5. Paul’s Appeal to Caesar (25:1–12)
5. Paul’s Appeal to Caesar (25:1–12)
Luke emphasizes here that Paul’s famous—or infamous—custody in Rome does not suggest his genuine guilt. A different governor finds no proof against Paul; rather, his very accusers are the true subverters of order and justice (25:3). (As already noted, reversing charges against accusers was standard defense procedure, and Luke employs it abundantly in these narratives.) Paul is compelled to go to Rome as a prisoner not because of misconduct but because of messy provincial politics, specifically in Judea, a province notorious to the Romans (even more so after the war of 66–73 C.E.) for its resistance to Roman order.
Paul’s defense in Acts 25–26 continues the pattern already noted in Acts 24—namely, that Paul’s trials in Acts resemble those of Jesus in Luke’s passion narrative—and fulfills Jesus’s prophecies about Christians testifying before courts.855 O’Toole lists twelve similarities between Acts 25–26 and Luke 23:1–25, most of them persuasive when taken cumulatively:856
1. Both sections are structured as hearings.
2. There are four main characters in each (the Roman governor, a Herodian prince, Jewish accusers, the defendant).
3. The hearings are held at the procurator’s instigation (Luke 23:6–7; Acts 25:22ff.).
4. The defendant is “led in” (Luke 23:1; Acts 25:6; cf. 25:22ff.).
5. The authorities find God’s agent innocent (Luke 23:4, 14–15, 22; Acts 25:18, 25a; 26:31).
a. Each governor thinks the defendant innocent, both before and after the trial.
b. Each governor three times pronounces the defendant innocent.
c. Agrippa II concurs with Festus, and Antipas (at least de facto) concurs with Pilate.
6. The defendant is accused by the high-priestly elite (Luke 23:2, 5, 10; Acts 25:2, 7, 11, 15–17; 26:2), who demand death (Luke 23:18, 21, 23; Acts 25:24) for acts against Israel and Caesar (Luke 23:2; Acts 25:8).
7. Antipas and Agrippa II happen to be in town (albeit both with good historical reasons) and want to see the prisoners (Luke 23:8; Acts 25:22).
8. The defendant appears before a Herodian ruler.
9. Although the defendant is innocent, he cannot be freed (Luke 23:16–25; Acts 26:32; cf. 28:18).
10. The Suffering Servant motif: the defendant is “led” (Isa 53:7–8), “handed over” (53:6, 12), and so forth.
11. Some apparently illogical aspects appear in both accounts (where, e.g., are Paul’s accusers?).857
12. Both sections could be omitted without interrupting their surrounding context.
Most of these parallels, especially the first nine, are compelling. They reveal Paul imitating Jesus’s sufferings, as Stephen did in Acts 7:56–60.
The very parallels, however, reveal asymmetry in Luke’s treatment, particularly the much greater length of Paul’s speech before Agrippa II than that of Jesus’s appearance before Antipas (Luke 23:8–11; Acts 26:1–23). To some extent this asymmetry probably results from Luke’s more complete source for Paul’s trials than for Jesus’s, but not entirely. Most noticeably, Acts 25 includes a lengthy dialogue between the procurator and the Herodian king (25:14–22). Moreover, the content of the dialogue does not appear to reflect any obvious historical source (who would have reported its content to Luke?), though most of its basic substance could be inferred from 25:24–27, amplified according to the customs of rhetoric used in most ancient historiography. Why does Luke elaborate so much on this section whereas he condenses so much material in earlier chapters?
Dunn suggests that one reason is suspense. Although earlier Roman officials favored Paul (13:12; 18:12–17; cf. 16:35–40; 19:31, 35–41), Felix did not. Though initially resisting (25:4–5) a plan potentially deadly to Paul (25:3), Festus is finally on the verge of accommodating the opposition’s proposal (25:9).858 The chapter, however, is not all suspense; once Paul has appealed to Caesar, the matter of his destination is decided (25:12). After this, the narrative provides no suspense about whether Paul will be going to Rome but only about how he will present his defense of the gospel, perhaps a foreshadowing of his later (unnarrated) defense before Caesar’s tribunal.
There are likely other reasons for the extensive detail. These chapters (Acts 24–27) are particularly detailed as part of the material where Luke (“we”) was nearby. But they are also detailed because they reflect Luke’s apologetic for Paul and hence for the legal status of the Gentile Christian movement he had advanced. Although Christians did follow a Lord crucified for sedition, Roman representatives recognized his innocence (Luke 23:4, 14, 22, 47). Moreover, the most noteworthy leader of the Gentile Christian mission movement was not only innocent but himself a Roman citizen. Both were condemned not because of Roman justice but because leaders acceded to the political demands of a hostile Jerusalem elite, now discredited by the Judean war. Roman officials suspicious of Jewish sedition should look not to the Christian followers of a Jewish Messiah but to these followers’ accusers! It may have been difficult to persuade critics of this case, but it was the best apologetic available, and from Luke’s perspective (as both a Christian and a loyal citizen of the Roman Empire), it was the truth.859
Luke may also elaborate the dialogue between a mostly just procurator and a reasonable king to highlight these characters. Yes, there were unjust procurators such as Pilate and Felix, and unjust Herodians such as Antipas and Herod Agrippa I; but Luke can make clear that he does not oppose all authority, Roman rule, or the rule of Rome’s client kings. Further, he draws attention to their roles so that he can show that Paul’s trials are not tragedy but God’s sovereign plan to grant opportunities for his gospel in elevated settings (Luke 21:12–15). If the gospel must go to the ends of the earth before Israel’s restoration (Acts 1:6–8), reaching the nations at least representatively through their rulers (4:27) showed that, in a representative way, this eschatological mission was already in the process of being fulfilled.
Why was Paul not simply released? Local politics sometimes impeded ideal Roman justice. Rome ruled through local elites, and so cooperation with the local leaders was important. Given ancient reciprocity conventions, Festus could win favors for his policies by granting favors where he could afford them, and was obligated by favors from the Jerusalem elite to offer favors in return.860 These political realities collide with Roman ideals of justice for Roman citizens, and the tightrope Festus walks in this narrative probably resembles the tightrope he had to walk in history. Paul was too small an issue in the larger scheme of Judea’s administration to be allowed to simply go free at the expense of the local leaders’ annoyance, yet not guilty or inconsequential enough to be summarily convicted.
a. Authorities in Jerusalem Denounce Paul (25:1–5)
A new governor offers the leading Sadducees a fresh opportunity to revisit some cases on which Felix proved intractable (24:27); these include Paul’s case, which some apparently prefer to be resolved extrajudicially. But while Festus may be eager to establish cordial relations with the leaders, he is not ready to begin his tenure by creating exceptions to normal protocol. Given the accumulation of political favor for Paul’s enemies, it is only the promise of divine favor by which Luke can theologically account for his survival (23:11).
I. THE ARDENT ADMINISTRATOR (25:1)
That Festus takes only three days to commence contact with the Jerusalem leaders after his arrival shows that he is an efficient administrator (cf. the greater delay in 25:13), in contrast to Felix (24:27); perhaps he also knows of the damage done to Rome’s relationship with Judea by his predecessor.861
Visiting the local ruling class upon one’s arrival (25:1) was a prudent act for any new governor, just as it was a prudent political courtesy for Agrippa and Berenice to visit the new procurator (25:13). But this gesture would be all the more important because of the unrest of which he would have been apprised before his arrival, whether or not he knew of Felix’s misadministration. Festus probably would not have known how deeply most of Judean society had become alienated from its ruling class, which was corrupt, was exploiting poorer priests (Jos. Ant. 20.181), and was too pro-Roman for the masses.862
II. PLANS AGAINST PAUL (25:2–3)
The official chief priest is no longer Ananias (Acts 23:2; 24:1) but now Ishmael son of Phabi (Jos. Ant. 20.179),863 appointed by Agrippa II (see Acts 25:13) probably shortly before Festus’s accession (Jos. Ant. 20.182). The chief priests and other leaders were on very strained (sometimes even violent) terms during this period (20.180), but the condemnation of Paul seems to have been a matter on which the elite could agree, or at least not find sufficient cause to disagree. Whether the “leading people” (οἱ πρῶτοι; on this usage, cf. comments on Acts 13:50; 17:4; 28:7, 17) now included those Pharisees who had temporarily supported Paul (Acts 23:9) or not, all of Paul’s critics here would be well-to-do and members of the elite, most likely belonging to the Sanhedrin or the families that supplied it with members.
The authorities apparently gave up on moving Paul’s case so long as Felix remained procurator (though Felix refused to provoke them by simply releasing him).864 Perhaps because Paul has been still influencing Judeans through his visitors during confinement (24:23) or perhaps because this is a small favor compared with the major redresses from Felix’s time that required correction (cf. Jos. War 2.271), Paul remains high on their agenda as an initial favor to request of Festus (cf. also Acts 25:6). The issue of Paul may have been kept alive by his continued ministry in Caesarea, albeit through visitors disseminating his views (24:22) and perhaps through influence on the former governor, who favored tolerance toward Paul’s movement (24:24).865
Revisiting the case would not prove difficult. Even had Felix closed Paul’s case (and he had not), a case could be reopened if the accusers claimed “fresh evidence” (Pliny Ep. 7.6.10). Moving the case could be more complicated. His accusers may know that under Roman law, the citizen of one place who has a legal residence (domicilium) in another can be tried in either place, at the plaintiff’s discretion (Gaius Dig. 50.1.29).866 But it is doubtful that they can use this to make their case for Paul to be arraigned in Jerusalem; although he grew up there (Acts 22:3), he has not lived there for years, and his domicilium, if anywhere, would be Antioch (or perhaps, for various brief periods, Corinth and Ephesus).867 His citizenship, of course, remains in Tarsus, where he was born (21:39). Sometimes a case had to be discontinued and later renewed—for example, when a prosecutor died.868 But the accusers most likely rely on simply Festus’s legal authority to make a decision independent of Felix (see comment on Acts 25:9), and they offer the new (and perhaps unseasoned) governor the opportunity to provide them an early favor (perhaps one among several, although Luke would have reason to infer and mention only one in particular).
Their desire for a “favor” (25:3) reflects a theme running throughout this context (χάρις, 24:27; 25:3, 9; χαρίζομαι, 25:11, 16).869 It reinforces Luke’s point that Paul’s troubles with the Roman authorities stem wholly from accommodation to the Jerusalem elite’s complaints. Certainly this is Paul’s view within the narrative (25:11) and retrospectively the view that the narrative’s Festus takes (25:16), when, like Lysias, he portrays his own initial behavior as more generous toward Paul than it actually had been in Luke’s narrative of the initial hearing (25:9; cf. 21:32–38; 23:27).
Given the many revolutionaries in prison, Paul’s case may come up here only because the Jerusalem authorities are less optimistic about securing his condemnation than they are about securing that of the revolutionaries (cf. Luke 23:18–19). Given the history of precedents in the case, they may have despaired of obtaining “justice” even from the new governor and hence hoped to execute their “right” of killing Paul directly, which Lysias had earlier seized from them (see comment at Acts 24:6). This might provide another reason for dealing with Paul at the beginning of Festus’s tenure: it would not take many “accidents” en route to Jerusalem before Festus would refuse to send defendants there for trial.870 They might hope that Festus would deal with genuine revolutionaries anyway (eventually he did, much more effectively than Felix, Jos. War 2.271; Ant. 20.185–88).
How would Luke know about the ambush? It is not impossible that the same source had surreptitiously revealed to him information as had done so before (Acts 23:16), but ancient historians also narrated motives on the basis of what they felt were reasonable inferences. If mostly the same people remained in power; if they insisted on sending Paul to Jerusalem rather than simply accuse him in Caesarea, where Paul was already being held; and if Luke had reason to believe that they had been party to such a plot on a previous occasion (23:14–15), it was a reasonable inference to assume that the motives had not changed.
Admittedly, a change of venue to Jerusalem would also be more convenient for the Jerusalem authorities and exert more pressure on the new governor; the latter point may be one factor in Festus’s reluctance. They could present this venue as more convenient for the governor, who is already in Jerusalem, but he is about to return to Caesarea (25:4). They could otherwise succeed only by convincing Festus that Paul’s case is a matter of Jewish and not Roman law, but given Paul’s Roman custody for as much as two years under Felix, Festus would not likely be persuaded by that appeal.
The narrative here does not presuppose the Sanhedrin’s right to judge capital cases under Roman rule.871 Profanation of the temple (24:6) was the one capital offense allowed to be tried by locals, a custom that applied also to some other temples in the empire (e.g., in Eleusis; see comment on Acts 21:28). Further, the procurator might still maintain control of the trial (25:9), though the change of venue would help the accusers and any witnesses they might wish to call. Rome certainly did not grant Judeans capital jurisdiction in this period; the exceptions were under the client rulers, such as Herod, Agrippa I, and even the tetrarch Antipas, not under the Sanhedrin, Jerusalem’s municipal council, during the tenure of procurators.872 But this situation could have appeared to be potentially the very sort of case for which Rome originally withheld from locals the right of capital punishment: it would be inappropriate use of the right if local aristocracies used it to eliminate citizens loyal to Rome (in this instance, a Roman citizen).873
III. FESTUS’S ARRANGEMENT (25:4–5)
Various factors may influence Festus’s refusal (25:4). Some scholars suggest that he felt that a prisoner whose loyalty to Judaism was questioned would be safer in Caesarea.874 Although he would not yet have heard the report of the earlier plot (which appeared in a court document, 23:30, but presumably one among hundreds of documents awaiting his staff in Caesarea), he was probably informed of the general security situation before his arrival. But Festus traveled the road himself, albeit with a larger entourage, and this journey would be during daylight, in any case. If security concerned him, it was more likely concern that the Sanhedrin’s Levite guards would provide less security than his own soldiers would.
Festus’s concern, however, is probably less with security than with convenience and propriety. First, since Festus is about to leave for Caesarea (25:4), there is no point in sending for Paul to bring him to Jerusalem for trial. To send messengers by horseback to Caesarea (which would take one day) and bring Paul to Jerusalem (presumably another day), or to take perhaps two days each way (settling securely for the intervening night) if infantry accompanied the riders (because of bandits in the hills), would make little sense if Festus is leaving soon anyway (though “soon” is as many as eight to ten days, depending on when during his visit the leaders broached the request, 25:6).875 Second, when in town, the procurator might hear cases, but on this occasion Festus has come only to visit; perhaps he does not even have his full consilium (25:12) with him, having left some important subordinates in Caesarea to run matters until his return.876 (If he arrived in Judea slightly early, which is not impossible, he might also be more willing to make courtesy calls than to issue decisions before July 1.)
Third and most important, it was not prudent for a new official to begin his tenure with irregularities, which could constitute an informal precedent in his relations with locals. Rome specifically made the mixed coastal city of Caesarea Judea’s capital, rather than the holy city preferred by the Judeans. Giving in to the request would likely invite further concessions toward Judean nationalism down the road. He might be willing to consider such a concession (25:9), but not so quickly as to make it appear that it would be a regular sort of concession.
How would Festus, who has been in the country only three days, know that Paul is in Caesarea? Perhaps he does have some of his advisors with him (25:12), including some individuals from the previous administration; as a “leader of the Nazarenes” (24:5), Paul might be a particularly noteworthy prisoner. More likely, Paul’s accusers may have said so; if not, it would be obvious from their request, since he has to be brought to Jerusalem (25:3) from somewhere and Felix’s prisoners would be in Caesarea. By welcoming some of the Jerusalem leaders to travel with him (25:5), Festus shows them deference and respect. As here, so in general, prosecutors were not appointed by the state but were personal accusers.877
b. Paul Defends Himself before Festus (25:6–9)
Festus acts quickly and efficiently, in contrast to his predecessor (25:6); he is also politically astute enough to wish to accommodate local leadership if possible (25:9). Paul, however, makes such a compromise impossible: his opponents continue to produce baseless charges they cannot prove (25:7), and so Festus’s readiness to accommodate them at this point is blatantly political rather than an act of justice (“as you well know,” 25:10). Paul’s only hope of obtaining a hearing not influenced by Judean political considerations is to appeal to Caesar (25:11). His appeal also expresses his confidence in his innocence before Caesar (25:8, 11).
Whereas Festus greeted Jerusalem’s leaders more quickly (25:1) than Agrippa and Berenice would visit him (25:13; but they could not well visit him in Caesarea before he had returned there), the latter stayed longer for their visit (“many days,” 25:14). “Not more than eight or ten days,” however, does not emphasize its brevity as a snub to Jerusalem’s elite but perhaps is intended to explain what Festus meant by “shortly” (25:4). Perhaps more important for the narrative, “eight or ten days” serves as an emphatic contrast to Felix’s “two years” (24:27). Festus took at most two weeks after his arrival before dealing with Paul’s case, on the day after his return to Caesarea from the trip where the case was brought to his attention (25:1, 6). Luke thereby clarifies for the attentive reader that no backlog of cases justified Felix’s procrastination and nothing questionable about Paul’s case explained his long period in custody. One would “go down” to Caesarea or to almost any other Judean town from Jerusalem (see comment on Acts 11:27).
Given the likely backlog of cases (see comment on Acts 24:27), however, Paul’s case is probably addressed this quickly only because of the Jerusalem opposition; ironically, his enemies expedite his case for him. (It is likewise their insistence that leads to Paul’s opportunities to preach to Agrippa and Berenice [cf. 25:14–22].) Festus’s quick action on any cases may be intended to clear all leftover business from the preceding administration, but it also reinforces for Luke’s audience the point that Felix’s delay was not because he lacked opportunity (24:25) but because he acted unjustly toward his notorious prisoner (24:26–27).
“Taking his seat on the tribunal”878 means that he is ready to judge.879 Luke’s narrative reflects the basic elements of Roman judicial procedure. First, private plaintiffs advance the complaint (25:2). Then “the governor appears formally on his tribunal, pro tribunali” (25:6), and his consilium advises him at his discretion (25:12).880 The tribunal indicates that this is an official hearing, offering a contrast to Felix’s informal visits for personal purposes (24:24–25).
The collective barrage of accusations here resembles those against Jesus in Luke 23:10. In contrast to Acts 24:1, where the aristocrats depended on a rhetor, here they apparently all accuse Paul not so much in the form of a trial as of a “forceful display of political status” that will move Festus (25:9).881 (The use of advocates was optional.)882 Yet in this way they also fail to provide a carefully developed case, which does not help them in terms of persuading Festus.883
Luke claims that the opposition could not prove the charges. Apparently they also made charges based on Judean customs, some of which must have intrigued the governor, unable to understand them (25:19; cf. 24:20–21), but the capital charges (hinted at in 25:8; cf. 25:25) could not be proved. A case against defendants could be reopened if the prosecutors claimed new evidence (Pliny Ep. 7.6.10), but if the prosecutor’s speech yielded no new evidence, it was to be thrown out of court.884 Pliny responded to one such speech by simply pointing out that the prosecution had failed to offer fresh evidence, then ending his own response (7.6.12–13); the case was thrown out. Claims of lack of proof were standard responses to charges; when the claims were viewed as accurate, the case was won (see comment on Acts 24:13).
If the accusers had sent investigators on long journeys to perform research, they could have documented a trail of riots where Paul had preached (see comment on Acts 24:5); this would explain why Paul is not released. Such wide-ranging research was, however, rarely done for such a comparatively minor case as this. As much as his enemies wanted his case advanced on the docket, and as central as Paul’s case is for Luke’s own story, Paul was not a governor like Felix being tried in Rome but a mere troublemaker being accused before a new governor.
What if some enterprising enemy of Paul with sufficient leisure undertook such investigation, even simply securing written documentation885 where oral reports led him? More easily than traveling, some members of the elite could have solicited reports from visiting Diaspora Jews,886 though the presence of such witnesses at a trial, possibly demanded by the defense, would be difficult to secure.887 Luke’s contrary explanation of each of these riots, available to us in Acts, suggests that Paul would have had a plan of defense ready against these charges had he needed them. But that Luke mentions assertions without proof suggests that (at least from his apologetic perspective) the accusers apparently depended largely on their status rather than research. Paul was an issue for them, but apparently not one pressing enough to require lengthy work.
The “many and serious charges” would include those in Acts 24:5–6 (stirring dissension, trying to profane the temple) and acts against the law and against Caesar (see comment on Acts 25:8).
III. PAUL’S REFUTATION SUMMARIZED (25:8)
Paul again speaks without an advocate (see comment on Acts 24:10). The summary of the charges that Paul refutes here suggests that he follows a common and logical procedure—namely, summarizing the opponent’s argument and then refuting it.888
Paul’s response in 25:8 must be only a terse summary, as is the presentation of the charges in 25:7.889 Paul succeeds not only in denying the charges mentioned here but in defining the case in terms of religious controversy. He provided the same definition for Felix (24:14–15, 20–21); whether or not Festus has reviewed the records of the previous hearings,890 Luke presents Festus as persuaded by Paul’s presentation of this matter (25:18–19).
The charge against the temple harks back to 21:28 and 24:6. The claim that Paul violated the Jewish law also recalls 21:28, though this was a charge in which Rome would have little interest (cf. 18:13–15). This charge would count in favor of the Jerusalem authorities’ case for having Paul brought to Jerusalem to judge him by their own laws (25:20); for Luke’s apologetic, however, it is what the entire issue amounted to (24:14; 25:18–19; cf. 21:21) and represents an offense that Roman officials would reject as worthy of consideration (18:15). If Christians were apostate from Judaism, this status might affect their assumed exemption from participation in the imperial cult; but Christians did not claim to be apostates, and Roman governors would hardly want to sort out Jewish theological matters.891 Luke has been emphatic that Paul was not against the law (e.g., 21:24; for the movement more generally, cf. 21:20; Luke 2:22–27, 39).
The charge of speaking against Caesar, or maiestas, is new (contrast 24:5–6);892 on the charge of maiestas, see also comment on Acts 17:7. It may have been brought by any disgruntled Ephesian Jewish leaders visiting the past year’s festivals; they could have heard rumors from other traveling Diaspora Jews that Paul opposed Caesar (17:5–7), though they could not prove such rumors (25:7; cf. 24:13). Some may have cited his opposition to venerating the emperor or others besides the God of Israel, but such an accusation would carry little weight when offered by Paul’s fellow Jews. Jews and Christians in the Diaspora did honor the emperor, though not as a deity.893 The Jerusalem temple offered sacrifices on the emperor’s behalf,894 and synagogues presumably also offered prayers for the emperor’s well-being.895 Again, without proving Paul an apostate from Judaism, they could not use Paul’s failure to worship Caesar as proof of disloyalty or opposition to Caesar.
From a literary standpoint, the charge of opposing Caesar recalls the false charge that Jesus forbade payment of taxes to Caesar (Luke 23:2). Despite Jesus’s support for appropriate loyalty to Caesar in front of many witnesses (20:22–25), his accusers charged him with the offense that they had wanted to use against him, depending (in that case, successfully) partly on their high status; unlike Paul, Jesus did not defend himself. Paul’s confidence that the charge against him is false is reflected in his appeal to Caesar himself (Acts 25:11–12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19). The charge also informs the reader that Paul’s opponents keep adding charges. As noted above (see comments on Acts 24:6, 21), changing the charges against a defendant during the trial was considered a sign that the accusers had invented them.896 After more than a year, new charges might well surface, but one would expect that if the charges were credible, evidence would have surfaced with them. (Surely at least someone from the synagogue in Ephesus would have visited Jerusalem at least for festivals and brought at least affidavits?) Nevertheless, the charge may also represent a further extrapolation of the sedition charge of maiestas in 24:5: riots following Paul implied that he was seditious, and any act of sedition ultimately challenged Caesar.897
IV. FESTUS’S FAVOR FOR THE ELITE (25:9)
Haenchen finds the sequence of events suspicious. Why does Festus merely offer to change the venue instead of pronouncing a verdict (25:9)?898 Further, why should Paul appeal to Caesar instead of simply protesting a possible change of venue?899 But as Tannehill notes, Haenchen’s confusion stems from his “failure to take seriously the indications that Festus is a biased judge and recognized as such by Paul.”900 (In my view, Festus is not primarily hostile toward Paul; he is one of the fairer judges in Acts. Yet he is politically predisposed to accommodate the Sanhedrin insofar as possible;901 see discussion below.) Festus may avoid a verdict because the current setting is akin to a preliminary hearing, but he may also do so because there are not yet sufficient grounds to condemn Paul and he wants to humor the local leaders insofar as possible by offering them further opportunity to make their case.
One could claim a venue to be hostile, seeking to reduce prejudice, but one normally could not alter it (Cic. Balb. 1.1–2); Festus, in fact, shows Paul generosity (perhaps based on how well Paul’s defense has succeeded) by asking if he is willing to accept the change. By appealing to Caesar, Paul can escape not only a move to Jerusalem but further hearings in Judea, and thus any location in which political pressures are likely to influence his case (just as these pressures kept him in custody, Acts 24:27).
Festus’s offer to provide a favor to the Jerusalem elite902 stems not from animus toward Paul but from an attempt to offer conciliatory gestures toward the leaders of a notoriously unstable province. This overture does not portray him as perfect, but it also does not depict him to be as corrupt as Felix.903 (Ancient historians and biographers usually preferred “round” characters with a mixture of positive and negative traits.)904 Festus has not promised to condemn Paul in Jerusalem and does not even promise to try him there without Paul’s approval.905
Unlike Felix, Festus probably does not know of the plot against Paul (and if Festus were to learn of it only after its success, this knowledge would not benefit Paul); the only record of it from Felix’s administration would be the brief mention in Lysias’s letter (23:30), which may not have been reviewed by Festus himself. (The possible echoes of Lysias’s letter in 25:16, 19, if not merely Lukan stylistic flourishes or apologetic connections, could suggest that Luke intends us to know otherwise, but Paul or others probably also would have brought this piece of the case file to Festus’s attention during or after the hearing.) Further, the change of venue might seem to him, after continued insistence from the local leaders (he resisted temporarily in 25:3–4), but a small concession; he may have assumed that perhaps it was for any witnesses’ convenience. It would also aid his insufficient understanding of local customs (25:20; contrast 24:22, 24). From Festus’s standpoint, it might seem odd that if Paul’s case were as clear-cut as Paul claimed, Felix had not freed him already. That meant either that there were problems with Paul’s case or that it was extraordinarily politically sensitive. Although Festus would know that Felix was recalled on the charge of misadministering the province, he may have followed the likely Roman presumption that the Judeans were probably more at fault for this charge than the governor, and recognized the importance of avoiding alienating them unnecessarily.
We should not be surprised that Festus might wish to accommodate political pressures insofar as possible, given Josephus’s portrait of him. One of Festus’s primary objectives seems to have been the suppression of bandits (Jos. War 2.271; Ant. 20.188), and Paul stood accused by the local rulers906 of stirring unrest (Acts 25:7; 24:5).907 Whereas Felix had reason to grant the Jerusalem elite a favor to “buy off” their hostility (see comment on Acts 24:27), Festus wants to grant them a favor to establish a good working relationship with his new subjects.908
Given the troubles that Judeans believed Felix had caused and how this affected Judean sentiments toward Rome (Jos. Ant. 20.182),909 Festus would want to start offering favors as quickly as possible after his arrival. Some matters were nonnegotiable, so it was best to grant whatever favors were negotiable. Given the conventional practice of reciprocity in Mediterranean antiquity,910 Festus could expect local aristocrats to repay his favors by lending their support to his mandate where possible.
In view of the need to be a politically astute governor as well as a judge, his newness as governor, and what he would consider the “unusually intractable native population,” Festus deserves some credit for considering Paul’s rights in the case.911 Festus was not proposing to simply hand Paul over to his accusers; he would hear the case himself.912 (Given the substantial element of local Judean law in question, he might also consent to using the local Sanhedrin as his advisory council,913 as Lysias had attempted in Acts 22:30.) But he wanted to simplify matters and show his support for Paul’s elite opponents by accommodating their preferred venue.
Festus also may have wanted to accommodate the local leaders by offering a new preliminary hearing, starting over again, instead of simply relying on the records of Felix’s preliminary hearing.914 This approach would be more time consuming than building on previous documents, which revealed the special interests at work that were hostile to Paul.915 Nevertheless, such a decision was within his prerogatives as governor; indeed, even if Felix had left Paul sentenced for a crime instead of leaving his case pending, Festus had legal authority to veto Felix’s decree.916
Repeating the preliminary hearing and disregarding the previous administration’s documents could be disastrous for Paul, even without a change in venue. Paul had built his case for the prosecution’s real motives being religious disagreement on Lysias’s report of the Sanhedrin’s dispute (23:28–29; 24:20–21); his ploy now obvious, the Sanhedrin was unlikely to play into his hands a second time and would be happy for the opportunity to revisit the case and recoup honor lost to Paul’s craftiness.
Further, Paul had noted that his opponents lacked witnesses and proof, but what if they had concocted some since then, to be elaborated at a further hearing?917 Memories had faded, and presumably most of the delegates who had come with Paul (excepting Aristarchus and Luke, 27:2) had long since returned to their cities (although he would still presumably have local witnesses concerning the timing and purpose of his arrival). (For that matter, if Festus began with this concession, he might make other concessions, and the Sanhedrin could exploit his relative ignorance of the Judean situation in a way they had not been able to do with Felix.)918 A change in venue offered the worse problem of the plot (unlike Paul, the new procurator, inexperienced in Judean affairs, presumably did not know how dangerous a move to Jerusalem could be, 23:16; 25:3). Given such factors, it is not difficult to understand Paul’s appeal to Caesar in 25:10–11.
The narrative as it stands makes good sense historically, but what Luke reports also mirrors the theological direction of Acts as a whole. The Roman governor offers justice at Jerusalem (25:9), where Paul knows he cannot receive it; Paul instead appeals to Rome (25:10–12). The entire book of Acts emphasizes the movement from Jerusalem to Rome and often the development beyond the purely Jewish mission to a Gentile mission most immediately served—from the standpoint of peoples living in the empire—by targeting Rome itself.
Thus Paul’s appeal, which much of Luke’s later Christian audience might have regarded as misguided919 in light of Nero’s eventual persecution of Christians, appears instead as part of his broader strategy in the Gentile mission. It offered a model of boldness and aimed to instill a confidence that God offered Christians a future in a pagan empire (cf. Jer 29:7). From a broader historical horizon unavailable to Luke, although Luke’s strategic vision was ultimately realized, many generations of Christians encountered hostility from the empire (as they often had in Jerusalem) until the time of that vision’s realization.
c. Paul Appeals to Caesar (25:10–12)
After two years in custody, Paul recognizes that the political situation in Judea is too difficult and the Jerusalem elite will continue requesting his deportation to Jerusalem, with the possible consequence of his assassination (cf. 23:12–15; 25:3). Felix would have deferred the case indefinitely, neither handing Paul over to his enemies nor providing a hearing in which Paul could appeal. Paul avails himself of the opportunity presented now.
Paul suspects the political bias against him (“a favor,” 25:11). There is no need for a new trial; one was already held, and Festus knows its outcome (“you know,” 25:10). (For that matter, Festus does know Paul’s innocence [explicit in 25:25], but if he stated it openly at the trial, he would be forced to acquit him.)920 Whereas careful attention to individuals’ trials was one criterion for praising a governor,921 prejudiced jurors and judges were the bane of defendants.922 No defendant wants a juror who fails “to allow both sides to make their case on equal terms” (Max. Tyre 16.1).923 When opponents had more political or rhetorical clout, a defendant could protest that he was vulnerable and at a disadvantage and that the stakes were much higher for himself than for his adversaries (Dion. Hal. Lysias 17).924 Pleading for impartiality (with the implication that an impartial judge would favor the speaker) was a common forensic strategy.925
“As you know” implies that the previous documents of the case are available and their information has been at least summarized for Festus.926 Paul’s language here might sound too forward, but if there was risk of a judge’s hostile bias, it was appropriate to demand that the judge render justice in accordance with the laws927 or even to threaten judges (though not usually governors) that one would not hesitate to prosecute them for bribery if they judged wrongly (Quint. Inst. 4.1.21).928 Cicero warns Verres’s jury that the Roman people’s confidence in the courts will be restored only if they convict Verres, who is boasting that his wealth will protect him from conviction (Verr. 1.1.1; 2.1.2.5). Paul has been submissive, respectful, and patient, but at this point the stakes are higher. Felix had neither freed Paul nor handed him over to his accusers, but the risk of being handed over to accusers appeared higher now (25:9).
Even a governor judging extra ordinem would take laws into consideration (as respectable customs and conventions of justice) if he was a fair judge. Ideally, this meant, among other things, that the same charge was not to be tried twice;929 Festus would not think that he is doing so (since Felix never resolved the case conclusively, Acts 24:27), but from the standpoint of Luke and Paul, enough evidence has accumulated favoring Paul to render the case justly closed.
Paul’s mention of his lack of fear about dying (25:11) implies that if transferred to Jerusalem, he will unjustly face a death he would not face before a Roman law court (justifying his appeal before a verdict). Even most philosophers who warned against lamenting sufferings noted that one should not crave them.930 Defendants would often note that they were not afraid to die if found guilty, often as a way of expressing indignation against the charge or expressing certainty that they were innocent.931 Thus one defendant concurred that an offense was worthy of death, but claimed that it was his accuser, not himself, who was guilty of the offense (Xen. Hell. 2.3.37); another claimed that if his acts had proved harmful to the state (here Sparta), he should be punished, but not if he had acted to the state’s advantage (5.11.32). Josephus told his accusers that he did not refuse death if justice required it (Life 141), then convinced them that it did not (142).932 Later a model speech offers, “If . . . then I [as a lawbreaker] should be punished, convict me,” but insists that the evidence does not support the charge.933 Offering that one assesses one’s just penalty as death if found guilty was a standard rhetorical strategy for protesting one’s innocence (Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437a.14–17).934 Yet Paul also counters that the punishment is wrong if, as he pointed out in 25:10, he is innocent. Granting a concession and then taking it back given contrary conditions also fits rhetorical logic (Hermog. Inv. 3.10.158).
Paul says that he stands before Caesar’s tribunal. The term for Caesar’s “tribunal” in 25:10 recalls that of Festus in 25:6. Festus is not the final authority but rather Caesar’s representative in the system of appeal (cf. Luke 7:8, where the centurion exercises authority because he is “under authority”).935 Therefore, if Festus cannot safely handle the case for political reasons, he should refer it to Caesar (Acts 25:11), whose court would be under no such pressures.936 Paul has been waiting long to go to Rome anyway (19:21), and he is so certain that he has not offended “against Caesar” (25:8) that he is ready to appeal to him.937 When Paul speaks, he is literally “standing” before the tribunal (although ἵστημι can simply mean “appearing” before the tribunal); whoever was speaking at a given time would stand (25:18).938
The emperor to whom Paul appeals here is Nero; whether or not readers were familiar with Felix and Festus, they were probably familiar enough with the period of Paul’s ministry to infer that the current emperor was Nero. Probably to Paul’s detriment at some later hearing, Nero proved to be vicious against Christians in 64 C.E., but his approach then was driven by the need for a political scapegoat. In 54–59, he remained under the moderating influence of Seneca the philosopher and Burrus the praetorian prefect.939 Paul’s confidence fits the historical context of Paul’s time better than when Luke is writing, by which time Christian readers would think only of Nero’s evil.940 It is also possible that Paul might have heard of Seneca’s influence and might know that Seneca was a brother of Gallio, who dismissed the case against Paul in 18:14–16.941
Roman governors sometimes sent prisoners on to Rome for trial. For example, Felix had put aristocratic priests in bonds for a minor matter, then sent them to Rome to defend themselves before Caesar (Jos. Life 13); he also sent some prominent bandits to Rome for punishment (and perhaps to draw attention to his own diligence in having captured them; War 2.253). Before Felix’s accession, the Syrian legate sent the leaders of Jewish and Samaritan factions to Rome to argue their respective cases (2.243; cf. Ant. 20.131). This practice may have particularly characterized high-profile or (as in Paul’s case) politically sensitive cases—though it should be noted that Judea’s governors did not refer most politically sensitive cases.
On this basis, one could surmise that Festus sent Paul to Rome even without the appeal Luke here describes;942 this could sufficiently explain the connection between his detention in Caesarea and the later detention in Rome. What such an approach would fail to explain is the coincidence between Paul’s destination in Rome while in Roman custody and his explicit earlier hope to visit Rome after Jerusalem (Rom 15:23–28). This “coincidence” suggests that Paul may have had something to do with his Roman destination (albeit providentially with the procurator’s cooperation), just as depicted in Luke’s narrative (Acts 25:10–11). It also independently coheres with Luke’s narrative that Paul in his letters expected trouble from unbelievers in Judea (Rom 15:30–31) and elsewhere had conflicts with some leaders of his own people (2 Cor 11:24; cf. 1 Thess 2:15) and that in Phil 1:13 we next find him in Roman custody.
Moreover, Roman citizens would have been sent to Rome for trial more frequently than others. By the second century, it is possible that they were even routinely sent to Rome for trial (Pliny Ep. 6.31).943 Pliny mentions a leading citizen of Ephesus who, having stirred his fellow citizens’ envy, had to appeal to Trajan (and was acquitted; 6.31.3). When Pliny detained Christians who were Roman citizens, he sent them to Rome for trial (10.96.4) instead of simply executing them as he did the others (10.96.3).944
The early Valerian laws (especially 300 B.C.E.)945 and Porcian laws (early second century B.C.E.)946 allowed Roman citizens the right of appeal to the people, preventing execution without trial.947 Eventually this privilege of appeal was extended to Roman citizens abroad as well.948 The Porcian laws heavily penalized anyone who scourged or executed a citizen (Livy 10.9.4); the Valerian laws decreed it an evil act to scourge or behead a citizen who appealed, and later laws assessed heavy penalties for such a breach of propriety (10.9.5).
Some have argued that in the era of the Roman Republic, two forms of appeal existed. The first was the provocatio, the right to appeal to the Roman people (populus romanus), protesting a magistrate’s decision. This appeal was called the provocatio ad populum; in the empire, it became instead the provocatio ad Caesarem, the appeal to Caesar.949 The second was the appellatio, appealing to an official to veto a colleague’s decision; by the empire, this also became a prerogative of the emperor and hence largely merged with the provocatio.950 Thus, during the empire, we should think of a general form of appeal rather than any strict boundaries between these two older forms.951 Many now argue, in fact, against any boundaries between these terms.952
In the late republic, Romans used the provocatio to appeal above a private judge’s head to the officials who appointed the judge, and by the empire these appeals could reach as high as Caesar.953 Protecting Roman citizens in the provinces from exploitive governors (such as the earlier Verres), Augustus confirmed this right in his lex Iulia de vi publica seu privata.954 The lex Iulia de vi “protected the Roman citizen who invoked the ancient right of provocatio, from summary punishment . . . without trial, . . . and from actual trial by magistrates outside Italy.”955 By the time of Trajan, such citizenship rights seem to have led to automatically sending to the emperor citizens charged with certain offenses.956
Roman citizens could appeal local courts’ decisions to the governor and even to the emperor.957 Roman citizens could claim the right to be judged by the emperor, especially in capital cases,958 although, given the logistics of the empire, this usually meant simply the emperor’s tribunal; by Nero’s day, most of this case load was delegated.959 To reduce potential appeals to manageable proportions, perhaps the governor might need to approve the grounds for the appeal (thus requiring the wording in Acts 25:26–27; but the need for explanation may suffice to account for this cover letter).
During the republic, the provocatio was not meant to intervene in a trial currently in progress, but during the empire, the emperor was often willing “to grant extraordinary legal assistance upon request,” a privilege that “was gradually institutionalized” and could occur during any stage of the trial.960 Schnabel notes that defendants’ right to appeal to the emperor is well attested in the early empire961 and that such appeals could precede the verdict.962 An appeal was particularly logical earlier in a trial if the conduct of the trial would likely incur danger or display prejudice.963 Those who were not convicted could request a further hearing if they had sufficient reason: when some plaintiffs wished to drop a case before the emperor, the defendants asked for a trial to remove any suspicion (Pliny Ep. 6.31.11); the emperor wryly asked his consilium for advice, since “these people want to complain about being let off the charge against them” (6.31.12).964
Although an appeal before the verdict was not illegal, it was irregular.965 People in provinces appealed first to the governor before appealing to the emperor (Dig. 49.1.21.pr.),966 but this is irrelevant for Paul’s trial, which is before the governor; moreover, a governor might refer a powerful plaintiff’s difficult case to the emperor (Pliny Ep. 6.31.4).967 More important, people normally appealed only after final verdicts.968 Not everyone worried about regularity: dissatisfied with the outcome of their suit before the senate, provincial representatives appealed to the emperor (who referred them back to the senate; 6.13.1–2). The emperor might also agree to hear complaints that were not appeals of verdicts at all; someone who was wronged by another also complained to the emperor, who ordered a more efficient method of proceeding to abbreviate the hearing (6.22.1–2). Similarly, emperors could pardon people during a trial (Modestinus Dig. 48.16.17) no less than wait for its conclusion.969
Because Paul’s appeal before a complete trial and sentence is unusual, scholars debate as to whether Festus had discretion over whether to grant it (hence his consultation in Acts 25:12).970 Some think that Festus was legally bound by the lex Iulia de vi publica of Augustus’s era to grant the appeal request.971 It could have been difficult and perhaps potentially dangerous politically for a governor to deny any Roman citizen’s appeal to the emperor.972 Sherwin-White suggests that the charges against Paul were either extra ordinem or a particular kind of ordo whereby he could still appeal;973 he contends that the governor had to approve Roman citizens’ appeals in such cases.974 Indeed, it was illegal to deny normal appeals, and such denials (which did happen) could be punished.975 In this case, Festus might consult his advisors (25:12) only to ascertain whether this was the sort of extra ordinem case in which he must honor the appeal.976
Whether such requirements were in force in the first century remains open to question.977 Pragmatism led governors to reject some appeals, but it helped if the defendant had marks of higher social status in addition to Roman citizenship.978 That Paul appeared to be a prominent sage with a large constituency may have helped provide additional status; moreover, that he was articulate revealed his education. Whereas governors might try offenses such as murder and adultery without allowing appeals to Rome (given the growing number of citizens in the empire),979 appeal was allowed in cases of treason,980 which is relevant here (24:5; 25:8). A governor in Judea “could probably have ignored Paul’s appeal with no one the wiser”;981 one of his successors crucified equestrians, who no doubt protested in vain (Jos. War 2.308).
Still, Festus is the one governor Josephus portrays from this period who seems to have honored official Roman policy (War 2.271–72). Acts and Josephus seem to agree on this portrayal; whether Festus had any obligation to grant Paul’s request or not, Festus’s concern for protocol would have proved fortunate or providential for Paul.
Whereas some scholars believe that granting Paul’s appeal would have been mandatory, others believe that the irregularity of the appeal before a verdict probably moved it beyond such a strict obligation on Festus’s part.982 Luke himself tells us that Festus consulted with his consilium (Acts 25:12); perhaps he consulted to ascertain whether Roman policy required him to grant the appeal, but he may have done so because he had authority to decide what to do with the appeal.983 This possibility may make better sense of Festus’s public claim to have decided (ἔκρινα; in this case, as a judge) to honor the appeal (25:25). (Here refusal to retract the appeal after the conclusion of 26:32 is a matter of honor and propriety; Festus had already publicly decided to refer the case, and it would dishonor both Festus and the emperor not to follow through.)984
If Festus did have discretion to decide whether to grant this appeal (which I think more likely), he had every reason to grant Paul’s request (and even pretend to the local authorities that it would be inadvisable for him not to grant it). This decision would quickly remove a political complication from Festus’s hands without his having to condemn an innocent Roman citizen or enrage the local elite.985
VI. REFUSING JUDEAN JURISDICTION
Paul’s concern is not Roman but Jewish jurisdiction; Paul could demand his right as a citizen to be judged without interference from local laws.986 Paul may refuse the implicit jurisdiction of an incompetent tribunal, the Sanhedrin987 (even though the final judge was Festus himself, 25:9). Thus a Roman administrator prosecuted in Greece for corruption appealed to Rome’s tribunes during the late republic, complaining “that he could not have a fair trial in Greece against Greeks” (Plut. Caes. 4.2).988 Where local laws (such as the chief priests’ interpretation of Judean laws, Acts 25:7–8) conflicted with Roman law, a Roman citizen could be referred to the emperor, though the latter often “decided in favour of local law.”989 (Provincial citizens of Rome or of free cities could choose between the jurisdiction of the local courts and that of Roman courts.)990
When possible, Paul had apparently submitted to Jewish courts (2 Cor 11:24); for a Jew to appeal to Romans to be delivered from Jewish punishments was to break from solidarity with one’s Jewish community.991 Earlier in Acts, Paul was “rescued” from a Jewish mob (Acts 21:30–32; 23:27) and Jewish accusers (18:14–15) without denying Jewish jurisdictions. Here, however, he denies the highest-ranking leaders of his people rightful jurisdiction over his case. He has already argued that what is at stake is a purely Jewish religious issue (24:20–21), but he uses his Roman citizenship to keep the trial under completely Roman auspices. He probably does so because he recognizes that his life is at stake (25:3), just as he avoided a beating because it was potentially deadly (22:25). Historically, Paul did appeal to his advantages when necessary, even boasting when “forced” to do so.992
It is, however, too much to view this as a rupture between “Judaism” and “Christianity,” which must be tried as a new religion.993 Why then would Luke focus so much of his work on the continuity between the church and its heritage in Israel? Why would Paul explain this continuity to Jewish leaders in Rome (28:20, 23), and that he was forced to appeal not to accuse his nation but to defend his life (28:19)? Why do his speeches emphasize his solidarity with his Jewish heritage (24:14–17, 21; 26:4–7, 22, 27)? The point is less theological; Paul wishes to save his life and perhaps also to establish positive legal precedents testifying that Christians are protected—as a legitimate form of the ancient faith of Israel.
Luke uses Paul’s appeal to Caesar to reinforce the picture of his high status;994 it was important for the Gentile Christian movement, as a mostly marginal minority in a status-conscious society, to be able to point to a leader who was of status. Eventually Paul, like Jesus, was unjustly executed; but both were exonerated by Roman judges, and Paul was of significant status (certainly not less than most of Luke’s target audience in places such as Philippi and Corinth, where many of the Christians would have been Roman citizens).995 That Luke so employs Paul’s appeal, however, no more requires that Luke invented the appeal than that he invented Paul’s Roman citizenship or that he invented the character of Paul.
Whatever one makes of the details of Luke’s narrative here, those skeptical that Paul was a Roman citizen (or that his citizenship played a part in the trials) have a harder time explaining how Paul ended up in Roman (as opposed to local) custody and, very likely, how he ended up in custody in Rome itself (cf. Phil 4:22, though not all take this as custody in Rome).996 Luke surely did not invent a Roman custody of up to two years in Caesarea, since Luke consistently portrays earlier Roman courts exonerating Paul;997 inventing additional captivity would undercut Luke’s own apologetic.998 Yet we know that Paul expected potential conflict in Judea (Rom 15:31).
If Paul faced conflict with Judeans, how did this conflict eventuate in a protracted Roman detention, followed at some point by Paul’s detention in Rome, without his being either released or handed over to local authorities to be punished according to local laws? Does not his Roman citizenship help explain such historical details (see comment on Acts 16:37)?
Further, in a document still extant but probably not read by Luke, Paul already had expressed his hope to travel to Rome after Jerusalem, in any case (Rom 15:22–25). Is it not therefore plausible that his interest had something to do with him reaching that destination (as here in Acts 25:10–11)? Any proposed legal anomalies make sense in terms of a governor’s extra ordinem ruling and the political sensitivities of the current Judean situation. Luke’s basic narrative seems plausible and consistent with other evidence. Thus, given his access to reliable information here (the “we” narrative), the work’s historical genre, and the work’s correspondence with major details of Paul’s life (such as churches founded in particular regions) in Paul’s letters, we have every reason to take Luke’s claims on the matter seriously. Certainly we should take them more seriously than we should take modern speculation offered without corresponding evidence (which too often counts skepticism of Luke’s narrative as itself the only necessary evidence for a contrary position).
VIII. FESTUS’S CONSILIUM (25:12)
Scholars generally recognize that the term συμβούλιον refers here to Festus’s consilium, or advisory council, consisting of his consiliarii or assessores, his legal advisors.999 The term applied to any ruling or advisory body,1000 including the advisors of a ruler,1001 of a general,1002 or of governors.1003 Because a judge would consult his consilium on legal matters (Cic. Quinct. 10.1), Cicero could appeal to the consilium as well as to the judge (1.4; 2.1; 6.1; 30.91). The emperor might choose for his own consilium members experienced in case law, for a fixed period of time (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.31.1); naturally, any advisors taken to the provinces with governors would retain this capacity for a longer period. In the case of a governor, these would be his higher officials in addition to younger men who had come with him to learn effective provincial administration.1004 The assessores (members of the consilium) might share the official’s dinner table and entertainments.1005
Legal expertise was not a prerequisite for the office of governor, hence the need for consulting those more informed in the laws;1006 magistrates thus often depended on advice of their councils, though making the final decisions themselves.1007 Thus Josephus observes that those high in government had to be accompanied by counselors knowledgeable in their laws (Ag. Ap. 2.177), but notes that the Jewish people as a whole are very skilled in their laws (2.178). Paul’s appeal is the sort of case for which a magistrate would surely consult his consilium; the emperor Trajan consulted his in an analogous case of defendants who rejected the dropping of their trial without official vindication (Pliny Ep. 6.31.11–12).
When judging cases extra ordinem, the governor was not bound by laws observed in Rome, but he would still consult with advisors and (in the case of more diligent governors) render justice as carefully as possible. In Paul’s case, news of a denial of his appeal might reach Rome if he was thought to have many supporters (Acts 24:5); but the more important issue was that sending Paul to Rome relieved Festus of responsibility in a politically difficult situation. As Ajith Fernando puts it, Festus “must have been relieved by Paul’s appeal to Caesar, for he could now wash his hands of the case.”1008
Festus’s concise “To Caesar you appealed, to Caesar you will go” might be intended as a direct quote of the educated governor; it is rhetorically balanced, with almost the same beginning in both clauses (except that ἐπί is necessary for the second) and similar-sounding verb endings (-σαι and -σῃ).1009
6. Festus Discusses Paul’s Case with Agrippa (25:13–22)
In this private scene (though even more so in the private scene in 26:30–32), Luke shows us what the Roman governor really thinks about Paul’s case once political considerations can be laid aside. Paul’s accusers are not eager to follow Roman procedure (25:15–16), and Festus knows that the charges are simply theological disagreements (25:18–19), as Paul has been insisting.
Although Agrippa’s appearances frame the scene (25:13, 22), its heart is Festus’s sharing his own opinion of the case (particularly Paul’s innocence with respect to Roman law, 25:14–21). This scene raises two important introductory questions, the first more historical and the second more literary. First, what, if anything, is Luke’s source for this private scene? Second, how do we make sense of Festus’s apparent conviction of Paul’s innocence in the logic of the larger narrative, in which he sends him to Rome as a prisoner?
What is Luke’s source for the information in this scene?1010 His potential “inside sources” for earlier matters in the Herodian family (Luke 8:3; Acts 13:1) might well be deceased and, in any case, certainly were no longer members of that circle. Some biblical prophets were able to supernaturally recount details to which they were not naturally privy (2 Kgs 6:12),1011 and it is not impossible that Luke, who believes that the era of the Spirit and prophetic empowerment has come (Acts 2:17–18), believes himself guided by the Spirit. Josephus himself indicates that the belief in narrators with inspired insights remained current and available as a potential paradigm for pious writers.1012
If, however, Luke simply constructs this scene on the basis of inference from what he knows from public events in 25:24–27 and what could be expected of local advisors to incoming procurators, he acts within the bounds of most Hellenistic and Roman historiography.1013 The event of the meeting and the substance of conversation might be safely inferred, and a good historian could develop this substance into an interesting dialogue scene. Historians regularly composed speeches; the less information historians had concerning the actual speech offered on the occasion, the greater the need for their creativity, according to the rhetorical canon of appropriate speech in character, would be necessary.1014 The author of 1 Maccabees offers Antiochus’s lament to his friends (1 Macc 6:10–13), even though the author could not have known this and presumably would not have pretended to know it.1015 On the basis of what happened in public, Josephus can infer (or guess) what was said in private (e.g., War 2.319). Even Tacitus, perhaps the historian of the early empire most respected today, sometimes indulges in reporting characters’ thoughts and fears (e.g., Hist. 2.74); he probably does so more often than Luke, precisely because Tacitus is more rhetorically sophisticated than is Luke.
This historical approach is not defective, just different from our own; modern historians simply take account of it when reading ancient historians, so as to reproduce the latter’s essential information in ways more amenable to modern approaches. As Ben Witherington points out, although Luke normally edits genuine sources, this section is “not the sort of material Luke would likely have access to”; thus he “may be following the advice of his predecessors in making the speakers say what was appropriate to the occasion.”1016 Or as Barrett puts it (with regard to Festus’s summary of the heart of the debate in Acts 25:19), “Luke can only have guessed at the contents of any conversation between Agrippa and Festus; but it was a good guess.”1017
At some points in the dialogue, Festus’s description of events differs from Luke’s prior narrative. Thus, whereas Festus claims that he would not “grant” Paul over to his adversaries without trial (25:16), Luke earlier says that Festus had planned to “grant” Paul to them at some level (cf. 25:9, 11).1018 This is not a matter of rewording the basic substance (as in Luke 24:48–51 with Acts 1:8–9) or of prophetic license (as in Acts 21:11, 30–33) but more like a slight shading of the truth in one’s favor, as in Lysias’s report in 23:27. Festus is not a completely reliable character here, though he is also not a hostile one like Paul’s accusers.
In this section Festus indicates that he needs to understand Jewish politics better so that he can frame his letter to the emperor most knowledgeably; unlike Felix, he lacks understanding of the relevant issues (24:22, 24), as both he (25:20) and the defendant (26:24–26) recognize. How can he explain to the emperor why he is forwarding an appeal of a person who appears innocent yet cannot simply be freed?1019 He needs the advice—or perhaps the clear approval—of the Jewish king. If the ruling priestly families oppose Paul (25:2), Festus can go “over their head,” from a Roman perspective, by appealing to Agrippa II, who is authorized by Rome to appoint high priests (Jos. Ant. 20.179, 196). This also secures Festus politically vis-à-vis Rome; Nero himself had recently expanded Agrippa’s territories (20.159).
Festus, however, is already convinced that Paul is innocent of any crimes that could warrant death (Acts 25:18–19, 25). Some scholars therefore suggest that the logic appears fragile but appears so because Luke is pointing to Festus’s political motives. Festus’s request of advice for a letter to Caesar (25:26) is a ploy; his real audience will be the Jerusalem aristocrats. Agrippa and Berenice were hellenized and romanized, “perfectly sound spokespersons for the Jews who mattered”; if they could publicly concur with Festus’s suspicion that this was a purely intra-Jewish religious affair,1020 Festus could send Paul on with a letter to that effect while everyone saved face. Although the Jerusalem leaders might complain, Paul’s appeal rescues Festus from the blame. “And the Emperor would respect the judgment of a ‘Jewish king’ that Paul’s troubles stemmed from disputes over a superstition and that it was only his stubborn appeal that forced his delivery to the higher court (26:32).”1021
Whether these political motives supply Festus’s whole motivation is debatable, but at the least they suggest some of the shrewd calculations necessary to address the politics of the situation. With Agrippa’s support, Festus can achieve what he needs without unnecessarily alienating his new constituency. (Josephus’s support of Festus’s procuratorship suggests that whatever the response to his sending away of Paul, much of Jerusalem’s aristocracy was mostly pleased with his performance.)
Luke has special interest in the Herod family,1022 although the earlier sources available for historical information about what Herods said in their courts (Luke 8:3; Acts 13:1) would not be available here. Luke also parallels these Herodians with predecessors in his narrative: earlier Herod Antipas and Pilate became political allies through Jesus (Luke 23:12) as Agrippa II and Festus here do through Paul. But the contrast is more important (see comment on Acts 25:13). Agrippa and Berenice are especially important here as the highest-ranking officials to show openness to Paul and his mission, the first Jewish rulers to receive God’s new messengers positively (previous Herods opposed John, Jesus, and Peter; Luke 3:20; 9:9; 13:31–32; 23:11; Acts 4:27; 12:1–23).
b. The Visit of Agrippa and Berenice (25:13)
Following appropriate protocol, Agrippa and his sister Berenice visit the new procurator. These two figures played a prominent role in Judean politics not only during this hearing of Paul but after the Judean war, and they may have been known to better-educated or better-traveled members of Luke’s audience. (As members of the Judean royal family, who continued to play significant roles, they were probably better known than Felix or Festus, who were two among many local governors.)
Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) had two sons (Drusus, who died in childhood, and Agrippa II), and three daughters (Berenice, Mariamne, and Drusilla; Jos. Ant. 18.132). Marcus Julius Agrippa (Agrippa II) was born in 27 C.E. to King Agrippa I and his wife Cyprus (Jos. War 2.220). Agrippa II was seventeen when his father died (Jos. Ant. 19.354), an event reported in Acts 12:23.1023 Claudius was ready to send Agrippa II to replace Agrippa I, but because his advisors persuaded him that the son was as yet too young to rule such a troubled province, he sent Cuspius Fadus as procurator (Jos. Ant. 19.360–63). When Agrippa II’s uncle, Herod of Chalcis, died in 48 C.E., Claudius appointed Agrippa ruler of his territory, and Cumanus took the rest of the land (Jos. War 2.223).1024
Later, after Agrippa had demonstrated his administrative competence and loyalty to Rome, Claudius withdrew Chalcis and gave Agrippa the larger territories of Herod Philip and Lysanias (War 2.247; Ant. 20.138–39; cf. Luke 3:1).1025 Nero further entrusted him with Tiberias, Taricheae, and part of Perea (Jos. Ant. 20.159).1026 Agrippa II honored Nero by renaming Caesarea Philippi “Neronias,” although the name reverted after Nero’s disgraceful death.1027 Agrippa II apparently had his own palace at Caesarea Philippi.1028 Although Agrippa I was also a king (Acts 12:1), as was Herod the Great (Luke 1:5), Luke emphasizes the much smaller kingship of Agrippa II much more (Acts 25:13–14, 24, 26; 26:2, 7, 13, 19, 26–27, 30), perhaps partly because this appearance offers one fulfillment of Jesus’s promise of his servants testifying before kings (Luke 21:12), and because Agrippa II also offers a more positive response.
Although she lacks distinct public speaking parts, Luke includes references to Berenice as a prominent figure (one perhaps known to Diaspora Jews in his own day because of how close, some Jews believed, she came to becoming empress);1029 she also participates in the positive verdict in Acts 25:30–31. This suggests Luke’s continued interest in balancing genders as well as his primary interest of recruiting a number of prominent voices for positive verdicts on Paul. He seems to presuppose that his audience has heard of her, which would not be surprising given her role in major events that transpired after this narrative.
Although Luke prefers the abbreviated form Βερνίκη (25:13, 23; 26:30) and is not the only writer to employ this form (Jos. War 2.217), Josephus usually employs the fuller name Βερενίκη, which is followed in this commentary.1030 (It was a common name in Macedonian royal families, latinized as “Veronica.”)1031 Berenice was born in 28 C.E.,1032 the sister of Agrippa II (Jos. War 2.220; Life 343). She married Marcus, brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander, in 41 C.E., around the age of thirteen (Ant. 19.276). Her husband apparently died soon after their marriage (19.276–77); her father, Agrippa I, then married her to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis (19.277, 354).1033 Her father died in 44 C.E., when she was sixteen years old (19.354), and her new husband-uncle died in 48 or possibly 49.1034 That she was unprepared to marry immediately afterward is not surprising.1035
After this event she stayed with her brother, Agrippa II, for several years. This stay unfortunately led to suspicions of incest, almost certainly false;1036 in the ancient world even more than today, many people mistrusted powerful women unattached to a husband. The gossip about her was widespread, even outside Judea; Juvenal mocks the renowned diamond that “barbarian” Agrippa gave his “impure” (incestae) sister (Sat. 6.156–60, esp. 158).1037 One scholar who doubts that the report is creditable nevertheless thinks it likely that “a Hellenistic philadelphic marriage” would not have horrified her or Agrippa.1038 Even such a concession is improbable. Although the Egyptian practice of sibling marriage1039 may have influenced Ptolemaic Egypt, the usual Greek custom allowed only paternal half-sisters.1040 Otherwise, intercourse with one’s sister was highly dishonorable.1041 Berenice was Agrippa’s full sister, born from the same mother (Jos. War 2.220).
To quell the rumors of incest, in 53/54 C.E. she married Polemon, a ruler in Cilicia, after her wealth apparently persuaded him to accept circumcision as a tolerable price for the marriage (Jos. Ant. 20.145–46; contrast comment on Drusilla at Acts 24:24). Yet the marriage did not prove tolerable; she quickly deserted him, and he immediately abandoned his pretense of Jewish conversion (Ant. 20.146).1042 She may have remained with her brother Agrippa as late as 65–66;1043 they apparently had close and possibly even adjoining palaces in Jerusalem (War 2.426).
Berenice was pious by the standards of the Herodian family (War 2.313) and in 66 C.E. vainly risked her life to protect the lives of her people (2.310–12, 314). She joined Jerusalem leaders in protesting Florus’s massacres to the Syrian legate (2.333).1044 Nevertheless, she suffered the resentment of revolutionaries retaliating against all symbols of their oppression; soon after her attempted intervention for peace, they burned both the homes of the wealthy, including hers, and the records of their debts (2.426–27). Later she secured her brother’s mercy toward one Justus, condemned to death for his part in the revolt (Life 343, 355).1045
Berenice had a well-known love affair with Titus, the son of the general sent to suppress the Judean revolt and himself the general who finished it. He was about eleven years her junior, but even at about forty, Berenice was said to retain all her charm. When Titus turned back from his mission to Rome because of the emperor Galba’s unexpected death, some wrongly thought that he turned back only because of longing for Berenice (Tac. Hist. 2.2). He apparently promised her marriage, though his love for Berenice engendered suspicions of his unchastity along with his alleged use of “catamites and eunuchs” (Suet. Tit. 7.1). After their love affair in Judea, Titus and Berenice lived together openly when she visited Rome (starting in 75 C.E.), but out of deference to Roman opinion he dared not marry her.
When Titus became emperor in 79 C.E., he observed the higher standard expected of his new status; he sent her from Rome against the wishes of both.1046 When she visited Rome again, he refused to see her;1047 imperial duty came before personal affection.1048 Although Josephus protests that the temple’s destruction was not Titus’s fault (War 6.254–66),1049 later Jewish sources blame him for it and seethe with hatred for him.1050 The contrary destinies of two peoples inexorably rent apart by their respective ethnic histories doomed the couple’s romance. With tragic consequences for individual lives enmeshed in Jewish or Roman society, nothing quickly erased the momentous collision of competing nationalisms, whether the ethnic reconciliation in Christ that Paul preached, Roman tolerance for loyal subjects, or Jewish teachings on love of neighbor.
There is no reason to think that Agrippa II and his sister Berenice were disappointed to see Felix replaced (Acts 24:27), convenient as it may have been to have a brother-in-law as procurator. Berenice reportedly had been jealous of her sister Drusilla’s beauty (Jos. Ant. 20.143). The circumstances of Felix’s marriage to Drusilla were also scandalous, contravening Jewish laws (20.143).1051 The king of Emesa had been circumcised to marry Drusilla, but she left him for Felix, who never adopted Judaism himself; Jewish people were enraged, and so far as we can tell Agrippa II never granted the marriage official approval.1052 By contrast, Agrippa and Festus apparently worked together on fairly good terms (20.193–96). (Unlike Festus, Felix, with his local experience, Jewish wife, and possible tensions with Agrippa, had never introduced Paul to Agrippa, though it is not impossible that the latter could have heard of Paul [cf. Acts 25:22].)
III. CHARACTERS IN LUKE’S NARRATIVE AND EXTRINSIC WORLDS
Why does Luke call Agrippa I only “Herod,” reserving the name “Agrippa” for his son Agrippa II? Uninformed members of Luke’s first audience might well blend the ill-fated oppressor of the apostles in Acts 12 with John the Baptist’s wicked executioner in the Gospel (like the other Gospels, Luke calls Herod Antipas only “Herod”; Luke 3:19; 9:7–9; 13:31; 23:7–12; Acts 4:27). But Luke wants to portray Agrippa II very differently, and associations generated by a shared name “would run counter to the needs of the narrative,” as Tannehill notes, “for the two kings play quite different roles.” Herod is a persecutor whereas Agrippa supports Paul.1053
Luke has another reason for emphasizing the younger Agrippa’s name with positive associations. He follows gospel tradition in designating Herod Antipas only “Herod” and wishes to associate Herod Agrippa I, who caters to Judean nationalists (Acts 12:3), with him.1054 But even the first-century reader in Luke’s especially northeastern Mediterranean world who was least knowledgeable in Judean affairs would recognize that Agrippa was a Roman name.1055 The most famous bearer of this Roman cognomen was Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Augustus’s son-in-law; by adopting this name, members of the Herodian family demonstrated their close connections with the members of the Julio-Claudian imperial family as their patrons.1056 Those who knew more about Judea would know that Agrippa II remained a Jewish leader influential with and respected by Rome even during the period when Luke was writing; Luke, like Josephus, has good reason to portray this living figure favorably (in addition to Agrippa’s apparently conciliatory character).
Berenice and Agrippa would not be offensive figures to pro-Roman readers; they clearly opposed the revolt and were pro-Roman to the end.1057 Naturally, Festus would find Agrippa’s company more congenial than that of the Jerusalem municipal elite, who, from his perspective, might seem intransigent, corrupt, and ungrateful for Rome’s benefits toward their class. Further, if Festus found an ally in Agrippa, the high priests would have much less to say about the case.
The chief priests would have to concede that Agrippa II, for all his Roman affinities, was a benefactor. When the chief priests’ ambassadors to Caesar requested the return of priestly vestments, Agrippa, who was then in Rome, interceded on their behalf (Jos. Ant. 20.9). Caesar granted the request, informing the ambassadors that they had Agrippa to thank (20.10). Likewise, Claudius’s “freedmen” and “friends” supported Cumanus and the Samaritans against the Jews (including the high priest Ananias, sent to Rome in 20.131), and the Judeans’ opponents would have succeeded against them had not Agrippa, then still in Rome, persuaded the empress Agrippina in favor of the Jews (Jos. Ant. 20.135).
Still, Agrippa II probably had a better relationship with Festus than with some of the high priests. Agrippa had a conflict with Ishmael, the new high priest, over Agrippa’s palace view of the temple courts (Ant. 20.189–93), which led him to replace Ishmael as high priest (20.196).1058 For reasons of military security, Festus took Agrippa’s side against Ishmael (20.193). Agrippa freely exercised his legal authority from the Romans to replace high priests (20.179, 195–96, 203, 223).
Significantly, Agrippa at some point was titled a “friend of Caesar” (OGIS 419). Educated in Rome (Jos. Ant. 19.360), he maintained his pro-Roman posture throughout his life (cf., e.g., Jos. Life 340).1059 When Florus massacred Jerusalemites, Agrippa publicly reproved the elite among his own people to dissuade them from escalating the violence (War 2.337–38). Accusing Florus seemed too dangerous, but so was neglecting the Judean unrest (2.343); thus he and Berenice calmed the people and temporarily secured peace with Rome (2.344–406).
The Roman sympathies of Agrippa and Berenice would not have endeared them to everyone. When rioters destroyed the house of Ananias in the upper city, they also destroyed the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice (War 2.426). Agrippa struck a coin in 89 C.E. portraying Nike (goddess of victory), commemorating the Roman victory over Judea.1060 For Luke, Agrippa II would be a character relating to Israel in an ambivalent manner, somewhat analogously to Paul (though Paul would never have commemorated Jerusalem’s destruction): they were not always appreciated, but they pointed the way to the future by supporting peaceful coexistence with Rome and the Gentiles.1061
After 70 C.E., the mostly Pharisaic sages of Yavneh still recognized the legitimacy of Agrippa’s dynasty,1062 but when he finally died childless about 92 C.E., the Herodian ruling dynasty ended.1063 He thus remained alive and widely respected during the period when Luke was probably writing. Luke does not portray as honorable the demise of Agrippa II’s father, but neither does Josephus (see comment on Acts 12:23), who owed much to the benevolence of Agrippa II.1064 Whatever many Judeans may have thought of Agrippa’s policies during the war, he had clearly emerged as a popular voice for moderation and was well respected in the era in which Luke was probably writing, after voices for Jewish resistance were largely discredited (at least outside Judea and North Africa). His openness to Paul therefore provided Luke with one of his climactic examples of people of status (in this case, even much higher than Theophilus’s possibly equestrian rank) respecting Paul’s message.
IV. ROYAL CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW GOVERNOR
Hospitality and greetings were part of the fabric of politeness in Greek and Roman society (see comment on greetings in Acts 21:7). As governor, Cicero daily received at dawn “those who came to pay him their respects” (Plut. Cic. 36.3).1065 Offering congratulations was part of the culture as well,1066 including congratulations to new officials or governors.1067 Thus, for example, when Alexander became a leader, other leaders among the Greeks allegedly came to congratulate him (Plut. Alex. 14.1); Titus was on his way to congratulate Galba for his accession (but stopped in Corinth when he learned that Galba had died and others vied for power; Tac. Hist. 2.1). To breach protocol by not properly welcoming visitors of high social status risked insulting them and generating enmity (cf. Plut. Caes. 60.3).1068 One who had good reason might request permission to be excused.1069
We know that Agrippa II took seriously the obligation of congratulating new rulers.1070 A few years after the events that Luke describes here, Agrippa was in Alexandria congratulating Alexander for receiving the governorship of Egypt from Nero (Jos. War 2.309).1071 Agrippa also met Cestius Gallus, legate of Syria,1072 at Antioch (2.481),1073 and Vespasian (3.29). He also accompanied Titus when he went to congratulate Galba; Titus stopped when he learned of Galba’s assassination, as noted above, but Agrippa continued so that he could congratulate whoever became emperor (4.498–501). (At Berenice’s urging, however, he returned to take the oath of allegiance to Vespasian [Tac. Hist. 2.81].)1074 “The conclusion to be drawn from all of these visits,” Robert O’Toole notes, is that “we would expect the visit of Agrippa II and Bernice to the newly appointed Festus in Acts 25:13ff.”1075 Agrippa and Berenice would visit Festus in “Herod’s praetorium” (Acts 23:25)—that is, a palace built initially by their own famous ancestor.1076
Historically, Agrippa and Festus probably established a good working relationship (Jos. Ant. 20.193–96);1077 given both the problems of Festus’s predecessor, Felix, and the helpfulness of Agrippa’s being more romanized than most of the Jerusalem elite, it is reasonable to suppose that they sought to establish a good relationship from the first visit. In Luke’s narrative, Festus and Agrippa use the case of Paul to “bond”: Festus requests the favor of Agrippa’s counsel; Agrippa responds affirmatively; and according to Roman reciprocity conventions, they establish amicitia, friendship.1078 In a similar way, Luke suggests that Pilate and Herod Antipas used Jesus as a political pawn to establish their own relationship. Formerly at enmity, they established a friendship relationship by showing respect to each other on Jesus’s account (Luke 23:12).1079
Because Agrippa was likely still alive and in favor when Luke wrote,1080 it would be precarious for Luke to invent Agrippa’s presence at Paul’s hearing if Agrippa was not in fact present. To publish a document one hoped to circulate widely yet include false information about important persons whose enmity such publication could earn was hubris—not impossible, but neither is it the likeliest hypothesis. Josephus, probably writing later than Luke, likewise notes that he dares not have falsified information while witnesses such as Agrippa remain alive (Ag. Ap. 1.50–51); he complains about his rival who waited until after eyewitnesses were dead to publish his rival side of the story (Life 359–60).
c. Festus’s Proposal (25:14–21)
Festus broaches the matter of Paul with Agrippa, apparently in the course of conversation. Recognizing Agrippa’s romanization, he can ask for counsel about how to deal with a case for which he is culturally ill prepared: local Judean authorities want to condemn Paul on grounds completely unacceptable to Roman law. Festus needs to uphold Roman law but does not wish to exacerbate conflict with local leaders. Paul, the Roman citizen, prefers appealing to Rome to being tried in Jerusalem; although this relieves Festus of partial responsibility, he still needs to know what to write in a letter that will become publicly accessible (Acts 25:26).
I. BROACHING PAUL’S CASE (25:14–15)
Agrippa and Berenice’s stay of “many days” is apparently longer than Festus’s stay of eight to ten days in Jerusalem (25:6).1081 Festus went to Jerusalem almost immediately (25:1); the royal siblings’ courtesy visit is about two weeks after Festus’s arrival, but after he has finished in Jerusalem and has more leisure to receive them properly. Presumably briefed before sailing from Rome, Festus would expect a positive relationship with the romanized Agrippa but would also see the need to work on a relationship with Jerusalem’s elite.
Festus may consider Paul’s matter mostly resolved (25:12), not a pressing enough issue to raise early in the meeting, or perhaps he is restrained by the propriety of developing a friendly relationship first. Possibly both considerations are at work. In any case, he does not raise Paul’s case initially, but only after some time, perhaps in the course of conversation.
Recognizing Agrippa’s sensitivity to both cultures, he solicits his opinion. Since Agrippa also had troubles with the Jerusalem aristocracy (partly because he was more pro-Roman, partly because he was less traditional in his views), it is not surprising that the issue of a Roman citizen condemned by Jerusalem’s elite would arise (25:15–16). (Had the case remained more important to Festus, he undoubtedly could have solicited local advice sooner, as Lysias did in 22:30; Agrippa has been there for many days.)1082 Paul’s appeal is already granted, but Agrippa can provide advice how to frame the letter (25:26), providing Festus with a favor and so solidifying their working “friendship” (see above; cf. Luke 23:12). Perhaps no less important, Agrippa’s verdict will help provide Festus a cover against charges of insensitivity to local Judean demands.
II. LOCAL DEMANDS VERSUS ROMAN LAW (25:16–18)
Retellings of events sometimes supplement details omitted earlier, so that Luke does not need to recount each detail in both versions (cf., e.g., the “forty days” of 1:3 with Luke 24:36–51). Festus may therefore have earlier appealed explicitly to Roman custom, as he suggests in Acts 25:16. Nevertheless, the pattern here is that Festus includes especially the details that present him in a good light.1083
Although Festus wants to be diplomatic with the Jerusalem elite, they know very well the Roman custom of not handing someone over without a defense (Acts 25:16; central to Roman law; cf. 23:30, 35);1084 even Felix refused to simply hand Paul over without trial. (Indeed, Felix, despite offering a related favor under political duress [24:27], did not hand Paul the citizen over to his accusers even afterward.)1085 Romans prided themselves in aequitas romana, Roman fairness; accusations could not be anonymous (cf. 24:19; Pliny Ep. 10.97), and defendants must have the opportunity to make their case before the judge and accusers.1086 This was thought all the more pressing if the stakes were serious (Pliny Ep. 2.11.9), as is the case here.1087 When some were executed without this due process, it revealed corruption in the system (Tac. Hist. 1.6; Pliny Ep. 4.11.6).1088 The system did not always work (as Luke recognized, Acts 16:20–23), but when it did not, the officials knew that it should have worked and were worried about the consequences (16:38–39).1089
Festus initially resisted a relocation of the venue to Jerusalem (25:3, 5), even though the request was probably not for a Jewish trial without Festus judging but rather, more likely, simply for relocation (with Festus judging but the local elite advising). In any case, he portrays his own role here positively for Agrippa, who would approve of his stated reason for noncompliance, and omits his later willingness to grant a change of venue to Jerusalem. Even in that case, Festus would remain the judge (25:9), and so he has not at any point capitulated to handing Paul over. Neither, however, has he simply freed him in view of the lack of concrete evidence against him on relevant charges (25:7). On his lack of delay, see comments on Acts 25:1, 6.
In 25:18, Festus confesses that he was expecting crimes for which the sentence of death could be executed (25:25) but found only debates about Jewish laws (25:19). Presumably Paul’s accusers did offer capital charges (25:7–8); but they could not prove these (25:7), and Paul succeeded in demonstrating that the debate fell back to matters of theology (24:14–15, 20–21). Now Festus needs an expert in these laws who is also conversant with Roman thought and can interpret their relevance for him (25:26). “Crimes such as I was expecting” might also be rendered “crimes which I could recognize as such,” reflecting the Latin legal formula de quibus cognoscere volebam; that is, these were not crimes he could accept as such under Roman law.1090 As elsewhere in Luke-Acts, the Christian movement’s accusers lacked proper “cause” or basis for prosecution (e.g., Luke 23:4; Acts 13:28; cf. 22:24; 25:27).
III. MERELY RELIGIOUS DISPUTES (25:19)
Paul’s accusers failed to prove the sedition charges (Acts 24:5; 25:8–9). The dispute was an intra-Jewish one, as previous Roman investigations or hearings had concluded (18:14–15; 23:29). The term for “disagreement” (ζήτημα) appears only in Acts in the NT;1091 it does not imply that the matters must have been unimportant (cf. 15:2; 26:3), but it does indicate that they were not relevant to the jurisdiction of a Roman court (18:15; 23:29), the only court authorized to execute a death sentence. Every use in Acts applies to Jewish (or, in 15:2, specifically Jewish-Christian) issues. Paul himself would have agreed in viewing the debate as an intra-Jewish one; not only in his speeches in Acts but in Paul’s extant letters, it is clear that he viewed his faith as genuinely Jewish, the epitome and fulfillment of OT expectations.1092
When Festus speaks of “religious” disagreements, he employs δεισιδαιμονία, the noun cognate of the adjective that Paul applies to Athenian paganism in 17:22. It is often, though not always, pejorative in Greek; its Latin equivalent, superstitio, was nearly always negative. Because Festus is speaking with a Jew, some scholars argue that he cannot employ the term in a derogatory manner;1093 others argue that because he views Agrippa as hellenized and “progressive,” he can be derogatory and expect Agrippa to agree.1094 But while Agrippa may have viewed some of the priests’ views as superstitious, he would not have concurred, nor would Festus have expected him to concur, with the view that his Jewish faith as a whole (which seems to be the ground of overlap between Paul and the Jerusalem elite) was a superstition! (For Luke’s usage, see comment on Acts 17:22.)
This is not the first time Luke presents someone with a benignly tolerant skepticism toward the claim that Jesus had risen (Luke 24:23). Festus does not agree with the resurrection notion, but to himself, Felix, and Agrippa, it is not a legal issue or an issue affecting the stability of the state. No one disagreed with the statement that Jesus was human (Acts 2:22; 17:31). Festus is undoubtedly aware of traditions of dying and rising gods1095 but sees Jesus as a man, in terms quite different from those gods. Perhaps he would think of posthumous apparitions1096 or a simple disagreement about whether Jesus had indeed actually died. In any case, he demonstrates that he misunderstands this notion of resurrection (like the philosophers in Acts 17:18).1097 The issue must have been covered in the events summarized in 25:7–8, but Festus, unlike Felix (24:22), lacks the grasp of the Jewish categories needed to comprehend the point.
The issue has shifted from profaning the temple (a false and unprovable charge) to the theological question of whether the Christian movement remains part of Judaism. Festus may lack patience for such questions (cf. Gallio in 18:15), but this question could determine whether the movement should be viewed as part of a tolerated ethnic religion or as a rapidly growing, uncontrolled, and subversive cult.1098 For Luke, whose Christian circles include many ethnic Gentiles, the relationship of the Christian movement to Judaism was a live question.1099 The failure to persuade some synagogues and officials in cities and provinces about the Jewishness of the Christian movement sometimes led to persecution in those places, probably within two decades of Luke’s writing.1100
IV. PREFERRING ROME TO JERUSALEM (25:20–21)
That Paul prefers Rome to Jerusalem serves the larger narrative’s geographic direction (from Jerusalem to Rome) and also enables the preservation of Paul’s life. Jewish Roman citizens could escape local Jewish jurisdiction by appealing to Roman authorities; in a case of evading internal Jewish law, this appeal might be viewed as an act of apostasy (something that Paul denies in Acts [28:19–20] and that his letters also attest he had long avoided [2 Cor 11:24]), but in a capital case where the local authorities could not be trusted for fairness, it was thoroughly understandable.
Festus’s admission that he is not competent to adjudicate the matter properly (Acts 25:20) reinforces Luke’s essential point that an internal Jewish dispute is in view.1101 The “question” or “issue” (ζήτησις, also 15:2, 7) probably functions as the equivalent of the Latin legal use of quaestio, a matter needing to be examined by judicial inquiry.1102
Festus’s claim that he merely wanted to obtain good advice from the Jerusalem leaders (as his consilium; see comment on Acts 25:12), however, paints his motives differently than does Luke (25:9) or Luke’s usually reliable protagonist, Paul (25:11).1103 Although Festus states matters more positively, it is probably true that he did want local advice, and he is implying to Agrippa at this point his desire for it (25:14, 22).1104 Some Roman officials would have simply deferred to the high priest to evaluate disputes about Jewish customs (Julius Caesar in Jos. Ant. 14.195). Deferring a politically difficult case to other properly constituted authorities could be helpful (Luke 23:6–7; Acts 23:34).
In the NT, only Luke uses διαπορέω, and he uses it to indicate perplexity (Luke 9:7; Acts 2:12; 5:24; 10:17); it can apply to officials debating their options—for example, Cicero being perplexed (διαποροῦντος) as to whether he should execute the criminals or show mercy (Plut. Cic. 20.1). But the cognate ἀπορέω (used here, in Acts 25:20) appears elsewhere (Mark 6:20; John 13:22; 2 Cor 4:8; Gal 4:20; Luke 24:4; cf. 1 Macc 3:31; Sir 18:7).1105 Dio Chrysostom also invites his audience to give advice (Or. 47.12, 13, 14, 19, 20), using ἀπορέω (47.18). When Festus states that he is at a loss, he is soliciting advice, but not merely as a rhetorical device.
The Greek term Σεβαστός in Acts 25:21 (cf. also 25:25; 27:1) applied to the emperor and was equivalent to “Augustus,” the “august one” (Luke 2:1, where it is employed in its narrower sense for Octavian).1106 Apart from Tiberius, Octavian’s successors adopted “Augustus” as a generic imperial title. The term διάγνωσις was used in legal settings for a legal decision or for a judicial inquiry culminating in one (Latin cognitio).1107 The term for “sending” to Caesar (ἀναπέμπω) also had a common technical sense of sending to one higher in authority.1108
Agrippa was probably eager to offer his expertise to Festus, solidifying their working relationship, and he could best help Festus describe the case (Acts 25:20, 26) if he heard Paul. But Agrippa may also have further interest in the case; Festus has mentioned that the religious dispute concerns Jesus, whom Paul claims to be alive (25:19), and Agrippa already knows of the sect (26:26–28). Agrippa’s interest in hearing Paul himself recalls Antipas’s earlier interest in hearing Jesus himself (Luke 9:9; 23:8).1109
This hearing will fulfill part of Luke’s nearer eschatology; before the wars, earthquakes, and so forth (Luke 21:10–12a), imprisoned disciples would be brought before kings and governors (21:12; one of each in this case), with opportunity to testify in a way that no one could refute (21:14–15). The tradition of Paul’s testimony before rulers was not soon forgotten (1 Clem. 5.7).
A provincial governor could have a busy schedule, but Festus has made building relationships with the local elite a priority (Acts 25:1–2, 9, 13–14) and hence schedules a hearing for Paul the next day (cf. also 25:6). He is deliberate in his efficiency (in 25:17, he notes that he made no delay), a clear enough contrast with Felix (24:22, 27).
7. Paul before Agrippa (25:23–26:32)
Paul’s defense speeches (before Jerusalem’s crowds, the Sanhedrin, governors, and now Agrippa) may climax his earlier ministry, but the speech before Agrippa certainly climaxes the defense speeches. Paul is a citizen of both the Jewish and the Roman worlds, and he now addresses a hearer competent to understand both, as he himself does. Paul’s rhetoric and message are geared toward persuasiveness; he seeks to persuade Agrippa that the faith is true, but if he succeeds even in showing it plausible and pious, he will serve the cause of continuing tolerance for it.1110
a. Introducing the Hearing (25:23–26:1a)
This paragraph sets the stage for Paul’s speech before Agrippa (along with Berenice and Festus), including Festus’s public summary that he found nothing worthy of death (25:25). The goal of hearing Paul’s speech is to provide what to write to Rome (25:26–27); Paul’s speech will confirm that his own interests are theological, not directly political (26:2–29), leading to the consent of all three evaluators that Paul is not worthy of death or even prison (25:31), even though he will go to Rome in Roman custody. All of this serves well Luke’s apologetic for Paul, although it is an apologetic (for Paul’s interests as being theological rather than politically subversive) to which readers of Paul’s letters would generally give assent.
I. A PROMINENT AUDIENCE (25:23)
In a world where social status proved highly influential both in courts and in public opinion, Paul’s exalted audience here is significant. Even if Paul might have preferred to devote his time to larger numbers of people, he now had the rare opportunity to expose his message to prominent people who would have a bearing on the tolerance accorded the movement.1111
The elite’s earthly pomp1112 contrasts starkly with Paul’s chains (26:29); the true king’s honorable ambassador (cf. 2 Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20) arrives in humiliation before an earthly court (though he succeeds in his presentation).1113 As Garnsey and Saller point out: “Romans paraded their rank whenever they appeared in public, and nowhere more conspicuously than at public spectacles in theatre, amphitheatre and circus. In Rome, Augustus confirmed and extended late Republican arrangements that allocated special seats or rows of seats to senators, equestrians and citizens.”1114 Cities in general also maintained distinctions in seating, visually reinforcing structure;1115 of course, in the procurator’s court in Herod’s old palace, only people of rank (other than guards or servants) would be present. Jewish leaders could also display pomp (1 Macc 11:6); Luke’s audience may well think of Agrippa II’s father, who displayed his pomp in Acts 12:21.1116 Yet it proved futile and empty before God (12:23; cf. Ps 49:12, 20; Isa 14:11).1117 A biblically informed hearer might think of the pomp of Israel’s and Judah’s kings when Micaiah the prophet was brought before them (1 Kgs 22:10).
That Festus’s tribunes (χιλιάρχοι) are in attendance provides a display of Roman military power; the Judean governor until 66 had six cohorts (Jos. Ant. 19.364) with one tribune each, all citizens no less than Paul, normally drawn from the equestrian order (see comments on Acts 10:1; 22:28). (Most of Judea’s Roman troops—five cohorts—were stationed in Caesarea.) The tribune of the cohort stationed in Jerusalem1118 would not be present; as many as five tribunes, however, might be present on this occasion.1119 Presumably, any military activities in Caesarea (such as regular training exercises), if any were going on, could be directly supervised by the centurions. Festus may have his tribunes, men of honorable Roman rank, present to honor Agrippa’s visit.
In addition to Roman military leaders, Caesarea’s prominent men are in attendance; as Johnson notes, inviting many officials was a familiar practice.1120 Herod the Great invited the Syrian legate Varus to consult on the issue of Antipater; to their council were also invited friends and relatives, including the king’s sister Salome (Jos. Ant. 17.93; cf. War 1.620). Marcus Agrippa in Ionia had officials and kings present to hear an appeal (Ant. 16.30).1121 Paul’s case was not as noteworthy as these, but the presence of leading citizens from Caesarea itself is in no way surprising.
It might appear that the prominent guests had short notice (Acts 25:22), but in fact they are doing what any client would do for his patron during the patron’s court sessions. It was also prudent for local leaders to establish ties with a new governor early in his tenure; this would be especially the case in a city such as Caesarea, where Jews and Gentiles each vied for the governor’s favor (though Gentiles would have the upper hand politically and are presumably dominant here, 25:24). The previous governor’s apparent favoring of Gentiles over Jews in this very city led to a Jewish delegation’s accusing him before the emperor.1122
(2) The Assembly’s Significance
Still, the assembly seems unduly elevated for normal daily hearings; it was likely Agrippa’s presence on this day (and perhaps some previous days, accompanying his host) that drew an additional crowd. Even if Agrippa had accompanied his host to his hearings fairly regularly during the visit, this day’s presentation was specifically in honor of Agrippa (so 25:23), with him as the primary audience (25:24–26:1).1123 Paul also recognizes this focus (26:2–3, 19, 26–27), though he also welcomes the other hearers (26:29). Festus presents this case as a special one meriting a wide hearing—ironically, as the direct result of the status of Paul’s accusers and the priority they have attributed to him (24:5c; 25:2; esp. 25:24). It is not surprising that Berenice would also be welcome: she was a royal figure prominent in these years and in years that followed; some scholars, indeed, argue that she even served on Vespasian’s consilium for a time afterward.1124 (Paul follows accepted custom in addressing Agrippa more directly than his sister, especially since she does not speak publicly here.)1125
For Luke’s purposes, however, the large entourage demonstrates again the opportunity Paul’s detention afforded him to proclaim Christ to influential persons in society (Luke 21:12–13).1126 For Festus, Agrippa is the guest of honor; for Luke, it is Paul who gains most in honor. Paul’s social status allowed him a significant earthly audience (comparable to Jesus’s appearances, with less social status, before Pilate, Antipas, and Jerusalem’s municipal elite). Against his detractors (cf. already perhaps Phil 1:15, 17), Paul’s detention was no accident, tragedy, or divine judgment; it was a divine opportunity (cf. already 1:12–18).
Although Paul’s not being anti-Roman might impress the tribunes stationed in Caesarea (which had a significant movement of Jesus’s followers, Acts 21:8, 12, 16), Luke’s audience might envision some of these tribunes as involved in the war that broke out in 66 C.E. (although, given the intervening years—the number depending on whether we date this hearing as early as 56 or as late as 60—most would not be).1127 The reader should not think of Cornelius, a Roman centurion converted in Caesarea nearly two decades earlier. If Cornelius was not retired already in Acts 10, he certainly would have been long retired by now; the normal tenure of a soldier’s service was two decades,1128 and centurions promoted from the ranks1129 (as Cornelius may have been) could take many years to achieve that position.
Given the prominent guests present (25:23) and the lack of any mention of the presence of Paul’s accusers (Festus simply summarizes their voice in 25:24), it is clear that the purpose of this hearing is only to give Agrippa the opportunity to offer his opinion, not to provide another genuine trial of Paul.1130 Paul is thus explaining his gospel rather than defending his life here (thereby, however, also reinforcing his positive ēthos and keeping the focus on the theological question, according to his strategy throughout the case). Given the high status of the audience, it is not likely that Luke or any of Paul’s other companions would be here as in a formal trial. Luke would, however, have an abundance of opportunity to secure the summary of the events from Paul (27:1–2).
II. FESTUS’S PUBLIC EXPLANATION (25:24–27)
Having explained Paul’s situation privately to Agrippa and Berenice (25:14–21), Festus now rehearses it for all the officials present as he holds court concerning Paul’s case.
(1) The Jewish Complaint (25:24)
Festus’s “all the Jewish multitude”1131 (25:24) is dramatic hyperbole, though perhaps some local Caesarean Jews have now joined in the Jerusalemite charge (“both in Jerusalem and here”).1132 The chief priests who had presented the charges spoke for elite families in Jerusalem (25:1–3) and were certainly outnumbered by the Nazarenes (21:20). For Luke, the summary declaration that Paul should no longer live echoes the cry of the crowds in 22:22. The hyperbolic summary of the accusers here also serves to remind Luke’s audience that only God’s providence (through Felix and especially Festus) kept Paul from being handed over to such powerful political interests.
Festus may raise the stakes for dramatic effect, but he also portrays Paul’s situation as a Jewish-Roman issue, so that if even the Jewish king exonerates Paul, the case may be regarded as settled. The Jewish-Roman way of presenting the case would have fit Festus’s perceptions (a Roman citizen versus local officials in the Judean province), but it also ironically supports Luke’s message: wrongly accused of having taken a Gentile into the temple (21:27–29), Paul did, indeed, bring uncircumcised Gentiles into Judaism; did, indeed, represent a ministry to Gentiles rejected by his nationalist siblings (22:21–22); and planned to bring his message even to Rome itself (28:16–31). In view of the temple’s destruction, Luke can present Paul’s way (welcoming and converting Gentiles instead of nationalist resistance) as the right way for Israel’s future.
(2) Festus’s Perspective (25:25)
In 25:25, Festus openly declares his own sentiments about the case, quite usefully for Luke. Just as the Roman governor and the Herodian ruler three times declare Jesus not guilty (Luke 23:4, 15, 22; cf. also 23:47), so the Roman governor and the Herodian king three times declare Paul not guilty (Acts 23:29; 25:25; 26:31).1133 If Paul had committed any crimes, they were crimes under Jewish law for which the Romans (who controlled the death penalty in the provinces, except in client kingdoms) would not allow the death sentence (cf. Luke 23:15; Acts 23:29; 25:11, 25; 26:31).
(3) Needing Agrippa’s Counsel (25:26–27)
It is precisely the irregularity of the case that requires Festus to exercise wisdom to know what to write (Acts 25:26).1134 Paul made an appeal without being condemned, yet it is to Festus’s advantage to find grounds to honor the request and have the touchy political situation off his own hands. Given the irregularity, he needs wisdom to word the accompanying letter properly lest he be accused of frivolously sending work to Rome (which sometimes happened, cf. Pliny Ep. 6.31.6). Even a person of the highest status laid his honor on the line when making a recommendation to the emperor (2.9.2).
Nero himself, as well as his subordinates who perhaps would handle the case, would value no Jewish interpretation of the case more highly than Agrippa’s.1135 Festus seeks Agrippa’s advice “especially”1136 because of Agrippa’s expertise in Jewish customs (as Paul notes, Acts 26:3), an expertise rare not among Judeans but among Judeans trusted by Rome and able to articulate Judean views in a manner intelligible to Romans. Because Festus asks Agrippa’s advice so publicly, he undoubtedly intends to follow it1137 (though he is legally free to decide as he chooses); if Agrippa could bear the responsibility for the decision, Festus would be saved from any cause for early friction with the Jerusalem elite (cf. Luke 23:4–7). But by stating his own view (Acts 25:25), he also makes it easier for Agrippa to provide favorable counsel.
That Festus calls Nero his “lord” (25:26; cf. the similar τὸν Σεβαστόν in 25:25) reflects common usage from the reigns of Claudius and especially Nero and later emperors1138 (although this text is rare in using the absolute “the lord”).1139 Augustus may have avoided the title (Suet. Aug. 53.1),1140 but inscriptions show its frequent use for the emperor. Although “lord” appears in papyri as a title for kings from the Ptolemaic period, it began to flourish especially under Nero.1141 Deissmann points out that in Egypt, “everywhere, down to the remotest village, the officials called Nero Kyrios.”1142 The Armenian king Tiridates even honored Nero as his master (δεσπότης) and god (Dio Cass. 62.5.2).1143 “Lord” meant “ruler” and probably bears no direct religious connotations here (notwithstanding its divine connotations in the East)1144 despite the prevalence of the imperial cult1145 in Gentile regions of the eastern Mediterranean world.
In Acts 25:27, Festus may understate the matter when he suggests that it is “unreasonable” (ἄλογον) to send the prisoner without specifying the charges.1146 Sending a report along with the prisoner (such reports were called litterae dimissoriae sive apostoli) was a mandatory procedure (Ulp. Dig. 49.6.1).1147 It was intended as “a covering memorandum explaining the legal aspects of the case.”1148 To simply send Paul without explaining why he was referring rather than dismissing this case would at least annoy the court and might suggest the new governor’s incompetence.1149 The accuser’s and defendants’ petitions presumably would be part of the file (Pliny Ep. 10.59), but a cover letter would be necessary, normally summarizing the facts of the case in a way that displayed some investigation.1150
Nevertheless, Festus has to be more discreet than to spell out the political complications of the case, since the document would be public record. He needs a sensitive way to word the Jewish charges without unnecessarily compromising Roman justice. Whereas the Sanhedrin apparently proposed that he use it as his consilium (Acts 25:3, 9), Festus will use Agrippa as his consiliarius to advise Festus on Jewish questions.1151 (Felix did not need one [24:22, 24].) As Sherwin-White emphasizes:
The complication and prolongation of the trial of Paul arose from the fact that the charge was political—hence the procurators were reluctant to dismiss it out of hand—and yet the evidence was theological, hence the procurators were quite unable to understand it. Not surprisingly, Festus called in King Agrippa as an assessor, to help him draft the explanation which had to be sent with the prisoner to Rome.1152
Agrippa’s visit offers Festus a possible political escape, which Agrippa proves willing to provide. Paul’s defense before Agrippa is not technically a trial (given his appeal to Caesar, already effective), but it will be important for framing how Paul is described to Rome—both inside the narrative world and for Luke’s audience.1153 For Luke, as well as for Festus, Agrippa provides a significant Jewish verdict, by which Luke can counter as bias and misunderstanding the Jewish objections to Paul that his narrative records.1154
III. AGRIPPA ADDRESSES PAUL (26:1A)
Agrippa acts the part of the benevolent ruler, permitting Paul to speak for himself; but for Luke’s Christian audience, Paul in fact holds the higher status as God’s ambassador (cf. 2 Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20).1155 Paul awaits permission to speak, as was customary; even a bold prospective martyr waits for permission before speaking (4 Macc 5:15).
As in the other defense speeches, Paul does not have a human defense attorney (cf. Acts 24:1) to help him but trusts the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:11–12; 21:12–15; cf. John’s “Paraclete,” possibly “Advocate”);1156 Agrippa’s phrase “speak concerning yourself” may underline this point again for the reader. Although Agrippa invites Paul to speak concerning himself (περὶ σεαυτοῦ),1157 Paul uses his own story to speak also about Christ, the focus of most of his defense, as Jesus promised (Luke 21:13). His “innocence” rests on the integrity of his message; hence his speech, though judicial in setting, is able to pursue also a deliberative goal (Acts 26:28–29).1158
b. Proem and Paul’s Background (26:1b–11)
Paul uses the speech’s proem and the beginning of its narratio to emphasize his ēthos: although he has appealed to Caesar, he remains faithful to Judaism. He contends that the charges against him are entirely theological, emphasizing that he remains within Judaism, and has clear evidence (by direct revelation) that Jesus fulfills the true hope of Judaism.
Why then would he be concerned to avoid having to defend himself before the Jerusalem elite?1159 Paul has reason to mistrust the leading priests (26:10, 12) and is a firsthand witness to the subversive repression of the Jesus movement that has probably been politely ignored among the Roman administration that needed to maintain peace with the movement’s oppressors (26:9–12).
I. INTRODUCTION TO PAUL’S SPEECH
In 26:2–29, Paul proclaims Christ to a king, fulfilling Jesus’s promise (Luke 12:11–12; 21:12–13; Acts 9:15).1160 Thus, whereas the king and other hearers within the narrative world may view Paul as a defendant, Luke’s audience will view Paul as fulfilling his divinely ordained destiny.1161 This version of Paul’s conversion and call emphasizes Paul’s mission to turn people to eternal life (Acts 26:18), just as Paul is now hoping to persuade King Agrippa (26:28–29).
(1) Paul’s Climactic Defense Speech
Foakes-Jackson is probably right to argue that this speech, given its distinguished audience and its location as the final speech of this length in Acts (though cf. 28:17–20, 25–28), climaxes the thrust of the book’s major apologetic speeches.1162 Its point is that Paul, far from being a criminal, preaches in obedience to divine revelation and that his message is grounded in the historic hope of Israel and the Scriptures.1163
Whereas Paul makes a defense (ἀπολογέομαι) in the temple (22:1); to Felix (24:10); and to Festus (25:8; cf. Festus’s use of the noun in 25:16), this term appears more often in the context of his speech before Agrippa (26:1, 2, and 24).1164 “Consequently,” O’Toole argues, “the high point of Paul’s defense, to judge from Luke’s stress on apologeisthai . . . , stands in the hearing before Festus and Agrippa II.”1165
Speaking before both a king and a governor, Paul addresses his most socially elevated audience in Acts so far (the appearance before Caesar’s tribunal [27:24] is not narrated).1166 Jesus promised that soon after his ministry (before the wars, earthquakes, etc.; Luke 21:10–12), his disciples would be persecuted and held in synagogues and prisons, and brought before kings and governors (21:12) with the opportunity to testify about him (21:13), and that they would often gain their lives (21:18–19). More clearly than in Acts 24 and 25 (where Paul’s life was directly in danger), Paul’s defense speech in 26:2–29 focuses on explaining and arguing for the truth of his message about the risen Christ.1167 Such preaching was central to Paul’s ministry (Rom 15:18–20; 1 Cor 2:1–4; Gal 4:13), though naturally only letters to churches have been preserved.
This speech represents not only the climax of Paul’s defense speeches but also the third account of his conversion in the book of Acts (Acts 9:1–8; 22:2–21). For this reason, some of the material below will be addressed only cursorily if it has been addressed in more detail in comments on the earlier passages. But one should not for this reason suppose that Luke’s material is less important here; Luke employs repetition to reinforce it all the more.
As was rhetorically appropriate, Luke and Paul present Paul’s story differently for different audiences, yet with a consistent nucleus of events.1168 Each account presents some different features but functions as complementary to the other accounts.1169 Given the OT allusions in distinctively defining Paul’s mission in 26:16–18, this passage links Paul with the OT prophets.1170 Understood in this manner, his revelation from God (26:13–18)1171 is in continuity with his ancestral faith (revealed through Moses and the prophets, 26:22), an ethnic religion that Rome tolerates.1172 This may be why Paul asks Agrippa if he believes the prophets (26:27).
Although Paul uses forensic rhetoric, this is not a “defense” speech in the same sense as the speeches in 24:10–21 or (as a summary) 25:8; Paul speaks not as a defendant answering charges but as a witness in his own defense1173 and, more strangely from a Roman standpoint, a witness for Christ (which may help explain why Festus impatiently interrupts him in 26:24).1174 This is not technically a trial but a hearing to decide the charges to be forwarded to Rome. Whereas other Christians before and after Paul may have been arraigned on their enemies’ false charges, casting their movement in a bad light, Paul is articulate enough to respond to the charges. In a legal system that favors the powerful, Paul’s eloquent voice offers a defense not only for himself but for the movement he represents.
The style is fairly elegant, with subtlety of syntax, paronomasia, some classical usages and Atticisms, and even the language of a Greek proverb. This style suits the speech’s primary audience, a king highly educated in Greek rhetoric.1175
Bligh suggests the following chiastic outline:1176
A Agrippa is familiar with Jewish ways (26:2–3a).
B Paul requests a patient hearing and speaks of Pharisaic training (26:3b–5).
C Paul defends faith in the resurrection (26:6–8).
D Paul persecuted Christians (26:9–11a).
E He did so in foreign cities and Damascus (26:11b–12a).
F He had authority from the high priest; he saw a light (26:12b–13).
G All fell; Christ said, “Why do you persecute me?” (26:14–15a).
H Jesus disclosed himself (26:15b).
G′ Paul was told to stand; Christ promised protection (26:16–17a).
F′ Christ gave Paul authority to lead Gentiles to the light (26:17b–18).
E′ Paul preached in Damascus and among Gentiles (26:19–20).
D′ Jews persecuted Paul, but God protected him (26:21–22a).
C′ Moses and the prophets foretold Jesus’s death and resurrection (26:22b–23).
B′ Festus grows impatient and interrupts, mocking Paul’s learning (26:24–25).
A′ Agrippa understands (26:26a).
Some points may be emphasized or deemphasized to fit the chiastic structure, but this outline at least calls attention to some repeated themes. The emphasis that the above outline ignores, that Paul’s resurrection message is grounded in Israel’s heritage, is a major point toward the beginning (26:5–7) and end (26:22–23) of his speech, but in a genuine and complete speech, this would simply reflect the narratio preparing for the propositio and proofs, which was common.
Bruce suggests the following outline based on content:1177
1. Exordium (26:2–3)
2. Paul’s Pharisaic resurrection hope (26:4–8)
3. His former persecuting zeal (26:9–11)
4. The heavenly vision (26:12–18)
5. His preaching in obedience to the vision (26:19–20)
6. His arrest (26:21)
7. The substance of his preaching (26:22–23)
Because speeches delivered before audiences did not always break down into the ideal outlines and classifications offered in ancient rhetorical handbooks,1178 the function of sections may overlap, and scholars have offered various plausible rhetorical outlines. A few suggestions are noted below, but virtually all of them concur in identifying the exordium in 26:2–3 and the narratio from 26:4 to at least 26:18; that is, they agree in recognizing a disproportionately long narratio. Michel Quesnel suggests the following rhetorical structure:1179
1. Exordium (26:2–3)
2. Refutatio (26:4–8)
3. Narratio (26:9–18), in two parts (26:9–14; 26:15–18)
4. Propositio (26:19–20)
5. Peroratio (26:21–23)
Bruce Winter proposes a similar structure:1180
1. Exordium (26:2–3)
2. Narratio (26:4–18)
3. Confirmatio (26:19–20)
4. Refutatio (26:21), refuting the earlier charge of 24:6
5. Peroratio (26:22–23)
Some agree on the structure through the end of the narratio but see all of 26:19–23 as part of Paul’s argumentatio or probatio.1181
One could argue against one aspect of these outlines by noting that the chronological narrative form of this section (following immediately what precedes) suggests that even 26:19–20 (or as far as 26:23) remains part of the narratio. Given the interruption and Luke’s preference for recounting the narratio of speeches elsewhere, it is entirely possible that, apart from the exordium and propositio, most of Paul’s speech is narratio.1182 Since it is his behavior that is under dispute, a lengthy narrative is appropriate.1183 Like most speeches in Acts, this ends incomplete, in this case barely after it has started.
Given an extended narratio (at least as far as 26:20), 26:21–23 or 26:22–23 might well be Paul’s propositio. On this view, he is interrupted after his propositio, before he can advance proofs (26:24), but the reader loses nothing; Luke has provided the proofs for this proposition (26:22–23) throughout his own narrative and especially in earlier speeches (7:2–53; 13:16–47; 15:15–18).1184 (If one chooses the shorter narratio, one could view 26:21 as the propositio.1185 One could then view 26:22–23 as part of the proofs, but they must have included more elaborate development from OT Scripture, which Luke can simply presuppose from the earlier speeches mentioned above, as in Luke 24:44–45. Scripture proofs would have completely bewildered Festus in Acts 26:24.)
Against any of the outlines being conclusive, speeches did not, in fact, as already noted, always break down as easily as rhetorical handbooks might suggest. But the varied rhetorical approaches share enough common elements (especially on most of the narratio and what some implied proofs would have been) to assist the analysis here.
II. BEGINNING THE SPEECH (26:1B–3)
Stretching out the hand (26:1b) could express a variety of sentiments—for example, authority or compassion (4:30; Luke 5:13), seizing (Luke 22:53) or doing violence (Exod 7:5; 1 Esd 6:33; 1 Macc 6:25) to someone, oath formulas (Num 14:30), or supplication (1 Esd 8:73; 4 Macc 4:11; Sir 4:31). Motions with the hand are used elsewhere in Acts to invite attention (Acts 12:17; 19:33; 21:40; cf. 13:16), but they were also standard rhetorical gestures.1186 The rhetorical gesture must be in view here,1187 but a careful listener who has heard the story more than once may visualize with a dimension of pathos that gesture encumbered with “his chain-laden right hand” (cf. 26:29).1188
The captatio benevolentiae (26:2–3) is honest, more extensive, and more forceful (including μακάριον, though not in its usual LXX sense)1189 than that for Felix (24:10). (In terms of Luke’s own strategy in what information he chooses to narrate, it may be relevant that by the time Luke writes, Agrippa remains respected, in contrast to Felix.) Luke is also more explicit here about Paul’s direct address than in 24:10,1190 although Paul must have also addressed Felix with a title. Counting oneself fortunate to be heard by a fair or knowledgeable judge was a suitable rhetorical claim for opening praise (see, e.g., Apul. Apol. 1). Agrippa knows not only Jewish customs (see comment on Acts 6:14) but also about the “questions” or “debates” among the Jewish people (26:3; see comment on Acts 25:19; cf. 6:9), including therefore about “sects” such as the Nazarenes (24:5, 14; 26:28). He is therefore well qualified to attest that Paul is accused only on theological grounds, on “questions” or “debates” about the law (18:15; 23:29; 25:19). Those pleading cases often expressed special confidence in the judges’ ability.1191
Paul’s assumption that Agrippa was knowledgeable in Jewish affairs (26:3) has occasioned some discussion. Later rabbis reported the piety of Agrippa’s steward1192 and the piety of a King Agrippa, although there is debate as to whether the reference is to the father (Agrippa I) or to the son (Agrippa II, as here).1193 (More likely, the reference is to the father but with implications for how the son would be viewed. Both had some popularity as descendants partly from the Hasmonean line and as rulers whose benefits to Judea had Roman sanction.) After the war, Judeans ready to accept Roman rule were welcome to live in Agrippa’s realm.1194
Luke himself describes Agrippa’s father as catering to conservative elements (12:3), and Josephus portrays Agrippa’s sister Berenice as observing piety (War 2.313), though we lack this specific information about Agrippa II.1195 Josephus does note that the priests did not think him very pious: he had built a dining and reclining area in an elevated Hasmonean palace he used, from which he could watch the activities of the priests in the sanctuary (Ant. 20.189–90), angering Jerusalem’s leaders (20.191). Yet Agrippa’s more liberal attitudes (cf. also 20.218), conjoined with his Roman upbringing and his consequent independence from Jerusalem’s leaders, do work to Paul’s advantage in terms of Roman tolerance.
The point here, however, is not Agrippa’s personal piety but his knowledge of his people and their customs, a matter on which there is no dispute. Paul may implicitly contrast his hearing before Agrippa with those before Felix and Festus. It was naturally counted helpful when a judge was already acquainted with the issues surrounding both sides of a case (Phaedrus 3.13.4). Paul also respectfully echoes the introduction that Festus provided for Agrippa, not only with “King Agrippa” (26:2; 25:26) but with his term for “especially” (26:3; 25:26; two of the three uses in Luke-Acts).
The request for the judge or audience to listen patiently was conventional in ancient speeches;1196 see comment on Acts 24:4, with its promise of brevity. Paul uses the respectful request δέομαι also in Acts 21:39. Ironically, however, Paul’s request for them to hear him patiently so he can finish the speech is not granted (26:24, 28). His judges hear enough to decide his case but are not willing to accommodate his desire to persuade them about his message.
III. PAUL’S PIOUS BACKGROUND (26:4–5)
Paul begins the narration of his background by insisting that his Pharisaic piety is well known in Jerusalem, where he spent most of his life until Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus.
Paul begins his narratio in 26:4–5 with sentences including elegant, classical forms (ἴσασι; ἀκριβεστάτην), displaying his educated Greek (cf. 21:37), though he also employs less impressive forms.1197 Although other uses of the word may turn up, it is also interesting (given the presence of the Jewish ruler) that Paul uses βίωσιν, a term found in this period particularly in Jewish sources (Sir prol. 14; a Jewish inscription from ca. 60–80 C.E.).1198 Paul also rhetorically piles up phrases with overlapping meaning (“from my youth,” “from the beginning,” “for a long time”)1199 that reinforce how deep his Jewish, even Jerusalemite, upbringing goes (cf. Acts 22:3).1200 (The Hellenistic part of his education cannot count against him with Agrippa.)
Encomia typically emphasized the subject’s background,1201 but this topic was also important in defense speeches, where it helped establish ēthos (see discussions at Acts 24:11, 14–17, 16). Others also spoke of behavior “from my youth up.”1202 A speech praising a person would use their background to show that they had made good use of it; conversely, one criticizing a person would use the person’s background to show that their advantages stemmed wholly from nature and not from anything praiseworthy in their volition.1203
If it is known that the defendant misbehaved in the past, he may plead his youth or other reason for the behavior and note that he learned from the experience (Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428b.37–40). This approach could be relevant to Paul’s confession, in Acts 26:10–11, of behavior that was illegal from a Roman standpoint. But such a confession was not ideal; many ancients believed that character was inborn and not easily changed (e.g., Pindar Ol. 11.19–20; 13.12), and so it was far better for one’s own defense to be able to claim that one had not misbehaved. Socrates allegedly claimed that his whole life was his defense (Xen. Mem. 4.8.4).
The Paul of the letters notes that his past was blameless from a technical, legal standpoint (under Jewish, not Roman, law), though not right before God (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–9). Autobiography was often used apologetically (e.g., Jos. Life passim)1204 and, like other biographies, often surveyed early life quickly to move to the relevant part (usually the political, military, philosophic, or other career). It was natural to employ autobiographic narrative this way in a judicial speech.
It was important to be able to produce witnesses in forensic rhetoric,1205 including those to one’s character.1206 Testimony was especially effective when one could appeal to something done in public, noting (or implying) that there were many witnesses.1207
Paul here appeals to common knowledge, a frequent rhetorical technique.1208 Thus someone can cite a fact to which “all Greece” testifies (Eurip. Heracl. 219). Demosthenes suggests that his hearers must know of Meidias’s crimes, familiar to all other citizens (Mid. 1; cf. also 80; the later allusion in Hermog. Inv. 1.1.99). While recalling a past event in the public assembly, Aeschines claims his audience as his witnesses (Embassy 123). That Socrates could have suffered death already because of his stand for what was right, concerning this “you can have many witnesses” (Plato Apol. 32E).1209 Cicero charges that everyone everywhere knows the wicked deeds of Verres.1210
Often such statements included the direct claim that the audience themselves knew (or, by implication, ought to have known) such matters (cf. Acts 2:22; 10:28, 37; 20:18, 34).1211 Aeschines particularly exploits this method in denouncing Timarchus. If you were not the judges, exclaims Aeschines, I would summon all of you as witnesses, since you know the truth of my claims (Tim. 89)! You are probably surprised that I have not yet mentioned Hegesandrus (Tim. 55), since you already know him (and his misdeeds with Timarchus) “better than I” (Tim. 56). You all know that what I am speaking is true (Tim. 65). Aeschines can appeal to their own memories (Tim. 44), though he adds affidavits because it is a court (Tim. 45). The audience’s laughter at some of Timarchus’s words that could carry sexual connotations revealed that they knew his reputation (Tim. 80).
Such claims were also relevant in apologetic autobiography or self-defense. I grew up among you, Aeschines contends; you know my ways and my integrity (Embassy 182, seeking his own acquittal). Rather than merely two or three witnesses, Josephus points to the support of all the Galilean multitude as witnesses on his behalf (Life 257); they could testify to how he has lived (Life 258). A Roman cried, “From early youth I have passed my life before your eyes1212 both as a private citizen and in office; those who needed my voice, my counsel, my purse, have had them.”1213 Jesus in John’s Gospel appeals to those who have heard him (John 18:21). Paul invokes the witness of the Thessalonians to how he has behaved (1 Thess 2:10). See comment on Acts 20:18 for related ideas.
Sometimes witnesses could be reluctant to testify, whether because of the inconvenience (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.9.29) or out of personal sentiments (e.g., a husband reluctant to charge his wife with adultery, 6.31.5–6). Under duress, one might even appeal to the knowledge of witnesses whom one could not induce to testify: “That this story is true,” Isaeus assures us, “many of the Araphenians . . . would probably testify for me, but I could not find anyone to give positive evidence in so grave a matter.”1214
Although they may not be literally present, Paul effectively invites his accusers to “appear as witnesses for the defence.”1215 He is not harsh with them because discrediting adversaries gently (cf. also Acts 26:21) was a more prudent method than doing so severely (Rhet. Alex. 37.1445b.17–19), at least if one’s judge might sympathize with one’s adversaries as much as with oneself.
Paul’s claim that he “lived [ἔζησα, aorist tense] as a Pharisee” does not mean that he has since abandoned Pharisaism, at least from his understanding of the good that constituted the heart of that movement (cf. Acts 23:6);1216 he is simply describing his orthodoxy “from the beginning.” On the meaning of “sect,” see comments at Acts 5:17; 15:5; Josephus already applied it to some Jewish movements, and it was especially relevant to Pharisees.1217 Whereas some used the designation negatively when denouncing the group to which they applied the title (24:5, 14; 28:22), Paul employs it in its less prejudiced sense here. Both his language of “sect” and use of the term “religion” (θρησκεία) would be appropriate in a hearing aimed toward outsiders.1218
Paul underlines his Pharisaic orthodoxy (cf. 22:3; 23:6): he lived according to the “strictest” (ἀκριβεστάτην) sect. Some scholars have suggested that the Qumran scrolls call the Pharisees “speakers of smooth things,”1219 since they were not strict from the perspective of monastic wilderness Essenes.1220 But even if this is true, the Pharisees were the most meticulous observers of the law in mainstream society, the society that any of Paul’s hearers might come in contact with. This expression (ἀκριβεστάτην) praises the Pharisees (and thereby Paul’s Jewish piety in this respect). In general, one could praise a city whose laws were “precise”—that is, carefully and consistently spelled out;1221 a city should also observe its laws meticulously or “with exactness.”1222 Most relevant is that Josephus employs the term to describe the Pharisees’ careful treatment of their people’s laws.1223 Paul probably uses the phrase to mean “most accurate” as well as most meticulous in interpretation (cf. Luke’s other uses of the term and its cognates in Luke 1:3; Acts 18:25–26; 22:3; 23:15, 20; 24:22).
Plato presents Socrates responding to the charge of disbelieving in the gods by arguing that he believes in them more than any of his accusers does (Apol. 35D). By emphasizing his fidelity to the law, Paul defends himself even against the noncapital charges of breaching Jewish law (his first claim in Acts 25:8). Given the diversity of opinion on Jewish interpretation of the law in Paul’s day, and given Paul’s conviction that his zeal for Jesus was the natural fruition of his now better-informed zeal for the law, it would be hard to deny his loyalty to it, though even the vast majority of Pharisees would have found his treatment of uncircumcised Gentiles troublesome if they understood this as making these new believers proselytes rather than God-fearers.
Certainly his central theological tenet that could be controversial, the resurrection, was a good Pharisaic notion and widely held in Palestinian Judaism. Pharisaism was tolerated, yet it rejected the denial of resurrection on which Paul claimed his accusers based their enmity toward him (24:20–21). Having mentioned his tolerated Pharisaism, he can now speak of the centrality of Israel’s hope (26:6–7) that climaxed in the resurrection (26:8). If Pharisaism is tolerated, the charges against him based on that hope (26:6) should be dismissed.
IV. ON TRIAL FOR HIS JEWISH FAITH (26:6–7)
Because it is Pharisaic belief in resurrection in general that makes faith in Jesus’s resurrection intelligible and because Paul has portrayed Sadducean opposition to this tenet as the true basis for opposition (23:6; 24:20–21), Paul can argue that he is on trial basically for sharing the resurrection hope of Judaism. Before a Jewish king, this portrayal of the charge would resemble being charged for performing a benefaction (4:9; cf. 24:17), a portrayal meant to shame the accusers.
(1) The Hope concerning the Promise (26:6)
The language of “promise” here reflects themes that run through Luke-Acts, but Luke-Acts may reveal the influence of Pauline theology of the promise (fulfilled in Christ, e.g., Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:14–29; Eph 3:6).1224 The theme of a promise made to the ancestors evokes the promise that all Abraham’s seed would be blessed (Acts 3:25; through repentance, 3:26), a promise available in the present through the eschatological Spirit (2:38–39). The epistolary Paul also speaks of the blessing of Abraham being available in the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:14; cf. Eph 1:3).
Luke usually associates the divine “promise” either with the future inheritance of God’s people (Acts 7:5, 17), including the resurrection that allows them to attain it (13:32–35; cf. 13:23),1225 or with the present possession of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39), the Spirit being a foretaste or (in Pauline terms) a down payment for the inheritance.
Here the focus of the promise is the “hope” for which the tribes seek (Acts 26:7), namely, the resurrection from the dead (26:8); this claim reflects a frequent use of “hope” in Acts (2:26; cf. 28:20), especially in these defense speeches (23:6; 24:15).1226 For Luke, as for Paul, the present experience of the Spirit is the down payment of future resurrection (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13–14). Luke has a future eschatology, expecting the resurrection of all and apparently also the restoration of Israel (occurring especially in the apostolic preaching), although his realized eschatology (Christ has risen and the Spirit has come) is more foregrounded in his narrative in Acts.1227
The “promise” theme is central to “Paul’s first and last major speeches” (Acts 13:32; 26:6); this theme connects with the Jewish expectation of political freedom (Luke 1:69–75)1228 and with the reign of the Davidic Messiah (Acts 13:23). Luke’s focus on the resurrection might appear to fixate on a minor theme in early Judaism, but not when it is combined with the broader hope of which it is a part.1229 The eschatological hope encompassed both personal resurrection for the righteous and Israel’s corporate restoration (cf. the “twelve tribes” of 26:7).1230 Further, the theme was no minor one for the Pharisees, whose conflicts with Sadducees often focused on this issue (see comment on Acts 23:6–9).