Festus therefore, being come into the eparchy, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea.
Felix has gone, Festus now governs, and Paul is still a prisoner at Caesarea. The verse reads like a routine note about a new official's first week, yet commentators see God's hand already at work in it.
Festus's arrival is one of the few events in Acts that writers can date. They use it to fix the years around it.
The arrival of Festus into the province gives us another, a third, date in the history of the Acts. Herod Agrippa I died, as we have already stated, AD 44. Gallio's proconsulship, the next date given us by Luke, was in AD 53. Now Festus's replacement of Felix took place AD 60. About seven years, then, had passed since Paul stood before Gallio's judgment seat at Corinth.
A new judge did not mean a safer one for Paul. Commentators rate Festus above Felix in character, then explain why that was not enough.
The new governor, Festus, gave a fresh opportunity to the Jews. He was morally more respectable than Felix. But he did not know God, so he could not be trusted in his dealings with people. Faith made no sense to him; he took it for mere enthusiasm. But he soon learnt enough of the Jews to make him guilty in his willingness to gratify them at the cost of Paul. Policy is a sad destroyer of conscience.
One writer even finds a comment on the scene in the new governor's name.
Another governor appears in Festus. His name is very like Felix, and it means "festive, joyous." The world keeps holiday while the saints suffer. He was more respectable in character than Felix. Even so, he was not above wanting to do the Jews a favour at the expense of justice.
Jerusalem was the capital of the province, and Festus went up there three days into his rule. That visit gave Paul's accusers their opening.
The new governor, Festus, had arrived at Caesarea, and then went up to Jerusalem, the capital of the province. The Jews had not forgotten Paul. They had not tried another accusation before Felix, because they knew the case was hopeless. But they made an effort at once with the new governor. As soon as this official appeared in Jerusalem, the high priest and the leading men of the Jews brought a report about Paul. Most likely Festus had not even heard of Paul up to that time.
Paul had already spent two years as a prisoner at Caesarea. Commentators weigh those years against both sides of the case — the accusers and the judge.
These two years had neither lessened the hatred of the Jews, nor awakened their consciences. And in the Roman, Festus, there were only base motives — love of self and of his own importance.
The two years were not wasted time. Commentators point to a reason behind the delay, and to its end.
No doubt the post was a difficult one to fill well and with credit to himself. On the one hand, he would want to keep on good terms with the Jews. On the other, there was Paul, still in chains, whose case the governor had to take up and handle justly. That was man's side of the matter. But there was another. The Lord had allowed Felix to leave Paul in chains, because He still had work for His servant at Caesarea. But now Paul's case would no longer drag on with needless delay.
Festus refused to move Paul to Jerusalem. More than one purpose ran through that refusal.
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand, the Jews used the cover of a favour: they wanted the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem. On the other, the governor stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he declined moving him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous plans. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked. At this time the governor was not willing to hand a Roman citizen over to the hatred of his enemies, especially in a religious dispute. By his decision the governor blocked their plot.
- Dated. Festus replaced Felix in AD 60. That is one of Luke's fixed markers, and it dates the years of Paul's work around it.
- Unchanged. Two years in prison neither cooled the hatred of Paul's accusers nor woke their consciences. They struck within three days of the new governor's arrival.
- Respectable. Festus was morally better than Felix, but he did not know God. A man who trades justice for popularity cannot be trusted. Policy destroys conscience.
- Purposeful. The long delay was not neglect: the Lord left Paul in chains at Caesarea because He still had work for him there.
- Guarded. A governor guarding his own office blocked an ambush, perhaps without knowing it. That was the secret care of God over His servant.
And the chief priests and the chief of the Jews laid informations before him against Paul, and besought him,
Paul has been a prisoner at Caesarea for two years. A new Roman governor, Festus, now takes office, and within days the leaders of the nation are at his side with their case against Paul.
Nothing had moved in Paul's case for two years. The change of governor changed that.
The Jews had not forgotten Paul, though they had not attempted another accusation before Felix, knowing that the case was hopeless. But they made at once an effort with the new governor. No sooner had this official made his appearance in Jerusalem than the high priest and the chief of the Jews made a report about Paul. Most likely Festus had not even heard of Paul up to that time.
Their timing had a reason behind it.
Three days after the governor's arrival at Cæsarea he went up to Jerusalem. While he was there, people spoke to him about the case. A new governor might be easier to persuade than the previous one.
Two years is long enough for most anger to fade. Not this.
It would seem after two years that their animosity would have been tempered, but it was just as determined as before.
The leaders had made a vow about Paul, and they still meant to keep it.
Such was the animosity against Paul that at once the high priest and other leaders accused him, and asked Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem. Though years had passed they would still fulfil their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness!
Look at who brings the charge, and at what they cannot produce.
The chief priests and elders would still use foul means to get rid of a man they can prove nothing against. They ask Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem for trial, meaning to ambush and kill him on the road.
At the hearing that followed, their charges fell apart.
The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle was not guilty of any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.
What they urge on Festus sounds like a routine request. The politeness is the disguise.
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand, the Jews asked a favour as a cover. They wanted the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem. On the other hand, the governor stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he refused to move him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked.
Festus said no to the request. That one decision saved Paul's life, and one writer traces it to a hand above the governor's own.
The chief of the Jews bring information against Paul. They want him sent to Jerusalem so that he can be killed on the way. Festus does not give in to this, because the hand of God prevents him. Instead he goes down from Jerusalem to Caesarea, taking Paul's accusers with him.
Later in the case Festus suddenly changed his mind, and one writer sees God's hand even in that.
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. During the night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this about.
- Old hatred. Two years of silence had not softened Paul's accusers. They were as determined as ever.
- New opportunity. A new governor looked easier to bend, so they moved within days. This was calculation, not passion.
- Hidden plot. What they urged sounded like a routine transfer. It was a favour with an ambush waiting on the road.
- Empty case. The top religious leaders charged a man they could prove nothing against.
- Higher hand. God stopped a Roman official with motives of his own from saying yes. That refusal carried Paul toward the testimony in Rome the Lord had promised him.
asking as a grace against him that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying people in wait to kill him on the way.
A polite request can hide a murder plan. Here the Jewish leaders ask the new governor Festus for a favour, while men wait on the Jerusalem road to kill Paul.
The petition sounded reasonable. Move the prisoner back to the capital, where the case began. One writer sets their hidden plan beside the governor who blocked it:
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand, the Jews tried, under the cover of a favour, to have the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem. On the other, the governor stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. Since Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he refused to move him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked. At this time the governor was not ready to hand a Roman citizen over to the hatred of his enemies, especially Jewish enemies in a religious dispute. The Lord in any case watched over His servant.
They did not wait. They reached the new governor almost as soon as he took office:
Three days after the governor's arrival at Caesarea he went up to Jerusalem. While there, people spoke to him about the case. A new governor might be more flexible than the previous one.
The request was not their first move. They first tried to get Paul condemned outright. Only when the governor held back did they turn to the road:
As soon as this official appeared in Jerusalem, the high priest and the chief of the Jews made a report about Paul. Most likely Festus had not even heard of Paul up to that time… There must have been an uproar in Jerusalem when Festus showed himself. The mob clamoured for the life of Paul. When they noticed the reluctance of the governor, they came up with another plan. They asked that Paul should be brought to Jerusalem. On the way there they intended to murder him.
Time had not cooled their hatred. One writer points to the old vow still driving them:
The hostility against Paul was such that the high priest and other leaders accused him at once. They asked Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem. Though years had passed they would still carry out their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness!
An ambush is what men reach for when a courtroom will not serve them. One writer sets the governor's own motive beside God's overruling:
The chief priests and elders would still get rid by foul means of a man they can prove nothing against. They urge Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem for trial, intending to ambush and kill him on the road. But Festus was guided by God, whatever his own motive was. He decides that Paul, already taken to Caesarea, shall stay there, and that his accusers must bring their charges against him there.
Festus stopped the plot. That did not make him a safe man:
The new governor, Festus, gave a fresh opportunity to the Jews. He was morally more respectable than Felix. But he did not know God, and so he could not be trusted where men were concerned… Policy is a sad destroyer of conscience.
One writer sees God's hand even in Festus's sudden change of mind:
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. During the night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this to pass.
- Favour — The words asked a favour of a new governor. The plan was an ambush on the road.
- Timing — They moved within three days of his arrival, hoping a new governor would be easier to bend than the last one.
- Bitterness — Years had passed, and nothing had softened. They still meant to keep their vow and take their revenge.
- Emptiness — Men reach for foul means against someone they can prove nothing against. The plot measures the weakness of their case.
- Providence — Festus refused, for reasons of his own. God used that refusal to guard His servant for the promised witness in Rome.
Festus therefore answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to set out shortly.
A new Roman governor, Festus, has been in office three days. The leaders in Jerusalem ask him for a favour: send the prisoner Paul up to us. His answer sounds like routine paperwork. Paul stays at Caesarea, and they can come down instead. That one decision cancels a plan to murder a man on the road.
The Jews' request looked like a normal legal transfer. Its real purpose was murder:
When there, the high priest and chief of the Jews asked Festus to send for Paul to be tried, meaning to turn it into an opportunity for lying in wait along the road, with the intention of murdering him.
This was not a fresh grudge:
Such was the hostility against Paul that at once the high priest and other leaders accused him. Though years had passed they would still carry out their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness!
Festus answered as a Roman official protecting the standing of his own court. The effect was to place a shield around Paul that the plotters could not get past:
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand, the Jews sought to have the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem, under the appearance of a favour. On the other, the governor stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he refused to move him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous plans. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked… The accused was in Caesarea, and in Roman eyes that was the highest seat of judgment in that land. The governor's decision blocked their plot. He was going back to Caesarea himself shortly. So if there was any real charge, they had their chance to come down and accuse the prisoner.
Festus was no righteous judge. Yet God used his decision here:
More respectable in character than Felix, he is still not above wanting to do the Jews a favour at the expense of justice. The chief priests and elders would still get rid, by foul means, of one against whom they can prove nothing… But Festus, guided by God — whatever his own motive was — decides that Paul has been taken to Caesarea and shall stay there. His accusers must bring their charges against him there.
The same governor who blocked the plot in Jerusalem later offered the transfer to Paul's face:
So little can man be counted on. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem. He could hardly have missed the reason Paul had been hurried down to Caesarea. His motive was to win favour with the Jews.
If Festus began giving in to the clamour in order to pacify the Jews, he would end by giving in to everything.
Keeping Paul at Caesarea was one step toward Rome:
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. During the night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this to pass. The suggestion from Festus led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a privilege that belonged to him as a Roman citizen.
Two things stand side by side in this whole account:
Sad picture of man's injustice! But everything accomplishes the purposes of God.
- Favour — The plan to move Paul to Jerusalem looked like a courtesy to a new governor. Behind it lay an ambush on the road.
- Refusal — Festus kept Paul at Caesarea to guard the standing of his own court. That decision blocked the plot.
- Providence — The governor may have known nothing of the danger. His refusal was still the secret care of God for a man unjustly attacked.
- Motive — God guided Festus, whatever his own motive was. He sheltered His servant through a judge who only wanted to be popular.
- Purpose — The Lord had told Paul he must bear witness in Rome. Every turn of this unjust process moves him there.
Let therefore the persons of authority among you, says he, going down too, if there be anything in this man, accuse him.
Paul has been a prisoner at Caesarea for two years when Festus, the new Roman governor, takes office. Jerusalem's leaders ask him to send Paul to them; his answer — come down and accuse him here — quietly wrecks a murder plot.
Festus turned the request down. He fixed both the place of the trial and the people who could bring the charges.
Festus refused that request. He answered, rightly, that Paul should be tried at Caesarea. His accusers, as many as were able, should go down there to prosecute.
Kelly weighs how much Festus knew against what God was doing through him.
On the one hand, the Jews sought to have the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem, under cover of a favour. On the other, the governor stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, so Festus declined to move him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked... The Lord in any case watched over His servant... The governor by his decision hindered the carrying out of their plot. He was going back to Caesarea himself shortly, so if any wrong was in question, they had their chance to come down and accuse the prisoner.
Festus gives the right ruling, but his own motive was not a good one.
Festus is more respectable in character than Felix. Even so, he is not above wanting to do the Jews a favour at the expense of justice. The chief priests and elders would still use foul means to get rid of a man they can prove nothing against. So they ask Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem for trial. They intend to ambush and kill him on the road. But Festus is guided by God, whatever his own motive was. He decides that Paul has been taken to Caesarea and shall stay there. His accusers must bring their charges against him there.
The men pressing Festus are the same party that swore an oath against Paul two years earlier. Nothing had softened.
Though years had passed, they would still carry out their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness! Festus, however, declined this, so once more his accusers had to travel to Caesarea.
Festus asks for a charge that can be proved. The hearing that followed showed how little his accusers had.
The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not done wrong in any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.
Keeping Paul at Caesarea did more than save his life. It set him on a road through one Roman court after another.
Though their desire was to get hold of his person, he was to remain no longer in their power, and so he is taken to Lysias, to Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and at last to Caesar. Such was God's intention. These were also the means He used to bring the gospel to the governors and to the great. He did not raise up men of the world to do it, as many often think. Instead, God makes a prisoner His servant, so that the gospel might reach governors and kings.
- Plot. The request to move Paul to Jerusalem was cover for an ambush. Two years had not cooled the hatred, and the priests and elders shared in it.
- Block. Festus made the accusers come down to Caesarea, and the plot died there.
- Care. The governor may have known nothing of the danger. That makes the ruling the secret care of God for a servant unjustly attacked.
- Motive. God guided the decision without approving the man. Festus still wanted to please the Jews at the expense of justice.
- Purpose. Paul is carried on to Felix, Festus, Agrippa and finally Caesar. God made a prisoner His servant, so that kings could hear the gospel.
And having remained among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea; and on the next day, having sat down on the judgment-seat, commanded Paul to be brought.
Festus has been governor for only a few days. He has already turned down the plea of Paul's accusers to move the case back to Jerusalem. Now he returns to Caesarea, takes his official seat, and orders the prisoner brought in. The verse reads like a note about dates and travel. Yet commentators see in it God guarding His servant, and the start of a hearing that would decide where Paul spent the rest of his life.
The trial stayed in Caesarea, and that decision kept Paul alive. His enemies had set an ambush for the road to Jerusalem. One writer sees God's quiet care at work through a governor who guarded the honour of his own office:
The providence of God is still in action. The Jews asked for what looked like a favour: they wanted the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem. The governor, on his side, stood by the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered. Since Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, Festus refused to move him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their plan to murder him. If so, it was the secret care of God for a man unjustly attacked... At this time the governor was not willing to hand a Roman citizen over to the hatred of his enemies, especially to Jewish enemies in a religious dispute. The Lord in any case watched over His servant. The accused was in Caesarea, and in Roman eyes that was the highest seat of judgment anywhere in that land. By his decision the governor blocked their plot.
Festus now faced a problem no Roman law-book covered. The charges against Paul rested on a law older than Rome itself.
For the first time in his career the governor came up against one of the difficulties that belong to that office. The laws of the Jews were claimed to be given by God, and age had made them sacred. As far as we find them in Scripture, they were published centuries before Rome was founded. Those laws differed from pagan customs and Greek constitutions, and from Roman law as well. So a person could be sentenced to death under them for something the law-books of the Roman Empire knew nothing about. And now, brought face to face with this difficulty, what should Festus do?
A change of judge brought no change in justice. The self-interest that had already blocked Paul's case carried straight on.
But Festus was really little better than Felix. The change of judge was only slightly in favour of justice. There was the same selfishness that had worked against fairness before. You could not expect the fear of God from a pagan man, though some may have been more corrupt and unjust than others.
One commentator weighs what this hearing achieved, and what it cost Paul.
The day after Festus returned, the Jews were ready to bring their accusations to his judgment seat. This was however only a repetition of the first hearing before Felix. Their many serious complaints were not backed up by proof of any kind. Paul answered for himself as before, speaking the truth in his own defence. Again he had no opportunity to bear witness to his faith in Christ and the truth of the gospel. The clear result of the hearing was that the Jews could establish no case against him whatever.
One court led to the next: Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, Caesar. One writer sees God's purpose running through them all.
The relentless hatred of the Jews only produces the fulfilment of the purposes of God... They wanted to keep hold of him, yet Paul was to stay in their power no longer. He is therefore taken to Lysias, to Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and at last to Caesar. Such was the intention of God. These were also the means He used to bring the gospel to the governors and to the great. He did not raise up men of the world to do it, as many often think. God makes a prisoner His servant, so that the gospel might reach governors and kings.
- Place — The trial stayed in Caesarea, so the ambush set for the road to Jerusalem never happened. God's care worked through a governor who would not lower the dignity of his office.
- Platform — In Roman eyes that judgment seat was the highest court in the land. Sitting on it, Festus met the clash between Jewish law and Roman law for the first time.
- Person — A new governor did not mean a new heart. The self-interest that had twisted justice under Felix carried straight over into Festus.
- Proof — The hearing repeated the one before Felix: many serious charges, no evidence, and no chance for Paul to speak of Christ.
- Purpose — God makes a prisoner His servant. Through these courts the gospel reached governors and kings who would never have heard it.
And when he was come, the Jews who were come down from Jerusalem stood round, bringing many and grievous charges which they were not able to prove
Years had passed since Paul's first hearing, and now a new governor, Festus, hears the case. The accusers arrive with nothing they can prove, so why does the case drag on — and who is guarding Paul while it does?
The hearing falls apart as soon as it begins. Paul's accusers had plenty of motive, but no evidence.
The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not transgressed as to any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.
These accusers had come down from Jerusalem before, and the delay had not cooled them.
Such was the hostility against Paul that at once the high priest and other leaders accused him, and asked Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem. Though years had passed they would still fulfil their vow and carry out their revenge. Such is religious bitterness! Festus however declined this, so once more his accusers had to travel to Caesarea. This second hearing was practically a repetition of the first, as is shown in verses 7 and 8. Paul had merely to answer a large number of unproved assertions.
Moving the trial to Jerusalem looked like a reasonable request. Two very different purposes met in it.
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand, the Jews wanted the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem, and they dressed the plan up as a favour. On the other hand, the governor stood by the dignity of his office, and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he declined moving him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked… At this time the governor was not prepared to hand a Roman citizen over to the hatred of his enemies, especially in a religious dispute among Jews. The Lord in any case watched over His servant… By his decision the governor blocked their plot.
Festus could see the case had no substance. Roman law gave him nothing to punish, but the crowd gave him something to gain.
The trial proceeded. Once more the apostle had to listen to many serious charges against him. Not one of them could be proved in law. That was evident… Festus was clearly puzzled as to what he should do. Unfounded charges were no grounds on which to punish anyone in a Roman court of justice. But he wanted to gain popularity with the Jews, so he asked if Paul would go to Jerusalem and stand trial there before him.
The result was a clean record — and a closed mouth.
Their many serious complaints were not backed up by proof of any kind. Paul answered as before for himself, speaking the truth in his own defence. Yet again he had no chance to bear witness to his faith in Christ and the truth of the Gospel.
A wall of accusers is not proof that a servant has gone wrong. Faithfulness has looked like this before.
We have the perfect pattern of the Lord Jesus in His path of suffering and toil. We also have the example of the apostle Paul. In his devotion to making known the gospel, he shared in no small measure in the sufferings of the life of Christ. Instead of being honoured in this world he suffered even to chains as an evildoer. So he followed in the footsteps of his Master. The religious world of His day charged Him with being "a glutton and a drunkard", with having a demon, and with being a sinner.
That is why a clear conscience matters long before the accusations arrive.
To suffer for righteousness' sake, and to show a good conscience before men, demands "a good conscience" before God and men. If we try to stand before the enemy with a bad conscience, it will only bring shame and defeat. With a conscience free of offence we shall, by our consistent Christian conduct, put to shame those who falsely accuse us.
- Hatred repeats. The second hearing was a replay of the first, and years of delay had not softened the determination to be rid of Paul.
- Hatred proves nothing. The accusers brought many serious charges and proved none of them, while Paul's defence held.
- God overrules. Festus refused to move the trial to Jerusalem, and that refusal blocked a murder plot — whatever his own motives were.
- Men still bend. Festus knew there was no case, yet he hunted for a way to please the accusers instead of freeing an innocent man.
- The servant stands. Charges of wrongdoing put Paul in his Master's footsteps, and only a good conscience lets anyone stand there.
Paul answering for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I offended [in] anything.
Paul stands before a Roman governor for the second time. His accusers have come down from Jerusalem with a long list of charges. His whole defence fits into one sentence, and it clears him on the three fronts that mattered most in that courtroom.
The hearing before Festus covered ground already covered before Felix. Paul had no new case to answer, only the same claims made again without evidence.
This second hearing was almost a repetition of the first, as verses 7 and 8 show. Paul only had to answer a large number of unproved claims.
Paul's three denials answer three kinds of accusation. Each charge carried its own weight, and each targeted a different authority.
The formal charge has three parts. First stands a political accusation. This, in the presence of the high Roman officer, was of the greatest importance. Any conspiracy against the Roman government was a capital offence... The second offence Tertullus brought against Paul was of a religious nature. Tertullus presented the Nazarenes as a sect of the Jews, and Paul as their ringleader. Paul, he said, had supported what was against the peace of Judaism. He had not only brought in a disturbing element; he had also broken another Roman law, which forbade bringing in an unrecognised religion. The third charge was the profaning of the temple.
Loud and serious accusations are not evidence. His accusers could not prove a single charge, and the case collapsed.
The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not transgressed as to any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.
Festus was not deceived. What he did next was not a mistake about the facts. It was a choice made for other reasons.
Paul is brought to his judgment-seat, and there he clears himself of every charge of offence against the Jewish law, the temple, or Caesar. The Jews are unable to prove anything against him, and Festus is very well aware of it. Yet Festus still plans, from political motives, to hand him over to them.
Paul's denial is more than a legal defence. It is the record of a man whose life could stand inspection. God was steering his case toward an end that neither the court nor the accusers had in mind.
Paul upholds his integrity, and God watches over him. He denies once more the things his accusers could not prove. Festus thinks nothing of justice, but only of pleasing the people... This fulfilled God's purpose: His providence brought Paul to Rome, so that there he would bear witness before the Emperor himself. This was not the thought of Festus, nor of the Jews... But the will of God is accomplished without that of men.
Paul could say this because of how he had lived, not because of how he argued. Any believer can have the same clear record, and it comes the same way.
That is what all Christians should do. And how do you get and keep a conscience that is clear toward God? You get it first of all by being washed in the blood of the Lamb, and you keep it by walking in dependence on God, and in obedience to Him. Young Christian, your conscience is cleansed by the blood of Jesus. But you say, How can I keep a good conscience? By being exercised. You are exercised in your soul, and you always have God in view. That is to say, you work at your walk so that God will not be able to say, "That was wrong," and neither will anyone else. This was Paul's manner of walk.
Note: Wolston quotes Acts 24:16. The ESV renders it, "I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man."
- Charge. The accusations came from three directions: Jewish law, the temple, and Caesar. They covered religion, sacred place, and political loyalty. Every power in the room now had a reason to condemn him.
- Clearance. Paul's one-sentence answer met all three, and his accusers could not prove a single one of them.
- Complicity. Festus knew the charges were empty. He still moved to hand Paul over, because he wanted the favour of the Jews more than justice.
- Custody. Men mishandled his case. God watched over His servant and used the injustice to bring him to Rome, to testify before the emperor.
- Conscience. Paul could say this only because he had lived it. The blood of Jesus had cleansed his conscience, and daily dependence and obedience kept it clear.
But Festus, desirous of obliging the Jews, to acquire their favour, answering Paul, said, Art thou willing to go up to Jerusalem, there to be judged before me concerning these things?
Two years of imprisonment had produced no verdict, and now a new governor sits in the chair. His accusers have again proved nothing, yet Festus asks him to stand trial in Jerusalem — the city where his enemies were waiting for him.
Felix had heard Paul's case and left him a prisoner. Commentators note that the change of governor brought no change of principle.
But Festus was really little better than Felix. The change of judge helped justice only a little. The same selfishness that had worked against fair judgment before was still there.
Two years had passed, and nothing had changed on either side.
These two years had not lessened the hatred of the Jews, nor awakened their consciences. And in the Roman, Festus, only low motives were at work — love of self and love of his own importance.
Festus had already refused this very favour. He said no to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Days later he offers them what he had denied.
Man can be counted on so little. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem. He could hardly have been unaware why Paul was rushed down to Caesarea. His motive was to win favour with the Jews.
Festus wanted goodwill from the Jews. That wish, not the evidence, shaped his question to Paul.
His character was more respectable than that of Felix. Even so, he was not above wanting to do the Jews a favour at the cost of justice… But here the governor shows how eager he is to please the Jews, even while he knows, as Paul declares, that Paul had done them no wrong.
Another writer sees this weakness as a slide with no stopping point.
If Festus began to give in to the outcry to keep the Jews happy, he would end by giving in on everything.
The offer sounds courteous. Festus even promises to preside himself. But a trial in Jerusalem would hand Paul to the men who hated him.
It is quite clear that Festus saw well enough that Paul's real offence had to do with the religious opinions of the Jews. He saw that Paul had broken no law. But he also wanted to get into favour with the Jews. So he asks Paul whether he would go to Jerusalem to be tried there. This was little better than a proposal to sacrifice him to Jewish hatred.
Commentators also note how strange this step was for a Roman official.
For a Roman governor — the chief representative of the empire — this was an unheard of thing. It meant taking a man brought before him and sending him back to Jerusalem for the Jews to judge.
Paul refused, and he appealed to Caesar. That appeal grew out of this unjust offer, and it carried him where the Lord had said he must go.
In this sudden change in Festus we may see the hand of God. On the night after the uproar in the Jewish council, the Lord had appeared to Paul and told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls events to bring this about. The suggestion from Festus led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a right that belonged to him as a Roman citizen.
None of the people in the room intended that outcome.
This was how God's purpose was fulfilled: His providence brought Paul to Rome, and there he would bear witness before the Emperor himself. Festus never thought of this, and neither did the Jews… But God's will is done without the will of men.
- Motive. Festus asked his question to win favour, not to find the truth. The same selfishness that ruled Felix now sat in the judge's chair.
- Reversal. He granted in Caesarea what he had refused in Jerusalem. Once a man follows popularity, no one can count on him.
- Cost. The polite offer really meant handing an innocent man to those who hated him. Festus knew Paul had done no wrong.
- Slide. Giving in has no stopping point. Start by pleasing the crowd, and you end by giving up everything.
- Overruling. The injustice became the door to Rome. God carried out His purpose without the will of any man in that room.
But Paul said, I am standing before the judgment-seat of Caesar, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as *thou* also very well knowest.
Festus, the new Roman governor, has just asked Paul a question: will he go to Jerusalem and stand trial there? Paul refuses on legal ground, and that answer sets the course for the rest of his life.
Festus's offer sounded like a courtesy. But Roman law had already fixed the court — Caesar's tribunal, which older translations call the "judgment seat":
According to Roman law he ought to be tried at Caesar's judgment seat, that is, by a Roman court, not Jewish or partly Jewish.
The very fact that Festus asked Paul's permission gave the game away:
His question to Paul was a confession that he could not legally change the venue in that fashion. That change needed Paul's consent… Paul could teach Festus his duty. The proper court for a Roman citizen in that province was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea. There was the seat of government, and there was the court of the representative of the Emperor.
Why would a Roman official suggest something so irregular? A writer measures Festus against his own earlier ruling:
So little can man be relied on. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem; he could hardly be in the dark as to the reason why Paul had been hurried down to Caesarea. His motive was to win favour with the Jews.
Paul's words "as you yourself know very well" hold the judge to what he already knew. One writer notes the contrast between the judge's aim and the prisoner's bearing:
Paul upholds his integrity, and is watched over by God. Festus thinks nothing of justice, but only of pleasing the people. Paul replies with great dignity. He says Festus was well aware that he had done nothing wrong, and that Festus had no right to give him up to his enemies. He ends by appealing to Caesar.
Paul does claim his rights as a citizen. Notice how narrow the claim is:
It is clear that all the righteousness of the case lay with Paul. He therefore makes use of his title as a Roman citizen against those who would have broken Roman law. He agitated for no change of law, he sought nothing for himself, he employed no lawyer. The law had already ruled, and he pleaded it before one whose office it was to administer it.
The appeal was not a routine card anyone could play:
He had to go to Rome as a prisoner. This came about through his appeal to Caesar — an appeal by no means always granted, as it was clearly open to abuse. If the guilt was obvious, it was refused; so too if the case was too trivial to be worth the emperor's hearing. Paul's innocence was beyond question, and Jewish ill-will had made the case a very serious one. He appealed when he saw the governor trifling with justice to please the Jews.
Behind the legal move, one writer sees God at work in the timing:
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. The night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul and told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this about. The suggestion from Festus led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a privilege that belonged to him as a Roman citizen. Paul knew that the proposed change of place was the first step towards handing him over to his enemies. Festus, though, knew very well that Paul had done no wrong.
Was the appeal itself the right move? Writers do not agree. One weighs what the appeal may have cost Paul:
To human eyes it was perhaps his only option in the circumstances. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he might have gone free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
Another writer answers from Paul's own teaching about rulers:
Paul elsewhere fully accepts the "powers that be" as those appointed by God to be the ministers of God for good to men, and there seems no real difficulty in his using them for that. If we do not know his motive, in the case of one such as he was, it is only justice to credit him with the highest motive.
- Place. For a Roman citizen in that province the right court was Caesarea, not Jerusalem. Festus could not move the trial without Paul's consent.
- Pressure. Festus knew Paul was innocent. He knew why the Jews wanted him moved. He asked anyway, to win their favour.
- Plea. Paul sought no favour and hired no lawyer. He held the judge to the law that judge was there to administer.
- Price. Rome did not grant every appeal. This one took Paul to Rome in chains, when he might have gone free.
- Purpose. God used a governor's weakness and a prisoner's legal right to bring Paul to Rome, where the Lord had told him he must bear witness.
If then I have done any wrong and committed anything worthy of death, I do not deprecate dying; but if there is nothing of those things of which they accuse me, no man can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.
Paul has been held at Caesarea for two years, and the charges against him are still unproven. Now the new governor, Festus, offers him a trial in Jerusalem — and Paul's reply ends with four words that decided the rest of his life.
Festus's question sounded like a courtesy. It was not, and Paul knew what waited on the road to Jerusalem.
As soon as Festus arrived in the province, he went to Jerusalem. There the leading Jews seized the chance to demand Paul's return. They said they wanted him tried again before the Jewish council, but their real purpose was to kill him on the way... Festus saw clearly that Paul's real offence had to do with the religious opinions of the Jews, and that he had broken no law. Yet he wanted to win favour with the Jews, so he asks Paul whether he would go to Jerusalem for trial there. This was little better than a proposal to sacrifice him to Jewish hatred.
The first half of the verse gives away everything a guilty man would hide. Paul does not plead for his life. He stands on Roman law, and the law was on his side.
It is clear that all the righteousness of the case lay with Paul. He therefore makes use of his title as a Roman citizen against those who would have broken Roman law. He pushed for no change of law, he sought nothing for himself, he employed no lawyer. The law had already ruled, and he pleaded it before a man whose office was to administer it.
The word "appeal" means something different today than it did in a Roman province. Paul was not contesting a verdict — there was no verdict.
When Paul appealed to Caesar, it was not an appeal against a judgement already given, which is what an appeal means today. Paul knew the murderous hatred of the Jews and the corruption of the governors. So he chose Caesar's court to judge his case, which, as a Roman, he had the right to do.
That right came with conditions, and Paul's case met them.
He had to go to Rome as a prisoner. This happened through his appeal to Caesar — an appeal by no means always granted, since it was clearly open to abuse. An obvious case of guilt got no appeal. Nor did a case too trivial for the emperor to hear. Paul's innocence was beyond question, though Jewish ill-will had made the case very serious. He appealed when he saw the governor playing with justice to please the Jews.
Commentators differ here. Some read the appeal as the one move that cost Paul his freedom.
To human eyes it was perhaps his only way out. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he might have gone free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
Others answer that Paul himself taught that rulers are God's servants. Using them cannot be wrong in principle.
If an appeal to Caesar were wrong in itself for a Christian, then making it could never be right, in any circumstances, for anyone... But Paul elsewhere fully accepts the ruling authorities as those appointed by God to be God's servants for the good of people. There seems to be no real difficulty in his using them for that. If we do not know his motive, in the case of one such as he was, it is simple justice to credit him with the highest.
Whatever the motive, the outcome matched a promise Paul had already been given.
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. On the night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome, and now He controls circumstances to bring this about... Paul's appeal settled everything. Having appealed to Caesar, to Rome he must go. This is the third time we find Paul taking his stand on his Roman citizenship. Here most clearly it was made to serve and work out the purpose of his Lord.
- Trap. Festus offered Jerusalem to buy Jewish goodwill at Paul's expense. Paul refused the place, not the trial.
- Innocence. Paul offers his life if he is guilty. The offer is safe, because the governor himself knows there is no crime.
- Right. The appeal was not a protest against a verdict. It was a citizen's choice of court, open to him because his innocence was clear.
- Question. Commentators differ. One reading says the appeal cost Paul his freedom. Another credits him with the highest motive in using rulers God appointed.
- Purpose. Either way, the word could not be taken back. It carried Paul to Rome, the city where the Lord had already told him he would testify.
Then Festus, having conferred with the council, answered, Thou hast appealed to Caesar. To Caesar shalt thou go.
Paul has refused a second trial in Jerusalem and has asked the emperor to hear his case, and Festus gives the one answer Roman law allowed. That short reply ends the trial at Caesarea and opens the road to Rome, and it raises two questions: was the appeal Paul's wisest step, and whose purpose did it serve?
Once Paul spoke the words, the governor had no room left to move. His reply is not a decision but an admission. It sends Paul to the highest court in the empire.
So far the difficulty was over. The governor was bound by the appeal… The king, or emperor, was to hear the case, just as the lower judges did. And this was not by flattering the princes of this world or seeking access to them, but as holy sufferers with Christ and for His name (Matthew 10:18).
Paul asked for no special treatment. He held the court to the law it already had on its books.
All the righteousness of the case lay with Paul. He therefore makes use of his standing as a Roman citizen against those who would have broken Roman law. He pushed for no change in the law, he sought nothing for himself, he employed no lawyer. The law had already ruled, and he pleaded it before a man whose office was to administer it.
The governor had offered a trial in Jerusalem to win goodwill from Paul's accusers. What he set in motion was something else entirely.
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. During the night after the uproar in the council, the Lord had appeared to Paul. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome, and now He controls circumstances to bring this about… Paul knew that the proposed move was the first step toward handing him over to his enemies. Yet Festus knew very well that he had done no wrong.
Nobody in the room was aiming at that outcome. Yet it came about anyway:
This was the fulfilment of God's purpose, that Paul, brought to Rome by His providence, should bear witness there before the Emperor himself. This was not the thought of Festus, nor of the Jews… But the will of God is accomplished without the will of men.
Commentators differ on whether Paul was right to appeal. One points to what the Holy Spirit tells us about it:
To human eyes it was perhaps his only resource in the circumstances. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he might have gone free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
Others hold back from calling it a fault. One writer weighs the evidence and then refuses to judge Paul:
Festus and Agrippa both declare a short time later that the appeal was the only thing keeping Paul from going free. This might be seen as merely the excuse of a man who did not want the responsibility of freeing him — except that it is Agrippa who says it… How can we decide that it was lack of faith or lack of wisdom? He surely surpassed any of us in both. He stood in those circumstances as we do not, and he knew far more fully everything that was at stake.
The same writer answers the question of principle directly: Paul "fully accepts the 'powers that be' as those appointed of God to be the ministers of God for good to men, and there seems no real difficulty in his using them for that." Another simply reads it as guidance: "Festus was divinely guided in it all… This settled his journey to Rome."
Paul had long wanted to see Rome. The way he finally got there was not the way he had pictured.
It was Paul's purpose to visit Rome after going to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21), and God gave effect to it, for it was God's purpose (Acts 23:11). But how different was the way under His hand from the apostle's expectation! He must go to Rome a prisoner. This came to him through his appeal to Caesar — an appeal by no means always granted, since it was clearly open to abuse. Obvious guilt meant refusal; so did a case too trivial for the emperor to hear. Paul's innocence was beyond question, while Jewish ill will had made the case a most serious one. He appealed when he saw the governor playing with justice to please the Jews.
- Pressure. Festus offered a trial in Jerusalem to please Paul's accusers. He knew the prisoner had done no wrong.
- Plea. Paul claimed no privilege and hired no advocate; he held the governor to a law already on the books.
- Verdict. The appeal bound the judge. Once Paul spoke the word, Rome was certain.
- Purpose. What no one in that court intended, God had already announced: Paul must bear witness at Rome.
- Path. Commentators differ over whether the appeal cost Paul his freedom. All agree it carried him where God had promised — as a prisoner.