The defense of the apostle is characterized by straightforward truth and courteous dignity, as the accusation had been by servility to the governor and abuse of the accused. It is noticed, on the one hand, as the Jews joined in their venal advocate’s assault, affirming that his falsehoods were fact (ver. 9), that, on the other (ver. 10), there was no haste to reply till the governor gave the sign to that effect.
“And when the governor beckoned him to speak, Paul answered, Knowing that since many years thou art judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense: as thou canst ascertain that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem; and neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with any one or making a tumult of a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city. Neither can they prove to thee the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to thee, that according to the way which they call a sect, so I serve the God of the fathers, believing all things that are according to the law and that are written in the prophets; having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that a resurrection is to be, both of just and unjust. Herein also do I exercise myself to have a conscience without offense toward God and men continually. Now after several years I arrived to bring alms unto my nation and offerings; in which they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult but certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had aught against me. Or let these themselves say what wrong they found in me when I stood before the council, [other] than for this one voice that I cried out standing among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you” (Acts 24:10-2110Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: 11Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. 12And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 16And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. 17Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. 18Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. 19Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me. 20Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, 21Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. (Acts 24:10‑21)).
The length of time that Felix had passed in official relation to the Jews was a plain matter of fact, of which the apostle justly availed himself. Their feeling, habits, and prejudices were thus necessarily more familiar than to a new procurator. On this circumstance the apostle grounds his cheerfulness in making his plea. Flattery is wholly absent.
As to himself, it was so brief a space since he went up to Jerusalem that his course there could easily be traced. And when he did go, but twelve days before, it was “to worship,” the very reverse of moving sedition or other pestilent conduct, least of all to profane the temple. On the contrary he brought forth alms to his nation, and offerings.” Could anything be more opposed, either to riot, or to profanation? He was at liberty to discourse if he had judged meet; but in point of fact “neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with any one, or making a tumult of a crowd,” common as this was in a people so zealous and so excitable, “nor in the synagogues,” numerous as they were, “nor throughout the city.” What could be less like an agitator? “Neither can they prove to thee things whereof they now accuse me.” More than this distinct challenge, or at best denial, of the vague and general calumny the apostle does not allege. The facts stated, of which the evidence was easy and ample, refuted the talk of Tertullus.
But far from denying what was said of “the sect” (ver. 5), he avows it openly. “But this I confess to thee, that according to the way which they call sect, so I serve the [or our] fathers’ God.” This was of moment for the governor. Tolerant as the Romans were toward the religions convictions of the nations they ruled, they were stern in disallowing innovations, especially such as tended to stir up civil discord. The apostle accordingly prefers here, as on two other occasions not quite similar, to depart from the usual phrase, and says πατρώῳ θεῷ rather than τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν as Kühnöl and others have noticed. As the heathen without God themselves called the Christians godless or Atheists, because they had no idols, so the Jews called the church “a sect.” Yet was it the only institution on earth that could not be a sect while true to Christ. The apostle goes farther however, and confesses his faith in all things according to the law, and the things written in the prophets. There is no hesitation in declaring boldly his faith in all the ancient oracles before the high priest and the Sadducean party, who notoriously slighted the prophets, as they had no real reverence for the law. If any Pharisees were in alliance with them as “elders” of Israel, what a position in confederating with infidels against a more thorough believer than themselves!
Further, there is nothing left indistinct here. For the apostle adds, “having hope toward God, which they themselves also look for, that a resurrection is to be of both just and unjust.” This could hardly have been said if there had not been then present Pharisees who confessed the resurrection of the dead. They must therefore have made up their difference with the heterodox Sadducees in their eagerness to put down and punish Paul. The tendency among the Jews seems to have been to regard resurrection as the privilege of the righteous simply, which would be sure to degenerate into the reward of Israel in the kingdom of Messiah. But the apostle, guided of the Holy Spirit, shows its universal character, “of both just and unjust.” So it was to be inferred even from a book so ancient as that of Job, and of the deeper interest in this respect as evidence of the faith of Gentile believers before the law. Yet it is certain that in Job 14 Job speaks of man’s resurrection (that is, of man, as such), when the heavens are no more and eternity begins, contradistinguished from the rising of the righteous, like himself, to enjoy their hope when the Kinsman Redeemer shall stand on the earth, which is clearly for the kingdom. Naturally the resurrection of the just, the resurrection from among the dead, the better resurrection, and other kindred phrases, are more frequent as a cheer and incentive to saints in present suffering; but John 5 and Revelation 20 give doctrinally and prophetically the twofold resurrection, severed by a thousand years, to which Paul here alludes as that which had roused so much feeling on the part of his Sadducean adversaries.
Nor this only; for he lets them know by the way that on himself the hope of resurrection was most influential practically. “In this [Therefore, or accordingly] I also exercise myself to have a conscience without offense toward God and men continually.”
Here not only were the Jews, but Christians for the most part are, weak indeed, rising in faith but little beyond thoughtful heathen who reason on the immortality of the soul. No doubt the God-inbreathed soul, the inner man, is immortal; but as this is no security against sin, so neither does it involve immunity from judgment. Indeed it is rather the ground why sinful man, alone of beings on the earth, has moral responsibility, from which he cannot disengage himself; for, if he refuse life eternal in the Son, he must be judged by Him at the last, as Scripture abundantly testifies. The believer of course needs no such awful measure to vindicate the rights of Christ, but, what is far better, honors Him now in the day that follows His cross, honors Him not by that tremendous and irresistible constraint, but with a ready mind, as the One Who for him died and rose that he might live no longer to himself but to Him.
People may reason, as alas! not a few in Christendom have not been ashamed to do, that the blessing of the soul is of a more spiritual nature, and that any hope associated with the resurrection of the body is external. But they are beguiled of the enemy in thus preferring their own thoughts to God’s word, which insists on the fullest blessing for the soul now, even salvation in the richest way, but on resurrection or change at Christ’s coming as our proper hope. Then only shall we be like Him, when the body of humiliation is conformed to the body of His glory. It is this hope which gives power in the Spirit to mortify our members on the earth, instead of indulging the common dream of present ease and honor here before the soul goes to heaven for its glory. Never does Scripture so speak. It does declare the superior blessedness of departing to be with Christ, as compared with remaining here. But it never stops short of Christ’s coming for our everlasting change as the true hope which purifies us meanwhile on the earth.
The apostle next states that after a lapse of several years he arrived bringing alms to his nation, and offerings. Was this the action of a seditious pestilent man “In which [business of the offerings] they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult.” Was this again profaning the temple? “But certain Jews from Asia” — they were the true culprits in the matter. It was they whose guilty rashness imputed the false charge. For the four men under the vow were not Greeks but Jews; and with these only was Paul associated in the temple at the instance of James. Why were these Asiatic Jews not here face to face, as Roman law required? “Who ought,” as the apostle here quietly adds, “to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had anything against me. Or let them themselves (the Jews then present) say what wrong they found in me when I stood before the council, [other] than for this one voice which I cried out among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you.”
It was irrefragably and solely the Jews themselves who made the riot (stirred up by the blunder about those brethren from Asia), who were not there to be convicted that day, as Felix could not but see. Even though the witnesses were not present, those actually there were challenged to state any wrong whatever done by the apostle, unless it was his putting forward the great truth of the resurrection: as really embarrassing to the Pharisee elders now as before; for they assuredly would regard such a cry as true and right, and in no way a fault. But “evil communications corrupt good manners”; and those who at first felt sympathy for the truth at stake, now give their support to the enemy against the great representative of the gospel, even when they all were convicted of the grossest mistake, and of unfounded calumny. So hard is it for men engaged in a campaign, above all a religions one, to stop short of glaring injustice when arrayed on an evil side. When men are right, they can afford to be gracious. Wrong-doers and malicious men add turbulence also.