Self-control was something neither of them knew much about.

Paul’s third point was the clincher “judgment to come.” We must do something about tomorrow’s judgment. Perhaps Paul told Felix and Drusilla what he told the Greek philosophers: God has “appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness” by the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). Jesus Christ is either your Savior or your Judge. How do we know that Jesus Christ is the Judge? “He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17: nkjv). Once again, the resurrection!

“Felix trembled” (Acts 24:25), which literally means “Felix became terrified.” Roman leaders prided themselves in their ability to be stoical and restrain their emotions under all circumstances, but a conviction from God gripped Felix’s heart, and he could not hide it. Paul had diagnosed the case and offered the remedy. It was up to Felix to receive it.

What did Felix do? He procrastinated! “When I have a convenient time, I will call for you,” he told the apostle. “Procrastination is the thief of time,” wrote Edward Young. Perhaps he was thinking about the English proverb, “One of these days is none of these days.” Procrastination is also the thief of souls. The most “convenient season” for a lost sinner to be saved is right now. “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

“I think there’s a special time for each person to be saved,” a man argued to whom I was witnessing. “I can’t get saved until that time comes.”

“What are the signals that your special time has come?” I asked. “Well,” he drawled, “I don’t rightly know.” “Then how will you know when you are supposed to be saved?” I asked. But the stupidity of his position never bothered him. I do hope he was saved before he died.

Consider Felix’s foolish attitudes. He had a foolish attitude toward God’s Word, thinking that he could “take it or leave it.” But God “now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17: nkjv, italics mine). When God speaks, men and women had better listen and obey.

Felix had a foolish attitude toward his sins. He knew he was a sinner, yet he refused to break with his sins and obey the Lord. He had a foolish attitude toward God’s grace. The Lord had been long suffering toward Felix, yet the governor would not surrender. Felix was not sure of another day’s life, yet he foolishly procrastinated. “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth” (Prov. 27: niv).

Instead of listening to Paul, Felix tried to “use” Paul as a political pawn, either to get money from the church or to gain favor with the Jews. The fact that Felix had further discussions with Paul is no indication that his heart was interested in spiritual things. Paul’s friends were coming and going, and perhaps some of them had access to the large offering sent by the Gentile churches. Certainly Paul gave further witness to the governor, but to no avail. When Felix was replaced, he left Paul a prisoner, but it was Felix who was really the prisoner.

The governor’s mind was enlightened (Acts 24:22), his emotions were stirred (Acts 24:25), but his will would not yield. He tried to gain the world, but, as far as we know, he lost his soul. He procrastinated himself into hell.

Dr. Clarence Macartney told a story about a meeting in hell. Satan called his four leading demons together and commanded them to think up a new lie that would trap more souls. “I have it!” one demon said. “I’ll go to earth and tell people there is no God.”

“It will never work,” said Satan. “People can look around them and see that there is a God.”

“I’ll go and tell them there is no heaven!” suggested a second demon, but Satan rejected that idea. “Everybody knows there is life after death and they want to go to heaven.”

“Let’s tell them there is no hell!” said a third demon.

“No, conscience tells them their sins will be judged,” said the devil. “We need a better lie than that.”

Quietly, the fourth demon spoke. “I think I’ve solved your problem,” he said. “I’ll go to earth and tell everybody there is no hurry.”

The best time to trust Jesus Christ is—now!

And the best time to tell others the good news of the gospel is—now!