(Recapitulation.) “Then the soldiers,” etc. (a) This also made Paul famous in Cæsarea, his coming with so large a force.— “But,” says Tertullus, “that I be not further tedious,” (e) showing that (Felix) does find him tedious (ἐ γκόπτεται): “I beseech you,” he does not say, Hear the matter, but, “hear us of your clemency.” Probably it is to pay court, that he thus lays out his speech. (g) “For having found this man, a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world”: how then, it might be said, if he did this elsewhere (and not here)?
No, says he; among us also he has profaned the Temple; “attempted,” says he, “to profane it:” but the how, he leaves untold. “Whom also we took.” etc. “But the tribune,” etc. And while he thus exaggerates what relates to the tribune, see how he extenuates the part of the accusers themselves. “We took him,” he says, “and would have judged him according to our Law.” He shows that it is a hardship to them that they have to come to foreign tribunals, and that they would not have troubled him had not the tribune compelled them, and that he, having no concern in the matter, had seized the man by force: for in fact the wrongs done were against us, and with us the tribunal ought to have been.
For that this is the meaning, see what follows: “with great violence”, he says. For this conduct is violence. “From whom you may know.” He neither dares to accuse him (the tribune)— for the man was indulgent (forsooth)— nor does he wholly pass it by. Then again, lest he should seem to be lying, he adduces Paul himself as his own accuser. “From whom, by examining him, you may take knowledge of all these things.” Next, as witnesses also of the things spoken, the accusers, the same persons themselves both witnesses and accusers: “And the Jews also assented,” etc. But Paul, “Forasmuch as I know that you have been of many years a just judge.” Why then, he is no stranger or alien or revolutionary person, seeing he had known the judge for many years.
And he does well to add the epithet “just,” that he (Felix) might not look to the chief priest, nor to the people, nor the accuser. See, how he did not let himself be carried away into abuse, although there was strong provocation. “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. And for the cause of his going up, “I came,” he says, “to bring alms to my nation and offerings.” How then should I have troubled those, for the bringing offerings to whom I had come so long a journey? “Neither with multitude, nor with tumult.” Everywhere he does away the charge of sedition.
And he also does well to challenge his accusers who were from Asia, “Who ought to accuse before you,” etc., but he does well also not to reject this either; “or else,” says he, “let these same here say. Touching the resurrection of the dead,” etc. (<!--<span class="stiki"></span>-->v. 19, 20, 21): for in fact it was on this account they were sore troubled from the first, because he preached the Resurrection. This being proved, the things relating to Christ also were easily introduced, that He was risen.
“What evil doing,” he says, “they found in me. In the council” he says: the examination not having taken place in private. That these things which I say are true, those witness who bring this charge against me. “Having,” he says, “a conscience void of offense both toward God, and toward men.” This is the perfection of virtue, when even to men we give no handle against us, and are careful to be void of offense with God. “That I cried,” he says, “in the council.” He also shows their violence. They have it not to say, Thou did these things under the pretext of alms: for (it was) “not with multitude, nor with tumult:” especially as upon enquiry made concerning this thing, nothing further was found.
Do you observe his moderation, though there were dangers? Do you observe how he keeps his tongue from evil-speaking, how he seeks only one thing, to free himself from the charges against himself, not that he may criminate them, except so far as he might be obliged to do so while defending himself? Just as Christ also said: “I have not a devil, but I honor My Father: but you do dishonor Me.”
Source: Homilies on Acts (New Advent)