Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 25:1
Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
Act 25:1-12. Arrival of Festus. Paul’s cause heard before him. Paul appeals to the Emperor
1. Now when Festus was come into the province ] This may either mean “when he had reached Csarea,” to which, as the seaport, he would naturally come first; or, with margin of the Rev. Ver., “when he had entered upon his province.” The former seems to be the preferable sense because of what follows.
after three days he ascended ( R. V. went up)] He took a very short time to make himself acquainted with what would be his principal residence, and then went up to the capital.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Now when Festus was come – See the notes on Act 24:27.
Into the province – The province of Judea; for Judea at that time was a Roman province.
After three days – Having remained three days at Caesarea.
He ascended – This was the usual language in describing a journey to Jerusalem. Thus, the English people speak of going up to London, because it is the capital. See the notes on Act 15:1.
To Jerusalem – The governors of Judea at this time usually resided at Caesarea; but as Jerusalem had been the former capital; as it was still the seat of the religious solemni ties; as the Sanhedrin held its meetings there; and as the great, and rich, and learned men, and the priests resided there, it is evident that a full knowledge of the state of the province could be obtained only there. Festus, therefore, having entered upon the duties of his office, early went to Jerusalem to make himself acquainted with the affairs of the nation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 25:1-12
Now when Festus was come into the province.
The Christian in reference to changes of government
Kings may die and governors be changed, but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Christian knows this, and–
I. Looks back on departed governors.
1. Without harsh judgment, for he knows that they stand, or will stand, before the highest Judge.
2. Without immoderate praise, for he sees that all the glory of the world is vanity.
II. Looks toward the new government.
1. Without extravagant hope, for he knows that there is nothing new under the sun.
2. Without anxious fear, for he knows that Christ reigns. (K. Gerok.)
Paul before Festus
I. The antecedent circumstances. Notice–
1. The arrival of Festus (Act 25:1). After arriving (about A.D. 60) in Caesarea, the seat of the civil government, and continuing there three days, he goes up to Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish people, not only from curiosity, but to study the spirit, institutions, and manners of a people with whose interests he would have, henceforth, much to do.
2. The appeal of the Jews concerning Paul. From Act 25:2; Act 3:1-26 two things are manifest:
(1) The national importance which the Sanhedrin attached to Paul. More than two years had passed away since they raised the mob against him. One might have thought that the changes which two years made in thought and feeling had almost effaced his very name from their memory. Had it been merely personal enmity it would undoubtedly have been so. But it was the religious influence of this man, working mightily before their eyes, and sapping the very foundation of their religious system, prestige, and power.
(2) The servility and hypocrisy of religious bigotry. The arguments they employed are not given. No doubt they bowed before Festus as cringing sycophants, urging every consideration that bigotry could suggest. They pleaded for justice, but meant murder.
3. The reply of Festus (Act 25:4-5). Perhaps he had one of those presentiments which is often the offspring and the organ of God in the soul. But though he does not give the reason of his refusal, he promises an early trial, and requests them to go down with him and bring their accusation.
II. The attendant circumstances (Act 25:6). Festus shows himself to be a man of his word, and a man prompt in action. Note–
1. The charges of Pauls enemies, and his denial of them (Act 25:7).
(1) Judging from Pauls answer they were the old ones. But whatever they were they could not prove them.
(2) His manner of treating them was perhaps substantially the same as in Act 24:10; Act 24:21; hence the historian does not record his defence.
2. The request of Festus to Paul, and his refusal.
(1) The request of Festus (Act 24:9). So far we have discovered nothing censurable in his conduct, but here evil shows itself. Popularity was dearer to him than justice. He had seen enough to feel that Paul was innocent and ought to be acquitted, but, for the sake of getting a good name with the Jews, he proposes to Paul another trial at Jerusalem. Accursed love of popularity! Pilate condemned Christ to do the Jews a pleasure. Felix kept Paul bound two years for the same reason. All that can be said in palliation is that Festus merely submitted it to the choice of Paul.
(2) The refusal of Paul (Act 24:10-11). Notice–
(a) His demand for political justice. He had committed no crime cognisable by the Jews, and could hope for no justice from them. As a Roman citizen, he demanded Roman justice.
(b) His consciousness of moral rectitude. Festus, no doubt, knew that Felix had found no fault with him; as a shrewd man he must have seen that his accusers were capable of fabricating the most groundless charges, and from the spirit of the apostle, that he was an innocent man.
(c) His sublime heroism.
(i) He dared death. To a truly great man truth and honour are far more precious than life. Mens dread of death is always in proportion to their disregard of moral principles.
(ii) He dared his judge too. No man may deliver me unto them. The right to appeal to Caesar belonged to him as a Roman citizen, and it was strictly forbidden to put any obstruction in the way of a Roman citizen when he had appealed. Paul knew this, and he dared his judge by appealing to Caesar.
III. The resultant circumstances (verse12). In this Unto Caesar shalt thou go, we may see–
1. The triumph of justice over policy. Festus, in desiring him to go to Jerusalem, thought it a stroke of policy, but Pauls appeal to Caesar forced him to abandon the purpose.
2. The triumph of generosity over selfishness. A generosity inspired by the gospel of Christ had awakened in Paul a strong desire to go to Rome (Act 19:21; Rom 1:11; Rom 15:23-24). This was strengthened by years. But how had selfishness, working in the Jews, wrought to thwart it! Here, however, in the fiat, Unto Caesar shalt thou go, the door of Rome is thrown open to him: his way is made safe and sure and cheap.
3. The triumph of the Divine over the human. God had purposed that Paul should go to Rome (Act 23:11). The purpose of the Jews was to kill him at Jerusalem. The Lord reigns, and so controls the opposing and conflicting passions of the world as ultimately to realise His own decree. As we believe, amid the darkness and desolations of the severest winter, that summer is on its march, and will cover the world with life and beauty, so let us believe, amongst all the workings of human depravity, that Gods great purpose to redeem the world to holiness and bliss is marching on in stately certainty. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Paul before Festus
I. Festus represents a certain class of mind.
1. In reference to his general character. When Felix had been removed Festus was appointed to succeed him, because he was more just and incorruptible, and more likely to be popular among the Jews. His general character was evinced in these transactions.
(1) He was firm in his purpose not to consent to the removal of Paul to Jerusalem. It was a simple request on the part of the Jews, and it seemed to involve nothing wrong. But his answer was every way becoming one who represented the majesty of the Roman law (Act 24:4).
(2) He was prompt in bringing Paul to trial. Felix had kept him in prison for two years with the hope of a bribe; Festus took his case in hand the very day after his return.
(3) He readily conceded the right of Paul to carry the case before the Roman emperor.
(4) He gave utterance to a noble sentiment in stating a great principle of the Roman law (Act 24:16). The trials in the Inquisition and in the Star chamber derived their enormity mainly from a violation of this principle; and the chief progress which society has made in the administration of justice has consisted in little more than in securing, by proper sanctions and provisions, the law here enunciated by Festus.
2. In reference to the sentiments which he entertained on the subject of religion (Act 24:18-19). Festus regarded the questions in the ease–
(1) As pertaining to the Jews, and of no matter to him. The word superstition was commonly employed by a Greek to describe religion. Festus therefore meant no disrespect of the faith of the people he had just come to govern. It was merely a matter to be settled by themselves, one with which he had no concern either as a man or as a magistrate, any more than he was concerned with the religion of the Greeks or the Egyptians. In this respect Festus is a representative of a very large and respectable class. They are men who would not revile religion, nor disturb others in the quiet enjoyment of it. Their own purpose is to lead a moral life; to settle questions which do pertain to themselves as magistrates, business men, politicians, and philanthropists. Our difficulty with such is in persuading them to regard religion as having any personal claim on them.
(2) As one of little importance, of one Jesus, implying that He was an obscure person, and perhaps also that it was of little consequence whether he was alive or dead. Festus could see no great results to be attached to the inquiry. Does not this represent the views of a very large class in regard to this and, indeed, to all religious questions? If a man pays his debts, is kind to the poor, and just to all, it is, in their opinion, of little consequence what he believes; nor can his conviction respecting the resurrection of Christ, or any doctrine, materially affect his character or his destiny. Our work with such men is to convince them that the most important questions are those which pertain to religion.
(3) Festus took no pains to inquire into or to settle these points. He was intent on other objects. They did come before the mind of Felix, for he trembled. They did come before the mind of Agrippa, for he was almost persuaded. But they took no such hold on the mind of Festus. In this respect, also, he was the representative of a large class. They are engaged in other inquiries; they investigate points of jurisprudence, history, science, art; but they have no interest in ascertaining whether Christ rose from the dead. Our difficulty with these men is to get the question before their minds at all. We place the Bible in their hands–they will not read it. We set before them works on the evidences of religion, but for them they have no attractions.
II. Is this the proper manner in which to treat the subject of religion? Let such as Festus note–
1. That every man has in fact an interest in the great questions which belong to religion. Man is made to be a religious being; and he never approaches the perfection of his nature, or meets the design of his existence, until the religious principle is developed. Man is distinguished by this from every other inhabitant of our world. To deprive him of this capability would as essentially alter his nature as to deprive him of reason. In the question whether there is a God, and what He is, one man is as much concerned as any other man can be. Whether man is a fallen being–whether an atonement has been made for sin–whether the Bible was given by inspiration of God, etc.
are things pertaining to all men in common.
2. Every man is bound to perform the duties which religion requires, and none more than Festus himself. There is a very common, and not wholly an unnatural, mistake on this point. Many seem to feel that the obligations of religion are the result of a voluntary covenant; that there is nothing lying back of a profession of religion to oblige anyone to attend to its duties, any more than there is to bind a man to enlist as a soldier, or to enter into a contract for building a bridge. When a profession of religion has been made they admit it to be binding. Now, Christians do not object to being held to the performance of the duties of religion, growing out of their involuntary covenant with God. But the profession of religion does not create the obligation, it only recognises it.
3. Every man needs the provisions which the gospel has made for salvation. If Festus had inquired into the superstition, a few questions would have opened such visions of glory, honour, and immortality as had never dawned on the mind of a Roman. The natural mistake which men make on this point is, that while one class may need the provisions made in the gospel, there are others for which these are unnecessary. It is like the feeling which we have about medicines: they are useful and desirable for the sick, but not needful for those who are in health. So if men feel that they are sinners, it is proper for them to make application to the system which proclaims and promises peace. But where this necessity is not felt, men do not think that the gospel pertains to them. Yet the gospel assumes that every one of the race is in circumstances which make the plan of redemption necessary for him; that there is no such virtue in man as to meet the demands of the law; and that no one enters heaven who is not interested in the Saviours death.
4. It is as certain of one man as it is of another, that unless he is interested in religion he will be lost. If one can be saved without religion, another can in the same way; and consequently religion is unnecessary for any.
Conclusion:
1. Men are not merely lookers-on in the world. Each man that passed by the Cross had the deepest personal interest, if he had known it, in the great transaction. So Festus, if he had known it, had the deepest personal interest in the question whether the unknown man who was affirmed to be dead was really alive. And so with everyone that hears the gospel.
2. The interest which a man has in these things is not one from which he can escape. It attends him everywhere, and at all times.
3. No man should desire to drive the subject from his mind. Why should he? Why should he not feel that he has a God and a Saviour? Why should he not have a hope of future happiness? (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Paul before Festus
An instructive example how both the children of the world and the children of light remain the same.
I. The children of the world.
1. Pauls accusers. They have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing: they bring forward the old lies, and employ the same artifices as they had devised before in the case of Paul and Christ.
2. Pauls judges. Instead of a licentious Felix, a proud Festus, who at first showed a noble bearing (Act 24:4-5), but soon, like his predecessor, surrendered righteousness to please men (Act 24:9)–in short, under another name, the same man of the world.
II. The children of God. Paul is the same in–
1. Undaunted courage. The two years imprisonment had neither broken his courage nor paralysed his presence of mind: his defence is as clear and firm as ever.
2. In his meekness and patience. No desire of revenge against his wicked enemies, no conspiracy against his unrighteous judges, no impatience at so long a trial; but calm submission to Roman law, and confident trust in the Divine protection. (K. Gerok.)
Sneakism
Unfortunately there is a good deal of sneakism to be found in society; but as it is not polite to give any example painted from life, we may have a very coherent notion of the spirit of the offence if we notice that embodiment of it which is to be seen in the lion worm. The lion worm is a curious and voracious little creature, having a tapering form, the head being more pointed than the tail. Like the ant lion, that formidable insect, it makes a species of cavity in the loose earth, and there waits in ambuscade for its prey. A portion of its body lies concealed under the sand, the rest stretches across the bottom of the den, and appears so stiff and motionless that at first sight it might be taken for a bit of straw, half an inch in length. If, however, any insect in search of food should happen to walk into the cave of the lion worm, the little morsel of stubble in an instant becomes all animation, falls like a serpent on its prey, and winding its body in coils around its victim, compresses it to death, and sucks out the juices by means of a couple of hooks fixed to its head. No one can observe these actions without coming to the conclusion that sneakism in men or worms is just the same thing, with merely a change of method and appliances suitable to the place and occasion. (Scientific Illustrations.)
Christian epochs
We are now in the midst of great historical scenes. The painter cannot let them alone. There are some things which men willingly let die, but there are other things which will not die.
I. What a long life hatred has! Two years had elapsed, but the fury of the Jews had not cooled. We leave some things to time, calling it all-healing Time. Time cannot put hell out! Well might the apostle warn the Churches against bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour; he had felt the hatred which he deprecated. Religious hatred is the worst. The Church has herself to blame for the little progress Christianity has made in the world. Religious hatred thought less of murder than of ceremonial pollution. The Jews desired that Paul should come to Jerusalem; and they would take care to have assassins on the road. Yet these men would not eat until they had washed their hands! The more you attend to mere ceremony the more you fritter away the substance of your character.
II. How wondrously opportunities are created by human mistakes! The Christian elders thought that Paul had better make a compromise in order to do away with suspicion. If they had been out doing Pauls kind of work, they would have left compromise millions of miles behind them; but they had been in the metropolis studying–always a very perilous and risky business. So all this trouble came upon Paul through their weak-minded and mistaken advice. But the Lord turned the human mistake into a Divine opportunity. It gave Paul his highest audiences. He was talking to rabbles before–just an open-air preacher, a man taking opportunities as they occurred–but now he was a preacher to procurators and kings. We know not what we do. Could we stand back in the eternity of God and watch men, we should not be troubled by their doings. When they are making weapons against us, we should say, No weapon that is formed against me shall prosper. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? There is only one man can do you any injury of a permanent kind, and that man is yourself. If you are right, you cannot be injured; your enemies will only be creating opportunities for you. The Lord maketh the wrath of man to praise Him; the remainder of that wrath He doth restrain.
III. Long-continued hardship had not soured the mind of Paul. That is the test of his quality. When he appears before Festus we mark in him the same quietness, the same dignity, the same defence–that is Christianity. If it were a fight in words the battle might go wrong for our cause sometimes, because there are men against us, skilled in sentences and arguments; but it is an affair of the sweetness of the soul. Long-suffering is eloquence. This is a Christian miracle. There are three remarkable things about Paul in this connection. Here presents–
1. Spiritual influence. He cannot be let alone. Chained at Caesarea, he is still an active presence in Jerusalem. You cannot get rid of some men. If you kill them, they will haunt you as Herod was haunted by the new man whom he suspected to be the beheaded John. Paul represented the kind of influence which follows society, colouring its questions, lifting up its wonder, troubling its conscience.
2. Spiritual confidence. He would rather be fighting, but the Lord had appointed him to waiting. The battle is not mine, but Gods. It is better that I should be shut up in Caesarea, that I may see how God can do without me. Presently he will see the meaning of it all, and write to his friends, The things which have happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel.
3. The highest aspect of spiritual culture. He is being trained, mellowed. All the land is better for the rain which softens it–aye, for the frost which reduces it to powder. From the human side, Paul was being punished; from the Divine side, he was being rested and trained. There are two sides in all human events. If we take the lower aspect of our life we shall groan, fret, and chafe; but if we take the upper view–that is to say, look down upon it from Gods point–we shall see all things work together for good. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXV.
Porcius Festus being appointed governor of Judea, instead of
Felix, the Jews beseech him to have Paul brought up to
Jerusalem, that he might be tried there; they lying in wait to
kill him on the way, 1-3.
Festus refuses, and desires those who could prove any thing
against him, to go with him to Caesarea, 4, 5.
Festus, having tarried at Jerusalem about ten days, returns to
Caesarea, and the next day Paul is brought to his trial, and
the Jews of Jerusalem bring many groundless charges against
him, against which he defends himself, 6-8.
In order to please the Jews, Festus asks Paul if he be willing
to go up to Jerusalem, and be tried there, 9.
Paul refuses, and appeals to Caesar, and Festus admits the
appeal, 10-13.
King Agrippa, and Bernice his wife, come to Cesarea to visit
Festus, and are informed by him of the accusations against
Paul, his late trial, and his appeal from them to Caesar,
14-21.
Agrippa desires to hear Paul; and a hearing is appointed for
the following day, 22.
Agrippa, Bernice, the principal officers and chief men of the
city being assembled, Paul is brought forth, 23.
Festus opens the business with generally stating the accusations
against Paul, his trial on these accusations, the groundless
and frivolous nature of the charges, his own conviction of his
innocence, and his desire that the matter might be heard by the
king himself, that he might have something specifically to
write to the emperor, to whom he was about to send Paul,
agreeably to his appeal, 24-27.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXV.
Verse 1. Now when Festus was come into the province] By the province is meant Judea; for, after the death of Herod Agrippa, Claudius thought it imprudent to trust the government in the hands of his son Agrippa, who was then but seventeen years of age; therefore Cuspius Fadus was sent to be procurator. And when afterwards Claudius had given to Agrippa the tetrarchate of Philip, that of Batanea and Abila, he nevertheless kept the province of Judea more immediately in his own hands, and governed it by procurators sent from Rome. Joseph. Ant. lib. xx. cap. 7, sec. 1. Felix being removed, Porcius Festus is sent in his place; and having come to Caesarea, where the Roman governor generally had his residence, after he had tarried three days, he went up to Jerusalem, to acquaint himself with the nature and complexion of the ecclesiastical government of the Jews; no doubt, for the purpose of the better administration of justice among them.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Province; so the Romans called any country which they had conquered with their arms, and unto which they sent a governor, which at this time was Festus, being now set over Judea in Felixs room.
Caesarea had been the place of residence for the Roman governors, by reason of its strength and situation, in Act 23:23.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. Festus . . . after three days .. . ascended . . . to Jerusalemto make himself acquainted withthe great central city of his government without delay.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now when Festus was come into the province,…. Of Judea, which was a Roman province, over which he was made governor by Nero, the Roman emperor, in the room of Felix; he now being landed in some part of the province, namely, at Caesarea, and so might be said to have entered upon the government of it, as the phrase will bear to be rendered;
after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem; he very likely came by sea from Italy to Judea, and landed at Caesarea; for though Joppa was the nearest port to Jerusalem, yet Caesarea was the safest, and most commodious port, being made so by Herod;
[See comments on Ac 18:22], and besides, it seems to have been very much the residence of the kings and governors of Judea, Ac 12:19 here Festus stayed three days after his landing, to rest himself after the fatigue of the voyage, and then went up to Jerusalem, the metropolis of the province of Judea.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Paul Arraigned before Festus; Paul’s Fourth Defence; Paul Appeals to Csar. |
| |
1 Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Csarea to Jerusalem. 2 Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, 3 And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him. 4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Csarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither. 5 Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him. 6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Csarea; 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 Csar, have I offended any thing 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 judged of these things before me? 10 Then said Paul, I stand at Csar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing 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 Csar. 12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Csar? unto Csar shalt thou go.
We commonly say, “New lords, new laws, new customs;” but here was a new governor, and yet Paul had the same treatment from him that he had from the former, and no better. Festus, like Felix, is not so just to him as he should have been, for he does not release him; and yet not so unjust to him as the Jews would have had him to be, for he will not condemn him to die, nor expose him to their rage. Here is,
I. The pressing application which the high priest and other Jews used with the governor to persuade him to abandon Paul; for to send him to Jerusalem was in effect to abandon him. 1. See how speedy they were in their applications to Festus concerning Paul. As soon as ever he had come into the province, and had taken possession of the government, into which, probably, he was installed at Csarea, within three days he went up to Jerusalem, to show himself there, and presently the priests were upon him to proceed against Paul. He staid three days at Csarea, where Paul was a prisoner, and we do not find that in that time Paul made any application to him to release him, though, no doubt, he could have made good friends, that he might hope to have prevailed by; but as soon as ever he comes up to Jerusalem the priests are in all haste to make an interest with him against Paul. See how restless a thing malice is. Paul more patiently bears the lengthening out of his imprisonment than his enemies do the delay of his prosecution even to the death. 2. See how spiteful they were in their application. They informed the governor against Paul (v. 2) before he was brought upon a fair trial, that so they might, if possible, prejudge the cause with the governor, and make him a party who was to be the judge. But this artifice, though base enough, they could not confide in; for the governor would be sure to hear him himself, and then all their informations against him would fall to the ground; and therefore they form another project much more base, and that is to assassinate Paul before he came upon his trial. These inhuman hellish methods, which all the world profess at least to abhor, have these persecutors recourse to, to gratify their malice against the gospel of Christ, and this too under colour of zeal for Moses. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum–Such was their dire religious zeal. 3. See how specious the pretence was. Now that the governor was himself at Jerusalem they desired he would send for Paul thither, and try him there, which would save the prosecutors a great deal of labour, and looked most reasonable, because he was charged with having profaned the temple at Jerusalem, and it is usual for criminals to be tried in the court where the fact was committed; but that which they designed was to way-lay him as he was brought up, and to murder him upon the road, supposing that he would not be brought up under so strong a guard as he was sent down with, or that the officers that were to bring him up might be bribed to give them an opportunity for their wickedness. It is said, They desired favour against Paul. The business of prosecutors is to demand justice against one that they suppose to be a criminal, and, if he be not proved so, it is as much justice to acquit him as it is to condemn him if he be. But to desire favour against a prisoner, and from the judge too, who ought to be of counsel for him, is a very impudent thing. The favour ought to be for the prisoner, in favorem vit–to favour his life, but here they desire it against him. They will take it as a favour if the governor will but condemn Paul, though they can prove no crime upon him.
II. The governor’s resolution that Paul shall take his trial at Csarea, where he now is, Act 25:4; Act 25:5. See how he manages the prosecutors. 1. He will not do them the kindness to send for him to Jerusalem; no, he gave orders that Paul should be kept at Csarea. It does not appear that he had any suspicion, much less any certain information, of their bloody design to murder him by the way, as the chief priests had when he sent him to Csarea (ch. xxiii. 30); but perhaps he was not willing so far to oblige the high priest and his party, or he would maintain the honour of his court at Csarea and require their attendance there, or he was not willing to be at the trouble or charge of bringing Paul up; whatever was his reason for refusing it, God made use of it as a means of preserving Paul out of the hands of his enemies. Perhaps now they were more careful to keep their conspiracy secret than they had been before, that the discovery of it might not be now, as it was then, the defeat of it. But though God does not, as then, bring it to light, yet he finds another way, as effectual, to bring it to nought, by inclining the heart of the governor, for some other reasons, not to remove Paul to Jerusalem. God is not tied to one method, in working out salvation for his people. He can suffer the designs against them to be concealed, and yet not suffer them to be accomplished; and can make even the carnal policies of great men to serve his gracious purposes. 2. Yet he will do them the justice to hear what they have to say against Paul, if they will go down to Csarea, and appear against him there: “Let those among you who are able, able in body and purse for such a journey, or able in mind and tongue to manage the prosecution–let those among you who are fit to be managers, go down with me, and accuse this man; or, those who are competent witnesses, who are able to prove any thing criminal upon him, let them go and give in their evidence, if there be any such wickedness in him as you charge upon him.” Festus will not take it for granted, as they desire he should, that there is wickedness in him, till it is proved upon him, and he has been heard in his own defence; but, if he be guilty, it lies upon them to prove him so.
III. Paul’s trial before Festus. Festus staid at Jerusalem about ten days, and then went down to Csarea, and the prosecutors, it is likely, in his retinue; for he said they should go down with him; and, since they are so eager in the prosecution, he is willing this cause should be first called; and, that they may hasten home, he will despatch it the next day. Expedition in administering justice is very commendable, provided more haste be not made than good speed. Now here we have, 1. The court set, and the prisoner called to the bar. Festus sat in the judgment-seat, as he used to do when any cause was brought before him that was of consequence, and he commanded Paul to be brought, and to make his appearance, v. 6. Christ, to encourage his disciples and keep up their spirits under such awful trials of their courage as this was to Paul, promised them that the day should come when they should sit on thrones, judging the tribes of Israel. 2. The prosecutors exhibiting their charges against the prisoner (v. 7): The Jews stood round about, which intimates that they were many. Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! It intimates also that they were unanimous, they stood by one another, and resolved to hold together; and that they were intent upon the prosecution, and eager in clamouring against Paul. They stood round about, if possible, to frighten the judge into a compliance with their malicious design, or, at least, to frighten the prisoner, and to put him out of countenance; but in vain: he had too just and strong an assurance to be frightened by them. They compassed me about like bees, but they are quenched as the fire of thorns, Ps. cxviii. 12. When they stood round about him, they brought many and grievous accusations against Paul, so it should be read. They charged him with high crimes and misdemeanors. The articles of impeachment were many, and contained things of a very heinous nature. They represented him to the court as black and odious as their wit and malice could contrive; but when they had opened the cause as they thought fit, and came to the evidence, there they failed: they could not prove what they alleged against him, for it was all false, and the complaints were groundless and unjust. Either the fact was not as they opened it, or there was no fault in it; they laid to his charge things that he knew not, nor they neither. It is no new thing for the most excellent ones of the earth to have all manner of evil said against them falsely, not only in the song of the drunkards, and upon the seat of the scornful, but even before the judgment-seat. 3. The prisoner’s insisting upon his own vindication, v. 8. Whoever reproaches him, his own heart does not, and therefore his own tongue shall not; though he die, he will not remove his integrity from him. When it came to his turn to speak for himself, he insisted upon his general plea, Not guilty: Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor yet against Csar, have I offended any thing at all. (1.) He had not violated the law of the Jews, nor taught any doctrine destructive of it. Did he make void the law by faith? No, he established the law. Preaching Christ, the end of the law, was no offence against the law. (2.) He had not profaned the temple, nor put any contempt at all upon the temple-service; his helping to set up the gospel temple did not at all offend against that temple which was a type of it. (3.) He had not offended against Csar, nor his government. By this it appears that now his cause being brought before the government, to curry favour with the governor and that they might seem friends to Csar, they had charged him with some instances of disaffection to the present higher powers, which obliged him to purge himself as to that matter, and to protest that he was no enemy to Csar, not so much as those were who charged him with being so.
IV. Paul’s appeal to the emperor, and the occasion of it. This gave the cause a new turn. Whether he had before designed it, or whether it was a sudden resolve upon the present provocation, does not appear; but God puts it into his heart to do it, for the bringing about of that which he had said to him, that he must bear witness to Christ at Rome, for there the emperor’s court was, ch. xxiii. 11. We have here,
1. The proposal which Festus made to Paul to go and take his trial at Jerusalem, v. 9. Festus was willing to do the Jews a pleasure, inclined to gratify the prosecutors rather than the prisoner, as far as he could go with safety against one that was a citizen of Rome, and therefore asked him whether he would be willing to go up to Jerusalem, and clear himself there, where he had been accused, and where he might have his witnesses ready to vouch for him and confirm what he said. He would not offer to turn him over to the high priest and the sanhedrim, as the Jews would have had him; but, Wilt thou go thither, and be judged of these things before me? The president, if he had pleased, might have ordered him thither, but he would not do it without his own consent, which, if he could have wheedled him to give it, would have taken off the odium of it. In suffering times, the prudence of the Lord’s people is tried as well as their patience; being sent forth therefore as sheep in the midst of wolves, they have need to be wise as serpents.
2. Paul’s refusal to consent to it, and his reasons for it. He knew, if he were removed to Jerusalem, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance of the president, the Jews would find some means or other to be the death of him; and therefore desires to be excused, and pleads, (1.) That, as a citizen of Rome, it was most proper for him to be tried, not only by the president, but in that which was properly his court, which sat at Csarea: I stand at Csar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged, in the city which is the metropolis of the province. The court being held in Csar’s name, and by his authority and commission, before one that was delegated by him, it might well be said to be his judgment seat, as, with us, all writs run in the name of the sovereign, in whose name all courts are held. Paul’s owning that he ought to be judged at Csar’s judgment-seat plainly proves that Christ’s ministers are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the civil powers, but ought to be subject to them, as far as they can with a good conscience; and, if they be guilty of a real crime, to submit to their censure; if innocent, yet to submit to their enquiry, and to clear themselves before them. (2.) That, as a member of the Jewish nation, he had done nothing to make himself obnoxious to them: To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. It very well becomes those that are innocent to plead their innocency, and to insist upon it; it is a debt we owe to our own good name, not only not to bear false witness against ourselves, but to maintain our own integrity against those who bear false witness against us. (3.) That he was willing to abide by the rules of the law, and to let that take its course, v. 11. If he be guilty of any capital crime that deserves death, he will not offer either to make resistance or to make his escape, will neither flee from justice nor fight with it: “I refuse not to die, but will accept of the punishment of my iniquity.” Not that all who have committed any thing worthy of death are obliged to accuse themselves, and offer themselves to justice; but, when they are accused and brought to justice, they ought to submit, and to say both God and the government are righteous; as it is necessary that some should be made examples. But, if he be innocent, as he protests he is, “If there be none of these things whereof these accuse me,–if the prosecution be malicious and they are resolved to have my blood right or wrong,–no man may deliver me unto them, no, not the governor himself, without palpable injustice; for it is his business as much to protect the innocent as to punish the guilty;” and he claims his protection.
3. His appealing to court. Since he is continually in danger of the Jews, and one attempt made after another to get him into their hands, whose tender mercies were cruel, he flies to the dernier resort–the last refuge of oppressed innocency, and takes sanctuary there, since he cannot have justice done him in any other way: “I appeal unto Csar. Rather than be delivered to the Jews” (which Festus seems inclined to consent to) “let me be delivered to Nero.” When David had divers times narrowly escaped the rage of Saul, and concluded he was such a restless enemy that he should one day perish by his hands, he came to this resolution, being in a manner compelled to it, There is nothing better for me than to take shelter in the land of the Philistines, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. So Paul here. But it is a hard case that a son of Abraham must be forced to appeal to a Philistine, to a Nero, from those who call themselves the seed of Abraham, and shall be safer in Gath or Rome than in Jerusalem. How is the faithful city become a harlot!
V. The judgment given upon the whole matter. Paul is neither released nor condemned. His enemies hoped the cause would be ended in his death; his friends hoped it would be ended in his deliverance; but it proved neither so nor so, they are both disappointed, the thing is left as it was. It is an instance of the slow steps which Providence sometimes takes, not bringing things to an issue so soon as we expect, by which we are often made ashamed both of our hopes and of our fears, and are kept still waiting on God. The cause had before been adjourned to another time, now to another place, to another court, that Paul’s tribulation might work patience. 1. The president takes advice upon the matter: He conferred with the council—meta tou symbouliou, not with the council of the Jews (that is called synedrion), but with his own counsellors, who were always ready to assist the governor with their advice. In multitude of counsellors there is safety; and judges should consult both with themselves and others before they pass sentence. 2. He determines to send him to Rome. Some think Paul meant not an appeal to Csar’s person, but only to his court, the sentence of which he would abide by, rather than be remitted to the Jew’s council, and that Festus might have chosen whether he would have sent him to Rome, or, at least, whether he would have joined issue with him upon the appeal. But it should seem, by what Agrippa said (ch. xxvi. 32), that he might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed to Csar–that, by the course of the Roman law, a Roman citizen might appeal at any time to a superior court, even to the supreme, as causes with us are removed by certiorari, and criminals by habeas corpus, and as appeals are often made to the house of peers. Festus, therefore, either of choice or of course, comes to this resolution: Hast thou appealed unto Csar? Unto Csar thou shalt go. He found there was something very extraordinary in the case, which he was therefore afraid of giving judgment upon, either one way or other, and the knowledge of which he thought would be an entertainment to the emperor, and therefore he transmitted it to his cognizance. In our judgment before God those that by justifying themselves appeal to the law, to the law they shall go, and it will condemn them; but those that by repentance and faith appeal to the gospel, to the gospel they shall go, and it will save them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Having come into the province ( ). Second aorist active participle of , to set foot upon. Literally, “Having set foot upon his province.” is a late word for province, in N.T. only here and 23:34. Judea was not strictly a province, but a department (Page) of the province of Syria which was under a propraetor ( ) while Judea was under a procurator ().
After three days ( ). So in Ac 28:17 in Rome. That is on the third day, with a day of rest in between. Precisely the language used of the resurrection of Jesus “after three days” = “on the third day.” So by common usage then and now.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Was come into the province [ ] . Lit., having entered upon the province..
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
PAUL BEFORE FESTUS THE NEW GOVERNOR V. 1-9
1) “Now when Festus was come into the province,” (phestos oun epibas te eparcheion) “When therefore Festus had entered the province,” of Judea in Caesarea. He was appointed by Nero to succeed Felix about A.D. 60 or 61 and died within two years, according to Josephus Antiq. 20:8, 9.
2) “After three days,” (meta treis hemeras) “After three days had passed,” after he had settled down in the castle in Caesarea.
3) “He ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.” (anebe eis lerosoluma apo Kaisareias) “He went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea,” to familiarize himself with this great central city of his new territorial government, and to become acquainted with her Jewish people in particular.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
1. Then when Festus. The second action is described in this place, wherein Paul hath as hard a combat, and is in no less danger than in the first. Seeing he was left in bonds, Festus might suspect that the cause was doubtful, and so gather an unjust prejudice. But there was another thing which was cause of great danger. We know that new rulers, because they will win the favor of those who are in the provinces, use to grant them many things at their first coming; so that it was to be thought that the death of Paul should be to Festus a fine means to win favor with all. Therefore, the faith of the holy man is assailed afresh with a new trial, as if the promise had been vain whereto he had hitherto trusted; but the grace of God doth so much the more plainly show itself in delivering him, because, contrary to all hope, he is delivered out of the jaws of death. The Jews prevent the governor with their false accusations, yet they do not as yet seek to have him punished, but they do only desire that he may not be brought into any foreign court to plead his cause. They desire that ambitiously as a great benefit, which was to look to equal. How is it then that they do not obtain, save only because God doth hold the mind of Festus, so that he doth stoutly deny that which he was afterward ready to grant? And as the Lord did then hold his mind bound with the secret bridle of his providence, so when he granted him freedom of will he bound his hands, that he could not execute that which he would. Let this confidence support us in dangers, and let it also stir us up to call upon God; and let this make our minds quiet and calm, in that the Lord, in stretching forth his hand, and breaking such a strong conspiracy, did show an eternal example of his power in defending his. −
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE PROLONGED TRIAL
Acts 25-26
Now when Festus was come, into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
THERE are some men whose presence cannot be ignored. This is not due to their personality. It is not accounted for on the ground of their accomplishments; but, it is a resultant of office.
The Roman governor might be a despicable character. He often was, but his office was not to be disregarded. It was Paul himself who emphasized this principle. He wrote,
Let every soul he subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom 13:1-3).
Not once in all the varied and insulting experiences through which Paul passed did he object to his judge. He seemed to hold what is commonly true, that the just man has little to fear from the machinery of justice. He knew the righteousness of his cause and was not afraid to commit it to even the prejudiced, as this whole study abundantly illustrates, for here he passes from Felix to Festus, and from Festus to Agrippa, trusting that when it is all over, if injustice has been done him, Caesars court, the highest, will set it right.
Imperceptibly, therefore, we pass from the august appearance of Festus to the central subjectPaul, for, after all, Paul is the hero of this entire story. Let us think, then, of Paul Before Festus, Paul Left Over by Felix, and Paul Appealing to Agrippa.
PAUL BEFORE FESTUS
The Jews reveal impatience for his indictment. No sooner had Festus arrived than they had their report ready and their plan outlined. He should send for Paul and bring him to Jerusalem, and they would kill him while on the way.
The judges office has its distasteful side. Litigants are seldom justice-loving people. The judge is not to them the opportunity of justice. He is, rather, the possible medium of selfish plans. When did any litigant go to court, asking only that the truth be found out fully, and justice be meted out fairly? Is he not commonly there, as the priest and chief Jews were here, with a plan? Has he not already told his attorney what course to take, how to entangle the opposition and how to win the victory?
We knew a man who had, with another, a mutual contract that called for an arbitration committee in case of disagreement. The disagreement arose and the committee had to be created, and when the man arrived on the ground where the arbitration was to take place, he found that his opponent had already secured the consent of three of his friends to serve in this mutual capacity, and was profoundly offended when told that such was not the intent of the agreement; that it was his privilege to select one, and one onlythe second to be selected by the other party, and the third by those two. And when the spirit of the articles was carried out, and the committee created, the man who had expected to make the committee a medium of self-service, discovered, to his chagrin, that he had to suffer justice instead.
One of the marvelous things about the Bible is the fact that its history is true to life. In its personalities you see sample men. Its sacred pages are the reflectors of human nature.
Festus, however, had a plan of his own.
Festus answered, that Paul should he kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
Let them, therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
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 (Act 25:4-6).
A judge should be an independent mana man who thinks for himself. A judge should be a man who makes his own plans and determines the conditions of his own court. He should neither be swayed by the eloquence of a lawyer, nor by the swelling tides of public opinion.
In this country, the people determine, for the most part, at least, their own judges, and when a man sits in this place of importance and power, to be swayed by popular opinion, or legal eloquence, it is the fault of the people as well as the fault of the judge. Particularly is that fault with the people when they re-elect! Office tests men, and tells on the character. The untried are not to be prejudged, but the public servant, who has known years of service, writes his personal history with indelible ink, and the people read.
Some years ago, America put into the presidency a man whose literary and legal talents made him appear to be fitted for the office. At the end of four years, his unfitness was fully revealed and the people retired him, even at the expense of a great party.
More than once America has elected to her highest office an untried man. At the end of four years, he has proven himself a true manbrave, independent, dependable, and almost uniformly they have returned him for a second term. And in spite of the tradition that no man should serve a third term, it has been almost impossible to keep the people from demanding that the true man continue in this high station.
Pauls appeal to Caesars court was a criticism of Festus conduct. In Act 25:6-9 we find the record of official weakness. When the testimony was all in, it amounted to nothing. The complaints were unprovable, and when Paul had denied them in toto,
Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there he judged of these things before me?
Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgment seat, where I ought to he judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing 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 (Act 25:9-11).
The highest court is commonly the safest. As a rule, only men of character attain to its honors as judges, and the more character in the judge, the better opportunity for the triumph of truth and right. In fact, in practically all the walks of life, one had best plead his case before the head man. If you want credit at a store, dont request it of a clerk. Get to the head of the credit department. If you would secure a pass on a railroad, dont appeal to the chief clerk. Find access to the vice-president.
Paul was a judge of men and had a working knowledge of affairs, and he knew the higher up he went the greater likelihood of righteous treatment.
It is often more trouble to get to the head man than it is to speak to one of his assistants, but the former is a worth while painstaking. It is rather more expensive to reach a supreme court than to settle difficulties in a squires court. But if the case is important, then the judgment involves a master wisdom. For righteousness, Caesars court is a thousandfold more satisfactory than the court of Festus. Let us lift the principle a little higher still.
There are those who fear the high and holy Judge of all the earth, but we are fully persuaded, both upon the basis of Bible testimony and that of personal experience, that even a sinner stands a better chance before the Most High God than at the court of human society.
There is many a man incarcerated in the State penitentiary who fears not the final judgment, since it is more easy to stand before a just and righteous God than it is to appear before unjust and unrighteous society.
O, sinner! your hope is not with men, not with the judges of the earth; it is with the Lordthe Judge of all. Paul appealed to Caesar. Your appeal, my appeal, is to Christ.
PAUL LEFT OVER BY FELIX
And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.
And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Pauls cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against Him.
To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him (Act 25:13-16).
The judge is often heir to legal troubles. They are passed down to him from predecessors. They are passed on to him from previous dockets. The court sheet is seldom clean. The man going out of office commonly leaves to his successor a vast deal of dirt-cleaning to be done. This is particularly true in American courts. They are cluttered affairs. They remind the inspector of a warehouse into which has been crowded the ill-mated furniture in many homes, and where, as you walk through, you wonder if there will ever be a clean-up.
It is now conceded that the cluttered court is both the occasion and explanation of American crimes. In the mother country, when a man commits a crime, he is promptly arrested, promptly indicted, and if guilty, promptly convicted; if innocent, promptly released. The certainty and suddenness of judgment are moral deterrents. The case continued custom, so long and so widely obtaining in America, is a State curse.
To be sure, ours is a new country and a great territory, and crimes committed in it are more easily covered than in the English isle, or the nations of the continent; but it is very generally conceded that our chief failure in all criminal procedure is that of speedy detection, speedy trial, and speedy judgment. Our criminals are arrested, and either released on bond or flung into jail. Months pass before any trial is had, causing favor toward the guilty, in that the true case against him weakens with time; testimony is ever increasingly difficult to secure, public feeling dies down, and even the judge himself is influenced by the thought that, though this is a crime, it was committed long ago.
The impression seems to prevail with the American bench that attorneys are to determine court procedure, time included, rather than the judge. If they want to drag an indifferent case into days, they are permitted to do so, and often, even the judge himself loses interest in the main objective before the end is reached, and must add other days in order to review and freshen his mind on the whole matter. Meantime, justice waits and crime complacently continues.
Festus shared his court troubles with the king. (Act 25:13-22). This is Herod Agrippa, the second. He had been trained in the Royal Palace of the Emperor, but he had not lost his interest in his own people, the Jews; and when, through the tetrarchy, his dominion was extended, it included Judaea. He was brother-in-law of Felix, and his scandal with Bernice was known to Jew and Gentile alike; and yet, his higher office made its appeal to Festus who both flattered Agrippa, and sought to escape his own duty, by asking his judgment in the Paul-in-stance.
There is, however, a dual principle here involved that has both its merit and demerit. It is always justifiable for the humbler office to consult the higher, and the man in comparative authority to consult the man of supreme authority.
Therein is the justification of prayer, especially such prayer as appeals to God for wisdom. When the King of Glory can be consulted, what folly to rely upon self-judgment. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God. But in this instance, so even in that, men may make of prayer itself a political procedure. That is to say, when duty is clear, they may delay it on the pretense of consulting God.
The judge, in humblest office, who knows what should be done, has little need of consultation. What he needs is courage, decision, and so the man who has a plain path before his feet need not ask God which way. The wiser part is to walk steadily therein.
In this action, Festus seems to have favored the separation of Church and State. He described these Jewish questions as matters of their own superstition, and doubted of such manner of questions for State consideration. It was, in fact, a case in point. The Church and State are separate. The first must not essay to control the second, and the second may not attempt to determine the faith of the first. As between the various religious opinions of the sects, the State has nothing to say; but it is very easy to carry even this principle too far, because, when a religious sect clearly violates the letter and spirit of State law, then it becomes commonly criminal as the King David case in Michigan. Or, when the individual religious opinion becomes inimical to public interest, then the State has a right to self-protection, as in the Wisconsin U. case. That is the principle on which we have advocated the passing and execution of anti-evolution laws. No servant of the state has a right to teach philosophies injurious to the public weal, and attempt to justify himself by naming such philosophies science. If history is replete with illustrations of anything, it is that all atheistic and materialistic philosophies have been hurtful to men as individuals and to men collectively.
France was nearly destroyed by deism in her schools, and Germany has lost her place in the sun by following Nietzsche too far in his false philosophy. Russia is, at this present moment, a holocaust of crimes committed in the name of sovietism. Those men in America who are striving to drive the Christian faith from the public school educational system and substitute instead a materialistic philosophy that leaves a term, expressing no fact whatever, as the explanation of all things, are enemies of the social organism, and against such the State has a perfect right to speak, as Tennessee has spoken, and Mississippi and Colorado have spoken.
Think of the instance of Loeb and Leopold. They adopted the Universitys philosophy of life and then proposed to put it into criminal practice, and the State rose and convicted and incarcerated them, and but for their youth would have justly hung them.
The true church is the best friend the State ever had; a false one is forever the States enemy. The function of the Church is religion; the function of the State is social administration. Their spheres are different, hence the necessity of their separation. But their interests overlap, hence the necessity of their co-operation.
But we conclude with
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
This record is found in the twenty-sixth chapter.
Here again, Paul pleads his own case (Act 26:1-26). It is an instance of noble self-defense.
Some of us are in honest doubt if the world needs attorneys. The attorney is supposed to be an expert in law, and to be able to protect the interests of his clients. But the man who sits in the place of judge ought also to be an expert in law, and no one appearing in his court should need other protection from any source. The judgment of the judge should be the sufficient protection of all parties.
It is doubtful if there has been a more conspicuous figure on the American continent than the famed Justice John of Richmond, Virginia. For years he performed all the functions of the court. Unless somebody demanded a jury, he was judge, jury and lawyer for both sides. He cross-questioned the witnesses. He did not seek to prejudice them one way or the other, but to discover from them the facts, and the public shortly found out that righteousness was favored in that court, unrighteousness was frowned upon, and few of his decisions were ever reversed.
It is our judgment that there is no feature of law more fair than that which privileges every man to plead his own case, if he desires to do so; and it is equally our judgment that when one has a righteous case, it would be better for him to adopt the apostolic method and to make his own statement.
The modern custom of asking questions and demanding yes and no answers, is hardly favorable to a knowledge of the truth. Expert attorneys know how to compel it to cover the truth instead. The straightforward rehearsal of Pauls experience, as reported in these verses, would impress any just judge, and had Paul stopped with his statement, This thing was not done in a corner, we believe he would have won his case.
It was his personal question that queered him. King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets? I know that thou believest! Agrippa answered, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian, has about it the suggestion of scorn. It is so now and apparently it has always been so, that even the believing judge on the bench does not want any reference to his faith made. He knows the public expects him to mete out justice and to be absolutely uninfluenced by religious feelings. Hence his resentment if they are referred to in the slightest. There is a sense in which this resentment is justified. State questions are not to be settled by religious sentiment. On the other hand, the true Christian man will not be silenced concerning the faith that is in him because he happens to stand before a State official.
The completion of the Book of Acts will prove that Paul was never put into any place where he felt it out of order, or even in the slightest degree unbecoming to bear his testimony to the Christ; and it was practically impossible for Paul to deal with any man, in station high or low, without trying to win him to the worship of Jesus.
If such an endeavor is resented by the judge, it will not be made an occasion of adverse judgment. Down deep in his heart, the veriest man of the world appreciates Christian consistency, and Christian enthusiasm, and Christian courage. Agrippa seems not to have been an exception; for, when the whole matter was over and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them, are gone aside to talk among themselves, they agreed, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
Paul, then, had triumphed. He had convinced the judge of the justice of his case. He had seemed innocent in the eyes of the king!
The innocent are always convincingly eloquent. The profound appeal Paul had made to Agrippa is voiced in the last verse, Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
That was an admission, We find no fault in him. It carried with it, also, a hint, at least, of contentment in a possible excuse. Felix had had his opportunity to set Paul free and had failed. Festus had had his opportunity to set Paul free and had failed. Now Agrippa has his opportunity to set Paul free, and he fails. Felix excused himself on the ground that Festus was coming and could hear Pauls defense. Festus excused himself on the ground that Agrippa was coming and he would wait for the judgment of one in a higher court. And now Agrippa has excused himself on the ground that since Caesars court is final, there is no occasion to interfere.
Alas, for the maneuvers of men in justifying delay in plain duty. And yet, let it be remembered that the final court will come and it will come for all men. The great day of the Assize will arrive. The final judge will sit in the throne of His glory,
and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand,
Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in:
Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.
Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.
Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in: naked, and ye clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited Me not.
Then shall they also answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?
Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (Mat 25:32-46).
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 25:1. Having come into the province, or having entered upon his provincei.e., his procuratorship (see on Act. 23:18)Festus, after three days, ascended, or went up (contrast the reverse, went down, in Act. 24:1), from Csarea to Jerusalem, the metropolis of the dominion over which he had been appointed ruler.
Act. 25:2. The renewal of the complaints against Paul, which were made by the high priest, or, according to the best MSS., the chief priests and the chief, or the principal (R.V.)lit., the first of the Jews, showed that the Sanhedrim had been greatly dissatisfied with the result of Pauls trial before Felix. Their present movement was probably dictated by the hope of succeeding better with a new procurator, who, knowing their power as it had been displayed in procuring the recall of his predecessor, might naturally be disposed to exhibit towards them a greater degree of complaisance. The high priest at this time was Ismael, the son of Phabi, who succeeded Ananias (Jos., Ant., XX. viii. 8).
Act. 25:3. Their proposal that Festus should send for Paul to Jerusalem was, like the proposal of the forty (Act. 23:15), designed to afford them an opportunity of cutting him off by secret assassination on the road from Csarea.
Act. 25:5. Festus, however, whether he had heard from Felix or Lysias, or others of the former plot, refused their request, and invited those amongst them who were ablei.e., not physically able (Bengel), or to whom it was convenient (Grotius, Calvin) or talented, but powerful, , clothed with official authority, i.e., their rulers (Meyer, Alford, Holtzmann, Zckler) to go down with him to Csarea, whither he was shortly to proceed, and accuse him if there was any wickedness, better anything amiss, or out of place, in his behaviour. The best MSS. omit , this.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 25:1-5
The Succession of a New Governor; or, the Revival and Defeat of an Old Plot
I. The old plot revived.
1. What the plot was. To effect Pauls removal by assassination. Nothing could more convincingly have attested the success of the apostle in establishing Christianity among his countrymen than this unappeasable thirst of the leaders of the Jewish people for his removal. So long as he was alive and at liberty to continue an active propaganda, it seemed to them there could be no security against the overthrow of their national faith. They had the sagacity to perceive that a death-struggle had commenced between the Old Faith and the New, in which one or other must go down. Their implacable hostility was also a gruesome revelation of the malignity of their hearts as well as of the secret conviction they entertained that victory was inclining to the side of the Way.
2. Why the plot was revived. Because of the failure of the first attempt to carry it out, through the midnight withdrawal of Paul to Csarea by Lysiass soldiers (Act. 23:31-35), and because of the collapse of the subsequent proceedings against Paul before Felix at Csarea (Act. 24:22-23). The enemies of Paul and the instigators of the present conspiracy had hoped by fair means or foul to effect their murderous design, but thus far Providence had thwarted its execution. For two years they had brooded over their disappointment, but had not departed from their purpose. Travailing with iniquity and conceiving mischief (Psa. 7:14) all that time, they lay in readiness at the proper moment to bring it forth anew.
3. When the plot was resuscitated. On the occasion of Festuss visit to Jerusalem. Festus, the new procurator, had just entered upon his duties, and come into his province in succession to Felix, who had lately been recalled. Festus, being a new governor, would naturally feel disposed, so Pauls enemies reasoned, to ingratiate himself with his Judan subjects, and all the more that he probably knew both how troublesome these were to rule, and how powerful they had shown themselves in being able to bring about the deposition of his predecessor. Besides, from Festuss inexperience they most likely anticipated better results, than they had obtained from Felixs longer and wider knowledge of themselves and their craft. Accordingly, no sooner had Festus paid his inaugural visit to the capital, than the Sanhedrists embraced the opportunity of reviving the old charges against their arch-enemy, the apostate. Rabbi then in captivity at Csarea.
4. How the plot was designed to be carried out. Under the pretext of wishing to have the apostle brought to a fresh trial, it was arranged that a deputation from the Sanhedrim should wait upon the governor and ask him to send for Paul from Csarea, that the charges standing against him might be re-examined in the metropolis, and, in the event of this request being complied with, that they should have a band of hired assassins lying in wait to despatch him while on the way. By no means a clever trick, it was merely the old scheme of the forty Sicarii revived. It was another proof that villains have not always at command sagacity or genius equal to their ferocity. Neither much insight nor much foresight was required to defeat the plot. How it prospered the next paragraph will show.
II. The old plot defeated.
1. By a simple statement. That Paul was a prisoner at Csarea, whither he himself, Festus, was about to depart; which meant that as Paul was under military custody there was no danger of him escaping, and that as he himself (Festus) was about to proceed northwards to Csarea, there was no need to be at either the trouble or expense of fetching Paul to Jerusalem. Whether Festus had got an inkling from Lysias, the commandant of the castle, of the previous conspiracy against Paul by these venerable fathers of the people, and stood upon his guard against another stratagem, can only be conjectured; but his answer was a death-blow to their device.
2. By a fair proposal. That a number of themselves, the rulers, clothed with official power should return with him to Csarea, and prefer their indictment against the apostle thereif indeed there was anything wrong about either the man or his conduct, which (one almost reads between the lines) he hardly believed there was. How they relished the new governors proposal can only be imagined. Clearly it was not the answer they expected to their innocent suggestion. Unless they were either fools or blind, they must have seen that their secret machinations were understood. Concealing their chagrin as best they could, they retired from the governors presence, and began their preparations for a second journey to Csarea and a third attack upon Paul.
Learn.
1. How hard it is for evil thoughts and purposes to die within the heart.
2. How difficult it is to kill those whom God wants to keep alive.
3. How easy it is to see through and thwart the designs of the wicked when God is against them.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 25:1. Changes in Government.
I. Occur mostly at unexpected times.Felix hardly dreamed, when desiring to gain favour with the Jews he left Paul bound, that within two years his term of office would be finished.
II. Always entail new responsibilities upon the new governors.Festus, on assuming the reins of government, had to make himself acquainted with his new dominions and their peoples.
III. Commonly bring new experiences to the governed.Hardly any rule could have been worse than that of Felix; and Festuss was for the Jews a happy exchange. But sometimes the change is from good to bad or from bad to worse.
IV. Unconsciously advance the purposes of Heaven.He who is higher than the highest, whose kingdom ruleth over all, and who holds the hearts of kings as well as common men in His hand, worketh out the counsel of His own will by all the governments that rise and fall. Festuss accession to the procuratorship, and coming into Juda, was the opening of a new chapter in the history of Paul.
Act. 25:2-3. Wickedness in high places; or, the horrible iniquities of those who were, or should have been, good menexemplified in the conduct of the chief priests and principal men of the Jews.
I. Malignity.For two whole years they had nursed their wrath against Paul. Thus showed they themselves to be little else than human sleuth hounds.
II. Deception.They pretended to Festus that they only wished to have the apostle brought to a fresh trial. Thus they attested themselves to be double-dyed hypocrites.
III. Assassination.Their secret purpose was not to try the apostle but to kill him. They were black-hearted if not red-handed murderers.
Lesson.The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
Act. 25:5-6. The Lord reigns! let the earth be glad and let His people rejoice. God appears here:
I. As the providential governor of the world.
II. As the adversary and counter-worker of the wicked.
III. As the friend and protector of His people.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
d.
Festus visits Jerusalem. Act. 25:1-6 a.
Act. 25:1
Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea.
Act. 25:2
And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him,
Act. 25:3
asking a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem; laying a plot to kill him on the way.
Act. 25:4
Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept in charge at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart thither shortly.
Act. 25:5
Let them therefore, saith he, that are of power among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him.
Act. 25:6 a
And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days,
Act. 25:1-2 Festus was a mild-mannered man, honest and just in his dealings (whenever it did not interfere with his political advantages), withal a crafty politician. His first gesture upon coming to his new position was to pay a visit to Jerusalem and see how the land lay in the capital of the Jews.
The Jews were glad for his visit for it afforded them further opportunity to press their charges against Paul. These opposers of the gospel did not give up easily. By this time it had gotten out of the realm of a doctrinal issue and was more of a personal grudge against Paul.
923.
What was the first act of the new governor Festus?
924.
How was Festus received by the Jews in Jerusalem? Why?
Act. 25:3-6 Ananias probably smarted a long time under the rebuke, Thou whited wall. He influenced the elders of the Sanhedrin to feel the same way about the apostle. However, Ananias was no longer the high priest when Festus came to Jerusalem. Ananias was retired but held great power in a personal and political manner over the Jews of Jerusalem.
One by the name of Ismael, son of Fabi who had been put forward by Agrippa, was now high priest.
When Festus arrived in Jerusalem the same cry reached him that was heard two years previous. Saul of Tarsus must be punished, and that right away.
Luke makes it obvious in his record that the request for Pauls punishment was unlawful. The Jews were not going to use the Assassins to carry out their plan, their motive was far more obvious. Murder was a small matter to them in comparison to the defilement of the temple.
Festus did not rebuke them for their unjust suggestion, nor did he yield to it. His answer to them was altogether fair as well as typically Roman: Paul is right where he should be. I am about to return to Caesarea and if you want to see him or to oppose him in any way, come with me. Let your chief men return with me and stand in Roman court in lawful procedure. If there is anything amiss in the man it will be brought to light in this way.
925.
Since it was unlawful for the Jews to ask for the punishment of Paul how did they imagine Festus would grant their request?
926.
What is typically Roman about the answer of Festus to the Jews?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXV.
(1) After three days he ascended . . .Better, he went up. (See Note on Act. 24:1.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 25
I APPEAL TO CAESAR ( Act 25:1-12 ) 25:1-12 Three days after he had entered into his province, Festus went up to Jerusalem. The chief priests and the chief men of the Jews laid information before him against Paul. They urged him, asking a favour against Paul, to send for him to be brought to Jerusalem, for they were hatching a plot to murder him on the way. But Festus replied that Paul was under guard at Caesarea and that he himself would soon be leaving. “So,” he said, “let your men of power come down with me, and, if there is anything amiss with the man, let them make their accusations.” After spending no more than eight or ten days amongst them, when he had gone down to Caesarea, he took his place on his judgment seat and ordered Paul to be brought in. When Paul came in, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem surrounded him; they levelled many serious accusations against him which they were unable to prove, while Paul said in his defence, “I have committed no crime either against the Laws of the Jews, or against the Temple, or against Caesar.” But Festus, with the desire to ingratiate himself with the Jews, replied to Paul, “Are you willing to go to Jerusalem and in my presence to be tried on these charges?” But Paul said, “I am standing at Caesar’s judgment seat where I ought to be tried. I have committed no crime against the Jews as you very well know; but if I have committed some crime and if I have done something which merits death, I am not trying to beg myself off dying. But if there is nothing in the charges of which they accuse me, no one can hand me over as a favour to them. I appeal to Caesar.” After Festus had conferred with his assessors, he said, “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go.”
Festus ( G5347) was a different type from Felix; we know very little about him but what we do know proves that he was a just and upright man. He died after only two years in office but he died with an untainted name. The Jews tried to take advantage of him; they tried to persuade him to send for Paul to come to Jerusalem; for once again they had formed a plot to assassinate Paul on the way. But Festus was a Roman, with the Roman instinct for justice; and he told them to come to Caesarea and plead their case there. From Paul’s answer we can deduce the malicious charges which they levelled against him. They accused him of heresy, of sacrilege and of sedition. No doubt from their point of view the first charge was true, irrelevant as it was to Roman law; but the second two were deliberate lies.
Festus had no desire to get up against the Jews in the first days of his governorship and he offered a compromise. Was Paul, he asked, prepared to go to Jerusalem and stand his trial there while he stood by to see fair play? But Paul knew that for him there could be no such thing as fair play at Jerusalem and he took his great decision. If a Roman citizen felt he was not getting justice in a provincial court, he could appeal direct to the Emperor. Only if the man was a murderer, a pirate, or a bandit caught in the act, was the appeal invalid. In all other cases the local procedure had to be sisted and the claimant had to be despatched to Rome for the personal decision of the Emperor. When Paul uttered the fateful words, “I appeal to Caesar,” Festus had no choice; and so Paul, in very different circumstances from those of which he had dreamed, had set his foot upon the first step of the road that led to Rome.
FESTUS AND AGRIPPA ( Act 25:13-21 ) 25:13-21 When some days had elapsed, Agrippa, the king, and Bernice came to Caesarea to welcome Festus. As they were staying there for some time, Festus referred Paul’s case to the king. “There is a man”,” he said, “who was left behind by Felix, a prisoner. When I was in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid information before me concerning him and asked for his condemnation. I replied to them that it is not the custom of the Romans to grant any man’s life as a favour before the accused meets his accusers face to face and receives an opportunity to make his defence against their charge. So when they came down here I made no delay, but on the next day I took my seat on my judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought in. The accusers rose and brought against him none of the accusations of crime which I was expecting; but they had an argument with him about their own religion and about someone called Jesus who was dead and whom Paul insists to be alive. I did not know what to make of the dispute about these matters so I asked him if he was willing to go to Jerusalem and to be tried there on these charges; but Paul appealed and demanded to be held for His Majesty’s investigation and decision; so I ordered him to be held until I should remand him to Caesar.”
Agrippa ( G67) was still king of a quite small part of Palestine, which included Galilee and Peraea; but he knew quite well that he held even that limited realm by grace of the Romans. They had put him there and they could just as easily remove him. It was therefore his custom to pay a courtesy visit to the Roman governor when he entered his province. Bernice was a sister of Drusilla, the wife of Felix, and she was also a sister of Agrippa himself. Festus, knowing that Agrippa had the most intimate knowledge of Jewish faith and practice, proposed to discuss Paul’s case with him. He gave Agrippa a characteristically impartial review of the situation as it existed at that moment; and now the stage was set for Paul to plead his case and bear his witness before a king. Jesus had said, “You will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake” ( Mat 10:18). The hard prophecy had come true; but the promise of help ( Mat 10:19) was also to come abundantly true.
FESTUS SEEKS MATERIAL FOR HIS REPORT ( Act 25:22-27 ) 25:22-27 Agrippa said to Festus, “I, too, would like to hear the man.” “Tomorrow,” he said, “you will hear him.” So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with much pomp; and when they had come into the audience-chamber with the captains and the leading men of the city Paul was brought in. So Festus said, “King Agrippa and all who are here present with us, you see this man, concerning whom the whole community of the Jews kept petitioning me both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to be allowed to live any longer. I understood that he had done nothing to merit death. But when this man himself appealed to His Majesty, I gave judgment to send him. I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. So I have brought him in before you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, when investigation has been made, I may have something to write. For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner and not to send the charges against him.”
Festus had got himself into a difficulty. It was Roman law that if a man appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome there must be sent with him a written account of the case and of the charges against him. Festus’ problem was that, as far as he could see, there was no charge to send. That is why this meeting had been convened.
There is no more dramatic scene in all the New Testament. It was with pomp that Agrippa and Bernice had come. They would have on their purple robes of royalty and the gold circlet of the crown on their brows. Doubtless Festus had donned the scarlet robe which a governor wore on state occasions. Close at hand there must have stood Agrippa’s suite and also in attendance were the most influential figures of the Jews. Close by Festus there would stand the captains in command of the five cohorts which were stationed at Caesarea; and in the background there would be a solid phalanx of the tall Roman legionaries on ceremonial guard.
Into such a scene came Paul, the little Jewish tent-maker, with his hands in chains; and yet from the moment he speaks, it is Paul who holds the stage. There are some men who have an element of power. Julian Duguid tells how he once crossed the Atlantic in the same ship as Sir Wilfred Grenfell. Grenfell was not a particularly imposing figure to look at; but Duguid tells that, whenever Grenfell entered one of the ship’s rooms, he could tell he was there without looking round, because a wave of power emanated from the man. When a man has Christ in his heart and God at his right hand he has the secret of power. Of whom then shall he be afraid?
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
3. Paul’s Treatment by Festus, and Appeal to Cesar , Act 25:1-12 .
1. Festus Of the previous life of Festus history says nothing. He arrived at Cesarea probably in the autumn of A.D. 60. He was not disgraced by the flagitious qualities that belonged to Felix, yet he courted popularity at the expense of right.
After three days A promptness that allowed him but one intermediate day for rest.
Cesarea to Jerusalem From the Roman capital to the Jewish capital of Palestine.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
PART THIRD.
CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.
Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.
I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and they besought him, asking a favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying a plot to kill him on the way.’
Once Festus arrived in the province he almost immediately ‘went up’ to Jerusalem from Caesarea in order to bring matters under control there, for it was in Jerusalem that the main political body of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, operated. This resulted in the chief priests and other leaders of the Jews speaking to him of Paul, to Paul’s detriment, and requesting that Paul be sent for and brought to Jerusalem for trial. Time may have passed but they had not forgotten him. You did not call Ananias a ‘whited wall’ in public and get away with it, and while he had possibly by this time been replaced by Ishmael as High Priest, the insult to the High Priesthood still stung. (The expression ‘chief priests’ probably indicates that Ananias was still involved even though he had been deposed as High Priest, by Agrippa II).
This instant approach about Paul might serve to confirm that throughout his imprisonment his influence had continued to be felt throughout Judaea, and that he had thus been brought continually to their minds. Otherwise they would surely not have seen him as of such prime importance that it was one of the first things that they wanted dealt with.
But nor could they forgive the fact that he was a Christian Jew, who was prominent in winning people to the new faith, and for going to the Gentiles. Their continuing purpose was that Paul might be killed at some time while on the way to Jerusalem, for they recognised that really they could produce no case against him. They had already tried and failed. So things had not changed. The cessation of activity had not been due to their dropping their case, but due to their recognition that while Felix was in power they would get nowhere. They now hoped under the new procurator to resolve the matter by getting rid of Paul once and for all.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Jews Plan To Ambush Paul, An Attempt Which Is Thwarted By Festus’ Insistence On Trying Him In Caesarea (25:1-5).
Festus’ first aim on arrival in office was to put things to rights. The result was that almost as soon as he had arrived in Caesarea he went to Jerusalem to meet the men who under his authority had responsibility in Judaea, and whose religious authority stretched even further. It was a wise thing to do, although not so promising for Paul.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
PAUL’S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AND THEN TO ROME (19:21-28:31).
Here we begin a new section of Acts. It commences with Paul’s purposing to go to Jerusalem, followed by an incident, which, while it brings to the conclusion his ministry in Ephesus, very much introduces the new section. From this point on all changes. Paul’s ‘journey to Jerusalem’ and then to Rome has begun, with Paul driven along by the Holy Spirit.
The ending of the previous section as suggested by the closing summary in Act 19:20 (see introduction), together with a clear reference in Act 19:21 to the new direction in which Paul’s thinking is taking him, both emphasise that this is a new section leading up to his arrival in Rome. Just as Jesus had previously ‘changed direction’ in Luke when He set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51), so it was to be with Paul now as he too sets his face towards Jerusalem. It is possibly not without significance that Jesus’ ‘journey’ also began after a major confrontation with evil spirits, which included an example of one who used the name of Jesus while not being a recognised disciple (compare Act 19:12-19 with Luk 9:37-50).
From this point on Paul’s purposing in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome takes possession of the narrative (Act 19:21; Act 20:16; Act 20:22-23; Act 21:10-13; Act 21:17), and it will be followed by the Journey to Rome itself. And this whole journey is deliberately seen by Luke as commencing from Ephesus, a major centre of idolatry and the of Imperial cult, where there is uproar and Paul is restricted from preaching, and as, in contrast, deliberately ending with the triumph of a pure, unadulterated Apostolic ministry in Rome where all is quiet and he can preach without restriction. We can contrast with this how initially in Section 1 the commission commenced in a pure and unadulterated fashion in Jerusalem (Act 1:3-9) and ended in idolatry in Caesarea (Act 12:20-23). This is now the reverse the same thing in reverse.
Looked at from this point of view we could briefly summarise Acts in three major sections as follows:
The Great Commission is given in Jerusalem in the purity and triumph of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as King. The word powerfully goes out to Jerusalem and to its surrounding area, and then in an initial outreach to the Gentiles. Jerusalem reject their Messiah and opt for an earthly ruler whose acceptance of divine honours results in judgment (Act 19:1-12).
The word goes out triumphantly to the Dispersion and the Gentiles and it is confirmed that they will not be required to be circumcised or conform to the detailed Jewish traditions contained in what is described as ‘the Law of Moses’ (Act 13:1 to Act 19:20).
Paul’s journey to Rome commences amidst rampant idolatry and glorying in the royal rule of Artemis and Rome, and comes to completion with Paul, the Apostle, triumphantly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingly Rule of God from his own house in Rome (Act 19:21 to Act 28:31).
It will be seen by this that with this final section the great commission has in Luke’s eyes been virtually carried out. Apostolic witness has been established in the centre of the Roman world itself and will now reach out to every part of that world, and the command ‘You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth’ is on the point of fulfilment.
This final section, in which Paul will make his testimony to the resurrection before kings and rulers, may be analysed as follows.
a Satan counterattacks against Paul’s too successful Ministry in Ephesus and throughout Asia Minor and causes uproar resulting in his ministry being unsuccessfully attacked by the worshippers of ‘Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians’. This city, with its three ‘temple-keepers’ for the Temple of Artemis and the two Imperial Cult Temples, is symbolic of the political and religious alliance between idolatry and Rome which has nothing to offer but greed and verbosity. It expresses the essence of the kingly rule of Rome. And here God’s triumph in Asia over those Temples has been pictured in terms of wholesale desertion of the Temple of Artemis (mention of the emperor cult would have been foolish) by those who have become Christians and will in the parallel below be contrasted and compared with Paul freely proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God in Rome (Act 19:21-41).
b Paul’s progress towards Jerusalem is diverted because of further threats and he meets with disciples for seven days at Troas (Act 20:1-6).
c The final voyage commences and a great sign is given of God’s presence with Paul. Eutychus is raised from the dead (Act 20:7-12).
d Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus who meet him at Miletus and he gives warning of the dangers of spiritual catastrophe ahead and turns them to the word of His grace. If they obey Him all will be saved (Act 20:13-38).
e A series of maritime stages, and of prophecy (Act 19:4; Act 19:11), which reveals that God is with Paul (Act 21:1-16).
f Paul proves his true dedication in Jerusalem and his conformity with the Law and does nothing that is worthy of death but the doors of the Temple are closed against him (Act 21:17-30).
g Paul is arrested and gives his testimony of his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 21:31 to Act 22:29).
h Paul appears before the Sanhedrin and points to the hope of the resurrection (Act 22:30 to Act 23:9).
i He is rescued by the chief captain and is informed by the Lord that as he has testified in Jerusalem so he will testify in Rome (Act 23:11).
j The Jews plan an ambush, which is thwarted by Paul’s nephew (Act 23:12-25).
k Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea (Act 23:26-35).
l Paul makes his defence before Felix stressing the hope of the resurrection (Act 24:1-22).
k Paul is kept at Felix’ pleasure for two years (with opportunities in Caesarea) (Act 24:23-27).
j The Jews plan to ambush Paul again, an attempt which is thwarted by Festus (Act 25:1-5).
i Paul appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar. To Rome he will go (Act 25:6-12).
h Paul is brought before Agrippa and gives his testimony stressing his hope in the resurrection (Act 25:23 to Act 26:8).
g Paul gives his testimony concerning his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 26:9-23).
f Paul is declared to have done nothing worthy of death and thus to have conformed to the Law, but King Herod Agrippa II closes his heart against his message (Act 26:28-32).
e A series of maritime stages and of prophecy (Act 19:10; Act 19:21-26) which confirms that God is with Paul (27.l-26).
d Paul speaks to those at sea, warning of the dangers of physical catastrophe ahead unless they obey God’s words. If they obey Him all will be delivered (Act 27:27-44).
c Paul is delivered from death through snakebite and Publius’ father and others are healed, which are the signs of God’s presence with him, and the voyage comes to an end after these great signs have been given (Act 28:1-13).
b Paul meets with disciples for seven days at Puteoli and then at the Appii Forum (Act 28:14-15).
a Paul commences his ministry in Rome where, living in quietness, he has clear course to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God (Act 28:16-31).
Thus in ‘a’ the section commences at the very centre of idolatry which symbolises with its three temples (depicted in terms of the Temple of Artemis) the political and religious power of Rome, the kingly rule of Rome, which is being undermined by the Good News which has ‘almost spread throughout all Asia’ involving ‘much people’. It begins with uproar and an attempt to prevent the spread of the Good News and reveals the ultimate emptiness of that religion. All they can do is shout slogans including the name of Artemis, but though they shout it long and loud that name has no power and results in a rebuke from their ruler. In the parallel the section ends with quiet effectiveness and the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God being given free rein. This is in reverse to section 1 which commenced with the call to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (Act 1:3) and ended with the collapse of the kingly rule of Israel through pride and idolatry (Act 12:20-23).
In ‘b’ Paul meets with God’s people for ‘seven days, the divinely perfect period, at the commencement of his journey, and then in the parallel he again meets with the people of God for ‘seven days’ at the end of his journey. Wherever he goes, there are the people of God.
In ‘c’ God reveals that His presence is with Paul by the raising of the dead, and in the parallel His presence by protection from the Snake and the healing of Publius.
In ‘d’ we have a significant parallel between Paul’s warning of the need for the church at Ephesus to avoid spiritual catastrophe through ‘the word of His grace’ and in the parallel ‘d’ the experience of being saved from a great storm through His gracious word, but only if they are obedient to it, which results in deliverance for all.
In ‘e’ and its parallel we have Paul’s voyages, each accompanied by prophecy indicating God’s continuing concern for Paul.
In ‘f’ Paul proves his dedication and that he is free from all charges that he is not faithful to the Law of Moses, and in the parallel Agrippa II confirms him to be free of all guilt.
In ‘g’ Paul give his testimony concerning receiving his commission from the risen Jesus, and in the parallel this testimony is repeated and the commission expanded.
In ‘h’ Paul proclaims the hope of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin, and in the parallel he proclaims the hope of the resurrection before Felix, Agrippa and the gathered Gentiles.
In ‘i’ the Lord tells him that he will testify at Rome, while in the parallel the procurator Festus declares that he will testify at Rome. God’s will is carried out by the Roman power.
In ‘ j’ a determined plan by the Jews to ambush Paul and kill him is thwarted, and in the parallel a further ambush two years later is thwarted. God is continually watching over Paul.
In ‘k’ Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, and in the parallel spends two years there with access given to the ‘his friends’ so that he can freely minister.
In ‘l’ we have the central point around which all revolves. Paul declares to Felix and the elders of Jerusalem the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust in accordance with the Scriptures.
It will be noted that the central part of this chiasmus is built around the hope of the resurrection which is mentioned three times, first in ‘h’, then centrally in ‘l’ and then again in ‘h’, and these are sandwiched between two descriptions of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Jesus (in ‘g’ and in the parallel ‘g’). The defeat of idolatry and the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God have as their central cause the hope of the resurrection and the revelation of the risen Jesus.
We must now look at the section in more detail.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Fourth Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before Festus the Governor (60 A.D.) Act 25:1-12 gives us the testimony of Paul standing before Festus and making his appeal to stand trial in the court of Caesar at Rome. This is the fourth speech that Luke records of Paul’s defense of the Christian faith. Paul has spoken before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he has been taken before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he has stood before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he now stands before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12), and he will stand before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.
Act 25:10-11 Comments Each of Paul’s opening speeches reveals a man unashamed and confident of his innocence. In Act 21:40 he turns to address the Jewish mob rather than accept deliverance from the Roman soldiers, as would be typical for someone who had committed a crime and wanted to escape punishment. In Act 23:1 he looks intently upon the Sanhedrin and speaks boldly rather than hanging his head down in shame and guilt. In Act 24:10 he addresses Felix the governor with cheer. In Act 25:11 Paul boldly declares to Festus that if any wrong can be found in him, he is ready to die. In Act 26:1-2 he stretches forth his hand as an orator and speaks unto King Agrippa.
Comments Paul’s right to appeal unto Caesar came as a result of his Roman citizenship. Pliny the Younger tells us that Christians who were also Roman citizens were given the right to appeal unto Caesar, while others were either forced into renouncing their Christian faith, or put to death ( Letters 10.96). [295]
[295] Pliny writes, “In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel no doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.” See Pliny: Letters, vol. 1, trans. William Melmoth, in The Loeb Classical Library, eds. T. E. Page, E. Capps, and W. H. D. Rouse (London: William Heinemann, 1915), 403.
Act 25:12 Comments – In the same way that Paul the apostle had a destiny to stand before Caesar, so did Jesus Christ have a destiny to stand before Pilate.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28
2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35
3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22
4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38
5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32
6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.
2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”
Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.
Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.
Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”
Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”
Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Witness of Paul’s Arrest, Imprisonment, and Trials (A.D. 58-62) The final major division of the book of Acts (Act 21:1 to Act 28:31) serves as Luke’s testimony of the arrest and trials of Paul the apostle, his trip by sea to Rome, and preparation for a hearing before the Roman emperor, the highest court in the Roman Empire. G. H. C. MacGregor notes that this large portion of material devoted to Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and journey to Rome fills about one fourth of the book of Acts. He suggests several reasons. (1) Luke was an Eyewitness of these Events Luke was an eye witness of these dramatic events of Paul’s arrest, trials and journey to Rome. The nature of such events must have created a strong impact upon his life. (2) The Gospels are Structured with a Similar Disproportion of Jesus’ Arrest, Passion and Resurrection – By comparing this large portion of material to a similar structure in the Gospels, MacGregor suggests that Luke draws a parallel plot with the story of Paul. (3) Luke is Writing an Apology for Paul Many scholars believe Luke is writing an apology in defense of Paul. MacGregor bases this view upon the five speeches of Paul’s defense that are recorded in this section of Acts: Paul’s speech to the Jewish mob (Act 22:3-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix, the Roman governor (Act 24:10-21), to Festus, the Roman governor (Act 25:8-11), and to King Herod (Act 26:2-23). A number of scholars support the proposition that the impetus behind these events was an effort to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, which leads to the suggestion that Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke as a legal brief in anticipation of Paul’s trial before the Roman court. MacGregor argues that this motif is woven throughout Paul’s missionary journeys when Luke carefully records his encounters with Roman authorities in various cities. He notes that Luke records statements by Lysias, Festus, and Felix regarding the failure by the Jews to prove Paul’s guilt under Roman Law. He adds that Luke ends the book by portraying Paul as a peaceful man entertaining guests while imprisoned in Rome, in stark contrast to the zealous violence of the Jews that Rome was accustomed to encountering. [258] We may add that Luke’s opening to his Gospel and Acts serve as a petition to Theophilus.
[258] G. H. C. MacGregor and Theodore P. Ferris, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1954), 284-285.
The accounts of Paul’s five trials and apologetic speeches recorded in Act 21:1 to Act 26:32 show that Paul had exhausted the judicial systems in Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, before departing for Rome. In each of these trials, Luke proves Paul’s innocence. The only court left was an appeal to the highest court in Rome. These five trials serve as a testimony that Paul had a legal right to appeal unto Caesar, and that he was beyond doubt innocent of his allegations by the Jews.
One more important aspect of this passage is that divine oracles are embedded within the narrative material of Act 21:1 to Act 28:31. For example, Paul received divine oracles from the seven daughters of Philip the evangelist and the prophet Agabus (Act 21:8); he testifies of his divine vision on the road to Damascus and of the prophecy of Ananias (Act 22:6-16); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation while in prison at Caesarea (Act 23:11); Paul testifies again of his divine vision on the road to Damascus (Act 26:12-19); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation at sea (Act 27:20-26).
Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:1 to Act 28:31:
1. Prophecies of Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem Act 21:1-14
2. Paul’s Arrest and First Speech to Jewish Mob Act 21:15 to Act 22:29
3. Paul’s Second Speech Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:35
4. Paul’s Third Speech Before Felix the Governor Act 24:1-27
5. Paul’s Fourth Speech Before Festus the Governor Act 25:1-12
6. Paul’s Fifth Speech Before King Agrippa Act 25:13 to Act 26:32
7. The Witness of Paul’s Trip to Rome Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Paul Appeals to Caesar. Act 25:1-12
The hearing before Festus arranged:
v. 1. Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
v. 2. Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him,
v. 3. and desired favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
v. 4. But Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
v. 5. Let ‘them therefore, said he, which among you are able go down with me and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him. Porcius Festus, the new procurator of Palestine, is spoken of in terms of praise by Josephus, because he succeeded in dispersing the bands of robbers and in putting to death many of the assassins that infested the country. He entered upon the province, upon his duties as governor, in the year 60 A. D. , landing at Caesarea and taking possession of the administrative buildings. But very soon, after three days, he made the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem, which was still the capital of the Jewish nation. Evidently the Jewish leaders had not forgotten their hatred of Paul during the latter’s long imprisonment; if anything, they were more vindictive than ever, since their plans had failed of success. For they took this opportunity of informing Festus against Paul, of laying formal and legal information against him as a criminal. The high priest Ananias had been deposed, and Ishmael, the son of Phabi, was acting high priest; but on this occasion all the high priests, past and present, were united, together with the foremost men of the Jewish nation, determined at all costs to put Paul out of the way. They earnestly begged Festus, requesting it as a special favor, that he should send Paul up to Jerusalem, having made an ambush to kill him along the way. Here is a combination of hypocrisy and hatred seldom equaled, rarely even approached. With their murderous designs fully matured and the assassins engaged, they act as though their only concern was a new trial, with both Festus and the chief complainants present in Jerusalem. Now Festus, anxious to gain and keep the favor of the Jews, nevertheless thought it inexpedient to have the prisoner brought to Jerusalem. Paul was then in custody at Caesarea, and his own stay at Jerusalem would be very short, since he intended to leave shortly. Thus, by the providence of God, Festus was obliged to return with speed to Caesarea that the life of Paul might be spared according to His plans. The governor added that those among the Jews that had authority to act, on account of their rank or office, those that were competent to represent the Jews in this matter, should make the journey down to Caesarea with him, and then they might lay their charges against Paul, whether there were really anything criminal in him, whether he were the malefactor which their accusations represented him to be. Note: Instead of speaking of chance and fortune, Christians should substitute the dispensation and government of God, for many matters which seem to us of very minor importance are of the greatest consequence, as the sequel proves.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSTION
Act 25:1
Foetus therefore having come for now when Foetus was come, A.V.; went up for he ascended, A.V.; to Jerusalem from Casarea for from Caesarea to Jerusalem, A.V. The province (); above, Act 23:1-35. 34. After three days, etc. It is an evidence of the diligence of Foetus that he lost no time in going to Jerusalem, the center of disaffection to the Roman government.
Act 25:2
And for then, A.V.; chief priests for high priest, A.V. and T.R.; principal men for chief, A.V.; and they besought for and besought, A.V. Chief priests; as in Act 25:15 and Act 22:30. But the reading of the T.R., “the high priest,” is more in accordance with Act 24:1, and is approved by Alford. The high priest at this time was no longer Ananias, but Ismael the son of Phabi, who was appointed by King Agrippa towards the close of Felix’s government (Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. Act 8:8). He went to Rome to appeal to Nero about the wall which the Jews had built to screen the temple from being overlooked, and which Agrippa had ordered to be pulled down; and being detained at Rome as a hostage, he was succeeded in the high priesthood by Joseph Cabi the son of Simon. We may feel sure that on this occasion he was present before Festus, for he had not yet gone to Rome. Informed him (); see Act 24:1, note. The principal men of the Jews ( ). In Act 24:15 Festus speaks of them as . The question arises as to whether the two phrases are identical in their meaning. Meyer thinks that the includes leading men who were not elders, i.e. not Sanhedrists. Josephus calls the leading Jews of Caesarea (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. Act 8:9).
Act 25:3
Asking for and desired, A.V.; to kill him on the way for in the way to kill him, A.V. Asking favor, etc. The Jews evidently thought to take advantage of the inexperience of Festus, and of his natural desire to please them at his first start, to accomplish their murderous intentions against Paul.
Act 25:4
Howbeit for but. A.V.; was kept in charge for should be kept, A.V.; was about to depart thither shortly for would depart shortly thither, A.V. Was kept in charge. Festus did not merely mention the fact, which the Jews knew already, that Paul was a prisoner at Caesarea, but his determination to keep him there till he could go down and try him. The A.V. gives the meaning. Either is to be understood, as if Foetus should say, “Paul is a Roman citizen; Caesarea is the proper place for him to be tried at before the procurator, and therefore he must be kept in custody there,” or some such words as, “I have given orders” must be understood before “that Paul should be kept.”
Act 25:5
Saith for said, A.V.; which are of power among you for which among you are able, A.V.; if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him for accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him, A.V. Which are of power among you; i.e. your chief men, or, as we should say, your best men, which would include ability to conduct the accusation as well as mere station. Josephus frequently uses in the sense of “men of rank and power and influence,” (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 14. 13.1); (‘Bell. Jud.,’ 1. 12.4), etc. (see 1Co 1:26; Rev 6:15; and the passages from Thucydides, Xenophon, and Philo, quoted by Kuinoel). The rendering of the A.V., though defensible, is less natural and less in accordance with the genius of the language. Amiss; , but many manuscripts omit , leaving the sense, however, the same.
Act 25:6
Not more than eight or ten days for more than ten days, A.V. and T.R.; on the morrow for the next day, A.V.; he sat and commanded for sitting commanded, A.V. On the morrow (see Act 25:17). To he brought (). The technical word for bringing a prisoner before the judge (Act 6:12; Act 18:12; Luk 21:12; Luk 23:1, etc.).
Act 25:7
Had come down for came down, A.V.; about him for about, A.V.; bringing against him for and laid against Paul, A.V.; charges for complaints, A.V. Charges; , only here in the New Testament, and rare in classical Greek. The A.V. “complaints” means in older English exactly the same as “charges” or “accusations” (comp. “plaintiff”).
Act 25:8
Paul said in his defense for he answered for himself, A.V. and T.R.; nor for neither, A.V.; against for yet against, A.V.; sinned for offended anything, A.V. Said in his defense (); Act 24:10, note. The Law the temple, Caesar. The accusations against him fell under these three heads (Act 24:5): he was the ringleader of an unlawful sect; he had profaned the temple; and he had stirred up insurrection against the government among the Jews. The accusations were false under every head.
Act 25:9
Desiring to gain favor with the Jews for willing to do the Jews a pleasure, A.V. To gain favor, etc. (see above, Act 24:27, note). It was not unnatural that Festus, ignorant as he still was of Jewish malice and bigotry and violence, in the ease of Paul, and anxious to conciliate a people so difficult to govern as the Jews had showed themselves to be, should make the proposal. In doing so he still insisted that the trial should be before him. Before me; , as Act 23:30 and Act 26:2; “before thee,” viz. King Agrippa in the last case, and Felix in the former. The expression is somewhat ambiguous, and may merely mean that Festus would be present in the court to ensure fair play, while the Sanhedrim judged Paul according to their Law, and so Paul seems, by his answer, to have understood it.
Act 25:10
But Paul said for then said Paul, A.V.; I am standing for I stand, A.V.; before for at, A.V.; thou also for thou, A.V. I am standing before Caesar’s judgment-seat ( ). The judgment-seat of the procurator, who ministered judgment in Caesar’s name and by his authority, was rightly called “Caesar’s judgment-seat.” As a Roman citizen, Paul had a right to be tried there, and not before the Sanhedrim. The pretence that he had offended against the Jewish Law, and therefore ought to be tried by the Jewish court, was a false one, as Festus well knew; for he had the record of the preceding trial before him.
Act 25:11
If then I am a wrong, doer for for if I be an offender, A.V. and T.R.; and for or, A.V.; if none of those things is true for if there be none of these things, A.V.; can give me up for may deliver me, A.V. I refuse not; . Here only in the Acts, and three times in Luk 14:1-35. Elsewhere, four times in the pastoral Epistles, and twice in Hebrews. Frequent in classical Greek. No man can give me up (); as verse 16, “to hand over as a matter of complaisance.” St. Paul saw at once the danger he was in from Festus’s inclination to curry favor with the Jews. With his usual fearlessness, therefore, and perhaps with the same quickness of temper which made him call Ananias “a whited wall,” he said, “No man (not even the mighty Roman governor) may make me over to them at their request, to please them,” and with the ready wit which characterized him, and with a knowledge of the rights which the Lex Julia, in addition to other laws, conferred on him as a Roman citizen, he immediately added, I appeal unto Caesar.
Act 25:12
Thou hast for hast thou? A.V. and, as far as punctuation is concerned, T.R. The council. Not the members of the Sanhedrim who were present, but his own consiliarii, or assessores, as they were called, in Greek , with whom the Roman governor advised before giving judgment. Unto Caesar shalt thou go. In like manner, Pliny (quoted by Kuinoel) says of certain Christians who had appealed to Caesar, that, “because they were Roman citizens, he had thought it right to send them to Rome for trial” (‘Epist.,’ 10.97). Festus, though, maybe, rather startled by Paul’s appeal, was perhaps not sorry to be thus rid of a difficult case, and at the same time to leave the Jews under the impression that he himself was willing to send the prisoner for trial to Jerusalem, had it been possible.
Act 25:13
Now when certain days were passed for and after certain days, A.V.; Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at for King Agrippa and Bernice came unto, A.V.; and saluted for to salute, A.V. and T.R. Agrippa the king. Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. (Act 12:1-25.), and consequently brother of Drusilla (Act 24:24). He was only seventeen at his father’s death, and so not considered by Claudius a safe person to entrust his father’s large dominions to. But he gave him Chalets, and afterwards, in exchange for it, other dominions. It was he who made Ismael the son of Phabi high priest, and who built the palace at Jerusalem which overlooked the temple, and gave great offence to the Jews. He was the last of the Herods, and reigned above fifty years. Bernice was his sister, but was thought to be living in an incestuous intercourse with him. She had been the wife of her uncle Herod, Prince of Chalets; and on his death lived with her brother. She then for a while became the wife of Polemo, King of Cicilia, but soon returned to Herod Agrippa. She afterwards became the mistress of Vespasian and of Titus in succession (Alford). And saluted; , which reading Meyer and Alford both retain. The reading of the R.T. is . It is quite in accordance with the position of a dependent king, that he should come and pay his respects to the new Roman governor at Caesarea.
Act 25:14
As they tarried for when they had been, A.V.: laid for declared, A.V.; case for cause, A.V.; before for unto, A.V.; a prisoner for in bonds, A.V. Many days ( ). Not necessarily many, but as Act 24:17 (margin), “some,” or “several.” The number indicated by the comparative degree, , depends upon what it is compared with. Here it means more days than was necessary for fulfilling the purpose of their visit, which was to salute Festus. They stayed on some days longer. Laid Paul’s case before the king; . The word only occurs in the New Testament here and in Gal 2:2, “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” In 2 Macc. 3:9, , “Heliodorus laid before the high priest Onias the information that had been given about the treasure in the temple” (see other passages quoted by Kuinoel). The word might be rendered simply “told,” the thing told being in the accusative, and the person to whom it is told in the dative. It was very natural that Festus should take the opportunity of consulting Agrippa, a Jew, and expert in all questions of Jewish Law, about Paul’s cause.
Act 25:15
Asking for sentence for desiring to hare judgment, A.V. and T.R. The chief priests (Act 25:2, note). Informed me (see above, Act 25:2, and Act 24:1, note).
Act 25:16
That it is for it is, A.V.; custom for manner, A.V.; to give up for to deliver to die, A.V. and T.R.; the accused for he which is accused, A.V.; have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter for have license to answer for himself concerning the crime, A.V. To give up (above, Act 25:11, note). Have had opportunity to make his defense ( ); see Act 22:1, note.
Act 25:17
When therefore for therefore, when, A.V.; together here for hither, A.V.; I made no delay for without any delay, A.V.; but on the next day for on the morrow, A.V.; sat down for I sat, A.V.; brought for brought forth, A.V. To be brought (above, Act 25:6).
Act 25:18
Concerning for against, A.V.; no charge for none accusation, A.V.; evil things for things, A.V. and T.R. They brought no charge. The expression, common in classical writers, , answers to the Latin legal phrase, crimen inferre (Cicero, ‘Contr. Verrem.,’ 5.41; ‘Ad Herenn.,’ 4.35). Such evil things as I supposed; viz. seditions, insurrections, murders, and such like, which were so rife at this time.
Act 25:19
Religion for superstition, A.V.; who for which, A.V. Certain questions ); Act 15:2; Act 18:15; Act 23:29, etc. Religion (); see Act 17:22, , where there is the same doubt as here whether to take it in a good sense or a bad one. Here, as Festus, a man of the world, was speaking to a king who was a Jew, he is not likely to have intended to use an offensive phrase. So it is best to render it “religion,” as the R.V. does. But Bishop Wordsworth renders his own superstition, Paul’s, which agrees with the context. These details must have been among those “complaints” spoken of in Act 17:7. Whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Notice the stress constantly laid by the apostle upon the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If his own superstition is the right rendering, we have here the nature of it, in Festus’s view, belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Act 25:20
I, being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, asked for because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him,, A.V. and T.R. I, being perplexed, etc. The spoken of by Festus does not mean his own judicial inquiry, though it is so used once in Polybius (6. Act 16:2), but the disputes or discussions on such subjects as the Resurrection, etc. (Joh 3:25; 1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 2:23; Tit 3:9), in which Festus felt himself at a loss. The A.V., therefore, expresses the sense more nearly than the R.V. The T.R. too, which inserts before , is preferable to the R.T., because does not govern an accusative case, but is almost always followed by a preposition. Those who follow the reading of the T.R., , either understand or refer to Paul or to Jesus.
Act 25:21
To be kept for the decision of the emperor for to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, A.V.; should for might, A.V. The decision; , here only in the New Testament; but it is used in this sense in Wis. 3:18 (“the day of trial,” or “hearing,” A.V.), and by Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 15. 3:8). For the verb , see Act 23:1-35. 15; Act 24:22, notes. The emperor ( ); rather, as the A.V., Augustus. Augustus was the title conferred by the senate upon Octavius Caesar, B.C. 27, whom we commonly designate Augustus Caesar. It became afterwards the distinctive title of the reigning emperor, and, after the end of the second century, sometimes of two or even three co-emperors, and was now berne by Nero. Its Greek equivalent was . Augustus may be derived, as Ovid says, from augeo, as faustus from farce, and be kindred with augur, and mean one blest and aggrandized of God, and so, full of majesty. It is spoken of all holy things, temples and the like, “Et queocunque sua Jupiter auget ope” (Ovid, ‘Fast.,’ 1.609); and, as Ovid says in the same passage, is a title proper to the gods. For, comparing it with the names of the greatest Roman families, Maximus, Magnus, Torquatus, Corvus, etc., their names, he says, bespeak human honors, but of Augustus, he says, “Hie socium summo cum Jove nomen habet.” And so the Greek bespeaks a veneration closely akin to adoration. Caesar, originally the name of a family of the Juliagens, became the name of Octavius Caesar Augustus, as the adopted son of Julius Caesar; then of Tiberius, as the adopted son of Augustus; and then of the successors of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, who had by descent or adoption some relationship to C. Julius Caesar the great dictator. After Nero, succeeding emperors usually prefixed the name of Caesar to their other names, and placed that of Augustus after them. AElius Verus, adopted by Hadrian, was the first person who bore the name of Caesar without being emperor. From this time it became usual for the heir to the throne to bear the name; and later, for many of the emperor’s kindred to be so called. It was, in fact, a title of honor conferred by the emperor.
Act 25:22
And for then, A.V.; I also could wish to hear for I would also hear, A.V.; saith for said, A.V. I also could wish (); but the A.V. “I would” quite sufficiently expresses the imperfect tense (ich wollte) and the indirect wish intended. Meyer well compares (Rom 9:3) and (Gal 4:20).
Act 25:23
So for and, A.V.; they were for was, A.V.; the principal for principal, A.V.; the command of Festus for Festus‘ commandment, A.V.;brought in for brought forth, A.V. With great pomp; , here only in the New Testament. In Polybius it means “display,” “show,” “outward appearance,” “impression,” “effect,” and the like. It is of frequent use among medical writers for the outward appearance of diseases. In Heb 12:21 is “the appearance,” and is “an appearance,” “a phantom.” The place of hearing. The word (from to hear, whence , Rom 2:13; Jas 1:22, Jas 1:23, Jas 1:25) occurs only here in the New Testament. It is literally an “audience-hall,” and means sometimes a “lecture-room.” Here it is apparently the hall where cases were heard and tried before the procurator or other magistrate. Chief captains (). Military tribunes, as Act 21:31, and very frequently in the Acts. Meyer notes that, as there were five cohorts garrisoned in Caesarea, there would be five chiliarchs, or tribunes. At the command of Festus. These minute touches suggest that St. Luke was most likely in the hall, and saw the “great pomp,” and heard Festus give the order lot Paul to be brought. Brought in (); see verse 6, note.
Act 25:24
Saith for said, A.V.; behold for see, A.V.; made suit to we for have dealt with me, A.V.; here for also here, A.V. That he ought not to live (Act 22:22). This had evidently been repeated by the Jews before Festus himself (Act 25:7), and is implied by Paul’s words in Act 25:11.
Act 25:25
I found I determined for when I found I have determined, A.V. and T.R.; as for that, A.V. and T.R.; appealed for hath appealed, A.V.; the emperor for Augustus, A.V. Nothing worthy of death (see Act 23:1-35. 29; and comp. Luk 23:1-56. 4, 15). I determined. The A.V., “when I found I have determined,” is hardly good grammar according to our present usage. It should be “determined,” unless “when” is equivalent to “inasmuch as.” If “when” expresses a point of past time from which the act of determining started, the perfect is improper in modern English. The same remark applies to the next verse, “I have brought him forth that I might.”
Act 25:26
King for O king, A.V.; may for might, A.V. My lord ( ). Suetonius tells us that Augustus abhorred the title of “lord,” and looked upon it as a curse and an insult when applied to himself. Tiberius also (‘Life of Tiberius,’ 27), being once called “lord” (dominus) by some one, indignantly repudiated the title. But it was frequently applied to Trajan by Pithy, and the later emperors seem to have accepted it. It was likely to grow up first in the East. Examination; , here only in the New Testament; but it is found in 3 Macc. 7:4 in the same sense as here, viz. of a judicial examination (the complaint being that Jews were put to death ); specially the precious examination of the prisoner made for the information of the judge who was to try the case. At Athens the was a preliminary examination held to decide whether an action at law should be allowed. The verb , to examine, occurs six times in the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts (Luk 23:1-56. 14; Act 4:9; Act 12:19, etc.), and ten times in St. Paul’s Epistles.
Act 25:27
In sending not for to send and not, A.V.; charges for crimes laid, A.V. Unreasonable; , only in 2Pe 2:12 and Jud 1:10, “without reason,” applied to the brute creation; but found in the LXX. of Exod, 6:12 and Wis. 11:15; and also frequent in medical writers. The opposite phrase, , “reasonably,” in Act 18:14, is also of very frequent use in medical writers. are also not uncommon in Polybius, and in classical Greek generally. The charges against him ( ). The technical legal term for the “accusation” or “charge” formally made against the prisoner, and which was to form the subject of the trial
HOMILETICS
Act 25:1-12
Persistent hatred.
There is a bitterness and a dogged persistency in the enmity of an Oriental, and an inextinguishable thirst for revenge, which are unlike anything we know of among ourselves. Some knowledge and perception of this are necessary to enable us to understand many things in the Old Testament, including allusions to his enemies in some of the Psalms of David. The conduct of the Jews to St. Paul is a remarkable example of this persevering hatred, which nothing could avert or mollify. Passing over the previous displays of it at every place in Asia and Europe where the apostle preached the gospel, from the first outbreak of it at Damascus to the last conspiracy against him at Corinth (Act 9:23; Act 20:3), we notice the allusion to its existence, and to the cause of it, by James in Act 21:21. We then saw the steps taken by St. Paul to conciliate those enemies, and to convince them that their prejudice against him was unfounded. But how vain these efforts were soon appears. In the very temple court where he was taking pains to humor their prejudices and to soften their hatred, that hatred broke out into a flame of unparalleled violence. In an instant the whole city was upon him, and would have torn him to pieces had not the Roman soldiers rescued him from their hands. A momentary lull while they listened to Paul’s Hebrew speech was followed by a more furious burst of passion than before. When violence had failed to take away the hated life, they had recourse to guile and to the arts of the secret assassin. Baffled again at Jerusalem, they followed him to Caesarea. They hired an advocate to vilify him before the Roman judge. They heaped charge upon charge and lie upon lie in hope to compass his condemnation, and when for two whole years their malice had been defeated, while the object of their hatred remained a prisoner out of their reach, and at a time when the miseries of their country called for all their attention and solicitude, far from time having dulled the edge of their malice, or the calls of patriotism having diverted their thoughts from the object of their revenge, they were more intent than ever upon Paul’s destruction. Their first thought on the change of government seems to have been, not thankfulness for the cessation of the oppressive tyranny of Felix, but the hope of working upon the inexperience of Festus so as to get Paul into their power. Again the baffled assassins were ready to fall upon the doomed man by the way; again the restless hatred of the chief priests carried them to Caesarea to try what false accusations could bring about. But this spectacle of unwearied and unscrupulous hatred and persistent malice, hideous as it is, acquires a value of its own when we contrast with it the love and the kindness of the gospel of Christ. Whence must those precepts of patience and forgiveness and love for our enemies have sprung, which shine like precious jewels in the pages of the Bible? Or look at St. Paul. He was a Jew like them: were they Hebrews? so was he. And yet, while they were cursing, and conspiring, and Persecuting, and blaspheming, he was loving, enduring, forgiving, striving to overcome evil with good. They were moving heaven and earth to take away his life who had never done them any wrong; and his heart’s desire and prayer to God for them, his cruel persecutors, and the labor of his whole life as well, was that they might be saved. It is a wonderful contrast. It sets out the Divine origin of the gospel and its heavenly character with singular force. It is a most luminous comment on our Lord’s words, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above” (Joh 8:23). The bright star of love shines all the brighter in our eyes from being thus, as it were, surrounded by the thick darkness of a persistent hatred.
Act 25:13-27
“Audi alteram pattem.”
It is a noble principle here ascribed by Festus to Roman justice, never to condemn upon the accusation of any one without giving the accused the power to face his accusers and answer for himself. English law is so conspicuous for its fairness to prisoners that there is no need to insist upon this maxim in regard to courts of justice. But there is great need to urge that the same just principle should rule our private censures and judgments upon our neighbors. It should not be the manner of Christians to believe evil of others, still less to spread reports against them, upon one-sided statements and undefended charges. An accused person has a right to defend himself before he is condemned. A fair judge will suspend his judgment till he has heard the defense. The English law is unwilling to condemn except upon the clearest evidence of guilt. Let there be the same unwillingness to censure a neighbor unless blame be unavoidable. Some charges are made in malice, some in ignorance; some things are positively false; some are true, but lose their truth by being separated from their concomitants; some things are bad if done from one motive, but good if done from another; an explanation may make the whole difference in the aspect of an action. Therefore it should be a settled principle with every just man to condemn no man unheard, even in thought, and to give every one against whom a charge is made an opportunity of defense before the charge is believed to his hurt, or acted upon to his prejudice. “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.”
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Act 25:1-16
The enlightened, the unenlightened, and the great Overruler.
This piece of sacred history suggests
I. THAT SOMETIMES THE BLACKEST DEEDS LIE AT THE DOOR OF THE ENLIGHTENED. Who more enlightened than these Jews, so far as outward privileges were concerned? They had the fullest opportunity of knowing the truth and of acting uprightly. They “had the mind” of God; revelation had shone on their path with full, strong light. Yet we find them (Act 25:2, Act 25:3) endeavoring to get Paul into their power, that they might deliberately assassinate him. And we again find them fiercely preferring charges against him which they could not prove (Act 25:7). And again we find them demanding judgment against him when no crime had been established (Act 25:15). In how dark a light does their action appear! The men that would have shuddered at a small and venial impropriety or omission do not scruple to do rank injustice, to commit murder! They were neither the first nor the last to make this fatal mistake (Luk 11:42; Mat 7:21-23). There have been, and are, many souls who have accounted themselves, and have been reckoned by others, peculiarly holy, at whose door lie the most serious sins, who are living lives utterly evil in God’s sight, and who will awake to condemnation and retribution at the last (Psa 139:23, Psa 139:24).
II. THAT SOMETIMES THE UNENLIGHTENED EXHIBIT ADMIRABLE VIRTUES. The Roman had been far less favored than the Jew in the great matter of religious privilege. Not unto him had been “committed the oracles of God;” not to him had psalmists sung and prophets prophesied. Yet we find the Roman sometimes exhibiting virtue of an excellent order. We find this here. Festus, indeed, desired to “do the Jews a pleasure” (Act 25:9). What governor would not? But he did not commit any act of illegality or injustice in order to do this, and we find him on two occasions resolutely declining to yield to pressure when he could not do so without departing from fairness (Act 25:4, Act 25:5, Act 25:15, Act 25:16). This worthiness of behavior may have been due to respect for law rather than regard for individual right; but it was honorable and excellent, as far as it went. The self-control it indicates contrasts strongly with the abandonment to passionate hatred which disgraced the Jews. Virtue is sometimes found unassociated with religion.
(1) It may be the indirect and unconscious result of religious influence;
(2) or it may be the outgrowth of nobility of nature originally bestowed by the Creator;
(3) or it may be the lingering consequence of early habits in which the life was trained. In any case, not rooted in religion it is
(a) unsatisfactory to God in its nature, and it is
(b) uncertain in its duration. All moral excellency should be built on spiritual convictions. Then, and then only, is it pleasing to God and certain to endure.
III. THAT DIVINE PROVIDENCE IS PRESIDING OVER ALL EVENTS. Had Festus, “willing to do the Jews a pleasure,” consented to Paul’s being brought to Jerusalem (Act 25:3), he would have fallen a victim to their murderous machinations. Then the Church of Christ would never have had some of those Epistles which now enrich our sacred literature, and which we could ill spare from the sacred volume. But “his hour was not yet come”his hour of martyrdom, his hour of holy triumph, his hour of deliverance and redemption. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,” and vainly is the persecutor’s arm uplifted if God does not mean that the blow shall fail. So with all events. The Divine Overruler is “shaping the ends” of all things, directing the course and tracing the bound of our activities, compelling even the wrath of man to praise him, conducting all things to a rightful and blessed issue.C.
Act 25:17-21
Mismeasurement of the great and small.
There is something ludicrous as well as instructive in the scene which Festus here describes to Agrippa. Nothing could well be more incongruous than a Roman judge presiding at a tribunal before which “niceties of the Jewish religion” were brought up. He would feel utterly unsuited for the work, and he gladly enough availed himself of the presence of Agrippa to gain some notion of the subject which had so completely perplexed him. It appeared to him that the men over whom he was called to rule were permitting themselves to be passionately absorbed by questions not worthy of a moment’s consideration. It probably also occurred to him that one at least was strikingly and unaccountably indifferent to those things to which alone he himself attached importance. How thoroughly he mismeasured everything we see if we consider
I. THAT HIS OWN POSITION AS PROCURATOR OF JUDEA WAS A MATTER OF THE LEAST IMPORTANCE. Doubtless to him that seemed the one substantial fact in comparison with which “certain questions of the superstition” (religion) of the Jews and of “one Jesus” were small indeed. Now, we are only interested in Festus because of his accidental association with these questions. But for this connection not one in a thousand who now know something about him would have even heard of his name. How important to each one of us seem his own personal affairshis income, his position, his reputation, his property! In how brief a time will these things be as nothinghis possessions scattered, his name forgotten, his office handed over to another! It would do us all good to be occasionally asking of ourselvesWhat will be the value of the things we prize so highly “when a few years are come”?
II. THAT MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE HEBREW FAITH ARE OF NO SLIGHT IMPORTANCE. “Certain questions of the religion” of the Jews would seem very trivial to a Roman ruler. But we know that they are worthy of the attention of mankind. Not only the great question of the Jewish Messiahship, but other and inferior matters respecting sacrifices and ordinances, have a place in our record which has outlived and will outlive proudest dynasties and mightiest empires. Students will read and investigate Leviticus and Deuteronomy when the annals of the empire are disregarded. Everything which bears on our relation to God, and everything which is even remotely related to that “one Jesus,” has an interest which will not die.
III. THAT THE “ONE JESUS,” TO WHOM FESTUS SO SLIGHTINGLY ALLUDED, WAS THE DESTINED SOVEREIGN OF THE RACE. Nothing could exceed the contemptuous indifference with which Festus speaks of the Savior (verse 19). Nothing was further from his thought than that this One would live forever in the honor and love of the world. But the Stone which the Jewish builders refused has become the Headstone of the corner, and the Prisoner whom the Roman soldiers crowned and clothed in cruel mockery now reigns in such majesty and wields such power as golden wreath and imperial purple will not symbolize at all. He who was dead, and whom Paul, the prisoner, so innocently and unaccountably “affirmed to be alive,” is now worshipped as the risen, the reigning, the living Lord and Sovereign of mankind. How have Procurator and Malefactor changed places! How has the first become the last, and the last become the first! Let us
(1) rejoice in the exaltation of our once crucified Lord;
(2) bless God for the exaltation of many of his servants, once held in disregard or derision and afterwards honored;
(3) hope and strive for our own exaltation; for to the humblest servant of the Savior there is the prospect of a throne of honor, a crown of glory, a sphere of blessedness and usefulness (2Ti 2:12; 2Ti 4:8; Rev 3:21).C.
Act 25:22-27
Power, degeneracy, and consecration.
That was a striking scene which is suggested to our imagination by these verses. The sacred narrative does not, indeed, waste words on a description of it, but it supplies enough to place the picture before our eyes (see Farrar’s ‘Life of St. Paul,’ in loc.). It invites our attention to three subjects. We have
I. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF WORLDLY POWER. “At Festus’s commandment” (Act 25:23). The Roman procurator may not have been present with “great pomp,” but he could afford to dispense with glitter and show; for he had authority in his handhe represented the power of the world. He was a citizen of the kingdom which had “in it of the strength of iron” (Dan 2:41). He was a successor of another Roman who had lately said, confidently enough, “Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?” (Joh 19:10). As a Roman ruler, he felt that he held a sway over those around him, to which they could lay no claim and which they were unable to disturb. Human power is:
1. Coveted by many thousands.
2. Within the reach of very few; it is therefore continually sought and missed, and the failure to attain it is a source of a large amount of human disappointment and unhappiness.
3. Much less enjoyed, when realized, than its possessor anticipated; for it proves to be limited and checked by many things invisible from without, but painful and irritating when discovered and endured.
4. Soon laid down again. The breath which makes can unmake; men are often giddy on the height and they stagger and fall; years of busy activity quickly pass, and then comes sovereign death which strikes down power beneath its feet.
II. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SPIRITUAL DEGENERACY. (Act 25:23.) Both brother and sister, Agrippa and Bernice, were instances of this. They “saw the better thing and approved; they followed the worse.” They “believed the prophets” (Act 26:27); they knew the holy Law of God, but, instead of keeping it, instead of living before God and before the world in piety, in purity, in heavenly wisdom, they sacrificed everything to worldly advancement, to earthly honors, and even to unholy pleasure. How pitiable they seem to us now! That” great pomp” of theirs does but serve to make their moral littleness the more conspicuous. To rise in outward rank or wealth at the expense of character and by forfeiture of principle is:
1. Grievous in the sight of God.
2. Painful to all those whose judgment is worth regarding.
3. A most wretched mistake, as well as a sin.
4. An act, or series of acts, on which the agents will one day look back with deep and terrible remorse.
III. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRISTIAN CONSECRATION. “Paul was brought forth” (Act 25:23), he “had committed nothing worthy of death”(Act 25:25), but yet “all multitude of the Jews “(Act 25:24) were “crying out that he ought not to live any longer?’ By his attachment to the truth and his devotion to the cause of Jesus Christ, he had placed himself there in captivity, charged with a capital offence, the object of the most bitter resentment of his countrymen. He had done nothing to deserve this; he had only taught what he honestly and rightly believed to be the very truth of God. He accepted his position, as a persecuted witness for Christ, with perfect resignation; he would not, on any consideration, have changed places with that Roman judge or those Jewish magnates. Christian consecration is:
1. An admirable thing, on which the minds of the worthiest will ever delight to dwell, lifting its subject far above the level of earthly power or worldly dignity.
2. Acceptable service in the estimation of Christ; to it the fullest Divine approval and the largest share of heavenly reward are attached.C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Act 25:1-12
Tenacity in right.
Paul is brought before a fresh judge. He defends the principles of duty and right in the same spirit as before, with perfect boldness, as the state of the matter demands, and at the same time with due respect to the office of the judge.
I. CONSTANCY IN THE DEFENSE OF RIGHT. Let us view this in contrast:
1. To the audacity of the hypocrite. They brought many and heavy charges against Paul, which they were unable to prove. Again, “the servant is as his Lord.” The substance of the charges, too, ever the same: transgression of the Law, desecration of the temple, revolt against the emperor. Simple and sincere, is the defense, in both cases (comp. Act 25:8 with Joh 18:20, Joh 18:21).
2. To the insolence of the knave. Paul refuses no legal investigation. He stands firmly on the constitution of the state, before the tribunal of Caesar. The “powers that be” he taught were divinely ordained for the repression of evil-doers and the defense of the righteous.
3. To the obstinacy of the contentious man. He willingly subjects himself to any fair investigation and just decision of his case.
II. THE APPEAL TO THE EMPEROR. Some general allegorical lessons may be derived from this. The Christian may and should appeal:
1. From the sentence of the unjust man to the judgment of the just.
2. From the passions of the moment to the calm verdict of posterity.
3. From the opinions of the external world to the testimony of the inner world of conscience.
4. From the human tribunal to the eternal throne.
And as to the decision: “To Caesar thou shalt go!” It was partly Festus’s, partly Paul’s, and above all, that of Providence. So in our own life-crises. There is a coincidence of our own wishes with the external decision of another. Below or above both is the divinity that shapes our ends, the hand of him who causes all things to work together for good.J.
Act 25:13-27
Worldly judgment on religious matters.
I. ITS SHORT–SIGHTEDNESS. It sees no further than the principles of civil right (Act 25:13-18). Herod Agrippa.
II. had come to pay his greeting to the new procurator (see Josephus, ‘Life,’ 11; and ‘Bell. Jud.,’ Act 2:1). It was only after Agrippa had arrived some days, that Festus seized the opportunity of bringing the matter before him, probably hoping, from his acquaintance with Jewish affairs, that he would help him to a decision concerning Paul. Festus states the rule of equity, the Roman custom of impartiality (Act 25:16). He makes a parade of justice, but his secret feelings are hardly in harmony with his profession. He wanted to be popular with the Jews (Act 25:9), and was only withheld by Paul’s appeal to Caesar from sending him to Jerusalem. Festus would trim his sails to the wind. He is worldly in purpose, but would act on plausible grounds and render the show of the forms of justice.
III. ITS CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE TOWARDS RELIGION. (Act 25:19-21.) The word used by him is literally, “fear of divinity,” not necessarily conveying the contemptuous sense of “superstition.” But his whole tone is that of contempt: “Concerning one Jesus, who had died, whom Paul said was living.” He looks upon the turning-point of Paul’s preaching and of his contest with the Jews as a trifling matter, unworthy the serious consideration of educated men. And yetapart from mere personal opinionhow much in the history of the world has turned upon this question! Agrippa’s family had had much to do with “this Jesus,” and the mention of his Name is like a renewed solicitation to the heart of the king. Festus’s bearing is that of a man who rather prides himself upon superiority to all religious and ecclesiastical matters; and perhaps no wonder, considering the mixture of religions in the Roman world of the time.
III. ITS IDLE CURIOSITY. This is represented by the bearing of Agrippa (Act 25:22). He would like to listen to this remarkable prisoner, and his story and confession of faith. And, perhaps, there was something more than curiositya gleam of higher interest, a presentiment of the truth. The next day Agrippa and his sister enter the audience-chamber of Festus with great pomp, which is soon to pale before the simple majesty of the Divine Word and its messenger.
IV. ITS WANT OF INTELLIGENCE OF THE SPIRITUAL CHARACTER. “Behold the man!” (Act 25:24; comp. Joh 19:5). Brought before Agrippa, as Pilate had sent Jesus to Herod (Luk 23:1-56. 7). It justly seems to the statesman unreasonable to send a prisoner without stating the charges against him (Act 25:27). But statesmanship got the better of fairness in the case of Pilate (Mat 23:1-39. 3). Unless rulers take care to make themselves fully acquainted with the facts, the show of fairness goes for nothing. How can a man without sympathy for conscientious convictions in religion, judge justly of a man who professes them? Here, then, worldly judgment is called to pronounce on facts which resist the judgment of the world. The hall at Caesarea is the scene of pompous worldly display, soon to be converted into the place of bearing of holy doctrine, and a judgment-scat of the Divine majesty.J.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Act 25:1-12
The way opened to Rome.
I. A WAY WHICH HAD TO BE CUT THROUGH JEWISH CRAFT AND MALICE on the one hand, and ROMAN INDIFFERENCE AND AVARICE on the other. Festers: a true heathen, ignorant, worldly, ready to use power for self-aggrandizement, hating the provincial strifes. The Jews: inveterate haters, keeping up their spite for two years; subtle-minded plotters, using Festus’s visit to Jerusalem to get Paul into their power; absolutely unprincipled and false, ready to perjure themselves; and shameless in their fanaticism.
II. PROVIDENTIAL INTERPOSITION TO REMOVE OBSTACLES. Festus desired to remain but a short time in Jerusalem. Felix had probably left information which induced him to be cautious in dealing with Paul. Roman pride was roused by the transparent hypocrisy of the Jews. A rebuff of the Jewish leaders at the onset might be of service in ruling the province.
III. THE APPEARANCE OF PAUL IN COURT won upon the ruler’s mind, and helped him to listen respectfully to his assertion of innocence. But the critical point was the reference of the case to Roman justice as such. Festus was forgetting himself; Paul brought him hack to his duty, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment-seat.” One stroke of honest truth smites down a host of lies (cf. Luther at Worms). The assessors were at hand. Festus might have done wrong had he been by himself, but with his council to bear witness, his own life was at stake. “Appeal unto Caesar” was the gate at last opened, and no man could shut it. There was a voice speaking to Paul which he knew could command Rome itself to obey.R.
Act 25:13-27
Paul in the presence of King Agrippa.
I. A GREAT OPPORTUNITY for the Christian CHARACTER to be shown forth, as unabashed in the presence of worldly splendors, as simple-minded and modest, as untempted by that fear of man which bringeth a snare.
II. As OCCASION eagerly seized by the apostle FOR TEACHING both the heathen and the Jew, that the gospel was not a mere idle question, or fanatical dream, or delusion, but a great reality, for which its preacher was ready to die if need be.
III. A STRIKING CONTRAST between the spiritually minded Jew, and the apostate and mere worldling, such as Agrippa.
IV. A PROVIDENTIAL PREPARATION for the future. The examination would both remove prejudice against Paul and put the whole matter more favorably before the emperor, where mere Jewish bigotry and intolerance would have little weight.R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Act 25:10, Act 25:11
Courage to live.
Paul knows that he is “standing” (see Revised Version) already at the bar of Caesar. There he elects still to stand. And his formal appeal to Caesar is but the public and legal registration of his deliberate and decisive choice to that effect. There were, no doubt, two sides to the question that had been before Paul, though it savored ever so little of the nature of a question with him. The two sides were thesethat justice was nearer him when he was before Caesar than when he might be before them of “Jerusalem;” and that nevertheless to consent to go, and to choose to go, to Caesar, to Rome, and to the likeliest prospect of justice, begged, in Paul’s special case and character, very real couragethe courage to live. Notice, then, that the decision recorded in these verses was the decision of
I. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF INNOCENCE. It is not infrequently the case, in instances that do not touch the question of life, but do touch those of principle and duty, that even conscious innocence prefers the easier path of non-resistance and non-defense, when resistence and self-defense would be the right course. Nature, beyond a doubt, should often be mortified. But there is a nature also which should be observed and followed and obeyed. To stand up for one’s own innocence is sometimes to stand up for all innocence.
II. CHRISTIAN PATIENCE. The Christian soldier, racer, workman, must fight to the end, must run to the goal, must labor till the nightfall. And this requires sometimes great patience. With Paul and others of the early Christians, whose names are now nowhere else but in that best place” the book of life,” this was true to such an extent, that a Divine maxim became formulated in Scripture for the behoove of it, and so it was written, “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise” (Heb 10:36). Paul must have often felt, what he once said, “To depart and be with Christ were far better.” Many a craven spirit faints. Many fail long before they have “resisted unto blood.”
III. CHRISTIAN WISDOM. The true apostle, of whatever day, will consider many a question, not in its reference to his own individuality, but in its bearing upon the cause he has at heart. Many herein may err, therefore, “lacking wisdom.” Paul saw that it was wisdom’s dictate not to allow himself and his cause to be baffled. Let alone other aspects of the case, it was policy, and a right and holy policy to appeal to Caesar.
IV. CHRISTIAN DUTY. There yet awaited Paul some of the grandest opportunities of usefulness, all along the way to Rome and in Rome. His bonds were to be manifest “in the palace and in all other places” (Php 1:13). He was to gain many converts even “of Caesar’s household.” A “great door and effectual” was yet to be opened before him and the gospel he preached and loved so well, so faithfully. So it was duty to stand to his colors, though men might possibly taunt him that he was rather standing for his life.
V. THE SPIRIT‘S OWN GUIDANCE. Already we have once heard that Paul was assured by the angel of the Lord, who stood by him at night, that “at Rome also” he should bear testimony to Jesus, as he had at Jerusalem. It is an infinite satisfaction to the heart’s uncertainty, to the occasional distrust that a conscience feels with regard to its own verdicts, when Heaven’s guidance is borne in upon one. This satisfaction Paul had. And though the vista which his own choice revealed to him terminated in a very arena of conflict most visible, but its severity, its amount, its terrors unseen, and not to be estimated, yet nor tongue nor heart falters. He appeals to Caesar, and “if he perish, he will perish” there.B.
Act 25:19
Spiritual deprivation.
The translation which gives us the word “superstition” in this verse of our English Version, cannot be accepted as conveying the meaning of Festus. He would not have spoken of that which was, at all events nominally, the religion of Agrippa, as a “superstition.” We may safely adopt the ordinary word “religion “a word, even from the Jews’ point of view, little enough appreciated by a Roman officialas found in the Revised Version. Great as was the practical injustice in some directions of Festus, for instance, in keeping Paul in prison; yet we cannot fail to note a certain truthfulness of his lip. He has already spoken sufficiently the acquittal of his prisoner. This he does again, privately, in conversation with Agrippa; and yet again tomorrow, without disguise, in the publicity of the open court. To that same lip it was also given to utter, at all events, the central truth about Jesus in his relation to men, however little he believed or understood it. We may notice here
I. THE WIDE DISTANCE THAT SEPARATES THE MAN WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF REVELATION FROM HIM WHO HAS SOME SUCH KNOWLEDGE. Presumably, Festus had not the slightest inclination to speak slightingly to Agrippa of the religion of the Jews of Jerusalem. But nevertheless his tone is that of a man who speaks of what is utterly unintelligible to him. A Roman’s worship was a strange thing; his religion a strange product under any circumstancesperhaps in nothing so strange as in this disabling quality of them. But the phenomenon, after all, is most typical. It is typical of all those in their measure, i.e. the measure of their time and place in the whole world’s history, who are without true revelation. It shows these in the twofold aspect, and apparently contradictory aspects, of believing tar too much and far too little.
1. They believe far too much; for they are sure to construct their own superhuman and supernatural. They will have their own pantheon in some sort.
2. And they believe far too little; for the verities of the true revelation of the superhuman and supernatural they are most averse to receive. Be the account of this what it may, it is but the expression of the thing of perpetual recurrence. The domain so wide, so dreary, of superstition lies where ignorance of true revelation is the appointed signal for men to make the materials of revelation unreal and incongruous for themselves. “Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools,” not less in what they accept than in what they reject. What a world of thought and feeling, of meaning and of truth, was shut off from Festus, as his present language betrays him! And what a world of thought and feeling, of meaning and of truth, is shut off from any man and every man who is destitute of true revelation! If it have not yet traveled to him, it is at present his mysterious lot. If it have, and he reject it, it is his undeniable folly and guilt. Religion and superstition are not differenced by one not introducing the supernatural, while the other does introduce it. They both introduce it, and they both earnestly believe in it. They are differenced in that the one acquaints with what things are real and which it concerns us to know, beyond the ken of mortal eye or reason; but the other offers us imaginations, perhaps in every grotesquest form, for truth and stones for bread.
II. BRIEFLY EXPRESSED, THE VITAL FACT OF ALL CHRISTIAN TRUTH, OF ALL CHRISTIAN FAITH, OF ALL CHRISTIAN IMPULSE. “One Jesus, who was dead and whom,” now no longer Paul alone, but a vast portion of the world, “affirms to be alive.” It were past all his merit that it should be given to the lip of Festus to utter these words, the charter of our faith and hope and religion, that day, and to have them recorded as his. Yet there they were spoken by him, and here for ever they will lie. The dead and anon living One is the center of Christian faith, hope, love. It is the description he gives of himself: “I am he that liveth, and was dead, and, behold, I am alive for evermore” (Rev 1:18). Three perennial springssprings of heavenly truth and influence, issue out of these simplest and coldest words as uttered by Festus.
1. The death of Christ has
(1) a meaning all its own;
(2) a boundless fullness of meaning;
(3) an endless continuance of meaning.
2. The life of Christ, after his death, has a very luster of light for us, if we think of it simply for what it teaches us about himself. It proclaims him, when all is considered, different from any other, unique among men, Prince of life, Victor over death. These are his own dignities. He shines wonderful in the midst of them, did we all but worship far away in wonder and admiration but mystery lost.
3. That risen life, and what followed itthe ascended life, have floods of joyful meaning for us, when we remember all that is distinctly revealed as involved in it for mankind and ourselves.
(1) He is every way to be trusted, since he has proved himself true herein.
(2) He gives us the life he has for himself.
(3) He is the very Specimen, the Earnest, the manifest First fruits of the life that shall be, for all them that sleep in him.
(4) He is even now, though invisible, somewhere surely, and mindful of his people, and watchful over them, their one ever-living sympathizing Mediator and High Priest.
(5) He lives above, waiting to receive, to judge, and then to bless his own people forever and ever. Yes, the vital germs of all the highest Christian hope and faith lie in the words of Festus.B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Act 25:3
Seeking favor to cover wicked devices.
Taking advantage of the anxiety to please his new subjects which would characterize the fresh governor, the enemies of St. Paul came to Festus asking a favor; not, however, that they directly asked for what they really wanted. They asked for Paul’s trial at a Jerusalem court, where the ecclesiastical offences, with which he was charged, could alone be properly considered. They intended to take advantage of his journey to attack the party and kill Paula scheme which only religious bigotry could devise, for it was one which promised little success. Roman soldiers were not wont to lose their prisoners. The incident gives a painful illustration of the miserable servility of religious bigotry. Farrar says, “Festus was not one of the base and feeble procurators who would commit a crime to win popularity. The Palestinian Jews soon found that they had to do with one who more resembled a Gallio than a Felix.” “Festus saw through them sufficiently to thwart their design under the guise of a courteous offer that, as Paul was now at Caesarea, he would return thither almost immediately, and give a full and fair audience to their complaints. On their continued insistence, Festus gave them the haughty and genuinely Roman reply that, whatever their Oriental notions of justice might be, it was not the custom of the Romans to grant any person’s life to his accusers by way of doing a favor, but to place the accused and the accusers face to face, and to give the accused a full opportunity for self-defense.” Felix may have given Festus some intimation of the enmity felt against this particular prisoner, and some account of the plot to assassinate him, from which he had been preserved by Lysias. Examining the character and schemes of these enemies of St. Paul, we note
I. THEIR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICES AGAINST HIM. They were thoroughly “prejudiced,” and religious prejudices are the most blinding and most mischievous that men can take up. No kind of argument, no statements of fact, ever suffice to correct such prejudices, as may be illustrated from both religious and political spheres in our own day. Things corrected or denied a hundred times over, prejudice will persist in believing. When prejudice says, “It must be,” all the world may stand in vain and plead, “But it is not.” The prejudice of these men declared that Paul had defiled the temple, but he had not; it said that he insulted the honored system of Moses, but he did not. Their eyes were blinded, their hearts were hardened, and all argument was lost upon them.
II. PERSONAL FEELING INTENSIFIED RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE. Recall the scene in the court of the high priest, when the person occupying that office temporarily was reproved by the apostle. Nothing increases the hate in an evil-disposed man like his being publicly reproved or humbled. The Sadducees, who were the party to which the high priest belonged, would consider themselves insulted in the insult offered to him. And the Pharisee party were, no doubt, intensely annoyed by being drawn, on the same occasion, into a mere theological wrangle, which showed themselves up, and led to their losing their opportunity of killing Paul. So often personal feeling, injured pride, is at the root of religious prejudice and persecution. The fancied loyalty to God of the religious persecutor is really an extravagant anxiety about self.
III. FAILURE OF SOME SCHEMES AGGRAVATED THE EVIL PURPOSE. The scheme to kill Paul had been thwarted through Paul’s nephew and the Roman officer; but the annoyance of failure prevented their seeing in the failure a rebuke. What the malicious cannot accomplish by open methods they will seek by secret ones, lowering themselves to any depths of meanness to accomplish their ends, even fawning upon new governors and begging personal favors. Beware of the debasing influence of cherished prejudices.R.T.
Act 25:8
Protestations of innocence.
The contrast between the two trials needs careful attention. “On the second occasion, when Paul was tried before Festus, the Jews had no orator to plead for them, so the trial degenerated into a scene of passionate clamor, in which St. Paul simply met the many accusations against him by calm denials.” The Jews seem to have brought no witnesses, and the apostle knew well enough that no Roman judge would listen to mere accusations unsupported by testimony. On the one side was accusation without witness; it was enough if, on the other side, there was the plea of “not guilty,” and the solemn protestation of innocence. The charges so clamorously made were:
1. Of Paul’s heresy. He was declared to be a renegade Jew, whose teachings were proving most mischievous, and striking at the very foundations of the Mosaic religious system. St. Paul answered with an emphatic denial. He was but proclaiming those very truths for the sake of which the Mosaic system had been given, and of which it had testified, and for which it had been the preparation.
2. Of Paul’s sacrilege. This was, in the view of formal religionists, the height of all crime. Their charge rested on a statement of fact: this Paul had brought Trophimus, an Ephesian, into the temple, in order to pollute their temple and offer them an open insult. This Paul simply denied. There was no such fact. He had not brought Trophimus into the temple; and, if the Roman governor took any notice at all of this charge, he would certainly have demanded witnesses to prove the fact, and have thrown the burden of finding the necessary witnesses on the accusers, and not on the prisoner.
3. Of Paul’s treason. This the Jews could only insinuate, but this point they hoped would especially influence Festus. Such a man must be dangerous to the state; popular tumults have attended his presence in every city where he has gone. He ought not to be set at liberty. Festus was not in the least likely to be frightened into doing an injustice, and could read the character of his prisoner too well to pay any heed to their clamor and their insinuations. “If there was a single grain of filth in the Jewish accusations, Paul had not been guilty of anything approaching to a capital crime.” It may be impressed that
(1) there are times in a man’s life when he is called upon to make a full defense of himself against any charges that may be brought against him. This is especially necessary when the charges take definite shape. and seem to have sanction and support. But
(2) there are times in life when a man should attempt no defense, but stand firmly on his plea of innocence, and wait his time for his righteousness to become clear as the noonday, This is best when the charges are vague, and evidently the results of misrepresentation and slander. It is hopeless to attempt the correction of such evils; we can only live them down. Our conduct must depend on the nature of the attack that is made on us. Even if specific charges are made, we may find it wisest to do as the apostle did, and throw the burden of proof altogether upon our accusers.R.T.
Act 25:11
Appeal to Caesar.
In introducing this subject, the difficulty in which Festus was placed should be shown. His predecessor had just been recalled, through the opposition of these very Jews who were now seeking a favor from him, and to resist them in their first request would be sure to excite a strong prejudice against him. So even Festus attempted the weakness of a compromise. He saw that the matter was not one with which a Roman tribunal could concern itself. It was really a locally religious dispute. So he thought he could meet the case by persuading Paul to go to Jerusalem to be tried, under the security of his protection. But the apostle knew the Jews much better than Festus did. Perhaps he was quite wearied out with these vain trials and this prolonged uncertainty. It seems that he suddenly made up his mind to claim his right of appeal as a Roman citizen, which would secure him from the machinations of his Jewish enemies. There are times when Christians may appeal to their citizen rights in their defense. This may be illustrated from such a case as that of the Salvation Army, and their right of procession through the streets. In times of religious persecution men have properly found defense and shelter in a demand for legal and political justice. Their hope has often lain in having their cases removed from the heated passionate atmospheres of religious courts to the calm atmospheres of strictly legal ones, though even our law-courts do not always keep due calmness when questions related to religion are brought before them. In this incident we may notice
I. ST. PAUL‘S SAFETY AS A ROMAN. Explain the privileges of Roman citizenship. No governor could give him up to the Jews apart from his own consent (Act 25:16). Recall the circumstances under which Paul’s citizenship had proved his defense.
II. ST. PAUL‘S RIGHT AS A ROMAN PRISONER. A right of appeal from any inferior to the supreme court at Rome over which the emperor presided. Theoretically, this was a safeguard to justice, but in practice it proved rather a furtherance of injustice. The apostle was not likely to know all that was involved in his appeal. “There is obviously something like a sneer in the procurator’s acceptance of St. Paul’s 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.” The appeal must have been a surprise to all who heard it.
(1) To Paul’s friends, who lost the last hope of having him released to them.
(2) To Paul’s enemies, who knew that he was now altogether beyond their reach. And
(3) to Festus, who felt that the prisoner recognized his inability to follow out what he knew to be the right, and who could not help being ashamed of his suggested weak compromise. Still, in this we may feel that the apostle was divinely directed, according to the promise, It shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak.” Through this appeal Providence opened the way for what seemed to be an unlikely, and indeed almost an impossible, thing, that St. Paul should see Rome, and even dwell there as a Christian teacher. We are often showing that circumstances work out Divine providences; we need also to see that the free actions of men, freely taken, work out the Divine providences quite as certainly.R.T.
Act 25:18, Act 25:19
Party accusations.
From Festus we learn what were the accusations made against the apostle by his Jewish enemies, and we see plainly that they cared only for the interests of party, not for the truth. It becomes evident that the point of difficulty was our Lord’s resurrection, upon which St. Paul always so firmly insisted. That fact is the central fact of Christianity; and upon it the whole scheme of Christian doctrine rests. Note
I. WHEREIN PAUL‘S ACCUSERS FAILED. They could not prove any crime that was cognizable by the Roman authorities. They were in danger of being themselves charged with violence done to a Roman citizen.
II. WHEREIN PAUL‘S ACCUSERS WERE WEAK. They brought before a civil judge only matters of opinion. On these freedom was allowed, so long as that freedom did not lead to acts of rebellion or disorder. They did not even bring matters of opinion that were of public concern, but only such as were made subjects of party contention. Their little isms they thought of more importance than the government of the empire. Festus haughtily says that the questions concerned their own superstition.
III. WHEREIN PAUL‘S ACCUSERS CONFIRMED HIS TEACHING. They set out prominently Paul’s great truth, that Jesus was alive, and had present power to save. From his enemies we learn what Paul preachedChrist risen; Christ living; Christ saving now. Christ, as “alive from the dead,” is declared
(1) innocent,
(2) accepted,
(3) Divine,
(4) related to us as Mediator.
We know clearly what made the Jewish party so mad against the apostle. No other apostle or disciple had shown, as he had done, what was involved in our Lord’s resurrection. Still if our preaching is to be a saving power on men, we must declare Christ risen from the dead, and “able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God by him.”R.T.
Act 25:22
Interest in the prisoner’ for Christ.
For the necessary accounts of Agrippa and Bernice, see the Expository portions of this Commentary. We only dwell on Agrippa’s interest in St. Paul, as giving him an opportunity to preach the gospel before kings. Gerok gives the following outline as suggestive of a descriptive discourse, from which general practical lessons may be drawn:The audience-chamber of the governor at Caesarea may be regarded from three points of view.
I. IT WAS A DRAWING–ROOM OF WORLDLY GLORY, by reason of the splendor of the assembled nobility.
II. IT WAS A LECTURE–ROOM OF HOLY DOCTRINE, by reason of the testimony made by the apostle.
III. IT WAS A JUDGMENT–HALL OF DIVINE MAJESTY, by reason of the impression produced by the apostolic discourse. The speech and its effects will be dealt with in the succeeding chapter.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Act 25:1. Now, when Festus was came, &c. That is, When Festus entered upon his government, after three days he went up, &c. This was in conformity to the Roman law, and in order to make himself acquainted with the present state of their public affairs.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 25:1 . Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed.
, with the dative . See Thuc. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. 1. 19; Diod. xvi. 66; Pind. Nem . iii. 19.
(Act 23:34 ); for the procurators were also called . See Krebs in loc .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
D.THE NEW PROCURATOR, PORCIUS FESTUS, RESUMES, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE JEWS, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE OF PAUL; BUT WHEN THE LATTER APPEALS TO THE EMPEROR, THE PROCURATOR ADMITS THE APPEAL
Act 25:1-12
1Now when [] Festus was come into [had taken charge of] the province, afterthree days he ascended from Cesarea to Jerusalem. 2Then the high priest [the chief priests1] and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul [accused Paul before him],and besought him, 3And desired [Asking it as a] favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying [intending to lay] wait in the way to kill him [wait, in order to kill him by the way]. 4But [However, ] Festus answered, that Paul should be kept [was guarded] at2 Cesarea, and [but, ] that he himself would depart shortly thither. 5Let them, therefore, said he, which among you are able [those among you who exercise authority], go down with me, and accuse thisman, if there be any wickedness in him [if he be liable to any charge3]. 6And when he had tarried among them more than ten days [not more than eight or ten days4], he went down unto Cesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commandedPaul to be brought. 7And when he was come, the Jews which [who] came down from Jerusalem stood round about [stood around], and laid5 many and grievous complaintsagainst Paul, which they could not [were not able to] prove. 8While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cesar [against the emperor], have I offended any thing at all [in anyrespect]. 9But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure [to confer an obligation on the Jews], answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there bejudged of these things [with respect to this accusation] before me? 10Then said Paul [But () Paul said], I stand at Cesars judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest [as thou also ( )knowest better ()]. 11For if I [If, therefore,6 I] be an offender, or [and, ] have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of [nothing in] these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me untothem [can surrender me as a favor to them]. I appeal unto Cesar. 12Then Festus, when he had conferred with the [his] council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Cesar? [Thou hast appealed unto Cesar;] unto Cesar shalt thou go.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 25:1-3. a. Now when Festus was come into [had taken charge of] the province. is regarded by some as here meaning to come into the province; but several passages adduced by Wetstein sustain the interpretation: to assume office, to undertake the administration. is, strictly speaking, a term applied only to proconsular provinces, but may also be used of those governed by procurators; the official term in the latter case was . Festus arrived either in the summer or the autumn of the year 60 after Christ (Wieseler: Ap. Chronol. p. 91 ff.; Anger: Temp. Rat. p. 105 ff.). He had scarcely reached Cesarea (where he was to reside), when he prepared to visit Jerusalem, which was, properly speaking, the capital of the nation.
b. The acting high priest at that time was Ismael, the son of Phabi, whom Felix had already appointed in place of Ananias (Jos. Antiq. xx. 8. 8 and 11). But on the present occasion all the chief priests [see note 1, appended to the text above.Tr.] and the chief men of the people in general, presented themselves, and had an audience with the new procurator. The phrase is not identical in meaning with elders (Grotius, de Wette), but, irrespectively of any official rank, denotes the most eminent, the most influential men, of the nation. They doubtless availed themselves of the occasion on which they paid their first visit to Festus, to direct his attention to the present matter, as one in which the whole nation was interested. The proposal which they made to the new governor, and to which they begged him to accede, as the first favor which he would grant, virtually expressed their wish that he would order the prisoner to be brought up to Jerusalem and placed before his judgment-seat, inasmuch as he himself was now present in the capital. The participle , belonging to , Act 25:2, implies that at the time when they made the request, they were already forming secret and hostile plans, and making preparations to destroy the apostle. [, not for ; they were making, contriving, the ambush already. (Alf.)Tr.]
Act 25:4-6. That Paul should be kept at Cesarea.The meaning of Festus is, that Paul was then at Cesarea and would remain there, and that his own stay in Jerusalem would be so brief, that it was not worth while to bring up the prisoner from Cesarea. [. The English version should be kept is rather too peremptory. Festus doubtless expresses this decision, but in the most conciliating form. (Conyb. and H. II. 298, n. 7).Tr.]. , those among you who exercise authority, i.e., those who had authority to act, on account of their office and rank; for some of the Jews then present may have been prominent only by birth, wealth, etc., whereas, in any case of judicial proceedings, the Roman governor regarded those alone as competent to act, who were invested with office. It is an arbitrary mode of interpretation, to represent as referring to those who were able to perform the journey (Bengel), or who were able to produce any charge against Paul.
Act 25:7-8. The Jews stood round about; they surrounded the apostle in a menacing manner, and attempted to intimidate him. [, after ., is adopted by Lach. and Tisch., in accordance with A. B. C. E. G., also Cod. Sin., many minuscules, Syr. Vulg. (eum), etc.; it is omitted by text. rec. and Alf., in accordance with H.E. reads . Meyer says: They surrounded Paul, as . , (the words immediately preceding .), plainly show; it is an error to refer . (as Grotius and Kuinoel do), to .Tr.]. The first two chargesthe violation of the law, and the profanation of the templewere those which had been previously made: but it is evident from Act 25:8 [ ] that a third charge, referring to a political offence, was now added. Paul was slanderously described as a traitor, as if he were guilty of an offence against the Roman sovereignty or the emperor himself; the accusation is, possibly, analogous to that which is mentioned in Act 17:6-7.
Act 25:9. There be judged before me.The expression is ambiguous, and was, perhaps, designedly chosen. It might mean: me judice (as it evidently does in Act 23:30; Act 26:2); but it might also mean: coram me; in this latter sense, the Jewish Sanhedrin would have constituted the court, and the procurator would have been present simply for the purpose of watching the trial. Indeed, the [apostles] journey to Jerusalem [Act 25:3], and the transfer of the trial to that city [as requested by the Jews], would have had no object, if a change of the tribunal had not been intended; and it was only in the latter case that an actual and special favor [, Act 25:3], would have been granted to the Jews.
Act 25:10-11. I stand at Cesars judgment seatIt is evident that, as Paul understood the question, he was asked whether he was willing to be tried before the Sanhedrin, as the court. He withholds his consent, for these reasons: 1. Because he already stood before the imperial tribunal, and, consequently, his sentence would there be properly pronounced. (He says: . , inasmuch as the procurator was the representative of Cesar, and pronounced sentence in the name of the emperor).2. Because he was guilty of no offence against the Jews, as Festus indeed well knew, and knew better than he was willing to admit, i.e., than the expressions of the procurator seemed to imply. [not for the superlative; the comparative is elliptical, requiring than to be supplied by the hearer it means: better than thou choosest to confess (Alf.). This is the interpretation of de Wette, Hackett, etc. See Winer, 35. 4. Hence, Festus, as Paul implies, should not have asked such a question (, etc., Act 25:9), as it was in opposition to his own better knowledge and conviction. (Meyer).Tr.]. This declaration of the apostle was made with deliberation, and was sufficiently definite. He proceeds, in Act 25:11, to draw an inference from it. Hence (, not [note 6, appended to the text.Tr.])says heI subject myself to the punishment which the law decrees, in case I have deserved it; but, if the accusation is unfounded, I claim the protection of the law (Meyer). When Paul uses the word , he says, without reserve, that as the whole question turned on a point of law, no act would be legal, by which he would be surrendered to the Jews, as a favor to the latter.He avails himself, finally, of the legal right of an appeal to the emperor himself, and, in doing so, employs the most concise terms. It is obvious that he was induced to adopt this course by the circumstance that Festus did not seem disposed to maintain with firmness the position which he had previously taken in reference to the wishes of the Jews; hence Paul had reason to apprehend that, ultimately, he might not be protected against the machinations of his deadly enemies. He was, besides, encouraged to take this step, by the promise which he had received (Act 23:11), that he should bear witness of Jesus in Rome, before he died. All these circumstances, in their combination, convinced him that it was now his duty to resort to the right of appeal; and in pursuing this course, he was influenced not so much by any considerations connected with himself, as by a sense of his duty as a witness. As a Roman citizen, he possessed the right of appealing to the emperor; it was strictly forbidden by the Lex Julia that any impediment should be placed in the way of a Roman citizen who had appealed. That appeal itself might be made in writing, but also orally, when, as in the present case, it was made during the course of judicial proceedings. (See the appropriate passages of the Roman Law in Wetstein).
Act 25:12. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council [with his own , not with the of the Jews.Tr.]. This council consisted of certain officers, whom Suetonius calls consiliarii (Tiber, c. 33), and also assessores (Galba, c. 19). The consultation referred to the question whether Pauls appeal ought to be admitted and confirmed, [inasmuch as there were a few cases, such as those of bandits, pirates, etc., in which the right of appeal was disallowed; but no doubt could be entertained on this head, in the present instance, and the appeal was at once sustained. (Conyb. and H. II. 301.).The text. rec. introduces the Greek note of interrogation after (Hast thou, etc.?). Griesbach had already rejected the usual note of interrogation in this place, as it only tends to destroy the solemnity and weight of the decision. (Meyer). The sentence is not interrogative, as in the authorized (English) version, but the words express a solemn decision of the Procurator and his Assessors. Conyb. etc. II. 301. n. 3). This is the opinion now generally entertained (Alexander; Hackett, etc.) and recent editors substitute a comma for the note of interrogation.Tr.].
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. When the apostle is placed before the tribunal of the new judge, he does not fail to address his conscience also, with respect to his duty and to justice. He speaks of the matter before them, with the utmost freedom, while he treats the person of the magistrate with due consideration. Here again the Roman laws and the ordinances of the government subserve the interests of the kingdom of God.
2. The path of the apostle conducts him, according to the counsel of God, from Jerusalem to Rome, and, indeed, at that period, the path of the Church of Christ led from Jerusalem to Rome. But the manner in which this counsel of God was fulfilled, is very remarkable, when viewed as an index of the ways of providence. The falsehood and deceit of the one party, and the weakness of the other, ultimately leave the imprisoned apostle no other choice than that of making an appeal to the emperor himself. It was not in a calculating spirit, nor from cowardice or caprice, that he adopted this resolution; he found himself, on the contrary, compelled to take such a step; his act in availing himself of this right, which the law conceded, assumed a moral character.Now, at that moment, when the Roman procurator formally declared that the appeal was admitted, and that Paul should proceed on his journey to the emperor, a decisive turning point in the life of the apostle was reached. His watchword henceforth was: On, to Rome! The point which he had for years longed to reach (Act 19:21), and to which a divine revelation assured him that he was appointed to proceed (Act 23:11), was now already brought much nearer to his eye. But many sins were committed by men before the promise was actually fulfilled. The evil which men intended, God meant unto good, Gen 50:20.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. Now when Festus was come into the province.It is true that Paul now stood in the presence of another judge, when the successor of Felix, the former governor, assumed the office; but Festus had the same worldly mind, and was actuated by the same desire to gain the favor of men. Who, then, can expect that any advantages will result from such changes in the civil government, if, while the persons are changed, the same carnal sentiments continue to rule? Faith, which has overcome the world in all its forms, is a richer source of consolation. And yet God employed such changes as the means for impressing the great truth on the conscience of the people of the world, that all human authority is transitory and vain. It is, besides, a very serious thought, that in a country in which God himself had, at a former period, been acknowledged as the Supreme Ruler, one pagan governor is seen rapidly following the other. This circumstance should have taught the people how sadly their affairs had decayed. (Rieger).Kings may die, and rulers be changed; Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever [Heb 13:8]. (Ap. Past.).
Act 25:3. And desired favor against him.The lives and bodies of Christians are so little valued, that they are given away, when others ask for such favors, Mat 14:6-11; Mar 15:15. (Starke).
Act 25:4-5. But Festus answered, etc.God here protected Paul in a wonderful manner. The reply of Festus, and the statement in Act 25:9, show that it cost him an effort, when he refused, in a direct manner, to grant the request of the Jews; he might, by complying with it, have become popular among them, at the very commencement of his administration. But he was not controlled by passion, and submitted to be guided by God in the path of justice.And Paul himself was not aware of the extent of the danger from which his life was again rescued, Act 25:3. How numerous are the cases, in which we have been protected and rescued, and of which we shall remain in ignorance, until we hereafter stand before the throne of God! (Williger).
Act 25:6. Commanded Paul to be brought.In the whole history of these judicial proceedings, we do not in a single instance observe the apostle thrusting himself forward before the tribunal. He invariably waits until he is commanded to appear; and whenever he is allowed to speak, he confines himself within the limits of his defence, without in the least degree meditating revenge on his blood-thirsty accusers. He furnishes a noble example to every servant of God, teaching that it is our duty to forget personal insults, to leave vengeance to God, to deny ourselves when we suffer for Christs sake, and to overcome our enemies by patience and gentleness. (Ap. Past.).
Act 25:7. Many and grievous complaints,which they could not prove.Here, too, the lot of the servant is like that of the Master. Even as false witnesses appeared in the presence of the pagan, Pilate, against Christ, but could furnish no adequate support for their calumnies, so the attempt of the Jews against Paul in the presence of Festus, was a complete failure. In both cases the false accusations were the same: violation of the law, profanation of the temple, rebellion against the emperor. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act 25:8. Neither against the law, etc.The more simple and direct the defence is, the more closely it resembles the mind and conduct of Christ, Joh 18:20-21. (Starke).
Act 25:9. But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure.Although men, who are not influenced by the fear of God, may, for a season, pursue the right path, they can at any time, when earthly motives are presented, deviate from it, and act deceitfully. Hence we should put confidence, not in men, but in God. Psa 118:8-9. (Starke).
Act 25:10-11. Then said Paul, I stand at Cesars judgment seat I appeal unto Cesar.Imperial and legal privileges, letters of safe-conduct, civil rights, etc., have been established, in order that the devout might be comforted, and the plans of evil men might be defeated. (Mark this, ye scorners!). Hence God has ordained the powers that be, and supplied laws and documents, legal rights and penalties, for the purpose of curbing a wanton spirit, and protecting defenceless and devout men. Rom 13:1-4. (Starke).Besides the three national afflictions of war, pestilence and famine, there is a fourthprotracted law-suits, in which advocates are often the representatives of a boundless eternity. Pauls suit did not yet come to an end. 1Co 6:7. (id.).The apostle would not have appealed to the emperor, if he had not known that it was the divine will that he should bear witness also at Rome [Act 23:11]. By means of this appeal the Lord opened an avenue for his servant, so that the latter could make known his testimony of Jesus even in the capital of the world. (Ap. Past.).He appealed to the emperor, not that he might obtain aid from a man like Nero, but that he might, by such an avenue, reach the city of Rome. His appeal is, at the same time, a striking rebuke of that false spirituality, which regards it as an unchristian course to appeal to the civil law and to the civil magistrates for aid in maintaining our rights. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act 25:12.Hast thou appealed unto Cesar? unto Cesar shalt thou go.Yes, Festus, thou art rightsPaul must go to Rome, not, however, because thou and thy council have so decided, but because it was so appointed by the counsel of God. Thus even the highest authorities of the Roman Empire, (which was, in its very nature, hostile to the kingdom of heaven), were compelled to subserve the purposes and ways of the kingdom of Jesus.The wheels of divine providence carry all things forward, and men are obliged to coperate, although they do not know it. They imagine, however, that they do the work. (Gossner).
ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act 25:1-12.The noble firmness of the Christian in maintaining his rights: it differs, I. From the effrontery of the hypocrite; for it relies on a defence which is sustained by facts, Act 25:7-8 : II. From the defiant spirit of the criminal; for it does not attempt to evade a legal investigation, Act 25:9-10 : III. From the obstinacy of contentious men; for it submits to a just decision. (Bobe).
I appeal unto Cesar.
This language furnishes the evidence, I. Of a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men [Act 24:16]; II. Of an humble submission to the powers that are ordained of God; III. Of an evangelical and sober avoidance of an unnecessary martyrdom; IV. Of an unwearied zeal for the extension of the kingdom of God. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Impartiality and justice, the noblest ornaments of a magistrate: I. Festus does not decline to listen to the complaints against Paul, Act 25:1-4; II. He receives the statements both of the accusers and of the accused, Act 25:6-8; III. He allows the accused to appeal to the emperor, Act 25:9-12. (Lisco).
How does a Christian maintain his rights? I. Without arrogance, Act 25:6-8; II. Without fear, Act 25:9-12. (id.).
The conduct of the Christian when a change of rulers occur: I. Towards those who depart; (a) he does not judge harshly, for he knows that they now stand before the Supreme Judge; (b) nor does he praise immoderately, for he now sees that the glory of the world is vanity. II. Towards those who assume office; (a) he neither entertains unreasonable hopes, for he knows that there is no new thing under the sun (Ecc 1:9); (b) nor does he yield to anxious fears, for he believes the words: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever. [Heb 13:8].
Paul before Fetusan instructive illustration of the truth that both the children of the world, and the children of the light, respectively, remain the same: I. The children of the world; (a) Pauls accusers, Act 25:2-3; Act 25:7. They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. They repeat the old falsehoods, and resort to their former base arts
the same, indeed which they had employed against Christ, in the presence of Pilate; (b) Pauls judges. The frivolous and unprincipled Felix is succeeded by the proud Festus. The latter at first pursues a noble course, Act 25:4-5, but soon afterwards abandons the cause of justice, like his predecessor, in order to gain the favor of men, Act 25:9; in short, the name is changed, but the same worldly-minded character re-appears. II. The children of God; (a) Paul is still the same, after an imprisonment of two years his undaunted courage, his lofty spirit, his composure and presence of mind are unchanged; the statements which he makes, are as lucid and as firm as those of any earlier day, Act 25:8-10; but (b) he is also still the same in meekness and patience. He exhibits no revengeful feeling towards his malignant foes, no disposition to resist his unrighteous judges, no impatience during the long period of his trial; on the contrary, he calmly submits to the authority of human law, and trusts with implicit confidence in the divine protection, Act 25:12.
Pauls appeal to the emperor, leads us to ask: Whither shall the Christian turn, when his rights are withheld? He may appeal, I. From the sentence of unrighteous men, to the judgment of the righteous; II. From the passions of the moment, to the justice of a future period; III. From the opinions of the external world, to the testimony of his own conscience; IV. From the tribunal of men to the judgment-seat of God.
Hast thou appealed to Cesar? unto Cesar shalt thou go. Whence did this decision, on which the life or death of Paul depended, proceed? I. From an external source; it was pronounced by Festus, as the magistrate invested with authority; II. From an internal source; Paul willed it, as the apostle of the Gentiles; III. From a heavenly source; it was sanctioned by the Lord, as the King of kings. (Application to important epochs in the life of the Christian.).
[Act 25:8. The judgment which we form of our own moral conduct: I. The necessity of forming an accurate judgment of, etc.; (a) else we cannot know whether we are growing in grace; (b) we unconsciously yield to many temptations; (c) we can entertain no well-founded hope of heaven. II. The difficulties which we here encounter; (a) the natural ignorance and perverseness of the human heart; (b) the suggestions of vanity; (c) our spiritual sloth. III. The means which may secure success; (a) continued meditation on the day of judgment; (b) diligent study of the Scriptures; (c) watchfulness, self-examination, and prayer.Tr.].
Footnotes:
[1]Act 25:2. [of text. rec.] is unquestionably less strongly attested by external evidence than the plural . [The singular is found in H., but the plural in A. B. C. E. G. Cod. Sin., Syr. Vulg. (principes sacerdotum). Alf. who retains the singular, says: It has been imagined that . has been a correction to suit the former part of the narrative. But it is much more probable that . has been substituted for it, to suit the assertion of Festus, Act 25:15. This was the opinion expressed by de Wette in big last edition. Meyer says (3d edition, 1861): The singular is a correction from Act 24:1. Lach., Tisch., and Born., adopt the plural.Tr.]
[2]Act 25:4. The reading is sustained by the four oldest manuscripts [A. B. C. E. and also Cod. Sin.]; it should be preferred to . [The latter, adopted by the text. rec., and retained by Scholz, is found in G. H.Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf. read .Tr.]
[3]Act 25:5. , instead of is indeed attested by four important manuscripts [A. B. C. E. also Cod. Sin., a number of minuscules, and Vulg. (crimen)]; it should, nevertheless, be cancelled with Tischendorf [in the edition of 1849], as spurious; but it may have easily been interpolated as an explanation [as a gloss on ; see Luk 23:41 (Alford, from Meyer)], while the omission of the word [if it originally belonged to the text], would be improbable. [The word is omitted in G. H. and in a number of minuscules; it is dropped by the text. rec., and by Alf, but is substituted for by Lach. and Born.The word wickedness, although not printed in Italics, is supplied by the translators, being found neither in the common text nor in the critical editions; but several of the oldest copies have a Greek word () elsewhere rendered harm (Act 28:6), amiss (Luk 23:41), unreasonable (2Th 3:2). The idea of fault or crime is of course suggested even by the shorter reading, if there be any thing in this (or the) man. (Alexander).Tr.]
[4]Act 25:6. The majority of the manuscripts [A. B. C. E., and Vulg.] exhibit: , and this reading should be regarded as genuine. Two manuscripts [G. H.] read: [and this is the reading adopted by text. rec.]; in one minuscule [no. 137], and several versions [Syr. etc.], the words were dropped. [E. omits ; B. reads .The margin of the Engl. Bible has the following note: More than ten days; or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.Recent editors generally read: . . . Alford, quoting from Meyer, says: 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 (the letter of the Greek alphabet representing eight) has been omitted on account of the (the particle disjunctive, meaning or) which follows.Cod. Sin. reads: .Tr.]
[5]Act 25:7. [found in A. B. C., Cod. Sin. and Vulg. (objicientes)], is far more strongly attested than . [E.], and the simple form [G. and H.], each of which is found only in one uncial manuscript. [But the latter is found in two.Lach., Tisch., and Alf., read .For , of text. rec., with many minuscules, recent editors read , with A. B. C. E. G. H. Cod. Sin.Tr.]
[6]Act 25:11. is decidedly attested [by A. B. C. E. and Cod. Sin.]; [of G. H. Vulg. (si enim), and text. rec.], is evidently a correction. [ seemed to the copyists to contradict in the preceding verse. (Meyer). Recent editors generally substitute for .Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Paul is accused to Festus, the Governor. After some Time he is brought forth to trial. He appeals to Caesar. Festus and Agrippa confer on the Subject.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem. (2) Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, (3) And desired favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him. (4) But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither. (5) Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
I beg the Reader at the opening of this Chapter to remark, that notwithstanding the awful state those perjured persons had fallen into, by having sworn not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul, (see Act 23:12 etc.) yet still the high priest, and the leading body of the Jews thirsted for his blood. No time could wear away this enmity. No alteration can ever take place in this deep-rooted hatred against Christ and his people. Reader! depend upon it, the same exists in the present hour. A zeal like that of Paul’s, for the glory of Christ, unalloyed with a mixture of pharisaical righteousness, the preachers of such a doctrine must ever be the objects of general hatred and displeasure. No foes of Christ equaled the self-righteous Pharisee, while the Son of God was upon earth! And no enemy now is greater against the pure truths of the Gospel, than characters of the same description.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 91
Prayer
Almighty God, thou dost keep the soul of them that love thee, and no harm can come nigh unto them because of the defence of thine arm. Thou art round about us as the hills and mountains are round Jerusalem. Thou dost not forget us, because we have set our love upon thee: thou dost answer us with an infinite affection. We live at thy table; we sleep within the curtain of thy darkness and Jay our weary head upon the pillow of thy providence. We are altogether thine; we have nothing that we have not received. Behold, we cannot lay our hand upon anything and say, “This is wholly ours.” We are made by the Lord; we occupy at the Lord’s bidding; we are tenants at will. Thou dost bid us quit our earthly house of this tabernacle, and instantly, or lingeringly, we go. Thou changest our countenance and sendest us away. We have no power against thee. Would that our will might be wholly thine, following in daily music all the wondrous way of thy purpose! Then should we live in harmony; in our life there should be no ruffle or discord, but one great melody, one holy peace. This we have come to know through Jesus Christ our Lord: he told us about the Father, about the numbering of the hairs of our head, about our Father’s good pleasure. We know thee in thy Son; we have seen thee in the Gospel of our Saviour. So now we come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Every time is a time of need; we are helpless all the while. None may boast of his strength, for it is but a flower; none can say surely that he standeth, for in so saying he falleth. Thou wilt not have boasting: thou wilt have reliance, dependence, trust, love, obedience not arbitrarily, but rationally, and because thou art the infinite Creator and we the creatures of a day. We bless thee for thine house upon the earth. The tabernacle of God is with men; the walls of thine house adjoin the walls of our dwelling-place. May all the habitations of the city be sanctuaries of the living God, having the upper rooms consecrated to the service of the King. For all times of sweet fellowship and reunion of our best life we thank thee. These cold, grey Sabbaths of time are hints and dim symbols of the one Sabbath that spreads its infinite calm over thine own eternity. May we seize the spirit of the occasion. May we be lifted up, by the power of the Holy Ghost, so as to lay hold upon things far off and make them nigh at hand. May we look with the angels into mysteries Divine; whilst we look may our hearts burn within us, and in that hour may we see the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost Three in One, One in Three and without asking explanation, which can but satisfy our vanity, may we fall down in the worship which lifts up the soul, and abase ourselves with the abasement which goes before exaltation. Wherein thou hast showed us trouble, thou hast also showed unto us treasures of joy. Wherein thou hast parted us for a little time, our coming together has been quickened into the greater gladness; and now that we stand close to one another, in the family house, we bless thee with a family song. Goodness and mercy have followed us all the days of our life; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort us. Hear our psalm of thankfulness, and let thine hand be upon us for good evermore. Yet are we not all here. We pray for those whom we have left at home. May the home have a new light within it this day a resurrection gleam, a hint of better worlds and wider spaces, where the inhabitants shall no more say, “I am sick.” And some are in heaven, and we ourselves, because of their ascension, are hardly upon the earth; we are in a great bewilderment we put out our hands to find what is not to be found in time or space; there is a sounding in our ears as of music from bright places. Surely our loved ones are still loved, and those who made our life double are not quite taken away. We commend one another to thy care. Our life is brief; there is no room in the few days for quarrel and clamour and strife, but only room and time to pray and work and love. Let the Spirit of the blessed Christ be in us; let his Gospel be our assurance for the life that now is ana the life that is to come, and through the mystery of his sacrifice may we find peace with God. Amen.
Act 25:1-27
1. Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Csarea to Jerusalem.
2. Then the high-priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him,
3. And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
4. But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Csarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
5. Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
6. And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Csarea; 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, not yet against Csar, 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 judged of these things before me?
10. Then said Paul, I stand at Csar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: 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 Csar.
12. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Csar? unto Csar shalt thou go.
13. And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Csarea to salute Festus.
14. And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
15. About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.
16. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
17. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.
18. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:
19. But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
20. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters.
21. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Csar.
22. Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
23. And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.
24. And Festus said, king Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
25. But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him.
26. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.
27. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
Christian Epochs
We are now in the midst of great historical scenes. The painter cannot let them alone. There are some subjects which will not let man alone until they have been taken up and received into the heart and reproduced either in the imagination or in the life. History is alive. There are some things which men willingly let die; few and short are the prayers they say over them. But there are other things which will not die. They are charged with all the elements of immortality, music, poetry, colour almost of vitality. They return upon the imagination; they wait patiently, for they know that they must be magnified, illuminated, crowned as the supreme events of history. Paul before the governors and the kings is a subject which men must paint. There is a great deal of suggestion in that “must.” God will have his gallery, and you cannot help it. So wondrous are the scenes that the painter must pray before he can paint them. We must be in sympathy with our subject, or we touch it only with the fingers; it is the heart that sees, reproduces, paints, preaches, prays the wondrous, mysterious Divine heart.
What a long life hatred has! Two years had elapsed, but the elapse of the two years had not cooled the fury of the persecuting Jews. We leave some things to time, calling it “all-healing Time.” Time cannot put hell out! What can live so long as hatred? Well might the Apostle warn the churches against “bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour.” He was not talking then against time, or inventing some theory of human depravity; he had felt the hatred which he deprecated. Religious hatred is the worst. Cain’s was a religious murder; it was manslaughter at the altar. Nothing can strike so desperately as the religious knife. The Church has herself to blame for the little progress Christianity has made in the world. She has been too fond of hatred, persecution, cruelty; she has thought to scourge men into the Church. What wonder if the God she professes to serve has blocked up her wicked way? Religious hatred thought less of murder than of ceremonial pollution. The Jews desired favour against Paul that Festus would send for him to Jerusalem; and they would take care to have their assassins on the road to kill the hatred Christian. Yet these men would not eat until they had washed their hands! Such piety always has its counterpart in equivalent villainy. The more you attend to mere ceremony the more you fritter away the substance of your character. If it is a point with you to be baptized in this way or in that way, you cannot understand the infinite love of the God who baptizes in every way. If you can only worship according to one form, you cannot worship at all; you have not entered into the mystery of the infinite Presence that will receive you anywhere, and the bent knee shall be as a prayer, and the uplifted eye as an intercession, and the sighing of the heart as a violent assault of violent love upon the kingdom that wants to be taken. The ceremonialist is at least a contribution towards a murderer. All this goes together; it is part and parcel of the same thing. He who is inhumanly pious about things of no importance is, in his heart, a child of Cain.
In the next place, how wondrously opportunities are created by human mistakes! If we knew it, we are always creating opportunities for the revelation of the larger Providence. When we “think we are blocking up gates, we are really opening them”; when we dig a pit for another man, we are certain to be buried in it before the sun goes down. That is right. Paul went to Jerusalem, and the elders who are always juniors if they are only ceremonialists and technicalists the very feeblest men in the Church thought that Paul had better make a compromise: in order to do away with a suspicion, it might be well for him to purify himself in the temple. Weak-minded men! If inspired, never was inspiration so misapplied.
If they had been out doing Paul’s kind of work, they would have left compromise millions of miles behind them; but they had been in the metropolis studying always a very perilous and risky business. Better be out somewhere working, facing practical difficulties, tackling the realities of life, looking at its awful tragedies and binding up its gaping wounds. So all this trouble came upon Paul through the weak-minded advice to compromise matters. Was it then a mistake? Clearly so. Did the Lord leave it as a human mistake? No; he turned it into a Divine opportunity. That mistake gave Paul his highest audiences. He was talking to rabbles before just an open-air preacher, a man taking opportunities as they occurred but now he was a preacher to procurators, rulers, kings, mighty men. Churches without a name were built for this greatest of the preachers. We know not what we do. Could we stand back in the eternity of God and watch men, we should not be troubled by their doings. When they are making weapons against us, we should say, “No weapon that is formed against me shall prosper.” We should have no fear; we should live in eternal Sabbath. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” Men can do nothing against you. There is only one man can do you any injury of a permanent kind, and that man is yourself. If you are right, you cannot be injured. I do not mean if you are holy perfectly, ineffably, and infinitely holy I mean if the set of your life is right, if your main purpose is right, if your dominating thought is right. Then your enemies will only be creating opportunities for you; the raging heathen and the people of the vain imagination are doing your pioneer work. Have no fear, true soul; thine inheritance is fixed by the Lord. He maketh the wrath of man to praise him; the remainder of that wrath he doth restrain. Thank God for enemies; they have made us what we are; they have been schoolmasters, disciplinarians. But for them we should not be half grown today: we should be mere babies still; but they forced us to read and think and pray, they drove us to it, they shut us up with the Eternal. Thank God for bitterest foes, and even for those weak-minded men who have advised us to make compromises. They were people of a nice heart, a quiet disposition, who had divided the days into four periods and had otherwise neatly arranged a little Providence of their own. They meant it well may the Lord have mercy upon their souls!
In the third place, long-continued hardship had not soured the mind of Paul. That is the test of his quality. I know not of any other man that would not have gone mad. After two years he is as sweet as ever. When he appears before Festus we mark in him the same quietness, the same dignity, the same defence that is, Christianity. If it were a fight in words, the battle might go wrong for our cause sometimes, because there are worthy men against us, skilled much in the utterance of phrases, and sentences, and arguments: but it is an affair of the sweetness of the soul. O that eternal patience! who can answer? Long-suffering is eloquence. To be found at the last just as snow-white in motive, just as pure and simple in purpose, just as sweet and loving in heart, as at the first never tell me that some vain superstition wrought that miracle in the human mind. The miracle I cannot explain; there are its evidences and proofs. Does Paul speak of throwing up the Christian cause, abandoning the Cross? When Festus calls his Master “one Jesus” does Paul say, “I know not the man”? For two years he has been chained, taken out of his usual missionary work, withdrawn from the thick of the fight in which he delighted, and yet, at the end of the two years, he is as woman-like and child-like and Divine in spirit as if all the time he had been in a garden of delights, on the mountains of myrrh and on the hills of frankincense. What did it? Never has a Pharisee done this; this is a Christian miracle. Controversy never degenerated into mere quarrelling with the Apostle Paul. There never has been so great a debater, so tremendous an antagonist, and yet he always lived in the higher reaches of controversy. It was debate, not fret, and chafe, and resentment, and bitterness; it was noble speculation, not petty retaliation; it was the life of the revealer, not of the mere pedant; it was the ministry of a prophet, not the impetuous attempt of a man who was anxious to snatch a transient victory. Let the speaker interpret the speech; let the man be the noblest comment on the doctrine. If you will accept that challenge, the whole history of the New Testament will claim the supreme place in the critical estimation of mankind.
There are three remarkable things about Paul in this connection. (1) He represents spiritual influence. He cannot be let alone. Though he is in prison, he is out of jail; chained at Csarea, he is still an active presence in Jerusalem. You cannot get rid of some men. If you kill them, they will come up in some other personages, and haunt you as Herod was haunted by the new man whom he suspected to be the beheaded John, though he himself was in theory a Sadducee, and did not believe in spiritual presences. But in the panic of the soul our theories go down. The Agnostic prays. This double life does not belong to the Christian thinker alone. If the Christian thinker be accused of sometimes acting unworthily of his prayers, many a man who professes to live under a sky of lead, prays, perhaps, when he does not know it. Prayer is not an affair of words, but of heart-ache and heart-wonder and mute desire, and the look that has the soul in it. Paul represented the kind of influence which follows society in a ghostly way, colouring its questions, lifting up its wonder into a kind of religion, troubling its conscience as if by a new standard of righteousness. (2) Paul represents also spiritual confidence. He would rather be fighting, but the Lord has appointed him to waiting. “It will all be well,” says Paul. The old war-horse stirred in him pawed, and longed for the fierce fray. But the Apostle says, “This is waiting time, halting time; God will see his child defended. The battle is not mine, but God’s. It is better that I should be shut up in Csarea, that I may see how God can at least, in the most energetic ways do without me.” Presently, he will see the meaning of it all, and write to his friends a letter in which he will say, “The things which have happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel. Mistakes have been turned into helps, and blunders of mine have been turned into the opportunities of God.” (3) Paul also represents the highest aspect of spiritual culture. He is being trained now; he is reading the smaller print in God’s endless book; he is being mellowed. Some education in that direction of his character will do him no harm. All the land is better for the rain which softens it aye, for the frost which reduces it to powder. From the human side, Paul was being punished; from the Divine side, he was being rested and trained. There are two sides in all human events. If we take the lower aspect of our life, we shall groan, fret, and chafe; we shall wonder why there were not more than twenty-four hours in the day, and why the year should not be stretched out into double lengths, and why there should not be two harvests within the extended circle; our hand can never have enough, and our imagination can only be tempted, not to satisfaction, but to new ambition or despair. But if we take the upper view of life that is to say, look down upon it from God’s point we shall see all things work together for good see how the elements combine one with the other; how marvellously the lines run, cross, and return, and complete striking figures figures that are almost living presences; see how mistakes are made account of, and how disappointments become the beginnings of prayer, and how the things that crushed us most at the time were amongst the greatest blessings of life. See, the garden blooms, but how more brightly here, and there, and yonder! Why? Under those bright places are the deep graves. Oh, rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him, and he will give thee thine heart’s desire; and, at the last accosted by the voices of solicitous love and interest, “Is it well with thee?” “Is it well with thy husband?” “Is it well with the child?” thou shalt answer, “It is well.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXXI
PAUL AND FESTUS; FESTUS AND AGRIPPA; PAUL AND AGRIPPA
Acts 25-26.
Felix was superseded as procurator of Judea, and on departing he seeks to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound. He was superseded on account of the many complaints of his mal-administration sent to Rome by the dissatisfied Jews. Knowing that he would have to give an account of these matters when he got to Rome, he wanted to put the Jews under obligation to him by leaving Paul bound so as to modify their testimony against him when he was held to account.
We know but little about Festus beyond what our record tells us, but Josephus discusses him pretty freely, and gives him a good name as a conscientious ruler. Having been only three days at the political capital, Caesarea, he went to Jerusalem to spend ten days studying the situation, as a ruler ought to do, trying to get acquainted with the character of the people over whom he was to rule. In Act 25:1-5 ; Act 25:15-16 , we have an account of a request preferred by Jewish officials to Festus concerning Paul, and the reply of Festus. These facts show three things:
1. That this was a great hazard to Paul, because, when a new procurator arrived, he would quite naturally wish to conciliate the people by granting their first request. To grant it meant death to Paul.
2. The fact that after Paul had been in prison for two years, this Jewish hate, unsleeping and unrelenting, showed itself Just as soon as a new procurator puts his foot in their capital, is a demonstration of its intensity.
3. The facts are very highly commendatory to Festus. The Jews requested first as a favor, as the Greek word says, that Festus send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried. Festus replied that it was not a Roman custom to grant as a favor that a man should be tried not according to law; that there must be an opportunity for the accused to face his accusers, and the evidence must be looked into, and inasmuch as Paul was already there in custody in Caesarea, instead of sending him to Jerusalem, the ones in authority in Jerusalem could come up to Caesarea to press their cage, and not try to get a change of venue. All that is very fine on the part of Festus. We now come to the
TRIAL BEFORE FESTUS
We find three accounts of this trial. The first is Luke’s own account, Act 25:6-12 ; then the account given by Festus himself, Act 25:13-21 ; and then the account of Paul, Act 28:17-19 . If we compare this trial with the previous one before Felix, we find that the only difference is that in this case the Jews have no orator, or lawyer, or at least there is nothing said about it. The charges are exactly the same. They fail in their proof, just as they did before. They convince Festus, Just as they had convinced Felix, that there was nothing in their accusations for the Roman court to take cognizance of.
The instant duty of Festus was to pronounce Paul acquitted and release him. But instead of doing his known duty, he makes a proposition to Paul. Commencing at Act 25:9 , we read: “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?” It is a little difficult to know exactly what that proposition means. We may construe it. “Wilt thou consent to a change of venue, and let me try the case over again at Jerusalem?” or it may mean, “Are you willing, if I am present, to let this case be taken to Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin try you?” It may mean either one of those two things, and I think it means the latter. I judge so from Paul’s response.
This proposition was unfair, even if he meant that he would try the case, because it put the place of trial where animosity against the prisoner was such that his life would be in danger. Second, it was judicially unfair to seek to do this on account of the desire to please the Jews. Why should he please the Jews any more than he should Paul? What was a judge to do with things of that kind? Besides being unfair, it reversed his former decision. When the Jews asked originally that Paul be sent to Jerusalem for trial, he refused. Now in asking Paul if he was willing to go to Jerusalem to be retried, it reverses the other decision. Furthermore, he misrepresented his motive in making it. Luke says in Act 25:9 that Festus made the proposition, desiring to please the Jews. Festus in telling about it, Act 25:20 , says: “And I, being perplexed how to enquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters.” He gives as his motive that he had some doubt in his mind about the manner of his question, but Luke gives his motive as a desire to please the Jews.
This proposition meant great hazard to Paul. He knew the Jews. He knew, and Lysias knew, and Festus knew, because he had all the correspondence and testimony previously taken, that the sole object of the trial was to get an opportunity to assassinate Paul. Paul recognized this, and said to Festus, the judge, “You know that I am guilty of no offense,” and now he saw that if Festus wavered, which he was doing, and sent him to Jerusalem, that meant death to him. How would he escape that? He escapes by an appeal to Caesar: “You tried this case; you admit there is nothing against me; now you propose to send me to Jerusalem to be tried over again; I appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen.”
This proposition of Festus exhibits him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem. He stands so well in the first case, and everything he says is so much to the point and judicially fair! Now, evidently, he is learning something about the Jewish character, and the power of Jewish hate. He has seen that the Jews have brought about a recall of Felix, and his selfishness is appealed to: “Now, must I forget that I am a fair judge, and look at the case as it will likely affect me if I get these people mad?” That doesn’t present him to us as half the man that the other does. Thus we may account for his wavering his selfishness for the fear that he might get himself into complications with the Jews.
Here I explain briefly the appeal to Caesar. When Rome was a republic it elected tribunes. These tribunes had the power at any time to arrest a case, or in court stop its proceedings without assigning a reason, and have it tried before them, and if the case had been tried and adjudicated, these tribunes had the power to reverse it. When Rome became an empire, the Emperor assumed all the functions of the tribunes. In other words, the Emperor had the power and the authority to stop the proceedings of any court in the empire, and he had the power of a petit court, and then he had the power to reverse any decision that had been rendered. An ordinary man that lived in the province, as the Jews, the Ephesians, or the Galatians, could not appeal to Caesar. What the proconsul, the procurator, or the propraetor did was final. But a Roman citizen living in any of these countries, just by simply saying, “I appeal to Caesar,” could stop any case, anywhere. They could proceed no further after he made that appeal. There was not anything left for the Roman consul, or procurator, to do except just to say what Festus said: “Thou hast appealed unto Caesar; unto Caesar shalt thou go.” There was only one exception. If the Roman citizen was a bandit or a pirate, and caught in the very act of robbery or piracy, he could not appeal to Caesar.
FESTUS AND AGRIPPA
The case, now being taken out of the hands of either the Sanhedrin or of Festus himself, all that this procurator could do was to send Paul by the first good opportunity to Rome, and to send all the papers in the case and refer it to Caesar. But an opportunity did not come every day for sailing ships, going in the right direction, and while they were waiting for a ship, Agrippa II, the king of Chalcis, and his sister Bernice, came to pay a complimentary visit to the new procurator, and it occurred to Festus to lay this case before Agrippa. He had this special object in view: Agrippa had great influence. Agrippa had charge of all the Temple officers, and power to appoint a high priest. He was the last king of any kind that the Jews had except the spiritual king, Jesus. Festus, having recognized the turbulent character of the Jews, if he could get a concurrence of judgment on this case from this king, himself a Jew, it would greatly disarm any opposition of the Jews on account of Paul.
Luke’s account gives a plain, straightforward statement of the case, commencing at Act 25:13 , and extending to Act 25:22 . Festus states the whole case to Agrippa, and when we look at the two, side by side, we discover that Festus’ statement of the case to Agrippa is much more complimentary to himself than Luke’s statement of the case. That little piece of human nature, to which I have already referred, comes in. Robert Burns says, and very much to the point, Och! Mankind is unco weak, But little to be trusted, If self the wavering balance touch, ‘Tis rarely right adjusted.
In other words, “Let a fellow state his own case and he is a hero,” “but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out.” That is what the Bible says about it.
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
Let us look at the assembly described in Act 25:23 , and the great opportunities afforded to Paul. (See Conybeare and Howson, Vol. II, pp. 294-98, and Farrar in his Life of Paul .) That Act 25:23 says, “So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains, and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in.”
That was a very imposing assembly. King Agrippa and Bernice were out in full regal regalia. I suspect every woman that was permitted to be present went there largely to see how Bernice was dressed in her court dress, as much as to hear Paul’s case. All the chief captains of the Roman legion were there. The Roman cohorts and that was a very imposing body of distinguished men that had been on a hundred battlefields were there. They were the conquerors of a hundred countries. That word, “pomp,” signifies a great deal. “Then came the chief men of the city,” and it was a great city at that time. A very imposing assembly indeed, and here is a poor preacher that has an opportunity to speak before this grand audience. There are people before him that have never heard a sermon in their lives; some that knew him but little, if anything, about the religion that was dearer to him than life. But God’s providence had managed it so that he was thus to stand before kings and testify of the grace of God. We may live to a good old age without ever having such an opportunity. A schoolboy thinks it is a great thing if he is selected to deliver one of the commencement addresses, or represent his society in a debate, but this was a bigger thing than that.
Festus, in introducing the case, throws light on the requirements of the Roman law, and he certainly knew what to gay. Let us see how he introduces Paul. He is the master of ceremonies: “And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and as he himself appealed to the emperor, I determined to send him.. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord [calls Caesar, ‘my lord’]. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him.” That is a very admirable statement. The Roman law required that when a man was sent up to Rome on appeal, all the papers relating to the case should be sent, and all the testimony that had been taken, and a clear statement made by one who sent him as to what he was accused of. Now we come to:
PAUL’S DEFENSE
Here, as elsewhere, Paul arises to the greatness of the occasion. His speech has always been recognized as a classic. Many a time as a schoolboy I have spoken it. I know nothing in literature that I put ahead of it. It was just exactly the right thing to say under the circumstances. Some people lose their heads on great occasions; some, like a young hunter the first time he sees a deer, take what is called a “buck ague” or what young people claim to be “stage fright,” or what some young bridegrooms know to be “marriage fright.” I have stood up to marry men that were shaking so that the women had to hold them up. I never saw a woman lose her self-possession, but I have known men to be scared nearly into a fit. Paul exhibits the most marvelous self-possession and voices the clearest ideas not a superfluous word. Let us analyze the address:
1. The exordium: “I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews.” Festus was not. He was competent to try the legal questions in full, but he didn’t know anything about their customs, their laws, their traditions, and their fanaticism, but Agrippa did; he knew all about them. Paul said, “I count myself happy to have an opportunity to discuss it before a competent judge one who is expert in the matters that are involved, and before a man who can detect any false statement in a moment.” That is the exordium.
2. The next thing that he sets forth is that he himself is thoroughly well known to the whole Jewish people, and particularly this accusing crowd, for he was brought up at Jerusalem. They know all his manner of life; they know that according to the strictest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee. Agrippa could understand that! so he was not a stranger, with doubtful antecedents to be met. It was just about like trying George Washington at Mount Vernon.
3. Next he names, with unerring accuracy, the three real accusatives that they have against him:
(a) His first crime is that he is judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Of course, if the Sadducees were officials of the Sanhedrin, they would have their grievance against him. He had been going all over their country testifying to a case of the resurrection of the dead. Then he goes on to show that this doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as Agrippa is bound to know, was the thing toward which all Jews were looking, and was the end of all Israel worship. That was the great hope of the entire nation, and his first crime was, that he testified to the resurrection of the dead. Then he calls attention to the fact that the person who was risen from the dead, Jesus, was one whom he himself had exceedingly opposed. That he had not believed in him at all; that he had persecuted him; but that on the way to Damascus with authority, given him by the Jewish officials, that were here pressing the case, to persecute, he met Jesus who was risen, his resurrection proving his claims; that face to face he met him, and that his experience turned him from persecution to the preacher of that which he had persecuted.
(b) “And then when Jesus met me he commissioned me to preach to the Gentiles; that is my next offense, that I preached to the Gentiles. I did that under the commission of Jesus, to whose resurrection I bear witness.”
(c) “Then my third offense is that I claim that this Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. My answer to that is that I have not said a thing more than the law and the prophets have said; that the Messiah would suffer and be put to death and rise again the third day, and that he would be a light to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.”
Did you ever see anything more clearly to the point? And those were the three crimes: (1) That he testified to the resurrection; (2) that he preached salvation to the Gentiles;
(3) that he claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Take those three things out of the way and there is no grievance against him, and yet in occupying that position he had the evidence of his own eyewitness and personal experience, for he saw the risen Lord, and he preached nothing more than the law and the prophets taught concerning the Messiah.
Right at that point (for here the address is properly ended), Festus interrupts: “Paul, Paul, you are mad; you study so much that you have lost your mind; talk about prophets and the law and a man risen from the dead!” With the utmost courtesy, giving Festus his legal title, he says, “I am not mad, Most Excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. King Agrippa, you know it. These things were not done in a corner; it is not some magical sleight-ofhand, in a dark room, with only a few people present; these things all took place in broad daylight before ten thousand witnesses, and Agrippa knows, everybody knows, the things to be true. It is not madness with me, it is soberness.” Then he whirls upon King Agrippa, saying, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.”
Then followed Agrippa’s words (A. V.), “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” As some people render it, he spoke ironically, “Would thou with a few words attempt to make me a Christian?” and that closed the incident. The effect on Festus was that Paul was a sincere enthusiast; that his mind was unbalanced by hard study. How may we account for the impression? It is the impression made upon worldly men, who witness any great enthusiasm of God’s people, just as the reception of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was construed to be intoxication. As Paul says, the natural man discerneth not the things of God; they are of spiritual discernment. Thus Paul himself says that a man may come into the assembly, and conclude from the way they are going on that they are crazy. That is the way the Athenians looked at it when Paul got up and talked about the resurrection of the dead at Athens.
Before we can determine what the effect on Agrippa was we have to know what Agrippa meant by what he said. Great hosts of people, and particularly radical higher critics, and the great modern scholars, say that Agrippa spoke ironically. Conybeare and Howson take this stand. So does Farrar. So does Meyer in his Greek Commentary, and an abundance of others. I don’t believe that. I do not agree with them for two reasons. We cannot understand Paul’s reply if that is what he meant. Paul responds, “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” He knew what Agrippa meant, and you cannot fit that reply of Paul’s into this finical interpretation of the critics, and so I do not accept that rendering of it. My second reason is that Agrippa showed that the arrow had hit him. He stopped the proceedings right then and there, and got up and left. When you shoot a deer, as I have done many a time, the deer that is hit will separate from the crowd at once. If he is hit hard he will separate from the crowd and go off into the thicket, and that is exactly what Agrippa did, he took his sister and left. And so I think the effect on Agrippa was this: He looked in the face of that calm, noble, Spirit-guided man, knowing the facts of the history thoroughly, heard him tell about that Christian experience, and thought in his royal heart with regard to Paul, “Isn’t it the greatest thing in the world to be a Christian?” And I think he ran to get rid of his impression.
There are certain great texts in his address. One is this: “Why should it be though a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” It would be incredible if some man was going to raise the dead, but why should it be thought a thing unbelievable if God should raise the dead. This is no harder to do than to create a man out of nothing. What is a miracle to God? I have preached on that many a time. God is the explanation of the miracle, of the universe, and of regeneration. A second great text is, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Many a time have I preached from that, as has nearly every other preacher, and he has my permission to go on preaching it in the way that common minds will clearly understand it. I do not care who may differ with me in this interpretation of it. Those King James revisers were great scholars, and far more orthodox than some of the later ones. Another great subject is, “What is madness to the world is truth and soberness if we only consider it from the right point of view.”
A great hymn suggested by it is, “Almost Persuaded.” I have seen Major W. E. Penn stand up before an audience of three thousand people and with a mighty choir standing before him, sing, “Almost persuaded Almost, but lost!”
Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Act 26:29 ) places him far above his judges and auditors: “I would to God that . . . not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds,” and he holds up his chains. In other words, “I do not want them to have any of my sufferings, but I would that every one were not only close to the line but would step over the line this day.” I heard a great Washington preacher preach on that text in Waco and his theme was “Paul’s Benevolence.” He wanted to see people altogether such as he was, but not to have the troubles that were his. But Agrippa closed the hearing right at this point because it got too hot for him too personal. Yet both Agrippa and Festus solemnly decided that there was not a thing in those accusations against Paul, and he might be set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar.
There is a subsequent value to Paul in this verdict. The value is this, that when Festus sent the account and wrote what the charges were, he put in such a favorable commendation of Paul that when he got to Rome he was not subject to harsh imprisonment. He had an opportunity to preach; and the value of it is seen in that he had friends visiting him continuously, and when he was tried he was acquitted.
There is an eternal remembrance lingering in the minds of Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice. They are all now in their eternal home. Memory is a wonderful thing, as Abraham said to the rich man in hell. A remembrance for those three is that marvelous day at Caesarea, when that noble sufferer, that great preacher, stood before them, and tried to entice them across the line of salvation with the power of his life and his benevolence. Just here let us compare, “Felix trembled,” “Agrippa almost persuaded,” Luk 10:11 : “that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you,” and Mar 12:34 : “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” From these four scriptures the conclusion is that a man may be pierced with remorse and tremble at the shadows of a coming hell; that a man may be almost persuaded to be a Christian; that a man may see salvation come right up to his very door; that a man may be nigh unto the kingdom of God, and yet be lost.
Upon this point I give some quotations bearing on the value of one’s opportunity, and the danger of its neglect. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar (Act IV, Scene 3), uses this language: There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows, and in miseries.
Then there is this quotation from Lowell’s book of the Crisis: Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with falsehood, For the good or evil side.
It came to these men that day; they had the opportunity in their time to decide for good or evil. There was a tide that day in their lives. If they had taken that tide at its flood that day at its highest point, its crest their lives would have ended in salvation, but omitted, all the voyage of their lives was bound in shallows and in miseries.
QUESTIONS 1. What the scripture and the themes of this chapter?
2. Why was Felix superseded as procurator of Judea, and why, on departing, does he seek to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound?
3. What do we know of Festus, his successor?
4. How does Festus commence his administration?
5. What request concerning Paul was made by Jewish officials to Festus?
6. Why was this a great hazard to Paul?
7. How does it exhibit the Jewish hatred of Paul?
8. How does the reply of Festus commend him?
9. How many and what accounts do we have of this trial?
10. Compare this trial with the previous one before Felix.
11. What then the instant duty of Featus?
12. Instead of doing his known duty, what proposition does he make to Paul, and what the exact force of it?
13. What the judicial unfairness of this proposition?
14. How does it reverse his former decision?
15. How does he misrepesent his motive in making it?
16. What the great hazard to Paul, what his recognition of it, and his method of escape?
17. How does this proposition of Festus exhibit him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem?
18. How may we account for his wavering?
19. Explain the appeal to Caesar.
20. In sending Paul to Caesar, what must the procurator send with him, and what their facility of travel at this time from Caeaarea to Rome?
21. Why does Festus relate Paul’s case to Agrippa and permit Paul to speak before him?
22. Compare the Festus statement of the case to Agrippa with Luke’s account of the same matter, and tell what you discover.
23, What does Robert Burns say very much to the point?
24. Was this a judicial investigation before Agrippa, and why?
25. Of what prophecy was it in part a fulfilment?
26. What may we say of the assembly described in verse 23, and the great opportunities afforded Paul?
27. How does Festus introduce the case, and what light does his introduction throw on the requirements of the Roman law?
28. Does Paul rise to the greatness of the occasion? If so, how?
29. What is Paul’s exordium, and what was his purpose in it?
30. How does Paul appeal to Agrippa in this speech?
31. What were the three accusations against him, and how did he answer them?
32. What was the effect on Festus, and how may we account for it?
33. What the effect on Agrippa, and what the exact force of the authorized version of Act 26:28 ?
34. What great texts in his address, and what uses made of them?
35. What great hymn suggested by Agrippa’s answer to Paul?
36. How does Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Act 26:29 ) place him far above his judges and auditors?
37. Why did Agrippa close the hearing right at this point?
38. What was the verdict?
39. What subsequent value to Paul in this verdict?
40. What eternal remembrance must linger in the minds of Festus, Agrippa and Bernice?
41. Comparing the case of Felix, the case of Agrippa, Luk 10:11 ; Mar 12:34 , what may we conclude?
42. What quotations cited bearing on the value of one’s opportunity and the danger of its neglect?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
Ver. 1. Now when Festus ] Who succeeded Felix in the government, as after Festus came Albinus, and after him Florus, under whom Jerusalem was sacked and ruined. That heavy curse was executed upon this wretched people, Lev 26:17 ; “If ye still trespass against me, I will set princes over you that shall hate you,” mischievous, odious princes; odious to God, oppressive to the people. After the revolt of the ten tribes, they had not one good king. And a Popish writer complains, that for many successions the see of Rome non merita est regi nisi a reprobis, had deserved to be ruled by none but reprobates. When Phocas had slain Mauricius, there was an honest poor man (saith Cedrenus) who was wonderfully importunate at the throne of grace, to know a reason why that wicked man prospered so in his design; he was answered again by a voice, that there could not be a worse man found, and that the sins of Christians did require it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Act 25:1 .] The term is properly used of a province , whether imperial or senatorial (see note on ch. Act 13:7 ), but is here loosely applied to Juda, which was only a procuratorship, attached to the province of Syria. So also Josephus calls Festus , Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also Albinus, ib. 9. 1.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
CHAP. Act 24:1 to Act 26:32 . ] PAUL’S IMPRISONMENT AT CSAREA.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 25:1 . : “having come into the province,” A. and R.V., or, “having entered upon his province,” R.V. margin. If we read with Weiss and W.H [389] margin, the word is an adjective of two terminations, sc. , i.e. , having entered on his duties as governor of the province (see Weiss, Apostelgeschichte , p. 8), and cf. Act 23:34 . For the adjective in inscriptions see Blass, in loco. .: “sat cito,” Bengel. : went up to Jerusalem officially as the capital; the visit had nothing necessarily to do with St. Paul, but the close-connecting may indicate that the action of the priests in again bringing up their case was to be expected.
[389] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts Chapter 25
The new governor, Festus, gave a fresh opportunity to the Jews. Morally more respectable than Felix, he knew not God and therefore could not be trusted for man. Faith to him was quite unintelligible, an enthusiasm. But he soon learnt enough of the Jews to make him guilty in his willingness to gratify them in the sacrifice of Paul. Policy is a sad destroyer of conscience.
‘Festus, therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, asking a favour that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait to kill him on the way. Howbeit Festus answered that Paul was being kept at Caesarea and that he himself was about to depart [there] shortly. Let them therefore saith he, that are of power [authority] among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him’ (vers. 1-5).
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand the Jews sought under colour of favour to have the apostle waylaid on the road to Jerusalem; on the other the governor stood to the dignity of his office, and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he declined moving him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly assailed. But rumours would easily get currency as to any such plot. At this time the governor was not prepared to surrender a Roman citizen to the malice of his enemies, especially of a Jewish sort on a religious dispute. The Lord in any case watched over his servant. The accused was in Caesarea, and if anywhere in that land the supreme seat of judicature was there in Roman eyes. The governor by his decision hindered the execution of their plot. He was returning to Caesarea himself shortly: if therefore any wrong was in question, they had their opportunity to come down and accuse the prisoner.
‘And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Caesarea, and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. And when he was come, the Jews that had come from Jerusalem stood round about and laid many and grievous charges which they could not prove; 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’ (vers. 6-8). The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not transgressed as to any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.
But Festus was really little better than Felix. The change of judge was only slightly in favour of justice. There was the same selfishness which had counteracted equity before. Impossible to expect the fear of God in a heathen man, though some may have been more depraved and unjust than others.
‘But Festus, desiring to gain favour with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?’ (ver. 9). So little can man be reckoned on. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem; he could scarcely be in the dark as to the reason why Paul had been hurried down to Caesarea. His motive was to curry favour with the Jews. ‘But Paul] said, I am standing before Caesar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou also very well knowest’ (ver. 10).
The apostle must have had cause for speaking so plainly. ‘If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. But if none of these things is [true] whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up [or grant me by favour] unto them. I appeal unto Caesar’ (ver. 11). It is clear that all the righteousness of the case lay with Paul. He therefore avails himself of his title as a Roman citizen against those who would have infringed Roman law. He agitated no change of law, he sought nothing for himself, he employed no lawyer. The law had already ruled, and he pleaded it before one in office to administer it.
Thus so far the difficulty was terminated. The governor was bound by the appeal. ‘Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go’ (ver. 12). The king, or emperor, was to hear, no less than subordinate magistrates, and this not by fawning on, or seeking access to, the princes of this world, but as holy sufferers with Christ and for His name (Mat 10:18 ).
It was Paul’s purpose to visit Rome after going to Jerusalem (Act 19:21 ), and God gave effect to it, for it was God’s purpose (Act 23:11 ). But how different was the way under His hand from the apostle’s expectation! He must go a prisoner to Rome. This befell him through his appeal to Caesar – an appeal by no means always granted, as it was evidently liable to abuse. If the guilt were manifest, it was refused: so also if the case were frivolous enough to be unworthy of the emperor’s hearing. Paul, whose innocence was unquestionable, while the case was rendered in the highest degree serious through Jewish illwill, appealed when he saw the procurator trifling with justice to gratify the Jews. This decided matters for the present.
But the Spirit of God saw further testimony needed by man, and this was brought about by a visit of distinguished visitors to the Roman governor soon after.
‘Now when certain days passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to salute (or, having saluted) Festus. And as they were spending several days there, Festus set Paul’s case before the king, saying, There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom when I was in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the Jews filed information, asking for condemnation against him. Unto whom I answered, that it is no custom for Romans to give up any man before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity of defence concerning the complaint. When therefore they came together here, I made no delay but next day sat on the judgment-seat and commanded the man to be brought; concerning whom when the accusers stood up, they were bringing no charge of such evil things as I supposed, but had certain questions of their own religion, and of one Jesus dead as He is, Whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And I, being perplexed in the inquiry concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these things. But when Paul appealed to be kept for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I should send him unto Caesar. And Agrippa [said] unto Festus, I also should wish to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, saith he, thou shalt hear him’ (vers. 13-22).
The royal personage here introduced was son of Herod Agrippa I., whose awful fate was described in Act 12 . Too young to reign at his father’s death, he was by Claudius given Chalcis, the principality of his uncle, with certain privileges in Jerusalem; and Philip’s old tetrarchy and more were added by the same emperor soon after, with the title of King. Bernice was his elder sister, Drusilla his younger, and each of them famous or infamous in that day with reason too grave. As Felix and Drusilla had a most solemn warning from the prisoner, so now were Agrippa and Bernice with Festus to hear an appeal which leaves no soul as it is found. The truth before the conscience carries with it a responsibility which eternity, not to say the judgment-seat of Christ, will fully manifest. Yet the man involuntarily forced to feel its power can ask, What is truth? and goes out hard and wretched from His presence Who alone can give the adequate answer. But wisdom is justified of all her children; as she learnt, who had been till then a child of folly: Jesus was of God made to her wisdom and every other good she lacked (Luk 7:35-50 ). Why was it not so with these high estates?
The governor’s motive for bringing Paul before Agrippa appears to have been his own doubt what to report to the emperor. Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no notion. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and all. God was in none of his thoughts, apart from the Lord Jesus He remains unknown.
There was another obstacle in his way, even his good opinion of himself, and his endeavour to claim from others the highest character for honesty and honour, energy and prudence. This runs through his speech, as we saw it pervading the self-applauding letter of Claudius Lysias in Act 23:25-30 . What is man to be accounted, whose breath is in his nostrils? One look at self in God’s presence puts in dust and ashes, as in Job’s case when approved of Him, for his three friends were not. How can ye believe, said our Lord (Joh 5:44 ), receiving as ye do glory one of another, and the glory that is from the only God ye seek not? Where there is no self-judgment, the Saviour is but ‘one Jesus’, like any child of man. He who so speaks is a sinner ripening for judgment.
What the sentiments of Festus were about the mythological reveries of the Greeks and Romans, bound up with their paganism, we know not. Scepticism, ever the fatal dissolvent of society and the body politic, as it is the reaction from idolatry, was then all but universal among the educated class. It is clear that, with the contempt usual in such men, they never conceived of the truth outside themselves. Above al] appeared the strange tale and great stumbling-block of unbelief, Jesus dead and risen, and this in the midst of the busy heedless world, among a despised and subject race. It is just named incidentally (ver. 19) as a psychological phenomenon in Paul and as singularly rousing the animosity of the Jews, an ever-turbulent race.
Unable to give the emperor any reasonable account of the prisoner who had appealed, Festus states the case to one whom current report declared to be, on the one hand well versed in all Jewish questions, and in some respects the more zealous religiously because he was not of Israelitish lineage, as on the other he was notoriously devoted to the Roman interest. So indeed Agrippa continued throughout the great war that demolished the Jewish polity, their ‘place and nation’, and throughout a long reign to the first year of Trajan. To hear the case might gratify the curiosity of Herod Agrippa and perhaps also relieve Festus of some perplexity.
The explanation to the king was not unskilful. It was in truth, as he intimated, a matter of Felix left over for him. Paul was a prisoner when Festus entered on his province, who could not therefore be expected to know all from the first. Next, it was certain that the leading Jews were grievously incensed against him, which could not but weigh with a governor of little or no experience locally. Roman self-complacency breaks forth in the assertion of their policy of inflexible and impartial equity: an excellent principle by no means the rule in the provinces, any more than at home, but convenient to lay down by a governor as a cheek on flagrant injustice, which Felix and Festus surely saw in the actual prosecution. Again, who could reproach himself with lack of zeal in the public cause? The Jews had been prompt enough in coming down from Jerusalem to accuse in Caesarea, and the governor had lost not a day in sitting to judge the case, if there had been one according to Roman law. But there was nothing tangible before the court; no infraction of the public peace or propriety, any more than private wrong in violence or corruption. It was absurd to bring before a Roman tribunal such matters as occupied Paul’s accusers. Facts there were none; only questions for it of a visionary nature.
It is improbable that even a Roman procurator of Jud?a would be so uncourteous as to speak of the views in controversy as a ‘superstition’, especially in speaking to king Agrippa; any more than that Paul so characterized the Athenians, when he was setting before them Jesus and the resurrection. It seems better therefore to avail ourselves of the better or at least colourless, sense which the word undoubtedly bears in authors of that day still extant. ‘Religion’ is therefore here chosen, while ‘system of worship’ has also been suggested in a similar sense.
But when one knows the infinite truth that the Son came to bring God into the world and put sin out of it, how shocking is the dark incredulity that slurs over facts so transcendent in the words, ‘one Jesus now dead, whom Paul asserted to be alive’! The vindication of God’s moral glory and the display of His love, and the proof of coming judgment, all turn on it. Without it sin reigns in death, and destruction for sinners without exception or hope. There is no kingdom possible of righteousness and peace, only hell filled with the wicked and accursed. Jesus alive from the dead for evermore has changed all.
Nor need we wait to see the glorious results. The Christian sees and walks by faith, not by sight. We rest, not only on a God that cannot lie, but on the fact already accomplished that Jesus died as propitiation for our sins, rose from the dead, and has taken His seat at God’s right hand in heaven. We rest on the accomplishment of God’s will in Christ’s one offering of Himself for sins; and now He sits as truly man on the Father’s throne, as He came down from God to become man and bring in new and everlasting glory to God by His death. He therefore is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; and we who believe are of God in Him, as once we were only in Adam, heirs of sin and ruin. When the Lord appears again, the results will appear before the universe, and the creation, all the creation that now groans in bondage and corruption will be delivered: for He is the Second man and Last Adam, and we shah reign along with Him in glory.
But the wisdom of the world is folly, which slights the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, Who came to His own things, and they that were His own received Him not. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. So Festus showed now, as did Agrippa afterward in the same blindness of unbelief which pervaded other princes of this age: for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And Christendom is returning to the darkness of heathenism. Never among the baptized did naturalism so govern men’s minds; never before did nominal Christians manifest such incredulity in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, or even in creation. If the dead Jesus is alive, He has the keys of death and hades; and where is then philosophy? Where is natural law? What has natural law to do with creating? Still less can it apply to grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
But to return; when Festus mentions Paul’s declining to go to Jerusalem and his appealing to Caesar, Agrippa expresses the wish himself to hear; and an audience is fixed for the morrow. This leads to a yet fuller testimony as we shall see, before not a governor only but a king.
The purposed hearing of the apostle before Agrippa wholly differed from that before Felix and Drusilla. This was private, and the apostle availed himself of it in divine love and holy courage to strip the guilty pair of their vain show, and to let them see themselves as God regarded them, as He will judge by and by through our Lord Jesus. Were men not insensate by the wily power of Satan, they would feel how gracious it is of God to send one faithful and able, willing and loving, to tell them the unerring truth, that, believing, they might be saved. But if they hug their sins, it cannot be. True repentance is the inseparable companion of true faith. From both, the enemy finds plausible excuses to hold souls back. Conscience may tremble: but there is no repentance till self is judged before God, and faith alone produces this.
Here it was even more public than the indictment before Felix or Festus. And the appeal to the emperor, though it relieved Festus in the main, embarrassed him in that he had no tangible rational explanation of the case to lay before Nero. Hence when Agrippa expressed the desire in person to hear the accused, Festus gladly caught at it and fixed the next day for the purpose. Agrippa’s known familiarity with Jewish affairs was too good to be lost, besides gratifying the wish of so exalted a guest.
‘Therefore on the morrow when Agrippa came, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they entered into the audience-chamber with the commanders and the distinguished men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought. And saith Festus, King Agrippa, and all men that are here present with us, ye behold this man about whom all the multitude of the Jews applied to me both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer. But as I found that he had done nothing worthy of death, and as he himself appealed to Augustus, I decided to send him about whom I have nothing certain to write to my lore Wherefore I brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, king Agrippa, so that, after examination had, I may have what I shall write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable in sending a prisoner not also to signify the charges against him’ (vers. 23-27).
Our Evangelist as usual presents the scene most graphically; for which reason probably tradition gave out in error that he was a painter, whereas scripture is positive that he was a physician: a fact abundantly confirmed by evidence in both his Gospel and the Acts. The king and the queen are before us with great pomp; military chiefs add to the show, as well as the most distinguished civilians; the governor gives the word of command and the prisoner is brought into the hall of audience. Festus opens the proceedings. It is hardly to be allowed that the courteous Roman meant to insinuate a slur on Bernice when he said, ‘King Agrippa, and all men that are here present with us.’ Undoubtedly the word is not the general but the precise , expressive of men as distinguished from women (), The truth is however that is used regularly in addresses as more respectful, though women may be present (cf. Act 1:16 ; Act 2:14 ; Act 3:12 ; Act 13:16 ; Act 15:7 ; Act 17:22 ), and in this sense only is it here employed. Out of courtesy the distinction is ignored for the time. That the queen’s presence was implied to be improper is not the thought.
Festus addresses himself directly to the point. ‘Ye behold this [person] about whom all the multitude of the Jews applied to me, both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer.’ There was no doubt of the general and vehement antipathy of the Jews to the noblest man of their stock and the most honoured servant of the Lord. Their cry in the holy city and elsewhere was that he ought not to live longer. He, the governor, found that Paul had committed nothing which deserved death, but does not explain why he himself had occasioned the appeal to the emperor by the proposal that the prisoner should go to Jerusalem for judgment. Paul knew too that worldly religion is of all things least just and most cruel, and, declining such a change from Caesar’s tribunal, appealed to Augustus. To this Festus agreed, as we know, and he repeats, ‘I decided to send him.’
But thereon arose a difficulty. What was he to write to send with the appellant: ‘About whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord’? This was his main motive for the hearing before Agrippa, versed as he was in Jewish customs and learning and prejudice. ‘Wherefore I brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, king Agrippa, so that, after examination had, I may know what I shall write.’ The governor naturally considered it senseless, as he adds, to forward a prisoner without signifying the accusation laid to his charge. We shall find however that the issue was a true and fresh testimony to Christ far more than a solution of the governor’s perplexity.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 25:1-5
1Festus then, having arrived in the province, three days later went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. 2And the chief priests and the leading men of the Jews brought charges against Paul, and they were urging him, 3requesting a concession against Paul, that he might have him brought to Jerusalem (at the same time, setting an ambush to kill him on the way). 4Festus then answered that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea and that he himself was about to leave shortly. 5″Therefore,” he said, “let the influential men among you go there with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them prosecute him.”
Act 25:1 “Festus” This was Felix’s successor. He was a nobler personality, but obviously under the same political pressure and mind set. He was in office for two years and died in A.D. 62 while still in office (cf. Josephus, Antiq. 20.8.9).
“three days later” This shows how upset and persistent the Jewish leadership was concerning Paul. Festus also wanted to make a good first impression.
Act 25:2 “the chief priest and the leading men of the Jews” This may refer to the Sanhedrin, which was made up of 70 Jewish leaders from Jerusalem. They formed the highest judicial body of the Jews in both politics and religion. See Special Topic at Act 4:5. However, it could also refer to the other wealthy and elite citizens of Jerusalem who would be very anxious to meet the new Roman procurator and begin to establish a good relationship with him.
It is surely possible that it refers to both groups. After two years there was a new high priest, Ishmael ben Fabus (A.D. 56-62). He, too, wanted to establish himself and a good way to do this was to attack the renegade Pharisee, Paul.
“they were urging him” This is an imperfect active indicative. They asked again and again.
Act 25:3 This shows animosity against Paul on the part of these religious leaders. They saw Paul as an enemy from within!
“(at the same time, setting an ambush to kill him on the way)” The tactics of the Jewish leadership had not changed (cf. Act 23:12-15).
Act 25:5 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his purposes (cf. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 429). Dr. Bruce Tankersley, the Koine Greek specialist at East Texas Baptist University, says it might be third class because there is no verb in the protasis. Festus assumed Paul was guilty. Why else would the Jerusalem leaders be so persistent, and so tenacious?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Festus. He was procurator only about two years (A.D. 60-62) when he died. Knowing the turbulence of the Jews, he wished to have the support of the priestly party. Hence his favour to them, in seeking to induce Paul to go to Jerusalem for trial, though Festus may not have known the reason of the request. Josephus commends him as a rooter-out of robbers and the Sicarii (Act 21:38). See Wars, 11. xiv. 1.
was come. Greek. epibaino. See Act 20:18.
into = to.
province. See Act 23:34. Caesarea. See Act 8:40.
to = unto. Greek. eis. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Act 25:1.] The term is properly used of a province, whether imperial or senatorial (see note on ch. Act 13:7),-but is here loosely applied to Juda, which was only a procuratorship, attached to the province of Syria. So also Josephus calls Festus , Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also Albinus, ib. 9. 1.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Chapter 25
Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem ( Act 25:1 ).
Ascended, and you always go up to Jerusalem, you never go down to Jerusalem. No one ever said, “Let’s go down to Jerusalem.” It’s always, “Let’s go up to Jerusalem.”
Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, and desired a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, that they might lie in wait and ambush him on the way ( Act 25:2-3 ).
Festus now has become the governor replacing Felix, and when he went up to Jerusalem, immediately the high priest, now this was a different high priest. Ananias had passed now from the scene in the intervening two years, a new high priest, but they’re still so incensed against Paul that they were still plotting to kill him. So they mentioned about Paul, “Let’s bring him up to Jerusalem to stand trial here.” And then on the way to Jerusalem they were planning to ambush him.
But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly to Caesarea. And so he said, Let them therefore which are among you who are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there is some wickedness in him. And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day he was sitting on the judgment seat and he commanded Paul to be brought. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and they laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove ( Act 25:4-7 ).
One thing about Roman justice is that you had to prove your case against the man. So though they made many complaints, yet they couldn’t prove any.
While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all ( Act 25:8 ).
I haven’t offended the law; I haven’t offended the temple. I haven’t offended Caesar.
But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure ( Act 25:9 ),
He had just come into office and he was wanting to get on the good side of these people, accommodating them.
answered Paul, Will you go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? ( Act 25:9 )
At this point, Paul was tired of being a political pawn in the hands of the Roman governors, and he exercised a right of every Roman citizen. Unless he was accused of first-degree murder, rape or kidnapping.
Paul said ( Act 25:10 ),
“Caesar appellate,” the two words that any Roman citizen could utter when he felt that he was getting a raw deal in the local court.
I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as you very well know ( Act 25:10 ).
Listen, fellow, you know that I haven’t done any wrong.
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die ( Act 25:11 ):
I’m not afraid to die if I’ve done something worthy of death.
but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar ( Act 25:11 ).
Caesar appellate, the legal phrase that could be used.
So they had a consultation and he answered, If you appeal to Caesar, unto Caesar shalt thou go ( Act 25:12 ).
Notice Paul is ready to die for Christ. He said that to his friends on the road to Jerusalem. “What mean ye by these tears? Do you dissuade me? I’m not afraid to be bound. I’m ready to die for Jesus in Jerusalem.” But he’s not going to just recklessly give his life for nothing.
There are some people that recklessly and foolishly just expose themselves to danger. I don’t believe that that is God’s will or even wise.
Paul used his right of appeal.
And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to greet Festus ( Act 25:13 ).
This is king Agrippa, Herod Agrippa II. It was his great grandfather Herod who had ordered the death of the innocent children at the time of the birth of Christ. His great uncle Herod had ordered the death of John the Baptist. His father, Herod Agrippa, had ordered the death of James that we mentioned earlier. This is Herod Agrippa II. His wife was Bernice who was also his sister. She also was a daughter of Herod Agrippa I, she was the sister also to Drusilla who was the wife of Felix. It’s getting to be a mixed-up family affair here.
Bernice had originally been married to her uncle whom she divorced and married a wealthy merchantman and when Herod Agrippa met her in Rome, he enticed her to leave him and to come and live with him. So it was really a very unsavory situation that existed here between Herod Agrippa II and Bernice.
Because Festus was new in the office, a new governor, and Herod Agrippa was still the king over a portion of the province, he came to greet him.
And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man who has been left in bonds by Felix: About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before he has been able to meet his accusers face to face, and to have a licence to answer for himself concerning the crimes that he is charged with. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the next day I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they did not bring any accusation of such things as I supposed: All they had were certain questions against him of their own beliefs or superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive ( Act 25:14-19 ).
So they were just arguing over Paul’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him if he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar. Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. And Festus answered, To morrow, you will hear him ( Act 25:20-22 ).
Festus had no jurisdiction or ruling over Paul. So it was not really a legal process. Paul had already appealed to Caesar and that’s where Paul’s next legal official hearing would take place. But this was just an entertainment for Herod Agrippa and his wife. It was just a big occasion to have a big time of entertainment. “We’ll listen to this fellow.”
However, Herod Agrippa was a student of the Jewish scriptures, and he had studied the customs and the manners of the Jews carefully so that he is interested, no doubt, in what Paul might have to say concerning Jesus Christ. As we will get into Paul’s defense before Agrippa next week, this will be brought out.
So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp ( Act 25:23 ),
That is, they were dressed in their royal purple apparel. Festus was probably dressed in his crimson robes and, of course, there stood the legionnaires who were the tallest of the Romans, the special elite guards standing there at attention with their fancy uniforms, and the whole assembly of the notable people. It was a public occasion where the king might show off his glory, and so he comes into the arena and all of the others, and probably this was done at the arena there in Caesarea that still exists to the present day. You who have made your pilgrimage to Israel have had the privilege of sitting in that arena in Caesarea. It’s always just awesome to sit there and to realize that this is probably the arena where Paul came to make his defense before Herod Agrippa. “They had come with great pomp,”
and entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, the principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth. And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, you see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any more. But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself has appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination I might have somewhat to write. For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not be able to signify the crimes that he’s charged with ( Act 25:23-27 ).
Festus had been put in a real pickle by Paul when Paul appealed to Caesar, because he was a Roman citizen, he had that right. Festus had to send him to Caesar. However, being just a political pawn and there no real charges against him, if Paul comes to Caesar without legitimate charges, then Festus is in trouble because he hasn’t been exercising his position as judge in fairness which the Roman government always sought. Fairness for the Roman citizens. And so Festus had a real problem when Paul appealed to Caesar, because there weren’t any legitimate charges that he could make against Paul. And it would immediately be obvious to Caesar that Festus had failed to do his job as a governor and it would look bad for Festus.
So Festus was really glad for this occasion, because he was hoping by Agrippa’s listening to Paul, they might be able to get some kind of charges that will seem to be legitimate charges against Paul when he is sent to stand before Caesar. That at least there might seem to be legitimate charges. And so this is what Festus says, “The purpose of this now is that we might formulate our charges against this man as we send him to Caesar so that we’ll have the formal charges that we might make. Because it really doesn’t seem right to send a prisoner and not be able to signify the crimes of which he is guilty.” Festus was in big trouble, hopefully now Agrippa will help him out by being able to formulate charges against Paul.
As we get into the next chapter, we’ll find out that, unfortunately for Festus, it didn’t work and Agrippa just said, “You’ve got a problem,” and let it go at that. But didn’t really help in formulating any charges against Paul.
Next week, Paul’s exciting defense before Agrippa. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the book of Acts. There’s so much here in Paul’s defense before Agrippa, and I think you’ll find it extremely fascinating in your study. And then we will begin to journey towards Rome with Paul in chapter twenty-seven next week, as he is on his way, finally, to Rome. “I must see Rome,” and now he’s getting on his way.
As Paul testified to Felix of righteousness, of temperance, and of judgment to come, he trembled. And he said, “I will hear you again on a more convenient day.” It is not enough that you feel sorry for your sins. It is not enough that you experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit and even tremble at the thought of the judgment to come. It is necessary that you submit your life to Jesus Christ and to receive His forgiveness and cleansing. For there is to be a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust.
And “whosoever names are not found written in the Lamb’s book of life will be cast into the lake burning with fire and this is the second death”. Don’t think that that’s just someone’s wild concept or superstitious belief. That is the Word of God–plain, powerful, and you would be wise to take heed. You would be wise not to follow the weakness of Felix who deferred making decisions. But you would be wise to make your decision tonight to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior and as your Lord.
You would be welcome to go back to the prayer room, which is on the far corner over here. The door goes behind the block wall; the prayer room is behind that block wall. And there will be counselors and pastors back there who will be happy to pray with you. I would suggest you not say, “Well, some other night. I intend to do it sometime.” I would encourage you, do it tonight. You don’t know but what this may be your last opportunity. As Amos said, “Prepare to meet thy God”.
One day you’re going to meet God, but if you haven’t prepared by receiving Jesus Christ, it’s going to be an awesome, horrible experience.
May the Lord be with you. May the Lord bless you. May the Lord keep you by His power and in His love that you might be God’s instrument this week to share His love with others. That you might be a blessing to those that you come in contact with as they draw from your relationship with Jesus and are strengthened and blessed because of your walk with Him. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Act 25:1. Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
Porcius Festus had been appointed governor in the place of Felix, who had left Paul a prisoner so as to please the Jews, though he would have been willing enough to release him, if Paul or his friends, would have given him a sufficiently heavy bribe. He had trembled as Paul had reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, but his conscience had not been so quickened as to make him act justly towards the apostle. Yet his unrighteous conduct was made to serve the Lords purpose, which was that Paul should testify before one earthly ruler after another until he should ultimately appear before the cruel Nero himself at Rome. Paul was at Caesarea, but he was not at once brought before Festus; and when the governor went up to Jerusalem, the apostles enemies renewed their plotting against him
Act 25:2-3. Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, and desired favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
They had been foiled in their previous attempt to assassinate the apostle but their malice led them to try again to put him to death in that dastardly fashion.
Act 25:4-5. But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea and that he himself would depart shortly thither. Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
Whether Festus suspected their real reason for being so anxious for him to send for Paul, we cannot tell; but, at any rate, their scheme was once more a failure.
Act 25:6-7. 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. 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.
It was easy for them to lay many and grievous complaints against Paul, yet it was not only difficult but impossible for them to prove their charge against the apostle.
Act 25:8-9. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. But Festus, willing to do the Jews pleasure,-
In that respect he was just line his predecessor, Felix. No doubt he took into account the number and position of Pauls accusers, and thought it would be the wiser policy to side with them rather than with the prisoner; and, therefore, Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure,
Act 25:9-11. Answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing 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.
As a freeborn Roman citizen, he had the right of appeal to the emperor, and that right he exercised, it may be that he also realized that this was the way in which the Lords prophecy should be fulfilled: Be of good cheer, Paul; for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at home.
Act 25:12. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.
The die was cast, there was no need to argue the matter any further.
Act 25:13-16. And after certain days King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus. And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Pauls cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
Festus must have felt profound contempt for the chief priests and elders of the Jews who clamoured for Pauls death even before he had been tried, and he gave them plainly to understand that this was not the Roman if it was the Jewish method of dealing with accused persons.
Act 25:17-19. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
Festus may have supposed that they would have accused Paul of plotting against Rome, or of some other political crime. He would have thought such matters of far greater importance than the certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Paul could make that affirmation with the utmost confidence, for Christ had appeared to him on the road to Damascus, proving without doubt that, though once dead, he was again alive.
Act 25:20-22. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar. Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
So Pauls witness-bearing was made to spread still further. It is scarcely possible to conceive of any other circumstances in which the gospel could have been made known to such an audience as the apostle was, on the morrow, to have the opportunity of addressing.
Act 25:23. And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus commandment Paul was brought forth.
It was such a congregation as Paul was only too glad to address, and the gospel could not have had a nobler or worthier advocate, yet we do not read of anyone who was present yielding up himself or herself to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 25:24. And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
Festus took care that the Jews should not be able to forget that they had demanded the death of a man who had not even been put upon his trial.
Act 25:25-27. But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O King Agrippa, that after examination had, I might have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
The governor talked like a man of sense, and he even went so far as to say that the prisoner before him had committed nothing worthy of death.
This exposition consisted of readings from Acts 25. and Acts 26; and 1 John 4.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Act 25:1. after three days: quickly enough.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 25:1-12
PAUL BEFORE FESTUS
Act 25:1-12
1 Festus therefore, having come into the province,-Festus was made governor by the emperor, Nero, in A.D. 60, and died two years afterward. He was a better man than Felix and there is a strong contrast between the honesty and straightforwardness of Festus and the wickedness of Felix. It seems that he rested one day in Caesarea and then went to Jerusalem. After three days means that he arrived in Caesarea one day, rested the next day, and the third day started for Jerusalem. This is the same language used of the resurrection of Christ, after three days, which means on the third day.
2-3 And the chief priests and the principal men-When Festus arrived in Jerusalem the chief priests and important men among the Jews informed Festus against Paul. It seems that they placed formal charges against Paul before the governor and asked him to send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried there. They placed charges against Paul and then asked for.themselves a favor; they had formed a plot to kill Paul on the way. These religious leaders, under the guise of seeking justice, were plotting to commit the greatest injustice to another. This plot was similar to the one that had been laid two years before. (Act 23:12.) They intended to conceal themselves along the way and seize Paul from the Roman guard and put him to death. Festus did not know of their plot.
4 Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept-Festus answered the Jews that Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea, and that he would soon return to Caesarea. This spoiled the plot that the Jews had laid to kill Paul. Festus denied their request. Some think that Festus had either been informed of the enmity on the part of the Jews against Paul, or that he wished to keep free from any of the troubles that arose at Jerusalem. Festus was a wise and firm official. He refused to alter judicial arrangements on private requests, and assured the Jews that the case would be taken in regular order as Felix had left it.
5 Let them therefore, saith he,-Since Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea, and since Festus was ready to return to Caesarea, he advised that some of the important or prominent Jews would go with him and make their accusations against Paul in Caesarea. The men of power among the Jews simply meant the members of the Sanhedrin. Luke changes from the indirect discourse in verse 4 to the direct in verse 5. Festus demanded that the charges against Paul should be supported by the leaders and representatives of the people, and not by a hired lawyer like Tertullus.
6 And when he had tarried among them-Festus remained in Jerusalem eight or ten days, and then went to Caesarea. Note again that he went down unto Caesarea. This is true to the topoaphy of the country. He lost no time; the next day after his arrival in Caesarea he called for Paul to be brought before him. This would give a formal presentation of his case. Some of the prominent Jews had gone down from Jerusalem to Caesarea as Festus had invited them. (See verse 5.) Festus sat on the judgment- seat. The judgment-seat was an elevated throne or seat, reached probably by a step; sometimes it was fixed in some open place and was movable; it was the symbol of authority of a Roman judge, and is frequently mentioned in the New Testament. (Mat 27:19; Joh 19:13; Act 18:12 Act 18:16-17 Act 25:6 Act 25:10 Act 25:17; Rom 14:10; 2Co 5:10.)
7 And when he was come, the Jews,-When Paul was brought before the judgment seat of Festus, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem made many grievous charges against him; however, they were unable to prove any of their charges. The enemies of Paul were as prompt in preferring charges against him as was Festus in speeding up the trial. When Paul came into court the Jews stood round about him; that is, they took their stand as witnesses and accusers around him. It seems that they had no lawyer at this time, but appeared in mass and made their charges. Nothing is said as to the nature of the charges further than that they made many grievous changes. Perhaps they were no more grievous than the charges made by Tertullus two years before. It is very likely that their charges were a repetition and reiteration of the former charges.
8 while Paul said in his defence,-It is likely that Paul also repeated his defense, which he made before Felix, and in reply to the charges preferred by Tertullus. Paul sums up the charges that they made against him, and puts them in three classes: (1) those against the law of the Jews; (2) those against the temple; (3) and those against Roman law. Festus was interested only in offenses committed against Roman law. We would infer that since Pauls defense indicated three counts of the indictment the Jews had made these three classes of charges. As the Jews alleged that he had broken the law of Israel, which Rome recognized as the religion of the province, he was therefore subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. They made this charge, perhaps, that they might get Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem; if he did so, they could carry out their plot to kill him.
9 But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews,-This is the charge that was brought against Felix. (Act 24:27.) For some cause Festus, like Felix, feared the Jews. Festus asked Paul if he would be willing to go up to Jerusalem and there appear before him. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea, where his regular court was held, what assurance did Paul have that he would get justice before him in Jerusalem? Festus would have less courage to give justice in Jerusalem, where he was surrounded with influential Jews, than he had in Caesarea. Paul knew this. It is probable that Festus would have turned Paul over to the Jews in Jerusalem had he gone there for his trial. Festus proposal was an informal statement that there was no case against Paul; that Paul had not committed any crime that Roman law could condemn.
10 But Paul said, I am standing before Caesars judgment- seat,-Paul refused on just grounds to be taken to Jerusalem for trial. Pauls reply was emphatic and decisive. He had no hope of receiving justice from the Sanhedrin; he had no hope of receiving justice from Festus who feared the Jews. His only course was to appeal to Caesar. As a Roman citizen he had this right; no man or official could deny a Roman citizen of his right to appeal his case to the higher court. Festus had shown prejudice in favor of the Jews; this indicated that Paul would not receive justice in another trial before Festus. Paul declared his innocence as to any violation of Jewish law or Roman authority. He fearlessly confronted Festus with the fact that Festus knew that he was innocent of the charges brought against him.
11 If then I am a wrong-doer,-In further declaring his innocence Paul expressed willingness to suffer even death if he were guilty of a crime that demanded the death sentence. On the other hand, if he were not guilty of the things of which he was accused, he demanded, as a Roman citizen, the right to appeal his case to Caesar. Paul was a Roman citizen, and even Festus could not send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried by the Sanhedrin. Originally, the Roman law allowed an appeal from the magistrate to the people, but the emperor of Rome represented the people, and so the appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen. In his appeal to Caesar, Paul took his case out of the hands of Festus. Perhaps Pauls long desire to see Rome (Act 19:21; Rom 15:22-28), and the promise of Jesus that he would see Rome (Act 23:11), may have helped Paul in deciding to make this emphatic appeal to Caesar.
12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council,-Festus advised with the council. Council comes from the Greek sumboulion. This word in the New Testament usually means counsel, as in Mat 12:14, but here alone as an assembly of counselors or council. Here it means the chief officers and advisers of the procurator or governor. These local advisers were necessary and helped the judge or governor, as he needed their experience and advice. Such men were appointed in all provincial courts to advise the procurator on matters of Roman law; they formed his cabinet officers. After Festus had advised with his council, he returned to his judgment seat and pronounced the formal announcement of an appeal: Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go. The Roman Caesar at this time was the notorious and wicked Nero. Some think that Festus meant to say that Paul had not bettered his case by making the appeal.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The Jews besought Festus to bring Paul to Jerusalem for trial. This, however, he refused to do. When arraigned before him, Paul again made use of his rights as a Roman citizen, and definitely appealed to Caesar.
In order to send him to Rome it was necessary that Festus should have a definite charge to prefer against Paul, and it was in order to secure this that he took advantage of the visit of Agrippa to have Paul brought before him. The occasion was made a special one, and the gathering was an impressive one. The leaders attended in full state, surrounded by the military authorities, and all the light and leading of the city. Agrippa was well known for his learning, and for an aesthetic side to his nature. On the other hand, Bernice, who was with him at the time, was his sister, with whom, even at the moment, he was living in incestuous relationship. Paul was called on to tell his story in order that Festus might base a report on it to Rome.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Granting Appeal to Caesar
Act 25:1-12
How inveterately must these Jews have hated Paul, when after two years they still thirsted for his blood! It would never have done for the trial to be transferred to Jerusalem, as the Jews had requested. If Paul had been brought thither, many plots might have been set on foot for the purpose of ending his life, especially if Festus proved as amenable to a bribe as had his predecessor. Festus was quite prepared to humor the Jews by granting such a transference, and there was no way of averting it other than Pauls availing himself of his right as a Roman citizen to be tried by the emperor himself.
The appeal was a great surprise. Festus himself was probably annoyed. It would not be agreeable to him to have his jurisdiction superseded on this the first occasion of holding a public inquiry. But there was no question that the appeal was admissible, and Festus had therefore no alternative. How strangely God was fulfilling His own word, So must thou bear witness also at Rome! Paul had always desired to visit the imperial city, to bear thither the message of the Cross; but he never expected to go under the safeguard of Roman soldiers and at Roman expense. Deep in unfathomable mines of never-failing skill God fulfills His purposes.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
We have followed Paul step by step as he answered the charge of sedition, first on the temple stairs in Jerusalem, then before the chief captain himself, and later, before Felix. As Acts 25 opens he is still in the prison at Caesarea, but Felix has been displaced by Festus. Felix was a man of most immoral character, but Festus was a Roman governor of a rather different type. He was, in a sense, high-minded, a man who studied philosophy, but one who had no faith in anything beyond this world. He tested everything by human reason and was not prepared to believe in anything concerning which he could not rationalize.
This man was scarcely in office-only three days-when he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the high priest and other leaders of the people informed him of their charges against Paul. They pleaded with him that he would send for Paul to come to Jerusalem, because they secretly plotted to kill him on the way. What a corrupt thing religion is when it leaves God out! These men were the religious leaders of the people, yet they sought in this nefarious way to destroy the apostle Paul. Their own plans were flagrantly contrary to the law, yet they pretended that they wanted to judge him in accordance with the law.
However, Festus, fortunately for Paul, answered that the apostle should be kept at Caesarea and that he himself would return there shortly. Then he added, If you have anything against the man, send your accusers down and I will hear them at my judgment seat. So we read in verse six: 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.
One notices the energetic way in which this man Festus does things. He is the very opposite of Felix. Felix, the procrastinator, always put things off, always said: Tomorrow, some other day, some other time; when I have a more convenient season. But Festus dealt promptly with the matters that came before him, befitting one to whom it was given to dispense Roman justice. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul.
But Paul was a man who had nothing to fear. He had always made it a point to have a clear conscience before God and before men. He could stand at the judgment seat of Festus and say, There is absolutely no charge of criminal action of any kind that can be proven against me. Not one of their charges could be sustained. But Festus in this respect was a little bit like Felix. Wanting to please the Jews, he asked Paul if he would be willing to stand trial before him in Jerusalem.
However, Paul recognized that he had certain rights as a Roman citizen, and he insisted on the recognition of those rights. An appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen, but it evidently took Festus by surprise. He hardly expected this poor missionary, this almost friendless man (from his standpoint), to insist on facing the great Caesar himself. So without realizing for the moment that he had no actual charges to prefer against him, he said, Unto Caesar shalt thou go. Later, the incongruity of allowing a mans case to be appealed to a higher court when he had not been condemned in a lower one came home to him with power, and that leads us to the next step in this drama.
In verse 13 we read: And after certain days King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus. I ask your attention to the words- and Bernice. You will notice that you have them a number of times in this section of the Acts. Here in verse 13 when they come before Festus; again in verse 23 when they sit on the judgment seat; and then again in Act 26:30 as they leave the palace after hearing Pauls defense. Why does the Spirit of God three times bring in this womans name like this? She was not sitting in judgment on Paul She had no authority to pronounce on his case, and yet when king Agrippa is referred to, her name is also mentioned.
Who was Bernice? She was the sister of Agrippa, and lived in an incestuous relationship with her own brother. God recognized the seriousness of their sin, the wickedness of their life. She is attached to Agrippa, and when his name is mentioned God adds, and Bernice. If Agrippa died unsaved, we may be sure God links Bernice with him still; and when Agrippa stands eventually at the judgment of the great white throne, Bernice will stand there with him! It is a terrible thing to sin against God, to trample Gods truth under foot. Sin once embraced will be with you forever unless you find deliverance through the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
When Agrippa hears the words, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, Bernice will be there too. So far as we can tell, both lived and died in their sins and they will go out into everlasting fire as Agrippa and Bernice. Surely there is an intensely solemn lesson here!
After many days had passed Festus approached the king about the problem of what to do with Paul. Festus had taken it for granted that Paul must have been guilty of some very grave crime, either against the Jews themselves or against the Roman Empire. But when he had listened to the trivial things the Jews were charging against him, he was amazed that reasonable people would expect a Roman governor to pay any attention to their foolish religious quarrels. He may have said to Agrippa: It was one of the most absurd things you ever heard of. I thought that as they stood before my judgment seat they would charge the man with some very, very grave crime. Instead they talked of trivialities of their own Jewish faith. Then they thrust forth the silly idea that this man Paul was going through the country talking about a man named Jesus who was dead. Everybody knows he had died; everybody knows he was crucified. But their charge against Paul was that he preached that this Jesus who was dead is now alive.
I think I can see the lips curl as Festus, the rationalist, looked inquiringly into the face of Agrippa as if to add, Did you ever hear the like? All this fuss about a man who is dead, simply because Paul imagines he is alive again, something that nobody of course believes!
It was a very small thing to Festus-this story of one Jesus who was dead, but whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Festus did not realize it, but the resurrection of Christ is the greatest matter that the world has ever been called on to face. That story about the resurrection of Jesus was to be declared throughout the world. It was to overthrow the paganism of Rome, to make men over, and eventually to bring in a new heaven and a new earth. And yet it seemed such a trivial thing to this philosophic Roman.
Now Agrippa was one thoroughly conversant with the Jewish religion, and doubtless he had heard a great deal about this new Christian movement. Certainly he seemed to have a genuine desire to hear what Paul had to say for himself. We are told that on the morrow Agrippa was come, and Bernice. Then Festus introduced the subject of Paul and his dilemma.
You see, it is customary in law that if a lower court passes on a mans case and condemns him, he may appeal to a higher court and then all that has proceeded in the lower court is presented for the examination of the higher court. Yet Paul had not been condemned by any court, and in order that he might have a fair hearing he appealed to the highest court of the land-Caesar himself-and Festus did not know what charges to bring against him. He said:
Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him (Act 25:26-27).
I am sure we all recognize the logic of the stand that Festus took.
As I bring this chapter to a close, I want to drive home a question to each reader as the Spirit of God may enable me. This One, Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive, what does He mean to you today? Do you know Him as the One who was crucified on Calvarys cross, the One who was buried, but was raised again for our justification? Have you trusted Him for yourself? If not, why not?
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Act 25:19
I. It was essentially the worldliness of Festus which made him regard the resurrection of Christ as an idle superstition. Let us begin by inquiring in what that worldliness consisted. Worldliness-i.e., the preference of the pleasurable to the right, the visible to the invisible, the transient to the everlasting. To feel Christ’s resurrection as a power in life demands spiritual sympathy with Christ. Can the selfish see the beauty of unselfishness, or the sensual the beauty of purity? It needs the sense of sin, and of the necessity of a Divine and perfect sacrifice. Does the man of the world feel these? Are not thousands of men, like Festus, simply indifferent to the whole matter? To them the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is a mere story. It may be beautiful and awaken pity; it may at times become solemn and kindle fear; but it lies in their soul’s chamber carelessly admitted as true, side by side with the most ancient and exploded errors.
II. Let us consider its aspect for the earnest believer. Turn from Festus to Paul. As we have seen, all his mighty energy of devotion sprang from his belief that Christ lived. There is abundant proof that this was the great theme of his preaching. He proclaimed not the dead, but the living Saviour. (1) The resurrection of Christ was a sign of the Divinity of His teaching. (2) It was a witness to the perfectness of His atonement. (3) It was a pledge of the immortality of man. Christ died our death. He passed into the death kingdom our brother. He came again, communed with men, and then rose, bearing our nature to the Father. There was the witness to the immortal in man. Hence Paul’s all-consuming zeal. The radiance of eternal life streamed on his vision through the open tomb of one Jesus, who was dead, but who, he affirmed, was alive for evermore.
E. L. Hull, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 221.
Superstition.
Here Christianity is summarily disposed of by Festus as a superstition. This is a word we are quite familiar with, and we know, in a vague sort of way, what we mean when we speak of a practice or a belief as superstitious, and it somewhat startles us to see Christianity itself dismissed by the scornful Roman as a superstition.
I. The essence of superstition is the having low views of God when it is possible to have higher; in the presence of the higher to maintain the lower. It was, for example, superstition among the Jews in the form of idolatry that was forbidden in the Second Commandment. By that commandment the Jews were forbidden to make any graven image to represent God; and the reason was that the representation of God under human or animal forms was found to debase and degrade their conceptions of God. The Second Commandment is to us a spiritual command. We must study its spirit, not its letter; and its spirit is, Thou shalt not entertain low views of God. We break it when we attribute to God the limitations and imperfections of human nature, whether those limitations or imperfections be spiritual or bodily. It was superstition in the Pharisees when they thought that God connived at their evasion of actual duties because they kept the letter of some human ordinances, when they substituted ritual for deeds of purity and kindness, when they were unjust and cruel under the name of religion. This was superstition, because it meant that their views of God were still so low that they thought it pleased Him that they should worship Him in this way. They thought that God was even such a one as themselves.
II. The evil of a low conception of God is, perhaps, the most subtle and irreparable that can befall the human spirit. Our conception of God moulds our ideal of life. Such as we think God to be, such we tend to become. “They that make them are like unto them,” was said of idols and idol makers, and it is true of all conceptions of God. It is a law of human nature. It was precisely because men thought that God took pleasure in torturing men for false beliefs after they were dead that they themselves took pleasure in torturing them while they were alive. That Calvin should have condemned Servetus to the stake, that Cranmer should have signed the death warrant of Frith, are but memorable examples of the evil of holding unworthy views of God. From the fact that higher and lower views of God subsist side by side in a society or country, it becomes a question of interest what is the right attitude in presence of what seems superstition in others. The golden rule, the one absolute, supreme rule, is of course charity-a tender, sympathetic, brotherly love-neither indifference, nor contempt; the desire to raise him, and yet the resolve that while the world yet standeth we will not make our brother to offend. With such charity and sympathy as our guide, we cannot go far wrong.
J. M. Wilson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., p. 263.
References: E. L. Hull, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 221; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 248.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 25
1. Festus and the Jews. Paul appeals to Caesar (Act 25:1-12).
2. King Agrippa visits Festus (Act 25:13-27).
3. Paul brought before the King (Act 25:23-27).
The new governor, Festus, had arrived at Caesarea, and then went up to Jerusalem, the capital of the province. The Jews had not forgotten Paul, though they had not attempted another accusation before Felix, knowing that the case was hopeless. But they made at once an effort with the new governor. No sooner had this official made his appearance in Jerusalem than the high priest and the chief of the Jews made a report about Paul. Most likely Festus had not even heard of Paul up to that time. What really took place in Jerusalem, Festus later relates to Agrippa. When Paul was presented to Agrippa, Festus introduced him by saying, Ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me both at Jerusalem and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer (Act 25:24). A scene of tumult must have been enacted in Jerusalem when Festus showed himself. The mob clamored for the life of Paul. When they noticed the reluctance of the governor, they concocted another plan. They requested that Paul should be brought to Jerusalem. On the way there they intended to murder him.
But Festus was divinely guided in it all, and when he asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem, Paul appealed to Caesar. This settled his journey to Rome.
King Agrippa and Bernice paid a visit to the new governor. The father of this king was known as Herod Agrippa, and died under awful circumstances (chapter 12) in the year 44. When his father died Agrippa was in Rome. He was too young to receive the kingdom of his father Herod. Eight years later, Herod, King of Chalcis, the uncle of Agrippa, died. He had married Agrippas sister Bernice, and Caesar gave Chalcis to Agrippa. Later Agrippa received the title as king. Agrippa I had left three daughters besides this son–Bernice, Marianne and Drusilla, the wife of Felix. Bernice, who was the wife of her uncle, after his death joined her brother Agrippa in Rome. She married a Celician ruler, but deserted him and joined again her brother, in whose company she paid this visit to Caesarea. And Paul appeared before the King. A great audience had gathered and much pomp was displayed. Then the prisoner was brought in. What a contrast! Perhaps they looked upon him with pity as they saw the chain. But more pity must have filled the heart of the great servant of Christ as he saw the poor lost souls bedecked with the miserable tinsel of earth. Festus addressed the King and the whole company. He frankly states what troubled him and that he expects the King to furnish the material for the statements he had, as governor, to send to Rome.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
70. JESUS AFFIRMED TO BE ALIVE
Act 25:1-27
The Jews were not at all happy about the way Felix had handled Paul. So, shortly after Festus took the governor’s seat at Caesarea, they tried to get him to bring Paul to Jerusalem for trial, or so they intimated. Actually, they intended to assassinate him along the way. Read Act 25:1-12. The respected religious leaders of the day were so savage in their hatred toward Paul, the gospel he preached, and the God he represented that in the name of God they were determined to murder him (Joh 16:2). But Paul, being a Roman citizen, took advantage of his legal rights. Refusing to be tried by a lower court at Jerusalem, he said, “I appeal to Caesar” (Act 25:11). Festus had no choice under Roman law. He said, “Unto Caesar shall thou go” (Act 25:12).
Now read Act 25:13-27. When Agrippa, who was reputed to be a specialist in Jewish matters, came to Caesarea, Festus welcomed the opportunity to discuss Paul’s case with him. Agrippa expressed a desire to hear Paul for himself. Arrangements were made. Agrippa and his sister, Bernice, came to “the place of hearing” in great pomp. And Festus displayed the customary flattery and false adulation of one politician to another (Act 25:22-27). The fact of the matter was that Festus was fearful of sending Paul to Rome with no legitimate charges against him (Act 25:19; Act 25:27). By involving Agrippa in the matter he had something to fall back on, were his actions questioned by his superiors at Rome.
TWO THINGS WERE APPARENT TO FESTUS. Remember, he was a pagan politician. He had no regard for Paul or the Jews. He did not even know what the controversy was about. Yet, he quickly perceived two things that distinguished Paul from his enemies.
First, the Jews, the religious skeptics, the unbelieving religionists, raised “certain questions”; but Paul made bold affirmations (Act 25:18-19). That is ever the case. Those who oppose the gospel and take offense at the preaching of the cross of Christ assert nothing, but question everything. Where they cannot prove evil, they hope to cast a shadow of doubt by raising questions. In doctrinal matters, their questions are almost always foolish carpings about meaningless things. It is pointless and futile to answer such. We are repeatedly warned not to do so (1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 2:23; Tit 3:9). We do not need to defend the truth, but simply declare it. That was Paul’s method. He boldly, dogmatically affirmed the truth as God revealed it.
Believing men and women are God’s witnesses (Isa 44:8; Act 1:8). A witness is one who simply tells what he knows. He cares nothing for the questions, speculations, and objections of others. Even so, we simply affirm certain, definite, revealed facts, facts plainly laid down in the Word of God and experienced in our own hearts. Here we stand, oblivious to the science, wisdom, and reason of educated fools. The basis of our faith is the Word of God alone (Isa 8:20; 2Ti 3:16). The Jews were full of questions. But Paul affirmed that Jesus, who was dead, is alive. He made no attempt to answer their questions or prove his doctrine. He simply affirmed that it was so upon the basis of Holy Scripture and his own experience. He had seen, spoken to, heard from, and felt the power of the risen, exalted, living Christ. He affirmed what he knew to be the truth. That is what we must do as God’s witnesses in this world today.
Secondly, Festus observed that the Jews were concerned about their own religion (superstition); but Paul was concerned with a living Person (Act 25:19). Paul’s religion was not a religion of books and creeds. His religion was a Person. He found all his treasure in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He knew, trusted, loved, worshipped, served, walked with, and preached a Person. Christ is more than the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is the Sum and Substance of it. We glory not in our creed or denomination, but in the Lord Jesus Christ himself (1Co 1:30-31; Gal 6:14; Php 3:3). Christianity is a living union with a living Person. It is Christ in you and you in Christ.
PREACHING, ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN AND PRECEPT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IS THE DECLARATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. The thing that so greatly disturbed the Jews was not that Paul did any of the things they accused him of doing. They knew he was innocent of their charges. But he went everywhere preaching that Christ, whom they had crucified, is alive. This was such an obvious thing that Fetus himself declared it (Act 25:19). Paul spoke so much of the risen, exalted, reigning, saving Christ that even this pagan magistrate knew that his message was “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1Co 2:2). In those early days of Christianity, God’s preachers, as often as they could get an ear to bend, preached Christ to men. Indeed, to this day, God’s preachers go everywhere preaching the Lord Jesus Christ. Any sermon that is not full of Christ, does not point sinners to Christ, and cause men to think upon him, that does not send men away with Christ on their minds ought never to have been preached (1Co 2:2; 1Co 9:16). A Christless sermon is a useless sermon! “Jesus Christ and him crucified” is the message of Holy Scripture (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44-45). The only hope of perishing sinners (Joh 12:32), and the believer’s motive, inspiration, and guide in all things (2Co 8:9; 1Pe 2:21-24).
Paul laid great stress upon and particularly emphasized Christ’s death upon the cross as the sinner’s Substitute. He preached, as Festus said, “one Jesus, which was dead.” That which was thought to be the most obnoxious, offensive, and ridiculous point of his theology was the very thing which Paul preached most (1Co 1:17-23). That which the Jews most despised and the Gentiles most ridiculed, Paul most constantly affirmed (Gal 6:14). He preached life by Christ’s death, salvation by the crucified Substitute, blood atonement and justification by the penal death of Christ in the place of God’s elect as their all-sufficient and effectual Redeemer (Rom 3:24-26). Because of his faithful, dogmatism in preaching Christ to men, Paul was hounded to death by lost religious men who, being ignorant of God’s righteousness in Christ, went about to establish their own righteousness (Act 24:5; Rom 10:1-4). And you may be assured of this fact – That man who faithfully preaches the gospel of Christ as Paul did, and the congregation which hears and follows him, will have to bear the scandalous reproach and bitter wrath of lost religious people today. The offence of the cross has not ceased (Gal 5:11).
In preaching the gospel, Paul affirmed that Jesus Christ who died at Calvary, is alive! He had seen the risen Savior, heard his voice, and experienced the transforming power of his grace. Every believer has affirmed this fact in his own soul. Jesus is alive! He lives to claim heaven for his redeemed ones (Psa 68:18-19), to bestow his Spirit upon God’s elect in regenerating grace (Zec 12:9-10; Gal 3:13-14), to prepare heaven for the homecoming of his saints (Joh 14:1-3), to make intercession for his people (Heb 7:25; 1Jn 2:1-2), to rule all things on behalf of chosen, redeemed sinners (Joh 17:2), and to come again in power and great glory to consummate his great work of saving his people from their sins (Mat 1:21; 1Th 4:13-18).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
But after But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favour with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
into: Act 23:34
the province: By the province, Judea is meant; for after the death of Herod Agrippa, Claudius thought it imprudent to trust the government in the hands of his son Agrippa, who was then but seventeen years of age; and therefore, Cuspius Fadus was sent to be procurator. And when afterwards Claudius had given to Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip, he nevertheless kept the province of Judea in his own hands, and governed it by procurators sent from Rome.
he: Act 25:5, Act 18:22, Act 21:15
Reciprocal: Mar 13:9 – take Luk 21:12 – before Act 10:1 – in Act 24:27 – Porcius Festus Act 25:15 – when
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
FESTUS HAVING ARRIVED, he went up to Jerusalem after three days, and such was the animosity against Paul that at once the high priest and other leaders accused him, and asked Festus to have him brought to
Jerusalem. Though years had passed they would still fulfil their vow and wreak their vengeance. Such is religious rancour! Festus however declined this, so once more his accusers had to journey to Caesarea. This second hearing was practically a repetition of the first, as is shown in verses Act 25:7-8. Paul had merely to rebut a large number of unproved assertions. Now Festus, as the next chapter shows, had not got any intimate knowledge of Jewish things; still, knowing them to be a people difficult to handle, he wished to gain their favour, and so suggested that after all Paul might go up to Jerusalem for his final trial.
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. During the night that followed the uproar in the council the Lord had appeared to Paul and told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome, and now He controls circumstances to bring this to pass. The suggestion from Festus led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a privilege that belonged to him as a Roman citizen. Paul knew that the proposed change of place was the prelude to his being handed over to his enemies, though Festus knew very well that he had done no wrong. If Festus began yielding to the clamour in order to placate the Jews, he would end by yielding everything. Pauls appeal settled everything. Having appealed to Caesar, to Rome he must go. This is the third occasion on which we find Paul taking his stand on his Roman citizenship, and here most evidently it was made to serve and work out the purpose of his Lord.
The coming of Agrippa and Bernice to salute Festus became the occasion for Paul to bear a third testimony before governors and kings, and we are now given a much fuller insight into the mighty way in which he presented the truth. He had not failed previously to convey even to Festus that which lay at the heart of the whole matter, for in speaking to Agrippa of his case, Festus stated the controversy to rage around, one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. This shows that, pagan though he was with no real understanding, he had grasped the central fact of the Gospel. The death and resurrection of Christ are at the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God. We know something of this, while he know nothing of it. Still, Paul had made it plain.
That it was all a mystery to Festus, in spite of his having rightly seized the point at issue, is evident from his address to Agrippa, when the court had assembled and, Paul being brought forth, the proceedings commenced. He had no certain thing to write to his lord, the emperor in Rome. He hoped that Agrippa with his superior acquaintance with Jewish religion, might be able to help him to understand more clearly what was at stake, and know what to say.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
1
Act 25:1. Caesarea was the political headquarters of the Roman Empire in Palestine, but Jerusalem was the chief city of the province from many standpoints. Hence when Festus had been in his own official city three days, he went to Jerusalem to acquaint himself with conditions in that metropolis.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Festus succeeds Felix as Procurator of JudaThe Jews in vain try to induce him to bring Paul to JerusalemFestus examines Paul in person, who appeals from his Tribunal to that of the Csar at Rome, 1-12.
Act 25:1. Now when Festus was come into the province. The Greek word translated province is an unusual one in the case of a division of one of the greater provincial governments: . The term we find here was perhaps used in consequence of the importance of Juda at that time, although it was only reckoned as a part of the imperial province of Syria. The proprtor or proconsul ruled over the greater province, the procurator over the smaller division.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
St. Luke here informs us, that Festus being come to the government, and going up to Jerusalem, the high-priest and rulers of the Jews quickly began to inform him against Paul, and besought him that he would send for him to Jerusalem, resolving to lay some villains by the way to kill him as he came; but the Divine Providence so overruled the matter, that Festus would not consent to it, but ordered his accusers to come to Cesarea, and implead him there.
Here note, 1. How restless is the rage, and unwearied the malice and enmity, which the persecutors of the truth have against the professors and preachers of it. The high-priest, and chief of the Sanhedrin or ecclesiastical court, continue their murderous designs against the innocent apostle; and are sorry they could not get an heathen governor as cruel as themselves to join with them. Heathens have sometimes blushed at the mention of those crimes, which the professors of religion have committed without either shame or remorse.
Note, 2. How deplorably corrupt and degenerate the Jewish church at this time was! Lord, what priests and church-governors were here, who call it a favour to have an opportunity granted them to murder an innocent man in cold blood, contrary to the law of nature and of nations!
But behold the justice of God upon them; they were now given up to a reprobate sense, and are hurried headlong by a diabolical spirit, a little before their final destruction. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killedst the prophets, and stonedst them that were sent unto thee!
Note, 3. What an overruling Providence was here seen, in that Festus, by no flatteries nor persuasions, would be prevailed with to remove the apostle from Cesarea to Jerusalem. This broke the high-priest’s measures, who designed to have killed him by the way. “No, saith Festus, the prisoner shall not come to you, but you shall go to him.”
This was a marvellous providence for the apostle’s preservation. O how easy is it for the most wise God to baffle and blast the most cunning contrivances of the devil; to befool the enemies of his church and people, by making the counsels of the wicked to be of no effect! God looks and laughs at all the plots of wicked men against the righteous: frustration and disappointment attend all their designs, and perdition and destruction doth awe their persons, He that sitteth in heaven laughs them to scorn, the Lord has them in derision. Psa 2:5
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Paul’s Appeal to Caesar
After only three days in the province, Porcius Festus went to Jerusalem. There, the high priest and some of the members of the Sanhedrin approached him about bringing Paul up to Jerusalem for a trial. They actually intended to have Paul assassinated along the road. Festus said Paul would remain in Caesarea, where he would shortly go himself. He urged those in authority to come present their charges before him there. In just eight to ten days, Festus went to Caesarea, sat on the judgment seat and called for Paul to be brought before him. The Jews, who may have journeyed with Festus, also appeared before the judgment seat and brought serious charges against Paul. The apostle, according to Luke, simply said he had not sinned against the Jews, the temple or Caesar.
Festus, in an effort to establish good relations with the Jews, asked Paul if he would appear before him in Jerusalem to be judged. Paul answered that he had done no wrong, as Festus well knew, and, as a Roman citizen, would remain before Caesar’s judgment seat. He said he was willing to die if guilty of some offense worthy of death but would not be given up to the Jews if innocent. So, he appealed to Caesar. Festus consulted with this own legal advisors and said Paul would go before Caesar as requested ( Act 25:1-12 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 25:1-3. When Festus was come into the province And had taken possession of the government; after three days he ascended from Cesarea The usual residence of the Roman governors; to Jerusalem The capital city; probably, both that he might gratify his curiosity in the sight of so celebrated a place, and also that he might there, as at the fountain-head, inform himself of the present state of their public affairs. Then the high- priest, &c., informed him against Paul In so long a time their rage was nothing cooled: so much louder a call had Paul to the Gentiles. And besought him That he would not (as, it is probable, they pretended Lysias and Felix had done) obstruct the course of public justice against one whom they knew to be so notorious an offender; and desired favour against him Requested of him, as a peculiar favour; that he would send for him to Jerusalem To be judged there; laying wait, &c. Secretly purposing to lay an ambush of desperate wretches for him, who they knew would readily undertake to intercept and kill him by the way. The high- priests, about this time, were, according to the account Josephus gives of them, such monsters of rapine, tyranny, and cruelty, that it is not to be wondered such a design should have been favoured by him who now bore the office. Josephus also mentions a great number of assassins at this time, called sicarii, or poniarders, from the weapons they carried, by whom many innocent persons were murdered.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
XXV: 1-5. The long imprisonment of Paul seems not in the least to have moderated the hatred of his enemies; but upon the change of governorship they renewed their efforts for his destruction. (1) Now when Festus had come into the province, after three days he went up from Csarea to Jerusalem. (2) And the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, (3) requesting as a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, preparing an ambush to kill him on the way. (4) But Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Csarea, and that he himself would shortly depart thither. (5) Let the influential men among you, said he, go down with me, and if there is any thing wrong in this man, accuse him. He further told them, as we learn from his speech to Agrippa, that it was contrary to Roman law to condemn a man to death before he had an opportunity for defense, face to face with his accusers. All this shows that Festus was, at this time, disposed to see justice done. He, of course, knew nothing of the plot to waylay Paul: for they kept this purpose concealed, while they professed another.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
PAULS APPEAL TO CAESAR
1-12. Festus, the successor of Felix in the governorship of Judea, like Lysias, the kiliarch of Jerusalem, shows up a very beautiful character in all of his dealings with Paul, but one thing preventing him from releasing him at once, and that was Pauls appeal to Caesar, which I trow was providential. An evangelistic tour in Rome, the worlds metropolis and capital, had been the life-long ambition of Paul. Though I traveled that same route, going from Jerusalem to Rome in twelve days, three years ago, in Pauls day, without steam engines or mariners compass, it was a greater undertaking than the circumnavigation of the globe at the present day. Paul had no money with which to prosecute a voyage of two thousand miles [the way he went]. By appealing to Caesar he thus providentially compelled his enemies to defray all of his traveling expenses. Oh, how God makes the wrath of men to praise Him! At the very time when angry Herod was killing all the boy babies of Bethlehem, to cut off Jesus lest he dethrone the Herodian dynasty, behold Jesus has gone far away into Egypt on the back of a donkey! At the very time when Pharaoh, who symbolizes the devil, was killing all the boy babies born among the Hebrews, in order to cut off some mighty man that might rise in the Coming generation and lead them out of bondage, behold! he had Moses, the very one who was to do the mischief, flourishing like a king in his own palace, and pouring out his own money to hire his mother to nurse him, charging her all the time to give that child every possible attention and to feed him on the very fat of the land. When Festus, immediately after his inauguration at Caesarea, went up to Jerusalem, and the Jewish magnates appealed to him, charging his predecessors with delinquency in duty, and urging him to popularize the very beginning of his administration by inflicting capital punishment against Paul, he assures them the matter shall receive his immediate attention, saying to them,
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Act 25:1. When Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended to Jerusalem, the metropolis of his government. The Romans evidently paid great attention to Palestine, because they regarded the strong city of Jerusalem as the key of their power in Asia. While the jews submitted peacefully to the yoke, Egypt was awed on the right, and proconsular Asia barricaded on the left. It was wise therefore in Festus to receive their congratulations, to show them favours, and form a good understanding with the Hebrew court.
Ver, 2, 3. Then the highpriest and the chief of the jews informed him against Paul and desired favour, , grace, as the Greek and all the versions read, against him. And why should Festus, amidst a cloud of congratulations, refuse equal favour to them, and to Paul, for it was a privilege for a man to be tried by his own judges, and his own laws. Aye, but those demons of murder, arrayed as angels of light, in the garb of equity and honour, told not Festus that they would have more than forty sicarions to assassinate Paul, ere he entered the city; and sicarions, not wandering robbers from Egypt, but zealots of their own religion, who for two years had endured great trouble about a vow, not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul.
Act 25:4. But Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Csarea. For the present he put them off with the promise of a new trial, from which it would appear that he fully knew the cause and character of Paul; his virtues, his talents, his learning, and also that he was a Roman. This was as much as could for the present be expected from a man high in office, and unacquainted with regenerating grace.
Act 25:7. The jews laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. The new trial terminated like the old one, in showing their malice and unbelief. But Festus, leaning as far as he could to the jews, asked Paul whether he would wave his privilege as a Roman, and be tried at Jerusalem. This favour Paul refused, having already been at their bar.
Act 25:10. I stand at Csars judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. By this time Pauls case would be of interest to the oriental world; and all impartial men would espouse his cause. The all-wise God allowed it, that all men might know the glory of Christ, and the glorious gospel for which his servant suffered, as a confessor of the faith. Festus could not disallow his appeal to Csar, without depriving him of his prerogative as a Roman citizen, and violating a written law of the Roman people. We have in Gagnuss commentary, a record of St. Chrysogonus, and some other nobles, or citizens of Rome, who made the like appeal to Csar.
To the jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. This declaration put Festus in a dilemma between the innocence of Paul, and the eager solicitude of the jews for his destruction. The appeal to Csar quite relieved the feelings of Festus.
Act 25:13. After certain days, king Agrippa and Bernice came to salute Festus. He was son of Herod Agrippa, whom the angel of the Lord smote in the midst of his festivity at Csarea, and not long after he had beheaded James the apostle, and brother of John; both sons of thunder. Of Bernice, we gather from Josephus, and from Tacitus, that she was the sister of Herod, and eldest daughter of Herod the great. In early years, she had been contracted with the approbation of Claudius Csar, to Mark, son of Lysimachus, alabarch of Alexandria; but he having died before the consummation of the marriage, her father had given her to his own brother, Herod, king of Chalcis, an incestuous marriage, according to the Hebrew law. Leviticus 18. Calvin, at the end of the pentateuch, reprinted at Geneva in the year 1503 a collocation of the Mosaic and the Roman laws, by Theodore Beza Vezelius, which in very many of the precepts exhibits a striking coincidence. In the twelve tables of those laws, this marriage of Bernice with her uncle is prohibited. Other things are said against her, which, in this place, do not illustrate the case of Paul.
Act 25:18-21. Against whom they brought certain questions of their own superstition. Festus speaks here as a profane man. The version of Tremellius reads, their own religion, but he is almost solitary in giving the word that more favourable turn. Festus hoped that, as king Agrippa was a jew, he would assist him in framing a charge against the prisoner; but as the Romans had as yet issued no edict against the christians, it was difficult for him to do so.
Act 25:22. Then Agrippa said to Festus, I would also hear the man myself. The celebrity of Pauls case and character had continued to attract universal attention, and made known the glory of Christ, and of his cause. When the passive graces of the christian temper shine out in the day of trial, they resemble the ores in the furnace, which shine with a brilliancy too vivid for the tender eyes of mortals. All men began to feel an interest in Pauls case, as though it had been their own. When was it ever heard, that a man was tried three times before Roman governors, and then reserved for a fourth hearing at Rome. In all those waves and storms, the everfaithful God was with his faithful witness. But ah, how tremendous the thought, that his judges should be reserved for a final hearing.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 25:1-12. Trial before Festus.Of Festus little is known, but nothing unfavourable. Here he appears as a conscientious magistrate, who keeps everyone in his proper place and does not allow the course of justice to be unduly delayed. Mommsen in ZNTW, 1901, p. 81, finds the account of Pauls trials before Felix and Festus, in spite of some editorial touches, to be quite in accordance with Roman legal form, and says that in this report alone is a case of appeal to the Emperor placed before us in living reality. The new procurator having entered on his office (Act 25:1 mg.) there is an end of the long delay. The animosity of the Jews against Paul is unabated after the two years. To their application (Act 25:3) Festus replies by pointing out their proper legal course; those who are of power (Act 25:5) means those who had a right to appear at Csarea. This takes place without delay, the Jews from Jerusalem standing round Paul and making their charges. If the nature of these can be inferred from Pauls answer in Act 25:8, they were identical with those made in the Temple (Act 21:28), together with a general one of disloyalty. The Asiatic Jews of the Temple being absent, there was a want of evidence for all this, and Paul denies their statements. Festus then puts to him what the Jews asked for. Will he agree to a trial at Jerusalem at which he. the procurator, will preside? Paul is aware (they have no doubt made it plain) that it is his death and nothing less that the Jews desire; and that to take him to Jerusalem is virtually to hand him over to those who have already sentenced him. He does not seek to escape from death if he deserves it, but if their charges are without substance, he pleads, no one is entitled to make a present of him to them, as they asked (Act 25:3). He insists on his rights as a Roman citizen to be tried in the Emperors court. The appeal to Csar is formally made, and after Festus has consulted with his assessors (Act 25:23*), is formally allowed.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Festus was a different character, a typical Roman, materialistic and matter-of-fact, not a debased type, but skeptical as to anything spiritual. Only three days after taking office he visited Jerusalem, and the Jews took advantage of this to seek to influence him against Paul, urging him to bring Paul to Jerusalem for trial.
Their object however was not to have him put on trial, but to kill him on the way. It would seem after two years that their animosity would have been tempered, but it was just as determined as before.
Festus, for whatever reason, refused this, but told them that when he returned to Caesarea shortly they were welcome to come to make their accusations against Paul before him there, at least if they had any substantial criminal charge to make.
The Jews were ready the day after Festus returned , to bring their accusations to the judgment seat of Festus. This was however only a repetition of the first hearing before Felix. Their many grievous complaints were not backed up by proof of any kind, and Paul answered as before for himself, speaking the truth in his own defense, though again having no opportunity to bear witness to his faith in Christ and the truth of the Gospel. The clear result of the hearing was that the Jews could establish no case against him whatever.
However, Festus, with the motive merely of pleasing the Jews, asked Paul if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem to be tried there before him. The chief captain Lysias had shown more discernment than this when he had sent Paul away from Jerusalem. Paul knew too that in the effort of Festus to please the Jews, this could likely issue in his being given up to the Jews to do with him as they pleased.
He answered decidedly therefore. According to Roman law he ought to tried at Caesar’s judgment seat, that is, by a Roman court, not Jewish or partly Jewish. He insists that Festus himself knew well that Paul had done no wrong to the Jews. He would not refuse to die, he says, if he had committed any crime worthy of death, but of course Festus knew there was not even an accusation against him that would warrant the death penalty. Such being the case no-one (even Festus) had the right to deliver him to the Jews. Paul recognized only one alternative to this: he appealed to Caesar. Festus with some consultation replied that therefore he would indeed be sent to Caesar.
Festus ought to have realized that there was no reason whatever that Paul should be sent to Caesar’s court: he should have been set free, but the expense of imprisonment and a voyage to Rome is added to that of his two years of support by the Roman government, not to speak of the added unrighteousness of it.
King Agrippa is now brought into the picture. He was a professed Jew, having Jewish blood in his lineage, though given his title by the Romans and therefore concerned about maintaining good relations with the Roman governors. His visit to Festus no doubt had this in view. It was natural that Festus should acquaint Agrippa with the circumstances of Paul’s imprisonment, knowing that he was conversant with Jewish laws and customs. Bernice was the sister of Agrippa. Festus in giving the information says that the charges against Paul were nothing such as he had supposed would be the case of a man so strongly condemned by the Jews, but were merely questions connected with their own religious superstition and of some disagreement as to Jesus, a man who had died, yet whom Paul affirmed to be alive. He does not even concede the possibility of resurrection.
Agrippa’s interest was awakened by this and he asked if he might hear what Paul had to say. This was fully agreeable to Festus, for he thought Agrippa might shed a little light on the problem he faced. The next day Agrippa and Bernice were conducted to the place of hearing with great pomp and ceremony, together with the chief captains and principal men of the city. God was certainly behind this, to bring about an auspicious occasion in which Paul the prisoner could bear a witness to the Lord Jesus with many in attendance. How unusual a situation, where an assemblage of great men is brought together to hear an address by a prisoner!
Every eye is directed to Paul by Festus, as he addresses King Agrippa and all who were present, telling them that the Jews at Jerusalem and also at Caesarea have strongly demanded that Paul should be put to death. Yet he admits his bewilderment at this, for he found that Paul had committed nothing worthy of death. He adds however that Paul had appealed to Caesar Augustus, and though Festus had determined to send him to Rome, he was himself puzzled as to what to write, since there was no specific charge made against him.
He thinks that possibly King Agrippa might discern something that he could be accused of. One would be inclined to agree with his sentiment of verse 27, that it seems unreasonable to send a prisoner to a supreme court without signifying any charge against him!
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
25:1 Now {1} when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
(1) Satan’s ministers are subtle and diligent in seeking every occasion: but God who watches for his own, easily hinders all their counsels.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul’s defense before Festus 25:1-12
This is the shortest of Paul’s five defenses that Luke documented. Paul made his five defenses to the Jewish mob on the Antonia Fortress stairway (Act 22:1-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix (Act 24:10-21), to Festus (Act 25:8; Act 25:10-11), and to Herod Agrippa II (Act 26:1-26). This one is quite similar to Paul’s defense before Felix except that now the apostle appealed to the emperor.
"Luke’s apologetic purpose is to show that only when Roman administrators were largely ignorant of the facts of the case were concessions made to Jewish opposition that could prove disastrous for the Christian movement." [Note: Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," p. 544.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Festus’ visit to Jerusalem 25:1-5
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Portius Festus was a more moderate and wise governor than Felix. [Note: Josephus, The Wars . . ., 2:14:1; Antiquities of . . ., 20:8:10-11.] We can see his wisdom in his decision to meet with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem soon after he took office. The province in view was Syria, which contained Judea.