Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 25:26
Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.
26. unto my lord ] Octavianus by an edict forbade the title “Lord” to be given to him. The practice had its rise from parasites. But you find “Dominus” often used in Pliny’s letters to Trajan. So that not many emperors were like Octavian.
before you ] Spoken with a glance towards the chief priests and great persons who were present on the bench.
specially before thee ] i.e. as one most likely to be able to clear up the difficulties which I feel about the prisoner.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Of whom – Respecting his character, opinions, and manner of life; and respecting the charges against him.
No certain thing – Nothing definite and well established. They had not accused Paul of any crime against the Roman laws; and Festus professes himself too ignorant of the customs of the Jews to inform the emperor distinctly of the nature of the charges and the subject of trial.
Unto my lord – To the emperor – to Caesar. This name Lord the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius had rejected, and would not suffer it to be applied to them. Suetonius (Life of Augustus, v. 53) says the appellation of Lord he always abhorred as abominable and execrable. See also Suetonius Life of Tiberius, v. 27. The emperors that succeeded them, however, admitted the title, and suffered themselves to be called by this name. Nothing would be more satisfactory to Nero, the reigning emperor, than this title.
I might have somewhat to write – As Agrippa was a Jew, and was acquainted with the customs and doctrine of the Jews, Festus supposed that, after hearing Paul, he would be able to inform him of the exact nature of these charges, so that he could present the case intelligibly to the emperor.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 26. I have no certain thing to write] Nothing alleged against him has been substantiated.
Unto my Lord] The title , Dominus, Lord, both Augustus and Tiberius had absolutely refused; and forbade, even by public edicts, the application of it to themselves. Tiberius himself was accustomed to say that he was lord only of his slaves, emperor or general of the troops, and prince of the senate. See Suetonius, in his life of this prince. The succeeding emperors were not so modest; they affected the title. Nero, the then emperor, would have it; and Pliny the younger is continually giving it to Trajan in his letters.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
My lord; Nero, the present emperor, whose deputy Festus was in this province; though some of the former emperors refused this name, as savouring of too much arbitratiness, the latter did accept of it.
Specially before thee; Agrippa, being brought up in the knowledge of the Jewish law, though it was not his business to judge Pauls case, yet he might instruct and inform the judge about it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. I have no certain“definite”
thing to write my lordNero.”The writer’s accuracy should be remarked here. It would havebeen . . . a mistake to apply this term (“lord”) to theemperor a few years earlier. Neither Augustus nor Tiberius would lethimself be so called, as implying the relation of master and slave.But it had now come (rather, “was coming”) into use as oneof the imperial titles” [HACKET].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Of whom I have no certain thing,…. No certain crime, charge, or accusation; nothing of any moment or consequence, no particular thing, nothing but a heap of confused notions, of I know not who or what:
to write unto my lord; meaning the Roman emperor, under whom he served as governor of Judea:
wherefore I have brought him before you; the whole company then present:
and especially before thee, O King Agrippa; as being not only a man of eminence, dignity, and authority, but of knowledge in such matters, which the Jews accused Paul of; see Ac 26:2.
That after examination had; of Paul, and his case;
I might have somewhat to write; concerning him, and the charges exhibited against him to the emperor.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
No certain thing ( —). Nothing definite or reliable ( privative, , to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9 about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer.
Unto my lord ( ). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of (lord) as too much like rex (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words “in the year nine of Nero the lord” ( ). Deissmann (op. cit., pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel “between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term , lord” in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in 1Co 12:3 that “no one is able to say except in the Holy Spirit” (cf. also Php 2:11). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say ” Lord Caesar” and insisted on saying “Lord Jesus” when it meant his certain death.
Before you (‘ ). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22).
Especially before thee ( ). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22 shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul’s case.
After examination had ( ). Genitive absolute, “the examination having taken place.” from (cf. Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property.
That I may have somewhat to write ( ). Ingressive aorist subjunctive (may get) with (final particle like ). in indirect question after is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a “trial,” but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Lord [] . An instance of Luke’s accuracy. The title “Lord” was refused by the first two emperors, Augustus and Tiberius. The emperors who followed accepted it. In the time of Domitian it was a recognized title. Antoninus Pius was the first who put it on his coins.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord,” (peri hou asphales ti grapsai to kurio ouk echo) “Concerning whom I have nothing special (of criminal nature) to write to the lord Caesar,” to the Emperor Nero, using the term lord to refer to the emperor and his high officials, as profanely used of “lords, many and gods many,” 1Co 8:5.
2) “Wherefore I have brought him forth before you,” (kio proegagon auton eph’ humon) “Because of this, I have brought him forth before you all,” for the carnival affair of a trial, almost as hypocritical and farcical in nature as that of our Lord, Mat 5:11-12; Joh 15:20-22.
3) “And specially before thee, 0 king Agrippa,” (kai malesta epi aou basileu Agrippa) “And most of all before you personally, King Agrippa,” more astute in minute and definitive matters of both Jewish and Roman law than I am.
4) “That after examination had,” (kopos tes anskriseos genomenes) “So that when there has been an examination,” this time, if possible, after a fourth public hearing of Paul over this matter: 1) Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin, Act 22:30; Act 24:10-13; Act 25:1-7; Act 26:1-2) Felix in Caesarea, 3) Festus in Caesarea, 4) Agrippa in Caesarea.
5) I might have somewhat to write.” (scho ti grapso) “I may have something that I may write,” something of substance to write to Caesar, of a criminal nature, if there be such, after you hear him in particular, King Agrippa; There had to be crimes definitively filed formally against Paul, to justify his being sent before the Emperor or Caesar in Rome.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
26. That after examination had. We cannot tell whether the governor, in acquitting Paul before them, doth seek by this policy to entice him to let his appeal fall. For it was a thing credible that he might easily be persuaded to lay away fear, and to submit himself to the judgment and discretion of a just judge, especially if Agrippa should give his friendly consent. To what end soever he did it, he condemneth himself of iniquity by his own mouth, in that he did not let a guiltless man go free whom he is now ashamed to send unto Caesar, having nothing to lay against him. This did also come to pass by the wonderful providence of God, that the Jews themselves should give a former judgment on Paul’s side. Peradventure, the governor goeth subtilely to work, that he may pick out what the king and the chief men of Cesarea do think, that if it so fall out that Paul be set at liberty, he may lay the blame on their necks. For he would not have the priests to be his enemies for nothing, upon whom a good part of Jerusalem did depend, and that was the best way that he could take in writing to Caesar to intermingle the authority of Agrippa. But the Lord (to whom it belongeth to govern events contrary to man’s expectation) had respect unto another thing, to wit, that when the clouds of false accusations were driven away, Paul might more freely avouch sound doctrine.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26) To write unto my lord.The Greek corresponds to the title of Dominus, which, though declined by Augustus and Tiberius (Sueton. Octav. c. 53; Tiber. c. 27), had been assumed by Caligula and Nero. The first of the emperors had rejected it as an accursed and ill-omened title, and had not allowed it to be used even by his children or grand-children, either seriously or in play. The name Augustus, with its religious associations, was enough for him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. No certain thing to write In case of an appeal the judge was by law required to transmit to the imperial court apostoli or literae dimissoriae, that is, a due record of the crime charged and the judicial proceedings taken.
My lord My master, the emperor Nero. Here is another instance of Luke’s accuracy. Both the emperors Augustus and Tiberius rejected the title dominus, for which the word lord here stands, with disgust, as too servile for Romans to offer, too invidious for themselves to accept. Yet Caligula did not forbid it; and just at this time of which Luke writes the spirit of flattery was persisting in its use until it became a regular title under Domitian.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 25:26. Unto my lord, The term, , plainly signifies to the lord of the empire; a title by which it is well known the emperor was now frequently spoken of. Festus knew very well the account which Felix had left behind him, and the accusations of the leading men among the Jews, both at Jerusalem and Caesarea; yet he was at a loss what to allege against the apostle, because the Romans had then no laws against the Christians. He was therefore in hopes that king Agrippa, who understood the Jewish customs and privileges, would help him out of this difficulty, and teach him how to form his charge against the prisoner, in so uncommon and remarkable a case.
Inferences.In the conduct of Festus, as well as of Felix, we see what dangerous snares power and grandeur may prove, to a man who is not influenced by resolute and courageous virtue: the liberty of the worthiest of mankind was sacrificed by both, to their political views of ingratiating themselves with the Jewish people. Happy that ruler, who, approving the equity of his administration to every man’s conscience, has no need to court popular favour by mean compliances; and whom the greatest eagerness of men’s unjust demands can never turn aside from that steady tenor of justice which a righteous God requires, and which will engage that protection and favour in which alone the most exalted creatures can be happy, in which alone they can be safe.
Mysterious as that dispensation was which permitted St. Paul’s labours to he interrupted by so long an imprisonment, it is nevertheless very pleasant to trace the manner in which all was graciously over-ruled by a wise and kind providence. On this occasion he had an opportunity of bearing his testimony, first before rulers and kings in Judea, and then in Rome, and in the palace of Caesar.
None of the jewels which these princes might wear, none of the revenues which they might possess, were of any value at all, when compared with the advantage which their converse with St. Paul gave them, for learning the way of salvation: but how shamefully was the advantage neglected, even the price which was put into their hands to get this divine wisdom, (Pro 17:16.) Alas! how coldly do they speak of the most important matters, even those relating to the death and resurrection of him, by whose knowledge and grace alone hell was to be avoided and heaven secured! There was a question about one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive: A doubtful question! But, O Festus, why was it doubtful to thee? Surely, because thou didst not think it worth thy while seriously to search into the evidence that attended it; else that evidence had opened upon thee till it had grown into full conviction, and this thine illustrious prisoner had led thee into the glorious liberty of God’s children; had led thee to a throne far brighter than that of Caesar, far more stable than the foundations of the earth.
REFLECTIONS.1st, No sooner was Festus entered upon his government, than St. Paul’s implacable enemies beset him.
1. After three days’ stay at Caesarea, Festus proceeded to Jerusalem; where he no sooner arrived, than the high-priest and elders, coming in a body to pay their compliments to the governor, failed not to seize the opportunity to prepossess his mind, informing him against Paul; and, setting the affair in the most invidious light, they besought him to give judgment against the prisoner; and for that purpose, begged the favour of him, that he might be sent for to Jerusalem; resuming the old scheme, to assassinate him by the way. How restless are the struggles of malice! and what wickedness is not the wretched heart of man capable of, when enslaved by envy and revenge?
2. Festus excused himself from granting their request, choosing rather to decide the matter at Caesarea: either he thought their desire unreasonable, or perhaps suspected some design; and therefore, informing them that he should shortly depart thither, he assured them, if they would prepare their evidence, and those who were best able to manage the prosecution would go down with him, and could prove him guilty of any crime or misdemeanour, he would grant them impartial justice.
3. After more than ten days’ stay at Jerusalem, Festus went down to Caesarea with those who were to carry on the prosecution against St. Paul; and, without delay, the very next day the prisoner is brought to the bar, and his enemies surrounding the judge, as if to intimidate him into compliance, or by their number to give weight to the cause, laid many and grievous accusations against the apostle, as if he was the vilest of the vile: but when the evidences which should have supported these allegations were required, it evidently appeared that they could not prove one of their charges: while, in his defence, St. Paul confidently denied every accusation, having neither offended against the law, the temple, nor the civil government; and defied them to produce a single instance wherein he had acted unbecoming his profession as a Jew, or his allegiance to Caesar. Note; Nothing is easier than to advance high charges against Christ’s people: but accusing and proving are on such occasions very different things.
4. Festus could not but perceive the malice of the accusation and the innocence of the prisoner; but willing, on his first coming to Caesarea, to ingratiate himself with the Jews, by granting them the favour which they desired, of having St. Paul tried at Jerusalem, he asked him whether he would go up thither, and have the cause decided by him in the presence of the sanhedrim? Too well St. Paul knew the designs of his persecutors, to consent to a proposal so dangerous; therefore he wisely pleads his privilege as a Roman, and appeals unto Caesar. I stand, says he, at Caesar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged, and am ready to appear: 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, according to the laws of the empire, I refuse not to die, content to suffer the desert of my offences: but if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, and the charge be evidently false and malicious, no man may deliver me unto them, and put me in their power. I claim my right as a freeman of Rome, to be only judged there, and appeal unto Caesar. Note; The wisdom of the serpent is highly necessary, when we have to do with unreasonable and wicked men.
5. Festus acquiesces in his appeal. He conferred with the council, who assisted him in the management of affairs; and as they admitted the right of the prisoner to claim this privilege, he answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go; not unwilling, perhaps, thus to rid his hands so fairly of a cause which might have involved him in much trouble.
2nd, As Christ had told his disciples that they should be brought before governors and kings, so does he order it in his providence, that their persecutors are made the instruments of leading those great men to hear the gospel, who perhaps otherwise never would have heard it. We have,
1. The visit of Agrippa to Festus, to congratulate him on his coming to his government. Agrippa was the son of that Herod who flew the apostle James: Claudius, the Roman emperor, had given him the title of king and the tetrarchy which belonged to his uncle Philip. Bernice, who accompanied him, was his sister; but was accused of too great familiarity with her brother: such were the great people of those times: when viewing then the present corruptions of the age, say not, the former days were better: the unawakened world was always the same.
2. Agrippa and Bernice were both brought up in the Jewish religion; and after they had been at Caesarea some time, St. Paul’s case happened one day to be the subject of conversation; which Festus related to the king, either to entertain him with the account, or to have his advice how to act, as better acquainted with the Jewish rites and customs, than he, a stranger, could be supposed to be. He had found St. Paul in bonds, when Felix resigned the government to him, and had no sooner come to Jerusalem, to take possession of his province, than the chief priests and elders clamoured for judgment against him: but he excused himself from a hasty decision of the matter, alleging the constant custom of the Romans to adjudge no man to death, nor to consign him to destruction, through any favour or partiality; but first to have the person accused, and his accusers, face to face, that he might have liberty to exculpate himself, if he could, from any crime laid to his charge. And to dispatch the matter without delay, the next day after his arrival, the prisoner was brought to the bar; when, to his surprise, he found no one accusation of a criminal nature could be proved, none such as came under his cognizance as a magistrate; but that the charge turned upon certain questions of a religious nature, respecting the tenets that he held contrary to their law, and about one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Counting himself an incompetent judge of such superstitious controversies, as he regarded them, he proposed to Paul to have the matter canvassed before the sanhedrim at Jerusalem; but the prisoner, objecting to them, had pleaded his privilege, and appealed unto Caesar: he was therefore still in custody, till an opportunity offered to send him to Rome. Note; (1.) Every man has a natural right to be heard, before he is condemned. To determine a case, where only one side of the question is told, is the sure way to err, and may be the means of irreparable injury to the purest innocence. (2.) They who know not Jesus, speak slightly of him; but to those who feel their guilt and need of a Saviour, whether he be alive again or not is a matter of infinite importance, on which their everlasting hopes depend.
3. Agrippa, curious to know what St. Paul had to say for himself, intimated a desire to hear him: Festus gladly consented to it, and appointed the next day. On the morrow, Agrippa and Bernice in vast pomp, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, attended by their royal retinue, entered the judgment-hall, where all the chief captains and principal men of the city attended, drawn by curiosity, or to pay their respects to the noble personages who were present: when, being seated, the prisoner, at the commandment of Festus, is brought forth, more adorned with his prison-garments and glorious bonds, than they in all their vain splendour and empty magnificence.
4. Festus, with respect, hereupon addressed himself to king Agrippa and the principal men who were present, and opened the occasion of their meeting with an account of the prisoner before them, upon whom he had been solicited with great importunity by all the Jews, both at Jerusalem and Caesarea, to pass sentence of death, as a miscreant unworthy to live. But when on fair trial nothing criminal could be proved against him, and Paul had appealed to Augustus for the final decision of his cause, he was resolved to send him. But as it looked absurd and unreasonable to send a prisoner without signifying what crimes he stood accused of, he had therefore brought Paul forth before that honourable assembly, especially before king Agrippa, who was most acquainted with the Jewish laws and customs, that, after a full discussion of the case, he might have something determinate to write to his imperial master, concerning the prisoner who had appealed to his judgment.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 25:26-27 . ] something trustworthy , whereby the emperor ( , Dominus , the appellation declined by Augustus and Tiberius, but accepted by their successors, see Wolf and Wetstein, also Dougt. Anal . p. 96; Fincke, l.c. ) may inform himself certainly concerning the state of matters. Such a fixing of the real had not been possible for the procurator, who had to draw up the literae dimissoriae , so long as the proceedings were constantly disturbed and confused by intentional fabrications of the Jews.
.] A preliminary examination, “judicis edocendi causa,” Grotius. See also Heind. ad Plat. Phaedr . p. 277 E; Hermann, Staatsalterth . 141. 1.
In (see the critical remarks) is the future (see on Phi 1:22 ): what I am to write .
] unreasonable, absurd , Thuc. vi. 85. 1; Plat. Gorg . p. 519 E, Apol . p. 18 C. Without : see Sauppe, and Khner, ad Xen. Mem . i. 1. 5.
] This was just the , which was still wanting to the procurator. Without having made himself clear as to the contents of the charges brought against Paul, he would have been obliged frankly to report to the emperor that he was in ignorance of them. Olshausen, however, is hasty in holding that, with the placing of the apostle before Agrippa the prediction of the Lord (Mat 10:18 ; Mar 13:9 ) was now for the first time fulfilled. We know far too little of the previous history of the other apostles to be able to take this ground. Perhaps the elder James and Peter had already stood before Herod (Agrippa I.), xii. 2, 3 f. But Paul stood here for the first time before a king, who, however, is by no means to be considered as the representative of the power of the heathen world (as Baumgarten supposes), as Agrippa was himself a Jew (see on Act 25:14 ), ruled over the Jews, was by Paul addressed as a Jew (Act 26:3 ; Act 26:27 ), and was, in fact, even regarded as representative of the Jews (see , Act 26:8 ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 26. To write unto my lord ] signifieth one that hath rule or dominion, being a word of relation, a This title was first affected by tyrants; but afterwards the good princes suffered it to be given unto them, as appeareth by Pliny’s Epistle to Trajan. The emperors disclaimed only the name of king, to avoid the hatred of the people, and yet sought the full right of kings, and to destroy the liberty of the people. But God calls them kings,1Pe 2:131Pe 2:13 ; 1Pe 2:17 . God hateth hypocrisy in whomsoever; and will unmask even kings, if they dissemble.
a Deducitur a , authoritas.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
26. ] fixed, definite . The whole matter had been hitherto obscured by the exaggerations and fictions of the Jews.
] viz. Nero. Augustus and Tiberius refused this title; Caligula and (apparently) all following bore it. “Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 450: ‘Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat;’ and Suet. Aug [151] 53: ‘Dominum se appellari ne a liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel joco passus est;’ ami Tib. 27: ‘Dominus appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se amplius contumeli causa nominaret.’ Caligula accepted the title, according to Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian . Suet. Deu 13 : ‘Martial, Edictum Domini Deique nostri.’ ” Mr. Humphry.
[151] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
has apparently been altered to to suit the above.
Olsh. remarks, that now first was our Lord’s prophecy Mat 10:18 , Mar 13:9 fulfilled. But Meyer answers well, that we do not know enough of the history of the other Apostles to be able to say this with any certainty. James the greater, and Peter, had in all probability stood before Agrippa I. See ch. Act 12:2-3 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 25:26 . , Dig. , xlix., 6. “Post appellationem interpositam litter dand sunt ab eo, a quo appellatum est, ad eum qui de appellatione cogniturus est, sive principem, sive quem alium, quas litt. dimissorias sive Apostolos appellant” (Wetstein and Blass). : title refused by Augustus and Tiberius because it savoured too much of the relationship between a master and a slave, and perhaps because it seemed a title more fitting to God (as Wetstein explains it), cf. Suet., Aug [397] , 53, Tiber. , 27, and Tacitus, Ann. , ii., 87. It was accepted by Caligula and succeeding emperors ( cf. Pliny’s Letter to Trajan with the frequent Dominus ), although Alexander Severus forbade it to be applied to him; for other instances, and instances on inscriptions, see Wetstein, in loco , Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien , 44, and Bibelstudien , 77, 78, and Tert [398] , Apol. , 34, Polyc., Martyr. , viii., 2, ix. 2, who refused to utter it with reference to Csar. For the due significance of the word in St. Luke, who uses it more frequently of Christ than the other Evangelists, see especially Wetstein, in loco . : here not in its strictly legal and judicial sense of a preliminary inquiry, but an inquiry into the case, cf. Act 25:22 (Act 4:9 ), with a view to sending a report to the emperor as judge, Renan, Saint Paul , p. 544, and Zckler, in loco . Festus knew what the charges were, but not their significance, and he hoped to obtain some definite information from Agrippa or Paul he wanted something ; Paul had contradicted the charge of treason, and what was left, Act 25:19 , seemed full of obscurity and absurdity.
[397] Augustine.
[398]ert. Tertullian.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
no = not (Greek. ou) any (Gr tis). App-123.
certain = sure. See note on Act 21:34.
lord. Greek. kurios. Compare App-98. This title was refused by the Emperors, Augustus and Tiberius, but accepted by Caligula and his successors.
after, &c Literally examination having taken place.
examination. Greek. anakrisis. Only here. Compare Act 24:8.
somewhat. Greek. tis.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
26. ] fixed, definite. The whole matter had been hitherto obscured by the exaggerations and fictions of the Jews.
] viz. Nero. Augustus and Tiberius refused this title; Caligula and (apparently) all following bore it. Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 450: Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat; and Suet. Aug[151] 53: Dominum se appellari ne a liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel joco passus est; ami Tib. 27: Dominus appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se amplius contumeli causa nominaret. Caligula accepted the title, according to Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Suet. Dom. 13: Martial,-Edictum Domini Deique nostri. Mr. Humphry.
[151] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
has apparently been altered to to suit the above.
Olsh. remarks, that now first was our Lords prophecy Mat 10:18, Mar 13:9 fulfilled. But Meyer answers well, that we do not know enough of the history of the other Apostles to be able to say this with any certainty. James the greater, and Peter, had in all probability stood before Agrippa I. See ch. Act 12:2-3.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 25:26. , to my lord) Csar. Lately this, appellation, Lord, had arisen.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
specially: Act 26:2, Act 26:3
Reciprocal: Luk 7:8 – under Act 18:14 – If Act 21:34 – know Act 24:22 – When 2Co 6:9 – unknown
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 25:26-27. My lord means the Roman emperor, whose personal name was Nero. Here was a strange situation; Festus had agreed to send a prisoner up to the highest secular court in the world, and yet had no charge of any importance on which to send him. He thought that if Paul were allowed to speak, something might be said as a basis for a charge.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 25:26. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. It was the rule in these cases of appeal from the provincial magistrate to the supreme court at Rome, to transmit a detailed account of the crime alleged, and also a full report of any legal proceedings which had taken place in connection with it. Such a report was called liter dimissori. Festus was thoroughly perplexed in the case of Paul. It is quite clear his own feelings led him to look on his prisoner as innocent, but the reiterated and urgent pressure for his condemnation on the part of the supreme council led him to suspect that there was more in the accusation than met the eye, and that only one conversant with the internal condition of the distracted country could possibly grasp the real significance of Pauls guilt. So, before writing his official report to send with the prisoner to the capital, Festus welcomes the assistance of one so well versed in Jewish religious and political matter as King Agrippa. The expression, to write unto my lord ( ), is a proof (one of very many) of the historical accuracy of the compiler of these Acts. A few years earlier, such a title used to the Csar at Rome would have been a mistake. The earlier emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero, refused this appellation. Augustus, writes Suetonius (Augustus), always abhorred the title lord as ill-omened. He would not even allow his children or grandchildren, in jest or earnest, so to address him. Even Tiberius was equally averse to the adulatory title. Caligula was the first, apparently, who permitted it. Herod Agrippa, we know, used it to Claudius; and from the time of Domitian it became a recognised portion of their ordinary appellation. Pliny addressed the Emperor Trajan as my lord Trajan. We first find it on the coins of Antoninus Pius. It was henceforth customary to address the emperors as deities. Thus we read such sentences as this, Edictum Domini Deique nostri.
I have brought him . . . specially before thee, O King Agrippa. Stier (Words of the Apostles) writes on this standing and pleading before Agrippa: Yet more and more complete must the giving of witness be in these parts before the martyr sets out for Rome. In Jerusalem the long-suffering of the Lord towards the rejecters of the gospel was now exhausted. In Antioch, where the president of Syria resided, the new mother Church of Jewish and Gentile Christians was flourishing; here in Csarea, the dwelling of the procurator (of Juda), the testimony which had begun in the house of Cornelius the centurion had now risen upward, till it comes before the brilliant assembly of all the local authorities, in the presence of the last king of the Jews.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 23
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 26
Wherefore I have brought him forth, &c. This was a false statement, made for effect on the assembly. The true reason for this second public arraignment was to gratify Agrippa’s curiosity and love of parade.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
25:26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my {f} 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.
(f) To Augustus. Good princes refused this name at the first, that is, to be called lords, but afterwards they allowed it, as we read of Traianus.