Acts 25

CHAPTER XXV

PAUL COMPELLED TO APPEAL TO CAESAR

Acts 25:1

1With the coming of Festus, Paul finally gets action in his long drawn out case. Festus, therefore, having set foot in his province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. He came from Rome and landed at Caesarea where the procurators of Judea had their residence. He was new to the land and the people. It was his duty to get his bearings without delay. For this reason he promptly visits Jerusalem, the Jewish capital and famous religious center. “After three days” (Matt. 27:63; Acts 28:17), by common usage, means on the third day, Festus rested in Caesarea only one full day.

Judea was not strictly a province (ἐπαρχεία) but a department of the province of Syria which was under a propraetor (legatus Caesaris). Judea had a procurator (ἐπίτροπος) who, however, was also called ἔπαρχος, which shows that Luke’s language is correct.

Acts 25:2

2And the high priests and foremost of the Jews informed him against Paul and began to beseech him, in due form asking favor against him in order that he might summon him to Jerusalem, they fixing an ambush to make away with him along the road.

The high priest Ananias (23:2; Josephus, Ant. 20, 6, 2) was succeeded by Jonathan who was soon killed at the instigation of Felix (Ant. 20, 8, 5); he, in turn, was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of Fabi (Ant. 20, 8, 8 and 11). Here again the plural “high priests” refers to Ishmael, the high priest proper, and to those Sanhedrists who had special connection with him or his predecessors; 4:6 names those of this ruling party at an earlier day. For “certain elders” which he used in 24:1, Luke now writes “the foremost of the Jews,” most of them being the identical elders mentioned in 24:1. They were “the foremost” because they sided with the high priestly party. They naturally waited until a convenient opportunity offered itself during their initial acquaintance with the new governor; then, in order to impress him the more, they, in a body, informed him against Paul (the same verb that was used in 23:15, 22), told the governor what they had against the apostle. Then “they began to beseech him,” inchoative imperfect which also implies that the act was in vain, otherwise the aorist would have been used.

Acts 25:3

3Yet this beseeching should not be misunderstood. Luke does not write simply, “began beseeching to summon him to Jerusalem.” He inserts the participial modifier αἰτούμενοικτλ., and the middle of this verb is used with reference to asking in the way of business (R. 805). In going over their affairs with the governor these Jewish leaders stated the case of Paul as being one that had been left over from the administration of Felix, and thus, as being involved in this case, they asked in due form this χάρις, favor or kindness, that Festus try the case here in Jerusalem and thus get it off his hands. What reasons they advanced for the transfer we are left to imagine. One such reason may have been that it was much easier to bring Paul to Jerusalem than to have them and their witnesses travel to Caesarea.

We should not miss the force of the verb “beseech.” These wily Jews made no demand on the new governor; they let him feel his lofty authority and thus hoped that he would accommodate them in this matter. Nor should we fail to note that Luke is writing from his own standpoint and not from theirs. So he inserts the phrase “against him” (Paul). A trial of Paul here in the midst of his enemies was in their favor, and not in Paul’s. Again, Luke adds the purpose (ὅπως) and not the purport of the request—a point that is obscured in our versions; and this purpose extends over the remainder of the sentence: “in order that,” etc. Their secret aim was to have Festus summon Paul to Jerusalem; in the meanwhile they would prepare an ambush (23:16) to make away with him (ἀναιρέω, used with reference to the murder of Jesus). As is so often the case in the Greek, the participle states the main feature of the thought, here: “in order that by summoning him to Jerusalem they might fix an ambush,” etc.

They reckoned with the ignorance of Festus, who would know nothing about the plot of two years before (23:12–30) to assassinate Paul. So the governor would have Paul conducted by a small escort; and it would be a simple matter to ambush this along the road. In a quick rush of resolute men Paul would be stabbed to death, the attackers would as suddenly disperse, and the Sanhedrists would blame the affair onto the bandits and the sicarii (21:38) who were infesting the country. Shrewd indeed! How could Festus fail to fall into the trap? But Luke’s imperfect παρεκάλουν already intimates that the beseeching failed.

Here we see the implacable hatred of these Jews. Two years had passed, a third high priest was in office, but their hate is as bloodthirsty as ever. The highest dignitaries of the Jewish Court, the supreme representatives of the Jewish religion, the greatest guardians of righteousness and law, ever stoop to the most vicious crimes. Pagans could have done no worse. But read Josephus in regard to this period of Jewish history. They were heading straight for the great war when this rejected nation was destroyed as a nation. The plot mentioned in 23:12, etc., was hatched by the forty would-be assassins; here it is renewed by the Sanhedrists themselves.

Acts 25:4

4It was surely divine providence that prevented Festus from assenting. Accordingly Festus answered that Paul is in ward in Caesarea, and that he himself is about to be leaving shortly. Therefore, let those empowered among you, says he, having gone down with me, accuse him, if there is anything amiss in the man.

Thus did the cunning scheme fail a second time. Οὗν merely marks the answer as being due to the request; and ἀπεκρίθη has the accusative with the infinitive in indirect discourse. But why did Festus refuse assent? It was due to his impartiality, we are told, or to the strict order of Roman jurisdiction, or even to his conversance with the previous course of the case. The first two of these are eliminated by v. 9, where the supposed impartiality and the strict Roman order are conspicuous by their absence. The third supposition is ruled out by v. 1; Festus had not had time to investigate a pending case, the very fact on which these wily Jews counted. While we are at it, let us also dismiss the view of a peremptory tone in the refusal.

Present imperatives are not peremptory and sharp, and the explanation about returning soon is anything but sharp. Was Felix suspicious? This, too, is not indicated; these Jews were too careful. The providential refusal of Festus was due to his being busy with other matters during these days of his office. He had to get his bearings especially here in Jerusalem during the eight to ten days (v. 6) of his first stay.

Paul was safely in ward in Caesarea (static εἰς; discard the older labored explanation). “Besides” (δέ adds another point) he intended to leave Jerusalem in a few days (ἐντάχει, “in speed”). These are mere statements of facts as the accusatives and infinitives so plainly show. Festus is neither asserting “his rights” nor offering an excuse. Since Paul is safely in ward in Caesarea, and since the governor will be returning in a few days, this case can wait until that time. Festus had drawn up his program for these days in Jerusalem and declines to send for Paul and to sit on his case and thus disarrange that program. He was acting in an ordinary, sensible way—something the Jews had not counted on.

In ignorance of their design the governor frustrated their plot. Moreover, many a plot goes wrong in just such a way. The main person acts only in his own natural way and not as the plotters surmised that he would act.

Acts 25:5

5Festus, however, offers to take the Jews back with him when he leaves for Caesarea and then promptly to attend to this case for them. There is nothing of a commanding nature in the imperative; even the subject is left indefinite, Festus does not say, “You.” Δυνατοί is taken to mean, “which are of power” (R. V.), “mighty ones” (R., W. P.), or “which are able” (A. V.). The last comes nearest to the meaning.

Felix means “those empowered among you” (Sanhedrin), the duly empowered representatives of the Sanhedrin. He offers to take them along in his own retinue, which is a favor to them and doubly so when we think of the dangers along the road. The governor was accomodating enough. “Let them accuse him” is, of course, what these men, whoever they would be, would have to do; for Festus has no thought beyond trying the case in the regular Roman fashion. Naturally, too, the conditional clause: “if there is anything amiss (ἄτοπον, out of place) in the man,” is one of reality, for only in case Paul had committed some wrong would there be any use in accusing him.

Acts 25:6

6What could these Jews do but accede to the governor’s suggestion? This plan was an accommodating offer by Festus himself, and the Sanhedrists had no other way than to act pleased and to accept it as a favor. Now having tarried among them no more than eight or ten days, after having gone down to Caesarea, on the morrow, seated on the judgment seat, he ordered Paul to be brought.

The sentence is compact, the three aorist participles present the subsidiary actions in due order as preceding the final act of ordering Paul to be brought. “No more than eight or ten days” means only that long. Luke is not concerned about greater exactness. The Jews accompanied the governor. And on the very next day he obligingly took up the case. At the appointed hour, with the accusers present, Festus sat down on the βῆμα, the raised platform bearing the judge’s seat (12:21; 18:12).

Acts 25:7

7And he having come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and heavy charges against him, which they could not prove, Paul offering as defense: Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar did I sin in any respect.

Everything was delayed until Paul was present. The judge occupied his elevated seat, all others stood during the court proceedings here as elsewhere; nor were special places assigned to them so that the accusers freely stood about Paul. The point to be noted is that Roman courts invariably confronted accusers and accused and heard each in the presence of the other. First the accusers were called on to bring and “to show forth,” i. e., prove their charges (on the rare αἰτίωμα see M.-M.). This time the Jewish delegation had no rhetor to speak for them; was it because Tertullua (24:1, etc.) had proved a disappointment? They “brought down on” Paul “many and heavy charges.” Luke does not need to specify them, for they contained nothing new (24:5, 6).

Tertullus had been brief and for that very reason more effective. We have seen how he made the best of a poor case. The Jews now try a greater length and try to make their charges sound “heavy,” severe, as criminal as possible.

Despite their extended effort “they could not prove them.” Note the imperfect ἴσχυον, “they were not (despite all their repetition and heavy words) having strength to shew them forth,” actually to show to the judge that they were real charges (note the effective aorist infinitive). It is a repetition of the story told in 24:5, etc. The trouble with hate is its lack of good sense. Here it blinded these Sanhedrists to the complete lack of legal and proper proof for their charges against Paul. What was the sense of pressing a case like this? Moreover, as Sanhedrists and members of the Jewish supreme court they had had long years of training and experience in this very matter of legal proof.

In spite of this they foolishly press a hopeless case. This phenomenon occurs regularly: moral obliquity blinds the intellect.

Acts 25:8

8The genitive absolute is more than temporal (“while” our versions); it is causal. Paul’s defense annihilated this mass of heavy charges. When the Sanhedrists were through, Festus gave Paul the floor (as in 24:10). As Luke does not specify the charges, so he also omits the defense. The charges had everything but proof; the defense, therefore, ended in the decisive statement (recitative ὅτι) of Paul’s innocence. Paul sums up his own case: according to all the charges launched by the Jews, and according to the facts presented in Paul’s defense, the verdict must be that he sinned “in no respect” (τί, adverbial accusative) either against “the law of the Jews” (the Scripture teaching on the resurrection, 23:6, etc.; 24:14–16, 21), or against the Temple (desecrating it, 21:28) or against Caesar (any Roman law).

Paul had had two years in which to meditate on his case. In his hearing before Felix he had not made a reference to Caesar and Roman law; he does so now. The point is that only infractions against Jewish law and usage had been charged against him, no infractions whatever against Roman law. This point could, of course, be strained; inasmuch as Roman law tolerated the Jewish religion, an act committed against that religion could be viewed as one committed against Roman law. But the Jews had not ventured to present such an argument; the following makes that certain. The reason, then, that Paul mentions Caesar is to bring to the attention of this Roman judge, whom he now sees for the first time, the fact that no infraction of a Roman law has even as much as been charged in this case.

The charges deal with Jewish doctrine and practice, and even these charges are baseless. Why, then, does this Roman want to proceed with such a case? “Nor against Caesar” was a telling point, indeed.

Acts 25:9

9It is this phrase which gives the trial its decisive turn, and we thus see why Luke preserved this one sentence from Paul’s trial. Things are directed into a new channel.

But Festus, wanting to establish favor with the Jews, answering Paul said, Art thou willing, after having gone up to Jerusalem, there to be judged before me concerning these things? But Paul said: Before the judgment seat of Caesar I am standing, where it is necessary for me to be judged. The Jews I wronged in not a thing as thou thyself dost rather well realize. If, therefore, I am a wrongdoer and have perpetrated anything worthy of death I refuse not to die; but if there is nothing of what these are accusing me, no one is able to dispose of me in their favor! I appeal unto Caesar!

We here see how Festus compelled Paul to appeal his case to the emperor himself, namely to Nero, who ruled from 54–68.

The Jews had no case against Paul. Paul’s statement in v. 8 should have been made the governor’s verdict. But the famous Roman justice was dispensed in this procurator’s court as little as it had been in that of his predecessor. By having appeared in force and by making so much sound and fury when presenting their charges against Paul, the Jews succeeded in one thing, not, indeed, in convincing Festus of the truth of their charges, but in making him reluctant to offend them. Just as the outgoing Felix “wanted to establish favor with the Jews” (24:27), so also Festus who had just come in was anxious to do the same. The words employed are the same in each case save that χάριν is used in place of χάριτα.

Not justice tipped the balance but the personal interest of the judge. This time Luke writes “answering he said.” He adds the participle (a coincident aorist which is used often in the Gospels) to mark the peculiar answer Festus gave, not to both parties, but to Paul. That answer was exactly what the Jews wanted; they at once saw that Festus was yielding to them.

All the evidence was in, no more could be hoped for. The case had been pending for two years. But instead of rendering the one and only verdict demanded by that evidence, i. e., the lack of it, Festus proposes to continue the trial by transferring it to Jerusalem. He is now ready to grant the very thing for which the Jews had besought him in v. 3. He was, of course, ignorant of the Jewish plot that had prompted that request.

How the Jews must have pricked up their ears when they heard the governor’s proposal to Paul! Was their plot to be executed after all? But Paul must give his consent. As a Roman citizen before the Roman court in the proper seat of that court (Caesarea) the procurator could not adjourn his case to another place except with Paul’s consent; hence the question: “Art thou willing,” etc.? Festus says, “There to be judged before me” (ἐπί is used in this sense in 23:30, and several times later.) We think that he meant just what he said, not that he would turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin, but that he himself would be the judge. Grotius translates me praesente, “me being present,” and has found some followers; but ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ does not mean “before me as a spectator” but “as the judge.”

Acts 25:10

10Paul’s answer is a decided refusal. More than that. Paul’s mind has been made up for a long time. Despairing of receiving justice, he has evidently resolved at the first fitting opportunity to take his case out of the hands of judges such as these and to appeal to Caesar. That opportunity is now here; he embraces it promptly. Paul’s very tone is bold.

Already in v. 8 he states what the verdict should be. Now he again minces no words. He tells the governor what the law is, what that governor knows only too well, and what transferring the case to Jerusalem really implies. Festus has mistaken his man. Here is a man who looks him squarely in the eye and is not afraid of his unjust judge. The Lord’s promise given in 23:11 certainly had much to do with Paul’s present step.

He had come to interpret that promise to mean that he was to testify in Rome, not as a free man, but as a prisoner. As far as Jerusalem was concerned, the renewal of the old plot was, of course, unknow to Paul, but the memory of that old plot was enough.

“If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea where his regular court held forth, what assurance was there that Festus would give it to him at Jerusalem in the atmosphere of intense hostility to Paul?” R., W. P. There is a ring in every word Paul utters. “Before the judgment seat (v. 6) of Caesar I am standing,” ἑστώςεἰμι, periphrastic present tense (R. 881). The second perfect form ἑστώς is always used as a present participle. Festus was functioning in Caesarea on Caesar’s judgment seat, in administering Caesar’s laws. “Where it is necessary that I be judged,” where alone my case belongs according to Roman law, I being a Roman citizen. Did Festus have to be reminded of that?

That is what the governor should himself have told the Jews in v. 4. If he had intended to do so he had failed to state it properly. Δεῖ, used for all types of necessity, here states that which is laid down in Roman law for Romans. To transfer Paul for a trial in Jerusalem, even one “before me” (Festus), was, to say the least, an irregularity. Paul is now standing before the court of Caesar, that court which is being held in its proper place, why is he not judged here and now?

“The Jews I wronged in not a thing, as also thou thyself (καὶσύ, emphatic) dost rather well realize,” both adverb and verb are strong. Κάλλιον is the comparative: “better” than Festus is admitting. No crime against Caesar or his laws had even been alleged; the view that 24:5 implies such a crime misunderstands στάσεις. If the statement about the place where Paul must be tried contained a sting for Festus, this one that “he knew fully” (ἐπιγινώσκεις) and rather well that Paul had wronged the Jews in no way (double accusative, R. 484) stung more deeply. Festus had to take these rebukes in open court. One wonders how the Jews eyed him and took his measure when he heard these plain facts spoken by Paul.

Acts 25:11

11Οὗν draws the plain deduction. Paul is either guilty or he is not guilty, and both propositions are stated in straightforward conditions of reality that are balanced by μέν and δε. It is impossible to reproduce the former in English. Ἀδικῶ is one of few perfective presents (B.-D. 322, even better than R. 881): “if any past crime still stands against me.” This is defined and specified: “and I have perpetrated anything worthy of death,” now the perfect. Paul says, “if so,” then pass the verdict: “Guilty of death!” And as far as he is concerned, let Festus be assured, he is not refusing to die (object infinitive with τό R. 1059). Παρά in the verb means “from”: “to beg off for myself” and thus to escape the penalty due, the dying under the executioner’s hands. These Jews had asked for a special favor (χάριν, v. 3) which Festus was now eager to grant, (χάριν, v. 9); if he is found guilty, Paul asks no χάρις of any kind. That was manly language.

“But if there is (exists) nothing of what these are accusing me,” then it is certainly the business of Caesar’s judgment seat as represented by Festus to declare. “Not guilty!” As in 24:8, ὧν may be τούτωνἅ. Demosthenes used the verb with two genitives: of the person and of the things charged, B.-P. 662, and others. Certainly, “no one is able to dispose of me in their favor.” Paul says “no one,” but Festus knows that he is referred to. “Legally able” is the thought; illegally, of course, anything could be done. The sharp contrast between Paul’s not begging off from dying and this making a present of Paul’s life to the Jews in answer to their begging, is often not observed. When Festus asked about transferring the trial to Jerusalem, Paul instantly knew that the Jews had asked this as a favor (χάρις, v. 3 and 9), and that is why he uses the verb that is derived from this noun, χαρίσασθαι, “to grant or dispose of me as a favor to them.” The expression is purposely indefinite. Was it only that Paul was to be tried in Jerusalem, or was it more, namely to dispose of his life to please the Jews?

Paul conveys the truth to Festus that he fully understands what the proposal in regard to Jerusalem involves. And that, too, was plain language.

Now come the two great decisive words to which all else was but preamble: Καίσαραἐπικαλοῦμαι, “I appeal to Caesar!” the technical Caesarem appello. In the case of any criminal offense a Roman citizen had the right to make this appeal when he felt that the lower court was not giving him justice. The emperor then tried the case himself. This is not exactly like our present practice when appeal is taken to a higher court by one who has lost his case in the lower; the appeal could be made while the trial in the lower court was still in progress. So here no verdict had as yet been pronounced on Paul.

It is reported of Claudius that he assiduously devoted himself to this onerous task; we have no report about Nero, the present emperor. We do not know whether he finally heard Paul’s case in person or let it pass through the imperial court; the latter seems to have been the case. It is certain, however, that Paul was acquitted. Even Agrippa could find nothing on the basis of which he might be held (26:32), and Festus did not know what to write to the emperor when he was sending Paul to Rome (25:26). The original provision in Roman law allowed an appeal from a magistrate to the people (Romans). This was called the provocatio ad populum. Later the emperor represented the people in these appeals, and so they were made to him.

When Paul says in 28:19 that he was constrained to appeal to Caesar, this certainly does not mean that he appealed reluctantly. It was the proper thing to do; “constrained” points to the open partiality and injustice of Festus. One does not escape reluctantly from the jurisdiction of such a judge but is glad to be able to escape. This appeal was certainly Paul’s last legal resort, but this means only that such appeals were intended to be the last resort, and nobody would think of appealing except when this provision in Roman law finally became necessary. Paul’s appeal was not the use of a legal technicality, turning from the real merits of justice to a mere form of justice. The Roman law itself with its right of appeal was wholly in support of genuine justice, and Paul so used this right. Therefore Paul should not be faulted on the score of Christian ethics.

Acts 25:12

12Then Festus, having talked with his council, answered: To Caesar thou hast appealed; before Caesar thou shalt go!

The moment such an appeal was made, the judge had to decide whether there was any reason that the appeal should not be allowed. So Felix withdrew to consult in private with his “council,” a number of councillors or legal advisers. Συμβούλιον is rarely used in this sense: M.-M. 597 furnish other examples. The explanation as to why Felix has no council while Festus has one, is not difficult: Festus was new in his office, this was apparently his first case in law, he thus needed counsel. Moreover, the matter was grave even for himself. To have his very first case terminate in an appeal to Caesar was a reflection on his integrity as a judge. No wonder he conferred with his council.

We have no means of knowing who sat in this council; the procurator most likely chose his own men. But the view that the decision lay with this council is untenable; the decision lay with the procurator who merely listened to his advisers before deciding.

Paul’s appeal had to be allowed. We see that in the announcement that is now made. This was given in a rather sententious form: “To Caesar thou hast appealed; before Caesar thou shalt go!” Paul had made his appeal with so much confidence that we scarcely think that by means of his sententiousness and his tone Festus intended to frighten Paul because of his own action, or that with a sneer he intended to convey the idea that Paul little knew the seriousness of his step. Paul’s entire bearing invited no such reaction. Festus is merely imitating a bit of Paul’s own tone and bearing. He is merely holding his head high before Paul and these Jews.

Paul is taking the case out of his hands in a rather masterful way; Festus must yield to Paul’s demand. But we do not think that his sententious dictum and high air deceived anyone and certainly not Paul. The perfect “thou hast appealed” implies that the appeal stands indefinitely; and ἐπί means: “before Caesar shalt thou go” and not “to Caesar.” The future, “thou shalt go,” is volitive, peremptory, equal to an imperative (R. 597). Festus has to send Paul and pretends that he is forcing Paul to go.

FESTUS PRESENTS PAUL’S CASE TO AGRIPPA

Acts 25:13

13Despite all the high airs Festus tried to give himself in the courtroom, it was he who was put into a quandary by Paul’s appeal. Hence this consultation with Agrippa. He had not managed this case well; he betrays that he knows, even as Paul had told him to his face (v. 10), that Paul had committed no wrong against the Jews. One feels that Festus now wishes that he had acquitted Paul and had thus ended this case with credit to himself instead of precipitating this most inconvenient appeal to Caesar. Now some days having intervened, Agrippa, the king, and Bernice went down to Caesarea saluting Festus.

This visit was a formal greeting of the new procurator and hence was made so soon after his assumption of office. Agrippa had his capital in Caesarea Philippi (which he renamed Neronias in honor of Nero), north of the Sea of Galilee, and he came down from there to the procurator’s capital Caesarea. One ruler honors and welcomes another into office. While each had his own domain, from the Emperor Claudius, Agrippa had received the jurisdiction over the Temple in Jerusalem and the right to name the high priests. This arrangement was still in force under Nero and naturally prompted a formal visit such as this.

The poorly attested future participle ἀσπασόμενοι would denote purpose, “in order to salute,” and would remove all difficulty; but the best texts have the aorist ἀσπασάμενοι, which, whether we retain it or not, brings up the question as to whether an aorist participle can ever denote action that is future to that of the main verb. B.-D. 339, 1 evades the difficulty by preferring the future participle. But Luke uses aorist participles in similar connections, and R. 863 defends the use of the aorist here; he states that all of these participles express an action that is simultaneous with that of the main verb and thus denies that they may have a future force; see R. 863 for this case.

Agrippa II, the last king of the Herodian house, was reared in Rome at the court of Claudius and enjoyed this emperor’s signal favor. Upon the death of his father Herod Agrippa I in 44 Claudius wanted to make the young prince, who was then seventeen years old, king in his father’s place but met with general disapproval. For six additional years he was kept in Rome in order to learn Roman ways, then in 50 was given the Herodian principality of Chalcis in the Lebanons, and gradually a much greater territory in northern and northwestern Palestine. As the ruler of the Temple he had to become conversant with Judaism and to adopt Jewish ways (26:2, 3).

In regard to Bernice, Agrippa’s sister, see 24:24. She was the oldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1, etc.), had married her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, and after his death lived in criminal relation with her brother Agrippa II—she was living thus at the time when both came to visit Festus—then persuaded Polemo, king of Cilicia, to marry her in order to hush up the scandal, which he did because of her riches, but she soon left him to continue the incestuous relation with her brother. Eventually, although she was aging and the mother of several children, she became the mistress of Vespasian (Tacitus) and of his son Titus (Suetonius) who finally cast her off. She barely missed becoming empress, and her Jewish religion had long ago been abandoned although at one time she was completing a vow in the Temple (Josephus, Wars 2, 15, 1). Her brother died in 101 during the reign of Trajan. In this palace in Caesarea, which had been built by their grandfather Herod the Great, and where their father Agrippa I had lived, these two, Agrippa II and Bernice, had played as children.

Acts 25:14

14And as they were tarrying there more days, Festus put the things concerning Paul up to the king, saying: There is a man left behind by Felix as a prisoner, concerning whom, when I was in Jerusalem, the high priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, duly asking an adverse verdict against him, to whom I answered that it is not the custom for Romans to make disposal of any man by favor before the accused have the accusers face to face and receive room for defense concerning the accusation. They, therefore, having come together here, making no delay, on the next day seated on the judgment seat, I ordered the man to be brought, around whom having taken their stand, the accusers were bringing no charge of what wickednesses I myself was entertaining suspicion but had certain questions concerning their own divinity-devotion against him and concerning one Jesus as being dead, whom Paul was affirming to be living. And I on my part, being at a loss as to the question concerning these things, went on to say whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there to be judged concerning these things. But Paul having appealed that he be kept in ward for the decision of the Augustus, I ordered that he be kept in ward until I might send him up to Caesar.

Agrippa and Bernice paid more than a formal official visit. They tarried πλείουςἡμέρας, a number of days, the comparative meaning “more” than were necessary for saluting the governor in his new office. And it is this longer stay and the friendly intimacy it brought about that led Festus “to put things concerning Paul up to the king,” which act led to all that follows in the next chapter. So Festus tells Paul’s story in his own way. This was surely not done to entertain Agrippa as a guest. We here once again see the great importance which men everywhere assigned to Paul—even as a prisoner he towered above all others. Then his was a Jewish case, and the king was the ruler of the Temple. Thus Paul’s case naturally came up for discussion.

For some reason the commentators who at other points ask how Luke secured his exact information do not do so when it comes to this conversation. But this is a place where the skeptic may step in and claim that Luke invented this interchange and challenge us to prove that he did not. But Luke was on the ground. Festus and the king did not confer in secret; they were prominent personages and moved about with their attendants. In this address of the governor we find several optatives that are rather exceptional at that. Luke wrote them, and Luke is literary!

He wrote them exactly as he wrote other sections that have a LXX and a Hebraistic cast and each time faithfully reported the originals. It is Festus, the educated Roman, who uses these cultivated literary turns of the Greek when speaking to the king, for, of course, they spoke in Greek. All the unusual literary turns of the address are proof that Luke has recorded the very language Festus employed.

So he begins by speaking about a man who was left behind as a prisoner by Felix. It is rather farfetched to put into this participle the idea that Paul was “left behind as junk” and then to score the governor for this estimate of “the greatest of living men and the greatest preacher of all time.” A governor does not speak at length to a king in regard to any man whom he considers “junk.” He would tell a king the story of only a most important prisoner. “Left behind,” of course, means that Festus had received Paul as a legacy. The perfect participle has its present connotation and implies that it seems that even Felix did not know just how to dispose of the man.

Acts 25:15

15The importance of Paul is at once made manifest when Festus states how on his first visit to Jerusalem the Jewish rulers themselves, no less than “the high priests and the elders of the Jews,” made it their business not only to inform Festus in regard to Paul and their charges against him but asked in due form for “an adverse verdict against him,” the middle αἰτούμενοι being used whenever the request is made in a matter of business (R. 805). The Sanhedrists brought up Paul’s case as a piece of unfinished business in which they were involved. Καταδίκην plus κατʼ αὑτοῦ assume on the part of these Sanhedrists that Paul is guilty, and their request was that Festus should render the adverse verdict against Paul as being due him. Yet Festus fails to mention the fact that the Jews requested the favor of having Paul brought to Jerusalem where this adverse verdict was to be pronounced (v. 3). Agrippa could not guess that.

Acts 25:16

16Festus puts on airs when he relates his answer to the Jews. Having been brought up in Rome, Agrippa was well informed in regard to the Roman legal proceeding of confronting the accused (the substantivized present passive participle) and the accusers (noun), especially also in order that the former might have “room” (τόπος, a proper legal place) for defense (objective genitive) concerning the charge. Festus makes it appear as though he had to inform even Sanhedrists about this ἔθος or “custom” of Roman courts, as though those seasoned veterans in legal matters needed that instruction. We know what he really answered them (v. 4, 5). The point did not concern the confronting of the two but the transferring of the trial from Caesarea, the seat of the procurator’s court, to Jerusalem merely in order to please the Jews. Rome was very proud of its court system, which it regarded as being most just to defendant as well as to plaintiff.

Festus uses the very verb χαρίζεσαι (present of customary action) which was employed by Paul in v. 11 (aorist to express the one act in his case). In these connections the term seems to have a legal sense; in 3:14 it is used with reference to Barabbas in a favorable sense, here with reference to Paul in an unfavorable sense. It is difficult to translate the latter without implying something that is not intended; we venture the translation, “to make disposal of any man by favor,” the favor in this instance being shown the accusers. The sense is just as indefinite as it was in v. 11 and allows us to think of disposing of a man’s life as a grant to his accusers. No; Roman justice certainly intended to exclude this very thing, especially in the case of a Roman, while other Oriental courts were not acquainted with such absolute justice. Behold Festus posing before Agrippa as an incorruptible Roman judge! And yet see how in v. 9, although he knew Paul to be innocent, he failed to pronounce the verdict to that effect and sought to please Paul’s accusers; in v. 20 he seeks to cover up this defection from Roman legal justice.

Here we have the first optatives that occur, and they are used after πρὶνἥ in indirect discourse. The direct would be πρὶνἣἄν (ἐάν) with the subjunctive; and when this is changed into the indirect after a secondary tense of a verb of saying (ἀπεκρίθη) it is either left unchanged (thus in the Koine) or changed to the optative minus ἄν (thus in the classics and in this the only case occurring in the New Testament). R. 970, 1030. The change to the optatives is almost an Atticism and so exceptional in the Koine as to make it rather certain that Luke is reporting Festus’ address verbatim. While this point is grammatical it has this added importance.

Acts 25:17

17Quite incidentally Festus states that, when he laid down the law to the high priests and the elders, they came together “here,” namely in Caesarea. Yet the only law he had laid down was that they must come to Caesarea (v. 4, 5) since nothing else had been broached. He takes full credit for making no delay, for taking the judgment seat on the very next day (βῆμα, v. 6), and for ordering Paul to be brought before him. Why all this minor detail? It permits us to see the character of the man and is further evidence that Luke reported all he said exactly. Another writer would have summarized all of this by a word or two.

Acts 25:18

18We now get a fuller account of the points involved in the trial (v. 7, etc.) from the standpoint of the judge who presided, and this is most valuable. The following imperfects (v. 18–20) are beautifully descriptive and unroll the scene like a moving picture. Περὶοὗ might mean, “concerning whom” (R. V.; never “against whom,” A. V.) and thus be construed with the verb: “concerning whom they were bringing no charge.”

R. 619 considers the construction with the participle doubtful: “around whom having taken their stand.” But in v. 7 we have the same preposition compounded with the same verb: “they stood around him.” This convinces us that Festus here relates that in his court the accusers surrounded Paul (see v. 7) with their babel of “many and heavy charges.” But to his surprise, as he now tells Agrippa, they were bringing not a single charge of the kind of which he on his part (emphatic ἐγώ) was entertaining suspicion (ὑπονοέω, to have secretly in mind), namely something in the way of actual criminal “wickedness” which would easily be stamped with the verdict guilty. Not a thing of this kind did the Jews have. Πονηρῶν: no charge “of wickednesses” (partitive genitive) is incorporated into the relative clause and also attracts ἅ into the genitive ὧν, R. 718–719.

Acts 25:19

19All that the Jews could offer were the ζητήματα reported by Lysias (23:29) “concerning their own δεισιδαιμονία (the adjective occurs in 17:22), divinity-reverence.” “Religion” (R. V.) is too broad and does not fit the adjective; “superstition” (A. V.) is unsatisfactory because of its evil connotation. Festus would not call anything Jewish a “superstition” when he is addressing a king who had charge of the Jewish Temple. “Fear or reverence for a deity” is usually regarded as a neutral term, one that may be used in a good or in a bad sense (superstition), the latter use being a later meaning of the word (C.-K. 274, adjective). As far as 17:22 (see this passage) and the present use are concerned, we are unable to find an evil sense in it.

Καί adds by bringing a specification: “and in particular” this question “about one (named) Jesus as being dead, whom Paul was affirming to be living.” The participle is predicative and not attributive: “one dead, Jesus”; and the perfect tense = “having died and thus being dead”; it describes a state. It was the same issue in regard to the resurrection that had been raised two years before (23:6–9; 24:15, 21) when the Sadducees were on the side of the opposition. Since the Sadducees failed to raise this issue before Felix (24:1–9) but left that to Paul, we conclude that the same thing happened again before Festus; among the “many and grave” charges mentioned in v. 7 Paul’s faith in the resurrection was omitted although the charges came from the Sadducees. Paul himself, therefore, mentioned this point in his defense. It was crushing as far as his accusers were concerned, for the whole host of good Jewish Pharisees believed in the resurrection, and what Sadducee would dare to charge before a pagan procurator that that was a mortal crime? But that was what Paul’s Sadducaic accusers were doing with him.

This point of Jewish doctrine, the resurrection of the dead, centered in Jesus. He died, and the accusers of Paul vehemently asserted, not only that he did not arise, but that resurrection as such was an absolute impossibility; while Paul affirmed both, in particular that Jesus was living, ζῆν, risen and living forever. Festus states the whole matter correctly. He must have been astonished to hear Paul’s affirmation in his court—the first time, we take it, that he had ever heard it. Agrippa was better informed regarding Jesus and the Christians. The tone in which Festus speaks is one of entire aloofness; one Jesus—dead—Paul asserting that he is alive—terrible agitation among the high priests and elders in consequence.

By this very tone Festus condemns himself. What business had he as a high Roman judge to sit in court on a case relating to such questions of reverence for divinity that were complicated by assertions and denials of the resurrection? Gallio, cf. 18:14–16, was a different judge—he drove the Jews out of his court. Festus let them stand around Paul and keep up their contentions as though they were legitimate legal charges.

Acts 25:20

20Now the confession is made outright: “And I on my part, being at a loss as to the question (the accusative as at times in the classics, R. 472) concerning these things,” etc. “Being at a loss”—why? We know why. It was because this judge wanted to curry favor with the accusers (v. 9). No, he does not say that! As a true judge he should not have been at a loss for one moment any more than Gallio had been.

So Festus says that he went on to say to Paul “whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there to be judged concerning these things.” He does not say “to be judged before me” as he did in v. 9; let us hope that he had this in mind, yet who can be sure? But it is plain that the preamble does not fit the conclusion. How can this judge propose to transfer this case to Jerusalem merely because he knows nothing about a purely religious question? Would he know any more about it in Jerusalem? And if he ever learned more on that question whether one who had died was really still living or not, what did that matter in a Roman court? Here there is another classical optative in indirect discourse which replaces the indicative of the direct although at the speaker’s option (R. 1031). This is another indication that Luke reports verbatim.

Acts 25:21

21Another participle introduces Paul’s appeal to Caesar but hides the fact that the action of Festus himself had forced Paul to resort to this appeal. Festus says that Paul appealed “for him to be kept in ward for the decision (the verb is used in 24:22) of the Augustus,” and then that he ordered “him to be kept in ward,” etc., the aorist passive infinitive being constative, the present passive infinitive durative. Just why this being kept in ward is stressed by this repetition is not apparent since Paul would naturally be in ward until arrangements could be made to send him to Rome. While ἀναπέμψω can be either the aorist subjunctive or the future indicative in the present construction, we are satisfied to regard it as the former.

“Caesar,” originally a family name, became a title that was applied to the emperors. Σεβαστός, the verbal adjective “reverenced or worshipped,” was assumed by Octavius in B. C. 27 as the agnomen that summed up all his various offices in preference to Rex that was so offensive to the Romans as to have led to the death of Julius Caesar. It then became a title, the equivalent of the Latin Augustus, and was more imposing than “Caesar.” The Greek Σεβαστός was in keeping with the emperor deification and worship, being derived from the verb σεβάζομαι (σέβομαι), “to worship.” See R., W. P. Translate, “the Augustus” (A. V. without “the”) and not, “the emperor” (R. V.).

Acts 25:22

22And Agrippa to Festus, I was also myself wishing to hear the man. Tomorrow, he says, thou shalt hear him.

In the Greek the verb of saying need not be written: “to Festus” is enough. The imperfect ἐβουλόμην is used for the sake of courtesy, as much as to say, “I was just wishing while you were speaking to get to hear the man,” den Menschen, not den Mann. As is done in the English, the statement is put into the past although the reference is to the present. The form is a compliment to the interesting story told by Festus. The aorist ἀκοῦσαι is ingressive: “get to hear.” The present indicative would be too blunt: βούλομαι, “I wish to hear.” See R. 885, 919, W. P.

Festus promptly accedes to the wish; he will arrange for Agrippa to hear Paul on the very next day. It is difficult to say whether from the beginning Festus planned to induce Agrippa to make this request so as to be able to stage the hearing that followed; or whether Agrippa’s wish alone brought about the hearing. Divine providence prepared this new great opportunity for Paul to testify. Agrippa’s desire to hear den Menschen was most probably real. Paul’s fame and the Christian movement especially among the Jews were surely known to the king and would arouse his interest. Beyond this the king’s desire did not go.

Acts 25:23

23Accordingly, on the morrow, Agrippa and Bernice having come with much pomp, and they having gone into the audience hall with both chiliarchs and men of prominence, and Festus having given the order, there was brought in Paul.

This translation follows the Greek very closely in order to show just what Luke conveys. There are three genitive absolutes to express the subordinate actions, and all the high personages figure only in these actions, then follow the main action and the chief person, just two words and subject and predicate reversed, this emphasizing both: “brought in was Paul.” This sentence is a masterpiece in its description of the scene. It depicts how the stage is gradually set, one brilliant and impressive entrance is made after another, the king and his sister with their retinue come in great pomp, then others (the subject is indefinite), visitors perhaps are also present to congratulate Festus on his accession to the procuratorship, Festus, too, of course, has not only his five chiliarchs in gala uniform (five cohorts were stationed in Caesarea) but also the men of highest prominence in the city—all these are presented in their most pompous array and display. What an assemblage! The great stage is set. Festus gives the order.

Then follow two simple words without a modifier, which are in striking contrast with the long preamble of genitive absolutes: ἤχθηὁΠαῦλος, “there was brought in Paul.” For him, for this humble apostle of Jesus Christ, for this lone, poor prisoner, this magnificent assembly of royalty, of rule, of military rank, of highest civil prominence has been arranged. Thus do imperial and royal courts assemble in all their splendor, and when the grand climax arrives, the portals swing open, and the emperor or the king enters.

Yes, all eyes were riveted on Paul. All had come in grand attire in order to hear this man. Festus had set this stage for Paul. Such is the esteem which this apostle commanded. When Ramsay thinks that Paul was treated thus because he had much money at his command, he is mistaken; for no millionaire prisoner was such a stage ever set. What were Paul’s feelings when he was ushered into this ἀκροατήριον, the great audience hall in the palace of Herod the Great that had been built for just such assemblages as this? If he had had advance notice regarding this audience, he surely did not expect such a magnificent gathering. We shall see that he measured up fully to the occasion the Lord’s providence here provided for him.

The greatest man present was Paul. The sacred pages record the other names only because they tell about Paul. He wore no insignia of rank but only his ordinary tunic and robe, he was the one man in common dress in glaring contrast with all the rest. Regarding Agrippa and Bernice, Luke even mentions “much pomp,” φαντασία, display, which we take as a reference to their dress as well as to their retinue. Luke writes no articles with “chiliarchs” and “men, etc.,” and thus stresses what they were: chiliarchs came, men of prominence came, etc. Κατʼ ἐξοχήν appears only here in the New Testament and in inscriptions of the first century, yet it has become a standard phrase which we still use in its original Greek just as we employ the French par excellence. The article makes the phrase an adjective (do not supply οὗσιν with τοῖς), and ἐξοχή = a projection, an eminence. These κατά phrases are stronger than mere genitives would be.

In the nature of the case Paul “was brought.” It would not surprise us if the very centurion who had him in charge conducted him into the hall and to the place assigned to him before this audience. In view of 26:29 we shall already here say that it is inconceivable to us that Paul was brought in wearing a chain or chains which either fastened his wrist to a soldier or fettered his wrists or ankles. It is inconceivable that to this audience this Roman procurator should present a Roman citizen and one who had never been charged with violence, who had been pronounced not guilty of death or bonds (23:29; 25:25; 26:31), who had as a Roman appealed to the emperor—in chains. When chains were used, Luke uses the proper word, as in 21:33 and in 28:20. Were Luke and perhaps another friend or two of Paul’s (27:2) with him on this occasion as his attendants? We wish we might be positive; as it is, all we can say is that this is not unlikely. Festus would never think of displaying anything but fairness, yea, open generosity before this assembly.

Acts 25:24

24And Festus says: King Agrippa and all men present with us, you behold this one about whom all the multitude of the Jews petitioned me both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he must not live any longer. But I on my part understood that he had committed nothing worthy of death. Moreover, he himself having appealed to the Augustus, I gave judgment to send him, concerning whom I have no certain thing to write to my lord. Wherefore I brought him before you and especially before thee, King Agrippa, in order that, examination having taken place, I may get what I shall write. For it seems unreasonable to me that, sending a prisoner, I signify not also the complaints against him.

It behooves Festus to open the proceedings, which he does with this address. He had, no doubt, thought it out carefully. It fully reveals the character of the man. Although it is intended to be impressive and to justify the gathering of this assembly, it is weak in its supposed strong point. Agrippa is to make due ἀνάκρισις, “judical examination,” of Paul in order to aid Festus in formulating proper “complaints” against Paul. We have such a preliminary examination in John 18:33–38, but nothing even faintly like it here in the case of Paul. Agrippa was not competent to examine; all he could do and did do was to let Paul speak for himself.

One is surprised at the openness with which Festus confesses the false and helpless position into which he alone had maneuvered himself in this case. That audience could not have thought highly of him on the basis of his own address. On the other hand, what he feels obliged to say about Paul, about the clamor of the Jews for his death when he, the governor, found no basis for that clamor, and the appeal to the Augustus, which he, the governor, had to allow, made Paul stand out before this audience. Here there was a rather helpless and inefficient governor and a most unusual, interesting, and effective prisoner.

The address is simple and direct. The king is named first as the person who is being honored by Festus through this occasion. Τοῦτον, used with reference to Paul, is not derogatory as this demonstrative often is. The hyperbole, “all the multitude of the Jews,” unconsciously expresses the governor’s estimate of Paul and is thus not mere exaggeration. Moreover, Festus thought that the Jews generally were opposed to Paul, and that the Sanhedrists represented their view. The second aorist ἐνέτυχον, like the noun ἔντευξις, is here used in the technical sense, “petitioned me,” plural since the subject is collective. Festus combines the original petition which was presented in Jerusalem (v. 3) and what followed “here” in Caesarea (v. 7) into one, for the shouting was done “here.” The infinitive δεῖν expresses the demand of the Jews that Paul must no longer go on living (ζῆν, present, durative).

All eyes must have turned toward Paul. So this was the one for whose death “the multitude of the Jews” clamored! A Latin and a Syriac version, especially the latter, expand the address considerably.

Acts 25:25

25The pride of the Roman judge now asserts itself in the emphatic ἐγώ and in the statement that Festus was not swept away by this petition and this clamor of the Jews but as a judge of great insight “grasped” that Paul had committed (perfect infinitive which is retained from the direct form of the thought) nothing worthy of death. Festus is honest regarding this vital point—credit to him for that. But why had he as a just Roman judge then not acquitted this innocent man? Why is it that Paul had to appeal to the Augustus (v. 21), and that Festus “gave judgment” (“determined” in our versions is incorrect—it was a judicial act) to send him (present tense, the sending had not yet occurred)? What was amiss we know from v. 9; Festus passes over it in silence. In private, alone with Agrippa (v. 20, 21), he told at least what he had done although he hid the real motive.

This he presents to the assembly: the Jewish clamor for Paul’s death—his own conviction of Paul’s innocence—the appeal of Paul to Caesar which was duly allowed.

Acts 25:26

26Now comes the difficulty. When a Roman who had appealed his case was sent to the emperor, literae dimissoriae had to accompany the prisoner, which presented the αἰτίαι or “complaints” lodged against him (v. 27). Festus confesses that he has “no certain thing” to write to Caesar. To obtain what he lacks, he says, he has brought Paul before this company, in particular before Agrippa, ἐπί is again to be understood (23:30 and repeatedly) in this sense. Festus expects the king to conduct an ἀνάκρισις, to develop “what I shall write.” Τί is the interrogative in an indirect question and not the indefinite τί, “somewhat” (our versions); and γράψω may be either the subjunctive, “may write,” or the future indicative, “shall write,” for in the direct question either may be used (R. 875).

We note how Festus makes the difficulty appear, and what his difficulty really was. Agrippa had been assigned a task he could not accomplish; in 26:31, 32 we see that Festus was eventually left just where he had put himself in the first place by seeking to acquire the favor of the Jews (v. 9). Festus makes it appear that without further ado Paul appealed to Caesar when he (Festus) regarded him as innocent of a capital crime. He makes it appear that he was about to acquit Paul when Paul impeded all further action by voicing his appeal (see 26:32). Even then the fault remains that Festus “gave judgment to send him” (v. 25), accepted and allowed the appeal. He should have denied this appeal, promptly answered it by complete acquittal, and thus removed all grounds for appeal.

But no, angered by Paul’s manly language and prompt appeal to Caesar, he had accepted that appeal in a foolish, sententious manner. So he had cast his own fat into the fire.

The truth was even worse. Festus knew in detail what the Jewish accusations really were, that they were not crimes but matters of faith (v. 18, 19), things that did not belong before a Roman court. When this had been made clear at the trial, and when Festus then sought to gain Jewish favor and proposed to send Paul to Jerusalem for further trial (v. 9), Paul appealed to Caesar. Add these real facts, and the full difficulty of Festus becomes clear. He dared not write the true facts to the emperor, that he had driven Paul to appeal, and that in a temper he had accepted that appeal. He dared not confess his own injustice.

Now he was helpless, without imagination enough to lie his way out of the tangle in some at least plausible manner. Those Jewish “complaints” were unfit to send to Nero; his own conviction of Paul’s innocence he dared not write, for Nero would at once demand to know why justice had not been done by Festus in accord with that conviction, why this procurator troubled him with an appeal that the prisoner should never have needed to make.

Festus calls Nero, “my lord.” Octavius and Tiberius had refused the title Κύριος as being too much like rex and like the master of slaves. The other emperors accepted it, Nero among them; Antonius Pius even put it on his coins. This title Κύριος played a great role in these times. Read Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 353–361. Kyrios, “Son of God,” and the adjective “divine” were applied to the emperors when deifying them just as Κύριος was applied to pagan gods. Many Christians became martyrs for refusing to utter this deifying title in worship of the emperor. “In the case of Polycarp, at Smyrna in the year 155 it was a question of the ‘lord’-formula.

What is the harm of saying ‘lord Caesar’? the Irenarch Herod and his father Nicetes asked the saint seductively.” Polycarp refused and died. Another, Speratus of Scili in Numidia, replied: “I know of no imperium of this world, … I know my lord, the King of kings, and Emperor of all nations.”

Acts 25:27

27“Unreasonable” indeed, or, as we may translate, “contrary to reason,” it would be to send a prisoner to Caesar and not to signify the “complaints” or charges on the basis of which he is sent. That sums up the difficulty of Festus who had no adequate presentation of the case which he could forward without confessing his own guilt, and then he would have no case to present. The accusative πέμποντα is the subject of the infinitive σημᾶναι with με understood.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

W. P Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles.