A New Governor
Acts 25:1-5
Festus, the governor who succeeded Felix, is a shadowy player on the Roman stage. History outside the Book of Acts offers no information about him beyond a few words of Josephus, who says that he put down an insurrection during his brief time in office before his death.1 The figure Luke portrays builds an alliance with Jewish leaders that is stronger than his predecessor's.
The first move Festus made, only three days after taking his new position, was to visit Jerusalem and engage these leaders in discussion of issues hanging in the balance. After the trouble they caused Felix, Festus was determined to keep them on his side. The chief favor they sought from the new governor was to reach a verdict on their accusations against Paul. On the pretense that they wanted this to happen as soon as possible, they asked for Paul’s immediate transfer from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Then Festus could conduct the apostle’s trial even before he returned home. But their true intent if Festus yielded to their request was to have their agents ambush Paul’s escort on the road and kill Paul.
Festus did not, however, agree to transfer the apostle. To remain in Jerusalem any longer than necessary did not suit his own preference. For reasons he did not state, he wanted to leave Jerusalem without further delay and return to Caesarea.2 Probably he could not resist the allure of the magnificent palace that now served as his residence. After his recent arrival in the province, he had barely tasted the splendor of his new home, or the splendor of his new life as governor. So, rather than linger in the dirty and backward world of the Jewish capital, he demanded that the leaders come down to Caesarea and there present their case against Paul.
A New Trial
Acts 25:6-8
Less than two weeks later, Festus left Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea. Also at that time a group of Jewish leaders ready to pursue charges against Paul made the same trip, probably traveling in the governor’s entourage.
The next day after arrival, Festus sat in his judgment seat and summoned the prisoner to face his accusers. Unless the governor spoke from this seat—called a bema4 (in Greek, βημα) or sella5 (Latin), terms often translated "tribunal"—the proceeding was not considered a legal exercise of his judicial authority.6
The Jews then stood around Paul and leveled charge after charge against him. The charges were both "many and grievous," some of the them surely calling for the death penalty. Luke does not tell us what they were, but we may surmise that many were well-worn lies—even the same lies that Tertullus had hurled against Paul two years earlier (Acts 24:5–6). Festus must have heard that Paul was the leader of a fringe movement with treasonous political ambitions, that he was continually fanning civil disturbances, and that he was so grievously disloyal to his own Jewish heritage that he had profaned the Temple. When allowed to speak in his own defense, Paul brushed aside all these accusations as gross fabrications. He insisted that he had never committed any wrong against Jewish law, against the Temple, or against Caesar.
The Verdict
Acts 25:9-12
Festus now showed that he was going to pay more respect to Jewish wishes than Felix had done. To avoid complaints that could cut short his governorship, he would practice accommodation. He therefore asked Paul whether he would be willing to transfer the proceedings to Jerusalem. Perhaps he hoped that Paul would welcome this change in venue because it would give him an opportunity to promote his religious sect in a highly visible way, before Jewish leaders gathered at the place central to Jewish identity. To make the proposal more attractive, he said that he himself would sit as judge. He probably calculated that the prospect of a Roman judge would help Paul view the trial as impartial.
In asking for Paul's consent to be tried in Jerusalem, Festus was giving the prisoner a choice that he was legally entitled to make. Otherwise he would never have put the question to Paul.
Pondering a Question
Why did Paul have the right to decide whether his trial would be conducted in Jerusalem rather than in Caesarea?
Although modern scholars have done considerable work to reconstruct Roman legal codes and procedures, our knowledge is still imperfect. The most authoritative analysis of Paul’s trials in Caesarea comes from A. N. Sherwin-White. But despite the yeoman’s work that he and others have done, many questions have not been fully resolved.
One vexing uncertainty is exactly what kind of trial Paul would have faced in Jerusalem. So far as we can tell, no trial conducted by Festus had any significance or validity in the Roman legal system unless he presided from his judgment seat, normally in Caesarea. Even the first hearing could not get under way until he physically sat down in the right chair (v. 6). Yet we have considerable evidence that a proper bema was not necessarily fixed in one location.
- The practice of King Philip, a ruler of territory near Judea, was to take his judgment seat wherever he went so that he could conduct a trial near the homes of the parties involved.7
- According to Josephus, Pilate on one occasion set his tribunal in an open marketplace.8
- He mentions also a time when Florus, a cruel Judean governor some years after Festus, came to Jerusalem and presided there from a tribunal in front of the palace.9
- When Vespasian was moving toward his siege of Jerusalem, he rendered verdicts from his judgment seat when he reached Taricheae, a village beside the Sea of Galilee.10
- As governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger sat on his judgment seat in more than one city.11
But although Festus could move his bema to any convenient location, we can be fairly confident that he would not be sitting on it during the trial he was proposing for Paul in Jerusalem.
- Festus had no need to obtain Paul's permission for a trial in Jerusalem if it would have been equivalent to a trial in Caesar's court. Paul could refuse the transfer solely because it would remove him from the sphere of protections enjoyed by a Roman citizen. One protection he would lose would be the right of appeal. Instead, he would be judged as a Jewish citizen under the authority of Jewish rulers.
- All uncertainty on the matter dissolves in the clear light of Paul's answer. "I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest." He obviously clung to Caesarea as the venue for his trial because in Jerusalem he would not be standing at Caesar's judgment seat.
What then would have been the legal standing of the trial Festus proposed to conduct in Jerusalem? Under its Roman overlords, the Sanhedrin did have the right to administer justice as defined by Jewish law, although within certain boundaries. Festus evidently believed that he was entitled to offer himself as judge in a trial conducted under auspices of the Sanhedrin because he was the proper judge in an even higher court.
Yet why did he imagine himself competent in such a role? Later on, he confessed that he was wholly ignorant of certain issues raised by the charges against Paul, since these had to do with Jewish religious beliefs (vv. 18–20). Perhaps he expected to limit the trial to charges dealing with Paul’s conduct in Jerusalem. For example, he would be competent to declare Paul guilty of actions profaning the Temple—a crime the Sanhedrin considered a capital offense—or of agitating a riot—a crime the Sanhedrin would be willing to consider a capital offense. Then he could sentence Paul to death, and Paul could not escape condemnation by challenging the verdict in a higher court.
As Paul viewed the prospect of a trial in Jerusalem, he knew perfectly well that accepting this option would spell disaster. Once he reached the city, it was doubtful that he would be given adequate protection to thwart attempts on his life. It was even more doubtful that he could expect justice. In Jerusalem, Festus would be surrounded by clamorous Jewish leaders that he was anxious to please. He would see many incentives to rule against Paul. It would be especially easy to decide that Paul and his religious allies had provoked civil disturbances.
What remaining option did Paul have? If he refused a trial in Jerusalem, Festus would most likely bring him to trial in Caesarea. But he would not be an impartial judge. He would slant the proceedings and issue a ruling to serve his own agenda, which was to gain Jewish favor. If the ruling called for capital punishment, Paul could then appeal to a higher court. But it would be harder to win the sympathy of a judge in Rome if he had already been declared guilty by a lower judge. Therefore, his best option was to circumvent any trial in Caesarea by immediately exercising his right to lodge an appeal. In other words, Paul could escape a trial before Festus only by appealing to Caesar.
Doubtless another reason for the appeal carried strong weight. In Jerusalem, the Lord had revealed to Paul that his life would be delivered from danger there so that he might "bear witness . . . in Rome" (Acts 23:11). Paul therefore knew that choosing the path to Rome would serve God's purposes and win God's approval.
In reply to Festus’s question, Paul, in a fine display of his godly character, declared that if he was guilty of any charge brought by Jewish leaders, he would not resist justice. He would willingly face trial in Jerusalem. But in another fine display—this, of his zeal for the cause of Christ—he added that because he was wholly innocent, he would without further delay exercise his right to lodge an appeal "unto Caesar."
Paul worded his appeal as a stinging rebuke of Festus for his unjust ruling. He bluntly accused Festus of wrongdoing in three respects: first, in his attempt to try Paul not at Caesar's judgment seat in Caesarea, but in Jerusalem; second, in his failure to exonerate Paul of many baseless charges; third, in his lack of any excuse for a wrong judgment, for he knew perfectly well that the charges were in fact baseless. In essence, Paul was accusing Festus of perverting justice for political reasons.
Festus withheld his reply until he had discussed Paul's case with his advisers. What did they need to discuss? At a later time in the empire's history, the central courts became so overburdened that the right of appeal was limited to cases involving serious or extraordinary charges. There is some evidence that a universal right of appeal was already waning in the 50s, when Paul languished under arrest in Caesarea.12 But it is unlikely that retaining jurisdiction over Paul was a possibility weighed by Festus and his advisers. The case of a Christian evangelist whose work had unsettled a wide swath of Roman society had larger ramifications. Festus might well have antagonized higher authorities if he excluded them from final judgment.
But several questions did require heads-together consultation among the judge's team. Should they simply release Paul? Or should they deliver him a counterproposal to hold the trial in Caesarea? But they must have quickly agreed that there was no legal room for either of these responses to Paul's appeal. For a lower court to resolve a case that had been formally committed to Caesar’s judgment was viewed as dishonoring Caesar.13 Reaching a verdict had now become the business of a higher court, and Festus would be unwise to retain any role as judge.
Yet an appeal to Caesar did not require Festus to send the prisoner to Rome immediately.14 It was entirely appropriate to delay shipping him off if the governor felt that the case warranted further investigation. Given the cloudy charges overhanging Paul's case, Festus and his council may well have discussed what additional information would be needed to assist deliberations by a higher court.
The final verdict was that if Paul wanted Caesar to judge him, then to Caesar he would go. Festus was doubtless relieved to resign all further responsibility for the case. He had already achieved his purpose, which was to make himself popular with the Jewish leaders.
Getting Practical
Divine sovereignty
In forcing Paul to make his appeal to Caesar, Festus behaved unjustly. He should have dismissed the complaints against Paul as unfounded and released him. When Festus appears before God in judgment, he will not escape punishment for his improper handling of Paul's case. Yet although his decision to hold Paul in custody was wrong, God let it stand, because He had already declared that Paul must bear witness to Christ in Rome (Acts 23:11). Festus's action was therefore according to God's sovereign will. God was able to use even an unjust decision to accomplish His purposes.
The story of how Paul went to Rome is therefore an illustration of an important principle—that the rulings of a person in authority, even though he is wicked and fails to do right, conform to God's will (Prov. 21:1). If an evil man is in control, Scripture does not forbid us from lawfully removing him from power if we can, nor does it forbid us from escaping from his jurisdiction if we can, but while we remain under his authority, we must submit to his commands, accepting them as from God. Although they appear wrong to us, we can be confident that God will bring good from them. In the end, they will bring glory to God. We must maintain an attitude of submission even if, as Festus treated Paul, the ruler punishes us for our faith. Then God will be glorified through our suffering. One way or another, the result will be that He receives the glory.
We must add a caution, however. As we have seen earlier in the Book of Acts, the requirement to submit to a ruler does not extend to rulings that would force us to disobey God. Then we must obey God rather than man.
Regal Visitors
Acts 25:13-22
A decision by Festus to investigate Paul's case further is likely why the apostle was still being held in Caesarea when, "after certain days," a neighboring ruler, Agrippa II, came to visit the governor. Perhaps he came by invitation to help Festus complete his review of Paul's case before sending it to a higher court. This Agrippa, who was king over several territories north of Judea, belonged to the family of Herods. Like Drusilla, wife of Felix, he was a child of Herod Agrippa I, the ruler who beheaded James and tried to kill Peter.15 Agrippa came to see Festus in the company of Berenice (her actual name rather than Bernice16), his younger sister and older sister of Drusilla.17 Berenice was a widow now living with her brother, and it was widely rumored with strong supporting evidence that their relationship was adulterous.18 To include a sordid detail when introducing these elite Romans would be improper to make the story more entertaining, but is worthwhile to give us some insight on why they reacted to Paul as they did.
After Agrippa and Berenice spent many days with Festus, the governor confided to them that he had a difficult case to settle. He then reviewed the proceedings against Paul. In so doing, he framed his account as much as possible to justify justifying his own decisions along the way. He said that while he was in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders wanted him to deliver Paul into their custody so that they might "have judgment against him"; in other words, put him to death for a capital offense. But Festus refused, explaining that no Roman magistrate or governor could release a man for execution without first granting him a trial where he could face his accusers and answer their charges. Festus's way of framing the hypothetical case, especially his phrase "manner of the Romans," implied that the man so accused was a Roman citizen. To satisfy the Jewish leaders without violating Paul’s rights, Festus had pursued his only option. He had brought both the accused and his accusers before his judgment seat in Caesarea. But there he was wholly surprised to find that the charges revolved about religious matters. He saw that the chief point at issue was whether a certain Jesus had risen from the dead. Festus viewed all the claims of Paul and the counterclaims of Jewish leaders with scorn, going so far as to characterize Jewish religious beliefs as mere superstition. After hearing both sides, he found it impossible to reach a verdict, because he "doubted of such manner of questions," or, in a literal translation, because he was "perplexed as to the inquiry concerning this."19 That is, he saw no way to determine whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, or to resolve the other religious controversies fueling hatred of Paul among Jewish leaders. The implied meaning of his words is that he had no interest whatever in wasting his office on matters lying wholly outside his jurisdiction and competence. So, he had decided to ask Paul whether he would be willing to stand trial in Jerusalem before fellow Jews who understood the issues under dispute.
To close his summary of the case, Festus shared with Agrippa and Berenice its current state. He said that Paul, adamantly opposed to a trial in Jerusalem, had appealed to Caesar, and that he, Festus, had consented. He was now retaining Paul in custody until a suitable time had come for transferring his case to Rome.
Agrippa responded by asking to hear Paul speak. No doubt the main reason was that he wanted a fuller picture of the facts before he advised Festus. It would be especially helpful when forming his own judgment if he had a chance to size up the man accused. But in his request we also see pronounced curiosity. Paul was not an obscure figure. Agrippa was surely aware that as the champion of a new religion, Paul had "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). So, Agrippa may have wanted to hear Paul because, like the Athenians (Acts 17:21), he was always interested in hearing or telling some new thing. But from his reaction when he actually heard Paul, we may surmise that his curiosity had a deeper source—a gnawing disquiet in his soul.
Festus replied that Agrippa could hear Paul the next day.
Another Hearing
Acts 25:23-27
At the appointed time, quite a large crowd assembled in "the place of hearing," or "hall of audience,"20 doubtless within the governor’s palace originally built by Herod and commonly known as the praetorium.21 Agrippa and Berenice arrived in all their royal splendor and took seats before the throng. Their entrance "with great pomp" likely means a formal procession.22 Many distinguished citizens also came, including the "chief captains." These were the highest ranking officers in the local contingent of the Roman army. Like Claudius Lysias in Jerusalem, each was a chiliarch23—that is, a military tribune commanding a thousand-man force known as a cohort.24 History informs us that five cohorts were stationed in Caesarea.25 Besides these officers, the guests included the principal men of the city, most of whom were probably gentiles.26
It may come as a surprise to some readers that Paul's appearance before the rulers turned into a state occasion requiring or attracting the attendance of many dignitaries. The importance attached to this occasion shows that Paul was a famous man, whose imprisonment had drawn considerable public attention.
Festus opened the hearing by summarizing the facts of the case, going over much the same ground that he had covered the day before when speaking privately to Agrippa. He described Paul as a man bitterly hated by the whole Jewish nation, to the extent that they would not accept any remedy except his death. But he gave as his own judgment that the man was guiltless of any capital crime. Without relating the circumstances that pressured Paul into exercising his right of appeal to Caesar, Festus merely recalled his decision to let the appeal stand. He would send the prisoner to Rome. Yet there was a difficulty, and he hoped that Agrippa might offer advice on how to overcome it. The difficulty was that Festus did not know what to say about Paul in his report to higher authorities. He felt that he should send a statement of charges against him, but he did not know what charges to state, since he had done nothing worthy of death under Roman law. He concluded with a pronouncement so self-evident that it sounds rather like the wisdom of a clown: "For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him" (v. 27). Yes, so the obvious question is, why, instead of dismissing the case as groundless, had Festus proposed to try Paul in Jerusalem? Luke, in this account designed to be read by judges in Rome, seizes the opportunity to point out the travesty of justice that Paul suffered in the court of Festus.
After Festus had introduced the proceeding, Agrippa took charge and invited Paul to speak for himself.
Getting Practical
Persecution as a divine tool
Much as we dislike persecution, it is powerfully effective in bringing Christianity to public notice. All the great and mighty wanted to attend Paul's defense before Festus and Agrippa. We surmise that his imprisonment had become a major news story throughout the region. With widespread discussion of his case, there was likely also much discussion of his message. Many may have considered the gospel who otherwise might have remained indifferent.
Likewise, when persecution falls upon us, we must trust God that He will use it to promote His kingdom. At such times, it is important that we retain a good spirit, that we keep a face full of confidence, and that we provide a bold and stirring defense of our faith in God (1 Pet. 3:15). The world will watch us closely to see if our faith is rooted deeply enough to sustain us, as faith in a real God would do, and if we allow the Holy Spirit to perfect our testimony in the midst of trial, our faith will put in the hearts of the watching world both a conviction of sin and a longing for the peace of God, and some will turn to Christ. We all know that we should be witnesses for Christ, but sometimes we forget that our best opportunities may come only with persecution. Therefore, we should welcome persecution, not in the sense that we gloss over the evil in suffering, but in the sense that we see beyond the suffering to the good that God intends in all the twists and turns of life in a sinful world.
Delving Still Deeper
A silly reading
Luke's day-by-day account assures us that he is writing as an observer on the scene. But CT, instead of preserving his original words "more than ten days," gives us "not more than eight or ten days."3 This reading foists on the author a most unusual way of reckoning time, without parallel elsewhere in Luke's writings or in all of Scripture. If the author meant "not more than eight," why did he add the superfluous "not more than ten," and if he meant "not more than ten," why did he contradict himself by adding "not more than eight"?
The reading in CT is very striking proof that its underlying manuscripts are actually quite late and derivative in origin. Most Byzantine manuscripts say "more than ten days," but a fair number say "more than eight days." What we find in CT obviously comes from an editor with access to multiple Byzantine sources who, as he looked at the two variants, was uncertain which was correct and who therefore produced or authorized a new version preserving both.
Apparently another contribution he made to the text was "not," which scarcely appears in ancient manuscripts except in the few Alexandrian codices at the basis of CT. Perhaps the addition reflects the same motive that seems to underlie some other Alexandrian readings—a reluctance to put Roman officials in a bad light. The editor may have shied away from portraying Festus as hobnobbing for a long time with contemptible Jewish leaders. His use of "not" to protect Festus's image may also be seen as a touch of antisemitism, another common feature of CT.