Concerning the Hope of the Resurrection

 

Chapter 24

The drama has shifted from Jerusalem to Caesarea, the location of Herod’s seaside home. Here we are introduced to the governor, Felix, and an attorney, Tertullus. Tertullus is arguing the case on behalf of the high priest, Ananias.

He presents the case against Paul in an abbreviated form. After the requisite flattery toward Governor Felix, Tertullus calls Paul a pestilent agitator with a tendency to start rebellions and profane the temple. All in two sentences.

Of course, we have borne witness to all the events that took place in Jerusalem. We recognize that the charge of profaning the temple is false. Paul did not bring gentiles in, as he was accused. And we notice that Tertullus neglects to mention that many others were responsible for starting a riot that ended up leading to Paul’s arrest. The tribune arrested him to remove him from harm’s way.

Tertullus does as any smart lawyer would do, he fashions a case that will portray the facts in a way that will best serve his needs. In using such words to describe Paul as “agitator” and “ringleader,” he is preying on the Roman authorities’ fear of rebellion. He is attempting to argue that Paul is a political problem.

When it is his turn, Paul fills in some of the details. He states that, in fact, no one found him arguing with anyone or stirring up a crowd. Rather, he came to Jerusalem to bring alms to his people – seemingly referring to the collection that was gathered for the Jerusalem Church. And he was not in any way profaning the temple, he says, but he was participating in a ritual of purification.

The problem, Paul suggests, started with the Jews from Asia, who have evidently pursued Paul all the way to Jerusalem. However, these men are not here to make their accusations. Perhaps, Paul wonders aloud, it is really the statement that he made before the council that brings him here. You know, that thing he said about the resurrection.

We recall that in the previous chapter, Paul stood before the Jewish Council in Jerusalem. Sizing up the crowd, Paul observed that there were both Sadducees and Pharisees present. So he began to speak about the resurrection of the dead, knowing this was a sharp point of contention between these groups. As he hoped, they commenced to attack each other, almost forgetting about Paul. This was the moment that Paul was taken away, to protect his life. Presumably, he is now hoping this will work for him again.

However, Felix, the governor, adjourns the hearing until a later time. But it does not appear that he ever resumed the case. Felix doesn’t seem to have much interest in it. He seems unconcerned about any potential risk Paul poses. But he is also unconcerned about Paul’s welfare.

Felix, Luke mentions, is well informed about the Way. He understands enough about the interreligious disputes to know that Paul is not any real danger to the empire. Unlike other Roman officials, though, he doesn’t dismiss the case and instruct the Jewish authorities to deal with it. He keeps Paul locked up.

What are Felix’s real concerns? What are his motivations? Greed. Historians describe him as corrupt and immoral. The excessive flattery both Tertullus and Paul pour on him are just the kind of thing he requires of people. You do something nice for me and (maybe)I’ll do something nice for you.

And so he “let (Paul) have some liberty” (v. 23), allowing his friends to take care of his needs. In actuality, Felix wasn’t doing Paul any great favor here. It was customary for prisoners to be dependent on friends and family to provide for all their basic needs.

He visited with Paul frequently while he was imprisoned, hoping that Paul would offer him bribes. None ever came, it would seem. But still, Felix kept Paul in prison, as a favor to the Jews. This must have been the “something nice” he did for them.

Paul did manage, however, to break through to Felix’s conscience. In one or more of his visits, Paul got into some topics of personal morality and God’s justice. Sadly, it did not lead to repentance.

Questions for Reflection:

·        The Jewish authorities want to make a case that Paul is a political problem for Rome, while Paul makes the case that this is more of a theological problem. What do you think? Does Paul present a political problem or a theological problem, or both?

·        The text subtly suggests that Paul speaks to Felix about “justice, self-control, and the coming judgment” because he is aware of Felix’s sins. It was enough to make Felix “frightened” (v. 25). Is it appropriate for the church to confront people, either those who are in the church or those outside the church, with their sinfulness? If, so, how?