Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 25:16
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 license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
16. to deliver any man to die ] The best MSS. omit the Greek for the last two words. Rev. Ver. renders “to give up any man.” The verb is the same as in Act 25:11, and implies the granting as a favour. The language throughout shews that the Jews thought the influence of their party was enough to gain from Festus the condemnation of this so obscure a prisoner, whatever might be the merits of his case.
and have licence to answer for himself ] The Greek word for licence is literally “place,” and is here used figuratively for “opportunity.” So Rom 15:23 St Paul says “having no more place in these parts,” by which he means that there is no further opportunity for preaching the Gospel there. So Rev. Ver. gives “have had opportunity to make his defence.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It is not the manner … – He here states the reasons which he gave the Jews for not delivering Paul into their hands. In Act 25:4-5, we have an account of the fact that he would not accede to the requests of the Jews; and he here states that the reason of his refusal was that it was contrary to the Roman law. Appian, in his Roman History, says, It is not their custom to condemn men before they are heard. Philo (DePraesi. Rom.) says the same thing. In Tacitus (History, ii.) it is said, A defendant is not to be prohibited from adducing all things by which his innocence may be established. It was for this that the equity of the Roman jurisprudence was celebrated throughout the world. We may remark that it is a subject of sincere gratitude to the God of our nation that this privilege is enjoyed in the highest perfection in this land. It is a right which every man has: to be heard; to know the charges against him; to be confronted with the witnesses; to make his defense; and to be tried by the laws, and not by the passions and caprices of people. In this respect our jurisprudence surpasses all that Rome ever enjoyed, and is not inferior to that of the most favored nation of the earth.
To deliver – To give him up as a favor charizesthai to popular clamor and caprice. Yet our Saviour, in violation of the Roman laws, was thus given up by Pilate, Mat 27:18-25.
Have the accusers face to face – That he may know who they are and hear their accusations. Nothing contributes more to justice than this. Tyrants permit people to be accused without knowing who the accusers are, and without an opportunity of meeting the charges. It is one great principle of modern jurisprudence that the accused may know the accusers, and be permitted to confront the witnesses, and to adduce all the testimony possible in his own defense.
And have licence – Greek: place of apology – may have the liberty of defending himself.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die] , To MAKE A PRESENT of any man; gratuitously to give up the life of any man, through favour or caprice. Here is a reference to the subject discussed on Ac 25:11.
Before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, c.] For this righteous procedure the Roman laws were celebrated over the civilized world. APPIAN, in his Hist. Roman., says: . It is not their custom to condemn men before they have been heard. And PHILO De Praesid. Rom., says: , , , , , , . “For then, by giving sentence in common, and hearing impartially both plaintiff and defendant, not thinking it right to condemn any person unheard, they decided as appeared to them to be just without either enmity or favour, but according to the merits of the case.” See Bp. Pearce. England can boast such laws, not only in her statute books, but in constant operation in all her courts of justice. Even the king himself, were he so inclined, could not imprison nor punish a man without the regular procedure of the law; and twelve honest men, before whom the evidence has been adduced, the case argued, and the law laid down and explained, are ultimately to judge whether the man be guilty or not guilty. Here, in this favoured country, are no arbitrary imprisonments-no Bastiles-no lettres de cachet. Lex facit Regem: the law makes the king, says Bracton, and the king is the grand executor and guardian of the laws-laws, in the eyes of which the character, property, and life of every subject are sacred.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To condemn any man indicta causa, without sufficient cause alleged and proved, is not only against the laws of the Romans, but of the Jews, Deu 17:4; nay, against the law of nature and of all nations. Yet malice had so far blinded the enemies of St. Paul, that they go about such things as a heathen reproves, and the very light of nature condemns.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16-21. to deliver any man to dieOnthe word “deliver up,” see on Ac25:11.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
To whom I answered,…. As follows:
it is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die; or to give any man to destruction; to pass sentence of death upon him, without hearing his cause, and purely at the request of another, and merely to gratify him:
before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face; so as to speak to his face, or before him, what they have to charge him with:
and have licence to answer for himself, concerning the crime laid against him; and this was also according to the law of the Jews, Joh 7:51 though Festus, from such an application to him by the chief priests and elders, might conclude that their manner was different, he being ignorant of their laws and customs; but their prejudice to the apostle carried them to act such an illegal part, or at least to desire it might be acted: it is one of the Jewish canons, that it is unlawful for a judge to hear one of the contending parties, before the other is come in.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
It is not the custom of the Romans ( ). If a direct quotation, is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after (I answered), itself in a relative clause ( ) with the present tense (, is) preserved as is usual. There is a touch of disdain (Furneaux) in the tone of Festus. He may refer to a demand of the Jews before they asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (25:3). At any rate there is a tone of scorn towards the Jews.
Before that the accused have ( ). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with instead of the subjunctive is in conformity with literary Greek and occurs only in Luke’s writings in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 970). This sequence of modes is a mark of the literary style occasionally seen in Luke. It is interesting here to note the succession of dependent clauses in verses 14-16.
The accusers face to face ( ). Same word as in Acts 23:30; Acts 23:35; Acts 25:18. This all sounds fair enough.
And have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him ( ). Literally, “And should receive ( optative for same reason as above, second aorist active of ) opportunity for defence (objective genitive) concerning the charge” ( in N.T. only here and 23:19 which see).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Opportunity [] . Lit., place. An unclassical use of the word.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) To whom I answered,” (pros ous apekrithen) “To whom I replied,” gave a statement regarding my legal responsibility in the matter as a Roman judge.
2) “It is not the manner of the Romans,” (hoti ouk estin ethos hromaiois) “That it is not a custom or an ethical practice with Romans,”
3) “To deliver any man to die,” (charizesthai tina anthropon) “To grant sentence to any man to die,” a result the Jews wanted from him, without a trial, Act 25:7.
4) “Before that he which is accused,” (prin e ho kategoroumenos) “Before he who is accused stands before,” is given opportunity to stand before his accuser. It was in this light, Paul later affirmed, “I have fought a good fight,” 2Ti 4:7-8.
5) “Have the accusers face to face, (kata prosopon echoi tous kategorous) “He should have the accusers face to face,” before him, to look him in the eye, Act 23:27-35.
6) “And have license to answer for himself,” (topon te apologias laboi) “And then have a place or opportunity of defence,” to defend himself in the presence of the accusers, against the crime charged to him and against him.
7) “Concerning the crime laid against him. (pen tou egklematos) “Concerning the criminal charge brought against him;” It is considered that the first principle of justice, or equity, in a controversy, is to define the crime or offence, and give the accused offender or criminal an opportunity to make a confession or offer a defence, a thing these hateful Jews wanted to deprive Paul of, 1Pe 3:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(16) To whom I answered . . .The facts of the case are stated with fair accuracy, but there is a certain measure of ostentation in the way in which Festus speaks of the manner of the Romans. It was, perhaps, natural that a procurator just entering on his term of office, should announce, as with a flourish of trumpets, that he at least was going to be rigidly impartial in his administration of justice. It is fair to state that, as far as we know, his conduct was not inconsistent with his profession.
To deliver any man . . .The use of the same verb as that which St. Paul had used in Act. 25:16 shows that the arrow shot at a venture had hit the mark. Festus is eager to repel the charge. The words to die (literally, unto destruction) are not found in the best MSS., and seem to have been added by way of explanation. The language of the procurator is strictly official. The accused and the accusers are to stand face to face, and the former is to have an opening for his apologia, or defence, in answer to the indictment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Manner of the Romans We have here a noble maxim, lying at the basis of all just jurisprudence. There is no proof that Festus violated it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 25:16. It is not the manner of the Romans, &c. According to the Roman law, accusations were never to be heard in the absence of the accused persona rule, which has justly gained to the Roman people the highest approbation of the best writers, and of all good men; a rule, which as it is now happily common to almost all nations, so ought it to direct our proceedings in all affairs, not only in public, but private life. It evidently appears from hence, that the judgment which they demanded against St. Paul, Act 25:15 was not a trial, but a sentence upon a previous conviction, which they falselyand wickedly pretended; and probably it was the knowledge which Festus had of St. Paul’s being a Roman citizen, that engaged him to determine to try the cause himself.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
Ver. 16. Have the accusers face to face ] Here was no oath ex officio to force a man to accuse himself. Among the Romans the accusers sat in those seats that were at the left hand of the judge; the accused and his advocate at the right hand. The accuser had three hours allotted him, the defendant six. And if he were found guilty, yet was he not given up to his adversaries to be punished at their pleasure (as these Jews would have had it) but as the judge appointed it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] The words inserted in the rec., , are a correct supplement of the sense; to give up , i.e. to his enemies, and for destruction .
De W. remarks, that the construction of with an opt. without , is only found here in the N. T. (not that it occurs with ). Hermann, on Viger, p. 442, restricts the opt. with to cases where ‘res narratur ut cogitatio alicujus:’ so Paus., .
On the practice of the Romans, here nobly and truly alleged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst. in loc.
] This use of as the Lat. ‘locus,’ is not found in good Greek.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 25:16 . , see Act 6:14 . ., p. 489. , cf. Luk 2:26 , the only two passages where a finite verb occurs after in N. T., see further Burton, pp. 52, 129, 133, and Plummer, Luke, l. c. , see on Act 3:13 . : “opportunity,” Rom 15:23 , Eph 4:27 , Heb 12:17 , Sir 4:5 , cf. Jos., Ant. , xvi., 8, 5 (Polyb., i., 88, 2).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
To. Greek. pros. App-104.
the manner = a custom.
to die = unto (Greek. eis) destruction (Greek. apoleia). Compare Act 8:20. But the texts omit.
accusers. See note on Act 23:30.
face to face. Greek. kata (App-104.) prosopon.
have licence = should receive opportunity (literally place).
to answer, &c. = of defence. Greek. apologia, as in Act 22:1.
concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
crime laid against him = charge. Greek. enklema, aa in Act 23:29.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16. ] The words inserted in the rec., , are a correct supplement of the sense; to give up, i.e. to his enemies, and for destruction.
De W. remarks, that the construction of with an opt. without , is only found here in the N. T. (not that it occurs with ). Hermann, on Viger, p. 442, restricts the opt. with to cases where res narratur ut cogitatio alicujus: so Paus., .
On the practice of the Romans, here nobly and truly alleged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst. in loc.
] This use of as the Lat. locus, is not found in good Greek.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 25:16. , Romans) Would that none of those things, which the Romans were not wont to do, were done among Christians!
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
It is not: Act 25:4, Act 25:5
and have: Act 26:1, Deu 17:4, Deu 19:17, Deu 19:18, Pro 18:13, Pro 18:17, Joh 7:51
Reciprocal: Gen 39:19 – heard Joh 18:29 – What Act 21:33 – and demanded Act 22:1 – my Act 22:25 – Is it Act 23:35 – when Act 24:8 – Commanding Act 24:19 – General 1Co 9:3 – answer 1Ti 5:19 – receive 2Ti 4:16 – answer
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
Act 25:16. In this verse Festus states the just procedure of the Roman government in the case of one facing trial for life. The present “recess” in the case was caused by the absence of Paul’s accusers who were supposed to appear soon.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 25:16. 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. The Jews had asked (Act 25:3) only that the accused might be brought to Jerusalem, intending, as we know, to murder him on the way by the hands of a company of hired Sicarii (assassins) whom they had hired for this purpose. The words of Festus here to King Agrippa must then relate to another and a different request of the Jews, viz. that he would at once, without any further hearing, condemn Paul to death. Probably each of these requests had been made to the new procurator, and having failed in the first, they arranged the ambuscade and asked that the trial might take place anew in Jerusalem, the scene of part of the crimes alleged.
The proud assertion which the Roman here makes to Agrippa, as far as we know, was justified in Festus case, who was reported to have been a fair ruler and a just judge.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 14
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
16. To whom I responded that it is not a custom of the Romans to deliver up any man to death before that the accused may have his accuser face to face, and may receive an opportunity of defense concerning the charge. Oh, what a noble law! how invaluable and appreciated here in America at the present day. It was adopted in England when the Barons rebelled against the tyranny of King John, and became the Magna Charta of English freedom. Thence transferred to America and adopted by the Colonial Congress, it became the battle-cry in the Revolutionary War, finally triumphing in the victories of Yorktown. It is this day the shibboleth of civil and religious liberty, without which martyrs blood would flow as in days of yore. Festus assures Agrippa that there was nothing against Paul except the superstitious clamors of the Jews charging him with disharmony in reference to their own religion, but nothing involving criminality in Roman law, there being a controversy over one Jesus who is dead, whom Paul certifies incessantly that He liveth. Agrippa, belonging to the celebrated Herodian family though a mixture of Idumean and Jewish blood, ranked as a Jew and claimed to be a loyal orthodox member of the Mosaic church. Hence we see Paul addresses him as a brother in the church, unlike Lysias, Felix and Festus, who were heathen Romans.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
25:16 To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to {c} 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.
(c) The Romans did not used to deliver any man to be punished before, etc.