Act 23:23-26:32 | TNotes | STEP | Summary for Acts 23:23-35: 23:23-35 A mounted escort took Paul safely to the Roman Governor Felix in Caesarea , the Roman headquarters for Judea. There Paul would have greater protection than in Jerusalem. The military operation was executed that night with secret efficiency and maximum security (23:31 ).

Summary for Acts 23:23-35: 23:23-35 ^a A mounted escort took Paul safely to the Roman Governor Felix in Caesarea, the Roman headquarters for Judea. There Paul would have greater protection than in Jerusalem. The military operation was executed that night with secret efficiency and maximum security (23:31 ^b).
23:24 ^c Antonius Felix was procurator (Governor) of Judea about AD 52–59, with responsibility for both military and civil affairs. Felix had a bad reputation (see 24:24-27 ^d) and was eventually recalled to Rome by Nero.
Summary for Acts 23:26-30: 23:26-30 ^e The letter of Claudius Lysias to Governor Felix is a typical Hellenistic letter, naming the writer and the person addressed, offering a greeting, and stating the business at hand (though there is no parting word of farewell; see study note on 15:29). It summarizes the events that preceded it and explains the action taken; it also suggests that the commander has followed proper Roman judicial procedure.

• The title his Excellency was often applied to persons of high social, political, or economic status (Luke 1:3 ^f).
23:31 ^g Antipatris, a city rebuilt by Herod the Great in 9 BC on the Plain of Sharon, was a convenient military control point between Jerusalem and Caesarea.
23:35 ^h The governor followed the proper protocol and waited for Paul’s accusers to arrive before granting an official hearing.

• Herod’s headquarters was Herod the Great’s palace at Caesarea; it subsequently became the residence of the Roman governors of Judea.

‏ Acts 24

Summary for Acts 24:1-27: 24:1-27 ⁱ Tertullus presented a legal case against Paul in a Roman court on behalf of the high priest (24:1-9 ^j). Then Paul cheerfully made his defense and defended his faith (24:10-21 ^k), and the governor adjourned the hearing without a decision and left Paul in prison for two years (24:22-27 ^l).
Summary for Acts 24:1-4: 24:1-4 ^m Tertullus presented the case for the prosecution, beginning with the customary speech of praise intended to attract the attention and sympathy of the governor, followed by the statement of charges (24:5-8 ⁿ).
24:5 ^o Troublemaker (or agitator) was a charge of political sedition. A Roman court would have taken this charge very seriously (see 16:21 ^p; 17:7 ^q; 18:13 ^r). Similar accusations were made against Jesus before Pilate (Luke 23:2 ^s, 5 ^t, 14 ^u).

• The term cult (or party, or sect) is used here in a negative sense to put Paul’s religion under a pallor of suspicion if not illegality (see also Acts 24:14 ^v).
24:6 ^w trying to desecrate the Temple: See study note on 21:28-29.
Summary for Acts 24:10-21: 24:10-21 ^x Paul’s defense was that (1) he wasn’t in Jerusalem long enough to incite a riot; (2) none of his accusers had ever seen him stirring up a riot; and (3) he worshiped in accord with Jewish law and everything written in the prophets.
24:14 ^y the Way: See study note on 9:2.

• Paul emphasized his common ground with his Jewish audience, including his worship, belief in the Jewish law, acceptance of the prophets, and hope in the resurrection (24:14 ^z, 15 ^aa; see 24:21 ^ab).
24:15 ^ac At the last judgment God will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous. Paul kept this final appointment with God constantly in mind (24:16 ^ad). The fear of the “coming day of judgment” unnerved Felix in a subsequent conversation with Paul (24:25 ^ae).
24:16 ^af Paul stressed that he had acted with a clear conscience (see 20:27 ^ag, 33 ^ah; 23:1 ^ai; 1 Cor 4:4 ^aj; 2 Cor 1:12 ^ak; 4:2 ^al; see also 2 Tim 1:3 ^am). He had not departed from his Jewish heritage (Acts 24:14 ^an), and he had no fear of God’s judgment (24:15 ^ao).
24:17 ^ap money to aid my people: See study note on 20:1-2; see also Rom 15:25-29 ^aq; 1 Cor 16:1-2 ^ar; 2 Cor 9:1-7 ^as.

• and to offer sacrifices to God: See Acts 21:23-26 ^at.
24:22 ^au Perhaps Felix delayed his decision hoping that Paul would bribe him (24:26 ^av).
24:23 ^aw It was in keeping with the proper treatment of a Roman citizen to give him some freedom and allow his friends to visit him and take care of his needs.
24:24 ^ax Drusilla was the sister of Herod Agrippa II and Bernice (25:13 ^ay); Drusilla had abandoned her former husband, Azizus the King of Emessa, and married Felix. Drusilla was Jewish, so in forsaking her original husband and marrying Felix she had disregarded God’s commands (Exod 20:14 ^az; Deut 5:18 ^ba; cp. Mal 2:16 ^bb; Mark 10:12 ^bc). Josephus criticized her for this (Antiquities 20.7.1-2). Drusilla and her husband were confronted in their conversation with Paul by the prospect of judgment.
24:25 ^bd Paul’s words about righteousness, self-control, and coming divine judgment frightened Felix, who was notably corrupt (24:26-27 ^be; see study notes on 23:24; 24:24).
Summary for Acts 24:26-27: 24:26-27 ^bf Felix kept Paul in custody hoping for a bribe. When this failed and his own term ended, he left Paul in prison to gain favor with the Jewish people.
Summary for Acts 24:27-25:5: 24:27–25:5 ^bg Felix’s successor was Porcius Festus, appointed by Nero to be governor of Judea about AD 59~62. Josephus describes Festus as a conscientious, honest administrator who was not able to stem the rising tide of Jewish unrest despite his strong action against the party of the Assassins (Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.10; cp. Acts 21:38 ^bh). He resisted the Jewish leaders’ attempt to have Paul’s trial moved to Jerusalem, but he was not immune to their pressure (25:9 ^bi).

‏ Acts 25

25:7 ^bj The serious accusations were probably those raised previously (21:27-28 ^bk; 24:5-9 ^bl), but the accusations were unsupported by the evidence (24:10-13 ^bm).
25:9 ^bn Festus, wanting to please the Jews: The governor would later state his official reason for delaying Paul’s trial and asking to move it to Jerusalem (25:17-20 ^bo). His request was driven by politics, however, not justice.
Summary for Acts 25:10-11: 25:10-11 ^bp Festus’s suggestion that Paul be tried in Jerusalem motivated the apostle’s appeal to Caesar. Paul was not afraid of death, but he objected to being turned over to a biased court intent on murder, not justice (25:7 ^bq).
25:12 ^br Festus granted Paul’s appeal. This fulfilled Paul’s conviction that he must see Rome (19:21 ^bs; see also 23:11 ^bt; 27:24 ^bu; Rom 1:13-15 ^bv; 15:22-29 ^bw).
Summary for Acts 25:13-22: 25:13-22 ^bx Festus discussed Paul’s case with Herod Agrippa II (ruled AD 50–100), who had come to Caesarea to make a courtesy call on the new governor.
25:16 ^by It was a fundamental principle: Roman law did not convict people without a trial. They must be given an opportunity to confront their accusers and defend themselves (cp. 19:38-39 ^bz). This put Roman judicial procedure in a favorable light for readers of Acts.
25:17 ^ca I didn’t delay: In contrast with Felix, his predecessor (24:22-27 ^cb).
Summary for Acts 25:18-20: 25:18-20 ^cc These verses give Festus’s official reasons for his actions; see also 25:9 ^cd. There were no criminal accusations against Paul; the objections were about their religion and centered on Paul’s claim that Jesus ... is alive.
Summary for Acts 25:23-27: 25:23-27 ^ce Paul’s hearing before King Agrippa was accompanied by all the pomp and circumstance appropriate for an official royal visit. The main purpose of the hearing was for Agrippa to advise Festus on what he should write in the appeal to Caesar, for there was no clear charge against Paul, and Festus himself believed Paul had done nothing deserving death.

‏ Acts 26

Summary for Acts 26:1-23: 26:1-23 ^cf In his eloquent defense before King Agrippa, Paul argued that his preaching was completely consistent with the Jewish faith. The defense begins with a courteous acknowledgement of Agrippa’s competence to hear the evidence (26:2-3 ^cg), outlines the nature of Paul’s background, Jewish training, and membership in the Pharisees (26:4-5 ^ch), and explains that the charges against him are merely for believing the fulfillment of Jewish hopes for the resurrection (26:6-8 ^ci). Paul then tells the story of his conversion from strong opponent of Christianity (26:9-11 ^cj) through a vision on the way to Damascus (26:12-18 ^ck; see 9:1-18 ^cl). His preaching was nothing more than obeying this divine vision (26:19-20 ^cm). Even though he encountered violent opposition from his fellow Jews (26:21 ^cn), God protected him as he taught a message that the Jews should have embraced (26:22-23 ^co). This defense is a model for Christians put on trial for their faith (see 9:15 ^cp; Luke 21:12-15 ^cq).
Summary for Acts 26:12-18: 26:12-18 ^cr See 9:1-18 ^cs.
Summary for Acts 26:17-18: 26:17-18 ^ct Throughout his defense in this trial for his life, Paul also clearly set out the conditions for receiving new life in Christ (also in 26:20 ^cu, 23 ^cv; see Matt 10:19-20 ^cw).
Summary for Acts 26:22-23: 26:22-23 ^cx Paul stressed God’s protection as he carried out his witness (cp. 3:18 ^cy; 10:43 ^cz; Luke 24:25-27 ^da, 44-47 ^db). Paul then called on his hearers to believe his message, that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfills the promises of the Old Testament (see Luke 24:27 ^dc, 44 ^dd).
26:24 ^de Paul, you are insane: Festus, a Roman, thought all this talk about the prophets and resurrection was crazy (cp. 17:18 ^df, 32 ^dg), and he concluded that Paul must have driven himself mad with too much study.
26:26 ^dh they were not done in a corner: The major events of the Christian faith were historical matters of public record that witnesses could attest as factually true. Agrippa could not invalidate Paul’s statements of fact.
Summary for Acts 26:27-28: 26:27-28 ^di Paul’s question put Agrippa in a bind: If he said he believed the prophets, he knew Paul would press home the Christian message; if not, he would offend the devout Jews in his audience. Agrippa knew that Paul wasn’t crazy and that Paul’s testimony about Jesus was historically sound (26:26 ^dj). So Agrippa evaded Paul’s question and refused to face the claims of Christ, alleging that the statement given by Paul was too brief for him to arrive at a responsible decision.
26:28 ^dk “Do you think you can persuade me to become a Christian so quickly?”: This enigmatic remark might have been ironic, incredulous, scoffing, or brushing off Paul’s challenge. It also might have been a direct statement of Paul’s persuasiveness, or a direct statement about or genuine question of Paul’s intention. It seems best to take Agrippa’s reply as deliberately evasive: He didn’t want to admit that he believed the prophets (26:27 ^dl), for Paul had just made a strong case, and the next step would be to believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah to whom the prophets pointed. Agrippa didn’t want to take that step. On the other hand, he didn’t want to say that he didn’t believe the prophets, for that would alienate the Jewish subjects to whose loyalties he wanted to appeal. His non-committal response underlines his discomfort with Paul’s testimony.
26:29 ^dm Paul’s bold answer shows his quickness in repartee. He challenges Agrippa and his whole audience about the value of knowing Christ and making a personal commitment to him.
26:31 ^dn The consensus of these rulers was that Paul had not done anything to deserve death or imprisonment; this verdict was given repeatedly by the Roman authorities that considered Paul’s case (25:25 ^do; see Luke 23:4 ^dp, 15 ^dq, 22 ^dr).
26:32 ^ds He could have been set free: The legal verdict was clear (26:31 ^dt). But as a practical matter, if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar, Paul might not have been alive (25:1-11 ^du). As it was, he was fulfilling God’s purposes for him (23:11 ^dv).