Verse by Verse

¹³ at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me.

¹⁴ And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

¹⁵ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

¹⁶ But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

¹⁷ I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you,

¹⁸ to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

midday (v.13) — when the sun was at its brightest (and this in Syria!), the light from heaven still outshone it.

shining around (v.13) — The Greek word here is uses again in Scripture only in Luke 2:9 of the light seen by the shepherds.

goads (v.14) — a stick used to prod animals. There may be a sense here in which Paul’s conscience had been bothering him even before he met the Lord personally.

which you have seen (v.16) — only eye-witnesses of the Lord could be apostles

I will yet reveal (v.16) — Christ appeared to Paul more than once (Acts 18:9; 22:17-21; 23:11) and gave him special revelation at other times (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

deliver (v.17) — in the sense of choosing

to whom (v.17) — Jews and Gentiles, but particularly Gentiles

Paul was indeed chosen and taken out from both his own people and the Gentiles, and sent back to both with the message of grace. This distinguishes him, too, from the twelve. They represented the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). He, as one apostle, represents the one Body (Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 4:4). — Stam, page 137.

⁹ “Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

¹⁰ This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them .

¹¹ And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.

¹² “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

Paul sincerely thought he was doing right in opposing Jesus Christ (John 16:2). He was probably the head of the Jewish persecution of Christians.

Paul’s sincerity did not excuse him, though it did afford God grounds for showing him mercy (1 Timothy 1:13). — Stam, page 129.

to do (v.9) = to do habitually

to the name (v.9) — “to the cause of” — “to things done in the authority of”

I cast my vote (v.10) — The word “vote” means, literally, the stone or pebble with which the vote was recorded. If the expression be taken quite literally, it will mean that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin before his conversion, and, as such, gave his vote like the other Sanhedrists. This view is strongly advocated by some, and has much to be said in its favor. In that case, we should have to suppose that he was elected to that important body because of his prominence as a Jewish propagandist; as also, apparently, that he had been previously married — a qualification required in members of the Sanhedrin — though subsequently becoming a widower (1 Corinthians 7:7). On the other hand, it is urged that he was too young for membership in such a council of “elders,” and that the phrase may be used more loosely as merely indicating that he gave his full consent (Acts 22:20). — Walker, pages 532-533.

It may also be that Paul was a member of a larger ruling council which included the Sanhedrin and other prominent Jews.

against them (v.10) — Stephen wasn’t the only martyr (Act 8:1, 3; 9:1, 21; Galatians 1:13)

every synagogue (v.11) — and there were many — He was thorough.

compelled them to blaspheme (v.11) = “tried to get them to blaspheme” — the tense indicates that he tried and failed

blaspheme (v.11) — Paul wouldn’t have called it blasphemy here if he hadn’t, by this time, come to recognize that Jesus Christ is God.

 ¹ Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You are permitted to speak for yourself.”
So Paul stretched out his hand and answered for himself:

² “I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because today I shall answer for myself before you concerning all the things of which I am accused by the Jews,

³ especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which have to do with the Jews. Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently.

⁴ “My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know.

⁵ They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

⁶ And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers.

⁷ To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews.

⁸ Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?

Paul’s address was that of courteous introduction, recognizing Agrippa’s knowledge, and requesting that he should hear him in patience.

What were the probable values of that method of address? First of all I seem to hear in it a genuine sigh of relief that he was to be heard by one who would at least be able technically to follow his argument. His plea for a patient hearing suggested his memory of former interruptions. It is well perhaps to be reminded that Agrippa granted him his patient hearing; but it is well also to notice that the address was never finished, for Festus interrupted him …

As he looked into the face of Agrippa, and knew him a magnificent man in many respects, of physical presence, of mental ability, expert as Paul said, and as Rabbinical writers agree, in all the technicalities of the Hebrew economy, I think he felt within him: “Oh, that this man could only see these things as I have seen them through the light of the resurrection of the Lord.” I think the passion for his saving possessed him as he asked Agrippa to hear him patiently. In that appeal to Agrippa, if that be the deepest sense of it, there is an interesting revelation of Paul’s personal conviction that the logic of “The Way” was irresistible. — Morgan, pages 519-520.

Paul demonstrated to Agrippa that faith in the risen Christ was, in fact, the culmination of the strict Judaism in which he was trained and, rather than being an unbelievable occurrence, it was exactly what the Jews had been promised in their Scriptures. He explained that he had been a strict Jew who believed in the ceremonial and moral aspects of his religion, but also in the spiritual aspects, which included hope in the resurrection of the dead.

stretched out his hand (v.1) — a gesture of earnestness — He was probably chained to a Roman soldier (v.29)

of the Jews (v.2) = should be “of Jews” — referring to their national and religious characteristics

Extra-biblical sources agree that Agrippa was an expert (v.3) in the technicalities of Judaism.

customs and questions (v.3) — habits of practice and theories of doctrine

religion (v.5) — external rites and forms

for this hope’s sake (v.7) — referring to the very hope all 12 tribes were looking for and the one promised throughout the Law and the Prophets

In Acts 25:19, Festus talked of Paul’s belief in resurrection mockingly, and while Paul wasn’t there to hear it, he must have known how he and others felt. And so here (v.8), Paul asked Agrippa, who professed to be a practicing Jew, “Why is this thought to be incredible?”

²² Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I also would like to hear the man myself.”
“Tomorrow,” he said, “you shall hear him.”

²³ So the next day, when Agrippa and Bernice had come with great pomp, and had entered the auditorium with the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at Festus’ command Paul was brought in.

²⁴ And Festus said: “King Agrippa and all the men who are here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole assembly of the Jews petitioned me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying out that he was not fit to live any longer.

²⁵ But when I found that he had committed nothing deserving of death, and that he himself had appealed to Augustus, I decided to send him.

²⁶ I have nothing certain to write to my lord concerning him. Therefore I have brought him out before you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the examination has taken place I may have something to write.

²⁷ For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner and not to specify the charges against him.”

I would like to hear (v.22) — The tense indicates that Agrippa desired to hear Paul for some time previous to this. It also makes Agrippa’s words a polite request to Festus.

Festus turned this hearing (v.23) into a state occasion with Agrippa as the chief dignitary.

pomp (v.23) — ostentatious display

chief captains (v.23) — military tribunes, the heads of the military department in Caesarea

As Agrippa beheld Paul, did he recall his great-grandfather, Herod, and the slaughter of the innocent [children in Bethlehem] (Matthew 2:16)? Did he recall his great-uncle, Herod Antipas, and the murder of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-11)? Did he recall his father, Herod Agrippa I and the murder of James (Acts 12:1-2)? Did it occur to him that all these ancestors of his had died or been disgraced soon after their commission of these crimes? Did the “great pomp” of his own parade to the Audience Hall remind him of the time 16 years ago, when the people had shouted that his much-more-powerful father was a god, and how he had been instantly stricken with death and eaten by worms “because he gave not God the glory” (Acts 12:21-23)? — Stam, pages 121-122.

__________

my lord (v.26) — The Greek word corresponds to the Latin “dominus,” a title which had been refused by both Octavian and Tiberius as trespassing on the prerogatives of deity and as savoring of despotism. Caligula, however, accepted it, as did also his successors. It became a usual appellation of the emperors. — Walker, page 527.

examination (v.26) — investigation. This was not a trial, instead it was hearing to try to determine the charges against Paul.

 In Acts 9:15, the Lord told Ananias that Paul was “a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.” This hearing was a partial fulfillment of that.

Paul would not be benefited by helping Festus explain the charges laid against him! Thus, as in his private hearings before Felix, he scarcely refers to these charges, but takes advantage of the opportunity to seek to win his hearers to Christ. — Stam, page 123.

¹³ And after some days King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus.

¹⁴ When they had been there many days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the king, saying: “There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix,

¹⁵ about whom the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me , when I was in Jerusalem, asking for a judgment against him.

¹⁶ To them I answered, ‘It is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accused meets the accusers face to face, and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him.’

¹⁷ Therefore when they had come together, without any delay, the next day I sat on the judgment seat and commanded the man to be brought in.

¹⁸ When the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation against him of such things as I supposed,

¹⁹ but had some questions against him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

²⁰ And because I was uncertain of such questions, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there be judged concerning these matters.

²¹ But when Paul appealed to be reserved for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I could send him to Caesar.”

King Agrippa (v.13) — Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1). When his father died, he was a youth of 17 years old, living in Rome, where he was brought up at the court of the emperor Claudius. When his uncle Herod, king of Chalcis (a district of Syria, northwest of Damascus) died some eight years later, the emperor conferred that principality on Agrippa. In A.D. 53, he gave it up, and received instead the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Luke 3:1) with the title of “king.” The government of part of Galilee and Petraea was added later by Nero. Caesarea Philippi, in Galilee, was his capital. He was the last of the Herodian dynasty to exercise sovereignty. After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), he retired to Rome, where he died about A.D. 100.

Bernice (v.13) — Eldest daughter of Agrippa I, and sister of Drusilla (Acts 24:24). She was one year younger than her brother Agrippa II, being 16 years old when her father died. When only 13 years of age, she was married to her uncle Herod of Chalcis and bore him two sons. At his death in A.D. 48, she came to reside with her brother, and the ugliest rumors were afloat as to their relationship, both among the Jews and Romans. To still these rumors, she married Ptolemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa. Later, she became the mistress of Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian. He discarded her in Rome upon becoming emperor, and she seems to have passed her last days there in the house of Agrippa. — Walker, pages 521-522.

__________

Agrippa II, the last of the Herods, was not even, like his predecessors , “King of the Jews.” Luke calls him simply “the king” (v.14). The domain which Caesar had first granted Herod the Great, had been cut in two, so that Archelaius was “ethnarch” over half the province. This half had again been cut in two, so that Herod Antipas was a “tetrarch,” or governor over one quarter of a province. And the present Herod had been given even less territory, including part of Galilee, but not Judea, so that he was not even “King of the Jews.” The title “king” was conferred upon him only as a courtesy. History does record, however, that he was the appointed guardian of the temple with the right to nominate the high priest.

In this all we have further evidence of the steady decline of the nation Israel. For years the kings of Israel, who should have come from the royal line of David, and the high priests, who should have come from the priestly line of Aaron, had been appointed by heathen emperors; the Emperor directly appointing the king, giving the king, in turn, the power to name the high priest. But these Herods not only lacked the royal blood of David’s line; they were Idumaeans, aliens by birth, though they did go through the motions of embracing the Jewish religion. — Stam, pages 116-117.

greet (v.13) — a formal state visit by a local king to the new Roman governor

Festus consulted with Agrippa about Paul because the king was familiar with both Jewish and Roman customs

judgment (v.15) — condemnation

religion (v.19) — can mean “superstition”

Augustus (v.21) — The Greek word (Sebastos) is the equivalent of the Latin “Augustus,” a title conferred on the first emperor Octavian Caesar, and inherited by his successors. It was regarded as one of peculiar honor and sacredness. Indeed, the Greek form of it is derived from the root “to worship,” and suggests more than human glory. Festus, most likely, purposely spoke of “the Augustus” in addressing a vassal king, the better to enhance the emperor’s dignity and claims. The nearest modern representative of it would be “his imperial majesty.” — Walker, page 525.

⁷ When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove,

⁸ while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.”

⁹ But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things?”

¹⁰ So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know.

¹¹ For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

¹² Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, “You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!”

The Jews cried out for Paul’s death on this occasion too (v.24).

Again (v.8), Paul answers all the charges against him — heresy, sacrilege and treason.

Caesar (v.10) — Nero, who became Caesar in 54

Caesar’s judgment seat (v.10) — This was an official trial, and Festus was acting as Caesar’s representative.

where I ought to be judged (v.10) — by law and due to his Roman citizenship

as you very well know (v.10) — Festus admits as much to Agrippa (v.25)

I appeal unto Caesar (v.11) = “Caesarem appello” — The Lord had told Paul he would minister in Rome (Acts 23:11) — here was the means.

council (v.12) — Festus’s legal officials and other provincial officers

You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go (v.12) = Caesarem appellesti; ad Caesarem ibis”

This appeal to Caesar was the right of a Roman citizen, but it evidently took Festus by surprise. He hardly expected this poor missionary, this almost friendless man (from his standpoint), to insist on facing great Caesar himself, and so without realizing for the moment that he had no actual charges to prefer against him, he said, “Unto Caesar shalt thou go.” Later, the incongruity of allowing a man’s case to be appealed to a higher court when he had not been condemned in a lower one came home to him with power, and that leads us to the next step in this drama. — Ironside, page 593.

¹ Now when Festus had come to the province, after three days he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem.

² Then the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they petitioned him,

³ asking a favor against him, that he would summon him to Jerusalem—while they lay in ambush along the road to kill him.

⁴ But Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself was going there shortly.

⁵ “Therefore,” he said, “let those who have authority among you go down with me and accuse this man, to see if there is any fault in him.”

⁶ And when he had remained among them more than ten days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought.

Because of unrest and riots in Jerusalem, Felix was recalled and Festus was appointed in his place. He was only in office three days when he traveled to the hot spot. He wasn’t able to resolve things. The unrest continued until, 12 years later, Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

high priest (v.2) — Ananias was no longer high priest; Ishmael Ben Phabi had taken the office.

Festus refused to send Paul to Jerusalem (v.4), but then asked Paul if he would go (v.9) because he wanted to do the Jews a favor.

Festus answered (v.4) — later (v.16), Festus told Agrippa that he told the Jews that it wasn’t Roman custom to give an uncondemned man to his accusers without a trial.

²² 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.”

²³ 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.

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.

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.”

²⁶ 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.

²⁷ But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound.

more perfect (v.22) — He knew more about “the way” than Paul’s accusers did.

adjourned (v.22) — Felix knew Paul was not guilty, but he put off his decision until Lysias came, which never happened. He probably never even sent for Lysias, hoping Paul would offer a bribe to be freed.

keep (v.23) — in safe custody with as relaxed conditions as possible

acquaintances (v.23) — perhaps Philp and other saved Jews in Caesarea, perhaps Luke and Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 27:2)

Drusilla (v.24) — It was about this time that Felix, with the aid of Simon, a magician from Cyprus (supposed by some to be the Simon Magus of Acts 8), succeeded in enticing the beautiful Drusilla away from Azizus, king of Emesa, whom she had, some six years previously, married at the age of fourteen. Now about twenty, she already had an infamous past. She was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (of Acts 12), the sister of Herod Agrippa II (of Acts 26) and was a little girl at the time her father had accepted worship as a god and had been suddenly stricken dead (Acts 12:22-23). — Stam, pages 101-102.

__________

Drusilla was the youngest of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa I, her elder sisters being Berenice (Acts 25:13) and Mariamne. She bore Felix one son, Agrippa, who perished, in the company either of his wife or Drusilla, in an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in the reign of the emperor Titus.

She was the second wife of Felix. His first wife had also, curiously enough, borne the name of Drusilla, being the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. Apparently, he married, later, a third wife whose name is unknown, since Suetonius calls him the husband of three queens. — Walker, page 512.

righteousness (v.25) — No doubt, Paul spoke of mans’ sin and need of a Savior.

self-control (v.25) — with emphasis on sensual sins — Felix and Drusilla were living in adultery

judment to come (v.25) — which Felix, a judge, would understand

Some have carelessly concluded that Paul was preaching “kingdom” truth here, that this address was not compatible with “the gospel of the grace of God.” But such overlook the fact that we have here another of the interrupted discourses of the book of Acts. What Paul had been saying formed the introduction to the gospel of the grace of God, for still today, no man truly proclaims grace who does not proclaim it against the background of the righteous wrath of God against sin. Any who may question this should consider prayerfully such passages as Ephesians 2:1-10 and the early chapters of Romans. — Stam, pages 104-105.

afraid (v.25) = terrified

communed (v.26) — friendly conversation

two years (v.27) — That is, dating from Paul’s trial. He was thus detained in custody two years in Caesarea. During this period, the party jealousies which constantly existed between the Jews and Syrians of that city culminated in an open fight. When the Jewish faction refused to disperse, Felix sent soldiery who slew some of them and plundered their houses. He was accused in Rome in consequence, and had to proceed thither to answer the charges against him.

Porcius Festus (v.27) — There is considerable doubt about the date of his assuming office, but it was probably in A.D. 59. His procuratorship was of comparatively brief duration, as he died, most probably, in A.D. 61-62, being succeeded by Albinus. Josephus gives him a fairly good character, and he was certainly more upright in every way than Felix. He rigorously put down the Sicarii. The chief events of his term of office were (1) the emperor’s decision in favor of the Syrians at Caesarea, as against the Jews, and (2) grave disturbances at Jerusalem because of the building of a wall at the temple to intercept the view from Agrippa’s palace. He was a typical Roman official, indifferent to the religious tenets and disputes of the Jews. — Walker, pages 514-515.

left Paul bound (v.27) — It was customary to release uncondemned prisoners when the governorship was turned over, but Felix kept Paul in custody to appease the Jews. This doesn’t necessarily mean a stricter custody than what he’d experienced up to this point.

¹⁰ 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,

¹¹ because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship.

¹² And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city.

¹³ Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ 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.

¹⁶ This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.

¹⁷ “Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation,

¹⁸ in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult.

¹⁹ They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me.

²⁰ Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council,

²¹ 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.’”

many years a judge (v.10) — Felix knew the Jews and the strong prejudices and bigotry the frequently practiced. Unlike Tertullus, Paul was respectful without using false flattery.

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Felix had occupied an official position of much importance during the procuratorship of Cumanus, apparently administering Samaria, while Cumanus devoted his care to Galilee. Cumanus was procurator A.D. 48-52. Josephus does not mention Felix’s office in Samaria, but merely relates how he succeeded Cumanus as procurator (A.D. 52). Supposing Paul’s trial before Felix to have taken place in A.D. 57, we have a period of five years at least, and, on the testimony of Tacitus, one of eight or nine years, during which Felix was a judge in that part of the country. so long a continuance in office was unusual among Roman governors, etc. — Walker, page 505.

__________

not more than twelve days (v.11) — And therefore the truth about such recent events would be easily ascertainable. Moreover, since this was at least the fifth day since Paul had left Jerusalem, it left an incredibly short time (only a week) for exciting the faction and insurrection of which he stood accused. The first day saw the interview with James (21:18); the second witnessed Paul undertaking the vows in the temple (21:26); the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days were occupied in connection with those vows; the seventh was the day of his arrest (being the sixth of the seven days of purification referred to in 21:27); on the eighth, he stood before the Sanhedrin (22:30); on the ninth, the conspiracy was formed against him (23:12), and he left Jerusalem after dark; on the evening of the tenth day, he arrived in Caesarea (23:32); on the eleventh and twelfth days he awaited in custody the coming of his accusers; and now, after the expiration of the twelve days in question, being the fifth since the forming of the conspiracy against him, he is arraigned before Felix. — Walker, pages 505-506.

Paul answers the three charges against him:

1) Sedition and treason (v.5) — He explains that it was only 12 days since he arrived in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost (v.11), and he’d spent half of them in Roman custody — hardly time to have stirred up all the trouble he’d been accused of. Also, he came to bring the Jews money (v.17), not cause riots.

2) Leading an illegal sect (v.5) — Paul admitted to following “the way” (v.14), but it wasn’t a sect — it was soundly based on the Jews’ own law and prophets. He has hope in the resurrection, as the Jews also do (v.15), and his conscience is clear of any wrongdoing (v.16). He doesn’t bring up the fact that the Sadducees among the council, including the high priest who was there at the trial, didn’t believe in the resurrection, which would have brought up the fact that he followed the Jews’ Scripture better than many of them did.

3) Profaning the temple (v.6) — He was in the temple, but without a crowd or any commotion (v.18) and, in fact, had been properly purified. His accusers were not there to testify as required by law, and those who were there could point out no fault in him.

confess (v.14)  speak freely — not an admission of wrongdoing.

hope (v.15) — The Jews believed there could be resurrection from the dead. Paul was just saying that there had been — Christ.

It should be observed that a few days previous, before the Sanhedrin, he had made an issue of the Sadducean denial of the resurrection and had exposed the disunity among Israel’s rulers. He might have done this again before Felix but refrained, doubtless out of respect for his nation and for the testimony he and they could both give before Felix. Since the majority in the Sanhedrin and the vast majority of the Jews believed in the resurrection; since this was the traditional Hebrew faith and the teaching of their Scriptures, he could truthfully say: “Which they themselves also allow,” leaving them to face secretly the embarrassing fact that the heretics were to be found among them, his accusers, and at the same time leaving them speechless lest they expose before Felix the deep discord that prevailed among them. He believed the Old Testament Scriptures as to the resurrection, while some of them, even their chief priests, did not — and will they now charge him with heresy? — Stam, pages 95-96.

after many years (v.17) = lit. “after more years” — It had been about four years since Paul’s previous visit to Jerusalem, just before his third journey.

alms (v.17) — the gifts from the Gentile churches. This is the only mention of them in Acts, although Paul wrote of them often in his epistles.

offerings (v.17) — temple offerings — the sacrifices for the four Nazarites — although Stam says the Greek word can refer to any kind of offering

whereupon (v.18) — while he was making the temple offerings. He wasn’t profaning the temple

except it be (v.21) — Paul may have been admitting that speaking out before the council was unwise.

Paul admits to his statement before the council regarding the resurrection (v.21) which started a riot, but challenges those of the council who were there to find any evil in his actions.

 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.

² 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,

³ we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

⁴ Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us.

⁵ 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.

⁶ He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law.

⁷ But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands,

⁸ commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.”

⁹ And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so.

Long years before Moses had declared, by inspiration of God, that if Israel rebelled against Him: The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low … he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail (Deuteronomy 28:43-44).

This process was rapidly taking place as the chosen people declined in power before the ascendancy of Rome. Even a few years previous, at their rejection of Christ, the Council had largely taken matters into their own hands and had driven Pilate to do what they wished, as “the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed, and Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required” (Luke 23:23-24). Now they come with abject flattery to a ruler they despised, careful not to be “tedious,” to him and beseeching him out of his “clemency” to hear them a “few words” (vs. 2-4). — Stam pages 87-88.

Tertullus (v.1) — a Latin name — a professional speaker or lawyer hired by the Jews to make their case because of his familiarity with Roman legal proceedings. He may have been a Hellanistic Jew, but whether he was or not, he spoke for the Jews.

we enjoy great peace (v.2) — It is true that Felix had suppressed the brigands who infested Judaea, and that he had driven off the Egyptian impostor (Acts 21:38) and dispersed his followers. He also quelled riots as they arose from time to time. Tertullus alludes to this in flattering style, though Felix had, otherwise, given much cause for discontent. He had even caused the high priest Jonathan to be assassinated by the Sicarii. — Walker, pages 501-502.

__________

prosperity is bring brought (v.2) — Literally “Reforms are taking place.” The reforms or corrections in question must be the suppression of the disorders already referred to, as we know of no other. — Walker, page 502

tedious (v.4) = hinder — “hinder you from doing your duties”

pestilent (v.5) — infecting society with his teaching

The indictment (v. 5-6) contains three counts. First stands a political accusation. This, in presence of the high Roman officer, was of the greatest importance. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offense. The charge of sedition or treason was thus at once laid at the door of the apostle. The second offense Tertullus brought against Paul was of a religious nature. As a ringleader of the Nazarenes, presented by him as a sect of the Jews, he had abetted that which was against the peace of Judaism and introduced not alone a disturbing element, but had transgressed another Roman law, which forbade the introduction of unrecognized religious sects. The third charge was the profanation of the temple. If this last charge could have been proven against Paul the sentence of death would have fallen against him. — Gaebelein, page 390.

__________

Nazarenes (v.5) — The term is used of Christ in Acts 2:22, 3:6; 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9. It is here, for the first time, applied to His followers. In the lips of opponents, it was already a term of contempt, and was to come more and more into vogue among the Jews as their name for the despised and hated Christians. — Walker, page 503.

__________

According to their testimony (v.6-7) everything had gone smoothly and they were just about to give Paul a fair trial when Lysias “came upon them” and “with great violence took him away!” This was a more brazen misrepresentation than anything Lysias had written, for not only were they about to kill Paul when Lysias rescued him, but they had almost torn him to pieces a second time and had finally taken part with more than 40 assassins in a vicious plot to do away with him. Indeed, it was Lysias who had commanded them to give Paul a hearing and they had then fought so among themselves that Paul’s very life had again been endangered. — Stam, page 92.

__________

The Jews’ strategy went farther than the formal charges, involving the propriety of Lysias’ having sent Paul to Felix for a Roman trial. In another brazen departure from the truth Tertullus declared that the Jews had apprehended Paul and would have judged him according to their law, but that Lysias had come and “with great violence” had taken him out of their hands, commanding them to make their complaints before Felix.

This, of course, was flatly contradictory to Lysias’ report and an obvious attempt to turn the tables on him, making him the disturber of the peace, so that Felix might be induced to give Paul back into their hands — and that the assassins might yet have their opportunity to strike.

Finally, Tertullus suggests that Paul be examined by torture, whether or not Felix delivers him into their hands, indicating further that their motive in all this was purely revenge.

examining (v.8) anakrino is used forensically of a searching examination by torture (See John 19:1, Luke 23:14; Acts 22:24, 29, etc.) Since The Greek relative is in the singular, Tertullus could not have been suggesting such an examination of the Jews, nor, in the context, could he have meant that Lysias should be thus examined. The “whom” then, refers to Paul. — Stam, pages 89-90.