Acts 24:19
Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
Original Language Analysis
οὓς
Who
G3739
οὓς
Who
Strong's:
G3739
Word #:
1 of 12
the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that
δεῖ
ought
G1163
δεῖ
ought
Strong's:
G1163
Word #:
2 of 12
also deon deh-on'; neuter active participle of the same; both used impersonally; it is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding)
ἐπὶ
before
G1909
ἐπὶ
before
Strong's:
G1909
Word #:
3 of 12
properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e., over, upon, etc.; of re
παρεῖναι
to have been here
G3918
παρεῖναι
to have been here
Strong's:
G3918
Word #:
5 of 12
to be near, i.e., at hand; neuter present participle (singular) time being, or (plural) property
καὶ
and
G2532
καὶ
and
Strong's:
G2532
Word #:
6 of 12
and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words
κατηγορεῖν
object
G2723
κατηγορεῖν
object
Strong's:
G2723
Word #:
7 of 12
to be a plaintiff, i.e., to charge with some offence
ἔχοιεν
they had
G2192
ἔχοιεν
they had
Strong's:
G2192
Word #:
10 of 12
to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or conditio
Historical Context
Roman law required accusers' presence to face cross-examination. Their absence violated proper procedure and suggested the charges couldn't withstand scrutiny. Felix's failure to dismiss the case revealed corruption over justice.
Questions for Reflection
- How do you wisely point out procedural failures when they reveal accusers' inability to prove their case?
- What does this teach about standing on proper legal procedures when they protect truth and justice?
Analysis & Commentary
Paul's devastating point - his real accusers aren't present - exposes the prosecution's weakness. Under Roman law, accusers must face the accused and prove charges. The Asian Jews who actually started the riot were absent, suggesting they couldn't substantiate their accusations. This procedural failure should have resulted in case dismissal under proper Roman jurisprudence.