Verse by Verse

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.

²³ And he called for two centurions, saying, “Prepare two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night;

²⁴ and provide mounts to set Paul on, and bring him safely to Felix the governor.”

²⁵ He wrote a letter in the following manner:

²⁶ Claudius Lysias, To the most excellent governor Felix: Greetings.

²⁷ 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.

²⁸ And when I wanted to know the reason they accused him, I brought him before their council.

²⁹ I found out that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but had nothing charged against him deserving of death or chains.

³⁰ 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.

³¹ Then the soldiers, as they were commanded, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.

³² The next day they left the horsemen to go on with him, and returned to the barracks.

³³ When they came to Caesarea and had delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him.

³⁴ And when the governor had read it , he asked what province he was from. And when he understood that he was from Cilicia,

³⁵ he said, “I will hear you when your accusers also have come.” And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium.

two centurions (v.23) — of the 10 reporting to him — these were probably the most reliable

make ready (v.23) — fully armed

spearmen (v.23) = lit. “right hand graspers” — probably light infantry who carried a spear in the right hand

third hour (v.23) — 9 pm

Felix the governor (v.24) — Antonius Felix, a Greek by birth, was the younger brother of Pallas, the emperor Claudius’s favorite. The two brothers had formerly been slaves of Antonia, Claudius’s mother, but she had made them freedmen and advanced them. Pallas’s influence at court procured Felix a military command in Samaria under the procurator Ventidius Cumanus; and, on the latter’s degradation from office, Felix became procurator of Judaea in his stead (about A.D. 52). He proved to be a cruel, corrupt and avaricious governor. Tacitus the historian tells us that “he wielded the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” During his last two years of office, serious riots occurred in Caesarea between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants, and Felix acted in a very high-handed manner. He was recalled to Rome to answer the charges against him, and only escaped condemnation through his brother’s influence. He is then lost to view in history. — Walker, page 497.

having learned that he was a Roman (v.27) — a lie to make himself look better. Lysias thought Paul was Egyptian (Acts 21:38). He didn’t learn Paul was Roman until after he’d intervened and when he was about to have him scourged (Acts 22:24-25)

Antipatris (v.31) — A city founded by Herod the Great, and so called in honor of his father. It was about 35 miles from Jerusalem, a little more than half way to Caesarea. Here the party halted, being now beyond the reach of surprise. — Walker, page 498.

what province (v.34) — to see if he had jurisdiction

Praetorium (v.35) — Built by Herod the Great as a royal residence and now occupied by the Roman procurator. The Romans called it ” a praetorium”, and it was a fortress with a soldier garrison as well as a palace. Paul was kept in military custody, in the guard-room attached to the palace-garrison. — Walker, pages 499-500

¹² And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

¹³ Now there were more than forty who had formed this conspiracy.

¹⁴ They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, “We have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul.

¹⁵ Now you, therefore, together with the council, suggest to the commander that he be brought down to you tomorrow, as though you were going to make further inquiries concerning him; but we are ready to kill him before he comes near.”

¹⁶ So when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their ambush, he went and entered the barracks and told Paul.

¹⁷ Then Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, “Take this young man to the commander, for he has something to tell him.”

¹⁸ So he took him and brought him to the commander and said, “Paul the prisoner called me to him and asked me to bring this young man to you. He has something to say to you.”

¹⁹ Then the commander took him by the hand, went aside, and asked privately, “What is it that you have to tell me?”

²⁰ And he said, “The Jews have agreed to ask that you bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more fully about him.

²¹ But do not yield to them, for more than forty of them lie in wait for him, men who have bound themselves by an oath that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him; and now they are ready, waiting for the promise from you.”

²² So the commander let the young man depart, and commanded him , “Tell no one that you have revealed these things to me.”

curse (v.12) — They declared themselves anathema. The pledged their own destruction if they failed to keep their vow.

chief priests and elders (v.14) — the Sadducees on the council (Acts 5:17)

This is the only mention of Paul’s sister or her son (v.16) — or anyone in Paul’s family — in Scripture. They may have lived there, or his nephew may have been in Jerusalem as a student or to attend the feast.

young man (v.17) = youth

agreed (v.20) — In the New Testament, the Greek word here translated “agreed” is only used in reference to agreements against Christ or Paul (Luke 22:5; John 9:22).

I wonder what happened to the 40+ Jews who pledged not to eat or drink until Paul was dead. Did they really die of thirst and hunger? I’m guessing they broke their vows, or their buddies in the council exempted them.

Earlier in Acts, when the kingdom gospel was in full force, Peter and Paul were both released from jail miraculously. But now, at the end of the transition period, God (who had told Paul the night before that he would witness in Rome) effected (or maybe even just foresaw) his release by the simple, non-miraculous method of having his nephew find out about the plot.

⁶ But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”

⁷ And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.

⁸ For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.

⁹ Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.”

¹⁰ Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks.

¹¹ But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.”

cried out (v.6) = lit. “continued crying out” — Paul later seems to have regretted this (Acts 24:20-21).

a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee (v.6) — In Philippians 3:4-8, Paul calls these things “dung.”

The next utterance of the apostle is still more strange. Once again he addresses the council as men and brethren. Then he cried “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” This is the third claim he makes and it shows how far he had drifted. He had claimed being a Jew, then had pleaded his Roman citizenship, and now before the council, he reminds them that he is a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. Later from his Roman prison he wrote to the Philippians that he counted this all as dung. He had done so before. Here no doubt is a relapse. — Gaebelein, page 382.

scribes (v9) — expounders and teachers of Jewish law, mostly belonging to the Pharisees’ party. They were concerned with the letter of the law as well as rituals and traditions.

a spirit or an angel (v.9) — They wouldn’t admit that Paul saw the risen Christ.

The circumcision apostles and the multitudes of Jewish believers at Jerusalem had for years believed and proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, yet the unbelieving Jews, even now, tolerated them. Why this great outcry against Paul. It was because he had, by revelation, preached the resurrection of “the Seed of David” in a new light as the basis for a proclamation of freedom from the law and salvation by grace to Jew and Gentile alike (see 2 Timothy 2:7-9; Romans 4:22-25; 10:9, etc.). This was what they so bitterly opposed. — Stam, page 71.

I can’t help wondering if Paul was totally discouraged with himself. He’d been told not to go to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit, but he’d gone anyway because of his zeal for reaching the Jews. He’d been talked, by James, into participating in a law ceremony which was contrary to everything he’d written in Galatians, but he’d done it because of his zeal for the Jews. And now he was beaten and imprisoned and hated; his ministry was in serious danger; his desire to go to Rome evidently thwarted. His discouragement and frustration had caused him to speak out against the high priest and to appeal to his former position as a Pharisee, both of which he had to feel were mistakes.

But Paul served a God of grace. In the darkness of his cell, the Lord appeared and told him to cheer up. The Lord was with him and would allow him to continue his ministry. It wasn’t as a prisoner that Paul expected to go to Rome, but as a prisoner, he would be a witness for the Lord.

This is not the only crisis in which Paul was given supernatural encouragement. He had been thus sustained in the dangerous days at Corinth (Acts 18:9-10) and would be again in the fearful storm on the way to Rome (Acts 27:22-24) and at his first appearance before Caesar (2 Timothy 4:16-17). — Stam, page 73.

 ¹ Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

² And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.

³ Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?”

⁴ And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?”

⁵ Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

earnestly beholding (v.1) — perhaps this indicates that Paul was no longer acting humbly before his accusers but as an equal, recognizing that his chances were better with the Romans and that this was not a true trial.

council (v.1) — the Sanhedrin — As a Pharisee, Paul was formerly a member.

I have lived (v.1) = lit. “I have behaved as a citizen”

Ananias (v2) — Son of Nedebaeus, high priest A.D. 47-59. He received his appointment through Herod of Chalcis. On account of acts of violence against the Samaritans during his term of office, he was summoned to Rome for inquiry, but was acquitted through the influence of the younger Agrippa.

Jospehus describes his avariciousness and acts of robbery and violence. He seems to have been deposed towards the end of Felix’s tenure of office as procurator. His treatment of Paul agrees with what we otherwise know of him. He met with a violent death at the hands of the Sicarii some years after his deposition from office, in A.D. 66. — Walker, page 487.

whited wall (v.3) — hypocrite — a whitewashed coat of paint on a precarious, about-t0-fall-down wall

I did not know (v.5) — some say this is because of Paul’s poor eyesight, some say it’s because Paul didn’t consider Ananais to be worthy of the office and some say Paul truly didn’t know. (See Stam, below.)

In the first place, it would not be like Paul to “speak evil of dignitaries.” Second, Israel’s high priests, at this time in her history, were appointed with gross irregularity, partly due to national apostasy from God’s commands and partly to Rome’s intrusion, so that one illegitimate high priest after another held office and the council was even presided over, at times, by substitute “high priests.” Under these circumstances — and Paul having been in Jerusalem but a few days — it is quite understandable that he would not recognize the high priest.

Had the apostle known that it was the high priest who had ordered him smitten he would have refrained from rebuking him in view of the command in Exodus 22:28. But having done so he merely explained how this had come about and retracted neither his rebuke nor his prediction. The more shame that the high priest should be guilty of so brazenly violating the basic rules of justice. — Stam, pages 68-69.

written (v.5) — Exodus 22:28, from the Septuagint

Some commentaries state that Paul was upset — angry at his treatment as a criminal, frustrated by the rejection of the Jews he came to help, sore from his beating and rough treatment, and probably tired. They maintain that his opening statement was self-justification and not Spirit-led, and that in response to being hit he lost control and was acting in his old nature. Stam has a different take (below).

Fault has been found with the apostle for not showing the same humility as had his Lord when similarly outraged. In this connection it should be observed that our Lord had come to earth especially to take the blame and bear the penalty for the sins of others and particularly for His people, Israel, while on this occasion Paul faced Israel’s rulers after their final demonstration of apostasy against Messiah. The actions of both our Lord and Paul on these two occasions are therefore representative; the one of God’s mercy to Israel, the other of His judgment upon them. — Stam, page 67.

²² And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!”

²³ Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air,

²⁴ the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, and said that he should be examined under scourging, so that he might know why they shouted so against him.

²⁵ And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?”

²⁶ When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.”

²⁷ Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?”
He said, “Yes.”

²⁸ The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.”
And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”

²⁹Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

³⁰ The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them.

this word (v.22) — Gentiles

The cause of the great uprising that followed Paul’s address should be kept in mind as we read this part of the narrative. The multitude raised no commotion as the apostle related how he had found Jesus to be the Messiah. Tens of thousands in Jerusalem believed this and the rest tolerated it (See Acts 21:20). What enraged them was Paul’s preaching of the finished work of the now-risen Christ and the consequent replacement of law by grace sufficient for uncircumcised Gentiles as well as Jews (21:28). This was the issue even among the believers at Jerusalem (See  21:20-21).

And this is still the great issue today. “Christianity” as an offshoot of Judaism, with believers in Christ under the law, is tolerated, but true Christianity, with its freedom from the law and its riches of grace cannot be countenanced! Even some leaders of Fundamentalism pronounce it anathema. This, the glorious all-sufficiency of Christ, is what Satan hates and opposes most bitterly. — Stam, pages 49-50.

tore off their clothes (v.23) — their outer garments, perhaps in preparation for stoning

scourging (v.24) — torture to find the truth or to force a confession. In this case, to find out why the Jews were so demonstrative in their hatred of Paul.

bound (v.25) — The Roman method of scourging was to strip the man and either tie him to a pillar in a bending position or to stretch him on a frame. He was then lashed with leather thongs weighted with pieces of lead. The verb here used is peculiar to this verse, and means “to stretch forward” into a position for scourging. — Walker, page 483.

lawful (v.25) — It was against Roman law to scourge a Roman citizen.

you (v.27) — emphatic — Are YOU (whom I took to be a Jewish trouble-maker) a Roman?

sum (v.28) — It is known that, under the emperor Claudius, his wife Messalina and his chief ministers sold the Roman citizenship. It was most likely through having purchased the privilege under that emperor that the chief captain bore the name Claudius Lysias (see Acts 23:26). — Walker, page 484.

but I (v.28) — emphatic, with an air of dignity

born (v.28) — We don’t know how Paul’s family became Roman citizens.

council (v.30) — the Sanhedrin

If the unbelieving Jews were Paul’s bitter enemies then “James and the elders” along with any of the 12 apostles who were present, were his very doubtful friends. Neither now, nor later, do we find one of them standing at his side, even though James, Peter and John had officially and publicly acknowledged him, some years back, as the apostle of grace and the apostle to the Gentiles.

Indeed, the compromise which James and his party had persuaded Paul to make had produced nothing — but this uproar — while they stayed in the background. — Stam, pages 57-58.