Click Here to see Lesson 21 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

Paul Before Felix and Festus

Some of us have asked why Paul went to Jerusalem . . . because even though he was sent by the Holy Spirit, it brought nothing but pain and hardship. Yet as Paul had written to the Romans only a short time before: "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him" (Rom 8:28); and although God’s plan is sometimes hard to understand, in today’s lesson we get a glimpse of the good God had in mind.

As this lesson begins, Paul is in the Roman capital city of Caesarea . . . in the custody of Governor Antonius Felix. Paul has not been charged with a crime . . . in fact, the Romans aren’t his accusers: they are his protectors . . . protecting him from the high priest Ananias and the Jewish Sadducees.

Paul needs this protection because a riot broke out against him in the temple, when Jews from the Ephesus region recognized him as the Christian who successfully evangelized their area. He had to be rescued by Roman troops. Another riot occurred the next day when the Roman commander took him before the Sanhedrin to ascertain the charges (if any) against him. Then—when the commander learned "more than forty men" had taken an oath to kill Paul if he was brought before the Sanhedrin again (Acts 23:12-13)—it seemed best to take Paul to the safety of Caesarea, where he is held in the palace until representatives of the Sanhedrin arrive to press charges.

Who is this Antonius Felix? He and his brother Pallas were once slaves. They gained their freedom, and Pallas manipulated himself into political prominence as "right-hand man" to Caesar Claudius. In 52 AD Claudius sent him to Caesarea as Governor of the Province of Judea and Samaria. Roman historian Tacticus describes Felix as "a tyrant with the disposition of a slave." He is corrupt and uses his position for personal wealth.

The year is 57 AD; Felix has been governor for 5 years. Nero replaced Claudius as emperor three years earlier, but Felix has hung on to power. He is sleazy, but he’s not dumb. He married a Jewish princess, Drusilla: great granddaughter of Herod the Great, and sister of King Herod Agrippa II (whom we meet next week). Felix has tried to learn about the people he governs—including the "Jews for Jesus" people (Acts 24:22). According to Josephus, Felix brutally suppressed false Messiahs and others who opposed Rome—such as followers of "the Egyptian" mentioned in Acts 21. This made rank-and-file Jews more anti-Roman, but it made Felix popular with the Sadducees. Yet when Ananias’ predecessor as high priest repeatedly challenged Felix, Felix arranged his assassination. Felix is not a man to mess with!

By taking Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, the Roman army has moved the legal battle from Ananias’ turf to Paul’s. In Jerusalem, Ananias and the Sanhedrin have extensive power and influence. But in Caesarea, a Roman citizen like Paul has the advantage. Nevertheless, the high priest decides this battle is important enough to personally make the 2-day trip to Caesarea . . . along with Sanhedrin representatives, and a slick trial lawyer named Tertullus, a Roman (or at least a Hellenized Jew). Ananias gets his team together and goes ASAP . . . apparently the day after a messenger from Felix reaches Jerusalem.

Felix convenes the hearing, and Tertullus opens for the plaintiff. He is so full of bull everyone probably wishes they had rubber overalls like sewer workers. He flatters Felix—perhaps the cruelest governor since Pilate—with "profound gratitude" for "peace" and "reforms" and "foresight" (Acts 24:2-3). He apologizes for taking up Felix’s time, and proposes a very brief hearing. Tertullus may be really saying: "My client, the high priest, has been paying you off for 5 years. Now he’s asking a favor. Don’t worry what is said here; just play ball with us, and you will be amply rewarded."

Tertullus’ brief presentation makes the following charges (Acts 24:5-6):

1. Paul is "a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world."
2. Paul "is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect."
3. Paul "tried to desecrate the temple."

Tertullus is slick! These three charges are both weighty and clever! Let’s look at them one by one. The first is a formal charge Paul has committed a Roman crime. This is most important, and it is arguably true. Riots indeed occurred in many parts of the Roman empire when Paul came . . . most recently in Ephesus, home of his accusers. Paul may have been was the victim of those riots, not the perpetrator. But peace is more important to the Romans than justice. They want tax revenues to flow smoothly, whatever it takes.

The purpose of second charge is less clear. Tertullus may be claiming the "Nazarene sect" is like insurrectionist Jewish sects Felix so brutally suppressed. Or he could be reiterating the argument made in Corinth before Proconsul Gallio (Acts 18): Christians have become a separate religion, and do not qualify for the special tolerance given by the Romans to the Jewish religion. Gallio said "get your religious disputes out of my court" . . . but this time Roman soldiers had to break up a riot in Jerusalem, and the case is being brought by the Jewish high priest himself. But whatever subtle point he may be making, Tertullus is clearly saying Paul and the Jesus people are not "mainstream" Jews.

The third charge would not seem to concern the Romans . . . but it is the most devilishly clever of all. The Romans allowed the Jews to kill any Gentile—even a Roman—who walked through the Gate Beautiful into the "Jews only" portion of the temple. That was the only capital punishment the Jews were allowed to inflict without Roman approval . . . and that is probably the reason the Ephesian Jews charged Paul with bringing Gentiles into the temple (Acts 21:28).

Charges 2 and 3 may be linked to suggest the Sanhedrin could decide Paul is no longer a Jew . . . and if so, he may have desecrated the temple when he entered the "Jews only" section, as he admitted. We don’t know if Tertullus is being that bold. But he certainly charges Paul with violating Roman law by causing riots and with violating Jewish law in the one crime for which Jews are allowed to carry out capital punishment; and he assures Felix the "Jewish establishment" won’t protest any punishment Paul receives. He covers all the bases well! And behind a veil of flattery and diplomacy is the subtle message: "Felix, make it easy on yourself. Turn Paul over to us, to try in a Jewish court for desecrating the temple. Everything will be legal, the riots will stop, and you won’t get your hands dirty!"

How does Paul respond?

1. He admits he is a follower of Jesus, but goes to great lengths to say he is still a Jew: "I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men" (Acts 24:14-15).
2. He claims the right to confront his accusers. He denies the charges of causing a riot or desecrating the temple . . . and points out Ananias and the Sanhedrin have not brought eyewitnesses to testify against him.
3. He ridicules the Sanhedrin by saying the only "crime" they saw him commit was his claim he is on trial because he believes in the resurrection of the dead. He knows and they know and Felix knows this is not a Roman "crime."

Paul is pretty slick himself!

The Sanhedrin hope Felix will—like Pilate—wash his hands and hand Paul over. They want, most of all, a change of venue and jurisdiction. But like most sleazy people, Felix is well attuned to sense hidden agendas in other sleazy people. Felix isn’t interested in justice . . . but he is suspicious of the prompt attendance of Ananias and the Sanhedrin—without eyewitnesses. He looks for an excuse to do nothing . . . and realizes Lysias, the Roman commander, is an eyewitness. He will wait until Lysias comes . . . then decide.

The Sanhedrin doesn’t want this. They know Lysias will report Paul did nothing to provoke the riots. Lysias’ testimony will just make them look stupid. They return to Jerusalem.

That leaves Paul and Felix. But Paul is no longer a free man under the protection of Rome. He has been formally accused of inciting a riot, a valid Roman charge; he is now a prisoner awaiting trial. The Sanhedrin has failed in their plot to kill Paul. But they have gained—in their opinion—the next best thing. To use terminology we hear in the UN about Iraq today: the Sanhedrin believes they have contained Paul! He will be confined as a prisoner in Caesarea, unable to preach the gospel of Jesus in Jerusalem . . . or Greece and Turkey.

But they fail to appreciate the impact of Christianity over the last 20-plus years, and its natural growth through the Holy Spirit. The gospel will continued to spread through the world with or without Paul. His "seminary" in the lecture hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus has trained missionaries in Turkey; Apollos in Corinth is probably doing the same for Greece, as are countless, nameless others throughout the Roman world. And under "house arrest," Paul is free to write letters and to advise and counsel fellow Christians.

But one of Paul’s special strengths as a witness for Jesus is his oratorical skill. Is he sacrificing that? Not at all! Let’s read from Acts 24:

Antonius Felix—a brutal, evil man, who took his wife Druscilla away from her 1^st husband—is convicted about his many sins, and afraid of his fate if the God does come in judgement. We know conviction of sin is the first step to repentance and justification through Jesus . . . and Felix takes this first step! But he seems to stop there . . . he sends Paul away and refuses to hear more.

Nevertheless, here’s the most important thing. Paul is not having a one-on-one discussion with Felix and Drusilla. The interview takes place in a public hearing—in the theater of Caesarea or a similar place—attended by Roman officials, soldiers like Cornelius, various retainers, and others bringing petitions to the governor. And Acts continues:

Paul is witnessing in the halls of Roman power, before some of the most important people in the world . . . and he’s doing it "frequently"! What an opportunity! That’s why the Holy Spirit sent Paul to Jerusalem . . . to be betrayed by the church and arrested!

Let’s address the question of a bribe. Felix seems not to have accepted Jesus, but Paul has convicted him of his sin . . . and this makes Felix unwilling to turn Paul over to certain death in Jerusalem at the hands of the Sanhedrin, no matter how big a bribe they may offer. But like a Mafia don, Felix has principles: he must receive a bribe to declare anyone "not guilty." To free Paul without a bribe will send the wrong message! So he tells Paul the price of freedom . . . and waits.

Why doesn’t Paul pay the bribe? I’ve done a computer-search, and the results surprised me. There are many admonitions against accepting a bribe . . . but nothing against giving a bribe; indeed, two proverbs speak kindly about giving bribes (Prov 17:8, 21:14). This is probably because bribery—baksheesh—is so ingrained in the middle eastern culture that a commandment not to give bribes would exclude people from normal commerce. But a refusal to accept bribes is a statement about justice and personal moral standards.

So why does Paul refuse to bribe Felix? We’re speculating . . . but it may be because he is so successful witnessing in the halls of Roman power in Caesarea, and freedom would take away that opportunity. Remember—as we discussed earlier—individual salvation is a relatively recent concept; ancient people normally observed the religion of their king. Paul may be preparing the Roman world for a Christian emperor—250 years later.

This situation continues for 2 years, until Nero replaces Felix as governor with Porcius Festus. Felix is "under a cloud," and barely escapes with his life when he returns to Rome . . . which may explain why—although prisoners awaiting trial were usually freed or had their cases decided before the new governor arrived—Felix left Paul in prison because he "wanted to grant a favor to the Jews" (Acts 24:27). "Favor" may be spelled b-r-i-b-e.

Very little is known about Festus—he died in office after only two years—but he may have been the most sincere and honorable man ever to be governor of the province of Judea and Samaria. Acts 25 implies he starts like an administrator trying to do the right thing: he goes to Jerusalem and meets with the Sanhedrin to ascertain their needs and desires. One of their special requests is about Paul. They have not forgotten, and have not changed their plan: they demand Paul be brought to Jerusalem for trial. They plot to kill him en route, but if this fails, they will sentence him to death in the Sanhedrin. As a sign of their sincerity, the Sanhedrin travels to Caesarea for a hearing before Festus with Paul.

This hearing sounds just like the one two years earlier: the Sanhedrin brings the same three charges—without eyewitnesses—and Paul makes the same denial: "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar" (Acts 25:8).

But this is a setup. Festus, a sincere man, has not figured out that the Sadducees are lying schemers, intent on killing Paul by fair means or foul. He seeks a compromise . . . a "plea bargain" proposed by the Sanhedrin. Paul is charged with crimes against Roman law and against Jewish law. The Sanhedrin seems to agree to drop the charges in the Roman crime, if Festus agrees to send Paul to the Sanhedrin to be tried under Jewish law for the Jewish crime. Another devilishly clever idea. The slick Tertullus seems to put Paul in a box . . . but he wiggles out again. As a Roman citizen, Paul has special rights, and he claims the right to refuse trial in a Jewish court:

Paul says "a Roman citizen must be tried in a Roman court; and just because the Sanhedrin drop all charges against me valid in a Roman court, I can’t be sent to stand trial in a Jewish court under Jewish law. I appeal to a higher Roman court: the emperor himself." An analogy may be that if an American soldier stationed in a foreign country commits a crime, our government may or may not require him to be tried in local courts under local law.

Festus isn’t sure if Paul has the right to make such an appeal . . . but after conferring with his council, he agrees. So Paul starts on the road to Rome.

But before he leaves, he has one more important witness to give and one more important audience to attend: to Festus and King Herod Agrippa II, brother-in-law to Felix. We’ll discuss that next week.