Festus Seeks Agrippa’s Counsel
25: 13-27
Festus seeks Agrippa’s counsel DIG: How fair is Festus in describing the case? How much does he seem to know about Judaism? About the Way? How would this have affected any decision he would have made in this case? Do you think he is honestly trying to find the truth in this matter? Why? This Agrippa as the son of Herod in 12:1-23, and grandson of Herod the Great (Matthew 2: 1-20). Why hadn’t he learned anything from the horrible demise of his father and grandfather? Why might he be especially interested in hearing from Paul? What is the problem Festus faces? Why doesn’t he just let Paul go?
REFLECT: When you have questions about your faith, who do you go to for answers? Why? How else do you seek input? How do you deal with people who are your superiors at work, or government authorities, who are leading worldly lifestyles? Do you respect their position (Romans 13:1-7), or should you say something? Where do you draw the line? Do you generally take responsibility for the mess you have caused yourself? Or do you blame others? What keeps you going in the midst of questions and unanswered situations? How do you typically deal with things you don’t know and can’t figure out?
Paul’s appeal to the emperor placed Festus in a difficult spot. He would have to write an official report specifying the charges that stood against Paul, and the reason for the appeal. On the one hand, if the charges were weak or not sufficient under Roman law, the emperor would surely wonder about Festus’ competence. Why had he not resolved the matter in Judea, one way of the other, even if it meant dismissing the matter or setting Paul free? On the other hand, if Paul, a Roman citizen, had appealed to Rome, there must have been something about the situation that was grave enough to warrant this action. What was Festus not telling the emperor that he ought to know about the situation in Judea involving the Jewish leadership? These were the sort of thoughts that were likely running through Festus’ mind as he sought a way to write his report so that he himself would not fall under suspicion. As fortune would have it, he was about to receive help from an unexpected source – Jewish nobility.583
The private explanation: There would be an interval before arrangements could be made for sending Paul to Rome. In the meantime, the Jewish King Marcus Julius Agrippa II and his sister Julia Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus (25:13). This was likely a more-or-less official visit to establish relationships with the new governor upon his assumption to office.
This king was Agrippa II who was the son of Agrippa I (to see link click Bl – Herod Agrippa Get’s His Due) and the great grandson of Herod the Great (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Av – The Visit of the Magi). He was educated in Rome and was very sympathetic to Roman policy. When his father died, he was seventeen years old and was not appointed to any office at that point. But in 48 AD he was made the king of Chalais, which was a small province in northern Palestine. Later in 53 AD he exchanged this kingdom for the patriarchies of Philip and Lisanius and was given authority by Rome over the Jewish Temple with the authority to appoint the high priest. In this position he came to anger the Jews in two ways. He built a palace overlooking the Temple compound and he also angered them by his frequent changes of the high priesthood.
Bernice was Agrippa’s younger sister (by one year). She was first married to her uncle Herod who was the king of Chalais when she was only thirteen. When he died she went to Rome to be with Agrippa II and had an incestuous relationship with him, which was something of a scandal in its day. She later married a second time to Polemon, the king of Cilicia, perhaps to avert the rumors. But she didn’t seem to have lived with him very long. When Agrippa II became king she left Polemon to live incestuously again with her brother. She later became the mistress of both Vespasian and Titus, father and son, once again creating a major scandal in elite Roman circles. She lived with Titus openly when she arrived in Rome with Agrippa in 75 AD. But popular disapproval of the alliance made it impossible for Titus to marry her. A Jewess was not socially acceptable. So when he became emperor in 79 AD, he was forced to abandon his liaison with her.584
The nature of the royal couple’s state visit required their staying several days in Caesarea. That gave Festus the opportunity to seek Agrippa’s experience and expert advice. He laid Paul’s case before the king. As king of the Jews, Festus felt that Agrippa was in a unique position to assist him in the matter of Paul’s appeal. In contrast to Tertullus’ carefully crafted charges appealing to Roman administration and legal interests, all the charges against Paul were initiated by the Jews primarily concerned religious matters. Festus was extremely aware of his own incompetence in that area. The governor needed a specific charge to write in his report before sending Paul to Rome . . . and up to that point he had no specific charge. Therefore, he started from the beginning: There is a man left behind as a prisoner by Felix (25:14).
Festus’ conversation with Agrippa is enlightening, but not for any new information. Verses 15-21 are Festus’ own version of the events covered in 25:1-2. What is interesting are the small differences in his version. Like Lysias, he sought to paint himself in the best possible light, even at the expense of bending the truth somewhat (see Cu – Paul Escorted to Caesarea). Festus was already presenting himself in the role of Paul’s protector. When I was in Jerusalem, the ruling kohanim and elders of the Judeans brought charges against him, asking for a judgment against him. I answered them that it is not Roman practice to turn over anyone before the accused meets his accusers face to face and has an opportunity to make his defense concerning the charges. So when they came together here, I did not delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought in (25:15-17). Initially, there was no question about delivering Paul to the Jews without a fair trial, only where the trial would be held.585
When the accusers stood up, they were not bringing a charge of what crimes I suspected. This most likely meant a crime of treason, or any crime violating Roman law. Instead, they had certain issues with him about their own religion and a dead man named Yeshua, whom Paul claimed to be alive. Festus’ reference to the resurrection is intriguing. It shows how incomprehensible to a pagan the whole concept must have been. And that is the point. He wasn’t competent to try the case, which he himself had admitted. Since I was at a loss as to how to investigate [Jewish law], I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem to be tried there in regard to them. Fetus gave the impression that he wanted to move the trial to Jerusalem because of “Jewish questions” that could only be asked by Jewish people in Jerusalem territory.586 If Festus had already determined that no Roman law had been broken, why didn’t he throw the charges out like Gallio did (18:15)? In 25:9 Luke has given us the answer: he wanted to do the Jewish leaders a favor (25:18-20).587
But when Paul appealed to be held in custody for the legal decision of His Majesty the Emperor, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar. No doubt flattered by the appeal to his expertise – and curious – Agrippa said to Festus, “I was wishing to hear the man myself” (25:21-22a). This suggests that Agrippa had been wanting to hear Paul for a long time. He undoubtedly knew of Paul and looked forward to hearing the leading spokesman for the Way in person.588
Many have noted the parallels between this narrative and the appearance of Yeshua before Herod Antipas (see the Commentary on The Life of Christ Lp – When Herod Saw Jesus, He Was Greatly Pleased). Both Herods expressed a desire to meet or hear the person in question. Both do indeed meet the party in question, but they do not determine the issue. Both also appear before a Roman governor. Both have Roman officials say that they could find nothing to charge them with under Roman law. And, finally, neither of them should have been on trial in the first place. These parallels can of course be overdone, since Jesus goes on to be unjustly crucified and Luke neither says nor implies any such outcome for Paul. Nevertheless, Festus assured Agrippa, “Tomorrow, you shall hear him” (25:22b). The stage was then set for Paul to fulfill what Messiah had long ago promised – that His witness, and Paul in particular, would carry His name before kings and governors on account of His name (Luke 21:12-13; Acts 9:15).589
The public explanation: Paul’s speech before Agrippa II is the climax to all his defense in Acts 22-26. It reaches back to all his previous arguments before the Jewish crowd (see Cp – Paul’s Testimony on the Temple Steps), the Sanhedrin (see Cr – Paul’s Defense before the Great Sanhedrin), and the Roman governors (see Cv – Paul’s Defense before Governor Felix), and presents his final statement on his belief that Yeshua’s sacrifice was superior to Levitical sacrifices (see the commentary on Hebrews Ca – Messiah, the Perfect Sacrifice). It is also climactic with regard to its setting because Paul bore his witness not only the gathered Roman leaders, but also a Jewish king. It is not surprising, therefore, that Luke went into some detail in describing the setting for this speech. One wonders if Luke was present in the visitor’s gallery. Otherwise, Paul (or somebody else) must have rehearsed it all to him later, although Luke may also have had access to the official documentation of the spectacle.
This scene is one of the most riveting in the B’rit Chadashah. So on the next day, Agrippa II and Bernice came with great pageantry (25:23a). The royal procession must have been breathtaking. Agrippa II would have been decked out in all the trappings of royalty, including a purple robe, golden crown, rings, and perhaps even a scepter. Bernice, though not technically Agrippa’s queen, would have been similarly attired. Luke may have intended a subtle irony by drawing attention to Bernice’s presence. The outward show of pomp opposed to the reality of their inward lives was stark. They entered the audience hall with the commanders, undoubtedly in full-dress uniforms, and the most prominent men of Caesarea wearing their finest clothes. An immaculately dressed honor guard of soldiers undoubtedly escorted the dignitaries into the auditorium.590 Finally, when the beautiful, the rich and the powerful had paraded in and everyone was seated, then at the order of Festus, Paul was brought in (25:23b). The little tentmaker from Tarsus, hands in chains, stood before them all. It was high drama and great entertainment.591
Festus’ account of the situation was a mixture of truth and error. But it provides a useful summary for understanding Paul’s whole experience. Then Festus said: King Agrippa and all present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Judean population petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting out that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had done nothing deserving of death (but his desire to send Paul to Jerusalem contradicted his own conclusions and forced him to appeal to Emperor Nero). And when he himself appealed to His Majesty the Emperor, I decided to send him (25:24-25). In addition to painting himself in the best possible light, Festus seemed to imply that Paul was himself responsible for the whole situation with the unnecessary appeal, as if he had not himself virtually forced Paul to do so because of his own yielding to Jewish pressure. In any event, Festus at least once again acknowledged Paul’s innocence.
Now Festus set the immediate agenda. Yet, I have nothing specific to write to my lord about him. Therefore, I have brought him before you (plural, meaning the whole assembly) – and especially before you, King Agrippa (a nominal Jew who knew something about Jewish law) – so that after the preliminary investigation has taken place, I might have something to write (25:26). Since Agrippa would presumably have to send a complete dossier – including a certified copy of Lysias’ letter, an extract of the trial proceedings under Felix and perhaps notes from Felix’s interviews with Paul, and a record of his own investigation – his dilemma was quite real because none of those documents indicated that Paul was guilty of anything.
For it seems illogical (Greek: alogos meaning senseless) to me when sending a prisoner, not to report also the charges against him (25:27). It would be senseless indeed, perhaps fatal, to one’s career. Such reports were not optional. Festus’ remark was extremely ironic because the whole situation was indeed senseless. He no charges against Paul because there was none to be found. The difficult spot Festus found himself in was very much his own doing.592
Leave A Comment