article70

§65 Festus Consults King Agrippa (Acts 25:13–22)

A state visit to Caesarea by Herod Agrippa II enabled Festus to canvass his opinion of Paul’s case. Agrippa expressed an interest in hearing Paul, and so it was that Paul made yet another defense. That the story has a historical basis we need not doubt—“The picture of the puzzled Roman official, bewildered by a doctrine of the Resurrection, and seeking advice from a Palestinian princelet, is so naive that it must be true” (Williams, p. 261). Moreover, from the detailed description of the day’s proceedings in 25:23–26:32, it is evident that if Luke was not himself present, then at least he was given the story by someone who was. There is, however, a historical problem with the narrative in 25:13–22. It purports to be a conversation between Festus and Agrippa, and it is hard (but not impossible) to imagine that any of Luke’s informants were privy to it. We must allow, then, that these verses may be the author’s own reconstruction of what led up to Paul’s appearing before Agrippa. But though we may question these verses in respect to their setting, their content does not present any problem. For they are simply an outline of events that were well known to Luke, with a portrayal of Festus’ bewilderment, which was evident to all.

25:13 / Not long after Festus had taken office, King Agrippa [Herod Agrippa II] and Bernice arrived at Caesarea—the verb has the sense of “came to stay” (see disc. on 16:1)—to pay their respects to the new governor. As a Roman vassal, involved to some extent in Jewish affairs, it was only proper that the king should do so. The aorist participle that is found in the best texts may mean that the king and Bernice had already “greeted” Festus, probably in Jerusalem, where Agrippa maintained a palace, but had now come on a formal visit to the governor’s official residence. The king (born ca. A.D. 27) was the son of Herod Agrippa I (see disc. on 12:1). After his father’s death, he was retained by the emperor in Rome (Agrippa had grown up in his court), who would not entrust Judea to a boy of seventeen. In A.D. 50, however, he was given the rule of Chalcis, with territory north and northeast of Galilee, which had formerly been ruled by his uncle (died A.D. 48). At the same time, the emperor transferred to him from the procurators of Judea the right of appointing the high priest and the custody of the sacred vestments. Agrippa was therefore a man to whom Festus would naturally look for an expert opinion on matters relating to the Jewish religion. In A.D. 56 Agrippa received from Nero, in exchange for Chalcis, the territories once ruled by Philip and Lysanias (see disc. on 12:1) and with this larger domain the title of king. Agrippa did his best to prevent the outbreak of the Jewish War against Rome. When his efforts failed, he remained loyal to Rome and was rewarded with a further increase in his kingdom. He died childless about A.D. 100.

His sister Bernice (properly Berenice), born A.D. 28, was the oldest of the three daughters of Agrippa I (cf. 24:24). She was married at the age of thirteen to her uncle Herod of Chalcis. Following his death, she lived with her brother—which gave rise to rumors of an incestuous relationship between them. To allay these rumors, she prevailed on Polemon, king of Cilicia, to marry her, but soon left him to return to her brother. Like Agrippa, she took the part of Rome in the Jewish War and became in turn the mistress of Vespasian and of Titus. She had expected to marry Titus, but the antipathy of the Roman people toward the Jews would not allow it (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.145–147; War 2.425–429; Juvenal, Satires 6.156ff.; Tacitus, History 2.81; Suetonius, Titus 7).

25:14–16 / The royal couple had been with Festus several days when he broached the matter of Paul with Agrippa. Naturally, he recounted the story from his own point of view. The case had come to his attention when the chief priests and elders of the Jews had asked him to condemn Paul. He had refused to do so. This is told in greater detail than in verse 4 and with all the hauteur of the Roman. He had pointed out that it was not Roman practice to condemn a man before he had faced his accusers. Felix, of course, had already seen to this, but Festus had had to satisfy himself in the matter.

25:17–19 / He had arranged to hear the case in Caesarea, and when Paul had been called up before him he had been surprised to hear that the charges were not of crimes as he had expected (v. 18)—accusations of political disturbance and sedition—but had to do with some points of dispute [the plural is used contemptuously, 23:29] about their own religion (v. 19). The word “religion” can also mean “superstition,” and it is a question whether Festus meant it in that sense (see disc. on 17:22). The whole discussion had seemed to Festus to turn on the question of whether a dead man named Jesus had risen from the dead as Paul had claimed (v. 19). The imperfect tense suggests that Paul had made this claim repeatedly, but the verb itself (Gk. phaskein) reflects Festus’ own opinion that it had been made without any grounds. The proposition had seemed to him to be quite absurd, yet he had put his finger on the real point at issue. There was more to the Jewish position than this, but the dispute revolved around Paul’s claims concerning Jesus, which were of little interest to Festus.

25:20–21 / Festus then told how he had suggested to Paul that his case should be tried in Jerusalem. Notice the change of motive. The reason given here is that he had sought in this way to find out what the case was really about. There may have been an element of truth in this, but Luke’s analysis in verse 9 reveals what was almost certainly the more pressing reason, namely, that he had wanted “to do the Jews a favor.” In any case, Paul had not fallen in with the suggestion, but had appealed, asking to be held over for the Emperor’s decision (v. 21). This wording throws a new light on the affair. Not only was Paul looking for Roman justice, he was appealing for Roman protection.

25:22 / Now that Paul had appealed, it had become incumbent on the governor that he should “investigate the matter” to get what information he could for the dossier that would accompany the prisoner (v. 20; cf. v. 26). Agrippa’s visit was therefore a timely one, for he at least should be able to throw some light on the case. It was arranged that he should hear Paul the next day.