Acts 24:1-8 1And after five days, the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a lawyer, a certain Tertullus, who laid charges before the governor against Paul. 2And after he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: “Since through you we experienced much peace, and since much improvement has been made for this nation through your foresight, 3in every way and everywhere we acknowledge this with all gratitude, most excellent Felix. 4But in order to detain you no further, I beg you to graciously hear us briefly. 5For we have found this man a plague, a causer of insurrection among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, 6who even tried to desecrate the temple, whom we arrested, 8for whom you yourself are able by examining to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him.” 9And the Jews also joined in the charge, claiming that all these things were so.
It took a few days for the Jewish leaders to arrive in Caesarea. Roman soldiers could make the sixty-mile journey quickly in a night and a day, but older men took five days. Significantly, the high priest, Ananias himself, went to present the case against Paul. The Sanhedrin considered the situation dire enough to send their primary leader and a delegation of elders to present their case against Paul. They may have hoped that by getting rid of Paul, they could stop the sect of the Nazarenes. Having the highest leader among their people present for the trial showed the importance they felt about this matter. Paul obviously had made a significant but negative impression on them. They knew how dangerous he was to their traditions. Their animosity and fervor in this matter demonstrated the significant influence they attributed to Paul throughout the entire worl (verse 5). They brought a lawyer named Tertullus with them, who could present their argument against Paul. Tertullus is called a rhētor, someone who could use rhetoric to present a case against someone. His speech in verses 2-8 shows understanding of rhetorical style and familiarity with Roman law.
Tertullus’ accusation began in verses 2-4 with flattery for Felix, technically called capitatio benevolentiae. The goal was to predispose the governor to the Jews and their claim. Antonius Felix was the procurator of Judea from AD 52-60, when he was summoned by Nero for being accused of being oppressive and tyrannical. It is possible that he poor rule was part of the instigation for the Jewish revolt that led to the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70. The Jews needed to keep on good terms with Felix, so starting off their defense in this way was strategic for them.
Tertullus’ accusations against Paul all bent the truth and were lies. The first accusation was that Paul was a social danger, like a plague or disease (loimon). He was a public nuisance and spread his wrong message everywhere. The truth of the matter is that the good news of Jesus is like leaven that spreads throughout a community, offering hope and eternal life. Second, the evidence of his danger was how he stirred up riots everywhere he went. The truth behind this is that Paul’s preaching led to riots, but the riots were not caused by him but by his enemies, especially the Jewish legalists. Third, he was accused of being ringleader or someone who stood out as first (prōtostatēn) or leader of others. This statement was true in that Paul was a key figure among early Christian leaders because of his zeal for the Lord Jesus. Fourth, he was accused of desecrating the temple. This point was an incorrect interpretation of the events in Jerusalem. Paul did not bring Gentiles into the temple. Rather, he went there in sincerity and worship as a faithful Jew.
A seventh verse is included in some manuscripts in the Western tradition, passed on to the Textus Receptus and included in the King James Version. It is lacking in what is considered the more reliable manuscripts. It appears that an explanation was added to some point to describe how the Jews came to be in the current situation by the actions of Lysias, the tribunal. The verse is not necessary and does not fit well with the flow of the accusations against Paul. Tertullus make his case simply and to the point, but it was all full of lies and misinterpretations, setting up for Paul to give his side of the situation. It was an opportunity for him to speak the truth, which he would do next with power and conviction.