And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul.
\nActs 24:1<\/p>\n
I. PAUL\u2019S DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX\u2014ACTS 24:1\u201327<\/p>\n
This segment of Paul\u2019s defense before Felix can be divided into three sections.<\/p>\n
A. The Charge Against Paul\u2014Acts 24:1\u20139<\/p>\n
1. Paul\u2019s Accusers\u2014Acts 24:1<\/p>\n
And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul.<\/p>\n
This verse introduces Paul\u2019s accusers. The timing of this first defense was after five days; that is, five days after Paul had arrived in Caesarea from Jerusalem. The leaders from Jerusalem included the high priest Ananias, who was a Sadducee. He brought with him certain elders, who represented the Pharisees. This was not the entire Sanhedrin, but Ananias was there to represent the Sadducees, while the elders were there to represent the Pharisees.<\/p>\n
Along with them was an orator, one Tertullus. The Greek word means he was a rhetorician, a trained public speaker. Basically, he was an attorney. The name Tertullus is a Latin name, and in all likelihood, he was a Gentile. But he was needed because he would have understood Roman law, since Paul was now under the jurisdiction of Roman, not Jewish law. The Sanhedrin did not understand Roman law.<\/p>\n
However, there were two groups missing from among Paul\u2019s accusers. The first group was the Asian Jews, who had caused the riot in the Temple Compound; this had led to Paul\u2019s arrest and subsequent imprisonment in Caesarea. The second missing group was the forty conspirators who had tried to assassinate Paul on his way to the Sanhedrin; this was the reason he had been spirited away from Jerusalem down to Caesarea. So the only accusers present were these members of the Sanhedrin, and they informed the governor against Paul; they presented a legal indictment against him.<\/p>\n
2. The Presentation of the Actual Charge\u2014Acts 24:2\u20138<\/p>\n
The opening arguments are introduced in verse 2a: And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him.<\/p>\n
The timing was: when [Paul] was called. The action was: Tertullus began to accuse him. As Paul was brought into the room where the trial was being conducted, it was Tertullus who became the speaker on behalf of those who had hired him.<\/p>\n
In his opening arguments, Tertullus praises Felix in verses 2b\u20134, beginning with his benevolent rule in verse 2b: saying, seeing that by you we enjoy much peace, and that by your providence evils are corrected for this nation.<\/p>\n
Tertullus points out two things. First, because of Felix, they enjoy much peace. Literally the Greek states, \u201cobtaining much peace by you.\u201d This was nothing but flattery, in fact, under the rule of Felix, there were several uprisings and several rebellions. Because of his misrule, the Assassians rose up under him. It was for this very reason that he was eventually replaced by Festus. So this was a false, flattering statement. Secondly, Tertullus was out to butter him up: and by your providence evils are corrected for this nation. This was more flattery, for actually, Felix was guilty of encouraging bands of thieves, who would share what they stole with him! Everything Tertullus said was designed only to win Felix over to their side.<\/p>\n
He went on to give thanks to Felix in verse 3: we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.<\/p>\n
The expression most excellent was a title of respect for someone in authority. Luke addressed both his Gospel and the Book of Acts to Theophilus and called him \u201cmost excellent,\u201d showing that Theophilus was a Roman official. Thus, with all thankfulness, Tertullus claimed that they were grateful for Felix\u2019s rule over them.<\/p>\n
He then makes a transition to the case in hand in verse 4: But, that I be not further tedious unto you, I entreat you to hear us of your clemency a few words.<\/p>\n
This is even more flattery. Literally, the Greek text reads, \u201cso as not to cut into you,\u201d \u201cnot to cut across,\u201d not to impede, hinder, or interrupt Felix any further. His point was that Felix\u2019s time was far too valuable for him to go on any longer like this. So he came to the point: I entreat you to hear us of your clemency a few words. This was still more flattery, because Tertullus made it sound as if Felix was doing them a favor by hearing their case.<\/p>\n
Finally, after all this flattery, he issued a specific charge in verses 5\u20136a, containing four indictments. First, in verse 5a: For we have found this man a pestilent fellow.<\/p>\n
In other words, they accused Paul of being a public pest, as if he had been causing pestilence or a plague.<\/p>\n
The second indictment is in verse 5b: and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world.<\/p>\n
They accused Paul of having a tendency to stir up the Jews to revolt, and so is guilty of sedition against Rome. Paul is a fomenter of riots worldwide!<\/p>\n
The third indictment is in verse 5c: and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.<\/p>\n
The use of the word sect shows that this new faith was still viewed as an entity within Judaism. The term Nazarenes was an early name for Jewish believers, while the term \u201cChristians\u201d was used in the early days of Gentile believers. The word ringleader means he was \u201ca front-ranked man,\u201d \u201ca champion,\u201d \u201ca chief.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fourth indictment was in verse 6a: who moreover assayed to profane the temple.<\/p>\n
Paul was accused of being guilty of profaning the Temple, a charge Rome had no right to interfere in anyway, because in those days, Rome permitted Jews to kill offending Gentiles who entered the Inner Court, even if they were Roman citizens. That was the only situation where the Roman Government allowed the Sanhedrin to carry out the death penalty. This was the specific charge which had been leveled against Paul by the Asian Jews.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, in verse 6b, he added: on whom also we laid hold.<\/p>\n
It was upon this last charge that Paul had been arrested. But the truth was, that Paul had not been arrested by them at all, he had been mobbed and almost killed. It was not the Sanhedrin who had arrested him, but the captain of the Roman guard.<\/p>\n
Tertullus then tried to verify the charge in verse 8: from whom you will be able, by examining him yourself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.<\/p>\n
He meant that Felix would be able to learn the truth from Paul by examining him. In other words, by examining Paul, Felix will realize that this charge was true.<\/p>\n
3. The Affirmation from the Others\u2014Acts 24:9<\/p>\n
And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so.<\/p>\n
The Jewish audience now joined in with these charges against Paul. They were called Jews in contrast to Tertullus, who was a Gentile<\/p>\n
B. The Defense of Paul\u2014Acts 24:10\u201321<\/p>\n
1. The Beginning\u2014Acts 24:10a<\/p>\n
And when the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, Paul answered.<\/p>\n
The Greek word for beckoned means \u201cto give a nod.\u201d The governor nodded to Paul and then he was free to answer these charges, and answer them he did!<\/p>\n
2. The Introduction\u2014Acts 24:10b\u201312<\/p>\n
The introduction to Paul\u2019s own defense begins with in verse 10b: Forasmuch as I know that you have been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defence.<\/p>\n
Paul shunned the use of flattery and made a simple statement of fact. Paul mentioned many years, for by this time Felix had been Procurator for seven years. Even before he became Procurator, he was a military commander of Samaria and spent a great part of his life in the Land of Israel.<\/p>\n
So before someone who had been around for a long time, Paul stated: I cheerfully make my defence; that is, I do this \u201cin good spirits.\u201d Paul was happy to defend himself against the charge before someone who by now had learned something about Jewish law.<\/p>\n
In verse 11, Paul summarized his time in Jerusalem: Seeing that you can take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
This is something that Felix could easily verify. Since it had been only twelve days since Paul went up to Jerusalem, this was simply too short a time in which to start a revolt. Furthermore, he did not go up to start a revolt. His purpose was: to worship at Jerusalem during the Feast of Pentecost. So he was not the public pest that Tertullus had described.<\/p>\n
Paul makes two points in verse 12: and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city.<\/p>\n
First, contrary to their charges, he did not stir up revolts; he was not discussing any issues, nor was he conversing or arguing about any issues in the Temple Compound. Secondly, he was not stirring up a crowd, either in the city or in the synagogues. Thus, Paul denied all the charges which were punishable under Roman law.<\/p>\n
3. Paul\u2019s Evidence\u2014Acts 24:13\u201319<\/p>\n
In verse 13, Paul presented the evidence: Neither can they prove to you the things whereof they now accuse me.<\/p>\n
His accusers could not cite a time when he was guilty of instigating a revolt.<\/p>\n
So, none of those charges were true, except one. In verses 14\u201316, he admitted that he was a Nazarene, but he used a more common term, the Way, for the new faith in verse 14: But this I confess unto you, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets.<\/p>\n
It was true that he was a Nazarene, but this was no crime. There was nothing in Roman law that forbade his being a Nazarene. So it is true that he followed after the Way, but what they called a sect, meaning a \u201cdivision,\u201d Paul viewed as a fulfillment of the whole of Judaism, not merely as a sect within it.<\/p>\n
Therefore, he added: so serve I the God of our fathers; meaning that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob is now to be worshipped through this new Way. For Paul believed all things are according to the law, because the Way was the fulfillment of the Law. Furthermore, these things were written in the prophets, so the Way is also a fulfillment of the Prophets. He did not deny that he was a Nazarene, but averred that, in this capacity, he was serving and worshipping the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
Paul then turns to the real issue in verse 15: having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.<\/p>\n
The hope here is the hope of the resurrection, which these also themselves look for. He was obviously talking about the Pharisees who were among them, for they did believe that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust. The \u201cresurrection of the just\u201d is the First Resurrection, and the \u201cresurrection of the unjust\u201d will be the Second Resurrection.<\/p>\n
Concerning his own conscience, Paul states in verse 16: Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always.<\/p>\n
The Greek word for exercise means \u201cto take pains,\u201d \u201cto labor,\u201d \u201cto strive.\u201d Paul strove to keep his conscience clean; he went to great pains and labor to keep his conscience void of offence toward God and men. He was not guilty of offending anybody; he was not causing anyone to stumble. This was a re-affirmation of the claims he made in Acts 23:1.<\/p>\n
Then, Paul also denied that he was a profaner of the Temple in verses 17\u201319. He began by giving them the background to his reason for being in the Temple Compound in verse 17: Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.<\/p>\n
The timing was: after some years; that is, after his third missionary journey, he had come to Jerusalem for the purpose of bringing alms to my nation, and offerings. This is the only time that the Book of Acts mentions that he came to Jerusalem on this occasion to give alms, although this fact is mentioned several times in the Epistles (Rom. 15:25\u201328; 1 Cor. 16:1\u20134; 2 Cor. 8:13\u201314; 9:12\u201313; Gal. 2:10). He said he brought it to his nation, but actually he had brought these alms to the poor of the Church of Jerusalem. This statement shows that the Jewish believers did not consider themselves as separated from the Jewish nation. So to give to them was the same as giving it to the nation. The alms were for the Church of Jerusalem, and the offerings were for the Feast of Pentecost.<\/p>\n
Paul then declared what his real role had been in the Temple in verse 18a: amidst which they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult.<\/p>\n
He was among those who were being purified in the Temple and was in the process of performing the offerings when the riot had begun. Furthermore, while he was still in the Temple Compound, he was with no crowd and he was with no tumult. The point he was making was that he was in the Temple alone and brought no Gentiles into the Temple Compound, therefore, he did not profane the Temple Compound in any way whatsoever.<\/p>\n
The real instigators in verse 18b\u201319: but there were certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been here before you, and to make accusation, if they had aught against me.<\/p>\n
In verse 18b, Paul states: certain Jews from Asia should have been at this trial to accuse him, since they were the ones who had started it all. Verse 19 states that they should be at the trial now, for the making of any accusation was their responsibility.<\/p>\n
4. Paul\u2019s Challenge\u2014Acts 24:20\u201321<\/p>\n
Or else let these men themselves say what wrong-doing they found when I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.<\/p>\n
In verse 20, Paul challenges those witnesses who were present to disclose what wrong-doing they found. The timing was: when he stood before the council, referring to Acts 22:30\u201323:10. Since the Jews of Asia were not there to present their case, perhaps these secondary accusers can find some real crime in Paul.<\/p>\n
Finally, in verse 21, Paul stated what the real issue was: the resurrection of the dead. More specifically, it was the Resurrection of Jesus which is the evidence of His Messiahship. If that were possible, then it was also possible to believe that Yeshua (Jesus) rose from the dead.<\/p>\n
The conclusion is that the one charge of which Paul was guilty was that he was a Nazarene, and that charge was not criminal at this point. So, that which was criminal was not true of Paul, and that which was true of Paul was not criminal.<\/p>\n
C. The Results\u2014Acts 24:22\u201327<\/p>\n
1. The Termination of the Proceedings\u2014Acts 24:22\u201323<\/p>\n
It was Felix who brought the hearing to an end in verse 22: But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the Way, deferred them, saying, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter.<\/p>\n
Felix himself had knowledge of the new faith, even more than Tertullus. What the source of his knowledge was is not known. What was obvious to Felix was that the charges against Paul were not proven in accordance with Roman law, so he deferred them, meaning \u201cto put off,\u201d \u201cto adjourn.\u201d Felix adjourned the hearing without making any decision, saying only: When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter. This was merely a delaying tactic, because Lysias was never sent for. Furthermore, Lysias was not really needed to determine this case; he had already declared Paul to be innocent of any charges under Roman law.<\/p>\n
In verse 23, Paul was imprisoned: And he gave order to the centurion that he should be kept in charge, and should have indulgence; and not to forbid any of his friends to minister unto him.<\/p>\n
Felix ordered that Paul be kept under guard, and that he should have a great degree of freedom of movement. So, although he was under guard, he was not strictly confined. Also he had full freedom to see his friends, and they had full visiting rights. The liberty given to Paul shows that Felix did not consider Paul to be a dangerous criminal.<\/p>\n
2. Paul\u2019s Witness to Felix\u2014Acts 24:24\u201326<\/p>\n
Verses 24\u201325 record Paul\u2019s witness to Felix: But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go your way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call you unto me.<\/p>\n
In verse 24a, the timing was: after certain days during which the Jewish accusers returned to Jerusalem, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife. This was his third wife and she, unlike the other two, was a Jewess. She was the youngest daughter of Agrippa I, who had two other daughters: Mariamne and Bernice. Drusilla was the sister of Agrippa II. When she was only about sixteen years old, she had been married first to the king of Emesa, a small state in Syria. Felix convinced her to leave her first husband and to marry him instead. She bore Felix a son named Agrippa, but he died in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79.<\/p>\n
In verse 24b, the occasion was that Felix sent for Paul. The reason was to hear him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. Felix already knew some things about Yeshua, but now he and Drusilla wanted to know more, and they received a very clear presentation of the gospel.<\/p>\n
In verse 25a, Paul\u2019s message concerned three things. First: righteousness; Felix had no personal righteousness in either his private or public life. Secondly: self-control, which Felix also lacked; he was a lustful man who had made three evil marriages. Thirdly: the judgment to come; Felix would be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment for his failure in the previous two areas of righteousness and self control. Paul was not afraid to spell out the truth, even to someone who could easily have had him killed. It is also clear that Felix did not leave office without a clear knowledge of his sinful state; he clearly understood what the new faith was about.<\/p>\n
Verse 25b records the effect all this had on Felix: Felix was terrified, which shows that he was under conviction, but he was not willing to turn from his sin. Instead, he chose to cut things short by saying: Go your way for this time; in other words, he wanted to hear no more, although he claimed: when I have a convenient season, I will call you unto me. That was purely an excuse, because he simply did not like Paul\u2019s personal message.<\/p>\n
His true motivation was in verse 26: He hoped withal that money would be given him of Paul: wherefore also he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.<\/p>\n
Literally, the Greek text reads, \u201cat the same time.\u201d While Felix did want to know more about the faith, at the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe for his release, showing his failure in the areas of righteousness and self-control, which Paul mentioned in his message. Felix failed in the area of righteousness because he would dispense justice only with a bribe. He failed in the area of self control because he was greedy for money. The result was that he called Paul in the more frequently under the pretense of wanting to know more, and communed with him, but the real reason was he was hoping Paul would take their hint, but Paul never did. So, at some point Felix lost his fear, and is now destined for the judgment to come.<\/p>\n
3. The Transition from Felix to Festus\u2014Acts 24:27<\/p>\n
But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.<\/p>\n
The timing was: when two years were fulfilled. That was the length of time that Paul was detained under Felix at Caesarea. The promised second hearing with Lysias present never materialized, and now Felix was succeeded by Portius Festus.<\/p>\n
History provides some other details here. Felix was actually deposed by Nero in A.D. 59 or A.D. 60. The circumstances were that a fight broke out between the Jews and Gentiles of Caesarea in the marketplace, and Felix sent in his soldiers, who killed many Jews. As a result, the Jewish people made a formal complaint to Nero, who then recalled Felix to Rome. Portius Festus was appointed by Nero to replace him. Only three facts are known about Festus from history: first, that he was appointed by Nero in A.D. 59 or A.D. 60; secondly, that he was a procurator until A.D. 62; and thirdly, that he died in office.<\/p>\n
The chapter ends describing Paul\u2019s state. The reason for Felix\u2019s conduct was: to gain favor with the Jews. The result was: Felix left Paul in bonds. It was the Jewish community who had filed the complaint against Felix, causing his recall to Rome, so he did not want to antagonize them any further by releasing Paul. Instead, he tried to win their favor by leaving Paul in chains.<\/p>\n
II. THE DEFENSE OF PAUL BEFORE FESTUS\u2014ACTS 25:1\u201312<\/p>\n
A. The Visit of Festus to Jerusalem\u2014Acts 25:1\u20135<\/p>\n
1. The Journey\u2014Acts 25:1<\/p>\n
Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea.<\/p>\n
Literally, the Greek text says, \u201chaving set foot upon his province,\u201d Felix now began his official role as procurator. The Province of Judea was a section of the larger Roman Province of Syria. Syria was under the authority of a Roman legate, while the Province of Judea was under the lesser jurisdiction of a procurator. So at this point, Festus began his procuratorship.<\/p>\n
The timing was: after three days in the Province of Judea, he decided to visit Jerusalem, the Jewish capital. Caesarea was the Roman capital. Festus found it necessary to make this trip so soon after his arrival in order to meet with the Jewish leaders.<\/p>\n
2. The Request of the Jewish Leaders\u2014Acts 25:2\u20133<\/p>\n
And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, asking a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem; laying a plot to kill him on the way.<\/p>\n
Upon meeting the Jewish leadership, they made a request of Festus in verse 2. The leaders included the chief priests, the twenty-four chief priests who were heads of the twenty-four courses of the Tribe of Levi, who were all Sadducees. The group also included the principle men of the Jews; literally, \u201cthe first men,\u201d the chief men who were the same as the elders of verse 15. These were Pharisees who were members of the Sanhedrin. So, both the Pharisees and Sadducees combined together once again in making this request. Their action was: informed him against Paul, renewing the same charges after two years. They had not been able to get their way with Felix, so now they tried it on Festus as soon as he arrived.<\/p>\n
In verse 3, they kept on beseeching him: asking for a favor against him; that is, a favor for themselves, but leveled against Paul. The implication was that Festus could immediately develop good relations with these Jewish leaders by doing them this favor. The favor was: that he would send for him to Jerusalem. Their secret motive was that they would try to assassinate him on the way between Caesarea and Jerusalem as they had tried to do once before. The Greek word for plot means \u201cambush.\u201d This was the same kind of conspiracy that had been hatched by those forty or more men.<\/p>\n
3. The Refusal of Festus\u2014Acts 25:4\u20135<\/p>\n
Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept in charge at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart thither shortly. Let them therefore, said he, that are of power among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him.<\/p>\n
In verse 4, Festus refused and instead pointed out to them what he would do. Paul was already imprisoned in Caesarea, so there was no reason to bring him up to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Festus himself was about to depart for Caesarea very shortly, so that was where he decided to hold court. In essence, this foiled their assassination plot.<\/p>\n
In verse 5, Festus then told them what he expected of them. The word therefore refers to the decision he had just made, not to bring Paul to Jerusalem, but to hold court in Caesarea, in the light of that decision, they that are of power, \u201cthe mighty ones among you,\u201d the men of authority of the Sanhedrin should go down with Festus from Jerusalem, and if there was anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him. So the Jewish leaders will now have to go down to Caesarea to repeat the charge.<\/p>\n
B. The Trial Before Festus\u2014Acts 25:6\u201312<\/p>\n
Verse 6 records Festus\u2019 journey back to Caesarea: And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought.<\/p>\n
In verse 6a, the time he had spent in Jerusalem was somewhere between eight or ten days, and then he went down from Jerusalem to Caesarea. This is where he convened his court in verse 6b. The timing was: on the morrow, or the day after his arrival in Caesarea. The action was: he sat down on the judgment-seat. This was a legal formality; it gave legal backing to any decision that might be made. At that point, he commanded Paul to be brought [in].<\/p>\n
Verse 7 records the charges raised against Paul: And when he was come, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem stood round about him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove.<\/p>\n
The timing was when Paul arrived on the scene. The source of the charge was: the Jews who had come down all the way from Jerusalem. These were again the leaders of the Sanhedrin, but this time they had no Roman lawyer to represent them. They had come in numbers, hoping to impress Festus. They brought many and grievous charges against Paul, such as had been leveled against him by Tertullus, but this time with much greater vehemence. Their problem was that they could not prove any of the charges. In place of any real evidence, they simply kept up a constant barrage of accusation.<\/p>\n
Paul made his defense in verse 8: while Paul said in his defence, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.<\/p>\n
Paul declared his innocence and gave three specific instances. First, that he had not sinned against the law of the Jews; he was not guilty of violating any Jewish law. Secondly, that he had committed no crime against the temple, which was the original accusation by the Jews from Asia. Thirdly, that he had committed no crime against Caesar; he was not guilty of treason; he was not guilty of rebellion; he was not guilty of trying to begin a revolt; he was not guilty under any Roman law. Therefore, he was innocent of any crime, whether under Jewish or Roman law.<\/p>\n
Realizing there are no provable charges, Festus made a suggestion in verse 9: But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Will you go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?<\/p>\n
Festus made this suggestion because he desired: to gain favor with the Jews. This was exactly the same reason why Felix had left Paul in prison for two years in Acts 24:27. Within two weeks, Festus had quickly developed the same fearful respect of the Jewish leaders that Felix possessed.<\/p>\n
The suggestion to Paul was whether he was willing for his trial to be moved from Caesarea to Jerusalem. As a Roman citizen, it was purely Paul\u2019s choice whether to move the trial. Festus was giving in to the Jewish leaders to bring Paul on to their own turf. He could see there were no grounds for condemning him under Roman law, so he knew he could not proceed with the trial as such. But, it was not to his advantage to release Paul either, so he attempted to win either way by making this suggestion. Festus was not merely suggesting a change of venue, he was trying to avoid doing his duty as a Roman officer. He implied to Paul that he would be the one conducting the trial in Jerusalem. The probability was that he would turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin while simply remaining as an observer himself. But Paul knew that if Festus were not willing to bring justice to the situation in Caesarea he would be even less likely to do so in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the journey to Jerusalem would expose Paul to an ambush. This situation led Paul\u2019s next action.<\/p>\n
Verses 10\u201311 record Paul\u2019s response. He reminds Festus that the proper place for judgment was at Caesarea in verse 10: But Paul said, I am standing before Caesar\u2019s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as you also very well know.<\/p>\n
Paul was a Roman citizen already standing before a Roman tribunal. Festus was Caesar\u2019s representative, so he was the one to judge. He was already sitting on the judgment-seat, therefore he could give a verdict right then. Paul states that this was where I ought to be judged; or more literally, \u201cThis was where I must be judged, here at Caesarea is the proper place for the trial.\u201d Furthermore, Paul states: to the Jews I have done no wrong, there was no basis for turning him over to them in Jerusalem. This fact you very well know; Festus knew very well that Paul was not guilty.<\/p>\n
So Paul deliberately raised the issue of his guilt or innocence and makes two points in verse 11a: If then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is true whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up unto them.<\/p>\n
The first point is a conditional argument concerning his guilt. In this type of argument, something is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. Paul says, \u201cFor the sake of argument, assume that I am guilty.\u201d In other words, if Paul were really worthy of execution, then he was willing to face the death penalty; he was willing to pay the supreme price, if the accusations were true. The second point concerns his innocence: if these Jewish charges remained unproven, no man can give me up to them. This cannot be legally done, even less so because Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul understood that, if he consented to go to Jerusalem, he would not be tried by Festus, but by the Sanhedrin. So, if he were guilty, he did not refuse to die; but if he were innocent, he should be released, not turned over to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
Realizing that Festus would not uphold justice any more than Felix did, Paul appealed over his head to Caesar in verse 11b: I appeal unto Caesar.<\/p>\n
This expression was a technical phrase. It was a right granted to every Roman citizen in the year 509 B.C., that if a Roman felt he was not receiving fair treatment in a Roman court, he could appeal directly to Caesar himself. An appeal to Caesar could be made either before or after a sentence, and such an appeal would always guarantee a further investigation. The appellant would then be transferred to Rome and the verdict would then be issued by the emperor himself. So, when Paul stated: I appeal to Caesar, his action legally took the case right out of Festus\u2019 hands.<\/p>\n
Verse 12 records the decision of Festus: Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, You have appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shall you go.<\/p>\n
The timing was: when he had conferred with the council; this was a council of his own advisers, not the Sanhedrin, since this went beyond their authority. He said to Paul: You have appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shall you go. Actually Festus had no real choice in the matter. Either he could proceed to set Paul free, which he decided not to do out of fear, or he had to proceed with the ritual of turning Paul over to Caesar.<\/p>\n
However, the situation presented a problem for Festus. He had refused to acquit Paul, yet he had been unable to formulate a specific charge against him; and the last thing he could do was to send Paul to Caesar without a formal charge. The two charges issued by the Jewish leaders were confusing, and many of the accusations they had leveled against him were not punishable by Roman law anyway. So he needed to formulate a specific charge under Roman law, and for that reason he resorted to Agrippa II.<\/p>\n
III. THE DEFENSE BEFORE HEROD AGRIPPA II\u2014ACTS 25:13\u201326:32<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s defense before Agrippa II is divided into five sections.<\/p>\n
A. Festus\u2019 Private Explanation\u2014Acts 25:13\u201322<\/p>\n
1. The Background of Agrippa II and Bernice\u2014Acts 25:13<\/p>\n
Now when certain days were passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea, and saluted Festus.<\/p>\n
The occasion was the visit of King Agrippa and Bernice to Caesarea. The timing was: when certain days were passed; that is, after some time had passed since the preceding section of the text.<\/p>\n
This king was Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I, who was mentioned in Acts 12 when he had martyred James and imprisoned Peter. Agrippa II was the half-brother of Drusilla, the wife of Felix. He was educated in Rome and sympathetic toward Roman policies. He was only seventeen years old when his father, Agrippa I, died, but he was not appointed king at that young age. In A.D. 48 he did become King of Chalcis, which was a small province north of Israel, and it was for this reason that Luke referred to him as the king. Later he exchanged that kingdom for Herod Philip\u2019s kingdom, and was also given authority by Rome over the Jewish Temple with the right to appoint the high priest. He soon angered the Jews by building a palace which overlooked the Temple Compound. He also deeply upset them by making frequent changes in the priesthood. Later, in A.D. 56, Emperor Nero added several cities and villages, located around the Sea of Galilee, to his domain. He made his own capital at Caesarea Philippi, and changed its name to Neronius, after Emperor Nero. In A.D. 70, he returned to Rome and died childless in the year A.D. 100. The line of the Herods came to an end with his death.<\/p>\n
The other person mentioned is Bernice, who was the sister of Agrippa II. She was first married to her uncle Herod, the King of Chalcis. When he died, she went to Rome with Agrippa II, with whom she had an incestuous relationship. She later married again, this time to Poleman, King of Cilicia, but when Agrippa II became king, she left Poleman to resume her incestuous relationship with her brother. She later became mistress to Vespasian, and still later, mistress to his son, Titus.<\/p>\n
This was the couple who now came and saluted Festus; meaning, they came to pay their respects to the new Procurator.<\/p>\n
2. Festus Reviewed Paul\u2019s Case to the King\u2014Acts 25:14\u201321<\/p>\n
On that occasion, Festus told Agrippa about Paul in verses 14\u201321. Luke began with the background in verse 14a: And as they tarried there many days, Festus laid Paul\u2019s case before the king.<\/p>\n
Agrippa and Bernice decided to stay for an extended period of time, during which Festus reviewed Paul\u2019s case to King Agrippa II.<\/p>\n
Festus outlined his problem to the king in verse 14b: saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix.<\/p>\n
Felix had left Paul there in order to obtain favor with the Jewish leaders, but Festus still needed a specific charge before he could legitimately send Paul to Rome.<\/p>\n
Festus then recounted to Agrippa the request the Jewish leaders had made of him in verse 15: about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him.<\/p>\n
The timing was: when I was at Jerusalem, referring to the events of verse 1. The members of the Sanhedrin informed him of charges against Paul, referring to verse 2, and they asked for sentence against him. They asked for an outright condemnation of Paul, referring to verse 3.<\/p>\n
Elaborating on what Luke recorded in verses 4\u20135, Festus then explained why he had refused in verse 16: To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him.<\/p>\n
What the Jews wanted went contrary to Roman law. The accused had the right to face his accusers under Roman law in order to have the privilege of making his defence concerning the matter laid against him. He had the absolute right to answer the charges.<\/p>\n
Festus then rehearsed the trial in verse 17: When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought.<\/p>\n
The timing was when the accusers were brought together in Caesarea the very next day, and Festus sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought to trial.<\/p>\n
But the charges were not relevant to Roman law in verses 18\u201319: Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.<\/p>\n
There was no violation of any Roman law whatsoever in verse 18. The Jewish leaders failed to bring up any charges, which would be punishable under Roman law. Instead, the real issue was Jewish law in verse 19; they raised questions about their own religion, specifically about the resurrection. The content of the issue was the person of one Jesus. The Jewish leaders had claimed that He was dead; but Paul affirmed that He was really alive. So, the bottom line of the issue was the Resurrection of Yeshua.<\/p>\n
Festus admits his perplexity in dealing with the problem in verses 20\u201321: And I, being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be kept till I should send him to Caesar.<\/p>\n
Festus then said that he was perplexed in verse 20. Since he did not know how to deal with the issue, he had suggested that Paul go to Jerusalem and be tried there. The given reason was that Festus was unfamiliar with Jewish law and had no ability to question Paul concerning these issues. But the real reason, given in verse 9, was that he wanted to win over the favor of the Jewish leaders. Festus did not say that he would be the judge in Jerusalem, only that he would send Paul to Jerusalem for judgment. Agrippa, for one, would know that the matter would then be handled by the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n
But then, in verse 21, Paul had appealed to Caesar, so Festus had no choice but to command that Paul be kept in prison until he was sent to Caesar. The big problem, however, was that he had no specific charge against him, and now he was asking Agrippa to help him sort it out.<\/p>\n
3. Agrippa Agrees to Hear Paul\u2014Acts 25:22<\/p>\n
And Agrippa said unto Festus, I also could wish to hear the man myself. To morrow, said he, you shall hear him.<\/p>\n
Agrippa surely knew some things about the new faith and he may have even heard some things about Paul as well. Agrippa expressed his desire to hear Paul, and Festus quickly made the arrangements for the next day.<\/p>\n
B. Festus\u2019 Public Explanation\u2014Acts 25:23\u201327<\/p>\n
1. The Setting\u2014Acts 25:23<\/p>\n
So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and principal men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought in.<\/p>\n
The timing was: on the morrow. The manner in which they came was: with great pomp; this was an excuse for a great public spectacle. They entered the place of hearing, which was a place set aside under Roman law for hearing and deciding legal cases. The Greek word used here is the origin of the English word \u201cauditorium.\u201d<\/p>\n
Others who were present included: the chief captains or chiliarchs, who were Roman officers responsible for the five cohorts stationed in Caesarea. Also present were the principal men of the city, the outstanding men, men par excellence, the civic leaders. Since Caesarea was a Gentile city, these would have been Gentile leaders.<\/p>\n
Concerning Paul, he was brought into this very public spectacle at the command of Festus.<\/p>\n
2. The Public Address of Festus\u2014Acts 25:24\u201327<\/p>\n
The public speech of Festus begins in verse 24: And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.<\/p>\n
In verse 24a, Festus addressed King Agrippa II directly, as well as all those present.<\/p>\n
Festus first stated the charge against Paul in verse 24b. He introduced Paul by saying that all his accusers had issued the complaint both at Jerusalem and here [in Caesarea]. Their demand was: that he ought not to live any longer. The Greek word for crying means \u201cyelling, or demanding with loud voices.\u201d Using intimidation tactics, they were yelling and demanding with raised voices that Paul should be executed.<\/p>\n
However, Festus arrived at his own conclusions in verse 25: But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death: and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him.<\/p>\n
In verse 25a, Festus admits that he had already found Paul innocent, and legally he should have released him. It was his desire to send Paul to Jerusalem, which contradicted his own conclusions and forced Paul to make his appeal to Caesar. Thus, Festus mentioned the appeal to Caesar in verse 25b, to which he had agreed. Had Festus acted according to his own convictions, that Paul was innocent of all charges, sending him to Caesar would have been entirely unnecessary. But, because Festus, like Felix before him, refused to act according to clear convictions, Paul had found it necessary to appeal to Caesar.<\/p>\n
Now, in verse 26, Festus had a problem resulting from his actions concerning Paul: Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before you, king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have somewhat to write.<\/p>\n
In verse 26a, the problem is spelled out; he has no specific charge against Paul. The expression certain thing means that he had nothing definite or reliable to write to Caesar, who, at that time, was Nero. Festus referred to Nero as my lord. Both Caesar Augustus and Caesar Tiberias refused this title; but Nero did not, giving himself the title of Lord Caesar.<\/p>\n
The solution to Festus\u2019 problem is given in verse 26b: Wherefore, that is, because of this problem: I have brought him forth before you. The word you is in the plural in Greek, indicating that Festus was bringing his problem to the whole body of people present at this hearing, to see if they could determine the specific charges. He added: specially before you, king Agrippa. Agrippa II was a nominal practitioner of Judaism, and perhaps, he could provide some personal insight as to what the charge should be. The Greek word for examination is a legal term meaning \u201cpreliminary examination.\u201d Festus was hoping that after this public examination he would have a specific charge to send to Caesar. The true purpose of this hearing then, was not to conduct a trial to determine Paul\u2019s guilt or innocence, but to get Festus out of a predicament.<\/p>\n
Festus concluded by stating the obvious in verse 27: For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him.<\/p>\n
To send Paul to Rome with no specific charges laid against him was contrary to reason. Obviously, this is all the more reason why he should have been released long before now.<\/p>\n
C. Paul\u2019s Defense\u2014Acts 26:1\u201323<\/p>\n
1. Permission for Paul to Speak\u2014Acts 26:1<\/p>\n
And Agrippa said unto Paul, You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence.<\/p>\n
Agrippa presides over the hearing and grants Paul permission to speak; he is now allowed to say something on his own behalf. There is irony here, for there are no charges laid against Paul. Festus had already admitted that he had found nothing criminal about Paul, and now he is invited to respond to non-existent charges! At that point: Paul stretched forth his hand, which was an oratorical gesture. According to Acts 26:29, his hands were still in chains, but even so, this is the first recorded witness of Paul before a king, fulfilling God\u2019s promise in Acts 9:15. This is the most detailed of his recorded defenses.<\/p>\n
2. Paul\u2019s Address to Agrippa\u2014Acts 26:2\u20133<\/p>\n
I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence before you this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech you to hear me patiently.<\/p>\n
In verse 2, Paul began his first appeal to a king by describing himself as happy. The action was: that I am to make my defence before you this day. The content was: all things whereof I am accused by the Jews.<\/p>\n
In verse 3, the reason was because Agrippa was especially knowledgeable about Judaism. The word customs refers to Jewish law, and the term questions refers to such issues as the resurrection. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, re-affirmed in his writings that Agrippa was very knowledgeable about Judaism. So, Paul\u2019s request was: wherefore I beseech you to hear me patiently; Paul intended to take his time in making his defense.<\/p>\n
3. Paul\u2019s Pre-Salvation Status\u2014Acts 26:4\u20135<\/p>\n
My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s pre-salvation status was that of being a Pharisee. He made several key statements in these verses. First, in verse 4a, from the time he was a very young lad, he followed a specific manner of life. Secondly, in verse 4b, Paul\u2019s early life in Tarsus and in Jerusalem was an open book; all the Jews in both places could testify to his strict manner of life. Thirdly, in verse 5a, literally, \u201cknowing me beforehand.\u201d There were those who knew him in Tarsus, and there were those who knew him in his early days in Jerusalem who could testify. Fourthly, in verse 5b, he states that if they were willing to testify, they could confirm the truth of Paul\u2019s claims. And fifth, Paul was a Pharisee which demanded the strictest Jewish lifestyle of them all.<\/p>\n
4. The Key Issue\u2014Acts 26:6\u20138<\/p>\n
The key issue lay in two areas of hope. The first hope was the Messianic Hope in verses 6\u20137: And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king!<\/p>\n
In verse 6, the expression: And now points to a sharp contrast between his youth and his present state. The phrase the hope of the promise refers to the Messianic Hope in Acts 13:32, which was made to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Messianic Hope was the ideal of Pharisaism.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Paul points out in verse 7a that even now the Twelve Tribes are trying to obtain this hope. Notice that Paul speaks of the Twelve Tribes in the present tense, because there is simply no such thing as \u201cthe ten lost tribes of Israel.\u201d This they do night and day. Luke did not record \u201cday and night\u201d as a Gentile would have said it; but night and day, as a Jew would have said it. In Jewish reckoning, the day begins at sundown, not midnight.<\/p>\n
It was concerning this Messianic Hope in verse 7b: I am accused by the Jews, O king. This was the second time Paul addressed Agrippa as king. This hope was the Messianic Hope, and the irony was that the Messianic Hope was a Jewish hope. Yet, over this issue that he was being attacked by the leadership of Israel!<\/p>\n
The second hope that he was being attacked for was the resurrection hope in verse 8: Why is it judged incredible with you, if God does raise the dead?<\/p>\n
In the Greek, Paul used the second person plural here, indicating that he had turned away from Agrippa and was now addressing the general audience. Paul\u2019s question to them was: Why is it judged incredible with you [all], if God does raise the dead? If God is who He is, then He can raise the dead. Paul\u2019s point, of course, was that God did raise Yeshua. The key issue then, is the Messianic Hope and the resurrection hope.<\/p>\n
5. Paul\u2019s Persecution of the Church\u2014Acts 26:9\u201311<\/p>\n
As Paul reiterated his past persecution of the Church, he began by referring to what he felt was his past obligation in verse 9: I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>\n
The word ought emphasizes necessity with a sense of duty. The word contrary means \u201cacting with hostility.\u201d So at one time, Paul felt that it was his unhesitating Jewish duty to vehemently oppose everything connected with Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>\n
Then, he spelled out his war against Jewish believers in verses 10\u201311: And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities.<\/p>\n
In verse 10a, concerning the place, it was in Jerusalem. Concerning the actions, Paul had many of the members of the Church of Jerusalem jailed. The basis of his actions was: having received authority. The word authority indicates that he became the official persecutor of Jewish believers on behalf of the Sanhedrin. He received his authority from the chief priests, who were Sadducees. Paul himself had been a Pharisee, so this means that the Sadducees and Pharisees were willing to work together against Jewish believers. Furthermore, verse 10b states: when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. Literally, the Greek means \u201cI dropped my black pebble,\u201d because this was an ancient method of voting. It is mentioned only twice in the New Testament: here and in Revelation 2:17. Paul did this unofficially, because he was not a member of the Sanhedrin. What he meant was that he agreed with the action taken by the Sanhedrin. This shows that many believers were killed both by the Sanhedrin and by Paul before his salvation.<\/p>\n
Then he added in verse 11a: punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues. The word punish means \u201cto avenge, especially for the sake of honor.\u201d This statement shows that the early Jewish believers continued meeting in the synagogues as well as in the Temple Compound, and so Paul went to all the synagogues to search out Jewish believers in order to prosecute them. In verse 11b, he strove to make them blaspheme; in other words, he tried to compel Jewish believers to blaspheme, but he could not do so. If he could have made them do this, then they could have been punished under Jewish law with the death penalty. In verse 11c, his attitude was that he was exceedingly mad against them; this became a very big emotional issue for Paul. In verse 11d, he persecuted them even unto foreign cities. The word persecuted means he repeatedly ran against them as if he were chasing them, even to foreign cities. The word cities is plural, which implies that Damascus was to have been the first of several foreign cities on his ruthless quest.<\/p>\n
6. The Damascus Road Experience\u2014Acts 26:12\u201318<\/p>\n
For the third time, the Book of Acts relates Paul\u2019s Damacus Road experience. Verse 12 gives the occasion: Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.<\/p>\n
The Greek word for Whereupon means \u201cin which things.\u201d Paul was now persecuting Jewish believers in foreign cities, and he began by heading for Damascus. The word authority meant that he had the power, and the word commission meant that he was specifically appointed to do what he was about to do.<\/p>\n
But, his progress was interrupted by a great light in verse 13: at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me.<\/p>\n
The timing was at midday; it happened in the middle of the day, when the sun would have been shining at its brightest. For the third time Paul addressed Agrippa as: O king. He then states the fact that the source of the light was from heaven itself. The character of the light was that it was above the brightness of the sun. This was not mentioned in the first or second account. The fact that it was in the middle of the day when the sun is at its brightest means that the light which came from Heaven was even brighter than the sun at its brightest. This was the Shechinah Glory, and it shone around Paul and those who traveled with him.<\/p>\n
Then came the voice from Heaven in verse 14: And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecute you me? it is hard for you to kick against the goad.<\/p>\n
The timing was: when we were all fallen to the earth, which was a natural Jewish response when confronted by the Shechinah Glory. Then came the voice: saying unto me in the Hebrew language. It was the in Hebrew dialect, not Aramaic, that Paul heard Yeshua speak. This, too, was a new detail not mentioned in the first two accounts; a detail Paul now added since he was now speaking in Greek and not in Hebrew, as in the first two accounts.<\/p>\n
The content of the voice was: Saul, Saul, why persecute you me? it is hard for you to kick against the goad. This is a further addition not mentioned in the earlier accounts. There are three suggestions as to the meaning of the phrase: to kick against the goad. First, it could be a Greek idiom for opposition to deity, and therefore Paul was opposing the Deity. Secondly, it might simply mean \u201cto resist the will of God.\u201d Thirdly, it might mean \u201cto keep fighting his conscience.\u201d All three suggestions might fit in this case, but the key point was that it was futile to continue persecuting the Church.<\/p>\n
Next, Paul relates his conversations with the Messiah in verse 15: And I said, Who are you, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom you persecute.<\/p>\n
This brought on a question on the part of Paul in verse 15a: Who are you, Lord? The answer came from Yeshua in verse 15b: I am Jesus whom you persecute. In verses 15b\u201318, Paul telescoped what Yeshua said to him directly on the Damascus Road and later in the City of Damascus through Annanias.<\/p>\n
Paul then received the commission in verse 16: But arise, and stand upon your feet: for to this end have I appeared unto you, to appoint you a minister and a witness both of the things wherein you have seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto you.<\/p>\n
The expression: arise, and stand up upon your feet can be translated as \u201cstand up and take a stand.\u201d In other words, he was to arise from his prostrate position. The reason for the revelation given to him at this point was that Paul was appointed directly by Yeshua to be both a minister and a witness. As a minister, he was appointed to become an apostle; as a witness, he was to be a witness of the Resurrection: wherein you have seen me. Because he actually saw the resurrected Messiah, Paul was an eyewitness of the Resurrection. Furthermore, a witness of the things wherein I will appear unto you; Paul was told that the Messiah would appear to him several times again in the future.<\/p>\n
Paul was given a promise of deliverance in verse 17: delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send you.<\/p>\n
He received a promise to be delivered from the [Jewish] people, and from the Gentiles. It was to these Gentiles unto whom I send you. Paul was uniquely the Apostle to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
The goal of Gentile evangelism is stated in verse 18: to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me.<\/p>\n
As Luke spelled out in his Gospel, it is the Gentiles who \u201csit in darkness and the shadow of death.\u201d If Gentile evangelism is to succeed in opening their eyes, there will be four results. First: that they may turn from darkness to light; from spiritual darkness to spiritual light. Secondly, that they will turn: from the power of Satan unto God; they will no longer be under Satan\u2019s legal authority. Thirdly, that they might receive: the remission of sins; that is, the forgiveness of their sins. And fourthly, that they will receive: an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. The means of sanctification is by faith. The inheritance is that of salvation and rewards. The source is: in me, the Messiah. This was a summary of what the gospel does.<\/p>\n
7. Paul\u2019s Post Conversion Experience\u2014Acts 26:19\u201323<\/p>\n
In verse 19, Paul declared his obedience: Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.<\/p>\n
This is the fourth time Paul has addressed Agrippa as a king: Wherefore, O King Agrippa, Paul states that he was not disobedient to the command he had received from Yeshua on the Damascus Road.<\/p>\n
In verse 20, he summarized his ministry: but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s witness in Judea is not recorded in the Book of Acts, and so this is another new fact. He also went out to the Gentiles. This was how Paul summarized his ministry of Romans 1:16: \u201cto the Jew first\u201d and then also to the Gentiles. First, he shared the gospel with those in Damascus; secondly, he shared with the Jews in Jerusalem after being away for three years; thirdly, he shared the gospel throughout Judea; and fourthly, he declared the gospel to the Gentiles. The content of his message was twofold: first: that they should repent and turn to God; this would give them salvation; and secondly: that they should be doing works worthy of repentance; this was the evidence of their salvation.<\/p>\n
This was the original reason for his arrest in verse 21: For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me.<\/p>\n
Because of his preaching of the gospel to the Jews and Gentiles, they laid hands on Paul with intent to kill him.<\/p>\n
However, Paul still continued to present the gospel in verses 22\u201323: Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
In verse 22, he begins by pointing out his source of strength; God himself was Paul\u2019s ally; that was why all those plots against his life had failed so far. Secondly, he emphasized his stability in the faith in that Paul testified as he was called to do by Yeshua in verse 16: testifying both to small and great, the various ranks of humanity concerning the gospel of Yeshua. Thirdly, Paul adds that he declared the testimony of the Old Testament: saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come.<\/p>\n
In verse 23, he spelled out the basic content of the gospel to his audience in three points. The first point was the death of the Messiah: how that the Christ must suffer. Literally, he is saying that the Messiah is subject to suffering because of the testimony of Moses and the prophets. The second point is His Resurrection; that He would be the first to rise from the dead. The word first means that He is the first-fruits of true resurrection life. Of course, for Him to be resurrected presupposes His death. The third point is that now this Jesus was light both to the people [the Jews] and to the Gentiles. So the result is that by His death and Resurrection, salvation was provided to both Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
D. The Questioning\u2014Acts 26:24\u201329<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s defense was suddenly interrupted by a statement by Festus in verse 24: And as he thus made his defence, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are mad; your much learning is turning you mad.<\/p>\n
The timing was: as he thus made his defence; Paul was still speaking when Festus interrupted him. And his verdict was: Paul, you are mad. The Greek word means \u201craving mad.\u201d The cause, according to Festus, was: your much learning is turning you mad. In other words, \u201cPaul, you have been studying too much. All this studying, all this learning has made you insane.\u201d So, Festus concluded that Paul\u2019s much learning in the Hebrew Scriptures had driven him mad.<\/p>\n
But verses 25\u201326 give Paul\u2019s answer to Festus, and he began by denying any insanity in verse 25: But Paul said, I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness.<\/p>\n
Paul stated a fact: I am not mad, most excellent Festus; in contrast, he spoke words of truth and soberness. The expression speak forth refers to a dignified, elevated discourse. The word truth means that what Paul was saying was divine truth. The word soberness means \u201csoundness of mind.\u201d These were the words of a man of sound mind, not the ravings of a madman.<\/p>\n
Then, referring to Agrippa, Paul said in verse 26: For the king knows of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this has not been done in a corner.<\/p>\n
Still speaking to Festus, Paul points out: the king knows of these things; in other words, King Agrippa knew the things he was speaking about, but Festus did not know. The Greek word for speak freely means \u201cto speak fully\u201d or \u201cto make a clean breast of it.\u201d Because Agrippa knew all about these things, Paul was \u201cspeaking fully.\u201d It may have gone over the heads of most of his audience, but not over the head of Agrippa. The reason was: I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; none of these things had escaped his notice. King Agrippa would have known all this because of his constant contact with the Jewish world. After all, these things had not been done in a corner; that is, none of the events Paul had been describing had been done in secret.<\/p>\n
Paul then issued a challenge to Agrippa in verse 27: King Agrippa, believe you the prophets? I know that you believe.<\/p>\n
This is the fifth time he addressed him as King. Paul threw out the question: believe you the prophets? The point of this question was not to get an answer, but to gain his attention, for Paul answered his own question: I know that you believe. Agrippa was a nominal practitioner of Judaism, and so, publicly at least, would have to admit that he did believe the Jewish prophets. And furthermore, being put in charge of the Temple also committed him to believe the prophets. So, if he truly believed the prophets, he would see that Jesus was the Messiah.<\/p>\n
Agrippa gave his answer to Paul in verse 28: And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion you would fain make me a Christian.<\/p>\n
This statement did not mean that Agrippa was \u201calmost persuaded\u201d to become a believer. While there are several possible meanings to what he said, this is not one of them. There are five possible meanings. First, that it was a simple statement of fact, \u201cYou are trying to persuade me to become a Christian.\u201d Secondly, it could mean, \u201cIn such a short time you are trying to make a Christian of me?\u201d Thirdly, it could be translated as, \u201cIn brief, you are trying to persuade me to act the Christian.\u201d Fourthly, it could be translated as, \u201cDo you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to become a Christian?\u201d And fifth, it could mean, \u201cWith such small effort, you are trying to persuade me in order to make me a Christian.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the rendering of the King James Version: almost you persuade me to be a Christian is not a valid possibility. This rendering implies that Agrippa was almost persuaded to believe, but the Greek does not allow for such a translation. Agrippa\u2019s tone here is one of irony, not of interest nor of antagonism. The fact that it was Agrippa who used the word Christian shows that he was at least familiar with the issues, but he was not going to be persuaded in such a short time.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s response is given in verse 29: And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not you only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds.<\/p>\n
The expression: I would to God is the expression of a polite, courteous wish. Paul\u2019s response is a play upon Agrippa\u2019s words. Paul\u2019s wish was: that whether with little or with much, either way he would like to see Agrippa become a believer. Paul responded tactfully to Agrippa\u2019s sarcasm, \u201cNot only you, Agrippa, but also anybody present might become such as I am; that is, a believer in the Messiah, a recipient of salvation. But one thing he did not wish upon them were his bonds. This shows that he was still in chains while he was making this speech.<\/p>\n
E. The Verdict\u2014Acts 26:30\u201332<\/p>\n
Verse 30 gives the conclusion of the hearing: And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them.<\/p>\n
Signaling that he was concluding the proceedings, the king rose up. Following Agrippa\u2019s lead, the governor, Bernice, and the principal men of the city, all got up to leave the chamber.<\/p>\n
Verse 31 shows what the verdict was: and when they had withdrawn, they spoke one to another, saying, This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds.<\/p>\n
The timing of the verdict was when they had withdrawn out of the place of the hearing. They had a private consultation: they spoke one to another in lively conversation about Paul\u2019s speech. The verdict was: This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds. So, once again Paul was declared to be innocent as far as the Roman law was concerned; and so Festus should have set him free.<\/p>\n
But, in verse 32 came the conclusion: And Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.<\/p>\n
Agrippa, like Festus before him, had concluded that Paul was innocent, and now said that he could have been set free. But the reason this could not be done now was because Paul had appealed unto Caesar. When he appealed to Caesar, he lifted his case out of Festus\u2019 jurisdiction. The reason Paul had appealed to Caesar was because Festus had refused to release him and was talking about turning him over to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. This was a clear case of good Romans failing to do their Roman duty because of political pressure. This had been true of Pontius Pilate, of Felix, and now it is true of Festus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul. Acts 24:1 I. PAUL\u2019S DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX\u2014ACTS 24:1\u201327 This segment of Paul\u2019s defense before Felix can be divided into three sections. A. The Charge Against Paul\u2014Acts 24:1\u20139 1. Paul\u2019s … <\/p>\n