Acts chapter 24

vs 1

This is going to be a pretty high powered negotiation. Lots of big wigs, a lawyer, the governor - serious stuff. Not quite as serious as 40 people trying to kill you though.

vs 2

So, start with some flattery. And I don't say that lightly - the Jews, for all the reforms and peace that may have occurred, were still known as a rebellious and stubborn people when it came to their religion. We are talking a matter of years before Rome squashes Jerusalem. Felix may have brought in reforms that were pro-Jew, and so the flattery might have been more meaningful, but it's still obvious what's going on.

vs 3

So they are thankful for the reforms - I guess also there could have been governors who were less kind and less inclined to listen to the people's leaders.

vs 4

I'm sure that even if it wasn't brief, Luke will make it brief.

vs 5

As I have said before, this is a fairly one-sided and unfair argument. Although the world may not have had as much of a human rights emphasis back then, the idea that if you are upset by someone over a theological difference, and cause a riot, and then blame the riot on the person who upset you is just preposterous.

And it's not even like the Jews won such battles every time - for every time they tried it against Pilate, they had about a 50-50 reaction of apology and some sort of reform, or anger and slaughter of rioters by centurions.

Note the name - Nazarene sect. And Paul is supposedly the ringleader (forget the Apostles!).

vs 6(-7?)

Now according to Luke Paul was in no way attempting to desecrate the temple. But the idea that it could have happened is what caused the riots. Which of course allows no justice to Paul whatsoever, because large angry groups of people aren't really in the right state of mind for a fair trial.

You'll notice the NIV is missing vs 7, the TNIV pretends that vs 6 is both vs 6 and 7. While for the casual reader I guess this makes the question not appear, for the scholar it is a little disturbing. Not that they've removed the verse - that is just their practice of their translation methodology. But the lack of notation regarding a verse being missing doesn't allow for the existence of other manuscripts (which again, for the casual reader is not a big deal), and the addition of a verse number with the removal of a verse seems tacky. I prefer the NIV's leaving the number out altogether. After all, the numbers aren't scripture.

vs 8

Now that is an interesting thing to say. I am assuming that the Jews are hoping to be skilled enough in twisting Paul's words so as to make it sound like he's lying, and their presentation is the true presentation of events.

vs 9

"Yeah, what he said!"

vs 10

I think Paul is saying that since Felix has been around here a while, he knows what the Jews are like, so that when Paul describes them as a bunch of psycho rampaging rioters, then Felix will not think he's being unkind.

vs 11

Yes, that will be easy to confirm - there were riots around that time.

vs 12

So Paul says quite plainly that he wasn't causing any trouble that you could render, say, breaching the peace. He was, in fact, following the rules of the temple by undergoing the purification rituals.

vs 13

I think Paul is saying that the attributes of intent that they accuse him of can't be proved - that he set out to desecrate the temple, that he's a troublemaker, that he causes riots, and possibly even that he's the ringleader of the sect.

vs 14

Paul's defence turns into a discussion about the Way. He wants to make it clear, first of all, that he worships the Jewish God. Secondly, he wants to point out that he believes and follows the Law and the Prophets (although his silence on the issue of man-made laws and rituals is deafening).