# 55: 4-25-08 1

Acts 25

Once Paul had been taken into captivity in Jerusalem, he was subjected to a series of trials – both formal
and informal. Although it would seem that Paul was the one who was being tried, the Lord was using these
trials to expose the hearts of those who stood in judgment on Paul.

This happened first with the Jewish people in the temple, who proved themselves unreceptive to the love of
God, extended to them by Paul through the gospel. Then the Sanhedrin – the supreme judicial court of the
Jews - held an informal hearing of Paul. They proved themselves unwilling to hear him, and incapable of
rendering a fair judgment.

Next, Paul was tried in Caesarea by Felix, the Roman governor of Judea. It became clear to Felix that Paul
was completely innocent, yet Felix would not render a judgment in the case, since this would antagonize
his Jewish subjects. In deferring his decision indefinitely, Felix proved himself to be an unjust judge, in
addition to a corrupt politician.

Meanwhile, Paul was just kept at the governor’s palace in Caesarea – and kept. This went on for two years,
at which time Felix was recalled to Rome by the emperor. Even then, Felix chose to leave Paul in bonds
for the next governor – as a favor to the Jews.

During the two years that Paul was kept in Caesarea, the Lord exposed the heart of Felix through Paul, so
that Felix could see himself to be a sinner. But Felix became afraid, and deferred his own personal
decision, much as he had deferred his decision in Paul’s case. Judgment was put on hold for both men.

Felix refused to make a decision about the Lord because he desired to continue in his sin. That left him in
bondage to sin and rendered him incapable of partaking of the life, and the light, and the love of God. His
decision to hear Paul at a “convenient time” never came, because in so deciding, he was hardening his heart
to the gospel. In the end, the Judge of all the earth would have to take Felix’s lack of decision as his
decision - to reject the One who died to save him.

Through all of the trials of Paul, what we see is the Lord moving His servant through earthly circumstances
to bring about His purpose – that as Paul had testified for Jesus in Jerusalem, so he would also in Rome
(Acts 23:11). We will see the next part of His purpose accomplished today, as Paul continues into yet
another trial – and secures his ticket to Rome.

25:1 Festus had come to the province when Felix was recalled to Rome by the emperor. Uprisings had
been continuing to worsen in Judea during the time when Felix was governor. The specific occasion for his
recall was the outbreak of a riot in Caesarea between Jews and Gentiles.

Felix had sent in troops to restore order, but had it done in accordance with his usual heavy-handed
approach, and there was much bloodshed. In particular, many of the Jews who had a leading role in the riot
were slain. This resulted in the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem issuing a formal complaint against Felix to
Rome. Although his lost his governorship, Felix’s powerful brother Pallas shielded him against further
action by the emperor.

Meanwhile, Festus was sent by Rome to replace Felix. The time was about 59 AD. Of course, Festus
would have been briefed first on the conditions in the troubled province he was to govern, including the
episode that resulted in the last governor’s ouster. Although the Jews had always chafed under the yoke of
their Roman overlords, these were especially turbulent times in Judea.
# 55: 4-25-08 2

Two years had gone by since Paul was first brought to Caesarea as a prisoner. Instead of finally coming to
a decision on Paul’s case, Felix had left him for the next governor to deal with. Two years without a
decision, and then the decision to leave him bound; Paul was still a prisoner.

Would this have been a challenging time for Paul, personally? It must have been. Paul had some liberty
within his confinement – he was guarded, but not chained, and he was allowed visitors. But Paul was not
free to come and go as he pleased, was he? Nor could he just do whatever he wished. So Paul was limited
by his circumstances.

The circumstances of Paul’s daily life had indeed changed – the temporal realities – but what had not
changed? The spiritual realities. Paul recognized, first of all, that these were the circumstances of his
Lord’s choosing for him. That’s why Paul would write, time and again, that he was the prisoner of the
Lord, of Jesus, his Messiah (Eph 3:1, 4:1, 2 Tim 1:8, Philem 1, 9). Would that not have made his bondage
more bearable – to know that the Lord Himself had appointed him to it?

And just because Paul was in bondage bodily, he did not have to take that bondage to heart – and he didn’t.
Paul set his mind on things above, not on things on the earth (Col 3:2). Paul knew that he, with all other
believers, had been made alive together with Christ, and in Him, he was already raised up together, seated
together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, along with all who believed in Him (Eph 2:5-6).

Nothing – nothing could separate him from the love of Christ (Rm 8:35) – and in Christ, Paul remained
united together with Him, and united together with his beloved brethren in Christ. Whenever he chose,
Paul could transcend his earthly circumstances and experience this heavenly reality – in fact, he could just
abide there.

And we have every evidence that that is exactly what Paul did – for his so-called prison epistles, which he
would soon write from Rome, reflected that the spiritual reality was the reality that Paul chose to live by –
and in doing so, he came into the deep truths of the Spirit that we see reflected in his letters to the Ephesian,
Philippian and Colossian assemblies. Paul may have been in prison, but he was breathing in the air of
heaven there.

But the new governor was breathing in very different air – the air of this world. Festus was a far different
man than the previous governor, Felix, had been. Whereas Felix had started life as a lowly slave, and risen
up to his position in life through circumstance and connections, Festus was a member of the Roman
nobility; he would have been groomed from an early age for just such a position.

History reports that Festus was more respectable in character than Felix; of course, it would have been
difficult to be less so. And apparently, Festus was fairer and more cooperative with his subjects than brutal
Felix had been as governor of Judea. During his tenure, Festus was able to correct disturbances, and he
caught many insurrectionists.

Here was a man who was a very careful politician in the world system; a worldly-wise ruler. What we will
see is that, in order for Festus to be successful at what he does requires him to compromise with the truth -
which he will do even when it could cost an innocent man his life.

Initially, Festus spent three days in Caesarea, the provincial capital of Judea. After that, he immediately
headed up to Jerusalem – a wise political move, as it was the religious center of Judea.
# 55: 4-25-08 3

v. 2-3 You can see that the Jewish rulers in Jerusalem didn’t lose any time in bringing their case against
Paul to the attention of Festus. The high priest at this time was Ismael, the son of Fabi. But the man in our
passage may actually be Ananias, the former high priest, for in that day, the title of high priest was retained
after their period in office was over. It was Ananias who had originally pressed charges against Paul under
Felix.

Two years had gone by, and the malice of the Jewish rulers was as strong as ever against Paul. In Festus,
they saw an opportunity that had been denied them with Felix; an opportunity to visit their brand of justice
upon Paul.

The rulers presented Festus with their case against Paul, and asked him if he would be willing to have Paul
brought up from Caesarea, implying that Paul could stand trial before Festus on their charges against him
in Jerusalem. Apparently, the rulers made it clear to Festus that they absolutely believed that Paul was
guilty – Festus would later recall them as saying Paul was not fit to live any longer (v. 24).

I’m sure the rulers also strongly emphasized the miscarriage of justice under the previous administration, in
Felix postponing the case indefinitely. The rulers would have made it clear that complying with their
wishes would give Festus favor in their eyes– something he would be most eager to curry, with his difficult
subjects. They were counting both on the inexperience and the ambition of this new governor, that he
would take the bait.

Meanwhile, were the Jewish rulers really intending that Festus should try Paul at all? No – they were
planning to kill him – again. This time, the rulers themselves had plotted to ambush Paul – and most or all
of these were members of the Sanhedrin – the highest judicial court of Israel. Naturally, they did not
disclose their true intentions to the governor.

v. 4-6a Well, Festus didn’t take the bait. He was inexperienced – and he was ambitious – but he was also
very, very careful – as any smart politician must be, to survive. Now, it wasn’t that Festus couldn’t have
tried this case in Jerusalem – he could have. And we read in verse 6 that he stayed in Jerusalem more than
ten days – that was ample time to try the case. He would only take one day after returning to Caesarea to
hear the case. So why didn’t Festus agree?

Festus had to be sure that it was safe to do this. He didn’t know all the facts of the case; having spent only
three days at Caesarea so far, it is unlikely he heard anything about Paul’s case, or read anything Felix
might have written about him. Who was Paul? Might he be a person of significance? Festus was not
going to make any move without carefully analyzing the potential ramifications – and for that, he needed to
know all the facts.

So for the sake of his political survival, Festus initially denied the Jews their petition. Instead, he suggested
that they come to Caesarea, and reopen the case against Paul there. The rulers had no choice but to
begrudgingly agree.

Meanwhile, Festus spent more than ten days in Jerusalem. It wouldn’t be surprising if he sent word ahead
to Caesarea to bring together any documents that might be had on Paul, including a record of the previous
trial. After this time, Festus returned to Caesarea with the Jewish rulers.

v. 6b-8 By this point in time, Festus had no doubt gleaned all that he could in the records concerning
Paul’s previous trial under Felix. But even if this careful politician had failed to do that, he was about to
hear a reiteration of that trial, this time with himself as judge.
# 55: 4-25-08 4

Festus sat on the bema – the judgment seat, or tribunal – which indicates that this was an official Roman
trial. We will read later that there was also a council at this trial (v. 12). These were advisors who sat in on
public trials with the governor, and counselled him concerning the finer points of the law. It is likely that
Felix also had a council at Paul’s previous trial, although it does not appear that he consulted them.

As we read through the description of this trial before Festus, we can be sure that Luke is greatly
summarizing what was actually said. For instance, we will later see that there were some things that Festus
knew that Luke does not record, concerning Jesus (v. 19).

From what Luke does record, we can see that this trial was essentially a repetition of the trial under Felix.
That would account for why Luke is especially short with his record of it.

By looking at the things that Paul said in response to the charges made by the rulers, it is apparent that the
charges were still the same: they accused Paul of sedition among the Jews throughout the Roman Empire;
they accused him of heading up a heretical sect; and they accused him of violating the sanctity of the
temple in Jerusalem. And, just like at the previous trial, the rulers had no proof to offer – no eyewitnesses,
no evidence. Why? Because there wasn’t any, of course.

Paul met each charge with an emphatic denial of it; he had not offended in anything at all. You can be
certain that Paul used the same arguments that he used previously with Felix.

After hearing both the prosecution and the defense, Festus then considered the matter. From his
perspective, two of the charges appeared to be a violation of the Jews’ religious law, which was outside of
his jurisdiction. The charge of sedition against Caesar was certainly a Roman legal issue, but it was totally
unsubstantiated by the Jewish rulers. Festus could see that there was no case here.

v. 9 First, notice that Festus did not render a decision. He deferred it – presumably until the case was
heard in Jerusalem. Why? Because the Jews did not have a case against Paul, but to dismiss the charges
would invoke their fury. Festus was in the same position that Felix was in two years ago; but he handled it
differently.

Now, let’s think this through. Luke pointedly records for us that Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor.
Festus was an ambitious politician; and he knew that the support of his subjects was essential for his own
success. The Jews had asked him to have Paul summoned to Jerusalem, presumably to stand trial there
before Festus. This, Festus was unwilling to do initially, because he did not know all the particulars of the
case, and feared a political backlash.

But now, Festus knew all that he needed to know; and he knew that Paul was dispensable. There would be
no harm to Festus in granting the Jews’ wish to have Paul tried in Jerusalem, whatever their reasons.
Regardless of Paul’s fate, Festus could see by now that it wouldn’t have a negative impact on him, on his
career. If the Jews wanted Paul in Jerusalem, Festus could grant this wish without any danger to himself –
if it was a danger to Paul, what did it matter?

Despite the noble heritage of Festus, he proved himself to be most ignoble in this matter. Not even Felix
had been willing to send Paul back into the enemy’s camp. But this was a politically savvy move. If Paul
said yes, the Jews would be pleased. If he said no, his resistance would cast suspicion on his innocence.

Some have suggested that Festus was simply being naïve here; that perhaps he didn’t realize sending Paul
back to Jerusalem would endanger him. But how can that be said, when Festus would later recall that the
Jews were crying out that Paul was not fit to live any longer (v. 24)?
# 55: 4-25-08 5

It has also been suggested that Festus was at a loss to understand the nuances of the religious charges. This
is certainly true; but in what way would hearing them repeated in Jerusalem help Festus? And what
difference would it make for him to understand the religious charges – since they were not a matter for
Roman law?

No, Festus was seeking to curry the favor of his subjects at the expense of Paul. We can be certain of
Festus’ motives, not only because of Luke’s comment about wanting to do the Jews a favor, but because
there was no logical reason to send Paul back to Jerusalem. Festus had just completed Paul’s trial; why
would he be suggesting to repeat the trial in Jerusalem?

Notice that Festus said “are you willing to be judged before me?” – he was not suggesting a trial by the
Sanhedrin. There was no logical reason to repeat Paul’s Roman trial in Jerusalem – other than to please the
Jewish rulers.

And no doubt, they were very pleased by the suggestion of Festus. Now their plan to ambush Paul before
he ever reached Jerusalem could be realized – or so they thought.

v. 10-11 After what Paul had experienced in Jerusalem, we can be certain that he understood to return to
Jerusalem would put him in grave danger; and that perhaps he would even lose his life. But had not Paul
gone up to Jerusalem, all the while the Holy Spirit bearing him witness, that chains and tribulations awaited
him (Acts 20:22) ? Yes.

Paul would not have hesitated to go up to Jerusalem in the current circumstances, if it was the Lord’s will.
As he had said to the believers in Caesarea, “I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem
for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13).

But what was the Lord’s will, in this matter? For Paul to witness for Him in Rome (Acts 23:11). It was the
Lord who brought Paul out of Jerusalem; Paul could be sure he was not to return to Jerusalem. But for
Paul to say “no” to the governor would be to introduce a note of suspicion into his case. So what was Paul
to do? The Holy Spirit showed him – with a solution that worked right within the system of justice that
was currently being mishandled here.

As a Roman citizen, Paul had the right to appeal to Caesar’s tribunal – a right that went back to the
foundation of the republic in 509 BC. Any citizen who felt that he had not received a fair trial, or had not
received a fair verdict, could appeal to Caesar. The citizen could not be sentenced after an appeal had been
made, and could not be prevented from going to Rome to have the appeal heard there within a reasonable
time.

So Paul appealed his case to Caesar; but first, he gave Festus the reason why he had decided to do this. It
was a stinging rebuke of Festus’ miscarriage of justice.

First Paul pointed out that he stood at Caesar’s judgment seat. Festus was the governor, the representative
of Caesar in Judea. His tribunal was really an extension of Caesar’s tribunal in Rome, for Roman law was
to be executed equitably throughout the Roman Empire. Paul said that, at Caesar’s judgment seat – the seat
of Festus, at this time – he ought to be judged.

Felix had delayed that judgment for two years. Now Festus was trying to miscarry Roman justice, by
having a case that was no case tried over again in Jerusalem. Paul ought to have been judged at this
judgment seat – he ought to have been declared “not guilty” – but he was not – why? Because the judges
refused to make a right judgment, for fear of their subjects; they feared to lose the favor of the people.
# 55: 4-25-08 6

Paul pointed out that Festus “very well knew” that he had done no wrong to the Jews. Festus himself
would later say of Paul, “I found that he had committed nothing deserving of death” (v. 25). The phrase
“very well know” means that Festus had a full knowledge of this.

In the trial, it would just have appeared to Festus as the rulers’ word against Paul’s. Where would Festus
have gotten a full knowledge of Paul’s innocence? It could only have been from the record of the previous
trial, or from the letter of Lysias to Felix, both of which revealed the Roman commander’s corroboration of
Paul’s testimony – and lack of support for the testimony of the rulers.

Paul indicated his willingness to submit to Roman law; if he was in violation, he would pay the price, even
if it was death. But as he was innocent, which Festus himself very well knew, no one – not Festus or
anyone else – could deliver Paul to the Jewish rulers – for he was a Roman citizen.

Since that was exactly what Festus was suggesting, in effect, Paul was making it clear that it was apparent
to him that he could obtain no justice at this judgment seat of Caesar – because the judge was unjust.
Therefore – Paul made his appeal to Caesar.

You can just hear the boldness of the Spirit in Paul’s words, as he pronounced his judgment on Festus and
his court. Once again, the judge was the one who came under judgment.

v. 12 Although Festus would surely have been stung by Paul’s words, he also realized their significance –
the case would be taken out of his hands. Even with his own understanding of this, Festus turned to his
advisors to carefully review all the possible ramifications. Then he gave his response to Paul.

Do you have the sense that this response on the part of Festus seemed a little, perhaps – angry? I think
Festus was fuming inside. After all, Paul had basically called him an unjust judge – right in front of the
Jewish rulers and his council.

But once Festus recovered from the assault on his pride, he would have realized that actually, Paul had
extricated him from a politically charged situation. Festus had now been freed from handing down a
verdict on Paul that would have been either unjust or a catalyst for a Jewish riot. So anger gave way to
relief, as Festus began to absorb his good fortune.

As for Paul, he had just gotten his ticket to Rome, compliments of the Roman government. Now, who
would be his judge there? The emperor – Nero. From what we know of Nero, this might not seem like
such a good plan.

But this is early in Nero’s reign. During the first five years of his rule, from 54-59 AD, the empire was
actually governed by Nero’s tutor, Seneca, as Nero was considered too young to rule. Nero would not
begin his persecution of believers until 64-65 AD. Paul’s case would come up for judgment during the time
when believers in Jesus were still experiencing religious toleration by Rome.

Meanwhile, a short time after Paul’s trial, Festus received some visitors.

v. 13 This King Agrippa is Herod Agrippa II. He was the son of Herod Agrippa I, the king who had
James, the brother of John, beheaded, and also had Peter imprisoned, thinking to do the same to him. He
had done this because he saw that it pleased the Jews (Acts 12:3).
# 55: 4-25-08 7

The Herods were always trying to win the favor of the Jews, because the Jews generally mistrusted by
them. The Herodian dynasty was Idumaean, descendants of the Edomites, ancient enemies of Israel. But
the Herods were also half-Jewish; they generally considered themselves as Jews, and were adherents to the
religion of Judaism – in form, at least.

This Herod, Agrippa II, had been brought up in Rome; and because of this, he had a strong attachment to
the Romans. He was 17 when his father died, at which time Claudius was emperor. Claudius appointed the
young Agrippa as ruler over certain territories in the Near East, but not difficult Judea, which was put back
under the government of Roman procurators.

When Nero came into power, the territories of Agrippa were expanded further. Nero also gave Agrippa the
authority to appoint the high priests in Jerusalem.

Although Agrippa was not ruler over Judea, the Romans considered him an expert in Jewish affairs.
Agrippa was a strong friend to Rome, and always worked closely with the Roman administration; he knew
where his power and his title came from. Agrippa was known to visit Roman officials frequently,
especially when they first arrived in a local province.

Bernice was Agrippa’s sister and consort. Although she was married three times, and mistress to at least
two other men, she always returned to her brother. Josephus records that their relationship was incestuous.

So Agrippa and Bernice came to greet Festus and congratulate him on his appointment as governor of
Judea. The timing of this visit was remarkably coincidental – perhaps you could even say providential.

Festus would see this as an opportunity to glean critical information he would need concerning Paul’s case.
But the Lord would use this opportunity to have His servant Paul preach the gospel to a king – as the Lord
had prophesied of Paul – he would bear the name of Jesus before kings (Acts 9:15). This would be
Agrippa’s time of opportunity – as well as that of Festus, and Bernice – if they would avail themselves of it.

After Agrippa and Bernice had been visiting for some time, Festus brought up Paul’s case.

v. 14-16 I want you to notice how Festus paints himself as the bastion of Roman justice to Agrippa.

As intent as the Jewish rulers were to see to it that Paul was put to death, they would never have suggested
to the governor that he bypass the Roman legal system. Such a thing would be unthinkable. Of course, the
Jews themselves intended to bypass it by ambushing Paul.

But Festus knew nothing of that – and he made it sound as if the Jews were asking for him to pass
judgment on Paul, sight unseen, to which he gave them his splendid answer about the custom of the
Romans. Of course, Festus conveniently forgot that neither was it the custom of the Romans to hold a man
prisoner when not a single charge laid against him had been proven.

v. 17-19 It is clear that Festus understood the charges of the Jewish rulers against Paul were not a violation
of Roman law. Sedition was the only charge that qualified, and as mentioned before, Festus could only
know Paul was not guilty if he had seen the letter from Lysias, or the previous court records.
# 55: 4-25-08 8

Those sources would also have shown Festus that Paul was not guilty of violating the sanctity of the
temple, the only charge for which the Sanhedrin could put a man to death. Apart from these charges, there
seemed to be no other violation of Roman law, but Festus was admittedly unknowledgeable about matters
to do with the Jewish religion.

It is also clear that Paul and the Jewish rulers spoke of more than Luke recorded. Festus spoke with
perplexity – or perhaps contempt - of “a certain Jesus”. Now, we know that Paul had spoken to both the
Sanhedrin and to Felix about the hope and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6, 24:15, 21). The center
of Paul’s preaching was always Jesus, who is the hope of Israel, and of all men, to receive eternal Life, to
be eventually realized in its fullness in resurrection in a glorified body.

From the statement of Festus, it is clear that Paul had spoken of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead,
upon whom the believer’s resurrection is based. But what was it that Festus heard? He heard about “a
certain Jesus”, and that this Jesus had died.

In the Greek, it is literally, “of one dead Jesus” – they had some questions against Paul of one dead Jesus,
whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Not alive again; not resurrected from the dead; just alive. Festus heard
nothing more than a dispute about one dead Jesus, whom Paul insisted was alive. What had Festus missed?
The resurrection.

Now, why would Festus miss this? Because he would not take it into his thinking; he rejected the idea.
Festus was of the Roman nobility; he would have had a classical education, which was principally Greek in
character. What did the Greeks think of resurrection? That it was foolishness (Acts 17:31-32, 1 Cor 1:23);
the classical schools of philosophy rejected the idea that a body could be raised from the dead.

So to Festus, this certain Jesus was one dead Jesus – there was no life or power in him. That made Him of
no significance, to Festus. The power of God in Jesus was never seen, by Festus.

v. 20-21 Festus worded this very carefully, indicating that he was seeking to clear up his understanding by
having Paul judged in Jerusalem – as opposed to the truth, that he was seeking to do the Jews a favor (v. 9).

I’m sure Festus knew well that Agrippa was an expert in Jewish religious matters, and would be keen to
clear up his understanding – and that would be just the help Festus needed.

Lastly, Festus mentioned Paul’s appeal to Caesar. “Augustus” is used here; a name commonly applied to
the emperor, which means “revered or worshipped one”. Perhaps this was the god of Festus; the emperor
was political power on high.

As Festus expected, Agrippa eagerly responded.

v. 22-23 From Greek verb tense, it is implied that Agrippa had been wanting to hear Paul for a long time.
It would seem that Agrippa was curious about the followers of Jesus, of whom he certainly would have
heard; there were surely many believers within the territories ruled by Agrippa.

Perhaps Agrippa had specifically heard of Paul, who had been preaching about Jesus to both Jew and
Gentile throughout Asia and Europe. Agrippa may have been curious to know what the followers of Jesus
believed, and how that differed from Judaism. And he relished the opportunity to help the new governor of
Judea resolve a difficult issue of Jewish law.
# 55: 4-25-08 9

So Festus arranged for Agrippa to hear Paul. This would be just an informal inquiry, not a trial. For one
thing, Agrippa had no authority to conduct a trial in Judea. Also, since Paul had appealed to Caesar, he
could be subjected to no further trials until his appeal was heard in Rome. Festus planned to have Paul’s
case heard the very next day.

Although the hearing was informal, it would seem that the attire was formal. King Agrippa and Bernice
entered the room, no doubt in regal attire, as befitting the great ceremony accompanying their entrance. In
like manner, the five commanders of the Caesarean cohort came in, as well as prominent civic leaders –
most likely, all Gentiles. And of course, Festus was there - the master of ceremonies.

It is ironic that this was the very city in which Agrippa and Bernice’s father, Herod Agrippa I, was struck by
an angel of the Lord for his own display of pride, in his royal apparel (Acts 12:21-23). I doubt they thought
of this.

So much show, for the informal hearing of one seemingly insignificant man, who appeared to be guilty of
nothing more than offending the Jews on points of religion and custom. Most likely, Paul was attired in
chains, for the occasion. But for all the illustrious people in the room that day, who is it that is renowned,
and remembered today? Paul. Most people in the world would know who Paul was; and hardly a person
would remember one thing about the others.

After Paul was brought in, Festus began with an introduction of his case.

v. 24-25 This story was getting more dramatic every time Festus told it. The whole assembly of the Jews
petitioned Festus. Apparently, in presenting their accusations against Paul, they had shared with Festus
their belief that Paul was worthy of death for what he had done.

But Festus determined from the evidence that Paul was innocent, according to Roman law – not that he told
Paul, or the Jews, this finding. Festus quickly glossed over Paul’s appeal to Caesar, emphasizing his own
decision to send him.

v. 26-27 This was what Festus was hoping to accomplish through this inquiry. When a case was appealed
to Caesar, it was expected that there would be an accompanying report, which was to include the charges
against the prisoner. To send a prisoner without such a report, or to provide vague or incomplete
information, was unreasonable – that is, it was absurd – it could amount to political suicide. The problem
was, Festus had no idea what to write concerning Paul.

But Agrippa was reputedly an expert in Jewish law and customs. What Festus was hoping was that,
through this inquiry, Agrippa might help him frame his report, and establish definite charges with which to
accuse Paul in a Roman court. Once again, we see Festus carefully seeking to protect himself from any
political fallout.

Due to the perceived need of a governor, and the intense curiosity of a king, Paul will once again have the
opportunity to share the gospel. And through it all, the Lord will work to bring about His purposes – to
bring Paul to Rome, where he will continue that witness.