Paul is now in Caesarea, held by the governor, Felix until his accusers arrive from Jerusalem. Ananias the high priest brings a "hired gun" to present their case. Tertullus was hired to present their case to the Roman procurator. He began with flowery oratory although it is doubtful that anyone took the compliments seriously. They are really just part of the formality of public address. Isn’t it amazing how some people can praise a person in public and denigrate them in private? On the other hand, there is much to be said for promoting civility in our public exchanges.

Tertullus began with an honest charge against Paul. He said "We have found, he was a pestilent fellow." Notice the same formal verbiage, "We have found," used in the charges against Jesus." It is truthful in that it does not say they have proof. It does imply that they believe there is a preponderance of evidence to support their charge. It sounds a lot like "opening statements" we might hear today. We have to admit that Paul was a public nuisance. He ran into trouble literally everywhere he went. If he didn’t cause a riot, there was at least a public disturbance and disorder. As we have seen so far, Rome has very little tolerance for disorder. It interrupts the commerce on which the government depends.

Next he said Paul was "a ringleader of the Nazarene sect," who tried to desecrate the temple." Felix was probably less concerned with the desecration of the temple than he was with disorder and the peace of the land. On the other hand, if this were proved, it would provide legal ground for Paul’s execution by the Romans. As a result, Paul will be more concerned with defending himself against this charge.

If you remember, Paul was undergoing a purification ritual when he was seized by some out-of-town Jews. The story presented by Tertullus is somewhat different. The claim he was there to profane the temple but was stopped and would have been judged according to Jewish law. But before he could be judged, Lysias charged in

with great violence and took him out of the hands of the Jews. Hence, we have been forced to travel here and waste the Governor’s time on something they should have handled in Jerusalem.

Paul knew his opponent was a lawyer and presented his defense in an orderly manner. He started, in the formal tradition, with a compliment to Felix on the many years he had been a judge in the area. History tells us that Felix was just made procurator in 52 AD and was replaced by Festus in 56 AD. Nonetheless, Felix had been the military prefect in the area for some time previously.

Paul opened with the statement that the charges could not be proved and then proceeded to give the facts. He had been in Jerusalem only twelve days. He had no arguments with anyone either in the temple or in the city itself. He was the cause of no riot. He admitted that he worshiped God after the manner of the Way called Christian. He admitted that the Jews called "the Way of the Christians" a sect implying heresy. He reminded them that that sect did not diminish his loyalty to the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish hope.

You will notice that he started his defense by clarifying he did nothing to profane the temple. This was the only charge that could result in a death sentence. He said, he had been away from the city for several years and returned only to bring financial relief to his people. He said the trouble was created by Asiatic Jews who found him in the temple, purified, without any crowd or tumult. He pointed out that they should have been present to make their accusations. In other words, the charges against him were not substantiated by witnesses.

Paul may have realized that his attempt to divide the Sanhedrin over the issue of the resurrection could be taken as creating disorder. In reality, he probably would not have survived the mob mentality had he not done so. He said, "I have done no wrong, unless it is considered wrong to profess belief in the resurrection!" This states that the charge against him is purely doctrinal, and not a matter for consideration by a Roman court. It is interesting to note that both Tertullus and Paul showed a basic honesty in their arguments. They both came straight to the point. They wasted no words and did not depend on ambiguities of thought or speech. The difference was that Tertullis was on the side of a cause that was already lost, and Paul was on the side of a cause against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

It appears that Felix had some knowledge of the Way. He deferred a decision until Lysias the tribune could come before the court. He ordered Paul detained but did not deter any of his friends from attending to his needs. It was more like protective custody than military confinement. A few days later, Felix came with his wife, Drusilla, who was a Jewess. They sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. It was going well until Paul began to talk about justice, self-control and future judgment. According to all the secular histories of the time, Felix was not much better than a scoundrel. And yet, he was absolutely fair and courteous to Paul. He did not make a hasty decision and insured that Paul was at least comfortable even though he was kept in custody.

The moral life of Felix and Drusilla would not bear too close an investigation. According to Josephus, Drusilla was the sister of Herod of Agrippa II, whom Felix had seduced from her first husband Aziz, king of Emesa. Drusilla, being a Jewess, had an interest in hearing about the religion of Jesus. But when Paul started talking about morality, he was promptly though politely dismissed. Felix obviously had basic instincts that were good. On the other hand he lived and worked in a world of ruthless competition where ideals had no chance at all against the strong winds of private and selfish enterprise.

It is a tragic picture when a man stands upon the edge of Christianity, lingers upon its threshold, and cannot resist the curiosity to find out about it. He gives every courtesy and consideration to Paul that he can provide from his position. But Felix, the public official cannot afford to do much more than think about Christianity and discuss it academically. He cannot commit himself nor can he separate himself from the ways of the world in which he must win his political living. Like many other political leaders, he could rise no higher than the level of their lowest supporters. Think about this in terms of political contributions in our lifetime. How many times do we see a great disparity between the public and private lives of our politicians? It is a shame they are not allowed to be a real person. How many times have we seen a politician’s career plummet after showing who they really are? A religious person is relegated to the fanatic extreme. A person of business is considered mercenary. Sometimes, we value their ability to get elected more than we appreciate their values. They are often required to be a cardboard cutout of themselves representing only those who shamelessly buy their approval.

Felix sent Paul away until it was convenient for another audience. Over the next two years, he talked to Paul often. Luke gives the impression that the Romans were frequently impressed by Paul’s preaching. We cannot overlook the probability of Felix waiting for Paul to bribe his way out. Even though it was forbidden by law, it was common in his administration to have prisoners buy their way out of confinement. Remember, Luke was allowed to be by Paul’s side during his confinement. Luke only tells us that Paul had appearances before the various authorities. He tells us nothing about these two years of captivity at Caesarea. From that we assume that nothing occurred to promote the spread and development of the Christian church. Some historians believe that Luke wrote some of the Acts of the Apostles during this time.

History moves in mysterious paths. Felix had a challenge. He could not allow the Jews to kill a Roman citizen without a proven charge. On the other hand, Felix’s administration was constantly under the complaint of the Jews for its corruption. Felix knew that a fair hearing of Paul’s case would result in his being released. He also knew that if he released him, the Jews would again pursue their persecution of Paul. He kept him in custody as a compromise and in the hope that it might please the Jews. It did not placate the Jews and he was recalled in disgrace and replaced by Festus. That is how Paul became a problem of Festus would have to resolve.