Jun 14, 2015
Acts 23:25-24:27
Download Audio:
Outline:
Recap: As we saw last Sunday things have gone from bad to worse for the Apostle Paul. Not only is he in a cell of his own making, but an assassination plot has been hatched by a group of 40 Jews determined to kill him.
Fearing the life of Paul (a Roman citizen under his protection), the commander Claudius rightly concludes he should not remain in Jerusalem. The Plan: “Bring Paul safely to Felix the governor” who was residing in the coastal city of Caesarea. To insure Paul’s safety Claudius prepares a detail of 470 Roman soldiers (200 footmen, 70 horsemen, 200 spearmen) and tells them to head out “the third hour of the night.”
In order to explain to Felix why this man was being sent to him with such a detail, Claudius pens a letter recapping the events of the last few days… Acts 23:25-30, “He wrote a letter in the following manner: Claudius Lysias, To the most excellent governor Felix: Greetings. This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them. Coming with the troops I rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And when I wanted to know the reason they accused him, I brought him before their council. I found out that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but had nothing charged against him deserving of death or chains. And when it was told me that the Jews lay in wait for the man, I sent him immediately to you, and also commanded his accusers to state before you the charges against him. Farewell.”
On the surface Luke’s inclusion of Claudius’ letter makes complete sense… Since Acts was a defense brief for both Christianity and Paul’s role in its spread, the content of the letter as part of the official record would benefit the Apostle. Claudius Lysias, the arresting agent, stated clearly that Paul “had nothing charged against him deserving of death or chains.”
And yet, what makes Luke’s inclusion of the letter so fascinating is how revisionist Claudius’ facts are to the recorded narrative already provided in the brief.
Example: Claudius claims he “rescued Paul, having learned that he was a Roman.” And yet, according to Luke’s account Claudius initially acted because he believed Paul was someone else and it was only after he had bound Paul for scouring that he learned of his citizenship.
So… Why would Luke intentionally include Claudius’ letter when it produced a contradictory account? Two reasons: First, as a historian Luke is not afraid of the truth. Secondly, Luke had no reason to lie when Claudius clearly possessed great incentive.
Acts 23:31-35, “Then the soldiers, as they were commanded, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. The next day they left the horsemen to go on with him, and returned to the barracks. When they came to Caesarea and had delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. And when the governor had read it, he asked what province he was from. And when he understood that he was from Cilicia, he said, “I will hear you when your accusers also have come.” And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium.”
Motion of the Text: Paul and his detail leave Jerusalem under the cover of darkness heading towards the coastal city of Caesarea (65 miles). Once they arrive in “Antipatris” because the most treacherous part of the journey was over they sent “the horsemen” back to Jerusalem proceeding to Caesarea with only a detail of 200 footmen and 200 spearmen.
Upon their arrival both Paul and the letter from Claudius are presented to the governor Felix who “when he had read” the letter “asked what province Paul was from.” Then, when it became clear Felix did have jurisdiction over the matter, he commands Paul “to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium” while they wait for his “accusers” to arrive to present their case.
Profile of Marcus Antonius Felix… Felix was born into slavery; however, as a result of his friendship with Claudius Caesar he was not only freed but became the Roman governor of the Judean province serving from 52-58 AD. Note: Historically, Felix was the first born-slave to ascend to this notable position of power.
Roman historian Tacitus writes that “Felix indulged in every kind of cruelty and immorality, wielding a king's authority with all the instincts of a slave.” Beyond the iron fist in which he reigned Tacitus writes that “Felix thought he could do any evil act with impunity, backed up as he was by such power.” Felix was a brutal, immoral man.
Acts 24:1, “Now after five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus. These gave evidence to the governor against Paul.”
Set the Scene: Since Paul has yet to be charged with a crime, “Ananias” and “the elders” come from Jerusalem to Caesarea to present to Felix “evidence against him.” To help make their case we’re told they employed the services of a “certain orator named Tertullus” who would act as a sort of prosecuting attorney.
Acts 24:2-4, “And when he was called upon, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us.”
Tertullus “begins his accusation” with a diatribe hoping to butter up Felix through flattery. The problem was that none of what he said had any truth to it. The Jews hated Roman rule and they had even more animus towards Felix. Note: He hadn’t brought peace or prosperity.
It would appear that referring to him as “most noble” was more than even Felix could handle. Note: There seems to be a reason for Tertullus’ quick transition to his case against Paul.
Acts 24:5-9, “For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so.”
Tertullus presented 4 accusations against Paul:
1. “We have found Paul to be a plague…” It was not just the reality that Paul had proved to be fanatical that was alarming, it was the fact his fanaticism had proven contagious. He was deliberately infecting people with the same disease he’d been infected with!
2. Paul was “a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world…” This phrase “creator of dissension” is translated in the KJV as a “mover of sedition.” In a sense Tertullus was attributing Paul’s actions as being the reason for the “Jewish insurrection” and unrest that was taking place “throughout the world.”
3. Paul was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes…” Literally, he accuses Paul of being the leader of this “heresy” started by “the Nazarene” which had become a title used by religious Jews for Jesus. They couldn’t say “Christian” without using “Christ.”
4. Paul “tried to profane the temple.” In the Greek this word “profane” or “bebêloô” means “to desecrate.” Note: The accusation stated Paul only “tried to profane the temple.” Tertullus then points to this last accusation as being their justification for “seizing him” in the temple desiring “to judge him according to our law.”
Understand, the fatal flaw in Tertullus’ case against Paul was that he had no case at all. Paul had committed no crime worthy of Roman punishment and Tertullus knew he could not present any evidence to the contrary. And yet, Tertullus is masterful in his approach.
Though he has no evidence to validate his position Tertullus’ accusations were designed to present Paul as being a threat to “Pax Romana.” It’s as though Tertullus is telling Felix that since Paul was a threat to peace but there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of this crime it would be wise to allow the Jews “to judge him according to their law.”
Acts 24:10-13, “Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.”
Understanding the tactic of the prosecution Paul begins his defense by addressing the accusation that he had done something worthy of judgment “according to Jewish law.”
In response to the claim he “tried to profane the temple” Paul points to the obvious lack of evidence or eyewitnesses testimony. Not only could they not “prove the things of which they accused him,” but the event in question had only occurred “twelve days” ago.
Paul is clear that he “went up to Jerusalem to worship” and not to “dispute with anyone” or “incite the crowd” which is what they were accusing him of doing. He continues…
Acts 24:14-21, “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult. They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me. Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council, unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.’”
After addressing the accusation of committing a crime worthy of punishment under Jewish law, Paul addresses the notion he’s been acting contrary to Roman law. “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”
The reason Tertullus referred to “the Way” as being a “sect” or literally “a heresy” was to separate Christianity from Judaism. Because the Romans allowed Jews the freedom to worship according to Jewish law, if Tertullus could present Christianity as a heretical movement it would be deemed unlawful (or at least demand Rome issue a ruling).
While Paul could not argue against the reality his teachings had fostered unrest within Jewish communities across the Roman world, he does counter the notion “the Way” was illegal by showing how their beliefs were in actuality consistent with Judaism.
Paul’s is emphatic that he not only “worships the God of his fathers,” but that his belief structure was based entirely in “the Law and the Prophets.” He even points to the fact he “came to the temple to bring alms and offerings to his nation” and that “Jews from Asia found him purified in the temple” as evidence he wasn’t acting contrary to Judaism.
Paul’s point was that his beliefs did not violate the tenants of Judaism and were completely consistent with the Scriptures. Therefore, while his actions may have caused unrest among the Jews nothing he had taught should be seen as illegal under Roman law.
Before we continue I am struck by something Paul said in the midst of his rebuttal. Paul said his “conscience was without offense toward God and men!” Think about that for a moment. This is the man who at one point in his life had been murdering followers of Jesus. How could Paul live with a clean conscience? Answer: God’s amazing love and grace!
Acts 24:22-23, “But when Felix heard these things, having more accurate knowledge of the Way, he adjourned the proceedings and said, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will make a decision on your case.” So he commanded the centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty, and told him not to forbid any of his friends to provide for or visit him.”
Felix defers saying he wanted to wait till he could personally speak with “Lysias” before issuing a ruling. David Guzik describes Felix’s approach as being “a cowardly dodge.”
Notice though what Felix did take away from the proceedings… We’re told he had “a more accurate knowledge of the Way.” Once again while Paul had been on trial Tertullus had used the opportunity to call into question the very legalities of Christianity.
It is my belief that as a result of this approach (while under house arrest) Paul commissions his dear friend Luke to compile two documents they could use in defense of Tertullus’ prosecution: The Gospel of Luke would show how Christianity formed from Judaism and the Book of Acts would show how Christianity spread and why it upset the Jews so much.
Acts 24:24, “And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.”
Profile of Drusilla: Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I. Celebrated for her beauty she was first betrothed to Epiphanes on the condition he embrace the Jewish religion. But when he refused to be circumcised Drusilla was given in marriage to Azizus king of Emessa instead. However, Felix later persuaded her to abandon her husband and her religion, and become his wife. At this point it is believed Drusilla was about 18 years old.
Set the Scene: Paul is under house arrest “when Felix came with Drusilla” desiring to have him explain “the faith in Christ.” Paul is now given the opportunity to share the Gospel.
Acts 24:25, “Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”
Though we don’t have the full transcript of this sermon we are given Paul’s 3 point outline:
-
“He reasoned about righteousness…” Our position before God!
-
“He reasoned about self-control…” The source of power over human desires!
-
“He reasoned about the judgment to come…” The ultimate destiny of all men!
Observation: How could Paul have the boldness to present the truth in such a real and honest way to a man who held his fate in his hands? (I mean could Paul have picked out three more unpopular topics?) Answer: Paul knew Felix had no power over his fate!
Felix responds in two ways to the Gospel:
-
“Felix was afraid…” Understand, fear as a reaction to the message of the Gospel only occurs when a person knowingly rejects what they know to be true!
-
“Felix answered…” While his answer to the Gospel message was for the messenger to “go away for now” it is important to realize indifference is still an answer!
Though Felix was convinced of the truth he put off responding in faith hoping for a more “convenient time.” He had enough evidence, but he lacked the courage to identify with Jesus and see his life change! And yet, there are three dangerous realities to this approach:
-
There will never be a “convenient time” to accept the Gospel!
-
Saying no today only makes it harder to say yes tomorrow!
-
No man is guaranteed a future opportunity!
Acts 24:26-27, “Meanwhile he also hoped that money would be given him by Paul, that he might release him. Therefore he sent for him more often and conversed with him. But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound.”
Though on the surface it may seem that Felix continued to show interest, notice why he “sent for Paul often?” We’re told he “hoped that money would be given him by Paul.”
What happened to Felix and Drusilla? History tells us that over the course of these “two years” Felix made such a mess of things in Judea that he was replaced by Festus and called back to Rome by Nero to face punishment. Apparently Felix had used a dispute between the Jews and Syrians as a pretext to slay and plunder the inhabitants of Judea.
In his “Antiquities of the Jews” historian Josephus explains why Felix “wanted to do the Jews a favor.” He writes, “Now, when Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix.”
Ultimately, Felix would be spared execution and was instead banished by Nero, but it’s interesting that his downfall would come at the hands of the same group of Jews he’d refused to defend Paul from. History tells us that Felix would ultimately commit suicide.
With her husband banished, Drusilla and her son would move to the city of Pompeii where they’d meet their tragic end when Mount Vesuvius erupted on August 24, 79 AD. Sadly, in neither instance do we have evidence Felix or Drusilla would accept Christ as their Savior.
In conclusion… What is keeping you from following Jesus? Is it a lack of evidence or is it the fact you’re waiting for a more convenient time?
It’s interesting, but some scholars believe that it was during these two years under house arrest in Caesarea that Paul would pen an anonymous “Letter to the Hebrews.” What I find fascinating about this theory in light of the approach of Felix and Drusilla to the Gospel message is that over and over again Paul would plead that “today” is the day of salvation!