Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 24

We need to review Luke's aims - not just history or biography - why does Luke linger over these trials, in spite of probably having little source material - unlikely to have accurate records? As we have found, what Luke tells us serves his religious, theological aims. These long drawn out trials serve to unfold slowly to us, the readers, Paul's true identity and beliefs. Paul's conversion and mission to the Gentiles needed to be digested slowly, How does Paul continue Christ's work? How can the Gentile Christians be sure they have received the authentic faith? Luke show in these chapters that Paul is sincere, and faithful to Judaism and its customs., but also a prophetic witness to the resurrection, whose sufferings reflected those of Jesus. Luke focusses us on the real issue: the hope of Israel that is the resurrection of the dead.
Paul and the Messianists are genuine members of Israel because they share with the Pharisees this belief in resurrection. This conviction implies quite a lot: (a) God's revelation goes beyond the written texts to new experiences; (b) authentic Israel is defined not in terms of land, temple, etc, but by faith in the one living God; (c) God's rule comes about by God's actions, not by men's. But the Messianists differ from the Pharisees in their belief that the promise of this resurrection has already taken place in Jesus, who was raised up. Our attention is focussed wholly on Paul - all other characters are left out.
Paul under Roman Law. Two types of judicial process: ordinary, which was rather inflexible, and extraordinary, used here. The judge had more discretion. 5 stages: private accusation (23:35, 24:1); formal tribunal hearing 25:17); judge uses expert legal advice (25:9,12??); hearing evidence; judge assesses evidence. (Acts is important source about legal procedures).
1 It takes Ananias 5 days to retain a lawyer=rhetorician and travel the 60 miles from Jerusalem to Caesaria (2 days for Paul). 1^st C. trial procedure: more importance attached to rhetoric and persuading the judge than arguing points of law.
2 Sheer over the top flattery: Felix's administration notoriously brutal, inefficient and disastrous (Tacitus, Josephus) - no Jew would have been grateful for the way Felix had put down Jewish unrest, which increased during his rule.
3 Is flattery wrong? Can it ever be justified?
4 Brevity was expected of advocates, with a water clock to time them. Not easy to know how to react to false accusations, with powerful forces against you. How do we cope? How avoid giving up? How avoid trying to get even and score points?
5 Paul is accused of being a social undesirable; an agitator stirring up trouble all over the Roman world by causing arguments among Jews, and "leader" of a dangerous heretical sect - ie the Nazoreans, as Christians were known to Jews, and therefore on margin of Judaism. Similar to charges against Jesus (Lk 23:1-2). Described as a ringleader of the Christians. If Felix accepted that Paul is a disturber of the Roman peace, he may crucify him, as he had others.
6 Paul falsely accused of trying to desecrate the Temple. Charges are basically religious in character, but Tertullus tries to present Paul as politically dangerous. Ananias, through Tertullus, claims to have arrested Paul - actually it was Lysias. Had the Jews actually arrested him, Paul would then be subject to the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction, and Lysias' intervention seen as violent interference in Jewish management of their own affairs. The Jews' comment indicates their resentment of Roman rule.
7 Western Text has a verse not in best Greek Ms: "and would have judged him according to our own law, but the cohort commander Lysias came and violently took him out of our hands and ordered his accusers to come before you". Unnecessary invective against Lysias.
8 Asserts that Paul will condemn himself by his own words - refers to what?
9 Jewish leaders confirm accusations (Cf Lk 23:10 &c). But the proceedings are much less unruly than in Jerusalem - Lysias' aim to calm matters has been achieved.
10 Paul is his own lawyer, and also starts by praising the judge and expressing confidence that he will be fair. But says only that Felix has much experience, although the "many years" may refer to the fact that Felix was a joint administrator in Palestine before becoming Governor. Adopts a properly grave tone, showing respect due to proper secular authority. "A Christian is enemy to noone, least of all to the Emperor" (Tertullian). Citizens are bound in conscience to obey legitimate authority (Rom 13:5-7). The responsibility, dignity and importance of state rulers is clear (Gaudium et Spes). Paul may be cheerful either because Felix's long experience makes him aware of Jewish squabbles, or because his Jewish wife would acquaint him with the extent of the Jewish religion - both its boundaries and possibly its expectation of a Messiah.
11 Reminds that only in Jerusalem for 12 days, which is a short time and easily be checked, but the point of this is unclear. However, it narrows the advocate's area of accusations from the missionary journeys to Jerusalem only, while Tertullus had referred to missionary journeys too (v 5). Even more, Paul emphasises that he went to the Temple only to worship, not to preach (so whence the charge of sedition or profanation?). His offering on completion of his Nazirite vow, and the alms to the nation show his loyalty to Judaism.
12 Rejects all charges of arguing - neither in the Temple nor in the other synagogues (interesting light on Jewish practice, cf Acts 6:9) - or instigating a riot. Paul did not go to the Temple to preach, but to worship God (21:26-27).
13 Asserts that charges cannot be proved. It is for them to prove his guilt, not for Paul to prove his innocence. And any way the charges relate to some - but not all - religious issues - no evidence of disturbing the peace.
14 After a series of denials, Paul changes tack and admits something, ie to being a follower of "The Way", a name that Felix recognises, and the real issue in the dispute. But he asserts that as such he believes all that is in the Jewish Law and Scriptures, stressing continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and that the Jews by failing to recognise Jesus, have failed to understand the true religious tradition of Israel. Ie Christianity is not just a sect but is true Judaism. Paul shows considerable self-understanding, justifying himself within Judaism. Therefore - as a follower of the Way - worships God by (i) serving God of ancestors revealed in Scriptures (v 14) and (ii) offering alms to his nation and offerings (v 17). But attributes this to following the Way, and not to his upbringing under Gamaliel. And so denies involvement with a heretical sect.
15 Also states that he believes in the resurrection of the dead, as he hopes they do (Dan 12:2), without referring specifically to Jesus' resurrection (Cf 22:14), maintaining a belief in general resurrection which Jews might also accept. Hence denies that Christianity is a sect: the OT finds its fulfillment in the Gospel, and without the Gospel Judaism is incomplete. Central beliefs of Jewish religion are belief in God and in a future life, and upright conduct in line with one's conscience: all this is also at centre of Christian preaching. Directly links hope in the resurrection with good deeds in this life. Resurrection of the body is for both the just and the unjust, supported by Daniel (12:2), although Pharisaic expectation was only for the just (Josephus: Jewish War 2:163). This definition of Christianity wholly in terms of OT Jewish faith rests on Luke identifying law and promise: for Paul they are opposites: the promise is Christ, the law was added until the promised offspring of Abraham came. (Gal 3:16-29, Rom 4:13-17). The Way is not a narrowing of the ancestral faith - Christianity is not a sectarian distortion but the fully logical conclusion, "the true Israel".
16 Again states his desire to keep his conscience clear. A succinct description of Christianity to outsiders.
17 Gives his reason for going to Jerusalem - to bring alms to his nation - not just famine relief or to the Christian communities in Jerusalem - presumably his collection from the Asian churches. The only reference to this in Acts - why has Luke left it so late? And is it camouflage for his collection for "the saints in Jerusalem"?. Confirms references elsewhere, esp Rom 15:25-28. Puts worship and the poor as priorities - are they for us?
18 He was found by these Jews in the temple without disturbance. Found completing the rite of purification - reaffirming his commitment to ritual holiness centred on the Temple - hardly profaning it! A model worshipper, giving no cause for disturbance (unlike Peter and John, who had enabled a lame beggar to leap around the Temple precinct).
19 Then counter-attacks: Identifies Asian Jews as stirring up trouble - they should be here too - carries great weight in Roman law, which required that the accusers should appear at the Tribunal. The Sanhedrin did not witness the Temple disturbance, nor those "throughout the empire", and cannot legitimately bring the charge.
20 Sentence started in v 18 is not completed - both Paul and Luke need to get to the heart of the matter - the legal principle, and resurrection. The people here are witnesses only to the Sanhedrin hearing, where no crime is alleged, only a dispute. Challenges to say what crime agreed by the Sanhedrin - who did not find him guilty (23:9). Either bring witnesses to the allegation of fomenting a riot, or accept that the only issue is the resurrection.
21 Again states that his only "crime" is to state his belief in the resurrection of the dead. Third defence speech in Jerusalem by Paul. How would we defend being a Christian?
22 Felix, who knows about The Way, adjourns until Lysias can be present - presumably to verify the evidence? Or out of sympathy? Not clear why knowledge of the Way should affect his decision to delay. Given Felix' awareness of The Way, and Lysias' letter, Felix' postponement of a decision may be a tactical concession to the Jews, or for Luke a concession that Paul never regained his freedom. Felix delays with the stated intention of making a decision, although he never does so. We begin to see that Roman law practice is not always perfect: despite Lysias' indication that Paul is innocent (23:29), Felix' "knowledge of the Way", and Paul's demolition of the witnesses, Felix vacillates. Paul's progress to Rome seems unlikely to be quick!
23 Felix fobs off the Jews by saying he will wait for Lysias - but he already has a full statement by Lysias! Paul is kept in prison, but in a light regime, with visitors allowed. Keeps the Jews quiet, hoping for a favourable decision, which keeping open the option of a bribe. This long, lightly restricted time in captivity makes it a possible location where Paul could have written many of his letter, eg Col, Eph, Philem, Phil, 2 Tim.
24 Felix wishes to hear more about faith in Jesus, and comes with his wife - a Jew, his third, daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and stolen from her first husband (Josephus). With a Jewish wife, we assume Felix is well-informed about Jewish matters. So we expect him to see through the accusations. Western text adds that Drusilla "asked to see Paul and hear the word".
25 Perhaps in response to Drusilla's interest, Paul switches from defence to prophet and his teaching about righteousness manifested as self-control, a common teaching by Christians to pagans, and possibly implying sexual morality and coming judgement, worries Felix, who is in an adulterous relationship with Drusilla (Cf Herod and John the Baptist). So Felix dismisses him. He does not want to hear this aspect of following Jesus. Paul does not use these meetings to gain his freedom, but dares to shock and disturb Felix's conscience (Chrysostom) (to "save his soul"?). Felix's conscience is disturbed, but this does not change his lifestyle, and he removes the source of disturbance. What frightens Felix? His own forthcoming judgement? Can we believe without accepting changes in our life-style?
26 Felix is assumed to continue to speak with Paul often, over the next 2 years - Luke says this is because he hoped for a bribe, for which Felix was notorious (Josephus). Appears never to send for Lysias, his supposed reason for delay. Possibly hoping for some of the funds Paul said he had brought to Jerusalem. Is bribery always wrong?
27 Paul suffers 2 years in prison (AD 58-60), a biennium - the maximum length one could be detained in prison without trial, until the end of Felix's procuracy, rather than doing wrong by offering a bribe, which "everyone else does". A useful pawn for Felix to keep the Jewish leaders quiet hoping for a favourable decision. Common for outgoing governor to leave important pending cases to his successor. May also have been to bolster his support in Rome, which was waning (After his deposition Felix was charged by Jews with "injustices to the Jews" - Josephus). The western text, however, attributes his detention to Drusilla. Porcius Festus was procurator of Judea AD 60-62, when he died. Seems to have been a good governor. How might Paul have used his time in Caesarea - was it wasted?