THE NEXT MORNING the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here.”
16But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.
17Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” 18So he took him to the commander.
The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.”
19The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?”
20He said: “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. 21Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request.”
22The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”
23Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. 24Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”
25He wrote a letter as follows:
26Claudius Lysias,
To His Excellency, Governor Felix:
Greetings.
27This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. 28I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. 29I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. 30When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.
31So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. 32The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. 33When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him. 34The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, 35he said, “I will hear your case when your accusers get here.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.
24:1Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. 2When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. 3Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.
5“We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. 8By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.”
9The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.
10When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.
17“After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance. 19But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me. 20Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin—21unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’ ”
22Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” 23He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.
24Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” 26At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.
27When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.
Original Meaning
THE APOSTLE PAUL has now been placed in prison, partly for his own protection. He obviously does not know at this time that he will be in prison for the next four years. During these long years he must have taken comfort from the fact that the Lord had promised him that eventually he would get to Rome and witness to Jesus in the capital city of the empire (23:11).
Paul Moved to Caesarea (23:12–35)
AS PAUL SAT in prison, some Jews devised a plot that began the long process that would send him from Palestine to Rome (23:12). The intensity of the resolve of these men is evidenced by their decision to have a total fast until they have killed Paul.
At this stage Paul’s nephew enters the story with his tip-off to Paul (23:16). He was able to get in touch with Paul and even with the centurion because Paul was an unconvicted Roman citizen and had to be treated with due respect. When Paul said that he lost all the things that he could claim from a human standpoint because of the gospel (Phil. 3:4–8), this must have included his family. His father, probably a wealthy person, likely disowned him. But something of family affection must have remained for his sister’s son to take the risk of spilling out the plot of this murderous group.
The centurion took immediate action on hearing about the plot and made arrangements to transfer Paul to Caesarea, where the governor of Judea usually resided (he went to Jerusalem only at important times, such as during festivals). An unusually large military contingent accompanied Paul, possibly because of the threat of a revolt in Jerusalem and also because of the group that was waiting to kill Paul (23:23–24). Once they were a safe distance from Jerusalem in Antipatris (about thirty-five miles away) and the danger to Paul’s life was diminished, a portion of the group returned to Jerusalem (23:32).
The centurion sent a letter along to the governor, describing the circumstances of Paul’s arrest and trial in Jerusalem. The account embellished the story about Paul with an untruth about the commander’s rescuing him upon discovering he was a Roman citizen (23:27). The commander specifically mentions that “there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment” (23:29); rather, Paul was being sent to Caesarea for protection (23:30). Luke’s stress on Paul’s blamelessness before the Roman law is a major theme of this entire passage.
Felix had became procurator of Judea in A.D. 52, which means that he had been governor for about five years when Paul was brought to him. Felix came from a somewhat lowly background but rose to a high position because of his brother Pallas, who was for a number of years the head of the imperial civil service. The governor successively married three women of royal birth. His current wife was his third, Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I.
There were many insurgent uprisings during Felix’s term of office, which he ruthlessly put down. The Roman historian Tacitus said that Felix “exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.”1 After reading the letter Felix ascertained that Paul was from Cilicia and decided to hear his case (23:34–35). Had he been from a neighboring area, Felix could have sent him to that governor, just as Pilate sent Jesus to Herod when he found that he was from Galilee. Paul was kept under guard in the palace that Herod the Great built for himself, which was now the governor’s headquarters.2
The Trial Before Felix (24:1–23)
THE SERIOUSNESS WITH which the Jewish leaders took this case is apparent in that the high priest himself made the sixty-five-mile journey to Caesarea along with the elders and the lawyer Tertullus (24:1). The speeches of Tertullus and Paul (as well as Paul’s speech before Agrippa in ch. 26) follow the form of forensic speeches of the time.3
Tertullus begins with a typical exordium (introduction), “acknowledging the judge’s authority on the matter phrased to win favor and goodwill.”4 He expresses the gratitude of the Jews for the peace that they have enjoyed under him. This was not really true, for there had been many insurrections that had been brutally stamped out by Felix. Gempf suggests that, rather than being nonsense (as some have alleged), this could be “Tertullus’ attempt to remind Felix that the stability had been purchased through severe action against troublemakers, of which, he goes on to argue, Paul was one causing ‘riots all over the world’ ”5 (24:5a).
Tertullus then brings several charges against Paul. His causing riots may refer to the trouble he supposedly caused in Asia. Paul is also charged with being a ringleader of the Nazarene sect, and he tried to desecrate the temple (24:5b–6).6 The term Nazarene probably derives from the fact that Jesus grew up in Nazareth (Matt. 2:23) and was used of Jesus in the Gospels (Matt. 2:23; Mark 14:67; 16:6). This is the only time it is used of the church. Tertullus asserts that an examination of Paul will show that the charges they bring are true (24:8).
Paul’s exordium also points to the competence of Felix to judge the case, but he is less lavish than Tertullus with his compliments (24:10). His speech is, in Bruce Winter’s words, “a well ordered defense. . . . Paul conducted his defense in an able manner against a professional forensic orator.”7 Each statement recorded by Luke in this summary makes a telling point that convinces Felix of Paul’s innocence (cf. 24:22–27). Felix can verify when Paul arrived in Jerusalem (v. 11). His accusers did not find him doing anything anywhere in Jerusalem that might suggest he was causing trouble (v. 12); they have no proof of any of their charges (v. 13). Paul does admit that he is a member of the Way, but he goes on to show that this sect has similar beliefs to the Jews (vv. 14–15); this is a sect just like the Pharisees and Sadducees.8 Next Paul asserts his blamelessness (v. 16). No one can point a finger at him regarding his personal life—a powerful state indeed for an ambassador of Christ to be in. The word translated “strive” in verse 16 (askeo) was originally used for athletic strife. It means “to engage in some activity, with both continuity and effort.”9
Paul then gets specific about his visit to Jerusalem, giving the clearest reference in Acts to the gifts for the poor he brought with him (v. 17). He also mentions bringing “offerings,” a statement that has been variously interpreted. This may be referring to the gifts for the poor, to offerings he presented at the temple possibly in connection with a vow, or to what he did in the temple in connection with the Nazirites, who had taken a vow. Kistemaker may be correct in saying that “since Luke often compresses material, the term ‘offering’ is a shortened form meant to bring to mind the episode in the temple (21:26–27).”10
Then Paul denies the specific charges against him. He was ceremonially clean when he was found in the temple, there was no crowd with him, and he was not involved in any disturbance (v. 18). If the charge about his causing trouble all over the world (24:5) refers to the trouble in Ephesus, then the people from Asia should be there to press charges (v. 19). One by one he has refuted all the charges against him.
But Paul has one more point to make: He was tried by the Sanhedrin, but they also found no suitable charge to bring against him (v. 20). In his full talk the apostle may have mentioned the confusion in the Sanhedrin during his trial. He certainly implies that when he says that he had to shout a statement about the resurrection (v. 21), which divided the Sanhedrin. He admits to one possible point against him—a doctrinal issue that really was not within Felix’s jurisdiction.
Felix should have released Paul, but he was reluctant to displease the Jews (see 24:27). So he delayed making a decision until the commander came (v. 22). But he gave Paul relative freedom (v. 23). Felix’s delaying tactics went on for two whole years, at which time he was removed from his job (v. 27). Luke leaves us with no doubt that this Roman governor thought Paul was innocent of any crime against the state.
Felix and the Gospel (24:24–27)
THE CONVERSATIONS PAUL had with Felix and his wife give us a good description of how many top officials respond to the gospel (see discussion below). Included in Paul’s discussions about the gospel (v. 24) was discourse about “righteousness, self-control and the judgment” (v. 25a). These discussions made Felix afraid, which expressed itself in a couldn’t-care-less attitude (“When I find it convenient, I will send for you”—v. 25b). We also see how mixed his motives were, for he was looking for a bribe (v. 26) and did not want to displease the Jews even if that meant being unjust to Paul (v. 27). He probably thought that one who was a Roman citizen and who had just brought a substantial gift for the poor must have had access to substantial wealth. Josephus tells us that Felix would have been severely punished after he was removed from office if not for the influence of his brother, Pallas.11
Bridging Contexts
DEFENDING CHRISTIANITY BEFORE the state. We have frequently noted one of Luke’s aims in Acts of demonstrating that Christianity was not a dangerous religious group, especially that there was no truth to the charge of subversion against Rome. The record of Paul’s trials before Jewish and Roman crowds, councils, and tribunals (chs. 21–26) clearly shows this. In this section this theme appears in several ways. Luke gives the impression that the key Roman authority Felix, who concluded that Paul was innocent and kept him in custody only to please the Jews, knew the facts about what happened in Palestine. Both Tertullus and Paul refer to Felix’s long service in Judea (24:2, 10). Luke says that he was well acquainted with Christianity (v. 22) and that his wife was a Jewess (v. 24).
Another key factor in demonstrating the legitimacy of Christianity is the high quality and persuasiveness of Paul’s defense. He exposed many holes in the arguments of his opponents, giving at least six telling points that would stand up in the court.
• No one could not prove the charges against him (24:13).
• The Jews from Asia should have been there to substantiate some of the accusations (24:19).
• The Sanhedrin was unable to come up with clear charges (24:20).
• As far as Rome was concerned, Christianity is a sect within Judaism, just like the Sadducean and Pharisaic sects (24:14–15).
• As for Paul’s personal life, he could honestly say he was blameless before God and humankind (24:16).
• Paul’s belief about the resurrection might indeed be an issue (24:21), but that was a theological matter and did not really concern the Roman state.
Clearly Paul outwitted Tertullus and rendered void all his arguments. We remember a comment made about Stephen that his opponents “could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke” (6:10). All this points to our call to be competent in our defense of Christianity against the attacks that come to it from the world.
One of the points given above merits special mention because it is found in all three of the formal speeches of Paul that appear in this last division of Acts. This is Paul’s statement that he was blameless before God and the world (23:1; 24:16; 25:8). The blamelessness of Christians was an important part of the case for Christianity in New Testament times. The early Christians not only outthought their opponents, they also outlived them.
Felix and the gospel. Luke gives us some details of Felix’s response not only to the legal case against Paul but also to the gospel that Paul taught. This in turn gives us some insights on how people in positions of power and authority often respond to the truth of the gospel. (Luke does the same with Agrippa later, 26:25–29.) The Bible is concerned with the conversion of all people, including the rich and powerful. Thus when Luke included these sections, he must have intended to teach something about the reactions of high officials to the gospel. We will list Felix’s reactions as we examine each one in the “Contemporary Significance” section.
Contemporary Significance
ELOQUENT SPOKESPERSONS. LIKE Paul, we should be competent in our defense of Christianity from the world’s attacks. This requires that we know the world and understand its criticisms against Christianity. Then we should formulate answers to those criticisms that are credible and convincing.
Paul presented a speech that fitted in with the best forms of rhetoric required for a legal defense. In the following centuries the church produced great apologists, such as Justin Martyr, who attempted to create sympathy and understanding for Christianity among pagan emperors and intellectuals.12 Many great thinkers of the church today write only to defend the truth against attacks from within the church. Each generation ought to develop thinkers who will engage the prominent non-Christian minds of the day. Though we must all do this to some small extent, the church must nurture those who are particularly gifted in this work. We should encourage these people, give them sufficient time to devote themselves to needed study and writing, see how we ourselves can complement their ministry, and back it with their prayers.
A good example of how the church backed one who engaged the political leaders of his day on behalf of God’s truth comes from the political career of William Wilberforce, who, after a long battle, had slavery abolished in the British empire. He was supported by a group of like-minded Christians who lived near Clapham, England, thus becoming known as “the Clapham Sect.” They spent three hours daily in prayer as a group. During Wilberforce’s later years, Zachary Macaulay, one of the members, provided him with the facts and figures he needed for his debates. When there were critical debates in parliament, Christians all over England united in prayer.13
Ours is an age when the world is influencing the church in such subtle ways that we do not even realize that it is happening. Postmodernism has been presenting a new approach to truth. Christian stands on issues like homosexual practice, abortion on demand, euthanasia, and labor rights are being attacked as bigotry and/or folly. Christians in some countries are facing persecution because of their stands. Modern society strongly objects to the Christian insistence on the need for conversion; in some nations conversion is illegal. Many countries are enacting laws that restrict evangelistic activity. In some places minorities are treated as second-class citizens. All such situations call for an eloquent Christian response. The church must get ready for such challenges by encouraging capable people to argue for the Christian viewpoint.
Blameless spokespersons. As noted above, the early Christians not only outthought their opponents, they also outlived them. Paul said of himself, “I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man” (24:16). In the writings of the early Christian apologists, the behavior of the Christians was a key aspect used in defense of Christianity.14 The force of blameless lives has been powerful in defending Christianity against attacks from outside in every age.
The challenge to the church today to be blameless before the world has become acute, considering the great moral crisis facing the world today. In the West, there has been a general rejection of the Christian worldview that formed its moral basis for centuries. Many of its structures were based on moral absolutes. For example, much of American society operates on the principle of trust. With the current rejection of moral absolutes in postmodern Western society, one wonders how it can survive without deteriorating into serious confusion.
Theologians like Carl Henry and scholars like Allan Bloom have been charting this trend.15 One can imagine that sooner or later many millions of Westerners are going to look for an alternative to this confusion. When they realize the ravages of sexual indiscipline and seek a purer sexual morality, will they see Christians as people who not only remain pure but have a wholesome enjoyment that is much more refreshing than the extreme asceticism that many opt for? When they realize the ravages of living without integrity, will they see Christians as people who live with a clear conscience before God and humankind?
Although many Westerners, tired of the materialism and moral indiscipline of Western society, are turning to Eastern spirituality for answers, they will soon realize that this resource is equally bankrupt. There is no ethical system within Hinduism that enables people to live holy lives. While Buddhism has a strong ethical system to strive for, Buddhists are finding that they do not have the spiritual resources to overcome the onslaught of modern immorality to which they are being exposed in the media. Most countries in the so-called Third World are unable to make progress because of rampant corruption. There is a growing disenchantment with existing structures since people have not been able to shake off the corruption destroying the fabric of many nations.
I spoke about this recently with theologian Bruce Nicholls, a New Zealander who has been a missionary for forty years in India. He observed that the recent growth of fundamentalist movements among Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists is an attempt to stem this tide of moral degradation sweeping Asian nations. He felt that this is a time of unprecedented opportunity for the church to demonstrate the power of the gospel.
We do have a dynamic from the Creator of human nature that alone can satisfy this homesickness for morality in the human soul. But how have we fared? The church seems to have become a reflection of the maladies of society rather than a witness to these maladies. We have been so enslaved by pragmatism that morality has been subsumed in our quest for results. Elsewhere in this book we have spoken of the valuable place that signs and wonders have as means of attracting people to Christ. But it is easy to be so enamored by such display of power that we neglect the priority of holiness over power.
Many churches that emphasize the miraculous today are weak in their teaching and reflections on Christian morality. As a result, people who are testifying to miraculous answers to prayer are underpaying their workers, are guilty of racial prejudice, or lie to make a sale. Evangelists who minister in the miraculous can get so enamored by their power that they give little attention to pursuing holiness. They find refuge in their ministries and thus ignore the voice of conscience that tells them that all is not well in their lives.
This neglect of moral instruction is seen in other branches of the evangelical movement too. Some churches are afraid to confront members who are living privately in sin. In keeping with the thinking of society around us, they do not want to pry into the private lives of others. Preachers are afraid to speak forthrightly against sins condemned in Scripture, fearing that they will be branded as bigoted and will lose members as a result.
I am thankful that prayer has seen a resurgence in many evangelical churches. There is much talk about the place of prayer and fasting in mission. Warfare prayer for breaking down strongholds and the place of prayer in evangelism are receiving fresh emphasis today. But there is little emphasis on praying for personal holiness, on fasting and praying for the revival of holy living in the church. If we examine the New Testament letters that teach about living the Christian life, we will find much more teaching on holy living than on warfare. While we do not discount the value of instruction on warfare and rejoice over its return to the life of the church, we must keep a scriptural balance.
We may be neglecting one of the most urgent warfares that has to be waged for the Christian worldview and ethic. This is an intellectual and moral warfare that influences the spiritual lives of us all. Carl Henry describes it well:
A half-generation ago the pagans were still largely threatening at the gates of Western culture; now the barbarians are plunging into the oriental and occidental mainstream. As they seek to reverse the inherited intellectual and moral heritage of the Bible, the Christian world-life view and the secular world-life view engage as never before in rival conflict for the mind, the conscience, the will, the spirit, the very selfhood of contemporary man.16
Paul spoke of striving (askeo) to keep his “conscience clear before God and man” (24:16). The pursuit of holiness is an exercise that must be carried out with utmost diligence. If we exaggerate in the pulpit, we must correct it in the pulpit, even though it may be humiliating. If we fail at home in front of our children, we must apologize in their presence. We must strongly refuse any temptation to pay a bribe or tell a lie to get something done. We must follow the laws of the land even if they may seem silly. We must do our work conscientiously in our offices even if no one else is doing so and it may be embarrassing for us to be the only ones. Though all the churches nearby underpay their custodians, we must refuse to do so even if we are financially less stable. We must openly admit personal weaknesses to our Christian colleagues and spouses and have them check on us so that they may “spur [us] on toward love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:24).
The church, then, must rediscover the priority of holiness and look for the ways prescribed in the Scriptures to release the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who enables Christians to live holy lives. This is why Christianity is so unique. Other religions also teach us to be good, but Christianity gives us the power to become good. Note Paul’s words: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through” (1 Thess. 5:23).
Why the rich and powerful find it hard to enter the kingdom. We now examine the principles from Luke’s portrayal of the interaction between Felix and Paul, which shows us features typical of the response of rich and powerful people to the gospel.
(1) Felix showed an interest in the gospel by sending for Paul and listening “to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus” (24:24). Top officials and powerful people commonly show a cordial interest in what religious leaders say. We can use this as a stepping-stone to sharing the gospel with them, as Paul did with Felix and Agrippa. But we must remember that, though many such people will be interested in the gospel and testify to being blessed by it, they may not be willing to repent of their sin and turn to God alone for salvation. Nebuchadnezzar saw God’s hand acting powerfully on two occasions and even praised God and made pronouncements about him (Dan. 2–3). But he was not converted until he was brought to the end of himself and was forced to affirm that the Most High God reigns (Dan. 4).
We should therefore be careful about proclaiming that a famous person has been converted until there is evidence of conversion. Too often we assume that because a famous person did something (e.g., ask a preacher to come and see him or testify to an answer to prayer), that means that the individual has become a Christian. In reality, some professions of religious commitment made by famous people are nothing more than public relations gimmicks.
(2) Paul brought up the topics of “righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” with Felix so that he even became afraid (24:25). The Bible offers ample evidence that one of the ways to present the gospel to powerful people is to confront them with the reality of judgment. God did this with Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4); John the Baptist did this with the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:7); Peter did this with Cornelius (10:42) and Paul with the Athenians (17:31). But we tend to neglect this today. Leaders often call for Christians and ask them to pray for them. We must respond positively to such requests and pray for the person. Participating in prayer can open powerful people to the gospel. But we must not forget to confront them with the challenge of a holy God, who calls them to leave their sin behind in order to follow him. The role of the Holy Spirit is to “convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). As his agents, we can become the medium through which he performs that role.17
These topics are relevant to powerful people, for they respect power. Many of them look at Christians as weak people who need the crutch of a merciful God to enable them to face up to the strains of life. They regard themselves as “self-made persons,” who do not need that crutch. They must be confronted with the holiness and sovereignty of God, to be told that “it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31), who is “a consuming fire” (12:29). In their careers they have learned to respect and negotiate wisely with powerful forces and people. They must be made to realize that they also need to come to grips with the power of Almighty God if they want assurance of a secure future.
The failure to bring up the important topics of righteousness, self-control, and judgment can result in powerful people professing commitments to Christ but without a change in lifestyle. When the idea of being born again had become almost a fad in North America in the 1970s, the publisher of a famous pornographic magazine made much news by professing a born-again experience. Unfortunately he did not think it was necessary for him to stop publishing pornography. During this same era a powerful aide to President Richard Nixon, Charles Colson, professed conversion and with that confessed to an obstruction of justice charge in connection with the Watergate affair. As a result, he was imprisoned for seven months.18 It is no accident that Colson is one of our generation’s greatest spokespersons for the holiness of God. Throughout history other wealthy and powerful people, when confronted with the holiness of God and their own sin, have responded with repentance and restitution and thus brought honor to God (e.g., the king of Nineveh [Jonah 3] and Zacchaeus [Luke 19:8–10]).
(3) Felix’s behavior gives us at least three reasons why it is so hard for the rich and powerful to enter the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 18:24–25). (a) They are able to camouflage their insecurity by pretending to be in control of their lives. Verse 25a says that Felix was afraid after Paul had talked to him about righteousness, self-control, and judgment. But he was able to brush off his unease through his power to control his schedule. “That’s enough for now!” he said, “You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you” (24:25b). We must be aware of such bluffs and, if possible, keep exposing the powerful to the primacy of their relationship with God. We must tell them, “You may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23).
(b) The rich and powerful are often controlled by an insatiable greed, and they usually find convenient ways to express this. Felix was so blinded by greed that he even hoped for a bribe from the one who had talked to him about righteousness, self-control, and judgment (24:26)! Paul gave a severe warning about this when he wrote, “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:9–10). The power of these traps are often so strong that people come to their senses only after they have fallen into a deep pit of failure. The evangelist’s role is to keep challenging people with the truth of God’s Word so that people may come to their senses and be delivered from any enslavement.
(c) Those who are at the top feel that they have to please many people if they want to stay in their position and thrive in society. This may hinder them from doing what they know to be right. Ultimately, Paul was denied justice “because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews” (24:27). Ironically, Felix could not stay on like this, for he was finally dismissed from his job, and a deputation of Jews went to Rome to accuse him of wrongdoing. He avoided punishment for his failures in Judea only because of his influential brother, Pallas. But in the present passage we see how difficult it was for him to do justice by Paul.
The three factors that make it difficult for the rich to come into the kingdom are true of all people, but they particularly come into focus with the rich since they have greater opportunities to give in to their evil desires. Christian communicators must warn the rich about the deceit of wealth. As Paul says, we must “command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Tim. 6:17). One good way to avoid this trap is to become lavish in generosity: “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share” (6:18). Generosity is not only an antidote to the maladies associated with wealth, it is also a wise investment: “In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (6:19).
How true it is! The reality of judgment colors our attitudes to wealth. Wealth is fleeting in comparison to eternity, and the wise person prepares for eternity.