The Flimsy Case against Paul
Acts 24:1-9
Claudius Lysias, chief military officer in Jerusalem, had commanded the Jewish leaders to go before Felix, the provincial governor residing in Caesarea, if they wished to state charges against Paul. In a hurry to comply, they arrived in Caesarea only five days after Paul’s imprisonment in the governor’s palace. Among them was the high priest Ananias—the one who, after Paul’s first words of testimony before the Sanhedrin, commanded that he be struck on the mouth. Ananias was accompanied by other key men in leadership as well as by an orator named Tertullus. The orator would act much as a prosecuting attorney in our day. On behalf of the Jewish rulers, he would tell the court about the crimes that Paul supposedly committed. Sitting as judge of the case would be Felix himself.
Tertullus began with daring flattery, complimenting Felix in flowery words for achievements that everyone knew were missing from his record. The orator said that Felix brought quietness to the nation, whereas his administration was marked by fierce repression of Jewish dissidents.
In Tertullus's carefully crafted speech, the Jewish leadership was signaling to Felix that although he had made himself unpopular in the nation as a whole, they were willing to support him if he would only take their side against Paul.
The three charges stated by the orator were vague. He said first that Paul was a "pestilent fellow" and a "mover of sedition" (v. 5). In other words, he provoked civil unrest and violence. Since the Jewish nation was infested with troublemakers who frequently forced the Romans to intervene and restore order, the Jewish leaders calculated that this charge would win a sympathetic hearing.
Tertullus said next that Paul was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (v. 5).
Delving Deeper
Caustic language
Each word in the orator's way of identifying Paul's movement was carefully chosen to match his way of identifying Paul himself, as a "pestilent fellow" (that is, "pest" or "plague"12) and "mover of sedition."
- The English term "ringleader" treats Paul's followers as if they were a gang of criminals. The Greek term did not hurl this insult, yet still it carried alarming overtones, since it implied that in the world of believers, Paul was like a military leader.13 Hence, the sedition that Tertullus has just charged Paul with fostering could, under the apostle's direction, easily explode into massive riots.
- "Sect" stands in place of airesis, root of our word heresy,14 the very word used to translate it in v. 14.15 This Greek term originally referred merely to a party or subgroup within a larger body,16 a meaning it preserves with reference to the Pharisees or Sadducees both in the Book of Acts (Acts 5:17;17 15:518) and in the writings of Josephus.19 But in Paul's day the term had already acquired negative connotations,20 as we see elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:19—"heresies";21 Gal. 5:20—"heresies";22 2 Pet. 2:1—"heresies"23). Derived from the word "to choose," it suggested a party on the fringes of society that promoted a stubborn and self-serving allegiance to a cause offensive to good citizens.24
- To further belittle the followers of Jesus, he referred to them as "Nazarenes," a name with derogatory overtones because Jesus’ place of origin did not have a good reputation (John 1:46). It was therefore the name preferred by enemies of the church.
As we have said before, the religion of the Jews was a collegium licitum——that is, the Romans had granted it official toleration and conceded to it certain rights. But the Jewish leaders did not accept that the church had legal standing as well, even though it was an offshoot of their religion. Their spokesman Tertullus called it a sect of the Nazarenes in an attempt to brand it as illegal. The language of the orator's second charge was calculated to arouse in Felix the suspicion that the church was basically a political movement trusting in their messiah to overthrow Roman rule.
Finally, Tertullus accused Paul of profaning the Temple. As we have noted before, the Romans recognized the right of the Jews to protect the Temple from anything they regarded as defilement.
Next, the orator sought to neutralize the damage done by the report from Claudius Lysias. The captain said that he rescued Paul from a mob acting outside the law. He therefore made the Jewish leaders appear unworthy of the rights granted them by Rome. Why might Felix draw this conclusion? Because the furor which the captain found in the Temple compound suggested that the Jewish leaders either could not control their own people, or that they were unconcerned to maintain order in compliance with Roman expectations. Tertullus defended the leaders with a bald lie. He said that they arrested Paul in a proper manner and were taking him for judgment when the Romans interfered. With great violence entirely uncalled for, they seized Paul from their hands. Tertullus was saying that if there was a riot, the Romans caused it. The Jewish leaders must have assumed that Felix would be sensitive to any charge that the Romans overreacted, for surely he knew that he had weakened his hold on power by his own overreactions in the past.
Getting Practical
A lie-infested world
The legal proceedings against Paul were a spectacle of dishonesty. Claudius Lysias lied to his superior. Tertullus's speech was a pack of lies. Sadly, we live in a world where many people lie habitually with little or no opposition from their own conscience. Two important features of lying stand out from Luke’s account of Paul’s long ordeal after he was arrested.
- The usual reason people lie is to protect or promote themselves. That was the motive behind the captain's lie. The same motive explains why gossip may spread like a foul odor even when it is not true. Upon hearing that someone has fallen into sin or another kind of failure, many people are quick to pass on the appetizing information to others. Why? Because this kind of talk boosts the talkers’ self-esteem. The news that another person has feet of clay makes them feel less ashamed of their own feet of clay, or even promotes the delusion that their own feet are solid gold.
- Many liars think they are telling the truth. Claudius Lysias knew full well that he was lying, but the high priest and his friends may have thought that they were presenting a fair case against Paul—that he was truly a pestilent fellow and the ringleader of an illegal sect. Perhaps they even believed that he actually desecrated the Temple.
If people believe their own lies, they do not readily come under conviction when the Holy Spirit whispers in their hearts that they are liars. All around us, we see that people are becoming less capable of separating truth from falsehood. Here is one important reason that so many today are resistant to the gospel. They really believe the lie that it is their right to live as they please.
The growing power and prevalence of lies fulfill prophecy. The Bible says that as history wears on, lies will infest society more and more (2 Tim. 3:1-4). It says also that much of this rampant dishonesty will take the form of self-deception (2 Tim. 3:8, 13).
Paul's Answer to the First Two Charges
Acts 24:10-16
Under Roman law, Paul had the privilege of speaking in his own defense. The orator's presentation served its purpose but, in marshaling good arguments, fell far short of Paul's response. In public debate, Paul was probably never bested.
He too started with words of tribute to Felix. Anything else would have been improper and disrespectful. Yet he avoided flattery. The only merit he applauded was Felix's experience as a judge. He implied that because Felix had sat in this role for many years, he was qualified to weigh the accusations against Paul.
Then Paul replied to the charges one by one. First, in response to the charge that he was a raiser of sedition, he pointed out that he had gone to Jerusalem only twelve days ago. Since it was now five days after he came to Caesarea, he had spent only about a week in the city. How much mischief could he have planned and performed in such a brief time? In fact, he had done nothing in Jerusalem to cause trouble. He had gone to the city to worship, and while there he had conducted himself with perfect decorum. His accusers never found him arguing with anyone or stirring up strife anywhere, neither in the synagogues nor in the streets.
Delving Deeper
Chronology
To bolster Paul's claim that he was in Jerusalem only a brief time, Luke gives us a day-by-day record of events. In Paul's reference to twelve days since going up to worship, he apparently excludes the day of arrival, since the next was the first when worship was possible. These are the twelve days:
1/ day of his meeting with James (Acts 21:18),
2-5/ four days of purification, the fourth reckoned as toward the end of seven days (Acts 21:26–27),
5/ day of tumult (Acts 21:27),
6/ day before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30)
7/ day of plot (Acts 23:12),
8/ day of arrival in Caesarea (Acts 23:31-32),
9-11/ three intervening days,
12/ day of trial after five days, reckoning inclusively (Acts 24:1).25
Second, Paul acknowledged that he was a Christian, but denied that he belonged to an illegal sect. Rather, he faithfully followed a legal religion—the religion of the Jews. In matters of worship and conscience, he had in no way departed from the traditions which he inherited as a son of Israel. He retained all the beliefs of his fathers and lived in perfect obedience to the moral law that his fathers received from God. He insisted that his belief in the resurrection of the dead was by no means a heretical twist of his ancestral religion. Even his enemies held the same belief.
He continued by strongly affirming that his deepest desire was to meet all the obligations to God and man that he had learned from Jewish religion. He wished to walk uprightly, so that his conscience would not trouble him with guilt for any offense.
Getting Practical
Growth even in the greatest
It is instructive to compare Paul's words before the Sanhedrin with his words before Felix. To the Sanhedrin he said, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23:1), but to Felix he said, "Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men" (Acts 24:16). Notice the subtle revision. In the first statement he claimed to be perfect. In the second he said that he was trying to be perfect. The first, clearly a proud exaggeration, got him into trouble. The second, profiting from his earlier mistake, gave an accurate picture of himself. He made no pretense of perfection, but merely expressed the heart's desire of any godly man to be perfect like Christ.
Paul's Answer to the Third Charge
Acts 24:17-21
Paul went on to answer the third accusation—that he profaned the Temple. He said that far from having any evil purpose when he came to Jerusalem, he was intent on good deeds. He brought "alms" (that is, money to be distributed among the poor in the city) and offerings (that is, worship offerings). When he was arrested inside the Temple compound, he was doing nothing wrong. He was not haranguing a crowd or engaging others in controversy. He was there simply for private worship. Paul then made the telling argument that if he was truly at fault, why had the leaders failed to produce eyewitnesses of his wrongdoing? If any Jews saw him profaning the Temple, they should have come before Felix and presented their evidence. The only testimony that the Jewish leaders themselves could bring against him was that he affirmed before the Sanhedrin his belief in the resurrection of the dead. To hold such a belief was hardly a crime.
Having shown that the case against him had no basis, Paul concluded his defense. He had made it clear to Felix that to judge him guilty would be a travesty of justice, whether under Jewish law or Roman law.
Judgment Rendered
Acts 24:22-23
Felix was indeed a good man to hear the case, because he was well-informed about Christianity. Perhaps his acquaintance with the new religion derived in part from his wife Drusilla, who, as the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa26—the same Herod who beheaded James—had been raised in the midst of the Jewish nation.27 Thus, she was familiar with all the customs and affairs of the Jewish people. However it happened that Felix came to know the background of the charges against Paul, he perceived that some were false and some exaggerated, and so he sidestepped a verdict pleasing to the Jews. Contrary to their wishes, he neither found Paul guilty nor turned him over to the Jews for trial. Rather, he procrastinated. He said that he would consider the matter later, after Claudius Lysias came with a fuller account of recent events. In the meantime, he entrusted Paul to the custody of a centurion and commanded that he be kept under house arrest. His friends would be free to visit him and minister to his needs.
Reasoning Further with Felix
Acts 24:24-27
A while later, Felix and Drusilla summoned Paul to explain further his faith in Jesus Christ. Although only about twenty years old,28 Drusilla was in her second marriage. She joined Felix after he enticed her to leave her first husband, the king of Emesa,29 which was a small kingdom in Syria.30 Here we have a glimpse of how corrupt the Roman elite had become.
Delving Deeper
Felix's marital history
The Roman historian Suetonius reports that Felix married three women altogether, each one a queen.31 But although the historical evidence is very cloudy, we may speculate that Drusilla was the only wife of Felix at the time when they interviewed Paul. She may have been his second wife. His first, also named Drusilla according to Tacitus,32 was probably a much older woman who died some years before,33 or possibly a younger woman whom Felix divorced when he took his second wife.34 His third may have been someone he married years later, perhaps after the death of Drusilla.35
Whether Felix and Drusilla wanted to hear Paul out of genuine interest in his message or out of simple curiosity about this man who turned the world upside down, we do not know. An ancient commentator whose marginal note became incorporated in the Western text of Acts claimed, perhaps on the basis of strong tradition, that it was Drusilla who prompted Felix to give Paul a hearing.36 Since we know nothing of Drusilla's later history, we can hope that the gospel left her a changed woman. But as we will see, her husband appears to have been a hopeless case.
Empowered by the Spirit, Paul preached to them without mincing words. Even though his life was at the mercy of Felix, he boldly declared that God will hold men accountable for their lives and judge their sin. He defined sin as the opposite of righteousness and self-control—forms of virtue which these two hearers were notably lacking. The message at least succeeded in bringing some guilt to the conscience of Felix, for he trembled in fear, and although he sent Paul away, he promised to call him back. And he kept his promise, for in the coming months he brought Paul to speak with him often.
Yet Felix had mixed motives. Probably soon after Paul became his prisoner, he decided to pursue a course that seemed to their mutual advantage. He would treat Paul cordially. As a result, Paul might guess that by giving the governor a little encouragement, he could secure his release. The encouragement Felix wanted was a bribe. It is evident that Paul's attempt to quicken a desire for righteousness in Felix's heart made no deep or lasting impression. As time passed, it is likely that the man's sense of guilt subsided while his greed mounted. From Paul's own testimony he knew that the apostle had collected funds in other regions as charity for the poor in Jerusalem. He was hoping that Paul's supporters would raise more funds for Paul's release.
Getting Practical
Evil in bribery
A bribe is giving money to a judge to secure a favorable ruling. A common practice throughout history, Scripture condemns it, laying guilt both on the giver (Ps. 26:10; Prov. 17:23; Isa. 33:15) and the receiver (Exod. 23:8; Amos 5:12). If the church had purchased Paul's release, it would have rewarded Felix for corrupting his office and made him more inclined in the future to set a price on his rulings.
Paul's choice to stay in long bondage rather than escape through compromise of a moral principle was meant as an example for Christians under persecution ever since. Many have, and many will, come to the same crossroads, with the path of imprisonment avoidable only by taking the path of bribery. The right path is to follow Paul.
For a protracted time, Paul waited in Roman custody for Felix to dispose of his case. Although Paul was a Roman citizen, the governor was entitled to hold Paul as long as he pleased, given that Paul had not yet appealed to Caesar.37 Finally, Felix was removed from office and replaced by Porcius Festus. In relation to the time of Paul’s imprisonment, the transfer of power came "after two years" (v. 27); literally, "two years being completed."38 We infer from Luke’s wording that the interval was two whole years, not two years by inclusive reckoning. Therefore, since Paul entered confinement in Caesarea during the summer of 58, Festus did not assume office until the summer of 60. Some ambiguity in the historical evidence has left a bit uncertain the exact year when Festus succeeded Felix, but AD 60 is viewed by many scholars as most plausible.39
As Felix was departing from office, he might have released Paul, but instead he decided that to please Jewish leaders, he would leave Paul in bonds. He was probably seeking their favor because his recent handling of riots in Caesarea had left him in legal jeopardy. The city was a mixture of large Jewish and gentile communities, both striving for dominance. When the ill feeling between them erupted in violent clashes, Felix responded by sending in Roman troops that targeted the Jews, killing or imprisoning many while plundering their wealth. Then shortly afterward, Festus was sent to replace Felix. Whether reports of the unrest in Caesarea provoked Emperor Nero to make this transfer of power is a question left unresolved by Josephus's account of events. He does say, however, that following the appointment of Festus, a delegation of Caesarean Jews went to Rome and lodged complaints against Felix that won a sympathetic hearing. As a result, Felix narrowly escaped punishment.40
No doubt when he left office, Felix anticipated the indictment that would soon be brought against him. Since it would more likely prevail if it had the strong backing of Jewish leaders, the last thing he wanted to do was to antagonize them by setting Paul free.
Getting Practical
Inconspicuous forms of ministry
Why did God allow history's most successful evangelist to spend two whole years in confinement, leaving him unable to carry on his work? The voice of the great Puritan preacher John Bunyan was also held virtually silent while he sat about twelve years in jail. Yet during his removal from the public eye, he wrote Pilgrim's Progress, which has been a blessing to far more people than he could ever have reached through personal ministry.41
One possible reason for Paul's long imprisonment is that it gave his companion Luke an opportunity to do all the investigation needed as underpinning for his Gospel and for his accounts of the early church.42 In the preface to his Gospel, he recalls this preliminary work (Luke 1:1–3).
It is very possible that even though authorship of both Acts and Luke is correctly assigned to Luke, he wrote them under Paul's supervision. Paul was not only Luke's spiritual mentor; he was also a chief apostle. Therefore, Luke would naturally view Paul as a higher authority to consult for guidance and editorial feedback on his work. We can imagine that during the two years of Paul's incarceration, there was between the two men a continual passing back and forth of Luke's manuscripts. Laying the foundation of two key books of the New Testament may therefore have been one main purpose of Paul’s two years in jail.
Probably another purpose was to allow Paul himself to do some writing. We will, in the following discussion, argue that Caesarea is the likely setting of his epistle to the Philippians.
Also in our lives, when God sets us aside and we feel useless in the work of the Kingdom, we must assume that He is delegating to us a quiet work of great importance. If not writing, it may be prayer or encouraging our caregivers or attending to our own spiritual needs. Then, as at every other time in our lives, God chiefly wants us to learn more about Christ so that our character will become a better replica of His. Our growth in Christlikeness is always the primary reason for waking day after day in a world short of heaven.
Epistle to the Philippians
The setting of Paul's epistle to the Philippians has always stirred considerable debate. Since Paul speaks of himself in bonds (1:7, 13–14), the epistle is rightly classified with the so-called Prison Epistles. The prevailing view has always been that he wrote it after he went to Rome, yet a common alternative view, which in recent times seems to have been gaining momentum,43 is that the epistle’s place of origin was Caesarea. We will show that the evidence favoring Caesarea is quite persuasive.
Delving Deeper
Caesar’s household
One piece of evidence generally considered decisive in favor of Rome is that at the end of the letter, Paul relays greetings from saints in Caesar’s household (4:22). Yet the domestic servants in any governor’s residence within the empire were also considered members of his household, since the governor held property and exercised authority only as Caesar’s representative.44 Although J. B. Lightfoot, the nineteenth-century scholar who wrote perhaps the best-known commentary on Philippians, was convinced that Paul wrote Philippians in Rome, he conceded that "in Rome itself . . . , the ‘domus Augusta’ [that is, Caesar’s household] must have formed no inconsiderable fraction of the whole population; but it comprised likewise all persons in the emperor’s service, whether slaves or freeman, in Italy and even in the provinces."45
With Timothy at his side (1:1), Paul wrote Philippians in response to a great kindness that the Philippian church had shown him. Having heard of Paul's confinement by unjust rulers, they sent him one of their members, Epaphroditus, with a gift as token of their sympathy. Paul refers to the gift as "things" (4:18), but in the context of the preceding verses (vv. 10–17), there can be little doubt that what they sent him was money. While visiting Paul, Epaphroditus became desperately ill, almost to the point of death. Through unknown channels, news of his sickness reached the brethren at Philippi, touching off great distress. Then news of their grief somehow came to Paul, who sought to relieve their hearts by sending Epaphroditus, now fully recovered, back to his home church (2:25–30).
The epistle he sent by the hand of Epaphroditus contains four primary messages.
- Above all, he wants the Philippian church to sense his gratitude for all they have given him (1:3–8; 4:10).
- Since they originally sent Epaphroditus not only to provide material help, but also to encourage him at a time when he might have fallen into discouragement, Paul assures them that he is not discouraged. Despite the great trial of living in bonds, he has not lost his joy in the Lord. Rejoicing is perhaps the most prominent theme of the epistle. He repeatedly urges them to practice it (1:25–26; 2:18, 28; 3:1), recommends it for all believers (4:4), and claims it as his own state of mind (1:4, 18; 2:2, 16–17; 4:1, 10). To protect them from sinking into discouragement themselves as they behold his troubles, he reminds them that even the worst he has endured has been designed by God to accomplish good purposes (1:12).
- Perhaps through Epaphroditus, he has heard of friction within the Philippian church. Therefore, he exhorts them in strong language to set aside differences and live at peace. He deals with one particular conflict by naming the individuals responsible and commanding them to stop bickering (4:2–3). Yet in the same church, there must have been other divisive currents, because he repeatedly upholds unity, reinforced by a constructive mindset, as the norm for believers (1:27; 3:15–17; 4:5–9). It is in this epistle that we find his famous praise of humility after the example of Christ (2:1–16). He emphasizes humility because he conceives of it as the remedy for strife (2:3).
- Based on his own recent experience, he warns them of some dangerous enemies now looming outside the true church. These are evil workers disguised as pious disciples of Christ. In the first chapter, he does not identify them (1:15–16), but later he calls them the "concision" (3:2), referring to those circumcised (3:2–8, 18–19). He must be referring to Judaizers, the same faction of the early church who in years past had bred confusion in Antioch and the Galatian churches as well as in Jerusalem.46 It appears that they resurfaced in new strength when Paul, the man chiefly responsible for their loss of influence, was arrested in Jerusalem and carried off for trial. They took the opportunity to "preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds" (1:16). Perhaps Paul is warning the Philippians against these false teachers because they were aggressively renewing efforts to spread their doctrines to believers in the Greek world.
Delving Deeper
The case for setting Philippians in Caesarea
We can cite a fairly long list of reasons.
- We pointed out earlier that either in Rome or Caesarea, Paul might have relayed greetings from Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22). But in Rome any contact with these imperial servants would have been very limited. It is doubtful that they regularly attended him while he was under house arrest. If he eventually moved to a more secure prison, he probably saw hardly anyone except military guards. In Caesarea, however, he abode in the governor’s residence, where all domestic servants were considered members of Caesar’s household. They would have been constantly moving about him and serving his needs.
- Early in Philippians, he says, "But I wish you to know, brethren, that the things concerning me rather have turned out to the advancement of the glad tidings, so as my bonds to have become manifest in Christ to the whole praetorium and to all the rest" (Phil. 1:1347). The place where Paul was confined in Caesarea was known as the praetorium (Acts 23:35), translated "judgment hall" in the KJV, a reference to the governor's residence.48 Scholars cannot point to any evidence that a building or site called the praetorium existed in Rome.49 Lightfoot, to uphold his belief that Rome was indeed the setting of Philippians, argues that the term was also used for the Praetorian Guard, the elite force of soldiers who provided security for the emperor and enforced his rule in the imperial capital.50 Many scholars have rallied in support of Lightfoot's hypothesis.51 Yet it does not harmonize with certain facts. One is that elsewhere in the New Testament, praetorium is always the name of a building which houses Roman authority (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9; especially Acts 23:3552).53 Another is the interpretation it requires of Paul's words in Philippians 1:13. For him to say that his bondage in Rome was well-known throughout the city's whole military establishment sounds like an exaggeration at best. For him to add "and to all the rest"— presumably, all the rest of the city—would have made him a liar. Yet the same words are perfectly credible in the context of Caesarea.
- The warning in Philippians against false teachers who pose as believers is likely, as we said, pointing to Judaizers. The region where they were most numerous was surely Judea, which had always been their stronghold (Acts 15:1). Surely it was there, in the vicinity of Caesarea, that the activity of Judaizers would have been noticeable and troublesome. We have no evidence that they were a significant presence in Rome or that they ever reached that city.
- Philippians implies a previous imprisonment long enough to allow four trips: someone bearing news of Paul’s plight to the Philippian church, the coming of Epaphroditus to Paul, someone going to the same church with news of their representative’s grave illness, and someone returning to Paul with news of their reaction. The full story would have included some preceding and intervening events as well. The whole time from start to finish must therefore have been fairly long. Thus, if Philippians originated in Rome, it must have been written nearer the end rather than nearer the beginning of Paul's two-year house arrest. We will later present our case that one epistle certainly written at about this time was Second Timothy. But Paul's outlook in the two epistles is altogether different. In Philippians he is hopeful of release soon (Phil. 1:23–26; 2:24), but in Second Timothy he sees death as imminent (2 Tim. 4:6–8). To set Philippians in Caesarea is therefore more appropriate. Near the end of his two-year imprisonment in that city, Paul may have had good reason to think that the emperor would soon appoint someone to replace Felix.
- In Caesarea he had many local supporters. The church there was strong, and many other thriving bodies of believers were not far away (Acts 8:40; 9:32–43; 10; 21:8–15). Although Roman believers warmly welcomed Paul when he arrived in their city (Acts 28:15), he later complained that local support was weak (2 Tim. 4:16). Therefore, since in Philippians he can praise brethren nearby for supporting him boldly (Phil. 1:14), and at the close of the epistle he can relay greetings from a whole body of saints (Phil. 4:22), the more probable setting is Caesarea.54
- Lightfoot has argued at length that Philippians is most similar in style to Romans.55 Many of the same phrases and sentiments occur in both. Except perhaps for Titus, Philippians was the next epistle after Romans if Paul wrote it in Caesarea, not Rome.
- As we will show, the evidence strongly suggests that Timothy did not accompany Paul to Rome, yet he was with the apostle when Paul wrote Philippians (Phil. 2:19).
Delving Still Deeper
Paul's hope of release
To the Philippian church Paul says, "I trust in the Lord that I also myself will come shortly" (Phil. 2:24). Could a divinely inspired author speak these words if events lying ahead would never allow his return to Philippi? We might ask the same question about Paul’s words in an epistle written during his Roman imprisonment. "But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you" (Phlm. 22). Later we will argue at length that after voicing this confidence, Paul never regained his freedom.
The answer to our question is that, yes, these could be the words of a divinely inspired author. The word "trust " in both quotations undoubtedly means that Paul is praying with strong faith that God will grant his desire. Since his desire will in fact never be fulfilled, is he speaking in error about the future? Of course not. Implicit in what he says is acknowledgement that God might dictate a better outcome. The faith energizing a believer's prayers might lift him to great hope that God’s answer will be, yes, but still he does not presume to declare what God will certainly do. If he has a mature outlook, he will understand that the answer proceeding from divine wisdom may be, no.
The proof of our interpretation is that in Philippians, Paul says explicitly that God might overrule his own desires. He says that he may or may not be able to revisit Philippi (Phil. 1:27) and that the final disposition of his case is uncertain (Phil. 2:23).
But Paul also says, "And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again" (Phil. 1:25–26). Could a divinely inspired author speak these words if the knowledge he claimed proved to be false? No, he could not, because calling it knowledge cannot be distinguished from calling it truth. Thus, if it proved to be false, the speaker is not inerrant.
Yet what exactly does Paul know? He knows only that he will not die soon. He will remain alive so that his ministry will continue to bless "you all," presumably the whole body of believers. The text we have quoted was a correct statement in Caesarea, for his confinement there would not end with his execution. He still had several years of life remaining.
In our English translation he adds that one reason God will spare him will be to allow another visit to Philippi. But here our English translation of Paul's words is misleading. "My coming to you again" suggests travel, whereas the actual meaning is, "my presence with you again."56 He is looking forward to survival, not travel. Proof of his meaning lies in his preceding words, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:21–24).
In Caesarea, Paul was in constant danger of falling prey to assassins. The Jewish leaders had conspired against his life (Acts 25:2–3). The fanatical zealots who vowed to kill him (Acts 23:12–15) were still at large. Who knows what plot they might have devised to penetrate the praetorium and stab him to death? Yet God assured his heart of coming deliverance. He would at the proper time escape from Judea, land of his enemies. That would be, in a dramatic sense, a renewal of his presence in the church.
Delving Deeper
The truth about Felix
He was originally a slave, probably in the service of Antonia, who was the mother of Emperor Claudius.1 After she granted him freedom, he rose quickly in Roman society and, after Claudius assumed power, won such favor that Claudius elevated him to high command in the army and then, in AD 52, to the governorship of Judea.2 But from the beginning of his time in office, he was ruthless in dealing with any who opposed him.
In Josephus's survey of Felix's career, we learn that during his early years as governor he vigorously sought to purge out the troublemakers infesting the nation. On every side, dangerous men were attracting followers eager to use violence to gain a better life. His methods were, however, harsh and heavy-handed, undermining public respect for his leadership. The Jewish high priest Jonathan admonished him to pursue a course that would stop the mushrooming discontent. But instead, Felix grew so annoyed with the voice of wisdom that he had Jonathan assassinated by hired men who entered the Temple in disguise as worshipers.3
Throughout the remainder of his tenure, the nation continually seethed with bloody unrest. It was stricken by a plague of murder for hire. Then came an uprising of Zealots seeking liberation from Rome. Felix slaughtered many, but succeeded only in fanning Jewish hatred of Roman rule.4
It is interesting to read how the ancient historian Tacitus summarized his evaluation of Felix. Felix "thought that he could do any evil act with impunity"5 and "practised every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave."6