 |  |
Judaism was a religio licita, recognized by the state, and Tertullus suggests that Lysias
had been responsible for a violent and unwarrantable interference with the course of
justice. Had he not "with great violence taken Paul out of their hands", there would have
been no need to trouble the noble Felix with the matter at all.
At the close of the speech for the prosecution, we read that the "Jews also assented,
saying these things were so" (Acts 24: 9). Felix then "beckons" to Paul to speak for
himself. The word used suggests that Felix was already impatient, being convinced, as
Lysias had informed him, that this was some Jewish squabble about Mosaic minutiae.
Tertullus had complimented Felix to the verge of falsehood. Paul, in beginning his
defence, adheres to the truth:
"Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do
the more cheerfully answer for myself."
Felix had been governor for six years, and was fully acquainted with the people and
their habits.
Answer to the first charge.--There had been no time for stirring up sedition or tumult
at Jerusalem, as, even then at the time of the trial, it was only twelve days since he had
come for the Feast of Pentecost, and during that brief period he had neither disputed in
the Temple nor stirred up the crowd. The twelve days were occupied as follows:
1.
Arrival in Jerusalem (Acts 21: 17).
2.
Interview with James "the day following".
3.
Commencement of the Nazarite vow "the next day".
4, 5, 6.
The observance of the vow.
7.
Apprehension in the Temple when the four men had completed their vow
(Acts 21: 27).
8.
The hearing before the Sanhedrin "on the morrow" (Acts 22: 30).
9.
Departure from Jerusalem on the next day.
10.
Arrival at Caesarea.
12.
"After five days" (Acts 24: 1). Paul is accused before Felix. He had had
only twelve clear days in which anything could have been done, and of
these he could give a complete account.
Answer to the second charge.--Paul was not a heretic. He still worshipped the God of
his fathers, although in a different way from that which would be acceptable to Israel. He
also entertained, in common with Israel, the hope of resurrection. In rebutting the charge
of heresy by saying that he still "worshiped the God of his fathers", the Apostle makes a
most successful appeal to Roman law, for this allowed full freedom of worship in the
provinces.
Answer to the third charge.--Paul's presence in the Temple was for worship, not for
profanation. His accusers had found him in the Temple, a quiet and legally purified
worshipper. King Agrippa, as Felix would know, had himself been purified by similar
rites.