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.
But that I may not too much intrude on thy time, I beseech thee to hear us briefly in thy kindness.
Paul stands before the Roman governor Felix, and the men who want him dead have hired a professional speaker to open the case. Verse 4 is the polite bow before the knife — so why does Scripture record a liar's courtesies in such detail?
Paul's accusers did not argue the case themselves. They paid someone who knew how a Roman court worked, and what a Roman ear liked to hear.
Then they hired a lawyer who, judging by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. They surely felt that Tertullus would know better than they did what would appeal to a Roman mind. So he would be more likely to win a conviction.
Tertullus appeals to the governor's kindness. That praise was not a report of fact. What is on record about Felix runs the other way.
His opening is as fawning as his statement is false and abusive. His flattery of Felix stands in sharp contrast with the severe verdict of the historian Tacitus. Felix did put down plotters and rebels firmly, and that was enough to give the praise some appearance of reason. What the supposed improvements or good measures were is never said. Josephus agrees with the Romans in reporting evil of Felix. He escaped condemnation for his bad rule in Syria only through the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero.
The apology for taking up the governor's time is not a small politeness standing on its own. It is the last step before the attack, and the attack begins the moment it ends.
Having tried to win over the governor in this way, and in even cruder ways, Tertullus turns after verse 4 to slandering Paul. He labels the apostle a pest, or pestilent fellow — a vague charge, but a very damaging one. Then he says something more definite: that Paul stirs up rebellions among all the Jews throughout the world… Next he charges Paul as a sectarian chief. Against the Christians he uses (here only in the New Testament) the name of contempt they had fixed on their Master — "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
Tertullus asks for a short hearing, then makes his charges. Strip away the smooth manner and nothing is left for a judge to act on.
They considered Paul a pest. What difference would that make to a judge? They said he stirred up rebellion. But they could not name one specific act of rebellion to lay to his charge. They claimed that he was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." But this means nothing unless he had done something unlawful… The Jews could count on only one thing to have any effect on Felix: the smooth speech of Tertullus.
Scripture does not treat flattery as harmless politeness. It calls it a trap.
Here again we meet the sin of flattery. "A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet" (Proverbs 29:5). Flattery is close to lying. It can never be right. It is always a mistake, and it leads to the gravest consequences. Flattery has ruined more servants of the Lord than anything else.
The person who enjoys the flattery is not innocent either.
To accept flattery is to accept falsehood. Flattery is deceit. It is not meant honestly, and it is not sober, real fact. Satan is highly skilled in such methods.
When his turn comes, Paul also begins by addressing Felix's record. But he says only what was true — that this man had judged the nation for years — and stops there.
Felix had dealt with the Jews in an official role for a long time. That was a plain matter of fact, and the apostle rightly made use of it. Their feelings, habits, and prejudices were bound to be more familiar to him than to a new governor. On this fact the apostle bases his cheerfulness in making his defence. Flattery is completely absent.
- Hired. The accusers could not win the case on its merits, so they bought a speaker who knew what a Roman ear liked to hear.
- False. Tertullus praised Felix for kindness and good government. Every surviving report of his rule says the opposite.
- Cover. The polite request for a brief hearing is the last step before the slander. Right after it, the speech calls Paul a pest and a ringleader.
- Empty. Take away the smooth style and not one unlawful act is left on the charge sheet. Flattery stood in for evidence.
- Contrast. Paul opens with a plain fact about Felix and nothing more. Flattery is completely absent — truth needs no net.
For finding this man a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans;
Paul stands in Caesarea before the Roman governor Felix. A hired speaker, Tertullus, opens the case and packs years of hostility into one sentence. His words show how outsiders viewed the first Christians — and how little of the charge would survive a courtroom. (Older translations render "a plague" as "a pestilent fellow.")
The prosecution came prepared, and it chose vagueness on purpose.
Not only the elders but even Ananias the high priest went down to appear against him. That shows how important they thought his case was. Then they employed an advocate who, judging by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. Tertullus, they no doubt felt, would know better than they did what would appeal to the Roman mind. So he would be more likely to secure a conviction... All four charges were vague, particularly the first, that he was a pest, and the second that he was a mover of sedition. He preferred vague charges, because he knew they could not be easily disproved, as plain, definite charges often can be.
As legal material, the accusation collapses. Not one of the three personal charges names an act Paul did.
Of course the first three charges cannot even be considered by a court of justice. 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. They claimed that he was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." But this means nothing unless he had done something unlawful.
The order was deliberate. Tertullus led with the one thing Rome punished by death.
He calls him a pestilent fellow, a person whom society may well be rid of. The indictment contains three counts. First stands a political accusation. In front of the high Roman officer, this mattered most of all. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offense. So Tertullus laid the charge of sedition, or treason, at the Apostle's door at once. The second offense he brought against Paul was religious. As ringleader of the Nazarenes, whom Tertullus presented as a sect of the Jews, Paul had backed what was against the peace of Judaism. He had also brought in a disturbing element and broken another Roman law, which forbade introducing a religion the state did not recognise.
The phrase "throughout the world" belongs to that same Roman framing.
It was the phrase of the day, as we see in Acts 24:5. To a Roman, the city of Rome ruled the whole earth. The world and the empire were the same; everything outside counted for nothing. But the apostles had a true and larger view.
"Nazarene" was not a neutral label. The Jews had pinned it on Jesus, and Tertullus now transfers it to His followers.
He charges Paul with being the chief of a sect, using against the Christians — and only here in the New Testament — that name of contempt which they had fixed on their Master: "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
The insult was older than this trial, and it outlived it.
The words "He would be called a Nazarene" are not found in the Old Testament, but the thought they carry runs right through the prophets — that the Messiah would be despised and reproached... His disciples suffered the same reproach: Paul had to hear himself called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Christians in some parts of Palestine are still called Nazarenes.
That last word — "sect" — carries a definite idea in Greek.
The word comes from "to choose." Translators render the same Greek word as "sect," and it names the sects among the Jews, such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Jews used it about Christianity... The root of the Greek word, "to choose," shows that a heresy is something peculiar. The doctrine held and pressed may be true in itself, but it may be exaggerated or taken out of its connection. The usual result is that a party or sect forms.
This is where the charge fails, though it holds more truth than the others.
The third was the only one with some semblance of truth. He had proved himself a leader among the Christians, whom the Jews knew as the sect of the Nazarenes. They were indeed followers of the despised Nazarene, but they were emphatically not just a new sect among the Jews. The book of Acts was written to show us they were not this, but something entirely new. The world never understands any genuine work of God.
- Vague — All four charges stayed indefinite on purpose. You can disprove a definite charge. You cannot disprove a vague one.
- Empty — Calling Paul a plague, or a man who stirs up riots, named no act. No court could weigh such words, and nobody produced one act of sedition.
- Political — Tertullus led with treason, because conspiracy against Rome carried the death penalty. "Throughout the world" was the empire's own way of speaking.
- Borrowed — "Nazarene" was the insult already fixed on Jesus. The prophets had foretold a despised Messiah, and His followers inherited the reproach.
- Mistaken — "Sect" means a party formed by human choice. The Christians were not a new faction inside Judaism. They were something entirely new, and the world never understands a genuine work of God.
who also attempted to profane the temple; whom we also had seized, [and would have judged according to our law;
Paul stands in Caesarea before the governor Felix. A hired speaker named Tertullus reads out the charges, and he saves the temple accusation for last. He also words it with unusual care. And the second half of the verse, printed in many older Bibles, is missing from the ESV.
Under Jewish law, defiling the temple could cost a man his life. Yet Tertullus buried it at the end of four charges. One writer explains why he chose that order.
The Jews would have put one charge first: profaning the Temple. It was a grave crime, and by their rules it deserved death. Tertullus put it last. He placed the other charges up front, because he expected them to weigh more with Felix. Would Felix show himself in this affair to be Caesar's friend? Would he earn the thanks of the Jewish nation? Here was his chance to prove himself a worthy governor by dealing harshly with Paul. Tertullus knew his man. But he did not know that God was behind it all, or that Paul was still to visit Rome. So every attempt by the Jews to bring about his death would fail.
Notice that the accusation is about an attempt, not a deed. That change from the earlier riot in the temple is telling.
The fourth charge does point to something Paul did. But it says only that he "tried to profane the temple," not that he actually profaned it. In chapter 21:28 the Asian Jews had charged Paul with actually polluting the temple. By now Tertullus had probably learned that this could not be proved. Still, he felt he needed some charge against Paul, so he put it in this vague way. He did not say that Paul may have brought a Gentile into the temple. The Gentile Felix would hardly count that as a charge at all!
Even the Greek word shifts between the two scenes. A reference work notes that the mob and the lawyer did not use the same term:
An interesting example of the use of these words appears in the charge against Paul of defiling the temple by bringing in Greeks. The Jews use the verb from koinos, but Tertullus, speaking before the Roman governor, uses the verb from bebelos (Acts 21:28; Acts 24:6).
The ESV stops at the seizure. Older Bibles add more: the Jews meant to try Paul by their own law, until the Roman commander Lysias took him away by force. That account rewrites what happened.
He adds a plain lie: that the Jews had seized Paul in order to try him by their own law. They were beating him, hoping to kill him, when Lysias rescued him. Yet Tertullus claimed that Lysias was the one who used great violence!
The missing words are not an oversight. The manuscripts disagree here, and one writer says so plainly instead of forcing an answer.
We may fairly question the bracketed passage in verses 6-8. The manuscripts of chief value leave it out... Yet clearly, stopping at the seizure of Paul by the Jews leaves the speech very abrupt. It never explains how he got away from them, or how he came into the custody of Lysias before his transfer to Caesarea... More could be said about the uncertainty hanging over the bracketed words. But there seems little profit in saying more, if no one can bring proof enough to settle the question either way.
Paul answers the temple charge with facts anyone could check. He also names the accusers who never came to court.
The apostle next says that after several years away he arrived bringing gifts for his nation, and offerings. Was that the act of a troublemaker who stirs up rebellion? "While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult." Was that profaning the temple? "But certain Jews from Asia" — they were the real offenders here... Why were these Jews from Asia not present face to face, as Roman law required?
The accusers backed every word of the speech. One writer traces their hatred to a warning Jesus gave His followers.
There they all stood. They backed the grovelling flattery and open lies of Tertullus — in fact they had coached him — and now they joined his attack on all truth and justice. The Lord had warned His followers that this would come. "Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you."
- Placed — the temple charge was deadliest in Jewish eyes, so Tertullus put it last. He aimed at a Roman ear, not a Jewish one.
- Padded — "tried to profane" replaced the earlier claim that Paul did profane it. The vaguer charge survived because no one could prove the sharper one.
- Painted — a beating becomes a lawful arrest, and the officer who saved Paul's life becomes the violent man.
- Punctured — Paul answers with gifts brought to his nation and an empty witness stand: the accusers from Asia never showed up.
- Powerless — Tertullus read his judge well, but not his God. Every effort to kill Paul failed, because Paul was still to reach Rome.
but Lysias, the chiliarch, coming up, took [him] away with great force out of our hands,
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
having commanded his accusers to come to thee;] of whom thou canst thyself, in examining [him], know the certainty of all these things of which we accuse him.
Tertullus ends his case against Paul by inviting the governor to test the charges himself. It is a bold move from a man who has just made four accusations and offered no proof. Two questions follow: would the examination have backed him up, and whom was Felix to examine?
Tertullus built the whole speech for effect. He knew what a Roman court would respond to, and chose charges that would be hard to answer:
Tertullus did know what would appeal to the Roman mind, and he began with heavy flattery. The account of Felix's rule in secular history flatly contradicts what Tertullus said. He followed the flattery with a fourfold charge against Paul. All four charges were vague, especially the first — that Paul was a pest — and the second, that he stirred up rebellion. He preferred vague charges, because he knew they could not be easily disproved, as plain definite charges often can be.
He ordered the charges with care too. He held back the charge that mattered most to the Jews and led with the ones most likely to move a Roman official:
The Jews would have put first the defiling of the temple. It was a grave crime, and by their rules it deserved death. Tertullus put it last. He placed in front those other charges, which he expected would weigh more with Felix. Would Felix show himself in this affair to be Caesar's friend? Would he earn the thanks of the Jewish nation? Now was his opportunity to prove himself a worthy governor by dealing severely with Paul. Tertullus knew his man.
The verse is the lawyer's closing move: let the governor look into it, and he will find the charges hold.
He ends his speech by saying that Felix, if he examines Paul, will find that the accusations he made were true. The Jews ignored any qualms of conscience and gave their word that these charges were true.
The backing they offered was not evidence but their own voices raised together:
So was everything Tertullus said true? Was Paul, under the cover of religion, the troublemaker the speaker wanted to make him out to be? The accusations needed backing up. Backing up was at hand. The Jews who came with Tertullus joined in the attack on Paul.
Commentators differ here, and the difference turns on a disputed piece of text. Some manuscripts carry extra words at the end of verse 6 and the start of verse 8, telling how Lysias took Paul from the crowd. Whether those words belong decides whom Felix was to examine.
The bracketed passage in verses 6-8 may fairly be questioned. The witnesses of chief value leave it out... But Alford finds a strong argument for these words in verse 22. With them in, "of whom" refers naturally to Lysias — and there Felix does put off his decision until Lysias arrives. Without them, "of whom" would refer rather to Paul. More could be said about how uncertain these bracketed words are. But there seems little profit in saying more, if one cannot bring proof enough to settle the question either way.
Felix did give Paul a hearing. Paul met the charges with facts:
He avoided vague claims. He flatly denied any arguing or stirring up of rebellion. He pointed out that only twelve days had passed since he first set foot in Jerusalem. He showed that they had made plenty of accusations but had supplied no proofs, and could not do so. Then he made a plain and simple confession of what had marked his life, and of what really lay at the bottom of their hostility. In doing so he brought into full view the foundation of the Gospel he preached.
Tertullus had read the governor well. He had not reckoned with the One who stood behind the whole affair:
But he did not know that God was behind it all, nor that Paul was yet to visit Rome; so all attempts of the Jews to bring about his death would prove useless.
The hearing left Paul detained, but not condemned, and under a judge who knew better:
Felix knew the accusations were not true, but he refused to decide. Paul should have been set free. Felix put the case off until Lysias the commander should come to Caesarea. But he never came, and Paul stayed a prisoner.
- Vague on purpose. Tertullus kept all four charges vague, since clear charges can be disproved, and he saved the gravest one for last to suit a Roman ear.
- Proof promised, not produced. The offer to let Felix examine and find out rested on nothing more than the accusers' united word.
- Disputed wording. Whether "him" means Paul or Lysias depends on a contested clause in verses 6-8, and the evidence does not settle it either way.
- Examined, not convicted. Paul answered with plain denials and a count of twelve days, and showed that his accusers had plenty of charges but no proofs.
- Overruled. Tertullus judged his governor well, but he did not know God was behind it all. The trial he opened carried Paul toward Rome, not to death.
And the Jews also joined in pressing the matter against [Paul], saying that these things were so.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.