The Book of Acts

Paul in Caesarea (24-26)

Part 1: Paul Before Felix

Sermon Forty-one in the Series

Jim Bordwine, ThD

Introduction

REVIEW

We recently complete our study of Paul's experience in Jerusalem. You'll recall that when he finished his third missionary journey, he returned to that city and gave a report of his activities to the elders. I divided this long section of Acts into three parts: first, Paul's arrest by the Romans; second, Paul's defense to the Jews; and third, Paul's appearance before the Sanhedrin. We completed our examination of the first two points.

01. Paul's Arrest by the Romans (21:17-40)

Shortly meeting with the elders, Paul was spotted in the temple and seized by an angry mob. A Roman commander intervened and rescued Paul from the Jews, but, as a consequence of the uproar, the apostles was arrested and bound with chains. When he was unable to ascertain precisely why Paul was being mistreated, the commander decided to move the apostle into the barracks. At that point, however, Paul requested and was granted permission to speak to the angry mob of Jews.

02. Paul's Defense to the Jews (22:1-30)

When he spoke to the Jews, Paul established his connection with those who were calling for his life by telling them something about his background. Paul reminded them that he had been trained under the famous Jewish teacher Gamaliel, and that he was brought up “strictly according to the law of our fathers.” He also noted that he had, at one time, taken part in the persecution of the Christians. Paul's intention, as I noted before, was to stress his Jewish credentials before proceeding to explain anything else. Paul hoped that the Jews would realize that something truly amazing must have happened to him for him now to be advocating the Way which he once sought to destroy.

As he spoke, therefore, Paul recounted the story of his meeting with the Savior on the road to Damascus. Eventually, the apostle explained that he returned to Jerusalem from Damascus and, while in the temple one day, fell into a trance in which Jesus spoke to him again. Jesus, Paul declared, warned him that his life was in danger and then said: “Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” The mentioning of the Gentiles brought an immediate response from the Jews. Once Paul mentioned the Gentiles in a favorable manner, his background and former zeal for Judaism did not matter. As soon as Paul indicated that he had a divinely-given ministry among the Gentiles, hatred for the Gentiles filled the mob with a renewed contempt for Paul and a renewed determination to end his life. Following this episode, the Roman commander decided to put Paul before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling Council in order for him to be questioned.

03. Paul's Appearance Before the Council (23:1-35)

Paul's meeting with the Sanhedrin did not go well. As he stood before these men, Paul declared that he had a clear conscience before God and the high priest, in response to that remark, order Paul to be struck in the mouth. Paul snapped at the high priest, not realizing who he was and had to apologize for his remarks when his offense was pointed out by some by-standers.

The focus of that scene shifted, however, when Paul appealed to the Pharisees. He declared: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” This claim was enough to cause dissension because Paul touched on one of the most disputed issues of doctrine between Pharisees and Sadducees-the resurrection of the dead. Paul deliberately played on the tension of this court when he proclaims himself “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.” This declaration from Paul resulted in a great uproar, according to Luke. Immediately, the Pharisees and Sadducees divided against one another. The result was that some of the Pharisees begin shouting in defense of Paul.

Not long after this appearance before the Council, Luke wrote that Paul was visited by the risen Savior. He was told to “take courage” and prepare to continue bearing witness to the Savior's cause. This encouragement to Paul comes just before a plot to kill him is discovered by the Roman commander. To protect the apostle, he sends him to Felix, the governor of the region, who resided in Caesarea. We left Paul having been delivered from the danger in Jerusalem. He is under house arrest, it appears, in the residence of the governor.

END OF REVIEW

The account of Paul's time in Caesarea is found in Acts 24-26. There are three primary contexts in which we find Paul in this section: first, we find Paul before Felix, the governor of the region; second, we find Paul before Festus, the man who follows Felix as ruler; and, third, we find Paul before Herod Agrippa who, during a visit to Caesarea, requests an opportunity to examine Paul. Today, we will consider Paul's appearance before Felix.

Once Paul arrives in Caesarea, as we know, he remains under house arrest awaiting the arrival of Jews from Jerusalem who will present formal charges against him. In this portion of the record, which takes up all of chapter 24, we read of the charges presented by the Jews, the defense offered by Paul and the tactic followed by Felix.

01. The charges presented by the Jews (24:1-9)

1 After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. 2 After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, “Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, 3 we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. 4 But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. 5 For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. We wanted to judge him according to our own Law. 7 But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, 8 ordering his accusers to come before you. By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” 9 The Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so.

It appears that, along with the high priest, only a representative number of the Sanhedrin made the trip to Caesarea (v. 1). They were accompanied by an attorney whose services were necessary due to the fact that the case of the Jews had to be stated in proper form in this Roman court. You'll notice that this attorney does two things in his short speech: he flatters Felix, the man who is expected to render a decision; and he blames Paul for a world-wide campaign of disturbance among all Jews. Notice, for example, how Tertullus credits Felix with having brought peace and progress to the nation of Israel (v. 2). He doesn't mention that the Jews are presently under a strict and brutal Roman occupation. He doesn't mention that the Jews know better than to displease Felix or any other Roman official. The attorney, doing what attorneys are supposed to do, seeks to represent his clients as grateful subjects of the benevolent Empire with Felix being an inspiring and kind representative of that domain.

Tertullus even refers to the “providence” of Felix as being responsible for much good that has come to the Jews. He uses a word (pronoia) which means “forethought or providential care.” Tertullus wasn't suggesting that Felix was some kind of god, but he was, as I noted, attempting to make the Jews appear in the best light possible. One way to accomplish that goal was to compliment Felix. Let's remember, however, that Tertullus is a hired orator. It is unlikely that he had any true knowledge of what had been going on in Jerusalem; in fact, he may never have even met the high priest and the members of the Sanhedrin before. It was not common for Romans to “hang out” with Jews. Therefore, even though these same Jews were part of a nation which was under Roman occupation and even though these members of the Jewish high court could not act in any serious matter without the approval of the Romans, Tertullus still speaks as though the Jews were actually thankful for the presence of the Romans in their land (cf. v. 3). All of this was, of course, a lawyer's ploy.

After this, Tertullus turns his attention to Paul (vv. 4 ff.). The attorney offers a short, yet highly charged indictment of Paul. The first thing he says about Paul really portrays the truth of the matter-“we have found this man a real pest…” (v. 5). That's the issue, in reality. Paul was a pest to the Jews. The word used by the attorney (loimos) literally means “a pestilence or a plague.” Figuratively, the term was used as a label for someone who was an irritant. We understand what a pest is. A pest is someone who keeps getting in the way, someone who is there when you wish he wasn't there, someone who can't be ignored and who, from your perspective, is of no value to you. That's what Paul was to the Jews, a pest. He would not shut up, he would not stop preaching, he would not stop accusing, he would not respect their wishes and he would not go away.

Paul, according to Tertullus, “stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world”; moreover, he is a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (v. 5) Now the attorney finally offers something specific. He connects Paul with the followers of Jesus the Nazarene. On top of this charge, Tertullus adds that Paul “even tried to desecrate the temple.” (v. 6) That, supposedly, is offered as the reason for Paul's arrest. Now we know that this is a complete fabrication, but the Jews had to have something that at least sounded like a legitimate complaint. Even though Felix was not a Jew and probably viewed this whole event as more of an annoyance than anything else, they at least had to have something that sounded like a serious issue. The accusation of desecrating the temple was that kind of allegation.

The attorney next implies that justice was interrupted when Paul was taken from the Jews by the Roman commander (v. 7). According to this report, the commander behaved in a violent manner and took Paul from Jewish custody. The reality, as we know, however, is that the commander rescued Paul from certain death due to the violent character of that mob which confronted him at the temple. It was not the Roman commander who acted violently, it was the Jews. But, as I said, Tertullus wants to make it sound as if the Jews were just doing what was to be expected with a trouble-maker like Paul when, without provocation, the Roman commander inserted himself in the situation.

The attorney realizes that it is time to compliment Felix again, so, after giving that exaggerated and false report about what happened in Jerusalem, he voices confidence that the great Felix will be able to see the truth and will find with ease that the pest named Paul is, indeed, guilty as charged. (v. 8) The way Tertullus spoke, you'd think this was one of those “open and shut” cases. The Jews present certainly thought so. Luke records that they offered their verbal affirmations to the eloquence of Tertullus (v. 9).

02. The defense offered by Paul (24:10-21)

Now, it is Paul's turn to speak:

10 When the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, 11 since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. 13 Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. 14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. 17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; 18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia-- 19 who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. 20 Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, 21 other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, 'For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.'”

When Paul says that he “cheerfully” made his defense to Felix, he was speaking in a respectful and tactful tone (v. 10). I think it's safe to assume that Paul was not cheerful during this event. He did, however, recognize the advantage granted him now that he was appearing in a Roman court. It was far more likely that he would be treated with objectivity than was the case before the Sanhedrin.

Paul gives a quick summary of how he came to be standing in front of Felix (vv. 11 ff.). He flatly denies having sought to stir up dissension among the Jews in Jerusalem. Paul states that he was not even guilty of carrying on a discussion with anyone, much less causing a riot (v. 12). Obviously, Paul had talked to others in Jerusalem. What he means is that he had not engaged in disputes or discussions which were intended to stir up trouble or destroy the Jewish religion, as had been alleged. The apostle also assures Felix that the Jews cannot prove their allegations (v. 13). This was a direct challenge to the attorney to set forth evidence that the charges leveled against Paul were based in fact.

Ever mindful of the primary issue at stake in such confrontations, that being the gospel, Paul uses this opportunity to shift thoughts to that subject. He is not guilty of sedition, nor is he guilty of desecrating the temple, but Paul is willing and eager to admit that he is associated with the Church. Paul states that he is a servant of God according to the teachings of the Way… (v. 14) Here he identifies with the Christians and asserts, by way of implication, that in terms of their beliefs, the Christians are in line with the Law and the Prophets. Paul is declaring that the Way, which the Jews opposed, was, in reality, that toward which the Scriptures pointed. Christians were rightly interpreting the Word of God; and this means that the Jews who were Paul's enemies were not rightly interpreting the Word.

Paul is not quite that blunt. Notice that he points out that Christians and Jews share a belief in the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked (v. 15). He is demonstrating that his doctrine is not some radically new invention, but is compatible with the Scriptures of the Jews. Among other things, Paul is attempting to convince Felix that he is not guilty of trying to overthrow Judaism. There are areas of common conviction between the Jews and the members of the Way. If Felix becomes convinced of this, Paul knows that there will be even less reason for the governor to entertain the outrageous accusations of Tertullus.

In spite of being smacked in the mouth earlier for making the same claim, Paul now states before Felix that he did his best to live before God and men with a clear conscience (v. 16). This time, of course, the high priest can only listen; he cannot order Paul to be struck. Paul is maintaining his innocence; he is insisting that he has not been driven by wicked motives, as the Jews charged. Instead of being in the temple to desecrate it or cause some kind of commotion, Paul tells Felix that he was there simply to “bring alms” and “present offerings.” (v. 17) He was doing what one is supposed to do in the temple when he was supposedly instigating a disturbance (v. 18). The real culprits, Paul asserts, were some Jews who came to Jerusalem from Asia-they were in the temple and witnessed Paul's conduct. If anyone was going to bring charges against him, they should do it, Paul says (v. 19).

The implication is that those who were present at this trial before Felix were not eyewitnesses to the charges now brought against Paul. These men present had no right to make charges concerning incidents which they had not witnessed. Paul knew that the rules governing Roman courts would not allow that. He does state, however, that those present were free to report what conclusions had been reached by the Jewish Council (v.. 20). He knows, of course, that the Sanhedrin did not reach any conclusions in an official manner but were found to be part of a plot to kill him.

Paul's testimony ends with a restatement of his explanation for why he had been apprehended in Jerusalem (v. 21). All the charges that had been made against him in Jerusalem and now in Caesarea were fabricated. The reason he was being sought by the Jews and the reason they were here before Felix hoping to win Roman support, was because Paul preached the doctrine of the resurrection. This last statement means, I would think, that the delegation from Jerusalem consisted primarily of Sadducees. You'll recall that the Council was divided when Paul made this same statement in Jerusalem; at that time, some of the Pharisees actually began to defend the apostle. It appears, then, that the Sadducees are still out to get Paul.

Paul's response was short, but to the point. He denied the charges of the Jews, yet confessed his dedication to the teachings of those who follow Jesus the Nazarene. He also sought to take advantage of the protection afforded him by Roman judicial procedure. That brings us to the reaction of Felix. The Jews have made accusations, through their attorney, Tertullus; and Paul has given a rebuttal.

03. The tactic followed by Felix (24:22-27)

22 But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.” 23 Then he gave orders to the centurion for him to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him. 24 But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.” 26 At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him. 27 But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned.

I'm sure that the response of Felix caught most off guard. The Jews expected an immediate ruling-Paul may have, too. Instead, Luke says that Felix “put them off” because he had a developed understanding of Christianity (v. 22). There has been much speculation about the meaning of this statement. We know that about 20 years prior to this time, the gospel came to Caesarea at the home of Cornelius who happened to be an officer in the Roman army. It's possible, of course, that by his efforts, many in the army and government learned about Christianity. Whatever his motivation, Felix would not allow the Jews to do with Paul as they pleased. He saw that there was much lacking in their charges. So, he promises to decide the case after the Roman commander, Lysias, arrives (Lysias, of course, is the officer who has been involved with this case since Paul was arrested at the temple).

Felix orders that Paul is to remain in protective custody with the freedom to receive visitors (v. 23). Not long after this hearing, however, Luke reports that Felix arranges another meeting with Paul, this time with his wife, Drusilla, present (v. 24). Their desire is to hear Paul speak about faith in Christ. Drusilla, as stated, was a Jew; she was also the third wife of Felix. Although already married, Drusilla fled from her previous husband in response to promises of a life of comfort from Felix. Luke doesn't tell us much about their interest in the gospel; he only indicates in this passage that both had some desire to know more. But, as Paul got into some of the details of faith in Christ-righteousness, which neither of these people possessed, and self-control, which neither were apparently able to demonstrate, and the judgment to come, which is what awaited them short of their conversion-Luke says that Felix “became frightened and sent Paul away (v. 25). The statement from Felix calls for pity: “When I find time I will summon you.” He would hear more at his convenience, which is, of course, the very worst attitude to exhibit when you are in need of truth.

Given what we know about the unlawful relationship between Felix and Drusilla, we should not be surprised to see this reaction. Paul was explaining what it meant to have faith in Christ-one who believes is going to live according to principles of righteousness and one who believes is going to exercise control over sinful impulses and one who believes is going to recognize a coming day of judgment. These truths were hitting too close to home for Felix, so he terminates this time of instruction.

Oddly enough, however, we're told that Felix often spoke with Paul-on these same topics, we can assume (v. 26). Moreover, as Luke notes, Felix was hoping to receive a bribe from Paul. It's possible that Felix heard of the monetary gift the apostle had recently delivered to the saints in Jerusalem and was, therefore, under the impression that Paul could come up with a bribe. Although this was forbidden by Roman law, it was quite common.

Paul's relationship with Felix comes to an end after two years of house arrest (v. 27). Other records say that Felix was called to Rome by the Emperor Nero due to the manner in which Felix handled some unrest among the Jews. The Jews, we know from other sources, went before Nero and made accusations against Felix. This last verse tells us what Felix did before he had that meeting with Nero. Knowing that the Jews were very upset with him and would probably go to Rome to accuse him before the Emperor, as in fact they did, Felix decided to try and win some favor with the Jews by leaving Paul in jail. Porcius Festus is appointed governor in place of Felix and he is the next figure encountered by Paul.

Application

For our application, I'll begin by recalling how Paul was characterized by that attorney. He was labeled as a “pest.” Paul's leading conviction clashed with the belief system of the Jews and, therefore, he was hated by them. That leading conviction which caused so much trouble was Paul's confidence in Jesus the Nazarene as the risen Savior. There was much that Paul still had in common with the Jews, in terms of belief and practice, but this one issue created an irreconcilable difference between the apostle and his accusers.

The lesson here for us is a reminder of the irritating nature of the gospel. Yes, the gospel, in which Jesus Christ is declared to be the Savior of sinners, the gospel in which all are declared to be sinners, the gospel in which we say there is only one way to God-that gospel is an irritation to the belief system of this fallen world and you might as well accept that fact and deal with it instead of trying to figure out how to live like a Christian without displeasing those who don't believe as you do. The gospel which you are called to portray in your daily life will require you to contradict the values and practices which prevail in this culture, but there is no alternative if you are going to be true to your Savior. Again, the best thing to do is realize that this is the case and just accept it. Realize that you are going to be a pest to unbelieving relatives and friends and neighbors and co-workers; realize that your lifestyle is going to be an irritant to many. I don't think it will always be this way, but that's the way it is right now at this time when we live.

We all need to be reminded of our duty to be faithful even though we live in a hostile environment. There are some, however, who really need to hear this reminder. I'm thinking of young people who new to this business of sitting in a classroom and hearing the instructor belittle your Christian faith. I'm thinking of young people who are seeing what it is like to work out in the world where nurturing atmosphere of the home is not to be found. I'm thinking of those who are young in the faith and are finding our just how little regard the world has for Christ and His Church. Listen-that's the way it is in this present world. In most cases, if you are living faithfully, you are going to be an irritant to that teacher or that co-worker or that casual acquaintance or that relative who does not believe the gospel.

A second application comes from Paul's defense. As he responded to the allegations of the Jews, Paul denied what was being said about him. He denied trying to stir up dissension and he denied desecrating the temple. But then Paul did something unusual. While you might have expected him to stop after he issued those firm denials of wrong-doing, he continued and said, in essence: “However, I am guilty of following the Way. I am guilty of believing that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah and has risen from the dead. I am guilty of preaching in His name.” Paul readily admits his association with the Christians and, in this manner, he gets to the heart of this dispute. Paul was hated by the Jews and was pursued by the Jews and was being charged by the Jews because he was not a follower of Christ, and he was not about to deny that truth. In fact, he used this hearing before Felix as an opportunity to bear witness to the Savior.

This time, the lesson for us comes from Paul's willingness to be associated with the Church regardless of what it might cost him. How many of you, if you were to find yourself in a similar situation, would respond like Paul? Suppose some group managed to drag you into court and make false accusations against you. Suppose they accused you of hateful speech, for example. Would you do what Paul did? Would you deny the false charges, but then say, “by the way, your honor, I am a Christian and I do think these people are wrong and I do think they are rebels against the Creator and I do think they are bound for judgment?” Would you say that or would your main concern be to get out of the courtroom as quickly and as quietly as possible?

In this day, what I've described is not all that implausible. And it's going to get worse before it gets better. But that kind of scene doesn't have to take place before the principle illustrated by Paul comes into play. The principle, of course, of loyalty to Christ. Those who profess Christ need to understand that there is no test of your faith when you are sitting comfortably in your home. The test comes when you are in a hostile environment and the opportunity comes for you to speak the truth. That is the moment of truth; that is the moment when you have to decide if you are going to remain silent as the name of your Savior is blasphemed and the Word of God is ridiculed. Paul could have kept his mouth shut once he denied the charges, but he realized that if he did so, that would leave a false impression. That silence would leave the impression that he cared most about not getting into trouble. But we all know that the apostle always chose to speak the truth regardless of what it might cost him personally.

A third application comes from the way Felix reacted to Paul when the two met for private conversations. Luke reported that Felix regularly spoke with the apostle, but resisted Paul when he spoke about righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come. Felix ended their contact, on at least one occasion, by saying that he would hear Paul again when it was more convenient. Felix was in a position where he could listen to Paul or not listen to Paul; he had the authority to have Paul brought into his presence and the authority to have Paul removed whenever he wished. Felix wasn't that unusual, however; he was a man wrestling with the implications of the gospel as it was explained to him by Paul.

There may be some here today who can easily identify with Felix. You may feel uneasy when you are told that you are a sinner and when you are told that you are in need of a Savior and when you are told that if you don't find that Savior, you will never dwell in the loving and comfortable presence of God. You may be in a habit of pushing such thoughts out of your mind telling yourself that you'll deal with them one of these days. That is a mistake. If God has put you in a position to hear the gospel, then listen and realize that He may be showing you mercy which will lead to your salvation. Listen to what you're hearing and call upon God for understanding. The one thing you do not want to do is follow the example of Felix and say “I'll think about these things later.”

Conclusion

As we come to the Table, let us give thanks to God because He pursued us even when we were rebels, even when we showed no love for Him. He sent a Savior, Jesus Christ, to live and die for us and this sacrament is a confirmation of that truth.