Acts 24:20Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The defense is especially strong in this, that he does not flee from his accusers, but is ready to answer all. He does not reject the accusers, not only the Asian ones, but also those of Jerusalem.

He summons these also, adding, “Or let these very men say.” From the beginning they rose up against him because he preached the resurrection. Therefore he rightly points to this.

Having proved this, he could easily proceed to the teaching concerning Christ, namely that He rose.

“What wrong,” he says, “did they find in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin?” He says, “before the Sanhedrin,” expressing that they found nothing in him when questioning him, not privately, but in a great assembly and with careful inquiry.

Do you see his meekness amid dangers? Do you see his gracious tongue? By his defense he seeks only to protect himself, and not to accuse them, unless compelled by necessity.

“Let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found in me.” They found wrongdoing in the assembly, when an inquiry was made. That I speak the truth is witnessed by those who accuse me themselves. Not to avoid one’s accusers, but to be ready to give an answer to everyone, is a sign of undoubted uprightness. At first they were offended because I preached the resurrection. After such preaching, one could readily add what concerns Christ, namely, that He rose.

The defensive speech of the Apostle Paul had a stronger effect on the procurator. Felix dismissed the accusers, promising to reconsider the case when the tribune Lysias came. Until then he granted the prisoner Paul even greater freedom than he had enjoyed before. He ordered the centurion assigned to him not to restrain him, and not to forbid any of his own people to serve him or come to him (vv. 10-23).

But if they could not be brought as witnesses, he demanded that the accusers themselves state the result of their trial of him before the Sanhedrin. Let them prove whether they had even one piece of evidence against him, apart from the cry he uttered when his case was being examined in the Sanhedrin, that he was being judged concerning the resurrection of the dead.

In conclusion, before the procurator, the apostle demands that his accusers indicate what wrongdoing, or more precisely what punishable offense, they found in him at least when he stood on trial before the Sanhedrin. They could not prove any of the charges brought against him. Perhaps they will find some accusation in his conduct at the trial before the Sanhedrin? Let them point it out.

The Apostle Paul’s reference to the members of the Sanhedrin, as those able to testify that his guilt could not be established at the former trial, is made as a concession. More direct accusers cannot now be summoned.

Yet the members of the Sanhedrin themselves could say something, if they had truly found any charge against Paul.

The apostle even seems to help them find such a charge, namely that he proclaimed his faith in the resurrection too loudly. By this he substantially divided the members of the Sanhedrin and made them incapable of further united action against him.