Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 25

Luke parallels Paul's trials with those of Jesus: both appear before a crowd, the Sanhedrin, a Roman governor (twice), a Jewish Herodian king.
Luke's account based on solid historical foundation of Paul's request to be heard in Rome and Festus' acceptance of this. Difficult to know how much of the details of the trials before Festus and Agrippa are based on fact, and there are several implausibilities: eg absence of the governor's verdict, especially in view of the charge of crime against Caesar; the governor's apparent willingness to consider handing over jurisdiction to the Jews (?). Possible that Paul's appeal was actually against an unfavourable verdict, but Luke prefers to keep Roman officialdom on Paul's side, leaving the appeal and its acceptance without apparent plausible motivation.
These two scenes appear to add little apart from repeating Paul's innocence. But they lead to a final conclusive statement of innocence by Agrippa (26:31-32), and Festus' motivation in involving Agrippa seems to be to help in writing the charge-sheet for Rome. It also shows that Paul fulfilled the missionary's charter proclaimed by Jesus that "they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name” (Lk 21:12).
Finally - with chap 26 - they consolidate Luke's work of showing how the church fulfills God's purpose for Israel, even though many Jews rejected the Gospel (see below: v 26).
1 Festus the new Governor needs to meet the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Would a stronger man have invited them to meet him in Caesarea first, before going "down" to Jerusalem? The visit does enable him to be briefed on all pending matters, including Paul. Festus appears to have been an excellent governor, but sadly died after only 2 years in office.
2 With the new Governor the chief priests renew their attempts to kill Paul. Even after 2 years, their animosity has not subsided.
3 Seek Paul's transfer "as a favour". Again planning to by-pass the law. They hope the new governor will innocently agree to their request. They may also feel that the charges taken to Rome by the Jews against the previous - now ex-governor may weaken Festus' position. This time the Chief Priests instigate the assassination plot directly, and now there is no informant to expose the plot. The chance of a fair hearing in Jerusalem is clearly low.
5 Festus refuses to take the risk and insists that the trial be at Caesarea. This early in his tenure ne needs to show who is master, and insist the trial is on his own turf. The grammar suggests he is reopening the whole case entirely.
7 This time the charges are referred to in summary only. Summary indicates nothing new added.
8 In addition to denying any wrong-doing against Jewish law or against the temple, Paul adds another dimension by denying he has done anything against Roman law, thus finally rebutting the allegation by Tertullus of being "a pernicious agitator of Jews throughout the empire" (24:5). But this is the first time the Emperor - and hence Roman law - has been mentioned since the accusation by Jews from elsewhere (17:7). Leading an uprising (24:11-12) would be classified as a crime against the emperor's person, for which remand to a Jewish tribunal would be unthinkable.
9 Like Felix, Festus also tries to use Paul to gain the favour of the Jews, by inviting Paul to agree to go to Jerusalem - perhaps a polite way of informing Paul of a decision Festus has already taken? Perhaps reasonable for Festus to use the Sanhedrin as a consilium to give him expert advice, and this may be the sense in which he proposes to send Paul to Jerusalem. Paul is not being handed over - he will still be on trial before Festus, although this procedure is just as unlikely as before (22:30-23:10).
10 Sensing the dangers of not getting a fair trial in the heated atmosphere of Jerusalem, and of being handed over to the Jews (25:11), Paul not unreasonably says he has committed no crime against the Jews, and sets the stage for his appeal to Rome by pointing out that he is now standing before the tribunal of Caesar.
11 Denies now that the Sanhedrin has any right to try him, or that the Romans are justified in handing him over. Paul's position is now precarious - one favour has already ben given to the Jews by Felix - another would place him in great danger. So finally - and perhaps desperately - as only a Roman citizen can, Paul appeals to Caesar - Nero (54-68) at this time - where he can hope for a fairer trial than before either the Jews or before this appeasing local governor. Strictly not an appeal, since he has not been found guilty, but in a sense against Festus' apparent intention to hear the case in Jerusalem - ie a provocatio, insisting that the case be heard by a higher court. Festus may not have been obliged to accede to Paul's request, but it does get him off the hook. Refusing to transfer Paul to Rome has political risk of being seen as insult to Caesar, and setting Paul free would be taken as an insult by the Jews. Agreeing to a transfer breaks the deadlock between Roman protective custody and the Jews' plan to kill him. Festus has little choice but to agree to send Paul to Rome, about 1800 miles away. The focus is on God using these injustices to get Paul to Rome. St Bede: "He appeals to Caesar and hastens to Rome to persist still longer in preaching, and thereby go to Christ crowned with the many who thereby will come to believe, as well as those who already believe through him". Paul does not seek to escape death, but his sense of justice obliges him to ask that his actions be judged fairly against the law. We see God's work in moving Paul to Rome where he can give the Jews a last chance to accept that Jesus is the expected Messiah. Paul is not afraid to die, but his sense of justice makes him ask to be tried fairly. Seeking justice may be a valid reason for not meekly turning the other cheek. Luke wants us to see Paul's appeal not as cowardice but as a way of fulfilling the Lord's commission to witness in Rome (23:11).
12 A dramatically clear decision - but Festus appears to have some worries.... - especially about what charges to write! Festus appears to have heard the case fairly. What standards do we expect of civil office-holders and political leaders? Higher than for ourselves?
13 Four Herods in NT: Herod the Great (Matt 2; Lk 1:5); Herod the Tetrarch = Herod Antipas, who killed J Baptist and in Jesus' Passion (Lk 23); Herod Agrippa I, who killed James (Acts 12); Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I, Paul's judge (Acts 25-26). Bernice is his sister. Agrippa II was a petty ruler over small areas in northern Palestine & Perea: his influence over Jews was insignificant.
14 Festus takes the opportunity of passing Paul to Agrippa, just as Jesus was passed by Pilate to Herod (Lk 23:7) - in this case Festus seeks legitimation for his actions by showing how correctly he has dealt with Paul. Interesting discussion between two wordly men not interested in the religious details, but only in the legal proprieties. Also shows that during his trial before Festus Paul must have spoken about Jesus and the Resurrection. In his account to Agrippa Festus introduces several new pieces of information, as well as self-interested slants.
15 Festus shows how he conducted a fair trial, according to proper roman legal procedure, in spite of the Jews' requests to condemn Paul. Festus now says that the Jews requested condemnation of Paul, although in v25.3 they requested only that Paul be sent to Jerusalem - we are reading a brief summary of events, slanted - of course - to put Festus in a favourable light.
16 Festus is seeking Agrippa's support that he has followed procedures correctly and fairly. One of the most fundamental principles of Roman - and our - law: that an accused cannot be found guilty "before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge".
17 Festus claims to have got the trial under way the day after the Jews arrived in Caesarea - contrasts with Felix's dilatory treatment: Festus introduced Paul as "a man left in prison" - by Felix (25:14, 24:25-27).
18 Festus summarises the charges against Paul, saying there was nothing against Roman law or disruption of Pax Romana, but only Jewish internal religious issues.
19 Festus considers the charges to be solely intra-Jewish squabbles, and for the first time states the one issue of consequence to be about "a Jesus who had died but who Paul claimed was alive", although his words show he is indifferent about these arguments. The first time Jesus' resurrection is mentioned as part of the dispute - and by a Roman, who does not seem perturbed about it. Paul has achieved his aim of making his claim of the resurrection of Jesus the central/only issue. Stating the issue in terms of resurrection of an identified person, Jesus, is more suited to Roman ears that the reference to the general resurrection of the dead appropriate for Jews. Festus does not understand the arguments about Jesus, but remains convinced that Paul has done nothing criminal meriting death (25:25). Are Christians blasé about the resurrection of Jesus? Why is Jesus' resurrection important? What evidence is there for it?
20 To Agrippa Festus attributes his proposal to invite Paul to go to Jerusalem - and hence his intention to abdicate from making a decision - to his lack of understanding of Jewish affairs, rather than his wish to curry favour with the Jews (25:9). Festus portrays himself as only seeking a fair trial. Doubtful if Agrippa taken in. Probable that Paul would still be being tried by Festus, subject to the whims of Judean politics, with the Jews as witnesses. Festus admits his ignorance - are we ready to say "I don't know" when we don't? Festus seeks counsel from Agrippa. Who can/do we seek advice from? Do we listen to it?
22 Cf similar request by Agrippa's great uncle Herod Antipas (Lk 9:9, 23:8).
23 Festus arranges a marvellous opportunity for Paul, with all the local dignitaries processing in, with their fine clothes, to hear Paul. Paul appears to be expected to provide entertainment for this grand occasion - and he makes the most of the opportunity. Did Paul feel out of place in such an assembly, after his years in prison? Would we have kept our dignity and command, as Paul did? Do we - at work, at home?
24 A remarkably frank speech from the new governor! Not afraid to ask for help. "The whole assembly of the Jews" probably refers only to the legal assembly, as Luke normally distinguishes the Jewish leadership from the whole population.
25 As with Jesus before Pilate (Lk 23:15,22), the Roman judges repeatedly declare Jesus innocent.
26 Festus' motivation for involving Agrippa is at last revealed. But nothing has been added for him to write. Luke's real objective in these 2 chapters is to finish his answer to the question of the gospel's relation to Judaism (26:2-3), ie the identity crisis in Luke's constituency arising from the persistent rejection of the Gospel by Jewish audiences and the gradual alienation of a predominantly Gentile Christendom from the biblical people of promise. Luke was concerned not to explain why the Jews failed to embrace the Gospel, but to counter the real theological difficulty this failure presents to Christians. How can non-Jews find value in something which has its roots in Judaism but which most Jews repudiated? Luke's response is to establish an historical bond between (i) Israel and Jesus - the Gospel, and (ii) Jesus and the Church - Acts, and so demonstrate the full scope of the divine plan in which the church of the present proves to be the proper destination of God's way with Israel (Cf 15:14-21).