Last week we read about Paul arriving in Jerusalem where he was accused of “teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place” and also of defiling the holy temple (Acts 21:28). The Roman tribune intervenes and is about to have Paul flogged to figure out what problem he was, when Paul informs him that he is a Roman citizen. Paul is brought to Caesarea to have a hearing with the governor Felix. The passage last week covers less than 12 days; the passage this week, about two years. The events in chapters 21–26 take place from about Pentecost A.D. 57 until sometime in A.D. 59.

This week, we find Paul standing trial before Felix (chapter 24) and his successor, Festus (chapter 25), when Paul appeals to Caesar himself. Paul then testifies before Agrippa (chapter 26) as Festus tries to figure out how to explain to Caesar what kind of problem Paul has become.

Paul is on trial, but he sees his trial as a great opportunity to evangelize, to proclaim the good news. Paul is eager to do that, and so should we who believe in this good news. The world-changing reality of the gospel compels us to commend it to everyone.

Let’s follow Paul’s trial by observing the charges against Paul, his defense, and finally, the verdict.

The Charges Against Paul

First, the charges against Paul. Let’s see if we can clearly articulate what the case was against Paul? What had he been charged with? What crimes were he accused of committing?

When Paul stands trial before Felix in chapter 24, the prosecution elects to have a spokesman by the name of Tertullus, present Felix “their case against Paul” (24:1). In verses 5-6, we see that there are essentially two things Paul is charged with: being the ringleader of a dangerous sect that was stirring up riots all over the world and defiling the temple.

Defiling Temples

Let’s take the second one first. Rome did not really care whether Paul was defiling the temple of the Jews or not. As the political power of the day, Rome had given the Jews the right to govern their own sacred spaces. If Paul had broken Jewish law, it was the responsibility of Rome to let the Jews handle the matter. And in Paul’s case, this would mean being delivered to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin who would almost certainly condemn him to death.[1] That is certainly the outcome that the prosecution was hoping for.

This accusation against Paul, that he was defiling the temple, is essentially the evidence given to the Roman authorities that Paul is someone that even they should be concerned about. By this time in the first century, there was quite a bit of political unrest, which would in the next decade turn in to a full-scale Jewish war with Rome. If it could be proved that Paul was causing a disturbance in the temple, this would indicate to Rome that he may well be a problem for them, too.

Stirring Up Riots

We know, of course, that Paul was falsely accused of defiling the temple, as the facts from Acts 21:26-28 clearly show. But what about the first charge? Was Paul the ringleader of a dangerous sect that was stirring up riots all over the world?

This would be a far more serious charge in Rome’s eyes. It is essentially a charge of sedition, and a Roman court would take this matter very seriously. Jews could be found in virtually every part of the Roman Empire, and anything that threatened peaceful relations with the Roman government would be something that a Roman governor could not ignore.[2]

So, let’s look at this accusation more closely. See it in verse 5. The accusation is that Paul is a plague, stirring up riots as the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. There is plenty of truth in this accusation, isn’t there?

It does seem that pretty much everywhere Paul went, there were disturbances, sometimes outright riots. Such a person may well be a plague, a menace to society.[3] The accusation is not that Paul is an annoying “pest” but one who infects others with “the sickness of disruption, dissention, even revolution wherever he goes throughout the civilized world.”[4]

The accusation is that Paul has caused these disturbances by being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” This is a pejorative way of referring to followers of Jesus of Nazareth, those who believed that he was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. But this is also where the accusations against Paul have the best chance of sticking. The Jesus-movement was a claim made from within Judaism, a faction or party within the Jewish faith. The Greek word is hairesis—a heresy from the viewpoint of others within Judaism.

And there’s the rub, isn’t it? The case against Paul stands or falls on whether the beliefs he was contending for are true or false. What beliefs? Messianic beliefs. If false, then Paul is a dangerous rioter, the leader of yet another Messianic movement that would need to be put down by Rome before it caused more riots and eventually an attempt at revolution.

But what if Paul’s beliefs were true. Then what? Wouldn’t he still be a danger to Rome, with his claims that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, the one who would overthrow all other powers and authorities?

The Defense of Paul

Either way, it seems like Paul is in trouble here. How will he defend himself? In verse 10, Felix nods to Paul and gives him the opportunity to make his defense. He does so in verses 10-20. When he goes on trial before Festus, we find his defense there in Acts 25:8-11. And then in chapter 26, Paul is given an opportunity to make his defense before King Agrippa, which we find in Acts 26:2-29. Having heard the charges against Paul, let’s now see the defense of Paul.

Conscience

Paul is eager to make his defense. “I cheerfully make my defense,” he says in Acts 24:10. When he makes his defense before Agrippa in chapter 26, he says he considers himself fortunate to make his defense against everything he has been accused of. Why is Paul in such good spirits as he presents his case?

As we read through his defense here in chapter 24, we can see one reason why. In verse 16 he says that he always does his dead-level best to keep a clear conscience before God and before everyone else. So, he can go through the facts of the preceding 12 days since he had arrived in Jerusalem and state that he had not been “disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd.” In verses 17-18 he states that he had come to Jerusalem after having been gone for several years “to bring alms to [his] nations and to present offerings—what could be so offensive about that—and that he was in the temple only after he had completed the rites of purification (see Acts 21:23-26). Paul had been quite careful in following his principle of doing everything he could to not offend anyone, not Jews, not Greeks, not Christians (1 Cor 10:32).

When your conscience is clear, when you know you don’t have to bend the truth in even the slightest way or that your actions show that you made some compromise on your core moral convictions, well this makes for a much sunnier day when you have to explain why you did what you did.

Christians today should pay attention to this. Paul’s great concern was to gain followers of Jesus, so he was thoughtful about “how others perceive the faith and actions of Christians.”[5] It should matter to us quite a bit if our reputation as Christians in the world today drives people away from us. Yes, our reputation in the world is hugely significant for our mission in the world. So, as followers of Jesus, we must be people of conscience, people of peace and love and reconciliation.

Confession

I’m well aware that in saying this some might think that this means we should never say anything to anyone that could in any way ever be offensive, so they will never open their mouths and say anything about Jesus or say anything about anything controversial.

That, too, will risk damaging our reputation. Do we as Christians have anything positive to offer to the world? Do we have anything to contribute? Do we have any hope, hope for ourselves, hope for the world?

I love how Paul makes his defense here in chapter 24. After verse 13, he could have simply rested his case. Let’s see if the plaintiffs can prove their accusations. He knows they can’t, because he knows that he did not do in Jerusalem what they have said he did. But it was not in Paul’s nature to shut up, to stay tight-lipped. “But this I confess to you,” he begins in verse 14. Oh yes, Paul has something more to say. In today’s courts we might imagine a defense attorney telling Paul to remain silent. Whatever extra information he adds can and will be used against him. But Paul is willing to confess, to grant something to the other side. There is something that could be used against him. And he wants them to know about it.

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:14-15).

This is Paul’s confession. He is careful to not offend anyone if at all possible—he cares about reputation, about five-star reviews and, if necessary, about making things right.

But he will risk offending people for one thing: hope. And here is where hope is found, “that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.”

Resurrection. That is the core belief that we must confess, because resurrection is not about disembodied bliss in heaven for those who know the right way to get there. Sadly, something like that is what so many people who do not share our faith have heard us talking about; no wonder they don’t think we have any hope to offer about the everyday matters that concern them. But resurrection is something different. It is all about hope, hope that the good things of life will last forever, and hope that the things that are wrong in this world will be dealt with and made right.

Celebration

On that score, many non-Christian Jews, some of the very ones who were accusing Paul of wrongdoing, did not disagree. And Paul’s defense is that he has been living his whole life worshiping “the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets” (24:14). If you believe in one God who made the whole world and has promised to put the whole world right again, then resurrection is where you must end up, one way or the other.

So, in Paul’s defense, here is the dividing line, here is where he finds himself justly accused. He is a follower of “the Way,” which his opponents think of as a heresy. But this is what Paul says is the distinctive feature of Christianity. Here is where everything begins to collide. He was not opposing the Jewish faith he had been a part of from the day of his birth. Rather, “he was celebrating its fulfillment.”[6] Paul believed in what we now call “inaugurated eschatology.” As Festus said to Agrippa in Acts 25:19, the point of dispute came down to this: “a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive.” In other words, the hope of resurrection—the future the world is looking for—has come rushing into the present. This is what we Christians must celebrate. It is what determines how we are to live our lives.

The Verdict of Paul

Reading through these interactions between Paul and Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, we can see one more thing. As so many trials go, so many disputes between parties, there is confusion, uncertainty. It’s hard sometimes to see where the fault lies, where the problems are, who is responsible. But over and over again, he is found not guilty. His accusers can’t prove their charges. The Roman authorities are at a loss to even know what the problem with Paul might be. The verdict of Paul is clearly that he cannot be convicted of any crime.

But since Paul has not just defended himself, but also put up his own prosecution, the verdict of Paul cuts both ways. If he is “not guilty” then the tables have been turned and those who would oppose him are now going to have to make their own defense.

Repentance

In chapter 26, Paul recounted his conversion story to Herod Agrippa, telling him that everything he was doing was in obedience to what Jesus had commanded him to do. “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,” Paul begins in verse 19, “but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.”

And this, he says, is the reason he had been seized in Jerusalem and why his accusers had tried to kill him.

What was it that Jesus had commanded Paul to do? In Acts 26:18, we are told that Jesus was sending him Acts 26:18 “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” Obedience to this commission, Paul says, compelled him to declare all over the world that everyone “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with repentance.”

Here is where you and I and everyone else are challenged by the verdict of Paul. To “repent and turn to God” needs to be understood in the context of Paul’s entire confession. Jesus is Lord, but not just of one’s own private life. He is Lord of the world, and that means that everyone must submit to him or face the consequences of living in rebellion against him.

Going back to Paul’s interactions with Felix in chapter 24, we are told at the end of that chapter that Felix would often converse with Paul about Paul’s faith in Christ Jesus (v. 26). Felix knew that Paul and the other Christians, followers of the Way, were not troublemakers (v. 22), but now he could see that they were making a claim, the claim of resurrection, a claim that could not be ignored. It comes down to this: either the historical Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead on Easter Sunday or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then who cares about Christianity? If he did, then life must now be lived in a whole different way.

As Felix listened to Paul reason with him “about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment,” he was alarmed. As one scholar explains, Felix

had not been practicing justice, and the very presence of Drusilla, whom he had lusted after while she was still the teenage bride of [another man], and the message about future judgment for bad behavior while on earth would probably have been disturbing . . .  to Felix.[7]

Because, as Paul told the Athenians, God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Resurrection beckons us to repent, insofar as the life we are living is out-of-line with the life of the king.

Release

But here it is important to see this repentance, again, in line with the whole of the message. The commission Paul received from Jesus was all about repentance, but repentance done by “opening people’s eyes.” True repentance and true belief are never about merely measuring up to the standards put in place by some higher authority.  Jesus did not come to give people new rules to follow; he came to set them free from the power of Satan. To deliver us into the kingdom of light, into the power of God. Here there is forgiveness, and sanctification—becoming more and more holy. Yes, godlike we might say, but this is actually more human than anything else. Jesus has come not to condemn but to forgive, not to burden down with rules but to break you free from the enslaving powers of sin and darkness that you and I know all too well never can satisfy and often lead only to more addiction and to more destruction.

Festus thinks this is all just a religious argument, about some dead man that Paul said isn’t dead anymore. But if it’s true, then this is about so much more.

The resurrection inaugurates God’s new creation. It transforms the old world, but it can’t fit into the categories of the old world. It brings its own renewed world view with it.”[8]

There is here an implicit challenge to all powers. Paul and Christianity are no threat. They even will respect the authority that has been given. Jesus is Lord already; we don’t need a coup.

But because Jesus is lord, we will hold all powers to account. Why? Because Jesus wants his world run wisely.

Persuasion

The verdict of Paul’s trial puts a different kind of decision before those who have heard his defense.

And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains” (Acts 26:24-29).

The Christian’s conviction is that everyone ought to be persuaded to be a Christian. Everyone ought to have the chance to come and share in the blessings of Christ.

_____

[1] John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 480-81.

[2] C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 1097.

[3] Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 602.

[4] Ben Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 707.

[5] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 501.

[6] N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (New York: HarperOne, 2018), 362.

[7] Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 715.

[8] N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Acts: Rediscovering What the Church Was and Is (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 143.