Chapter 24

1 Paul being accused by Tertullus the orator, 10 answereth for his life and doctrine. 24 He preacheth Christ to the governor and his wife. 26 The governor hopeth for a bribe, but in vain. 27 At last, going out of his office, he leaveth Paul in prison.

1. After five days. That is, after Paul’s arrival at Caesarea (see on v. 11). Five days would be none too long to prepare formal charges and to instruct a professionally competent spokesman to present the case (cf. chs. 21:17, 18, 27; 24:11).

Ananias. See on ch. 23:2. The high priest would not feel kindly toward Paul, who had called him a “whited wall” (ch. 23:3).

Descended. Or, “came down,” that is from Jerusalem, high in the mountains, to the Roman capital at Caesarea, on the seacoast.

The elders. See on ch. 23:14. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “certain elders.” It is unlikely that Ananias, a Sadducee, would have brought many Pharisees from the council at Jerusalem, for Pharisees had championed Paul (see on ch. 23:9).

Orator. Gr. rheµtoµr, “a speaker,” “an orator.” A rheµtoµr was an advocate, a professional pleader. This title is never used in the NT for the “preacher,” or “herald” (Gr. keµrux, 1 Tim. 1:7), of the gospel message, nor for Christ our “advocate” (Gr. parakleµtos, 1 John 2:1; see on Matt. 5:4).

Tertullus. The name is Latin, a diminutive of Tertius, meaning “third.” Compare Secundus, “second” (ch. 20:4). At every provincial court there were men available, versed in Roman ways, to speak for non-Roman provincials. Tertullus may have been a Jew versed in Roman legal procedure, or a Roman familiar with Jewish lore. If he was a Roman, his use of “we,” “us,” and “our” may imply that he was a proselyte to Judaism, or he may have used these pronouns simply to emphasize that he was speaking on behalf of his clients.

Who informed. The Greek is plural, thus including Ananias, the elders, and Tertullus. The entire deputation joined in bringing the charge against Paul. As in ch. 25:2, 15, the Gr. emphanizoµ, “informed,” is used for the laying of a formal charge.

2. Called forth. Probably a reference to Paul’s being summoned from his confinement to appear for the hearing.

Began to accuse. Tertullus’ speech, though opening with inordinate flattery, was a speech of accusation. It was the usual thing to begin speeches such as this with flattery (see Cicero De Oratore ii, 80). Luke’s report of the speech (vs. 2–8) is doubtless a brief summary, in which only the high points of the address are preserved.

Great quietness. Literally, “much peace.” During this twilight period of Jewish history Palestine enjoyed anything but peace. Revolt was simmering under the surface, and in seven or eight years this was to break forth in open rebellion (see Vol. V, pp. 70–73). What peace the land enjoyed was a Roman peace, imposed by force of arms. Felix had repeatedly suppressed political messiahs and broken the back of incipient revolts against Roman authority (see Josephus Antiquities xx. 8. 6, 7; War ii. 13. 2 [253]).

Worthy deeds. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “reforms.” According to Tacitus (Annals xii. 54), Felix enjoyed a handsome income from the bandits of Palestine in return for ignoring their activities. It has been said that when Felix suppressed rapine, it was only in order that he might thereby increase his own wealth. For such maladministration he was recalled during the time of Paul’s imprisonment.

Nation. Gr. ethnos, the common term by which the Jews referred to Gentiles. The NT writers usually call the Jews “people,” Gr. laos (see chs. 10:2; 26:17, 23). When ethnos is used by Jews of their own nation it is usually in the presence of, or with respect to, Gentiles (see Luke 7:5; 23:2).

Providence. Gr. pronoia, “forethought,” “provident care.”

3. Most noble. Gr. kratistos, “noblest,” “most illustrious,” a word also used of Felix by Lysias in his letter (ch. 23:26), and rendered “most excellent.” The word does not denote character, but social position. It is similarly applied by Paul to Festus (ch. 26:25).

4. Be … tedious. Gr. egkoptoµ, “to hinder,” “to detain.” Tertullus credits Felix with being busy at preserving the peace and promoting reforms (see on v. 2), and that he has little time for insignificant matters such as the present problem. He thus implies the desirability of prompt decision in favor of his clients.

Clemency. Gr. epieikeia, “mildness,” “fairness,” “gentleness” (see 2 Cor. 10:1). Here, “considerateness” would be a good translation. Tertullus purposes to blind the eyes of Felix to the facts in the case by saturating the air of the courtroom with flattery.

5. We have found. The statement implies careful investigation resulting in evidence that Paul is the depraved fellow they claim him to be.

Pestilent fellow. Gr. loimos, “pest,” “plague,” literally, “a pestilence.” In 1 Macc. 10:61 loimos is used of criminals.

A mover of sedition. Or, “an agitator,” a grave charge that would, his accusers hoped, place Paul in direct conflict with Roman law. Paul was “pestilent” in the eyes of the Jews, but not of the Romans. However, Felix was known to deal harshly with insurrectionists (see on v. 2), and if Tertullus could convince him of this allegation, Paul’s fate would be settled. Compare the charges brought against our Lord before Pilate (see on Luke 23:2).

Among all the Jews. With thousands of Jews from abroad gathered at Jerusalem for the annual feasts, reports of the turmoil that had accompanied Paul’s labors in such places as Philippi (ch. 16:16–24), Thessalonica (ch. 17:5–9), Corinth (ch. 18:12–17), and Ephesus (chs. 19:8–10, 13 to 20:2) had certainly come to the ears of the leaders. These disturbances could be interpreted as resulting from seditious conduct on Paul’s part, and thus appear to lend substance to the charge brought against him. Tertullus may have cited specific incidents, and made the most of them by putting the worst possible interpretation upon them (cf. ch. 24:18).

World. Gr. oikoumeneµ, here meaning the Roman Empire (see on Luke 2:1).

Ringleader. Gr. proµtostateµs, “one who stands in the front rank,” “a front-rank man,” and thus “a leader.” In Thucydides’ History v. 71 the proµtostateµs at the right wing is responsible for the direction followed in advancing or attacking. Here the word is used metaphorically.

Sect. See on ch. 5:17.

Nazarenes. Applied to Christians here only in the NT, evidently as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. During the 2d and 3d centuries there was a Jewish Christian sect called Nazarenes, but reference here is to Christians simply as such, whether Jew or Gentile (see Vol. V, p. 55). See Matt. 2:23, where the term “Nazarene” is applied to Jesus as a resident of Nazareth. The word has no known connection with the term Nazirite (see on Num. 6:2; Matt. 2:23), nor can it be shown to be related to the Hebrew word nasar, “to observe,” “to watch,” “to keep.”

6. Gone about. Literally, “attempted.” Paul’s enemies now introduce the supposed crime that had led to his arrest (see ch. 21:21, 28).

Profane. Gr. bebeµlooµ, “to profane,” “to desecrate.” It is related to a word meaning “threshold.” The verb thus means “stepping over a threshold.” Paul was charged with taking Gentiles across the boundary in the Temple courtyard beyond which only Jews were permitted (see Vol. V, p. 67), and thus desecrating it. The charge here made against Paul was very serious under Roman as well as under Jewish law. See illustration facing p. 449.

We took. Gr. krateoµ, “to take,” “to seize,” implying the use of force. They pictured Paul as a dangerous criminal taken by main force.

Would have judged. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words and all that follows, down to and including the words “come unto thee” in v. 8. However, this passage recapitulates events, although from Tertullus’ standpoint, that Luke has already recorded as having happened (chs. 21:32 to 23:30). Verses 6–8 portray Tertullus as explaining why it had become necessary to trouble Felix with this case. His clients had intended to deal with Paul themselves; Lysias had interfered.

According to our law. Jewish law did not provide for executing a man for being a “pestilence,” that is, a public nuisance. The laws of the OT are fair, noble, explicit. But the best law, like the best doctrine, can become an instrument of persecution in the hand of willful and intolerant men. However, in a case of Temple profanation Roman law permitted the Jews to execute the violator, even though he was a Roman (see Vol. V, p. 67).

7. The chief captain. See on ch. 22:24.

With great violence. The facts were that the Jews themselves had been guilty of violence. However, they would naturally interpret any interference with their plans as “violence.”

8. Commanding his accusers. Lysias had not so commanded until it had become evident that the Jews were plotting to murder Paul (see on ch. 23:30).

By examining of whom. That is, Paul, as the singular form of the Greek word for “whom” makes clear. The antecedent obviously cannot be Lysias of v. 7, who had already declared himself in favor of releasing Paul (ch. 23:29) and had previously made evident his purpose to protect Paul from harm (see chs. 21:31–40; 22:24; 23:23–31). Instead, the antecedent is the word “man” (Paul) of v. 5, as it is of the “who” and “whom” of v. 6. A careful examination of the pronouns of vs. 6–8 tends to support the conclusion that a portion of these verses was not in the original text of Acts (see on v. 6).

9. Assented. Or, joined in the charge. Tertullus was the Jews’ spokesman, and they confirmed the supposed truth of what he had stated.

10. Then Paul. Paul’s defense is a categorical denial of the charge brought against him (see vs. 12, 13). He makes four points: (1) He had come to Jerusalem to worship, and to bring “alms” and “offerings” (vs. 11, 17). (2) He had made no disturbance (vs. 12, 18). (3) He challenges his accusers to prove their accusations by producing witnesses (vs. 13, 19). (4) He insists that his only offense is obeying God and His law, and believing in the resurrection (vs. 14, 15, 21). The first half of his defense is evidently a general statement (vs. 11–16); and the last half a detailed repetition of the points made in that statement (vs. 16–21). The proceedings were probably conducted in Greek. If Paul had spoken in Latin, Luke would doubtless have noted it, as he did when Paul used Hebrew (ch. 21:40).

Many years a judge. Felix had probably been procurator some six or eight years by this time, longer than most of the procurators of Judea (see Vol. V, p. 70). Besides serving his own term as governor, Felix probably had been for some time joint procurator with Cumanus (Tacitus Annals xii. 54).

Answer. Gr. apologeomai, “to make one’s defense.” Paul “cheerfully” assumes that Felix is worthy of his trust. He knew, also, that Felix understood Jewish ways. But his courage was based on the abiding pledge of divine protection (ch. 23:11).

11. Thou mayest understand. Felix could easily verify this statement. There had not been time to raise an insurrection. Indeed, Paul’s purpose in coming to Jerusalem had been altogether different (see vs. 11, 17), and Felix knew that Jews from all over the world came to Jerusalem to worship and to bring gifts.

Twelve days. By inclusive reckoning, the whole period since Paul reached Jerusalem appears to have been 14 days, which may be enumerated as follows: Day 1, arrival in Jerusalem and reception by the brethren (ch. 21:17); day 2, meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem (vs. 18–25); days 3 to 7 (approximately; cf. AA 406), five of the seven days of purification (vs. 26, 27); day 7 (approximately), attack by the Jews, rescue by Lysias (vs. 27–33); day 8, Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin (chs. 22:30 to 23:11); day 9, the plot to kill Paul made and discovered (vs. 12–22) and Paul’s departure for Caesarea by way of Antipatris (v. 31); day 10, arrival in Caesarea and appearance before Felix (vs. 32, 33); days 10–14, the five days of ch. 24:1. It is probable that Paul did not count the day of his arrival in Jerusalem or the day of his trial before Felix, but refers to the 12 intervening days.

To worship. This was Paul’s primary reason for going to Jerusalem. It was absurd to think that a man would enter the Temple in order to worship his God, and immediately turn around and desecrate it.

12. They neither found me. Here Paul begins a flat denial and thorough refutation of the charges, first in general and then in more detail (see on v. 10). No one could say he had seen Paul doing any of the things of which his enemies were accusing him. Paul’s statements were also capable of proof. There were no witnesses who could prove that Paul had spoken or otherwise conducted himself in an offensive way.

Raising up the people. Literally, “stirring up a crowd.” It was the Jews who had gathered the mob to attack Paul (ch. 21:27, 28).

13. Prove. Gr. paristeµmi, here meaning a formal setting down of evidence point by point. Josephus uses paristeµmi of his array of proof that the Jews had been incited to revolt by Roman misrule (Life 6).

14. Confess. Gr. homologeoµ, “to declare,” “to profess.” Paul did not “confess” in the sense of admitting any aspect of the charge brought against him.

The way. Virtually a technical term for Christianity (see on ch. 9:2).

Heresy. Gr. hairesis, here meaning “sect” (see on ch. 5:17; cf. ch. 24:5).

So worship I. Paul acknowledges that he worships God in “the way” of the “Nazarenes” (v. 5). But there was at this time no law, Roman or Jewish, against being a Nazarene, or Christian. The Jews had not asked for a verdict on the basis that Paul was a Christian.

God of my fathers. Paul insists that he has not departed from the faith of Israel by becoming a Nazarene. He still worships the same God. He denies that he is heterodox.

Believing all things. Not only does Paul still worship the same God, but he still has full faith and confidence in the OT, the Jewish Scriptures. Paul here gives the lie to the contention that the OT is of inferior value for Christians. All who, like Paul, look to Christ for salvation do well to emulate his example of “believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (see on Luke 24:27).

In the law. Literally, “according to the Law” (see on Luke 24:44). As used here in combination with “the prophets,” the “Law” is a technical term for the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. The Law and the Prophets constitute two of the three divisions of the Hebrew OT, and when used, as here, in a general way, the expression is virtually equivalent to “the OT.” The Law pointed out the true way, and the Prophets illustrated and amplified the Law. Paul believes all this. He is not a heretic. Paul implies that the OT—the supreme authority of Judaism—fully validates his belief and practice as a Christian.

15. Hope. See on Rom. 5:4, 5. Without the hope of the resurrection and a future life, both Christianity and Judaism lose their meaning (see 1 Cor. 15:14, 32; Titus 2:13; 1 John 3:3). Hope is one of the great Christian virtues (Ps. 146:5; Zech. 9:12; 1 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:5; Heb. 6:19; 1 Peter 1:3). For those who have no hope and are “without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12), life can at best be but a futile experience.

Allow. Gr. prosdechomai, “to admit,” “to expect.” Apparently Paul speaks of his accusers—the Pharisees among them, at least—present in the courtroom (see ch. 23:6). The Jews, generally, believed in the resurrection (see Isa. 26:20; Dan. 12:2, 13; cf. 2 Macc. 7:9; Enoch 91:10; Psalms of Solomon 3:16 [see Vol. V, pp. 86, 87, 90]).

Of the dead. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words. The Jews were almost unique among the people of that day for the certainty with which they taught the resurrection of the body. The idea of a future life was less distinct in some ways to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Greeks (see ch. 17:32). The Platonists, and even the Roman Stoics, had no clear-cut teaching concerning life after death, and the Cynics and the Epicureans rejected the idea.

Unjust. Paul’s doctrine was not only that the just, or righteous, should be raised (1 Cor. 15:51–54; 1 Thess. 4:16), but also the unrighteous (cf. Dan. 12:2). The resurrection would be separate for each category, even as the rewards were distinct (Rom. 2:5–10). John points out that the two resurrections are separated by 1,000 years of time (Rev. 20:3–10). Paul’s mention of the resurrection of the unjust must have challenged the conscience of Felix (see on Acts 23:24; 24:2).

16. Herein. That is, in view of the faith, hope, and godly service of which he has already spoken (vs. 14, 15).

Exercise. Gr. askeoµ, “to exercise,” “to strive,” “to take pains.” Paul takes his religious beliefs and practices seriously. To him religion is more than a philosophical system; it is a way of life. He strives earnestly to attain success in spiritual matters, which he considers vital to his happiness (see Matt. 7:24–27; Phil. 2:12, 13; 3:7–15).

A conscience. To Paul, conscience, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, was of supreme importance (1 Tim. 1:5; 3:9; Heb. 9:14). Again he claims a clear conscience before God to the present moment (Acts 23:1; cf. Rom. 9:1; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:18).

Void of offence. Gr. aproskopos, literally, “having nothing to strike against.” Throughout life all that Paul had done had been intended as service to God. Even as a persecutor Paul had conscientiously thought he was serving God (Acts 26:9, 10; cf. John 16:2). Thus, his life illustrates the fact that it is hardly less important to have an enlightened conscience than it is to be conscientious. The conscience, no matter how “good” it may already be, must be attentive to the voice of God (Isa. 30:21) and to His Word (Isa. 8:19, 20; 2 Tim. 3:15–17; cf. Matt. 24:21–27).

17. After many years. Paul’s last previous visit to Jerusalem had been about a.d. 52, at the close of his Second Missionary Journey (ch. 18:21, 22). Some six years had intervened (see p. 102).

To bring alms. Paul now specifically explains his purpose in returning to Jerusalem. His coming had been in harmony with his fixed purpose to serve God and his fellow men (see on v. 16). He had not come to do harm to his people, but to benefit them (cf. Acts 11:29, 30; 20:35; Rom. 15:25–27; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–4).

My nation. Though by citizenship a Roman, Paul was still a Jew at heart, and here unhesitatingly identifies himself with his people (cf. ch. 22:3). His purpose, to say nothing of the “alms” and “offerings” themselves, proved that he had had no intention of profaning the Temple or interfering with its services.

18. Whereupon. Literally, “in which things,” that is, apparently, while he was occupied with presenting the “alms” and “offerings.” Perhaps he was not actually transferring the gifts at the precise moment the Jews from Asia noticed him, but was engaged in activities related to this.

Jews from Asia. Probably from Ephesus, the principal city of the Roman province of Asia (see The Journeys of Paul), where Paul had experienced a great deal of trouble, partly because of the Jews (cf. Acts 19:13–16; 21:27; 1 Cor. 15:32).

Found me purified. When apprehended, Paul was engaged in arranging for the sacrifices required, not in raising a tumult (cf. AA 406).

Neither with multitude. Paul’s only companions were the four men with whom he had associated himself to complete his vows (chs. 18:18; 21:23, 24). There was no factual basis for charging that this was a seditious act (ch. 24:5).

19. Who ought. That is, the Jews from Asia (v. 18).

Object. Literally, “to make accusation.” Apparently, their accusation consisted of a clamorous, rabble-rousing appeal to the throng in the Temple courtyard (see ch. 21:27–30). The riot thus occasioned (vs. 30–32) and the wild charges subsequently brought against Paul depended exclusively upon the testimony of those men. But they were apparently not now available, and with no direct witnesses to the only specific charge on which Paul had been arraigned (see on ch. 24:5, 6), the case against him should be dropped.

20. Let these. If the accusers from Asia were not to appear (v. 19), Paul challenges the Jews present to state specific charges of which they had personal knowledge or for which they could present acceptable evidence.

In me. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of this phrase. The statement would then read, “what wrong act they found.”

Before the council. The supreme council of the Jews had been unable to agree on charges against him; in fact, many members of the council had sided with him and thereby precipitated a near riot (ch. 23:1–10). If many of the Jewish leaders thought Paul innocent, and were ready to use force to protect him, what case could Paul’s present accusers make before Felix?

21. Except. Some have read into the statement of v. 21 the idea that what Paul says here constitutes an admission of improper conduct. This is not so. Had there been anything reprehensible in his declaration before the council (ch. 23:6) his accusers would have been sure to make a point of it. Instead, they studiously avoided mentioning the incident, which was actually embarrassing to them. Not only so, a narration of the incident would prove that they themselves were divided as to Paul’s guilt or innocence, and that the real issue was a point of Jewish theology. If Paul related the entire incident, as is likely, he thereby proved that they had no case against him that a Roman court would even consider. For Felix’ reaction see on v. 22.

22. When. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of the words “when” and “heard these things.” However, the context makes evident that this is the sense of the passage. The testimony of Paul (vs. 10–21) made it obvious that his accusers had no case against him, and Felix therefore dismissed court. He wished, however, to hear what more Lysias might have to say about Paul.

More perfect knowledge. Felix had served in Palestine for several years (see on v. 10), and must have learned much concerning both Judaism and Christianity during that time. Also his wife Drusilla, a sister of Herod Agrippa II (see on v. 24), was a Jewess (see on ch. 23:24).

That way. That is, the Christian faith (see on chs. 9:2; 24:14).

He deferred. Without more information Felix could not render an intelligent decision, and therefore continued the case.

I will know. That is, I will find out, or I will determine.

23. A centurion. Literally, “the centurion,” probably one of the two who had escorted Paul from Jerusalem.

To keep. Gr. teµreoµ, “attend to,” “to guard,” “to keep.” The verb does not necessarily imply close detention, but safekeeping. Felix appears well disposed toward Paul, partly because of an awakened conscience (see vs. 14–16, 24, 25) and partly because he hoped for a bribe (v. 26).

Have liberty. That is, privileges a common prisoner would not enjoy (cf. on ch. 23:16, 17). He would be under arrest but not suffering the discomforts of the common jail.

Acquaintance. Gr. idioi, “own [relatives or intimate friends]” (see on John 1:11). These would perhaps include Philip (Acts 21:8) and other Christians living in the vicinity of Caesarea, and possibly Luke, who had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (v. 17).

To minister. Gr. hupeµreteoµ, “to subserve,” literally, “to underrow” (see on ch. 13:5). This would include the kindness of social contact, the comforts of clothing and food, and the conveyance of messages. Perhaps, also, Felix intended to make it easy for Paul to make arrangements with his friends to provide a ransom (see ch. 24:26).

Or come. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words.

24. Certain days. See on ch. 9:19.

Felix came. Perhaps Felix was absent from Caesarea for a time, and upon his return prepared to question Paul further.

Drusilla. The second wife of Felix. She was a daughter of Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne, of the former Jewish royal house, the Hasmonaeans (see Vol. V, p. 40). Herod Agrippa II was therefore her brother, and Berenice her sister. She had left her first husband, King Azizus of Emesa, a proselyte to Judaism, to marry Felix (JosephusAntiquities xx. 7. 1, 2). She was now a woman about 22 years of age. She was six years old when her father put James to death (ch. 12:1, 2), and may have known of that tragic event. Perhaps she knew also of Peter’s escape from prison (vs. 3–19), and certainly of her father’s unhappy death (vs. 21–23). Her complicated marital situations indicate that she did not take Jewish scruples seriously. Perhaps she was curious to see and hear this man whom the Jewish leaders sought to have put to death.

Sent for Paul. Perhaps Felix intended to secure further information, to gratify Drusilla’s curiosity, and to impress Paul with the realization that he was willing to release him—for a price (see v. 26).

Christ. Paul would have urged belief in the Messiah and in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (see on Matt. 1:1), in His death for sinners and His saving grace, in His resurrection, in the certainty of His return, and in the judgment of all men. “Faith in Christ” here denotes the things “most surely believed” (Luke 1:1) concerning Him.

25. He reasoned. Paul’s training, particularly under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, had no doubt developed the natural powers of his mind and his skill in public address. His personal contact with the Lord by vision, near Damascus, and in the Temple in Jerusalem (chs. 9:4–6; 22:17, 18), and the energizing power of the Holy Spirit had provided him with a clear concept of truth that made possible a logical presentation of the vital gospel truths that were so dear to his heart. Years of experience in preaching had made his presentation of the gospel a powerful force to win men to God.

Righteousness. Gr. dikaiosuneµ (see on Rom. 1:17). Here Paul no doubt speaks of a right attitude and right conduct toward both God and one’s fellow men. In this word Luke sums up Paul’s exposition of the great truths of the law and the gospel (see on Micah 6:8; Matt. 22:36–40). Felix’ conscience must have stirred uneasily as he reflected upon his own conduct (see on Acts 24:2). Little wonder that he trembled when Paul spoke and imagined himself standing at the judgment bar of God.

Temperance. Gr. egkrateia, “self-control,” or mastery of the appetites and passions (see on Gal. 5:23). This trait of character is of particular importance in a leader, and Paul doubtless explained to Felix how he might attain to it.

Judgment. Gr. krima, the sentence resulting from judgment (see on John 9:39), here, the final judgment. Felix now sat as a judge; then he would stand as the accused before the bar of God. The rapacity, cruelty, and profligacy of Felix (Tacitus Annals xii. 54; History v. 9) made Paul’s message particularly appropriate. Paul either knew the character of the man to whom he was speaking or was led by the Holy Spirit to stress the very things Felix needed. Paul was not merely an ethical teacher; he did not confine himself to abstract arguments on the beauty and utility of justice and temperance. His words were intensely practical, and constituted Heaven’s invitation to Felix and his wife to turn to the true God.

Trembled. Gr. emphobos, “terrified,” “affrighted.” The word denotes not physical but mental agitation. The Holy Spirit was working on the troubled conscience of the procurator, reproving him “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). Like the devils, Felix believed and trembled (James 2:19)—in spirit. The governor, who was denying Paul justice in the hope of earning a bribe for his release, trembled at the thought of accounting for his deeds before the Judge of the universe.

A convenient season. Felix stilled his conscience by postponing a personal decision. He did not reject the call of the Holy Spirit outright, but, vacillating in the face of a decision for the right, determined to put off the painful business of setting his personal affairs in order. The most “convenient season” for this often unpleasant task is always the present, but for the man of guilty conscience the present is always a most inconvenient and troublesome time.

I will call. Felix called Paul again and again (v. 26), but never came to the point of decision. He never found the “convenient season” of which he spoke.

26. Should have been given. Rather, “would be given.” If Paul was important enough to stir up so much opposition from the Jewish leaders, his freedom, Felix thought, must be worth a substantial bribe. Since Paul had been a bearer of gifts to the Jews of Jerusalem (v. 17), Felix may well have concluded that he had wealthy friends who would purchase his release. Perhaps Felix thought that among the friends he permitted to visit Paul (v. 23) there might be some who would do so.

That he might loose him. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words. However, the context makes clear that this was his intent.

The oftener. Felix continued to talk with Paul both because he still felt restlessness of mind concerning “righteousness, temperance, and judgment” (v. 25) and because he hoped for a bribe—a strange combination of motives indeed He obtained neither the bribe nor peace of mind.

Communed. The Greek implies friendly discussion. The contrast between Paul and Felix is dramatic. As Saul of Tarsus, Paul had sought to please those who were advancing him to a high position in his own nation. But he turned his back on all a young Hebrew could wish for (cf. Phil. 3:8, 10), and allied himself, instead, with a hated sect and experienced the shame and suffering Christians met on every hand. Felix, hoping to advance himself by evil methods among his people, found himself treating the despised Paul with fairness and envying Paul’s bold honesty in his convictions. He must have debated in his heart taking Paul’s teachings seriously, for he seems to have enjoyed—in a sense—talking with a man so able, forthright, and conscientious as Paul.

27. After two years. Literally, “when two years were fulfilled,” or “had elapsed.” This seems to infer two full years’ time, not parts of two years, by inclusive reckoning (see Vol. I, p. 182; Vol. VI, pp. 99, 101, 102).

Porcius Festus. See Vol. V, p. 71. Josephus paints the character of this procurator in kinder colors than he does that of Felix (War xi. 14. 1), but shows him in as much difficulty with sedition and assassins as his predecessor (Antiquities xx. 8. 9, 10).

Came into Felix’ room. Literally, “Felix received a successor,” that is, Felix was succeeded by Festus. The year was about a.d. 60 (see p. 102).

Shew the Jews a pleasure. Literally, “gain favor with the Jews.” Leaving Paul a prisoner, a hostage to fortune, Felix hoped to lighten complaints the Jews pressed against him at Rome. Even in disgrace he played with Paul’s fortunes for his personal benefit.

Bound. That is, in bonds, a strong expression, suggesting that the indulgent treatment Paul at first received as a prisoner (see v. 23) may have terminated at the governor’s orders, prior to his departure. No information is given as to how Paul occupied himself during the two years of detention by Felix.

Ellen G. White comments

1–3AA 419

1–27AA 419–427

5–10AA 420

12–21AA 421

14 1T 43

15 GC 544

16 CT 337; ML 216; TM 120; 2T 327, 585

22–24AA 422

25 AA 423; COL 224; CT 358, 393; FE 434; GC 164; 4T 108

25, 26 AA 426

25, 27 AA 427