Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
This is Paul's defense at his trial before Felix at Caesarea, where his accusers had come down from Jerusalem with Tertullus to press their charges against him. After many years he had returned to Jerusalem to bring alms to his nation and to present offerings, and certain Jews from Asia had found him purified in the temple, neither with multitude nor with tumult.
The ones who ought to have been present before Felix were those Jews from Asia, the very men from Asia who had found him in the temple. The demand of the verse is that his true accusers should have appeared in person before Felix and objected face to face if they had anything against him, to make their accusation and support their charges. Their absence left those accusers who were present without direct witnesses to the events they alleged, with nothing to do but explain what wrongdoing they themselves had found in him.
Their absence proves the charges cannot be sustained, for his accusers did not prove his guilt. With the Asian witnesses absent, those present had no charge to bring beyond his statement concerning the resurrection of the dead. Jewish tribunals condemned him without proof, while Roman officials recognized his innocence. The same right to meet accusers face to face remained the rule at Caesarea under Festus, who refused to send Paul to Jerusalem to please the high priest and leading men but required them to bring their charges openly against him there, for their plausible request for trial by the Sanhedrim was cover for a murder plot on the way, driven by malignant hatred unsoftened by his long imprisonment.
This is Paul's defense at his trial before Felix at Caesarea, where his accusers had come down from Jerusalem with Tertullus to press their charges against him. After many years he had returned to Jerusalem to bring alms to his nation and to present offerings, and certain Jews from Asia had found him purified in the temple, neither with multitude nor with tumult.
The ones who ought to have been present before Felix were those Jews from Asia, the very men from Asia who had found him in the temple. The demand of the verse is that his true accusers should have appeared in person before Felix and objected face to face if they had anything against him, to make their accusation and support their charges. Their absence left those accusers who were present without direct witnesses to the events they alleged, with nothing to do but explain what wrongdoing they themselves had found in him.
Their absence proves the charges cannot be sustained, for his accusers did not prove his guilt. With the Asian witnesses absent, those present had no charge to bring beyond his statement concerning the resurrection of the dead. Jewish tribunals condemned him without proof, while Roman officials recognized his innocence. The same right to meet accusers face to face remained the rule at Caesarea under Festus, who refused to send Paul to Jerusalem to please the high priest and leading men but required them to bring their charges openly against him there, for their plausible request for trial by the Sanhedrim was cover for a murder plot on the way, driven by malignant hatred unsoftened by his long imprisonment.