*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Who went about to pollute the temple. It was a light and almost a frivolous accusation to lay this to his charge before the Roman governor, who could have wished that the temple had been turned topsy-turvy. But because nothing was more fit for procuring uproars than the polluting of the temple, he doth craftily accuse Paul thereof, as if he should say, that it was no thanks to him that Jerusalem was not on an uproar; and that he carried such a firebrand as might have procured sore hurt if he had not been prevented. Also he includeth that other thing, that because Paul had offended in matters of religion, it did belong properly to the Jews to give judgment in that matter. And here he complaineth also of the chief captain Lysias, because he robbed them of their right. Therefore his drift is, to obtain at the hands of the ruler that he will restore to them that which Lysias had taken from them. This is also not void of subtilty, in that Tertullus doth discredit the chief captain, because he dealt more courteously towards Paul than the priests would he should; and glancingly he bringeth him in suspicion, because he dare not openly accuse him. But the question is, whether they could hope that the governor would grant them so much, seeing the Roman magistrates alone were to sit upon life and death? I answer, that he maketh in this place some semblance of equity, as if they were purposed to handle him more gently than he deserved. For though they might not condemn any man to death, yet they might use some light chastisement as was scourging. Nevertheless, Tertullus doth not cease to desire before the president to have him put to death.
Who also hath gone about - Who has endeavored.
To profane the temple - This was a serious, but unfounded charge. It arose from the gross calumny of the Jews, when they pretended that he had introduced Greeks into that sacred place, Acts 21:28. To this charge he replies in Acts 24:18.
And would have judged - That is, would have condemned and punished.
According to our law - Their law, which forbade the introduction of strangers into the temple.
Hath gone about to profane the temple - This was a heavy charge, if it could have been substantiated, because the Jews were permitted by the Romans to put any person to death who profaned their temple. This charge was founded on the gross calumny mentioned, Acts 21:28, Acts 21:29; for, as they had seen Trophimus, an Ephesian, with Paul in the city, they pretended that he had brought him into the temple.
Would have judged according to our law - He pretended that they would have tried the case fairly, had not the chief captain taken him violently out of their hands; whereas, had not Lysias interfered, they would have murdered him on the spot.
Who also hath gone about to profane the temple,.... By introducing a Greek into it; see Acts 21:28 which was only a supposition and conjecture of the Asiatic Jews, and was a false and groundless one:
whom we took; as they did in the temple, and dragged him out of it:
and would have judged according to our law; which was another untruth, for they had him not before any court of judicature; they brought no charge in form against him, nor did they examine his case, and inquire into the truth of things, or hear what he had to say, but fell upon him, and beat him; and if it had not been for the chief captain and his soldiers, would have destroyed him, so far were they from proceeding according to their law: it seems by Tertullus calling the law, "our law", that he was a Jewish proselyte; or else he speaks after the manner of lawyers, who call what is their clients, theirs.
hath gone about--attempted.
to profane the temple--the third charge; and entirely false.
we . . . would have judged according to our law.
*More commentary available at chapter level.