I N D E X
161
`Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy
providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness' (Acts 24:2,3).
The use of the word `providence' here is an indication of the Latin persuasion of the speaker. A coin of
Commodus is known, bearing the inscription Provid. Aug., and Providentia Cęsaris is a common phrase on coins of
the emperors. With regard to the implications of verses 2 and 3, it is certainly true that Felix had suppressed bandits
in the country, and had only recently rid the land of a false Messiah, an Egyptian. His real character, however,
cannot be gathered from these opening compliments. Tacitus wrote of him:
`In the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave' (Hist.
v. 9).
`We may trace the libidinem in his persuading Drusilla to leave her husband and to live with him; the saevitiam,
in his procuring the assassination of the high priest Jonathan, who had given him good but distasteful advice; the
servile ingenium in that "he trembled" under castigation, but was not corrected' (W. G. Humphry).
After the opening panegyric, Tertullus passes on to the accusation. This he divides up under three heads:
(1) The accused was a public pest, a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the Empire.
(2) He was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
(3) He had attempted to profane the Temple.
This threefold accusation implied that Paul had offended against both Roman and Jewish law. The first offence
amounted to majestas, or treason against the Emperor, while the third in itself was punishable by death.
The word for `a pestilent fellow' is loimos, `a plague'. What a name to give this bearer of life and light to a
stricken and dying world! The word for `sedition' is stasis, which occurs in connection with the charge laid against
Barabbas (Mark 15:7), and is also used for the `uproar' in Ephesus (Acts 19:40). Tertullus was careful not to refer
to Paul as a leader of the `Christians', for the title `Christ', being the Greek equivalent of `the Messiah', might have
involved the Jews themselves.
Considerable differences of opinion exist among textual critics as to whether the second half of verse 7 and the
first half of verse 8 should be included in the text or not. In the A.V. the passage reads:
`Whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and
with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining
of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him' (Acts 24:6-8).
If we omit the suspected passage, then the words `of whom' refer to Paul. If, on the other hand, the A. V. be
retained, they would refer to Lysias. Felix certainly adjourned the case, saying: `When Lysias the chief captain shall
come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter' (verse 22), but whether or not this was an act of evasion it is
impossible to say. Certainly Lysias never came, and Felix never heard the conclusion of the trial. In any case no
doctrinal point is affected by the uncertainty in verses 7 and 8, and we therefore propose to follow the A.V.
Before, however, we consider Paul's defence before Felix, we must get a general view of the whole of the
section.
Paul before Felix and Festus (Acts 24:1 to 25:22)
A1 24:1. TIME.- After five days.
B1 24:1-9. CHARGE.- Tertullus informed against Paul
(emphanizo).
C1 24:10-21. DEFENCE.- I cheerfully answer for myself.
a Judgment to come.
D1  24:22-27. JUDGMENT.-
b Willing to show the Jews a pleasure.
Felix.
A2 25:1. TIME.- After three days.