Bird's-eye view
In this passage, the Apostle Paul, having been subjected to the oily flattery and baseless accusations of Tertullus, now rises to make his defense before the Roman governor, Felix. Paul's approach is a masterful display of respectful, yet uncompromising, Christian witness. He does not stoop to the sycophancy of his accusers, but neither is he disrespectful of the office Felix holds. His defense is straightforward, factual, and devastatingly effective. He systematically dismantles the charges of sedition and profaning the temple, demonstrating that they are entirely without evidence. But the heart of his defense is not a denial, but a confession. He openly declares that his true "crime" is his allegiance to "the Way," which he insists is not a heretical sect, but rather the true and faithful fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. The central nerve of this entire conflict, Paul declares, is the resurrection of the dead. This is not a peripheral doctrine; it is the linchpin of Israel's hope and the foundation of Paul's ministry. In essence, Paul turns his legal defense into a gospel proclamation, shifting the focus from his alleged misdeeds to the central truth-claim of the Christian faith.
Paul's defense is a model for Christians in every age. It is courteous, clear, and courageous. He appeals to facts, exposes the lack of evidence from his accusers, and boldly confesses his faith. He demonstrates that genuine Christianity is not a novelty or a rebellion, but the consummation of God's promises to His people throughout the Old Testament. The conflict is not between an old religion and a new one, but between a dead orthodoxy that rejects God's Messiah and a living faith that embraces Him, resurrection and all.
Outline
- 1. Paul's Defense Before Felix (Acts 24:10-21)
- a. A Courteous and Cheerful Beginning (Acts 24:10)
- b. Refutation of the Charge of Sedition (Acts 24:11-13)
- c. Confession of the True Faith (Acts 24:14-16)
- i. The Way as True Worship (Acts 24:14a)
- ii. The Way as Biblical Fidelity (Acts 24:14b)
- iii. The Way as Resurrected Hope (Acts 24:15)
- iv. The Way as a Clear Conscience (Acts 24:16)
- d. Refutation of the Charge of Profanation (Acts 24:17-19)
- e. The Central Point of Contention (Acts 24:20-21)
Context In Acts
This scene in Caesarea is the direct result of the riot in Jerusalem (Acts 21), Paul's subsequent arrest by the Romans to save his life, and the Jewish plot to assassinate him (Acts 23). The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, sent Paul under heavy guard to the governor Felix for a formal hearing. The Jewish leadership, led by the high priest Ananias, has hired a professional orator, Tertullus, to present their case. Tertullus has just finished his speech, which was a mixture of fawning flattery for Felix and slanderous accusations against Paul, charging him with being a pestilence, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of the Nazarene sect who tried to profane the temple (Acts 24:5-6). Paul's defense, therefore, is a direct response to these specific, and very serious, charges. This is the first of several defenses Paul will make before Roman authorities, each of which Luke records as a demonstration of both Paul's innocence of any civil crime and the fundamentally religious nature of the opposition to the gospel.
Key Issues
- Christian Conduct Before Secular Authority
- The Nature of a Good Defense (Apologia)
- The Relationship Between "The Way" and Judaism
- The Centrality of the Resurrection
- The Importance of a Clear Conscience
- Continuity Between the Old and New Covenants
- The Burden of Proof in Accusations
A Cheerful Confession
There is a stark contrast between the opening of Tertullus's speech and the opening of Paul's. Tertullus laid on the flattery with a trowel, speaking of the "great peace" and "worthy deeds" accomplished by Felix, a man known to history as a corrupt and cruel ruler. Paul, on the other hand, begins with a simple statement of fact that is both respectful and true. He acknowledges Felix's long tenure as a judge, which gives him a basis for cheerfulness. This is not the cheerfulness of a man who expects a corrupt official to be his friend, but the cheerfulness of a man with a clear conscience who believes the facts are on his side and that an experienced judge will be able to see that. Paul's cheerfulness is rooted in his innocence and, more deeply, in his confidence in the sovereign God who placed him in this situation. He is not there to beg for his life, but to bear witness to the truth. His defense is not ultimately about himself, but about the God he serves. This is the difference between a hired gun trying to win a case and an apostle proclaiming a kingdom.
Verse by Verse Commentary
10 And when the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul answered: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense,
Paul waits for the governor's permission to speak, showing proper respect for the office. His opening is courteous but not fawning. He states a simple fact: Felix has been a judge over Judea for a number of years (about six at this point). This is not flattery, but a strategic point. An experienced judge would be familiar with the religious factions and the volatile nature of the Jews. He would be able to see through a trumped-up charge. Paul's cheerfulness, therefore, is not an emotional state based on optimism, but a settled confidence based on the facts of the case and the sovereignty of God. He is ready to give a reasoned account, an apologia, for his actions and beliefs.
11 since you are able to ascertain the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship.
Paul immediately begins to dismantle the charge of sedition by establishing a timeline. It is a simple matter of fact-checking. He has only been in the region for twelve days. This is hardly enough time for a visitor to organize a worldwide sedition, as Tertullus had charged. Furthermore, his purpose in coming was not political agitation, but worship. He came as a pious Jew to participate in the feast of Pentecost. This single fact undermines the entire narrative his accusers have constructed.
12 And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor across the city did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot.
He continues his point-by-point refutation. The charge was that he was a "mover of sedition." Paul challenges them to produce a single witness. Where did this happen? He covers all the likely public venues: the temple, the synagogues, the city streets. In none of these places was he found arguing, debating, or stirring up a crowd. He was conducting himself peacefully and piously. The verb "find" is a direct challenge; they have no evidence because there is no evidence to find.
13 Nor are they able to prove to you of what they are now accusing me.
This is the logical conclusion of the previous statements. Paul throws down the gauntlet. The burden of proof lies with the accusers, and they cannot meet it. Their case is built on rumor, slander, and hysteria, not on evidence. It is a collection of bare assertions, and Paul calls them on it. In a court of law, accusations require proof, and they have none.
14 But this I confess 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;
Here Paul pivots from what he denies to what he confesses. This is the heart of his defense. He admits to being a follower of "the Way," which was an early name for Christianity. His accusers call it a hairesis, a sect, a divisive and heretical party. Paul's response is brilliant. He argues that this "Way" is not a departure from true Judaism, but its fulfillment. He serves the very same God as their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And his faith is not based on some new revelation, but is in complete accord with the Jewish Scriptures, the Law and the Prophets. He is the true conservative, and they are the radicals who have departed from the faith of their fathers by rejecting the Messiah promised in their own holy books.
15 having a hope in God, for which these men are waiting, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
He now identifies the central doctrine that flows from his belief in the Scriptures: the resurrection of the dead. This was not a Christian invention. It was a hope held by the Pharisees, some of whom were likely part of the accusing delegation. By stating this, Paul drives a wedge between the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection) and the Pharisees in the Jewish leadership. But more importantly, he frames the entire conflict in its proper theological context. The issue is not sedition; the issue is hope. The issue is whether God keeps His promises. The resurrection of Jesus is the down payment and guarantee of the general resurrection of all men, both the just for life and the unjust for judgment.
16 In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a conscience without fault both before God and before men.
The hope of the resurrection is not an abstract doctrine for Paul; it is the engine of his sanctification. "In view of this" hope of standing before God in judgment, he labors, he disciplines himself, he strives to keep a clear conscience. This is a conscience that is clear both vertically (before God) and horizontally (before men). It is a life of integrity. A man who lives in light of the final judgment is not a man who goes around stirring up riots. His doctrine produces piety, not pestilence. His hope produces holiness, not havoc.
17-18 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings; in which they found me, having been purified in the temple, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia,
Paul now returns to the facts of the case to disprove the third charge, that he had profaned the temple. Far from profaning it, he was there for a charitable and pious purpose. He had come after a long absence to bring alms, a financial gift for the poor believers in Jerusalem collected from the Gentile churches. This was an act of generosity and unity, not rebellion. And when he was arrested, he was in the temple, ritually purified, quietly completing a vow. There was no crowd with him, no disturbance. The uproar was started by others, specifically, some Jews from the province of Asia who had stirred up the mob with lies.
19 who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me.
This is a sharp legal point. Where are the actual witnesses? The men who started the riot, the Jews from Asia, are the ones who should be making the accusation. But they are conspicuously absent. Their failure to appear and testify under oath before a Roman governor is a tacit admission that their story would not hold up under scrutiny. The prosecution's key witnesses have fled the scene.
20-21 Or else let these men themselves tell what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the Sanhedrin, 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.’ ”
Paul turns to the accusers who are present, Ananias and the elders. "If my original accusers won't show up, then let these men testify. What crime did the Sanhedrin itself find me guilty of?" He reminds Felix of the chaotic scene before the Jewish council (Acts 23), where he successfully turned the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other. He boils the entire controversy down to its irreducible core. The only "crime" they could pin on him was his declaration about the resurrection of the dead. He is on trial for his theology. He is on trial for his hope. He is on trial because his belief in a risen Messiah exposes the bankruptcy of their religious system.
Application
Paul's defense before Felix provides us with a robust template for our own witness in a hostile world. First, we are to be respectful of governing authorities, not because they are always respectable men, but because the office is ordained by God. Our speech should be marked by courtesy, not contempt or flattery. Second, when accused, we should appeal to the facts. Christianity does not thrive in the realm of vague generalities and emotional accusations; it stands on the bedrock of historical events and verifiable truth. We should be prepared to give a clear, reasoned account for our actions.
Third, and most importantly, our defense must always pivot to a confession. We must be eager to explain that our ultimate loyalty is to "the Way," Jesus Christ. We should demonstrate, as Paul did, that our faith is not some modern novelty, but is the fulfillment of all God's promises. We do not worship a different God; we worship the God of the Bible in the way He has now fully revealed in His Son. And at the center of it all is the resurrection. This is the non-negotiable fact that changes everything. Our hope in the resurrection should motivate us, as it did Paul, to live with a clear conscience, striving for integrity before God and our neighbors. When the world puts us on trial, let them find nothing to accuse us of, except for this one thing: that we believe, and therefore we speak, of the resurrection of the dead and the man whom God has appointed to judge the world in righteousness.