Bible Commentaries
Acts 25

Verses 1-32

XXXI

PAUL AND FESTUS; FESTUS AND AGRIPPA; PAUL AND AGRIPPA

Acts 25-26.

Felix was superseded as procurator of Judea, and on departing he seeks to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound. He was superseded on account of the many complaints of his mal-administration sent to Rome by the dissatisfied Jews. Knowing that he would have to give an account of these matters when he got to Rome, he wanted to put the Jews under obligation to him by leaving Paul bound so as to modify their testimony against him when he was held to account.

We know but little about Festus beyond what our record tells us, but Josephus discusses him pretty freely, and gives him a good name as a conscientious ruler. Having been only three days at the political capital, Caesarea, he went to Jerusalem to spend ten days studying the situation, as a ruler ought to do, trying to get acquainted with the character of the people over whom he was to rule. In Acts 25:1-5; Acts 25:15-16, we have an account of a request preferred by Jewish officials to Festus concerning Paul, and the reply of Festus. These facts show three things:

1. That this was a great hazard to Paul, because, when a new procurator arrived, he would quite naturally wish to conciliate the people by granting their first request. To grant it meant death to Paul.

2. The fact that after Paul had been in prison for two years, this Jewish hate, unsleeping and unrelenting, showed itself Just as soon as a new procurator puts his foot in their capital, is a demonstration of its intensity.

3. The facts are very highly commendatory to Festus. The Jews requested first as a favor, as the Greek word says, that Festus send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried. Festus replied that it was not a Roman custom to grant as a favor that a man should be tried not according to law; that there must be an opportunity for the accused to face his accusers, and the evidence must be looked into, and inasmuch as Paul was already there in custody in Caesarea, instead of sending him to Jerusalem, the ones in authority in Jerusalem could come up to Caesarea to press their cage, and not try to get a change of venue. All that is very fine on the part of Festus. We now come to the

TRIAL BEFORE FESTUS

We find three accounts of this trial. The first is Luke’s own account, Acts 25:6-12; then the account given by Festus himself, Acts 25:13-21; and then the account of Paul, Acts 28:17-19. If we compare this trial with the previous one before Felix, we find that the only difference is that in this case the Jews have no orator, or lawyer, or at least there is nothing said about it. The charges are exactly the same. They fail in their proof, just as they did before. They convince Festus, Just as they had convinced Felix, that there was nothing in their accusations for the Roman court to take cognizance of.

The instant duty of Festus was to pronounce Paul acquitted and release him. But instead of doing his known duty, he makes a proposition to Paul. Commencing at Acts 25:9, we read: "But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?" It is a little difficult to know exactly what that proposition means. We may construe it. "Wilt thou consent to a change of venue, and let me try the case over again at Jerusalem?" or it may mean, "Are you willing, if I am present, to let this case be taken to Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin try you?" It may mean either one of those two things, and I think it means the latter. I judge so from Paul’s response.

This proposition was unfair, even if he meant that he would try the case, because it put the place of trial where animosity against the prisoner was such that his life would be in danger. Second, it was judicially unfair to seek to do this on account of the desire to please the Jews. Why should he please the Jews any more than he should Paul? What was a judge to do with things of that kind? Besides being unfair, it reversed his former decision. When the Jews asked originally that Paul be sent to Jerusalem for trial, he refused. Now in asking Paul if he was willing to go to Jerusalem to be retried, it reverses the other decision. Furthermore, he misrepresented his motive in making it. Luke says in Acts 25:9 that Festus made the proposition, desiring to please the Jews. Festus in telling about it, Acts 25:20, says: "And I, being perplexed how to enquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters." He gives as his motive that he had some doubt in his mind about the manner of his question, but Luke gives his motive as a desire to please the Jews.

This proposition meant great hazard to Paul. He knew the Jews. He knew, and Lysias knew, and Festus knew, because he had all the correspondence and testimony previously taken, that the sole object of the trial was to get an opportunity to assassinate Paul. Paul recognized this, and said to Festus, the judge, "You know that I am guilty of no offense," and now he saw that if Festus wavered, which he was doing, and sent him to Jerusalem, that meant death to him. How would he escape that? He escapes by an appeal to Caesar: "You tried this case; you admit there is nothing against me; now you propose to send me to Jerusalem to be tried over again; I appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen."

This proposition of Festus exhibits him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem. He stands so well in the first case, and everything he says is so much to the point and judicially fair! Now, evidently, he is learning something about the Jewish character, and the power of Jewish hate. He has seen that the Jews have brought about a recall of Felix, and his selfishness is appealed to: "Now, must I forget that I am a fair judge, and look at the case as it will likely affect me if I get these people mad?" That doesn’t present him to us as half the man that the other does. Thus we may account for his wavering – his selfishness for the fear that he might get himself into complications with the Jews.

Here I explain briefly the appeal to Caesar. When Rome was a republic it elected tribunes. These tribunes had the power at any time to arrest a case, or in court stop its proceedings without assigning a reason, and have it tried before them, and if the case had been tried and adjudicated, these tribunes had the power to reverse it. When Rome became an empire, the Emperor assumed all the functions of the tribunes. In other words, the Emperor had the power and the authority to stop the proceedings of any court in the empire, and he had the power of a petit court, and then he had the power to reverse any decision that had been rendered. An ordinary man that lived in the province, as the Jews, the Ephesians, or the Galatians, could not appeal to Caesar. What the proconsul, the procurator, or the propraetor did was final. But a Roman citizen living in any of these countries, just by simply saying, "I appeal to Caesar," could stop any case, anywhere. They could proceed no further after he made that appeal. There was not anything left for the Roman consul, or procurator, to do except just to say what Festus said: "Thou hast appealed unto Caesar; unto Caesar shalt thou go." There was only one exception. If the Roman citizen was a bandit or a pirate, and caught in the very act of robbery or piracy, he could not appeal to Caesar.

FESTUS AND AGRIPPA

The case, now being taken out of the hands of either the Sanhedrin or of Festus himself, all that this procurator could do was to send Paul by the first good opportunity to Rome, and to send all the papers in the case and refer it to Caesar. But an opportunity did not come every day for sailing ships, going in the right direction, and while they were waiting for a ship, Agrippa II, the king of Chalcis, and his sister Bernice, came to pay a complimentary visit to the new procurator, and it occurred to Festus to lay this case before Agrippa. He had this special object in view: Agrippa had great influence. Agrippa had charge of all the Temple officers, and power to appoint a high priest. He was the last king of any kind that the Jews had except the spiritual king, Jesus. Festus, having recognized the turbulent character of the Jews, if he could get a concurrence of judgment on this case from this king, himself a Jew, it would greatly disarm any opposition of the Jews on account of Paul.

Luke’s account gives a plain, straightforward statement of the case, commencing at Acts 25:13, and extending to Acts 25:22. Festus states the whole case to Agrippa, and when we look at the two, side by side, we discover that Festus’ statement of the case to Agrippa is much more complimentary to himself than Luke’s statement of the case. That little piece of human nature, to which I have already referred, comes in. Robert Burns says, and very much to the point, Och! Mankind is unco weak, But little to be trusted, If self the wavering balance touch, ’Tis rarely right adjusted.

In other words, "Let a fellow state his own case and he is a hero," "but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out." That is what the Bible says about it.

PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA

Let us look at the assembly described in Acts 25:23, and the great opportunities afforded to Paul. (See Conybeare and Howson, Vol. II, pp. 294-98, and Farrar in his Life of Paul.) That Acts 25:23 says, "So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains, and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in."

That was a very imposing assembly. King Agrippa and Bernice were out in full regal regalia. I suspect every woman that was permitted to be present went there largely to see how Bernice was dressed in her court dress, as much as to hear Paul’s case. All the chief captains of the Roman legion were there. The Roman cohorts – and that was a very imposing body of distinguished men that had been on a hundred battlefields – were there. They were the conquerors of a hundred countries. That word, "pomp," signifies a great deal. "Then came the chief men of the city," and it was a great city at that time. A very imposing assembly indeed, and here is a poor preacher that has an opportunity to speak before this grand audience. There are people before him that have never heard a sermon in their lives; some that knew him but little, if anything, about the religion that was dearer to him than life. But God’s providence had managed it so that he was thus to stand before kings and testify of the grace of God. We may live to a good old age without ever having such an opportunity. A schoolboy thinks it is a great thing if he is selected to deliver one of the commencement addresses, or represent his society in a debate, but this was a bigger thing than that.

Festus, in introducing the case, throws light on the requirements of the Roman law, and he certainly knew what to gay. Let us see how he introduces Paul. He is the master of ceremonies: "And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and as he himself appealed to the emperor, I determined to send him.. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord [calls Caesar, ’my lord’]. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him." That is a very admirable statement. The Roman law required that when a man was sent up to Rome on appeal, all the papers relating to the case should be sent, and all the testimony that had been taken, and a clear statement made by one who sent him as to what he was accused of. Now we come to:

PAUL’S DEFENSE

Here, as elsewhere, Paul arises to the greatness of the occasion. His speech has always been recognized as a classic. Many a time as a schoolboy I have spoken it. I know nothing in literature that I put ahead of it. It was just exactly the right thing to say under the circumstances. Some people lose their heads on great occasions; some, like a young hunter the first time he sees a deer, take what is called a "buck ague" or what young people claim to be "stage fright," or what some young bridegrooms know to be "marriage fright." I have stood up to marry men that were shaking so that the women had to hold them up. I never saw a woman lose her self-possession, but I have known men to be scared nearly into a fit. Paul exhibits the most marvelous self-possession and voices the clearest ideas – not a superfluous word. Let us analyze the address:

1. The exordium: "I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews." Festus was not. He was competent to try the legal questions in full, but he didn’t know anything about their customs, their laws, their traditions, and their fanaticism, but Agrippa did; he knew all about them. Paul said, "I count myself happy to have an opportunity to discuss it before a competent judge – one who is expert in the matters that are involved, and before a man who can detect any false statement in a moment." That is the exordium.

2. The next thing that he sets forth is that he himself is thoroughly well known to the whole Jewish people, and particularly this accusing crowd, for he was brought up at Jerusalem. They know all his manner of life; they know that according to the strictest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee. Agrippa could understand that! so he was not a stranger, with doubtful antecedents to be met. It was just about like trying George Washington at Mount Vernon.

3. Next he names, with unerring accuracy, the three real accusatives that they have against him:

(a) His first crime is that he is judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Of course, if the Sadducees were officials of the Sanhedrin, they would have their grievance against him. He had been going all over their country testifying to a case of the resurrection of the dead. Then he goes on to show that this doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as Agrippa is bound to know, was the thing toward which all Jews were looking, and was the end of all Israel worship. That was the great hope of the entire nation, and his first crime was, that he testified to the resurrection of the dead. Then he calls attention to the fact that the person who was risen from the dead, Jesus, was one whom he himself had exceedingly opposed. That he had not believed in him at all; that he had persecuted him; but that on the way to Damascus with authority, given him by the Jewish officials, that were here pressing the case, to persecute, he met Jesus who was risen, his resurrection proving his claims; that face to face he met him, and that his experience turned him from persecution to the preacher of that which he had persecuted.

(b) "And then when Jesus met me he commissioned me to preach to the Gentiles; that is my next offense, that I preached to the Gentiles. I did that under the commission of Jesus, to whose resurrection I bear witness."

(c) "Then my third offense is that I claim that this Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. My answer to that is that I have not said a thing more than the law and the prophets have said; that the Messiah would suffer and be put to death and rise again the third day, and that he would be a light to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews."

Did you ever see anything more clearly to the point? And those were the three crimes: (1) That he testified to the resurrection; (2) that he preached salvation to the Gentiles;

(3) that he claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Take those three things out of the way and there is no grievance against him, and yet in occupying that position he had the evidence of his own eyewitness and personal experience, for he saw the risen Lord, and he preached nothing more than the law and the prophets taught concerning the Messiah.

Right at that point (for here the address is properly ended), Festus interrupts: "Paul, Paul, you are mad; you study so much that you have lost your mind; talk about prophets and the law and a man risen from the dead!" With the utmost courtesy, giving Festus his legal title, he says, "I am not mad, Most Excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. King Agrippa, you know it. These things were not done in a corner; it is not some magical sleight-ofhand, in a dark room, with only a few people present; these things all took place in broad daylight before ten thousand witnesses, and Agrippa knows, everybody knows, the things to be true. It is not madness with me, it is soberness." Then he whirls upon King Agrippa, saying, "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest."

Then followed Agrippa’s words (A. V.), "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." As some people render it, he spoke ironically, "Would thou with a few words attempt to make me a Christian?" and that closed the incident. The effect on Festus was that Paul was a sincere enthusiast; that his mind was unbalanced by hard study. How may we account for the impression? It is the impression made upon worldly men, who witness any great enthusiasm of God’s people, just as the reception of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was construed to be intoxication. As Paul says, the natural man discerneth not the things of God; they are of spiritual discernment. Thus Paul himself says that a man may come into the assembly, and conclude from the way they are going on that they are crazy. That is the way the Athenians looked at it when Paul got up and talked about the resurrection of the dead at Athens.

Before we can determine what the effect on Agrippa was we have to know what Agrippa meant by what he said. Great hosts of people, and particularly radical higher critics, and the great modern scholars, say that Agrippa spoke ironically. Conybeare and Howson take this stand. So does Farrar. So does Meyer in his Greek Commentary, and an abundance of others. I don’t believe that. I do not agree with them for two reasons. We cannot understand Paul’s reply if that is what he meant. Paul responds, "I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." He knew what Agrippa meant, and you cannot fit that reply of Paul’s into this finical interpretation of the critics, and so I do not accept that rendering of it. My second reason is that Agrippa showed that the arrow had hit him. He stopped the proceedings right then and there, and got up and left. When you shoot a deer, as I have done many a time, the deer that is hit will separate from the crowd at once. If he is hit hard he will separate from the crowd and go off into the thicket, and that is exactly what Agrippa did, he took his sister and left. And so I think the effect on Agrippa was this: He looked in the face of that calm, noble, Spirit-guided man, knowing the facts of the history thoroughly, heard him tell about that Christian experience, and thought in his royal heart with regard to Paul, "Isn’t it the greatest thing in the world to be a Christian?" And I think he ran to get rid of his impression.

There are certain great texts in his address. One is this: "Why should it be though a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" It would be incredible if some man was going to raise the dead, but why should it be thought a thing unbelievable if God should raise the dead. This is no harder to do than to create a man out of nothing. What is a miracle to God? I have preached on that many a time. God is the explanation of the miracle, of the universe, and of regeneration. A second great text is, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Many a time have I preached from that, as has nearly every other preacher, and he has my permission to go on preaching it in the way that common minds will clearly understand it. I do not care who may differ with me in this interpretation of it. Those King James revisers were great scholars, and far more orthodox than some of the later ones. Another great subject is, "What is madness to the world is truth and soberness if we only consider it from the right point of view."

A great hymn suggested by it is, "Almost Persuaded." I have seen Major W. E. Penn stand up before an audience of three thousand people and with a mighty choir standing before him, sing, "Almost persuaded – Almost, but lost!"

Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Acts 26:29) places him far above his judges and auditors: "I would to God that . . . not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds," and he holds up his chains. In other words, "I do not want them to have any of my sufferings, but I would that every one were not only close to the line but would step over the line this day." I heard a great Washington preacher preach on that text in Waco and his theme was "Paul’s Benevolence." He wanted to see people altogether such as he was, but not to have the troubles that were his. But Agrippa closed the hearing right at this point because it got too hot for him – too personal. Yet both Agrippa and Festus solemnly decided that there was not a thing in those accusations against Paul, and he might be set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar.

There is a subsequent value to Paul in this verdict. The value is this, that when Festus sent the account and wrote what the charges were, he put in such a favorable commendation of Paul that when he got to Rome he was not subject to harsh imprisonment. He had an opportunity to preach; and the value of it is seen in that he had friends visiting him continuously, and when he was tried he was acquitted.

There is an eternal remembrance lingering in the minds of Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice. They are all now in their eternal home. Memory is a wonderful thing, as Abraham said to the rich man in hell. A remembrance for those three is that marvelous day at Caesarea, when that noble sufferer, that great preacher, stood before them, and tried to entice them across the line of salvation with the power of his life and his benevolence. Just here let us compare, "Felix trembled," "Agrippa almost persuaded," Luke 10:11: "that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you," and Mark 12:34: "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." From these four scriptures the conclusion is that a man may be pierced with remorse and tremble at the shadows of a coming hell; that a man may be almost persuaded to be a Christian; that a man may see salvation come right up to his very door; that a man may be nigh unto the kingdom of God, and yet be lost.

Upon this point I give some quotations bearing on the value of one’s opportunity, and the danger of its neglect. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar (Act IV, Scene 3), uses this language: There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows, and in miseries.

Then there is this quotation from Lowell’s book of the Crisis: Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with falsehood, For the good or evil side.

It came to these men that day; they had the opportunity in their time to decide for good or evil. There was a tide that day in their lives. If they had taken that tide at its flood that day – at its highest point, its crest – their lives would have ended in salvation, but omitted, all the voyage of their lives was bound in shallows and in miseries.

QUESTIONS

1. What the scripture and the themes of this chapter?

2. Why was Felix superseded as procurator of Judea, and why, on departing, does he seek to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound?

3. What do we know of Festus, his successor?

4. How does Festus commence his administration?

5. What request concerning Paul was made by Jewish officials to Festus?

6. Why was this a great hazard to Paul?

7. How does it exhibit the Jewish hatred of Paul?

8. How does the reply of Festus commend him?

9. How many and what accounts do we have of this trial?

10. Compare this trial with the previous one before Felix.

11. What then the instant duty of Featus?

12. Instead of doing his known duty, what proposition does he make to Paul, and what the exact force of it?

13. What the judicial unfairness of this proposition?

14. How does it reverse his former decision?

15. How does he misrepesent his motive in making it?

16. What the great hazard to Paul, what his recognition of it, and his method of escape?

17. How does this proposition of Festus exhibit him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem?

18. How may we account for his wavering?

19. Explain the appeal to Caesar.

20. In sending Paul to Caesar, what must the procurator send with him, and what their facility of travel at this time from Caeaarea to Rome?

21. Why does Festus relate Paul’s case to Agrippa and permit Paul to speak before him?

22. Compare the Festus statement of the case to Agrippa with Luke’s account of the same matter, and tell what you discover.

23, What does Robert Burns say very much to the point?

24. Was this a judicial investigation before Agrippa, and why?

25. Of what prophecy was it in part a fulfilment?

26. What may we say of the assembly described in verse 23, and the great opportunities afforded Paul?

27. How does Festus introduce the case, and what light does his introduction throw on the requirements of the Roman law?

28. Does Paul rise to the greatness of the occasion? If so, how?

29. What is Paul’s exordium, and what was his purpose in it?

30. How does Paul appeal to Agrippa in this speech?

31. What were the three accusations against him, and how did he answer them?

32. What was the effect on Festus, and how may we account for it?

33. What the effect on Agrippa, and what the exact force of the authorized version of Acts 26:28?

34. What great texts in his address, and what uses made of them?

35. What great hymn suggested by Agrippa’s answer to Paul?

36. How does Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Acts 26:29) place him far above his judges and auditors?

37. Why did Agrippa close the hearing right at this point?

38. What was the verdict?

39. What subsequent value to Paul in this verdict?

40. What eternal remembrance must linger in the minds of Festus, Agrippa and Bernice?

41. Comparing the case of Felix, the case of Agrippa, Luke 10:11; Mark 12:34, what may we conclude?

42. What quotations cited bearing on the value of one’s opportunity and the danger of its neglect?