(10) Forasmuch as I know . . .—We note at once the difference between St. Paul’s frank manliness and the servile flattery of the advocate. He is content to appeal to the experience of the “many years” (really about six, but this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship, and the words might, therefore, be used without exaggeration) during which he had held office. Such a man was not likely to attach too much weight to the statements of Tertullus and Ananias. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with a divided authority (see Note on Acts 24:2), had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.—The verb for “answer” is connected with our English “apology” in its older sense of “vindication” or “defence.”

Acts

PAUL BEFORE FELIX

Acts 24:10 - Acts 24:25.

Tertellus made three charges against Paul: first, that he incited to rebellion; second, that he was a principal member of a ‘sect’; third {with a ‘moreover,’ as if an afterthought}, that he had profaned the Temple. It was more clever than honest to put the real cause of Jewish hatred last, since it was a trifle in Roman eyes, and to put first the only thing that Felix would think worth notice. A duller man than he might have scented something suspicious in Jewish officials being so anxious to suppress insurrection against Rome, and probably he had his own thoughts about the good faith of the accusers, though he said nothing. Paul takes up the three points in order. Unsupported charges can only be met by emphatic denials.

I. Paul’s speech is the first part of the passage.

Its dignified, courteous beginning contrasts well with the accuser’s dishonest flattery. Paul will not lie, but he will respect authority, and will conciliate when he can do so with truth. Felix had been ‘judge’ for several years, probably about six. What sort of a judge he had been Paul will not say. At any rate he had gained experience which might help him in picking his way through Tertullus’s rhetoric.

The Apostle answers the first charge with a flat denial, with the remark that as the whole affair was less than a fortnight old the truth could easily be ascertained, and that the time was very short for the Jews to have ‘found’ him such a dangerous conspirator, and with the obviously unanswerable demand for proof to back up the charge. In the absence of witnesses there was nothing more to be done about number one of the accusations, and a just judge would have said so and sent Tertullus and his clients about their business.

The second charge Paul both denies and admits. He does belong to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. But that is not a ‘sect’; it is ‘the Way.’ It is not a divergence from the path in which the fathers have walked, trodden only by some self-willed schismatics, but it is the one God-appointed path of life, ‘the old way,’ the only road by which a man can walk nobly and travel to the skies. Paul’s whole doctrine as to the relation of Judaism to Christianity is here in germ and in a form adapted to Felix’s comprehension. This so-called sect {Acts 24:14 takes up Tertullus’s word in Acts 24:5} is the true Judaism, and its members are more truly ‘Jews’ than they who are such ‘outwardly.’ For what has Paul cast away in becoming a Christian? Not the worship of the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, not the law, not the prophets, not the hope of a resurrection.

He does not say that he practises all the things written in the law, but that he ‘believes’ them. Then the law was revelation as well as precept, and was to be embraced by faith before it could be obeyed in practice; it was, as he says elsewhere, a ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.’ Judaism is the bud; Christianity is the bright consummate flower. Paul was not preaching his whole Gospel, but defending himself from a specific charge; namely that, as being a ‘Nazarene,’ he had started off from the main line of Jewish religion. He admits that he is a ‘Nazarene,’ and he assumes correctly that Felix knew something about them, but he denies that he is a sectary, and he assumes that the charge would be more truly made against those who, accusing him, disbelieved in Christ. He hints that they did not believe in either law or prophets, else they would have been Nazarenes too.

The practical results of his faith are stated. ‘Herein’; that is in the faith and hope just spoken of. He will not say that these make him blameless towards God and men, but that such blamelessness is his aim, which he pursues with earnest toil and self-control. A Christianity which does not sovereignly sway life and brace its professor up to the self-denial needful to secure a conscience void of offence is not Paul’s kind of Christianity. If we move in the circle of the great Christian truths we shall gird ourselves to subdue the flesh, and will covet more than aught else the peace of a good conscience. But, like Paul, we shall be slow to say that we have attained, yet not afraid to say that we strive towards, that ideal.

The third charge is met by a plain statement of his real purpose in coming to Jerusalem and frequenting the Temple. ‘Profane the Temple! Why, I came all the way from Greece on purpose to worship at the Feast; and I did not come empty-handed either, for I brought alms for my nation’-the contributions of the Gentiles to Jews-’and I was a worshipper, discharging the ceremonial purifications.’ They called him a ‘Nazarene’; he was in the Temple as a ‘Nazarite.’ Was it likely that, being there on such an errand, he should have profaned it?

He begins a sentence, which would probably have been an indignant one, about the ‘certain Jews from Asia,’ the originators of the whole trouble, but he checks himself with a fine sense of justice. He will say nothing about absent men. And that brings him back to his strong point, already urged, the absence of proof of the charges. Tertullus and company had only hearsay. What had become of the people who said they saw him in the Temple? No doubt they had thought discretion the better part of valour, and were not anxious to face the Roman procedure.

The close of the speech carries the war into the enemy’s quarters, challenging the accusers to tell what they had themselves heard. They could be witnesses as to the scene at the Council, which Tertullus had wisely said nothing about. Pungent sarcasm is in Paul’s closing words, especially if we remember that the high officials, like Ananias the high-priest, were Sadducees. The Pharisees in the Council had acquitted him when they heard his profession of faith in a resurrection. That was his real crime, not treason against Rome or profanation of the Temple. The present accusers might be eager for his condemnation, but half of their own Sanhedrim had acquitted him. ‘And these unworthy Jews, who have cast off the nation’s hope and believe in no resurrection, are accusing me of being an apostate! Who is the sectary-I or they?’

II. There was only one righteous course for Felix, namely, to discharge the prisoner.

But he yielded to the same temptation as had mastered Pilate, and shrank from provoking influential classes by doing the right thing. He was the less excusable, because his long tenure of office had taught him something, at all events, of ‘the Way.’ He had too many crimes to venture on raising enemies in his government; he had too much lingering sense of justice to give up an innocent man. So like all weak men in difficult positions he temporised, and trusted to accident to make the right thing easier for him.

His plea for delay was conveniently indefinite. When was Lysias coming? His letter said nothing about such an intention, and took for granted that all the materials for a decision would be before Felix. Lysias could tell no more. The excuse was transparent, but it served to stave off a decision, and to-morrow would bring some other excuse. Prompt carrying out of all plain duty is the only safety. The indulgence given to Paul, in his light confinement, only showed how clearly Felix knew himself to be doing wrong, but small alleviations do not patch up a great injustice.

III. One reading inserts in Acts 24:24 the statement that Drusilla wished to see Paul, and that Felix summoned him in order to gratify her.

Very probably she, as a Jewess, knew something of ‘the Way,’ and with a love of anything odd and new, which such women cannot do without, she wanted to see this curious man and hear him talk. It might amuse her, and pass an hour, and be something to gossip about.

She and Felix got more than they bargained for. Paul was not now the prisoner, but the preacher; and his topics were not wanting in directness and plainness. He ‘reasoned of righteousness’ to one of the worst of unrighteous governors; of ‘temperance’ to the guilty couple who, in calling themselves husband and wife, were showing themselves given over to sinful passions; and of ‘judgment to come’ to a man who, to quote the Roman historian, ‘thought that he could commit all evil with impunity.’

Paul’s strong hand shook even that obdurate soul, and roused one of the two sleeping consciences. Drusilla may have been too frivolous to be impressed, but Felix had so much good left that he could be conscious of evil. Alas! he had so much evil that he suppressed the good. His ‘convenient season’ was then; it never came again. For though he communed with Paul often, he trembled only once. So he passed into the darkness.

Acts 24:10-13. 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, 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.

24:10-21 Paul gives a just account of himself, which clears him from crime, and likewise shows the true reason of the violence against him. Let us never be driven from any good way by its having an ill name. It is very comfortable, in worshipping God, to look to him as the God of our fathers, and to set up no other rule of faith or practice but the Scriptures. This shows there will be a resurrection to a final judgment. Prophets and their doctrines were to be tried by their fruits. Paul's aim was to have a conscience void of offence. His care and endeavour was to abstain from many things, and to abound in the exercises of religion at all times; both towards God. and towards man. If blamed for being more earnest in the things of God than our neighbours, what is our reply? Do we shrink from the accusation? How many in the world would rather be accused of any weakness, nay, even of wickedness, than of an earnest, fervent feeling of love to the Lord Jesus Christ, and of devotedness to his service! Can such think that He will confess them when he comes in his glory, and before the angels of God? If there is any sight pleasing to the God of our salvation, and a sight at which the angels rejoice, it is, to behold a devoted follower of the Lord, here upon earth, acknowledging that he is guilty, if it be a crime, of loving the Lord who died for him, with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. And that he will not in silence see God's word despised, or hear his name profaned; he will rather risk the ridicule and the hatred of the world, than one frown from that gracious Being whose love is better than life.Had beckoned unto him to speak - Either by a nod or by the hand,

Hast been of many years - Felix and Cumanus had been joint governors of Judea; but after Cumanus had been condemned for his bad administration of affairs, the government fell entirely into the hands of Felix. This was about seven years before Paul was arraigned, and might be called many years, as he had been long enough there to become acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews; and it might also be called long in comparison with the short time which his immediate predecessors had held the office. See Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapters 7 and 7.

A judge - This word is evidently used here in the sense of magistrate, or one appointed to administer the affairs of government. To determine litigated matters was, however, one part of his office. It is remarkable that Paul did not begin his speech, as Tertullus had done, by any flattering address, or by any of the arts of rhetoric. He founded his plea on the justice of his cause, and on the fact that Felix had had so much experience in the affairs of Judea that he was well qualified to understand the merits of the case, and to judge impartially. Paul was well acquainted with his character (see the notes on Acts 24:25), and would not by flattering words declare what was not strictly true.

I do the more cheerfully ... - Since you are so well acquainted with the customs and habits of the Jews, I the more readily submit the case to your disposal. This address indicated great confidence in the justice of his cause, and was the language of a man bold, fearless, and conscious of innocence.

10. thou hast been many years a judge to this nation—He had been in this province for six or seven years, and in Galilee for a longer period. Paul uses no flattery, but simply expresses his satisfaction at having to plead before one whose long official experience of Jewish matters would enable him the better to understand and appreciate what he had to say. Beckoned unto him, by some sign with his hand. Though St. Paul would not flatter Felix with notorious untruths, as Tertullus had done, yet he speaks very respectfully, and mentions his continuance in the government; the rather, because, if he had been so seditious a person as Tertullus would have represented him to have been, Felix could not but have heard of him, and of any mischief that had been done by him.

Then Paul, after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak,.... Tertullus having finished his account, Paul was silent to his charge and calumnies, until the governor beckoned with his hand or head, or made some sign to him to speak for himself; which he might not do, until leave was given him; and then he

answered as follows:

forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation; some say he was in the thirteenth, others in the tenth year of his government; some copies read a "just judge"; but this does not so well agree with the character of Felix; See Gill on Acts 24:27.

I do the more cheerfully answer for myself; since if he had been such a mover of sedition everywhere, he must in this course of years have known or heard something of it; and seeing also he could be no stranger to the temper of the Jews, that they were given to envy, revenge, lying, and perjury, and therefore would not easily believe all they said, or rashly take their part, but rather would pity the apostle, who had fallen into such hands, and do him justice.

{2} Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of {g} many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

(2) Tertullus, by the devil's rhetoric, begins with flattery and finishes with lies: but Paul using heavenly eloquence, and but a simple beginning, casts off from himself the crime of sedition, with which he was being charged, with a simple denial.

(g) Paul pleaded his cause two years before Felix departed out of the province, see Ac 24:27, but he had governed Trachonite, and Batanea, and Galavnite, before Claudius made him governor of Judea; see Josephus in the History of the Jewish War, lib. 2, cap. 11.