vv.1-9 The Accusation of Tertullus. Five days after Paul’s arrival in Caesarea, the Jewish leadership moved quickly to the governor to press their case. They considered it important enough for the high priest Ananias himself to come down with certain elders, to secure Paul’s condemnation. They engaged “a certain orator, one Tertullus,” evidently a professional advocate, like a lawyer and spokesman, familiar with Roman judicial procedure. The Jews deliberately employed Tertullus, probably a Roman himself, to present their case in a form most likely to influence a Roman governor. It is remarkable to see the calculated flattery in the opening address of Tertullus. He began by lavishly praising Felix for peace in Israel and his excellent reforms, which stands in sharp contrast to what history records as a corrupt and cruel administration. This flattery was strategic, designed to predispose the governor against the accused before any facts were presented. Having thus sought Felix’s favour, Tertullus turned to a threefold accusation against Paul:

Luke records that “the Jews also joined in pressing the matter,” formally affirming the accusations. This collective endorsement by the high priest and elders reveals the depth of their religious hostility, as they lent their authority to statements they could not substantiate. The Jewish leaders built their prosecution on twisted accusations and exaggeration.

 

vv.10-21 Paul’s Defense Before Felix. When Felix signaled for him to speak, Paul responded in a straightforward way without flattery, unlike Tertullus. He acknowledged that Felix had been judge over the nation for many years and therefore would be familiar with Jewish matters. It had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem, and his purpose was not to cause trouble but “to worship”, using the expression broadly. He denied any charges of sedition, and pointed out that his accusers could not prove the charges they had brought. Paul then openly confessed what they labeled as heresy. According to “the Way,” which they called “a sect”, he served the God of their fathers, believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets. Rather than distancing himself from Israel’s Scriptures, he affirmed them. He also declared his hope toward God in a resurrection “both of the just and unjust” in which all of mankind are universally accountable toward God, although not here distinguishing that the two take place at different times. This would have been significant given the disagreement between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Paul’s conduct matched his doctrine: he exercised himself to maintain a conscience “without offense toward God and men”. He explained that he had come to Jerusalem after several years to bring alms and offerings, referring to the gift of the Gentile assemblies, which was hardly the action of a revolutionary. The real culprits were the “Jews from Asia”, who ought to have been present at the hearing. Finally, he reduced the matter to the only charge that could be sustained: he had concerning the resurrection of the dead.

 

vv.22-23 Felix Postpones Judgment. Felix had a “more accurate knowledge concerning the Way,” and therefore adjourned Paul’s case, saying that he would decide it when Lysias the commander came down. Felix understood enough to perceive that the charges lacked substance. The reason he postponed was not due to uncertainty about the facts, but to policy. Governors often acted from political caution rather than justice, especially with a volatile people like the Jews. In other words, Felix knew the accusations were untrue but deferred judgment under the pretext of waiting for further testimony. Paul was remanded into custody, but was held with leniency, and allowed some freedom and the visitation of his friends. This measure showed Paul and others that Felix recognized that Paul was not a criminal, but at the same time, it left him in confinement. It was the classic middle ground position of an average worldly politician.

 

vv.24-26 A Private Audience with Felix and Drusilla. After some days Felix came with Drusilla his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul to hear him concerning “the faith in Christ”. While Drusilla was a Jewess, she was of Herodian lineage, daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and therefore a political figure and high-society. Yet the controversy over Paul may have seemed interesting to her. Yet, this marriage was morally compromised: according to history Felix had taken her from another man. Yet in that private audience with Paul the prisoner, the judge came under judgment of the Word of God. Paul did not flatter nor argue politics as might be the tendency of the flesh; rather, he reasoned of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” There is a moral order to these things.

The Spirit adapted this message to the conscience of the hearer, and the guilty Roman governor “trembled”. Many had trembled before Felix in court; now he trembled before a chained apostle. Yet conviction did not lead to repentance. He dismissed Paul with the fatal postponement: “When I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.” This was the essence of unbelief: God was acknowledged in theory but excluded in practice. The Holy Spirit recorded the real motive: Felix hoped for money. He sent for Paul often, not to be saved, but to secure a bribe. Thus the conscience was stirred, but the will remained unchanged.