Acts · Chapter 24

V. 1. Ananias-Who would spare no trouble on the occasion, with several of the elders, members of the sanhedrim.

Verse 1. After five days] These days are to be reckoned from the time in which Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem, and twelve days after he had arrived in that city; see Acts 24:11. Calmet reckons the days thus:-St. Luke says that Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem when the seven days of his vow were nearly ended, Acts 21:27; that is, at the end of the fifth day after his arrival. The next day, which was the sixth, he was presented before the Sanhedrin. The night following, he was taken to Antipatris. The next day, the seventh, he arrived at Cæsarea. Five days afterwards, that is, the twelfth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, the high priest and the elders, with Tertullus, came down to accuse him before Felix.-But see Clarke’s note on “Acts 23:32”.

A certain orator named Tertullus] This was probably a Roman proselyte to Judaism; yet he speaks every where as a Jew. Roman orators, advocates; &c., were found in different provinces of the Roman empire; and they, in general, spoke both the Greek and Latin languages; and, being well acquainted with the Roman laws and customs, were no doubt very useful. Luitprandus supposed that this Tertullus was the same with him who was colleague with Pliny the younger, in the consulate, in the year of Rome, 852; who is mentioned by Pliny, Epist. v. 15. Of this there is no satisfactory proof.

Verse 1. After five days, Ananias — Who would spare no trouble on the occasion; descended — To Cesarea, seventy miles from Jerusalem; with several of the elders — Members of the sanhedrim. It seems the commander of the horsemen, who brought Paul to Cesarea, was ordered, on his return, to inform the high-priest and elders at Jerusalem of the day which the governor should fix for hearing their accusation, and for trying the prisoner. With a certain orator named Tertullus — Whose business it was to open the cause, and to harangue the governor in the most agreeable manner that he could; who — That is, all who, as the word oitinev implies, not referring to Tertullus only, but to the high-priest and elders also; informed the governor against Paul — Advanced a general accusation against him, on which they desired to be more particularly heard.

Verse 1. After five days, Ananias descended with the elders; to intimidate the governor, and ensure the destruction of Paul, as they had done with Pilate in regard of the Saviour. They lost no time, being determined on his death. It was but twelve days, as in ver. 11, from his coming to Jerusalem to his trial in Cæsarea, a port not forty miles north-west of Jerusalem. They took with them Tertullus, a Roman orator, to impeach Paul. Such lawyers were found in most courts, to acquaint them with Roman laws, and assist in correspondence with the senate. He understood his profession; he flattered Felix, he impeached Paul as exciting the jews to sedition, and profaning the temple by bringing an uncircumcised Greek into the inner courts, and as being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

1. Paul’s First Roman Arraignment and Third Defence—Before Felix, 1-21. Six arraignments did Paul encounter in a degree of climax; two before the Jews, and perhaps four before the Roman courts.

The first was on the stairs of Fort Antonia, (Acts 22:1;) the second before the Sanhedrin, (Acts 23:1;) the third (this) before Felix; the fourth before Festus and Agrippa, (Acts 26:2;) the fifth before Nero, with acquittal; and the sixth before Nero, resulting in the crown of martyrdom. In the present arraignment he is forever released from the Jewish, and fairly in the hands of the Pagan, power. Gentilism, unconscious as ever, has fairly rescued her apostle from Judaism, no more to surrender him. For awhile she will protect him from assault, but finally finish his career with the bloody axe.

1. After five days—Reckoned, doubtless, after the completion of the last transaction, namely, Paul’s arrival in Cesarea. Both Paul’s and Luke’s standpoint is at Cesarea. Ananias the high priest—It is probably true that the rebuke of Paul in the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3) rankled in the breast of the high priest; but it is also probable that the reports brought in from various directions at that Passover of the growth of Christianity, the diminution of the synagogues, and Paul’s leadership in the work, had produced in the rulers a strong sense of the necessity of striking him down. It is now the head of the Jewish State confronting the chief leader of the Christian Church before the Pagan court, (three great religions in triangular contact,) demanding his sacrifice. Elders—The high priest is the prosecutor; the rest are his retinue. Orator… Tertullus—A diminutive of Tertius; it is lengthened also into Tertullianus. The Greek for orator is rhtwr, rhetor; (whence our word rhetoric,) originally meaning any public speaker, came to signify a professional pleader. In all the provinces there were numbers of Greek and Roman lawyers who made a living by managing the cases of the natives before the Roman courts. Indeed, it was the custom for young Roman lawyers to practice thus awhile in the provinces as a training for a higher practice in Rome. In Paul’s trial the only language understood by all was no doubt the Greek.

V. 2. Tertullus began-A speech how different from St. Paul's; which is true, modest, solid, and without paint. Felix was a man of the most infamous character, and a plague to all the provinces over which he presided.

Verse 2. Tertullus began to accuse him] There are three parts in this oration of Tertullus:-1. The exordium. 2. The proposition. 3. The conclusion. The exordium contains the praise of Felix and his administration, merely for the purpose of conciliating his esteem, Acts 24:2-4; The proposition is contained in Acts 24:5. The narration and conclusion, in Acts 24:6-8.

By thee we enjoy great quietness] As bad a governor as Felix most certainly was, he rendered some services to Judea. The country had long been infested with robbers; and a very formidable banditti of this kind, under one Eliezar, he entirely suppressed. Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6; Bell. lib. ii, cap. 22. He also suppressed the sedition raised by an Egyptian impostor, who had seduced 30,000 men; see on Acts 21:38. He had also quelled a very afflictive disturbance which took place between the Syrians and the Jews of Cæsarea. On this ground Tertullus said, By thee we enjoy great quietness; and illustrious deeds are done to this nation by thy prudent administration. This was all true; but, notwithstanding this, he is well known from his own historians, and from Josephus, to have been not only a very bad man, but also a very bad governor. He was mercenary, oppressive, and cruel; and of all these the Jews brought proofs to Nero, before whom they accused him; and, had it not been for the interest and influence of his brother Pallas; he had been certainly ruined.

Verses 2, 3. And when he — Paul; was called forth — To hear the charge preferred against him, and make his defence; Tertullus began to accuse him — In an oration, almost every word of which was false; the accusation of Paul; the encomium on the government of Felix; and the declaration of a lawful intention in what they had done and attempted. Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness — Thus this orator, to induce the governor to give countenance to their cause, and to punish Paul as the disturber of the public peace, compliments him on the wisdom and vigour of his administration; but in so doing he is guilty of using the most barefaced flattery; for although Felix had repressed the Sicarii, and other robbers, he was himself a great oppressor of the nation, by the cruelty and injustice of his administration, all historians agreeing, that he was a man of so bad a character, that his government was a plague to all the provinces over which he presided. And as for Judea, its state under him was so far from being what Tertullus here represents, that Josephus (besides what he says of the barbarous and cowardly assassination of Jonathan the high-priest by his means) declares, that the Jews accused him before Nero of insufferable oppressions, and had certainly ruined him if his brother Pallas had not interposed in his favour. (Antiq., 20:8.) And that very worthy deeds — Greek, katorqwmatwn ginomenon, illustrious deeds; are done unto this nation — The whole Jewish nation; by thy providence — The continual care and vigilance of thy prudent administration. See here, reader; 1st, The unhappiness of great men who have their services magnified beyond measure, and are seldom or never faithfully told of their faults; in consequence of which they are encouraged and hardened in evil. 2d, The policy of bad men; who flatter princes in what they do amiss, to draw them in to act still worse. The bishops of Rome obtained their exorbitant power, and have been assisted in persecuting the servants of Christ, by flattering and caressing usurpers and tyrants, and making them such tools of their malice, as the high-priest, by his compliments, designed to make Felix here! We accept it always, and in all places — Everywhere and at all times we embrace it; most noble Felix with all thankfulness — If it had been true, that Felix was such a governor, it would have been just that they should have thus accepted his good offices, with all thankfulness. The benefits which we enjoy by government, especially when administered by wise and good governors, is what we ought to be thankful for both to God and man; this is part of the honour due to magistrates, to acknowledge the quietness we enjoy under their protection, and the worthy deeds done by their prudence.

2. Called forth—Felix has taken his seat upon the bema, an elevated platform; the high priest, rhetor, and elders are in readiness, and Paul is called or summoned from the prison apartment of the palace to its court room. Forthwith orator Tertullus opens (began) the indictment. He avails himself most liberally of his free license (of which Paul would be deprived by his conscientiousness) of gaining the procurator’s good graces by the most fabulous flattery. His speech is divisible into two nearly equal parts—compliments to Felix and the charges against Paul. The governor was flushed with his late triumph over the Egyptian insurgent, and to this nearly the whole of the orator’s eulogy skilfully points. We—Our learned barrister speaks in the name of his clients. Thy providence—Thy foresight; one of the attributes claimed by the emperors and inscribed upon the public coin. (See Hist. Revelation, § 3, at Acts 21:17.)

Verse 3. We accept it always, and in all places] We have at all times a grateful sense of thy beneficent administration, and we talk of it in all places, not only before thy face, but behind thy back.

Verses 2, 3. And when he — Paul; was called forth — To hear the charge preferred against him, and make his defence; Tertullus began to accuse him — In an oration, almost every word of which was false; the accusation of Paul; the encomium on the government of Felix; and the declaration of a lawful intention in what they had done and attempted. Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness — Thus this orator, to induce the governor to give countenance to their cause, and to punish Paul as the disturber of the public peace, compliments him on the wisdom and vigour of his administration; but in so doing he is guilty of using the most barefaced flattery; for although Felix had repressed the Sicarii, and other robbers, he was himself a great oppressor of the nation, by the cruelty and injustice of his administration, all historians agreeing, that he was a man of so bad a character, that his government was a plague to all the provinces over which he presided. And as for Judea, its state under him was so far from being what Tertullus here represents, that Josephus (besides what he says of the barbarous and cowardly assassination of Jonathan the high-priest by his means) declares, that the Jews accused him before Nero of insufferable oppressions, and had certainly ruined him if his brother Pallas had not interposed in his favour. (Antiq., 20:8.) And that very worthy deeds — Greek, katorqwmatwn ginomenon, illustrious deeds; are done unto this nation — The whole Jewish nation; by thy providence — The continual care and vigilance of thy prudent administration. See here, reader; 1st, The unhappiness of great men who have their services magnified beyond measure, and are seldom or never faithfully told of their faults; in consequence of which they are encouraged and hardened in evil. 2d, The policy of bad men; who flatter princes in what they do amiss, to draw them in to act still worse. The bishops of Rome obtained their exorbitant power, and have been assisted in persecuting the servants of Christ, by flattering and caressing usurpers and tyrants, and making them such tools of their malice, as the high-priest, by his compliments, designed to make Felix here! We accept it always, and in all places — Everywhere and at all times we embrace it; most noble Felix with all thankfulness — If it had been true, that Felix was such a governor, it would have been just that they should have thus accepted his good offices, with all thankfulness. The benefits which we enjoy by government, especially when administered by wise and good governors, is what we ought to be thankful for both to God and man; this is part of the honour due to magistrates, to acknowledge the quietness we enjoy under their protection, and the worthy deeds done by their prudence.

V. 4. But that I may not trouble thee any farther-By trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause: a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion. Did not God confound the orator's language?

Verse 4. That I be not farther tedious unto thee] That I may neither trespass on thy time, by dwelling longer on this subject, nor on thy modesty, by thus enumerating thy beneficent deeds.

Hear us of thy clemency] Give us this farther proof of thy kindness, by hearkening to our present complaint. The whole of this exordium was artful enough, though it was lame. The orator had certainly a very bad cause, of which he endeavoured to make the best. Felix was a bad man and bad governor; and yet he must praise him, to conciliate his esteem. Paul was a very good man, and nothing amiss could be proved against him; and yet he must endeavour to blacken him as much as possible, in order to please his unprincipled and wicked employers. His oration has been blamed as weak, lame, and imperfect; and yet, perhaps, few, with so bad a cause, could have made better of it.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

4. Tedious—Tertullus did not fear that his compliments had grown to a tedious length, but that his coming accusations may. His charges are three: sedition, heresy, and sacrilege.

Verse 5. For we have found this man, &c.] Here the proposition of the orator commences. He accuses Paul, ant his accusation includes four particulars:- 1. He is a pest, loimov; an exceedingly bad and wicked man.

2. He excites disturbances and seditions against the Jews. 3. He is the chief of the sect of the Nazarenes, who are a very bad people, and should not be tolerated. 4. He has endeavoured to pollute and profane the temple, and we took him in the fact.

A pestilent fellow] The word loimov, pestis-the plague or pestilence, is used by both Greek and Roman authors to signify a very bad and profligate man; we have weakened the force of the word by translating the substantive adjectively. Tertullus did not say that Paul was a pestilent fellow, but he said that he was the very pestilence itself. As in that of Martial, xi. 92:-

Non vitiosus homo es, Zoile, sed vitium.

“Thou art not a vicious man, O Zoilus, but thou art vice itself.” The words loimov, and pestis, are thus frequently used.-See Wetstein, Bp. Pearce, and Kypke.

A mover of sedition] Instead of stasin, sedition, ABE, several others, with the Coptic, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius, read staseiv, commotions, which is probably the true reading.

Among all the Jews] Bp. Pearce contends that the words should be understood thus-one that stirreth up tumults AGAINST all the Jews; for, if they be understood otherwise, Tertullus may be considered as accusing his countrymen, as if they, at Paul’s instigation, were forward to make insurrections every where. On the contrary, he wishes to represent them as a persecuted and distressed people, by means of Paul and his Nazarenes. A ringleader] prwtostathn. This is a military phrase, and signifies the officer who stands on the right of the first rank; the captain of the front rank of the sect of the Nazarenes; thv twn nazwraiwn airesewv, of the heresy of the Nazarenes. This word is used six times by St. Luke; viz. in this verse, and in Acts 24:14, and in Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5; 28:22; but in none of them does it appear necessarily to include that bad sense which we generally assign to the word heresy.-See Clarke’s note on “Acts 5:17”, where the subject is largely considered; and see farther on Acts 24:14.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

Verse 6. Hath gone about to profane the temple] This was a heavy charge, if it could have been substantiated, because the Jews were permitted by the Romans to put any person to death who profaned their temple. This charge was founded on the gross calumny mentioned, Acts 21:28, 29; for, as they had seen Trophimus, an Ephesian, with Paul in the city, they pretended that he had brought him into the temple. Would have judged according to our law] He pretended that they would have tried the case fairly, had not the chief captain taken him violently out of their hands; whereas, had not Lysias interfered, they would have murdered him on the spot.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

Verse 7. With great violence] meta pollhv biav, I rather think, means with an armed force. Tertullus intimates that Lysias interfered contrary to law, and brought soldiers to support him in his infringement on their constitution. This is what he seems to say and complain of; for the Jews were vexed with Lysias for rescuing the apostle from their hands.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

7. But—This verse and the next as far as the colon are not in the best MSS., and are held by the best critics to be interpolated. Their removal clears Tertullus of the impolicy of making a side issue with Lysias. Excluding the passage, we must make the whom of verse 8 refer to Paul; otherwise to Lysias. The retention of the passage is strongly sustained by Felix’s expressed expectation of Lysias’ coming in verse 22.

Verse 8. Commanding his accusers to come, &c.] Here Tertullus closes his opening and statement of the case; and now he proceeds to call and examine his witnesses; and they were no doubt examined one by one, though St. Luke sums the whole up in one word-The Jews also assented, saying, that these things were so. Whoever considers the plan of Tertullus’s speech, will perceive that it was both judicious and artful. Let us take a view of the whole:-1. He praises Felix to conciliate his favour. 2. He generally states the great blessings of his administration. 3. He states that the Jews, throughout the whole land, felt themselves under the greatest obligations to him, and extolled his prudent and beneficent management of the public affairs every where. 4. That the prisoner before him was a very bad man; a disturber of the public peace; a demagogue of a dangerous party; and so lost to all sense of religion as to attempt to profane the temple! 5. That, though he should have been punished on the spot, yet, as they were ordered by the chief captain to appear before him, and show the reason why they had seized on Paul at Jerusalem, they were accordingly come; and, having now exhibited their charges, he would, 6. proceed to examine witnesses, who would prove all these things to the satisfaction of the governor. 7. He then called his witnesses, and their testimony confirmed and substantiated the charges. No bad cause was ever more judiciously and cunningly managed.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

Verses 4-9. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious — Ina de mh epi pleion se egkoptw, that I may not trouble thee any further, by trespassing either on thy patience or modesty. The eloquence of Tertullus was as bad as his cause; a lame introduction, a lame transition, and a lame conclusion! Did not God confound the orator’s language? I pray that thou wouldest hear — What we have to offer; of thy clemency — With thy usual candour and well-known goodness. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow — Or rather, a pestilence, or plague, as loimov signifies; a man infecting others with pernicious principles, and spreading mischief wherever he comes; and a mover of sedition among all the Jews — Rendering them disaffected to the government, and exciting them to rise in rebellion against it; and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes — A term of reproach, which, it seems, was given to the disciples of Christ even at that early period. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple — By bringing heathen into it. “Tertullus artfully mentions this, as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, as he knew that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in such an act of profanation; and he seems to have intended to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting to do. And it is observable, that Tertullus nowhere expressly avows so much as a design to have put Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended.” — Doddridge. Thus, after a fawning preface, Tertullus prefers charges against Paul, for which there was not the shadow of a foundation, except that he was a leading person among the Nazarenes, or Christians. For that he had moved the Jews to sedition against the government, or that he went about to profane the temple, was utterly false; (see Acts 21:28;) and so it was also, that they took him to judge him according to their law; for they took him by violence, and drew him out of the temple, and went about to kill him without any judicial process. In short, the whole accusation, together with the circumstances by which the orator aggravated it, were all mere fictions, of which he offered no proof whatever, only that (verse 9) the Jews — Namely, the high-priest and the elders; assented, saying that these things were so.

9. Jews… assented—Had Felix considered these as so many impartial witnesses the case against Paul was a sweeping one. But, unluckily for them, Felix comprehended the whole case. He saw it with just the eyes of Lysias. (See note Acts 22:10, 29.)

V. 10. Knowing-for several years thou hast been a judge over this nation-And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this. It was a plain fact. He governed Judea six or seven years.

I answer for myself-As it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus's charge: sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests, that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party and attempt an insurrection: (for it was about twelve days since he came up thither; five of which he had been at Cesarea, Acts 24:1; one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem.) And he challenges them, in fact, to produce any evidence of such practices, Acts 24:11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, Acts 24:14,16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

Verse 10. Then Paul-answered] The apostle’s defence consists of two parts:-1. The exordium, which has for its object the praise of his judge, whose qualifications to discern and decide on a question of this nature he fully allows; and expects, from this circumstance, to have a favourable hearing. 2. The tractation, which consists of two parts: I. REFUTATION: 1. of the charge of polluting the temple; 2. of stirring up sedition; 3. of being a leader of any sect who had a different worship from the God of their fathers. II. AFFIRMATION: 1. that he had lived so as to preserve a good conscience towards God, and towards men; 2. that so far from polluting the temple, he had been purified in it, and was found thus worshipping according to the law of God; 3. that what Tertullus and his companions had witnessed was perfectly false; and he defied them to produce a single proof, and appeals to those who had been witnesses of his conduct in Jerusalem, who should have been there could they have proved any thing against him.

Thou hast been of many years a judge] Cumanus and Felix were, for a time, joint governors of Judea; but, after the condemnation of Cumanus, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix; and from Josephus we learn that this was now the sixth or seventh year of his administration, which might be called many years, when the very frequent removals of the governors of the provinces are considered. See Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. 7, and see the margin.

A judge-krithn, the same here in signification as the Hebrew cpv shophet, which means a ruler or governor. This was the title of the ancient governors of Israel.

The more cheerfully] euqumoteron, With a better heart or courage, because, as thy long residence among us has brought thee to a thorough acquaintance with our customs, I may expect a proper decision in my favour, my cause being perfectly sound.

Verses 10-13. Then Paul — Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. — Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation — And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself — And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus’s charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, verses 11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, verses 14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

Ver. 10. Then Paul — answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself. This is a concession of truth, destitute of flattery; it is a word of confidence, a great thing when a man is tried for his life, and that he should have the judge on his side. Paul, by a bold stroke of eloquence, not only denies all the charges, but he fully proves the contrary. Of the twelve days he had been in the country, since his arrival from Greece, he had spent about five in the temple, paying his vows; and not disputing with any man, nor exciting any tumult. — What a conclusive argument: and no witness to prove the contrary. And by the bye, it proves that the church in Jerusalem, foreseeing the storm, had given him good advice to purify himself after so long a residence in gentile lands.

10. Beckoned—The prosecutor is silent and seated. A nod from the judge permits Paul to speak. So veteran a pleader needs not, like the high priest and his elders, a lawyer to put his case.

Many years a judge—Paul has not much material for compliment, for he must confine himself to truth; but he makes a most dexterous use of what he has. He compliments the judge on his long tenure of office. Felix had ruled six or seven years; a long period for those times of rapid change by imperial caprice. The more cheerfully—Skilful truth again. Felix had during his six years’ residence in Cesarea doubtless become familiar with the Christian Church there, where Philip the evangelist had long preached and where Paul had so lately visited, (Acts 21:8-15.) He had a Jewish wife, who evidently knew the history of Christ and of Christianity. (See note on verse 24.)

Paul now in his reply answers to the charge of sedition, (11-13;) to the charge of heresy, (14-16;) to the charge of sacrilege, (17-21.)

Verse 11. There are yet but twelve days] This is his reply to their charge of sedition; the improbability of which is shown from the short time he had spent in Jerusalem, quite insufficient to organize a sedition of any kind; nor could a single proof be furnished that he had attempted to seduce any man, or unhinge any person from his allegiance by subtle disputations, either in the temple, the synagogues, or the city. So that this charge necessarily fell to the ground, self-confuted, unless they could bring substantial proof against him, which he challenges them to do.

Verses 10-13. Then Paul — Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. — Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation — And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself — And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus’s charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, verses 11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, verses 14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

11. Because—On the first charge, namely, of SEDITION, Paul takes the twelve days of which the present witnesses could testify of their own knowledge, and declares what his conduct was. Because that depends on I do answer.

To Jerusalem… to worship—Positively Paul now states his conduct to be that of a loyal Jew going to the religious capital, and his object being to worship there at the great national festival of the Passover. Negatively, he goes on to deny anything seditious, whether in temple, in popular assembly in any of the many synagogues, or in the streets of the city.

Verses 10-13. Then Paul — Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. — Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation — And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself — And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus’s charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, verses 11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, verses 14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

Verses 10-13. Then Paul — Having heard with patient silence all the false charges preferred against him, after the governor had given him a sign to speak, answered in a speech widely different from that of Tertullus, true, modest, solid, and unaffected; forasmuch as I know, &c. — Paul would not introduce his speech by flattering Felix with notorious untruths, as the Jewish orator had done, or by paying him any fulsome compliment; yet he addresses him very respectfully, and with such a degree of ease and freedom as manifested his confidence that the governor would do him justice; that thou hast been of many (of several) years a judge of this nation — And so not unacquainted with our religious rites and customs, or with the affairs of the Christians, and temper of the Jews, my accusers, and consequently more capable of understanding and deciding a cause of this nature. There was no flattery in this; it was a plain fact; he had governed Judea six or seven years; I do the more cheerfully answer for myself — And it may be observed, his answer exactly corresponds with the three articles of Tertullus’s charge, sedition, heresy, and profanation of the temple. As to the first, he suggests that he had not been long enough at Jerusalem to form a party, and attempt an insurrection; (for it was but twelve days since he went up thither, five of which he had been at Cesarea, one or two were spent in his journey thither, and most of the rest he had been confined at Jerusalem;) and he challenges them to produce, in fact, any evidence of such practices, verses 11-13. As to the second, he confesses himself to be a Christian; but maintains this to be a religion perfectly agreeable to the law and the prophets, and therefore deserving a fair reception, verses 14-16. And as for profaning the temple, he observes, that he behaved there in a most peaceful and regular manner, so that his innocence had been manifest even before the sanhedrim, where the authors of the tumult did not dare to appear against him.

V. 14. After the way which they call heresy-This appellation St. Paul corrects. Not that it was then an odious word; but it was not honourable enough. A party or sect (so that word signifies) is formed by men. This way was prescribed by God. The apostle had now said what was sufficient for his defence; but having a fair occasion, he makes an ingenuous confession of his faith in this verse, his hope in the next, his love in the 17th. Acts 24:14, 15, 17.

So worship I the God of my fathers-This was a very proper plea before a Roman magistrate; as it proved that he was under the protection of the Roman laws, since the Jews were so: whereas had he introduced the worship of new gods he would have forfeited that protection. Believing all things which are written-Concerning the Messiah.

Verse 14. That after the way which they call heresy] See the explanation of this word in Clarke’s note on “Acts 5:17”, and see before, Acts 24:5, where what is here translated heresy, is there rendered sect. At this time the word had no bad acceptation, in reference to religious opinions. The Pharisees themselves, the most respectable body among the Jews, are called a sect; for Paul, defending himself before Agrippa, says that he lived a Pharisee according to the strictest airesin, sect, or heresy of their religion. And Josephus, who was a Pharisee, speaks, thv twn farisaiwn airesewv, of the heresy or sect of the Pharisees. LIFE, chap. xxxviii. Therefore it is evident that the word heresy had no bad meaning among the Jews; it meant simply a religious sect. Why then did they use it by way of degradation to St. Paul? This seems to have been the cause. They had already two accredited sects in the land, the Pharisees and Sadducees: the interests of each of these were pretty well balanced, and each had a part in the government, for the council, or Sanhedrin, was composed both of Sadducees and Pharisees: see Acts 23:6. They were afraid that the Christians, whom they called Nazarenes, should form a new sect, and divide the interests of both the preceding; and what they feared, that they charged them with; and, on this account, the Christians had both the Pharisees and the Sadducees for their enemies. They had charged Jesus Christ with plotting against the state, and endeavouring to raise seditions; and they charged his followers with the same. This they deemed a proper engine to bring a jealous government into action.

So worship I the God of my fathers] I bring in no new object of worship; no new religious creed. I believe all things as they profess to believe; and acknowledge the Law and the Prophets as divinely inspired books; and have never, in the smallest measure, detracted from the authority or authenticity of either.

Verses 14-16. But — As to what they have alleged against me with regard to the Nazarenes; this I confess unto thee — And am not ashamed publicly to avow it in the presence of the greatest personages upon earth; that after the way which they call airesin, a sect; (so the same word is properly rendered, verse 5;) so worship I the God of my fathers — And am authorized by our sacred writings so to do; believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets — On which every part of the religion which I profess is founded, and which I should not either understand or believe if I worshipped or served the God of my fathers any other way, or did not believe in and receive Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, to whom both the law and the prophets bear witness. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow — All the Pharisees allowed it; that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust — In a public court, this was peculiarly proper to be observed. The pious Jews expected a resurrection, as Paul did, on the foundation of the promises of God, delivered by Moses and the prophets. This was a very proper defence before a Roman magistrate, who, by the laws of the empire, was bound to allow every man to worship God according to the religion of his country. And herein — En toutw, on this account, because I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, and expect a future resurrection and an eternal state; I exercise myself — And make it the continual care and study of my life; to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward man — That so, whatever accusations are brought against me, my own heart may not condemn me, but I may always find internal support amidst all the external injuries I may receive from mankind.

Ver. 14. But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers; and to a Roman, the sects of judaism might not appear, as one more faulty than another. The word airesiv, properly called sect, ver. 5, designates an opinion, which a man irreclaimably follows, be it good or bad, right or wrong. In some places however it designates opinions repugnant to revelation. 1 Corinthians 11:19. Galatians 5:20. 2 Peter 2:1. It is also used for sectarians. Acts 5:17. 15:5. 28:22.

Believing all things — in the law and the prophets. Paul did not allow himself to be a heretic in doctrine. He names both the law and the prophets, as Christ had often done before, to show that he made the canonical scriptures the guide of his faith, and spake as the oracles of God; and as yet, the christians had made no schism with the Hebrew altar.

14. Heresy—On the second charge of HERESY he now replies (14-16) by professing his faith in the essentials of Judaism and avowal of conscientious life. They call—But I do not admit to be so. God of my fathers—My ancestral God, and, therefore, I am guiltless of breaking Roman law by deserting my ancestral religion.

V. 15. Both of the just and of the unjust-In a public court this was peculiarly proper to be observed.

Verse 15. And have hope toward God, &c.] I not only do not hold any thing by which the general creed of this people might be altered, in reference to the present state; but, also, I hold nothing different from their belief in reference to a future state; for, if I maintain the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, it is what themselves allow.

Verses 14-16. But — As to what they have alleged against me with regard to the Nazarenes; this I confess unto thee — And am not ashamed publicly to avow it in the presence of the greatest personages upon earth; that after the way which they call airesin, a sect; (so the same word is properly rendered, verse 5;) so worship I the God of my fathers — And am authorized by our sacred writings so to do; believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets — On which every part of the religion which I profess is founded, and which I should not either understand or believe if I worshipped or served the God of my fathers any other way, or did not believe in and receive Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, to whom both the law and the prophets bear witness. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow — All the Pharisees allowed it; that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust — In a public court, this was peculiarly proper to be observed. The pious Jews expected a resurrection, as Paul did, on the foundation of the promises of God, delivered by Moses and the prophets. This was a very proper defence before a Roman magistrate, who, by the laws of the empire, was bound to allow every man to worship God according to the religion of his country. And herein — En toutw, on this account, because I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, and expect a future resurrection and an eternal state; I exercise myself — And make it the continual care and study of my life; to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward man — That so, whatever accusations are brought against me, my own heart may not condemn me, but I may always find internal support amidst all the external injuries I may receive from mankind.

15. They themselves—Literally, these themselves, pointing, says Kuinoel, to the Pharisees present, who had come with the Sadducees. Allow—With Paul, taught by the resurrection and doctrines of Christ, the resurrection was an earnest and fundamental hope; with the Jews it was a mere allowance; that is, they conceded that it might be held without heterodoxy. A resurrection—The doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous alone cannot be reconciled with this express declaration of the resurrection of the unjust.

V. 16. For this cause-With a view to this, I also exercise myself-As well as they.

Verse 16. And herein do I exercise myself] And this very tenet is a pledge for my good behaviour; for as I believe there will be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust, and that every man shall be judged for the deeds done in the body, so I exercise myself day and night, that I may have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men. Toward God] In entertaining no opinion contrary to his truth; and in offering no worship contrary to his dignity, purity, and excellence. Toward men.] In doing nothing to them that I would not, on a change of circumstances, they should do to me; and in withholding nothing by which I might comfort and serve them.

Verses 14-16. But — As to what they have alleged against me with regard to the Nazarenes; this I confess unto thee — And am not ashamed publicly to avow it in the presence of the greatest personages upon earth; that after the way which they call airesin, a sect; (so the same word is properly rendered, verse 5;) so worship I the God of my fathers — And am authorized by our sacred writings so to do; believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets — On which every part of the religion which I profess is founded, and which I should not either understand or believe if I worshipped or served the God of my fathers any other way, or did not believe in and receive Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, to whom both the law and the prophets bear witness. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow — All the Pharisees allowed it; that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust — In a public court, this was peculiarly proper to be observed. The pious Jews expected a resurrection, as Paul did, on the foundation of the promises of God, delivered by Moses and the prophets. This was a very proper defence before a Roman magistrate, who, by the laws of the empire, was bound to allow every man to worship God according to the religion of his country. And herein — En toutw, on this account, because I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, and expect a future resurrection and an eternal state; I exercise myself — And make it the continual care and study of my life; to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward man — That so, whatever accusations are brought against me, my own heart may not condemn me, but I may always find internal support amidst all the external injuries I may receive from mankind.

Verse 17. Now, after many years, &c.] And as a full proof that I act according to the dictates of this Divine and beneficent creed, though I have been many years absent from my own country, and my political relation to it is almost necessarily dissolved, yet, far from coming to disturb the peace of society, or to injure any person, I have brought ALMS to my nation, the fruits of my own earning and influence among a foreign people, and OFFERINGS to my God and his temple, proving hereby my attachment to my country, and my reverence for the worship of my country’s God.

Verses 17-21. Now after many years, &c. — They have represented me as a profane and lawless person, as if I had thrown contempt upon religion, and done them a great deal of wrong; but so far have I been from doing any thing to injure the Jews, to whom by birth I belong, or from attempting to profane the temple, as these my enemies falsely pretend, that I have given many public and important proofs of my particular regard for the good of my country, and of the veneration that I have for all that is sacred. Accordingly, after several years — Which I had spent in other parts; I came to bring alms to the poor of my nation — Which I had been collecting for them in the Gentile provinces where I had any interest; and offerings — To God, which I proposed to make by assisting some Nazarites to discharge their vow, according to the law; whereupon — At the very time when I was thus employed; certain Jews from Asia — Who raised the first outcry against me; found me purified in the temple — That is, performing such things as the law required, and in which the legal purification of Nazarites consisted; neither with multitude — Attending me; nor with tumult — Made by me; the multitude being of their own gathering together, and the tumult, if any, being made by themselves. So that there was no colour for the charge brought against him, but evidence sufficient against it. And it was very unreasonable and hard, 1st, To accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when, after long absence from Jerusalem, he came to bring alms to it, money which he had collected among his friends for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem; and, 2d, To accuse him of having profaned the temple, when he brought offerings to the temple, and was found purifying himself therein, according to the law, and that in a very quiet and orderly manner. And as to what was, perhaps, suggested to Felix, that he had brought Greeks into the temple contrary to their law, he challenges them to prove it. Those Jews of Asia, says he, who were the causes of all the tumult, confusion, and violent proceedings, ought to have been here before thee — As being the only proper witnesses of the facts, if there were any which could justify their laying violent hands upon me. These, however, were now absent, probably because they knew they could not make good their charge against him, and were conscious of having injured him by their accusation; and doubtless Felix so understood it. As for the other Jews, they could only testify on the report of others, or give hear-say evidence, which could not be sufficient in any cause or court. Or else let these same here say — Paul is willing to allow the validity of the testimony of the Jews present, about such things as they themselves had been eye or ear witnesses of, namely, of what had passed in the council when Paul was brought before it; if they have found any evil-doing in me — Any crime committed by me, or any thing done or said, for which I merit punishment. Except it be for this one voice — As if he had said, Let them object, if they can, any other fault; that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Which, nevertheless, was the real truth. And, if my affirming it be a fault for which I must suffer, I acknowledge it, and there needs no other proof. But as that was one of the great articles of the national faith, he could not be blamed, either for maintaining it, or for asserting that God had given a proof of it, in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Ver. 17. Now after [an absence of] many years, I came to bring alms to my nation; and like all other sincere worshippers, offerings for the altar. All this demonstrates a fair and religious character. Felix well knew the great poverty of the lower orders of people in Jerusalem. Tertullus, by overcharging Paul, had enhanced the excellence of his character, and drawn it forth in self-defence.

17. Now—Upon the charge of SACRILEGE Paul gives a brief statement of the facts, and challenges the counter proof. (Acts 21:18-29.) Many years—Rather, after some years more, referring to the period of four years since Paul’s last previous visit to Jerusalem. (Acts 18:22.) Alms—This incidental mention of alms is the only allusion to the fact that Paul was all this four years largely engaged in taking collections from his various Churches for the poor Christians at Jerusalem, of which mention is so frequently made in his epistles. (Romans 15:25, 26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4. See note Acts 11:29.) This is one of those undesigned coincidences, showing that both the Acts and Epistles are genuine documents.

Verse 18. Found me purified in the temple] And the Jews of Asia, who stirred up the persecution against me in Jerusalem, found me purified in the temple, regularly performing the religious vow into which I had entered; giving no cause for suspicion; for I made no tumult, nor had I any number of people with me, by whom I could have accomplished any seditious purpose.

Verses 17-21. Now after many years, &c. — They have represented me as a profane and lawless person, as if I had thrown contempt upon religion, and done them a great deal of wrong; but so far have I been from doing any thing to injure the Jews, to whom by birth I belong, or from attempting to profane the temple, as these my enemies falsely pretend, that I have given many public and important proofs of my particular regard for the good of my country, and of the veneration that I have for all that is sacred. Accordingly, after several years — Which I had spent in other parts; I came to bring alms to the poor of my nation — Which I had been collecting for them in the Gentile provinces where I had any interest; and offerings — To God, which I proposed to make by assisting some Nazarites to discharge their vow, according to the law; whereupon — At the very time when I was thus employed; certain Jews from Asia — Who raised the first outcry against me; found me purified in the temple — That is, performing such things as the law required, and in which the legal purification of Nazarites consisted; neither with multitude — Attending me; nor with tumult — Made by me; the multitude being of their own gathering together, and the tumult, if any, being made by themselves. So that there was no colour for the charge brought against him, but evidence sufficient against it. And it was very unreasonable and hard, 1st, To accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when, after long absence from Jerusalem, he came to bring alms to it, money which he had collected among his friends for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem; and, 2d, To accuse him of having profaned the temple, when he brought offerings to the temple, and was found purifying himself therein, according to the law, and that in a very quiet and orderly manner. And as to what was, perhaps, suggested to Felix, that he had brought Greeks into the temple contrary to their law, he challenges them to prove it. Those Jews of Asia, says he, who were the causes of all the tumult, confusion, and violent proceedings, ought to have been here before thee — As being the only proper witnesses of the facts, if there were any which could justify their laying violent hands upon me. These, however, were now absent, probably because they knew they could not make good their charge against him, and were conscious of having injured him by their accusation; and doubtless Felix so understood it. As for the other Jews, they could only testify on the report of others, or give hear-say evidence, which could not be sufficient in any cause or court. Or else let these same here say — Paul is willing to allow the validity of the testimony of the Jews present, about such things as they themselves had been eye or ear witnesses of, namely, of what had passed in the council when Paul was brought before it; if they have found any evil-doing in me — Any crime committed by me, or any thing done or said, for which I merit punishment. Except it be for this one voice — As if he had said, Let them object, if they can, any other fault; that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Which, nevertheless, was the real truth. And, if my affirming it be a fault for which I must suffer, I acknowledge it, and there needs no other proof. But as that was one of the great articles of the national faith, he could not be blamed, either for maintaining it, or for asserting that God had given a proof of it, in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

18. In the temple— Acts 21:26-29.

V. 19. Who ought to have been present before thee-But the world never commit greater blunders, even against its own laws, than when it is persecuting the children of God.

Verses 17-21. Now after many years, &c. — They have represented me as a profane and lawless person, as if I had thrown contempt upon religion, and done them a great deal of wrong; but so far have I been from doing any thing to injure the Jews, to whom by birth I belong, or from attempting to profane the temple, as these my enemies falsely pretend, that I have given many public and important proofs of my particular regard for the good of my country, and of the veneration that I have for all that is sacred. Accordingly, after several years — Which I had spent in other parts; I came to bring alms to the poor of my nation — Which I had been collecting for them in the Gentile provinces where I had any interest; and offerings — To God, which I proposed to make by assisting some Nazarites to discharge their vow, according to the law; whereupon — At the very time when I was thus employed; certain Jews from Asia — Who raised the first outcry against me; found me purified in the temple — That is, performing such things as the law required, and in which the legal purification of Nazarites consisted; neither with multitude — Attending me; nor with tumult — Made by me; the multitude being of their own gathering together, and the tumult, if any, being made by themselves. So that there was no colour for the charge brought against him, but evidence sufficient against it. And it was very unreasonable and hard, 1st, To accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when, after long absence from Jerusalem, he came to bring alms to it, money which he had collected among his friends for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem; and, 2d, To accuse him of having profaned the temple, when he brought offerings to the temple, and was found purifying himself therein, according to the law, and that in a very quiet and orderly manner. And as to what was, perhaps, suggested to Felix, that he had brought Greeks into the temple contrary to their law, he challenges them to prove it. Those Jews of Asia, says he, who were the causes of all the tumult, confusion, and violent proceedings, ought to have been here before thee — As being the only proper witnesses of the facts, if there were any which could justify their laying violent hands upon me. These, however, were now absent, probably because they knew they could not make good their charge against him, and were conscious of having injured him by their accusation; and doubtless Felix so understood it. As for the other Jews, they could only testify on the report of others, or give hear-say evidence, which could not be sufficient in any cause or court. Or else let these same here say — Paul is willing to allow the validity of the testimony of the Jews present, about such things as they themselves had been eye or ear witnesses of, namely, of what had passed in the council when Paul was brought before it; if they have found any evil-doing in me — Any crime committed by me, or any thing done or said, for which I merit punishment. Except it be for this one voice — As if he had said, Let them object, if they can, any other fault; that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Which, nevertheless, was the real truth. And, if my affirming it be a fault for which I must suffer, I acknowledge it, and there needs no other proof. But as that was one of the great articles of the national faith, he could not be blamed, either for maintaining it, or for asserting that God had given a proof of it, in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Verse 20. Any evil doing in me while I stood before the council] The Jews of Asia, the most competent witnesses, though my declared enemies, and they who stirred up the persecution against me, should have been here: why are they kept back? Because they could prove nothing against me. Let these, therefore, who are here, depose, if they have found any evil in me, or proved against me, by my most virulent adversaries, when examined before them in their council at Jerusalem.

Verses 17-21. Now after many years, &c. — They have represented me as a profane and lawless person, as if I had thrown contempt upon religion, and done them a great deal of wrong; but so far have I been from doing any thing to injure the Jews, to whom by birth I belong, or from attempting to profane the temple, as these my enemies falsely pretend, that I have given many public and important proofs of my particular regard for the good of my country, and of the veneration that I have for all that is sacred. Accordingly, after several years — Which I had spent in other parts; I came to bring alms to the poor of my nation — Which I had been collecting for them in the Gentile provinces where I had any interest; and offerings — To God, which I proposed to make by assisting some Nazarites to discharge their vow, according to the law; whereupon — At the very time when I was thus employed; certain Jews from Asia — Who raised the first outcry against me; found me purified in the temple — That is, performing such things as the law required, and in which the legal purification of Nazarites consisted; neither with multitude — Attending me; nor with tumult — Made by me; the multitude being of their own gathering together, and the tumult, if any, being made by themselves. So that there was no colour for the charge brought against him, but evidence sufficient against it. And it was very unreasonable and hard, 1st, To accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when, after long absence from Jerusalem, he came to bring alms to it, money which he had collected among his friends for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem; and, 2d, To accuse him of having profaned the temple, when he brought offerings to the temple, and was found purifying himself therein, according to the law, and that in a very quiet and orderly manner. And as to what was, perhaps, suggested to Felix, that he had brought Greeks into the temple contrary to their law, he challenges them to prove it. Those Jews of Asia, says he, who were the causes of all the tumult, confusion, and violent proceedings, ought to have been here before thee — As being the only proper witnesses of the facts, if there were any which could justify their laying violent hands upon me. These, however, were now absent, probably because they knew they could not make good their charge against him, and were conscious of having injured him by their accusation; and doubtless Felix so understood it. As for the other Jews, they could only testify on the report of others, or give hear-say evidence, which could not be sufficient in any cause or court. Or else let these same here say — Paul is willing to allow the validity of the testimony of the Jews present, about such things as they themselves had been eye or ear witnesses of, namely, of what had passed in the council when Paul was brought before it; if they have found any evil-doing in me — Any crime committed by me, or any thing done or said, for which I merit punishment. Except it be for this one voice — As if he had said, Let them object, if they can, any other fault; that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Which, nevertheless, was the real truth. And, if my affirming it be a fault for which I must suffer, I acknowledge it, and there needs no other proof. But as that was one of the great articles of the national faith, he could not be blamed, either for maintaining it, or for asserting that God had given a proof of it, in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Ver. 20, 21. Let these same say, if they have found any evil doing in me — except it be for this one voice that I cried, and no doubt he had cried with great emphasis, touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. St. Paul said this to anticipate an objection which the sadducees might have made against that vociferation. To anticipate is often equivalent to the disarming of an adversary.

20. These same here—Pointing at Ananias and his elders.

V. 21. Unless they think me blamable for this one word-Which nevertheless was the real truth. Acts 23:6.

Verse 21. Except it be for this one voice] The Sadducees who belong to that council, and who deny the resurrection of the dead, may indeed blame me for professing my faith in this doctrine; but as this is a doctrine credited by the nation in general, and as there can be nothing criminal in such a belief, and there can bring no accusation against me relative to any thing else, this, of course, is the sum of all the charges to which I am called to answer before you this day.

Verses 17-21. Now after many years, &c. — They have represented me as a profane and lawless person, as if I had thrown contempt upon religion, and done them a great deal of wrong; but so far have I been from doing any thing to injure the Jews, to whom by birth I belong, or from attempting to profane the temple, as these my enemies falsely pretend, that I have given many public and important proofs of my particular regard for the good of my country, and of the veneration that I have for all that is sacred. Accordingly, after several years — Which I had spent in other parts; I came to bring alms to the poor of my nation — Which I had been collecting for them in the Gentile provinces where I had any interest; and offerings — To God, which I proposed to make by assisting some Nazarites to discharge their vow, according to the law; whereupon — At the very time when I was thus employed; certain Jews from Asia — Who raised the first outcry against me; found me purified in the temple — That is, performing such things as the law required, and in which the legal purification of Nazarites consisted; neither with multitude — Attending me; nor with tumult — Made by me; the multitude being of their own gathering together, and the tumult, if any, being made by themselves. So that there was no colour for the charge brought against him, but evidence sufficient against it. And it was very unreasonable and hard, 1st, To accuse him as an enemy to their nation, when, after long absence from Jerusalem, he came to bring alms to it, money which he had collected among his friends for the relief of the poor at Jerusalem; and, 2d, To accuse him of having profaned the temple, when he brought offerings to the temple, and was found purifying himself therein, according to the law, and that in a very quiet and orderly manner. And as to what was, perhaps, suggested to Felix, that he had brought Greeks into the temple contrary to their law, he challenges them to prove it. Those Jews of Asia, says he, who were the causes of all the tumult, confusion, and violent proceedings, ought to have been here before thee — As being the only proper witnesses of the facts, if there were any which could justify their laying violent hands upon me. These, however, were now absent, probably because they knew they could not make good their charge against him, and were conscious of having injured him by their accusation; and doubtless Felix so understood it. As for the other Jews, they could only testify on the report of others, or give hear-say evidence, which could not be sufficient in any cause or court. Or else let these same here say — Paul is willing to allow the validity of the testimony of the Jews present, about such things as they themselves had been eye or ear witnesses of, namely, of what had passed in the council when Paul was brought before it; if they have found any evil-doing in me — Any crime committed by me, or any thing done or said, for which I merit punishment. Except it be for this one voice — As if he had said, Let them object, if they can, any other fault; that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Which, nevertheless, was the real truth. And, if my affirming it be a fault for which I must suffer, I acknowledge it, and there needs no other proof. But as that was one of the great articles of the national faith, he could not be blamed, either for maintaining it, or for asserting that God had given a proof of it, in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Ver. 20, 21. Let these same say, if they have found any evil doing in me — except it be for this one voice that I cried, and no doubt he had cried with great emphasis, touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. St. Paul said this to anticipate an objection which the sadducees might have made against that vociferation. To anticipate is often equivalent to the disarming of an adversary.

21. This one voice—Voice, exclamation. This sentence was uttered, we suppose, with a smile and a slight tone of irony that reminded the Sanhedrists of their own disorderly conduct in their last encounter with Paul, (Acts 23:6-10.) If that exclamation was sacrilege they may make the most of it; but what of their breaking up in an uproar?

2. Felix’s Last Dealings with Paul, 22-27.

V. 22. After I have been more accurately informed-Which he afterward was; and he doubtless (as well as Festus and Agrippa) transmitted a full account of these things to Rome.

Verse 22. And when Felix heard these things] There is considerable difficulty in this verse. Translators greatly vary concerning the sense; and the MSS. themselves read variously. Mr. Wakefield’s translation appears to be as proper as most: Now Felix, upon hearing these things, put them off by saying, When Lysias the captain is come down, after I have gained a more exact knowledge of this doctrine, I will inquire fully into your business.

Calmet’s translation is nearly to the same sense:-

Felix, having heard these things, put them off to another time, saying, When I shall have acquired a more accurate knowledge of this sect, and when the tribune Lysias shall have come from Jerusalem, I will judge of your business.

And this mode of interpretation is rendered the more likely from the circumstance, that, previously to the coming down of Lysias, Felix had sent for Paul, concerning the faith of Christ; and this he appears to have done, that he might be the better qualified to judge of the business, when it should come again before him. See Clarke on “Acts 24:20”.

Verses 22, 23. When Felix heard these things — Namely, the orator’s accusation and the prisoner’s defence; having more perfect knowledge of that way — Akribesteron eidwv ta peri thv odou, having known more perfectly the things concerning the way, namely, the way of worship, mentioned by Paul, (verse 14,) or a more perfect knowledge of Jesus and his disciples than had been given him by the high-priest, the elders, and their orator; and knowing it not to be so mischievous a thing as these accusers suggested; he deferred them — This seems to be that interpretation of the clause which best accords with the original. Beza, Grotius, and many others, however, take the meaning of the clause to be, that Felix “would take an opportunity of being more particularly informed of this sect, and of its aspect on the public tranquillity; and that when Lysias should come down and give him an account of what he had observed concerning it, as well as of the circumstances attending Paul’s apprehension, &c., he would determine the affair.” “But it seems to me evident,” says Dr. Whitby, “that the original words cannot admit of this explication, namely, that Felix deferred them that he might have a more exact knowledge of Christianity; but that, having his residence at Cesarea, where Cornelius the centurion and his friends were converted, where Philip the evangelist dwelt, and where there were many disciples, (Acts 21:8, 16,) he had thus become acquainted with the way of Christianity.” But though Felix did not find any crime proved against Paul, yet he did not acquit him, because he was afraid of displeasing the Jews. Being, however, fully convinced (as it is evident he was) of his innocence, he ordered that he should not be confined too closely; but that his acquaintance should be allowed to visit him, or minister unto him; a liberty which we may be sure the brethren of Cesarea made good use of during his long imprisonment in that city.

Ver. 22. When Felix heard these things, he prudently deferred the matter. He wished to enquire whether the existence of the sect of the Nazarenes was a violation of the jewish law, and by consequence, whether it infringed on any grant of the Romans to allow them the full enjoyment of their religious rites; but especially whether the allegations were true, that Paul had excited tumult. The Romans mostly treated state prisoners with fairness and honour.

22. More… way—Felix had a more perfect knowledge of Christianity than would permit him to condemn Paul upon these charges. (Note verse 10.) Deferred them—This court stands adjourned for want of evidence to convict and of a bribe to acquit. Lysias… shall come—The high priest departs, and no Lysias comes.

V. 23. He commanded the centurion to let him have liberty-To be only a prisoner at large. Hereby the Gospel was spread more and more; not to the satisfaction of the Jews. But they could not hinder it.

Verse 23. He commanded a centurion to keep Paul] He gave him into the custody of a captain, by whom he was most likely to be well used: and to let him have liberty; he freed him from the chains with which he was bound to the soldiers, his keepers. See Clarke on “Acts 21:33”. And that he should forbid none of his acquaintance, twn idiwn, of his own people, his fellow apostles, and the Christians in general, to minister or come unto him; to furnish him with any of the conveniences and comforts of life, and visit him as often as they pleased. This was an ample proof that Felix found no evil in him; and he would certainly have dismissed him but for two reasons: 1. He wanted to please the Jews, who, he knew, could depose grievous things against his administration. 2. He hoped to get money from the apostle, or his friends, as the purchase of his liberty.

Verses 22, 23. When Felix heard these things — Namely, the orator’s accusation and the prisoner’s defence; having more perfect knowledge of that way — Akribesteron eidwv ta peri thv odou, having known more perfectly the things concerning the way, namely, the way of worship, mentioned by Paul, (verse 14,) or a more perfect knowledge of Jesus and his disciples than had been given him by the high-priest, the elders, and their orator; and knowing it not to be so mischievous a thing as these accusers suggested; he deferred them — This seems to be that interpretation of the clause which best accords with the original. Beza, Grotius, and many others, however, take the meaning of the clause to be, that Felix “would take an opportunity of being more particularly informed of this sect, and of its aspect on the public tranquillity; and that when Lysias should come down and give him an account of what he had observed concerning it, as well as of the circumstances attending Paul’s apprehension, &c., he would determine the affair.” “But it seems to me evident,” says Dr. Whitby, “that the original words cannot admit of this explication, namely, that Felix deferred them that he might have a more exact knowledge of Christianity; but that, having his residence at Cesarea, where Cornelius the centurion and his friends were converted, where Philip the evangelist dwelt, and where there were many disciples, (Acts 21:8, 16,) he had thus become acquainted with the way of Christianity.” But though Felix did not find any crime proved against Paul, yet he did not acquit him, because he was afraid of displeasing the Jews. Being, however, fully convinced (as it is evident he was) of his innocence, he ordered that he should not be confined too closely; but that his acquaintance should be allowed to visit him, or minister unto him; a liberty which we may be sure the brethren of Cesarea made good use of during his long imprisonment in that city.

23. Keep Paul—(Note Acts 23:25.)

V. 24. And after Paul had been kept some days in this gentle confinement at Cesarea, Felix, who had been absent for a short time, coming thither again, with Drusilla, his wife-The daughter of Herod Agrippa, one of the finest women of that age. Felix persuaded her to forsake her husband, Azizus, king of Emessa, and to be married to himself, though a heathen. She was afterward, with a son she had by Felix, consumed in an eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

Concerning the faith in Christ-That is, the doctrine of Christ.

Verse 24. His wife Drusilla] We have already seen that Felix was thrice married: two of his wives were named Drusilla; one was a Roman, the niece or grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra, mentioned by Tacitus, lib. v. cap. 9. The other, the person in the text, was a Jewess, daughter to Herod Agrippa the Great. See Acts 12:1, &c. When she was but six years of age, she was affianced to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Comagene, who had promised to embrace Judaism on her account; but, as he did not keep his word, her brother Agrippa (mentioned Acts 25:13) refused to ratify the marriage. About the year of our Lord 53, he married her to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, who received her on condition of being circumcised. Felix having seen her, fell desperately in love with her, and by means of a pretended Jewish magician, a native of Cyprus, persuaded her to leave her husband; on which Felix took her to wife. She appears, on the whole, to have been a person of indifferent character; though one of the finest women of that age. It is said that she, and a son she had by Felix, were consumed in an eruption of Mount Vesuvius. See Josephus, Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 7, and see Calmet and Rosenmuller. Heard him concerning the faith in Christ.] For the purpose mentioned in Clarke’s note on “Acts 24:21”, that he might be the more accurately instructed in the doctrines, views, &c., of the Christians.

Verses 24, 25. After certain days — After Paul had been kept a few days in this gentle confinement at Cesarea, Felix, who had been absent a short time, came thither again; with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess — We learn from Josephus, that she was the daughter of Herod Agrippa, and the sister of that Agrippa who is mentioned Acts 25:13. She had been married to Azizus, king of Emessa; but Felix, struck with her great beauty, by means of a wicked Jew, named Simon, who professed himself a magician, persuaded her to abandon her husband and marry him; which she did, though Azizus had but a little before submitted to circumcision, and so embraced Judaism, as the condition required in order to his marrying her. It appears from Josephus, (Antiq, lib. 20. cap. 7,) that she was afterward, with a son she had by Felix, consumed in a terrible eruption of mount Vesuvius. He sent for Paul, &c. — Doubtless, Paul’s trial had occasioned much discourse in Cesarea, and this, it seems, had excited a desire in Drusilla to see and hear that extraordinary man; and, to gratify her curiosity as well as his own, and to learn from Paul’s own mouth what were the principles of his religion, Felix sent for him; and heard him concerning the faith in Christ — That is, heard him declare what the Christians believed concerning Jesus; namely, that he was the Christ, or Messiah, long expected by the Jews; and that he was proved to be the Christ, by God’s raising him from the dead. Moreover, being well acquainted with the character and actions of his illustrious hearers, the apostle introduced other articles of the Christian religion, well suited to their particular case; he reasoned of righteousness — That is, chiefly of justice and mercy toward men; virtues peculiarly necessary in a ruler; of temperance — Of sobriety, continence, chastity, against which Felix and his lady had greatly trespassed in their marriage; and of a judgment to come — At which the highest personages should appear, and stand upon equal terms with others, before that righteous tribunal; and at which the great and small should answer to God for their actions; the only effectual way this of preaching Christ to an unjust and lewd judge, such as Felix was. For of him the Roman historian, Tacitus, relates, “Per omnem sævitiam et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit,” he practised all cruelty and lust in his government; and from what is said above, it appears that Drusilla, though a Jewess, was not less wicked, transgressing, as Josephus observes, ta patria nomima, the laws of her country, namely, in marrying a heathen; and the laws of God, in forsaking her own husband and living in adultery with Felix. To persons so unjust, lewd, and otherwise wicked, Paul very properly discoursed on the virtues here mentioned, against which they had both so highly offended; for he knew that it would be to little purpose to address them on other subjects of Christianity, such as those of redemption and salvation through Christ, till they forsook these sins. And it was with equal propriety that he discoursed of a judgment to come, where Felix could not hope to escape unpunished, as here he did. And it is no wonder that Felix trembled, or was terrified, as emfobov genomenov signifies. How happy would it have been for him had he yielded to the convictions now produced in his conscience, and been careful to pursue the views opening upon his mind! But, like thousands, he deferred the consideration of these things to a more convenient season; a season which, alas! never came. For though he heard again, he trembled and was terrified no more. Nor did he forsake his bad practices, but continued in them as long as his government lasted. In the mean time, we do not find that Drusilla, though a Jewess, was thus alarmed. She had been used to hear of a future judgment; perhaps, too, she trusted to being a daughter of Abraham, or to the expiations of the law, and so was proof against the convictions which seized on her husband, though a heathen. Let this teach us to guard against all such false dependances as tend to elude those convictions that might otherwise be produced in us by the faithful preaching of the word of God. Let us stop our ears against those messengers of Satan, who appear as angels of light, who would teach us to reconcile the hope of salvation with a corrupt heart or an unholy life. Go thy way for this time — O how will every damned soul one day lament his having neglected such a time as this! When I have a convenient season — Or, I will take some future opportunity, as Dr. Doddridge renders kairon metalabwn; to call for thee. “He thought it did not become the dignity of a judge on the bench to receive even such oblique admonitions and reproofs from a prisoner, and therefore might really intend to give him a fuller audience in private. Paul must, no doubt, discern those marks of confusion that would be so apparent in his countenance, which would give him some hopes of succeeding in this important attempt for such a conversion, and, consequently, would give him spirit when he resumed the discourse. This must naturally increase in Felix a conviction of his innocence, and esteem for his virtues; yet, in spite of all, he was so far from reforming his life in general, that he would not do justice to Paul; however, the conviction might perhaps prevail so far, as to engage him to persist in his resolution of not delivering him to the Jews. How affecting an instance and illustration of the treachery of the human heart!”

Ver. 24. After certain days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a jewess. Felix, a Roman, was viceroy, or king of the jews. He had formerly been a slave, but was freed, and advanced to the regal dignity by Claudius the emperor. Tacitus, lib. 1:5, calls him eques Romanus, a Roman knight, or one of the three orders in Rome, betwixt the senators and the common people, to whom Claudius had entrusted the province; and adds, that, per omnem sævitiam, et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit. “He exercised the imperial functions with a mercenary soul, and practised all manner of injustice and cruelty.” St. Luke confirms this account by adding, “he hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him:” ver. 26. Josephus records an instance of his voluptuousness in his marriage with Drusilla, a princess of great personal beauty. She was the third daughter of Herod Agrippa, and sister of the younger Agrippa, who afterwards sat on Paul’s case for a third hearing, the fame of his character, learning, and eloquence having spread through the Roman courts of Asia. Drusilla had been betrothed in early life to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Comagena; but the marriage never took place, in consequence of Epiphanes having refused to fulfil the stipulated condition of embracing the jewish religion. She was afterwards married to Azizus, king of Emesenes, who to obtain her hand, submitted to circumcision. Felix having seen her, became so enamoured of her beauty, that he employed Simon, a magician of Cyprus, to seduce her from her husband, and afterwards married her. Josephus, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 7. Suetonius informs us that Felix was three times married; and it would appear that two of his wives were named Drusilla. Drusilla Antonii et Cleopatræ nepte in matrimonium accepta. “He took in marriage Drusilla, the niece, or granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra.” Tacit. lib. 5. cap. 9.

24. Drusilla—Felix, the once Greek slave, was eminently successful in matrimonies, being called by Suetonius maritus reginarum trium, the husband of three queens, or kings’ daughters. The present Drusilla was great granddaughter of the first Herod, whose court was disturbed by the birth of Jesus, granddaughter of the Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist, and who met Jesus before the crucifixion. With the hope of the Jews of a future Messiah, with the claims of Jesus to that title, and something of the rise of Christianity, she must have been acquainted. When, therefore, she learned that Paul, the noted “ringleader” of the sect of “Nazarenes,” (as Tertullus called him,) was in the palace of Felix, she entertained much the same curiosity to see him that her grandfather Antipas did to see Jesus.

V. 25. And as he reasoned of justice, temperance, and judgment to come-This was the only effectual way of preaching Christ to an unjust, lewd judge.

Felix being terrified-How happily might this conviction have ended, had he been careful to pursue the views which were then opening upon his mind! But, like thousands, he deferred the consideration of these things to a more convenient season. A season which, alas! never came. For though he heard again, he was terrified no more.

In the meantime we do not find Drusilla, though a Jewess, was thus alarmed. She had been used to hear of a future judgment: perhaps too she trusted to the being a daughter of Abraham, or to the expiation of the law, and so was proof against the convictions which seized on her husband, though a heathen. Let this teach us to guard against all such false dependencies as tend to elude those convictions that might otherwise be produced in us by the faithful preaching of the word of God. Let us stop our ears against those messengers of Satan, who appear as angels of light; who would teach us to reconcile the hope of salvation with a corrupt heart or an unholy life.

Go thy way for this time-O how will every damned soul one day lament his having neglected such a time as this!

Verse 25. As he reasoned of righteousness] dikaiosunhv; The principles and requisitions of justice and right, between God and man; and between man and his fellows, in all relations and connections of life. Temperance] egkrateiav, Chastity; self-government or moderation with regard to a man’s appetites, passions, and propensities of all kinds. And judgment to come] krimatov tou mellontov; The day of retribution, in which the unjust, intemperate, and incontinent, must give account of all the deeds done in the body. This discourse of St. Paul was most solemnly and pointedly adapted to the state of the person to whom it was addressed. Felix was tyrannous and oppressive in his government; lived under the power of avarice and unbridled appetites; and his incontinence, intemperance, and injustice, appear fully in depriving the king of Emesa of his wife, and in his conduct towards St. Paul, and the motives by which that conduct was regulated. And as to Drusilla, who had forsaken the husband of her youth, and forgotten the covenant of her God, and become the willing companion of this bad man, she was worthy of the strongest reprehension; and Paul’s reasoning on righteousness, temperance, and judgment, was not less applicable to her than to her unprincipled paramour.

Felix trembled] “The reason of Felix’s fear,” says Bp. Pearce, “seems to have been, lest Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and knew that what she had done was against the law of Moses, might be influenced by Paul’s discourse, and Felix’s happiness with her disturbed. What is said of Felix, Acts 24:26, seems to show that he had no remorse of conscience for what he had done.” On the head of Drusilla’s scruples, he had little to fear; the king of Emesa, her husband, had been dead about three years before this; and as to Jewish scruples, she could be little affected by them: she had already acted in opposition to the Jewish law, and she is said to have turned heathen for the sake of Felix. We may therefore hope that Felix felt regret for the iniquities of his life; and that his conscience was neither so scared nor so hardened, as not to receive and retain some gracious impressions from such a discourse, delivered by the authority, and accompanied with the influence, of the Spirit of God. His frequently sending for the apostle, to speak with him in private, is a proof that he wished to receive farther instructions in a matter in which he was so deeply interested; though he certainly was not without motives of a baser kind; for he hoped to get money for the liberation of the apostle. Go thy way for this time] His conscience had received as much terror and alarm as it was capable of bearing; and probably he wished to hide, by privacy, the confusion and dismay which, by this time, were fully evident in his countenance.

Verses 24, 25. After certain days — After Paul had been kept a few days in this gentle confinement at Cesarea, Felix, who had been absent a short time, came thither again; with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess — We learn from Josephus, that she was the daughter of Herod Agrippa, and the sister of that Agrippa who is mentioned Acts 25:13. She had been married to Azizus, king of Emessa; but Felix, struck with her great beauty, by means of a wicked Jew, named Simon, who professed himself a magician, persuaded her to abandon her husband and marry him; which she did, though Azizus had but a little before submitted to circumcision, and so embraced Judaism, as the condition required in order to his marrying her. It appears from Josephus, (Antiq, lib. 20. cap. 7,) that she was afterward, with a son she had by Felix, consumed in a terrible eruption of mount Vesuvius. He sent for Paul, &c. — Doubtless, Paul’s trial had occasioned much discourse in Cesarea, and this, it seems, had excited a desire in Drusilla to see and hear that extraordinary man; and, to gratify her curiosity as well as his own, and to learn from Paul’s own mouth what were the principles of his religion, Felix sent for him; and heard him concerning the faith in Christ — That is, heard him declare what the Christians believed concerning Jesus; namely, that he was the Christ, or Messiah, long expected by the Jews; and that he was proved to be the Christ, by God’s raising him from the dead. Moreover, being well acquainted with the character and actions of his illustrious hearers, the apostle introduced other articles of the Christian religion, well suited to their particular case; he reasoned of righteousness — That is, chiefly of justice and mercy toward men; virtues peculiarly necessary in a ruler; of temperance — Of sobriety, continence, chastity, against which Felix and his lady had greatly trespassed in their marriage; and of a judgment to come — At which the highest personages should appear, and stand upon equal terms with others, before that righteous tribunal; and at which the great and small should answer to God for their actions; the only effectual way this of preaching Christ to an unjust and lewd judge, such as Felix was. For of him the Roman historian, Tacitus, relates, “Per omnem sævitiam et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit,” he practised all cruelty and lust in his government; and from what is said above, it appears that Drusilla, though a Jewess, was not less wicked, transgressing, as Josephus observes, ta patria nomima, the laws of her country, namely, in marrying a heathen; and the laws of God, in forsaking her own husband and living in adultery with Felix. To persons so unjust, lewd, and otherwise wicked, Paul very properly discoursed on the virtues here mentioned, against which they had both so highly offended; for he knew that it would be to little purpose to address them on other subjects of Christianity, such as those of redemption and salvation through Christ, till they forsook these sins. And it was with equal propriety that he discoursed of a judgment to come, where Felix could not hope to escape unpunished, as here he did. And it is no wonder that Felix trembled, or was terrified, as emfobov genomenov signifies. How happy would it have been for him had he yielded to the convictions now produced in his conscience, and been careful to pursue the views opening upon his mind! But, like thousands, he deferred the consideration of these things to a more convenient season; a season which, alas! never came. For though he heard again, he trembled and was terrified no more. Nor did he forsake his bad practices, but continued in them as long as his government lasted. In the mean time, we do not find that Drusilla, though a Jewess, was thus alarmed. She had been used to hear of a future judgment; perhaps, too, she trusted to being a daughter of Abraham, or to the expiations of the law, and so was proof against the convictions which seized on her husband, though a heathen. Let this teach us to guard against all such false dependances as tend to elude those convictions that might otherwise be produced in us by the faithful preaching of the word of God. Let us stop our ears against those messengers of Satan, who appear as angels of light, who would teach us to reconcile the hope of salvation with a corrupt heart or an unholy life. Go thy way for this time — O how will every damned soul one day lament his having neglected such a time as this! When I have a convenient season — Or, I will take some future opportunity, as Dr. Doddridge renders kairon metalabwn; to call for thee. “He thought it did not become the dignity of a judge on the bench to receive even such oblique admonitions and reproofs from a prisoner, and therefore might really intend to give him a fuller audience in private. Paul must, no doubt, discern those marks of confusion that would be so apparent in his countenance, which would give him some hopes of succeeding in this important attempt for such a conversion, and, consequently, would give him spirit when he resumed the discourse. This must naturally increase in Felix a conviction of his innocence, and esteem for his virtues; yet, in spite of all, he was so far from reforming his life in general, that he would not do justice to Paul; however, the conviction might perhaps prevail so far, as to engage him to persist in his resolution of not delivering him to the Jews. How affecting an instance and illustration of the treachery of the human heart!”

Ver. 25. As he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled. See the eloquent reflections below, translated from Saurin.

25. Reasoned—Or rather conversed. Righteousness, temperance— Namely, the righteousness and temperance required under Christ’s kingdom. Righteousness excludes all injustice or dishonesty; temperance (self-control) excludes all irregular or excessive indulgence of any lust or appetite. How the true law of righteousness would destroy him, Tacitus tells us by saying that “he presumed on committing all crimes with impunity.” How the law of self-control would condemn him was illustrated by his adulteress at his side.

Judgment to come—A vivid description of the second advent of this Jesus-Messiah to judge the unrighteous and the sensual, (Matthew 26,) such as Paul could draw, (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10,) completed Felix’s disturbance. Trembled—The Greek word is was fearful, not trembled. It describes an internal alarm, not an external commotion. Go—He probably interrupted Paul, as being unable to bear the terrible picture of his own character and impending doom. A convenient season—Not a more convenient season for repentance. It does not appear that he had any thought of repentance; but, being discomposed by the exciting description of judgment, he says, Leave me; I will call you again when I have occasion.

V. 26. He hoped also-An evil hope: so when he heard his eye was not single. No marvel then that he profited nothing by all St. Paul's discourses: that money would be given-By the Christians for the liberty of so able a minister. And waiting for this, unhappy Felix fell short of the treasure of the Gospel.

Verse 26. He hoped also that money should have been given him] Bp. Pearce asks, “How could St. Luke know this?” To which I answer: From the report of St. Paul, with whom Felix had frequent conferences, and to whom he undoubtedly expressed this wish. We may see, here, the most unprincipled avarice, in Felix, united to injustice. Paul had proved before him his innocence of the charges brought against him by the Jews. They had retired in confusion when he had finished his defence. Had Felix been influenced by the common principles of justice, Paul had been immediately discharged; but he detained him on the hope of a ransom. He saw that Paul was a respectable character; that he had opulent friends; that he was at the head of a very numerous sect, to whom he was deservedly dear; and he took it, therefore, for granted that a considerable sum of money would be given for his enlargement. Felix was a freed man of the Emperor Claudius; consequently, had once been a slave. The stream rises not above its source: the meanness of the slave is still apparent, and it is now insufferable, being added to the authority and influence of the governor. Low-bred men should never be intrusted with the administration of public affairs.

Verses 26, 27. He hoped also — A vain and evil hope! So, when he heard, his eye was not single; no marvel then that he profited nothing by all Paul’s discourses; that money would be given him by Paul — Or by the Christians, for the liberty of so able a minister: and, waiting for this, unhappy Felix fell short of the treasure of the gospel. But after two years — After Paul had been two years a prisoner at Cesarea; Porcius Festus came into Felix’s room — Succeeded him in the government of that province; and Felix — Knowing that he had, by his oppressive administration, furnished the Jews with abundant matter of accusation against him; to show them a pleasure — That is, to ingratiate himself with them, and prevent them from pursuing him with their complaints; left Paul bound — Though he was, in his own conscience, not only persuaded of his innocence, but of the worth of his character. Thus the men of the world, to gratify one another, stretch forth their hands to the things of God! Yet the wisdom of Felix did not profit him, did not satisfy the Jews at all. Their accusations followed him to Rome, and would have utterly ruined him, had not the interest of his brother Pallas prevailed to have obtained his pardon from Nero. “How much more effectually would he have consulted the peace of his own mind, and, on the whole, his temporal interest, if he had reformed his life on Paul’s admonition, and cultivated those serious impressions which were once so strongly made upon his conscience. It was during the two years of Paul’s imprisonment here, that those contentions arose between the Jews and Gentiles, as to their respective rites in Cesarea, which, after many tumults and slaughters of the Jews, were inflamed rather than appeased by the hearing at Rome, and did a great deal toward exasperating the Jewish nation to that war which ended in its utter ruin.” — Doddridge.

26. Money—How little the preaching of righteousness had affected the man is plain from his expecting a bribe from the preacher! To release a prisoner for pay was forbidden by an express Roman law. Knowing, as Felix did, that Paul was “ringleader” of the sect of Nazarenes, and that he had brought moneys to Jerusalem, he easily inferred that the Nazarenes would readily ransom their chief. Oftener—An exquisite meanness for this Roman ruler to send every now and then for his prisoner in the keep of his palace, fawning upon him for an offer of a bribe for liberation!

V. 27. But after two years-After St. Paul had been two years a prisoner, Felix desiring to gratify the Jews, left Paul bound-Thus men of the world, to gratify one another, stretch forth their hands to the things of God! Yet the wisdom of Felix did not profit him, did not satisfy the Jews at all. Their accusations followed him to Rome, and had utterly ruined him, but for the interest which his brother Pallas had with Nero.

Verse 27. After two years] That is, from the time that Paul came prisoner to Cæsarea.

Porcius Festus] This man was put into the government of Judea about A.D. 60, the sixth or seventh year of Nero. In the succeeding chapter we shall see the part that he took in the affairs of St. Paul. Willing to show the Jews a pleasure] As he had not got the money which he expected, he hoped to be able to prevent the complaints of the Jews against his government, by leaving Paul, in some measure, in their hands. For it was customary for governors, &c., when they left, or were removed from a particular district or province, to do some public, beneficent act, in order to make themselves popular. But Felix gained nothing by this: the Jews pursued him with their complaints against his administration, even to the throne of the emperor. Josephus states the matter thus: “Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix, by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Cæsarea went up to Rome, to accuse Felix. And he certainly would have been brought to punishment, had not Nero yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time in the highest reputation with the emperor.”-Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 9. Thus, like the dog in the fable, by snatching at the shadow, he lost the substance. He hoped for money from the apostle, and got none; he sought to conciliate the friendship of the Jews, and miscarried. Honesty is the best policy: he that fears God need fear nothing else. Justice and truth never deceive their possessor.

1. Envy and malice are indefatigable, and torment themselves in order to torment and ruin others. That a high priest, says pious Quesnel, should ever be induced to leave the holy city, and the functions of religion, to become the accuser of an innocent person; this could be no other than the effect of a terrible dereliction, and the punishment of the abuse of sacred things.

2. Tertullus begins his speech with flattery, against which every judge should have a shut ear; and then he proceeds to calumny and detraction. These generally succeed each other. He who flatters you, will in course calumniate you for receiving his flattery. When a man is conscious of the uprightness of his cause, he must know that to attempt to support it by any thing but truth tends directly to debase it.

3. The resurrection of the body was the grand object of the genuine Christian’s hope; but the ancient Christians only hoped for a blessed resurrection on the ground of reconciliation to God through the death of his Son. In vain is our hope of glory, if we have not got a meetness for it. And who is fit for this state of blessedness, but he whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered, and whose heart is purified from deceit and guile!

4. We could applaud the lenity shown to St. Paul by Felix, did not his own conduct render his motives for this lenity very suspicious. “To think no evil, where no evil seems,” is the duty of a Christian; but to refuse to see it, where it most evidently appears, is an imposition on the understanding itself.

5. Justice, temperance, and a future judgment, the subjects of St. Paul’s discourse to Felix and Drusilla, do not concern an iniquitous judge alone; they are subjects which should affect and interest every Christian; subjects which the eye should carefully examine, and which the heart should ever feel. Justice respects our conduct in life, particularly in reference to others: temperance, the state and government of our souls, in reference to God. He who does not exercise himself in these has neither the form nor the power of godliness; and consequently must be overwhelmed with the shower of Divine wrath in the day of God’s appearing, Many of those called Christians, have not less reason to tremble at a display of these truths than this heathen.

ACTS

Verses 26, 27. He hoped also — A vain and evil hope! So, when he heard, his eye was not single; no marvel then that he profited nothing by all Paul’s discourses; that money would be given him by Paul — Or by the Christians, for the liberty of so able a minister: and, waiting for this, unhappy Felix fell short of the treasure of the gospel. But after two years — After Paul had been two years a prisoner at Cesarea; Porcius Festus came into Felix’s room — Succeeded him in the government of that province; and Felix — Knowing that he had, by his oppressive administration, furnished the Jews with abundant matter of accusation against him; to show them a pleasure — That is, to ingratiate himself with them, and prevent them from pursuing him with their complaints; left Paul bound — Though he was, in his own conscience, not only persuaded of his innocence, but of the worth of his character. Thus the men of the world, to gratify one another, stretch forth their hands to the things of God! Yet the wisdom of Felix did not profit him, did not satisfy the Jews at all. Their accusations followed him to Rome, and would have utterly ruined him, had not the interest of his brother Pallas prevailed to have obtained his pardon from Nero. “How much more effectually would he have consulted the peace of his own mind, and, on the whole, his temporal interest, if he had reformed his life on Paul’s admonition, and cultivated those serious impressions which were once so strongly made upon his conscience. It was during the two years of Paul’s imprisonment here, that those contentions arose between the Jews and Gentiles, as to their respective rites in Cesarea, which, after many tumults and slaughters of the Jews, were inflamed rather than appeased by the hearing at Rome, and did a great deal toward exasperating the Jewish nation to that war which ended in its utter ruin.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 27. But after two years — Felix, willing to show the jews a pleasure, left Paul bound. So in all, Paul suffered four years’ imprisonment, besides the long time occupied in a very disastrous voyage. The ship was wrecked, the cargo lost.

27. Two years—Two full years of confinement were thus apparently taken out of the apostle’s mature life. There is no record of action or epistle by him at this time. We cannot suppose that his faithful servitors, Luke, Timothy, and others, left him in neglect. Philip the evangelist, and his prophetic family, and perhaps Cornelius the centurion, were still at Cesarea. Show the Jews a pleasure—As Felix obtained no bribe from Paul, so he determined to make Paul a bribe to the Jews. But he incurred all the meanness of the act without any compensation. The Jews followed him to Rome with charges; but the influence of his brother Pallas at court saved him. Paul bound—The expression intimates that Paul was found by Festus in the prison apartments of his palace at Cesarea, bound with a chain fastened to the wrist of a Roman soldier.