AP

Studies in Acts                                                                                                                  

Paul and the Authorities (Acts 24:24-25:12)

Private visit from Felix and Drusilla to Paul

After the adjournment, Felix did not forget about Paul. Already a few days later, he and his wife Drusilla went to the prison area of his palace. She was of the family of Herod. Her father, Herod Agrippa I, had put the apostle James to death and had arrested Peter, after which he himself had been struck down, and eaten by worms. Herod’s great-grandfather had murdered the children of Bethlehem and her granduncle had had John the Baptizer beheaded. She was a woman of extraordinary beauty. Despite her young age, Felix was her second husband, and she was his third wife. He had persuaded her to leave her first husband for him. Reportedly when she was barely forty years old, she was buried along with their son Agrippa under the lava that flowed from the famous eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.

Felix had Paul brought out of his cell because he wanted to know more about that “new faith” in Messiah Jesus of Nazareth. As a Jewess, Drusilla probably had not yet forgotten what she had heard in her youth about the living God of Israel and the expectation of the Messiah.

Once again, we have a poignant scene! Here is Paul, a prisoner, standing before Felix, the highest Roman authority in Judea and his stunning wife. On their own they would never have attended a Christian gathering, but here God sent them one of his best preachers to proclaim to them the Good News. Did the prisoner seize this unique opportunity at that point to plead to his powerful judge for his release? No, he did not seek his own interest, but that of both poor and rich individuals before him. His name was Felix (i.e., Happy), but he was thoroughly unhappy; for he lacked the greatest treasure: faith in Jesus the Saviour. Drusilla had attempted “to save her life” by forsaking her first husband but was busy losing her life. Paul sensed that the palace residents desperately needed the gospel as much as the dock workers of Corinth and the philosophers of Athens.

As a faithful ambassador of Jesus Christ, he told them what God had done through the Lord Jesus for the world. Of course, he would first have proclaimed to the couple what God had promised for Jesus’ sake. But next he would not have shrunk from declaring that to benefit from this, God required faith and conversion. In this way, he held before the procurator, who had so much injustice on his record, that God demanded righteousness from him. And to the man who was living with his third wife, and to the woman who had forsaken her lawful husband, he did not shrink back from speaking about righteousness and self-control, warning them that one day they would have to give an account before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

When Paul confronted him so directly with God’s command and judgement, terror struck Felix in his heart. Would he now pose the same question as the Philippian jailor: “What must I do to be saved?” How pleased the apostle would have been to proclaim to a penitent couple of the upper class the forgiveness of sins through the blood of the Lord Jesus and the cleansing of their heart by the Spirit of Jesus. But at the decisive moment, Felix refused to make a decision. “Leave now,” he said, “and if I have more time later, I will have you called.”

He did indeed have Paul come repeatedly for conversations. He then let Paul know tactfully that a sum of money could do wonders. Could not Paul’s many followers come up with a suitable contribution? In this respect, Felix was more than happy to keep talking with Paul about God. But to convert to God? He refused to do that, for his heart was more devoted to money. He was mistaken, however, for Paul did not offer a bribe. “How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:2).

After two years had passed, Felix was recalled by emperor Nero on account of bad management. He was replaced by Porcius Festus. And although Felix knew very well that Paul was innocent and had sat in prison for two years already, he did not release him. Had he understood the matter well? Would he be doing a favour for the Jewish authorities if he kept Paul in prison? And would they in return give a favourable report to the emperor who recalled him? Well and good, he would leave Paul in his cell.

Porcius Festus succeeded Felix around AD 60 as procurator of Judea. As a ruler, he compared favourably with his predecessor. He had descended from the very old patrician family of Porcius. From Roman sources we know about him only that he died a mere two years after taking office as governor. He was able to curb to some extent the mismanagement that Felix had left behind, doing so by neutralizing the Sicarii, the famous covert killers. However, the situation in the Jewish land when he took office, six years before the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt, was already so tense that he was unable to accomplish much.

The Jewish leaders had put considerable pressure on him as well to have Paul returned to Jerusalem. For then they would be able to kill him en route. But in Jesus’ plan, Paul had testified of him in Jerusalem, and now had to go to Rome. For the Lord wanted to make his name known in the capital city of the world, reaching all the way to the imperial palace. Therefore, Paul had to be rescued from the prison in Caesarea and transferred to Rome. For that purpose, the Lord used the agitation of the Sanhedrin and the effect thereof on Porcius Festus.

Festus prevents yet another attack against Paul

After Felix had kept the trial against Paul lingering for two years, the new procurator immediately gave the case a shot in the arm. A mere three days after his arrival in Caesarea, he travelled further to Jerusalem. As a newcomer to Judea, Festus wanted to obtain an orientation to his province as soon as possible. Among the first people he met were, of course, the Jewish leaders, the high priests (Ananias had meanwhile been replaced by a certain Ishmael) and other religious and secular authorities. Those people immediately used the opportunity to raise their old complaints against Paul once again. The changeover in government seemed to them a good opportunity to see to it that Paul disappeared from the face of the earth.

If the new procurator wanted to win their affection, he would eagerly grant them a favour. “Well then,” they asked him during his visit to Jerusalem, “grant us the pleasure of having that fellow sent here in order to be tried by the Sanhedrin.” These leaders naturally did not tell him that they wanted to have Paul killed en route. Presumably because Festus knew nothing about their earlier conspiracy against Paul, he would likely have sent Paul to them accompanied by a small escort. For determined Sicarii, it would not be difficult to ambush Paul and stab him to death. Afterward, the Sanhedrin would issue regrets about “the bandits who are currently making the country unsafe.”

This new governor did not allow himself, however, to be so easily manipulated by them. He was unwilling to refer to the Sanhedrin a case with which he was not familiar. It was obvious that Paul had been transferred from Jerusalem to Caesarea for a reason. He resolutely refused the request of the Jewish authorities: Paul would remain in custody in Caesarea. The rule that finally carried the day required that the accuser had to come to the courtroom, not the other way around. But if the issue was so pressing, he would meet them halfway by taking up the matter speedily upon his return. He would be leaving for Caesarea soon. 

“Let your representatives accompany me and accuse him there if he has really done something wrong.” As a good Roman ruler, he wanted justice to proceed in an orderly manner. What a bitter disappointment for the Sanhedrin! The procurator was unwittingly neutralizing their lethal attack upon Paul. Once again, we are conscious that we are reading the Acts of the exalted Lord Jesus, who was guarding the life of his ambassador.

Festus necessitates Paul to appeal to the Emperor

After being with them in Jerusalem for ten days at the most, Festus returned to Caesarea. The Jewish leaders had no other choice than to accept his proposal and accompany him. After arriving in his residence, Festus quickly investigated the matter. As soon as the apostle appeared in the courtroom, the Jerusalem Jews surrounded him like a pack of wolves. They introduced many serious accusations against him. Luke does not mention them; they would have been the same ones that they had introduced before Felix: this fellow is causing rebellion everywhere and has attempted to desecrate our temple. When Festus heard this, however, it seemed that all their words contained not a shred of proof, no matter how much they piled up their accusations (v. 18).

Paul’s defence came down to this: “I have committed no crime, not against the Jewish law, not against the temple, and not against the emperor!” From Festus’ report of the session, it becomes evident later that the apostle had also brought up in this connection the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The procurator had understood that this entire case involved a difference about Jewish religious questions and “about a certain Jesus, a dead man about whom Paul argued that he was alive” (v. 19).

Festus changes his mind

By virtue of their lack of proof, the Jews were unable to persuade Festus of Paul’s guilt, and thus they had no judicial leg to stand on (cf. v. 26). Nevertheless, by their conduct they had made such an impression on him that he was now inclined to grant them a favour. The famous Roman justice would then have to yield somewhat before his good relations with the Jewish authorities. Without their cooperation it would be difficult for him to restore order throughout tumultuous Judea. He did not let go of the case entirely, as the Jews had wanted, but he did change his mind. For although the case had taken two years by now, and Festus was convinced of Paul’s innocence (v. 25), he refused to acquit him. To their great delight, the Jews heard that the governor was now prepared to continue the trial in Jerusalem, as they had requested. Would they now finally get a chance to get rid of Paul on the way? Because the apostle possessed Roman civil rights, Festus had to ask him first: “Do you object to going to Jerusalem in order to stand trial before me there?”

Paul appeals to the Emperor

But Paul immediately saw through the implications of this request. Stand trial “before me” in Jerusalem? Did Festus mean that he would pronounce his verdict there? What was the sense of this change of location? If he did not extend justice to him in Caesarea, the official seat of the court, then he would surely not do it in Jerusalem, where people hated Paul so intensely. No, it was evident that he wanted to do the Jews a favour and refer Paul’s case from the higher Roman court back to the lower court of the Sanhedrin. This court would undoubtedly sentence him to death.

In these critical moments, Paul used for the third time his Roman citizenship, which he possessed by birth. After a two-year imprisonment, he perceived that this new procurator would not grant him justice. Because he knew that the Lord wanted to have him in Rome, he had perhaps earlier decided to appeal to the emperor at the first opportunity. This chance was now before him, and he immediately took it. In a dignified way, he pointed the procurator to the law, which the latter knew all too well. There was no reason at all for involving the Jewish Supreme Council in the case, because a Roman citizen could not be tried by an indigenous court.

“I am standing here before the imperial court of Caesarea, and as a Roman citizen, according to Roman law, I ought to be judged here. Why has this not yet been done? I have done nothing wrong at all against the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If I were guilty and had done something for which the sentence of death was warranted, then I would not oppose that. In that case I would not ask for clemency, and I am prepared to die at the hands of this mob. But if their accusations against me lack all proof, then I have a right to be released, and no one can hand me over to them, simply to do them a favour.” Paul had said, “no one,” but he meant “you, Festus.” He showed clearly that he saw through the latter’s proposal as being a favour to the Jews. This was a thinly veiled accusation of partiality! Was not Paul raising the stakes rather high? Nothing prevented Festus at this point from taking revenge by pronouncing an unjust verdict. Therefore, the apostle reached for his last judicial means of rescue and spoke the words with which he ended the trial in seconds: I appeal to the emperor! He possibly used the Latin judicial phrase: Caesarem appello.

A Roman had the right to do this if he thought that a lower court had done him an injustice. We can appeal to a higher court against the verdict of a lower court, but a Roman could do so during his trial. Therefore, Paul could appeal to the emperor because Festus had not yet rendered a verdict.

It was now up to the procurator and his clerks to determine whether the case could indeed be sent onto the emperor. A sentence of capital punishment was now excluded, for Festus was bound to this law: That person is guilty of violence who, if he is clothed with authority, puts to death or has put to death a Roman citizen who appeals to the emperor. For that reason, after consulting with his judicial advisors, Festus had to inform Paul: “You have appealed to the emperor, then before the emperor you shall appear.”

At this time, the emperor was Nero (AD 54-68) who had commenced his rule with five good years, when he was advised by his mother and his tutor, Seneca. Of course, Paul was not appealing to him for the sake of his own safety, but especially on account of the unique opportunity that this would afford him to proclaim the gospel in Rome (cf. Ephesians 6:19-20; Philippians 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 4:17). An incidental motive could have been that if he were to be released, the churches that he had established among the Gentiles would have been recognized as collegia licita, legally permissible associations.

For the Jews, this effectively ended the case. They had done their best to eradicate the name of the Lord Jesus by trying to kill his apostle, but they had achieved the opposite. God had turned their evil to the good. Without wanting this, they had cooperated in seeing to it that the apostle would now proclaim the name of Christ in Rome, the capital of the empire.

Nero is not remembered for the good start to his reign, but for his cruelty and persecution of the Christians. According to Tacitus, he had Christians burned alive. Most contemporary sources describe him as tyrannical, self-indulgent, and debauched. After being declared a public enemy by the Roman Senate, he committed suicide at age 30.

Questions:

Today, Christians are charged with the crime of ‘hate speech’ for quoting the words of Scripture. How would you defend yourself from that crime?

What are the customs, practices, and attitudes that help us stay “faithful until the end”? See also Hebrews 10:19-25.

– Alida Sewell