Paul on Trial

Acts 24-26

Claudius Felix, procurator of Judea from A.D. 52–59, plays a major role in the following chapter of Acts. A knowledge of his background and of general conditions during his administration throws significant light on the Acts narrative. Felix owed his high position to his brother Pallas, who had considerable influence in the court of the emperor Claudius. Both brothers were freedmen of the imperial family. The high procuratorial office granted Felix was something almost unheard of for a former slave and was doubtless secured through his brother’s influence in the imperial court. That it was considered with disdain in some Roman circles is reflected in Tacitus’s judgment that Felix “wielded royal power with the instincts of a slave” (History 5.9). The reference to “royal power” could be related to either his administration or to his family life. His administration was marked by the rising tide of Jewish nationalism with many insurrections, both political and religious. All were brutally suppressed by the procurator. He tended to be arbitrary in his dispensation of justice and totally lacking in understanding of or sympathy for the Jews. This only heightened the anti-Roman feelings of the Jews and proliferated the freedom movements. Felix’s ambitious and pretentious nature was nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in his marriages. He had three wives. All were princesses. The first was the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. The third was Drusilla, the daughter of Agrippa I (see 24:24). Felix’s administrative ineptitude was bound to catch up with him sooner or later, and he was finally removed from office for his total mismanagement of a dispute between the Jews and Gentiles of Caesarea

The first was that Paul was a “troublemaker” (literally, a “pest” or “plague”), stirring up riots among the Jews throughout the entire civilized world. At first glance this seems to be a ridiculous charge, a bit of name-calling with nothing specific to back it up. Actually it was a carefully calculated move. Compare the charge with that of the Asian Jews in 21:28. They too had charged Paul with causing trouble “everywhere,” but they had correctly seen it as involving the Jewish law and temple. Tertullus attempted to broaden the scope a bit into that of provoking insurrection throughout the Roman world. It was the charge of sedition, a charge the Romans would not take lightly. Roman officials would scarcely concern themselves with matters of Jewish religion. They would take seriously any threat to the pax Romana. Felix in particular would have become attentive at the hint of such a charge. His entire administration had been marked by having to put down one insurrection in Judea after another. He had done so decisively and cruelly. He maintained the peace at any cost.

Tertullus’s second charge was really a variation on the same theme: Paul was “a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” This was certainly true. Paul was a Christian leader. By linking the comment with the charge of provoking insurrection, however, Tertullus implied that the Christians as a whole were a dangerous and seditious sect and that Paul was one of their main collaborators. The ramifications of the Jewish charges now became infinitely clear. Should such a charge be made to stick for Paul, the whole Christian community would be viewed as a dangerous, revolutionary movement.

Paul then answered the charges. First came the charge of stirring up insurrection. Paul answered this with a threefold response. First, he had no history of inciting the Jews. He had only been in Jerusalem for twelve days at the time of his arrest and had been there solely to worship (v. 11). Twelve days was scarcely time enough to organize a rebellion, and pilgrims are not generally rabble-rousers. Paul turned Tertullus’s word against him. The latter had said that by examining Paul, Felix would be able to verify the charges against him (v. 8). Paul responded that the opposite was the case; Felix would verify that Paul was worshiping, not inciting sedition. Second, Paul stated that he had not stirred up any crowds—not in the temple area, not in the Jewish synagogues, not anywhere in the city (v. 12). There had been quite a crowd in the temple area, but it was the Asian Jews—not Paul—who incited it (21:27). If the Romans wanted to charge someone with disturbing the peace, they had best look elsewhere, not to Paul. In short, Paul replied with his third response, the Jews simply could not give any proof for their accusations that would stand up in court

Paul briefly summarized the events covered in Acts 21:27–30—his presence in the temple for purification in connection with the vows of the four Nazirites and the disturbance created by the Asian Jews. The absence of the Asian Jews at his trial comes as no surprise (v. 19). Luke already had explained that their accusation that Paul had violated the temple was based on a totally false conclusion drawn from having seen him earlier in the city with Trophimus (21:29). Paul was obviously quite incensed by the thought of these accusers, as is indicated by his breaking off in midsentence at the end of v. 19. They should have been there and brought charges against him face-to-face. That was good Roman legal procedure (cf. 25:16). Instead, with their total lack of supporting evidence, they were now nowhere to be found. Paul had scored a rather telling legal point, and Felix was bound to have observed it. For Tertullus to have made an accusation against Paul with the total absence of the witnesses for the prosecution was a serious breach of court procedure.

We were especially reminded of the fact mentioned by Josephus, that on the night of Pompeii's overthrow Drusilla, who sat beside Felix when he trembled at Paul's preaching, was here in Pompeii , and that she perished here, together with her only son by Felix.

Festus' wife, Drusilla, was the sister of Agrippa II and Berenice

Agrippa’s relationship to his sister Bernice was something of a scandal in its day. A year younger than her brother, she could perhaps be described as a “Jewish Cleopatra.” She had been married at age thirteen to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis. When her husband/uncle died in A.D. 48 and her brother Herod was granted rule over Chalcis, she moved in with him and remained his constant companion for many years. The rumors were rampant that they were maintaining an incestuous relationship. In A.D. 63 she married King Polemon of Cilicia, perhaps to avert the rumors, but she doesn't seem to have lived with him for long. She accompanied Agrippa to Rome in the early 70s and quickly became the mistress of Titus, the emperor Vespasian’s son. The relationship created a major scandal in Roman patrician circles. Titus evidently wanted to marry her, but marriage to a Jewess was not socially acceptable; when he became emperor himself in A.D. 79, he was forced to abandon his liaison with her

Paul’s life proof of Jesus didn’t waver