Acts 24:1-9 meaning

Acts 24:1-9 begins the trial of Paul in Caesarea. After returning to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey, Paul was attacked in the temple by a mob. The Romans arrested him to prevent the crowds from murdering him. The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, asked the Jewish elders to put Paul on trial to determine if he had done anything illegal.

But Paul’s trial before the elders quickly fell apart. The high priest ordered Paul to be beaten, and when Paul spoke in defense of what he preached, the members of the council turned on one another. Soon members of the council were trying to attack Paul then and there, so the Romans escorted him back to the safety of their barracks.

News of a plot to assassinate Paul reached the Roman commander. He mustered an impressive military unit of foot soldiers and cavalry to safely sneak Paul out of Jerusalem down to the coastal city of Caesarea, where the Roman governor could sort out the matter. Paul was successfully relocated to Caesarea, thwarting the assassination plot, and the Jewish elders were summoned to state their case against him before the judgment seat of Governor Felix.

It was nearly a week later when the Jewish legal team arrived from Jerusalem to Caesarea:

After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul (v. 1).

The high priest Ananias himself came down. As the high priest, he had presided over Paul’s disastrous trial in Jerusalem. It was Ananias who had ordered Paul be struck on the mouth after Paul stated that he was innocent of wrongdoing (Acts 23:2). This heavily implies that this high priest was not interested in the truth or holding a fair trial, but that his aim was to have Paul mistreated and probably executed. Accompanying Ananias were some elders, other members of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish council).

Paul had history with the Sanhedrin. He had once been a Pharisee, decades ago, and had led the charge persecuting believers in Jesus (Acts 9:1-2). But when Jesus appeared to Paul, Paul believed that Jesus was God’s sent Messiah and God’s own Son (Acts 9:18-20).

Since then, Paul had been preaching and planting churches throughout the Roman world. He spent little time in Jerusalem during these years, because there was constant hostility to his life whenever he came back (Acts 9:29, 22:17-18). This was possibly partly due to the fact that he had once been a key member of the opposition to the growing Christian faith. Now he was a traitor in the eyes of the unbelieving religious establishment.

But the church in Jerusalem seemed to be enjoying relative safety at that point. There is no record of persecution since Paul became a believer himself (Acts 9:31). At different points in time, even some of the priests and Pharisees believed in Jesus (Acts 6:7, 15:5). But Paul was outspoken that righteousness did not come from keeping the Jewish Law, and he strongly opposed the idea that Gentiles who believed in Jesus also needed to become circumcised and follow the Law (Galatians 2:16, 3:2-3, 21, 5:2-4, Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 3:28, 10:3-4).

Because of this stance, the slander that Paul preached against Moses and the Law had spread throughout Jerusalem (Acts 21:21, 28). Paul also answered slander against his gospel in his letter to the Romans (Romans 3:8). Word had apparently also reached the Jewish leadership of the many conflicts Paul had experienced with important Jews and synagogues throughout the Roman world (Acts 17:5, 18:6-7, 12, 19:8-9).

The majority of the Sanhedrin rejected that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God, and were opposed to Christianity, what they referred to as the sect of the Nazarenes (v. 5). Paul was perhaps Enemy Number One due to his insistence that faith in Jesus made all men right with God, and that Gentiles did not need to follow the Law in order to be justified in God’s sight (Romans 4:3). His ministry was so public, widespread, and effective that his opponents strongly wanted to take him off the board.

To help persuade the governor of Paul’s crimes (which there were none), Ananias and the elders brought with them a man named Tertullus, who was an attorney. The word attorney is translated from the Greek word “rētōr” from which we get the word “orator.” He was a lawyer.

Tertullus, as attorney, represents the interests of the high priest and the elders. He prosecutes the case against Paul: and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. They brought charges, accusations, of Paul’s wrongdoing.

Paul is brought from prison to the judgment seat where Governor Felix presides. After Paul had been summoned (v. 2), the trial begins, and Tertullus began to accuse him. Tertullus begins to make his case against Paul, saying to the governor all that he had prepared to say (v. 2). His speech is stuffed with flattery toward Felix, meant to sway him to the side of the Jewish elders. Tertullus begins:

“Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness (vs. 2-3).

Tertullus’s opening remarks have nothing to do with Paul or accusations against him, but are rather an attempt to butter up Felix by heaping praise and gratitude on him. Tertullus describes Felix as a political figure who has brought safety to Israel: Since we have through you attained much peace.

By many accounts, Felix was not exactly a peacemaker. He did put down several uprisings while governor (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 8.6). But he had also arranged the assassination of the previous high priest, Jonathan (Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 8.5). According to the historian Tacitus, Felix and another regional governor, Velatidius Cumanus, took bribes and stoked tensions between the Samaritans and the Jews, taking advantage of a brief civil war between the two regions (Tacitus, Annals, Book 12.54) (Josephus, Antiquities, Book XX, 6).

Tertullus also attributes to Felix’s providence that reforms are being carried out for this nation (Judea). It is not clear what reforms Tertullus might be referencing, which means this is likely more flattery meant to stoke bias in Felix toward the Jewish leadership’s case.

Tertullus is telling Felix that he has made this nation of Judea better through his governance, which is a shocking claim to make coming from the Jewish leadership. The Jewish people did not want to be ruled by Rome. Violence was on the rise during Felix’s time as governor. There would be a massive revolt around ten years after Acts 24 which would lead to Rome demolishing Jerusalem and killing one million Jews. This praise of Felix’s reforms for this nation is overtly dishonest and coercive.

Painting Felix as a peacemaker and positive reformer, Tertullus exalts Felix with sycophantic exaggeration: we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. The claim that the Jewish leadership acknowledge Felix’s wonderful governance in every way and everywhere implies that Felix’s praises are being sung across the land, that in all ways possible the Jewish leadership is conscious and appreciative of Felix’s administration, and that Judea is bursting with thankfulness to Felix.

Tertullus calls Felix most excellent Felix—Felix is the very best—and the Jewish leadership is only filled with thankfulness toward him. It is a manipulative rhetorical tactic (and probably very transparent to Felix), meant to persuade the judge that, “We are your friends, we are your supporters, you are the greatest, everything you do is wonderful. We’re on the same team here.”

Tertullus then calls attention to his flattery of Felix, as though by acknowledging it he might conceal it and legitimize it: “But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing (v. 4).

Tertullus knows that the flattery could be seen as something to weary the judge, Felix, or perhaps that the trial itself was a waste of Felix’s precious time. Felix is probably used to lawyers trying to get on his good side by flattering him. Tertullus might also be subtly apologizing here that this trial is taking place, that Felix has better things to do, and that none of this should be dragged out so as to weary Felix any further.

Tertullus is possibly making light of how obsequious he has been, but then adds a final flourish of flattery by humbly requesting that Felix preside over this case: I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. Tertullus frames it as though he is begging Felix; to beg is the ultimate humiliation; it presumes no power in the beggar and acknowledges all power is in the hands of the one being petitioned. Tertullus’s beg/request is that Felix would grant the Jewish leadership a brief hearing.

It is not totally clear whether Tertullus means, “Would you please give us a few minutes of your precious time and hear our case?” which would be somewhat silly, since they are already gathered for a hearing, but it would fit with the fawning, ultra—humble affect Tertullus has taken.

Alternatively, after trying to buddy up with Felix, Tertullus is now requesting that as a kindness to the Jewish leaders, that this hearing would be brief. He may be saying, “Let’s have a speedy trial here and not waste anyone’s time.” This way, the trial would not weary Felix any further. In which case, Tertullus is essentially asking Felix to predetermine his judgment in the favor of the Jewish leadership and skip to the end.

In this preamble, Tertullus is blatantly trying to win Felix over to the cause of the Jewish leadership before prosecuting his case.

At last, he begins his case against Paul:

“For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (v. 5).

Tertullus, representing the Jewish leadership, states that we (Tertullus, Ananias, and the elders, who have come to Caesarea) have found this man (Paul) a real pest. This is not a particularly strong way to begin a case; Paul is described as a pest, like a fly or a flea.

The Greek word for pest here is “loimos,” which can also be translated “plague” or “disease.” Paul is annoying. His teachings have spread like a harmful disease. Tertullus will try to list actual misdeeds committed by Paul, but calling him a nuisance at the outset does more to insult Paul personally than it portrays him as a criminal.

Tertullus continues: Paul, who according to the Jewish leadership is a real pest, is also a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world. A version of this accusation has been levied against Paul before, in Philippi (Acts 16:20-21), and in Thessalonica:

“These men who have upset the world have come here also.”
(Acts 17:6)

Actually, it is pretty accurate to state that Paul is someone who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world. At least, dissension is the result of Paul’s ministry in many places throughout the world. Due to the gospel he preaches, dissension occurs, because not everyone believes in his message. It is unfair to phrase it as though Paul is intentionally stirring up dissension and disagreement between Jews throughout the Roman empire.

Paul’s aim is not simply to start theological fights with other Jews. He was, as Tertullus described him, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. The sect of the Nazarenes was a disparaging term for Christians, since Jesus was from Nazareth and was often referred to as Jesus the Nazarene (Luke 24:19, John 18:5, 7, 19:19, Acts 3:6, 22:8).

As a ringleader (another demeaning term), Paul’s goal is to preach the gospel that Jesus Christ is the Messiah sent by God, and is God’s own Son, and though He died, He was raised back to life, so that whoever believes in Him will also have everlasting life with Him, and will be declared righteous in the sight of God (John 3:16).

Paul’s mission strategy has always been to go to the synagogue or place where Jews gathered in cities across the empire (Acts 13:5, 14-15, 17:2, 17), and then reason with them and attempt to persuade them based on the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament). Paul is trying to win hearts over to Jesus. He is not trying to light fires and run away laughing. He is not a chaos agent, but an ambassador of peace (Romans 10:15, Ephesians 6:15, 2 Corinthians 5:20).

Furthermore, while on mission, whenever Paul has been kicked out or rejected by the Jewish leadership in any city, he complies and leaves them alone. For instance, for a few months in Ephesus, Paul was able to preach the gospel peacefully and at the welcome of the Jews there. But eventually there was an outcry against him, so Paul left the synagogue and began teaching in the School of Tyrannus in town (Acts 19:8-10).

This was the opposite of what a true pest and troublemaker would do. Paul did not bother those who openly rejected him, even if he disputed what they said. He sometimes rebuked them, but otherwise he left them alone. He no longer wasted time trying to preach to them, if he was not wanted. He shook the dust off his feet and departed from those who denied the gospel (Acts 13:51).

Unfortunately, the gospel was a stumbling block to most Jews (Matthew 23:37, Acts 13:45-47, Romans 9:32-33, 1 Corinthians 1:23). It is important to note that many Jews did believe in the gospel when it was first being preached (Acts 2:41, 4:4), but the majority of Jewish leadership rejected Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 27:20, 25, John 19:15).

By styling Paul as a ringleader rather than a leader, and the believers in Jesus as the sect of the Nazarenes, Tertullus is trying to discredit Paul and his faith, as though he is a conspirator in an obscure cult. Felix, however, already knows a lot about the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:22) and is not scandalized by the inflammatory description.

Felix has governed Judea during a very dangerous time, full of incursions and assassinations led by many competing political sects, such as the Sicarii (the knife—men), the Zealots (rebels), and fanatics who attacked Jerusalem at the command of their false messiah (Acts 21:37-39). The believers in Jesus (the sect of the Nazarenes) are a harmless group who commit no violence nor cause any civil unrest. Felix has never had any problem come from them.

Tertullus continues his case against Paul:

“And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him (v. 6).

This accusation that Paul even tried to desecrate the temple is the same accusation as that of the Jews from Ephesus who roused the mob to attack Paul in Jerusalem:

“…he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
(Acts 21:28)

The lie was that Paul had brought an Ephesian Gentile, Trophimus, into the inner court of the temple. The Jews from Ephesus recognized Trophimus with Paul in the city (Acts 21:29), and then falsely assumed that Paul had brought Trophimus into the Jews—only part of the temple. This fit with a larger slander about Paul that he preached against Moses, the Law, the Jews, and the temple (Acts 21:21, 28).

However, Tertullus totally omits how the Jews tried to murder Paul in the streets. He sanitizes what happened by saying: and then we arrested him. When the Jews from Ephesus shouted that Paul had tried to desecrate the temple, an enormous crowd gathered together to beat Paul to death (Acts 21:30-31). It was a dramatic mischaracterization to say that they simply arrested Paul.

The following two sentences are contained within brackets [ ], which is a way for the translators of the NASB—95 to indicate that these sentences appear in the later copies of the book of Acts and are absent in the older copies. (The majority texts include verses that appear in most ancient copies, with the observation that mistakes tend to have fewer repetitions, so older copies with mistakes were likely discarded and found because of lack of use.)

The bracketed sentences deepen Tertullus’s mischaracterization of what happened in Jerusalem and why Paul is standing trial. Tertullus first lies that the Jews only arrested Paul, and then explains that [We wanted to judge him according to our own Law (v. 6). He is framing the scenario as though, “We wanted to judge this man whom we had safely arrested because he was offending our culture, our own Law.”

It appears Tertullus is trying to imply that there’s no reason that Paul should be here in Caesarea wasting Felix’s time, as this is not a Roman matter, but a Jewish matter, and the Jews want to judge him according to their own religious Law.

Tertullus shifts blame on Claudius Lysias for complicating this simple matter and introducing violence into an otherwise peaceful situation:

“But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you.] (vs. 7-8).

The story Tertullus tells makes it sound as though the Romans interfered in a Jewish religious matter, and even mistreated the Jews by taking Paul out of the hands of the Jews with much violence. This claim of much violence implies that Lysias and his soldiers roughed up the Jews when the Romans forced Paul out of Jewish custody and into Roman protection. Doubtless, Ananias and the elders (whom Tertullus is representing) are very angry that Lysias the commander snuck Paul out of Jerusalem a week earlier and ruined their plot to assassinate him (Acts 23:30-31).

There is an undercurrent of frustration in all that Tertullus says, that they were so close to killing Paul several times in Jerusalem, each time to be thwarted by the Romans. Lysias had rescued Paul twice from the hands of a violent mob (Acts 21:30-31, 23:10) and evaded the assassination plot (Acts 23:12-15).

Then Lysias ordered Paul’s accusers to come before Felix, that is, it was Lysias’s fault that the Jewish leaders had to come down from Jerusalem to waste Felix’s time. What should have been a quiet matter resolved privately by the Jews—judging Paul according to their own Law—has now become a weary waste of Felix’s time, all because of Lysias’s interference.

Tertullus’s entire argument has been designed to manipulate the judge and contained nothing concrete against Paul. He now closes his case by telling Felix that Felix ought to agree with the Jewish leadership. According to Tertullus, it should be obvious that the Jewish leadership’s accusations against Paul are correct:

By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him” (v. 8).

Tertullus is again nudging Felix toward ruling in the favor of the Jewish leadership. This is, of course, his job as an attorney, but rather than making a case as to why Felix should hand Paul over to the Jews to judge him internally, he is mostly busy telling Felix how to think and feel.

Tertullus also implies that Paul will either confess to what he is accused of or make such a poor defense of himself that his guilt will be obvious. By examining Paul concerning all these matters, Felix should be able to ascertain and agree with the things the Jewish leadership accuse him of. It is like saying, “Just ask Paul. You’ll see we’re right.”

Following this closing remark, the other Jews who had come down from Jerusalem affirm what Tertullus has said:

The Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so (v. 9).

These specific Jews were Ananias the high priest and a group of some of the elders (perhaps Sadducees on the Sanhedrin council, and maybe a few Pharisees). They joined in the attack, asserting that these things which their attorney had stated were so, attempting to provide additional witness to Paul’s criminality. The only things which Tertullus directly accused Paul of were:

• He is a real pest
• he is a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world
• he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes
• and he even tried to desecrate the temple.

Ananias and the elders raise their voices to say, “Yes, all of this is true.” Their legal strategy seems to rest on their flattery of Felix and their depiction of Paul’s crimes as being strictly religious in nature, thus they, the Jewish leadership, are better suited to handle it, and Rome doesn’t need to bother with foreign religious matters they neither understand nor care to (John 18:31, Acts 18:14-16, 23:29).

The only real issue that Rome might take interest in is that Paul stirs up dissension among all the Jews wherever he goes. When Rome conquered a city, country, et cetera, its priority afterwards was to collect tribute and keep the peace. It did not tolerate mob action, sedition, or any sort of disruption to the public order (Acts 19:40). Paul’s accusers have tried to make this a Jewish issue so that they might take Paul off Felix’s hands. In the next section, Paul will make his defense and show that he has committed no crimes.