Acts 24:1 - Meaning and Application

We should understand that when Lysias, the chief captain, sent Paul on to Caesarea, he likely told the chief priests and the others who accused Paul to follow him there if they had any charges. He must have thought they would not go to so much trouble. But hatred will do surprising things.

Here we see the case against Paul pushed forward with energy. No time was wasted, and they were ready for a hearing after five days. Everything else was set aside at once so they could prosecute Paul. Evil people can be very determined in doing wrong. Some count the five days from when Paul was first arrested, and that is most likely, because in (Acts 24:11) Paul says it had only been twelve days since he came to Jerusalem, and he spent seven of those days in purifying the temple.

The very men who had judged Paul now came as his accusers. Ananias, the high priest, who had sat in judgment before, now stood up to bring charges. It is striking that he would lower himself like this and leave his duties in Jerusalem to appear as a prosecutor in Herod’s judgment hall. God justly made priests low and despised when they made themselves low and despised (Malachi 2:9).

It is also striking that he would openly show his hatred of Paul. When important men hate someone, they often try to use others as their spokesmen, so they are less visible and less hated themselves. But Ananias was not ashamed to admit his enmity toward Paul. The elders came with him to show agreement and strengthen the case, because they could not find lawyers who would push it with the force they wanted. The effort evil people put into wrong, their planning, flexibility, and tireless work, should shame us out of our coldness in what is good.

The case against Paul was then argued before Felix, the governor. The accusers brought a lawyer named Tertullus, a Roman skilled in Roman law and speech, which made him the best choice for a case before a Roman ruler. The high priest and elders, though full of spite themselves, did not think their own words sharp enough, so they hired Tertullus to speak for them. They likely paid him well, perhaps from the temple treasury, since they treated this as a church matter and would not have it handled cheaply.

Paul was brought out before Felix, and Tertullus began to make the accusation. He was there for pay, and pay can make a tongue say almost anything. There is no cause so unfair that it cannot find someone willing to defend it. Yet not all advocates knowingly support injustice, but Tertullus seems to have been willing to do so. His speech, or at least a summary of it, is marked by flattery and lies. It calls evil good and good evil.

One of the worst men of the time is praised here as if he were a great benefactor, simply because he was the judge. Felix, according to historians of his own nation and Josephus, was a very bad man. He was violent, cruel, greedy, and oppressive, and he protected assassins. Yet Tertullus, speaking for the high priest and elders, and probably following their instructions, flatters him and lifts him up as though he were the best ruler ever known. This is even worse because Felix had recently shown hostility toward their order. Jonathan the high priest, or one of the chief priests, had offended him by speaking too freely against his rule, and Felix had him murdered by hired men. Those men kept on doing the same kind of thing for others, because no one punished them. Their crimes were so unchecked that they stabbed many people, some from private hatred and some for money, even in the temple itself. Still, to win Felix over against Paul, the priests praised him as the greatest blessing ever given to their nation and their church.

They were quick to say this. They claimed that through him they enjoyed great peace and that he had done many worthy things for the Jewish people through his care and vigilance. To his credit, he had helped stop the rebellion led by the Egyptian mentioned in (Acts 21:38). But that one good act could not erase the later tyranny and oppression. Here we see the misery of great men, when their services are praised beyond measure and no one faithfully tells them their faults. That only hardens them in evil.

We also see the policy of bad people, who flatter rulers in their sins so they will do even worse. The bishops of Rome gained and strengthened their unjust church power, and helped persecute Christ’s servants, by flattering and winning over rulers and tyrants, making them tools for their own evil, just as the high priest tried to do with Felix here.

They also promised to keep a thankful memory of him. In effect, they said they accepted his favors everywhere and at all times, and that they admired him, most noble Felix, with great gratitude. They would be ready, whenever needed, to testify that he was a wise and good governor and very useful to the country. If he had truly been such a ruler, it would have been right for them to receive his good service with thankfulness. The benefits we receive from government, especially from wise and good rulers, are something we should thank both God and people for.

This is part of the honor due to magistrates: to recognize the peace we enjoy under their protection, and the good they do through their wisdom. They also expected Felix’s favor in this case (Acts 24:4). They acted as if they did not want to take up his time: “We do not want to trouble you further.” Yet they also clearly counted on his patience: “Please hear us kindly for a few words.” All of this was meant to win his goodwill and make him support their case. They knew their charge against Paul had more hatred than truth, so they needed to work hard to gain the judge’s favor.

Everyone knew that the high priest and the elders were enemies of Roman rule. They chafed under that yoke and, in their hearts, hated Felix. Yet to get what they wanted against Paul, they treated Felix with great respect, just as they had done with Pilate and Caesar when they were attacking our Savior. Rulers cannot always judge the true feelings of their people by their praise. Flattery is one thing, and real loyalty is another.

One of the best men is here accused as if he were one of the worst criminals, simply because he was the prisoner. After all the flattering words, Tertullus finally gets to his point and tells Felix about the man at the bar. That part of his speech is as ugly in its mockery as the first part was in its flattery. I feel sorry for the man, and I do not think he personally hated Paul. He likely did not believe the insults he was speaking, any more than he believed the praise he had just given Felix. Still, it is sad that a man with wit and sense would use his gift as a “saleable tongue,” a tongue sold to the highest bidder. It is even more troubling that respected men had such malicious hearts that they put those words into his mouth.

Tertullus makes two complaints to Felix in the name of the high priest and the elders. First, he says Paul was disturbing the peace of the nation. People could not have attacked Christ’s followers if they had not first painted them as wild beasts. They could not have treated them so harshly if they had not first described them as wicked men, though those charges were completely false. Innocence, goodness, and usefulness do not protect a person from slander, nor do they protect the public from believing slander when it is spoken with seriousness, a show of religion, confidence, and noise. Something will stick, even when the charge is unjust.

The same old accusations were made against God’s prophets, that they troubled the land. They were also made against Jerusalem, that it was a rebellious city harmful to kings and provinces (Ezra 4:15, 4:19). The same charge was made against our Lord Jesus, that he turned the nation aside and told people not to pay tribute to Caesar. That is the very charge here made against Paul, though it is completely false. They do not say, “We suspect him of being dangerous.” Instead, they speak as if it were already settled, “We have found him to be so.” They speak as if he were already proved to be a traitor and rebel. Yet there is not a word of truth in it. If Paul’s true character is examined, it will be found to be the exact opposite.

Paul was a useful man and a great blessing to his country, known for clear honesty and goodness. He blessed everyone and stirred up no one. Yet here he is called “a pestilent fellow” (Acts 24:5), meaning a plague on the nation, like a walking disease. They wanted people to think he caused more harm than a plague could, that his influence spread like infection, that he made others just as harmful, and that he brought ruin wherever he went. Many good sermons he had preached, and many good works he had done, and for those things they call him a plague.

Paul was also a peacemaker, and he preached a gospel that is meant to end hatred and establish true peace. He lived quietly himself and taught others to do the same. Yet here he is described as someone who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world. The Jews were unhappy under Roman rule, especially the more stubborn and narrow-minded among them. Felix knew that and kept watch over them. Now they wanted him to believe that Paul was the one who made them rebellious, when in fact they themselves were sowing the seeds of division and unrest. They hated Christ and his faith because he did not lead them in an uprising against the Romans. They were everywhere strongly opposed to Paul, stirring up the people against him, and then unfairly blaming him as the troublemaker. It was like Nero later setting Rome on fire and then blaming the Christians.

Paul was also a man of broad Christian love. He did not try to create a separate party for himself, but served everyone for their good. Yet he is charged here as a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, that is, a chief standard-bearer of that group. When Cyprian was sentenced to die for being a Christian, his sentence called him the author and standard-bearer of a wicked cause. It was true that Paul was active and leading in spreading Christianity. But, first, it was completely false to call it a sect. He did not draw people into a private party or make his own opinions their rule. True Christianity serves what all people need. It proclaims goodwill to all people and shows us God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. For that reason, it cannot rightly be treated as the sort of narrow, self-serving thing that sects usually are.

True Christianity has a direct tendency to unite people and gather them together as one. The more it gains real power over people’s minds, the more it makes them gentle, quiet, peaceful, and loving, and in every way more helpful and agreeable to one another. So it is far from being a sect, since a sect is marked by division and the spreading of discord.

True Christianity seeks no worldly gain or advantage, so it should never be called a sect in the common sense. People who join a sect usually do so for their own worldly interests, hoping for wealth or honor. Christians, by contrast, often bring on themselves the loss of what is most dear to them in this world.

The Jews also used the insulting name “the sect of the Nazarenes” to make Christ look low and unworthy. They wanted people to think that nothing good could come from Nazareth, though Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, where the Messiah was promised to be born. Even so, Jesus was willing to call himself “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 22:8), and Scripture has given honor to that name (Matthew 2:23). So although the name was meant as an insult, Christians had no reason to be ashamed to share it with their Master.

It was also false to say that Paul was the founder or leader of this sect. He did not draw people to himself, but to Christ. He did not preach himself, but Jesus Christ.

Paul also had great respect for the temple. It was the place God had chosen to set his name, and Paul had recently taken part in temple worship with reverence. Yet they charged him with trying to defile the temple, showing contempt for it, and breaking its laws (Acts 24:6). Their proof failed completely, because the facts they claimed were simply untrue, and they knew it (Acts 21:29).

The accusers also claimed that the chief captain had blocked justice against Paul. They said they had taken Paul and would have judged him by their law. That was false. They had not tried to judge him fairly at all. Instead, they had tried to beat him to death or tear him apart without hearing his defense. They only pretended they were bringing him into court, while they were really trying to hand him over to men waiting to kill him. Is that judging according to their law? It is easy for people to say later what they would have done, when they meant nothing of the kind.

They also blamed the chief captain, Lysias, for rescuing Paul from them, as if he had done them wrong (Acts 24:7). In truth, he had not only done Paul justice, but had also done them a great kindness by stopping them from bringing guilt on themselves. The chief captain Lysias came upon us and, with great force, took him out of our hands, though really no more force than the situation required. Persecutors often become angry when they are stopped, even when they should be thankful. David once thanked Abigail for keeping him from a bloody act, and thanked God for sending her to do it. These violent men, however, counted as their enemy the one who kept them from shedding blood with their own hands.

They then referred the matter to Felix, though they seemed annoyed that they had been forced to do so (Acts 24:8). They complained that Lysias had made them come before him, so Felix could hear the charge, even though the matter could have been settled in the lower court. They also said Lysias had left it to Felix to examine Paul and find out what he could from him, hoping that Paul’s own words might somehow prove the charges.

The Jews then gave their support to Tertullus’s speech (Acts 24:9). Some think this means they backed it with witnesses who confirmed each point under oath. That would not be surprising, if they could find an advocate willing to speak for them, and witnesses willing to swear for money. It more likely means that the high priest and the elders openly approved what Tertullus had said. When Felix asked whether that was their own view and whether they had anything more to add, they agreed. In doing so, they made themselves guilty of all the lies in his speech.

People who do not have enough ability to stir up trouble by speaking may still become guilty by joining in with those who do. They may not be able to make speeches or argue against religion, but they can still say, “These things are true,” and stand behind what others say in order to turn people away from the right ways of the Lord. Many people do not have enough learning to plead for Baal, but they have enough wickedness to vote for Baal.