Paul Responds to the Charges before Felix – Acts 24:1-10

Like Tertullus’s speech in Acts 24:1-9, Paul’s response to the charges against him is also a masterpiece of legal rhetoric. Paul demonstrates that he is a well-educated and eloquent man, able to hold his own in a hearing before a powerful Roman governor. Paul uses proper rhetoric for addressing Felix (24:10). Paul waits for Felix to recognize him, then Paul says he knows Felix’s leadership and says he will cheerfully make his defense.

First, Paul explains the riot in Jerusalem (24:11-13). He says he was in the Temple worshiping God, not disputing or stirring up the crowds. He did not make any disturbance in the temple, synagogue, or anywhere in the city. In fact, Tertullus cannot prove the charges he has brought.

Second, Paul claims to be a loyal follower of the Law (24:14-17). He worships the God of their fathers, specifically as a part of “the way.” This name for Christianity in Luke, possibly reflecting Jesus’ statement that he is the “way, the truth, and the life.”

Third, he believes “everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets” (24:14-15). Paul has a hope in the resurrection. This is the point Paul made in his defense before the Sanhedrin. The High Priest and the elders present are Sadducees and do not believe in a resurrection; therefore, they attack him on the point of Jewish doctrine. Perhaps Paul connects himself to the Pharisees because of their political life in previous years.

Fourth, Paul was in Jerusalem to give alms when he was accused by Asian Jews (24:17-21). He was only there a few days, presenting offerings. Giving alms is something a devout follower of God does; Jews are expected to take care of the poor and needy; a righteous man does these things! The Asian Jews found him purified in the Temple, without a crowd or tumult

Finally, Paul points out his accusers are not present (24:18-20). This is the key part of his defense since, as a Roman citizen, he has the right to face his accusers. Since these Asian Jews  Paul maintains his defense before the Sanhedrin that he is under arrest because he believes in the resurrection (24:21). The Sadducees disagree with him on a theological point that has nothing to do with Roman Law. This is similar to Gallio’s conclusion in Acts 18. This is a matter for the Jewish courts, not Rome.

Paul’s defense is simple: the charges are not true. The accusers are not present, and he is only under arrest because of a Jewish theological dispute that ought not concern the Romans. Like a modern politician, Felix decides not to decide not to decide (24:22).

Why does Felix think that Paul might bribe him? Perhaps he thinks that since Paul brought money from Asia to give to the poor Jews in Jerusalem, he also has money for bribes.  Another possibility is that Paul had more wealth than is usually thought. He must pay for his own needs while in Caesarea, indicating some access to wealth, and we know that he rents rooms in Rome. It is possible that Paul had property that could be sold or other family wealth that gave Felix hope of a bribe.