Chapter 24
The Prosecution’s Case
1 Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a certain attorney named Tertullus, and they presented their case against Paul to the governor.
2 And when Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since reforms are being carried out for this nation by your foresight,
3 in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, we receive this with all gratitude.
4 But so that I may not detain you any further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly.
5 For we have found this man to be a plague, an agitator of revolts among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we seized him.
7 [Some manuscripts add: and wanted to judge him according to our own law. But the commander Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you.]
8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these things of which we are accusing him.”
9 And the Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so.
Translator’s Notes — vv. 1–9:
ῥήτορος Τερτύλλου (rhētoros Tertyllou) — v.1: “An attorney named Tertullus” — the word ῥήτωρ (rhētōr) means a professional orator or advocate, essentially a trial lawyer. The Sanhedrin has hired a professional, someone skilled in Roman forensic rhetoric who can present the case in terms a Roman governor will find compelling. The name Tertullus is Latin (a diminutive form), suggesting he may have been a Roman or Romanized professional — hired precisely because he knows how to work the Roman legal system. The fact that the Sanhedrin needs a professional Roman-style lawyer underscores that this is now a Roman proceeding, not a Jewish one.
vv.2–4: Tertullus’s opening flattery is a textbook example of the Roman forensic device called a captatio benevolentiae (“capturing of goodwill”) — standard practice in Roman courts. But the specific content is dripping with irony if you know Felix’s actual record. “Through you we enjoy much peace” — Josephus records that under Felix, Judea was wracked by assassinations, banditry, false prophets, and social unrest. “Reforms are being carried out for this nation by your foresight” — Felix’s “reforms” included mass crucifixions and the use of the sicarii as informants. Tertullus is praising a governor whose administration was a catastrophe, and everyone in the room knows it. This is the ritual dishonesty of courtroom procedure.
λοιμόν (loimon) — v.5: “A plague” — literally “a pestilence.” This is not just an insult; it’s a legal characterization. In Roman law, a person who disturbed the public order could be classified as a public menace — a threat to the pax Romana. The word is calculated to trigger Felix’s political anxieties. The charge escalates in three steps: (1) a plague — a general menace to public order; (2) an agitator of revolts (στάσεις, staseis) among all Jews throughout the world — a specific political crime (sedition); (3) a ringleader (πρωτοστάτης, protōstatēs) of a sect — the leader of a subversive organization.
τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως (tēs tōn Nazōraiōn hairesōs) — v.5: “The sect of the Nazarenes” — this is the only place in the New Testament where Christians are called “Nazarenes” (Ναζωραῖοι). The term αἵρεσις (hairesis, from which we get “heresy”) at this point simply means “sect” or “party” without the negative connotation it later acquired. The Pharisees and Sadducees were also called haireseis. But in this legal context, Tertullus is using it to frame Christianity as a deviant splinter group, distinguishable from mainstream Judaism and therefore potentially outside the legal protections Judaism enjoyed.
v.6: The temple desecration charge is stated but significantly softened: “he tried to desecrate the temple” (ἐπείρασεν βεβηλῶσαι). In the original mob scene (21:28), the accusation was that Paul had actually brought Greeks into the temple. Tertullus pulls back to “attempted” desecration, perhaps because the prosecution knows the original charge was based on an assumption (21:29) and wouldn’t hold up under cross-examination.
v.7: These verses are textually disputed — they appear in some manuscripts but not others. If original, they represent the prosecution’s attempt to reframe the Roman intervention as an overreach: “We were handling this ourselves, but Lysias violently interfered.” This subtly shifts blame onto the tribune and implies the Jewish authorities were acting within their rights. If this reading is authentic, it’s a clever attempt to undermine the credibility of Lysias’s report, which (as we saw in 23:29) was favorable to Paul.
Paul’s Defense
10 And when the governor nodded for him to speak, Paul replied: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense,
11 since you are able to verify that it has been no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship.
12 And neither in the temple did they find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city.
13 Nor are they able to prove to you the charges they are now bringing against me.
14 But this I confess to you: that according to the Way — which they call a sect — I serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves also cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
16 For this reason I also do my best to maintain a blameless conscience before God and before people at all times.
17 Now after many years I came to bring charitable gifts to my nation and to present offerings.
18 While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple — not with any crowd and not with any disturbance.
19 But there were some Jews from the province of Asia — who ought to be here before you and to bring charges, if they have anything against me.
20 Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the Sanhedrin,
21 other than this one statement that I shouted out while standing among them: ‘It is regarding the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today!’”
Translator’s Notes — vv. 10–21:
v.10: Paul’s opening is notably restrained compared to Tertullus’s lavish flattery. He doesn’t call Felix “most excellent” or praise his governance. He makes one factual observation: Felix has been a judge in this region for many years and therefore has enough experience to evaluate the case. This is complimentary without being sycophantic — a subtle rhetorical contrast with Tertullus that a sophisticated listener like Felix would notice.
v.11: Paul’s defense is structured as a systematic demolition of each charge. First, he establishes the timeline: only twelve days since he arrived in Jerusalem, and some of those were spent in Roman custody. This is not enough time to organize an insurrection. Second (v.12), he challenges the evidence: nobody found him disputing, gathering crowds, or causing disturbances. Third (v.13), he makes the devastating legal point: they cannot prove any of it. Paul is thinking like a lawyer: timeline, evidence, burden of proof.
κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ηἷν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν (kata tēn hodon hēn legousin hairesin) — v.14: “According to the Way, which they call a sect” — Paul’s language is carefully chosen. He accepts the term “the Way” (the Christians’ own name for their movement) and rejects the term “sect” (the prosecution’s characterization). The pivot word is “they call” (λέγουσιν) — that’s their label, not mine. Paul then immediately reframes: I “serve the God of our fathers,” I believe “everything in the Law and the Prophets.” He is insisting that Christianity is not a departure from Judaism but its fulfillment.
v.15: Paul’s claim that his accusers “also cherish” the hope of resurrection is a pointed reference to the Pharisaic members of the delegation — and another echo of his Sanhedrin strategy. The prosecution includes both Sadducees (who deny resurrection) and Pharisees (who affirm it). Paul exploits the fracture: on the central theological question, I agree with half of my accusers. The addition of “both the righteous and the unrighteous” is significant — this is a more developed resurrection theology than the Pharisees typically articulated, and it adds a note of judgment that Paul will press further in his private conversations with Felix.
ἐλεημοσύνας (eleēmosynas) — v.17: “Charitable gifts” — this is the only reference in Acts to Paul’s collection for the Jerusalem church, and even here it’s oblique. The word ἐλεημοσύνη (eleēmosynē, from which we get “alms”) frames the collection as an act of Jewish charity — piety toward the nation, not a Christian institutional transfer. Paul is presenting his Jerusalem visit in the most legally favorable and culturally recognizable terms possible: I came to bring charity and to worship.
v.19: Paul’s most devastating legal point: the actual accusers — the Asian Jews who started the riot — are not present. In Roman law, accusers were required to appear in person and face the accused. Their absence undermines the entire case. The people who are present (the Sanhedrin delegation) are not eyewitnesses to the alleged temple desecration; they are relying on secondhand reports. Paul is essentially arguing that the prosecution has failed to produce its key witnesses, which in a Roman court was a serious procedural deficiency.
v.21: Paul ends with a touch of irony. The only “crime” the Sanhedrin can actually testify to is his declaration about the resurrection of the dead — a theological statement, not a criminal act. Paul is daring Felix to convict him for a religious opinion. The implicit argument is the same one Gallio reached in Corinth and Lysias reached in Jerusalem: this is a religious dispute, not a criminal matter.
Felix Defers Judgment
22 But Felix, having a rather thorough knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When the commander Lysias comes down, I will decide your case.”
23 And he gave orders to the centurion for Paul to be kept in custody but to have some liberty, and that none of his own people should be prevented from attending to his needs.
Translator’s Notes — vv. 22–23:
ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ (akribesteron eidōs ta peri tēs hodou) — v.22: “Having a rather thorough knowledge of the Way” — this is a surprising detail. Felix already knows about Christianity. How? His wife Drusilla was Jewish (v.24), which may have exposed him to Jewish-Christian disputes. Caesarea also had a significant Christian community — Philip the evangelist had lived there for decades (21:8). Felix had governed the region for years and would have encountered the movement. The comparative form ἀκριβέστερον (“more precisely” or “rather thoroughly”) suggests more than casual awareness.
v.22: Felix’s deferral — “when Lysias comes down, I will decide” — is a classic judicial delay. There is no evidence in Acts that Lysias ever came or that Felix ever rendered a verdict. The stated reason (waiting for the tribune’s testimony) sounds reasonable, but the reality is that Felix has no interest in resolving the case. As the following verses will reveal, he has other reasons for keeping Paul in custody.
ἄνεσιν (anesin) — v.23: “Some liberty” — the word ἄνεσις means “relaxation” or “easing of restraint.” This was a form of custodia libera or custodia militaris — military custody with relaxed conditions. Paul was not in a dungeon; he was held in the governor’s palace (Herod’s Praetorium) with freedom to receive visitors. His friends could bring him food, supplies, and companionship. For a Roman citizen accused but not convicted, this was the expected treatment. It was comfortable captivity, but captivity nonetheless.
Felix and Drusilla
24 Now some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.
25 But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and answered, “Go away for now; when I find an opportune time I will summon you.”
26 At the same time he was also hoping that money would be given to him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and talk with him.
Translator’s Notes — vv. 24–26:
v.24: Drusilla was one of the most famous women in first-century Jewish history. She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (the king who killed James son of Zebedee in Acts 12) and the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great. She was originally married to Azizus, king of Emesa, but Felix — reportedly struck by her beauty — persuaded her to leave her husband and marry him. Josephus records that Felix used a Cyprian magician named Atomus (Simon Magus, according to some traditions) to lure her away. She was about twenty years old at the time of this scene. According to later traditions preserved by Josephus, Drusilla and her son by Felix perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.
v.25: Paul’s topic selection for a private audience with Felix and Drusilla is breathtaking in its audacity. He speaks about “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) — to a governor Tacitus described as wielding power with the instincts of a slave. “Self-control” (ἐγκράτεια) — to a man who seduced another man’s wife. “The coming judgment” (τοῦ κρίματος τοῦ μέλλοντος) — to a man who abused his judicial authority for personal gain. Paul is not telling Felix what he wants to hear. He is preaching directly into the man’s sins. The prisoner is putting the judge on trial.
ἔμφοβος γενόμενος (emphobos genomenos) — v.25: “Felix became frightened” — not annoyed, not bored, but ἔμφοβος (emphobos) — genuinely afraid. The word is used elsewhere in Luke-Acts for the fear that comes in the presence of the divine (Luke 24:5, Acts 10:4). Something in Paul’s words struck a nerve. Felix’s response is a masterpiece of avoidance: “Go away for now; when I find an opportune time I will summon you.” The opportune time (καιρὸν μεταλαβών) never comes. Felix will spend two years having conversations with Paul and never come to terms with what Paul is saying.
χρήματα (chrēmata) — v.26: “Hoping that money would be given to him” — Luke flatly states that Felix’s real motivation for the repeated private audiences was bribery. He was hoping Paul (or Paul’s friends) would pay for his release. This was technically illegal under Roman law — the Lex Julia de repetundis prohibited governors from accepting bribes — but universally practiced. The mention of Paul’s “charitable gifts” in v.17 may have given Felix the impression that Paul had access to significant funds. The irony is multi-layered: Felix keeps summoning Paul hoping for a bribe, and Paul keeps talking about righteousness, self-control, and judgment.
v.26: “He used to send for him quite often and talk with him” — the imperfect tense (μετεπέμπετο ... ὡμίλει) indicates repeated, ongoing action over an extended period. For two years, the corrupt governor and the imprisoned apostle had regular private conversations. What did they talk about? Luke gives us the substance of the first meeting (righteousness, self-control, judgment) and lets us infer the rest. It is one of the most tantalizing silences in the New Testament.
Two Years in Custody
27 But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and wanting to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison.
Translator’s Notes — v. 27:
διετίας πληρωθείσης (dietias plērōtheisēs) — v.27: “After two years had passed” — Luke compresses two entire years into a single verse. Paul spent approximately AD 57–59 in Caesarea, in the governor’s palace, under house arrest. These are silent years in Acts, but they were not empty. Many scholars believe Paul used this period for writing, planning, and receiving visitors. Some have suggested that Luke himself used this time to conduct the research for his Gospel — Caesarea was close to the sites of Jesus’s ministry, and eyewitnesses (including Philip the evangelist and his prophesying daughters, who lived in Caesarea) were accessible.
χάριτα καταθέσθαι (charita katathesthai) — v.27: “Wanting to do the Jews a favor” — the phrase χάριτα καταθέσθαι is a technical expression for depositing political goodwill — like making a deposit in a bank of favors. Felix knew he was being recalled (Josephus confirms he was recalled to Rome to face charges from the Jewish community of Caesarea). Leaving Paul in prison was a political gift to the Jewish leadership — a parting gesture to offset some of the hostility Felix had generated during his tenure. A man’s freedom is traded for political capital. Luke states this with cold clarity: Felix knew Paul was innocent and left him imprisoned anyway as a political transaction.
Felix’s successor, Porcius Festus, arrived around AD 59–60. Josephus portrays Festus in a somewhat more favorable light than Felix — as a more competent and energetic administrator, though still dealing with an impossible situation in an increasingly volatile province. Festus died in office after only about two years, around AD 62 — and it was during the power vacuum after his death that the high priest Ananus had James the brother of Jesus executed, as we discussed earlier. The political instability of this period is a constant backdrop to Paul’s story.
General Notes on the Chapter
Acts 24 is, in legal terms, a mistrial. The prosecution fails to produce its key witnesses (the Asian Jews who started the riot), relies on secondhand testimony, and levels charges that are essentially political rather than criminal. The defense systematically dismantles each claim: the timeline doesn’t work, the evidence doesn’t exist, and the real issue is a theological dispute about resurrection. By any fair standard, Paul should be acquitted. Instead, Felix defers, delays, and eventually leaves Paul in prison for two years as a political favor. The chapter is Luke’s most sustained portrait of Roman judicial corruption.
The private audience with Felix and Drusilla (vv.24–26) is one of the most remarkable scenes in the New Testament. The prisoner lectures the judge about righteousness, self-control, and coming judgment — three topics that map precisely onto Felix’s known character flaws. The power inversion is total: the man in chains is morally free, and the man on the throne is morally trapped. Felix’s fear (v.25) is the closest he comes to genuine engagement with the message, and his withdrawal is the moment he chooses comfortable avoidance over uncomfortable truth. The phrase “when I find an opportune time” becomes, in Luke’s hands, one of the most damning sentences in the book.
Luke’s treatment of the two-year delay (v.27) is characteristically compressed but theologically significant. From a human perspective, these are wasted years — Paul sitting in custody while a corrupt governor hopes for a bribe. From Luke’s theological perspective, God is working even through judicial corruption and delay. The night vision in 23:11 promised that Paul would testify in Rome. Every delay, every corrupt governor, every bureaucratic stalling tactic is, paradoxically, moving Paul closer to that destination. The route to Rome runs through two years of unjust imprisonment in Caesarea — and Luke trusts his readers to hold that tension.
The chapter also provides an important window into the legal status of early Christianity. Tertullus frames the prosecution in explicitly political terms: sedition, insurrection, ringleader of a sect. Paul reframes the issue in explicitly religious terms: the Way, the God of our fathers, the resurrection. The legal question — is Christianity a protected Jewish sect or an illicit new movement? — remains unresolved, because Felix never issues a ruling. This ambiguity will carry forward into the Festus and Agrippa hearings in the chapters to come.