Acts 23:28-35

28 As in the case of our Lord, witness after witness testified that Paul had done nothing deserving the bonds he endured or the death with which he was threatened. All who heard his case concurred in the opinion that the accusations against him were unfounded and false. Yet it was in this way that he fulfilled that part of his ministry foretold by Ananias which he hitherto had no opportunity of carrying out. He had witnessed to the Jewish people and to the nations. Now he was to testify before kings (Act_9:15) and thus close the kingdom testimony. His undoubted innocence, coupled with his Roman citizenship, greatly mitigated the terrors of a long imprisonment. The divine reason for this seems to be that the testimony to the Jews in the land was fulfilled, and Paul was, as a consequence, put beyond their power. All that they are allowed to do aids him in fulfilling his final kingdom testimony to the kings of the land, and provides for his journey to Rome, the greatest center of earthly power at the time, there solemnly to close up the kingdom proclamation altogether. Paul's imprisonment was a sign that the earthly kingdom was being withdrawn, otherwise its herald would be delivered from the earthly rulers. And this is emphasized by the fact that the nation who rejected it is the cause of his imprisonment.

34 It was a nice point with the Roman authorities not to interfere with one another's jurisdiction. Thus Pilate, when our Lord was brought before him, learning that he was of Galilee, which was in Herod's jurisdiction, sent Him to Herod (Luk_23:7). Felix does not seem to have heeded Paul's Cilician origin, probably because the complaints against him were not sustained, and the alleged crimes were committed mainly in Jerusalem.

1 Ananias, the chief priest, lost no time in following the man who had called him a whitewashed wall. He hires a professional pleader against Paul, probably an Italian, acquainted more accurately with the Roman law, and the flattery to which governors were accustomed. As at the trial of the Master it was really Pilate before Christ, so now the judges are being judged, though judgment is not denounced here as in the Sanhedrin.

3 The smooth eulogy of Felix was most undeserved. He was a freedman of Claudius and brother of that Pallas who was a favorite of the emperor. Having been a slave and now owing his elevation to influence at Rome, it is no wonder Tacitus tells us that "in the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave." He had Jonathan, one of the high priests, assassinated because he protested against some of his practises. It must be acknowledged, however. that he did rid parts of Judea from robbers, and especially, at about this time, drove out the Egyptian for whom Paul was mistaken by Claudius Lysias. His acts stirred the Jews against the Roman rule so that. when he retired from the province and went to Rome, he was tried for maladministration, but acquitted by Nero through the influence of his brother Pallas.

5 Tertullus makes three charges against Paul. The first was against Roman law stirring up treason against the government. The second was against the law of Moses, as they supposed, a ring-leader of the Nazarenes. The third was against both Roman and Jewish law, profaning the sanctuary, for the Roman law protected the Jews in the exercise of their worship.

6-8 The omission of "and want to judge by a law of ours, yet captain Lysias, coming with much force, leading him away out of our hands, orders his accusers to come to you" is based on the evidence of almost all the ancient manuscripts and has the consent of almost all of the editors of the text. It is most unlikely that an orator like Tertullus would so damage his own influence as to accuse captain Lysias of a wrong, or suggest that Felix had no right to judge the case.

10 Paul quickly disposed of the two charges involving the Roman law. Since coming to Jerusalem only a few days before he had done nothing upon which they could base their charge of sedition. Neither had he profaned the temple, The other charge he admits, and makes it the occasion of his testimony. His dignified and truthful introduction is in marked contrast to that of his accuser.