Acts 24 (ESV)✞: Paul Before Felix at Caesarea, Paul Kept in Custody
Passage
At this point in Acts Paul is still in jail while the Romans try to figure out what to do with him, though he’s been moved from Jerusalem to Caesarea. A stream of riots follows him around wherever he goes and the Romans definitely don’t want that, but neither do they want to jail a Roman citizen (which Paul is) if he hasn’t actually done anything wrong. When the tribune in Jerusalem heard there was a secret plot to kill Paul he sent him to Caesarea to stand before Felix, the governor, which is where this passage begins.
A few days after Paul’s arrival in Caesarea the Jewish leaders arrive to make their case against him, with a spokesman to speak on their behalf. (I don’t think there’s anything to read into on that point, I’m guessing it’s akin to having a lawyer at a modern-day trial.) The trial itself happens in verses 1–21✞.
In verses 4–8✞ the Jewish religious leaders (via their spokesman) accuse Paul of:
- “[Stirring] up riots among all the Jews throughout the [known] world1“
- Being a “ringleader” of the “sect of the Nazarenes”
- Profaning the temple
I assume they’re appealing to religious freedoms that Judaism is supposed to receive under Roman rule, which they’re claiming Paul is impinging, because otherwise I can’t imagine that Felix or the Romans would care about points 2 or 3.
In verses 10–21✞ Paul gives his defense but at its core it’s pretty simple: nothing they’re accusing him of is true, they can’t back up any of the claims they’re making, and Felix can easily verify it. He ends with:
20 “Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, 21 other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’”
But Felix—who, we’re told in verse 22✞, already has “a rather accurate knowledge of the Way” (which is what Christianity is still being called at this point)—decides not to make a decision about Paul’s case until the arrival of the original tribune who’d heard Paul’s case in Jerusalem – so we may be going full circle!
As far as the text tells us, however, this never happens. Felix keeps Paul in custody (though with “some liberty,” and with his friends allowed to attend to his needs (v. 23✞)), and essentially declines to do anything about his situation.
Felix does, at one point, bring his Jewish wife to hear Paul speak, but he doesn’t like what he hears:
And as [Paul] reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, “Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you.”
And he did – for the next two years. Paul stayed in prison, Felix often summoned Paul to talk to him, but he didn’t do anything about Paul’s case. (We’re told that Felix continued to hope Paul would bribe him, so I’m guessing that’s at least part of the reason he’s not doing anything proactive…)
At the end of the two years Felix is succeeded by a new governor, but as a favour to the Jews he continues to leave Paul in prison.
Thoughts
One of the things I find interesting about the trial is something I assume is a rhetorical flourish: the idea that “you’ll find my argument obvious once you look into it.” When the spokesman gives his case he claims that Felix will see for himself that the religious leaders are right; all he has to do is examine Paul. Similarly, when Paul gives his defense he claims that Felix will see for himself that none of these charges are true, all he has to do is examine the facts. I’m wondering if this was how people commonly stated things when they were giving evidence at a trial.
Another thing that I’ve always wondered about is verse 21✞, when Paul says the real reason he’s on trial is that he was talking about the resurrection of the dead. Was he trying to derail the trial similar to what he’d done in the last passage? Is he hoping another fight will break out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees? I don’t know (and there are no hints in the text that this is the case), but if that was Paul’s plan it didn’t work. He makes that claim but nothing comes of it; it’s not even mentioned again.
Other than those details, the main thing I notice in this passage is Felix’ reaction to Paul’s message.
Felix’ Reaction to Christianity
Let’s look at the section again:
24 After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, “Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you.” 26 At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him.
What strikes me is not the hope for a bribe, it’s what “alarms” Felix: “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment.” I don’t think it’s just the coming judgement that alarms him; if it was Luke could have easily written that: “And as he reasoned about the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed.” On the other hand, why would the concepts of righteousness or self control alarm a grown man? He might think it’s a bit silly to promote such things, but alarm? Isn’t that a bit extreme?
Our problem is that we are on the other side of thousands of years of history in which these concepts have become commonplace, so it’s hard to understand that, in Paul’s day, no, these weren’t common concepts to be promoting. Righteousness? What’s that all about? Whoever’s the strongest gets to make and enforce the rules! Self control? Why would you even want to be self controlled?!? The only thing that should ever stop you from doing anything you want to do is your limitations; if you don’t have enough money, or you’re under someone else’s rule, then you probably can’t do everything you want to do, but you should strive toward it.
Then along come Christians who say that there is something called “righteousness,” a concept they seem to have borrowed from the Jews, and what is considered “righteous” and what is considered “unrighteous” are based on what their God says, not what their society says or what the situation allows or what you can get away with. And they’re promoting this idea that you shouldn’t do some things—even if you have the ability to do them—if they’re not righteous; you can have “self control,” and prevent yourself from acting out every desire. If you’re a man, and your friend has an attractive wife, you should have enough self control not to have sex with her! In fact, these crazy Christians go even further than that: you shouldn’t have sex with anyone other than your own wife – not a single woman, not another man, not a prostitute, nobody! Even if you have the means and the opportunity you should control yourself, not act out on your desires, and hold yourself to a higher standard.
I’m oversimplifying, of course the Romans would have understood concepts like righteousness and self control, but not even close to the way the Christians did. I’m not surprised the ideas of righteousness and self control would alarm a Roman governor. He wasn’t reacting the way modern people react (“of course we should be good and we should have self control, but nobody’s perfect!”); he was worried that these concepts would upend the entire society he was supposed to be governing.
I’m not even sure if he was thinking in terms of “good” or “bad” (i.e. whether it would change his society for the better or for the worse), I think he was just looking at Paul advocating a way of life that was entirely different from the way every person in the Roman empire lived, and if “the Way” really succeeded in promoting these ideas… well who knew what the result would be?!
(At the same time, notice that he was often summoning Paul to converse with him. These were powerful ideas being promoted, and potentially dangerous – but also attractive. I’m not saying Felix became a Christian, there’s no evidence of that, but he saw something in what Paul was saying.)
Historians will tell us this is exactly why Christianity grew so fast in the Roman empire. Christians were actually taking care of other people, which was unheard of. (If I help you I’ll have less for myself and for my family. Why would I ever give my money away to someone else?) Not only that, but it wasn’t just fellow Christians who were receiving this help, it was everyone. When there were plagues the Christians tried to help the people who were suffering, at great cost to their own lives. It was, in fact, Christians who started what we would now call hospitals; before Christians decided it was a good idea to take care of other people the idea of a hospital simply hadn’t occurred to anyone.
So people started seeing the way Christians were acting, which was markedly different from how everyone else acted, and it made them want to find out more. When more people became Christians they started acting that way too – not because of rules or regulations, as with other religions, but because they were changed from the inside out by the Holy Spirit.
Using myself as an example: I’m already saved—God has done the work for me—so it makes me want to serve Him. Sometimes I fail or actively disobey Him but because my relationship with Him is not based on my own actions—again, He did all the work—it doesn’t destroy me when I sin; I ask for forgiveness and He is just to forgive me for it, and in the end I end up even closer to Him! I don’t try to serve Him or help others because I’m trying to earn my way into His favour, or out of fear of His anger, I do it because He has already proven He loves me and wants a relationship with me, and out of the overflow of that love I pour out love to others.
Again, not as well or as often as I should. I get stuck on that point.
So this was how Christians behaved in the 1st Century. They loved each other, they loved others, and they tried to make their society better. Others got attracted to Christianity because of it, and Christianity grew, and Roman society changed. Cut ahead a few years and Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Cut ahead a few years more and Christianity was the dominant religion across Europe.
Cut ahead to the current moment in history and Christians are now judged by non-Christians for not living up to the standards we ourselves set. And I want to be quick to agree with that point: I think Christians—at least, those of us in the West—are doing a terrible job at living out the Christian life. We don’t help each other; we’re too selfish about money; we’re so used to easy living that we refuse to give up comforts even for the sake of others; we bicker and argue; we treat politics and religion as if they’re interchangeable. So I agree with non-Christians who call us out on our bad behaviour; we should look at 1st Century Christians and feel guilty. However, I would also point out that those judgements are based on Christian ideals.
Why do non-Christians think Christians should be loving? Why do they think we should help the poor? Why do they think we should be doing good? Because Christianity changed the world to the point that those of us in the West have simply accepted that these are good things. It wasn’t true before—it wasn’t true in Rome, when Paul was talking to Felix—but these ideals eventually became so much a part of the fabric of our society that non-Christians judge Christians for not living up to ideals that came from Christianity.
In a way, non-Christian and non-Jewish people of Paul’s day were being much more honest with themselves than we are in the West in the 21st Century. We talk about “survival of the fittest” as if it’s a natural law, but we also talk about human rights, without a solid basis for why humans should have rights; it’s such a core belief that we don’t even examine it. But “survival of the fittest” is how people really lived in Paul’s day. “Why would I care about others?” they might have asked. In the West, in the 21st Century, we forget to ask that question: “Yeah, why should we care about others? Why should all humans have the same rights?” Christians should promote human rights because all humans are made in the image of God; non-Christians don’t have a reason to promote human rights except that we now believe those are good things – because Christianity promoted them, thousands of years ago, and they eventually became part of the fabric of our society.
And I’m not telling those people to stop judging Christians. I’m telling Christians to pay attention when we’re being judged. There are areas where we’ve stopped following Christ’s example and need to do better. We’re so far off base, for example, that we have somehow developed a problem with the concept of “human rights,” because there are specific areas where we disagree on what should be a “right” – so we’ve turned it into a political issue and stopped caring about something we promoted in the first place and should be on the forefront of promoting now.
Footnotes
- When people in Paul’s day talked about “the whole world,” they really meant “the Roman Empire,” which was, essentially, Northern Africa and Southern Europe. They may or may not have known about China, or India, or other parts of what we think of as “the world,” but even if they knew about it, they weren’t thinking of those places when they talked about “the world.” ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment