ACTS 24. PAUL BEFORE FELIX To have justice carried out was just as fickle an event in Paul’s day as today. Biased judges are supposed to know the law, but most have an agenda of their own of some kind. Felix certainly did. He wanted Paul to bribe him with money, and he would have gladly let him go. As it was, he kept him illegally incarcerated for two years.
Pursuing personal gain and a personal agenda commonly supersedes what is right and true. It is often carried so far that facts and truth are ignored, and lies and false testimonies are accepted without investigation. When a nefarious plot is laid, those who have premeditated murder will not stop until they have tried, in every way they can, to carry out their intent. How glad we are that “all things” are known by God. Of the 221 times “all things” are mentioned in the Bible, most are positive and assuring.
The journey from Jerusalem was over sixty miles, and the Lord, in His sovereign grace, arranged for His servant Paul to make that first stage of his journey to Rome in safety and comparative comfort. The evil high priest, Ananias, some elders, and a hired lawyer named Tertullus, who was likely Greek or Roman, made the same journey a few days later. Their objective had not changed. They wanted Paul killed in some way because the power of the Gospel and the obvious changes in the lives of believers in Christ showed their hypocrisy and religious falsehood.
The Accusation The scheme they intended to follow in the hearing before Felix was first to accuse Paul of being a pestilent fellow, a troublemaker, who they said was moving Jews all over the empire to being discontent. The challenge of being a “pestilent fellow” was a serious charge. This was a political accusation made in the presence of a Roman officer. Any such conspiracy against the Roman government would have been a capital crime. This was a challenge to Paul’s character and a danger to people's morals.
Tertullus, the lawyer, was well acquainted with Roman law and the Roman way of doing things. A Roman pro-counsel would have expected his opening statement of flattery. Felix had waged a vigorous campaign against robbers and organized assassins and antigovernment movements by tracking such people down and killing them. He was a slave who had first become a Freedman, then a citizen, and then a high government official who dealt with opposition the way a retaliating slave would. Tertullus would have known that fawning over an ex-slave would give him some leverage over the judge.
Tertullus’ second charge was that Paul had promoted sedition. This was a religious accusation laid on him as a “ringleader” of a sect of Jews who would not accept Caesar as a god. If the pro-counsel believed the charge, he might consider it treason against Caesar personally. A religious sect without Roman approval would have been contrary to Roman law. Therefore, Paul was charged with being an enemy of the Roman government.
The third charge of being a ringleader of the Nazarenes was that he was a religious fanatic who had gone crazy by saying and teaching, as a fact, that Jesus, whom the Romans crucified, had risen from the dead. Paul was one of the main promoters of those who believed that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again three days later.
He was also charged with profaning the temple, which meant he had tried to desecrate that which was holy. That action would have been proof of the earlier charges if they were true because profaning the temple violated the law of the Jews. That, in turn, would have created an insurrection in Jerusalem. This charge was that Paul was a heretic who had no respect for the worship of God. He was, in essence, being charged with being an emissary of the devil.
Tertullus probably had a lot more to say, both of flattery of Felix and of trying to describe Paul as a very disagreeable and unsavory person. In the King James Version of the Bible, Tertullus also added that Lysias, the chief captain at Jerusalem, took Paul from the Jews with “great violence.” Other versions of the Bible omit verse seven from the text. However, it belongs to the narrative; otherwise, it would mean Paul would be the one who could tell what happened, not Lysias. Felix answered that himself by saying he would wait for Lysias to come before deciding. As it was, two years passed, and Lysias still was not ordered to come.
When deception and deliberate misrepresentation of a matter has been agreed upon, those involved, even though another person speaks for the group, are as guilty as the spokesperson. Whenever a matter of controversy arises, withhold making any judgment call until the facts are established. “Let every word be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.” Even then, those with a personal agenda and an unscriptural outcome already ingrained in their minds may make a false testimony based on hearsay, their own opinions, or the opinions of others – or even a preconceived outcome that they are determined will happen.
The Defense With deference toward Felix and his position, Paul did not say anything until Felix indicated he could. He did not flatter or fawn over the judge, nor did he try in any way to manipulate the one who sat in the government seat. He did not stretch the truth, but he stated the facts of the whole matter. He did acknowledge that Felix had been a judge in that nation for “many years,” implying that he expected a fair hearing and a fair trial and outcome if the judge assessed the evidence impartially. His innocence was evident in the cheerful manner in which he opened his defense. “The flattering mouth works ruin.” To “flatter with the mouth,” spread a net for the feet. Without saying anything, Paul indicated that Felix understood the case before him very well, knowing why the charges were weak and their injustice.
When a child of God is challenged regarding faith in Christ, the truth of the Bible, and personal belief in God as a real Living Person Christians call “Father,” courtesy, quiet confidence, the logic of faith, and personal experiences are important. An argumentative approach to false accusations or doctrine doesn’t usually result in a positive outcome. To win an argument, and the other person admits to a wrong motive in challenging you, still doesn’t usually produce a congenial or sensible dialogue regarding truth.
Paul answered the charges they made against him point by point. His answers were precise, strict, and strongly logical. He was a man of great ability, as he adroitly spoke the truth without making dramatic pronouncements. He denied the first charge by saying he had only arrived in Jerusalem twelve days before. He had gone there to worship, not cause an insurrection. He didn’t gather a crowd, he did not openly dispute with anyone, nor did he incite Jews in their synagogues or in the city to rise up against Roman rule.
His religion was the same religion as his accusers, taken to its objective and conclusion. They could all likely understand that, in effect, they had stopped short of the purpose of Judaism, but he had taken it to where they should go. He served the God of their fathers, who believed that there would be a resurrection of the dead, whether they were righteous or unrighteous, good or bad – all would be raised from the dead. His confession of faith in the word of God, his sure hope toward God, and the fact of the resurrection enabled him to live with a pure conscience before God and men.
The life and walk of a believer are the testimony that will lend credence to our words. Truth spoken in simplicity from a tender conscience and true heart has the ring of reality about it. Those are the things that effectively silence opposition without an argument. In audible, spiritual, and physical ways, we support our confidence in the truth of the resurrection by the conduct and practice of our lives. Believers live in the view of an eternal future with God. As a result, we can rise above all the chaos and disappointments of life that characterize those who live without God, Christ, and hope in this world.
Masterfully, Paul spoke of his belief and commitment to “The Way,” which is faith in Christ and the true worship of God Himself, not mere forms. He also stated that what he believed and practiced was what the law and the prophets taught. His love for his nation and the Jewish people was one of the purposes of his visit to Jerusalem. The alms and offerings he brought were to be a substantial help to meet the physical needs of his own Jewish people in Jerusalem. That would be in contrast to Ananias, who was noted for being covetous, greedy, and cruel.
The last charge Tertullus made was answered in simple, truthful words that explained what happened. Those accusers before Felix weren’t even there when Jews raised the uproar from Asia. Obviously, the whole challenge against Paul was a setup to bring a death sentence on him from the judge. There was no profaning of the temple and no tumult or uprising of the multitude caused by Paul. The accusers had no witnesses to him saying anything to cause the riot in the first place. The Asian Jews were not at Caesarea to accuse him themselves, and his own testimony regarding his belief in the resurrection was the same as all of the Pharisees. His innocence was demonstrated by simply telling the truth openly, honestly, and suitably and by his stated concern for his people.
The Decision When Felix heard all the charges and responses, he knew Paul was not guilty of the charges laid against him. He knew well what Christianity was, the truths concerning Christ, and the resurrection Christians know to be true. He was not particularly interested in “the way” because of his sinful lifestyle. However, even though he knew the accusations against Paul were all false, he refused to decide until Lysias came. Likely, he thought the Jews would forget about the whole thing after a while if he kept Paul in custody, so for two years, Paul was in prison in Caesarea.
By not deciding on specific matters, we decide on a different kind. We are either deciding it is not important, it is not my responsibility, or if I do nothing, it will go away on its own. There could be several factors that make us put something off. There is no way to avoid decision-making, so making one first instead of the last is wise. “Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No.”
The Private Talk Felix was a cruel, corrupt, and morally wicked man, and he knew it. His first interview with Paul included his wife, Drusilla. Felix and Drusilla would have learned what “faith in Christ” meant during that conversation. Also, the effect of the Gospel on those who believed its message and put their faith in Christ would have convicted them. Whether this private meeting was about curiosity or ridicule is unclear, but the subject matter was plain. There was no doubt Felix got the point because he feared and trembled when confronted with three major problems in his life.
To “reason” with a person is like God reasons with us. “Come now, let us reason, saith the Lord.” That means there are some important things to talk about here that have unavoidable consequences. People need to know what righteousness means and how it affects our lives, conscience, reputations, and one’s own souls. What we do reflects who we are. Self-control was absent in Felix, as in many people today who live licentiously, abandoning normal reticence when they get in with certain people. Then, many will throw all restraint to the wind and go headlong into sin. Judgment for sin is often rejected as a “fear tactic” rather than the real outcome of a life of sin and of satisfying the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
No wonder Felix trembled when he thought about his past, present, and future. To look into the future would have brought great fear to him. One wonders what was said in all the subsequent private meetings, but that wicked man was likely confronted repeatedly with the same truths. His covetous heart was never satisfied. Even though Paul never tried to bribe Felix with money to be released, he kept trying. . Conviction of sin may bring trembling, but that is not conversion. Conscience may condemn a person, but that does not break a stubborn-willed person and bring them to repentance. To refuse to yield one’s will to God and take personal responsibility before God for one’s own sin means there is no repentance. No repentance means no faith in Christ, forgiveness, salvation, and hope for all eternity.
GOD IS IN CONTROL