And when certain days had elapsed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to salute Festus.
Paul is a prisoner in Caesarea, waiting under a new governor named Festus. Then a king arrives on a social call. Commentators read that simple courtesy as the opening God used for Paul's fullest testimony.
Both names belong to the Herod family. One writer traces the line and the marriages behind the pair who arrive here.
King Agrippa and Bernice paid a visit to the new governor. People knew this king's father as Herod Agrippa, and he died under awful circumstances (chapter 12) in the year 44. Agrippa was in Rome when his father died. He was too young to receive his father's kingdom. Eight years later his uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, died. That uncle had married Agrippa's sister Bernice, and Caesar gave Chalcis to Agrippa. Later Agrippa received the title of king… After her uncle's death Bernice joined her brother Agrippa in Rome. She married a Cilician ruler, but deserted him and rejoined her brother. She came with him on this visit to Caesarea.
Festus had a prisoner whose case he could not follow. Agrippa knew the religion behind it, so Festus told him the story — and made himself look good in the telling.
But while these things are happening, King Agrippa and Bernice come to greet the new governor. Festus tells them the story of Paul. In doing so he gives himself a reputation for fairness and for faithfulness to the principles of justice and honour — as we find everywhere in the world, and here too. But the story of the resurrection was only a Jewish superstition to him. Agrippa, one of the Herods and king of the southern part of Palestine, was an Edomite by race but a Jew by profession. So he was well informed about the religious questions of the country. He was also curious to get a clear answer, from a reliable source, about what this Christianity might be. It had stirred up such a movement among his people. He asks to hear Paul.
The governor's interest was practical, not spiritual. One commentator weighs the man himself:
Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no notion. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and all. God was in none of his thoughts, and apart from the Lord Jesus He remains unknown.
The visit was only a greeting between officials. What came out of it was Paul's third testimony before rulers, told in much fuller detail.
The coming of Agrippa and Bernice to greet Festus became the occasion for Paul to bear a third testimony before governors and kings. We are now given a much fuller insight into the mighty way in which he presented the truth. He had not failed before this to convey even to Festus what lay at the heart of the whole matter. When Festus spoke to Agrippa about the case, he said the controversy raged around "one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." This shows that, pagan though he was and with no real understanding, he had grasped the central fact of the gospel.
Paul's troubles were not an interruption. One writer ties what happens here to the Lord's own predictions.
After this time the apostle has to give account of himself, and to fulfil the predictions of the Lord in a striking way. The malice of the Jews brought him before courts. Their hatred handed him over to the Gentiles. It was all to turn into a testimony. Kings and rulers will hear the gospel, but the love of many will grow cold.
Felix and Drusilla had already heard Paul. Now more of the same family sit down to listen — and hearing the truth carries a cost.
Bernice was his elder sister, Drusilla his younger, and each of them famous or infamous in that day, and for very serious reasons. Felix and Drusilla had already received a most solemn warning from the prisoner. Now Agrippa and Bernice, with Festus, were to hear an appeal that leaves no soul as it finds it. The truth set before the conscience carries a responsibility that eternity will fully show.
- Visit. King Agrippa and his sister Bernice, from the Herod family, come to Caesarea on a courtesy call to the new governor.
- Motive. Festus raises Paul's case with Agrippa, an Edomite by race but a Jew by profession. Agrippa knew the religious questions Festus could not follow.
- Pulpit. That social visit became the occasion for Paul's third testimony before governors and kings, told in much fuller detail.
- Providence. Malice and courts turned into testimony, just as the Lord had foretold: kings and rulers would hear the gospel.
- Responsibility. Felix and Drusilla had already heard; now Agrippa and Bernice hear an appeal that leaves no soul as it finds it.
And when they had spent many days there, Festus laid before the king the matters relating to Paul, saying, There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix,
King Agrippa and his sister Bernice came to Caesarea to greet the new governor. During their long visit, Festus raised the case he could not settle: a prisoner Felix had left in chains.
Festus had already accepted Paul's appeal to Caesar. The problem was what to write in the covering report, and Agrippa's arrival looked like the answer.
Festus is puzzled about what to say about Paul when he sends him to Caesar. So he uses Agrippa's visit to learn more about him than he has managed to learn so far. The leaders of the nation are very worked up about this man, and yet his main crime seems to be only this: he believes that a man known to have died is alive. Resurrection seems to Festus too foolish a superstition for him to allow himself to say, "alive again."
The phrase "left prisoner by Felix" carries the record of a two-year injustice. Felix had heard Paul and understood the case. He still handed him on in chains, as a parting favour to the Jewish leaders.
"When two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. And desiring to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison." There was no justice to be had from this unjust judge. It was not that he lacked sense, or wisdom, or judgment. He had all these, and so much the worse for him; but he was willing to sacrifice everything for his own ends. His hope of money had come to nothing. So now he leaves Paul bound to please those Jews whom he deeply despised. He was willing to do something that would win him favour with them, as long as it cost him nothing.
Agrippa was the son of the Herod who died under judgment earlier in Acts, and the family had already been confronted by this same prisoner. Felix's wife Drusilla was Bernice's younger sister.
As Felix and Drusilla had a most solemn warning from the prisoner, so now Agrippa and Bernice, along with Festus, were to hear an appeal that leaves no soul as it finds it. Truth set before the conscience brings a responsibility. Eternity will make that responsibility fully plain, and so will the judgment seat of Christ. Yet the man forced against his will to feel its power can ask, What is truth? and go out hard and miserable from the presence of the One who alone can give the full answer.
Festus could state Paul's case correctly and still miss everything in it. The reason lay in the man himself.
Festus was simply a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no idea. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative notions. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and his all. God was in none of his thoughts. Apart from the Lord Jesus, He remains unknown.
A few verses later, Festus boils the whole dispute down to one question about a man named Jesus. He could only repeat what Paul had told him.
Paul had not failed earlier to convey even to Festus the thing that lay at the heart of the whole matter. In speaking to Agrippa about his case, Festus said the argument centred on "a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive." This shows that, pagan though he was and with no real understanding, he had grasped the central fact of the gospel. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God.
A royal visit, a puzzled governor, an unwritten report. Out of these ordinary things came an audience no preacher could have arranged.
This awakened Agrippa's interest, and he asked if he might hear what Paul had to say. God was certainly behind this, to bring about a remarkable occasion in which Paul the prisoner could bear witness to the Lord Jesus with many present. What an unusual situation, where a gathering of great men is brought together to hear an address by a prisoner!
- Injustice starts it. Felix left Paul in chains to please the Jewish leaders. He sacrificed everything for his own ends.
- Perplexity carries it. Festus raised the case because he had no idea what to write to Caesar. Paul's only apparent crime was believing that a dead man is alive.
- Worldliness cannot see it. Festus had no idea of grace or truth. Present, fleeting things were his whole life, so the gospel passed through his lips without touching his heart.
- Faithfulness still lands it. Two years of chains had made the central fact plain even to a pagan judge: Jesus died, and Paul insisted He is alive.
- God overrules all of it. A courtesy visit between rulers becomes the platform where a prisoner preaches to kings. Truth set before the conscience leaves no one as it found them.
concerning whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid informations, requiring judgment against him
Festus had just taken over as Roman governor when the leaders of the nation came to him about Paul. Verse 15 is his own account of that meeting, told later to King Agrippa — it shows what the accusers wanted, and how little they had to back it up.
The men pressing the charge were the nation's religious leaders. Two years in prison had not cooled them.
Festus arrived, and after three days he went up to Jerusalem. Feeling against Paul ran so high that the high priest and the other leaders accused him at once. They asked Festus to have him brought to Jerusalem. Though years had passed, they still meant to keep their vow and take their revenge. Such is religious bitterness!
Another writer saw that time had changed nothing on either side:
These two years had neither 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 of his own importance.
Festus says they asked for a sentence against Paul. That is a demand for a verdict, not a request for a trial. And it came from men with no evidence.
The chief priests and elders would still use foul means to get rid of a man against whom they could prove nothing.
When the hearing did take place at Caesarea, the emptiness of the case was exposed in public:
The case was as plain as it could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not broken any of the many serious charges they laid to his account.
Behind that polite legal move lay a plan to murder Paul on the road. Festus's refusal looks like ordinary caution. Commentators see more in it.
A new governor might prove more easily swayed than the old one. So the chief priests and leading men approached Festus. They asked him to have Paul brought to Jerusalem and tried there. Their plan was to ambush and kill him on the road. But God watched over His servant. Festus refused. He rightly answered that Paul should be tried at Caesarea, and that as many of his accusers as were able should go down there to prosecute.
One writer sets the two sides of that moment side by side:
The providence of God is still at work. On one side the Jews, under the appearance of a favour, sought to have the apostle ambushed on the road to Jerusalem. On the other, the governor stood on the dignity of his office and would not have it lowered... It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous plans. If so, it was the secret care of God for a man unjustly attacked.
Remember who is speaking in this verse. Festus is briefing a king, and he tells the story so that he comes out of it well.
The explanation given to the king was not unskilful... Roman self-satisfaction breaks out in the claim that their policy was one of unbending, impartial fairness. It was an excellent principle, but by no means the rule in the provinces or at home... And could he blame himself for any lack of zeal in the public cause? ... But there was nothing solid before the court; no breach of public order or decency, and no private wrong of violence or corruption.
The pressure that began in verse 15 ended by sending Paul where the Lord had already said he would go. Festus himself changed course along the way.
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 he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this about. Festus's suggestion led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a privilege that belonged to him as a Roman citizen.
- Pressure. The high priest and leaders moved on the new governor within days. Two years had neither cooled their hatred nor woken their consciences.
- Petition. They asked for a sentence, not a trial — though they could prove nothing against him.
- Plot. The move to bring Paul to Jerusalem hid a plan to ambush and kill him on the road.
- Protection. Festus refused, standing on the dignity of his office. Commentators see in that refusal the secret care of God for a servant unjustly attacked.
- Purpose. The same pressure pushed Paul to appeal to Caesar. It carried him to Rome, where the Lord had already told him he would bear witness.
to whom I answered, It is not [the] custom of the Romans to give up any man before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and he have got opportunity of defence touching the charge.
Paul has been a prisoner at Caesarea for two years, and the new governor Festus is briefing king Agrippa on a case he cannot untangle. Here Festus quotes his own reply to the Jews who wanted Paul handed over — a proud claim about Roman fairness that his own conduct did not match.
The custom Festus names was a settled part of Roman law, not a courtesy he invented.
Whatever the Jews might do or wish, Roman law was fair enough to insist that an accused person should have his accusers face to face, and be allowed to answer for himself about the charge laid against him.
The speech is not idle conversation. Festus had accepted Paul's appeal to Caesar. Now he had to write something sensible to Rome about a man he did not understand.
Festus could not give the emperor any reasonable account of the prisoner who had appealed. So he states the case to a man whom report described as well versed in all Jewish questions. Agrippa was in some ways the more zealous about religion because he was not of Israelite descent, and he was also well known for his devotion to Roman interests.
The rule Festus lays down is a good one. Stating it and living by it, though, were two different things.
Roman self-satisfaction breaks out in the claim that their policy was one of unbending and impartial fairness. The principle was excellent, but it was by no means the rule in the provinces, any more than at home. Still, it suited a governor to state it as a check on the glaring injustice which both Felix and Festus surely saw in this prosecution... But there was nothing solid before the court: no breach of the public peace or of decency, and no private wrong by violence or corruption. It was absurd to bring before a Roman court the matters that occupied Paul's accusers.
Festus himself is the proof. He had already offered to move Paul's trial to Jerusalem, the very favour his principle should have ruled out.
Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem. He must have known why Paul had been hurried down to Caesarea. His motive was to win favour with the Jews.
Read the whole report to Agrippa and one note keeps sounding: Festus comes out of every sentence well.
There was another obstacle in his way — his good opinion of himself, and his effort to claim from others the highest character for honesty and honour, energy and prudence. This runs through his speech, just as it ran through the self-applauding letter of the commander Claudius Lysias in Acts 23:25-30. What is man to be reckoned, whose breath is in his nostrils? One look at self in God's presence puts a man in dust and ashes.
Behind the governor's concern for his own dignity, another hand is at work. The refusal to give a man up before trial is what kept Paul alive.
The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand the Jews sought, under the appearance 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. He may have known little or nothing of their murderous plans. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly attacked... The Lord in any case watched over His servant.
The phrase Festus uses for handing a man over to death employs the Greek word usually translated "destruction" or "perdition." That has been picked up in debate over whether such words mean simply ceasing to exist. Commentators point to this verse as evidence they do not.
If I take the noun "perdition" or "destruction," the result is the same. No single passage shows that it means ceasing to exist. In many, it means turning something to a bad account, and the like... Judas is "the son of perdition." Now it is certain, as we have seen, this does not mean cease to exist (John 17:12). Deliver to die (Acts 25:16).
- Custom. Rome would not hand a man over until he had faced his accusers and had his chance to answer the charge.
- Convenience. The principle was excellent, but it was not the real rule in the provinces. A governor found it useful as a check on obvious injustice.
- Contradiction. Festus boasts of impartial fairness to Agrippa, after offering the Jerusalem trial to please the Jews.
- Conceit. Self-approval runs through the whole speech. One honest look at self in God's presence would have ended it.
- Care. The governor guarded his own dignity. God used Roman law to guard His servant from the ambush on the road.
When therefore they had come together here, without putting it off, I sat the next day on the judgment-seat and commanded the man to be brought
Festus is telling King Agrippa how he dealt with Paul's case. He sounds like a model of efficient justice — so why did a governor who moved this fast still have nothing to write to the emperor?
Festus wants Agrippa to see a man who followed the rules and wasted no time. One writer calls the principle behind that boast excellent, but says Rome rarely kept it:
Roman self-satisfaction breaks out in the claim that their policy was one of firm and impartial fairness. It is an excellent principle, but it was by no means the rule in the provinces, any more than at home. It was still convenient for a governor to lay it down as a check on obvious injustice — and Felix and Festus surely saw obvious injustice in this prosecution. And who could accuse himself of lacking zeal for the public good? The Jews had been prompt enough to come down from Jerusalem to accuse him at Caesarea. And the governor had not lost a day in sitting to judge the case — if there had been a case according to Roman law.
The same writer looks at what that swift hearing actually had before it:
But there was nothing solid before the court. There was no breach of public peace or decency, and no private wrong by violence or corruption either. It was absurd to bring matters like those of Paul's accusers before a Roman tribunal. There were no facts; only questions of an imaginary kind, as far as the court was concerned.
Behind the careful procedure sat a man very pleased with himself. One writer points to that self-satisfaction as what left Festus blind to the Saviour. (The phrase "one Jesus" in the quotes below comes from an older translation of Acts 25:19; the ESV reads "a certain Jesus.")
There was another obstacle in his way — his good opinion of himself. Another was his effort to claim from others the highest reputation for honesty and honour, energy and prudence. This runs right through his speech. It ran the same way through the self-congratulating letter of Claudius Lysias in Acts 23:25-30. What is man to be reckoned, whose breath is in his nostrils? One look at self in God's presence puts a man in dust and ashes… Where there is no self-judgment, the Saviour is only "one Jesus," like any other child of man.
Festus has to send Paul to Rome, and he cannot state the charge. Agrippa arrives at a useful moment:
To Festus the presence of Agrippa II at this moment must have seemed very convenient. He had to send Paul on to Rome, but did not know what to say about him to Nero. He did not understand the questions the Jews had raised. One great point of dispute seemed foolish to him. It was about, he said, one Jesus who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive (25:19).
Festus had no grasp of what he was handling. Yet his summary to Agrippa landed on the one thing that mattered:
Paul had not failed earlier to convey even to Festus the thing that lay at the heart of the whole matter. In speaking to Agrippa about his case, Festus said the dispute centred on "one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive." This shows that, pagan though he was and with no real understanding, he had grasped the central fact of the gospel. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God.
Festus thought he was solving his own problem. One writer sees God at work in the arrangement:
Agrippa's interest was awakened by this, and he asked if he might hear what Paul had to say. This suited Festus well, for he thought Agrippa might shed some light on the problem he faced… God was certainly behind it. He was bringing about a remarkable occasion in which Paul the prisoner could bear witness to the Lord Jesus, with many present. How unusual a situation — a gathering of great men brought together to hear an address by a prisoner!
- Procedure. Festus moved fast and kept to Roman form: accusers present, prisoner brought, no delay.
- Emptiness. The speed found nothing. There were no facts to find — only questions no Roman court could weigh.
- Self. A judge pleased with his own record has no room for self-judgment, and to such a man the Saviour is just "one Jesus."
- Perplexity. Festus was quick, yet he had nothing to write to the emperor. He had to borrow Agrippa's knowledge.
- Purpose. The governor saw a problem to manage. God was turning it into a hearing before kings for the One who was dead and is alive.
concerning whom the accusers, standing up, brought no such accusation of guilt as *I* supposed;
Festus, the new governor, must explain to a visiting king why he holds a prisoner he cannot charge. His own account gives the case away: the men who came to prosecute produced none of the crimes he expected.
Both the accusers and the governor moved fast. The case still came to nothing:
The Jews were quick enough to come down from Jerusalem and accuse him in Caesarea. The governor did not lose a day in sitting to judge the case — if there had been a case under Roman law. But there was nothing solid before the court. There was no breach of public peace or decency, and no private wrong through violence or corruption.
The word "supposed" carries Festus's own assumption. He saw how strongly the Jewish leaders condemned Paul, and he expected the charges to match:
In giving the information, Festus says the charges against Paul were nothing like what he had expected. He had supposed that a man so strongly condemned by the Jews would face very different charges.
The accusers were furious; the accusation was empty. That gap is the point of the verse — and it is the governor who says so, not Paul.
Festus tells the story in a way that flatters himself:
He tells them Paul's story. And he gives himself a character for fairness and loyalty to the principles of justice and honour — as we find everywhere in the world, and here too.
Behind the careful speech was a man with no grasp of what he was handling:
Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no notion. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and all.
Every official who examined Paul reached the same verdict:
The apostle's innocence was established. Lysias had reached that conclusion after hearing what the Jewish council had to say against him. Felix admitted it too, without saying so openly. He ordered the centurion to keep Paul in custody until Lysias came. Yet he allowed him some freedom, and let his friends visit him and care for him. And now Festus, Agrippa, and the governor's council all agreed in declaring him innocent. Every man who had legal authority over him was convinced of the same thing: the charges the Jews kept pressing had no ground.
Commentators see a reason behind this run of verdicts:
This was the Lord's care of His beloved servant. He wanted Paul's judges to prove and acknowledge his innocence, and to see it fully established before the world.
Darby traces the outcome to God's plan, not to Roman procedure:
This is how God's purpose was fulfilled. His providence brought Paul to Rome, so that he would bear witness there before the Emperor himself. This was not what Festus thought, nor the Jews, nor was it the testimony of the Spirit in Paul. But the will of God is carried out without the will of men.
- Expectation. Festus assumed that men so set against a prisoner must have a serious crime to prove. They had none.
- Emptiness. There was no breach of the peace, no violence, no corruption — nothing a Roman court could even recognise as a case.
- Excuse. The governor dresses his report up as fair justice. But he is a man of the world, and eternal realities are only ideas to him.
- Evidence. Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa and the council all reached the same verdict. Paul's innocence stood proved before the world.
- End. An empty charge sheet could not set Paul free, but it did send him to Rome. There he would bear witness before the Emperor, and God's will was done through men who never meant to serve it.
but had against him certain questions of their own system of worship, and concerning a certain Jesus who is dead, whom Paul affirmed to be living.
Festus has a prisoner he cannot charge with any crime. So he lays the case before King Agrippa, and in his mouth the Christian faith becomes a squabble over a dead man's name.
Older translations have Festus call the dispute a matter of "their own superstition." The ESV reads "their own religion." One commentator explains why the milder word fits:
It is unlikely that even a Roman governor of Judea would be so rude as to call the views in dispute a "superstition," above all when speaking to King Agrippa. Paul did not describe the Athenians that way either, when he was setting Jesus and the resurrection before them. So it is better to take the kinder sense, or at least the neutral one. The word clearly carries that sense in writers of that time whose work survives. "Religion" is the choice here; others have suggested "system of worship" in a similar sense.
Either way, Festus saw nothing here for a Roman court. He had expected crimes and found none:
There was nothing solid before the court. There was no breach of public peace or decency, and no private wrong by violence or fraud. It was absurd to bring before a Roman tribunal the matters that occupied Paul's accusers. There were no facts; for the court, only questions of an imaginary kind.
Where the ESV has "a certain Jesus," older translations read "one Jesus." Either way the phrase is dismissive: it puts the Lord among ordinary men. One commentator traces that way of speaking to what was going on inside the man:
There was another obstacle in his way: his good opinion of himself. He worked to claim from others the highest reputation for honesty and honour, energy and prudence. This runs all through his speech... Where there is no self-judgment, the Saviour is only "one Jesus," like any other human being. The man who speaks that way is a sinner ripening for judgment.
And the summary he gives Agrippa is all he is able to give:
Why the Jews should have condemned him Festus could not understand, for they made no accusation of the sort of things he had expected, only "certain questions of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." Questions, nothing but questions! Just a speculation about the life and death of "one Jesus." That was all Festus could say or see.
Yet look at what this unbelieving official reports. He has the death, the resurrection, and Paul's own testimony to both:
Paul had already got across even to Festus what lay at the heart of the whole matter. Speaking to Agrippa about the case, Festus said the dispute centred on "one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." So, pagan though he was and with no real understanding, he had grasped the central fact of the gospel. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God. We know something of this, while he knew nothing of it. Still, Paul had made it plain.
Festus treated the difference between those two words as a technicality. It is the hinge on which everything turns:
The Son came to bring God into the world and put sin out of it. When you know that infinite truth, how shocking is the dark unbelief that skates over facts so immense with the words, "one Jesus now dead, whom Paul asserted to be alive"! The vindication of God's moral glory, the display of His love, and the proof of coming judgment all turn on it. Without it, sin reigns in death, and there is destruction for sinners without exception or hope... Jesus alive from the dead for evermore has changed everything.
The tragedy is that the man who dismissed the question was himself inside it:
How little he knew what he was saying! How little he knew what was involved in the question of whether "Jesus" was "dead" or "alive"! He gave no thought to how seriously that great question bore on himself and his friends, Agrippa and Bernice. But that did not change the matter... That staggering question settles the destiny of every child of Adam. In the judgement of Festus, it was an empty superstition.
Festus is not a curiosity from the past. He is a pattern:
Festus looked on the death of the "one Jesus" as the close and end of everything to do with Him. He looked on Paul's claim about resurrection as something peculiar to Paul. And he looked on the whole affair as a set of subtle questions tied to superstition, out of which it was very hard to make anything definite... I greatly fear that people who merely profess Christianity know the death and resurrection of the Lord in much the same way.
- Words. The word Festus used can mean "superstition" or "religion." Commentators differ. One argues a governor would not insult Agrippa's faith to his face.
- Witness. Even a pagan official could repeat Christ's death and resurrection. Paul had made the gospel plain.
- Wall. Festus had the information. He lacked self-judgment — and where there is none, the Saviour shrinks to "one Jesus."
- Weight. Whether Jesus is dead or alive is not a technicality: God's glory, His love, and coming judgment all rest on it.
- Warning. Festus is a mirror. You can talk about Christ's death and resurrection and still know nothing of it.
And as I myself was at a loss as to an inquiry into these things, I said, Was he willing to go to Jerusalem and there to be judged concerning these things?
Festus is briefing King Agrippa about a prisoner he cannot classify, and his own words admit the problem: the case turned on a dead man Paul said was alive. So why did he offer to move the trial to Jerusalem, and why did the most important fact in the world sound to him like a small legal detail?
Festus says he was at a loss. Commentators trace that problem past the case file to the man himself.
It seems the governor brought Paul before Agrippa because he did not know what to report to the emperor. Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no notion. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas... God was in none of his thoughts; apart from the Lord Jesus He remains unknown.
Festus makes the move to Jerusalem sound like a reasonable way out. Writers point to what he leaves out — his own motive.
How little we can rely on man. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem. He could hardly be in the dark about why Paul was rushed down to Caesarea. His motive was to win favour with the Jews.
Another writer adds that two years had changed nothing on either side:
Those two years had not lessened the hatred of the Jews, and had not awakened their consciences. In the Roman, Festus, only low motives were at work — love of self and love of his own importance.
Festus filed the case away as a religious dispute he could not investigate. It was the centre of everything. (Older translations read "one Jesus" here; the ESV of verse 19 has "a certain Jesus.")
Festus could not understand why the Jews would condemn him... Questions, nothing but questions! Just a speculation about the life and death of "one Jesus" — that was all Festus could say or see. Yet in the death and resurrection of Christ lies the only hope of man. Had He never died, there would be no forgiveness; had He not risen, there would be no salvation. His precious blood alone can cleanse. His life in glory guarantees eternal happiness to the believer. His resurrection, on the other hand, is the pledge of judgment on the sinner. The issues of an eternal future hang on a matter which Festus would regard as merely a "question."
Paul's witness landed, even if it never took root. Festus could repeat the central fact without knowing it:
This shows that he had grasped the central fact of the gospel, even though he was a pagan with no real understanding. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God. We know something of this, while he knew nothing of it. Still, Paul had made it plain.
Festus lacked more than information. Kelly names a second barrier — one Festus took pride in:
There was another obstacle in his way: his good opinion of himself. He worked hard to claim from others the highest reputation for honesty and honour, energy and good sense... Where there is no self-judgment, the Saviour is only "one Jesus," like any other child of man. The one who speaks like that is a sinner ripening for judgment.
Festus's proposal is what triggered Paul's appeal. Commentators read that outcome in more than one way. One sees the hand of God at work:
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. 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, though Festus knew very well that he had done no wrong.
Another is more careful about Paul's own choice, but just as sure about the result:
Sad picture of man's injustice! But everything accomplishes the purposes of God... To human eyes it was perhaps his only way out. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
- Perplexed — Festus admits he could not investigate the case. The deeper problem was the man: eternal realities were only imaginative ideas to him.
- Motive — the offer to try Paul in Jerusalem was calculated, not confused. He had refused that favour once. Now he wanted the Jews' goodwill.
- Question — he dismissed it all as a dispute about one man, Jesus. Yet forgiveness, salvation and coming judgment all hang on it.
- Barrier — his good opinion of himself kept the Saviour at the level of any other man; where there is no self-judgment, Christ stays merely "one Jesus."
- Outcome — commentators differ on whether Paul's appeal was his best course. They agree that this unjust court served God's purpose: Paul must reach Rome.
But Paul having appealed to be kept for the cognisance of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I shall send him to Caesar.
Festus is briefing King Agrippa about his prisoner. In one sentence he explains how a local dispute turned into an imperial case. The commentators keep returning to two questions. Was the appeal Paul's right? Was it wise?
The appeal was not a desperate improvisation.
An appeal to the Emperor was the right of a Roman citizen. Provincial governors did have some discretion to grant or withhold the privilege. In this case there was no ground for refusing it, and Festus and his council agreed on that point.
Festus presents himself as a fair administrator caught in a puzzle. He does not tell Agrippa one thing. His own suggestion of a trial in Jerusalem is what forced the appeal.
He, the governor, found that Paul had done nothing that deserved death. But he does not explain why he himself had caused the appeal to the emperor. It was his own proposal that the prisoner should go to Jerusalem for judgment. Paul knew too that worldly religion is the least just and most cruel of all things. He refused to be moved away from Caesar's court, and appealed to the emperor.
Behind the governor's moves, writers see something else at work. The Lord had already told Paul where his witness would end. The order to keep him in custody became the means.
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... Paul knew that the proposed move was the first step toward handing him over to his enemies, though Festus knew very well that he had done no wrong... Having appealed to Caesar, to Rome he must go.
God's purpose moved forward through men who were not trying to serve it.
This was how God's purpose was fulfilled. His providence brought Paul to Rome, so that there he should bear witness before the Emperor himself. This was not the thought of Festus, nor of the Jews, nor yet the testimony of the Spirit in Paul. But God accomplishes His will without the will of men.
The appeal could not be taken back. Some writers read a note of warning in that.
To human eyes it was perhaps his only option in the circumstances. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he could have gone free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
Others refuse that verdict. Paul may have seen the appeal as the very road to the Rome where the Lord had told him to witness.
If he was to testify at Rome as he had at Jerusalem, may not this appeal have seemed to him simply acting in line with the divine will? It was in fact what took him there. How can we decide that it was lack of faith, or lack of wisdom? This was a man who had far more of both than any of us. He stood in the circumstances as we do not, and he knew all that this involved far better.
Paul now waits for a hearing before Nero. The journey served more than one purpose.
The governor sent Paul to Rome for a hearing before the Emperor Nero. The Lord had already determined that he should bear witness to his Saviour there. He himself had long wished to see the believers in Rome... Roman law required his transfer to the capital. His presence there would further God's purposes. It would also fulfil desires he had long cherished. So Paul was not going against his will, though the circumstances were not ones he had foreseen.
- Kept by right — the appeal was a Roman citizen's privilege. Festus and his council found no ground to refuse it.
- Kept from a trap — Paul saw that a move to Jerusalem would put him in his enemies' hands. Festus knew he had done no wrong.
- Kept by God — the Lord had already told Paul he must bear witness in Rome. The governor's move became the way it happened.
- Kept at a cost — commentators differ on whether the appeal was a misstep. One writer notes that Paul might have gone free without it.
- Kept for a hearing — Paul waited for the emperor's decision. He travelled as a prisoner to the city he had long wanted to see.
And Agrippa [said] to Festus, I myself also would desire to hear the man. To-morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
Festus had to send Paul to Rome, but he could not explain the case to the emperor. Then the visiting king asked to hear the man himself — and that request set up Paul's hearing before rulers.
Festus had a legal problem and no way to solve it.
To Festus the presence of Agrippa II at this moment must have seemed very timely. He had to send Paul on to Rome, but did not know what to say about him to Nero. The questions the Jews had raised he did not understand, and one great subject of the dispute seemed foolish to him. It was about, he said, one Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive. Could Agrippa help him here? He, a Jew, was better able to understand the mind of his countrymen, and why they were so openly hostile to Paul. Agrippa had surely heard of Paul already. No one else alive stirred up such hatred and malice among his countrymen. Now, unexpectedly, he had the chance to see and hear him.
Agrippa knew the Jewish side and the Roman side alike.
Festus could give the emperor no reasonable account of the prisoner who had appealed. So he states the case to a man whom common report described in two ways. On the one hand, he was well versed in all Jewish questions, and in some ways all the more zealous about religion because he was not of Israelite descent. On the other hand, everyone knew how devoted he was to the Roman interest. … To hear the case might satisfy the curiosity of Herod Agrippa, and perhaps also relieve Festus of some perplexity.
What moved Agrippa to ask? Darby answers in two ways. First, the king wanted solid information.
By race Agrippa was an Edomite, but by religion a Jew. He was therefore well informed about the religious questions of the country. He was also curious. He wanted to know clearly, and from a reliable source, what this Christianity might be that had so stirred up the people of his country. So he asks to hear Paul.
Elsewhere he weighs the motives and finds a mixture:
In Agrippa there was, I believe, more curiosity than conscience. Still, he may have had some desire to use the occasion to learn what this teaching was that had so stirred up people's minds. That was a willingness to inquire, and it was more than curiosity.
A courtesy call between officials became Paul's third hearing before rulers.
Agrippa and Bernice came to greet Festus. Their visit became the occasion for Paul to bear a third testimony before governors and kings. We are now given a much fuller view of the powerful way in which he presented the truth.
The plan was polite diplomacy. The result was something else.
God was certainly behind this. He brought about a remarkable occasion in which Paul the prisoner could bear witness to the Lord Jesus with many people present. What an unusual situation — a gathering of great men, brought together to hear an address by a prisoner!
Festus fixes the date in a moment.
Agrippa is interested in a different way. He would be glad to hear the man himself. Festus answers at once that he shall hear him. The next day Festus holds a public audience, where Paul will plead his case. Little do they think what it means for everyone there — the hearing they are about to give this poor prisoner!
Kelly looks at what such a hearing does to the people who sit through it.
Felix and Drusilla had already received a most solemn warning from the prisoner. Now Agrippa and Bernice, along with Festus, were to hear an appeal that leaves no soul as it finds it. Truth set before the conscience carries a responsibility. Eternity — not to mention the judgment seat of Christ — will fully reveal it.
- Perplexity. Festus had to send Paul to Rome, but he had nothing to write to Nero. So he took the case to Agrippa, the one man who understood Jewish questions.
- Curiosity. Agrippa asked to hear Paul. That was interest of a different kind: mostly curiosity, with some real willingness to inquire behind it.
- Providence. God stood behind the arrangement. A meeting set up to help a puzzled governor became Paul's testimony before governors and kings.
- Platform. Paul the prisoner stood up to speak, and the great men of the city sat and listened.
- Responsibility. Nobody there knew what they had agreed to. Truth set before the conscience leaves no soul as it found it.
On the morrow therefore, Agrippa being come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and having entered into the hall of audience, with the chiliarchs and the men of distinction of the city, and Festus having given command, Paul was brought.
Caesarea's hall fills with royalty, officers and the city's leading men. The one man everyone has come to see is a prisoner in chains. The scene raises a question no one in the room asks: who there holds anything worth having?
Festus needed help with a case he could not read, and Agrippa's curiosity gave him the opening. But the governor was not the only one arranging that day.
The next day Agrippa and Bernice came to the place of hearing with great pomp and ceremony. With them came the chief captains and principal men of the city. God was certainly behind this. He brought about a remarkable occasion, where Paul the prisoner could bear witness to the Lord Jesus in front of many. What an unusual situation! A gathering of great men comes together to hear a prisoner speak.
Agrippa II knew Jewish customs and learning well. Bernice's background was public talk. Commentators differ on how she was related to him: some call her his sister, Kelly calls her his wife.
Daughter of Agrippa I, and wife of Herod of Chalcis. She visited Caesarea with her brother Agrippa II and heard Paul's defence. She later married Polemon II, king of Pontus or Cilicia. She then became the mistress of both Vespasian and Titus. In all this she kept up the immoral character of the Herods.
The verse names the royalty first and the prisoner last. Kelly looks at the same room and reverses the order.
And here we find a remarkably fine contrast with all the glitter and pomp of the court. The king himself was a most capable man, but without moral purpose. His wife had every natural advantage, but she was sadly a woman of no character at all. Both of them were under the most painful cloud of suspicion — even in the minds of the pagans themselves, not to mention the Jews. These are the people who, with the Roman governor, sit in judgment on the apostle. And then comes forth the prisoner bound with chains. But oh, what a gulf separated them from him! What a difference in the eyes of God!
The tribunes and leading citizens filled out the display. All that ceremony had the opposite effect.
Behind these again were the heads of war and peace, the chief captains and magistrates. All the parade and pomp, counted necessary to his dignity, show man to be so little. The prisoner before them is to answer for himself. With him one soon sees that this is the least part of what he thinks of... He is heaven's ambassador, though in chains. Their condition, not his, is what moves him. The light has shone on him and it changes everything, while they are still in the dark.
Festus had a practical problem. He had to send a prisoner to Rome with no charge attached.
What was he to write to send with the man who had appealed? ... This was his main reason for the hearing before Agrippa. The king knew Jewish customs, learning and prejudice well... As he adds, the governor thought it senseless to send on a prisoner without stating the charge against him. We shall find, however, that the outcome was a true and fresh testimony to Christ. It was far more than an answer to the governor's problem.
Paul was passed from one official to the next, and never by his own choice.
The relentless hostility of the Jews only brings about the fulfilment of God's purposes... So he is 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. Instead, God makes a prisoner His servant, so that the gospel might reach governors and kings.
The court broke up, and history did the rest of the work.
Where is the pomp, the grandeur, the glitter with which Agrippa and Bernice entered Caesarea? Where are the chief captains, the principal men? Where is the court now? All gone to dust and ashes long ago... It is not so with what belonged to Paul. His dignity and his blessings cannot perish. They will shine out in all their magnificence in the day of Christ's glory.
- Staged by God. Festus arranged a hearing to solve a paperwork problem. God arranged an audience of rulers for the gospel.
- Pomp weighed. The ceremony was meant to display greatness. It showed instead how small man is.
- Chains no barrier. God did not recruit a man of the world to reach the great — He sent a prisoner.
- Outcome exceeded purpose. Festus got less help than he wanted, and Christ got a fresh testimony the governor never planned.
- Glitter faded. The court and its splendour are dust; what belonged to the prisoner cannot perish.
And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye see this person, concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews applied to me both in Jerusalem and here, crying out against [him] that he ought not to live any longer.
The hearing room at Caesarea is full — a king, a queen, army officers and the city's leading men, all there to look at one chained prisoner. His own nation had shouted for his death, yet Festus opens by admitting he can find no reason why.
Behind Festus's words lies a scene he had witnessed himself. The demand for Paul's life met the new governor as soon as he arrived.
Festus later tells Agrippa what really happened. A scene of uproar must have taken place in Jerusalem when Festus appeared. The mob shouted for Paul's death. When they noticed the governor was unwilling, they came up with another plan. They asked that Paul should be brought to Jerusalem. On the way there they intended to murder him.
In the same speech Festus admits that Paul deserved no such treatment. William Kelly notes what the governor leaves out.
The hostility of the Jews was widespread and fierce. It was aimed at the noblest man of their own nation and the most honoured servant of the Lord. Their cry in the holy city and elsewhere was that he ought not to live any longer. The governor found that Paul had done nothing deserving death. But he does not explain why he himself had caused the appeal to the emperor. It was his own proposal that the prisoner should go to Jerusalem for judgment. Paul knew too that worldly religion is of all things the least just and the most cruel.
Kelly also names what lay behind Festus's wish to please the crowd:
He soon learnt enough of the Jews to make him guilty in his willingness to gratify them by sacrificing Paul. Policy is a sad destroyer of conscience.
The room displayed rank and power. Kelly looks at the people who sat in judgment:
Here we find a remarkably fine contrast with all the glitter and pomp of the court. The king himself was a very capable man, but with no moral purpose. His wife, whatever natural gifts she had, was sadly a woman of no character at all. Both of them lay under a most painful cloud of suspicion even in the minds of the pagans, let alone the Jews. These are the people who, with the Roman governor, sit in judgment on the apostle. And then the prisoner comes forward bound with chains. But oh, what a gulf separated them from him! What a difference in the eyes of God!
The prisoner they had all come to look at was not thinking mainly about his own case.
The prisoner before them is to answer for himself. With him one soon sees that this is the least part of what occupies his mind, though it does shape the way he speaks. He is heaven's ambassador, though in chains; it is their condition, not his, that moves him.
Festus called this assembly to solve a problem of his own. He had to send a prisoner to Rome and could not name a charge.
This was his main reason for the hearing before Agrippa, who knew Jewish customs, learning and prejudice well… He adds that it made no sense to send a prisoner on without stating the charge against him. As we shall see, the outcome was far more than an answer to the governor's problem. It was a true and fresh testimony to Christ.
Festus had suddenly proposed sending Paul to Jerusalem — the very move his enemies wanted. One writer sees more than politics in that turn:
In this sudden change on the part of Festus we may see the hand of God. After the uproar in the Jewish council, the Lord had appeared to Paul that night. He told him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome. Now He controls circumstances to bring this about.
That control reaches back to the day Paul was called, when the Lord spoke about him to a disciple named Ananias:
This fulfilled what the Lord said to Ananias at the time of Paul's conversion: that Paul should bear testimony to the Lord's name before Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
- Clamour — The charge against Paul was never a charge. It was a shout for his death, raised in Jerusalem and repeated at Caesarea, backed up by a plan to murder him on the road.
- Cowardice — Festus states publicly that Paul had done nothing deserving death, yet never explains why the innocent man is still in chains. Willingness to please the crowd quietly ruins a conscience.
- Contrast — Rank, robes and royal pomp filled the platform; a gulf separated those judges from the prisoner they had come to inspect. The chained man was heaven's ambassador, and their condition, not his, was what troubled him.
- Confusion — The governor convened a king's court simply because he had nothing certain to write to Rome. His perplexity was never resolved; what came out of it instead was a fresh witness to Christ.
- Control — Every step — the proposal, the appeal, the royal visit — moved Paul toward Rome and set him before kings, exactly as the Lord had promised at his conversion.
But I, having found that he had done nothing worthy of death, and this [man] himself having appealed to Augustus, I have decided to send him;
Festus tells King Agrippa and his council that the prisoner in front of him has done nothing deserving death. Yet he is sending him to Rome anyway. The verse holds two facts that do not fit together: a man declared innocent, and a man shipped off to the emperor.
Festus leaves out his own part in creating the situation.
He, the governor, found that Paul had committed nothing which deserved death. But he does not explain why he himself had brought about the appeal to the emperor. It was his own proposal that the prisoner should go to Jerusalem for judgment. Paul knew that worldly religion is the least just and the most cruel of all things. So he refused the move away from Caesar's court, and appealed to Augustus.
Festus knew the truth about Paul, but he also wanted the Jews on his side. Paul saw where a move to Jerusalem would lead.
The suggestion from Festus led Paul to appeal to Caesar, a privilege that belonged to him as a Roman citizen. Festus knew very well that Paul had done no wrong. Yet Paul knew the proposed move was the first step towards being handed over to his enemies. If Festus began giving in to the outcry to please the Jews, he would end by giving in to everything. Paul's appeal settled the matter. Having appealed to Caesar, to Rome he must go.
Sending him on came at a cost that no charge justified.
Festus should have realised there was no reason at all to send Paul to Caesar's court. He should have set him free. Instead the cost grows: imprisonment and a voyage to Rome, on top of the two years the Roman government had already spent supporting him — not to mention the added unrighteousness of it.
Festus is not a lone voice. One after another, the men with authority over Paul cleared him.
Paul's innocence was established. Lysias had reached that conclusion after hearing what the Sanhedrin had to say against him. Felix admitted it too, without saying so. He ordered the centurion to keep Paul in custody until Lysias came, yet allowed him freedoms, and the right to see his friends and let them care for him. And now Festus, Agrippa, and the governor's council all agreed in declaring him innocent. Every man with legal authority over him was sure the charges the Jews kept pressing had no foundation.
A Roman judge had already reached the same verdict once before.
Pilate protested three times. Both he and Herod had found no fault in Him: "After examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod... Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him." He said a third time, "Why? What evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death."
Commentators differ here. Some weigh what the appeal cost Paul.
To human eyes it was perhaps his only option in the circumstances. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us this: he might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
Others read the same fact as the Lord's own plan for getting Paul to Rome.
The verdict of a private discussion is, "This man is doing nothing to deserve death." Herod Agrippa said to Festus, "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." If Paul had not made his appeal to Caesar he might have been freed then. We have seen already that his appeal to Rome was according to the will of the Lord. So to Rome he goes. Everything is arranged by a gracious Lord.
Festus decided where Paul would go. He did not decide what came of it.
Festus cares nothing for justice, only for pleasing the people. Paul replies with great dignity. Festus knew well that he had done nothing wrong, and had no right to hand him over to his enemies. Paul ends by appealing to Caesar. This was how God fulfilled His purpose. His providence brought Paul to Rome, and there Paul would bear witness before the Emperor himself. This was not what Festus intended, nor the Jews, nor was it the testimony of the Spirit in Paul. But God's will is accomplished without theirs.
- Verdict. Festus found nothing in Paul deserving death. He never produced a charge to justify sending him on.
- Motive. He knew Paul was innocent, yet wanted to please the Jews. Once a judge gives in to pressure, he ends by giving in to everything.
- Chain. Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, the council. Every official over Paul agreed he was innocent.
- Appeal. Commentators differ. Some see an appeal that cost Paul his freedom. Others see the Lord's chosen route to Rome.
- Outcome. Neither Festus nor the Jews planned it. God's will was done, and the innocent prisoner testified before the Emperor.
concerning whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord. Wherefore I have brought him before you, and specially before thee, king Agrippa, so that an examination having been gone into I may have something to write
Festus must ship a prisoner to Rome, but he has no crime to name in the covering letter. So he gathers a royal audience to help him fill the blank. Here a Roman governor admits in public that he cannot write down a charge against Paul. What was God doing with that embarrassment?
Festus has already agreed to send Paul to the emperor. The paperwork is what stalls him, and that is why he arranged the hearing.
But then a difficulty arose. What was he to write and send with the man who had appealed? "I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him." This was his main motive for the hearing before Agrippa. The king knew Jewish customs, learning and prejudice well. "Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write." The governor thought it senseless to send on a prisoner without stating the charge against him. But we shall find that the outcome was a true and fresh testimony to Christ far more than an answer to the governor's problem.
Festus could report the outline of the dispute, but its substance stayed beyond him. His letter had to satisfy his lord, the emperor in Rome, so he wanted a man who knew the Jewish religion from the inside.
Festus had rightly seized the point at issue, yet the whole matter stayed a mystery to him. His address to Agrippa makes that clear. The court had assembled, Paul came forward, and the proceedings began. He had nothing certain to write to his lord, the emperor in Rome. Agrippa knew the Jewish religion better. He hoped the king could help him see more clearly what was at stake, and know what to say.
His blankness went deeper than Jewish custom. One writer traces it to what he lived for.
Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no idea. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and his all. God was in none of his thoughts; apart from the Lord Jesus He remains unknown.
The empty letter was not an oversight. Every official who examined Paul reached the same verdict.
The apostle's innocence was established. Lysias had reached that conclusion after hearing what the Jewish council had to say against him (23:29). Felix admitted it too, without ever saying so. He told the centurion to keep Paul in custody until Lysias came, yet he allowed him liberty and let his friends visit and care for him. And now Festus, Agrippa, and the governor's council all agreed in declaring his innocence. Every man with legal authority over him saw that the charges the Jews kept pressing had no ground.
Festus gathered a court built to impress. Yet the pity in that room ran the other way.
A great crowd had gathered, and there was much pomp. Then in came the prisoner. What a contrast! Perhaps they looked on him with pity as they saw the chain. But more pity must have filled the heart of the great servant of Christ. He saw the poor lost souls decked out with the miserable tinsel of earth.
Behind the governor's convenience runs a purpose he never suspected.
There may have been no free action of the Spirit in Paul himself. Still, the providence of God cares for him and orders everything for the testimony he was to bear... he is conducted 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 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 governors and kings might hear the gospel. "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong."
- Blank page. Festus must send Paul to Caesar with nothing definite to write. The hearing before Agrippa is his way to fill that blank.
- No charge. The page stayed blank because the man was innocent. Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa and the council all reached the same verdict.
- Borrowed expertise. Festus grasped the outline of the dispute but not its heart. He hoped Agrippa's knowledge of the Jewish religion would fill the gap.
- Wrong pity. The court came in pomp and looked at the chain; the prisoner looked back at people dressed in the tinsel of earth.
- God's report. The governor's problem produced no legal solution. It produced a fresh testimony to Christ. God's way of reaching governors and kings is to make a prisoner His servant.
for it seems to me senseless, sending a prisoner, not also to signify the charges against him.
Festus has agreed to send Paul to Caesar, but he has a prisoner and no crime to pin on him. So he admits in open court that his case has nothing in it — and God uses that admission.
Festus calls the hearing before Agrippa for his own sake, not Paul's. He needs something to put in the letter that must travel with the prisoner.
But then a difficulty arose. What was he to write to send with the man who had appealed? As he said, "I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him." That was his main reason for the hearing before Agrippa. Agrippa knew Jewish customs, learning and prejudice well. Of course the governor thought it senseless to send on a prisoner without stating the charge against him. But we will see that the outcome was a true and fresh testimony to Christ far more than a solution to the governor's problem.
The governor's own words condemn him. If there is no charge, the prisoner should be walking free, not boarding a ship.
Festus ought to have realised there was no reason at all to send Paul to Caesar's court. Paul should have gone free. Instead the Roman government pays for his imprisonment and his voyage to Rome, on top of two years of supporting him. And that is not to mention the added unrighteousness of it.
Yet the same embarrassment that exposes Rome also clears Paul. Every official who handled the case reached the same verdict.
Paul's innocence was now beyond doubt. Lysias had reached that conclusion after hearing what the Jewish council had to say against him. Felix admitted it too, though never in words. He told the centurion to keep Paul in custody until Lysias came, yet he allowed him some freedom, and let his friends visit and care for him. And now Festus, Agrippa, and the governor's council all agree in declaring his innocence. Everyone with legal authority over him was convinced that the charges the Jews kept pressing had no ground.
One thing stood at the centre of the case. Festus had grasped it, but he could not turn it into a charge.
Paul had already got the heart of the whole matter across, even to Festus. Festus told Agrippa the dispute was about "a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive." He was a pagan with no real understanding. Yet he had grasped the central fact of the gospel. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of all blessing, and the full declaration of the love of God.
Festus was not the first ruler to look at Christ and see nothing.
But the wisdom of the world is folly. It slights the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. … Festus showed that blindness of unbelief now, and Agrippa showed it afterwards. It filled the other rulers of this age. For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
This looks like a collapse of justice. It is also how Paul gets to Rome.
But Rome was to have its share in rejecting the gospel of grace and the testimony to the church. So Paul appeals to Caesar. Festus must therefore send him there, though he is embarrassed about what crime to charge him with. Sad picture of man's injustice! But everything accomplishes the purposes of God. … In the eyes of man the appeal was perhaps his only way out. But the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us that he could have gone free if he had not appealed to Caesar.
The setting for this admission is a full state occasion, and the contrast is the point.
Here we find a striking contrast with all the glitter and pomp of the court. … And then out comes the prisoner bound with chains. But oh, what a gulf separated them from him! What a difference in the eyes of God! … In all the splendour of earth's rank and dignity they sat to hear the poor but rich prisoner of the Lord.
- Nothing to write. Festus admits he cannot name a crime. So he stages a hearing to find one, and gives the gospel a platform instead.
- Nothing proved. No charge existed, because none could exist. Every official who examined Paul found him innocent.
- Nothing understood. Festus could name the one real issue — a Jesus who died, whom Paul says is alive — and still missed it.
- Nothing just. Paul should have gone free. Instead man's injustice keeps him in chains and pays for his voyage.
- Nothing wasted. The governor's blank page becomes God's road to Rome. Human failure serves a purpose it never intended.