Acts 26:1-32

What is the theme of this chapter?

Paul's defense before Agrippa.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 27-29

King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

Paul's characteristic firmness with courtesy, both with Festus in verse 25 and with King Agrippa in verse 27, is certainly something I can apply to my own life.  I tend not to be firm, so I must first work on that, always remembering to be courteous at the same time. 

Additional observations/questions:

Acts 26:24-32

And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.” Then the king rose, and the governor and Bernice and those who were sitting with them. And when they had withdrawn, they said to one another, “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.” And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”


Paul, you are out of your mind! - "Festus, a Roman, simply could not comprehend Paul's line of thought and language, particularly about the idea of resurrection (v. 23).  Agrippa, a Jew, had no such semantic problems." (Ryrie)

your great learning is driving you out of your mind - "The translation: 'much learning doth make thee mad,' is doubtless further responsible for misconceptions about Festus' character.  The Greek word 'gramma' simply means 'writings' and is twice used of the Holy Scriptures (John 5:47; 2 Tim 3:15).  Surely a man of Festus' character and position would not object to learning.  It was evidently to the 'writings' which Paul held so dear, that Festus referred.  These Paul quoted fluently; these he cited as final authority on many a question, and these he had doubtless been studying diligently during his two years' confinement at Caesarea, especially in connection with the further revelations he had received from the glorified Lord." (Stam)

I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. - "This combination of firm protest with courtesy is characteristic of Paul.  He treats Festus with deference, yet firmness, as a strong man might treat a weak opponent, and proceeds to demonstrate to him that his deep earnestness comes, not from madness, but from 'truth and soberness.'  (The Greek sophroneo indicates 'soundness of mind' - See Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35; 2 Cor 5:13)." (Stam)

For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. - "In an adroit use of adverse circumstance, the apostle explains to Festus that King Agrippa knows about these things; that he can speak freely before him, and that he is convinced that the details of his account have not been 'hidden' from  him, since they were not done 'in a corner.'  Unquestionably Paul was correct in this, for Agrippa had not only been brought up in the Jewish religion, but had long been intimately associated with Israel politically.  Surely, then, the conversion of Saul, the persecutor, to Christ and the apostle's widespread ministry and the phenomenal spread of the gospel could not have been unknown to him." (Stam)

King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe. - "Paul's question placed Agrippa on the horns of a dilemma.  If he said yes, then he would have to acknowledge Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies.  To say no would have put him at odds with the Jews." (Ryrie)

"To have waited for an answer would, under such circumstances, have been improper as well as foolish.  He, not Agrippa,  had been called for a hearing, and to put the king in an embarrassing position would only have angered him.  Thus, tactfully, the apostle immediately answers his own question.  He knows King Agrippa believes the Old Testament writings—and surely Festus would not call Agrippa mad!  Nor could Agrippa, in his position, deny this and accept Festus' opinion of the sacred Scriptures.  Thus with superb tact the apostle appeals to Agrippa himself and uses him as his witness, at the same time driving home the truth of his argument." (Stam)

In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian? - "This enigmatic statement may mean, 'In such a short time are you trying to make a Christian of me?' or, 'With so few words you are persuading me to be a Christ.'" (Ryrie)

"That the words 'en oligo,' here, do have the sense of 'almost,' and that he meant, either in sarcasm, or in greater or less sincerity: 'Almost you persuade me to become a Christian' ... Whatever the degree of Agrippa's sincerity in the matter, Paul was quick to take advantage of the situation.  Revealing his burden of heart, not only for Agrippa, but for Festus, Bernice and all those present, he replied with great feeling: 'I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am , except these bonds' (Ver. 29).  What a truly great servant of God the apostle was!  How deeply in earnest: 'I would to God.'  How large-hearted: 'not only thou, but also all that hear me this day.'  How self-effacing:  He is in chains, but longs for their salvation.  How triumphant:  'I wish you could be as I am.'  How powerful his plea:  'Almost' is not enough.  It must be 'altogether.'  And the most exquisite touch of Christian courtesy and grace is found in his words: 'except these bonds.'  He had suffered much for Christ, but he wished none of that for them.  He wished them to know only the peace and assurance and joy in his heart." (Stam)

This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. - "Thus Festus's acknowledgement Paul was innocent from the point of view of Roman law (Acts 25:25) is confirmed by the decision of Agrippa, speaking from the Jewish point of view.  The appeal to Caesar, however, had taken the matter out of local jurisdiction.  Possibly, Agrippa's opinion influenced the terms of the letter which Festus drafted to Rome about Paul's case." (Walker)

Acts 26:19-23

“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”


declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea - "The order of the reading in the Greek, at Verse 20, would indicate that the word 'first' refers to Damascus, where he began to witness for Christ.  It is true that wherever he went, until the end of Acts, he consistently ministered to the Jews first, but he surely did not go 'first' to the Jews in Palestine and 'then to the Gentile regions.  The meaning of Verse 20 is simply that he ministered to both Jews and Gentiles." (Stam)

that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance - Paul's declaration that he had taught Jews and Gentiles alike 'that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance,' has led some to the unwarranted assumption that the apostle, during this period, had preached 'the gospel of the kingdom,' even as John the Baptist, our Lord and the twelve had done.  Such a conclusion would be contrary to the whole record, however.  A moment's reflection will show that the true soul winner, still today, will seek to persuade men to 'repent,' lit., 'change their minds' and 'turn to God' and then 'do works' consistent with that change.  This is still so, even though the theme of our message is the finished work of Christ and the riches of His grace.  In the presentation of Messiah to Israel, however, the emphasis was placed upon repentance.  Most of the Jews rested in the fact that they, as Abraham's descendants, were God's people regardless of their conduct.  Hence their need to change their minds and do works consistent with this change.  It is doubtless because Paul was particularly addressing one with a Jewish background that he put the matter in this way." (Stam)

To this day I... saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass - "Paul had, up to this time, proclaimed numerous truths which cannot be found in the writings of either the prophets or Moses.  Neither the prophets nor Moses had foretold the salvation of the Gentiles through the fall of Israel, nor the 'gospel of the grace of God,' in which neither circumcision nor the law was to have any part.  Nor had they even hinted that Jews and Gentiles would be baptized into one body by the Spirit.  Nor had they said—or known—anything about believers being 'caught up' to heaven by 'the Lord Himself.'  Yet all this had been proclaimed by Paul prior to this time (Rom 11:11-2; Acts 20:24; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Thes 4:16-17).  And had not Paul written of 'the mystery' and its associated 'mysteries' in his early epistles? (Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor 2:6-7; 4:1; 15:51).  Is the mystery to be found in prophecy—that which was 'hiddne' and 'kept secret,' in that which had been 'made known'?  Indeed, even if we were to admit that Paul proclaimed the kingdom during his entire Acts ministry, he would then still have taught more than 'the prophets and Moses did say should come,' for even in 'the gospel of the kingdom,' our Lord uttered things which had been 'kept secret from the foundation of the world' (Matt 13:35); truths which neither the prophets nor Moses had even known about.  (It is true that our Lord Himself was a prophet, but Paul clearly refers to the prophets whom Agrippa believed - Acts 26:27).  Do the facts, then, contradict Paul's statement before Agrippa?  In no wise.  The trouble is that our extremist friends have quoted only half his statement.  The first part of his statement,  in Verse 22, is clearly qualified by the remainder, in Verse 23: 'That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first [Not in time, but in rank.  See 1 Cor 15:20,23 and Col 1:18.] that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.'  In other words, the facts that Christ should suffer, rise from the dead and show light to Israel and the Gentiles, were nothing but what the prophets and Moses had already predicted.  Why then should the Jews so bitterly oppose Paul's ministry to the Gentiles?  This alone was Paul's argument." (Stam)

Acts 26:9-18

“I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities. “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’


I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth - "No, Paul's sincerity did not excuse him, though it did afford God grounds for showing him mercy (1 Tim 1:13).  Paul doubtless had a threefold purpose in referring to his former bitter enmity against Christ.  First, it would indicate that he had not lightly changed his attitude toward Christ.  Second, it would indicate that if one so utterly sincere could be so wrong, the position of his hearers, in God's sight, might be far worse.  Third, his 'I verily ... myself' expresses the apostle's sympathy with his hearers and his hope that God might save them too ... He states it thus that he might be seen as one who has come to know the truth—to know Christ—and has thus come to his senses." (Stam)

I cast my vote - "...does not necessarily mean that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin but simply that he agreed with its action." (Ryrie)

"'Voice,' Gr., psephos, a stone used for voting.  See R.V.  The fact that Paul could cast such votes would seem to indicate further that he was a member either of the Sanhedrin or of the larger body, 'the estate of the elders' (Cf. Gal 1:14)." (Stam)

"The word 'vote' means, literally, the stone or pebble with which the vote was recorded.  It occurs again only in Rev 2:17 (stone).  If the expression be taken quite literally, it will mean that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin before his conversion, and, as such, gave his vote like the other Sanhedrists.  This view is strongly advocated by some, and has much to be said in its favour.  In that case, we should have to suppose that he was elected to that important body because of his prominence as a Jewish propagandist; as also, apparently, that he had been previously married,—a qualification required in members of the Sanhedrin,—though subsequently becoming a widower (1 Cor 7:7).  On the other hand, it is urged that he was too young for membership in such a council of 'elders', and that the phrase may be used loosely as merely indicating that he gave his full consent (Acts 22:20)." (Walker)

I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities - "Paul's testimony that 'many' of the saints were thus imprisoned and put to death, indicates that Stephen was not the only martyr during this period.  Doubtless Stephen's martyrdom is the only one mentioned by Luke because it was crucial and representative in Israel's history, but Luke does inform us that Stephen's murder touched off a 'great persecution' in which Saul 'made havoc of the church' (Acts 8:1,3) and went forth 'breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord' (Acts 9:1).  Moreover, at his conversion, the Jews at Damascus exclaimed:  'Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem?' (Acts 9:21).  Finally, Paul himself later wrote to the Galatians:  'Beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it [Lit., laid it waste]' (Gal 1:13).  Thus there is no reason to doubt Paul's testimony before Agrippa, or to conclude that it is contradicted by the fact that Luke records Stephen's martyrdom alone.  'Even to foreign cities' proves that his journey to Damascus was not the first and only such venture, but the last of many like it." (Stam)

make them blaspheme - "I.e., was forcing them to blaspheme against Christ, which would not have been blasphemy to the Jews." (Ryrie)

"But it was not enough that those apprehended for their faith in Christ were imprisoned, tried and executed, for Saul had first tortured many of them to force them to recant [blaspheme].  'I punished them oft,' he says, 'in every synagogue [in Jerusalem, Ver. 10 and 22:18,19] and compelled them to blaspheme' (Ver. 11).  'Compelled' refers to the object, rather than the result of the punishment, for the imperfect tense is used.  Those tortured did not necessarily yield, otherwise 'many' would not have been 'put to death.'" (Stam)

with the authority and commission of the chief priests - "But it must not be assumed from this that the chief priests were not more than glad to have this young zealot [Saul] stir up hatred against Christ and His followers, and Paul is careful to stress this fact ... he had gone forth as the appointed representative of Israel and her rulers, and his bitter enmity against Christ and His followers was but the expression of theirs." (Stam)

I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun - "...the light which shone from heaven was brighter than that of the noonday sun.  Only those who know the blinding glare of the Syrian sun at high noon can begin to appreciate this.  This was no subjective vision, experienced by the apostle alone.  The light from heaven shone round about Paul and his companions that day (Ver.13) as actually as the glory of the Lord had shone round about the shepherds at Christ's birth (Luke 2:9).  And like the shepherds, they were all 'sore afraid' and all fell to the earth (Ver. 14).  This fact alone indicates how important an event in history was the conversion and commission of Paul." (Stam)

kick against the goads - "A Greek proverb for useless resistance; i.e., it was useless for Paul to persecute the church—he was only hurting himself.  Goads were long, wooden rods with a sharp point used to prod oxen while plowing." (Ryrie)

"Expressing futile resistance, as when oxen kick against the goads of their drivers.  This phrase is not found at Acts 9:5 in most texts." (Stam)

the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you - "Christ appeared more than once to Paul after his conversion (Acts 18:9; 22:17-21;23:11), and also vouchsafed him special revelations (2 Cor 12:1-4)." (Walker)

"We learn that the truths he was to proclaim were to be further made known to him in a series of revelations in which the Lord Himself would appear to Him (Acts 26:16; Cf. 2 Cor 12:1-4).  This refutes the teaching that Paul's 'revelation ministry' did not begin until after Acts 28:28.  The apostle, in his first revelation of Christ, had already seen the Lord in a glory far excelling that in which the twelve had ever seen Him.  They had known only the Christ on earth; Paul, from the beginning had known only the Christ 'exalted far above all' and had seen Him in His heavenly glory.  They [the twelve] had been sent to proclaim His kingdom rights, even after His ascension (See Acts 1:6-8; 3:19-21; etc.).  He [Paul] had been sent 'to testify the gospel of the grace of God' (Acts 20:24).  [It was] one message that was gradually committed to him in a series of revelation (Acts 20:24; 26:16; 1 Cor 9:17; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Gal 1:11,12,15, 16; Eph 3:1-4; Col 1:24-26; etc.)." (Stam)

delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles - "We learn from this passage that from the day of Paul's conversion he was chosen from Israel and from the Gentiles as Christ's apostle to both.  The word 'delivering' (Ver. 17) is almost certainly an incorrect rendering of the Greek here, for Paul was not 'delivered' from the Gentiles in the sense that would be intended here; in fact he was finally beheaded by Nero.  The Greek exaireo means simply 'to take out.'  Thus it can refer to deliverance, as in Acts 23:27, where it is correctly rendered 'rescued.'  But surely it could not be rendered 'rescue' or 'deliver' in Matt 5:29.  In this passage it is correctly rendered: 'And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.'  Neither, we believe, is 'delivering' the correct rendering here.  Dean Howson translates it: 'thee have I chose,' in Life and Epistles of St. Paul (P. 673).  And J.N. Darby, in his New Translation, renders it: 'taking thee out.'  This is a more consistent rendering, for Paul was indeed chosen and taken out from both his own people (the term 'the people,' in Scripture, refers to Israel - see Psa 2:1 and cf. Acts 4:25,27) and the Gentiles, and sent back to both with the message of grace.  This distinguished him, too, from the twelve.  They represented the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28).  He, as one apostle, represents the one Body (Col 1:24; Eph 4:4).  Some hold that the 'unto whom' refers only to the Gentiles, not both.  It is true that Paul was sent especially to the Gentiles, as over against the nation Israel, but his ministry to the end, included both Jews and Gentiles (See Acts 26:20; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 2:14-18; etc.)." (Stam)  

"And how complete a representative!  He was a Hebrew, a born Hebrew and intensely Hebrew (Phil 3:5).  He was also, as we have seen, a Roman (Acts 22:25), a born Roman (Acts 22:28) and intensely Roman (Acts 21:39; 25:9-11).  Here, then, we have a Hebrew and a Roman in one person!  Moreover, he was a former enemy, reconciled to God by grace—'exceeding abundant' grace!  What an ideal representative of the believing Jews and Gentiles in this dispensation, who have been 'reconciled to God in one body,' who have 'the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace!'" The Books of Acts, of course, is primarily the account of the fall of the nation Israel, not 'the history of the founding of the Church,' but the record of Acts does confirm the testimony of Paul's early epistles that the reconciling of believing Jews and Gentiles to God in one body began with Paul, during his early ministry." (Stam)

Acts 26:1-8

So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defense: “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently. “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?


My manner of life from my youth...is known by all the Jews - "He had been brought up among them at Jerusalem as one of that promising and privileged group of young men who studied under Gamaliel, the renowned doctor of Moses' law (acts 22:3).  He had 'profited in the Jew's religion above many of [his] equals ... being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of [his] fathers' (Gal 1:14).  His accusers well knew, though they would not testify, that from the beginning he had lived a Pharisee, following the teachings and customs of the very strictest sect in Israel (Acts 26:5).  And now he stands trial—for what?  For repudiating his faith in God's promise to the fathers?  No! but for proclaiming the very hope upon which that promise rested (Acts 26:5)." (Stam)

the promise - "I.e., the Messiah (Gen 22:18; 49:10)." (Ryrie)

to which our twelve tribes hope to attain - "This passage shows the fallacy of the theory of 'Anglo-Israelism,' that the ten northern tribes of Israel never rejoined Judah and Benjamin after their exile, but wandered to more distant parts and turned up as the Anglo-Saxon races." (Stam)

God raises the dead - "That Paul preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the heart of the complaint of the Jewish authorities." (Ryrie)

"If the failure to observe dispensational distinctions in the Scriptures has brought harm and loss to the Church, the failure to recognize the unity of God's plan for the ages, and to observe dispensational connections is fraught with peril fully as great ... An example of this is seen in the erroneous contention that Paul here asserts before Agrippa that it is for proclaiming the kingdom of Messiah that he has been accused of the Jews.  During Paul's early ministry, it is argued, he preached practically the same message as the twelve, and his special ministry for us did not begin until after Acts 28:28.  Strangely, the question why the remaining members of the twelve were not then suffering along with Paul, does not seem to occur to these brethren.  But we pose it here.  If the Jews were so angry at Paul for proclaiming the kingdom, how is it that the multitudes of those who believed and proclaimed this very message in Jerusalem and Judaea went on unmolested at this time?" The fact is that from the beginning Paul's apostleship and commission had been separate and distinct from that of the twelve or any other—and he says this in Acts and in his early epistles (See Acts 20:24; Eph 3:1-3; Gal 1:11-12; 2:2,7.9; etc.).  Now, considering the passage before us, it must be carefully observed that the apostle does not say that he was being judged for proclaiming 'the promise' made to the fathers.  To the fulfillment of this promise (the millennial kingdom) the 'twelve tribes' themselves 'hoped to come.'  Why, then should they find fault with him for believing and proclaiming it?  It was for proclaiming 'the hope of the promise' that he was hated and persecuted.  And what was 'the hope of the promise?'  It was the resurrection in general, and the resurrection of Christ in particular.  The Sadducees—poor apostates!—who had so bitterly opposed him, did not see that the resurrection, and particularly the resurrection of Christ, was the only basis for any expectation of the promised kingdom.  Christ alone was—and is—the rightful King, and the thousands of believers gone before could not see that kingdom unless they were raised from the dead.  The Pharisees, of course, joined the Sadducees in their persecution of Paul because he had further pointed out how the resurrection of Christ was proof of a finished redemption and of justification by grace without religion or works.  But his purpose here was to point out that he had been opposed by the Jews for proclaiming a doctrine which was the very—the only—hope of the fulfillment of a promise to which the twelve tribes themselves hoped to come (Acts 26:6-7).  They 'served' God intensely, day and night, offering prayers and sacrifices and oblations, longing for the establishment of the kingdom long promised.  But the resurrection, especially the resurrection of Christ, was the hope of that promise and, mark well, the apostle repeats that this is what the Jews opposed (Acts 26:6-7; 23:6; 24:15; 25:18-19; 26:22-23)." (Stam)

Acts 25:1-27

What is the theme of this chapter?

Paul's defense before Festus.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verse 11

If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?



Additional observations/questions:

It seems to me that Acts 25:8 rather endorses once again (see also Acts 23:11 and Acts 24:18) what Paul did in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26), and perhaps even that he was there in the first place.

Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense" (Acts 25:8).

Paul stated this matter-of-factly, like keeping the law and showing reverence for the temple was what he was supposed to do since he was a Jew and it was still during "the transitional period."

*See also: Acts 18:18; 20:16; 21:17-26; 24:18.

Acts 25:23-27

So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. And Festus said, “King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish people petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had done nothing deserving death. And as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to go ahead and send him. But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write. For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him.”


Paul was brought in - "But now as Agrippa beheld Paul, did he recall his great grandfather, Herod, and the slaughter of the innocents? (Matt 2:16).  Di he recall his great uncle, Herod Antipas, and the murder of John the Baptist? (Matt 14:1-11).  Did he recall his father, Herod Agrippa I and the murder of James? (Acts 12:1-2).  did it occur to him that all these ancestors of his had died or been disgraced soon after their commission of these crimes?  Did the 'great pomp' of his own parade to the Audience Hall remind him of the time, sixteen years ago, when the people had shouted that his much-more-powerful father was a god, and how he had been instantly stricken with death and eaten by worms 'because he gave not God the glory'? (Acts 12:21-23).  When we consider the extreme vanity and self-importance of this phantom king, it is doubtful that any of these things even entered his mind." (Stam)

my lord - "The Greek word (kuriO) corresponds to the Latin 'dominus', a title which had been refused by both Octavian and Tiberius as trespassing on the prerogatives of deity and as savouring of despotism.  Caligula, however, accepted it, as did also his successors.  It became a usual appellation of the emperors." (Walker)

Acts 25:13-22

Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, “There is a man left prisoner by Felix, and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him. So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed. Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them. But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.” Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” said he, “you will hear him.”


Agrippa - "Herod Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) and great-grandson of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1), both of whose territories he ultimately ruled under Rome's jurisdiction." (Ryrie)

"Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1).  When his father died, he was a youth of seventeen years old, living at Rome, where he was brought up at the court of the emperor Claudius.  When his uncle Herod, king of Chalcis (a district of Syria, north-west of Damascus) died some eight years later, the emperor conferred that principality on Agrippa.  In A.D. 53, he gave it up, and received instead the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Lk 3:1) with the title of 'king.'  The government of part of Galilee and Petraea was added later by Nero.  Caesarea Philippi, in Galilee, was his capital.  He was the last of the Herodian dynasty to exercise sovereignty.  After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), he retired to Rome, where he died about A.D. 100." (Walker)

"Agrippa II, the last of the Herods, was not even, like his predecessors, 'King of the Jews.'  Luke calls him simply 'the king' (Acts 25:14, ctr. Lk 1:5).  The domain which Caesar had first granted Herod the Great, had been cut in two, so that Archelaius was 'enthnarch' over half the province.  This half had again been cut in two, so that Herod Antipas was a 'tetrarch,' or governor over one quarter of a province.  The present Herod had been given even less territory, including part of Galilee, but not Judaea, so that he was not even 'King of the Jews.'  The title 'king' was conferred upon him only as a courtesy.  History does record, however, that he was the appointed guardian of the temple with the right to nominate the high priest.  In this all we have further evidence of the stead decline of the nation Israel.  For years the kings of Israel, who should have come from the royal line of David, and the high priests, who should have come from the priestly line of Aaron, had been appointed by heather emperors; the Emperor directly appointing the king, giving the king, in turn, the power to name the high priest.  But these Herods not only lacked the royal blood of David's line; they were Idumaeans, aliens by birth, though they did go through the motions of embracing the Jewish religion.  Since Agrippa represented at least some of the people of Israel, it was advisable for him to maintain the best possible relations with the Roman procurator at Caesarea.  Hence t his visit.  Furthermore, Festus needed him too—especially now—for his knowledge of the Jewish religion and Jewish laws and customs." (Stam)

Bernice - "...was Herod Agrippa II's sister, with whom he was living incestuously.  Paul was not required to defend himself before them, since he had already appealed to Caesar, but he took this opportunity to witness to the Jewish king." (Ryrie)

"Eldest daughter of Agrippa I, and sister of Drusilla (Acts 24:24).  She was one year younger than her brother Agrippa II, being sixteen years old when her father died.  When only thirteen years of age, she was married to her uncle Herod of Chalcis and bore him two sons.  At his death in A.D. 48, she came to reside with her brother, and the ugliest rumours were afloat as to their relationship, both among the Jews and Romans.  To still these rumours, she married Ptolemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa.  Later, she became the mistress of Titus, son of the emperor Vaspasian.  He discarded her in Rome on becoming emperor, and she seems to have passed her last days there in the house of Agrippa." (Walker)

the emperor - "The Greek word (Sebastos) is the equivalent of the Latin 'Augustus', a title conferred on the first emperor Octavian Caesar, and inherited by his successors.  It was regarded as one of peculiar honour and sacredness.  Indeed, the Greek form of it is derived from the root 'to worship', and suggests more than human glory.  Festus, most likely, purposely spoke of 'the Augustus' in addressing a vassal king, the better to enhance the emperor's dignity and claims.  The nearest modern representative of it would be 'His imperial majesty', which would naturally be employed, under similar circumstances, of our king-emperor." (Walker)

Acts 25:1-12

Now three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews laid out their case against Paul, and they urged him, asking as a favor against Paul that he summon him to Jerusalem—because they were planning an ambush to kill him on the way. Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea and that he himself intended to go there shortly. “So,” said he, “let the men of authority among you go down with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them bring charges against him.” After he stayed among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.” But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, “Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried on these charges before me?” But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar's tribunal, where I ought to be tried. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself know very well. If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Then Festus, when he had conferred with his council, answered, “To Caesar you have appealed; to Caesar you shall go.”


Festus - "Sacred and secular history both show Festus in a much more favorable light than Felix.  Both show him to have been basically reasonable and just, as well as active and energetic in the discharge of his duties as governor Judaea, which position he held for only two years before his death ... Yet there was much to be considered at this, his first court session in Judaea.  If history is correct, the Jews had been responsible for Felix' removal by Nero.  If Festus acquitted Paul and released him now, he would bitterly antagonize the Jewish rulers at the very outset of his reign, when he most needed their friendship and support.  He therefore made a proposition which, though designed to appease the Jews, still showed that he did not mean to be wholly unjust:  Would Paul agree to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried in Festus' presence, or at least under his supervision?  (The trial itself, however, would then be by the Sanhedrin, as verses 11 and 20 indicate.)  He understood perfectly that Paul need not agree to this, so left the decision with him." (Stam)

to Jerusalem - "Since there was much unrest, Festus thought it prudent to make an early visit to the religious capital, Jerusalem.  The Jews saw in this an opportunity to ask that Paul be returned there.  If the request were granted they would try to kill him on the way." (Ryrie)

I appeal to Caesar - "Fetus's suggestion that Paul appear in Jerusalem for trial provoked this appeal to Caesar.  Paul realized that the trial would not be impartial if conducted by Festus, especially if the case were transferred to Jerusalem, and that he would be in great danger if he was returned to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin.  The right of appeal was one of the most ancient and cherished rights of a Roman citizen.  Nero was emperor at this time (A.D. 54-68)." (Ryrie)

"There is historical testimony to the fact that certain, if not all, Roman citizens at that time had the right to suspend trials in which they were involved in the lower courts by appealing directly to the Emperor.  Thus the apostle now, doubtless judging this was his only escape from sure death on the one hand, or another long imprisonment on the other, availed himself of this right ... But this left Festus in an embarrassing predicament, for it would hardly help him, in the eyes of Imperial Rome, to have his first official act as governor thus challenged.  He therefore conferred with his assessors, evidently to make sure that Paul's Roman citizenship could not be questioned and to see if there were any other possible escape from his dilemma.  But the governor dare not deny the apostle's appeal..." (Stam)

his council - "Fetus's advisers." (Ryrie)

To Caesar you have appealed; to Caesar you shall go - "...we detect a tone of resentment as well as derision in his reply ... 'Little do you know,' he intimated, 'what an appeal to Caesar means.'"  (Stam)