กิจการ 24:14 วิจารณ์

We left Paul a prisoner at Caesarea, in Herod's judgment-hall, expecting his trial to come on quickly; for in the beginning of his imprisonment his affairs moved very quickly, but afterwards very slowly. In this chapter we have his arraignment and trial before Felix the governor at Caesarea; here is, I. The appearing of the prosecutors against him, and the setting of the prisoner to the bar (Act 24:1, Act 24:2). II. The opening of the indictment against him by Tertullus, who was of counsel for the prosecutors, and the aggravating of the charge, with abundance of compliments to the judge, and malice to the prisoner (Act 24:2-8). III. The corroborating of the charge by the testimony of the witnesses, or rather the prosecutors themselves (Act 24:9). IV. The prisoner's defence, in which, with all due deference to the governor (Act 24:10), he denies the charge, and challenges them to prove it (Act 24:11-13), owns the truth, and makes an unexceptionable profession of his faith, which he declares was it that they hated him for (Act 24:14-16), and gives a more particular account of what had passed from their first seizing him, challenging them to specify any ill they had found in him (Act 24:17-21). V. The adjourning of the cause, and the continuing of the prisoner in custody (Act 24:22, Act 24:23). VI. The private conversation that was between the prisoner and the judge, by which the prisoner hoped to do good to the judge and the judge thought to get money by the prisoner, but both in vain (Act 24:24-26). VII. The lengthening out of Paul's imprisonment for two years, till another governor came (Act 24:27), where he seems as much neglected as there had been ado about him.

And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,.... From Jerusalem to Caesarea: these five days are to be reckoned not from the seizing of Paul in the temple, but from his coming to Caesarea; the Alexandrian copy reads, "after some days", leaving it undetermined how many: the high priest, with the elders, the members of the sanhedrim, with "some" of them, as the same copy and the Vulgate Latin version read, came down hither; not merely as accusers, by the order of the chief captain, but willingly, and of their own accord, to vindicate themselves and their people, lest they should fall under the displeasure of the Roman governor, for encouraging tumults and riots: the high priest must be conscious to himself that he had acted in an illegal manner, in ordering Paul to be smitten on the mouth, in the midst of the council, in the presence of the chief captain; and if it had not been for the soldiers, Paul had been pulled to pieces in the council: and the elders knew what a hand they had in the conspiracy against his life; and they were sensible that this plot was discovered, and Paul was secretly conveyed away; and what the captain had wrote to the governor, they could not tell, and therefore made the more haste down to him, to set themselves right, and get Paul condemned: and with a certain orator named Tertullus: this man, by his name, seems to have been a Roman; and because he might know the Roman, or the Greek language, or both, which the Jews did not so well understand, and was very well acquainted with all the forms in the Roman courts of judicature, as well as was an eloquent orator; therefore they pitched upon him, and took him down with them to open and plead their cause. The name Tertullus is a diminutive from Tertius, as Marullus from Marius, Lucullus from Lucius, and Catullus from Catius. The father of the wife of Titus, before he was emperor, was of this name (k); and some say her name was Tertulla; and the grandmother of Vespasian, by his father's side, was of this name, under whom he was brought up (l). This man's title, in the Greek text, is "Rhetor", a rhetorician; but though with the Latins an "orator" and a "rhetorician" are distinguished, an orator being one that pleads causes in courts, and a rhetorician a professor of rhetoric; yet, with the Greeks, the "Rhetor" is an orator; so Demosthenes was called; and so Cicero calls himself (m). Who informed the governor against Paul; brought in a bill of information against him, setting forth his crimes, and declaring themselves his accusers; they appeared in open court against him, and accused him; for this is not to be restrained to Tertullus, but is said of the high priest, and elders with him; for, the word is in the plural number, though the Syriac version reads in the singular, and seems to refer it to the high priest. (k) Sueton. in Vita Titi, l. 11. c. 4. (l) Ib. Vita Vespasian. c. 2. (m) De Oratore, l. 3. p. 225.

And have hope towards God,.... Of an interest in him, and of enjoying eternal life and happiness with him in a future state: which they themselves also allow; that is, some of the Jews, not the Sadducees, for they denied what is afterwards asserted; but the Pharisees, who believed the immortality of the soul, and its existence in a future state: and that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; agreeably to the doctrine of Christ in Joh 5:28. In this article the Pharisees of those times were sounder than the modern Jews; for though the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of their thirteen articles of faith, and is a fundamental one, which he that does not believe, cannot be said to be of the Jewish religion; yet they limit it entirely to the righteous (s), and will not allow that the wicked shall rise again: and this notion obtained also very early; for in their Talmud (t) it is reported, as the saying of R. Abhu, that "the day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead; the resurrection of the dead is for the righteous, but the rain is both for the righteous, and the wicked.'' Though Abarbinel (u) says, that the sense of this expression is not, that they that are not just shall have no part in the resurrection, but that hereby is declared the benefit and reward to be enjoyed at the resurrection; that that is not like rain, from whence both just and unjust equally receive advantage; whereas only the reward is for the righteous, but not for the ungodly: moreover, he observes, that this saying was not received and approved of by all the wise men, particularly that R. Joseph dissented, and others agreed with him; and as for himself, he openly declares, that that assertion, that the just among the Israelites only shall rise again, is foreign from truth, since the Scripture affirms, Dan 12:2 "that many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake"; but if there should be no other than the righteous in the resurrection, they would without doubt be very few; besides it is said, "some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt"; and Isaiah says, Isa 66:24 "and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me"; which shows, that the ungodly shall rise again, to receive their due punishment: and Manasseh ben Israel (w), in the last century, argued for the resurrection of both the godly and ungodly, from the same passages of Scripture; and yet he was not of opinion, that the resurrection would be general and common to all men, only that some of all sorts, good, and bad, and middling, would rise again, and which he supposed was the sense of the ancients. It is certain the Jews are divided in their sentiments about this matter; some of them utterly deny that any other shall rise but the just; yea, they affirm (x), that only the just among the Israelites, and not any of the nations of the world shall rise; others say that all shall rise at the resurrection of the dead, excepting the generation of the flood (y); and others (z) think, that only they that have been very bad, or very good, shall rise, but not those that are between both; but certain it is, as the apostle affirms, that all shall rise, both just and unjust: the just are they who are made so by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and who being created anew unto righteousness and true holiness, live soberly, righteously, and godly; the unjust are they who are destitute of righteousness, and are filled with all unrighteousness; and these latter, as well as the former, will rise again from the dead; which is clear, not only from the words of Christ, and the writings of the apostles, but from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, particularly Dan 12:2 and also from the justice of God, which requires that they who have sinned in the body, should be punished in the body; wherefore it is necessary on this account, that the bodies of the wicked should be raised, that they with their souls may receive the full and just recompense of reward; and likewise from the general judgment, which will include the righteous and the wicked, and who must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive for the deeds done in the body, whether good or evil; in order to which there must be a resurrection of them; to which add, the account the Scripture gives of the punishment of the wicked in hell, which supposes the resurrection of the body, and in which the body and soul will be both destroyed. Indeed there will be a difference between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, both in the time of their rising, the dead in Christ will rise first at the beginning of the thousand years, the wicked not until they are ended; and in the means and manner of their rising; they will be both raised by Christ, but the one by virtue of union to him, the other merely by his power; the just will rise in bodies not only immortal, and incorruptible, but powerful, spiritual, and glorious, even like to the glorious body of Christ; the wicked will rise with bodies immortal, but not free from sin, nor glorious: yea, their resurrection will differ in the end of it; the one will rise to everlasting life and glory, the other to everlasting shame and damnation. (s) Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. sect. 1. Kimchi in Isa. xxvi 19. Aben Ezra & Saadiah Gaon in Dan. xii. 2. (t) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 7. 1. (u) Prefat. in Isa. fol. 3. 1. (w) De Resurrectione Mortuorum, l. 2. c. 8. (x) Vid. Pocock, Not. Miscel. in port. Mosis, p. 183. (y) Pirke Eliezer, c. 34. (z) Vid. Menassah ben Israel, ut supra.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. The accusers were separating him as an alien, but he identifies himself with the Law, as one of themselves. Believing, he says, that there will be a resurrection: now a man who believed a resurrection, would never have done such things - which resurrection they themselves also allow. He does not say it of them, that they believe all things written in the Prophets: it was he that believed them all, not they: but how all, it would require a long discourse to show. And he nowhere makes mention of Christ. Here by saying, Believing, he does virtually introduce what relates to Christ; for the present he dwells on the subject of the resurrection, which doctrine was common to them also, and removed the suspicion of any sedition.

"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect." After calling him to be an apostle of Christ, saying that he served the Lord, the ancestral God, he shows there is one God of both the Old and the New Testaments, whom the prophets and the law proclaimed, whom Paul preached when he said, believing all that is written according to the law and the prophets. Inasmuch as Christ is here also introduced indirectly, yet previously by dwelling on the word of the resurrection, if these were labored over from the beginning. For once this was shown, it was easy to introduce also the matters concerning Christ, namely that he rose. [DIDYMUS]

But I confess this to you, that according to the sect which they call a heresy, so I serve my Father God. It is better read in Greek: That according to the way which they call a heresy, so I serve the Father God. For what consistency is there for him who spoke Greek, to say: According to the sect which they call a heresy, since the same in Latin, sect, means heresy in Greek? But he said: So I serve the Father God, according namely to that way which the unbelievers call a heresy, that is, a sect, as if it has more persistence in its following than in the diligence of rightly discerning.

"I truly serve the God of my fathers, believing." When, after being called to be Christ's apostle, Paul says that he serves the God of his fathers, he shows by this that the God of the Old and New Testaments is One and the Same.

After five days, Ananias the high priest, the elders, and one Tertullus, an orator, come to Caesarea to accuse Paul, Act 24:1. The oration of Tertullus, Act 24:2-9. Paul's defense, Act 24:10-21. Felix, having heard his defense, proposes to leave the final determination of it till Claudius Lysias should come down; and, in the mean time, orders Paul to be treated with humanity and respect, Act 24:22, Act 24:23. Felix, and Drusilla his wife, hear Paul concerning the faith of Christ; and Felix it greatly affected, Act 24:24, Act 24:25. On the expectation of obtaining money for his liberation, Felix keeps Paul in prison, Act 24:26, and being superseded in the government of Judea by Porcius Festus, in order to please the Jews, he leaves Paul bound, Act 24:27.

That after the way which they call heresy - See the explanation of this word in the note on Act 5:17 (note), and see before, Act 24:5 (note), where what is here translated heresy, is there rendered sect. At this time the word had no bad acceptation, in reference to religious opinions. The Pharisees themselves, the most respectable body among the Jews, are called a sect; for Paul, defending himself before Agrippa, says that he lived a Pharisee according to the strictest αἱρεσιν, sect, or heresy of their religion. And Josephus, who was a Pharisee, speaks, της των Φαρισαιων αἱρεσεως, of the heresy or sect of the Pharisees. Life, chap. xxxviii. Therefore it is evident that the word heresy had no bad meaning among the Jews; it meant simply a religious sect. Why then did they use it by way of degradation to St. Paul? This seems to have been the cause. They had already two accredited sects in the land, the Pharisees and Sadducees: the interests of each of these were pretty well balanced, and each had a part in the government, for the council, or Sanhedrin, was composed both of Sadducees and Pharisees: see Act 23:6. They were afraid that the Christians, whom they called Nazarenes, should form a new sect, and divide the interests of both the preceding; and what they feared, that they charged them with; and, on this account, the Christians had both the Pharisees and the Sadducees for their enemies. They had charged Jesus Christ with plotting against the state, and endeavoring to raise seditions; and they charged his followers with the same. This they deemed a proper engine to bring a jealous government into action. So worship I the God of my fathers - I bring in no new object of worship; no new religious creed. I believe all things as they profess to believe; and acknowledge the Law and the Prophets as divinely inspired books; and have never, in the smallest measure, detracted from the authority or authenticity of either.

PAUL, ACCUSED BY A PROFESSIONAL PLEADER BEFORE FELIX, MAKES HIS DEFENSE, AND IS REMANDED FOR A FURTHER HEARING. AT A PRIVATE INTERVIEW FELIX TREMBLES UNDER PAUL'S PREACHING, BUT KEEPS HIM PRISONER FOR TWO YEARS, WHEN HE WAS SUCCEEDED BY FESTUS. (Acts 24:1-27) after five days--or, on the fifth day from their departure from Jerusalem. Ananias . . . with the elders--a deputation of the Sanhedrim. a certain orator--one of those Roman advocates who trained themselves for the higher practice of the metropolis by practicing in the provinces, where the Latin language, employed in the courts, was but imperfectly understood and Roman forms were not familiar. informed . . . against Paul--"laid information," that is, put in the charges.

But this I confess to thee--in which Felix would see no crime. that after the way they call heresy--literally, and better, "a sect." so worship I the God of my fathers--the ancestral God. Two arguments are contained here: (1) Our nation is divided into what they call sects--the sect of the Pharisees, and that of the Sadducees--all the difference between them and me is, that I belong to neither of these, but to another sect, or religious section of the nation, which from its Head they call Nazarenes: for this reason, and this alone, am I hated. (2) The Roman law allows every nation to worship its own deities; I claim protection under that law, worshipping the God of my ancestors, even as they, only of a different sect of the common religion. believing all, &c.--Here, disowning all opinions at variance with the Old Testament Scriptures, he challenges for the Gospel which he preached the authority of the God of their fathers. So much for the charge of heresy.