Глава 24

Ap. Paul is accused by the Jews before Felix's court (1–9). Defensive speech of the apostle (10–21). Postponement of the case until the arrival of Lysias (22–23). Paul's conversation with Felix and Drusilla, a change in the matter with the arrival of a new procurator (24–27) Acts 24:1. Five days later the high priest Ananias came with the elders and with some rhetorician Tertullus, who complained to the governor about Paul. “After five days” - after Paul departed for Caesarea from Jerusalem. “The high priest Ananias came with the elders,” that is, the members of the Sanhedrin. This was done, as is made clear above, by order of Lysias (Acts 23:30), but, of course, it was consistent with their own desires - to achieve the condemnation of the apostle. It is incredible that the entire Sanhedrin in its entirety arrived at Caesarea; it is much more likely to assume that these were specially elected representatives of the Sanhedrin, authorized to conduct business on its behalf. For greater success in their business, they take a certain “rhetor a Tertull a” (a fairly common Roman name - a diminutive of Tertius, and from “Tertull a” another diminutive - Tertullian). Who this Tertullus was by origin, whether a pagan from the Roman provinces, or a Jew from the Jews of the Diaspora, who bore such a name, is unknown. The latter is more likely (cf. Acts 24 and Acts 24:8). Calling Tertullus a rhetorician indicates his specialty - conducting trials, speaking in favor of his clients: the same thing that today's lawyer or prosecutor does. Representatives of the Sanhedrin brought with them such a rhetorician to accuse Paul. Acts 24:2. When he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: Acts 24:3. always and everywhere with all gratitude we acknowledge that to you, venerable Felix, we owe much peace, and to your care the well-being of this people. Acts 24:4. But in order not to bother you too much, I ask you to listen to us briefly, with your usual condescension. Tertullus's speech begins with the usual flattering compliments for a rhetorician to the ruler, counting on his favor, on which the decision of the case depended. With arrogant shamelessness, the speaker says that, by general admission, the Jews owe Felix the deep peace of the country and prosperity, which evokes universal gratitude, etc. How true these praises were, in addition to the given reviews of contemporaries about Felix, can be judged by the fact that soon the Jews themselves brought bitter complaints against him to the emperor (Flav. Archaeol., XX, 3, 9, etc.). Acts 24:5. Having found this man to be a plague on society, a stirrer of rebellion between the Jews living throughout the universe, and a representative of the Nazarene heresy, “Having found this man to be a plague on society.” What is assumed here is, first of all, the proof of Paul’s criminality, which was supposedly sufficiently investigated by his accusers. The general accusation is expressed by calling Paul a “plague” of society, that is, a person who introduces a spiritual infection harmful to society, by which is meant the Christian teaching, which is rapidly spreading and covering the environment with its influence. More specific accusations: 1) “inciting rebellion” between the Jews of the empire (“the universe”, cf. Luke 23:2, 5; Acts 17:6), an exaggerated accusation that distorts reality especially from the nature of Paul’s activities (cf. a similar accusation by the Jews of the Lord, Luke 23:2, 5; Acts 17:6); 2) representation of the “Nazarene heresy”, i.e. the society of followers of Jesus the Nazarene (cf. Matt. 2:23) - an insufficiently motivated and clarified accusation, which actually only points to prejudiced hatred of Christianity on the part of the Jews; 3) a more specific accusation of “an attempt to desecrate the church” - however, also not sufficiently proven (cf. Acts 21ff; cf. Acts 24:13). Acts 24:6. who even dared to desecrate the church, we took him and wanted to judge him according to our law. "We took him and wanted to judge him." The rhetorician’s new lie: they did not try him, but seized him and beat him and wanted to kill him (Acts 21:31-32). Acts 24:7. But the captain Lysias came and with great violence took him from our hands and sent him to you, “Shi came... took him.” The action of Lysias appears here, albeit cautiously, as his illegal interference in a matter that allegedly concerns only the Sanhedrin. “He, he says, should not have done this, but he did... This expresses that it was regrettable for them to go to a foreign court, and that they would not have bothered him (the ruler) if the captain had not forced them to do this and had not taken away this husband from them, which he should not have done; the offense was inflicted, they say, on us, therefore the trial of him had to be carried out among us” (Chrysostom). Acts 24:8. commanding us, his accusers, to come to you. You can look it up yourself and find out from him about everything we accuse him of. Acts 24:9. And the Jews confirmed it, saying that it was so. “You can... find out for yourself” - from the accused Pavel himself - about the justice of the charges brought against him. Premature and excessive self-confidence, confirmed by all the Jews present here, based on the irrefutability of the facts, but forgetting about the possibility of a completely different way of illuminating them. Acts 24:10. Paul, when the governor gave him a sign to speak, answered: Knowing that you have been judging this people fairly for many years, I will defend my cause all the more freely. “For many years you have judged fairly.” Completely out of place, the Russian translation (following the Slavic) adds “fairly” to the word “you judge,” thereby detracting from such an impartial, calm, restrained speech of the apostle, who does not imitate the flattering Tertullus in lavishing hypocritical praise on a ruler who did not deserve them. On the contrary, he simply points to the fact that Felix has been a judge of the people for many years, and this allows the apostle to feel freer in defending his cause. With such a turn of phrase, if anything could seem like a compliment here, it would only be the comparative duration of Felix’s reign, which depended little on him, and, perhaps, the hope for greater experience, cultivated by the duration of practice. That's it. Carefully, tactfully, decently and quite sincerely. “Many years” - by this time, about 6 years had passed under Feliksov’s procuratorate, which - with frequent changes of procurators - was a truly comparative duration. “I will defend all the more freely” - “freer” - ευθυμοτερον - in fact, more complacently, more confidently than if the procurator were a new person, unfamiliar with the people and the country. The Apostle indicates by this that “the judge himself knows that he did not do anything of which he is accused. If he had ever made an indignation, the judge would have known, and it would not have escaped him” (Chrysostom). Acts 24:11. You may know that it was not more than twelve days since I came to Jerusalem to worship. “No more than twelve days ago” - the time is so short that it is possible to study precisely and find out what he did there, based on fresh, so to speak, traces, and the accusations leveled against him would be completely unfair. “For worship”, and not for desecration of legitimate church worship, and especially not for desecration of the church by deliberate violation of its holiness. Acts 24:12. And neither in the sanctuary, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city did they find me arguing with anyone or causing public indignation, Acts 24:13. and they cannot prove what they are now accusing me of. It is pointed out that the accusation of inciting the Jews of Jerusalem to revolt is completely unsubstantiated. And as for the Jews of the entire Roman state, this was not even subject to the jurisdiction of either the Sanhedrin or the procurator, as it was done outside their country, and was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of other local judicial institutions. Acts 24:14. But this I confess to you, that according to the teaching which they call heresy, I truly serve the God of my fathers, believing everything written in the law and the prophets, Acts 24:15. having hope in God that there will be a resurrection of the dead, righteous and unrighteous, which they themselves expect. “They call it heresy,” but in fact, it is implied, this is something completely different - a true teaching, completely consistent with the ancient service to the God of the fathers and with everything written in the law and the prophets (cf. Matt. 11:13), “When, after being called to be an apostle of Christ, Paul says that he serves “the God of the fathers,” then he shows by this that the God of the Old and New Testaments is one and the same same” (Chrysostom). Touching upon his doctrine of the “resurrection and the dead.” Paul, in this teaching, also points out a common side with the teaching of the Jews (“what they themselves expect”), which by itself refutes his guilt in this regard. Acts 24:16. Therefore, I myself strive to always have an immaculate conscience before God and people. Moving on to the practical expression of his confession in moral life, the apostle points out that it also precisely excluded any possibility of a reason for displeasure and rebellion, having as its goal “always to have an immaculate conscience before God and people,” for perfect virtue, in the words of Chrysostom, “occurs when we do not give people a reason to sin, and before God we try to be impeccable.” Thus, the apostle clearly and convincingly proved that accusing him of following a teaching that is so much in agreement with the Old Testament is not an accusation, and belonging to Christianity, which requires only an immaculate conscience before God and people, is not guilt. Acts 24:17. After many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my people. Acts 24:18. At this they found me, having cleansed myself in the church, not with the people and not with noise. Acts 24:19. These were some Asian Jews who should have come before you and accused me if they had anything against me. At the conclusion of his speech, the apostle dwells on the reason for his detention, proving from this side the complete inconsistency of the injustice committed against him. "After many years". As above (Acts 24:10), the expression means a comparative length of time. More precisely, this happened four years after his last – albeit short-lived – visit to Jerusalem (Acts 23:22). In addition to worshiping God, the apostle indicates a new purpose for his arrival in Jerusalem, equally alien to rebellious intentions, and in relation to the people themselves, exactly the opposite of the accusations of inciting these people to riots and riots. This is the delivery of alms and offerings to the people from brothers of the same faith in other countries: what a contrast between Paul’s patriotic love for his people - with the malicious slander of his enemies against him. Not only was he himself so far from the desire to cause any harm to “his people,” but he also endeared himself to such a touching participation in the needs and misfortunes of this people, the Greek and Macedonian inhabitants. “He purified himself in the church, not with the people and not with noise.” By this the apostle proves that he not only did not attempt to desecrate the church, but, on the contrary, precisely in reverence for its holiness, he entered it only after the purification required by law, and, moreover, “not with the people,” which could be disturbed here, “and not with noise,” which is inevitable when indignation arises. “How could he (Paul) desecrate the church? Was it impossible for one and the same person to cleanse himself and pray, and at the same time come and desecrate the church?” (Chrysostom). “They found me” - not those who are now accusing me and falsely declaring “we took him”, but completely different ones - “some Asian Jews”, with whom he actually should have dealt and whose absence is the best proof that completely different unseemly goals are being pursued here. Acts 24:20. Or let these same ones tell what untruth they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin, Acts 24:21. except that one word that I said loudly, standing between them, that for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead I am now being judged by you. Unprovable in itself, the apostle’s guilt remained unproven at the Sanhedrin trial - the last most compelling word of defense and proof of the groundlessness of further harassment of Paul’s accusers. It is, in fact, impossible to consider as Paul’s crime the “word” that he loudly pronounced about the resurrection of the dead and which found those who agreed with him among themselves! Acts 24:22. Having heard this, Felix postponed their case, saying: I will consider your case when the captain Lysias comes, and I will learn in detail about this teaching. In the original text, this verse is read significantly differently: τά περί τῆς οδοῦ ειπών όταν Λυσίας ο χιλίαρχος καταβῆ διαγνώσομαι τά καθ ’ υμᾶς, i.e.: having heard this, Felix put them aside (i.e., their business), more precisely, having learned about this path, saying: when the Fox captain comes, I will find out everything about you...” (Glorious text). Thus, here the matter must be understood in such a way that Felix, having received more accurate information “about the way”, i.e. about the way of thoughts and beliefs of Paul, and having become convinced that his accusations are completely in vain, but at the same time not wanting to upset and arouse the disgraced accusers against himself with a sharp refusal (cf. Acts 24:27), still does not release Paul, announcing the postponement of this case, as if out of a desire to learn more learn about everything from Lysias. In addition to being directly acquainted with Paul's Christian beliefs from his speeches, Felix could have had sufficient information about Christianity from other sources. For quite a long time he was the procurator of Judea, and even longer ago he lived there (see Acts 23 and Acts 24:10); Christianity had then spread throughout Palestine and in Caesarea, where, perhaps, the centurion Cornelius, converted by Peter, was still there. Finally, Felix could also know a lot from his wife Drusilla, a natural Jew who was interested in Christianity. Acts 24:23. And he ordered the centurion to guard Paul, but not to embarrass him and not to forbid any of his loved ones to serve him or come to him. “Do not afflict him...” As later in Rome, Paul was probably under the supervision of one soldier (Acts 23:16) and could receive everyone. Acts 24:24. A few days later Felix, coming with Drusilla his wife, a Jew, called Paul and listened to him about his faith in Christ Jesus. "Drusilla" - the wife of Felix - was the daughter of King Herod Agrippa 1st, who killed the Apostle James and died in Caesarea (Acts 12). This then-famous beauty was first married to Aziz, king of Emesa (in Syria), but Felix, through some sorcerer from Cyprus, named Simon, charmed her, and, divorcing his first wife (also named Drusilla, granddaughter of the famous Anthony and Cleopatra), married her (Flav. Archaeol. XX, 7, 1 and d.). "Called Paul and listened to him about the faith in Christ Jesus". Felix did not call and listen to Paul for legal protection, but became interested in his personality and Christian teachings. Drusilla, probably, especially wanted to see and hear Paul, as a former Herodian who, no doubt, had heard a lot about Christianity. Acts 24:25. And as he spoke about the truth, about abstinence and about the future judgment, Felix became afraid and answered: now go, and when I find time, I will call you. Acts 24:26. Moreover, he hoped that Paul would give him money to let him go: therefore he often called him and talked with him. “He spoke about the truth, about abstinence and about the future judgment.” Paul's conversation was especially adapted to the state of his listeners, responding not only to their interest in Christianity, but also containing something that they, perhaps, would not want, but the apostle with holy boldness spoke to them directly to their faces. The dissolute Drusilla especially must have blushed when she heard about abstinence. The predatory and unjust ruler could not help but feel remorse while listening to the sermons about the truth. For both, the announcement of the Last Judgment must have seemed terrifying, although the proud ruler did not give enough vent to this saving feeling and hastened to stop the apostle’s speeches that were threatening to his conscience, sending him away under his former supervision. Although later he often called him to talk with him, but not so much out of a desire to hear the truth, but out of unworthy selfish calculations, hoping for a bribe - if not from the apostle himself, then from his admirers. But St. Paul was innocent and did not want to buy freedom in any unaffordable way; he did not allow himself to take advantage of the love of the Caesareas, who could, of course, raise money for a ransom that was beyond the means of Paul himself. He did not want to mix dubious human means into the Divine plans regarding his destiny and preferred honest captivity to guilty freedom. Next to such beauty of Paul’s soul, the pitiful unscrupulousness of Felix emerges all the more uglier, who, well knowing the innocence of the prisoner and his moral superiority, nevertheless continued to torment him in prison to please the Jews and to confuse their anger (v. 27). Acts 24:27. But after two years, Porcius Festus took Felix’s place. Wanting to please the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds. “After two years had passed” from the time of Paul’s imprisonment (in 60 or 61 A.D.), Felix was recalled to Rome as a result of Jewish complaints against him and was replaced by Porcius Festus. In order to at least somehow win over the Jews and, on the other hand, to take revenge on the apostle for the dissatisfaction of his bribery, Felix, going to trial, left Paul in bonds. Felix's successor, who had done little good for Judea, died the following year. Albin stood up for him. You might be interested in: