Acts 24 20

Acts 24:20 kjv

Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,

Acts 24:20 nkjv

Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council,

Acts 24:20 niv

Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin?

Acts 24:20 esv

Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council,

Acts 24:20 nlt

Ask these men here what crime the Jewish high council found me guilty of,

Acts 24 verses

Acts 24 20 Meaning

Acts 24:20 conveys Paul's direct challenge to his Jewish accusers during his trial before Governor Felix. He demands that if they accuse him of any specific wrongdoing, they must explicitly state what fault they found when he stood before the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin) in Jerusalem. Paul's statement implies that they were unable to prove any fault against him even then, highlighting the baseless nature of their current charges.

Acts 24 20 Context

Acts chapter 24 details Paul's trial before Governor Felix in Caesarea, a Roman provincial capital. Paul had been sent there from Jerusalem after his life was threatened by a plot, and a hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) ended in chaos and division, not a conviction. The High Priest Ananias and elders, along with the orator Tertullus, present their accusations against Paul, painting him as a "pestilent fellow," a "troublemaker" inciting insurrections, a leader of the sect of the Nazarenes, and someone who attempted to profane the temple (Acts 24:5-6). Paul is then given the opportunity to present his defense (Acts 24:10-21). Verse 20 is a pivotal moment in his defense, as he cleverly challenges his accusers to provide concrete evidence from their previous encounter before the Jewish Council, shifting the burden of proof back onto them.

Acts 24 20 Word analysis

• Or else (hē, Greek: ἢ): This particle introduces an alternative or an opposing proposition. It functions as a challenge or an ultimatum, forcing his accusers to either accept his previous argument of innocence or to provide new, substantiated claims.
• let these men themselves (autoi houtoi legatōsan, Greek: αὐτοὶ οὗτοι λεγάτωσαν): This phrase carries significant emphasis on "these very men" - Paul's accusers present in the court. Paul explicitly places the responsibility on them to speak, highlighting that they, as the ones making the accusations, must present tangible proof. The imperative verb form "let them say" makes it a direct demand.
• say (legatōsan, Greek: λεγάτωσαν): An aorist imperative verb, commanding them to speak definitively and plainly. Paul is not asking for vague charges but specific, clear statements.
• what fault (ti adikēma, Greek: τι ἀδίκημα): Adikēma signifies an unrighteous act, a wrong, an offense, or a legal misdemeanor. Paul is asking for a specific wrongdoing that is legally demonstrable, not just general animosity or differing opinions. It's a demand for a provable legal violation, not a matter of theological dispute.
• they found (heuronto, Greek: ηὕροντο): This is a middle voice verb, suggesting they "discovered for themselves" or "personally found." Paul implies that if they, through their own investigation, truly found such an offense during the prior Sanhedrin hearing, they should be able to state it now. It challenges the depth and validity of their purported findings.
• when I stood before the Council (stantos mou epi tou sunedriou, Greek: στάντος μου ἐπὶ τοῦ συνεδρίου): This directly refers to his prior appearance before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 22-23). Paul strategically limits the scope of their accusation to that specific legal context, where his innocence was effectively affirmed by the Sanhedrin's division, rather than a united condemnation. He knows no "fault" was successfully proven there. Sunedrion refers to the supreme judicial body of the Jews.

Words-group by words-group analysis:

• "Or else let these men themselves say": This group highlights Paul's confidence and strategic rhetorical approach. He turns the tables on his accusers, challenging them directly and personally to provide proof rather than general slanders. It’s an effective legal tactic demanding specificity.
• "what fault they found": This phrase precisely defines the nature of the required information—not a theological disagreement or a personal slight, but a specific legal or moral transgression that they were able to discover and substantiate. This challenges the substance of their entire case.
• "when I stood before the Council": This crucial qualifying clause narrows the timeline and context. Paul forces them to recall a specific prior occasion where they had the opportunity to present and prove their case. The implicit argument is that if they found nothing definitive then, they certainly have no new proof now.

Acts 24 20 Bonus section

• Paul's defense consistently exploited the legal environment provided by Roman law, which unlike some Jewish traditions, required clear evidence and witnesses for a conviction.
• The Sanhedrin hearing in Acts 23 revealed internal divisions among the Jewish leadership (Pharisees and Sadducees), particularly over the resurrection of the dead. Paul cleverly leveraged this division in his previous defense, which contributed to his not being condemned.
• This verse reinforces the recurring biblical theme of God's servants being unjustly accused or brought before authorities (e.g., Joseph, Daniel, Jeremiah, Jesus Himself), yet often being declared innocent by those very authorities. These trials, though challenging, served to further the divine purpose of the gospel's spread (cf. Phil 1:12-14).
• Paul's request is not simply for general charges but for an adikēma—a punishable offense or misdeed. This differentiates mere dislike or theological disagreement from a breach of law worthy of a formal accusation.

Acts 24 20 Commentary

Acts 24:20 showcases Paul's forensic acumen and moral integrity. Rather than just denying the vague charges, Paul directly challenges his accusers to present concrete evidence from the previous trial. This tactic not only exposes the weakness of their case, which relies on general accusations rather than specific crimes, but also implicitly reminds the Roman governor Felix that no conviction occurred during the Sanhedrin hearing. Paul understood the legal principle that vague charges without evidence are invalid. His demand for specific "fault" (adikēma) underlines that his accusers must prove a legally punishable offense, not merely a theological difference or social unrest. This also subtly references the Sanhedrin's failure to unite against him (Acts 23:9), even resulting in Pharisees acknowledging his innocence concerning charges of heresy related to the resurrection. Paul’s trials consistently served as platforms for witnessing to his faith, even while defending his innocence against baseless claims.

• Example for practical usage: When confronted with baseless gossip or vague accusations, one might politely but firmly ask, "Can you specify the exact fault you found or the specific action I took that you believe was wrong, and when did this occur?" This echoes Paul's demand for clear, demonstrable evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims.