And after five days came down the high priest Ananias, with the elders, and a certain orator called Tertullus, and laid their informations against Paul before the governor.
Five days on, Paul's accusers arrive at the governor's court in Caesarea with a hired speaker in tow. Why does the highest religious office in Israel need paid talent to destroy one prisoner?
Violence had already failed to reach Paul. One writer describes what took its place:
Religious bitterness is quick and tireless. When violence fails to seize its prey, it turns at once to legal process instead. There, unscrupulous abuse may still succeed. The judge need not even be corrupt. He need only lean, as people in general do, to the popular side against the righteous and godly.
The same pattern shows up later in the story. When a new governor, Festus, replaced Felix, the leaders were still at it:
Festus having arrived, he went up to Jerusalem after three days, and such was the hostility against Paul that the high priest and other leaders accused him at once, and asked Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem. Though years had passed they would still fulfil their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness!
Ananias did not send a delegate. The high priest travelled the long road himself, and elders came with him:
The high priest went down such a distance, and with so little delay. That shows how much importance they attached to the trial.
This is the same Ananias Paul had already faced days earlier:
High priest before whom Paul appeared, and who ordered him to be struck on the mouth, to whom Paul said, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!" Acts 23:2-3; Acts 24:1. Herod king of Chalcis raised him to the office in A.D. 48.
Tertullus is not one of the elders. He is an outsider brought in for the job. The reason for hiring him is plain:
Then they employed an advocate who, judging by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. They no doubt felt that Tertullus would know better than they did what would appeal to the Roman mind. He would be more likely to secure a conviction. Tertullus did know, and he began with excessive flattery. The account secular history gives of Felix's rule completely contradicts what he said.
Luke's word for him names his trade:
rhetor, 'a speaker.' At the trial of Paul before Felix, Tertullus was hired to argue their case, and to plead for Paul's condemnation.
Felix is the governor these accusers hoped to win. His record was bad, though the flattery aimed at him was not pure invention:
No wonder Tacitus described him as a man who "had the soul of a slave with the power of a sovereign, and used his power in every form of cruelty and lust." Greed was another vice that marked him. He took bribes, and he looked for them. On the other hand, he did not lack courage or decisiveness. He had shown that in dealing with the bandits who had troubled the province. So the compliment Tertullus paid him had some truth in it. On top of all this, he already had some knowledge of "the way," as Luke calls it. That made him harder to sway with the unsupported accusations the Jews brought against Paul. Such was the man who held Paul's life and person for a time, under God.
The trial looks like Paul's enemies setting the agenda. Read another way, God is the one arranging Paul's journey through these courts:
We now find the apostle in the hands of the Gentiles. There may have been no free action of the Spirit in Paul himself. Even so, the providence of God cares for him and orders everything for the testimony he was to bear. His favour is with him. The relentless hostility of the Jews only brings about the fulfilment of the purposes of God... he is conducted to Lysias, to Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and at last to Caesar. Such was the intention of God. These were also the means He used to bring the gospel to the governors and the great. He did not raise up men of the world to do it, as many often think. Instead, God makes a prisoner His servant, so that the gospel might reach governors and kings.
- Prompt. Violence failed, so the same hatred turned to the courts. Speed and persistence mark religious bitterness, not a good case.
- Personal. The high priest made the long journey himself. The effort spent against one prisoner shows how much they feared him.
- Purchased. They hired Tertullus to plead for a conviction. He knew what would sway a Roman ear.
- Praise. His opening flattery clashed with Felix's real record. A case that must open with flattery is already weak.
- Providence. The accusers filled the courtroom, but God set the route. A prisoner became His servant and carried the gospel to governors and kings.
And he having been called, Tertullus began to accuse, saying, Seeing we enjoy great peace through thee, and that excellent measures are executed for this nation by thy forethought,
Paul stands before Felix, the Roman governor at Caesarea, and his accusers open with compliments instead of evidence. Why did a religious council need a hired speaker, and what does such an opening say about the case they had?
The man who speaks first at the trial is not a priest or an elder.
A professional orator or advocate, employed by the Jewish council, to argue the case against Paul before Felix.
One writer weighs both the man and the speech he gave:
His name is a shortened form of Tertius, one of many names formed that way in Latin. So the orator seems to have been one of the young Romans or Italians found wherever there was a court of justice in the provinces. The Jews most likely hired him because he knew the procedures used before the governor. His opening is as grovelling as his statement is false and abusive.
The peace and reforms Tertullus credits to Felix can be checked against history.
Tertullus knew what would appeal to the Roman mind, and began with lavish flattery. Secular history's account of Felix's rule is the flat opposite of what he said.
But what were the reforms the speech praises?
What the supposed improvements or good measures were, we are not told. Josephus, the historian, gives as bad a report of Felix as the Romans do. Felix escaped condemnation for his misgovernment in Syria only through the influence of his brother Pallas with the emperor Nero.
There is a second problem with the flattery, and it sits closer to hand.
Tertullus began his flowery speech by flattering Felix. Neither he nor any of the Jews would have spoken that way behind the governor's back. He speaks of Israel enjoying great quietness under the authority of Felix. Yet it was they who had disturbed Jerusalem by their violence against Paul.
The opening tribute is not decoration. It is doing the work that evidence should be doing.
Of course a court of justice cannot even consider the first three charges. They considered Paul to be a pest. What difference would this make to a judge? They said he was a mover of sedition. But they have not one specific act of sedition to lay to his charge... The only thing that the Jews could count on having any effect at all on Felix was the smooth speech of Tertullus.
Hole sees a tactic behind the vagueness of Tertullus's charges.
He preferred vague charges, because he knew they could not be easily disproved, the way plain, definite charges often can be.
Set against the hired eloquence stands a man with nobody to speak for him.
What about the accused? No orator that we hear of volunteered to present his case in the best light before the court. No one pleaded his cause. Was he deserted? Was he worse off for this? He had One with him whom Ananias, Tertullus and Felix did not know. Relying on His help and guidance, he could let the orator speak, and speak first, in perfect calm. He was sure that no human eloquence, no shameless flattery and no clever misrepresentation could damage his defence.
This speech shows what happens when a speaker aims to win his hearer instead of telling the truth. A true witness works the other way round:
Peter was no flatterer of his hearers, otherwise he would have been an unworthy witness to the truth. This same spirit marked Paul. He said of his preaching, "For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness" (1 Thessalonians 2:5). No flatterer can be a faithful preacher of God's message. Whoever would be kept from flattery must live in the fear of God all day long. Otherwise the fear of man, or greed, will betray him into what is so hateful to God and so harmful to men.
- Hired. The council hired a professional advocate who knew how a Roman court worked. The case needed skill it did not have on its own.
- False. History gives the opposite account of Felix's rule. And the flatterers themselves had just caused the violence in Jerusalem.
- Empty. The compliments carry the weight that evidence should carry. The charges that follow are too vague for any court to act on.
- Guarded. Paul had no advocate. But he had One the court could not see, so no eloquence or misrepresentation could harm his defence.
- Faithful. Flattery and faithful witness cannot live together — the cure is the fear of God, which frees a speaker from the fear of man.
we receive [it] always and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.
A hired speaker stands before the governor Felix and opens the case against Paul with compliments — thanks for peace and reforms, "in every way and everywhere." Was any of it true, and why did he say it?
The Jewish leaders did not plead their own case. They hired a professional speaker. One writer looks at who such a man likely was, how he opened, and what his thanks were worth.
Judging by his name — a shortened form of Tertius, like many others formed that way in Latin — the orator seems to have been one of the young Romans or Italians found wherever there was a court of justice in the provinces. The Jews most likely hired him because he knew the ways of doing business before the governor. His opening is certainly as servile as his statement is false and abusive. The flattery of Felix stands in open contrast to the serious condemnation of the historian Tacitus. Yet there was enough in his forceful putting down of plotters and rebels to give it some appearance of reason. What the claimed improvements or good measures were does not appear. Josephus agrees with the Romans in his bad report of Felix, who escaped condemnation for his misgovernment in Syria only through the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero.
The title Tertullus attaches to Felix is not a compliment on his character. It is the standard form of address for a man in his office.
The word translated "most excellent" is kratistos. The same word is applied to governors of provinces, as to Felix and Festus as "most noble."
So was the praise pure invention? One writer weighs the governor's record on both sides.
No wonder Tacitus described him as a man who "had the soul of a slave with the power of a sovereign, and used his power in every kind of cruelty and lust." Greed, too, was a vice that marked him. He would take bribes, and he looked for them. On the other hand, he was not lacking in courage or decision. He had shown that in dealing with the bandits that had overrun the province. So the compliment paid him by Tertullus had truth in it.
The flattery also works against itself, once you ask who had broken the peace.
He took the lead in speaking. He began his flowery speech by flattering Felix in a way he — or any of the Jews — would never have spoken behind the governor's back. He speaks of Israel enjoying great quietness through the authority of Felix. Yet it was they who had disturbed Jerusalem by their violence against Paul.
Flattery is not just bad manners. One writer names what it really is, and who is behind it.
This is of course the same principle as bribery. Let the believer take care to avoid such trapping nets. Accepting flattery is accepting falsehood, for flattery is actually deceit: it is not even honestly meant, nor is it sober, real fact. Satan is extremely skilful in such methods.
Paul answered next. He too could point to the governor's long service on the bench, but his speech went a different way.
Paul's answer was in every way a contrast to the speech of Tertullus. He acknowledged that Felix had many years of experience as a judge among the Jews, but he held back from flattery. He avoided vague claims. He denied outright any arguing or stirring up of revolt, and pointed out that only twelve days had passed since he first set foot in Jerusalem.
Tertullus aimed every word at one man. He had not reckoned with God.
Tertullus knew his man. But he did not know that God was behind it all, nor that Paul was still to visit Rome; so every effort of the Jews to bring about his death would come to nothing.
- Hired. The Jews hired a professional speaker who knew the provincial courts. His opening was as servile as his charges were false.
- Titled. "Most excellent" was the normal way to address any governor. It said nothing about the man's character.
- Half-true. Felix had put down bandits, so the compliment held some truth. But cruelty, lust, and bribe-taking marked his rule.
- Hollow. The men who thanked him for peace had themselves thrown Jerusalem into violence over Paul.
- Overruled. Tertullus knew his man, but not his God; the flattery aimed at Felix could not stop Paul from reaching Rome.