The
passage divides into three parts:
(i) Vv. 1-9 Accusation
(ii) Vv. 10-21 Defence
(iii) Vv.
22 -27 Corruption
1. The Accusation (24:1-9)
Claudius
Lysias (see 23:26) the tribune and
commander of the Antonia fortress in Jerusalem had rescued Paul from certain
death, when a Jewish mob almost killed him in the temple area. Not wanting to
deny the Jews their justice, since there were political sensitivities, he told
the Jewish accusers to meet with governor Felix in Caesarea if they wished to make
charges against Paul. And so, the Jews,
commissioned by the Sanhedrin arrived in Caesarea five days after Paul had been
led there by a military escort. Among
them was the high priest Ananias (24:1
cf. 23:2)
and he was accompanied by some Jewish elders and a spokesman named Tertullus. Tertullus
would fulfil the role of prosecutor. His name Tertullus[1] is a Roman
name, and if he were a Roman it would have been a clever ploy on the part of
the Jewish accusers to employ a Roman lawyer, appealing therefore to Roman law,
before a Roman governor Felix.
Tertullus
began with flattery, complimenting Felix for achievements that simply weren’t
true. We saw last time that Felix was actually a very unpopular and brutal governor, and complaints were laid at
highest level against him. His administration
was marked by fierce repression of Jewish dissidents. He was finally recalled
from office when he used heavy-handed methods to stop riots between Jews and
gentiles in Caesarea. But Tertullus said that Felix had brought peace
and reforms to the nation. This
was not true, and so, by means of this
Tertullus, the high-priest
Ananias and the Jewish were telling Felix ( who actually was unpopular in the nation) that they were willing to support him if he would
only take their side against Paul.
The trial follows Roman law:
(i) There is a
pre-trial hearing (they laid their case
before the governor)
(ii) the accuser makes his charge in
the presence of the accused
(iii)
the accused is allowed to speak in his defense
(iv) the judge will give his verdict.
Three charges are brought:
(i)
That Paul was “a plague” (24:5a) who had stirred up riots (civil unrest) among all the Jews throughout the (Roman)
world. Since the Jewish nation was infested with troublemakers who were always
forcing the Romans to intervene and restore order, the Jewish leaders schemed that
this charge would make an impact.
(ii)
That Paul was a religious heretic (24:5b). He called Paul the ringleader
of a sect of the Nazarenes, as if Christians were sectarians (literally
heretics). Now to understand the background. The religion of the Jews was considered by the
Romans religio licita- a permitted or
approved religion. The Romans who were
polytheists[2]
had granted it official toleration. The
Christian faith was born in the context of Judaism and the sacred Scriptures,
but Jewish leaders did not consider it to be a legitimate offshoot of their
religion. By referring to them as "Nazarenes"
they attributed to them a name with derogatory overtones. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth, and it did not have a good reputation (John 1:46). They wanted to
make Felix believe that Christianity was a dangerous, subversive, heretical movement
aiming to overthrow Roman rule.
(iii)
That Paul had desecrated the temple (24:6 cf. 21:28) the charge that Paul had been teaching against the law and that he had brought
Trophimus, a Gentile from Ephesus into
the Court of Israel. The Romans recognized the right of the Jews to protect the
Temple from anything they regarded as defilement.
We know
that they are twisting the truth with flattery and false information. Such is
the world that we live in. People lie habitually without a troubled conscience.
Many are so entrenched in the lie that they think they are telling the truth. When many
people in a society are trapped in lie syndromes we find that
society is becoming less capable of separating truth from falsehood. This
is one reason that so many today are
resistant to the gospel. In his second
letter to Timothy Paul says that in the last days, the lie syndrome will invade our society more and more. Much
of this lying will take the form of self-deception (2 Tim. 3:13).
2. The Defence
(24:10-21)
Under
Roman law, Paul had the privilege of speaking in his own defense. Being given
the nod (24:10), Paul also started by courteously acknowledging Felix role and
place as governor and judge over the nation. Please note that he avoided flattery. Following this Paul says that he would cheerfully defend himself. He replied to the charges one by one.
(i)
In response to the charge that
he was stirring up riots throughout the
(Roman) world, he goes straight to the point and deals with their accusation as
it relates to the incident in Jerusalem.
He pointed out that he had gone to Jerusalem only 12 days ago. Since it was now five days after he
came to Caesarea, he had spent only about a week in the city. He had done
nothing in Jerusalem to cause trouble. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship. He
had not been found disputing with anyone.
(ii)
Paul acknowledges that he
belongs to this sect which is called ‘the Way’- one of the earliest names for
Christianity. But he denied that he belonged to an illegal sect. Rather, he
faithfully followed a legal religion—the true
and ancient religion of the Jews.
He lived in perfect obedience to the moral law that his fathers received from
God. In every way he worships ‘the God of our fathers’ i.e. the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He also insisted that his belief in the resurrection
of the dead was no heresy, for after all the Pharisees, a majority group in
Judaism held to this belief, though the Saducees did not. In this regard he
said that he had a clean conscience before God and man.
(iii)
Thirdly, Paul denies the accusation that he
had profaned the Temple (24:17-21). He came to worship. In
fact, what he had come to do was in keeping with James’s request in 21:23,24 to purify himself according to
the law (having been in gentile
territories) and to bring alms for the nation and to present offerings (24:17). Nothing more than that. It was
in the context of being found in the temple
that some Jews from Ephesus in
Asia saw him and started stirring up a crowd, accusing him falsely. They said that he was teaching
against the law, and that he had brought Trophimus, a gentile into the temple. But if they accused him, where were they now
(24:19)? They ought to be here as
eyewitnesses! The only evidence that his
Jewish adversaries could bring against Paul is his
belief in the resurrection of the dead.
To hold such a belief was hardly a crime. The Pharisees believed this!
So we
see a
great defense by Paul and very skillful, and by now we are getting the
real picture as to why Paul is on trial. The gospel
of Jesus is on trial! Jesus
Christ, his death and resurrection is on trial (24:21). The resurrection of Jesus validates the OT teaching of the resurrection and it
validates everything that Jesus said. The
Roman empire may well have crucified
Jesus , but Paul is asserting, ‘He's alive, not just in the memory of many ,
but He is physically risen from the dead!’ This is the ultimate reason why
Paul is on trial. It was the reason why Jesus was on trial. He repeatedly said
that after the temple of his body was
destroyed he would rise again after three
days
3. Corruption (Acts 24:22-27)
This
section forms almost the most disturbing part of our narrative. Felix was apparently well-informed about
Christianity (24:22). We suspect that he knows that Paul is telling
the truth, but he cannot bring himself to let Paul go, and the reason is plain. Paul has become
a political pawn. Felix knows that his reputation is not great among the Jews.
To let him go would make the Jews even more unhappy with him than they already
were. And so he decides to stall the
judicial process on the pretext that he must wait for Lysias, the tribune from
Jerusalem to give further evidence.
In the
meantime Paul is kept under house arrest.
He's given a surprising amount of liberty. His friends are allowed to visit him
and attend to his needs. But there is the next disturbing development surfacing here bribery and corruption!
We read
that a
few days later, Felix in the company of his Jewish
wife Drusilla[3] summons Paul into his presence. There they
heard Paul speak about faith in Jesus
Christ and about righteousness and self-control, and the coming judgment. Paul
did not hold back. Even though his life
was at the mercy of Felix, he told them that God will hold men accountable for
their unrighteous lives. He spoke about
sin as the opposite of righteousness and self-control, something notably absent in the life of this couple.
It seems as if in the process of Paul’s speaking
Felix was (alarmed) convicted by
the Holy Spirit, and conveniently ordered Paul
to go away for the present (24:25). He however brought Paul to speak with
him often. And then we read in 24:26
that he was hoping that Paul
would give him a bribe.
We see
here the progressive hardening of the heart that refuses to listen to the truth
and to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
As time passed, it is seems as if Felix’s sense of guilt decreased while
his sense of greed and opportunism increased. Felix knew that behind Paul there
was a growing movement of Christians,
and perhaps he was hoping that Paul's people
would raise money for his release.
Bribery
is condemned in Scripture (Ex. 23:8;
Ps. 26:10; Prov. 17:23; Isa. 33:15; Amos 5:12). If the Christian church had purchased Paul's release, it would
have endorsed corrupt practice. Clearly Paul did not play into his hands and
chose to stay a prisoner rather than compromising a biblical
and moral principle. This is an
example and an encouragement for
Christians in such a situation.
And so Paul
waited for 2 years in Caesarea on account of Felix’s stalling of justice and
corrupt nature. Finally, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus (24:27). Felix decided not to release
him (which true justice would have done) but it is said that he wanted to show
the Jews a favour.
This
brings us to the final matter. Why did God allow Paul (history's most
successful evangelist) to be imprisoned for 2 years? The answer is given for us
in the Bible. He must testify in Rome (23:11).
But there is so much more that is happening here.
It is likely that the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke was
written by Luke under Paul's supervision. In prison with considerable freedoms
it is possible that it gave Luke an opportunity to do all the research and
investigation needed for the writing of these two accounts. It is also almost certain that Paul wrote his
letter to the Philippians here.
The same
is true of John Bunyan who spent 12 years in jail. In this time he wrote
Pilgrim's Progress and other significant books, which have reached and
encouraged more people than he ever could have reached through his personal
ministry. Sometimes
God holds us captive for a quiet work of great importance - if not a ministry of
writing, then perhaps a ministry of prayer, or of learning
to become a better imitator of Christ’s character.
[1] diminutive
of Latin tertius, "third"
[2] Roman citizens were allowed to worship
whatever gods they wished as long as they respected the Roman religion by
making sacrifices to the Roman gods and worshipping the Roman emperor as a god.
...
[3] she was
the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, the same Herod who beheaded James in 12:2, and who was killed by God in Acts
12:23
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment