Acts 25:1 – 26:32

Transcription

Acts 25:1 – 26:32

Acts 25:1 – 26:32
CHAPTER
39
Literary Context
The episode of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea during the governorship
of Porcius Festus is the last of three episodes about Paul’s detention in Caesarea
(24:1 – 26:32). This episode follows the two episodes in which Luke narrated Paul’s
trial before governor Antonius Felix (24:1 – 23) and his two-year imprisonment in
Caesarea and his conversations with Felix (24:24 – 27). The entire section about Paul
in Caesarea stands between the section on Paul in Jerusalem (21:18 – 23:35) and the
section on Paul in Rome (27:1 – 28:31). These events took place in the summer of AD
59, when Porcius Festus replaced Antonius Felix as governor of Judea.
®
VII. Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome (21:18 – 28:31)
A. Paul in Jerusalem (21:18 – 23:35)
B. Paul in Caesarea (24:1 – 26:32)
47. The trial before governor Antonius Felix (24:1 – 23)
48. The imprisonment in Caesarea during the governorship of Felix (24:24 – 27)
49. The imprisonment in Caesarea during the governorship of Porcius Festus
(25:1 – 26:32)
C. Paul in Rome (27:1 – 28:31)
Main Idea
While the Jewish leadership continues to work for Paul’s physical elimination,
plotting another ambush and demanding his execution, and while the new governor acts quickly, decisively, and justly, though not understanding Paul’s central beliefs, Paul demonstrates his loyalty to the state by expressing his willingness to be
judged by the governor. He fights for his legal rights by appealing to the emperor
and explains the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Jewish king Agrippa II. In his last
major speech, Paul describes God as the Almighty who raises people from the dead,
controls history, wants to save Jews and Gentiles, and helps people in need; and he
031024367x_zecnt_acts_04_int_cs5.indd 973
8/17/12 1:27 pm
974
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
describes Jesus as the resurrected Lord, who saves people from the consequences of
their sins.
Translation
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
1a
b
c
2a
b
c
d
e
3a
b
c
d
e
f
Setting: time
Setting: event
Action
Character entrance
Character entrance
Action
Content
Action
Entreaty
Advantage
Disadvantage
Content
Explanation
Purpose
Three days
after Festus had arrived in the province,
he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
The chief priests and
the leaders of the Jews
gave him a report
concerning the charges against Paul.
They implored him
and requested,
as a favor to them
against Paul,
that he have him transferred to Jerusalem.
They were planning an ambush
to kill him on the way.
4a
b
c
d
e
5a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Response
Content
Geographical
Content
Time
Consequence
Action: speech
Identification
Instruction
Association
Condition
Instruction
Festus replied
that Paul was being held
at Caesarea and
that he himself intended to go there
shortly.
“So,”
he said,
“let those of you who have authority
come down
with me,
and if there is anything wrong about the man,
they can bring charges against him.”
6a
b
c
d
Time
Duration
Sphere
Action
After spending
not more than eight or ten days
among them,
he went down to Caesarea.
e
Setting: time
f Action
g Action
7a
Setting: time
b Character entrance
c
Identification
The next day
he took his seat on the judicial bench
and ordered Paul to be brought before him.
When he arrived,
the Jews
who had come down from Jerusalem
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
d
e
f
8a
b
c
d
e
9a
b
c
d
e
10a
b
c
d
e
Action
Action
Description
Reaction: speech
Negation
Disadvantage
Disadvantage
Disadvantage
Setting: cause
Action: speech
Question
Place
Purpose
Response: speech
Assertion
Place
Negation
Assertion
11a
b
c
Condition
Condition
Inference
If, however, I am in the wrong
and have committed something deserving death,
I do not refuse to die.
Condition (contrast)
Inference
Petition: appeal
But if there is nothing to their charges against me,
no one can hand me over to them.
I appeal to the emperor.”
d
e
f
975
stood around him
and brought many serious charges against him,
which they could not prove.
Paul said in his defense,
“I have committed no offense
against the law of the Jews,
or against the temple,
or against the emperor.”
Since Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor,
he asked Paul,
“Do you want to go up
to Jerusalem
and be tried there before me concerning these charges?”
Paul answered,
“I am now standing before the emperor’s court,
where I should be tried.
I have done no wrong to the Jews,
as you know very well.
12a
b
c
d
Time
Response: speech
Assertion
Result
After Festus had conferred with his council,
he declared,
“You have appealed to the emperor,
to the emperor you will go.”
13a
b
c
d
e
14a
b
c
d
e
Setting: time
Character entrance
Character entrance
Event
Purpose
Cause
Action
Action: speech
Assertion
Character description
After several days had passed,
King Agrippa and
Bernice
arrived at Caesarea
to pay their respects to Festus.
Since they were staying there many days,
Festus discussed Paul’s case before the king.
He said,
“There is a man here
whom Felix left as a prisoner.
15a
b
c
d
e
Report: Time
Protagonist
Protagonist
Action
Demand
When I was in Jerusalem,
the chief priests and
the elders of the Jews
brought charges against him
and asked for a guilty verdict against him.
Continued on next page.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
976
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Continued from previous page.
16a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Response
Content
Action
Condition
Manner
Condition
Purpose
I told them
that it was not the custom of the Romans
to hand over anyone
before the accused had met the accusers
face-to-face
and before he had the opportunity
to defend himself ©
against the charge.
17a
Time
b Action
c Action
d
Time
e Action
When they came back here with me,
I did not postpone the case,
but took my seat on the judicial bench
the next day
and ordered the man to be brought before me.
18a
Time
b Action
c
Character thoughts
19a Contra-expectation
b
Content
c
Content
d
Character description:
identification
e
Contrast
When his accusers stood up,
they did not charge him with any of the crimes
I had expected.
Instead, they had certain points of disagreement with him
about their own religion and
about a certain Jesus,
who had died
20a
Cause
b
Reference
c Action
d
Indirect question
e
Purpose
Since I was at a loss
concerning the investigation of these matters,
I asked
if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem
and stand trial there on these charges.
but whom Paul asserted to ©
be alive.
21a
Time
b
Purpose
c Action: response
d
Content
e
Duration
22a Response: speech
b
Request
c Response: speech
d
Assertion
But when Paul appealed to be kept in custody
for the decision of His Majesty the emperor,
I ordered
that he be kept in custody
until I could send him to the emperor.”
Agrippa said to Festus,
“I would like to hear the man myself.”
He replied,
“Tomorrow you will hear him.”
23a
b
c
d
e
f
The next day
Agrippa and
Bernice came with great pageantry,
entering the audience hall
with the military commanders and
the most prominent men of the city.
Setting: time
Event
Event
Action
Association
Association
8/17/12 1:27 pm
977
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
g
h
24a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Action
Action
Action: speech
Address
Assertion
Character description
Then Festus gave the order
and Paul was brought in.
Festus said,
“King Agrippa and
all here present with us,
you see this man
about whom the entire Jewish community petitioned me
Geographical
Geographical
Manner
both in Jerusalem
and here,
shouting that he ought not to live any longer.
25a
b
Assertion
Content
But I found
that he had done nothing deserving death.
c
d
26a
b
c
d
e
f
g
27a
b
c
Time (cause)
Decision
Assertion
Reference
Action (consequence)
Sphere
Address
Purpose
Time
Explanation
Action
Manner
When he appealed to His Majesty the emperor,
I decided to send him.
But I have nothing definite to write
to our sovereign about him.
Therefore I have brought him before all of you,
and especially before you,
King Agrippa,
so that I may have something to write to our sovereign
after we have examined him.
For it seems to me unreasonable
to send a prisoner
without reporting the charges against him.”
26:1a Action: speech
b Instruction (permission)
c
d
e
2a
b
c
d
e
f
g
3a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Action
Action: speech
Assertion
Address
Content
Time
Place
Conflict
Source
Cause
Object (reference)
Object
Source
Entreaty
Content
Manner
Agrippa said to Paul,
“You have permission to speak
for yourself.”
Then Paul motioned with his hand
and began to defend himself.
“I consider myself fortunate,
King Agrippa,
that I can defend myself
today
before you
against all the accusations
of the Jews,
because you are especially familiar
with all the customs and
controversies
of the Jewish people.
Therefore I beg you
to listen to me
patiently.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
978
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
4a Assertion
All the Jews know my way of life
b
Time
from my youth,
c
Description
the life which I spent
d
Time
from the beginning
e
Sphere
among my own people and
f
Place
in Jerusalem.
5a Assertion
They have known me
b
Duration
for a long time,
c
Condition
if they are willing to testify,
d
Content (review of history)
that I have lived
e
f
Manner
Manner
6a Assertion (explanation)
b
Cause
c
Sphere
d
Agency
e
Object
7a
Description
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
8a
b
c
9a
b
c
10a
b
c
d
e
f
Circumstance
Manner
Time
Time
Cause
Address
Assertion
Rhetorical question
Agency
Content
Review of history
Action
Action
Action
Place
Action
Place
Means
Source
g
Time
h Action
i
Disadvantage
11a
Means
b
Time
c
Place
d Action
e
Purpose
according to the strictest sect of our religion
as a Pharisee.
I now stand here on trial
on account of my hope
in the promise
made by God
to our ancestors,
a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain
as they worship
with perseverance
day and
night.
It is because of this hope,
King Agrippa,
that I am accused by the Jews.
Why should it be considered unbelievable
by any of you
that God raises the dead?
I was convinced
that I ought to do many things
against the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
And that is what I did
in Jerusalem;
I locked up many of the saints
in prison
with the authority that I received
from the chief priests,
And when they were condemned to death,
I cast my vote
against them.
By punishing them
often
in all the synagogues,
I tried to force them
to blaspheme.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
979
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
f Action
g
Result
h
Place
And I was so furiously enraged at them
that I pursued them
even to foreign cities.
12a
b
c
d
e
Circumstance
Action: place
Means
Means
Source
Under these circumstances
I went to Damascus
with the authority and
the commission
of the chief priests.
13a
b
c
d
e
f
g
14a
b
c
d
e
f
15a
b
c
d
e
16a
b
c
d
e
f
g
17a
b
c
d
Time
Place
Address
Event
Comparison
Sphere
Sphere
Event
Event
Means
Address
Interrogation
Assertion: aphorism
Response
Question
Response
Identification
Identification: expansion
Command
Command
Explanation
Purpose
Description
Object
Object
Promise
Content
Content
Action
At noon,
as I was on the road,
King Agrippa,
I saw a light from heaven,
brighter than the sun,
shining around me and
those who traveled with me.
We all fell to the ground,
and I heard a voice saying to me
in Hebrew,
‘Saul, Saul,
why do you persecute me?
It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
Then I asked,
‘Who are you, Lord?’
The Lord answered,
‘I am Jesus,
whom you are persecuting.
Now get up
and stand on your feet.
I have appeared to you
in order to appoint you as a servant and
a witness
of what you have seen of me and
of what you will be shown.
I will rescue you
from your people and
from the Gentiles,
to whom I am sending you,
Purpose
18a
b
Purpose
c
Explanation
d
Purpose
e
Explanation
f
Means
19a Address
b Negation
c
Object
to open their eyes
and to turn them from darkness to light and
from the power of Satan to God,
so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and
a place among those who are sanctified
by faith in me.’
Therefore, King Agrippa,
I was not disobedient
to the heavenly vision,
8/17/12 1:27 pm
980
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
20a Action
b
Sequence: geographical
c
Sequence: geographical
d
Sphere: geographical
e
Sequence: ethnic
f
Instruction
g
Instruction
h
Instruction
but proclaimed
first to the people in Damascus,
then to the people in Jerusalem and
throughout Judea, and
then to the Gentiles
that they should repent
and turn to God
and act in a manner consistent with their repentance.
21a Explanation
b
Place
c Action
That is why some Jews seized me
in the temple
and tried to kill me.
22a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
23a
b
c
d
Contrast
Assertion
Source
Assertion (consequence)
Assertion
But to this day
I have received help
from God,
and so I stand here
and testify to small and
great.
I am saying nothing
that goes beyond what the prophets and
Moses
said would take place:
that the Messiah would suffer,
and that he would be the first to rise from the dead,
to proclaim light both to his people and
to the Gentiles.”
24a
b
c
d
25a
b
c
d
e
26a
b
c
d
e
27a
b
c
Time
Reaction: speech
Exclamation
Exclamation
Response: speech
Negation
Address
Assertion
Description
Assertion
Assertion
Assertion
Content
Cause
Address
Question
Assertion
Assertion
Sphere
Prophecy
Prophecy: content
Prophecy: content
Purpose: geographical
Purpose: geographical
When Paul defended himself with these words,
Festus exclaimed,
“You are out of your mind, Paul!
Your great learning is driving you insane!”
Paul replied,
“I am not insane,
most excellent Festus.
What I am declaring is true and
reasonable.
The king knows about these things,
and I am speaking openly to him.
I am certain
that none of these things have escaped his notice,
for this did not take place in a corner.
King Agrippa,
do you believe the prophets?
I know that you believe.”
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
28a
b
c
d
29a
b
c
d
e
f
h
g
i
30a
b
c
d
Response: speech
Question
Time
Purpose
Response: speech
Desire (prayer)
Manner
Alternative
Identification
Generalization
Desire
Contrast
Agrippa said to Paul,
“Do you think that
Action
Association
Association
Association
Then the king rose,
together with the governor and
Bernice and
the others who were sitting with them.
31a
b
c
d
e
32a
b
c
Time
Action: speech
Assertion
Consequence
After they left the hall,
they said to one another,
“This man is doing nothing
that deserves the death sentence or
chains.”
Agrippa said to Festus,
“This man could have been released
if he had not appealed to the emperor.”
Action: speech
Inference
Condition
981
in such a short time
you can persuade me to become a Christian?”
Paul replied,
“I pray to God that,
whether in a short or
long time,
not only you but
all who are listening to me today,
may become what I am,
except for these chains.”
Structure and Literary Form
Luke narrates the episode of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea during the governorship of Porcius Festus (25:1 – 26:32) in three incidents. The first one relates
events during the inaugural visit of the new governor in Jerusalem, where the chief
priests and other members of the Jewish aristocracy reactivate the case against Paul
(25:1 – 5). They ask the governor to transfer Paul from Caesarea to Jerusalem, planning to kill Paul in an ambush along the travel route. Festus’s rejection of their petition is narrated in indirect speech, his summons to renew their case against Paul in
Caesarea in direct speech.
The second incident relates trial proceedings in Caesarea (25:6 – 12) in six parts:
the resumption of trial proceedings before Festus (v. 6), the charges of the Jewish
leaders (v. 7), Paul’s defense (v. 8), Festus’s suggestion to relocate the trial from Caesarea to Jerusalem (v. 9), Paul’s insistence to be tried in the Roman legal system and
his appeal to the emperor (vv. 10 – 11), and Festus’s decision to grant Paul’s petition
8/17/12 1:27 pm
982
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
for a trial in Rome (v. 12). The charges of the Jewish leaders are narrated in indirect
speech, Paul’s defense in direct speech. Festus’s suggestion to relocate the trial to
Jerusalem is narrated in direct speech, as is Paul’s negative reply; this leads into his
appeal to be tried by the emperor in Rome, which Festus grants.
The third and longest incident reports the consultation of Festus and King
Agrippa II (25:13 – 26:32). Luke narrates the arrival of Agrippa and Bernice (v. 13),
an occasion that allows Festus to discuss Paul’s case with the Jewish king (v. 14) and
gives Luke the opportunity to include a lengthy speech of Festus (vv. 14 – 21). When
Agrippa mentions his interest in meeting Paul (v. 22), the scene is set for Paul’s hearing before Festus and Agrippa, which begins with the arrival of the notables and the
summons of Paul the prisoner (v. 23). Both Festus (vv. 24 – 27) and Paul (26:2 – 23)
give speeches. The incident culminates in a report of the reaction of Festus and
Agrippa (vv. 24 – 32), who attest to Paul’s innocence. Paul uses the opportunity of
Agrippa’s reaction to affirm that he indeed hopes he too will become a follower of
Jesus (vv. 25 – 27).
Luke thus ends the Caesarea section of his narrative (24:1 – 26:32) on a high note,
rather than with the discord of Paul’s appeal to the emperor, which had become
necessary when Festus’s willingness to grant the Jewish authorities a favor had created a dangerous situation for Paul. Paul has another opportunity to describe his
conversion to faith in Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior to exercise his calling as Jesus’
witness among Jews and Gentiles by explaining the gospel to the Jewish king. He will
leave Judea fulfilling his goal to go to Rome (cf. 19:21).
The episode is a historical narrative with chronological information (25:1, 6, 13,
23), geographical information (references to Jerusalem and to Caesarea in 25:1, 3, 4,
6, 7; to Damascus in 26:12, 20), and personal names (references to Paul, Festus, King
Agrippa, Bernice, and Felix); the Jewish leaders are not mentioned by name (25:2, 5,
7). Luke includes direct speech of Festus (25:5, 9, 12, 14 – 21, 22, 24 – 27; 26:24, 31),
Agrippa (25:22; 26:1, 28, 31 – 32), and Paul (25:8, 10 – 11; 26:2 – 23, 25 – 27, 29).
The first speech of Festus (25:14 – 21) identifies Paul as a prisoner (v. 14), reports on the hearing in Jerusalem (vv. 15 – 16), and then on the hearing in Caesarea
(vv. 17 – 21). Paul’s speech in 25:8, 10 – 11 during the trial proceedings in Caesarea
before Festus (his eighth speech) summarizes his defense in two parts. (1) He defends himself against the charge of having committed offenses (v. 8). (2) When Festus
suggests a relocation of the trial proceedings to Jerusalem (v. 9), Paul insists on being
tried in the Roman legal system (vv. 10 – 11).
The second speech of Festus (25:24 – 27), in Paul’s hearing before King Agrippa,
has three parts. (1) After addressing Agrippa and all who are present (v. 24a-c), he
reports on Paul’s case (vv. 24d – 25). (2) Then he explains the purpose of the hearing
(vv. 26 – 27), pointing to the need for definite charges in his letter to the emperor.
(3) He expects that the hearing will provide clarification in order to report definite
charges to the emperor.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
983
Paul’s second speech, in the hearing before Festus and Agrippa 26:2 – 23 (his
ninth in Acts) consists of the traditional five parts of a speech.1 (1) In his exordium
(vv. 2 – 3) he expresses his gratefulness that he can defend himself before Agrippa
and asks Agrippa to pay close attention to what he has to say. (2) Paul offers a lengthy
statement of the facts of the case (narratio; vv. 4 – 18). (3) The proofs of Paul’s innocence (probatio; vv. 19 – 20) are formulated with respect to Paul’s obedience to Jesus’
commission, his mission in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and among the Gentiles,
and his message, which is summarized in terms of repentance of sins, turning to
God, and behavior consistent with devotion to God. (4) The refutation of the charges
(refutatio; v. 21) is succinct, focusing on Paul’s arrest in the temple as he was fulfilling
his commission from God and on the attempt of the Jews to kill him. (5) The conclusion (peroratio; vv. 22 – 23) emphasizes Paul’s acknowledgment of God’s help and
Paul’s affirmation of his consistent testimony of his message about Jesus, the Savior
and suffering and risen Messiah.
Exegetical Outline
® I. The Imprisonment in Caesarea during the Governorship of Porcius Festus (25:1 – 26:32)
A. Festus’s Inaugural Visit in Jerusalem (25:1 – 5)
1. Festus’s arrival in the province of Judea (25:1a-b)
2. Festus’s visit to Jerusalem (25:1c)
3. The Jewish leaders’ accusations against Paul (25:2 – 3)
a. Report concerning Paul (25:2a-d)
b. Request that Paul be transferred to Jerusalem (25:2e – 3d)
c. Plan to kill Paul in an ambush (25:3e-f)
4. Festus’s decision to hear the case against Paul in Caesarea (25:4 – 5)
B. Trial Proceedings in Caesarea (25:6 – 12)
1. The resumption of trial proceedings against Paul (25:6)
a. Festus’s return from Jerusalem to Caesarea (25:6a-d)
b. Festus’s summons of Paul before the judicial bench (25:6e-g)
2. The Jewish leaders’ charges (25:7)
a. The charges (25:7a-e)
b. The lack of proof (25:7f)
3. Paul’s defense (25:8)
a. He has not committed any offense against the Jewish law (25:8a-c)
b. He has not desecrated the temple (25:8d)
c. He has not committed any offense against the emperor (25:8e)
1. Cf. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 327 – 31. Note Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 137, who comments on the rhetori-
cal sophistication of the speech that “Paul has clearly had an
opportunity to prepare his address in advance.”
8/17/12 1:27 pm
984
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
4. Festus’s suggestion to relocate the trial to Jerusalem (25:9)
a. Festus’s desire to grant the Jews a favor (25:9a)
b. Festus’s suggestion that Paul stand trial in Jerusalem (25:9b-e)
5. Paul’s petition to be tried by the emperor (25:10 – 11)
a. Insistence that only a Roman court has jurisdiction in his case (25:10)
b. Willingness to be executed for a crime deserving death (25:11a-c)
c. Appeal to the emperor (25:11d-f)
6. Festus’s decision to grant Paul’s petition for a trial in Rome (25:12)
a. Festus’s conference with his counselors (25:12a)
b. Festus’s acceptance of Paul’s appeal to the emperor (25:12b-d)
C. Festus’s Consultation of King Agrippa II (25:13 – 26:32)
1. Agrippa’s courtesy visit of the new governor (25:13)
2. Festus’s discussion of Paul’s case (25:14 – 21)
a. The case of the prisoner Paul (25:14)
b. Report of the Sanhedrin hearing in Jerusalem (25:15 – 16)
i. The charges of the chief priests and elders against Paul (25:15a-d)
ii. The demand of the chief priests and elders for a guilty verdict (25:15e)
iii. Insistence that Roman law requires plaintiffs to confront defendants (25:16a-e)
iv. Insistence that Roman law allows a defendant to defend himself (25:16f-g)
c. Report of the trial in Caesarea (25:17 – 21)
i. Prompt action concerning the case after his return to Caesarea (25:17)
ii. Recognition that Paul was not accused of crimes punishable by the law (25:18)
iii. Recognition that Paul was accused of religious offenses (25:19)
iv. Offer to Paul that he stand trial in Jerusalem (25:20)
v. Paul’s insistence to stand trial before the emperor (25:21a-b)
vi. Decision to keep Paul in custody until his transfer to Rome (25:21c-e)
3. Agrippa’s desire to hear Paul (25:22)
4. The commencement of Paul’s hearing (25:23)
a. The entrance of Agrippa and Bernice in the audience hall (25:23a-d)
b. The entrance of the military commanders and prominent citizens (25:23e-f)
c. Festus’s summons of Paul (25:23g-h)
5. Festus’s speech (25:24 – 27)
a. Address (25:24a-c)
b. Report on Paul’s case (25:24d – 25)
i. The Jewish demand for a death sentence (25:24d-h)
ii. The innocence of Paul (25:25a-b)
iii. Paul’s appeal to stand trial before the emperor (25:25c)
iv. Decision to grant Paul’s appeal (25:25d)
c. Purpose of the hearing (25:26 – 27)
i. The need for definite charges in his letter to the emperor (25:26a-b)
ii. The expectation that the hearing will provide clarification (25:26c-g)
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
985
iii. The need to report definite charges to the emperor (25:27)
6. The permission for Paul to address the audience (26:1)
a. Agrippa grants Paul the permission to speak (26:1a-c)
b. Paul begins his address (26:1d-e)
7. Paul’s speech (26:2 – 23)
a. Introduction (exordium) (26:2 – 3)
i. Paul’s gratefulness that he can defend himself before Agrippa (26:2)
ii. Agrippa’s competence as an expert in Jewish affairs (26:3a-d)
iii. Paul’s plea that Agrippa pay close attention to what he has to say (26:3e-g)
b. The facts of the case (narratio) (26:4 – 18)
i. Paul’s past as a Pharisaic Jew educated in Jerusalem (26:4 – 5)
ii. The theological nature of the dispute with the Jews (26:6 – 8)
iii. Paul’s activity as a persecutor of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (26:9 – 12)
iv. Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (26:13 – 18)
c. Proofs of Paul’s innocence (probatio) (26:19 – 20)
i. Paul’s obedience to Jesus’ commission (26:19)
ii. Paul’s mission in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and among Gentiles (26:20a-e)
iii. Paul’s message (26:20f-h)
d. Refutation of the charges (refutatio) (26:21)
i. Paul’s arrest in the temple while he was on a divine mission (26:21a-b)
ii. The Jews’ attempt to kill him (26:21c)
e. Conclusion (peroratio) (26:22 – 23)
i. Acknowledgment of God’s help (26:22a-c)
ii. Affirmation of his consistent witness, which agrees with Scripture (26:22d-j)
iii. Affirmation of his message about Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior (26:23)
8. The reaction of Festus and Agrippa (26:24 – 32)
a. Festus’s reaction to Paul’s discourse, declaring him mad (26:24)
b. Paul’s reaction (26:25 – 27)
i. Affirmation of his sanity (26:25a-c)
ii. Affirmation of his report’s truthfulness and reasonableness (26:25d-e)
iii. Attempt to claim King Agrippa as a witness for his truthfulness (26:26)
iv. Challenge to King Agrippa concerning his faith in the prophets (26:27a-b)
v. Assertion regarding Agrippa’s faith (26:27c)
c. Agrippa’s reaction: Incredulity that Paul tries to make him a Christian (26:28)
d. Paul’s response: His hope that all who are present become Jesus’ followers (26:29)
e. The conclusion of the hearing (26:30 – 32)
i. The departure of Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice (26:30)
ii. Acknowledgment of Paul’s innocence (26:31)
iii. Agrippa’s affirmation of Paul’s innocence (26:32)
8/17/12 1:27 pm
986
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Explanation of the Text
25:1 Three days after Festus had arrived in the
province, he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem
(Φῆστος οὖν ἐπιβὰς τῇ ἐπαρχείᾳ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας
ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀπὸ Καισαρείας). The arrival
of the new governor, Porcius Festus, in Caesarea,
the political capital of the province of Judea, was
rapidly followed by an inaugural visit in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was the ancient capital of the region and
the religious center of all the Jewish communities.
If the new governor wanted to maintain good relations with the Jewish leadership, he had to show
his respect and demonstrate his acknowledgment
of their role in maintaining order and peace in
Judea by meeting with them in Jerusalem as his
first order of business. Note that Judea was not an
independent province but belonged to the province of Syria, whose governors intervened in Judea
if they deemed this necessary. Festus is portrayed
in v. 1 as a competent governor who is well aware
of his responsibilities and duties as the governor of
a difficult province.
25:2 – 3 The chief priests and the leaders of the
Jews gave him a report concerning the charges
against Paul. They implored him and requested,
as a favor to them against Paul, that he have him
transferred to Jerusalem. They were planning
an ambush to kill him on the way (ἐνεφάνισάν
τε αὐτῷ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων
κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου καὶ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν αἰτούμενοι
χάριν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ὅπως μεταπέμψηται αὐτὸν εἰς
2. See the description in Josephus, J.W. 5.176 – 181. Cf.
Netzer, Architecture of Herod, 129 – 32. The most impressive
parts of the palace were two reception and banqueting halls.
3. Josephus, Ant. 20.179. Cf. VanderKam, From Joshua to
Caiaphas, 463 – 75.
4. The same term is used in Luke 19:47 for members of the
lay aristocracy in Jerusalem who were (presumably) members
of the Sanhedrin. In Acts 25:15 the same group is described
with the term “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι); cf. 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12.
Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἐνέδραν ποιοῦντες ἀνελεῖν αὐτὸν
κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν). Festus’s meeting with the Jewish
leadership in Jerusalem presumably took place in
the audience hall of Herod’s luxurious palace2 in
the northwest corner of the city, which served as
praetorium of the Roman governors when in Jerusalem. Festus met with the chief priests (see on
4:5), i.e., the highest representatives of the leading
priestly families — probably including the high
priest Ishmael son of Phiabi, who had just been
appointed by Agrippa II in AD 59 near the end of
Felix’s term as governor3 — and the “leaders” (οἱ
πρῶτοι),4 i.e., the highest representatives of the
Jewish lay aristocracy.
During this meeting with the new governor,
the Jewish leaders renewed the case against Paul.
Luke specifies four actions of the Jewish leaders.
(1) They “gave . . . a report concerning the charges”
(ἐνεφάνισαν)5 against Paul; i.e., they renewed their
accusations against Paul (cf. 24:2 – 8, 9). (2) They
“implored” (παρεκάλουν) the governor, making a
strong request for their side of the case. (3) They
“requested” (αἰτούμενοι) a favor,6 that the new governor transfer Paul’s case from Caesarea to Jerusalem. They know that if Festus grants them the favor
of a Jerusalem trial, this will work against Paul.
(4) They “were planning” (ποιοῦντες) an ambush to take place during Paul’s transfer on the road
from Caesarea to Jerusalem. The Jewish leadership
possibly wanted to exploit the inexperience of the
5. BDAG, s.v. ἐμφανίζω 3, “to convey a formal report about
a judicial matter, present evidence, bring charges,” suggesting the
translation “bring formal charges against someone.” The term
is also used in 24:1; 25:15; in 23:22 the verb means “provide
information, inform.”
6. Cf. BDAG, s.v. χάρις 3, “practical application of goodwill,
(a sign of) favor, gracious deed/gift, benefaction.” The connotation of χάρις in 25:3 is “political favor” (ibid. 3a); cf. 24:27; 25:9.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
new governor and finish what they had planned
to do two years earlier (23:12 – 15). The renewed
efforts to obtain a verdict against Paul in a criminal trial and the revived plans for an ambush demonstrate the continued significance of Paul for the
Jewish leadership in Jerusalem and the hostility of
the Jewish leaders, who are willing to use extrajudicial measures for the physical elimination of Paul.
25:4 – 5 Festus replied that Paul was being held
at Caesarea and that he himself intended to go
there shortly. “So,” he said, “let those of you
who have authority come down with me, and
if there is anything wrong about the man, they
can bring charges against him” (ὁ μὲν οὖν Φῆστος
ἀπεκρίθη τηρεῖσθαι τὸν Παῦλον εἰς Καισάρειαν,
ἑαυτὸν δὲ μέλλειν ἐν τάχει ἐκπορεύεσθαι οἱ οὖν
ἐν ὑμῖν, φησίν, δυνατοὶ συγκαταβάντες εἴ τί ἐστιν
ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἄτοπον κατηγορείτωσαν αὐτοῦ). Festus declines the Jewish leaders’ request to transfer
Paul to Jerusalem, for that would give the Jewish
leaders a favor in a criminal trial;7 it would involve
a decision in a legal case without the presence of
both accuser and defendant (cf. 23:35). Soon (in
25:9) Festus will give Paul a chance to comment on
possibly relocating the trial proceedings to Jerusalem. By insisting that the Jewish accusers come to
Caesarea, Festus demonstrates his administrative
competency and integrity as well as the force of his
authority as the governor of the province. Festus
requests the Jewish leaders to appoint a delegation
whose members have the authority to appear as
Paul’s accusers (κατηγορείτωσαν)8 in the criminal
trial.
The governor’s integrity also shows in the for7. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 471 – 72, who goes on to point out
that Festus’s refusal to grant the Jewish leaders a favor clarifies
that Paul’s later appeal to the emperor was not due to deficiencies of the legal process.
8. For κατηγορέω in the sense of “bring legal charges” cf.
22:30; 24:2, 8, 13, 19; see also 25:11, 16; 28:19.
9. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 472.
987
mulation “if there is anything wrong about the
man” (εἴ τί ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἄτοπον); this first
class conditional allows for the possibility that the
Jewish leaders may yet want to decide whether they
are convinced that Paul has done something improper or wrong that demands official accusations
in a trial. Festus implies that only accusations with
proper reasons will be admitted. He may allude to
the fact that Paul had insisted in the previous trial
proceedings that the charges of the Jews could not
be proved (24:13).9 The term “wrong” (ἄτοπος)
is a mild word for an alleged crime; Festus shows
“proper legal caution”10 as he does not prejudice his
handling of Paul’s case.
25:6 After spending not more than eight or ten
days among them, he went down to Caesarea.
The next day he took his seat on the judicial
bench and ordered Paul to be brought before him
(διατρίψας δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέρας οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ
δέκα, καταβὰς εἰς Καισάρειαν, τῇ ἐπαύριον καθίσας
ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος ἐκέλευσεν τὸν Παῦλον ἀχθῆναι).
Luke begins his report on the trial proceedings in
Caesarea (vv. 6 – 12) with a succinct description
of the resumption of Paul’s trial. The reference to
“eight or ten days” reflects Luke’s caution not to
claim what he does not know for certain: he is not
sure whether Festus stayed in Jerusalem for eight or
ten more days. As the new governor, Festus would
have wanted to get a good grasp of the Jewish institutions and traditions (such as the Sanhedrin, the
temple, and the synagogues), to familiarize himself
with the topography of the city, and to inspect the
security arrangements in the city (e.g., by visiting
the Antonia Fortress with its Roman garrison).
10. Barrett, Acts, 1125; he also allows for the possibility that
the term reflects Luke’s desire “to show Paul in the best possible
light.” The term ἄτοπος is also used in Luke 23:41, which does
not necessarily mean Luke’s readers would recall the words of
one of the two men who were crucified together with Jesus and
who declared Jesus to be innocent.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
988
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
On the day after his return to Caesarea, Festus
“took his seat on the judicial bench” (καθίσας ἐπὶ
τοῦ βήματος); i.e., he began the official trial proceedings in the legal case against Paul.11 The governor then summons Paul, which implies that the
Jewish leaders have indeed appointed a delegation
that traveled with the governor from Jerusalem to
Caesarea. Possibly they arrived earlier, during the
time that Festus was busy in Jerusalem (cf. v. 7b-c,
where the coming of the Jews from Jerusalem is
not explicitly linked with the governor’s travel).
The fact that Festus summons Paul on the day after
his arrival from Jerusalem suggests that he takes up
Paul’s case as the first item of business of his official functions as governor of the province of Judea.
Clearly he wants to end this long-drawn-out case.
The judicial proceedings take place, perhaps, in
the large hall of the Upper Palace in the governor’s
praetorium. We must assume that Festus has read
the documents concerning Paul’s case — both the
letter of Claudius Lysias (23:26 – 30) and the transcript of the trial proceedings under his predecessor,
Felix (see “In Depth: Reports of Court Proceedings,”
under “Structure and Literary Form” on 24:1 – 27).
25:7 When he arrived, the Jews who had come
down from Jerusalem stood around him and
brought many serious charges against him,
which they could not prove (παραγενομένου δὲ
αὐτοῦ περιέστησαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων
καταβεβηκότες Ἰουδαῖοι πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα
αἰτιώματα καταφέροντες ἃ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀποδεῖξαι).
The trial begins with the accusations of the Jewish leaders. Once Paul has entered the trial room,
Festus asks the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem to
proceed with their accusations. Luke does not
specify their charges, but describes them as “many
11. For βήμα designating the dais or platform on which
judges held tribunals, see 18:12, 16, 17; also 25:10, 17.
12. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 184; see ibid. for the
following comment.
serious charges,” which is exactly what the accusations in the trial before Felix were; they presumably allege again that Paul is a public enemy of the
Jewish people who causes riots as a ringleader of
the Nazarenes, and that Paul has attempted to desecrate the temple (cf. 24:5 – 6).
The vivid description of the Jewish leaders
standing around Paul as they make their accusations is probably meant to illustrate the dangerous
situation in which Paul finds himself as a result of
the charges against him. It is possible (but not certain, since Luke only summarizes in v. 7) that the
Jewish leaders have decided to bring the charges
in a “concerted and hence more forceful” manner,
without the use of a professional rhetor.12 Their
legal strategy, which seemed to have lacked discipline and focus, backfired; in his later report to
Agrippa, Festus expresses his surprise that the Jews
“did not charge him with any of the crimes I had
expected” (v. 18), leaving him with the impression
that their case rested on Jewish religious questions
and on questions related to Jesus, who had died but
whom Paul asserted to be alive (v. 19). Thus, Festus is at a loss how to proceed in the investigation
(v. 20). In v. 7 Luke comments that “they could not
prove” (οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀποδεῖξαι) their charges. The
imperfect tense of the verb ἴσχυον may suggest
“continuous but unsuccessful attempts to prove.”13
25:8 Paul said in his defense, “I have committed no offense against the law of the Jews, or
against the temple, or against the emperor” (τοῦ
Παύλου ἀπολογουμένου ὅτι οὔτε εἰς τὸν νόμον
τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὔτε εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν οὔτε εἰς Καίσαρά
τι ἥμαρτον). Luke relates Paul’s defense in direct
speech, which carries more weight than the charges
of his accusers on account of its length. He defends
13. Barrett, Acts, 1126, suggesting as translation: “They
could not prove, however hard they tried.”
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
989
himself against three charges, asserting he is innocent in each case.
(1) Paul asserts he has committed no offense14
against the “law of the Jews” (νόμος τῶν Ἰουδαίων);
i.e., he has not violated the Mosaic law. Paul had
been accused of teaching against the Mosaic law in
the temple court (21:28). He had defended himself
against this charge by emphasizing his education
and life according to the law (22:1 – 5) as a Pharisee
(23:6), his belief in everything written in the Law
and the Prophets (24:14), and his clear conscience
before God and the people (24:16). Paul had not
abandoned the Torah or encouraged other Jews
to abandon the Torah, although he has modified
the terms of admission to God’s people for Gentile
believers.
In the Sanhedrin hearing Paul had focused the
dispute about his relationship with the law on the
question of the resurrection of the dead (23:6), a
connection that Claudius Lysias perceived when
he described the controversy between Paul and the
Sanhedrin as pertaining to questions regarding the
law (23:29); this, of course, had caused a tumult in
the Sanhedrin. In his trial before Felix, Paul had
also asserted he was being accused only because of
the question of the resurrection (24:20 – 21). The
accusation that Paul had committed an offense
against the Mosaic law had thus been effectively
discredited during earlier trial proceedings. Moreover, the charge of having violated the Mosaic law
concerned only the Jewish jurisdiction, a fact that
Gallio, the governor in the province of Achaia, had
clearly recognized (18:14 – 15).
(2) Paul asserts that he has committed no offense
against the temple (τὸ ἱερόν). The charge that Paul
desecrated the temple was made for the first time
by Jews from the province of Asia, who claimed he
brought a Greek into the temple (21:28 – 29). The
tumult that resulted from this charge led to the intervention of the Roman commander and to Paul’s
arrest. This charge was brought against Paul in the
trial before Felix (24:6), albeit in a slightly different form: Paul was accused of having attempted to
desecrate the temple, which was more difficult to
disprove. Paul had countered this charge by insisting that his visit to the temple was peaceful, serving religious purposes, and that he was in a state
of ritual purity when he was in the temple (24:12,
17 – 18). The charge of having desecrated the temple concerned both Jewish and Roman jurisdiction, which is probably the reason why this charge
is mentioned in central position.15
(3) Paul asserts that he has not committed any
offense “against the emperor” (εἰς Καίσαρα). The
emperor at the time was Nero (AD 54 – 68). This
seems to represent a new charge, unless Paul alludes to Claudius Lysias’s initial thought that he
was the Egyptian insurrectionist (21:38 – 39). The
formulation in v. 8 seems to suggest that Paul defends himself against the charge of a crimen maiestatis (treason), which could be committed by
Roman citizens or provincials “by the planned killing of a magistrate, by armed revolt or preparation
for the same, by the liberation of prisoners or hostages, by the occupation of public and sacred buildings, or by co-operation with an enemy power.”16
Paul was (probably) accused of treason in Thessalonica, with a reference to the emperor as part of
the charge (17:6 – 7), but Luke is hardly alluding to
this episode in which Paul had been cleared. Paul
probably alludes to the accusation that he has been
fomenting riots, leveled against him by the Jewish
leaders in the trial before Felix.
This corresponds to the serious (political)
14. The verb ἥμαρτον means here “transgress” in the sense
of “do something legally wrong.”
15. Omerzu, Prozess, 478.
16. C. Gizewski, “Majestas,” BNP, 8:186. The punishment
was the death penalty or the heaviest of other punishments.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
990
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
charge of sedition (24:5). Even though the scope
of Paul’s seditious activities was described as being
“among all the Jews,” the geographical specification
“throughout the world” raised the charge of sedition to a level where the governors of the Roman
provinces, and in the city of Rome the emperor
himself, would have to take action. And the combination with the accusation of being a “ringleader”
(24:5) could very well be construed in terms of a
crimen maiestatis, which constituted the most serious political charge.17 Paul had asserted earlier that
he was citizen of Tarsus and a Roman citizen, who
had not broken Roman law (21:39; 22:25 – 28). And
when he appeals to the emperor in the course of
this trial (25:11), he places himself under the protection of the emperor, clearly implying that he has
not done anything that would give him reason to
be afraid of the emperor.
25:9 Since Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor,
he asked Paul, “Do you want to go up to Jerusalem and be tried there before me concerning
these charges?” (ὁ Φῆστος δὲ θέλων τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις
χάριν καταθέσθαι ἀποκριθεὶς τῷ Παύλῳ εἶπεν
θέλεις εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀναβὰς ἐκεῖ περὶ τούτων
κριθῆναι ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ;). After the speeches of the accusers (summarized in v. 7) and of the defendant
(v. 8), Festus introduces the suggestion to relocate
the juridicial proceedings to Jerusalem. He seems
more impressed with the presence of the Jewish
leaders of Jerusalem, whom he wants to do a favor,
than with Paul and the fact of his Roman citizenship (which Luke does not mention here, but
which must have been known to Festus; cf. 23:27
in Lysias’s letter, which would have been part of the
trial record).
If Festus merely wanted to change the venue
17. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 479, who agrees that the crime of
instigating a riot can indirectly affect the maiestas of the emperor: the formulation in v. 8 functions perhaps as an escalation of the charge of sedition with the possibility of a charge
from Caesarea to Jerusalem to personally bring
the trial to a conclusion, his suggestion would be
perfectly legal. But Paul had been in the custody
of the Roman legal system; he could be transferred
to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem
only if he had first been acquitted at least of the
political charges. Perhaps Festus wants to obtain
a fuller consultation with the Jewish authorities,
comparable with the consultation with the Jewish
king Agrippa (cf. v. 26). But Paul does not know
the reason for Festus’s suggestion. His reaction in
vv. 10 – 11 clearly indicates that he fears that Festus will transfer him to the jurisdiction of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. At the same time, the
fact that Festus asks Paul for his agreement to the
relocation of the trial indicates that the governor
is following proper legal procedure. He evidently
does not want to force Paul, Roman citizen that he
is, to agree to be tried by the Jewish high court in
Jerusalem.
25:10 Paul answered, “I am now standing before
the emperor’s court, where I should be tried. I
have done no wrong to the Jews, as you know
very well” (εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Παῦλος ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος
Καίσαρος ἑστώς εἰμι, οὗ με δεῖ κρίνεσθαι. Ἰουδαίους
οὐδὲν ἠδίκησα ὡς καὶ σὺ κάλλιον ἐπιγινώσκεις).
Paul refuses to be taken to Jerusalem. His apprehension is understandable, given the continuous
efforts of the Jewish leaders to obtain a summary
execution from the governors Felix and Festus and
given the plot to kill him in an ambush two years
ago. Also, Paul may well have had information that
they had renewed plans to have him killed when
the Romans take him from his place of custody to
the streets.
In view of this history, Paul cannot expect to
of crimen maiestatis; Luke probably intends his readers to be
reminded of the charge of crimen maiestatis in Jesus’ trial and
as grounds of Jesus’ execution.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
991
25:11 “If, however, I am in the wrong and have
committed something deserving death, I do
not refuse to die. But if there is nothing to their
charges against me, no one can hand me over to
them. I appeal to the emperor” (εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀδικῶ
καὶ ἄξιον θανάτου πέπραχά τι, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν εἰ δὲ οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν οὗτοι κατηγοροῦσίν
μου, οὐδείς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι Καίσαρα
ἐπικαλοῦμαι). Paul evidently does not expect to
be able to receive a fair verdict from Festus, even
though the governor is responsible for his case as
the emperor’s representative. As a result, he appeals
to the emperor, to be tried in the city of Rome.
The statement “if there is nothing to their charges
against me,” formulated as a conditional clause (εἰ
δὲ οὐδέν ἐστιν), implies that Paul acknowledges
that if the charges of the Jewish leaders had been
verified and proven, he could be handed over to
the jurisdiction of the Jewish court in Jerusalem.
He does “not refuse to die”; i.e., he is willing to
be executed if his Jewish accusers prove that he is
guilty and deserves the death sentence according
to Jewish law.
Paul equates a transfer to the jurisdiction of the
Sanhedrin with a death sentence. He insists that
since none of their charges against him has been
proven, no official can hand him over as a favor19
to the Jewish authorities. Thus v. 11d-e formulates
the legal consequence of v. 10d-e. While Festus,
eager to grant the Jews a favor, conveniently “forgets” the principles of Roman law as they pertain to
a Roman citizen, Paul asserts the validity of Roman
law. Since Paul cannot be certain that Festus will
follow Roman law, he appeals to the emperor in
Rome.
The appeal to the emperor is succinctly formulated with two words (Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι),
which corresponds to the Latin phrase Caesarem
appello (“I appeal to the emperor”).20 The available evidence confirms that it was possible in the
first century to appeal directly to the emperor, to
be tried in his imperial court, even before the trial
18. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess, 485; for the following comments
cf. 485 – 87.
19. The verb χαρίσασθαι denotes here the “giving” of Paul
to the Jewish authorities; cf. BDAG, s.v. χαρίζομαι 1, with reference to 25:11.
20. Cf. Plutarch, Marc. 2.4; Ti. C. Gracch. 16.1. The verb
“appeal” (ἐπικαλέω) here is a legal technical term that denotes
“a request put to a higher judicial authority for review of a decision in a lower court” (BDAG, s.v. ἐπικαλέω 3). Cf. 25:12, 25;
26:32; 28:19.
receive a fair trial, a fair hearing, or even safe passage from Caesarea to Jerusalem, particularly since
Festus’s suggestion to relocate the trial was an open
attempt to grant the Jews a favor. Paul’s response
to Festus’s suggestion is the climax of Paul’s trial in
province of Judea, in that his appeal to the emperor
removes him from the jurisdiction of the governor
of Judea and from any jurisdiction of the Jews.18
Paul interprets Festus’s suggestion to relocate
the trial proceedings to Jerusalem not as an honest
question regarding a change of venue. He seems to
suspect that the governor wants to hand him over
to the Jewish authorities. Thus Paul insists that he
be tried by a duly constituted Roman court; he
knows he has discredited the religious accusations
of the Jewish leaders. Festus too knows, as a result
of the trial proceedings over which he has been
presiding, that Paul has “done nothing wrong”
(οὐδὲν ἠδίκησα) to the Jews; i.e., he has not violated the Mosaic law (which is the offense that a
Jewish court would indict him for). As a result, no
Jewish court has jurisdiction over him. This means
that “the emperor’s court” (βήμα Καίσαρος), i.e.,
the court duly constituted by the Roman governor
who acts for the emperor, is the one venue where
he must be tried. Paul can insist on being tried by
a Roman court because he is a Roman citizen (see
16:37).
8/17/12 1:27 pm
992
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
proceedings in a provincial court had concluded
and a sentence had been rendered (see “In Depth:
Appeal to the Emperor”). The possibility of a direct
appeal to the emperor may have been connected
with the fact that there was presumably no jury
court in Judea to which his case might have been
referred, which left the emperor, the only superior
of the governor, as the judicial authority responsible for appeals.21 The emperor in question was
Nero, whose first five years in office (AD 54 – 59)
were remembered with more fondness than his
later years of megalomania. The cost of appeals had
to be paid by the person making the appeal, including payment for transport and room and board.22
IN DEPTH: Appeal to the Emperor
In Republican Rome, there were two distinct forms of appeal: the provocatio
as an appeal to the people, and the appellatio as an appeal to the tribune. The
provocatio evidently served to limit the arbitrary use of the magistrates’ authority and power to intervene (coercitio) when they judged that the public
order had been violated (see on 16:23).23 As regards the early imperial period,
an older view24 claims that the traditional form of the provocatio, which could
be lodged before the trial, still existed in the first century, to be distinguished
from the later appellatio, which takes place after the sentence of the judge. In
view of the increasingly large number of Roman citizens in the provinces, the
governors’ rights were expanded to include trying citizens for statutory crimes
(ordo) without provocatio. It is claimed that since the accusations against Paul
did not fulfill the definitions of a statutory case that would have been tried as
cognitio extra ordinem,25 he had the right to an appeal. It has been established,
however, that there is no evidence for an expansion of the rights of governors,
nor is there evidence for a strict separation of statutory cases (ordo) and cases
that belonged to the cognitio extra ordinem. Since the latter was not regulated
by law, extra ordinem proceedings became the standard legal procedures in the
provinces. The distinction between the earlier provocatio and the later appellatio had been largely abandoned.
The appellatio was a new legal action of the imperial period that came into
21. Cf. Jochen Bleicken, Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht: Eine Studie zur Entwicklung des Prozessrechtes im frühen
Prinzipat (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962), 179;
Omerzu, Prozess, 107.
22. Cf. Tajra, Trial, 173; Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 55.
See further on 27:3.
23. Jochen Bleicken, “Provocatio,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 23.2 (ed. G.
Wissowa et al.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1959), 2444 – 63.
24. Cf. Arnold H. M. Jones, “I Appeal Unto Caesar [1951],”
in Studies in Roman Government and Law (orig. 1960; repr.,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 51 – 65; Sherwin-White, Roman
Society, 61 – 69. Most New Testament commentators rely on
Sherwin-White.
25. Cf. C. G. Paulus, “Cognitio,” BNP, 3:510: “the cognitio
extra ordinem developed as a special type of court proceedings
for legal situations which had previously not been actionable
(entail, maintenance claims, etc.) in strict contrast . . . to the
conventional formula proceedings in civil lawsuits.”
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
993
existence as a result of the authority and power of the emperor himself (maius
imperium) and, more importantly, as the result of the delegated adjudication
in the provinces and in the development and expansion of the cognitio extra
ordinem, which became widespread in the imperial period. In the latter, the
officials responsible for trials (such as provincial governors) were directly dependent on the imperium of the emperor, a fact that increased the emperor’s
importance and potential involvement in legal cases, in which he could not
normally intervene (due to geographical distance). Initially the emperor’s intervention seems rare. He apparently granted “extraordinary legal redress” when
petitioned.26 There is unambiguous evidence for the early imperial period that
defendants could appeal directly to the emperor.27 The case of Capito in AD 69
demonstrates that appeals could be made before the final verdict.28
The available evidence suggests that the appellatio was not fully regulated
in the early imperial period. Since the appellatio constituted an appeal to the
“original” imperium of the emperor, the latter could intervene at any point, even
before the beginning of a trial (e.g., questioning an edict of the governor of the
province). Thus, in contrast to later Roman law, the emperor’s sentence rendered in response to an appeal was not necessarily the verdict of the high court
superseding the verdict of a lower court; it could be the first verdict in the case.
Paul’s appeal to the emperor fits the historical reality of the possibility of appellatio in the first century, including Festus’s consultation with his council and his
prerogative to refuse the petition for an appeal.29 The Roman character of the
trial before the governor of Judea leaves no doubt that both Luke and his readers knew that Paul’s status as a Roman citizen was the necessary prerequisite
for his appeal to the emperor.30
25:12 After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared, “You have appealed to the emperor, to the emperor you will go” (τότε ὁ Φῆστος
συλλαλήσας μετὰ τοῦ συμβουλίου ἀπεκρίθη
Καίσαρα ἐπικέκλησαι, ἐπὶ Καίσαρα πορεύσῃ). Festus was not required to grant Paul’s appeal to the
emperor.31 This is why he confers with his “council,” perhaps on the day after the trial proceedings
26. Bleicken, Senatsgericht, 137; Omerzu, Prozess, 106; see
ibid. for the following observation.
27. Dio Cassius 59.8.5; Suetonius, Nero 17; Tacitus, Ann.
14.28.1; 16.8.3; see also I. Cos 26, an inscription that deals with
the right of appeal (lines 3 – 5 read: “So then if the appeal to
Augustus ([ἡ ἔκ]κλησις γείνεται) is made I must first scrutinize
the charge.” Cf. Horsley and Llewelyn, New Docs, 1:51.
28. Dio Cassius 64.2.3.
29. Omerzu, Prozess, 107 – 8, 489 – 91; for the following
comment see ibid., 489.
30. There is no evidence that proves that governors were
forced to grant the petition for an appeal to the emperor if lodged
by a Roman citizen (contra Sherwin-White, Roman Society,
63 – 64; Barrett, Acts, 1131). See Wieslaw Litewski, “Die römische
Appellation in Zivilsachen: Ein Abriss, I. Prinzipat,” ANRW II.14
(1982): 60 – 96, 86 – 87; Omerzu, Prozess, 89, 100, 494.
31. Reasons for the rejection of an appeal included the legal
status of the defendant, the contestation of a notification, formal errors, or nonobservance of certain deadlines. Cf. Litewski,
“Appellation,” 86, with reference to Dig. 49.5.6.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
994
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
narrated in vv. 6 – 11. Luke portrays Festus again
as the dutiful governor who consults his council,
following procedure by examining the petition for
an appeal.
Festus could release Paul since he knows that he
has done nothing wrong (vv. 11, 25; cf. vv. 18 – 19).
This, however, would be an inauspicious beginning
of his term as governor of Judea; displeasing the
Jewish leaders could threaten the stability of the
province. Still, acceding to the demands of the Jewish authorities who demand Paul’s execution would
be risky, yet executing a Roman citizen at the request of Jewish accusers might create problems in
Rome. Sending Paul to Rome to be tried in the imperial court was a solution that allowed Festus to
extricate himself from a difficult situation. Festus
could transfer Paul to Rome on his own initiative,
but Paul’s appeal to the emperor allows him to shift
the “blame” (expected from the Jewish officials) for
not sentencing Paul to Paul himself.
Festus announces his decision to grant Paul’s
appeal succinctly with five Greek words (Καίσαρα
ἐπικέκλησαι, ἐπὶ Καίσαρα πορεύσῃ): “You have
appealed to the emperor, to the emperor you will
go.” Festus’s decision to grant Paul’s petition of a
trial in Rome immediately stops the current trial
proceedings and effectively removes Paul from the
sphere of influence of the Jewish authorities in the
province of Judea. The hearing before the Jewish
king Agrippa (25:23 – 26:23) does not change this
new legal situation that Paul has been granted; that
hearing merely serves to gather information that
Festus can use in his letter to the emperor (v. 26).
25:13 After several days had passed, King
Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay
their respects to Festus (ἡμερῶν δὲ διαγενομένων
32. Josephus, Ant. 20.189 – 196, describes Agrippa’s good
relationship with Festus.
τινῶν Ἀγρίππας ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ Βερνίκη κατήντησαν
εἰς Καισάρειαν ἀσπασάμενοι τὸν Φῆστον). The
third incident of Luke’s report on the events connected with Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea
when Festus was governor of Judea (25:1 – 26:32)
relates Festus’s consultation with King Agrippa
(25:13 – 26:32). Since Festus needs to write a letter to the emperor (littera dimissoria; see on v. 26),
explaining the circumstances of Paul’s case and the
reasons for granting Paul’s appeal to be tried by the
emperor, the courtesy visit of King Agrippa provides him with the perfect opportunity to obtain
further information about the controversy between
Paul and the Jewish authorities.
King Agrippa had ruled over areas in northern
regions of Palestine since AD 50 and had been
granted the authority over the temple in Jerusalem and over the appointment of the high priests.
This close relationship with Jerusalem allowed him
to intervene in the affairs of Judea and to present
himself as representing the interests of all Jews.
Agrippa II may have come to Caesarea not only
to pay the new governor a courtesy visit,32 but
also to step into the trial proceedings against Paul,
who had been arrested in the context of a tumult
in the temple courts and who was being charged
by the priestly aristocracy with the desecration of
the temple.33 If Agrippa had intended to intervene
in the trial proceedings, he had arrived too late,
since Paul’s trial had just concluded with the prisoner’s appeal to the emperor, which the governor
had granted.
Bernice was Agrippa’s sister, who lived with him
in Caesarea Philippi and Rome. She was the older
sister of Drusilla, the wife of Festus’s predecessor,
Felix. When Agrippa and Bernice met Paul in the
summer of AD 59, the king was thirty-two years
33. Cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus
und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums Band
I; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 105.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
995
old and his sister thirty-one years, while Paul may
have been about sixty years old.
a governor to describe his role in the affair in the
best possible light.
25:14 Since they were staying there many days,
Festus discussed Paul’s case before the king. He
said, “There is a man here whom Felix left as a
prisoner” (ὡς δὲ πλείους ἡμέρας διέτριβον ἐκεῖ, ὁ
Φῆστος τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀνέθετο τὰ κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον
λέγων ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν καταλελειμμένος ὑπὸ Φήλικος
δέσμιος). Festus uses the opportunity of Agrippa’s
visit to consult with him concerning his prisoner
Paul, whose trial had just concluded with Paul’s
appeal to the emperor. When Agrippa signaled
he would stay for an extended period of time in
Caesarea — perhaps in the praetorium, which used
to be the palace of his great-grandfather, Herod
— Festus decides to discuss the case of the Jewish
authorities against Paul with Agrippa. The Jewish
king was an expert in Jewish affairs because of his
authority over the affairs of the temple in Jerusalem, and he was a friend of Rome, who had been
educated in the imperial capital and who had been
granted territories by the previous and the incumbent emperor (Claudius and Nero).
Festus’s speech introduces the case of Paul with
a succinct statement: his predecessor Felix left a
particular man as “prisoner” (δέσμιος). This statement is probably not an implied criticism of Felix.
The fact that he had not concluded the trial proceedings against Paul can be seen as a “bargaining
chip” that he left behind for his successor, at the
same time placing an “official question mark” to
Paul’s claims of innocence.34
Festus’s subsequent report about his hearing
in Jerusalem (vv. 15 – 16) recounts 25:1 – 5 and
his report about Paul’s trial in Caesarea recounts
25:6 – 12. Most of the material is identical; the differences highlight Festus’s interest. It is natural for
25:15 When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests
and the elders of the Jews brought charges against
him and asked for a guilty verdict against him
(περὶ οὗ γενομένου μου εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἐνεφάνισαν
οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν Ἰουδαίων
αἰτούμενοι κατ’ αὐτοῦ καταδίκην). Festus summarizes what transpired in the meeting that he had
with the priestly and lay aristocracy of the Jews in
Jerusalem. (1) He relates that they brought charges
against Paul. The charges are not specified; Luke’s
readers know from 24:2 – 9 what they are.
(2) Festus reports that they demanded that he
pronounce a “guilty verdict” (καταδίκη)35 against
Paul. While Luke reported the first action of the
Jewish leaders in v. 2, he had omitted the request
for a guilty verdict. The fact that in v. 3 Luke focused instead on their plan of an ambush in which
Paul was to be killed during his transfer from Caesarea to Jerusalem, the guilty verdict mentioned in
v. 15 implies the conviction of a crime that would
require the death sentence. This is confirmed by
Paul’s statement in v. 11. Both the charge of desecration of the temple and the charge of fomenting
riots (seditio) would qualify for such a verdict.
34. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 321.
35. BDAG, s.v. καταδίκη, “condemnation, sentence of con-
demnation, conviction, guilty verdict.” This noun occurs only
here in the New Testament.
25:16 I told them that it was not the custom of
the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met the accusers face-to-face and before he had the opportunity to defend himself
against the charge (πρὸς οὓς ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι οὐκ
ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον
πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔχοι
τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι περὶ
τοῦ ἐγκλήματος). (3) Festus insisted to the Jewish
authorities that he would uphold Roman law, here
described as “the custom of the Romans,” which
8/17/12 1:27 pm
996
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
requires that plaintiffs confront the person(s) they
accuse. By invoking custom as a source of law, “he
was evoking a whole judicial use both ancient and
standard.”36 The verb translated “to hand over anyone” (χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον) denotes, with a
dative object implied, “to make a present of any
man to anyone.”37
(4) Festus insists to Agrippa that he followed
the principle that a defendant has the right to face
his accusers and to defend himself against any
charges. Roman jurisprudence insisted that accused and accusers “meet face-to-face” and that
an accused person has the opportunity to “defend
himself.” The terms translated “defend” (ἀπολογία)
and “charge” (ἔγκλημα; Lat. crimen) are technical
legal terms. Festus insisted on Roman fairness (aequitas Romana), according to which anonymous
denunciations were not tolerated and according to
which charges could not be brought by representatives of the plaintiff. Luke omits Festus’s insistence
that Paul would be tried in Caesarea, rather than in
Jerusalem as the Jewish authorities had requested
(vv. 4 – 5).
25:17 When they came back here with me, I
did not postpone the case, but took my seat on
the judicial bench the next day and ordered the
man to be brought before me (συνελθόντων οὖν
αὐτῶν ἐνθάδε ἀναβολὴν μηδεμίαν ποιησάμενος τῇ
ἑξῆς καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος ἐκέλευσα ἀχθῆναι
τὸν ἄνδρα). In his report about the trial in Caesarea (vv. 17 – 21), Festus first emphasizes that he
had taken prompt action, an emphasis highlighted
by Luke with a series of aorists. On the day after his
arrival in Caesarea, Festus took his seat on the judicial bench and ordered Paul to be brought before
36. Tajra, Trial, 155.
37. Barrett, Acts, 1137.
38. The term ἀναβολή (“postponement”) is often used as a
legal technical term; cf. the references in BDAG.
himself, sitting as judge, and before the accusers.
This review corresponds to vv. 6 – 7. The reference
to a potential postponement,38 which would have
been his prerogative as a governor, emphasizes that
he acted with prompt efficiency.
25:18 When his accusers stood up, they did
not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected (περὶ οὗ σταθέντες οἱ κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν
αἰτίαν ἔφερον ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν πονηρῶν). Festus’s
description of the charges of Paul’s accusers (the
chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin
mentioned in v. 15) begins with a general reference
to the charges. He informs Agrippa that he was
surprised about these charges. He “had expected”
(ὑπενόουν)39 that they would accuse Paul of crimes
(πονηρά), i.e., “evil deeds,” which would justify
the involvement of the highest Jewish officials in
a legal case. But this is not what happened; they
did not charge him with “any . . . crime” (οὐδεμίαν
αἰτίαν) that a Roman governor usually handles.
In v. 7 Luke had only referred to “serious
charges” and commented that Paul’s accusers
could not prove those charges. Festus displays
his impartiality. He is not partial to the authority of the chief priests and elders from Jerusalem.
Rather, he carefully and objectively evaluated their
charges and recognized that they were not serious
political charges that would warrant a trial before
the Roman governor. In the trial before Felix the
charges of the Jewish leaders (24:5 – 7) were political, focused on fomenting riots (seditio). Perhaps
the Jerusalem authorities tried a new legal strategy before Festus, deliberately moving the charges
to religious questions and seeking the support of
the governor on account of the decision that Julius
Caesar had made in the time of Hyrcanus II:
39. BDAG, s.v. ὑπονοέω defines, “to form an opinion or
conjecture on the basis of slight evidence, suspect, suppose.”
Hemer, Acts, 131, interprets more positively in the sense of “of
which I could take cognizance,” suggesting that the expression
reflects the legal formula de quibus cognoscere volebam.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Whatever high-priestly rights or other privileges
exist in accordance with their laws, these he and
his children shall possess by my command. If, during this period, any question will arise concerning
the Jews’ manner of life, it is my pleasure that the
decision shall rest with them.40
25:19 Instead, they had certain points of disagreement with him about their own religion
and about a certain Jesus, who had died but
whom Paul asserted to be alive (ζητήματα δέ τινα
περὶ τῆς ἰδίας δεισιδαιμονίας εἶχον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ
περί τινος Ἰησοῦ τεθνηκότος ὃν ἔφασκεν ὁ Παῦλος
ζῆν). Festus discovered that Paul was accused of
religious offenses. He details two observations
concerning the accusations of the Jewish authorities against Paul. (1) Their charges were related to
“certain points of disagreement” concerning “their
own religion” (περὶ τῆς ἰδίας δεισιδαιμονίας), i.e.,
the Jewish faith and cultic practice. The term “religion” (δεισιδαιμονία) means, here, not “superstition” (which would have been an insult to the
Jewish king) but “religion” in terms of a particular
system of cultic beliefs and practices. Paul certainly
would have agreed with this assessment: what was
at stake in the controversy with the Jewish leadership was not a criminal offense but his beliefs.
(2) Their charges concerned “a certain Jesus”
(περί τινος Ἰησοῦ). In the discussion in court,
the following facts stood out for Festus. The Jewish authorities insisted that Jesus “had died”
(τεθνηκότος). The perfect tense of the participle
indicates that they argued that Jesus’ status was that
of a man who had expired and who had been buried and who remained a dead man. Paul, however,
asserted that this Jesus was “alive” (ζῆν). Since Paul
did not dispute that Jesus had died, this means that
he insisted that Jesus had been resurrected from
the dead. Festus formulates the dispute concerning
997
Jesus not from a Jewish perspective, but from the
perspective of a Roman pagan for whom talk about
a “resurrection” of Jesus would be novel, if not incomprehensible. For him, the question is whether
Jesus is dead or alive.
Even though he would have expressed the matter differently, Paul would have agreed with Festus’s second point as well: the central issue that
separated him from the Jewish authorities was the
resurrection of Jesus (23:6), in which he believed
because he had encountered Jesus on the road to
Damascus (22:6 – 10; 24:15, 21; 26:12 – 18). Paul’s
belief in Jesus’ resurrection committed him to acknowledge Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Savior, and
Lord — convictions that had prompted him to
persecute the followers of Jesus before his encounter with the risen Lord, and convictions that evidently motivated the Jewish authorities to seek to
eliminate him as one of the “ringleaders” of Jesus’
followers.
25:20 Since I was at a loss concerning the investigation of these matters, I asked if he would be
willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there
on these charges (ἀπορούμενος δὲ ἐγὼ τὴν περὶ
τούτων ζήτησιν ἔλεγον εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι εἰς
Ἱεροσόλυμα κἀκεῖ κρίνεσθαι περὶ τούτων). The next
point of Festus’s report about Paul’s trial was his
offer to Paul to stand trial in Jerusalem. Festus tells
Agrippa that the reason for this offer was his recognition that religious questions belonging to Jewish
beliefs were outside of his expertise. He was “at a
loss,” which means he had doubts how he should
handle the investigation (ζήτησις; Lat. quaestio, the
controversial matter settled by judicial inquiry) of
“these matters” related to Jesus’ resurrection.
As a result Festus asked Paul whether he
was willing to go to Jerusalem and “stand trial”
(κρίνεσθαι) there “on these charges,” i.e., regarding
40. Josephus, Ant. 14.195; see Fitzmyer, Acts, 751.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
998
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
his belief that Jesus was alive. Since he portrays
himself to Agrippa as the impartial governor and
judge, he omits the fact that he wanted to grant
the Jews a favor (v. 9) and that he hoped that Paul
would accept his proposition.
25:21 “But when Paul appealed to be kept in
custody for the decision of His Majesty the
emperor, I ordered that he be kept in custody
until I could send him to the emperor” (τοῦ δὲ
Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν
τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν
ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα). The final
point of Festus’s summary of Paul’s Caesarea trial
that had just been concluded reports Paul’s insistence to stand trial before the emperor. While this
statement summarizes vv. 10 – 11 in a generally
adequate manner, it is true that Paul would have
preferred that Festus act on his correct perception
that the controversy was about Jewish religious
questions and not about political insurrection,
thus declaring him innocent and releasing him.41
Paul did not exactly appeal “to be kept in custody”
(τηρηθῆναι), although his appeal to the emperor
implied, given his two-year custody in Caesarea,
that he would be transferred to Rome as a prisoner.
The term “His Majesty” (ὁ Σεβαστός) is the
Greek equivalent of the Latin term Augustus,
meaning “worthy of reverence, revered,” which is
the title that the senate in Rome conferred on Gaius
Julius Caesar Octavianus on January 16 in 27 BC
when he became Princeps. The term became a title
for the first emperor’s successors. Nero’s full name
was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
The term translated “decision” (διάγνωσις) is here
a legal technical term that denotes “a judicial inquiry or investigation that culminates in a decision” (BDAG).
Festus concludes his report by relating his
41. Cf. Richard J. Cassidy, Society and Politics in the Acts of
the Apostles (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987), 203.
decision to keep Paul in custody until arrangements could be made to send him to the emperor
(Καῖσαρ; see on 17:7; 25:8). The term translated as
“send” (ἀναπέμψω) denotes the remission of a case
(or person) to a higher court. In the context of his
concern to highlight his competence as Roman
governor, Festus portrays himself as protecting
Paul against the hostility of the Jews. At the same
time, Festus’s statement here explains the assertion
of Agrippa in 26:32 that Paul could have been released if he had not appealed to the emperor. The
assertion was implausible in the early principate
(no law prevented Festus from declaring Paul not
guilty and releasing him, even after his appeal to
the emperor); it is plausible if Agrippa refers to the
fact that Paul’s appeal only served the prolongation
of his imprisonment.42
25:22 Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to
hear the man myself.” He replied, “Tomorrow
you will hear him” (Ἀγρίππας δὲ πρὸς τὸν Φῆστον
ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι. αὔριον,
φησίν, ἀκούσῃ αὐτοῦ). Agrippa understands Festus’s
report about Paul’s case as an implicit suggestion to
provide him with counsel concerning Paul’s transfer to the imperial court in Rome (unless Festus
asked Agrippa explicitly to help him draft a letter to
the emperor, a proposition that he may have shifted
to vv. 26 – 27 for reasons of dramatic effect).
The imperfect tense of the verb translated “I
would like” (ἐβουλόμην) may indicate that Agrippa
had been “wishing” for some time to hear Paul,
having heard about his activities and the efforts
of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to have him
sentenced and executed. Given his authority over
affairs of the temple and his control over who held
the high priesthood, presumably Agrippa was informed about the criminal case against Paul, the
alleged “ringleader” of the followers of Jesus. Fes42. Omerzu, Prozess, 489.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
tus, wasting no time, promises a hearing on the
following day. He knows that since his main duty
was preserving order in the province and since he
had only limited forces at his disposal, he must
maintain good relations with the provincial upper
classes and the important men of the region.
25:23 The next day Agrippa and Bernice came
with great pageantry, entering the audience
hall with the military commanders and the
most prominent men of the city. Then Festus
gave the order and Paul was brought in (τῇ οὖν
ἐπαύριον ἐλθόντος τοῦ Ἀγρίππα καὶ τῆς Βερνίκης
μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας καὶ εἰσελθόντων εἰς τὸ
ἀκροατήριον σύν τε χιλιάρχοις καὶ ἀνδράσιν τοῖς
κατ’ ἐξοχὴν τῆς πόλεως καὶ κελεύσαντος τοῦ
Φήστου ἤχθη ὁ Παῦλος). Luke sets the scene of
Paul’s hearing with comments on the participants
and the location of the hearing. The people present at Paul’s final hearing in Judea include governor
Festus, King Agrippa II, Queen Bernice,43 the military commanders of the five cohorts of auxiliary
units that the governor had at his disposal, and “the
most prominent men” of the city, i.e., the members
of the Greek and Jewish aristocracy of Caesarea.
Since the purpose of the hearing is to provide
Agrippa with an opportunity to assess Paul’s case in
the criminal proceedings that are in the process of
being transferred to the imperial court in the city
of Rome, Luke focuses his narrative on Agrippa,
both here in v. 23 and in 26:1. Agrippa and Bernice arrive with full regalia and retinue. The location of the hearing is the “audience hall” in Festus’s
praetorium, the former palace of Herod (see on
43. Since Bernice played an active role in political matters
(Josephus, J.W. 2.310 – 314, 333 – 334; Life 343, 355), her presence at Paul’s examination by Festus is not surprising.
44. The translation of ἀκροατήριον as “hall of justice”
(BDAG) suggests that the room in question always, and only,
served as a room in which judicial proceedings took place.
Such a room probably did not exist in the praetorium of a
Roman governor; the tribunal (βῆμα) could be set up in differ-
999
vv. 2 – 3).44 The time and effort Luke spends on this
scene serves to highlight the innocence of Paul and
confirms the relevance of the gospel of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior, for both Jews and Gentiles.
Luke’s vivid description of the pageantry of the
entry of the royal couple, the military commanders, and the political dignitaries, and of Festus’s
order to have Paul brought from his prison cell,
prompts his readers to picture all eyes on Paul as
he enters the audience hall. After the extended
phrases describing all the guests, the words “Paul
was brought in” (ἤχθη ὁ Παῦλος) stand out with
“impressive simplicity.”45 The passive voice communicates Paul’s status as a prisoner whose movements are controlled by those who hold him in
custody. As his speech in 26:2 – 23 and his attempt
to lead the king to faith in Jesus in 26:25 – 27, 29
demonstrate, Paul refuses to let his “social status”
determine his actions.
25:24 Festus said, “King Agrippa and all here
present with us, you see this man about whom
the entire Jewish community petitioned me both
in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought
not to live any longer” (καί φησιν ὁ Φῆστος
Ἀγρίππα βασιλεῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ συμπαρόντες ἡμῖν
ἄνδρες, θεωρεῖτε τοῦτον περὶ οὗ ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐνέτυχόν μοι ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ
ἐνθάδε βοῶντες μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν μηκέτι). Festus
begins with a brief speech (vv. 24 – 27), in which he
explains the purpose of the hearing.46 He requests
the attention of “King Agrippa” and “all here present.” The governor solicits advice regarding Paul’s
case and the letter he must write to the emperor,
ent locations, depending on the defendant and the importance
of the trial. English versions generally translate “audience hall”
(NET, NRSV, RSV), “audience room” (NIV, TNIV), or “auditorium” (NASB).
45. Barrett, Acts, 1146.
46. Soards, Speeches, 121, labels Festus’s speech as “judicial
rhetoric”; Padilla, Speeches, 229, finds identification as forensic,
deliberative, or epideictic rhetoric unconvincing.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1000
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
primarily from Agrippa but also from the military
commanders and the Greek and Jewish notables in
the hall. The phrase “you see this man” (θεωρεῖτε
τοῦτον) implies a hand gesture of Festus in the direction of Paul; the reference to Paul with a mere
demonstrative pronoun implies the low social status of Paul as prisoner.
(1) The first major part of Festus’s address contains a report on Paul’s case (vv. 24d – 25). The
governor first notes the Jewish demand of a death
sentence. The phrase translated “the entire Jewish community” is hyperbolic, unless the term
πλῆθος refers to the Jewish leadership rather than
the Jewish people as a whole. The verb translated
“[they] petitioned” (ἐνέτυχον) and the reference to
the demand made both in Jerusalem and “here”
(ἐνθάδε), i.e., in Caesarea, suggests the former option, while the verb “shouting” (βοῶντες) points to
the latter,47 which agrees with the circumstances of
Paul’s arrest in the temple court, where an excited
crowd was shouting (κράζοντες), accusing Paul of
having desecrated the temple and demanding his
execution.
Perhaps Festus is deliberately ambiguous here.
While he leaves no doubt that it was the Jewish
authorities in Jerusalem who demanded Paul’s execution, he implies — correctly — that there were
many Jews who believed that Paul “ought not to
live any longer.” The position of μηκέτι (“any longer”), which intensifies the negation of the phrase
μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν (“he ought not to live”) underscores the vehemence of the Jewish demand for
Paul’s execution.
25:25 But I found that he had done nothing deserving death. When he appealed to His
Majesty the emperor, I decided to send him
(ἐγὼ δὲ κατελαβόμην μηδὲν ἄξιον αὐτὸν θανάτου
πεπραχέναι, αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τὸν
Σεβαστὸν ἔκρινα πέμπειν). (2) Festus points out
that Paul seems to be innocent. During his examination of Paul’s case he has “found” nothing that
deserves the death sentence. This statement is the
strongest assertion of Paul’s innocence since the
evaluation of Paul by Lysias, the commander of
the Roman garrison in Jerusalem (23:29). It confirms that Paul’s accusers indeed had argued for a
death sentence.
(3) The governor relates Paul’s appeal to
stand trial before “His Majesty the emperor” (for
Σεβαστός see v. 21). Festus explains neither the
reason for Paul’s appeal — avoiding the conclusion of the trial proceedings in Jerusalem, where
the Jewish authorities are determined to make sure
that he dies — nor his decision not to release Paul
despite his firm opinion that Paul was innocent of
charges demanding a death sentence. In both cases
the demand for a death sentence comes from the
Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. Agrippa knows this
already (v. 20), and the military commanders and
the local dignitaries surely knew about the position
of the Jewish leadership in their case against the famous prisoner in custody in Caesarea for two years.
(4) Festus confirms that he made the decision
to grant Paul’s appeal to the emperor and to send
him to Rome.
25:26 – 27 “But I have nothing definite to write
to our sovereign about him. Therefore I have
brought him before all of you, and especially
before you, King Agrippa, so that I may have
something to write to our sovereign after we
have examined him. For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner without reporting the
charges against him” (περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι
τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἔχω, διὸ προήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐφ’ ὑμῶν
47. In 17:6 the same verb described the excited shouts of
Jews in Thessalonica denouncing Paul and Silas to the city
authorities.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ σοῦ, βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα, ὅπως τῆς
ἀνακρίσεως γενομένης σχῶ τί γράψω ἄλογον γάρ
μοι δοκεῖ πέμποντα δέσμιον μὴ καὶ τὰς κατ’ αὐτοῦ
αἰτίας σημᾶναι).
The second part of Festus’s address, which announces the purpose48 of the hearing (vv. 26 – 27),
has an A-B-A structure. The first and third points
mention the need to explain definite charges in a
letter that he must write to the emperor (vv. 26ab/27). The governor’s reference to his obligation to
“have something to write to our sovereign” refers
to the littera dimissoria, which the lower court had
to present to the higher court.49 The letter had to
contain the following information: a notice that an
appeal had been lodged; the name of the person
lodging the appeal; the sentence that is being contested; the name and identity of the parties involved.
The littera dimissoria was a formal report that
did not impact the substance of the case. The person lodging an appeal had to present the libellus
appellatorii to the presiding judge of the higher
court — to the emperor in the case of the imperial court — within a certain period of time, who
would then decide on a date for the new trial. If the
appellant failed to provide the higher court with
the report, he forfeited his appeal. The issuance
of littera dimissoria was the last legal action of the
lower court. Festus knows that he has to report the
specific charges against Paul (αἱ κατ’ αὐτοῦ αἰτίαι)
in his report for the emperor, which he must send
together with the prisoner.
The term translated as “sovereign” (κύριος) was
one of the titles of the Roman emperors, emphasizing their authority as princeps in the empire. It is
not merely “unreasonable” (ἄλογος) to fail to report the charges to the emperor; it was a legal ne48. Note the inferential conjunction διό.
49. Cf. Litewski, “Appellation,” 87 – 88; Omerzu, Prozess, 91;
see ibid. for the following details. See on 23:25.
50. BDAG, s.v. ἀνάκρισις, “a judicial hearing, investigation,
hearing.” The term describes here “preparation of the matter
1001
cessity to issue a libellus appellatorii reporting the
circumstances and details of the appeal.
The examination (ἀνάκρισις)50 of Paul by
Agrippa has the purpose of supplementing the information obtained in the trial (25:6 – 12) and to
obtain “definite” (ἀσφαλές), i.e., assured information — facts that clarify the connection between
the demand of the death sentence by the Jewish
authorities, the refusal of the governor to release
Paul despite the lack of political crimes that require a death sentence, and the prisoner’s appeal
to be tried by the emperor. It is especially on the
first point that the Jewish king may be able to shed
some light.
26:1 Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission
to speak for yourself.” Then Paul motioned with
his hand and began to defend himself (Ἀγρίππας
δὲ πρὸς τὸν Παῦλον ἔφη ἐπιτρέπεταί σοι περὶ
σεαυτοῦ λέγειν. τότε ὁ Παῦλος ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα
ἀπελογεῖτο). Luke’s account of Paul’s hearing before Festus and Agrippa continues with a note that
relates Agrippa’s granting Paul permission to speak.
The governor, who has arranged for the hearing,
allows the Jewish king to initiate the examination
of the prisoner. Paul is permitted to speak about
himself, i.e., about his activities and his beliefs. It
will become obvious that Paul cannot speak about
himself without speaking about Jesus Christ.
Paul, who would have remained standing in
front of the dignitaries since being led into the
audience hall, “motioned with his hand” (ἐκτείνας
τὴν χεῖρα; lit., “stretched out his hand”), one of the
most common gestures recommended in the rhetorical handbooks. The verb “defend” (ἀπελογεῖτο)
characterizes what follows as a forensic speech.
for trial” in a preliminary examination (LSJ, s.v. ἀνάκρισις II),
i.e., of the trial before the imperial court in Rome. At the same
time, the hearing concludes the trial proceedings held by the
governor of Judea in Caesarea.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1002
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
While Paul is not on trial, the examination with
the purpose of writing a littera dimissoria was still a
legal procedure in which the rhetorical recommendations for defensive speeches would be followed.51
26:2 – 3 “I consider myself fortunate, King
Agrippa, that I can defend myself today before
you against all the accusations of the Jews, because you are especially familiar with all the
customs and controversies of the Jewish people.
Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently”
(Περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐγκαλοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων,
βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα, ἥγημαι ἐμαυτὸν μακάριον ἐπὶ σοῦ
μέλλων σήμερον ἀπολογεῖσθαι μάλιστα γνώστην
ὄντα σε πάντων τῶν κατὰ Ἰουδαίους ἐθῶν τε καὶ
ζητημάτων, διὸ δέομαι μακροθύμως ἀκοῦσαί μου).
In his introduction, Paul briefly touches on all the
subjects that the rhetorical handbooks mentioned
as appropriate for the exordium: he comments on
the judge, on himself, on the opponents, and on
the case.52
Paul makes three points. (1) He expresses his
gratefulness that he can defend himself before
Agrippa. The address is simple: he acknowledges the person who is conducting the hearing as “King Agrippa,” and he himself is the
defendant (ἀπολογεῖσθαι; see on v. 1). His accusers
(ἐγκαλοῦμαι; lit., “I am being accused”)53 are “the
Jews.” Moreover, he considers himself “fortunate”
to be able to defend himself before the king. The
desire to win the goodwill of Agrippa (captatio benevolentiae) continues in the next point.
(2) Paul compliments Agrippa’s competence as
an expert in Jewish affairs. He acknowledges that
51. Paul’s speech is thus by no means “irrelevant in a Roman
court of law” (Tajra, Trial, 163, followed by Witherington, Acts,
735). The primary audience is indeed Festus, who has to compose the littera dimissoria that Paul must take to Rome.
52. Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.6 – 11; Parsons, Acts, 338.
53. The present tense of the verb (ἐγκαλοῦμαι) implies
recognition of the fact that the legal case that the Jews have
brought against him has not yet been concluded.
Agrippa is “especially familiar” with Jewish affairs,
specifying two areas in which Agrippa has expertise: “the customs” (τὰ ἔθη), i.e., the laws of the
Jewish people, and the “controversies” (ζητήματα),
i.e., the theological and legal disputes of the various
Jewish groups. This point describes the legal case
before Agrippa and will be developed more fully in
the lengthy narratio that follows (vv. 4 – 18).
(3) The introduction ends with Paul’s plea that
Agrippa listen to him “patiently” (μακροθύμως ),
i.e., pay close attention to what he has to say, for he
will speak at some length.
26:4 All the Jews know my way of life from my
youth, the life which I spent from the beginning
among my own people and in Jerusalem (τὴν
μὲν οὖν βίωσίν μου τὴν ἐκ νεότητος τὴν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς
γενομένην ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις ἴσασι
πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι). In the second part of his speech,
the narratio (statement of the facts of the case), Paul
describes his past as a devout Pharisaic Jew educated in Jerusalem (vv. 4 – 5), the theological nature
of the dispute with the Jews (vv. 6 – 7), his activity
as a persecutor of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth
(vv. 9 – 12), and, in vivid detail, his encounter with
Jesus on the road to Damascus (vv. 13 – 18).
Paul begins with the assertion that “all the Jews”
— perhaps a reference to all the Jews of v. 2, i.e., the
Jews who have been accusing him in Jerusalem and
in Caesarea — know his “way of life” (βίωσις) since
his youth. Paul’s youth is linked either with his
birth and initial upbringing in the Jewish community in Tarsus (assuming that τε distinguishes “my
own people” from those in Jerusalem; cf. 22:3),54
54. GNB eliminates the difficulty that some see in relating
the term “nation, people” (ἔθνος) to the Jewish community in
Tarsus by translating “at first in my own country and then in
Jerusalem” (e.g., Barrett, Acts, 1151). There is no reason, however, why ἔθνος cannot refer to the Jews in Tarsus; note the
definition in BDAG, s.v. ἔθνος 1, “a body of persons united by
kinship, culture, and common traditions.”
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
or with both his early and later education in Jerusalem (assuming that τε means “including” or
“actually”). Even if the Jewish community of Tarsus
is distinguished from the Jews in Jerusalem, Paul’s
statement emphasizes that he lived “from the beginning” in Jerusalem, the center of the worldwide
Jewish commonwealth (22:3; Gal 1:13 – 14).
26:5 They have known me for a long time, if
they are willing to testify, that I have lived according to the strictest sect of our religion as a
Pharisee (προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν, ἐὰν θέλωσι
μαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς
ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος). Paul’s second point is the assertion that the Jews who accuse
him know very well that he was a member of the
“conservative” Pharisaic party. His accusers “have
known [him] for a long time [ἄνωθεν]”; this refers to his affiliation with students and teachers of
the law when he was educated in Jerusalem thirty
years ago, and to his association with members of
the priestly aristocracy and with members of the
Sanhedrin twenty-seven years earlier when he was
involved in actions against the followers of Jesus in
concert with the chief priests (cf. 22:5).
The conditional clause third class “if they are
willing to testify” (ἐὰν θέλωσι μαρτυρεῖν) suggests
that while some of his accusers know him personally, they are unwilling to admit their former association with him as well as their knowledge of the
fact that Paul was a devout Jew. His accusers could
testify that Paul lived as a Pharisee (cf. 23:6; Phil
3:4 – 6). The aorist tense of the verb translated “I
have lived” (ἔζησα) refers, considering the context,
to the past: he had lived as a Pharisee when his accusers knew him in Jerusalem.
Paul describes the Pharisees as “the strictest sect” (ἡ ἀκριβεστάτη αἵρεσις) of Judaism. The
superlative of the adjective reflects Pharisaic selfunderstanding as believers who take God’s will as
revealed in the Law and the Prophets more seri-
1003
ously than any other group; they study, apply, and
teach the Scriptures with utmost devotion and sacrificial consistency. The term translated “religion”
(θρησκεία) denotes “worship” with an emphasis on
the cultic, ritual, and formal aspects of the faith
and practice of the Pharisees.
26:6 I now stand here on trial on account of my
hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors (καὶ νῦν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατέρας
ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελίας γενομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκα
κρινόμενος). After describing his past as a devout
Jew, Paul switches to the present with “now” (καὶ
νῦν). He describes the nature of the dispute with
the Jews (v. 6 – 8). The substance of the charges
that caused Paul to be on trial is differences of
theological conviction. Paul singles out three
points of disagreement that are at the root of the
controversy.
(1) Paul stands before a court of law on account
of the hope (ἐλπίς) of the “promise” (ἐπαγγελία)
that God had made to “our ancestors” (v. 6), i.e., the
patriarchs in particular and Israel more generally.
For God’s promises to the people of Israel, see 2:39;
13:23, 32. In v. 8 it will become clear that the hope
that Paul refers to is the hope of the resurrection
of the dead, a fact that Festus and Agrippa are well
aware of (25:19) and that Paul had stressed both in
the Sanhedrin hearing (23:6) and in the trial before
governor Felix (24:15).
Both Paul’s former affiliation with the Pharisees (who believe in the resurrection of the dead)
and the connection between v. 8 (“God raises the
dead”) and v. 9 (“Jesus of Nazareth”) indicates that
the dispute is about Paul’s conviction that Israel’s
hopes have become a reality in and through Jesus.
Jesus was raised from the dead, through which
God has fulfilled the promises he had made to the
fathers — specifically, the promise of a Savior who
would bring about “the authentic realization of the
people of Israel as the children of the promise made
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1004
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
to Abraham.”55 The scriptural basis for the hope in
the resurrection of the dead and the restoration of
Israel (see v. 7) are passages such as Isa 25:8; 26:19;
Ezek 37:1 – 14; Dan 12:1 – 3; Hos 6:2.
26:7 A promise that our twelve tribes hope
to attain as they worship with perseverance
day and night. It is because of this hope, King
Agrippa, that I am accused by the Jews (εἰς ἣν τὸ
δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν
λατρεῦον ἐλπίζει καταντῆσαι, περὶ ἧς ἐλπίδος
ἐγκαλοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων, βασιλεῦ). (2) Paul asserts that the “promise” (ἐπαγγελία; note the relative pronoun ἥν) in whose present fulfillment he
believes concerns the hope of “our twelve tribes,”
a term that signals the hope of Israel’s eschatological regathering when the twelve tribes will live in
peace and prosperity in the Promised Land. The
Jews maintained this hope against political reality;
there were Israelites belonging to Judah, Benjamin,
and Levi (the priestly families) who lived in Judea,
in Galilee, and in diaspora communities, and there
were members of the northern tribes living in Samaria and somewhere abroad, but there was no
people of Israel consisting of twelve tribes.56
Luke’s readers know what Paul implies: the restoration of the people of Israel, symbolized by the
figure twelve, has become a reality through the
person and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, who had
chosen twelve apostles who would take the good
news of the arrival of God’s rule to Israel and to
the nations.57 As devout Jews worship God with
55. Johnson, Acts, 432, with reference to Luke 1:55, 73; 3:8;
13:28; Acts 3:24 – 26; 7:1 – 8; 13:32 – 33.
56. On the twelve tribes in early Judaism cf. Fuller, Restoration of Israel, 154 – 56, with reference to T. Levi 10; 14; 16;
17; T. Jud. 23, and other passages; the community behind the
War Scroll (1QM) understood its identity as “the people of the
twelve tribes,” with the implication of “a comprehensive claim
to the heritage and promise of Israel’s full re-gathering” (ibid.,
455, emphasis Fuller’s).
57. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 433, with reference to Luke 6:13; 8:1;
9:1, 12, 17; 22:30; Acts 1:15 – 26; 7:8. Luke included in the be-
perseverance day and night,58 expecting the fulfillment of God’s promises, Paul and his fellow believers in Jesus are convinced, and proclaim, that these
promises have been fulfilled in and through Jesus,
through whose life, death, resurrection, and exaltation he is establishing his rule. Paul repeats the
basic point of contention, addressing King Agrippa
again to underline the importance of his statement:
“it is because of this hope” that he is accused by the
Jewish authorities, i.e., the hope of the resurrection
and the present fulfillment of God’s promises.
26:8 Why should it be considered unbelievable by any of you that God raises the dead?
(τί ἄπιστον κρίνεται παρ’ ὑμῖν εἰ ὁ θεὸς νεκροὺς
ἐγείρει;). (3) Paul challenges Jews who believe in
the resurrection to follow through on their conviction. Jews who accept the statement as true “that
God raises the dead” should not accuse Paul of
crimes and demand his execution. They should not
deem “unbelievable” (ἄπιστον) that the almighty
God can bring people who have died back to life.
The context in v. 9 suggests that Paul is already
thinking of the resurrection of Jesus (cf. v. 23). Jews
who indeed accept that God raises the dead should
not find it implausible that God brought Jesus back
from the dead.
26:9 I was convinced that I ought to do many
things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth
(ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ πρὸς τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ Ναζωραίου δεῖν πολλὰ ἐναντία πρᾶξαι). After
ginning of his two-volume work the declaration of the priest
Zechariah that the effect of God’s visitation of the people in
fulfillment of “the oath he swore to our father Abraham” was
that they might “serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Luke 1:73 – 75).
58. The expression “day and night” (νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν; lit.,
“night and day”) probably does not refer to regular times of
prayer in the temple, associated with the morning and evening
sacrifice, but more generally to continuous worship that never
stops.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
speaking about his past upbringing (vv. 4 – 5)
and about his present belief in the resurrection,
which is the reason for the accusations against him
(vv. 6 – 8), Paul reverts to speaking about the past.
He now59 reviews his involvement in the persecution of the followers of Jesus (vv. 9 – 12).
(1) Paul begins by describing the conviction that
drove him to oppose Jesus’ followers. He “was convinced” (ἔδοξα) that “many things” needed to be
done in order to curb the activities of the followers of Jesus; in vv. 10 – 11 Paul will provide details.
The combination of the explicit first person pronoun (ἐγώ) with the first person reflexive pronoun
(ἐμαυτῷ) places a strong emphasis on the speaker.
The term “the name” (τὸ ὄνομα) describes not only
Jesus of Nazareth but also, and more specifically,
the followers of Jesus and their activities (see on
2:38).60 When he encountered Jesus on the road to
Damascus, he learned that persecuting believers in
Jesus was tantamount to persecuting Jesus himself
(v. 14). Paul asserts that he regarded his actions
aimed “against” Jesus’ followers as an obligation.
26:10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem; I
locked up many of the saints in prison with the
authority that I received from the chief priests.
And when they were condemned to death, I
cast my vote against them (ὃ καὶ ἐποίησα ἐν
Ἱεροσολύμοις, καὶ πολλούς τε τῶν ἁγίων ἐγὼ ἐν
φυλακαῖς κατέκλεισα τὴν παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων
ἐξουσίαν λαβὼν ἀναιρουμένων τε αὐτῶν κατήνεγκα
ψῆφον). (2) Paul informs King Agrippa about his
active and energetic involvement in the measures
of the Jewish authorities that aimed at crushing
59. The expression μὲν οὖν takes up the narrative from v. 5
(Barrett, Acts, 1154), and at the same time it provides a transition from v. 8, building “on the implicit acknowledgment that it
was Paul’s previously finding it ‘incredible’ that God should have
raised Jesus that accounted for his rage and hostility against the
Messianists who claimed he had” (Johnson, Acts, 433).
60. Cf. 3:6, 16; 4:7, 12, 17 – 18; 9:14 – 16. On Ναζωραῖος (lit.,
“the Nazorean, the Nazarene”) see 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5.
1005
Jews who believed in Jesus and who followed his
teaching. The description is more concrete and
Paul appears more virulent than in the reports
in 9:1 – 3 and 22:4 – 5. He first focuses on his activities in Jerusalem. Two verbs in the aorist tense
describe what he did: he “locked up” (κατέκλεισα)
many Christians61 in prison, and he “cast [his] vote
against [κατήνεγκα] them” when they were condemned to death.
Paul acted with the “authority” (ἐξουσία) of the
chief priests, which was expressed, at least on some
occasions, in letters (9:1 – 2). The term translated
as “vote” (ψῆφος) denotes “a pebble used in voting:
a black one for conviction, a white one for acquittal” (BDAG). Paul’s statement could refer to literal
voting (implying that Paul was a member of the
Sanhedrin), or it could function as “a metonymy
for other forms of corporate approval.”62 The verb
“condemned to death” implies participation in trials in which Christians were charged with capital
offenses.
This statement has been taken to imply that
Paul must have been a member of the Sanhedrin
as an ordained rabbi.63 While not impossible, this
is unlikely because he was presumably too young
in AD 30 – 31 for membership in the highest court.
There were other courts in Jerusalem: the ruling
body of each synagogue constituted a minor court
of law (beth din or sanhedrin); however, the Jerusalem synagogues probably did not try capital cases,
which was the prerogative of the supreme Sanhedrin. Perhaps Paul means to say that he was involved in death penalty cases as “one of the young
61. The Christians are called “saints” (ἁγίοι); see on 9:13.
Paul speaks as a Christian.
62. Craig S. Keener, “Three Notes on Figurative Language,”
JGRChJ 5 (2008): 42 – 50, 46. Johnson, Acts, 434, suggests a
wordplay: while some were stoning Stephen, throwing rocks,
Paul cast his own pebble.
63. Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 255 n. 34.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1006
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Pharisaic scribes in the Sanhedrin who helped in
the interpretation of the Law.”64
The death penalty could be carried out by the
Sanhedrin only when the sanctity of the temple
had been violated (see on 21:28). Other cases had
to be referred to the Roman governor, who would
have to be petitioned to confirm a death sentence
of the Sanhedrin in a new trial (as in the case
against Jesus). If we assume that such executions
of Christians involving both trials before the Sanhedrin and the Roman governor would have been
mentioned by Luke, this scenario is not likely. As
a result of these difficulties, commentators understand Paul’s statement as a generalizing reference
to his involvement in the death of Stephen,65 as a
rhetorical statement for dramatic effect,66 or as a
metaphorical statement indicating that he sided
with those who voted for the death penalty to be
inflicted on followers of Jesus.67
When we consider the fact that the Jerusalem
Christians met regularly in Solomon’s Portico in
the outer court of the temple (cf. 3:11; 5:12), that
they regularly participated in the worship taking
place in the Inner Enclosure of the temple (cf.
3:1), and that Paul wanted to be able to indict the
Christians on a charge of blasphemy (v. 11), which
was punished by death, it is not impossible to relate Paul’s statement to accusations of breaches of
the sanctity of the temple, which could have led
to the death penalty. Note that Jesus, Stephen,
and Paul were all accused of blaspheming against
or desecrating the temple (Matt 26:60 – 61/Mark
14:57 – 58;68 Acts 6:11, 13 – 14; 21:28).
26:11 By punishing them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme. And
I was so furiously enraged at them that I pursued
them even to foreign cities (καὶ κατὰ πάσας τὰς
συναγωγὰς πολλάκις τιμωρῶν αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον
βλασφημεῖν περισσῶς τε ἐμμαινόμενος αὐτοῖς
ἐδίωκον ἕως καὶ εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις). (3) Paul describes his involvement in synagogue punishments
meted out to Christians. He visited all the Jerusalem synagogues (cf. 6:9) in which followers of Jesus
worshiped.70
The basic meaning of the verb translated “punished” (τιμωρῶν) is “to be an avenger, to exact or
seek to exact vengeance” (LSJ; cf. BDAG). Paul
probably refers to flogging, particularly the forty
lashes minus one (see on 4:21; 5:40; according to
2 Cor 11:24, he had received this punishment himself five times after he had become a Christian).
This participle, whose present tense corresponds to
the statement that he “often” inflicted punishments
on Jesus’ followers in the synagogues, is best taken
as expressing means: he used punishments in order
to “try to force” (ἠνάγκαζον)71 or compel Christians
“to blaspheme” (βλασφημεῖν; see on 6:11).
64. Witherington, Acts, 742.
65. Bruce, Book of Acts, 464.
66. Marshall, Acts, 393.
67. Fitzmyer, Acts, 758; Johnson, Acts, 434.
68. In the parallel account in Luke 22, the charge of Jesus
wanting to destroy the temple is omitted.
69. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 338, asserts that Luke’s
language is “more soundly based than at first appears” when
compared with Gal 1:13, where Paul states that he persecuted
the church “intensely,” trying to destroy (ἐπόρθουν) the church.
70. According to 8:3 Paul also went from house to house
arresting Christians. The statement in 26:11 adds a new detail.
71. The imperfect is conative, denoting a consistent effort
that did not succeed: Paul tried to force Christians to blaspheme. Whether he was successful in this attempt is not stated
by the text.
Luke’s report of Paul’s account of his involvement
in the execution of Christians may thus not merely
represent folk memory but historical events.69 The
persecution affected a large number of Christians:
many were thrown into prison, and many were executed. Luke relates in 7:60 only the death of Stephen
(the execution of James [see 12:2] took place at a
later date, when Agrippa I was king), but evidently
more Christians were condemned to death.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
The use of this term in the charges against Stephen, who was accused of “speaking words against
this holy place and against the law” (6:13), makes
both Lev 24:11 – 16 and Exod 22:28 relevant. The
former passage stipulates the death sentence for
blasphemy against “the name of the Lord” while
the latter passage prohibits “cursing a ruler of your
people” (which could be interpreted as a reference to Moses). If Paul describes his actions from
a Christian point of view, the blasphemies that he
wanted Christians to utter by torturing them probably would involve cursing Jesus, i.e., renouncing
him as Messiah.72 If he describes his actions from
the perspective of a Jewish zealot seeking to obtain indictments on the highest penalty possible,
he may have tortured the Christians in the attempt
to get them to utter a blasphemy against Israel’s
God, Israel’s law, or God’s people, or he tried to get
Jesus’ followers to say things about Jesus, perhaps
his divine status, that would be regarded as blasphemy from a Jewish perspective.73 The two interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive;
the movement of Jesus’ followers would be crushed
either way, if these measures would have been universally successful.
(4) Paul mentions his pursuit of Christians
to “foreign cities” outside of Judea. He describes
his attitude in his actions concerning the followers of Jesus in terms of being “furiously enraged”
(περισσῶς ἐμμαινόμενος). Note that in v. 25 Paul
says to Festus that he is now, as a Christian, “true
and reasonable,” not insane (οὐ μαίνομαι; note the
use of the root of the same verb). In 9:1 Luke had
described Paul as “breathing threats and murder
against the disciples of the Lord.” His obsessive
rage is given as the reason for taking the initiative
to pursue Christians into cities outside of Judea
(and Samaria and Galilee). In 9:2 and 22:5 only
72. Cf. Tajra, Trial, 166. Pliny, Ep. Tra. 10.96.5, attempted to
force Christians to reject Jesus (maledicerent Christo).
1007
Damascus is mentioned. Evidently Paul also traveled to other cities, presumably some east of Judea
in Syria and Nabatea.
26:12 Under these circumstances I went to Damascus with the authority and the commission
of the chief priests (ἐν οἷς πορευόμενος εἰς τὴν
Δαμασκὸν μετ’ ἐξουσίας καὶ ἐπιτροπῆς τῆς τῶν
ἀρχιερέων). After speaking about his past upbringing as a devout Jew (vv. 4 – 5), his belief in the
resurrection of the dead as the cause of the accusations against him (vv. 6 – 8), and his fierce persecution of the church (vv. 9 – 12), Paul now describes
his encounter with the risen Jesus (vv. 12 – 18).
This event explains the particular shape of his belief in the resurrection of the dead as well as his
dramatic change from persecuting Jesus’ followers
to proclaiming Jesus as Israel’s crucified and risen
Messiah and Savior.
(1) Paul first describes how he traveled to Damascus with the official support of the chief priests.
The expression “under these circumstances” links
the narrative that begins in v. 12 with the previous description of Paul’s activities. His travels to
foreign cities in the pursuit of Christians took him
to Damascus with the “authority” (ἐξουσία) and
“commission” (ἐπιτροπή) of the chief priests (v. 10;
cf. 9:1 – 2). The first term describes the power that
Paul had been given by the chief priests to arrest
and punish Jewish believers in Jesus in the synagogues of Damascus, while the second term suggests that the chief priest had authorized him to
carry out this assignment on their behalf.
26:13 At noon, as I was on the road, King
Agrippa, I saw a light from heaven, brighter
than the sun, shining around me and those who
traveled with me (ἡμέρας μέσης κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν
εἶδον, βασιλεῦ, οὐρανόθεν ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα
73. Peterson, Acts, 664; also Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 989 n. 146.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1008
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
τοῦ ἡλίου περιλάμψαν με φῶς καὶ τοὺς σὺν ἐμοὶ
πορευομένους). (2) Paul describes the light and the
voice from heaven that he heard while on the road
to Damascus (vv. 13 – 14). This event was so significant that he remembered at what time it took
place: “at noon” (cf. 22:6). All three accounts speak
of a “light from heaven,” but the description varies:
in 9:3 Luke described a “light from heaven,” in 22:6
“a great light,” here a light “brighter than the sun,”
which highlights the supernatural origin of the
phenomenon. The description of the light as one
that “flashed around” in 9:3 and 22:6 is changed
to “shining around” (περιλάμψαν), a term that
emphasizes the constant glare of the supernatural
light.
26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a
voice saying to me in Hebrew, “Saul, Saul, why
do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick
against the goads” (πάντων τε καταπεσόντων
ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἤκουσα φωνὴν λέγουσαν πρός με
τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις;
σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν). The effect of
the bright light caused Paul and his fellow travelers to fall to the ground (in 9:4 and 22:7 only Paul
was described as falling to the ground). If this is
not simply a stylistic variation, Luke emphasizes
the witness that Paul’s companions could provide
concerning this event.
Blinded by the light and lying on the ground,
perhaps face down, Paul heard a voice addressing
him “in Hebrew” (see on 22:2; the reference to language, not included in the earlier accounts,74 could
be to Aramaic). The words spoken in the exchange
between the heavenly voice and Paul are given in
74. The clarification may be included here in order to
explain the reference to “Saul” when his listeners may have
known him only as “Paul”; see Johnson, Acts, 435.
75. L. Schmid, “κέντρον,” TDNT, 3:664. Cf. Euripides,
Bacch. 794 – 795: “I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick
against his goads in anger, a mortal against a god.”
direct speech, a fact that emphasizes their significance for Paul. The question was so memorable
that it is repeated verbatim in all three accounts
(cf. 9:4; 22:7). The repetition of Paul’s Jewish name
highlights for Agrippa the significance of the communication from heaven. The question “Why do
you persecute me?” identified the speaker with
the cause that Paul had been attacking and suppressing. When Paul was told who the speaker was
(v. 15), he was forced to acknowledge that he was
persecuting not simply the followers of Jesus but
Jesus himself, who was now speaking to him in the
light of heavenly glory (see further on 9:4). The
question challenged Paul’s identity and activity as
a persecutor of the believers in Jesus.
A new detail is the assertion by the voice from
heaven that it was hard for Paul “to kick against
the goads.” A goad (κέντρον; κέντρα is plural) is
“a pointed stick that serves the same purpose as a
whip” or a cattle prod, used to drive horses, oxen,
and other beasts of burden. The expression “kick
against the goad” describes the struggle of a beast
of burden (or riding animal) against the directions
of the driver (or rider). As a proverbial expression
it describes “futile and detrimental resistance to
a stronger power, whether it be that of a god, of
destiny, or of man.”75 This reference has been explained as Paul’s attempt to clarify the implications
of the question of the heavenly voice for his Greekoriented audience. The heavenly voice told Paul
not to resist God, who was directing him toward
“the Way” to become a follower of Jesus.76
26:15 Then I asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The
Lord answered, “I am Jesus, whom you are per76. To interpret the “pricks” of the goad in terms of Paul’s
conscience, popularly often related to Paul’s memory of his part
in Stephen’s death, is not plausible since Paul’s references to his
preconversion period do not indicate any pangs of conscience
(cf. Acts 26:10 – 11; Gal 1:13 – 14; Phil 3:5 – 6).
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
secuting” (ἐγὼ δὲ εἶπα τίς εἶ, κύριε; ὁ δὲ κύριος
εἶπεν ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις). (3) Paul relates the identification of the voice as the voice of
Jesus. Paul’s question is repeated verbatim from 9:5
and 22:8. The answer of the heavenly voice is also
the same, apart from the addition of the identification “of Nazareth” added in 22:8. Paul’s perplexed
question makes sense both for a Jew like Agrippa
and a pagan like Festus: heavenly revelations (or
auditions) remain ambiguous if the person receiving the revelation does not know who is speaking.
The fact that Jesus, whose followers Paul had been
persecuting, identified himself as speaking from
the reality of divine glory means that the Jew with
the name Jesus who had been crucified by governor Pontius Pilate, on the instigation of the chief
priests, is alive and shares God’s glory and directs
human affairs, at least in the case of Paul.
26:16 “Now get up and stand on your feet. I have
appeared to you in order to appoint you as a servant and a witness of what you have seen of me
and of what you will be shown” (ἀλλὰ ἀνάστηθι
καὶ στῆθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὤφθην
σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα ὧν τε
εἶδές με ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι). (4) Paul describes
his appointment by Jesus as his servant and witness (on Paul’s call as Jesus’ witness, see “In Depth:
Paul’s Missionary Work” in Literary Context on
13:1 – 12). In this account alone Paul received his
missionary commission directly from Jesus on the
road to Damascus; in 9:10 – 17 and 22:12 – 16 Paul
was commissioned by Jesus through Ananias, a
Jewish Christian in Damascus.77
This difference can be explained in various
ways. (a) In 26:16 – 18 Paul telescopes events, omitting the involvement of Ananias altogether, be77. Since Paul omits in his account before Agrippa the role
of Ananias, there is no need to include a reference to Paul’s
being blinded.
1009
cause he wants to emphasize to King Agrippa that
he has been divinely commissioned to proclaim
the message for which he is being accused by the
Jewish officials. (b) Paul provides in 26:16 – 18 the
historically clearest report of his commission: according to his own words in Gal 1:1, 15 – 16, he did
not receive his commission from human beings but
directly from God; the words of Ananias in Acts
22:14 – 15 may allude to Paul’s commission on the
road to Damascus, whose significance Ananias explains to Paul, while the report concerning Ananias’s involvement in 9:10 – 17 also does not speak
of a commissioning of Paul by Ananias. Luke may
have been saving this important detail of Paul’s
conversion and commission for maximum effect
in Paul’s speech before King Agrippa.78
In the previous accounts of his conversion, Paul
was also ordered to “get up” (cf. 9:6; 22:10, 16). The
charge to “stand on your feet,” followed by divine
instructions, echoes the call of Ezekiel, whom God
sent to Israel (Ezek 2:1 – 4).79 Jesus explains that
the purpose of why he allowed himself to be “seen”
(ὤφθην; see on 9:17) by Paul is Paul’s appointment
as his servant and witness. The verb translated
“appoint” (προχειρίσασθαί; see on 3:20; 22:14) describes Paul’s selection by the risen Lord Jesus for
a specific task. Paul informs King Agrippa that he
did not volunteer for his career as a preacher of
Jesus Christ (as he had volunteered to persecute
Jesus’ followers); rather, his life’s direction and
purpose changed dramatically as a result of a commission given to him by Jesus, risen from the dead,
whom he met on the road to Damascus.
Paul was commissioned to be Jesus’ “servant”
(ὑπηρέτης; see on 13:5), i.e., someone who helps
and assists Jesus in what Jesus continues to do in
the world (cf. 1:1). And he was commissioned to be
78. Charles W. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts,” JBL 100
(1981): 415 – 32, 427.
79. Cf. Marshall, “Acts,” 599.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1010
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Jesus’ “witness” (μάρτυς; cf. 1:8), joining the Twelve
and other witnesses who spoke about their encounter with the risen Jesus of Nazareth and who took
the good news of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior,
to the people living in Jerusalem and to the ends of
the earth (cf. 1:8). The content of his witness was
to communicate to others “what you have seen of
me,” i.e., the reality of Jesus risen from the dead,
alive and active from heavenly glory as a “witness
to his resurrection” (1:22); and to communicate
“what you will be shown,” i.e., further revelations
of Jesus’ reality conveying his will80 and manifesting his power.81
26:17 “I will rescue you from your people and
from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you”
(ἐξαιρούμενός σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς
οὓς ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε). (5) Paul relates Jesus’ assurance of protection among Jews and Gentiles,
a promise that underlines that his mission would
be risky and dangerous. This is a new element in
Luke’s accounts of Paul’s conversion, corresponding to the commission of the Twelve in Matt
28:18 – 20, who were promised the risen Lord’s
continued presence. The risen Lord promised that
he would rescue (ἐξαιρούμενος)82 Paul, i.e., deliver
him, from dangerous situations that would arise
among the Jewish people (λαός) and among the
Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη).
Jesus’ promise echoes God’s promise to Jeremiah, who was sent to the people of Israel despite his youth: “You shall go to all to whom I send
you, and you shall speak whatever I command
you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you
to deliver you [ἐξαιρεῖσθαί σε], says the Lord” (Jer
80. Cf. 16:7, 9 – 10; 18:9 – 10; 22:17 – 21; 23:11; 27:23 – 24;
also 2 Cor 12:1 – 5.
81. Cf. 14:3; 15:12; 19:11; also Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12. The
future “seeing” that Paul will proclaim as Jesus’ witness might
also refer to the conversion of the nations.
82. The verb is used in this sense also in 7:10, 34; 12:11;
1:7 – 8 LXX).83 Luke’s readers would remember
that Paul had encountered dangers in Damascus
(9:23 – 25), Jerusalem (9:29 – 30), Pisidian Antioch (13:50), Iconium (14:6), Lystra (14:19 – 20),
Philippi (16:19 – 39), Thessalonica (17:5 – 9),
Corinth (18:12 – 17), Ephesus (19:29 – 31), and
most recently and repeatedly again in Jerusalem
(21:27 – 36; 23:12 – 33).
Jesus sent Paul (ἀποστέλλω σε) to Jews and
Gentiles. The relative pronoun (οὕς) would appear
to refer only to the Gentiles. However, Luke has
portrayed Paul since Acts 13 as a witness of Jesus
both among Jews (in synagogues) and among Gentiles (both in the synagogues as God-fearers, and
in the public lecture halls and marketplaces of the
cities his visited). This makes it more plausible to
interpret the masculine plural οὕς as taking up the
masculine singular noun λαοῦ and the neuter plural noun ἐθνῶν. (a) If “your people” refers to Jews
from whose opposition Paul is protected by the
power of Jesus’ promise, he is obviously threatened
because he witnesses to them. (b) The images of
turning to God and opening blind eyes in v. 18 are
also used of Jews by Luke.84 (c) According to v. 20
Paul’s obedience to the divine commission takes
him to Jerusalem and Judea, i.e., to Jews, and then
also to the Gentiles (cf. Rom 15:16). (d) In v. 23
Paul speaks of the Messiah being proclaimed both
to “his people” (the Jews) and to Gentiles.
26:18 “To open their eyes and to turn them from
darkness to light and from the power of Satan
to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of
sins and a place among those who are sanctified
by faith in me” (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν, τοῦ
23:27. The present tense of the participle stands for future
action.
83. Marshall, “Acts,” 599, also points to 1 Chr 16:35 (“deliver
us from the nations”) since Paul is to be delivered both from
the people (Israel) and from the nations (Gentiles).
84. Luke 1:16, 78 – 79; 4:18; Acts 13:47.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
1011
ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας
τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις πίστει τῇ
εἰς ἐμέ). (6) Paul describes for Agrippa the mission
and message that he proclaims among Jews and
Gentiles. The summary is structured with three
infinitives.
(a) Jesus sends Paul to Jews and Gentiles “to
open their eyes” (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν) so
that they see the reality of Jesus as crucified, risen,
and exalted Messiah, Savior, and Lord who fulfills
God’s promises. This description echoes the mission of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42:7, who was
called by God, promised guidance and strength,
and given the task “to open eyes that are blind”
(ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν). Paul’s missionary
ministry is prophetic ministry through which God
fulfills his promises.
(b) Jesus sends Paul to Jews and Gentiles “to
turn them from darkness to light” (ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ
σκότους εἰς φῶς). This mission statement echoes
Isa 42:6, where the Servant of the Lord is sent as “a
light for the Gentiles” (φῶς ἐθνῶν), and Isa 42:16,
where the Lord promises that he “will turn the
darkness into light before them” (ποιήσω αὐτοῖς τὸ
σκότος εἰς φῶς). In Isa 42:16, the turn from darkness to light is explained in ethical terms, where
the next line reads: “and make the rough places
smooth.” Israel is promised a time when the people
will walk on the straight path of the will of God.85
Here, the turn from darkness to light is explained
in cosmic terms: “from the power of Satan to God”;
people are captive to Satan, but they can and will
be liberated if they accept the witness of Jesus and
thus return to God.86 Luke’s description of the ministry of Jesus and of the apostles, including that of
Paul, gives numerous examples of the defeat of
Satan and the power of his forces as God’s rule (or
kingdom) is proclaimed.87
(c) Jesus sends Paul to Jews and Gentiles so
that they may “receive forgiveness of sins” (λαβεῖν
αὐτοὺς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).88 The sins that are forgiven are the sins of living in darkness instead of
seeing and accepting the reality of God and his
revelation, of serving Satan instead of God, and
of refusing faith in Jesus. Forgiveness of sins is the
result when people have their eyes opened, when
they turn away from darkness, when they are liberated from the power of Satan, when they come into
the light, when they return to God.
Jesus describes a second result of turning from
darkness to light and from the power of Satan to
God in terms of people receiving “a place among
those who are sanctified by faith in me.” The “place”
(κλῆρος) or “lot” is a share in salvation of the people
who have been cleansed from all impurities; i.e., it
is a place in the community of God’s people who
enjoy fellowship with God (see 20:32). Forgiveness of sins and sanctification from impurity are
effected by “faith in me” (πίστει τῇ εἰς ἐμέ), i.e., by
faith in Jesus, the crucified, risen, and exalted Lord.
Thus Paul’s missionary commission ends with the
emphasis that faith in Jesus is the way of sanctification and thus of salvation for all people.
85. Qumran texts divide humanity according to the Angel
of Light and the Angel (1QS III, 13 – IV, 26) of Darkness into
“sons of light” and “sons of darkness;” 1QS I, 9 – 10; 1QM I, 1.
86. On Satan (ὁ σατανᾶς) see on 5:3. Qumran texts contrast
the “lot of Belial” with the “lot of God” (1QS II, 2, 5), with
the world outside the covenant (of the Qumran people) being
under the “dominion of Belial” (1QS I, 18, 23; II, 19; 1QM XIV,
9). In the Old Testament, Belial is connected with death and
with the underworld (2 Sam 22:5; Ps 18:5) and is the one who
leads Israel astray from legitimate worship of Yahweh (Deut
13:13 – 15).
87. Cf. Luke 4:4, 8, 12; 10:18; 11:14 – 23; 13:16; Acts 5:1 – 11,
16; 8:7, 11, 20 – 23; 10:43; 13:38; 16:16 – 18; 19:12; see also Rom
8:38 – 39; 15:19; 1 Cor 12:28; 2 Cor 2:11; Col 1:13; with eschatological future outlook Rom 16:20. Note Eph 6:20; 1 Cor 4:20.
88. For the forgiveness of sins, see on 2:38. Cf. Luke 1:77;
3:3; 4:18; 5:20 – 21; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1012
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
These three infinitives describe three parts of
the process and reality of conversion:89
• understanding90 the reality of the darkness
and the reality of light that make forgiveness of
sin and purification from impurities possible
through faith in Jesus
• change of direction from darkness to light, from
Satan to God, from sin to forgiveness, from impurity to sanctification, from denial of Jesus’
identity as Israel’s Messiah and Savior to faith in
Jesus, from alienation to an inheritance among
the saints
• reception of the gift of the light of God’s revelation, of the presence of God’s power, of forgiveness of sins, of a place among the saints, of faith
in Jesus.
26:19 – 20 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but proclaimed
first to the people in Damascus, then to the people
in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, and then to
the Gentiles that they should repent and turn to
God and act in a manner consistent with their
repentance (ὅθεν, βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα, οὐκ ἐγενόμην
ἀπειθὴς τῇ οὐρανίῳ ὀπτασίᾳ ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐν Δαμασκῷ
πρῶτόν τε καὶ Ἱεροσολύμοις, πᾶσάν τε τὴν χώραν τῆς
Ἰουδαίας καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπήγγελλον μετανοεῖν καὶ
ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας ἔργα
πράσσοντας). After the exordium (vv. 2 – 3) and the
narratio (vv. 4 – 18), Paul provides the proofs (probatio or confirmatio) for his defense.91 This new section is marked by another address of King Agrippa
(cf. v. 2). Paul makes three points.
(1) He has been obedient to the commission
given to him by Jesus, who appeared to him in the
89. Cf. Bock, Acts, 718.
90. Note the metaphors of open eyes and of light.
91. Winter, “Captatio Benevolentiae,” 508 – 11.
92. BDAG, s.v. ὀπτασία 1, “an event of a transcendent character that impresses itself vividly on the mind, a vision, celestial
sight, of that which a deity permits a human being to see, either of the deity personally or of something else usually hidden
heavenly vision (οὐράνιος ὀπτασία).92 His work and
message are a response to a revelation from heaven,
not an undertaking that he began or carried out on
his own initiative. To be “disobedient” was not an
option for a devout Jew and Pharisee who accepted
God’s revelation with consistent obedience. He had
to obey the commission of “heaven,” a term that
served as circumlocution for “Yahweh” in Judaism.
(2) The proof of Paul’s obedience is his work
among Jews and Gentiles in the cities of various
regions of the eastern Mediterranean world. Paul
proclaimed the news of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and
Savior, immediately after his encounter with Jesus
on the road to Damascus twenty-eight years earlier.
For Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in Damascus see 9:20 – 22; for Jerusalem see 9:26 – 29 (cf.
Rom 15:19); for Judea see perhaps 15:3;93 for Paul’s
preaching among Gentiles see Luke’s long narrative
in Acts 13 – 20. The people in Damascus included
both Jews (9:20 – 22) and perhaps Gentiles (who
formed the majority of the population); the people
in Jerusalem and in Judea are Jews; the ἔθνη are
Gentiles. The description of Paul’s initial mission
in Damascus, Jerusalem, and Judea before going to
the Gentiles corresponds to his missionary strategy
of reaching “first . . . the Jew, then . . . the Gentile”
(Rom 1:16) and to his hopes for the conversion of
Israel once the fullness of the Gentiles has come to
faith (Rom 11:11 – 15).
(3) Paul’s message corresponds to the commission he had been given from heaven, which had
spelled out the content of what he was to proclaim
(v. 18). He has always proclaimed94 that both Jews
and Gentiles must repent (μετανοεῖν; see on 2:38),
from mortals.” The term is used only here in Acts; but see Luke
1:22; 24:23; 2 Cor 12:1; cf. LXX Theodotion Dan 9:23; 10:1,
7 – 8; and LXX Esth 4:17; Mal 3:2.
93. Paul mentions in Gal 1:22; 1 Thess 2:14 that there were
churches in Judea.
94. For the verb “proclaim” (ἀπαγγέλλω) see 4:23; 16:36.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
“turn” (ἐπιστρέφειν; see on 3:19) to God, and “act”
in their everyday lives in a manner consistent with
repentance (see John the Baptist’s preaching in
Luke 3:8). In Rom 1:5 Paul explains that God has
called him to bring about “obedience that comes
from faith” (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως), i.e., submission to
the lordship of Jesus Christ that begins in conversion and continues in a lifelong commitment to
live out the consequences of faith.
26:21 That is why some Jews seized me in the
temple and tried to kill me (ἕνεκα τούτων με
Ἰουδαῖοι συλλαβόμενοι ὄντα ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐπειρῶντο
διαχειρίσασθαι). The brief refutatio95 summarizes
the proofs for Paul’s innocence of the charges
against him. Luke does not mention the accusation
that Paul had desecrated the temple (cf. 24:18 – 19;
25:8), but focuses on his arrest in the temple and on
the Jews’ attempt to kill him. This reflects, for Luke,
the central reason for Paul’s arrest, namely, the desire of the Jewish leaders to eliminate Paul; this is
the one factor that explains the developments in
Paul’s trial.
(1) Paul argues that his arrest in the temple took
place as he was obediently fulfilling (vv. 19 – 20)
the commission that God had given to him
(vv. 16 – 18). The expression translated “that is
why” refers back to Paul’s description of his divine
commission and especially of his preaching (vv. 18,
20). (2) Paul argues that Jews attempted to kill him
after they had seized him in the temple, implying
an illegal action that discredits their later accusations before the Roman court.
26:22 But to this day I have received help from
God, and so I stand here and testify to small
and great. I am saying nothing that goes beyond
what the prophets and Moses said would take
95. Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 330.
96. The present tense of the participle (μαρτυρόμενος) emphasizes Paul’s unceasing proclamation of the gospel since his
conversion.
1013
place (ἐπικουρίας οὖν τυχὼν τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄχρι
τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης ἕστηκα μαρτυρόμενος μικρῷ τε
καὶ μεγάλῳ οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε οἱ προφῆται
ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι καὶ Μωϋσῆς). Paul’s
conclusion (peroratio) in vv. 22 – 23 begins with a
plea for help, a characteristic of forensic speeches
(the use of the verb τυγχάνω is standard). Instead
of seeking help from Agrippa, however, Paul acknowledges God’s help during the past twentyeight years.
The fact that Paul has experienced the fulfillment of God’s promise of protection during his
work among the Jews and the Gentiles (v. 17) links
the peroratio with the earlier parts of the speech.
The fact of his protection “to this day,” despite attempts on his life, authenticates his narrative of
having received a commission from Jesus, confirms
his proofs in which he emphasized his obedience to
the divine commission, and secures his refutation
of his accusers’ charges who had attempted to assassinate him, an attempt that did not succeed because of the divine protection he has enjoyed.
The second point of Paul’s conclusion affirms
his consistent witness that agrees with Scripture.
His message is unobjectionable. Paul stands before
Agrippa, Festus, the military commanders, and the
dignitaries of Caesarea giving witness96 to “small
and great,” from the children to adults, from insignificant people to dignitaries, i.e., to all people
without exception (cf. 8:10).97 The testimony concerns the reality of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior (cf. v. 23), whom Paul encountered on the road
to Damascus and who had commissioned Paul as
his servant and witness. Paul emphasizes that his
witness of Jesus has been consistent with the Scriptures. He says “nothing that goes beyond what the
prophets and Moses said would take place,” i.e.
97. Cf. Heb 8:11; Rev 11:18; 13:16; 19:5, 18; 20:12.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1014
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
what they predicted in terms of God’s promises to
Israel. In other words, Paul’s proclamation is exactly what Scripture prophesied. This assertion is
the basis of the subsequent exchange between Paul
and King Agrippa.
Luke’s readers would be reminded of numerous
passages that make the same point,98 of which two
stand out. (1) In Luke 24:44 – 49 Jesus explained to
his disciples after his resurrection that all the words
he had spoken to them conveyed the fundamental
point that “everything . . . written” about him in the
Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must
be fulfilled — in particular, the predictions relating
to the Messiah, who would suffer and rise from the
dead on the third day, and that in his name repentance and forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed
in Jerusalem and to all nations. Jesus concluded by
reminding the Twelve that they are “witnesses of
these things,” and by promising them the arrival of
the power of the Holy Spirit.
(2) In Acts 3:19 – 25, Peter proclaimed in Solomon’s Portico in the outer court of the temple to
the assembled Jews the need to repent and to turn
to God in order to receive forgiveness of sins, to
experience the promised times of refreshing in
connection with the promised coming of the Messiah, who is Jesus, as predicted by Moses and all the
prophets, and to witness the fulfillment of the covenant given by God to Abraham that a time would
come when all the families of the earth would be
blessed.
26:23 “That the Messiah would suffer, and that
he would be the first to rise from the dead, to
proclaim light both to his people and to the
Gentiles” (εἰ παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ
98. Luke 16:29 – 31; 24:25, 27, 44; Acts 2:16; 3:18, 24; 10:43;
13:15, 27, 40; 15:15; 24:14.
99. See on 3:18; on Jesus as Messiah see on 2:31, 36.
100. Note 3:22 – 23: Moses is a witness to one coming who
is a prophet like himself to whom everyone must listen. Cf.
ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ
τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Paul ends his speech with
a reaffirmation of his message about Jesus, Israel’s
Messiah and Savior. This statement summarizes
the main points of Paul’s witness, which concern
the suffering (and death) of Jesus who is “the Messiah,”99 the resurrection of Jesus as the first to rise
from the dead,100 and the proclamation of light to
the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.
This statement, which echoes the mission of the
Servant in Isaiah (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:1 – 3), depends
on the identification of Jesus, who was crucified
and whom Paul and the early Christians proclaim
as Israel’s Messiah, with the suffering Servant of
Isa 53:1 – 9. And the statement depends on the
interpretation of the vindication of the Servant in
Isa 53:10 – 12, who sees his offspring, prolongs his
days, causes the will of the Lord to prosper, sees
light out of his anguish, and makes many righteous, in terms of the resurrection of the Messiah.
The reference to light should remind Luke’s readers of the words of Simeon in Luke 2:32, who said,
with the newborn Jesus in his arms, that Jesus is
God’s salvation and “a light for revelation to the
Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” Paul’s
mission is the mission of the Messiah. Paul’s accusers, in reality, accuse the Messiah and oppose the
Scriptures.
26:24 When Paul defended himself with these
words, Festus exclaimed, “You are out of your
mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you
insane!” (ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁ Φῆστος
μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησιν μαίνῃ, Παῦλε τὰ πολλά σε
γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει). In the last section of Festus’s consultation of King Agrippa II
1 Cor 15:20: “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the
firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep;” similarly Col 1:18:
“he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so
that in everything he might have the supremacy.” Cf. Rev 1:5.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
(25:13 – 26:32), Luke narrates the reaction of Festus
and Agrippa to Paul’s speech (vv. 24 – 32). Festus
apparently interrupts Paul’s defense; the present
tense of the genitive absolute (ἀπολογουμένου)
suggests this is the case. Another indication that
Paul is cut off is the reference to the loud voice
(μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ) in which Festus speaks. Since
he has been the presiding judge in Paul’s trial, and
since Paul’s hearing before Agrippa takes place at
Festus’s suggestion, it is the governor’s prerogative
to interrupt Paul.
Festus’s response is narrated in direct speech,
as is Agrippa’s reaction (v. 28) and Paul’s reaction
to both (vv. 25 – 27) as well as the final evaluation
of Paul’s case by Festus and Agrippa (vv. 31 – 32).
Festus, who for the first time addresses Paul with
his name (Παῦλε; vocative), expresses his opinion
of Paul with one single word: he is (lit.) “mad”
(μαίνῃ), out of his mind, out of control, crazy. Festus explains Paul’s madness as a result of his “great
learning.” His statement is sometimes understood
in a positive sense: his remark is “not necessarily
offensive” in the context of Plato’s assertion that
no one can be a true poet without μανία;101 or the
governor was “impressed with Paul’s mode of argumentation.”102 The fact that Festus acknowledges
Paul’s intellectual erudition does not prove, however, that he is making a flattering remark. Paul’s
protest in v. 25 demonstrates that he does not regard the governor’s assessment as a compliment.
For Festus, Paul’s belief in the resurrection of
Jesus, who had been crucified by one of his predecessors, defies logic. Paul’s conviction that he has
been sent by a heavenly voice to preach to Jews and
Gentiles about light and darkness and forgiveness
of sins flies in the face of common sense. Paul’s
101. Bruce, Acts, 505, with reference to Plato, Phaedr. 245A;
he continues, “But anything in the nature of inspiration could
not be treated seriously by a matter-of-fact Roman judge.”
102. Fitzmyer, Acts, 763 – 64, who suggests that “Festus is
concerned about Paul’s mental stability.”
1015
argument that his accusers oppose in reality not
him but the promised Messiah, whose servant and
witness he is, is a type of reasoning that he fails to
grasp. Paul’s bold affirmation of the beliefs he had
preached for many years and which are the cause
of his trouble, combined with his assertion that he
stands under divine protection, is a type of conduct that he, Festus, cannot understand. Despite
his learning, Paul must be “insane.”
26:25 Paul replied, “I am not insane, most excellent Festus. What I am declaring is true and
reasonable” (ὁ δὲ Παῦλος οὐ μαίνομαι, φησίν,
κράτιστε Φῆστε, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείας καὶ σωφροσύνης
ῥήματα ἀποφθέγγομαι). Luke narrates Paul’s reaction in five steps. (1) Paul affirms his sanity. He
protests, albeit politely (note the address “most excellent Festus”), that the governor is wrong. He is
“not insane” (οὐ μαίνομαι).
(2) Paul affirms the truthfulness and reasonableness of his report, for he is “declaring”
(ἀποφθέγγομαι) a message that is sound and sober.
He is speaking the (lit.) “words of truth” (ἀληθείας
. . . ῥήματα), i.e., words that communicate truth (objective genitive); the report and the arguments of
his defense agree with the facts. And he speaks (lit.)
“words of reasonableness” (σωφροσύνης ῥήματα),
i.e., words that are reasonable (subjective genitive);
his treatment of the facts of his life and of his case
agree with the rationality of human reason.103
26:26 The king knows about these things, and I
am speaking openly to him. I am certain that none
of these things have escaped his notice, for this
did not take place in a corner (ἐπίσταται γὰρ περὶ
τούτων ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς ὃν καὶ παρρησιαζόμενος
λαλῶ, λανθάνειν γὰρ αὐτόν τι τούτων οὐ πείθομαι
103. Johnson, Acts, 439, comments that “it would be difficult to find a term more descriptive of the Greek philosophical
ideal,” with reference to Plato, Resp. 430E – 431B; Symp. 196C;
Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 3.91; 2 Macc 3:17; 4 Macc 1:3, 31;
5:23.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1016
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
οὐθέν οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐν γωνίᾳ πεπραγμένον τοῦτο).
(3) Paul attempts to claim Agrippa as witness for
his truthfulness. With courageous confidence, Paul
turns to Agrippa. He speaks to the king “openly,”104
i.e., with bold frankness and without fear. He begins with the assertion that Agrippa knows about
“these things,” because he is certain that none of
them has escaped the king’s notice.
The last phrase in v. 26 clarifies that “these
things” refer to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as well as to the message that Jesus’
followers proclaim and to the movement created
by these events and message. These things did not
take place “in a corner”; i.e., they were not done in
private or in secret. Paul uses a Greek proverb105
to emphasize that the events connected with Jesus
of Nazareth and the activities of his followers were
common knowledge and part of the historical record. Thus Paul, who is accused of being the “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (24:5), is not
engaged in any subversive activities.
The emphasis on the public character of the
events connected with Jesus and his followers is
part of Luke’s repeated concern to locate the history
of Jesus and his followers in world history. The most
explicit example is Luke 3:1 – 2, which dates the beginning of the Christian movement to the appearance of John the Baptist: “In the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Caesar — when Pontius Pilate
was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee,
his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene — during the
high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word
of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” Luke (and Paul) treats the arguments
concerning Jesus’ identity as Israel’s Messiah and
104. The present participle (παρρησιαζόμενος) indicates the
manner in which Paul speaks to Agrippa. For παρρησιάζομαι
(“express oneself freely, speak freely, openly, fearlessly,” BDAG)
cf. 9:27, 28; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8.
Savior and his death and resurrection as incontestable “because they are based on what is known to
everyone, even if he presents these facts as the fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures of old.”106
26:27 “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe” (πιστεύεις, βασιλεῦ
Ἀγρίππα, τοῖς προφήταις; οἶδα ὅτι πιστεύεις). (4)
Paul now addresses Agrippa directly in an attempt
to claim the king as his witness, a “dramatic masterstroke.”107 He asks the Jewish king, who believes
the prophets, to reach the conclusion that what
he has been saying is truthful. Paul suggests that
Agrippa indeed “believes” (πιστεύεις); Paul probably means that he knows that Agrippa believes that
the prophets foretold the coming of a Messiah.108
Now Jesus’ followers, as Paul has just explained, believe that the suffering, death, and resurrection of
Jesus are the central part of God’s plan of redemption, and they believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah
and Savior. Since these convictions are grounded in
the Scriptures and foreseen by the prophets, whom
Agrippa accepts, the king should believe in Jesus.
For Agrippa, the question poses a conundrum.
If he refuses to confess belief in the prophets, he
will lose his reputation as being loyal to the Jewish faith. If he confesses belief in the prophets, he
will find himself in the awkward position of agreeing in public with the “ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes,” which could anticipate the follow-up
question whether he then also accepts Jesus as the
Messiah.
26:28 Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that
in such a short time you can persuade me to
become a Christian?” (ὁ δὲ Ἀγρίππας πρὸς τὸν
Παῦλον ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι).
105. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.12.17; Plato, Gorg. 485D; Plutarch, Mor. 777B.
106. Fitzmyer, Acts, 764.
107. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 991.
108. Marshall, Acts, 399.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Agrippa’s reaction to Paul’s challenge is an expression of incredulity concerning Paul’s effort to make
him a Christian. The meaning of the statement is
contested. The most plausible interpretation of
the prepositional phrase used here (ἐν ὀλίγῳ) is
a temporal understanding: “in such a short time”
(or instrumental: “with a little more time”). While
it is not impossible that the tone of Agrippa’s answer is ironic, Paul’s response in v. 29 suggests
that Agrippa may have been serious. Perhaps he
stands between earnest consideration and irony.109
This is perhaps best captured in the translation of
Agrippa’s response to Paul’s question as a counterquestion: “Do you think that in such a short time
you can persuade me to become a Christian?” For
the meaning of the term “Christian” (Χριστιανός)
see on 11:26, where Luke stated that this term was
used as a designation for the followers of Jesus for
the first time in Antioch, the capital of the province
of Syria, evidently coined by the Roman authorities as a label for a movement whose beliefs were
focused on Jesus, who was believed to be the Messiah (Χριστός).
26:29 Paul replied, “I pray to God that, whether
in a short or long time, not only you but all who
are listening to me today, may become what I am,
except for these chains” (ὁ δὲ Παῦλος εὐξαίμην
ἂν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν μεγάλῳ οὐ μόνον
σὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντάς μου σήμερον
γενέσθαι τοιούτους ὁποῖος καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι παρεκτὸς
τῶν δεσμῶν τούτων). Paul’s responds by expressing
his hope that all who are present will become believers in Jesus. He formulates this hope with a potential optative in “I pray” (εὐξαίμην ἄν), i.e., with
some reservation. Paul desires that Agrippa may
109. Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖTK 5;
Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1981 – 85), 655; Barrett,
Acts, 1171.
110. Cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 309, who points
out that “his appearance before such an august body bound
1017
come to faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior,
and also “all” who are listening to the hearing, including governor Festus, his military commanders,
and the dignitaries of Caesarea.
Paul does not care whether their conversion
takes place in a short time or in a long time. He
ends with the ironic, or perhaps humorous, comment that he does not wish, of course, that everybody in the audience becomes a prisoner like him.
As Paul clarifies his statement with the comment
“except for these chains,” he probably holds up his
chains for all to see.110
26:30 Then the king rose, together with the governor and Bernice and the others who were sitting with them (ἀνέστη τε ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμὼν
ἥ τε Βερνίκη καὶ οἱ συγκαθήμενοι αὐτοῖς). Luke’s
conclusion of the hearing (vv. 30 – 32) has three
parts. He notes the departure of King Agrippa,
Festus, Bernice, and “the others who were sitting
with them” — the military commanders and the
dignitaries of Caesarea (25:23). They rise from
their seats, in the same order as they had entered
the audience hall, to signify the conclusion of the
hearing.
26:31 After they left the hall, they said to one another, “This man is doing nothing that deserves
the death sentence or chains” (καὶ ἀναχωρήσαντες
ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες ὅτι οὐδὲν θανάτου
ἢ δεσμῶν ἄξιόν τι πράσσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος). After
the participants in the hearing retire from the audience hall, they converse about Paul’s case. They
pronounce Paul not guilty of charges that would
demand his execution or prolonged imprisonment
for further investigation. They conclude that Paul
with chains presents a picture of humiliation which Paul would
be anxious to counteract,” rejecting suggestions that Paul’s reference to his chains was spoken in a lighter vein or intended
as grim humor.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1018
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
“is doing nothing [οὐδὲν . . . τι πράσσει]111 that deserves the death sentence or chains.”
26:32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could
have been released if he had not appealed to
the emperor” (Ἀγρίππας δὲ τῷ Φήστῳ ἔφη
ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος εἰ μὴ
ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα). Luke ends by singling out
King Agrippa’s acknowledgment of Paul’s innocence. In his evaluation of Paul’s hearing that
Festus had arranged, Agrippa informs the governor that Paul could have been acquitted, and he
acknowledges that Paul “appealed” (ἐπεκέκλητο)
to the emperor, agreeing with Festus’s decision to
grant Paul’s petition to stand trial before the imperial court in Rome. This is the third declaration of
Paul’s innocence, after the assessment of Claudius
Lysias, the Roman commander stationed in Jerusalem (23:29), and after the verdict of Porcius Festus
(25:25).112
Agrippa’s comment is problematic.113 If he truly
believes Paul is innocent and should be acquitted
and released, and if he acknowledges that Paul’s
preaching is rooted in the Scriptures and has an
essentially Jewish identity that does not threaten
the political or social stability of the region, he
could install a high priest in Jerusalem who would
convince the chief priests and other members of
the Sanhedrin to drop the charges against Paul. But
he does not have full control over the affairs of the
temple and over the aristocratic priestly families.
Perhaps he thinks that working for Paul’s release
would make Agrippa look a Christian himself. Or
he thinks that Paul is not important enough to take
on the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. At any rate,
he does not secure Paul’s release.
111. The present tense of the verb (πράσσει) probably refers
to Paul’s entire life and beliefs; Barrett, Acts, 1173.
112. Johnson, Acts, 440, who sees a parallel with Jesus’ trial,
who was declared innocent three times by Pontius Pilate (Luke
23:4, 14, 22). Luke does not highlight such a parallel.
This is the judicial climax of Luke’s narrative
since 21:27. The highest political authorities of the
region — the Roman governor of Judea, the Jewish king who controls the affairs of the temple, and
presumably the military commanders and the Caesarean dignitaries — agree that Paul is not guilty
since his case involves religious beliefs raised by
the death and (alleged, from their point of view)
resurrection of Jesus, but no political questions requiring capital punishment.
Festus had arranged for the hearing of Paul before the Jewish king Agrippa II, his military commanders, and other dignitaries, in order to clarify
the case against Paul, so that he could formulate
a summary of the charges and of the defense for
inclusion in the littera dimissoria that he had to
send with the prisoner to Rome. Paul’s speech in
26:2 – 23 would have been included, in summary
form, as written evidence in the case. The outcome
of the hearing leaves Festus where he started. His
earlier conclusion that Paul was innocent of serious charges demanding the death sentence or further imprisonment was confirmed as correct by
Agrippa II and the other members of his consilium.
The information that Festus had gathered and that
would be part of the dossier that he had to send to
the emperor included strong evidence exonerating
Paul.
Festus’s dilemma was that he did not want to
release Paul because of the Jewish authorities’ demand for a death sentence, while being convinced
at the same time that Paul was not guilty of such
serious charges. It is plausible that Festus included
in the littera dimissoria, as justification for referring Paul’s case to Rome, a description of the unrelenting opposition of the highest Jewish leaders in
113. Omerzu, Prozess, 489, points out that Agrippa’s declaration that Paul could have been released had he not appealed
to the emperor is plausible only if it assumes that Paul’s appeal
was a measure designed to prolong the imprisonment.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Jerusalem against Paul, who demanded his execution, and a description of Paul’s appeal by which
he sought to avoid a trial in Jerusalem; “hence it
1019
would chronicle the legal and religio-political aspects of the case for the emperor or his agents in
Rome.”114
Theology in Application
Several important emphases of this episode have been discussed before, in particular the reality of sometimes fierce opposition to the Christian faith in general,
and to individual Christians in particular.115 This section emphasizes the following
points.
Complex Situations Require Complex Responses
Paul faces the chief priests of Jerusalem and members of the nonpriestly aristocracy and their representatives, who demand his execution and whose opposition is so
fierce that they are willing to assassinate him in an ambush. He faces the new governor of the province of Judea, Porcius Festus, who acts quickly, decisively, and justly,
but who does not understand Paul’s beliefs. And he faces the Jewish king Agrippa II,
a descendant of Herod I, who at the time ruled over territories in southern Syria but
who had control over the affairs of the temple in Jerusalem and who had the authority to appoint the high priests. Paul does not have a predetermined “plan” how to
respond; he does not have cookie-cutter answers. Rather, he tailors his response to
the various opponents and to the various situations in which he finds himself.
Christians are prepared to change “tactics” — legal or otherwise — if changed
situations demand that they adapt. What does not change is the reason for their
behavior: the reality of their identity as followers of Jesus, which safeguards their integrity as God’s people; the authority of God, who gives courage; the power of God’s
Spirit, who assists them to use their intelligence, their rhetorical abilities, and their
spiritual gifts; and the commitment to the church and to the divinely given mission
to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As regards his Jewish opponents, Paul is not willing to risk a guilty verdict in a
Roman trial in Jerusalem or another assassination attempt if he were taken to Jerusalem. Thus, he extricates himself from Judea — after two years in prison in Caesarea
— by appealing to stand trial before the imperial court in Rome. Christians do not
risk their lives unnecessarily. If there are legal means by which they can save themselves, they will use them, particularly if this allows them to live and see another day
when they can continue to preach the gospel.
114. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 185.
115. See Theology in Application on 4:5 – 22; 6:8 – 7:1;
22:1 – 21; 23:23 – 35; 24:1 – 27.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
1020
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
Before Festus, Paul emphasizes his innocence of charges that would warrant the
death penalty. He demonstrates his loyalty to the state by expressing his willingness to be judged by the governor. He fights for his legal rights by appealing to the
emperor. He does not take on the governor for wanting to grant favors to the Jewish
authorities in Jerusalem. He does not become cynical, rejecting the entire “justice
system” of the Roman Empire. He is a realist and knows how Roman administrations
in the provinces work and how Roman governors often secure the stability and peace
in their province. He does what is necessary to “survive” Festus and his attempt to
bring the trial to a close that has been dragging for two years.
Paul could insist on a fair trial before Festus, but he knows that given the fierce
opposition of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, he may not stand a chance. So he
cuts his losses and petitions for a transfer to Rome (where he will be a prisoner for
another two years). Christians do not always insist on their legal rights, as this may
hurt them in the long run. But they may decide to use legal means at their disposal in
order to avoid serious damage to their situation and, more importantly, to safeguard
the possibility of further witness for the gospel.
Before King Agrippa II, Paul explains the identity and significance of Jesus as
Israel’s crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah, who spoke to him from heavenly glory
on the road to Damascus and who commissioned him to be his servant and witness
among both Jews and Gentiles. Paul is bold enough to suggest to the king that he
should become a follower of Jesus. Christians will use every opportunity to speak
about Jesus. Their goal of leading people to faith in Jesus Christ may not always be
overt, but when challenged they will readily admit that they indeed desire every
person to become a believer in Jesus.
The Good News of Jesus Christ
The gospel was, is, and remains the good news of Jesus Christ. Paul’s speech in
chapter 26 before Agrippa (and Festus, the military commanders of Judea, and dignitaries of Caesarea) summarizes, for the last time in Acts, the message that he and
all the other witnesses of Jesus have been proclaiming among Jews and Gentiles. The
following emphases are important.
(1) God is the fundamental, central, and personal reality of the gospel. God has
authority over life and death: he brings the dead back to life, as he has demonstrated
in the resurrection of Jesus (26:8, 23). God has authority over history: he has fulfilled and is fulfilling the promises that he gave to the fathers (vv. 6 – 8). God has
revealed himself and his will in Scripture: the events of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection,
and exaltation as well as the events of the activities of Jesus’ witnesses in Jerusalem
and among the nations are “authorized” by God as they fulfill Scripture (vv. 22 – 23,
26 – 27). God desires the salvation of all people, both Jews and Gentiles (vv. 17, 20,
23, 29). God demands the repentance and conversion of all people, both Jews and
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Acts 25:1 – 26:32
1021
Gentiles (vv. 18, 20, 29). God has the power to protect his people; they can rely on
his help (vv. 17, 22).
(2) Jesus Christ is Lord. Paul’s speech before Agrippa emphasizes that Jesus is
the Lord who has come back from the dead and who directs God’s people from the
reality of divine glory (26:12 – 18). Whether this implies an anti-Rome nuance is
disputed; it is not likely, at least not in Paul’s hearing before Festus and Agrippa II.
While Paul is willing to die for his faith in Jesus, whom he confesses as Israel’s Messiah and Savior of the world, he is surely not risking death for political convictions.
Whether Festus and Agrippa noticed the implicit anti-imperial thrust of the gospel
in which God demands the repentance of all people without exception, and in which
he promises the transformation of the lives of all people, also without exception, is
another question.
But if the proclamation of Jesus as Lord of all brings Christians into conflict with
political authorities, this is a risk they willingly accept. Jesus’ life, death, resurrection,
and exaltation are the central and unrelinquishable subjects of Christian witness
(vv. 16 – 18, 26). The message of the church is not primarily about healing relationships, meeting human needs, or restoring confidence in life, but about Jesus Christ.
This focus of the earliest witnesses is the reason why Roman authorities labeled them
Christianoi (v. 28). Christians are people who believe, preach, and teach that Jesus is
Israel’s Messiah and the world’s Savior. Paul emphasizes that the proclamation of the
gospel to Jews and Gentiles is an integral part of the “event” of Jesus’ reality (v. 23).
(3) Salvation is possible only through faith in Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and the
world’s Savior (26:16 – 28, 22 – 23). Both Jews and Gentiles who do not believe in
Jesus live in darkness; they do not have the ability to see God’s solution to the problem of the human condition and the condition of the world. The inability to see
means life under the control of God’s enemy. The ability to see requires repentance,
which involves turning away from sin and turning to the living God and submitting
to his will. Life under the authority of the living God entails God’s merciful pardon
for those formerly subservient to Satan and for the sins committed in selfishness. It
entails the ability to see and understand who Jesus is: the man from Nazareth who
died and rose from the dead in fulfillment of God’s promises given to the fathers
and recorded by the prophets, the exalted Messiah of Israel, the Savior of all sinners.
8/17/12 1:27 pm
Zondervan Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament: Acts
by Eckhard J. Schnabel
“Acts confirms and consolidates
the identity of the church as the
community of the followers of
Jesus, presenting the
foundational events and the main
developments connected with
the earliest Christians…
“A second major emphasis of Acts
is the mission of the church whose leaders are obedient
to the divine commission, charging them to take the
gospel to cities and to regions in which the name of
Jesus…has not yet been proclaimed…
“Thus, the book of Acts is a narrative about recent
historical events in the movement of the followers of
Jesus and about major leaders of the Christian
movement who carried the news about Jesus, Israel’s
Messiah and Savior, to other regions of the
Mediterranean world.”
-From the introduction
Buy ZECNT: Acts Today

Acts 25:1 – 26:32

Transcription

Similar documents

FestusManor Good News Gazette Update

U.N. Partition Plan - Project Interchange

Sales Sheet

PRAYER CARE SHARE GET`M THERE

FestusManor Good News Gazette

Through the Fifth Gospel - Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies

A. His Word is True

Women who followed Jesus Prominent women in the Early Church

Open PDF

TITLE: NQC Live Volume 15 • FILE UNDER: VHMCXX STREET