23  Paul on Trial  Phase One:  Before Felix  (Acts 24:1–27)

And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with a certain attorney named Tertullus; and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. And after Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, “Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law. But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. And by examining him yourself concerning all these matters, you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so. And when the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were certain Jews from Asia—who ought to have been present before you, and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’” But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.” And he gave orders to the centurion for him to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him. But some days later, Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time, I will summon you.” At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him. But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. (24:1–27)

This chapter presents one of the most tragic examples of missed opportunity in all of Scripture. Felix, the Roman governor of Judea, had the privilege of spending much time with the apostle Paul. Yet, sadly, he let the opportunity slip away, and there is no evidence to indicate he was not eternally lost.

The Bible gives many examples of missed opportunity concerning salvation. Some pagan philosophers, after hearing Paul’s able defense of Christianity on Mars Hill in Athens, dismissed him with the words “We shall hear you again concerning this” (Acts 17:32). But Paul soon left Athens, never to return, and the philosophers never heard him again.

Luke 9:57–62 records the lost opportunities of some would-be disciples of the Lord:

The parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1–12) also illustrates the tragedy of missed opportunity. So does the story of the rebellious Israelites who died in the wilderness and failed to enter the Promised Land (Heb. 3:7ff.).

But the most striking example of lost opportunity is Judas. Judas was graciously granted an opportunity given to only eleven others—to live and minister with the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. He could have sat on one of the twelve thrones in the kingdom, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). His name could have been on one of the twelve foundation stones of the celestial Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). He could have been one of the most honored saints in all of redemptive history. Instead, Judas became a thief, hypocrite, and traitor. He threw away his opportunity for a paltry thirty pieces of silver, committed suicide, and was condemned to eternal damnation. Our Lord summed up Judas’s life in the fearful words of Matthew 26:24: “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Felix was tragically similar to Judas. Judas lived with the Lord Jesus for more than three years; Felix had Paul in his palace for two. Judas had many opportunities to talk with Jesus; Felix “used to send for [Paul] quite often and converse with him” (v. 26). Judas betrayed the Son of God for money; Felix “was hoping that money would be given him by Paul” (v. 26). Judas betrayed the Lord to the Jewish authorities; Felix, fearing those same authorities, betrayed Paul by refusing to release him despite his innocence.

Paul’s hearing before Felix, like any trial, consisted of three parts: the prosecution, the defense, and the verdict.

THE PROSECUTION

And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with a certain attorney named Tertullus; and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. And after Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, “Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law. But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. And by examining him yourself concerning all these matters, you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so. (24:1–9)

Five days after Paul arrived at Caesarea, the high priest Ananias came down from Jerusalem with some of the elders from the Sanhedrin. Not content with merely running Paul out of Jerusalem, they continued to seek his life. To put their case together, find an attorney, travel the sixty-five miles to Caesarea, and do it all in only five days required fast action on their part. Perhaps they feared Felix would release Paul if they did not move swiftly to bring charges against him.

Ananias was one of the most corrupt high priests in Israel’s history. He viewed Paul as a threat to his position, and someone who must be eliminated. Also in the entourage were several elders, key leaders of the Sanhedrin. That the religious and political leaders of Israel came in person to accuse Paul shows how serious a threat he posed to them.

The high priest and the elders themselves did not argue the case against Paul, however. For that they hired a certain attorney named Tertullus and through him brought charges to the governor against Paul. Whether he was a Roman or a Hellenistic Jew is not known, but he was likely chosen because he was well versed in Roman law. It was not unusual for Jews to hire such experts to represent them in Roman legal proceedings.

The hearing began after Paul had been summoned. Before Tertullus began to accuse him, he addressed Felix with the type of flowery, flattering, complimentary speech (known as the captatio benevolentiae) customary in such situations. Unfortunately, there was not much good that could be said about Felix, procurator (governor) of Judea from A.D. 52 to 59. A former slave, Felix owed his position to the influence of his brother Pallas, a favorite of Emperor Claudius. The Roman historian Tacitus disdainfully dismissed him with the comment “He exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave” (F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 355).

Tertullus’s opening statement to Felix, “Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness,” stretched the truth to the breaking point. Felix did manage to suppress some of the roving bands of sicarii (“assassins”)—fiercely nationalistic anti-Roman terrorists (cf. chapter 20 of this volume). He also defeated the Egyptian false messiah whom Lysias wrongly assumed Paul to be (cf. chapter 20 of this volume). But his methods were so brutal that he outraged and alienated the Jews, causing even more unrest. If he carried out any reforms, history does not record them. His inept rule led to his removal from office by Nero two years after this hearing (24:27). Despite Tertullus’s flattering words, the Jewish people would not have felt much thankfulness toward Felix. Tertullus closed his introductory remarks with the customary promise to be brief: “that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing.” While such promises were often broken, Tertullus was forced to keep his—since there was little good he could say about Felix and little bad he could say about Paul.

Turning then to the case against Paul, Tertullus brought three charges: sedition (violation of Roman law), sectarianism (violation of Jewish law), and sacrilege (violation of God’s law).

The first charge, of sedition (insurrection, rebellion), was the most serious to bring against Paul in a Roman court and was the only one that actually involved a crime against Rome. The Romans dealt firmly and severely with disturbers of the Pax Romana. Many of the Jewish leaders present would experience that truth firsthand a few years later, when the Romans brutally crushed the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66–70. Before introducing the charge of sedition, Tertullus declared to Felix, “we have found this man a real pest.” That description of Paul accurately reflects the Sanhedrin’s hatred for him but was not a specific charge.

Tertullus then presented the specific allegation by denouncing the “pest,” Paul, as “a fellow who stirs up dissension against Rome among all the Jews throughout the world” (cf. Acts 17:7). If the hypocritical Sanhedrin, which itself desired Rome’s overthrow, could have substantiated this grossly exaggerated charge, Paul would have been in serious trouble. Rome did not tolerate those who stirred up public dissension. But while it is true that Paul had been involved in riots, he had been the riots’ victim, not their instigator.

Tertullus cleverly avoided naming any specific instance. Had he done so, Felix could have transferred Paul’s case to the jurisdiction in which that riot occurred. Not wanting Paul tried by a governor over whom they had no influence, the Jewish leaders contented themselves with the vague general charge of seditious insurrection. But as is the case throughout Acts when Christianity is the issue in a Roman court, that charge could not be proven. The Holy Spirit recorded those trials, in part, to refute the charge that Christians were political revolutionaries and to make clear that they did not violate Roman civil law (cf. Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13–17). The real issue, as Gallio correctly perceived (18:12–16), was Jewish hostility to the gospel. Because of his “more exact knowledge about the Way” (v. 22), and Lysias’s evaluation (23:29), Felix was aware of the motives behind the Sanhedrin’s specious charges, and he found its vague, unsubstantiated charges inadmissible as evidence.

The second charge leveled against Paul was sectarianism, or heresy. Paul was, according to Tertullus, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Prōtostatōs (ringleader) is a military term meaning “one who stands in the front rank.” Although Tertullus certainly did not mean it as a compliment, it was true of Paul. Nazarenes was a derisive term for the followers of Jesus, who was from Nazareth and was called the Nazarene (cf. 6:14; John 1:46; 7:41, 52). Although it appears only in Acts, that title must have been commonly used, since Tertullus did not explain it to Felix. The implication of such a sectarian identity was that Paul was the leader of a messianic sect troublesome to Israel and thus to Rome.

The third charge, the one that had originally led to Paul’s arrest, was that he tried to desecrate the temple. Attempting to give a veneer of legality to the savage attack of the mob, the Jews whitewashed their effort to kill him by claiming to have arrested Paul themselves (though the Romans had actually done that to protect him from the mob). Unlike the hotheaded mob that had accused him of several blasphemies (21:28), however, the Sanhedrin was careful to accuse Paul only of attempting to desecrate the temple. There was no evidence that he had actually done so; if he had, the Jews had the right to handle the matter themselves, without hauling Paul before a Roman court (cf. the discussion of 21:28–29 in chapter 20 of this volume). Again, since they had no evidence to present to Felix, they contented themselves with a general accusation.

The further twisting of the facts by the lawyer, given in the last phrase of verse 6, all of verse 7, and the first part of verse 8 (And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law. But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you.), is omitted by many ancient manuscripts. If the passage is not in the original text, then Tertullus is urging Felix to examine Paul. His recital of events would then end abruptly with the statement and then we arrested him. But since it is not likely that Paul would have confirmed Tertullus’s false accusations under examination, but rather would have denied them, it would have been counterproductive to ask Felix to examine him (v. 8). The Sanhedrin’s only hope in doing that would have been, given enough rope, Paul would hang himself—an extremely unlikely event.

On the other hand, if the passage is included in the text, the representatives of the Sanhedrin would be saying they had already done all the examining and evidence-gathering and were there to present a completed case. They would be falsely accusing Lysias of subverting proper Jewish legal procedure (“we wanted to judge him according to our own Law”) and abusing his authority. (Although Paul was the one who was beaten, the Sanhedrin’s representatives ignored the truth and complained that “Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands.”) They were confident that by examining him (Lysias, not Paul) concerning all these matters, Felix would be able to ascertain the things of which they accused him. That would help explain Felix’s decision to postpone a verdict until he heard from Lysias (v. 22). The Jews also joined in the attack, asserting that the charges brought by their attorney were true. On that note, the prosecution’s case ended.

THE DEFENSE

And when the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were certain Jews from Asia—who ought to have been present before you, and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’” (24:10–21)

Paul began his defense after the governor nodded for him to speak. Not having a lawyer to represent him, he responded for himself to Felix: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense.” Felix had been governor for about five years and had served under Cumanus, governor of Samaria, for several years before that. Unlike Tertullus, however, Paul’s intent was not to flatter Felix (cf. Ps. 12:3; Prov. 26:28; 29:5). Paul merely reminded Felix that he had served long enough in Palestine to be acquainted with Jewish beliefs and customs. He was thus obligated to render a fair decision.

Paul’s masterful defense calmly and categorically refuted the charges one by one. First, he pointed out the absurdity of the charge of sedition, urging Felix to “take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship.” Five of those twelve days had been spent in Caesarea, and much of his time in Jerusalem had been taken up with his purification rites (21:23–27). Even if Paul had been so inclined, he had not had time to stir up a rebellion. His goal in coming to Jerusalem, however, had not been to incite a revolt but to worship.

Paul offered further proof of his innocence (cf. 25:8; 28:17–18) by pointing out that “neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot.” He had engaged in no public debates, nor was he guilty of causing a riot. In fact, he had not gone to Jerusalem on an evangelistic mission but to bring an offering for the poor (v. 17; cf. Rom. 15:25–28; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:1ff.).

As the above evidence shows, the charge of sedition was totally false. Paul pointed that out to Felix, insisting that the Sanhedrin could not prove the charges of which they now accused him. Since the two remaining charges were religious in nature, they were outside the competence of a Roman court to judge. Felix should have dismissed the case at that point for lack of evidence.

In reply to the second charge, of sectarianism, Paul acknowledged being a Christian but denied that Christianity was heretical. He said to Felix, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers.” Tertullus had derisively referred to Christians as Nazarenes (v. 5), but Paul called Christianity the Way (cf. v. 22; Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23). Although the Jewish leaders denounced Christianity as a dangerous sect, Paul emphatically declared, “I do serve the God of our fathers” (the historic title for the God of Israel, Gen. 48:15; Ex. 3:15; Deut. 26:7; 1 Chron. 12:17; 29:18; 2 Chron. 20:6; Ezra 7:27; Dan. 2:23; Acts 3:13; 5:30). To be a Christian, Paul insisted, was not to forsake worshiping the true God but to be devoted to Him.

In contrast to his Jewish accusers (who were mostly Sadducees), Paul believed everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets. He turned the tables on his adversaries, pointing out that they were the real heretics. They did not truly worship God, since they rejected His Son (John 5:23). Paul accepted the plenary (full) inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures, believing everything written in them. The Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as divinely inspired, while the Pharisees accepted the entire Old Testament. But both rejected the clear testimony of the Law and the Prophets to Jesus Christ (John 5:39, 46; cf. Luke 24:27, 44; John 1:45). Far from being a heretic, Paul was more orthodox than his accusers, since he served the God of his fathers, believed in the inspiration of the entire Old Testament, and accepted everything it taught.

Paul’s belief in the Old Testament led him to have a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. The resurrection was the hope of the Jewish people, being taught in the Old Testament (Job 19:25–27; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2). Here Paul placed himself, in contrast to the skeptical Sadducees, firmly within mainstream Jewish theology. Since the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, Paul’s reference to men who cherish that hope includes the Pharisees in the delegation. This is the only time, either in Acts or the epistles, that Paul explicitly refers to a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked (cf. Matt. 25:31ff.; John 5:28–29; Rev. 20:11–15).

Paul’s belief in the resurrection and coming judgment was not mere doctrinal orthodoxy without impact on his life. It caused him to do his best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. In a similar vein, John wrote:

To rebut the final allegation against him (sacrilege, attempting to profane the temple), Paul recounted for Felix the circumstances of his visit to Jerusalem: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.” Far from seeking to stir up trouble, Paul came to Jerusalem on a mission of mercy. He brought an offering for the needy Jewish Christians, collected from the Gentile churches.

After delivering the offering to the Jerusalem church, Paul agreed to sponsor four Jewish Christians who were taking Nazirite vows (cf. chapter 19 of this volume). As their sponsor, Paul would participate in the ceremony marking the end of their vows. Having recently returned to Israel from Gentile regions, he needed first to undergo ritual purification. It was while doing that, Paul informed Felix, that “they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar.” Again Paul emphasized that he had not caused any disturbance; he was merely doing what any devout Jew would do.

Paul then turned to the real cause of the disturbance—certain Jews from the Roman province of Asia. Their false charge that Paul desecrated the temple provoked the ensuing riot. Accordingly, as Paul reminded Felix, those Asian Jews “ought to have been present before you, and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me” (cf. 25:16). This was a telling point in Paul’s favor, because “Roman law was very strong against accusers who abandoned their charges” (A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963], 52). That the eyewitnesses of Paul’s alleged desecration of the temple failed to show up undermined the Sanhedrin’s case.

Pressing home the point, Paul boldly challenged the Sanhedrin to “tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’” Since the Sanhedrin’s witnesses had failed to show up, let them tell Felix what they found Paul guilty of when he stood before them (23:1–10). The only “crime” they could accuse him of was the statement he shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’ But belief in resurrection was not a crime, even under Jewish law (the Pharisees accepted it), much less Roman law. So Paul successfully refuted all charges against him. The issues were theological, not civil or criminal, and therefore did not belong in a Roman court.

THE VERDICT

But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.” And he gave orders to the centurion for him to be kept in custody and yet have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him. But some days later, Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time, I will summon you.” At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him. But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. (24:22–27)

Felix faced a difficult decision. His prisoner was a Roman citizen, against whom no eyewitnesses had come forward to verify any of the alleged crimes. Nor had the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court, found him guilty of anything specific. And Felix himself had a more exact knowledge about the Way (possibly from his Jewish wife, Drusilla). He knew that Christians were not political revolutionaries and that the charges against Paul were baseless. Therefore, the only verdict possible under Roman law was innocent. Yet such a verdict would infuriate the Jewish leaders and possibly lead to further unrest. Felix could not afford to have that happen.

Like many politicians before and since who have been trapped between justice and popularity, Felix decided his wisest course was to avoid making a decision. Put them off translates a form of the verb anaballō, the legal term for adjourning a hearing. He justified the delay on the pretext of needing further information from Claudius Lysias (which the Jews had urged him to seek, vv. 7–8). Therefore he informed the parties, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.” Lysias had already given Felix a written report stating that the matter was a question of Jewish law (23:29). He had also plainly stated his belief that Paul was not guilty of any crime (23:29). It is unlikely that Lysias had any further information to add, and there is no evidence that Felix ever did summon him. Felix simply used that intention as an excuse for stalling.

Meanwhile, Felix gave orders to the centurion for Paul to be kept in custody. By so doing, Felix hoped to placate the Jewish authorities, since he had refused to rule in their favor. Since Paul was a Roman citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, Felix ordered the centurion to let the apostle have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from ministering to him. He was kept under guard but not in close confinement.

His prisoner evidently intrigued him, however, for some days later, Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. Drusilla, the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (the Herod of Acts 12), was Felix’s third wife (his first had been a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra). While still in her teens, Drusilla had been given in marriage to the king of Emesa (located in the province of Syria). Struck by her renowned beauty, Felix contrived (with the help of a Cypriot magician) to lure her away from her husband. At age sixteen she became his wife and bore him a son, who was killed in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (A.D. 79). At this time, she was not yet twenty years old. According to some manuscripts, it was at her urging that Felix sent for Paul. And as noted above, it was possibly through her that Felix obtained his knowledge of Christianity.

Paul spoke to them about the faith in Christ Jesus (the definite article appears in the Greek text; cf. Jude 3). In other words, he discussed the gospel and Christian beliefs with them. Zeroing in on every sinner’s dilemma, Paul specifically was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come. Righteousness is the absolute standard demanded by God’s holy nature (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:15–16). Self-control is man’s required response to bring him into conformity with God’s law. Judgment is the inevitable result (apart from saving faith in Christ) of failing to control oneself so as to live up to God’s standards. Since Felix was living with a woman he had lured away from her husband, it is understandable that Felix became frightened. Because he lacked the first two virtues, he faced inevitable divine judgment.

Felix’s fear did not lead him to repentance, however. Merely alarmed, he dismissed Paul, telling him, “Go away for the present, and when I find time, I will summon you.” He let the opportunity pass, heedless of the truth that “now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

The moment of conviction and opportunity passed. Felix (though apparently without Drusilla) was able to send for Paul quite often during the next two years and converse with him, without again becoming alarmed. His motives were not spiritual but materialistic. No doubt inspired by Paul’s comment in verse 17, Felix was hoping that money would be given him by Paul. Although Roman law strictly prohibited the taking of bribes, it was nonetheless common practice. Felix hoped Paul would try to bribe his way out of custody.

But no bribe was ever forthcoming, and after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix’s brutal suppression of a riot in Caesarea so infuriated the Jews that they managed to get him removed from office. Emperor Nero recalled him to Rome, where he would have faced severe punishment had his influential brother Pallas not interceded for him. After his recall, Felix vanished from history. Although he knew Paul was innocent, he refused to the end to release him. Luke notes that wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. Seeking the Sanhedrin’s goodwill was expedient for his personal success, considering the circumstances of his recall.

Felix stands for all time as a tragic example of missed opportunity. In the words of the writer of Hebrews,

All who are tempted, like Felix, to postpone a decision about Jesus Christ would do well to heed the sobering warning of Hebrews 3:7–8a: “Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, ‘Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.’”