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.