THEMES:
- A Bold Defense: Paul’s defense in Acts 24 is quite simple: 1. My accuser can’t prove that I incited the temple crowd 2. My actual accusers, the eyewitnesses, aren’t even present 3. My accusers really just have a theological difference with me 4. These are my theological beliefs and where I they might differ. The argument to Felix isn’t necessary where Paul’s boldness is best displayed. Rather, it is after Felix has deferred judgement and wanted Paul to come tell him more about his beliefs, where Paul is most bold. Paul knows that Felix is immorally married to Drusilla, as Drusilla had divorced her husband to marry Felix after they committed adultery. This is similar to the situation with John the Baptist and Herod. Herod liked talking with John and feared John as a holy man, but he was immorally married to his brother’s wife, Herodias, who he similarly seduced through adultery. Herodias hated John the Baptist for openly rebuking them and eventually she had him beheaded. Paul would have intimately known this story. And, now he stood before Felix who was in almost the exact same position of power as Herod. Yet, Paul stands there and preaches about righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgement. Paul does not change the gospel and his beliefs to cater to the man who controls his fate, no he tells Felix and Drusilla the truth.
- Do we have this same boldness? Do we have the strength to speak truth to power? Do we have the strength to value truth over popularity, success, or anything else? Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and there is no way around that. Paul understood this and lived his life unashamedly proclaiming that truth to anyone and everyone. May Christ and the Spirit give us strength to speak the truth, and in doing so make disciples.
PEOPLE:
- Felix: “A Roman governor of Judea; originally a slave, but manumitted and promoted by Claudius Caesar, from whom he received the name of Claudius. He is described by the historian Tacitus as cruel, licentious, and base. In Judea he married Drusilla, sister of the younger Agrippa, having enticed her from her second husband Azizus. Paul having been sent by Lysias to Caesarea, then the seat of government, Felix gave him an audience, and was convinced of his innocence. Nevertheless he kept him a prisoner, though with many alleviation's, in hopes that his friends would purchase his liberty by a heavy bribe. Meanwhile his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, desired to hear Paul explain the new religion; and the apostle being summoned before them, discoursed with his usual boldness on justice, chastity, and the final judgment. Felix trembled, but hastily remanded Paul to confinement, and stifled his convictions-a melancholy instance of the power of lust and the danger of delay. Two years after, A. D. 60, he was recalled to Rome; and left Paul in prison, in order to appease the Jews. He was brought to trial, however, for maladministration, found guilty, and barely escaped death through the intercession of his brother Pallas, another royal favorite.”
CULTURE:
Cultural Background
- An Accusation rooted in Flattery: “The Sanhedrin had formally taken over the case against Paul. Their argument was that he was charged with an offence against the sanctity of the Temple and therefore came under their jurisdiction. For the better presentation of their case before Felix, they enlisted the services of Tertullus, a second-rate orator, whose speech for the prosecution began with a fine rhetorical flourish but tailed away in a lame and impotent conclusion. The compliments paid to Felix in verses 2 and 3 refer to the energy with which he had put down nationalist uprisings at the beginning of his governorship.”
- An Indefensible Accusation: “What Tertullus called “the sect of the Nazarenes” (24: 5) Paul called not a sect but “the Way” (24: 14; compare 9: 2; 19: 23). A sect is part of a whole, but the gospel is the way of life (compare John 14: 6). The Way involved no diminution of the ancestral faith of Israel; on the contrary, it fulfilled Israel’s ancestral hope. Paul accepted “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (24: 14) and found the gospel amply attested in those ancient writings (compare Romans 3: 21; 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4). As before the Sanhedrin (23: 6), so now before Felix, he affirmed his belief in the hope of resurrection. He refers several times in his letters to the resurrection of the faithful (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15: 23), but nowhere in them is there any mention of the resurrection of the “unjust” (24: 15). This may be because his letters are all addressed to believers. The resurrection of both categories was held, on the basis of Daniel 12: 2, by most of the Pharisees. In John 5: 28, 29 it is ascribed to the quickening voice of the Son of God. Paul’s resolve to maintain a clear conscience (24: 16) echoes his affirmation before the Sanhedrin (23: 1). Only twelve days had elapsed since Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem (24: 11), and he had given his accusers no ground for their charges against him. He had committed no breach of the peace, no sacrilege against the Temple. The Jews who had charged him with violating its sanctity should have been present in court as witnesses if they had any accusation to press. The fact that they played no part at all in any of Paul’s judicial hearings shows how baseless their charges were. The only action on Paul’s part that led to any trouble was his throwing the apple of discord among the members of the Sanhedrin by his affirmation about resurrection (23: 6-10), and this was scarcely an offence against any law, Jewish or Roman.”
CONTEMPLATING GOD:
Voice of the Past:
- Felix’s wickedness by John Chrysostom: “Observe on all occasions how the governors try to appease the Jews just to avoid how annoying they are, and are often compelled to act contrary to justice, they defer simply not to be annoyed by the jews: for of course it was not from ignorance that he deferred the cause, but knowing it. But Felix and his wife listen to Paul continually (Acts 24:24). This seems to me to show great honor. For Felix would not have brought his wife to be present with him at the hearing, but that he thought great things of him. It seems to me that she also longed to listen to Paul. And observe how Paul immediately discourses not only about faith, nor about remission of sins, but also about practical points of duty. Yet, Felix does not change and he sends Paul away after not receiving payment from him. Observe his hardness of heart: hearing such things, he hoped that he should receive money from Paul! And not only so, but even after conversing with him — for it was towards the end of his government — he left him bound, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, so that he not only coveted money, but also glory. He wanted to be popular. How, O wretch, can you look for money from a man who preaches the contrary? You want money from a man who has none. But that he did not get it, is evident from his leaving him bound; he would have loosed him, had he received it.”
Footnotes:
ATS Bible Dictionary. Felix.
F.F. Bruce. Commentary on the Book of Acts, Chapter 24.
Ibid.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles. Homily 51, paragraph 2.