Acts 24 21

Acts 24:21 kjv

Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

Acts 24:21 nkjv

unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.' "

Acts 24:21 niv

unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: 'It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.'?"

Acts 24:21 esv

other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.'"

Acts 24:21 nlt

except for the one time I shouted out, 'I am on trial before you today because I believe in the resurrection of the dead!'"

Acts 24 verses

Acts 24 21 Meaning

In Acts 24:21, Paul is concluding his defense before Felix, the Roman governor. He challenges his Jewish accusers to specify any wrongdoing they observed when he appeared before the Sanhedrin, other than his declaration about the resurrection of the dead. This verse encapsulates Paul's strategy to reframe the charges against him, highlighting that his true "offense" was a theological dispute within Judaism, specifically his belief in the resurrection—a core doctrine for Christians but divisive among Jewish sects. He implicitly asserts his innocence of any civil crime under Roman law, arguing his imprisonment stems from religious beliefs.

Acts 24 21 Context

Paul's trial before Felix in Acts 24 is part of a longer narrative of his arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent appeals. Accused by Jewish leaders, particularly through their spokesman Tertullus (Acts 24:1-9), Paul faces charges of being a "pestilent fellow," a "troubler of the peace," a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," and attempting to desecrate the temple. In his defense (Acts 24:10-21), Paul systematically refutes each charge of civic unrest or temple defilement, maintaining that he committed no offense against Roman law or the Jewish temple.

Acts 24:21 serves as the climax of his argument, shifting the focus from potential Roman crimes to an internal Jewish theological debate. This strategy harks back to his prior appearance before the Jewish Sanhedrin in Acts 23:6-10. There, facing overwhelming opposition, Paul famously declared, "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." This declaration exploited the deep division between the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection) and the Pharisees (who affirmed it), causing such a dissension that the Roman commander had to extract Paul to prevent violence. In Acts 24:21, Paul implicitly challenges his accusers—many of whom were Sadducees—to admit that the true source of their animosity was his unwavering belief in the resurrection, particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. By emphasizing this, Paul highlights that his persecution is religious, not criminal, and stems from core theological disagreements among Jews rather than any real threat to Roman order.

Acts 24 21 Word analysis

• Or else: This phrase, e poi (ἤτοι) in Greek, functions as an alternative challenge, signaling that if they cannot prove the charges laid out by Tertullus, then Paul's singular stated point is the actual issue. It means "if not," or "otherwise."
• let these men themselves say: A direct challenge, putting the onus back on his accusers (the Jewish leaders who presented Tertullus as their advocate). Paul demands personal testimony, implying their lack of firsthand evidence.
• what fault: poion adikema (ποῖον ἀδίκημα). The Greek word adikema refers to a legal wrong, a crime, an injustice, or an offense. Paul is demanding they specify any criminal charge that stands independently of his theological confession.
• they found: This implies a thorough investigation or clear observation of misbehavior. Paul challenges them to provide concrete findings.
• when I stood before the Council: Refers specifically to Paul's appearance before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-10), the supreme Jewish religious and legal body. This emphasizes the religious, rather than Roman, nature of the primary conflict.
• except for this one statement: ei me peri mias phtonhs (εἰ μὴ περὶ μιᾶς φωνῆς). This marks the precise qualification. Paul acknowledges a specific verbal act. The Greek phone (φωνῆς) can mean "sound," "voice," "utterance," or "statement." Here, it points to a specific declaration.
• which I cried out: ekekratca (ἐκκέκραξα), an intensive form of "to cry out," implying a loud, public, and deliberate declaration. This underscores the intentional and confrontational nature of Paul's original statement.
• while standing among them: Reaffirming the context of his direct confrontation with the Sanhedrin. It highlights the open nature of his proclamation and the lack of secret conspiracy.
• 'It is about the resurrection of the dead: Peri anastaseos nekrvn (περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν). This is the absolute crux of the verse.
  • resurrection: Anastasios (ἀνάστασις) in Greek, literally "a standing up again" or "raising up." In theological terms, it means rising from the grave. For Paul, it points supremely to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the future bodily resurrection of all humanity.
  • of the dead: nekron (νεκρῶν), the genitive plural of nekros, "dead ones." This confirms it refers to physical death and a bodily raising. This doctrine was strongly affirmed by Pharisees but vehemently denied by Sadducees. Paul knew this theological divide was his leverage.
• that I am on trial before you today': krinsomai en humin symeron (κρίνομαι ἐν ὑμῖν σήμερον). Paul states this is the actual basis of his current predicament. "On trial" (krinomai) means "to be judged" or "to be accused." He emphasizes that the real charge, at its root, is a matter of his eschatological and Christological belief.

Word Groups Analysis:

• "Or else let these men themselves say what fault they found when I stood before the Council": This is Paul's direct challenge. He shifts the burden of proof back to his accusers. He implies that their official accusations before Felix are fabricated, and their only real "charge" comes from an internal Jewish theological conflict that transpired within the Sanhedrin.
• "except for this one statement which I cried out while standing among them": This phrase precisely limits the scope of his acknowledgment. He concedes only one public utterance during his previous trial, making it clear that that statement is the single point of contention, not any other criminal act. The "cried out" signifies the bold and open nature of his declaration.
• "It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today": This entire clause is Paul's central argument. He connects his current imprisonment to his unwavering belief in the resurrection. He is claiming that the reason he is standing accused before the Roman governor Felix is not because he has broken Roman law or incited rebellion, but because his teaching about the resurrection (especially that of Jesus) challenges the established theological views of many Jewish leaders (specifically the Sadducees), making his persecution fundamentally religious rather than criminal. This cleverly turns a theological disagreement into the apparent reason for his detention, allowing him to argue that the Roman authorities have no jurisdiction over such a dispute.

Acts 24 21 Bonus section

Paul's rhetorical brilliance in Acts 24:21 should not be overlooked. He manages to turn his opponents' case into their undoing by pointing to a specific prior incident where his accusers' (especially the Sadducees') theological biases against the resurrection became evident. This served multiple purposes:

1. Undermining Credibility: It implied that the true motivation behind the accusations was theological animosity, not genuine legal grievance, making the accusers appear biased.
2. Highlighting Internal Conflict: It revealed the deep schism within Judaism itself concerning fundamental doctrines, portraying the conflict as an internal Jewish dispute that Rome should avoid entanglement in.
3. Appealing to Felix: It might have made the charges seem less significant to a Roman governor, as theological disputes between sects were generally viewed as internal matters unless they threatened civil unrest. Felix himself was Jewish or had close ties to Judaism, potentially understanding the internal religious politics better than a different Roman official might.
4. Confirming Christian Message: Despite being on trial, Paul once again publicly champions the truth of the resurrection, demonstrating that even under duress, he remained steadfast to the core of his preached gospel.
5. Setting up future appeals: This argument about the nature of his "crime" as a theological one, rather than a political one, forms a consistent theme in Paul's subsequent appeals before Festus and Agrippa (Acts 25, 26). He never deviates from his central claim of innocence under Roman law and suffering for Christ's sake, particularly concerning the resurrection.

Acts 24 21 Commentary

Acts 24:21 serves as a masterful summary of Paul's defense strategy and highlights the true nature of his predicament. Paul knows that before a Roman governor like Felix, charges of temple desecration or inciting riots carry severe consequences. By explicitly stating that the only fault his accusers could pinpoint from his prior Sanhedrin hearing was his proclamation about the resurrection, Paul artfully reframes the entire narrative. He effectively diminishes the gravity of the Roman charges against him, recasting his persecution as a religious disagreement among Jews, which should ideally fall outside Roman jurisdiction.

The resurrection was not just any doctrine; it was a flashpoint between the Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:6-8), and absolutely central to the Christian gospel (1 Cor 15). For Paul, the resurrection of Christ validated Jesus' messianic claims and was the foundation of the Christian hope. His emphasis on it shows his theological conviction overriding personal safety. Paul is not denying his belief in the resurrection or that it was the root of his offense to the Sadducean party. Rather, he is challenging them to bring forth a civic crime distinct from this theological assertion. This astute maneuver leaves Felix with a case that seems to be a complex inter-Jewish religious quarrel rather than a clear-cut case of Roman law infringement. This tactic delays Felix's decision and, arguably, prevents a swift conviction.

Examples:

• Distinguishing between charges: Just as Paul sought to distinguish a religious conviction from a civil crime, believers today may sometimes face societal pushback or "cancellation" not for genuinely harmful acts, but simply for adhering to deeply held biblical truths that conflict with prevailing cultural norms (e.g., beliefs on marriage, sexuality, or life's origins).
• Bold proclamation: Paul's "cried out" for truth despite opposition encourages believers to speak biblical truth clearly and unapologetically, even when it is contentious or inconvenient.
• Foundational beliefs: The verse underscores the importance of core Christian doctrines like the resurrection, reminding believers of the foundational truths upon which their faith is built, which are worth defending and proclaiming.