Acts 25

Acts 25:1-27

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 25:1-27 Acts 25:1-27 This chapter is part of a larger whole. Chapter twenty-six is needed to complete the story. The whole section is the account of Paul’s last set address before reaching Rome; his final “apologia pro vita sua.”

This chapter (25) is preparatory; and in it we find those matters which created the atmosphere for this final address of the apostle. There are, however, in the chapter some outstanding values. We shall briefly survey the picture, taking the story as a whole, and then consider two of these special matters.

Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and an attempt was immediately made on the part of the Jews to have Paul brought to Jerusalem. After two years, notwithstanding the fact that a new high priest was in office for there had been a change in the period, their hostility to this man still remained. This attempt on their part was frustrated by the decision of Festus. It was a remarkable fact that Festus declined to bring Paul to Jerusalem, for almost immediately afterwards it is declared that he was anxious, as the new governor of that neighbourhood, to secure the good-will of these turbulent Jews; and presently he suggested to Paul that his case should be transferred to Jerusalem; but in the first movement he declined. This is quite inexplicable, apart from the fact that this man was all the way being guided by God, and that here, as in so many other instances, which we have noticed in the study of this book, the touch of the Divine power was laid upon the heart of an unsuspecting governor, in order to contribute toward the end.

The trial took place at Caesarea. Very few details are given, because they are unnecessary. The charges made against Paul were many,-as Luke declares, “many and grievous,"-but they were not proven; and the apostle’s defence was simply that of definite and emphatic denial of every charge they had brought against him.

Then came Festus’ proposition that he should be taken to Jerusalem, and there tried by a court of the Jews, undoubtedly the Sanhedrim, in the presence of Festus himself. It was in connection with that suggestion that Paul made his appeal to Caesar. In whatever language this particular trial was carried forward, there can be no doubt that he made use of the actual legal formula; and having declared to Festus his reason, used the very words which might be used by Roman citizens under certain circumstances, “Csesarem appello!” In a moment, by virtue of the fact that he was a Roman citizen, and that Caesar had arrogated to himself robbing the Republic of its own powers in the process of the years, the right to final decision, Festus dared not commit him to Jerusalem. After conference with his council he gave the equally legal form of answer which is translated here in the words, “Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Csesar shalt thou go.” “Caesarem appellesti; ad Csesarem ibis.”

Paul had said, “I must also see Rome.” In the loneliness of a night of dejection his Master had said to him, “So must thou bear witness also at Rome.” Now from the lips of the representative of the emperor himself came the words, “Unto Caesar shalt thou go.”

Following upon the trial which thus ended, there was a consultation with Agrippa. Certain things are revealed in what Festus said to Agrippa, which are interesting. He told Agrippa definitely that the Jews had asked sentence against Paul, that they had attempted to reach him, and undoubtedly influence him in order to encompass the death of this man; and with the passion for justice in his heart which was characteristic of Roman governors, he was in revolt against that attempt on the part of the Jews. He told Agrippa that no charge of evil was brought against Paul such as he had supposed; but only certain questions of their own religion; and the particular word there translated religion, is one which might be translated religion, or superstition. Agrippa was a Jew, and so, while there was a touch of courtesy in the word, there was, perhaps, also an element of contempt. Then he spoke of the matter of supreme foolishness, “One Jesus, Who was dead, Whom Paul affirms to be alive.”

Then we come to the last picture, that of Paul before Agrippa and Bernice. This was not a trial. Agrippa had no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction had passed out of the hands of Festus. That “Caesarem appello” had set the apostle of Jesus Christ, as to earthly government, face to face with the central authority in the world. This was a court function, and a court function withal, provided for the entertainment of Agrippa and Bernice, who had come to stay for a while with Festus.

The assembly on this occasion is worth notice. Festus was there, the host. Agrippa was a vassal of Rome; and Festus was representative of the imperial purple. By the side of Agrippa was Bernice. The chief captains were there, that is all the heads of the military department in Cassarea, the chief officers; and the principal men, that is the civil rulers. Luke says that they gathered with great pomp.

We see the glitter, the glamour, and the earthly glory of the gathering.

Look at the three principals. Festus now stands on one side, as the host ever has to do. Agrippa, Bernice, Paul; these are the central figures.

Who was this man Agrippa? Agrippa the Second, was the last of the Herods. His great-grandfather had murdered the innocents at the birth of Jesus. His granduncle had murdered John Baptist at the caprice of a wanton. His father, Agrippa the First, had executed James; and seeing that it pleased the people, had sought to lay hands on Peter also. Each of these men had died, or been disgraced soon after the events referred to.

Sixteen years before this hour when Agrippa the Second sat by the side of Bernice facing Paul, his father had been smitten with worms, and had died a tragic death in the hour of his blasphemy. These brief sentences will carry us back over the past, and put us into sympathy with the mental mood of Agrippa. Somehow the destinies of his house had been mixed up with the faith and fate of Jesus; and when Festus had said, The charge against this man Paul was something concerning questions of his own religion, and one Jesus; Agrippa had expressed his desire to hear this man. Now he was face to face with Paul. Remember also that Agrippa was a guardian of the temple, the appointer of the high priest. These were among the powers that he retained, but he was also the vassal of Rome.

One glance only at the woman at his side. Bernice was his own sister, sister also of Drusilla, the wife of Felix, who appeared in our last study, a woman who had been married to her own uncle, Herod; had abandoned him, and then had been married to Polemon. Jewish and Roman historians agree in the declaration of the fact that at this moment Bernice was living in unnameable sin with Agrippa.

The third figure, Paul, needs no description. We may perhaps accept Voltaire’s description of him; that “ugly little Jew,” mean and contemptible of bodily presence; but we shall see the contemptible bodily presence, weakened by the process of the years, transfigured with a glory in the presence of which, all the pomp and the pageantry for the entertainment of kings, pales into insignificance.

The address of Festus here is interesting. He told Agrippa the claim that the Jews made about Paul, that he ought not to live. He declared to Agrippa the verdict of Roman justice, that he had done nothing worthy of death. Then he stated his difficulty. Paul had appealed to Caesar. It was not permitted to a governor to send a prisoner to Caesar unless he was accompanied by the charge preferred against him, and Felix had attempted to find the charge.

In all this there are two outstanding matters of interest and value. The first is that of the action of Paul in appealing to Caesar; and the second is this Roman estimate of the supreme matter in the whole difficulty: “One Jesus, Who was dead,” Whom this man said was alive.

This action of Paul in appealing to Caesar has been characterized by certain expositors as wrong; they have said that he had no right to make this appeal. Let us first enquire what this appeal was in itself. It was a turning on the part of Paul from those who had violated every principle of justice. He took himself and his case by this action of his own definite will, out of the hands of his own countrymen. How he had longed for them. How he had prayed for them.

How he had suffered for them. What tears and agonies and heart-break he had known on their behalf. All the story reveals it, and finally his Roman letter. But at this moment he distinctly turned from them, because they had violated every principle of justice. In the second place he . made an appeal to the final court of that human authority which had always treated him justly. That is not too strong a statement to make.

From the beginning of his missionary journeys he had been repeatedly protected, cared for, by the authority which was represented by the Roman power of his day. They had been fair to him, their lictors, their prefects, their governors had all been fair to him, and that greatest deposit of Rome, the sense of justice, had been active on his behalf. He turned definitely from his countrymen who had violated every principle of justice, to that Roman pagan authority which had always treated him justly. Let it be added, that it was a consistent final act. He had claimed Roman citizenship in the heart of Jerusalem, when a mob had been attacking him. Having been released by Lysias the chief captain, he was in danger of being bound and scourged.

Then he claimed citizenship. A little later on he had claimed, not only citizenship, but Roman protection. When he learned from his sister’s son of the plot laid against him, he had given information. Now at last the man who had claimed Roman citizenship and protection, claimed Roman justice, and its administration by the emperor himself.

The principles underlying this appeal are revealed. In his Roman letter, written to the Romans at an earlier date than these happenings, these words occur:

“Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:1-4).

That letter was sent to Christians in Rome. Its application was preeminently to that Roman authority under which they lived. It was the idealizing of that Roman authority. If in the exercise of authority the Roman power had violated the master principles here revealed, Paul would have been the first to dispute the Roman power. But this idealization of the Roman power showed that authority is ordained of God to punish evil-doers, and to reward the good. That was Paul’s recognition of the place of the authority of the Roman emperor at the moment.

Recognizing that the power of the emperor, in the economy of God, was for the punishment of the evil-doer, and the reward of the good; he made his appeal to the emperor, and so to the principle of justice in the economy of God which was embodied in the person of the ruler. The action of Paul was at least entirely consistent with his philosophy in this letter to the Romans; and any who feel that his action was out of place, must at the same time criticize and condemn the philosophy revealed in that letter.

But let us look at this in another way. This appeal meant Paul’s use of rightful means to avoid personal suffering. Using the words martyr and martyrdom in our common acceptation, rather than in the true sense of them, let us remember that the man who seeks martyrdom is never a martyr. The man who puts himself into the way of a sufferer, knows nothing of suffering. It is the business of the Christian man, when on the business of his King, to avoid, so far as he can, the pathway of pain, and not to seek it. There are people to-day who seem to imagine that they are never doing anything for God unless they are choosing the most distasteful line of action.

It does not follow. If God’s way for a man is to walk a pathway that is distasteful, he must tramp it. But if God call him to walk in a path that is delightful, then he will walk that pathway with songs and gladness. We have no business to put ourselves in the way of suffering. Paul made his appeal to Caesar. He did not choose, and was not called upon to choose, in the service of his Master, and for the fulfillment of His purpose, to hand himself over to the folly and brutality of men who had lost their sense of justice.

Once again, and perhaps this is the deepest note. In that appeal to Caesar I discover a representative act on behalf of others for all time; a revealing action on the part of the great pioneer missionary, the apostle to the Gentiles; the most illustrious exponent of the Christ in all the early centuries. His way was that of an attitude revealing for all time what the duty of the Christian man is; to be true to his Lord, to be true to his conscience, to be loyal to the powers that be; and to make his appeal to them where necessary, for protection, in order that he may continue his work in accordance with the will of his Lord.

Finally let us observe the Roman estimate of the supreme matter in the whole difficulty. Festus had come into this strange Judean province to be procurator, and found it turbulent and restless; and one of the first cases he had to deal with was that of this man Paul, who had been for two years a prisoner. He began to try and find out all the particulars, and it was a little difficult to do it; but he came to this conclusion that the central thing in the whole difficulty was that of “One Jesus, Who was dead,” Whom this man Paul declared to be alive. That was the root of the trouble. It was a fine appreciation of the actual fact of the situation. Festus had found out the very heart of the matter.

That was the religious difficulty. Paul’s belief that this One Jesus was alive, had created his attitude toward Hebraism through all the years, which attitude had stirred up the animosity of the ritualists in the Jewish faith. The belief that He was alive had caused him to cast off the impedimenta of ritualism. He had no use for all the things which had been dear to him in the old days of his devout and austere Pharisaism, because Jesus was alive. He was not following Him at a distance of a generation. It was not necessary to keep Him in mind by the observance of any ritual, fast, or feast.

He was alive, and He was with him; and so Paul had set aside circumcision, and all other things as unimportant, and not only unimportant, but dangerous, if men made them necessary to salvation. That was the religious difficulty at its very heart.

But the persecuting priests were Sadducees, rationalists, who were against the doctrine of resurrection; and the Pharisees only held it intellectually, and did not believe in the actual fact. To Paul the resurrection of Jesus was an accomplishment; it was a fact, He was alive. His old Pharisaic theology had been touched with dynamic, and he no longer held the resurrection possible, he knew it accomplished. That was the theological difficulty.

Was it not the personal secret also? If Paul had not believed that “One Jesus” was alive, then not a single chapter would have been written; and it was that conviction that Jesus was alive which created his passion for justice, and made him appeal to Rome rather than to Jerusalem.

So the truth abides. Lift the resurrection out of this chapter, and out of this book, and out of the history of the centuries, and what remains? The Cross is left; but the Cross without the resurrection has no meaning, and no power. It is ordinary, tragic, every day a catastrophe, nothing else. To know the importance of the resurrection we turn to another familiar passage in Corinthians: “Christ crucified, to Greeks a stumbling-block, to Jews foolishness.” He did not say, Christ crucified the power and the wisdom of God. He very carefully distinguished.

Christ crucified is neither the power nor the wisdom of God, unless we add to it the words of the apostle, “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again.” The central verity of the Christian faith is the resurrection of the Lord. Take it away, and the Cross remains a tragedy, a catastrophe, a blunder in the universe, in view of the perfection of the life of the Man Who died. But this “One Jesus,” Who was dead, is alive forevermore; and the real force of the Gospel of Christianity is the absolute certainty in the souls of men that He is alive.