Acts 24:10 - Meaning and Application

Here we have Paul’s defense in answer to Tertullus’s charge. It shows much of the wisdom and holiness that Christ promised his followers, when they are brought before governors and kings for his sake, they will be given what to say in that very hour.

Even though Tertullus had said many insulting things, Paul did not cut him off. He let him finish, following both courtesy and the proper order of a court, where the accuser speaks first and the accused answers afterward. When Tertullus was done, Paul did not burst out in angry complaints about the evil of the times. Instead, he waited until the governor gave him permission to speak, and then he spoke under the governor’s protection, which was more than he had been able to get before.

Paul also did not attack Tertullus personally. He knew Tertullus was speaking for pay, so he ignored the man and answered the people behind the charge. He spoke respectfully to Felix, the Roman governor, and with confidence that he would be treated fairly. His words were not smooth flattery like Tertullus’s, but a sincere appeal to a judge he expected to be fair, even if not friendly.

Paul also spoke as a man with a clear conscience. He was not trembling before the court. He had the more courage because he knew his judge was not a party to the case, but a neutral man. He did not claim Felix was perfectly just, or that he hated bribes, or that he always feared God, because that would have gone beyond what was true. Instead, he said he was glad to answer for himself, because Felix had been judge over that nation for many years, and that meant he knew the people and the facts.

Because Felix had served there so long, he could know that no real complaint against Paul had existed before. Charges like this are usually brought against men with a bad history, but Felix had never had Paul brought before him until now. So Paul was not the dangerous criminal they made him out to be. Felix also knew the Jewish nation well. He understood how strongly they clung to their own customs, and how quickly they grew angry against anyone who did not agree with them. That would help him see that their accusation against Paul was colored by prejudice and hatred.

Paul then denied the actual charges. The claims of stirring up trouble and profaning the temple were the crimes they pressed against him. They knew Roman rulers usually did not handle disputes over Jewish religion, and they hoped Felix would send Paul back to be judged by their law. Paul asked only for protection from people he knew were bitter and unfair, even if Felix did not decide those religious questions himself.

Paul wanted Felix to understand several facts, and he was ready to prove them with witnesses if needed. First, he had gone up to Jerusalem to worship God in peace and holiness. He had not come to stir up rebellion or defile the temple. He came to keep fellowship with the Jews, not to insult them.

Second, only twelve days had passed since he arrived in Jerusalem, and six of those days he had already spent as a prisoner. He had been there only a short time, and he was there alone. It was unreasonable to think he could have done the kind of harm they accused him of. As for what he had done in other places, they knew it only by rumor, and rumor can be very unfair.

Third, Paul had behaved quietly in Jerusalem. If he had truly been a rebel among the Jews everywhere, then surely he would have tried to build a following there. But he did not. He was found in the temple, taking part in public worship. He was in the synagogues where the law was read and explained. He moved among the city’s gathering places, speaking with relatives and friends, yet no one could charge him with saying anything against the Jewish faith or against public peace.

Paul says he had no quarrelsome spirit. He was not the kind of man who stirs up conflict. He never picked fights over religion, never used clever tricks to trap the learned, and never confused simple people with needless arguments. He was ready to explain the reason for his hope if anyone asked, and to teach others. But he did not make religion into a battlefield of pride and argument. Matters like that should be handled with humility, reverence, meekness, and love.

He also had no restless or rebellious spirit. No one could truthfully say he had stirred up the people against their rulers, in the church or in the state, or planted fears and suspicions about public matters. He did not set people against one another or spread division. He lived as a Christian and a minister should, with love, quietness, and proper respect for lawful authority. The weapons of his service were not worldly weapons, and he never suggested taking up arms to spread the gospel or defend its preachers. Even if he might have gathered a strong crowd among ordinary people, he never tried to do so.

As for the charge that he had stirred up trouble in other countries, he says plainly that he was completely innocent. They could not prove their accusations. When Paul says they cannot prove it, he means the accusation is false.

He was no enemy of the public peace. He had done no real harm, but a great deal of real good, and would gladly have done more for the Jewish nation. He was so far from feeling hatred toward them that he loved them deeply and longed for their good (Romans 9:1-3).

He also laments his own trouble, that he was accused of things no one could prove against him. This has often happened to good and worthy people. They are charged with things they are far from doing, and they hate the very thought of them. Yet even while they grieve over such suffering, they can still rejoice in the witness of their own consciences, which tell them they have acted with integrity.

He also exposes the wrongdoing of his accusers. They said things they knew they could not prove, and in that way they wronged him in his name, his freedom, and his life. They also wronged the judge by trying to influence him and, as far as they could, turn his judgment aside. The judge must give sentence according to what is both claimed and proved, so he must inquire carefully, search closely, and ask whether the matter is true and certain (Deuteronomy 13:14). Otherwise, he cannot judge rightly.

Paul then gives a fair account of himself, which clears him of crime and also shows the real reason they were so angry at him. He admits that they regarded him as a heretic, and that was why they were so bitter against him. The chief captain had noticed, and now the governor must notice, the unusual fury of Paul’s accusers. They did not know what to make of it, but they guessed at the crime from the shouting, and decided he must be a very bad man for that reason alone. Paul now explains the matter: "I admit that in the way they call a sect, I worship the God of my fathers." The dispute is about religion, and such disputes are often handled with the most anger and violence.

It is nothing new for the right way of worshiping God to be called heresy, and for God’s best servants to be labeled and attacked as sectarians. Churches that have been reformed are often called heretical by those who hate reform, though they are the real heretics themselves. So we should never be pushed away from a good way just because it has been given a bad name. True and pure Christianity is no worse, and should not be thought worse, because it is called heresy, even if the high priest and elders say so.

Paul then shows that this accusation is false. They call him a heretic, but he is not one. First, he worships the God of his fathers, so he is right about the object of his worship. He does not turn to other gods, as the false prophet in (Deuteronomy 13:2) does. If he did, they could rightly call his way heresy, because it would be a dangerous turning aside. But Paul worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not only the God they worshiped, but the God who made covenant with them and promised to remain their God. Paul stands with that covenant and sets up no rival to it. He preached the promise made to the fathers as fulfilled to their children (Acts 13:32-33), and so he directed both his own worship and that of others to God as the God of their fathers.

He also follows the pattern of all his faithful ancestors: "I worship the same God all my fathers worshiped." His faith was not a new invention. It actually boasted in its ancient roots and in the long line of those who had professed it. It is a great comfort in worship to look to God as the God of our fathers. Our fathers trusted him, and he owned them as his own. He promised to be their God and the God of their children. He proved himself faithful to them, and if we serve him as they did, he will be ours too. How much weight there is in the words, "He is my father’s God, and I will exalt him" (Exodus 15:2).

Second, Paul believes everything written in the law and the prophets, so he is right in the rule of his worship. His religion is built on Holy Scripture and guided by it. Scripture is his standard and test, and he speaks and acts according to it. He receives the whole of Scripture and believes everything written there. He also keeps to Scripture alone, saying nothing beyond what is found in it, as he later explains (Acts 26:22). He does not set up any other rule for faith or life, neither tradition, nor church authority, nor the claimed infallibility of any person or group, nor inward feeling, nor human reason. He rests on divine revelation as given in Scripture, and he is ready to live and die by it. For that reason, he is not a heretic.

Third, he keeps his eyes on a future life, and he looks forward to it in faith, so he is right in the end of his worship. Those who turn to heresy usually care most about this world and some earthly advantage. Paul aims at heaven, and only heaven, through his religion (Acts 24:15). "My hope is in God. All my expectation comes from him, so all my desire is toward him and all my trust is in him. My hope is toward God, not the world, toward another world, not this one. I depend on God and his power for the resurrection of the dead at the end of time, of both the just and the unjust. The great goal of my religion is to gain a joyful resurrection, a share in the resurrection of the just."

Here we should notice, first, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, meaning the dead bodies of all people from the beginning to the end of time. It is certain not only that the soul does not die with the body, but also that the body itself will live again. We are not only headed for another life after this one ends, but for another world that will begin when this world ends. All people must enter that world together through a resurrection from the dead, just as they entered this world one by one through birth.

Second, the resurrection will be both of the just and the unjust, the holy and the unholy, those who did good and those who did evil. Our Savior says that for the one group it will be a resurrection of life, and for the other a resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). See also (Daniel 12:2). This means the resurrection will lead to final judgment, by which all people will be assigned to eternal happiness or eternal misery in a world where God gives each person what is due, according to what they were and what they did in this life of testing and preparation.

The righteous will rise because they are united to Christ as their head. The unrighteous will rise because Christ rules over them as their Judge. God is the one we must trust for the resurrection of the dead. Paul says, “I have hope in God, that there will be a resurrection,” and it will happen by God’s almighty power, exactly as he has promised.

Anyone who doubts the resurrection shows that they do not know the Scriptures or the power of God (Matthew 22:29). The resurrection of the dead is a basic part of the Christian faith, and it was also accepted in the Jewish church. The Jews themselves agreed to it, and the ancient patriarchs, like Job, expected it too. The gospel makes it clearer and confirms it more fully, so people who believed it should have thanked the gospel preachers for explaining and proving it, instead of fighting them.

All our religion should keep the coming world in view. We should serve God with confidence that the dead will rise, and we should live now in light of that future day. Paul’s life matched his devotion. He says, “I work hard to keep my conscience clear before God and people” (Acts 24:16). The lives and teaching of prophets must be tested by their fruit, and Paul had not wrecked a good conscience. So it is unlikely that he had wrecked the faith, since the mystery of faith is best kept in a clean conscience.

Paul had already said before the high priest, “I have lived before God with a clear conscience” (Acts 23:1). That was part of his joy. His goal was to have a conscience that gave no offense. This can mean either a conscience that does not mislead him or flatter him, or a conscience that is not wounded by his own actions. In other words, he wanted to stay on good terms with his conscience, so it would not accuse him of wrong belief or wrong action. He guarded it carefully, as carefully as he would avoid offending a friend he saw every day, or a magistrate to whom he must answer. Conscience is God’s representative in the soul.

Paul says he “exercises” himself in this way, meaning he makes it his constant practice and disciplines himself by it. He restrains himself from many things his natural desires might want, and he gives himself to the most spiritual duties of religion, with this purpose in view, to keep peace with his conscience. He sought this at all times and in all things. He wanted a conscience clear of serious offense at every moment, and he worked to keep his whole duty in view, both toward God and toward other people. Conscience, like a magistrate, guards both tables of the law, our duty to God and our duty to neighbor (2 Corinthians 8:21).

Paul did all this because he looked for the resurrection of the dead and the life to come. The thought of the future life should lead us to be careful and faithful in this present life. Having confessed his faith, he then gives a plain and honest account of his case and the wrong done to him by his enemies. Twice the chief captain had rescued him from the Jews when they were ready to tear him apart, and Paul challenges them to prove that he had done anything worthy of punishment either time.

In the temple, they attacked him fiercely as though he were an enemy of their nation and their temple (Acts 21:28). But there was no real basis for that charge. It was hard to call him an enemy of their nation when he had come back after a long absence to bring alms to his people, money he had collected from his friends for the poor in Jerusalem. He not only bore no ill will toward them, he cared for them deeply and was ready to do them good. Would they make him their enemy because he loved them? (Psalm 109:4)

It was just as unfair to accuse him of profaning the temple. He had brought offerings to the temple, had paid expenses there himself (Acts 21:24), and was found in the temple, purified according to the law (Acts 24:18), and doing it quietly and decently. Though he was widely known, he was not trying to make himself noticed in Jerusalem. He went to the temple as privately as he could. It was his enemies, Jews from Asia, who stirred up the crowd against him. They had no reason to cause a riot, since he had no crowd or uproar on his side.

They may also have suggested to Felix that Paul had brought Greeks into the temple against the law, and that the Roman governor should deal with him for that. But Paul challenges them to prove it (Acts 24:19). The Jews from Asia should have been there before Felix so they could be questioned about whether they had any real charge against him and would stand by it under oath. Some people will tell a lie without hesitation, but they still draw back when asked to confirm it with an oath.

In the council, Paul is saying, “Since the Jews from Asia are not here to prove anything against me about what I did wrong in the temple, let these same men who are here, the high priest and the elders, say whether they found any evil in me, or whether I was guilty of any offense when I stood before the council” (Acts 24:20). He is pointing out that his accusers were not present, and that the leaders who were present could not honestly charge him with wrongdoing.

When he stood before them, they could not take offense at anything he said. He had said only, “It is because of the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today” (Acts 24:21). That statement offended only the Sadducees, the Jewish group that denied the resurrection. Paul’s point is that this was no crime. He was simply holding to the faith of the whole Jewish church, except for those whom they themselves called heretics.