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.