Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, August 18, 2013 Read – Acts 24:1-23 The hearing before Felix takes place five days later when the high priest Ananias and other Jews come down from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The hearing consists of two speeches – one by the chief spokesman of the Jews, Tertullus, who was a skilled attorney, and the other by Paul. Tertullus speaks first. His speech is dripping with flattery, a flattery that becomes even more distasteful when one considers the appraisal of Felix by Josephus and Tacitus. Felix was far from honorable but Tertullus will paint him in glowing colors. Having “buttered him up” Tertullus gets to the charges against Paul. They are now couched in political tones. Paul is a “pestilent fellow”, a troublemaker who has been agitating rebellion throughout the world. He is thus an insurrectionist, the penalty for which is death. Paul is also the “ringleader” of the sect known as the Nazarenes. Exactly what that might have meant to Felix from a political point of view is unknown. Perhaps there is meaning in the “label” Nazarene that his slipped out of reach in the passing of history. The third charge is also a political one since Paul is accused of profaning the Temple, a capital offense in Roman law. Tertullus is not ashamed of lying. He claims that his present accusers caught Paul in the act and seized him “red handed” in his crime. Of course that was not the case – it was Jews from Asia who brought the word to the authorities in Jerusalem, and Paul was apprehended as he prayed alone in the Temple. Tertullus closes his accusations with the boast that if Felix will “examine” Paul – which may have been the suggestion of applying torture to him – Felix will get the truth out of him. Paul is next to speak. His words are calm and cheerful. There is no “buttering up” of Felix, only the reminder that Felix has ruled for a long time and that Paul looks forward to making his defense before such an experienced judge. If Felix cares to examine the facts he will discover that Paul had been in Jerusalem for only a short time, twelve days, and that Paul had not disputed with anyone in Jerusalem. He came to worship God. What Paul admits to is only that he is a Jew who “worships the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.” Paul confesses that he has a “hope in God” – a hope that his accusers also accept – “that there will be a resurrection both of the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices. While I was doing this they found me in the Temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance” (Acts 23:14-18). Paul was only being a faithful Jew – yes, a Jew who follows the Way, but an impeccably faithful Jew none the less. As Luke, through James, the brother of Jesus, would put it, Paul is “a Jew, zealous for the law!” It is interesting that Paul does not mention Jesus. Perhaps admitting that he belonged to the “Way” was enough to make it clear that he was a follower of Jesus, but one wonders why Jesus is not a part of Paul’s defense. We have seen earlier that Paul has made “the resurrection of the dead” the main issue in the debate. That emphasis continues here. Paul also mentions that he has come to bring “alms to my nation”, a reference most likely to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem that was so important to Paul and is the main motive for his Jerusalem visit according to his letters. We have noted earlier that Luke has all but ignored Paul’s offering for the poor. Likely Luke was far more aware of the importance of the collection for the poor than he lets on in the book of Acts. Once again it is important to notice that Paul says, “alms to my nation,” – he does not say “your nation”, or “their nation”, but is stating clearly that he considers himself to be a Jew. Paul goes on to point out that it was “Jews from Asia” who actually incited the trouble. They are not present. Roman law said that a man had a right to face his accusers and Paul’s accusers have disappeared. Felix should have simply thrown the case out of court, but he does not. Roman justice is not provided by Felix. Paul is guilty of none of the crimes of which he has been accused. His only fault is that he is a believer “in the resurrection of the dead”, something that he shared with the Pharisees as we have discovered earlier. There is no crime here, only a dispute about religious belief. Luke now tells us that Felix was actually well informed about the “Way” and simply adjourns the hearing without a verdict. Exactly how Felix has become so informed is not revealed by Luke. When we remember that at least 25 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Jesus, and also that Cornelius, a Roman centurion who lived in Caesarea, had become a “follower of the Way” some years earlier, it is possible that there was a thriving Christian community in Caesarea. Felix may have had some experience with them and found them harmless from the point of view of his Roman rule. Of course all of that is speculation. As we have said, Felix simply adjourns the hearing without a verdict but promising that he will decide the case when the tribune, Lysias, arrives. Paul remains in custody though he is granted at least the freedom of being cared for by his friends.