Acts 24

And after five days came down the high priest Ananias with the elders. See how for all this they do not desist; hindered as they were by obstacles without number, nevertheless they come, only to be put to shame here also. And with an orator, one Tertullus. And what need was there of an orator? Which persons also informed the governor against Paul.

Homily on Acts 50

"And after five days the high priest Ananias came down," etc. After five days, the Jews came to the judge Felix against Paul, with the orator Tertullus […] Then, the parties having been presented, the orator Tertullus, overconfident in human eloquence, began maliciously to attack Paul: the latter, he said, wanted to cause disorder among peaceful Jews around the world with new preachings. They had arrested him and wanted immediately to punish that great crime according to their law; but Lysias the tribune, as they all knew, had taken him away and sent him to be judged by Felix. The rest of the Jews testified in a dreadful-sounding voice that the things just said were so.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

Again, something is lacking in the words "they complained to the governor about Paul" for the completeness of the thought, which should be as follows: they presented a written accusation against Paul.

Commentary on Acts

2–3

See how this man also from the very outset with his praises seeks to gain the judge beforehand. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Then as having much to say, he passes by the rest.

Homily on Acts 50

"To you… we owe much peace." You see how from the very first he predisposes the judge in his favor with praises, and how he tries to portray Paul as an innovator and troublemaker.

Commentary on Acts

2–8

There is a rather amusing instance of the same thing in Acts XXIV. The Jews had got down a professional orator called Tertullus to conduct the prosecution of St. Paul. The speech as recorded by St. Luke takes eighty-four words in the Greek, if I've counted correctly. Eighty-four words are impossibly short for a Greek advocate on a full-dress occasion. Presumably, then, they are a précis? But of those eighty-odd words forty are taken up with preliminary compliments to the bench—stuff, which, in a précis on that tiny scale, ought not to have come in at all. It is easy to guess what has happened. St. Luke, though an excellent narrator, was no good as a reporter. He starts off by trying to memorise, or to get down, the whole speech verbatim. And he succeeds in reproducing a certain amount of the exordium (the style unmistakable. Only a practising rhetor ever talks that way). But he is soon defeated. The whole of the rest of the speech has to be represented by a ludicrously inadequate abstract. But he doesn't tell us what has happened, and thus seems to attribute to Tertullus a performance which would have spelled professional ruin.

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Letter 9

See how [Tertullus] approaches the judge with praises from the start and wants to hand Paul over as a revolutionary and a rebel. Then, notice how he hastens as if he has many things to say.

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 24.2-3

4–5

Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world. As a revolutionary and seditious person he wishes to deliver him up. And yet, it might be answered, it is ye that have done this. And see how he would put up the judge to a desire of punishing, seeing he had here an opportunity to coerce the man that turned the world upside down! As if they had achieved a meritorious action, they make much of it: Having found this fellow, a mover of sedition, say they, among all the Jews throughout the world. Had he been such, they would have proclaimed him as a benefactor and saviour of the nation! And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. They thought this likely to tell as a reproach - of the Nazarenes: and by this also they seek to damage him - for Nazareth was a mean place. And, we have found him, say they: see how maliciously they calumniate him: found him, as if he had been always giving them the slip, and with difficulty they had succeeded in getting him: though he had been seven days in the Temple!

Homily on Acts 50

And the author of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes. At that time Christians were called Nazarenes as a reproach; later indeed among the Jews a heresy arose called that of the Nazarenes, who believe in Christ, the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and say he who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, in whom we also believe. But since they wish to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians.

Commentary on Acts

To be numbered among the Nazarenes was a matter of disgrace; therefore Tertullus was demeaning Paul from this angle as well, since Nazareth was an insignificant city. He calls the Nazarenes heretics, as though such a sect also existed among the Jews. But Tertullus was a Greek, which is precisely why he was the one delivering the oration or accusing Paul.

Commentary on Acts

Who also hath gone about to profane the temple; whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. See how they insult even the Law; it was so like the Law, forsooth, to beat, to kill, to lie in wait! And then the accusation against Lysias: though he had no right, say they, to interfere, in the excess of his confidence he snatched him from us.

Homily on Acts 50

6–8

Whom we also apprehended. From whom you will be able, by judging all these things, to know. In this place, some of our Codices have several verses which read in Greek as follows: Whom we also apprehended, and according to our law wished to judge. But Lysias the tribune, coming with many, took him by force from our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you, hence you may be able yourself, by judging all these things, to know, etc.

Commentary on Acts

Then comes the accusation against Lysias. “It was not right for him,” he says, “to drag him away with great violence.” … “He tried,” he says, “to profane the temple,” but [Tertullus] does not say how. He also magnified what concerned Paul, but see how he diminished what concerned him. “We seized him,” he says, “and would have judged him according to our law.” He claims that it was unpleasant to them to come to foreign courts and that they would have not given trouble to [Felix], if he had not forced them, and that it was not right for Lysias to take Paul away. “These,” he says, “were in fact offenses against us, because the trial ought to have taken place among us.” See now the rest as a confirmation that things were so, “with great violence,” he says. That, indeed, was violence. “From him,” he says, “you will be able to learn.” … He puts Paul in the position to become his own accuser. “From him,” he says, “you will be able to know by judging.” And the very witnesses of the things that were said, they are the accusers—they are the witnesses and the accusers.

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 24.7-9

8–9

By examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, where of we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so. See, as witnesses also of the things spoken, the accusers, the same persons themselves both witnesses and accusers.

Homily on Acts 50

Then Paul; after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a just judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself. This is not the language of flattery, his testifying to the judge's justice: no, the adulation was rather in that speech of the orator, By thee we enjoy great quietness. If so, then why are ye seditious? What Paul sought was justice. Knowing thee to be a just judge, I cheerfully, says he, answer for myself. Then also he enforces this by the length of time: that he had been judge of many years. Why then, he is no stranger or alien or revolutionary person, seeing he had known the judge for many years. And he does well to add the epithet just, that he Felix might not look to the chief priest, nor to the people, nor the accuser. See, how he did not let himself be carried away into abuse, although there was strong provocation.

Homily on Acts 50

"Then Paul answered (the governor making a sign to him), saying." When the orator Tertullus had made the claims he wanted, Paul, after first saying things that might win him the goodwill of the judge, responded thus: when he had come to Jerusalem following the custom of his nation to adore the Lord and bring alms to his nation, he had neither gathered a multitude nor caused any tumult; but, while held by centurions, he had cried to the people: "It is concerning the resurrection of the dead, which ye too believe in, that I today stand to be judged." And he affirmed that they could not prove anything like what they, with wicked intentions, had invented about him. By all means, since they were present, they should say if they remembered any other thing done by him that conduced to disorder in the city. The judge Felix put off their hearing until the tribune Lysias should be present, commanding a centurion that Paul, while kept in custody, should be easy, and that he should not prohibit anyone to minister unto him what might contribute to comforting him.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. And what is this? It means, that I could not immediately have raised a commotion. Because the accuser had nothing to show as done in Jerusalem, observe what he said: among all the Jews throughout the world. Therefore it is that Paul here forcibly attracts him - to worship, he says, I came up, so far am I from raising sedition - and lays a stress upon this point of justice being the strong point.

Homily on Acts 50

So far, says Paul, am I from stirring up disturbances, that I came to Jerusalem to worship. He dwells on this point because it presented a strong proof of his innocence.

Commentary on Acts

And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city; which in fact was the truth. And the accusers indeed use the term ringleader, as if it were a case of fighting and insurrection; but see how mildly Paul here answers.

Homily on Acts 50

14–15

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. The accusers were separating him as an alien, but he identifies himself with the Law, as one of themselves. Believing, he says, that there will be a resurrection: now a man who believed a resurrection, would never have done such things - which resurrection they themselves also allow. He does not say it of them, that they believe all things written in the Prophets: it was he that believed them all, not they: but how all, it would require a long discourse to show. And he nowhere makes mention of Christ. Here by saying, Believing, he does virtually introduce what relates to Christ; for the present he dwells on the subject of the resurrection, which doctrine was common to them also, and removed the suspicion of any sedition.

Homily on Acts 50

"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect." After calling him to be an apostle of Christ, saying that he served the Lord, the ancestral God, he shows there is one God of both the Old and the New Testaments, whom the prophets and the law proclaimed, whom Paul preached when he said, believing all that is written according to the law and the prophets. Inasmuch as Christ is here also introduced indirectly, yet previously by dwelling on the word of the resurrection, if these were labored over from the beginning. For once this was shown, it was easy to introduce also the matters concerning Christ, namely that he rose. [DIDYMUS]

Commentary on Acts

But I confess this to you, that according to the sect which they call a heresy, so I serve my Father God. It is better read in Greek: That according to the way which they call a heresy, so I serve the Father God. For what consistency is there for him who spoke Greek, to say: According to the sect which they call a heresy, since the same in Latin, sect, means heresy in Greek? But he said: So I serve the Father God, according namely to that way which the unbelievers call a heresy, that is, a sect, as if it has more persistence in its following than in the diligence of rightly discerning.

Commentary on Acts

"I truly serve the God of my fathers, believing." When, after being called to be Christ's apostle, Paul says that he serves the God of his fathers, he shows by this that the God of the Old and New Testaments is One and the Same.

Commentary on Acts

Not all men, however, shall then be judged by God, but those only who have been exercised in the religion of God. For they who have not known God, since sentence cannot be passed upon them for their acquittal, are already judged and condemned, since the Holy Scriptures testify that the wicked shall not arise to judgment. Therefore they who have known God shall be judged, and their deeds, that is, their evil works, shall be compared and weighed against their good ones: so that if those which are good and just are more and weighty, they may be given to a life of blessedness; but if the evil exceed, they may be condemned to punishment.

The Divine Institutes, Book 7, Chapter XX

And in this, do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men. This is the perfection of virtue, when even to men we give no handle against us, and are careful to be void of offence with God. Having, he says, a conscience void of offence both toward God, and toward men.

Homily on Acts 50

We show perfect virtue when we both give people no occasion for stumbling and strive to be blameless before God.

Commentary on Acts

17–18

Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. In which they found me purified in the temple, not with multitude, neither with tumult. Why then camest thou up? What brought thee hither? To worship, says he; to do alms. This was not the act of a factious person. And for the cause of his going up, I came, he says, to bring alms to my nation and offerings. How then should I have troubled those, for the bringing offerings to whom I had come so long a journey? Neither with multitude, nor with tumult. Everywhere he does away the charge of sedition.

Homily on Acts 50

However, after many years, I came to my nation to give alms and make offerings and vows. Alms pertain to those things which he had brought for the use of the saints, of which he makes frequent mention in his Epistles; offerings and vows, however, to those things which, at the urging of James and the elders, he offered to God in the temple. Although in Greek, vows are not added. Even though Luke in the order of the history did not say that Paul came to Jerusalem from Greece with the alms for the poor of Christ, from the words, however, which he reports Paul said, he shows that he had done this.

Retractions on Acts

Then also he casts out their person: but, says he, they that found me, were certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me. He also does well to challenge his accusers who were from Asia, Who ought to accuse before thee, etc., but he does well also not to reject this either.

Homily on Acts 50

But some Jews from Asia. Join this to the preceding, that is, these are the ones who found me in the temple.

Commentary on Acts

20–21

Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. For this is justification in superabundance, not to flee from his accusers, but to be ready to give account to all. Of the resurrection of the dead, says he, am I this day called in question. And not a word said he of what he had to say, how they had conspired against him, had violently kept him, had laid wait for him - for these matters are of course spoken of by the tribune - but by Paul, though there was danger, not so: no, he is silent, and only defends himself, though he had very much to say. In which alms, says he, they found me in course of purifying in the Temple. Then how did he profane it? For it was not the part of the same man both to purify himself and worship and come for this purpose, and then to profane it.

Homily on Acts 50

"Let these same men say what wrong they found in me." They found wrong at the assembly, when an inquiry was made. And that I speak the truth, my very accusers themselves testify to this. Not to avoid one's accusers, but to be ready to give an answer to everyone, is a sign of undoubted righteousness.

Commentary on Acts

"And after some days, Drusilla, Felix's wife, who was a Jew." After some days, Felix, at the request of his wife Drusilla, had Paul brought before her. As Paul discussed much about faith in the Lord and about justice, and chastity, and about the judgement to come, Felix, moved by the truth of his preaching, said to him: "For this time, go thy way; and when I have a convenient time, I will make sure thou art present." And he summoned him frequently, believing that he could take money from him as was done in secular matters. Meanwhile, when two years were ended, Felix had for successor Portius Festus; and, to please the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds. Then, when Festus came to Caesarea, both Paul and the Jews who persecuted him were presented before him, and he sat in the judgement seat. Paul declared that he had done harm to no one, wondering why he was suffering such hate and persecution; and he therefore proclaimed that he should be sent to Caesar. Festus briefly replied: "Since thou hast appealed to Caesar, thou shalt go to Caesar".

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

At first they were even offended that I preached the resurrection, because after this preaching it was easy to add also what pertains to Christ — that He rose from the dead.

Commentary on Acts

22–23

See how much close investigation is made by the many in a long course of time, that it should not be said that the trial was hurried over. For, as the orator had made mention of Lysias, that he took him away with violence, Felix, he says, deferred them. "Having knowledge of that way:" that is, he put them off on purpose: not because he wanted to learn, but as wishing to get rid of the Jews. On their account, he did not like to let him go: to punish him was not possible; that would have been too barefaced. "And to let him have liberty, and to forbid none of his acquaintance to minister to him." So entirely did he too acquit him of the charges. Howbeit, to gratify them, he detained him, and besides, expecting to receive money, he called for Paul.

Homily on Acts 51

"Felix postponed them, knowing more precisely." It should be noted that Felix knew of the faith, having been thoroughly instructed from the Old Testament concerning Christ, and he did not release Paul out of favor for the Jews, or perhaps because of bribery, as the following account showed. It was also evident that he had a wife who was a Jewess, from whom these matters were continually heard. This woman, contrary to the law, had been joined to him, being a Jewess married to a Greek. Perhaps she was originally Jewish, but by marriage to him became a Hellenist; therefore she also declared to him her own faith, persuading him to become a faithless husband. [AMMONIUS]

Commentary on Acts

He intentionally postponed the case – not in order to investigate it, but to get rid of the Jews and give relief to Paul, since he did not want to punish him for their sake. "I will examine your case when the tribune Lysias arrives." Felix, instructed from the Old Testament in the things pertaining to Christ, knew well the faith of Paul and did not release him out of people-pleasing, as it says below: "desiring to do the Jews a favor" (v. 27). Or perhaps he also thought to obtain money from Paul. Felix knew about the things pertaining to Christ because he had a Jewish wife, from whom he often heard about these matters.

Commentary on Acts

And his wife also hears, together with the governor. This seems to me to show great honor. For he would not have brought his wife to be present with him at the hearing, but that he thought great things of him. It seems to me that she also longed for this. And observe how Paul immediately discourses not only about faith, nor about remission of sins, but also about practical points of duty.

Homily on Acts 51

Being a Jewess, Drusilla, contrary to the law, married a Greek; or, perhaps, although she was a Jewess, upon marrying she became a Greek. Therefore, wishing to convert her husband, she communicated her faith to him.

Commentary on Acts

Paul's reasoning "concerning righteousness" was directed against the well-known injustice of a prince of whom Tacitus says that he acted as if there were no penalty for villainy. His reasoning "concerning self-control" was in opposition to his sensuality. He had unlawfully married Drusilla who was the wife of Azizus, the king of Emesa. His references to the judgment to come might well have been directed against the governor's murder of Jonathan, the high priest.

Homily on Acts 51

And observe Paul, how, though reasoning with a ruler, he says nothing of the sort that was likely to amuse and entertain, but ("he reasoned," it says,) "of righteousness, and of the coming judgment," and of the resurrection. And such was the force of his words, that they even terrified the governor.

Homily on Acts 51

"Felix became afraid." Such was the power contained in Paul's words that even the governor was frightened.

Commentary on Acts

When did Onesimus, or Aquila, or Stephen, give them aid of this kind when they were persecuted? Paul indeed, when Felix the governor hoped that he should receive money for him from the disciples, about which matter he also dealt with the apostle in private, certainly neither paid it himself, nor did the disciples for him.

On Flight in Persecution

26–27

"Go thy way," he says, "for this time: when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." Observe his hardness of heart: hearing such things, "he hoped that he should receive money from him!" And not only so, but even after conversing with him - for it was towards the end of his government - he left him bound, "willing to show the Jews a pleasure": so that he not only coveted money, but also glory. How, O wretch, canst thou look for money from a man who preaches the contrary? But that he did not get it, is evident from his leaving him bound; he would have loosed him, had he received it. "Of temperance," it says, he reasoned; but the other was hankering to receive money from him who discoursed these things! And to ask indeed he did not dare: for such is wickedness: but he hoped it. "And when two years were completed," etc., so that it was but natural that he showed them a pleasure, as he had been so long governor there.

Homily on Acts 51

See how close to the truth are the things written. But he sent for him frequently, not that he admired him, nor that he praised the things spoken, nor that he wished to believe, but why? "Expecting," it says, "that money should have been given him." Observe how he does not hide here the mind of the judge. "Wherefore he sent for him," etc. And yet if he had condemned him, he would not have done this, nor have wished to hear a man, condemned and of evil character.

Homily on Acts 51

"Therefore he sent for him often and conversed with him." Do you see what truthfulness breathes in what is written? He sent for Paul often not because he admired him or because he approved of his words, and not because he wished to believe, but because he hoped that he would be given money.

Commentary on Acts

After two years were completed, Felix receives his successor Porcius Festus. He refers to the two years of Paul's stay in Caesarea, not Felix's procuratorship. For it is said above that he was a judge for that nation for many years. Especially since the histories recount that in the second year of Nero, the Apostle was sent to Rome, and that Claudius Caesar, at the time when he made Agrippa, the son of Herod, whom the angel struck down in Caesarea, king of the Jews, he also sent Felix as procurator of the whole province of Samaria and Galilee, and the region called across the Jordan.

Commentary on Acts