7. Festus Visits Jerusalem (25:1–5)
1When Festus arrived in his province, he went up after three days from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
2There the chief priests and principal men of the Jews laid information before him against Paul and appealed to him,
3seeking a favor to Paul’s disadvantage, to send for him to come to Jerusalem. They planned1 to ambush and kill him on the way.
4Festus replied that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea, for which he himself was shortly about to set out.
5“So,” he said, “let your leading men come down with me and state their accusation against this man, if they have any fault to find with him.”2
1–3 It was desirable that a new procurator should make the acquaintance as soon as possible of the leading national authorities of his province. Accordingly, three days after his taking up office in Caesarea, Festus went up to Jerusalem to meet the chief priests and other leaders of the Sanhedrin. After the preliminary salutations, they lost no time in exploiting the favor which Felix had done them by leaving Paul a prisoner in Caesarea. Counting perhaps on the new governor’s inexperience, they raised the question of Paul with him, and asked him to send orders to Caesarea to have Paul brought up to Jerusalem. The zealous forty who had been frustrated in an earlier plot against Paul, or others who emulated their zeal, might find a better opportunity to do away with him on the road from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
4–5 Festus, however, saw no need to accede to this particular request. He did not intend to make a long stay in Jerusalem; he was shortly to go back to Caesarea, and if a responsible deputation from the Jewish rulers went along with him, they could state their case against Paul before him there.
8. Paul Appeals to Caesar (25:6–12)
6When he had spent some days among them, not more than eight or ten, he went down to Caesarea. Next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought.
7When he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood round him, urging against him many serious charges which they were not able to prove.
8Paul for his part replied in defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I done anything wrong.”
9Then Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be judged there before me with regard to these charges?”
10Paul said, “It is before Caesar’s tribunal that I stand; it is there that I ought to be judged.3 I have committed no crime against the Jews, as you know very well.
11If I am guilty, if I have done anything deserving the death penalty, I do not ask to escape death. But if there is no substance in these men’s accusations against me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
12Festus then conferred with his council and answered, “You have appealed to Caesar, have you? You shall go to Caesar.”
6–8 The whole case against Paul was now opened afresh, thanks to Felix’s neglect to pronounce his acquittal and discharge him. Festus spent a little over a week in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea, and a deputation from the Sanhedrin accompanied him. The day after their arrival in Caesarea, Festus took his seat as judge,4 ordered Paul to be brought into court, and gave his accusers an opportunity to restate their charges against him. This they proceeded to do, but although the many charges which they brought were serious in character and deadly in intention (being probably a repetition of those detailed by Tertullus before Felix), they could produce no evidence in their support. No witnesses were forthcoming to supply proof of them, and all that Paul needed to do when replying in his defense was to deny them categorically one by one.
The nature of the charges can be inferred from Paul’s threefold denial. He was charged in general with breaking the Jewish law and in particular with violating the sanctity of the temple. As for the general charge, Luke represents him as observing the Jewish law punctiliously, and Paul himself agrees that he observes it when living among law-abiding Jews (1 Cor. 9:20)—especially in Judaea, where the Sanhedrin’s writ ran. (What he did in the Gentile lands was outside their jurisdiction.) As for the particular charge of temple profanation, those who first raised a clamor against him on this ground did not come forward as witnesses when the alleged crime was recent; no evidence in its support could be produced now. If a prima facie case could have been made out against him on this score, he could have been handed over to the Sanhedrin for trial; but unsubstantiated charges did not constitute a prima facie case.5
The charge of acting against the emperor’s interests was a very serious one, of which Caesar’s representative was bound to take special notice. It was probably a repetition of the charge brought against Paul and his friends at Thessalonica (17:6–7) and an expansion of Tertullus’s characterization of him as a “pest” (24:5).6 But by charging him with fomenting disorder in the provinces Paul’s accusers overreached themselves, for this was a matter which fell decidedly within the imperial jurisdiction, not the Sanhedrin’s, and one on which Paul might very properly appeal to the emperor himself.
9 Between the Sanhedrin’s charges and Paul’s denials Festus was at a loss, the more so since he could not make out what their real grievance against him was. But he had newly entered on his period of office as governor of Judaea, the Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the nation he had come to govern, and it would be politic to begin his administration by doing something to gain their goodwill, if this could be done without infringing Roman justice. Roman justice must by all means be maintained when the accused man was a Roman citizen. But it was a matter of indifference so far as Roman justice was concerned whether the reopened case was heard in Caesarea or in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin plainly desired it to be heard in Jerusalem: he would at least concede this to them. So he proposed to Paul that he should go up to Jerusalem and have the matter dealt with there; Festus himself would be the judge. It seemed a reasonable enough proposal, the more so since the one specific crime with which Paul was charged, the violation of the sanctity of the temple, was allegedly committed at Jerusalem.
10–11 But Paul did not regard the proposal as reasonable at all. To go back to Jerusalem meant placing himself in jeopardy all over again. If Festus began by making one concession to the Sanhedrin, he might be persuaded to make further concessions even more prejudicial to Paul’s safety. Felix had been an experienced administrator of Judaea when Paul’s case was submitted to him, but Festus was a novice, and his inexperience might well be exploited to Paul’s detriment. There was one way open to Paul as a Roman citizen to escape from this precarious situation, even if it was a way attended by special risks of its own. It was not, he assured Festus, that he wished to circumvent the law of Rome or escape the due penalty for anything he might have done. If he had in fact committed a capital crime, as his accusers maintained, he was prepared to suffer the supreme penalty for it; but if there was no substance in their charges, he must not be placed in their power. Let Roman justice decide. As Festus was Caesar’s representative, the tribunal before which Paul stood was Caesar’s; but since he had not sufficient confidence in the impartiality of that subordinate tribunal, he appealed to the supreme tribunal. “I appeal to Caesar,” he declared.
The right of appeal (prouocatio) to the emperor arose out of the earlier right of appeal to the sovereign people (the populus Romanus), one of the most ancient rights of a Roman citizen, traditionally going back to the foundation of the republic in 509 B.C. It was usually exercised by appealing against a magistrate’s verdict, but might be exercised at any earlier stage of proceedings, claiming “that the investigation be carried out in Rome and judgment passed by the emperor himself.”7 At an early stage in his principate, Augustus was granted the right to judge on appeal;8 not many years later, the Julian law on public disorder safeguarded Roman citizens not only against degrading forms of coercion or punishment but also against being sentenced after an appeal had been voiced or being prevented from going to Rome to have the appeal heard there within a reasonable time.9
Paul did not appeal while Felix was in office: Felix had virtually decided that there was no case against him and was simply postponing the formal acquittal and discharge. One day (Paul might have hoped) Felix’s procrastination would come to an end and Paul would be released. But with Felix’s recall a new and potentially dangerous situation was developing for Paul; hence his momentous decision. Paul had not lost confidence in Roman justice, of which he had happy experience in a number of places, notably in Corinth before Gallio’s tribunal.10 But he feared that in Jerusalem Roman justice might be overborne by powerful local influences. There was no reason (so far as he knew) for such fear in Rome. There (it might well seem to a Roman citizen who had never actually visited Rome) Roman justice would be administered most impartially.
Ordinary provincial subjects of the empire had no such privilege as citizens enjoyed. The distinction between the two categories continued to be observed for a long time to come. For example, when the younger Pliny was confronted by the alarming spread of Christianity in Bithynia in A.D. 112, he took summary action against ordinary provincials convicted as Christians, but those who were Roman citizens he sent to Rome for appropriate examination and judgment by the emperor, not being quite sure himself of the correct legal procedure.11
To us who know Nero’s record in relation to Roman Christianity, it may seem strange that Paul should have appealed to him with such confidence. But whatever Nero’s personal character might be, the first five years of his principate (A.D. 54–59), when the imperial administration was carried on under the influence of his tutor Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, and Afranius Burrus, prefect of the praetorian guard, were looked back to as a miniature golden age. There was little in A.D. 59 that gave warning of the events of A.D. 64 and 65.
12 Festus heard Paul’s words with much relief. By appealing to Caesar, Paul enabled him to escape from a responsibility with which he felt unable to cope. He conferred with his council12—a body consisting of the higher officials of his administration and younger men who accompanied him in order to gain some experience of provincial government—and willingly agreed that Paul’s case should be referred to Rome (in fact, once Paul had made his appeal, Festus had no option in the matter).
Paul probably made his appeal not only in the interests of his personal safety but also from a desire to win recognition for the Gentile churches as authorized associations13 in their own right. And he may have been moved more than anything else by the incomparable opportunity which the hearing of his appeal would provide of preaching the gospel at the seat of imperial power.14
9. Agrippa II and Bernice Visit Festus (25:13–22)
13When some days had elapsed, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus.
14As they were spending several days there, Festus acquainted the king with Paul’s case: “There is a man,” he said, “who has been left behind by Felix as a prisoner.
15When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and elders of the Jews laid information before me, asking for an adverse verdict against him.
16I told them in reply that it is not the custom for the Romans to hand over anyone for punishment before the accused person meets his accusers face to face and has an opportunity to defend himself against the charge.
17So, when they had come together here, I made no delay but took my seat on the tribunal the next day and ordered the man to be brought.
18They took their stand around him but charged him with none of the offenses15 that I supposed they would allege.
19Instead, the charges concerned some disputes which they had with him about their own religion,16 and in particular about one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul claimed to be alive.
20Since I was at a loss how to handle an investigation of these things, I asked if he would go up to Jerusalem and stand his trial about them there.
21But Paul appealed to be kept in custody for His Imperial Majesty’s examination and decision,17 so I gave orders for him to be kept until I could send him up18 to Caesar.”
22Agrippa said to Festus, “I should like to hear the man myself.” “You shall hear him tomorrow,” said Festus.
13 Only one problem now remained for Festus. When he sent Paul to Rome, to have his case heard before the emperor, it would be necessary for him to send a report of the case as it had developed up to the moment of Paul’s appeal. No doubt records of the hearings before Felix could be consulted, and perhaps Lysias’s letter (23:26–30) and further evidence were accessible, but Festus himself would be responsible for the wording of the report, and if it was to be coherent and intelligible he would require a better grasp of the matters at issue than he possessed at present. Listening to the speeches for the prosecution and the defense had only increased his perplexity.
Fortunately for Festus, a way out of this difficulty presented itself. Herod Agrippa II, ruler of a client kingdom to the northeast of Festus’s province, arrived in Caesarea on a complimentary visit, to congratulate the new procurator on his appointment. This man was reputed to be an expert in Jewish religious questions, and Festus hoped he might give him some unofficial help in drafting his report.
Marcus Julius Agrippa, as he calls himself on his coins (using his name as a Roman citizen), was the son of Herod Agrippa I.19 He was in Rome when his father died in A.D. 44, and the Emperor Claudius was disposed to make him king of the Jews in succession to his father; but because of the younger Agrippa’s youth (he was seventeen years old at the time) he was dissuaded from this plan, and Judaea was once more administered by Roman governors. In A.D. 50, however, Claudius gave him the kingdom of Chalcis (in Lebanon), in succession to his father’s brother Herod, together with the right of appointing the Jewish high priests.20 In 53 he gave up this kingdom in exchange for a larger one consisting of the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias.21 This territory was augmented three years later by Nero, who added to it the regions of Tiberias and Tarichaea, west of the lake of Galilee, together with Julias in Peraea and fourteen neighboring villages. In token of gratitude to Nero, Agrippa changed the name of his capital, Caesarea Philippi (modern Banyas),22 to Neronias.23
On this visit Agrippa was accompanied by his sister, Julia Bernice.24 She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, born in A.D. 28. She was given by her father in marriage to his brother Herod, king of Chalcis.25 When Herod died in 48, she lived in the house of her brother Agrippa. Later she married Polemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa.26 On inscriptions she is entitled “queen” and even “great queen.”27
14–19 At a suitable opportunity during Agrippa’s stay in Caesarea, Festus broached the subject of Paul. He told the king how Paul had been left a prisoner by Felix, how the Sanhedrin had asked him to pronounce a verdict of “guilty” against him, and how he had given them an answer in strict accordance with the principles of Roman justice: the accused party must have an opportunity in open court of hearing the charges against him and replying to them.28 When such a court was held at Caesarea, the accusers said their say, but to Festus’s surprise and perplexity, the accusations seemed to center around disputed points of Jewish religion, with particular reference to “one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul claimed to be alive.” Paul had already insisted, before the Sanhedrin and before Felix, that his case rested on the resurrection hope. Now it appears, more explicitly than before, that he linked his insistence on the resurrection hope closely with the fact that Jesus had already been raised from the dead. That Jesus’ resurrection was the real point at issue had evidently been made clear enough in the hearing before Festus, although Festus did not realize its import. Agrippa probably knew enough about the Christian movement to have his interest whetted by what Festus told him.
20–22 Festus went on to tell him of his suggestion that Paul should go up to Jerusalem and have the trial conducted there, and of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Paul was now being kept in custody at Caesarea until an opportunity arrived of sending him to Rome to have his appeal heard. “Well,” said Agrippa, “I should like to hear the man for myself.” Festus accordingly undertook to arrange an audience for the following day.
10. Paul Appears Before Agrippa (25:23–27)
23So the next day, when King Agrippa and Bernice came with great ceremony and entered the audience chamber, with military tribunes and the most distinguished men of the city,29 Festus gave the order and Paul was brought in.
24Then Festus said, “King Agrippa, and all gentlemen30 who are present with us, you see this man. The whole community of the Jews made request of me, both at Jerusalem and here,31 clamoring that he ought to remain alive no longer.
25But I gathered that he had done nothing deserving the death penalty, and when he himself appealed to His Imperial Majesty, I decided to send him (to Rome).
26But I am unable to write anything definite32 about him to my sovereign lord. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, in order that, when we have held an inquiry, I may have something to write.
27It seems absurd to me, in remanding a prisoner, not to indicate the charges brought against him.”
23 The next day, then, an audience was held. It was attended not only by Agrippa and his sister, but by members of the procurator’s staff33 and leading citizens of Caesarea (who would be mainly, if not altogether, Gentiles). Festus himself, as was proper, was in charge of the proceedings. There is quiet humor in Luke’s account of the “great ceremony”34 with which they assembled: Luke had a true sense of values, and knew that in Paul there was a native greatness which had no need to be decked with the trappings of grandeur that surrounded his distinguished hearers. History has vindicated Luke’s perspective. It has been suggested that, by bringing Paul into contact with so many notabilities, Luke aimed at enhancing his status in the eyes of readers;35 but even then some people who read this account would reckon that it was a privilege for those notabilities to have this brief contact with Paul. And most people nowadays who know anything about Agrippa and Bernice and Festus know of them as persons who for a brief period of time crossed Paul’s path and heard him speak words which might have brought much blessing to them had they been disposed to pay serious heed to what he said. All these very important people would have been greatly surprised, and not a little scandalized, could they have foreseen the relative estimates that later generations would form of them and of the prisoner who now stood before them to state his case.
24–27 Paul was then conducted into the audience chamber, and Festus introduced him to Agrippa and the others, telling how he could find no substance in the capital charges which his Jewish accusers urged against him, and how Paul had appealed to Caesar. It is plain from these words that Festus was quite at a loss about the terms in which he should draw up his report on Paul’s case—“I am unable to write anything definite about him to my sovereign lord,”36 he said—and that he would be very glad for Agrippa’s help in this matter. He therefore handed over the conduct of the inquiry to his royal visitor.
It was a purely unofficial inquiry;37 it was in no sense a trial. Agrippa had no authority to conduct a trial in Judaea, and in any case, since Paul had now appealed to Caesar, he could be subjected to no further trial until his appeal was heard in Rome. The inquiry was held in order that Agrippa might understand enough of Paul’s case to help Festus frame his report. Festus alone was responsible for framing it, though he was free to receive help from whatever source he chose. He was bound to send a report: in saying that it would be absurd to remand a prisoner to the supreme court and not indicate the charges laid against him he did not imply that it was open to him to send Paul to Rome without any account of the charges and of the conduct of proceedings thus far.38