and neither in the temple did they find me discoursing to any one, or making any tumultuous gathering together of the crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city;
Paul stands before Felix, the Roman governor. A hired speaker has called him a plague, a riot-starter, and a defiler of the temple. His reply here is not a sermon but an alibi: a short, checkable account of where he had been and what he had been doing.
The accusers built a case that was hard to refute. One writer shows how they chose their words:
Tertullus knew what would appeal to the Roman mind. He began with excessive flattery. Secular history's account of how Felix governed flatly contradicts what he said. He followed this with a fourfold charge against Paul. All four charges were vague, especially the first, that he was a pest, and the second that he was a mover of sedition. He preferred vague charges. He knew they were hard to disprove, while plain definite charges often are not.
A judge needs an act, not a label. Another writer tests the charges one by one:
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.
Paul's answer took the opposite shape from the speech that opened the case.
Paul's answer was in every way a contrast to the oration of Tertullus. He acknowledged that Felix had many years of experience as a judge among the Jews. But he refrained from flattery. He avoided vague assertions. He denied in plain terms any disputes or sedition. He pointed out that only twelve days had passed since he set foot in Jerusalem. He showed that while they had made plenty of accusations they had supplied no proofs, and could not do so.
Paul names the three places in Jerusalem where a troublemaker would show up: the temple, the synagogues, the streets. He does not say that teaching there would have been wrong. He says nobody saw him do it.
His visit was so recent that anyone could trace his movements. And when he did go — only twelve days before — it was "to worship". That is the very opposite of stirring up sedition or other harmful conduct, and least of all of profaning the temple. He was free to speak if he had thought it right. But in fact they did not find him "disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd" in the temple. Such uproar was common in a people so zealous and so excitable. They did not find him in the synagogues either, many as they were, nor in the city. What could be less like an agitator?
The same writer names what Paul actually felt toward the people accusing him:
He loved his nation too well to be their troubler in any way, though that is how his accusers described him.
There was nothing for them to find, because the visit ended almost as soon as it began. Another writer notes how quiet those days were:
Paul's ministry at Jerusalem on his last visit had been hindered. He had kept very quiet (Acts 24:11-12). He had not been in the capital a week before he became a prisoner in the hands of the Romans.
Paul's conduct gave them nothing to use. So the hatred came from somewhere else.
There they all were. They agreed with the base servility and downright falsehood of Tertullus — indeed they had instructed him. Now they joined in his attack against all truth and justice. And so the Lord had forewarned His followers. "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." … So their enmity turned against a servant of His. He made their consciences feel the truth — a truth they could not overthrow, and would not believe or confess.
- Vague. His accusers kept the charges general — "pest", "mover of sedition". Loose words are harder to disprove than exact ones.
- Verifiable. Paul answered with dates and places: twelve days in the city, and worship as his purpose.
- Silent. No one found him arguing in the temple, the synagogues, or anywhere in the city. His visit ended before it could go far.
- Groundless. They produced accusations but no proof, and they had none to produce.
- Rooted. The hostility was not about his conduct. It was about the truth he carried — just what the Lord told His followers to expect.
neither can they make good the things of which they now accuse me.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.