AP

Studies in Acts                                                                                                                  

Bearing Testimony (Acts 24:1-23)

Paul was called to proclaim the gospel not only to slaves and free among Jews and Gentiles, but also to kings and others in high positions (9:15), as we have already seen in Cyprus before Sergius Paulus (13:7-12), and in Ephesus (19:31). Now he would have to testify before the procurators Felix and Festus, before king Agrippa, and even before emperor Nero (24:1-28:31). Those who attended these officials would also have heard the gospel.

The first man to hear him was procurator Felix. He had descended from a Greek slave, probably connected with Antonia, the noble mother of emperor Claudius. After his release, because of the advocacy of his brother Pallas, he became the influential favourite of Claudius, and was appointed as governor of Judea. There he presided over genuine mismanagement. After defeating the contingent associated with the Egyptian (21:38), the countryside was stripped bare by bands of thieves and arsonists. He also taunted the Jews and contributed a lot to the revolt that erupted in AD 66 against Rome, which ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote this about him: “Antonius Felix practised every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of a king with all the instincts of a slave” (Histories V.9).

Before this man and his third wife, Paul would now have to testify to the truth. They and their palace attendants got an opportunity, as miserable sinners, to receive forgiveness of sins and renewal of life through the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Paul was accused before Felix. Once again, such a dramatic scene! Luke reports this courtroom session in the praetorium of Herod in Caesarea.

The Sanhedrin was quick to act. Five days after Claudius Lysias had neutralized the plot against Paul and had referred these Jewish leaders to procurator Felix, they had already arrived at his residence. High priest Ananias, the highest Jewish leader, had appointed himself chairman of the committee. From this we see again how deadly the hatred of the Jewish Council against Paul was. Or: how fiercely they hated Jesus of Nazareth. To get rid of Christ’s ambassador, the leaders undertook a difficult two-day trip. They had engaged a shrewd lawyer (literally, orator), Tertullus, a Hellenistic Jew with a Latin name (perhaps even a non-Jew; his Greek was impeccable). They had called in this legal smooth talker in order by means of a cunning argument to lead Felix to have Paul executed or remanded to the Sanhedrin, which would also have resulted in his death.

The session began with the introduction of the accused. The apostle entered the courtroom with his guards, as though he were a criminal. “We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things” (1 Corinthians 4:13). The accusers were to speak first.

Obsequious salutation

In antiquity, a speaker began his speech with a winsome word addressed to the audience, but Tertullus opened the indictment of the Sanhedrin in a very servile, flattering manner. We know how the Jews generally felt about the Roman occupiers and particularly about Governor Felix. The insurgents and innocent citizens whom he had arrested and crucified were innumerable. He ran such a mismanaged government that emperor Nero called him back to Rome in AD 60. But as though he were addressing a real father of the fatherland, the orator began this way: “Since through you we enjoy much peace [a flat lie, since the country lived in constant turmoil], and since by your foresight [another bold lie, since he had none], most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation, in every way and everywhere we [well, at least the Roman sympathizer Ananias and his gang] accept this with all gratitude [though the people cursed Felix]. I know that you don’t enjoy homage [the precise opposite was the case], and therefore I do not want to detain you any longer with high-sounding words but make an appeal to your kindness [yet one more lie!] that you listen to us for one moment.”

After this fawning salutation, Tertullus came with the indictment, which consisted of three points, each one dangerous for Paul.

Rioter, sectarian, and temple violator

“Your Excellency, we know you to be a man of peace, who protects us with a strong hand against robbers and insurgents. Well then, it has come to our attention that this fellow is a real pest, someone who causes dissension among the Jews the world over, someone whose death would be a blessing. He is one of the prominent leaders of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

How much material did the lawyer use to put Paul in a bad light? For Luke naturally provides us with merely a summary of this entire trial. Unrest had erupted—quite apart from his responsibility —in Damascus (Acts 9:23-25) and in Jerusalem (Acts 9:29). He had been driven out of Antioch (Acts 13:50-51). In Lystra he was stoned (Acts 14:19-20). In Philippi he was flogged and imprisoned (Acts 16:19-23). In Thessalonica he was the centre of a riot among the people (Acts 17:7). In Corinth he was dragged before the proconsul (Acts 18:12). In Ephesus he was the cause of a raucous tumult (Acts 19:21-40). And now after his return, Jerusalem was being turned upside down (Acts 21:27-36). (Most of these events, however, fell outside of Felix’s legal authority.)

“He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him.” Other manuscripts have: “and we would have judged him according to our law. [In reality the mob had almost murdered him on the spot.] But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before you.” According to them, this was how he had prevented the implementation of Jewish jurisprudence. About the “great violence” with which the mob had almost lynched Paul, the lawyer was silent. “By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about these charges of which we accuse him.”

Ananias and the other Jews, who had been listening with satisfaction to this speech of their lawyer, joined him and confirmed the correctness of the complaint. “Indeed, those are the facts, Your Excellency!”

Riot—a mortally dangerous accusation

By itself, the first point of the indictment provided sufficient basis for a sentence of death. The Roman government granted no pardons to people who incited riots (cf. Acts 16:20; 19:40). Our Saviour was crucified based on that false testimony. If Felix were to accept this indictment as true, Paul’s death was sealed.

Christians outside the law

To discern the vicious and cunning quality of the second point of the indictment, we need to keep in view the legal position of the Jewish religion in the Roman empire. The government had placed the Jews in an exceptional position. Their religion was a so-called religio licita, a legally recognized and protected religion. Jewish monotheism was tolerated alongside Roman polytheism. Therefore, this second point of the indictment was also very dangerous for the apostle, and by extension, for all Christians. For if the Jews would have succeeded in persuading the procurator that Paul had, with his teaching, placed himself outside of official Judaism, then they would have achieved another extremely important objective. For then all newly formed Christianity would be branded as religio illicita, an impermissible religion not legally recognized and protected! This is why the shrewd intention was to portray Paul to the procurator as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” He could not possibly treat this man and his followers as a variant of the Jewish religio licita!

Everywhere in the Roman empire, the Jews had followed this tactic. They sought to get the Christians placed outside the protection of the Roman law, and to incite the powerful Roman government against them. What the Sanhedrin could not do, the Romans had to do for them: destroy the “sect of the Nazarenes.” He did not call them ‘Christians.’ In Greek, Christ means ‘the Anointed One,’ so they did not want to acknowledge that the ‘sect’ was named after Christ because they had rejected him as the ‘Anointed One.’

Temple desecration—a capital crime

The third point of the indictment constituted just as much of a mortal danger. Paul was accused of having brought Trophimus of Ephesus into the holy part of the temple (Acts 21:28-29). He would have violated not only Jewish law, but Roman law as well. For the latter permitted the Jews to put to death, without the consent of the Romans, anyone who desecrated the temple. You can understand that the Jews did their very best to present this to Felix as an acceptable outcome. For then he had a basis to sentence Paul to death, or to hand him over again to the Sanhedrin for their adjudication.

Paul’s defence—a testimony before Felix and the Jews (Acts 24:10-23)

In connection with Paul’s argument, we must remember that Felix’s wife Drusilla was a Jewess. Due to both his position and his marriage, Felix was well-acquainted with the Jewish faith, as well as the Christian faith (v. 22). For this reason, he could easily follow the line of Paul’s defence. For Paul’s Jewish accusers this was simply one more in in a long line of testimonies about Messiah Jesus that they got to hear. But now Ananias could not command: Strike him on the mouth!

After Tertullus had finished speaking, the procurator nodded to Paul as a sign that he might now speak. To the false Jewish accusation Paul responded with a pure Christian defence. He didn’t need a lawyer since the Holy Spirit was his advocate (Matthew 10:19-20). He did not seize the opportunity in turn to unload a series of accusations about his accusers, although he certainly had several of them at his disposal. Their supporters had almost lynched him without any form of trial. The command of the high priest to strike him, a Roman citizen, on the mouth, was punishable according to Roman law. The Jews had, with the cooperation of the Sanhedrin, tried to murder him. Although they had called him “a pest,” he followed the example of his Master in not reviling in return (1 Peter 2:23). All this injustice he surrendered to the Lord. With calm dignity, he restricted himself to the three points of the indictment and refuted each of them.

Just like Tertullus, Paul began with a “captatio benevolentiae,” an attempt to win his audience over. But what he said was entirely true, and empty of all flattery and hypocrisy. “I know, Your Excellency,” he said, “that for many years [about seven years] you have been a judge over the Jewish nation and are very familiar with its laws and its various movements. Therefore, I defend my cause in good confidence that you will render an impartial verdict.” Then he went on to refute the first point of the indictment.

A rioter?

Paul was now fighting for his life, for the Romans were fiercely opposed to insurgents and made short shrift with them! “You can verify for yourself that this accusation is untenable. Ask my accusers when they first saw me in the city. For I was in Jerusalem for no more than twelve days. This was far too brief a stay to organize a rebellion. I did not enter the city with political intentions, but to worship.” For Paul this also meant: to gladden the poor churches in Judea with the collection from the Gentile believers. “Moreover, during those days nobody sawme in the temple, in one of the synagogues, or elsewhere in the streets as a political agitator or disturbing the public order.In short, my accusers cannot furnish one witness to confirm this accusation. And does not the Torah require no fewer than two or three witnesses?” (Deuteronomy 17:6 “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness”). Before Felix condemned him as a rioter, proof of that charge was needed. For a Roman citizen could not be condemned as an insurgent without eye- and ear-witnesses. The lawyer had to be aware of that!

Separate form of Judaism?

Paul’s accusers claimed he was the ringleader of a sect that had separated from the Jewish religio licita and therefore was not under the protection of Roman law. Against this, Paul defended himself as well. This had implications for the religious freedom of all Christians throughout the Roman empire! Against this accusation, Paul declared: “As a Christian, I am more orthodox in our Jewish religion than my accusers! My faith is the purest form of our religio licita! At this point I do want to declare that in agreement with the Way, which they wrongly call a sect, I am not serving a new God but continue to serve the God of our forefathers. By this I mean that I believe everything that is written in the Law and the Prophets. That new Way agrees fully with those. In fact, Christianity is full-grown Judaism!” The apostle had constantly hammered on this in his letters (cf. Romans 3:31; 10:4; Galatians 3:6-29). “I worship the God of our forefathers entirely as our sacred Scriptures require!” Naturally, the members of the Sanhedrin felt that he was denying that honour to them. Not he, but they were sectarians! All the more so because the Sadducees viewed only the Law of Moses as the real Word of God.

“Just as I do not differ from my [Pharisee] accusers, because like a real, orthodox Jew, on the basis of Holy Scripture, I expect that God will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous from the dead,” to judge them (cf. Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29).  In this way, as an aside, Paul was placing himself together with his accusers and his judge, for just a moment, before God’s judgement. Ananias and his contingent would have heard in this an allusion to the resurrection of Messiah Jesus. Believing all of that is really believing the Law and the Prophets.

If, like the Sadducees, you do not believe in the resurrection, you are not afraid of any final judgement. Keeping in mind the judgement, Paul was very careful with his conscience! “I try to maintain a clear conscience constantly toward God and others.” His inner voice testified in agreement that as a Christian, he had not separated from God, his Word, and Israel. In this connection, we may wonder if we who are Gentile Christians are adequately aware that we have a Jewish Saviour and have been incorporated into the ancient Israelite-Jewish church and engrafted as wild branches into the Israelite olive tree to share in its nutrients. If necessary, believers from Israel like Paul, together with Gentile believers, could argue over against the unbelieving Jews: not you, but we are the lawful heirs of your ancestral faith.

Temple desecrator?

Against the accusation of temple desecration, Paul defended himself as follows. Did I attempt to defile the temple? How did my accusers come up with this? After being abroad for many years, I returned to my people to demonstrate charity and to bring sacrifices in connection with a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:24-26). I was occupied not with acts of temple desecration, but quietly performing these sacred acts in the temple. Out of respect for the sanctuary I had purified myself according to our laws. There is no evidence that I have desecrated this sanctuary. There was no mass of people or tumult around me. Everything was happening in an orderly manner. But at that point those AsiaticJews caused the riot all around me that started everything. Why didn’t Ananias bring them here? They should have appeared before you to accuse me if they had something to charge me with. Their absence was in fact a serious infraction against Roman jurisprudence. For they had lied that Paul had brought the non-Jew Trophimus into the forbidden temple area. (Acts 21:28).

“Otherwise let these delegates of the Sanhedrin say what wrongdoing they could find when I stood before their Council. They found nothing. Other than that single declaration that I cried out in their midst: ‘It is on account of the resurrection of the dead that I am standing trial before you today.’ But was that a crime for a Jewish assembly? Many of its members appeared to agree with me. And for a Roman court, this is not a crime (cf. Acts 18:15-16). Why have they not brought up this central point of the entire disagreement between them and me?” In short, Paul’s accusers had dragged up everything, but had produced no evidence for any of it. In this way, the apostle confirmed what Claudius Lysias had written to Felix: the entire matter turned on “differences about their law, but I found no fault worthy of death or imprisonment.”

The trial adjourned

Felix, who was to be judge, was well-acquainted with the Way, the new movement in Judaism involving Jesus of Nazareth. In addition, some Roman soldiers had also become Christians (Acts 10). Perhaps Paul was hoping that he would be released, for in the eyes of a Roman court his case was clearly inadmissible. But against his better knowledge, Felix decided to drag out the trial, and said: “As soon as Lysias, the tribune, has arrived, I will render a verdict in your case.” Paul was to be kept in custody. The Roman official adopted a milder posture toward Paul than his ecclesiastical persecutors. He was not handed over once more to the Sanhedrin.

By remaining under Roman arrest, Paul was safe from renewed Jewish attacks. He was under constant guard, but none of his friends was prevented from caring for him, for example, by providing food and drink, and supplying him with parchments and writing tools. This imprisonment in Caesarea would last for two years. Philip and his daughters would have visited him, as well as Luke, Trophimus, and Aristarchus, and other members of the Caesarean church. During these years, Luke would have collected information from the living eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) for both of his books, the Gospel and Acts.

Questions:

How ought we to witness to the gospel towards those in authority in contemporary Australia?

In view of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, when is it right for Christians to use the law courts?

– Alida Sewell