King James Version
Acts 25
27 verses with commentary
Paul Appeals to Caesar
Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
View commentary
Now when Festus was come into the province—Porcius Festus replaced Felix as procurator (Greek eparchos, ἔπαρχος), arriving in AD 59-60. The phrase after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem shows immediate political wisdom: Jerusalem's cooperation was essential for governing Judea. The verb anebe (ἀνέβη, ascended) is geographically accurate—Jerusalem sits at higher elevation—but also carries theological weight throughout Luke-Acts, as 'going up' to Jerusalem signals approaching destiny. Festus' prompt visit demonstrates administrative competence, but also exposed him to Jewish manipulation regarding Paul.
Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him,
View commentary
Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul—the Greek enephanisan (ἐνεφάνισαν) means 'made clear charges,' using legal terminology. The phrase and besought him (parekaloun, παρεκάλουν) indicates persistent, urgent entreaty. After two years (Acts 24:27), the Jewish leadership immediately revived Paul's case with the new governor, revealing their undiminished hostility. Their 'informing' was accusatory intelligence meant to prejudice Festus before he heard evidence—a manipulation of justice through political pressure.
And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
View commentary
The Jewish leaders desired favour against him (aitoumenoi charin, αἰτούμενοι χάριν)—literally 'requesting a favor,' revealing manipulation disguised as reasonable request. Their supposed desire for justice masked murderous intent: laying wait in the way to kill him (enedran poiountes, ἐνέδραν ποιοῦντες, making an ambush). This renewed assassination plot, two years after the first conspiracy (Acts 23:12-15), demonstrates satanic persistence in opposing Paul's Roman testimony. The leaders' willingness to violate both Torah and Roman law while claiming religious authority exposes complete moral bankruptcy.
But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
View commentary
Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea—The new procurator (ἡγεμών, hēgemōn) immediately resisted Jewish pressure to relocate Paul to Jerusalem. This decision reflects either Festus's commitment to Roman legal procedure or his early suspicion of Jewish motives. The Greek verb 'tereitai' (kept, guarded) emphasizes Paul's continued protective custody, not imprisonment for proven guilt.
Festus's pledge to depart shortly thither demonstrates administrative efficiency while maintaining judicial neutrality. His decision to keep proceedings in Caesarea—the Roman administrative capital—rather than the religiously charged atmosphere of Jerusalem protected both Roman jurisdiction and Paul's safety.
Festus's pledge to depart shortly thither demonstrates administrative efficiency while maintaining judicial neutrality. His decision to keep proceedings in Caesarea—the Roman administrative capital—rather than the religiously charged atmosphere of Jerusalem protected both Roman jurisdiction and Paul's safety.
Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
View commentary
Let them therefore... which among you are able (οἱ δυνατοί, hoi dynatoi)—Festus invites 'the powerful ones' (Jewish leaders) to accompany him, revealing his awareness of the case's political complexity. His phrase if there be any wickedness in him (ἄτοπόν, atopon—'anything out of place, improper') shows presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of Roman jurisprudence.
The conditional 'if' is legally significant. Festus refuses to assume guilt, requiring accusers to prove charges through proper legal procedure. This contrasts sharply with the mob violence and assassination plots that characterized earlier Jewish attempts to eliminate Paul.
The conditional 'if' is legally significant. Festus refuses to assume guilt, requiring accusers to prove charges through proper legal procedure. This contrasts sharply with the mob violence and assassination plots that characterized earlier Jewish attempts to eliminate Paul.
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. more: or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days
View commentary
More than ten days—Luke's precise timeframe emphasizes the brief courtesy visit to Jerusalem before returning to governmental duties. Festus's quick action contrasts with Felix's two-year neglect. Sitting on the judgment seat (βήματος, bēmatos) refers to the official tribunal where Roman magistrates rendered legal decisions, symbolizing imperial authority.
The phrase commanded Paul to be brought initiates formal legal proceedings. The 'bema' (judgment seat) appears throughout Paul's trials and later in his theology (Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10), where he applies the image to Christ's final judgment. Paul's earthly trials become types of ultimate accountability before God.
The phrase commanded Paul to be brought initiates formal legal proceedings. The 'bema' (judgment seat) appears throughout Paul's trials and later in his theology (Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10), where he applies the image to Christ's final judgment. Paul's earthly trials become types of ultimate accountability before God.
And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
View commentary
The Jews... stood round about—The Greek 'periestēsan' suggests a hostile encircling, creating an intimidating atmosphere. They brought many and grievous complaints (πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα, polla kai barea aitiōmata)—'many and weighty accusations'—language suggesting serious criminal charges, possibly capital offenses.
Yet the devastating phrase: which they could not prove (ἀποδεῖξαι, apodeixai). Despite two years to prepare, coordinated efforts by powerful religious leaders, and numerical superiority, the accusers produced no evidence. This judicial failure exposes the emptiness of religious opposition to the gospel. Truth requires no conspiracy; lies require coordination that eventually unravels under legal scrutiny.
Yet the devastating phrase: which they could not prove (ἀποδεῖξαι, apodeixai). Despite two years to prepare, coordinated efforts by powerful religious leaders, and numerical superiority, the accusers produced no evidence. This judicial failure exposes the emptiness of religious opposition to the gospel. Truth requires no conspiracy; lies require coordination that eventually unravels under legal scrutiny.
While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
View commentary
Paul's declaration 'Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all' comprehensively addresses all possible charges. His triple denial - religious, ritual, and political offenses - shows how thoroughly baseless the accusations were. This clean slate before Jewish law, temple regulations, and Roman authority demonstrates that Christianity, properly understood, threatens neither legitimate religion nor proper government.
But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
View commentary
Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure (θέλων χάριν καταθέσθαι, thelōn charin katathesthai)—literally 'wishing to lay down favor.' Despite recognizing Paul's innocence, Festus immediately compromised judicial integrity for political expediency. The same corruption that characterized Felix now infected his successor. Roman justice, though superior to mob rule, remained vulnerable to political manipulation.
His question—Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem?—was juridically absurd. The accused doesn't choose his venue; the magistrate determines jurisdiction. Festus's offer reveals willingness to abandon proper legal procedure to appease volatile subjects, turning Paul's trial into a political bargaining chip.
His question—Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem?—was juridically absurd. The accused doesn't choose his venue; the magistrate determines jurisdiction. Festus's offer reveals willingness to abandon proper legal procedure to appease volatile subjects, turning Paul's trial into a political bargaining chip.
Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
View commentary
I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged—Paul's declaration asserts his legal rights as a Roman citizen while exposing Festus's improper proposal. The Greek 'hestōs eimi' (I am standing) emphasizes his current legal position. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest (καλλιον ἐπιγινώσκεις, kallion epiginōskeis)—'you know better, you know full well.'
Paul fearlessly confronts the procurator's moral cowardice. The phrase 'very well knowest' implies Festus had already concluded Paul's innocence but sought political compromise. Paul refuses to be a pawn in provincial politics, asserting that truth and justice matter more than administrative convenience.
Paul fearlessly confronts the procurator's moral cowardice. The phrase 'very well knowest' implies Festus had already concluded Paul's innocence but sought political compromise. Paul refuses to be a pawn in provincial politics, asserting that truth and justice matter more than administrative convenience.
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
View commentary
For if I be an offender... I refuse not to die—Paul's conditional statement demonstrates both submission to legitimate authority and confidence in his innocence. The Greek 'paraitoumai' (refuse, decline) shows willingness to accept just punishment if guilty. This isn't bravado but principled submission to lawful execution.
But if there be none of these things... no man may deliver me unto them—Paul asserts that his innocence prohibits political compromise. Then comes the momentous declaration: I appeal unto Caesar (Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι, Kaisara epikaloumai). This Latin provocatio ad Caesarem was every Roman citizen's ultimate legal protection, transferring the case to the emperor's tribunal. Paul's appeal would take him to Rome—exactly where God had planned (Acts 23:11).
But if there be none of these things... no man may deliver me unto them—Paul asserts that his innocence prohibits political compromise. Then comes the momentous declaration: I appeal unto Caesar (Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι, Kaisara epikaloumai). This Latin provocatio ad Caesarem was every Roman citizen's ultimate legal protection, transferring the case to the emperor's tribunal. Paul's appeal would take him to Rome—exactly where God had planned (Acts 23:11).
Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.
View commentary
When he had conferred with the council (συλλαλήσας μετὰ τοῦ συμβουλίου, syllalēsas meta tou symbouliou)—Festus consulted his advisory council (consilium), composed of military officers and legal experts. This shows the appeal's gravity: once accepted, it was irrevocable. The Latin legal maxim 'provocatio ad Caesarem' removed the case from provincial jurisdiction entirely.
Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go—Festus's formal acknowledgment follows required legal protocol. The rhetorical question and declarative response create official record. Festus's problem is now solved: Paul is no longer his responsibility. But God's purpose advances: Paul will proclaim Christ before Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22).
Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go—Festus's formal acknowledgment follows required legal protocol. The rhetorical question and declarative response create official record. Festus's problem is now solved: Paul is no longer his responsibility. But God's purpose advances: Paul will proclaim Christ before Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22).
Paul Before Agrippa and Bernice
And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.
View commentary
King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus—Herod Agrippa II, the last of the Herodian dynasty, ruled territories northeast of Judea and held authority over temple affairs. His visit to salute (ἀσπασάμενοι, aspasamenoi) the new procurator was diplomatic protocol, maintaining the complex client-king relationship with Rome.
Bernice was Agrippa's sister, though ancient sources (Josephus, Juvenal) suggest an incestuous relationship that scandalized even pagans. Their presence provides Luke's narrative with royal witnesses to Paul's defense. God orchestrates circumstances so that kings hear the gospel, fulfilling Jesus' prophecy: 'ye shall be brought before... kings for my sake' (Matthew 10:18).
Bernice was Agrippa's sister, though ancient sources (Josephus, Juvenal) suggest an incestuous relationship that scandalized even pagans. Their presence provides Luke's narrative with royal witnesses to Paul's defense. God orchestrates circumstances so that kings hear the gospel, fulfilling Jesus' prophecy: 'ye shall be brought before... kings for my sake' (Matthew 10:18).
And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
View commentary
When they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king—Festus waited for proper timing to discuss his administrative dilemma. The verb 'anetheto' (declared, set forth) suggests formal presentation of a legal case. He introduces Paul as a certain man left in bonds by Felix, distancing himself from his predecessor's political cowardice while acknowledging the case's complicated history.
The phrase 'in bonds' (δέσμιος, desmios) emphasizes Paul's ongoing imprisonment without conviction. For two years under Felix, now continuing under Festus, Paul remained bound despite no proven charges. This prolonged injustice—protective custody becoming indefinite imprisonment—illustrates the corruption of even the 'superior' Roman legal system when political expediency trumps justice.
The phrase 'in bonds' (δέσμιος, desmios) emphasizes Paul's ongoing imprisonment without conviction. For two years under Felix, now continuing under Festus, Paul remained bound despite no proven charges. This prolonged injustice—protective custody becoming indefinite imprisonment—illustrates the corruption of even the 'superior' Roman legal system when political expediency trumps justice.
About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.
View commentary
The chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him (κατηγόρησαν αἰτούμενοι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καταδίκην)—Festus recounts the Jewish leaders' accusation against Paul. The Greek katēgorēsan (informed/accused) is the root of our word 'category'—they catalogued charges. Katadikēn (judgment/condemnation) reveals their goal: not investigation but execution.
This verse captures the irony of Paul's trial narrative: Rome, the pagan empire, sought legal process while Jerusalem's religious establishment demanded summary execution. The 'chief priests and elders' represent Israel's official leadership—the very guardians of God's law now manipulating legal systems to destroy an innocent man. Luke repeatedly shows Rome protecting Paul from Jewish mob violence (Acts 21:31-36, 23:10, 23:23-24), culminating in Paul's appeal to Caesar that secured his Roman imprisonment and opportunity to testify before rulers (Acts 9:15).
This verse captures the irony of Paul's trial narrative: Rome, the pagan empire, sought legal process while Jerusalem's religious establishment demanded summary execution. The 'chief priests and elders' represent Israel's official leadership—the very guardians of God's law now manipulating legal systems to destroy an innocent man. Luke repeatedly shows Rome protecting Paul from Jewish mob violence (Acts 21:31-36, 23:10, 23:23-24), culminating in Paul's appeal to Caesar that secured his Roman imprisonment and opportunity to testify before rulers (Acts 9:15).
To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face , and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
View commentary
Festus's explanation of Roman justice - 'It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself' - articulates fundamental legal principles: presumption of innocence, right to face accusers, and opportunity for defense. These principles, rooted in Roman law, became foundational to Western jurisprudence and reflect God's own just character.
Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.
View commentary
Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat—Festus recounts his prompt action to King Agrippa. The phrase ἀναβολὴν μηδεμίαν ποιησάμενος (anabolēn mēdemian poiēsamenos, 'making no delay') emphasizes his diligence—a contrast to Felix's two-year stalling (24:27). The morrow (τῇ ἑξῆς, tē hexēs) shows immediate action upon arrival in Caesarea. I sat on the judgment seat (καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος, kathisas epi tou bēmatos)—the bēma was the official tribunal, symbolizing Roman authority and formal legal proceedings.
Festus's account serves to justify his refusal to send Paul to Jerusalem (where an ambush waited, 25:3). By emphasizing his swift, proper legal procedure, he distinguishes himself from his predecessor Felix and demonstrates to Agrippa that he followed protocol. Yet Festus admits his confusion about the charges—setting up his request for Agrippa's help in framing accusations for Caesar.
Festus's account serves to justify his refusal to send Paul to Jerusalem (where an ambush waited, 25:3). By emphasizing his swift, proper legal procedure, he distinguishes himself from his predecessor Felix and demonstrates to Agrippa that he followed protocol. Yet Festus admits his confusion about the charges—setting up his request for Agrippa's help in framing accusations for Caesar.
Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:
View commentary
Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed—Festus admits surprise. He expected κατηγορίαν (katēgorian, 'accusation, formal charge') of serious crimes—perhaps sedition, riot, or temple violation (capital offenses under Roman law). The phrase ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν (hōn egō hypenououn, 'which I was suspecting') reveals he had been briefed about Paul as a dangerous troublemaker.
Instead, the accusations were religious, not criminal. None accusation of such things as I supposed indicates the charges didn't match the rhetoric. The Jewish leaders had portrayed Paul as a threat to Rome, but when pressed for evidence, their case dissolved into theological disputes. This echoes Pilate's finding 'no fault' in Jesus (Luke 23:4) and Gallio's dismissal of charges against Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:14-15)—Roman officials repeatedly found Christianity posed no political threat.
Instead, the accusations were religious, not criminal. None accusation of such things as I supposed indicates the charges didn't match the rhetoric. The Jewish leaders had portrayed Paul as a threat to Rome, but when pressed for evidence, their case dissolved into theological disputes. This echoes Pilate's finding 'no fault' in Jesus (Luke 23:4) and Gallio's dismissal of charges against Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:14-15)—Roman officials repeatedly found Christianity posed no political threat.
But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
View commentary
But had certain questions against him of their own superstition—Festus dismisses Jewish theology as δεισιδαιμονίας (deisidaimonias, 'superstition, religion')—a neutral or slightly pejorative term Romans used for foreign religions. The phrase ζητήματα (zētēmata, 'questions, disputes') indicates scholarly debates, not crimes. To Festus, these theological arguments are incomprehensible and legally irrelevant.
And of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive—Here is the crux: περί τινος Ἰησοῦ τεθνηκότος, ὃν ἔφασκεν ὁ Παῦλος ζῆν (peri tinos Iēsou tethnēkotos, hon ephasken ho Paulos zēn, 'concerning a certain Jesus, having died, whom Paul was affirming to live'). Festus reduces the entire gospel to a dispute about a dead man's status. He misses the cosmic significance—that Jesus's resurrection validates His claims and offers salvation. Festus's incomprehension typifies natural man's inability to grasp spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).
And of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive—Here is the crux: περί τινος Ἰησοῦ τεθνηκότος, ὃν ἔφασκεν ὁ Παῦλος ζῆν (peri tinos Iēsou tethnēkotos, hon ephasken ho Paulos zēn, 'concerning a certain Jesus, having died, whom Paul was affirming to live'). Festus reduces the entire gospel to a dispute about a dead man's status. He misses the cosmic significance—that Jesus's resurrection validates His claims and offers salvation. Festus's incomprehension typifies natural man's inability to grasp spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).
And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. I doubted: or, I was doubtful how to enquire hereof
View commentary
And because I doubted of such manner of questions—Festus's candid admission: ἀπορούμενος (aporoumenos, 'being at a loss, perplexed') about τὴν περὶ τούτων ζήτησιν (tēn peri toutōn zētēsin, 'the inquiry concerning these things'). He's honest about his incompetence to judge Jewish theological disputes. This wasn't Roman jurisdiction—theology wasn't a legal category unless it threatened public order.
I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters—Festus's proposal (ἔλεγον εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι, elegon ei bouloito poreuesthai, 'I was asking if he might wish to go') seems reasonable but was actually dangerous. Paul knew the ambush plot (23:12-15) and that the Sanhedrin couldn't give him a fair trial. Festus's suggestion, though presented as accommodation to Paul, was politically motivated—passing a difficult case to Jewish authorities. This sets up Paul's appeal to Caesar in verse 11, which would finally bring him to Rome as God intended (23:11).
I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters—Festus's proposal (ἔλεγον εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι, elegon ei bouloito poreuesthai, 'I was asking if he might wish to go') seems reasonable but was actually dangerous. Paul knew the ambush plot (23:12-15) and that the Sanhedrin couldn't give him a fair trial. Festus's suggestion, though presented as accommodation to Paul, was politically motivated—passing a difficult case to Jewish authorities. This sets up Paul's appeal to Caesar in verse 11, which would finally bring him to Rome as God intended (23:11).
But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar. hearing: or, judgment
View commentary
But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus—Paul invoked his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor. The verb ἐπικαλεσαμένου (epikalesamenou, 'having appealed to') is a technical legal term. Augustus (Σεβαστός, Sebastos, the Greek equivalent of Latin Augustus, 'revered one') was the imperial title; Nero was emperor at this time (AD 59-60). The phrase τηρηθῆναι εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν (tērēthēnai eis tēn tou Sebastou diagnōsin, 'to be kept for the examination/decision of Augustus') indicates Paul requested imperial jurisdiction.
I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar—Once appeal was made, Festus had no choice. The imperative ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτόν (ekeleusa tēreisthai auton, 'I ordered him to be kept') maintains Paul in protective custody until transport to Rome. This appeal fulfilled Jesus's prophecy that Paul would testify in Rome (Acts 23:11) and opened the door for gospel proclamation in the empire's capital.
I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar—Once appeal was made, Festus had no choice. The imperative ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτόν (ekeleusa tēreisthai auton, 'I ordered him to be kept') maintains Paul in protective custody until transport to Rome. This appeal fulfilled Jesus's prophecy that Paul would testify in Rome (Acts 23:11) and opened the door for gospel proclamation in the empire's capital.
Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. To morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
View commentary
Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself—King Agrippa II's request (Ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι, Eboulomēn kai autos tou anthrōpou akousai, 'I myself also was wishing to hear the man') expresses personal curiosity. As a Jewish king educated in Rome, Agrippa was knowledgeable about Jewish affairs and intrigued by this case that had roiled Judea for years.
To morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him—Festus immediately accommodates: Αὔριον ἀκούσῃ αὐτοῦ (Aurion akousē autou, 'Tomorrow you will hear him'). The promptness suggests Festus sees strategic value: Agrippa might help him formulate charges for Caesar (v. 26-27). What Festus views as political necessity, God orchestrates as another gospel opportunity. Paul will give his fullest defense, including his conversion testimony, before this royal court—fulfilling Jesus's words that disciples would testify 'before governors and kings' (Matthew 10:18).
To morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him—Festus immediately accommodates: Αὔριον ἀκούσῃ αὐτοῦ (Aurion akousē autou, 'Tomorrow you will hear him'). The promptness suggests Festus sees strategic value: Agrippa might help him formulate charges for Caesar (v. 26-27). What Festus views as political necessity, God orchestrates as another gospel opportunity. Paul will give his fullest defense, including his conversion testimony, before this royal court—fulfilling Jesus's words that disciples would testify 'before governors and kings' (Matthew 10:18).
And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth.
View commentary
And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp—The scene is spectacular: μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας (meta pollēs phantasias, 'with much pageantry, display, spectacle'). Agrippa and Bernice arrive in full royal regalia—a theatrical entrance designed to display power and majesty. The contrast is deliberate: worldly pomp versus Paul's imprisoned simplicity, yet Paul has the greater message and authority.
And was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city—The akroatērion (ἀκροατήριον, 'audience chamber, hearing room') fills with χιλιάρχοις (chiliarchois, 'military tribunes, commanders') and ἐξοχοῖς ἀνδράσιν (exochois andrasin, 'prominent men, leaders') of Caesarea. At Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth—the prisoner enters this gathering of power and prestige. Yet Acts records none of their words, only Paul's testimony. Human pomp fades; gospel truth endures.
And was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city—The akroatērion (ἀκροατήριον, 'audience chamber, hearing room') fills with χιλιάρχοις (chiliarchois, 'military tribunes, commanders') and ἐξοχοῖς ἀνδράσιν (exochois andrasin, 'prominent men, leaders') of Caesarea. At Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth—the prisoner enters this gathering of power and prestige. Yet Acts records none of their words, only Paul's testimony. Human pomp fades; gospel truth endures.
And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
View commentary
And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us—Festus addresses the assembly with formal protocol, acknowledging Agrippa's superiority while including all present (πάντες οἱ συμπαρόντες ἡμῖν ἄνδρες, pantes hoi symparontes hēmin andres, 'all men present with us'). Ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me—The demonstrative τοῦτον θεωρεῖτε (touton theōreite, 'you behold this one') points to Paul. The phrase ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Ἰουδαίων (hapan to plēthos tōn Ioudaiōn, 'the whole multitude of the Jews') hyperbolically describes intense Jewish opposition.
Both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer—The verb ἐπιβοῶντες (epiboōntes, 'shouting, crying out against') conveys vehement hostility. The demand μὴ δεῖν ζῆν αὐτὸν μηκέτι (mē dein zēn auton mēketi, 'he ought not to live any longer') reveals murderous intent without legal justification. Festus's summary sets up the paradox: intense accusations but no legitimate charges.
Both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer—The verb ἐπιβοῶντες (epiboōntes, 'shouting, crying out against') conveys vehement hostility. The demand μὴ δεῖν ζῆν αὐτὸν μηκέτι (mē dein zēn auton mēketi, 'he ought not to live any longer') reveals murderous intent without legal justification. Festus's summary sets up the paradox: intense accusations but no legitimate charges.
But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him.
View commentary
But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death—Festus's verdict: κατελαβόμην μηδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου αὐτὸν πεπραχέναι (katelabomēn mēden axion thanatou auton peprachenai, 'I comprehended/found nothing worthy of death he had done'). This is the fourth Roman official to declare Paul (and by extension, Christianity) innocent: Gallio (18:14-15), Lysias (23:29), Felix (implied by his retention without charge, 24:22-26), and now Festus. Each declaration provides legal precedent.
And that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him—Paul's appeal (αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τὸν Σεβαστόν, autou de toutou epikalesamenou ton Sebaston) removes Festus's decision-making authority. The phrase ἔκρινα πέμπειν (ekrina pempein, 'I judged to send him') is legally obligatory, not discretionary. Festus must comply with the appeal, even though he's found no cause for it. This highlights Roman law's strength—even governors must submit to citizen rights and legal process.
And that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him—Paul's appeal (αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τὸν Σεβαστόν, autou de toutou epikalesamenou ton Sebaston) removes Festus's decision-making authority. The phrase ἔκρινα πέμπειν (ekrina pempein, 'I judged to send him') is legally obligatory, not discretionary. Festus must comply with the appeal, even though he's found no cause for it. This highlights Roman law's strength—even governors must submit to citizen rights and legal process.
Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.
View commentary
Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord—Festus faces a bureaucratic dilemma: περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἔχω (peri hou asphales ti grapsai tō kyriō ouk echō, 'concerning whom I have nothing reliable to write to the lord'). My lord refers to Caesar (using kyrios, 'lord,' the title emperors increasingly claimed). Festus must send formal charges (liber dimissorius) with the appeal, but he has none—Jewish accusations proved empty, and he found no crime.
Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write—Festus seeks help. The address μάλιστα ἐπὶ σοῦ, βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα (malista epi sou, basileu Agrippa, 'especially before you, King Agrippa') appeals to Agrippa's Jewish expertise. The purpose: ὅπως τῆς ἀνακρίσεως γενομένης σχῶ τί γράψω (hopōs tēs anakriseōs genomenēs schō ti grapsō, 'so that after examination I might have something to write'). Ironically, Festus asks Agrippa to formulate charges against an innocent man.
Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write—Festus seeks help. The address μάλιστα ἐπὶ σοῦ, βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα (malista epi sou, basileu Agrippa, 'especially before you, King Agrippa') appeals to Agrippa's Jewish expertise. The purpose: ὅπως τῆς ἀνακρίσεως γενομένης σχῶ τί γράψω (hopōs tēs anakriseōs genomenēs schō ti grapsō, 'so that after examination I might have something to write'). Ironically, Festus asks Agrippa to formulate charges against an innocent man.
For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
View commentary
For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him—Festus's frustration: ἄλογον γάρ μοι δοκεῖ (alogon gar moi dokei, 'For unreasonable it seems to me') to send (πέμποντα δέσμιον, pemponta desmion, 'sending a prisoner') without specifying (μὴ καὶ σημᾶναι, mē kai sēmanai, 'not also to indicate') τὰς κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ αἰτίας (tas kat' autou aitias, 'the charges against him').
This verse exposes the absurdity of Paul's situation: imprisoned for years, demanded dead by Jewish leaders, yet no actual crimes identified. Festus's administrative embarrassment becomes a testimony to Paul's innocence and Christianity's legal status. The governor's candid admission before this assembled court provides official documentation that Paul—and by extension, the Christian faith he represents—is guilty of no crime against Rome. This will prove crucial as Christianity spreads; enemies cannot claim it was judged criminal by Roman officials.
This verse exposes the absurdity of Paul's situation: imprisoned for years, demanded dead by Jewish leaders, yet no actual crimes identified. Festus's administrative embarrassment becomes a testimony to Paul's innocence and Christianity's legal status. The governor's candid admission before this assembled court provides official documentation that Paul—and by extension, the Christian faith he represents—is guilty of no crime against Rome. This will prove crucial as Christianity spreads; enemies cannot claim it was judged criminal by Roman officials.