1 And after five days Ananias, the high priest, descended with the elders, and with a certain orator, named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. 2 And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy provision (providence), 3 we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
1 - 3 Ananias continued to "dog" Paul's trail showing his bloodthirsty persistence, and in just five days he and the elders arrived in Caesarea to stop Paul once and for all. They had traveled all the way from Jerusalem to make an attempt to indict Paul. They brought along a silvery-tongued orator (rhetoros) or advocate by the name of Tertullus to bolster their case against Paul. Tertullus was a forensic lawyer familiar with Roman legal procedure, and he was hired by Ananias and the elders to plead their case against Paul. If he were, as some surmise, of the Dispersion he probably could speak Latin. "It is not certain that 'the proceedings before Felix were conducted in Latin. In ancient times the Romans had attempted to enforce the use of Latin in all law-courts, but the experiment failed. Under the emperors trials were permitted in Greek, even in Rome itself, as well in the senate as in the forum; and it is unlikely that greater strictness should have been observed in a distant province'" (Goodwin, p. 130).
Paul was then given a summon to the courtroom. Tertullus began his oration with what was called captatio benevolentiae, that is, an endeavor to capture the judge's good will. Traditionally, it was complimentary to the point of hypocrisy and often included a promise of brevity, but on this occasion it descended to 'almost nauseating flattery' (Stott, p. 359). As he flattered Governor Felix he did so by praising him for the peace they enjoyed; however, the tenure of Felix beginning in A. D. 52 could not be characterized by lasting peace. He proceeded further by telling the governor that his worthy deeds (diorthomaton) or his ability to set everything right and the providence (pronoias) or forethought are commendable. Diorthoma is a word which occurs in Aristotle's writing concerning the setting right broken limbs or reform in law and life. Tertullus let Felix know that he was thankful (eucharistias) or appreciative of what he had done under his rule of government. Yeager says, "Tertullus's opening remarks are pure 'eyewash' - the palaver of a lawyer who knows that he has no case and proceeds to insult the intelligence of the court...Tertullus was a typical insincere 'corn field' lawyer, who had no case and knew it, and was therefore, trying to brainwash the court" (XI, pp. 4, 5). Kistemaker says, "Luke gives the reader a sample of the exaggerated praise Tertullus showered on the governor. The three qualifiers sincere, every way, and everywhere heighten the effect. Tertullus's praise is undeserved; although the epithet most excellent is a title of respect, history shows that Felix did nothing to earn it" (pp, 835, 836). Felix was better known for his ferocity, cruelty and greed.
4 Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I beseech thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. 5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes, 6 who also hath gone about to profane the temple; whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
4 - 6 Tertullus appeals to Felix's patience, and by his own admission has little to say. Bruce says, "It was...customary to promise brevity, as Tertullus does here (v. 4), the promise was sometimes kept, sometimes not, but it was calculated to secure good will from the speaker at the outset of his speech" (p. 464). He accused Paul of (1) being a pest (loimon) or a "trouble maker;" (2) a mover (kinonta) of sedition or insurrection; he accused Paul of being a ring leader (protostaten) or champion of the Nazarene sect (party, or school), and (3) of sacrilege; that is, profaning or desecrating the holy temple. With regard to the third charge, the Sanhedrin's case was that they had prevented him from carrying out his plan (that of bringing Trophumus of Ephesus into the temple); this charge is the most serious one, yet it was unfounded. Paul had been falsely accused of some of these charges before (Acts 21:29). Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer (Robertson, III, p. 414). Should such a charge be made to stick for Paul, the whole Christian community would be viewed as a dangerous, revolutionary movement.
Fortunately, Tertullus could not substantiate the charges, and Felix was already too informed about Christians to take it seriously (Polhill, p. 480). To call Paul a Nazarene was contemptuous. He didn't have enough respect to call Paul a Christian, as the followers of Jesus were called in Antioch. He further charged Paul with profaning the temple, and that he should be judged according to the Jewish law. Tertullus was using the same old story; they thought Paul had brought a Gentile into the temple, but they had no proof. Does Paul sound like an insurrectionist or a transgressor of the Roman law? "He was plotted against at Damascus and in Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonicia, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, caused a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem" (Robertson, III, p. 414). Let the reader by the judge! "Luke reports the grammatical errors of this orator (Tertullus) with journalistic accuracy. He wants to demonstrate that the orator is unable to convince the court" (Kistemaker, pp. 836, 837).
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, 8 commanding his accusers to come unto thee; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, of which we accuse him. 9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.
7 - 9 Tertullus praises Lysias for his ability to keep things under control. He was the one who took Paul out of Jewish hands before they slew him. He is representing the accusers who did not take the time to come to Caesarea, and he wanted a conviction. Thomas calls Tertullus's appearance before Felix, "a picture of barristerial depravity...this piece of history presents to us a picture of a corrupt barrister...he sold his services to the cause of the strong against the weak, of the wrong against the right. The English courts exhibit something analogous to this sometimes. There are eminent members of the bar, some of whom are wonderfully pious in public meetings, whose services in a bad cause can be easily secured by a handsome fee. In his advocacy we discover base flattery, flagrant falsehood, and suppressed truth. The man who suppresses a truth when its declaration is demanded by the nature of the case is guilty of falsehood, is a deceiver" (B. I., XXXIX, p. 267).
10 - 13 When Tertullus had finished with his harangue, Paul was given permission to speak. He appealed to Felix's judgeship of many years; in fact, Felix had been in contact with the Jewish nation in Palestine for over a decade, first in Samaria and then as governor over the entire province of Judaea. Paul confronted Felix cheerfully (euthumos) or more cheerfully; Paul can give a logical explanation of the things about himself. His masterful defense calmly and categorically refuted the charges one by one. He welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight. Unlike Tertullus Paul did not fawn Felix nor did he stretch the truth. Paul stated that he was in Jerusalem to worship (over Pentecost); he did not dispute (dialegomenon) or argue with anyone, nor did he raise (epistasin) or incite the people to mob violence in the temple, the synagogues or in the city. He disagreed with the defendant that he was disrupting any one or any thing while in Jerusalem. The things of which Paul was accused, he says cannot be proven. Paul challenged Tertullus to produce the evidence of his accusations. "The best mode of reckoning the twelve days (mentioned in verse 11) is the following: first, the day of arrival at Jerusalem (21:17); second, the interview with James (21:18); third, the assumption of the vow (21:26); fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, the vow continued, which was to have been kept seven days (being interrupted on the fifth); eighth, Paul before the Sanhedrin (22:30; 23:1 - 10); ninth, the plot of the Jews and the journey by night to Antipatris (23:12, 31); tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth, the days at Caesarea (24:1), on the last of which the trial was then taking place. The number of complete days, therefore, would be twelve, the day in progress at the time of speaking not being counted" (Hackett, p. 272).
14 But this I confess unto thee that, after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets; 15 and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. 16 And in this do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.
14 - 16 Paul did confess that he is a follower of the Way or Christianity which some called heresy; Christianity is a way of life that accords with the law of God (Matthew 5:17). "The early Christians insisted that their interpretation of the Old Testament was the true one and that the perversion of the law and the prophets was found in the ritualistic legalism of Judaism which rejected Jesus as Messiah...Now he says that he is preaching and practicing what he formerly persecuted. But Paul, the Christian, unlike Saul, the Pharisee, though now he calls Judaism a perversion, does not persecute the Jews as he once persecuted the Christians...Each (the defendant and the plaintiff in the case) professes faith in the statutes of Moses and the testimony of the Old Testament prophets. Each professes to entertain hope that the God of the Old Testament will bring to resurrection the entire human family. But Paul believed as do all Christians that the law of Moses and the prophecies of the Prophets found their fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus, the Nazarene" (Yeager, XI, p. 15 - 17). He worshiped Jehovah God of his fathers; he believed all that is written in the law and the prophets like any good Jew. Furthermore, his hope was in the resurrection which will occur at some future time of both the just and the unjust. Paul wrote to Titus (2:13) later, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ..." His conscience was clear and he disciplined himself or exercised (asko) self-control in such a way that he was devoid of offense (aproskopon) or inoffensive toward God or his fellowman at all times (dia pontos). Furneaux thinks that it must have been wormwood and gall to Ananais to hear Paul repeat here the same words because of which he had ordered Paul to be smitten on the mouth (Acts 23:1,2)" (Robertson, III, p. 418).
17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. 18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult; 19 who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had anything against me. 20 Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, 21 except it be for this one thing that I cried standing among them, concerning the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.
17 - 21 Paul stated that he and his company brought alms and offerings from Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece to Jerusalem (to his fellow Jews - the poor saints). Certain Asiatic Jews found him purified in the temple; he had caused no gathering of a multitude nor was he guilty of a tumult (thorubou) or uproar (Acts 21:17 - 27). The prosecution should have been present if they had ought to say against Paul. Paul countered the charge that he had profaned the temple. He had also answered the charge of sedition (verse 5). He had assembled no audience, nor did he engage in a harangue, and there was no riot (Yeager, XI, pp. 19, 20). Yeager's translation of verse 19 reads thus, ""But certain Jews from Asia (who) should have been here before you, and have brought charges, if they had had anything against me" (Op cit., p. 21). He was willing to stand before the council if he were guilty of anything that has been charged against him. The only true charge was that he taught a resurrection of the dead; he is ready to face that charge and to die for it. Paul had been guilty of no crime at all.
22, 23 Luke states that Felix adjourned (anabaleto) or deferred the proceedings, meaning that he refused to pass judgment until he had gathered further evidence. Felix knew about Christianity and although he did not understand Christian theology perfectly, but probably better than one might expect, he may have wanted to know more about it. Yeager says, "Felix, with some knowledge of the issues expressed a desire to know the issues perfectly...The governor seems, on the surface, to have been kindly disposed toward Paul, partly because of his sense of Roman justice. There was no doubt that Paul had won the legal battle in his court...(Felix's) wife was Jewish and it is possible that there had been discussion with her about the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity vis a vis the Roman paganism" (XI, p. 25). He also knew that the Jews had no legal charge against Paul. He made an excuse - when Lysias, the chief captain came down to Caesarea, he would hear from Paul further.
So he commanded the centurion to place Paul under house arrest but giving him certain liberties (anesin) or easement; he must have been released from the tensions that had hounded him earlier. Paul was to be guarded perhaps to prevent the Jews from kidnaping and murdering him and was made as comfortable as possible. He further granted Paul the privilege of having guests who might minister to him, providing him food, drink and other commodities to make his life comfortable. Luke, Aristarchus and Trophimus were doubtless available; Philip, the evangelist, probably still lived in Caesarea. "But Paul did more than receive visitors. For example, his conversations with soldiers who guarded him undoubtedly were evangelistic in nature. We expect that a number of these soldiers became believers; when they were transferred to other parts of the Roman empire, they would spread the knowledge of Jesus far and wide" (Kistemaker, p. 850).
24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife, Drusilla, who was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, self-control (temperance), and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
24, 25 After some days, Drusilla, the wife of Felix and the daughter of Agrippa I, wanted to hear from Paul. Drusilla was one of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa I. Her father murdered James, her great-uncle Herod Antipas slew John the Baptist, her great-grandfather, Herod the Great killed the boy babies in Bethlehem, so she came from cruel stock (Robertson, III, p. 422). So Felix sent for Paul, probably to please Drusilla. He wanted to know more about the Christian faith, so Paul discussed thoroughly (dialegomenou) or reasoned with them about righteousness (egkrateias), self-control (egkrateias) or temperance and judgment (krimatos) or condemnation. Felix must have been convicted, for he trembled (emphobos) or was seized with fear, and he dismissed Paul with the excuse that he would call for him at a later date, when it was more convenient or at another opportunity. Procrastination is a tool of Satan; Felix stalled for time.
"To-morrow and to-morrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death."
"Procrastination is the thief of time.
Year after year it steals till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves
The vast concerns of an eternal time."
Bruce says (p. 473), "Paul's distinguished hearers had probably never listened to such pointed and practical teaching in their lives as when he talked to them about 'righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come' - the three subjects which that couple specially needed to learn about!" These three topics of conversation were what are sometimes called the 'three tenses of salvation,' namely how to be justified or pronounced righteous by God, how to overcome temptation and gain self-mastery, and how to escape the awful final judgment of God (Stott, p. 364). Paul's discussion with Felix and Drusilla consisted first of all was righteousness; that is, God's ideal for man. This word carries with it the state of being declared righteous or right before God's moral universal law. Felix was acquainted with Roman justice, but knew nothing about a moral God requiring righteous worshipers. Paul must have taught them about knowing right from wrong. "Righteousness springs from that great law of right which pervaded all the relations of man to his Maker and to his fellow-man...God has certain rights in us which we are bound to respect, and these arise out of the nature of our relations with Him. We are taught that of Him, and by Him, and for Him are all things" (W. H. Aitken, B. I. XXXIX, p. 304).
The second subject was temperance or self-control; that is God's requirement for man. Another name for temperance is moderation. Paul must have taught Felix and Drusilla about the virtues of self-control. "As righteousness has to do with the rights which others have in us, so temperance leads us to consider the rights which we have in ourselves. The word conveys the idea of self-mastery---capacity to govern oneself in accordance with the dictates of sound reason...There are within our complex nature certain elements which are obviously designed to be supreme, while there are others that are intended to be subject to control (W. H. Aitken, B. I. XXXIX, p. 305).
The third subject was judgment; that is, God's assessment of man. Judgment is certain; there will come a day when all of God's creation will stand before Him, the Righteous Judge, in judgment. All must give an account to Jehovah God for his state and actions. Paul must have taught the couple about an unavoidable day of judgment. "(Judgment to come) may be regarded as a corollary to a belief in the existence of God Himself. If there be a Moral Governor of the universe, we cannot do otherwise than conclude that there is a judgment to come. (In life) there is a very obvious inequality in the way in which punishments are meted out to transgressors in this life" (W. H. Aitken, B. I. XXXIX, p. 307). Ultimately Jehovah God will set all things straight because He is the only One qualified to mete out just judgment.
Of course Felix hoped to receive money or a bribe from Paul, but no money was forthcoming, and Paul languished under house arrest. So Felix called for Paul periodically and communed with his frequently. "More frequently than would have been Felix's policy if the governor had known that Paul had assurances from the Lord that 'all things' - even house arrest in Caesarea, 'work together for good to those who love the Lord and are the called according to His purpose' (Romans 8:28). With assurance like that a bribe was not only unspeakable but unnecessary" (Yeager, XI, p. 30).
26 He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him; wherefore, he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. 27 But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix's place (room); and Felix, willing to show the Jews a favor (pleasure), left Paul bound.
26, 27 "In spite of stern and reiterated edicts prohibiting bribery, the wheels of Roman law in those days ran more smoothly and rapidly if they were judiciously greased; and provincial governors were deplorably venal" (Bruce, p. 473). Josephus portrays Felix as a money grabber either by hook or crook. With no money forthcoming Paul remained under house arrest. After two years Porcius Festus succeeded (diadochon) Felix around A. D. 60, but Felix seeking favor from the Jews left Paul imprisoned. "But God, who makes the wrath of men praise Him (Psalm 76:10) and Who laughs at His opposition (Psalm 2:4) was sovereign over Paul's life and had been gracious to his Apostle by telling him in advance that, despite the hatred of the Jews and the machinations of the two-bit politicians, he would live to preach the gospel in Rome (Acts 23:11)" (Yeager, XI, p. 32). Some commentators would date the third group of Paul's epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians to his Caesarean imprisonment.
Shepard states, "There were many compensations for God's servant as he walked up and down the barracks which looked out upon the Mediterranean, around which his activities had planted a circle of Gospel lighthouses the beams from which penetrated to far distant places of the known world. Now and then his messengers would come and bring reports of the progress of the work and receive short written or verbal messages back from him with many a suggestion about problems which vexed them...The call to his work as he looked out across the Mediterranean must have been a constant headache to one so accustomed to activity in the great missionary vision and plan of his life" (p. 470).
This chapter (24) presents one of the most tragic examples of missed opportunity in all the Scripture. Felix, the Roman governor of Judaea, had the privilege of spending much time with the apostle Paul. Yet, sadly, he let the opportunity slip away, and there is no evidence to indicate he was not eternally lost. The Bible gives many examples of missed opportunity concerning salvation. Some pagan philosophers, after hearing Paul's able defense of Christianity on Mars Hill in Athens, dismissed him with the words 'We shall hear you again concerning this' (Acts 17:32). But Paul soon left Athens, never to return, and the philosophers never heard him again (MacArthur, pp. 300, 301).
1 - 3 According to Josephus, Felix had left the province of Judaea in shambles. Its subjects had been robbed, its villages set on fire, and valuables were plundered. The Sicarii ('cut-throat' insurrectionists) had grown in numbers and their exploits were out of hand. Festus made a trip to Jerusalem to try and salvage the remnants of his domain. While in Jerusalem the high priest, who was now Ishmael (Ismael) in the place of Ananias, and the chief of the Jews approached Festus and implored him a favor. They opened up the case of the Apostle Paul. Their plan was to persuade Festus to have Paul brought back to Jerusalem for trial. The reason for a change of venue was so that they might lie in wait for (piountes) or execute him on the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Probably somewhere down the road to the north of Jerusalem as Paul walked up the way, the Jews would carry out an ambush. The request was not granted and Festus foiled the Jews of their prey.
4, 5 Festus, who was clearly suspicious, replied that if anyone had a charge against his prisoner, they needed to come to Caesarea and present their case against Paul. In fact, he invited them to return to Caesarea with him if they so minded. Any charges could be filed in Caesarea if Paul had done anything wicked (atopon) or amiss. Festus had not heard the charges as Felix had.
6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, commanded Paul to be brought. 7 And when he was come, the Jews who came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended in anything at all. 9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a favor (pleasure), answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? 6 - 9 The day after Festus returned to Caesarea and while sitting on the judgment seat he called for Paul and wanted to hear about the complaints of the Jews. The Jerusalem Jews laid their grievous complaints (aitiomata) or weighty accusations against Paul which could not be proven (apodeixai) or substantiated. Paul was surrounded by these bloodthirsty Jews ready to pounce upon him at any chance. He began his defense by saying that he had transgressed no law or rule against the Jewish law, nor against the temple nor against Caesar (Nero was the last of the hereditary claim to the name Caesar who ruled A. D. 54 - 68); in fact, Paul stated that he had offended no one or nothing. When Festus heard Paul's defense, Roman justice had failed to get a conviction. There was repetition, reiteration and vehemence but no proof of accusations. When he saw that Paul was not proven guilty, he asked Paul if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem to be judged there. Festus, who was as corrupt a politician as Felix, could have released Paul, but he sought of the Jews a favor by sending him back to prison. "Only two years ago the mob, the Sanhedrin, the forty conspirators had tried to take his life in Jerusalem. Festus had no more courage to do right than Felix, however plausible his language might sound. Festus also, while wanting Paul to think that he would in Jerusalem 'be judged of these things before me,' in reality probably intended to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin in order to please the Jews, probably with Festus present also to see that Paul received justice" (Robertson, III, p. 430).
Paul's response to Festus's suggestion that he go to Jerusalem was almost defiant; he almost rebuked the procurator when he told him that he knew "very well" that he had in no way wronged the Jews. He did not want to stand trial in Jerusalem again, "He was apprehensive about the result of a trial before Festus in Jerusalem, it was not because he had lost his confidence in Roman justice, but because he feared that in Jerusalem Roman justice might be overborne by powerful local influence. There would be no reason for such fear in Rome. There (it might well seem to a Roman citizen who had in fact never been in Rome) Roman justice would be administered most impartially" (Bruce, p. 478).
10 Then Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 11 For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things of which these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. 12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go.
10 - 12 Paul replied to Festus, "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged...I appeal to Caesar." Although Paul knew in his heart that he had done no wrong, he saw this statement as a way to get to Rome. He was not afraid to die if Nero found him in violation of Roman law. Paul had stood before kangaroo courts with the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and Caeserea as well as other places, and whatever they decided would ultimately go to Caesar's court from which there was no earthly appeal. There may have been an unveiled threat in all that Paul was saying to Festus. Paul may have meant, "Remember your Honor, I am going to appeal your decision to Nero. Do you want him to know how prejudiced and duplicit you are?" (Yeager, XI, p. 43). Paul knew he was innocent and so did Festus, and as a Roman citizen, he appealed to Caesar. Whereupon Festus promised Paul he would surely go to Rome. At least he would wash his hands of this prisoner. Festus probably with rancor in his voice said, "Unto Caesar shall thou go." "Knowling suggests that (these words) may have been uttered, if not with a sneer, yet with the implication, 'thou little knowest what an appeal to Caesar means'" (Robertson, III, p. 432).
Paul's request to go to Rome was gladly granted by Festus. "Roman law in the Julio-Claudian period protected Roman citizens who invoked the right of appeal to the emperor from violent coercion and capital trials by provincial administrators...What Festus had to determine was (1) whether the charges against his prisoner fell into the category of normal provincial jurisdiction or went beyond that jurisdiction, and (2) whether it was either just or feasible to acquit the prisoner so as to make such an appeal unnecessary" (Longenecker, pp. 545, 546).
13 - 16 Some days after Paul's request to go to Rome was granted, King (Herod) Agrippa (II) and Bernice visited with Festus. Agrippa and Bernice were brother and sister, but they were accused of living together incestuously. Robertson portrays the subjects of this passage in this way, "this cowardly Roman procurator (Festus) thus pictures the greatest of living men and the greatest preacher of all time to this profligate pair (brother and sister) of sinners" (III, p. 344). They spent several days in Caesarea, and Festus approached the king, telling him he had a prisoner that was left to him when he took over from Felix; in fact, Paul has now been a prisoner in Caesarea for over two years. He related Paul's case to the king, telling him about Paul's accusers from Jerusalem, and how the Jews wanted him killed. He related that it was not customary for prisoners to be held if innocent or if they appealed to a higher court. If Paul's appeal to a higher court were granted, a written letter with the accusations was to be sent to the appellate court. One of the reasons that Festus wanted Agrippa to hear Paul, "Agrippa the younger had the reputation of being an authority on the Jewish religion, and Festus decided that he was the man who could best help him to frame the report which he had to remit to Rome in connection with Paul's appeal to the emperor...Agrippa no doubt knew enough about the Christian movement to have his interest whetted by these words of Festus" (Bruce, p. 482, 483).
17 Therefore, when they were come here, without any delay on the next day I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth; 18 against whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed. 19 but had certain questions against him of their own religion (superstition), and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
17 - 19 Festus told of his bringing Paul to trial before the chief priest, the elders and the accusing Jews. He admits that after his accusers stood up and testified, he was surprised at the accusations; he was expecting something worthy of the attention of the Roman court, probably some capital offense like treason or murder or the like. They had brought questions against Paul about his own religion or superstition (deisidaimonias from deido meaning 'to fear' and from daimon meaning 'demons' or 'gods') or a fear of the unnatural, he called it. Paul spoke of one Jesus, who had been raised from the dead. "This is the climax of supercilious scorn toward both Paul and 'one Jesus'...With all is top-loftical airs Festus has here correctly stated the central point of Paul's preaching about Jesus as no longer dead, but living" (Robertson, III, p. 436).
20 And because I was perplexed concerning (doubted of) such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. 21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar. 22 Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
20 - 22 Festus was perplexed (aporoumenos) or doubted the questions asked of Paul's Jewish accusers. He intimated that he was waiting only until a vessel should sail for Italy. "(Festus) was in the position of traveler who wished to cross a stream but had no ford, bridge or boat" (Yeager, XI, p. 55). After questioning Paul, Festus asked him if he would rather go to Jerusalem and hear the accusers there, but Paul appealed to (epikalesamenou) or called on a hearing (diagnosin) or diagnosis before the venerable (sebastos) or honorable Nero. This word sebastos is simply the Greek translation of Augustus; it was more imposing than 'Caesar' which was originally a family name. Agrippa was curious; he wanted to hear Paul personally, and on the morrow Festus would bring him in. Yeager says, "Paul's influence is evident in that the king had heard of him and the impact of his preaching upon the people. Christianity had now survived for thirty years and its fruits could not be denied. The movement had long since disproved any notion that it was only a 'flash in the pan' explosion that would soon pass. King Agrippa seems to have sensed some of this" (XI, p.58).
23 And on the next day, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth. 24 And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
23, 24 The next day Agrippa, and his consort-sister Bernice, entered the hearing room along with the chief captains and principal men, and Paul was brought in to the hearing. They must have had a grand retinue with an ostentatious display of power, their personal decorations and showmanship. What an audience!! Was Paul impressed? It is doubtful; he probably smiled at all of this. "All these Very Important People would have been greatly surprised and not a little scandalized had they been able to foresee the relative estimates that later generations would form of them and of the handcuffed Jew who stood before them to plead his cause" (Bruce, p. 484). Yeager likens it to, "A politician comes to town. There is a motorcade, replete with banners floating on the breeze and horns blaring. The parade makes its way from the airport to the city hall. The mayor and the city council sit on the platform. But there is a seating order in keeping with the pecking order" (XI, p. 59). "With great pomp" is meta polles phantasias; phantasias is from phantazo which means an apparition or specter; however, it can also mean showy parade according to Herodotus" (Robertson, III, p. 438). Here is the man Paul to whom the Jews both here and Jerusalem had wanted the death penalty.
25 But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him; 26 of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore, I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O King Agrippa, that, after examination, I might have somewhat to write. 27 For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner and not signify the accusations (crimes) laid against him.
25 - 27 Festus argued that he knew of nothing that Paul had done that merited the death penalty, and he was ready to send him to the revered or lord Nero. "The Christians claimed this word lord for Christ, and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say 'lord Caesar' and insisted on saying 'Lord Jesus' when it meant his certain death" (Robertson, III, p. 440). The dilemma was that Festus could not write up a charge or certain things (asphales) against Paul; at lest Festus was honest in this statement. He was dishonest, however, with Paul in not liberating him. Why keep him imprisoned if he had done no wrong? What had he done that he should be sent to Rome? King Agrippa would confront Paul to see if he could find charges worthy of sending him to Rome. "Back of all the foolishness, foibles, flaws and frailties of the flesh of sinful men, was the sovereign will of God who had already told Paul that he was going to Rome, there to witness and ultimately to die" (Yeager, XI, p. 65).
Festus used the word alogon which means "without reason," "contrary to reason" or "illogical." The only other places in the New Testament where this word is used are II Peter 2:12 and Jude 10, both which refers to no more rational power than that possessed by (brute) beasts. Festus indicates it would be most unreasonable or brutish to send a prisoner to Rome without charges. It was illegal too.