Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 25:6
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
6. more than ten days ] The oldest texts read “ not more than eight or ten days.” This seems the more likely reading. It is more probable that the writer would use words to mark the shortness of the stay, than a form which would seem to describe ten days as a long residence at Jerusalem. Festus was evidently full of business and anxious to get it done.
and the next day ] Rev. Ver. “on the morrow.” The Jewish authorities must have accepted the governor’s invitation, and have gone down along with him, so that the hearing could begin at once.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
More than ten days – See the margin. The Syriac reads it, eight or ten. The Vulgate, not more than eight or ten. The Coptic, eight or ten. Griesbach supposes this to be the true reading, and has admitted it into the text.
Sitting in the judgment seat – On the tribunal; or holding a court for the trial of Paul.
Commanded Paul to be brought – To be brought up for trial. He had been secured, but was placed in the care of a soldier, who was commanded to let him have all the freedom that was consistent with his security.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. When he had tarried – more than ten days] The strangeness of this mode of expression suggests the thought that our printed text is not quite correct in this place; and this suspicion is confirmed by an examination of MSS. and versions: , NOT more than EIGHT OR ten days, is the reading of ABC, several others of great respectability, with the Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach admits this reading into the text: and of it Professor White says, Lectio indubie genuina: “This is doubtless the genuine reading.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
More than ten days; the margin gives an account of a diverse reading, unto which might be added another, viz. eight or ten days; which reading many follow, and is according unto the usual expression of such a short space of time, which need not to be exactly set down. Thus though God hath provided so, as there is little or no variety in setting down those truths or doctrines in Scripture which concern faith and manners, or our believing and holy living; yet in circumstances which (though they pertain to complete the history or genealogies in Scripture) are not necessary to be so exactly known, God left them not so, designed to exercise us in this state, wherein we know but in part, 1Co 13:9. Fundamental truths are not of such a depth but a lamb may wade or walk in them; but there are less material things of such a profundity, that an elephant may swim in them, and men of the highest understanding and deepest reach must cry out, .
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4-6. answered that Paul should bekeptrather, “is in custody.”
at Csarea, and . . .himself would depart shortly thither.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days,…. The Alexandrian copy, and three of Beza’s copies, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version read, “no more than eight or ten days”; and the Syriac and Ethiopic versions leave out the phrase “no more”, and read “when he had stayed there”, as the former; that is, at Jerusalem; or “when he had remained among them”, as the latter; the Jews, chief priests, and others, “eight or ten days”; the historian, not being certain to a day, expresses himself in this manner:
he went down to Caesarea; from whence he came, and where Paul was:
and the next day sitting in the judgment seat; the day after he was come to Caesarea, he sat upon the bench in the court of judicature, to try causes, and particularly the apostle’s, which he was very desirous of knowing, for which reason he so soon took the bench: and
commanded Paul to be brought; from the place where he was kept a prisoner, to the judgment hall where Festus was.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
On the morrow ( ). Locative case of the article with understood (, adverb, tomorrow). Festus lost no time for the chief men had come down with him.
Sat on the judgment seat ( ). A legal formality to give weight to the decision. Ingressive aorist active participle. For this use of for judgment seat see on Acts 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 12:21; Acts 18:12; Acts 25:10; Acts 25:17. Same phrase repeated in 25:17.
To be brought (). First aorist passive infinitive of after (commanded). Same words repeated in 25:17 by Festus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Judgment – seat. See on ch. Act 7:5.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And when he had tarried among them,” (diatriphas de en autois) “Then when he had stayed among them,” seeking to get acquainted with them, and himself curry their good will and political influence.
2) “More than ten days,” (hemeras ou pleious okto e deka) “Not more than eight or ten days,” a little more than a week, during the first month of his administration as governor, Act 24:27; Act 25:1.
3) “He went down unto Caesarea,” (katabas eis Kaisareian) “He went down (from Jerusalem) into Caesarea,” or Festus returned to his palace and court back in Caesarea by the seaside.
4) “And the next day sitting on the judgement seat,” (te epaurion kathesas epi tou besmatos) “On the following day, sitting on the tribunal or judgement seat,” with no time lost, to accommodate and try to curry favor of the Jewish officials of influence who had come down from Jerusalem.
5) “Commanded Paul to be brought.” (ekeleusen ton
Paulon achthenai) “He commanded (that) Paul be brought,” brought from prison or detainment, to appear before him and his accusers, who had now had more than two years to reshape their accusations against him. Festus, taking p the case immediately does not necessarily indicate that the Jews in Jerusalem had prejudiced him against Paul, since the case had already been pending more than two years, Act 24:27; Act 25:18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 25:6. More than ten days.According to the most reliable authorities this should be not more than eight or ten days.
Act. 25:7. The many and grievous complaints, or charges, against Paul, which his accusers could not prove, were no doubt the same which had been preferred against him by Tertullus (Act. 24:5-6).
Act. 25:8. Pauls defence shows that the accusations now put forward were the srme old charges to which he had already answered, only perhaps in a different orderheresy, sacrilege, sedition.
Act. 25:9. Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judged?The proposal of Festus not merely to shift the venue or place of trial from Csarea to Jerusalem, but to substitute an ecclesiastical for a civil court, with himself present merely as a spectator (which seems to be the import of before me), was perhaps dictated by two motivesa desire to please the Jews (see on Act. 24:27), and a wish to rid himself of a troublesome responsibility. It had also an appearance of being fair to Paul in that it offered him a trial before a court of his own nation, with the presence of the procurator to see that no injustice was done. Only as Paul had been handed over as a Roman citizen to a Roman tribunal, the proposed change could not take place without the prisoners consent.
Act. 25:10. I stand, or am standing, at Csars judgment seat.Paul knew that his doom was sealed should his case be remitted back to Jerusalem, and hence claimed to be tried as a Roman citizen before a Roman court. It can hardly be that Paul intended to say, I stand already in mind and purpose before the Emperors court, for God has shown me by a special revelation that I am to preach the gospel at Rome, and my trial there is accordingly part of the divinely ordered course of things which cannot be altered (Wordsworth). As thou very well knowest.This complete insight into the worthlessness of the charges brought against him, which Paul ascribes to Festus, may appear to conflict with Festuss own statements in Act. 25:18-20; Act. 25:26 (Holtzmann); but both assertions may easily enough have been correct. Festus may not have perfectly comprehended the precise points in which Paul was alleged to have violated Jewish law; but he Lad discernment enough to perceive that sufficient to establish anything against his prisoner had not been advanced.
Act. 25:11. I refuse not to die.I make no entreaty against dying, I beg not myself off by prayers. Not mercy, but only justice, asks Paul of Csar (Besser). We make no request for favour; if any one can convict us of wrong, be it little or great, we refuse not the sharpest punishment (Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius). No man may deliver me unto them, or give me up to them as a favour.Not even Festus, if he will do what is right (Besser). I appeal unto Csar.These important words were spoken by Paul, says Stier, being certainly impelled by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit (compare Act. 23:11.) So did the Christians in Bithynia in Plinys time do. Paul felt indeed what a curse his people had brought upon themselves by compelling him to appeal to Caesar (Besser).
Act. 25:12. Conferred with the council.I.e., with the Roman assessors who assisted him at the trial. The subject of consultation manifestly was as to whether the appeal should be admitted or refused. Appeals appear not to have been admitted in every case. Chap. Act. 28:18-19 shows that Festus was disposed to release Paul, and probably would have done so had not the Sanhedrists objected. Weizscker comments upon the fact that Paul was thrice in danger of his life (Act. 21:31; Act. 23:12; Act. 25:3), thrice accused by the Jews (Act. 23:28; Act. 24:1; Act. 25:2; Acts 15), and thrice rescued by the Romans (Act. 23:30; Act. 24:22; Act. 25:12), and finds in this word thrice a proof of manufactured history. This requires no refutation.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 25:6-12
Paul before Festusan Appeal to the Emperor
I. The court constituted.
1. Some things the same on this as on the former occasion.
(1) The judgment halla room or chamber in Herods palace (see on Act. 24:24, Homiletical Analysis).
(2) The prosecutorsthe Jews who had come down from Jerusalem, and who may have been as before Ananias with certain of the elders (Act. 24:1), including the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews (Act. 25:2).
(3) The prisonerPaul, who had already so triumphantly vindicated his innocence, and been so wonderfully protected by God.
(4) The chargesmany and grievous things which could not be established against him (Act. 25:7).
2. Some things different on this from what were on the former occasion.
(1) The judge.Felix had given place to Porcius Festus, about whom little is knownthough, like Felix, it would appear, he was not above pandering to the wishes of the Jews in the hope of currying favour with them (Act. 25:9).
(2) The mode of procedure. On this occasion Tertullus was conspicuous by his absence. The prosecutors believed themselves able to dispense with the services of a hired advocate. Roman flattery and eloquence had not done much for them at the previous trial; perhaps clamour and vehemence would serve them better at this. At least this was the method adopted. The Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood round about Festus, bringing against Paul many and grievous charges.
(3) The order of the charges. Though in substance the same, the presentation of them appears to have been somewhat varied (see below).
II. The indictment preferred.
1. The old charges were revived. Sedition, schism, sacrilege; treason against the state, against the faith, against the temple; revolt against Csar, against Moses, against Jehovah; revolutiona serious civil crime; innovationa heinous ecclesiastical offence; irreligion or impietya deadly sin. Had Paul been guilty of these he must have been a monster of wickedness indeed.
2. The new order in which the charges were presented. Schism, sacrilege, sedition. Not without craft had this alteration been made. At the first trial the high priest and the elders had hopes of enlisting the jealousy and power of Rome against Paul, and with this end in view they placed in the forefront of their indictment the charge of sedition. What more likely to gain the ear of a representative of Csar, than the allegation that the prisoner at the bar had been a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world (Act. 24:5), saying there is another king, one Jesus (Act. 17:7)? That card, however, had been tried and failed. It was now, therefore, their aim, if possible, to withdraw the prisoner from beneath the shelter of the Roman gis, and accordingly they shove the charge of sedition into the background, and advance into the purview of the procurator those of schism and sacrilege. They hoped in this way to persuade the new governor that the case was one which fell more within their jurisdiction than his, that it belonged to an ecclesiastical and spiritual rather than to a secular tribunal. The distinction between things secular and sacred, courts spiritual and ecclesiastical, and courts civil and criminal, was a sound one, but in their mouths it was being used not to secure right and justice, but to perpetrate cruelty and wrong.
III. The defence offered.
1. On every count in the indictment, as before, Paul pleaded not guilty. Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Csar had he offended. He was no schismatic or heretic in the proper sense of that expression; what he preached was only a legitimate development and necessary fruit of the Hebrew faith. He had not violated the sanctity of the temple; the allegation that he had done so contradicted fact. He was no revolutionary against Csars throne; neither by word nor deed had he taught men to rise against the powers that be. From first to last Paul had been consistent in maintaining his innocence.
2. On every count in the indictment, as before, evidence in its support was wanting. Paul would be sure to call the attention of his judge to this, and Festus, it is clear, discerned that the charge of sedition was a bogus affair altogether (Act. 25:18), while about the heresy he was simply at seathat belonged to another sphere than the one in which he moved (Act. 25:19-20). The sacrilege allegation he probably dropped out of view entirely, as an unfounded assertion, or as a matter too insignificant to be noticed. Nevertheless, baseless as the charges were, Festus wanted courage to sweep them aside, and liberate his prisoner. Precisely as Felix failed, so did he. Neither had the fortitude to follow conscience and do what was right.
IV. The proposition made.
1. A specious compromise.
(1) To drop the charges of sacrilege and sedition and restrict further investigations to the one point of divergence from the laws of the Jews. This would practically be a decision two-thirds in Pauls favour.
(2) To proceed to Jerusalem, that the strictly religious question might be examined into by a court of his own people. This also, while it had the appearance of being fair to Paul, would be a virtual concession to what Festus understood to be the real wishes of the Jews.
(3) To have the trial conducted in the procurators presence as a guarantee that the prisoner would have even-handed justice.
2. The secret motive.
(1) The motive stated was to gain favour with the Jews. This was probably natural, considering that he was a new governor, and that they were a troublesome people, who had it in their power to impeach him, as they had impeached Felix his predecessor, before Csarif not for real, for imaginary crimes, since, as he could see from Pauls case, they were by no means fastidious as to the character of the weapons with which they struck a man down.
(2) The unrecorded motives probably were to shield Paul, if possible, and in any case to shift from himself all responsibility for his condemnation.
V. The appeal taken.
1. To whom? Csar, i.e., Nero. Paul demanded to be tried by the emperor himself. Theoretically the emperor was but the imperator, or commander-in-chief of the armies of the state, appointed by the Senate, and acting under its direction. Consuls were still elected every year, and went through the shadowy functions of their office. Many of the provinces were directly under the control of the Senate, and were accordingly governed by proconsuls. But Augustus had contrived to concentrate in himself all the powers that in the days of the Republic had checked and balanced the exercise of individual authority. He was supreme pontiff, and as such regulated the religion of the state; permanent censor, and as such could give or recall the privileges of citizenship at His pleasure. The tribunicia potestas, which had originally been conferred on the tribunes of the plebs so that they might protect members of their order who appealed to them against the injustice of patrician magistrates, was attached to his office. As such he became the final court of appeal from all subordinate tribunals, and so by a subtle artifice, what had been intended as a safeguard to freedom, became the instrument of a centralised tyranny (Plumptre).
2. For what reason? Because he was already standing before Csars judgment seati.e., was already pleading before a Roman tribunal, and no one, not even a procurator, had a right to withdraw him therefrom and hand him over to the Jews without his consentwhich, of course, Paul was unwilling to give, for the following reasons.
(1) That as a panel at a Roman tribunal he was entitled to receive from that tribunal a verdict on his case.
(2) That he was perfectly prepared to accept that verdict, whatever it might be. Should he be found to have done wrong, and to have committed anything worthy of death, he refused not to die; but should, on the other hand, his innocence be established, he was entitled to be acquitted.
(3) That he was not amenable to any Jewish tribunal, since he had not violated any Jewish law, as Festus himself knew.
(4) That Paul also understood his doom would be sealed the moment he was handed over to the tender mercies of the Sanhedrim.
3. With what result? That his appeal was allowed. Having conferred privately with his own council of Roman assessors (see Critical Remarks), Festus, with something like a sneer in his words, intimated his acceptance of Pauls decision. He knew, it may be, better than the apostle to what kind of judge the latter was appealing, what long delays there would be before the cause was heard, how little chance there was of a righteous judgment at last (Plumptre).
Learn.
1. That false witnessing against good men and good causes is an old and common, as well as heinous sin.
2. That the desire of gaining popular favour often leads statesmen, judges, and private individuals to perpetrate acts of great injustice.
3. That Christians are not debarred by their religion from defending themselves against persecution and oppression by all lawful means.
4. That nothing inspires a man with courage in presence of his adversaries like a consciousness of innocence.
5. That Gods people are (or should be) ever ready to render due satisfaction for whatever evil deeds can be proved against them.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 25:6-12. A Court Scene in the Olden Time.
I. Infuriate and reckless pursuers.
1. A multitude against one.
2. Men of power against a weak prisoner.
3. Persons regardless of truth against an individual who tried to keep a clean conscience.
II. A friendless but unmoved defender.Strong in
1. The consciousness of his innocence.
2. The justness of his claimto be judged where he was.
3. The superiority of his soul to death.
III. A discerning but unprincipled judge
1. Faithless to conscience. Knowing his duty, but declining to act upon it.
2. Showing respect of persons. Preferring the favour of the powerful and rich wicked to the rights of the humble but poor good.
3. Trampling on the weak. Sending Paul to Rome instead of granting him liberty.
Act. 25:8. A Model Defence.
I. Short.Consisting of one sentence.
II. Simple.Containing no intricate reasoning or doubtful chicanery.
III. Direct.Resting satisfied with a plain denial of the charges advanced.
IV. Exhaustive.Leaving none of these untouched, but repudiating all alike.
V. Effective.If it did not procure acquittal it at least showed the charges to be false.
Act. 25:8-10. Christian Fortitude.As exemplified in Paul.
I. Unlike the effrontery of the hypocrite.Paul grounds his defence on solid fact and absolute truth.
II. Different from the defiance of the wicked.Paul declines not to be examined once and again, having nothing to be ashamed of or conceal.
III. Having no resemblance to the obstinacy of the litigious.Paul submits to every just decision, being willing even to die if he had done anything for which capital punishment is the only expiation.
Act. 25:10. Csars Judgment Seat and Christs.A contrast. In respect of
I. The authorities by which they have been appointed.Csars by the kings and emperors of earth. Christs by the King of kings, the Lord of eternity, and Sovereign of the universe.
II. The judges who have been entrusted with their procedure.In the case of Csars mortal, fallible, and sinful men; in that of Christs, the Divine Son, who liveth evermore, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, in whom, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and with whom is no respect of persons.
III. The businesses which are transacted thereupon. In the case of Csars tribunal, the earthly and temporal affairs of men, so far as they affect mens mundane interests; at Christs the concerns of the soul and the transactions of the life.
IV. The verdicts which are issued therefrom.From Csars often such as are false and oppressive; from Christs always such as are just and true. The first may call for an appeal: the second are irreversible and final.
V. The parties who appear before them.Some may never stand at Csars, but all must eventually stand at Christs, judgment-seat.
Act. 25:11. Pauls Appeal to Csar.
I. Evidenced a conscience void of offence toward God and man.Had the apostle not been conscious of innocence he would hardly have ventured on this step, which was not the last stroke for liberty on the part of a despairing criminal, but the sober act of a good man who knew himself to be wronged.
II. Signalised a humble submission to divinely ordained authority.Had the apostle not regarded Csars tribunal as in some respects invested with divine authority, he would scarcely have proposed to lay his case before it.
III. Showed a laudable desire to avoid unnecessary martyrdom.Had Paul deemed it sinful to keep himself alive as long as possible, or right to throw away his life without an effort to preserve it, it is doubtful if he would have resorted to this tedious method of obtaining justice.
IV. Proved an unwearied zeal for the extension of the kingdom of God.Having already been assured by God that he would preach the gospel at Rome also, Paul probably saw in this appeal which he took a means of attaining to what was already a burning passion in his soul.From Gerok in Lange.
Difficulties connected with Pauls Appeal to Csar.
I. How does this harmonise with Christs doctrine of non-resistance (Mat. 5:39)? Answer: Paul, in appealing to Csar, does not propose retaliation, but only self-preservation, which is the first law of life, and is not forbidden to a Christian.
II. How does this accord with Pauls exhortation to Christians not to go to law before the unrighteous but only before the saints (1Co. 6:1)?Answer: Paul does not propose to drag his accusers before the law, but only to vindicate his own character in the eyes of the lawwhich is always permissible to a Christian.
III. How does this square with Pauls knowledge that Christ was with him and had promised to protect him?How does his conduct compare with that of Ezrae.g., who, in a time of difficulty and danger, refused to lean upon a secular arm (Ezr. 8:22)? Answer: This may have been Christs way of protecting Paul.
IV. How does this comport with Paul s doctrine that the state has nothing whatever to do with judging spiritual matters (1Co. 2:15)?Answer: Paul does not propose to submit to Csar the question of his religious opinions, but only that of his civil Pauls deportment.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
e.
Pauls trial, defence and appeal to Caesar. Act. 25:6 b Act. 25:12.
Act. 25:6 b
he went down unto Caesarea; and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought.
Act. 25:7
And when he was come, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem stood round about him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove;
Act. 25:8
while Paul said in his defence, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.
Act. 25:9
But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
Act. 25:10
But Paul said, I am standing before Caesars judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou also very well knowest.
Act. 25:11
If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is true whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
Act. 25:12
Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go.
Act. 25:6 b Festus was as good as his word. It was not more than eight or ten days until he went to Caesarea. On the very next day after his arrival he heard the case of Paul.
Once again the apostle was called from his prison room to make his defense. Note: He had appeared in the last two years before the following:
(1)
The mob on the steps of the Tower of Antonia.
(2)
The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
(3)
Before Felix.
(4)
Before Felix again in an unofficial manner.
(5)
Now before Festus.
(6)
He is yet to appear before king Agrippa.
This all afforded a wonderful opportunity to preach the word, which opportunity Paul used, but it was also a bit wearying and it must have been not a little exasperating as to result.
927.
Name three of the six persons or groups before whom Paul had been tried in the last two years.
Act. 25:7-11 There was no Roman orator this time. All the Jews gathered round Paul and after the Jewish manner began to accuse him of many grievous charges. Luke evidently was an eye-witness of this event and he adds that proof for the charges was entirely lacking. What were the charges brought? This can be answered from the thoughts of the reply Paul gave. These charges had to do with:
(1)
Sin against the law (being a Nazarene)
(2)
Sin against the Jews (a pestilent fellow)
(3) Sin against the temple (attempting to profane it)
(4) Sin against Caesar (stirring up an insurrection)
The same charges of two years ago. They had not forgotten one of them. But they had no more proof this time than they had before. Festus could see that there was no real purpose in holding this man longer, but if he could be used to an advantage for his political prestige, then he would do so. The question Festus asked was asked only that he might obtain the favor of the Jews present. Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judged of these things before me?
928.
What is different about this trial from the first one that Paul had here?
929.
What is alike in the two trials?
It is even doubtful that Festus would have taken Paul to Jerusalem for judgment, but then to please the Jews he said this and possibly to hear the reaction of the apostle. He was hardly prepared for what he heard. Paul was not going to be sacrificed for the desires of a selfish local official, especially when there was a way of securing at least a measure of justice. Paul said in thought: No, I will not go to Jerusalem. I am to be judged and I am standing right where this should be carried out. Why go to Jerusalem? I could only stand before Jews there. I have done them no harm, as you very well know. Now if I were a criminal or even a murderer, I would refuse not to die; but if all the charges are lies I utterly refuse to be used as a means to further your evil ends, You will not deliver me into the bloody hands of the Jews. I appeal to Caesar!
These words did not at all please Festus. This was a poor beginning for his governorship. He was taken aback. This was the first such case he had dealt with. What shall I do? He turned to his counselors for an answer. There was only one thing to do. It was the right of every Roman citizen to make such an appeal. Although it was going over his head as a judge, Festus could only say: Thou hast appealed unto Caesar. Unto Caesar shalt thou go.
930.
Why did Festus ask the question about trial in Jerusalem?
931.
Do you believe Paul was justified in appealing to Caesar?
932.
Why did this appeal displease Festus?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
6. More than ten days Not so shortly, perhaps, as his answer in Act 25:4 implied; but his length of stay may have been in itself complimentary. But a better reading of the Greek text is not more than eight or ten days, which implies a keeping of his promise.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought.’
The matter having now been drawn to his attention Festus, having remained a few more days in Jerusalem, ‘went down’ to Caesarea, and the next day took his place on the seat of judgment and commanded that Paul be brought before him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul Appears Before Festus And Is Compelled To Appeal to Caesar. To Rome He Will Go (25:6-12).
The beginning of the trial:
v. 6. And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day, sitting on the judgment-seat, commanded Paul to be brought.
v. 7. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
v. 8. While he answered for himself, Neither against the Law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, nor yet against Caesar have I offended anything at all.
After the interview with the Jews, Festus remained in Jerusalem not more than eight or ten days, busy all the while in trying to get acquainted with the church government and with the various customs and usages of the Jews as they were acknowledged by the Roman government. Having journeyed down to Caesarea after that, he kept his promise to the Jews by setting the trial for the very next day. The narrative implies that the Jews had come down with Festus, and also indicates his promptness. When he had taken the judge’s chair, when he had sat down on the tribunal in the judgment-hall, he commanded that Paul be brought before him. When the prisoner had entered and taken the place indicated to him, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem crowded as near as they dared and stood round about him, their attitude being intended to intimidate him. Since any reference to their own Law and to disputes concerning their own customs would have been useless, they molded their charges to fit the occasion, bringing forth many and serious complaints. From the answer of Paul it seems that they tried to make his being a Christian a sin against their own Law, his supposed profanation of the Temple a sin against the Holy Place, and the alleged incitement of seditions a sin against Caesar. But all their assertions, with all their show of certainty, did not go for proof before the Roman tribunal, and proof the accusers were unable to bring. As for Paul, the threatening aspect, the dark scowls of the Jews, had no effect on him whatever, for with reference to every charge he was able to defend himself without the slightest difficulty. He maintained that he had committed a crime neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the Holy Place, nor against the emperor. Thus was truth and right vindicated against falsehood and evil; thus was the truss of Paul in his Lord rewarded with the Lord’s protection.
Act 25:6-7 . ] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at that time among the Jews at Jerusalem ( ), not merely the time that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal.
] stood round Paul , as is evident from the preceding . . Comp. Act 25:18 . Grotius and Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to .
. . .] as in Joh 20:30 .
(see the critical remarks), instead of , accusations , is not elsewhere preserved. Yet Eust. p. 1422, 21, has instead of .
(see the critical remarks), they brought against him. Gen 37:2 ; Deu 22:14 .
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. (8) While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended anything at all. (9) But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judge d of these things before me? (10) Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judge d: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. (11) For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. (12) Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.
What an awful view we have here again of a corrupt judge. Festus, as well as Felix, plainly saw, that there was nothing in which those unprincipled men could criminate Paul. He knew also, that he had been unjustly detained in prison for more than two years by Felix. And in the face of these palpable cruelties, to propose another hearing at a distant day, and to be carried to Jerusalem for that purpose, was the grossest act of oppression and cruelty imaginable. Oh! Festus! how hast thou long since gone up to the Jerusalem, the Zion of God, which is above, and there been judge d before Paul’s Lord, for thy cruelties to his dear servant? Thy conscience then was hardened past all feeling and thy pleasing the Jews at the expense of God’s truth, amused thy unfeeling soul. But thy sins were only accumulating, like the gathering of gun-powder in the barrel, treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. And how long since, hath that fire seized upon thy full-bosomed soul of guilt, and sunk thee into that place of endless torment, which, kindled in God’s anger, burneth forever to the lowest hell, Deu 32:22 .
This appeal of Paul, no doubt, was made from the encouragement he had derived from the Lord’s vision to him; in which Jesus had told him, that he must bear witness for him at Rome, Act 23:11 . And very sweet, and seasonable, was that gracious visit of the Lord, to his poor prisoner. In the confidence of which, he demands a hearing before the then Emperor of Rome, who was Festus’s lord. And, by this means, he not only pleaded his right, as a Roman, so to be tried; but he perfectly for the time, got free from his enemies at Jerusalem. Reader!! do not overlook the love of Jesus, on this occasion, to Paul. And, when you have thanked the Lord Jesus, for this grace to the Apostle then; connect with it the assurance, that the same grace Jesus sheweth to all his people now. Oh! how sweet are all the love-visits of Jesus!
Reader! even at this distance of time, I feel my poor heart disposed to bless God, for his timely instruction given to Paul, to make this appeal. Methinks I see the Governor, looking most pitiful indeed! He is obliged to take counsel with those around him, how to act. And he that just before had said: wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judge d before me? is now compelled to conduct himself towards his poor prisoner, as if Paul had said in answer: be judge d before thee? No! To your sovereign and master, I appeal for judgment. By Caesar only will I be judge d! And here the Court broke up. The Jews sent home disappointed. The Governor humbled, Paul triumphant. And how often doth the Lord thus baffle the designs of bad men, and deliver his people?
6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
Ver. 6. Commanded Paul to be brought ] This is now the third time: and what if it had been the thirtieth? Cato (the very best of the Romans) as he was thirty-two times accused, so he was thirty-two times cleared and absolved.
6 .] The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later MSS., which have for the of the more ancient ones: thus has been omitted on account of the following. It is possible, as Meyer also observes, that a perverted notion of the necessity of an absolute precision in details in the inspired text, may have occasioned the erasure of one of the numbers.
Act 25:6 . ., see critical note, “not more than eight or ten days,” R.V., i.e. , the whole period of Festus’ stay . Blass sees in the words an indication of the vigour of action characterising Festus. The expression may, however, be used from the standpoint of Paul and his friends at Csarea, who did not know how much of his absence Festus had spent in Jerusalem, or how much on the journey (so Weiss and Wendt). : ten times in Acts, but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel, cf. , however, , Luk 10:35 and Act 4:5 only (Hawkins). This evidently implies that the accusers had come down with Festus, and it may again indicate his promptness, cf. Act 25:17 . There does not seem any indication that this immediate action shows that he had been prejudiced against Paul in Jerusalem (Chrys.). , Act 12:21 , Act 18:12 , and Act 25:10 below: seven times in Acts in this sense (Mat 27:19 , Joh 19:13 ), but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel; twice by St. Paul, Rom 14:10 , 2Co 5:10 . . .: a necessary formality, otherwise no legal effect would be given to the decision, cf. Schrer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 15, E.T., for this and other instances. , cf. , Polyc., Mart. , ix., 1 and 2.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 25:6-12
6After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, 8while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” 9But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?” 10But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. 11If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” 12Then when Festus had conferred with his council, he answered, “You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall go.”
Act 25:6-9 These events showed Paul that he had no real hope for justice with Festus. He knew what awaited him in Jerusalem (cf. Act 25:3). He also knew Jesus wanted him to go to Rome (cf. Act 9:15).
Act 25:6 “After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them” I would imagine the Jewish leaders wined and dined Festus. They manipulated all the Roman officials.
Act 25:8 Paul asserts that he is innocent of all charges against
1. the Law of Moses (cf. Act 21:21; Act 21:28)
2. the temple (cf. Act 21:28; Act 24:6)
3. Caesar (cf. Act 16:21; Act 17:7)
Numbers 1, 2 are exactly what Stephen was charged with in Act 6:13-14.
Act 25:10-11 Paul asserts that he was already before the proper authority and in the proper place. Luke records in Act 25:11 Paul’s official appeal to Caesar.
The right of appeal to Caesar initially started with Octavian in 30 B.C. (cf. Dio Cassius, History, 51.19). This initial dictate was expanded to forbid blinding, scourging, and torture to any Roman citizen who appealed to Caesar (cf. Paulus, Sententiae 5.26.1).
There is a good discussion of Roman Law of the first century in A. N. Sherwin-White’s Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, “lecture four: Paul before Felix and Festus,” pp. 48-70.
Act 25:11 “If. . .if” These are two first class conditional sentences which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his purpose. These two usages in context show how this grammatical construction was used to make a point. The first is false to reality (but exactly the same condition used by Felix in Act 25:5); the second is true to reality.
“I do not refuse to die” Paul recognized the power of the state (cf. Rom 13:4). The OT perspective on capital punishment can be found in Gen 9:6. See an interesting discussion of capital punishment in Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 114-116.
NASB, TEV”no one can hand me over to them”
NKJV”no on can deliver me over to them”
NRSV”no one can turn me over to them”
NJB”no one has the right to surrender me to them”
The term charizomai basically means “to gratify” or “grant as a favor.” Paul realized that Festus was trying to impress the Jewish leadership by giving them himself!
However, it is possible that Festus is trying to abide by a decree from Julius Caesar (cf. Josephus, Antiq. 14.10.2), which encouraged Roman officials in Palestine to allow the wishes of the high priest.
“I appeal to Caesar” This was the legal right of every Roman citizen in capital punishment cases (Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96). At this point in history, Nero was the Caesar (A.D. 54-68).
Act 25:12 “his council” This refers to Festus’ Roman legal experts, not the Jewish leaders.
CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS TO Act 25:13 to Act 26:32
BACKGROUND
A. Herod Agrippa II (Marcus Julius Agrippa)
1. He is the son of Herod Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12), who was the political ruler of Judea and who had control of the Temple and Priesthood (A.D. 41-44) and grandson of Herod the Great.
2. He was educated in Rome and was pro-Roman. He returned to Rome after the Jewish war of A.D. 70 and died there in A.D. 100.
3. At the age of 17 his father died, but he was too young to assume his kingdom.
4. In A.D. 50 Herod Chalcis, Agrippa II’s uncle, the King of Chalcis (a small kingdom in Northern Palestine), died and Agrippa II was given his kingdom by Emperor Claudius. Also, he was given control over the Temple and the High Priesthood.
5. In A.D. 53 he exchanged this small kingdom for the tetrarches of Herod Philip (Ituraea and Trachonitis) and Lysanius (Abilene).
6. Later, Emperor Nero added certain cities and villages around the Sea of Galilee to his control. His capital was Caesarea Philippi, which he renamed Neronias.
7. For historical reference cf:
a. Josephus Jewish Wars 2.12.1,7-8; 15.1; 16.4; 7.5.1
b. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 19.9.2; 20.5.2; 6.5; 7.1; 8.4; 9.6.
B. Bernice
1. She was the oldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I.
2. She was the sister of Agrippa II, and for a period of time may have been his incestuous lover (there is no evidence of this, only rumor). Later she was a mistress to Emperor Titus while he was a general. He was the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70.
3. She was Drusilla’s sister (cf. Act 24:24).
4. She was married to Herod Chalcis (Herod Agrippa I’s brother, her uncle), but when he died she moved in with her brother.
5. She later married Polemon, King of Cilicia, but left him to return to her brother who had just been given the title of “King.”
6. She was the mistress of Emperor Vespasian.
7. Historical references
a. Josephus Jewish Wars 2.1.6; 15.1; 17.1.
b.Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jew 19.9.1; 15.1; 20.1.3
c. Tacitus’ History 2.2
d. Seutonius’ Life of Titus 7
e. Dio Cassius’ Histories 65.15; 66.18
f. Juvenal’s Satire 61.156-157
tarried. Greek. diatribo. See Act 12:19.
more, &c. The texts read, “not (Greek. ou) more than eight or ten”.
the next day = on the morrow.
on = upon. Greek. epi. App-104.
judgment seat. Greek. bema. See Joh 19:13.
brought = brought forth, as in w. 17, 23.
6.] The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later MSS., which have for the of the more ancient ones: thus has been omitted on account of the following. It is possible, as Meyer also observes, that a perverted notion of the necessity of an absolute precision in details in the inspired text, may have occasioned the erasure of one of the numbers.
Act 25:6. ) not more than eight or ten, is the reading of the Latin Vulg. And this reading is supported by old Greek MSS., along with the Coptic (Memphitic) Version. An excellent reading.[142] So , …, ch. Act 24:11, Act 4:22, Act 23:13. Others omit , or also , or . Eight or ten days are a sufficiently short time (Act 25:4) for the stay of the new governor in the city of Jerusalem. Within that time he could not conveniently have discussed Pauls case.
[142] Which is rated more highly in the margin of Ed. 2 and the Germ. Vers. than in the larger Ed.-E. B.
ABC Vulg. Memph. read , except that B has . Rec. Text omits and . Ee omit , but retain . Lucifer retains both. Chrysostom in his commentary omits , but in the text retaius the words.-E. and T.
more than ten
Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.
more than ten days: or, as some copies read no more than eight or ten days
sitting: Act 25:10, Act 25:17, Act 18:12-17, Mat 27:19, Joh 19:13, 2Co 5:10, Jam 2:6
Reciprocal: Act 21:15 – and went Act 23:30 – and gave
6
Act 25:6. After spending ten days in Jerusalem, Festus returned to his own Jurisdiction at Caesarea. He did not delay the matter at hand, but summoned Paul to be brought before him the next day after arriving from Jerusalem.
Observe here, 1. The equity and justice of Festus, an heathen judge, in his proceedings at St. Paul’s trial: he will have the high-priest and elders that accused him, speak to his face; he will have the matter examined by and before himself. When the malicious bring the innocent upon their trial, God will provide a judge for their turn.
Observe, 2. The indictment or charge which the Jews brought in against the apostle, That he had offended against the law, profaned the temple, and raised sedition against the Roman government.
Here we find the devil at his own trade; namely, stirring up the rage and malice of the world against the saints of God, under a pretence of their being enemies to the state, and subverters of civil government.
Observe, 3. That to be loaded with calumnies and reproaches has been the common lot and constant portion of the friends and servants of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity; The Jews laid many and grievous things against Paul, which they could not prove.
Reproach has been the reward of religion and righteousness: but St. Paul easily wipes off the several reproaches cast upon him, affirming himself to have been always a religious observer of the law, that he went into the temple upon a religious account, and that he had never taught nor practised any rebellion against Cesar. The servants of Christ are happy in their own innocency, and their adversaries render themselves odious by belying them, and laying that to their charge which every one can disprove.
Act 25:6-8. And when he had tarried there more than ten days A short time for a new governor to stay at such a city as Jerusalem; he went down to Cesarea As he had said, several of the Jews attending him, as being determined to lose no time, but to prosecute the affair in the most strenuous manner they possibly could; and the next day sitting in the judgment-seat As the governor used to do, when any cause of consequence was brought before him; commanded Paul to be brought And make his appearance. And the Jews, standing round about An expression which intimates that there were many of them; laid many and grievous complaints against Paul Doubtless like those which Tertullus had formerly advanced before Felix; which they could not prove By proper witnesses. When many accusations against any one are heaped, frequently not one of them is true. While he answered, Neither against the law of the Jews, &c. I openly deny their charge in every branch of it, and challenge them to make it out by proper evidence in any instance, or in any degree. To a general charge a general answer was sufficient.
6-8. He made no delay in granting them the promised hearing. (6) “And when he had remained among them not more than ten days, he went down to Csarea, and the next day sat upon his judgment seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around, bringing many and heavy charges against Paul, which they were not able to prove: (8) while he answered in defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Csar have I at all offended.” The specifications embraced in this defense are the same as in the defense against the speech of Tertullus before Felix, showing that the charges were still the same. Being a “ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes” was his sin against the law; the false imputation of taking Greeks into the temple, his sin against that holy place; and the excitement of sedition among the Jews, his sin against Csar. In the last specification, reference was had to the mobs which the Jews were in the habit of exciting against him, whose crimes were thus charged upon him.
25:6 {2} And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
(2) We may justly avoid an injury, but not with an injury.
Paul’s hearing before Festus and the Jewish leaders in Caesarea 25:6-12
The judgement seat (Gr. bema, Act 25:6, cf. Act 25:10; Act 25:17; Act 12:21; Act 18:12; Mat 27:19; Joh 19:13; 2Co 5:10) on which Festus sat was customarily in a public place. In view of Paul’s defense (Act 25:8), the serious charges made by the Jews appear to have been the same as those Tertullus had presented (Act 24:5-6). However the Jews could not prove them and produced no witnesses, so all Paul had to do was deny them categorically. This trial seems to have proceeded very much as the one before Felix had (ch. 24). Luke summarized the proceedings.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)