Page 115 - Acts Student Textbook

Tertullus’ accusations against Paul (24:5-7)

First, he claimed Paul was "a real pest throughout the world." This is surely a purposeful
overstatement and yet what a compliment to the effectiveness of Paul's ministry in the diaspora. This
was a prejudicial term. Anyone could say this about someone he disliked, but there was no criminal
significance to it. Its only purpose was to prejudice the mind of the governor.

Second, he said Paul was a creator of dissension (“insurrection” — ASV) among Jews everywhere he
went. The truth of course is that, everywhere Paul went he simply taught and persuaded men with
evidence. But because he was converting people away from Judaism, So the Jews themselves, not
Paul, were responsible for the disturbance of the peace.

Third, he said Paul was a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This sounds inflammatory, as
though some gang was conspiring against the government. But many movements existed, especially
religious movements, without threatening the government or committing any crime. Where was the
crime against Rome in this? No proof is offered.

Finally, he accused Paul of attempting to profane the temple. This was actually getting to the issues
involved (21:28). Notice the charge made against Paul in 21:28 that he desecrated the temple, has
now been changed to "he tried to desecrate the temple." They really had a weak case. Paul's
effective preaching was really the problem. Why should the Romans care if a Gentile entered the
Jewish temple?

Watch Tertullus’ conclusion (24:8, 9)

He concluded the governor could get all the proof he needed of these accusations against Paul
simply by cross-examining Paul. Yet it is amazing that Tertullus offered not one shred of evidence.
All he did was make accusations. He, in effect, urged the governor to convict Paul from Paul’s own
testimony. This is thoroughly illegal, and no civilized government should tolerate it.

What was Paul’s response to the accusations against him? (24:10-21)

Paul’s introduction (24:10)

After the governor had motioned to him to speak, Paul said that he was glad to answer since he
knew that Felix had been a judge for many years. Felix was experienced in such matters and could be
expected to know the law and how it would apply in such cases. Note that a guilty man does not
want justice, but an innocent man does. He does not fear justice. Only injustice can harm him.

Paul concisely, answered each accusation against him (24:11-13)

His answer was short and to the point. He said that during his time in Jerusalem, no one had found
Paul doing any of the rabble-rousing activities they had accused him of.

His conduct had been entirely unlike that of one seeking to cause dissension. He had come to
worship, not to cause trouble. Finally, he claimed that they could not prove their accusations against
him. This was the critical issue. If they had charges against him, they had to prove them. It was not up
to Paul to provide the proof for them (as Tertullus had implied), nor was it proper to accuse him
without proof.

114