John Calvin Commentary Acts 24

Since Ananias goes down to Caesarea to accuse Paul, it makes the conjecture more probable, which I previously mentioned concerning his priesthood. For it was not fitting for the high priest to undertake such a journey. Therefore, some other man was high priest at that time; and Ananias, being one of the chief priests, because he was in great authority and was also a resolute man, took this task upon himself.

He brings with him an entourage, and that of the respected company of elders, so that the governor might be swayed by their very display of status to condemn Paul. But since Paul used no eloquence, they had no need to hire a rhetorician to contend with him in eloquence. Moreover, they exceeded him both in dignity and also in numbers, so that it was an easy matter for them to oppress a poor man, and one who was lacking human help.

Therefore, it was a sign of an evil conscience that, being men of great experience, versed in public affairs, and skilled in legal matters, they hired a rhetorician. Eloquence is, I confess, a gift of God; but in this situation, they intended nothing else but to deceive the judge with it.

And Luke relates this, therefore, so that we may know that the Jews omitted nothing by which they might oppress Paul. Their aim was not only to prove him guilty but also to disconcert him so thoroughly that he might not be able to defend himself. And so, let us consider that it happened by the wonderful providence of God that Paul so resolutely endured such severe assaults.

Therefore, if it ever happens that a godly man, alone, is surrounded by a great number of enemies, let him call this account to mind and be of good courage. As David also exhorts us by his own example:

If tents were pitched about me, I will not fear,
because thou art with me, (Psalms 27:3).

Seeing we live in great peace. Tertullus uses a preface not at all pertinent to the matter, because he commends Felix's wisdom and virtues so that he may gain favor. Therefore, it is a disgraceful and flattering exordium. It is not that I agree with those who criticize Tertullus for speaking politely to the judge and for seeking to win his favor.

For it is not always inconsistent with the proper and lawful form of pleading to commend the judge; and arguments can be made for both sides (as they say) on this matter. But I object to nothing except this, which is entirely corrupt. For the rhetorician insinuates himself with false praises, so that he may obscure the matter in question.

For to what purpose does he speak of peace and a well-ordered state, except that Felix may think that the safety of Judea consists in condemning Paul, and so that he may examine the matter no further? Moreover, it appears from Josephus how covetously, cruelly, and voluptuously Felix behaved in that province.

The unworthy and tragic murder of the high priest, Jonathas, because he opposed his dissolute tyranny, had already occurred; and, finally, at almost the very same time, Claudius Caesar was compelled by the complaints of the whole nation to replace him with Festus and to recall him to answer for his actions.

Therefore, we see how shamefully this orator lied. And since all Paul’s adversaries sing the same song, we see that they are blinded with hatred and malice, and that they treacherously betray the state of their country; nor do they care what happens to them, as long as Paul is put to death.

Whereas Erasmus translates it, Many things are well done, the old interpreter seems to come nearer to Paul’s meaning, who says that κατορθωματα are accomplished, which signifies as much as reformations or improvements. Therefore, Tertullus commends the industry of Felix, because he had cleansed Judea from many corruptions, and he restored many things which would otherwise have decayed; namely, so that he may more eagerly seek to gain the favor of the nation (which he knew was otherwise displeased with him) by the death of one man.

For we found this man. Tertullus aims at a twofold objective. The first is this: that Paul might be delivered to the Jews, because they are very skillful in matters concerning the worship of God and the law of Moses. But if Paul denies this, Tertullus then charges him with a crime worthy of death, because he stirred up contention among the people.

They knew that the Romans hated nothing more; therefore, they press this charge most severely against Paul. Tertullus amplifies this when he says that Paul had incited the Jews throughout the entire world. But I wonder why he adds that Paul is the originator or leader of the sect of the Nazarites, which we know was more a mark of praise than of condemnation among the Jews.

I think that they do not mean those who, according to the ancient and lawful custom of the Law, consecrated themselves to God, but rather those troublesome murderers who also boasted that they were zealous. Some think that 'Nazarites' is used here to mean Christians, which could very well be the case.

But if we prefer the former explanation, Tertullus craftily lays to Paul’s charge that he was one of that sect which the Romans hated. For although these zealous men wished above all others to be considered notable observers of the Law, they used a pretense of zeal as a banner to incite the common people.

Nevertheless, these good men, who are so zealous for their liberty, do not spare its foremost defenders, so that they might cause Paul to be hated through them. They would have commended the Nazarites as courageous defenders of the Law, had it not been for this matter; but now, as if these Nazarites infected the entire world, they seek to bring great reproach upon Paul by saying that he is one of them.

Moreover, they slander Paul shamelessly, for no one thought that he was guilty of that crime. Therefore, they lay to his charge, no less wickedly than maliciously, a crime they readily contrive and invent without any plausibility. But such is the reckless confidence of hypocrites, that they think they can do whatever they want, as long as they cloak their actions with zeal.

Who went about to pollute the temple. It was a light and almost frivolous accusation to charge him with this before the Roman governor, who might well have wished for the temple to be turned completely upside down. But because nothing was more likely to cause disturbances than the polluting of the temple, Tertullus craftily accuses Paul of it, as if to say that Paul deserved no credit for Jerusalem not being in an uproar, and that he carried a firebrand that might have caused severe harm if he had not been stopped.

Tertullus also includes the point that because Paul had offended in matters of religion, it properly belonged to the Jews to pass judgment in that matter. And here he also complains about the chief captain Lysias, because Lysias deprived them of their right. Therefore, his aim is to persuade the governor to restore to them what Lysias had taken from them.

This is also not without subtlety, in that Tertullus discredits the chief captain because Lysias treated Paul more courteously than the priests wished. He subtly casts suspicion on Lysias because he dares not openly accuse him. But the question is whether they could hope the governor would grant them so much, since Roman magistrates alone had the authority to pass sentences of life and death.

I answer that Tertullus here presents some appearance of fairness, as if they intended to treat Paul more gently than he deserved. For although they could not condemn anyone to death, they could still use some light punishment, such as scourging. Nevertheless, Tertullus persists in asking the governor to have Paul put to death.

Having made inquiry. A good request, that the governor does not pass sentence before he thoroughly examines and understands the matter, and that he does not condemn Paul before he is lawfully convicted. But how dare they include these conditions, since their own consciences accuse them of unjust dealing?

I answer that they had witnesses ready; and that they did not offer to prove the matter until they called them, although they had another purpose. For they hoped that Felix would be so persuaded by such impressive words that he would turn over to them the man whom they accused as a condemned man, whom they could then deal with as they pleased.

In summary, the fiercer they are against him, and the more they are puffed up with self-confidence, the more they think they will gain the upper hand by this method, because the accused party will have no permission granted to defend himself. Thus, false accusers boldly boast that their case is clear, so that they may blind the eyes of the judges.