PAUL BEFORE FELIX
Acts 24:l0-16, 24-26.-MAY 17.
“I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.”-Psa. 23:4.
Five days after
Paul’s arrival a prisoner at Caesarea the chief priest, Ananias, accompanied by
a public advocate and a deputation from the Sanhedrin, also appeared in the
city to make charges against Paul, and the trial at once took place. The
advocate, Tertullus, began his case by making very flat-tering allusions to the
governor-very hypocritical allusions, as we know from secular histories of the
time. “Both Jose-phus and Tacitus represent him as one of the most corrupt and
oppressive rulers ever sent by the Romans into Judea.”
Flattery of this kind, undeserved praise, is extremely rep-rehensible; totally
contrary to the principles which govern the Lord’s followers. It is
dishonesty, hypocrisy. Neverthe-less, flattery is a very powerful weapon,
which the unregen-erate have little scruple in using, and it frequently gives
them a decided advantage in worldly affairs, in opposition to the Lord’s
faithful, who are restrained from such flatteries, being obliged to consider
truth and honesty in all their words and dealings. Some of the Lord’s people
are, on the other hand, inclined to carry honesty in such matters to an
extreme: many in Paul’s stead would have felt it their bounden duty to have
upbraided Felix roundly. It is no more obligatory
upon the Lord’s people to denounce every wrongdoer whom they may meet in the
street than it is for them to tell all homely persons they may see of their
lack along the lines of beauty. The Apostle’s course in this case is an
illustration of the possession of the spirit of a sound mind. When it came his
turn to address the governor he neither upbraided nor reproved him, nor did he
utter any words of flattery. The introduction to his defense was every word
true in the fullest sense, and yet it was framed and presented in courteous and
agreeable language.
Politeness is always a part of Christian character. In
the world it may be polish, but in the Christian it is not merely a veneer, but
represents the true sentiments of the heart, developed along the lines of the
spirit of life-love. Love leads to gentleness, patience, kindness, etc., and
even in the case of disobedience it will hesitate to utter an unkind word, and
will avoid the same so far as duty will permit.
The advocate, or attorney, Tertullus, made serious charges against the
Apostle. He would have him appear to Felix as more or less a
conspirator against the Roman government-at least a raiser of tumults and
seditions amongst the people. This charge was made broadly, applying not only
to the pres-ent instance, the tumult at Jerusalem, but that everywhere,
throughout the provinces of Rome, wherever he went, tumults arose amongst the
people. It did not seem to occur to this attorney that the tumults might be
caused by evil-doers in their endeavor to stop the progress of righteousness
and truth; the thought he endeavored to present to Felix was that who-ever
occasioned tumults, regardless of his plea, was to be con-sidered an enemy to
good government, law and order. The same arguments are powerful today with
those who do not appreciate the true principles of justice and liberty. It
will not surprise us at all if by and by the enemies of present truth take a
similarly unjust stand against us, who are seek-ing to walk in the footsteps of
the Apostle-seeking to present the truths of a new dispensation to our brethren
in Babylon, who are not only themselves unwilling to hear, but are
easily aroused to anger, vituperation and persecution, that they may prevent
others from receiving the good tidings of great joy which shall be unto all
people.
When the charges had been preferred, Paul was permitted to speak for himself,
and did so to good effect. He showed (1) that he had but recently arrived in
Jerusalem; that he had raised no riot or commotion, but that, on the
contrary, at the time of his arrest he was quietly worshipping God in the
Temple-disputing with nobody and interfering with nobody’s rights. (2) He
challenged his accusers to produce proofs of the truthfulness of their
charges-denying their ability to prove them; and thus in a most reasonable and
legal way showed that the burden of proof was upon his accusers, and not upon
himself. (3) He did confess, however, that there was some ground for the
animosity manifested against him, and this was that his fellow-Jews charged him
with believing and teaching heresy-a split-off from the Jewish religion. It
was his answer to the charge that he was a ring-leader of the sect of the
Nazarenes; he denied that it was heresy against the Jewish religion, and a
sect, or split-off party. It was his enemies who called Christianity heresy, and
separation from Judaism, but their charges were false from the Apostle’s
standpoint. Christianity, instead of being split off from Judaism, was the
natural outcome and proper devel-opment of it-the fulfilment of the promises of
God upon which the hopes and prospects of Judaism were all built. The Apostle
shows this matter most distinctly in his letter to the Romans (chap. 11), where
he pictures the Jewish nation as the olive tree whose root was the Abrahamic
promise, and whose branches were the people of Israel. He does not pic-ture
Christianity as another tree, nor yet as a new shoot out of this
original olive tree, but he does picture it as the fuller development of this
tree, representing all Jews refusing to progress and to accept of
Christ, as branches that were broken off-all the true Jews who continued to be
recognized of the Lord,-all the Israelites indeed,-were the Christians who from
Pentecost onward have been known as spiritual Israelites.
Progressing, the Apostle justified the claim which he made at his hearing
before the Sanhedrin; viz., that a serious part of the objection raised against
him by his countrymen was his belief in the resurrection of the dead, which
some of them also allowed, or believed “that there should be a resurrection of
the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”
That the Apostle preached a Gospel in many particulars different from the
general belief of our day, is quite evident from this presentation of it-the
making prominent of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. True, some
might claim that it is unnecessary to make this doctrine prominent, because
there are few Sadducees today-few who deny the res-urrection of the dead. We
answer that there are few who believe that there are any dead. The vast
majority of man-kind, Christians as well as heathen, have adopted the theory
that none are dead-that those who appear to die really be-come more alive than
ever. Not believing in anybody’s being dead it would be impossible for them to
believe in the resur-rection of the dead. Instead, another thought prevails
now; viz., a resurrection of the body-the person or soul,
it is claimed, does not die, but merely sheds the body as an old garment,
and at some future time is to have it back. But it will be conceded
that if this were all that the Apostle meant by the resurrection of the
dead,-if he really meant a “resur-rection of the body,” his argument was a weak
one. It would be foolish to waste much time or breath or energy in discuss-ing
such a proposition as would have no particular advantage or merit, even if it
were proven.
The Apostle had a totally different thought: his preaching was to the effect
that death is a real penalty for sin, and that there never could be life or
consciousness, except by a resur-rection of the dead, and that a resurrection
of the dead could only come by divine favor in the accomplishment of a
redemp-tion of all that had been condemned to death. In preaching the
resurrection, therefore, he was declaring not only his faith that Christ Jesus
was not dead, but also his faith that God would in due time grant the world a
resurrection. Thus Jesus and the resurrection constituted the sum and
substance of the gospel hope from the Apostle’s standpoint and-because we take
his-from our standpoint also.
The question may occur to some-if resurrection (anas-tasis) means a
full, complete raising up out of death condi-tions into perfection of life
conditions, how could the Apostle here speak of the resurrection “both of the
just and unjust”?
How shall we understand this, and harmonize it with other Scriptures which
declare that only the justified shall attain full perfection of life?-that he
that hath the Son may have life, and he that hath not the Son shall not see
life-in its perfection?-that he that will not obey the great Prophet shall be
cut off from amongst his people-cut off from life, in the second death?
We answer that the Apostle is not carrying his argument down into the future,
declaring that in the future the just ones shall attain to the full perfection
of life and the unjust ones also; he is merely referring to those who in the
present time are just and unjust. The just of the present time are “justified
by faith,” and if faithful to the conditions of the call are to have part in
the first resurrection. The unjust of the present time are the unjustified,
the unbelievers, and the Apostle explains that they believe not because the god
of this world hath blinded their minds. (2 Cor. 4:4) However, as the
Scriptures distinctly show, it is to be the special work of the next age to
open all the blind eyes and to unstop all the deaf ears, and to cause the
knowledge of the Lord to fill the whole earth, to the intent that those now
unjustified, un-just, may be just before God, and thus share in the resurrec-tion
which is provided for all, and which will accomplish the resurrection of all
except as its gracious provisions are in-dividually rejected.
Having stated thus his belief in a future life, by a resur-rection,
the Apostle declares that his present life was being used in accordance with
that hope of a future life-with a conscience that controlled his thoughts and
words and deeds in relationship to God and men.
Can we wonder that Felix, perverse though he was, him-self felt disinclined to
yield so noble a prisoner to death, even to accommodate and please the
flattering attorney and the in-fluential high priest, whose favor he would
undoubtedly prefer to hold? The record leads us additionally to infer that
Felix considered that in Paul he had a good opportunity for receiv-ing a bribe
for the performance of justice; for in his narrative the Apostle proceeded to
show that so far from seeking to do injury to his fellow-creatures, he had
brought with him from foreign cities large sums of money. Felix thus per-ceived
that the prisoner, who had liberal education and talent and Roman citizenship,
had friends not only in Jerusalem, but abroad. He doubtless concluded that
they would be quite willing to make him a handsome present to effect the
Apos-tle’s release. This is the suggestion of the 26th verse.
Apparently Felix was considerably interested in his pris-oner, and mentioned
him to his wife, a Jewess: he was called before them, that they might know
further respecting this new teaching. His curiosity was evidently soon more
than satis-fied, as the Apostle proceeded with his subject, showing the plan of
God, the righteousness of the Law, the inability of fallen man to fully meet
its requirements, that Jesus became the Redeemer of those condemned by the Law,
and that now salvation and life eternal are open to as many as will obey the
gospel-forsake sin and lay hold by faith upon the Re-deemer. The Apostle
proceeded to show that righteousness was the reasonable requirement of the
divine law, and that the acceptance of God’s favor in Christ led to
self-restraint and opposition to natural tendencies, and that there is a
judgment day to come, in the which all deflections from righteousness will be
rewarded with stripes proportionate to knowledge. The governor trembled; his
own wicked life and licentious course stood out before his mental gaze, and he
realized that, accord-ing to the standards presented, he would have many
stripes to bear in the future. His wife, Drusilla, was really the wife
of King Azizus; but her conscience, evidently more seared than
his, seems not to have been in the least agitated. Felix
suggested that at a more convenient season he would hear fur-ther of the
Gospel; but we doubt if ever he called for any further explanations-he already
had enough, more than he was willing to obey. His course is one too frequently
imitated since. Many who tremble as they think of their sins, hope that a more
convenient time for breaking off may come to them; but a convenient season for
abandoning sin-when sin indulged in our members will make no objection to being
ousted-will never come. He who would become a follower of the Lord Jesus, must
courageously accept of Christ, the power divine for the breaking of the
shackles of his slavery to sin-must first love the liberty wherewith Christ
alone can make us free. Those who have not this craving will remain
slaves of sin until the glorious Millennial morning shall break, until after
the completion of the elect church of “over-comers”-until the dawning of the
Millennial morning, when the overcomers, with Christ at their head, shall break
all the shackles of sin and set all prisoners free, and command all to render
obedience to the laws of the kingdom of God, inflicting stripes of punishment
proportionate to their present wilfulness in sin, with a view to their
recovery, and for restitution to all that was lost in Adam and redeemed with
the precious blood.
A good lesson may be learned from the Apostle’s method of presenting the truth
to Felix. He did not attack the gov-ernor’s character, nor berate him for his
sins. He did better than this. Ignoring the individual entirely, he lifted the
mir-ror of the perfect law of love and liberty and righteousness before the
governor, and let him see for himself how far short he came of the perfect
standard which alone God can approve. Would that all of God’s children could
learn thus to reprove sin-by letting the light of truth and the corroboration
of the same in their own conduct shine out-their words, and no less their
conduct, being epistles of the grace of God and his gra-cious arrangements,
both for rewarding those who seek him and for chastening and correcting those
who require it!
The courage of the Apostle in holding up the truth before one who so largely
had to do with the decision of his own case is remarkable and commendable. It
is in full agreement with the declaration of our Golden Text. Those who are on
the Lord’s side, and who, therefore, have the Lord on their side, in all of
life’s affairs, need fear no evil. This absence of fear, however, should not
in us, any more than in the Apostle, lead to bravado or discourteous manner or
language. The divine rule is, as expressed by the Apostle, that we should
speak the truth in love.-Eph. 4:15.
Another lesson taught us by the Apostle’s experiences, yea, by all of the
Lord’s notable children, from the Master down, is that the assaults of calumny,
slander, etc., can do them no lasting harm. Look at the Captain of our
salvation, against whom all manner of evil was said and done falsely, even to
the extent of calling him the prince of devils, and crucifying him as a
blasphemer of God. How those assaults of the great adversary, through his
deluded children of disobedience, serve now to make the Lord’s character and
conduct the more trans-parent and resplendent! So also it is in respect to the
Apostle Paul’s experiences-they all reflect grandly upon his character today.
Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” gives a scene which illustrates this feature of
our lesson and encourages all of us to disregard the slanders and evil
speakings of the present time, if so be that we can continually realize the
divine favor and blessing with us and upon our efforts to serve the Lord. We
give an extract from Bunyan’s writings as follows :-
“Then the shepherds had the pilgrims to another place, called Mount Innocence,
and there they saw a man clothed all in white, and two men, Prejudice and
Ill-will, continually casting dirt upon him. Now behold, the dirt, whatsoever
they cast at him, would in a little time fall off again, and his gar-ment would
look as clean as if no dirt had been cast thereat. Then said the pilgrims,
‘What means this?’ The shepherds answered, ‘This man is named
Godly-man, and this garment is to show the innocency of his life. Now, those
that throw dirt at him are such as hate his well-doing; but, as you see, the
dirt will not stick upon his clothes; so it shall be with him that liveth
innocently in the world. Whoever they be that would make such men dirty, they
labor all in vain; for God, by that a little time is spent, will cause that
their innocence shall break forth as the light, and their righteousness as the
noon-day.’”