Acts Chapter 24
Paul’s Trial Before Felix
A. The Accusations Against Paul
Acts 24:1 – “Now after five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus. These gave evidence to the governor against Paul.”
The Jewish leadership wasted no time in pursuing Paul’s destruction. Within five days, Ananias the high priest, along with a delegation of elders, traveled to Caesarea to formally present their case. They were accompanied by a professional orator named Tertullus, whose task was to frame the charges in a way that would appeal to the Roman governor. This shows how determined the Jewish leaders were, as they did not rely on their own arguments alone but hired a skilled lawyer to prosecute Paul.
The presence of Ananias, the elders, and Tertullus illustrates the seriousness with which the Sanhedrin pursued Paul’s condemnation. They regarded him not as a nuisance but as a genuine threat to their religious power and influence. They did not want a fair hearing, but rather a conviction at any cost.
Acts 24:2-4 – “And when he was called upon, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: ‘Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us.’”
Tertullus began with flattery, addressing Felix as “most noble Felix” and crediting him with bringing peace and prosperity to the Jewish people. Historically, this was completely false. Antonius Felix began life as a slave, and only through the influence of his brother Pallas, a close friend of Emperor Claudius, did he rise to power. Although he was the first freed slave to govern a Roman province, Tacitus described him as “a master of cruelty and lust who exercised the powers of a king with the spirit of a slave.” His governance was marked by brutality, corruption, and indulgence, not peace or prosperity.
The reality was that Felix repeatedly crushed Jewish uprisings with excessive violence. He ordered massacres in Caesarea and permitted Roman soldiers to plunder Jewish homes. Therefore, Tertullus’s opening was not praise but manipulation, hoping to curry favor with the governor through dishonest flattery.
The Bible repeatedly warns about the dangers of flattery. Paul himself wrote, “For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:18). Jude warned, “These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage” (Jude 1:16). The Book of Proverbs directly connects flattery with sin: “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips” (Proverbs 20:19). Proverbs also links flattery to seduction and sexual immorality (Proverbs 2:16; 6:24; 7:5; 29:5).
Even Psalm 78 warns that one can flatter God: “Nevertheless they flattered Him with their mouth, and they lied to Him with their tongue” (Psalm 78:36). This reveals that flattery is not simply empty praise but insincere speech intended for selfish gain.
Tertullus’s opening words to Felix were therefore a textbook example of worldly strategy—appeal to the ego of the judge with smooth words before presenting accusations. While he praised Felix publicly, Felix himself likely recognized the insincerity. As James Boice observed, even Felix must have thought, “What are these Jewish leaders after, that they should flatter me in this fashion?”
B. The Specific Charges Against Paul
Acts 24:5-6 – “For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law.”
The orator Tertullus now presented the formal charges against Paul. He accused him of three main offenses: being a political danger, leading a sect, and profaning the temple. He began with the sweeping declaration, “For we have found this man a plague.” To describe a man as a “plague” was to paint him as a source of corruption and destruction wherever he went. The intent was to portray Paul as a threat not only to Jewish religious order but to Roman political stability.
Judea was notorious for unrest and insurrections during this time. There were countless false messiahs and revolutionaries who stirred up rebellion against Rome, often leading to bloodshed. By calling Paul a plague and a creator of dissension, Tertullus sought to link him to these kinds of violent agitators. This was a carefully chosen accusation, because Rome had little patience for anyone who disturbed the “Pax Romana” (Roman peace). To Rome, such accusations were far more serious than purely religious disputes.
Tertullus then called Paul “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” This term was intended as both a legal classification and an insult. It suggested that Paul was the head of a dangerous, unauthorized religious movement, which Rome would have viewed with suspicion. But it was also a term of scorn. Nazareth had a poor reputation, and Nathanael’s words in John 1:46 capture this: “And Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’” By calling Christians “Nazarenes,” Paul’s accusers were using a label meant to demean them. Yet what the world despises, God exalts. To be called a Nazarene connected Paul directly to Jesus of Nazareth, the despised but exalted Savior.
Tertullus also unintentionally paid Paul a compliment when he accused him of stirring up dissension “among all the Jews throughout the world.” In trying to portray Paul as a global threat, he actually confirmed the vast reach of Paul’s missionary efforts. The gospel had indeed spread far beyond Jerusalem and Judea, penetrating synagogues and cities across the Roman Empire. What his enemies condemned was in fact evidence of God’s hand upon Paul’s ministry.
The only specific charge that could be considered an actual legal offense was the claim that Paul “even tried to profane the temple.” According to Jewish law, to profane the temple was a capital crime. Yet no proof was provided, because the accusation was based entirely on rumor (see Acts 21:26-29). In reality, Paul had gone to the temple in good faith to demonstrate his respect for Jewish customs, not to defile it. The charge was therefore fabricated and unsupported.
It is worth noting that the same lips that flattered Felix moments earlier now leveled false charges against Paul. The man who speaks smooth words for advantage is often the same who will slander when it serves his purposes. As the Scripture says, “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips” (Proverbs 20:19). Flattery and slander are two sides of the same sinful coin.
Acts 24:7-9 – “But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so.”
Having laid out the charges, Tertullus then complained about the intervention of the Roman commander Lysias. He accused him of acting “with great violence” when he rescued Paul from the mob. This distorted the truth, for in reality Lysias had acted to protect Paul from being murdered. By portraying Lysias in a negative light, Tertullus revealed that the Jewish leaders regretted the fact that Paul’s fate had not been left in their hands. They preferred mob justice over a lawful trial.
Instead of presenting evidence, Tertullus suggested that Felix could discover Paul’s guilt by examining him directly. He said, “By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” This was a weak strategy, revealing the baselessness of their case. Rather than offer witnesses or proof, he hoped that under questioning Paul might incriminate himself. As one commentator observed, “His oration has been blamed as weak, lame, and imperfect; and yet, perhaps, few, with so bad a cause, could have made better of it.”
Finally, Luke records that “the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so.” Ananias the high priest and the other elders added their agreement to Tertullus’s speech, but again, they provided no evidence. Their assent amounted to nothing more than a chorus of accusation without substance. This pattern—flattery, false charges, and mob consensus—shows the corrupt nature of their opposition to Paul.
B. Paul’s Defense
Acts 24:10-13 – “Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: ‘Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.’”
When Paul was granted the opportunity to speak, he began with a respectful acknowledgment of Felix’s experience, yet notably without flattery. Unlike Tertullus, Paul did not indulge in deceitful praise. He simply stated the fact that Felix had governed Judea for many years and therefore was familiar with Jewish affairs. Paul’s confidence was not rooted in manipulating Felix’s ego but in the truth itself. He declared, “I do the more cheerfully answer for myself,” because he knew the facts were entirely in his favor.
Paul then laid out his defense. He reminded Felix that it had been no more than twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem, and his purpose was worship, not agitation. In so short a span, Paul could not have organized insurrections or stirred up crowds throughout the empire as Tertullus had claimed. Furthermore, his conduct in Jerusalem was peaceful. He had not been found disputing with anyone, inciting a riot, or creating disorder in the temple, in the synagogues, or anywhere in the city. These were serious charges, but Paul pointed out the absence of witnesses. “Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.” If such crimes had truly occurred, eyewitnesses could easily have been produced within twelve days. Their absence demonstrated the baselessness of the accusations.
The lesson here is striking: the truth does not need embellishment, only faithful proclamation. Paul understood that false charges collapse when exposed to the light of evidence. This is why Christians can face accusations with calm confidence, knowing that when the facts are revealed, the truth will vindicate them.
Acts 24:14-21 – “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men. Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult. They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me. Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council, unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.’”
Paul not only refuted the false charges but also used the opportunity to clarify his true position. He openly confessed his faith, stating, “According to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers.” Far from abandoning the faith of Israel, Paul affirmed continuity with it. He worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the very God revered by his accusers. He believed “all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.” In this way, Paul made clear that Christianity was not a rejection of Judaism but its fulfillment. What his opponents mocked as “the sect of the Nazarenes” was in truth “the Way,” the fulfillment of God’s promises.
Central to Paul’s confession was the doctrine of the resurrection. He declared, “I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” This belief was held by the Pharisees but denied by the Sadducees (Acts 23:8). Paul stood firmly on the promise of resurrection, but his faith was not in a general doctrine alone; it was grounded in the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15). Moreover, Paul testified to the universal resurrection: both the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised. This directly rejects false ideas such as soul-sleep or annihilation. Jesus Himself taught, “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).
Because of this certainty, Paul declared, “I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.” This statement highlights both integrity and accountability. Paul’s ministry was marked not by ambition or corruption but by sincerity before God and fairness toward men. His conscience was clear because his hope was anchored in eternal truth.
Paul then turned to the specific circumstances of his arrest. He explained that after many years of ministry abroad, he had come to Jerusalem “to bring alms and offerings to my nation.” This referred to the collection he had gathered from Gentile believers to support the poor among the saints in Judea (Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8-9). His mission was one of charity, not sedition. Far from defiling the temple, he was found there purified, having submitted to ritual cleansing to demonstrate respect for Jewish custom (Acts 21:26). He had not entered with a mob, nor was there any tumult.
Paul then struck at the heart of the legal weakness in the case: “They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me.” Those Jews from Asia who first stirred up accusations in Jerusalem were conspicuously absent. Roman law, like Jewish law, demanded the presence of accusers in a trial. Their absence revealed the emptiness of the charges. Paul pressed the point further: “Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council.” The silence of his accusers exposed their lack of evidence.
Finally, Paul identified the true reason for his persecution: “Unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.’” At its root, Paul’s trial was not about crimes against Rome or violations of the temple but about the gospel of Jesus Christ. The resurrection divided his accusers, exposing their spiritual blindness. To Paul, the resurrection was the central issue, for it is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
C. Felix’s Decision in the Case
Acts 24:22-23 – “But when Felix heard these things, having more accurate knowledge of the Way, he adjourned the proceedings and said, ‘When Lysias the commander comes down, I will make a decision on your case.’ So he commanded the centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty, and told him not to forbid any of his friends to provide for or visit him.”
When Felix heard Paul’s defense, Luke notes that he had “more accurate knowledge of the Way.” This meant that Felix was not ignorant about Christianity. His position as governor exposed him to various reports concerning the movement, especially as Caesarea had a large Gentile population and had already seen many believers (Acts 10). Despite having sufficient knowledge to recognize Paul’s innocence, Felix postponed a decision. He claimed he would wait for Lysias the commander to arrive before ruling, even though the letter from Lysias (Acts 23:26-30) had already cleared Paul of wrongdoing. This was little more than a tactic to avoid rendering judgment.
Felix granted Paul a measure of liberty while keeping him in custody. He instructed the centurion not to forbid Paul’s friends from visiting or providing for him. This unusual leniency demonstrates that Felix knew Paul had committed no crime worthy of punishment. Yet Felix also feared aligning himself with Paul and his message. He sought to walk a middle ground—refusing to condemn Paul outright but equally refusing to side with the gospel.
This indecisive stance reveals the danger of political expediency. Felix had the truth before him but chose compromise. Instead of upholding justice, he allowed convenience and self-interest to dictate his actions. In this, he serves as an example of those who suppress truth when it conflicts with their own ambitions.
Acts 24:24-25 – “And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, ‘Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.’”
Not long after, Felix’s curiosity led him to call for Paul again, this time with his wife Drusilla present. Drusilla was of Herodian descent, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I and the sister of Herod Agrippa II and Bernice (Acts 25). She was renowned for her beauty and was still very young, about twenty years old at the time. Felix had seduced her away from her former husband and taken her as his third wife. Theirs was a union rooted in lust and ambition rather than godliness.
With such a background, it is significant that Paul’s message to them focused on “righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come.” These three themes cut directly to the core of their moral failures. First, Paul spoke of righteousness, pointing to the perfect standard of God and the imputed righteousness found only in Jesus Christ. Then he addressed self-control, a virtue glaringly absent in their lives, exposing the moral corruption of their marriage and their indulgent lifestyle. Finally, Paul spoke of the judgment to come, reminding them that God would hold them accountable for their deeds.
This boldness reveals Paul’s faithfulness to his calling. He did not water down the message to please a powerful audience. Instead, he spoke directly to their sins and to their need for Christ. As Charles Spurgeon observed, true ministers must be personal and direct. To preach in vague generalities that avoid confronting sin is to betray the message of the gospel. Paul’s preaching was fearless, bearing upon Felix and Drusilla with full weight, as every gospel minister ought to do.
The message had its effect: “Felix was afraid.” The conviction of the Holy Spirit pierced his conscience. Yet rather than repent, he dismissed Paul with the words, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.” This was not mere postponement but rejection. Many people express their rejection of Christ in the same way, not by outright denial but by endless delay. The apostle Paul elsewhere warns against such presumption: “For He says: ‘In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you.’ Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Felix’s delay illustrates the peril of procrastination in spiritual matters. Salvation is never convenient to the flesh, and waiting for a more suitable time is nothing but rebellion dressed in politeness. As Spurgeon warned, each rejection of conviction may be the last warning a soul ever hears. God may one day remove restraint and allow the sinner to rush headlong into judgment, past repentance and past hope.
3. The Motive of Felix’s Heart Is Revealed: Greed
Acts 24:26-27 – “Meanwhile he also hoped that money would be given him by Paul, that he might release him. Therefore he sent for him more often and conversed with him. But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound.”
Even though Felix listened to Paul frequently, his motives were impure. Luke makes it plain that Felix hoped Paul would offer him money in exchange for his release. As governor, Felix wielded the power of freedom or imprisonment, and like many Roman officials of his day, he was corrupt and expected bribes. His repeated interviews with Paul were not driven by spiritual hunger but by greed. He wanted to exploit Paul’s situation for personal gain.
This corruption highlights the contrast between Paul and Felix. Paul, though a prisoner, had a clear conscience before God and men (Acts 24:16). Felix, though in power, was enslaved by greed and lust. The apostle’s chains were physical; the governor’s were spiritual. His covetous heart blinded him to the truth he had heard from Paul and revealed how far he was from righteousness.
Luke then notes, “But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix.” Roman law limited this kind of custody to two years, yet Felix violated that principle. By keeping Paul confined beyond the legal limit, Felix not only demonstrated his corruption but also his disregard for Roman justice. For two long years Paul remained imprisoned without conviction, a clear sign of political injustice.
Finally, Luke records Felix’s last act regarding Paul: “Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound.” Knowing Paul was innocent, Felix nevertheless left him in chains when he was recalled to Rome. He did this for the same reason Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus though he declared Him guiltless—out of political expediency and fear of man. Like Pilate, Felix placed his own advantage above truth and justice.
In this, Felix represents one of the guiltiest kinds of rejecters of Christ. He was not ignorant; he had heard Paul’s message about righteousness, self-control, and judgment. He even trembled under conviction. Yet he suppressed the truth for the sake of greed and political gain. Jesus said, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). Felix is a tragic illustration of that truth. He sought money and favor with men, but in doing so, he forfeited eternal life.
Felix’s story warns us of the danger of knowing what is right yet refusing to do it. As James wrote, “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Both Felix and Pilate stand condemned in history as men who feared the opinion of others more than the judgment of God. Their lack of courage in the face of truth led to eternal loss.
