Acts 24:19 kjv
Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
Acts 24:19 nkjv
They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me.
Acts 24:19 niv
But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me.
Acts 24:19 esv
they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me.
Acts 24:19 nlt
But some Jews from the province of Asia were there ? and they ought to be here to bring charges if they have anything against me!
Acts 24 19 Cross References
| Verse | Text | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Deut 19:15 | "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime..." | Requirement of multiple witnesses for testimony. |
| Num 35:30 | "If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of two witnesses..." | Capital cases demand multiple witnesses. |
| Matt 26:59 | "Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus..." | False accusations require witnesses, even if false. |
| Acts 21:27 | "When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple..." | Identifies the primary accusers from Asia. |
| Acts 23:6 | "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial." | Paul's real 'crime' is his belief, not desecration. |
| Acts 25:7 | "When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him, but they could not prove them." | Accusers failed to provide proof. |
| Prov 18:17 | "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." | Emphasizes need for thorough examination and both sides. |
| John 8:17 | "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true." | Law's standard for valid testimony. |
| 1 Tim 5:19 | "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." | New Testament church standard for charges. |
| Ps 35:11 | "Malicious witnesses rise up; they ask me of things that I do not know." | Lament against false witnesses. |
| Exod 23:1 | "You shall not spread a false report." | Prohibition against spreading untruths. |
| Zech 3:1 | "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him." | Satan as accuser (katēgoros). |
| Job 1:9-11 | "Then Satan answered the LORD and said, 'Does Job fear God for no reason?...'" | Satan accusing Job, implying the need for evidence. |
| Isa 59:4 | "No one enters suit justly; no one pleads with honesty..." | Israel's spiritual injustice reflected in legal context. |
| Micah 6:8 | "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice..." | God's call for justice in all dealings. |
| 2 Cor 13:1 | "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." | Pauline injunction re-affirming witness requirement. |
| Rev 12:10 | "For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God." | Satan as the ultimate accuser (katēgoros). |
| Acts 22:30 | "So the next day, desiring to know the real reason why he was being accused by the Jews..." | Romans seeking to understand the actual charges against Paul. |
| Acts 24:20 | "Or else let these men themselves state what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the Council..." | Paul challenging present accusers for specifics. |
| Phil 1:7 | "...it is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel." | Paul's commitment to defending the truth. |
| Rom 12:17 | "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all." | Call for upright and just behavior. |
| Eph 6:19 | "...and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel." | Paul praying for boldness in proclamation, even during trials. |
Acts 24 verses
Acts 24 19 Meaning
In Acts 24:19, Paul, during his defense before Governor Felix, highlights a critical procedural flaw in the accusations against him. He points out the absence of the very individuals, "Jews from Asia," who initiated the disturbance in the temple (Acts 21:27). Paul asserts that these particular accusers, having witnessed the alleged offenses firsthand, were duty-bound to be present in court to present their evidence and make their charges directly before the governor. Their non-appearance underscores the baseless nature of the general accusations brought forth by others and indicates a lack of credible witnesses, challenging the legal standing of the entire case against him.
Acts 24 19 Context
Acts chapter 24 details Paul's trial before Governor Felix in Caesarea, initiated after his transfer from Jerusalem due to a Jewish plot against his life. The setting is a formal Roman court where Paul faces accusations from a Jewish delegation led by the high priest Ananias, employing the skilled orator Tertullus. Tertullus brings three main charges: Paul is a "pestilent fellow" and a "disturber of the peace," a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," and had attempted to desecrate the temple. Paul then delivers his defense (Acts 24:10-21). In verse 19, Paul meticulously dismantles the credibility of the accusations by pointing out that the critical witnesses, the "Jews from Asia" who were central to the temple disturbance and could presumably offer direct evidence, are notably absent. This highlights a fundamental breach of legal procedure, rendering the accusations unsupported and without proper legal standing according to both Roman and Jewish law. The historical context shows Paul strategically using the Roman legal system to assert his innocence and expose the religious motivations behind his persecution.
Acts 24 19 Word analysis
- who (οἵτινες - hoitines): A relative pronoun referring back to "certain Jews from Asia" mentioned in the preceding verse (Acts 24:18). It serves to specifically identify the absent accusers, emphasizing their direct involvement in the initial temple disturbance and thus their critical role as witnesses.
- ought (ἔδει - edei): An impersonal verb, often translated as "it was necessary" or "it was proper/fitting." It conveys a strong sense of legal and moral obligation or duty. Paul implies that their presence was not merely optional but an imperative for the charges to hold weight in a court of law.
- to have been here (παρεῖναι - pareinai): An infinitive meaning "to be present," "to appear," or "to be at hand." It signifies physical presence in court to give testimony or lodge a complaint.
- before you (ἐπὶ σοῦ - epi sou): Literally "upon you" or "at your place," meaning in your presence, addressing Felix directly as the presiding judge. This phrase emphasizes the proper forum for legal proceedings.
- and object (κατηγορεῖν - katēgorein): An infinitive meaning "to accuse," "to charge," or "to bring an accusation against." This is a key legal term used to describe the act of formal accusation. Paul demands that they perform the full legal process if they genuinely have a case.
- if they had (εἴ τι ἔχοιεν - ei ti echoien): This is a conditional clause, specifically a "future less vivid" or "remote future" condition. "Εἰ" (ei) means "if," "τι" (ti) means "anything," and "ἔχοιεν" (echoien) is from ἔχω (echō) meaning "to have" or "to hold." The nuanced grammar implies a hypothetical situation that Paul believes is contrary to fact—they wouldn't be absent if they truly "had anything" substantial or true to bring against him. It casts doubt on the existence of any legitimate charges.
Word-group analysis:
- "who ought to have been here before you": This phrase highlights Paul's argument that proper legal procedure dictates the direct involvement of accusers and witnesses in court. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the prosecution's case: the primary accusers are missing, preventing cross-examination and proper legal scrutiny. This absence weakens the legitimacy of any charges brought indirectly by others.
- "and object, if they had anything against me": This section of the verse juxtaposes the expected action (accusing) with the implicit lack of basis for it ("if they had anything"). Paul challenges the accusers to actually prove their claims, emphasizing that their failure to appear and testify indicates they possess no real, provable evidence. It is a legal challenge for substantive, direct evidence rather than vague allegations.
Acts 24 19 Bonus section
The legal challenge presented by Paul in Acts 24:19 resonates with biblical principles of justice that emphasize the need for credible witnesses and fair legal process. The Roman legal system, with its emphasis on accusations, witnesses, and defense, paradoxically provides Paul an avenue to proclaim his faithfulness to Jewish law and his belief in Christ's resurrection, exposing the religious nature of the conflict rather than purely criminal offenses. Paul's calm and logical defense, even while imprisoned, illustrates his reliance on divine wisdom (Luke 21:14-15) and his consistent stance that his teachings are fully consistent with the hope of Israel, not a departure from it.
Acts 24 19 Commentary
Acts 24:19 serves as a potent legal counterpoint in Paul's defense. He deftly uses the rules of Roman legal procedure against his accusers. The absence of the "Jews from Asia," who initiated the temple riot and would have been the most direct witnesses to the alleged desecration, is a significant procedural weakness. Paul's statement is not merely an observation but a pointed legal challenge. He implies that their failure to appear indicates either their inability to present convincing evidence or a tacit admission that their initial charges were groundless. This absence undermines the entire basis of Tertullus's accusations, transforming the "testimony" into hearsay and unfounded claims. Paul asserts his innocence by exposing the accusers' failure to follow due process, thereby placing the burden of proof squarely on those who brought the charges, which they could not meet. It reveals the persecution as driven by religious animosity rather than provable criminal acts.