Acts of the Apostles Chapters 23-26 Select Verse Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, August 24, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

4)International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915): Studylight online edition; Esword dictionaries module download page

5) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: Bruce Metzger

Acts 23:26
Claudius Lysias- He took the name Claudius when he became a citizen, no doubt in deference to the emperor Claudius. (Bruce)
Most excellent- kratisto, a title belonging to members of the equestrian class of Roman society, from whom most governors of minor provinces were selected.(Bruce)

Felix: and his brother Pallas were both former slaves freed by the emperor Claudius or his mother Antonia. Pallas was for a time one of the most powerful and wealthy men in the empire. Felix may have served in Syria/Judea under Cumanus’ governorship in AD 48-52 before becoming governor himself. Felix was recalled from Judea over his harsh treatment of Jewish and Gentile rioters in about 59-60 AD.(Witherington)

Interesting to compare Lysias’ version of events with Tertullus’ in Acts 24:7. Both men bent the truth to help themselves.(Bruce)

Acts 3:29 no charge that merited death or chains- beginning the litany of Roman voices proclaiming Paul’s innocence. If the charge of temple violation had been proven, it would have indeed been a death sentence, but no witnesses could prove the claim. The Romans plainly think the Jews are acting very strangely in their hatred of Paul, since Romans mainly concerned themselves with peace and order, and let other things go their way.(Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 23:30 Here is probably the most honest and laudable part of Lysias’ report, where he confesses to protecting a Roman citizen from a murder conspiracy while passing the man and his case on to higher authority.

Acts 23:31
Antipatris: city built by Herod the Great in 9 BC on the site of the older city Kaphar- Saba and named after his father Antipater. It sits twelve miles north of Lydda and 25 miles south of Caesarea. Two main roads lead to it: one through Lydda and one through Bethel. It marked the border between Judea and Samaria. (Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 23:32
The next day: The troops were able to return because from Antipatris on the land was a plain and occupied mostly by Gentiles. (Bruce)

Acts 23:33
Caesarea was built by Herod the Great on an ancient Phoenicia site called Strato’s Tower. Herod built a Hellenistic city with a great harbor there which he completed in 13 BC. After 6 AD it fell back into the lands controlled by Rome, this time under the province of Judea. It was about 60 miles from Jerusalem, and about 30 miles from Antipatris. (Bruce)

Acts 23:34
what province: The Greek strictly interpreted means “what kind of province”, but Bruce finds that over- subtle.
Cilicia: Had been made a Roman province by Pompey in 64 BC, and between 25 BC and 72 AD Cilicia was part of the Syria-Cilicia province, at the time governed by the Roman legate Ummidius Quadratus.(Bruce)

Why did Felix not send Paul on to Syria?
1. The matter was too small to pass on.
2. Roman law emphasized a man facing his accusers, and they were all in Jerusalem
3. The Roman custom of trying a man in his home province was only optional before the second century AD.(Witherington)

Acts 24:1
Ananias …with some elders: In those days as now, rank and wealth has its privileges. Obviously the Jews were hoping their status would help their plainly weak case. The weakness is also indicated by their hiring:
a lawyer named Tertullus: Tertullus is a common Roman name, a form of Tertius, and this man might have been a Jew (Acts 24:6) and likely a Hellenist, like Paul himself. (Bruce)

Acts 24:5
We have found this man: Tertullus launches his well-thought out charges against Paul, each aimed at alarming Felix:
1. a plague- loimon, “pest, plague” a common term used of criminals and troublemakers, a charge leveled routinely against opponents. “Agitator” was a typical hint toward a more serious charge of sedition, which was often tossed in with other charges in Roman legal proceedings as a dangerous catch-all.
2. ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes: this hints Paul is the leader of another in the seemingly unending series of messianic movements in Judea which were constant problems for the Roman governors. In fact Christianity was about the only apolitical messianic movement of the time.
3. desecrate the Temple: the most serious charge, saved for last, since it is a specific offense that, if proved by testimony, clearly deserves the death penalty, as the signs posted in the Temple grounds plainly declare.(Bruce)

Acts 24:6-7
LITV: and wished to judge according to our law; Act 24:7 but Lysias the chiliarch coming up with much force took him away out of our hands, Act 24:8 commanding his accusers to come to you

This part is not found in early manuscripts, and its omission is hard to explain if original. It fits well the kind of self-serving recasting of facts one expects in court, where the Jews describe their lynch mob as an orderly arrest and Lysias’ intervention (that saved Paul from being beaten to death) as violent oppression of Jews enacting their legal rights.

Acts 24:12
Debate about the facets of Judaism were common on the Temple grounds and in synagogues, but Paul flatly denies he engaged in this honest activity, thus refuting charges of being a troublemaker or seditionist.(Bruce)

Acts 24:13
Neither can they provide evidence- Paul here challenges the Jews to prove their charges by proclaiming they have no proof.

Acts 24:14
The Way- ancient shorthand used by religious sects for themselves, like the Essenes and the Christians. Opposing sects and observers typically called such sects haieresis, “sect, school”, without a pejorative intention.

Paul cannot deny he is a Christian, and the honesty in confessing it is a point in his favor.

my fathers’ God: Paul knows that Roman law has long given Judaism a protected, hands- off status, Paul defines Christianity as a form of Judaism, by statement and by asserting it fits all the things in the Law and the Prophets.(Bruce)

Acts 24:17
charitable gifts and offerings: Luke seems to be downplaying yet again Paul’s great purpose in going to Jerusalem: to bring the collection for the poor there. This would certainly fit the very definition of almsgiving, as required in Scripture. It is downplayed perhaps because it did not have the good effect Paul had hope, and also because the collection may have been characterized in Paul’s trial as a form of evasion of the Temple tax.(Bruce)

Offerings is a reference to the purification rite Paul underwent, and his participation in the Nazarite ritual of the four Jewish Christians.

Acts 24:18
while I was doing this…found me ritually purified in the Temple: Paul emphasizes both his non-criminal behavior and his Jewish piety.

Acts 24:19-21
Paul refutes the charges of criminal behavior in the Temple a second way, by pointing out none of his accusers in the Temple are present for the trial. He then states the only charge the Sanhedrin can bring against is in fact a theological point which is held even by members of the Sanhedrin–even some of those standing there accusing him!(Bruce)

Paul’s notice of the absence of the Jews of Asia is a strong point, as Roman law took a dim view of people who formally condemned people to the law and then did not appear at the legal proceedings, destitutuo, “abandonment”. In fact the emperor Claudius was even then getting legislation aimed at punishing such behavior enacted.(Witherington)

Acts 24:22
accurately informed: Felix had been governor of Judea since about 52 AD , and may have served office in the area several years before. He was also married to a Jewish woman, thus he likely knew a great deal about Judaism and its factions.(Bruce)

Witherington, on the other hand, sees this phrase as indicating Felix knew the charges were bogus, and that Paul was some sort of enemy of the Temple authorities. It is this knowledge that makes him adjourn the case under the pretext of waiting for Lysias, whose report he already has. Felix is being the politician, knowing the Jewish authorities are complaining to Rome about him already, and hoping not to irritate them further, while still not obviously ignoring Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen.(Witherington)

Acts 24:23
some freedom …should not prevent any of his friends from serving him: It would seem from these lenient terms that Felix was disposed to believe Paul innocent, but later verses (Acts 24:26) put a different interpretation on the terms. Felix was leaving Paul free in hopes of allowing him to gather a bribe to purchase his freedom. Witherington spends some time on the question of Paul’s actual terms of captivity and wealth, but it boils down to his being decently treated but carefully guarded, his access to friends all about getting them to get his own money or theirs for the bribe.(Witherington)

Acts 24: 24
Drusilla- Born in 38 AD, she was the youngest of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I. She was betrothed to a prince who refused to convert to Judaism to marry her, then her brother Agrippa II married her to Azizus, king of Emesa. Then Felix saw her and was smitten by her beauty, and persuaded her to divorce Azizus and marry him, who had already had a previous wife also named Drusilla, who was related to Anthony and Cleopatra. They had a son, Agrippa, who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.

One assumes that Drusilla was likely the one interested in hearing about Christianity, and as 24:26 says, Felix was likely there in hopes Paul would mention buying his freedom.

Acts 24:25
he spoke about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come- Paul not only spoke about Christianity to Felix and Drusilla, he apparently preached to them about their failings, a couple who had left behind previous spouses for each other, Drusilla offending her religion by marrying a Gentile, and Felix being on his third wife and infamous for his greed and cruelty.

Felix became afraid: convicted by the Spirit, perhaps. Certainly frustrated that Paul showed no signs of being so cowed he would try to pay his way to freedom. Witherington points out the message of resurrection to future judgment would have been a new one for Felix, and all the more frightening for Paul’s knowledge and sincerity.(Witherington)

Acts 24:26
he was hoping money would be given to him: Apparently Felix’s ears shot up when Paul mentioned “charitable gifts and offerings” in 24:17. Bribery was illegal under Roman law, with a sentence of exile and confiscation of wealth, but it went on then as it does today. Albinus, one of Felix’s successors (AD 61-5) is noted by Josephus for just such activities.(Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 24:27
two years: The length of Paul’s imprisonment, not Felix’s administration, which likely lasted more like seven years. (Witherington)

The Western text here adds “but Paul he kept in prison on account of Drusilla”, presumably because Paul had offended her with his preaching which was aimed at Felix and Drusilla’s marriage, which was disallowed for several reasons under Jewish law.(Metzger)

Porcius Festus: A relatively unknown governor of Judea, presumably of the famous senatorial clan the Porcii of Tusculum, his term in office was likely 58-62 AD or so. He was less severe in his governing of Judea than his predecessors, but still used military force against any insurrectionists.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

Acts 25:13
From ISBE: “Herod Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. When his father died in 44 ad he was a youth of only 17 years and considered too young to assume the government of Judea. Claudius therefore placed the country under the care of a procurator. Agrippa had received a royal education in the palace of the emperor himself (Ant., XIX, ix, 2). But he had not wholly forgotten his people, as is proven by his intercession in behalf of the Jews, when they asked to be permitted to have the custody of the official high priestly robes, till then in the hands of the Romans and to be used only on stated occasions (Ant., XX, i, 1). On the death of his uncle, Herod of Calchis, Claudius made Agrippa II “tetrarch” of the territory, 48 ad (BJ, II, xii, 1; XIV, iv; Ant, XX, v, 2). As Josephus tells us, he espoused the cause of the Jews whenever he could (Ant., XX, vi, 3). Four years later (52 ad), Claudius extended the dominion of Agrippa by giving him the old “tetrarchies” of Philip and Lysanias. Even at Calchis they had called him king; now it became his official title (Ant., XX, vii, 1). Still later (55 ad), Nero added some Galilean and Perean cities to his domain. His whole career indicates the predominating influence of the Hasmonean blood, which had shown itself in his father’s career also. If the Herodian taste for architecture reveals itself here and there (Ant., XX, viii, 11; IX, iv), there is a total absence of the cold disdain wherewith the Herods in general treated their subjects. The Agrippas are Jews.

Herod Agrippa II figures in the New Testament in Act_25:13; Act_26:32. Paul there calls him “king” and appeals to him as to one knowing the Scriptures. As the brother-in-law of Felix he was a favored guest on this occasion. His relation to Bernice his sister was a scandal among Jews and Gentiles alike (Ant., XX, vii, 3). In the fall of the Jewish nation, Herod Agrippa’s kingdom went down. Knowing the futility of resistance, Agrippa warned the Jews not to rebel against Rome, but in vain (BJ, II, xvi, 2-5; XVII, iv; XVIII, ix; XIX, iii). When the war began he boldly sided with Rome and fought under its banners, getting wounded by a sling-stone in the siege of Gamala (BJ, IV, i, 3). The oration by which he sought to persuade the Jews against the rebellion is a masterpiece of its kind and became historical (BJ, II, xvi). When the inevitable came and when with the Jewish nation also the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II had been destroyed, the Romans remembered his loyalty. With Bernice his sister he removed to Rome, where he became a praetor and died in the year 100 ad, at the age of 70 years, in the beginning of Trajan’s reign.”

Marcus Julius Agrippa was his name as a Roman citizen. He renamed Caesarea Philippi “Neronias” during the reign of the Emperor Nero and always seems to have kept in the good graces of the Romans. He had no children. He and Berenice were not only Judean royalty and friends of the emperor, but former governor Felix’s in-laws.
He was intensely disliked by the chief priests in Jerusalem, probably due to his strong Roman sympathies and the authority the emperor gave him over the priests because of it:
1. He could appoint the high priest
2. He kept the high priestly robes necessary for ceremonies.
3. He controlled the Temple treasury. (Bruce)

Julia Berenice: From ISBE:” One of the shameless women of the Bible, mentioned in Act_25:13, Act_25:23; Act_26:30. She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (Act_12:1, Act_12:6, Act_12:11, Act_12:21) who ruled from 38-45 ad. Her whole life from the Jewish standpoint was incestuous. Its story is told by Josephus (Ant XIX, v, 1; XX, vii, 1-3), also by Juvenal (6, 156). Her first husband was her own uncle, Herod of Calchis. After his death she consorted with her own brother Agrippa II, with whom she listened to the impassioned defense of Paul at Caesarea before Felix. For a while she was married to King Ptolemy or Polemo of Sicily, who for her sake embraced Judaism, by the rite of circumcision. But she left him soon to return to Agrippa. Later on she figures shamefully in the lives of Vespasian and Titus, father and son.”

Berenice was born in 28 AD. She took a Nazarite vow and failed in an attempt to prevent a massacre of Jews ordered by the Roman procurator Florus in Jerusalem in 66 AD, almost getting herself killed by Roman troops in the process. When the Jewish rebels burnt her Jerusalem home, she turned pro-Roman, and subsequently became the mistress of the future emperor Titus, ten years her junior. Titus eventually had to send her away due to public scandal and disapproval, and Berenice drops out of history at that. The stories of incest have never had firm historical proof, but Herod Agrippa II did never marry.(Bruce)

Acts 25:19
a certain Jesus, a dead man Paul claimed to be alive: Here it seems that Festus had indeed grasped the heart of the argument between Paul and the Jews. Acts 24:15 shows Paul focusing on the resurrection of all people to judgment as a strong part of his faith and motivation. Doubtless at some point Paul explained Jesus’ part as first of the resurrected and judge at the final day. And apparently it all confused Festus.(Bruce)

Acts 25:23
Herod and Berenice: Berenice was the daughter and wife of kings, and seems to have exercised considerable authority in her own right.

Acts 25:25
when he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him: By law Festus was required to send him, as the right of appeal was one of the Roman citizen’s oldest rights, originally an appeal to the people against a possibly corrupt judge during the Republic, say about 300 BC. Caesar Augustus was made the court of appeal during his reign, and the right continued on for future emperors, though as the Roman empire grew more corrupt, the right became less and less meaningful, and was even ignored.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

It has been suggested Paul merely meant that he had wished to be judged by Festus, and not the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem when he appealed to Caesar, but it is not very likely that his statement “I appeal to Caesar” could be understood any other way than as Festus took it. That Festus was probably relieved to have Paul off his hands was a benefit to the governor.(Bruce)

Acts 25:26-7
Festus had earlier court records from Felix’s governorship to include in Paul’s documentation, but he was formally obligated to write a report of his own, and he plainly felt unsure of exactly how to explain the case, being as unable as the rest of the Romans involved in Paul’s case to understand the Jewish stridency over what seemed to Romans rather philosophical questions. Thus he was hoping for Agrippa’s help in particular to understand how to outline the case, as well as being able to cite an imperial favorite’s help in his report. He also knew well that since the case would be overseen by the emperor himself that he dare not seem to be a lazy administrator or a fool in his documentation if he wanted to keep his job.(Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 26:22
saying nothing else than what the prophets and Moses said: Rom 1:2, 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3

Acts 26:23
that the Messiah must suffer: famously derived from the texts of Isaiah, but not at all interpreted that way by most Jews of Paul’s day.

first to rise from the dead: 1 Cor 15:20, Rom 1:4. Jesus’ resurrection is guarantee of future resurrection, and the two resurrections cannot be separated in Paul’s thought.(Bruce)

to our people and to the Gentiles: Quote of Is 49:6

Acts 26:24
Festus’ remark is not necessarily offensive, especially since he credits Paul with great learning or study.. Madness, genius, and divine inspiration are all closely tied in the ancient mind, as indeed many today see them as close akin. But none of them is the sort of thing a realistic politician has any use for in a report. Festus either sees Paul as becoming senselessly obsessed with the idea of resurrection, or even finds all this focus on Jewish Scripture lacking any relevance to the real world.(Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 26:25
good judgment: sophrosune is an old word for soberness, soundness of mind, the very opposite of the mania Festus declares Paul is influenced by. Sobriety was a virtue in Greek philosophy. (Witherington)

Acts 26:26
speaking boldly: that constant refrain in Acts repeats itself again. The gospel is to be spoken of boldly, and those who so speak are the true believers.

Acts 26:27
Paul now passes from assuring Festus he is sane, to the historical truth of Paul’s gospel as something witnessed by men “not done in a corner”, no secret, to asking Agrippa if he doesn’t believe the prophets, and therefore, Paul’s witness, since he only speaks of what the prophets spoke.

Acts 26:28
Agrippa is definitely a politician, for he crafts an answer here that leaves him safely between two positions he cannot afford to take:
1. Saying “no” could be seen as a denial of the prophets and would destroy his credibility as a defender of the Jews and Judaism.
2. Saying yes would be a tacit admission of the truth of Paul’s claims about Jesus, something he also must avoid.

Agrippa’s answer is a difficult idiom to translate, but it seems likely a courteous slap to Paul, on the order of “You think to make me a Christian so easily?” It could be seen as Agrippa’s judgment that Paul had hardly made a case for his beliefs, as well. (Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 26:29
I wish before God- I pray to God
easily or with difficulty- playing off Agrippa’s words.
all who listen …might become as I am: Christians
except for these chains: likely holding up his chains.

Acts 29:31
doing nothing that deserves death or chains: one more Roman judgment in favor of Paul’s innocence.

Acts 29:32
if he had not appealed to Caesar: Agrippa places Paul’s predicament on Paul’s own shoulders, avoiding the obvious fact that two governors had had over two years in which to release him, especially since both governors felt him innocent.

Witherington also cites Sherwin White’s famous book on Roman law as evidence that procurators might still dismiss a case once appealed to the emperor. Witherington states this ignores the realities of the situation. While a procurator might legally dismiss a case appealed to the emperor, in practical terms no subordinate is likely to interfere with his superior’s authority and prestige by interfering with something referred to said superior. Thus Festus’ best action was to make the best documentation he could and follow the law as carefully as possible, in hopes of not offending either the Jews he was to govern or the emperor to whom he reported.(Witherington)