Chapter 25

2 The Jews accuse Paul before Festus. 8 He answereth for himself, 11 and appealeth unto Caesar. 14 Afterwards Festus openeth his matter to king Agrippa, 23 and he is brought forth. 25 Festus cleareth him to have done nothing worthy of death.

1. Festus. See on ch. 24:27.

Was come. That is, either to the district he was to govern or to his office to take up its responsibilities. See Josephus Antiquities xx. 8. 9; War ii. 14. 1.

Cжsarea. The seat of Roman administration in Palestine (see on ch. 8:40).

To Jerusalem. This was the metropolis of the subprovince of Judea. Festus was no doubt inspecting the territory over which he had become procurator, intent on learning its problems. That he allowed but three days to pass before he set out on this tour speaks well of him as an administrator. In ability and integrity he seems to have greatly excelled Felix (see Vol. V, p. 71).

2. High priest. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “chief priests.” Ismael was now high priest, having recently been appointed by Agrippa II (Josephus Antiquities xx. 8. 8). Paul’s accusers intended to take advantage of Festus before he had time to see Jewish affairs in their true perspective.

Chief. Or, “leaders,” “principal men.” The most wealthy and notable Jews were members of the council, and for the most part were Sadducees. It seems to have been the Sadducees who, because they denied the resurrection, were chiefly responsible for pressing the charges against Paul (see on Acts 23:6–9; cf. on John 11:46).

3. Desired favour. They sought special consideration of the charges against Paul. They were among the great men of the nation; Paul was not. Their honor and integrity as leaders of the people were at stake in this matter. By their animosity toward Paul they had maneuvered themselves into a difficult position. It has been suggested that the “favour” (charis) the Jews sought might have been an official order transferring Paul to their jurisdiction.

Laying wait. The earlier plot against Paul (see on ch. 23:12–15) had not been abandoned. Jewish public opinion and common law approved of direct measures in dealing with persons supposed to be guilty of violating certain religious regulations (cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin 9. 6, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 542). Perhaps some members of the council had also bound themselves with an oath, as certain fanatics had done two years earlier.

4. Kept. That is, in custody. There Paul had been sent by Felix, there he was safely in Roman hands, and there he would remain because there was no good reason to move him elsewhere.

Shortly. That is, some 10 days later.

5. Able. Gr. dunatoi, literally, “mighty [ones],” “powerful [ones],” that is, men of authority, or men of ability, men qualified to represent the Jewish nation. The same word is translated “mighty” in Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; 1 Cor. 1:26; Rev. 6:15. They would be men of leadership and standing, probably members of the Sanhedrin.

Go down with me. The Jewish delegates should be men worthy to travel with the Roman governor. Festus was honoring these leading Jews and at the same time recognizing the importance of Paul’s case. The zeal of the Jewish leaders against Paul had not cooled perceptibly in the two years since his previous hearing (ch. 24:1, 27).

Any wickedness. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “anything improper,” “any impropriety,” “any wrong.” The word for “wickedness” is not in the Greek text, but apparently was inserted by the translators from the Latin Vulgate, which reads crimen.

6. More than ten days. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for reading “not more than eight or ten days.” This reading stresses the brevity of Festus’ stay in Jerusalem (v. 4) rather than its length. Doubtless many problems left from Felix’ administration were pressing for attention, and Festus could not be absent from the seat of government (see on v. 1).

The next day. Or, “on the morrow.” The Jews had apparently convinced Festus that the proper settlement of Paul’s case was of utmost importance to satisfactory relations between the Roman administrator of Palestine and the Jewish people.

On the judgment seat. The procedure was that of a formal trial.

7. Jews which came. Festus’ request for a delegation of able and influential men had been met (v. 5), and the Jewish leaders were on hand when Paul was summoned for the hearing.

Round about. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “round about him.” Some of those who brought complaints against Paul had doubtless known him as a bitter persecutor of Christians a quarter of a century before, and they hated him as a traitor to the Jewish nation.

Many and grievous complaints. During the two intervening years (ch. 24:27) the Jews had apparently been busy collecting all sorts of reports and rumors. Presumably they now had a far stronger case against him. It seems strange that a copy of this bill of particulars was not later transmitted to the Jews in Rome (see ch. 28:21).

Against Paul. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of this phrase.

Could not prove. It must have been apparent to Festus that the evidence for the case against Paul would not stand up in court (cf. ch. 24:13, 19; cf. on ch. 25:1). He was apparently no novice in such matters.

8. While he. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “while Paul.”

Answered. Literally, “made his defense.” Probably he did not answer in detail the trivial charges recited against him (v. 7), but only those that, if sustained, would be held against him even by a Roman court. These were his supposed desecration of the Temple and contempt for Jewish law, and his alleged participation in seditious riots. Rome took notice of such things, and Festus might be misled into thinking Paul guilty of insurrection against Roman authority. Luke reports Paul’s defense under these three heads.

Against the law. Perhaps the Jewish leaders knew of Paul’s teaching that circumcision was merely a symbolic act (see Rom. 2:23–29), and construed this as an attempt to break down the law. They had brought this charge against Jesus (see on Matt. 5:17; Mark 2:16; 7:1–5). The Jews never challenged Paul respecting the Sabbath as they had formerly challenged Jesus (John 5:16–18).

Against the temple. The old charge of bringing Gentiles into the Temple (ch. 21:27, 28) was probably reviewed during the course of the hearing.

Against Cжsar. If Paul had done nothing “against Caesar,” no Roman court would convict him. The superficiality of the accusations and the candor of Paul’s defense must have impressed Festus, an able and honest administrator (see Vol. V, p. 71).

9. A pleasure. Or, “a favor” (see on ch. 24:27). At first Festus had refused the Jews’ request that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (ch. 25:3, 4). Whether or not he had been influenced against Paul by the charges brought against him, he at least realized more than before the intensity of Jewish feeling against him. All that Festus could reasonably do to please the Jews would, of course, contribute to the success of his administration.

Wilt thou go? It was apparent that the charges against Paul were matters of Jewish, not Roman, law, and it therefore seemed reasonable to Festus to investigate the matter in Jerusalem, the Jewish metropolis.

Before me. The presence of Festus at the hearing was a guarantee that Paul would still be in Roman custody and under Roman protection. However, the Jewish leaders would be in charge of the judicial procedure, and Festus would be more in the role of an interested observer. He was not transferring Paul to Jewish jurisdiction, although the proposal implied a tentative willingness to make such a transfer. This proposal virtually declared Paul innocent of any offense “against Caesar.” Any charges possibly worthy of consideration had to do with Jewish law and custom. Though, as the representative of Rome, Festus had no further direct interest in the case, his desire to win the favor of the leaders of his new administrative district made him willing to comply with their desires as far as possible. Apparently the proposal was not based on the suspicion that Paul was actually guilty of any overt act or of any intention to commit such an act, but solely as a political expedient.

10. I stand. Literally, “I [have stood and] am standing.” From the first Paul had been detained by the Romans. He had been saved from a brutal flogging by virtue of the fact that he was a Roman citizen. Perhaps Paul had in mind the divine promise of ch. 23:11, though he gives no hint of it here. He had been held prisoner for two years by Romans acting under Caesar’s authority. Of this he reminds the Roman governor, and declines to stand trial before men whose complicity in a plot to assassinate him was already known (see chs. 23:12–15, 30; 25:2, 3).

Judgment seat. Or, “tribunal.” Paul preferred the comparative fairness of Roman law to the capricious animosity of his hotheaded countrymen, who knew no law but that of their own selfish, irresponsible prejudices.

Ought to be judged. That is, as a Roman citizen.

To the Jews. Paul summarily denied the whole gamut of charges preferred against him. No injury had come to Jewish persons, property, character, or religion because of him.

Thou very well knowest. Paul knows that Festus’ motive in the proposal of v. 9 was to conciliate the Jews.

11. For if. Literally, “if indeed then.” Paul has already denied any offense against the Jews, and by proposing to submit him to a Jewish trial Festus has implied that he is innocent with respect to Roman law. But if in spite of this there was any lingering suspicion that Paul was guilty of some crime, he chose to exercise his prerogative as a Roman citizen to be tried under Roman law.

I refuse not to die. Literally, “I do not plead to avert death.” Compare Josephus Life 29. Paul declares his willingness to face the results of a just trial, whatever the verdict might be.

Deliver. Gr. charizomai, “to do a favor,” “to gratify.” Paul was unwilling to be turned over to his accusers merely as a favor to them. He knew that Festus was trying to win the favor of the Jews. He refused to yield his rights as a Roman citizen merely to please his accusers and make it easier for them to achieve their evil designs on his life. He well knew that the Sanhedrin would accord him neither justice nor mercy.

I appeal unto Cжsar. Paul closes his appeal with another assertion of his rights (see on ch. 22:25–29). He is ready to risk what may be laid to his charge at Rome, and Caesar’s fairness in reaching a decision on the basis of the evidence. He had long purposed to visit Rome, though not in bonds (Rom. 1:9–12; 15:23, 24). The emperor was the final court of appeal from all subordinate tribunals throughout the empire.

Ever since his appointment as the apostle to the heathen, Paul had suffered and his ministry had been hindered by both Jews and Gentiles (see 2 Cor. 11:24–27). This opposition he willingly endured if by it the cause of Christ might be advanced (Acts 20:22–25; 2 Cor. 4:5–18; Gal. 6:14; Phil. 1:12). However, he had now been confined in Caesarea for two years, uncondemned and without the prospect of a new trial. Lysias (Acts 22:29), Felix (see on ch. 24:23–27), and Festus (see on ch. 25:8, 9, 25) had all concluded that he was innocent of any violation of Roman law. Felix had nevertheless detained Paul, for personal reasons and to please the Jews, and Festus now apparently proposed to continue the policy of conciliating the Jews at Paul’s expense. Thus, as long as Paul remained under the jurisdiction of the Roman procurator of Judea there appeared to be no prospect of acquittal and release, and it made little difference whether he was detained as a condemned prisoner or merely as a political pawn. Either way he was not free to preach the gospel, and to one for whom life held no other ambition or interest such a prospect must have seemed insufferable. Other ambassadors of the cross were no doubt finding their ministry hindered in similar ways.

In NT times Christianity did not enjoy the status of a recognized religion before Roman law, and the practice and promulgation of unrecognized religions was prohibited. Rome tolerated Christianity only because it was at first considered to be a sect of Judaism, which was recognized. By pressing the case against Paul and Christianity the Jews could eventually deprive them of even this benefit, and make their position legally untenable under Roman law. See pp. 47, 93.

It has been suggested that by appealing his case to Caesar, Paul purposed not only to secure a decision in his own case, which had come to a standstill, but also, perhaps, to secure at least a measure of recognition for Christianity as a legal religion in its own right. This might well be expected to afford the ambassadors of the cross greater freedom wherever they might go, and to overcome local opposition the more readily. Even while Paul was still in prison at Rome the very fact that he was not hindered from preaching the gospel in the imperial court, and that at least some “of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22) became Christians, had the effect of making other Christian workers “much more bold to speak the word without fear” (see Phil. 1:12–14). And when it should become known that the emperor had decreed the acquittal of the foremost of Christian evangelists, there would be greater freedom throughout the empire to proclaim the gospel. Paul’s acquittal at the hands of the emperor would thus constitute, or at least prepare the way for, official permission to preach the gospel.

12. Council. Gr. sumboulion, the procurator’s own “group of councilors.” Luke consistently uses the word sunedrion when speaking of the Jewish “council,” the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:21; 6:12; 22:30; 23:1; 24:20; etc.). The appeal to Caesar was not automatically granted, but consultation confirmed the fact that since Paul was a Roman citizen his appeal could not be denied.

13. Certain days. Clearly a brief period of time (see on ch. 9:19).

King Agrippa. That is, Herod Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I (whose death is described in ch. 12:20–23), and thus great-grandson of Herod the Great (see Vol. V, pp. 39, 69, 234). Like his sister Drusilla (see on ch. 24:24), this monarch was a Jew by virtue of descent from Herod the Great’s wife Mariamne. Agrippa II was considered too young to take the kingship of Palestine when his father died (a.d. 44; Josephus Antiquities xix. 9. 2), but upon the death of an uncle soon afterward, he was consoled with the rulership of Chalcis (ibid. xx. 5. 2). Later Agrippa received the provinces to the north, formerly under Philip and Lysanias (ibid. 7. 1), with the title of king. Still later Nero gave him certain other cities, In the Jewish war of a.d. 68–73 Agrippa sided with the Romans against the Jews, whom he tried to dissuade from rebellion (Josephus War ii. 16. 4 [345–401]). He retired to Rome, where he died in a.d. 100. Festus would naturally turn to Agrippa II for counsel concerning the handling of Paul’s case. Agrippa had custody of the Temple treasure and the privilege of appointing the high priest. He was therefore in a sense a religious colleague of the Roman governor, and in a position to give sound advice with respect to the case.

Bernice. Or, Berenice; the eldest daughter of Agrippa I, and a sister of Agrippa II and of Drusilla, wife of Felix. She had first been married to her uncle, Herod, king of Chalcis (see Vol. V, p. 40), whom Agrippa II had succeeded (see Vol. V, p. 234). Both Jewish and Roman writers speak of her relations with her brother Agrippa II as sinful. Later she married Polemo, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and went to Rome to be with her brother. She became the mistress of the emperor Titus, who grieved greatly when the Senate compelled him to dismiss her (Suetonius Titus vii. 2; Tacitus History ii. 81; Josephus Antiquities xx. 7. 3).

To salute Festus. This was the first courtesy visit of Agrippa II to the new procurator, for the purpose of welcoming him. Agrippa II was, of course, a vassal king of Rome.

14. Many days. Paul was brought before Agrippa and Berenice when their protracted stay gave opportunity for it. Festus mentioned Paul’s case, not so much as an item of business that was of mutual concern, but rather in the course of conversation.

15. Chief priests. See on v. 2.

Desiring to have judgment. See on vs. 1–3.

16. Deliver. Gr. charizomai (see on v. 11). A Roman official was not supposed to surrender an accused man to others for punishment, merely as a favor. However, that is precisely what Pilate had done with Christ. Festus’ record was more honorable (see Vol. V, p. 71).

To die. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words. The meaning is not altered.

Licence. Gr. topos, literally, “place,” meaning “opportunity,” not “license” in the sense of permission (see Rom. 15:23). Festus was determined to give Paul opportunity to make his defense.

17. Come hither. See on vs. 6, 7.

18. Things. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “evil things.”

19. Certain questions. That is, points of dispute, not inquiries to be raised and answered. See on vs. 7, 8.

Their own. This expression may also be translated “his own,” in which case it would refer to Paul.

Superstition. Gr. deisidaimonia, “reverence for the gods,” “religion,” and sometimes, though probably not here, “superstition,” unless reference is made to Paul’s religion. Festus could hardly have described Judaism as a “superstition,” without giving offense to Agrippa, himself nominally a Jew.

Jesus. This is the first recorded direct reference to Jesus in interviews with either Felix or Festus, but it would be incredible to think that His name had not been earlier mentioned. Paul had talked of the resurrection, of which Christ’s experience was the one great triumphant illustration, and had “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” (ch. 24:25). Paul could not thus have spoken without telling of the Christ. In naming Jesus, Festus reflects Paul’s witness to the Saviour.

20. I doubted. Festus confesses his ignorance of Jewish beliefs and customs. In Jerusalem, the headquarters of Judaism, it would presumably be easier to ascertain the facts of religious questions (see on v. 9). But Paul had refused to go to Jerusalem (see on v. 10). When Paul went to Rome it would be necessary for Festus to send with him a report on his case, and Agrippa, an informed Jew, could assist the procurator in knowing what to say. Also, this request to Agrippa carried with it an implied compliment that would be of value to Festus in future relations with Agrippa.

21. Reserved. Gr. teµreoµ (see ch. 24:23).

Hearing. Gr. diagnoµsis, literally, a “through-knowing,” indicates a thorough examination. It was probably a technical legal term. See on ch. 23:35.

Augustus. Gr. Sebastos, “worshipful,” “reverend,” “venerable,” equivalent to the Latin Augustus, “majestic,” “august,” “worthy of honor” (see Vol. V, pp. 37, 38; Vol. VI, p. 72). This was not Caesar Augustus, who ruled from 27 b.c. to a.d. 14 (see Vol. V, p. 234), but a title equivalent to Caesar. The Romans spoke of their ruler as Augustus, not as emperor.

Cжsar. The emperor at this time was Nero (a.d. 54–68). See pp. 81–84.

22. Would … hear. That is, was desiring to hear. Agrippa had evidently heard of Paul and was curious concerning him and his teachings. Compare the desire of Agrippa’s great-uncle, Herod Antipas, to see Jesus (Luke 23:8).

23. With great pomp. Perhaps to impress Festus and overawe Paul. Here was Paul’s first opportunity to testify to his faith before royalty (see ch. 9:15).

Place of hearing. Gr. akroateµrion, “audience chamber.” This was probably a large room set aside for special audiences of a more or less public nature.

Chief captains. See on ch. 22:24. Such was Lysias, who placed Paul under arrest. Festus now assembled the high officers of the garrison for this special audience, perhaps to lend color and importance to the occasion in honor of Agrippa.

Principal men. That is, the prominent men of Caesarea.

24. The multitude of the Jews. That is, the Jewish people as a nation, as represented, of course, by the chief priests and members of the Sanhedrin.

Dealt with me. Or, “made suit to me,” “petitioned me” “interceded with me” (see Rom. 8:27, 34; 11:2; Heb. 7:25).

Also here. The leaders of Jerusalem had obviously stirred up an anti-Paul party in Caesarea which had joined in urging the new governor to put Paul to death.

Crying. The pleas of the Jews for Paul to be killed were apparently vehement and vociferous (cf. ch. 22:22, 23).

25. Nothing worthy of death. See on v. 11. A Roman would consider outrageous the idea of putting a man to death for an offense against the Jewish religion. But Paul had appealed to Caesar, and Festus would welcome suggestions on preparing his report to the emperor.

Augustus. See on v. 21.

26. No certain thing. Festus knew so little of the Jewish religion that he felt at a loss to know how to present an informed indictment against Paul on a charge concerned exclusively with matters of the Jewish religion.

To write. Festus must send a bill of particulars to the imperial throne.

My lord. Gr. ho kurios, “the [or “my”] lord,” here the emperor, Nero. When used of the emperors as when applied to Christ this title bore an implication of divinity. Augustus had forbidden anyone to call him lord, as had his successor Tiberius (Suetonius Augustus iii. 53. 1; Tiberius xxvii), but their less modest successors accepted the title from friends and flatterers. Caligula styled himself dominus, the Latin equivalent of kurios, and Domitian adopted the title dominus deus, “lord god.” Pliny the Younger addressed his patron, the emperor Trajan, frequently as dominus. See pp. 61, 62.

Specially before thee. Festus was looking to Agrippa for special help in solving this difficult case. At the same time Agrippa would be pleased if his counsel should be held in esteem.

27. Unreasonable. Roman justice was fair in principle although the judges who administered it were too often venal. Festus was a man of some integrity (see on v. 1).

Ellen G. White comments

1–5AA 428

1–27AA 428–435

6–9AA 429

10–12AA 430

13–15AA 433

16 AA 428

18, 19, 22, 23, AA 434

24–27AA 435