ACTS 23
ACTS 23
8. Paul before the Sanhedrin (23:1-10)
a. Interchange with the high priest (23:1–5)
1 Fixing his eyes on the Sanhedrin, Paul said, “Brothers, I have conducted myself in all good conscience before God until this day.”
2 Then the high priest Ananias ordered those who stood by to strike him across the mouth.
3 “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall,” said Paul to him. “Do you actually sit to judge me according to the law, and order me to be struck in breach of the law?”
4 The bystanders said, “Do you insult God’s high priest?”
5 To which Paul said, “I did not know he was the high priest, brothers; had I known, I should have respected the scripture which says, ‘you shall not revile a ruler of your people.’ ”
1 Brought thus before the Sanhedrin, Paul addressed that body in his own defense. His claim to have led his life until that day in all good conscience in God’s sight was a bold claim, but not an unparalleled claim from Paul. Not long afterward he assured the procurator Felix that it was his constant care to maintain a clear conscience in relation to God and human beings alike (24:16); we may compare his review of his earlier life in Phil. 3:6, where he claims that he was, “as to righteousness under the law, blameless.”1 Conscience is spoken of as an independent witness to one’s behavior. Paul might well appeal to the testimony of conscience as he stood before the supreme court of Israel; it was on no righteousness of his own, however, that he relied for justification in the heavenly court (Phil. 3:9). The purest conscience was an insecure basis of confidence under the scrutiny of God: “I am not aware of anything against myself,” he told the Corinthian Christians, “but I am not thereby justified; it is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:4).2
2 He was not allowed to proceed far with this line of defense. The high priest, president of the supreme court, was so incensed by his claim that he told those who stood beside him to strike him across the mouth.
The high priest at this time was Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, who received the office from Herod of Chalcis (younger brother of Herod Agrippa I) inA.D. 47 and held it for eleven or twelve years. He brought no credit to the sacred office. Josephus tells how his servants went to the threshing floors to seize the tithes that ought to have gone to the common priests,3 while the Talmud preserves a parody of Ps. 24:7 in which his greed was lampooned:
“Lift up your heads, ye gates;
that Yoḥanan4 ben Narbai,5 the disciple of Pinqai,6 may go in
and fill his belly with the divine sacrifices!”7
Some five years before this time he had been sent to Rome by the legate of Syria on suspicion of complicity in a sanguinary conflict between Judaeans and Samaritans, but was cleared and restored to the high priesthood by the Emperor Claudius, thanks to the advocacy of the younger Agrippa.8 His great wealth made him a man to be reckoned with even after his deposition from office; and he did not scruple to use violence and assassination to further his interests. His pro-Roman policy, however, made him an object of intense hostility to the militant nationalists in Judaea, and when the war against Rome broke out in A.D. 66 he was dragged by insurgents from an aqueduct in which he had tried to hide, and put to death along with his brother Hezekiah. His son Eleazar, captain of the temple, took fierce reprisals on his assassins.9
3 Such improper behavior from a member of the supreme court stung Paul into an indignant retort. The rights of defendants were carefully safeguarded by Jewish law, and they were presumed innocent until proved guilty. Paul had not yet been properly charged, let alone tried and convicted. The high priest, who was there to administer the law, had broken the law by ordering Paul to be struck.
Paul’s reaction has been contrasted with that of Jesus, “who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return” (1 Pet. 1:23).10 But when Jesus himself was struck during his interrogation before Annas, he too protested against the illegality of the action.11 There is no need to join the chorus of disapproval voiced by older commentators, who felt free to condemn Paul for his righteous protest in a situation which they themselves were unlikely to face. The warm impetuousness of a man of like passions with ourselves is vividly portrayed in this trial scene, and there is no doubt who presents the more dignified bearing—Paul or the high priest. The metaphor of the “whitewashed wall” suggests a tottering wall whose precarious condition has been disguised by a generous coat of whitewash:12 in spite of appearances, a man who behaved as Ananias did was bound to come to grief. His was the “haughty spirit” of Prov. 16:18, which “goes before a fall.” Paul’s words were more prophetic than he realized; had he known the man intimately, he could not have spoken more aptly.
4–5 But the bystanders were shocked: that was no way to speak to the high priest.13 They do not appear to have been so shocked by Ananias’s outburst, although that was no way for the high priest to speak. As soon, however, as they pointed out to Paul that the man to whom he spoke so freely was God’s high priest, he apologized to the official, if not to the man. And in the act of apology, he displayed his ready submission to the law which he was accused of flouting. “I did not know he was the high priest,” he said, meaning that, had he known, he would not have called him a whitewashed wall, since the law of Moses forbade an Israelite to revile a ruler of his people (Ex. 22:28b).14
But what did Paul mean by saying that he did not know the speaker was the high priest? At a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin the high priest presided, and would surely have been identifiable for that reason. Or was Paul not looking in the direction from which the words came, so that he could not be sure who actually uttered them? Or was he speaking ironically, as if to say, “I did not think a man who spoke like that could possibly be the high priest”? R. B. Rackham takes his words to mean that he had not sufficiently reflected that the man who uttered the objectionable words was the high priest, and that therefore he should not have made such a vigorous retort;15 but this does less than justice to the natural sense of Paul’s apology. Paul’s visits to Jerusalem since his conversion had been infrequent and short, and he would not probably have known Ananias by sight. One suggestion that can be ruled out of court is Ramsay’s; he argued that the meeting was convened by the Roman tribune, who would have conducted proceedings himself as in a Roman assembly, with Paul on one side of him and the Sanhedrin on the other, while Luke and others formed the “circle of bystanders.”16
b. The resurrection hope (23:6–10)
6 But Paul, taking cognizance of the fact that one part of them belonged to the Sadducees and the other part to the Pharisees, called aloud in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is concerning the hope of the resurrection17 of the dead that I am being judged.”
7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees; the company was divided.
8 The Sadducees deny the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge both.
9 So a great clamor arose: some scribes of the party of the Pharisees got up and contended, “we find nothing wrong in this man. What if some spirit or angel has spoken to him?”
10 The dispute was becoming fierce, and the tribune was afraid that Paul might be torn apart by them, so he ordered the soldiers to go down and snatch him from their midst and bring him into the fortress.
6 The high priest’s interruption had the effect of changing Paul’s tactics. Instead of resuming the defense which he had scarcely begun, he took stock of the fact that the Sanhedrin consisted in the main of the Sadducean majority and the strong Pharisaic minority. As he addressed the tribune as a Roman citizen, so now he addresses the Sanhedrin as a Pharisee. “I am a Pharisee,” he said; “my forebears were Pharisees, and the charge on which I am now being examined concerns the national hope, which depends for its fulfilment on the resurrection of the dead.”
Here again Paul has been criticized by older commentators. (Modern commentators are less disposed to pass moral judgments.) “If we think him very little to blame for his stern rebuke of the High Priest,” said F. W. Farrar; “if, referring his conduct to that final court of appeal, which consists in comparing it with the precepts and example of his Lord, we can quite conceive that He who called Herod ‘a fox’ would also have called Ananias ‘a whited wall’; on the other hand, we cannot but think that this creating of a division among common enemies on the grounds of a very partial and limited agreement with certain other tenets held by some of them, was hardly worthy of St. Paul; and knowing, as we do know, what the Pharisees were, we cannot imagine his Divine Master ever saying, under any circumstances, ‘I am a Pharisee’.”18 No indeed; Paul’s divine Master would not have said, “I am a Pharisee,” because he was not a Pharisee; Paul was—indeed, his claim may imply that he was the most consistent Pharisee of them all. Moreover, Paul knew what the Pharisees were much better than Dean Farrar and his contemporaries thought they knew. And the belief in the resurrection, which Paul shared with the Pharisaic members of the Sanhedrin, far from being “a very partial and limited agreement,” was fundamental.19 Paul and they agreed that the ancestral hope of Israel was bound up with the resurrection of the dead. Paul, and other Pharisees who believed in Jesus, went farther, and maintained that the hope of Israel was fulfilled in one who, less than thirty years previously, had been raised from the dead; but the belief in the particular resurrection of Christ was, in Paul’s mind, all of a piece with the general resurrection of the dead. “If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Cor. 15:16–17). A Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning a distinctive theological tenet of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee—in the apostolic age, at least.20 For believing Pharisees the Christian faith did not necessarily imply the law-free gospel to which Paul was committed.
7–8 Paul’s announcement threw the apple of discord into the ranks of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees were immediately inclined to concede that a man who was so sound on a central Pharisaic doctrine could not be so bad at heart after all; the Sadducees were more enraged than ever, at this public invocation of what was in their eyes a lately invented heresy. For, as Luke explains to his readers (who would not be conversant with the theological differences between the two main Jewish parties), the Sadducees denied the doctrine of bodily resurrection,21 and rejected the belief in a spirit world of angels and demons,22 whereas the Pharisees accepted both23 as essential elements of their creed. The Sadducees claimed in this respect to represent the old orthodoxy of Israel; it has even been thought that they interpreted the term “Pharisees” (“separated ones”) to mean “Persianizers,” on the ground that the Pharisees imported features of Zoroastrianism into the religion of Israel.24 But the messianic hope in postexilic times came to be closely interwoven with the belief in resurrection, which in due course became a fundamental principle of “normative” Judaism.25 In the Mishnah those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead are included among those who have “no share in the age to come.”26
9–10 The dispute which broke out at once between the two parties in the council chamber excluded all possibility of securing a careful examination of Paul or a clarification of the charges against him. Some of the Pharisaic scholars27 present contended that he had done no wrong; if he spoke of receiving a divine revelation in a vision, it might well be that some spirit or angel had communicated with him. This concession, admitting the possibility that Paul’s Damascus-road experience had some substance to it, is surprising. But Luke never disparages the Pharisees: to him they represent what is best in Judaism, and some of them on this occasion show themselves to be not far from the kingdom of God.28 According to Ernst Haenchen, Luke is concerned to show “that the bridges between Jews and Christians have not been broken. It is Luke’s honest conviction that fellowship between Pharisaism and Christianity is in the end possible: the Pharisees also hope for the Messiah, await the resurrection of the dead”29—what is lacking is their recognition that Jesus, already raised from the dead, has thereby been made “both Lord and Messiah” (2:36).
The Sadducees, for their part, repudiated the idea that a spirit or angel communication was possible. In this atmosphere of theological disputation any hope of a judicial inquiry disappeared. The tribune, seeing that his attempt to have the charge against Paul investigated by the Sanhedrin had proved unsuccessful, ordered soldiers to seize Paul from the midst of the contestants and take him back to the safety of the fortress.
9. The Lord Appears to Paul by Night (23:11)
11 The following night the Lord came and stood over Paul. “Take courage,”30 he said; “as you have borne your testimony to me in Jerusalem, so you must bear testimony also in Rom.”
11 Paul’s worst apprehensions of what might happen to him in Jerusalem bade fair to be fulfilled.31 Where now were his plans for carrying the gospel to the far west, and visiting Rome on the way? After the events of these two days, he might well have felt dejected and despondent. No help or encouragement could be expected from the leaders of the Jerusalem church; there was in any case little that they could do, but they probably judged it best to stay clear of the trouble arising from the ill-advised action which they had urged on Paul.
But the night following his abortive appearance before the Sanhedrin, the risen Lord appeared to Paul32 as he had done at critical moments before,33 and bade him cheer up: Paul had borne witness to him in Jerusalem (a reference this, no doubt, to his speech at the top of the steps to the crowd in the temple court), and he would live to bear similar witness in Rome. This assurance meant much to Paul during the delays and anxieties of the next two years, and goes far to account for the calm and dignified bearing which from now on marks him out as a master of events rather than their victim. His plan to see Rome, he now knows, is certain of fulfilment; with that he is content.
10. Plot against Paul’s life (23:12–15)
12 When day broke, the Jews34 hatched a plot, binding themselves by an oath to eat and drink nothing until they had killed Paul.
13 There were more than forty who entered into this conspiracy.
14 They approached the chief priests and the elders, and said, “we have invoked a solemn curse on ourselves, that we will taste nothing until we have killed Paul.
15 Now then, do you and the Sanhedrin send word to the tribune to bring him down to you,35 on the pretext that you want to make a more detailed investigation of his case. then, before he comes near you, we are prepared to kill him.”36
12–15 Disappointed at having let Paul slip through their fingers, one group of zealots determined that they would engineer a second opportunity of killing him, and they would not fail this time. They covenanted together, in a band of forty or more, swearing a solemn oath which probably took a form familiar from the Old Testament: “So may God do to us, and more also, if we eat or drink anything until we have killed Paul.”37 Then they went to the chief priests and leaders of the Sanhedrin, telling them of the oath they had sworn, and suggesting that they should request the tribune to bring Paul down to the council chamber for a further inquiry: they would be ready to attack and kill him before ever he reached the council chamber. It may be supposed that the “elders” to whom they divulged their plan did not include any of Paul’s Pharisaic sympathizers. But their plan bespeaks their fanatical devotion, for Paul would be guarded by Roman soldiers, and an attempt to assassinate him, whether it succeeded or not, would inevitably involve the assassins in heavy loss of life.
11. The Plot Revealed (23:16–22)
16 Paul’s sister’s son heard of the planned ambush, so he went to the fortress, gained entry to it, and reported the matter to Paul.
17 Paul summoned one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the tribune; he has something to report to him.”
18 So he took him and brought him to the tribune, and said, “the prisoner Paul summoned me and asked me to bring this young man to you; he has something to tell you.”
19 The tribune took him by the hand, drew him aside privately, and asked, “What is it you have to report to me?”
20 Then he told him, “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring paul down to the Sanhedrin tomorrow, on the ground that they intend38 to make a more detailed inquiry about him.
21 But please do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of them are laying an ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath not to eat or drink anything until they have killed him, and right now they are ready, expecting your agreement.”
22 Then the tribune dismissed the young man. “Tell no one,” he said, “that you have brought me this information.”
16 Now comes one of the most tantalizing incidents in Acts, for all who are interested in Paul’s private life and family relationships. Who was Paul’s nephew, who received such prompt news of the plot? How did he get to know of it so promptly? It is unlikely that he was present when it was hatched, although it would be possible to construe the Greek text in this sense39 (this would imply that the conspirators assumed that Paul’s relatives were his bitterest opponents). When Paul says in Phil. 3:8 that for Christ’s sake he has “suffered the loss of all things,” it is usually inferred (and very reasonably so) that he was disinherited for his acceptance and proclamation of Jesus as Messiah. His father, a citizen of Tarsus and a Roman citizen also, would certainly be a wealthy man.40 But it may be that the mother of this young man retained some sisterly affection for Paul, and something of that affection had been passed on to her son. We do not know if she lived in Jerusalem; perhaps she did, but perhaps she lived in Tarsus, and her son had come to Jerusalem for his education, as his uncle Paul had done in years gone by. We may wish we knew more, but we do not.
17–22 Paul, as an unconvicted Roman citizen, was kept in honorable custody in the Antonia fortress: he was allowed to receive visitors, and centurions promptly saw to it that his commissions were carried out. So, when his nephew came to the fortress and reported the plot to Paul, Paul immediately told a centurion to take the young man to the tribune, so that he might hear for himself what was afoot. The tribune received the young man kindly. “Never was a tribune more amiable,” comments Alfred Loisy, perhaps in irony41—but Luke presents all his Roman officers in an “amiable” light. Having listened to what the young man had to say, the tribune treated his report seriously,42 made up his mind at once what ought to be done, and dismissed his informant with a warning to tell nobody that he had reported this plot to him.
12. The Tribune Prepares to Send Paul to Caesarea (23:23–24)
23 Then he summoned two of his centurions, and said, “Get ready43 two hundred soldiers, with seventy cavalry, and two hundred light-armed troops,44 to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night.
24 Provide mounts for Paul to ride, and bring him safely45 to Felix the governor.”
23–24 Paul’s life was plainly not safe in Jerusalem. The tribune could not afford to incur responsibility for the assassination of a Roman citizen whom he had taken into custody, or to expose himself to any of the other risks that he must inevitably run so long as Paul was in his charge. Paul must be sent at once to Caesarea, under a strong guard. He would be safer there, and the procurator himself would be responsible for him. So he summoned two centurions and commanded them to get ready a strong escort of heavy infantry, cavalry, and light-armed troops and to set out by night for Caesarea with Paul. Horses or mules were to be provided for Paul: the sixty miles from Jerusalem to Caesarea had to be covered as quickly as possible. The tribune felt that he could not rest until he knew that Paul was safe in the procurator’s custody.
13. Letter from the Tribune to Felix (23:25–30)
25 He wrote a letter in these terms.46
26 “Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix: greetings.
27 This man had been seized by the Jews and was on the point of being killed by them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen.
28 When I wished to learn the ground of their charges against him, I brought him down to their Sanhedrin,47
29 and found that he was being charged in relation to questions of their law,48 but no charge was brought against him meriting death or imprisonment.49
30 Since information has been brought to me that a plot is about to be laid against the man, I am sending him to you forthwith,50 ordering his accusers to state the facts concerning him 51 before you.”52
25 Luke, it may well be supposed, was not in a position to see the tribune’s letter to Felix, so as to reproduce its contents verbatim, although the phrase “in these terms” suggests a claim to give more than the general purport.53 But even if he presents only its general purport, his version of the letter is very true to life, especially in the emphasis laid on the tribune’s timely initiative and in the slight manipulation of the order of events at the end of verse 27.
26 The tribune’s name is now mentioned for the first time in the narrative. He was evidently of Greek birth, and his Greek name Lysias became his cognomen when he acquired Roman citizenship; at that time he probably assumed the nomen gentile Claudius because it was that of the emperor.54 The title “most excellent” by which he addresses Felix belonged properly to the equestrian order in Roman society55 (of which Felix was not a member) and was given also to the governors of subordinate provinces like Judaea, who were normally drawn from that order.
27–30 The letter then summarizes the events from the riot in the temple precincts which endangered Paul’s life to Lysias’s discovery of the plot against him. Lysias learned that Paul was a Roman citizen not, as his letter says, before he rescued him from the rioters but after he had ordered him to be flogged—this last episode is discreetly omitted. An account is then given of the fruitless appearance of Paul before the Sanhedrin, from which Lysias gathered only that the dispute was not one of which Roman law took cognizance, but one of Jewish theological interpretation.56 When he says that “no charge was brought against him meriting death,” he implies that at the hearing before the Sanhedrin nothing was said of Paul’s alleged violation of the sanctity of the temple—that was indeed a capital offense.57 Lastly, Lysias tells of the plot against Paul’s life and of his consequent decision to send him to Caesarea, that his case might be dealt with in the procurator’s court.
D. PAUL AT CAESAREA (23:31–26:32)
1. Paul Taken to Caesarea (23:31–35)
31 So the soldiers, in accordance with their instructions, took Paul and escorted him by night to Antipatris.
32 The next day they left the cavalry to go on with him while they themselves returned to the fortress.
33 When the others had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him.
34 He read the letter and inquired from what province paul came.58 When he ascertained that he was a Cilician,
35 “I will give you a hearing,” he said, “when your accusers come here too.” he gave orders for him to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium.
31–32 The military escort set off three hours after sunset,59 and reached Antipatris the following morning. It must have been a forced march for the infantry, for Antipatris was some thirty-five miles distant from Jerusalem. Antipatris, at the foot of the Judaean hills, probably on the site of today’s Rosh ha‘Ayin, was built by Herod the Great in the well-watered and well-wooded plain of Kaphar-Saba and named after his father Antipater.60 The conspirators had now been left far behind, so it was no longer necessary for Paul to have such a strong escort. The infantry therefore turned back at Antipatris and left the cavalry to accompany Paul the remaining twenty-seven miles or so to Caesarea. This part of the journey was through open country where the population was largely Gentile. Luke could picture the road as he wrote: he had probably come the same way from Caesarea to Jerusalem with Paul and other companions less than two weeks before Paul’s night journey.61
33–35 The cavalry, then, went on to Caesarea, and Paul was handed over to Felix. When Felix had read the tribune’s letter, he asked which province Paul came from. Had Paul come from one of the client kingdoms in the Syrian or Anatolian area, it would have been diplomatically desirable to consult the ruler of the state in question.62 But in fact he came from a Roman province—a province, moreover, which was united with the province of Syria, whose governor was Felix’s superior—so it was competent for a Roman governor to go ahead and deal with his case without any external consultation. Felix accordingly told Paul that he would hold a full hearing of his case when his accusers arrived; for the present, he ordered him to be detained in the place built by Herod the Great for himself at Caesarea, which now served as the procurator’s headquarters or praetorium.63
Marcus Antonius Felix (as his full name is usually taken to have been)64 was a man of servile birth, who owed his unprecedented advancement to a post of honor usually reserved for the equestrian order to the influence which his brother Pallas exercised at the imperial court under Claudius. Pallas was a freedman of Claudius’s mother Antonia, and was for a number of years head of the imperial civil service. Felix succeeded Ventidius Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in A.D. 52,65 but before that he may have occupied a subordinate post in Samaria under Cumanus.66 His term of office as procurator was marked by increasing insurgency throughout the province, and by the emergence of the sicarii. The ruthlessness with which he put down these risings alienated many of the more moderate Jews, and led to further risings. Tacitus sums up his character and career in one of his biting epigrams: “he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.”67 Despite his lowly origins, he was remarkably successful in marriage (from a social point of view, that is); his three successive wives were all of royal birth, according to Suetonius.68 The first of the three was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra;69 the third was Drusilla, youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who figures in the following narrative.70
1.Even his persecution of the church had been carried out with good conscience; it was, as he thought, his bounden duty (cf. 26:9). The verb 
(“I have conducted myself”) refers particularly to his life in public.
2.See H. Osborne, “
,” JTS 32 (1931), pp. 167–79; C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London, 1955); J. Stelzenberger, Syneidesis im Neuen Testament (Paderborn, 1961); M. E. Thrall, “The Pauline Use of 
,” NTS 14 (1967–68), pp. 118–25; R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms (Leiden, 1971), pp. 402–46.
3.Ant. 20.206.
4.Yohanan presents the same elements as are found in Ananias = Hananiah (
, “Yahweh has graciously given”), but in the reverse order.
5.Narbai may be a corruption of Nadbai (= Nedebaeus) arising from the similarity of the letters r and d in the Hebrew script.
6.There is a satirical word-play here on the personal name Pinqai, itself perhaps a variation of Phinehas (
), and the noun 
, “meat-dish” (in allusion to Ananias’s proverbial greed).
7.TB 
57a.
8.Josephus, Ant. 20.131–36.
9.Josephus, BJ 2.441–42, 448.
10.W. Kelly thinks that “the apostle throughout scarcely seems to be breathing his ordinary spiritual atmosphere” (An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles [London, 31952], p. 344).
11.John 18:21–23.
12.Cf. the wall of Ezek. 13:10–16, daubed with untempered mortar. The Greek word here translated “whitewashed” is the same as that used in Jesus’ reference to “whitewashed tombs” in Matt. 23:27, but the point of the comparison is different.
13.Cf. the remonstrance addressed to Jesus in John 18:22, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”—words which were actually accompanied by a blow.
14.Compare the interpretation of the preceding part of this commandment (Ex. 22:28a) mentioned in the note on 19:37 (p. 379, n. 80).
15.R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (London, 61912), p. 433.
16.W. M. Ramsay, BRD, pp. 90–94. He argued further that, after Paul’s appeal to the resurrection hope (v. 6), the Pharisaic members of the court crossed the floor and took their places alongside Paul.
17.Lit., “hope and resurrection”—an instance of hendiadys.
18.F. W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul (London, 1879), pp. 327–28.
19.W. Kelly, who agrees with Farrar in finding Paul’s behavior here to fall below his usual standard (see n. 10 above)—he suggests that the spiritual atmosphere of Jerusalem had an adverse effect on him!—is far from ascribing a “very partial and limited” significance to this common belief in resurrection: “Nevertheless there was truth and important truth before all here” (Exposition of Acts, p. 344).
20.The common view is that it was not until the final decade of the first century that the conclusive breach between Jewish Christians and other Jews took place, when the addition of the 
, the prayer that “the Nazarenes and the heretics might perish as in a moment and be blotted out of the book of life,” effectively debarred Jewish Christians from participation in synagogue worship. See K. L. Carroll, “The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogue,” BJRL 40 (1957–58), pp. 19–32; R. Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, ed. E. P. Sanders, II (London, 1981), pp. 226–44; W. Horbury, “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy,” JTS n.s. 33 (1982), pp. 19–61.
21.Luke has already mentioned this in Luke 20:27 (see also the note on 4:2 above, pp. 89–90. n. 5). Josephus, who tries to portray the Jewish religious parties in the guise of Greek philosophical schools, says it was the immortality of the soul that the Sadducees denied (BJ 2.165; Ant. 18.16).
22.“What they rejected was the developed doctrine of the two kingdoms with their hierarchies of good and evil spirits” (T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah [Cambridge, 1953], p. 17, n. 3).
23.The word “both” in v. 8 probably embraces (a) the belief in resurrection and (b) the belief in angels and spirits. It is less likely that there is here another instance of the loose use of 
= 
as in 19:16 (see p. 367, n. 25), in which case the reference would be to the belief in (a) resurrection, (b) angels, (c) spirits.
24.Cf. T. W. Manson, “Sadducee and Pharisee.” BJRL 22 (1938), pp. 144–59, especially pp. 153–58.
25.Cf. Dan. 12:2.
26. Sanhedrin 10.1.
27. The “scribes” (
) or experts in the law belonged mostly to the Pharisaic party, so far as can be gathered from our records (cf. Mark 2:16). We may compare the delight with which “some of the scribes” heard Jesus’ confutation of the Sadducees’ argument against resurrection: “Teacher, you have spoken well” (Luke 20:39). But the Sadducees also had their legal experts.
28.Like the scribe who received encouragement from Jesus in Mark 12:34.
29.E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (Oxford, 1971), p. 643.
30.The Western and Byzantine texts add the vocative “Paul” (cf. 27:24, “Do not be afraid, Paul”).
31.Cf. 20:22–23; Rom. 15:31.
32.Gk. 
, translated “came and stood over” above so as to bring out the force of the aorist.
33.Cf. 18:9; 22:17.
34.For “the Jews” the Western and Byzantine texts read “some of the Jews,” which is of course more accurate—some forty of them, in fact (v. 13).
35.The Western text expands: “Now then, we ask you to grant us this (favor). Gather the Sanhedrin together and give notice to the tribune to bring him down to you.”
36.The Western text adds “even if we must die for it.”
37.The Mishnah makes provision for relief from such vows as could not be fulfilled “by reason of constraint” (
3.1, 3).
38.Gk. 
(
33 1891 pc), in agreement with 
(“Sanhedrin”). Five other forms of the same participle, singular and plural, are represented among the variant readings (ASV, “as though thou wouldest …” renders 
).
39.By taking 
, “having arrived (at the fortress),” to mean “having been present (at the making of the conspiracy).” But this is rendered improbable by the order and position of the verbs in v. 16.
40.A property qualification of 500 drachmae was fixed for admission to the roll of citizens, perhaps by Athenodorus sometime after 30 B.C.(Dio Chrysostom, Oration 34.23).
41.A. Loisy, Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 1920), p. 840.
42.Unlike J. Klausner at a later date, who regards this plot as a “probably groundless” suspicion on Paul’s part (From Jesus to Paul, E.T. [London, 1944], p. 403).
43.The Western text reads: “ ‘Make ready soldiers under arms to go to Caesarea, a hundred horsemen and two hundred light-armed troops.’ And they said, ‘They are ready.’ And he ordered the centurions also to provide mounts that they might set Paul on them and bring him safely by night to Caesarea, to Felix the governor. For he was afraid that the Jews might seize and kill him, and that he himself should be blamed meanwhile for having taken bribes.”
44.The meaning of 
(lit., “holding in the right hand”) is uncertain. It appears here for the first time, and is not found again until the sixth century. There is a weakly attested variant 
(A 33, lit. “throwing with the right hand”), which might mean “slingers” or “javelin throwers”; it is adopted by the Syriac Peshitta. Whatever be the precise sense of 
, light-armed troops of some kind are meant. The main part of the escort as far as Antipatris consisted of two hundred heavy infantry, commanded by two centurions. This did not excessively weaken the garrison in the Antonia fortress, for it was an auxiliary cohort, and such a cohort regularly comprised a thousand men.
45.The Western text inserts “to Caesarea.”
46.Gk.
. The Western text reads 
, “containing these things” (so 15:23, Western text).
47.The clause “I brought him down to their Sanhedrin” is absent from B* and 81, but has been supplied in the margin of B.
48.The Western text adds “concerning Moses and a certain jesus” (cf. 25:19).
49.The Western text adds “I brought him out with difficulty, by force.”
50.For “forthwith”(
) some Alexandrian authorities read “from among them” (
).
51.Gk. 
. B 1175 omit 
, the sense then being “against him.”
52.
81 and the Byzantine text add “Farewell”(
).
53.E. A. Judge argues that 
in such a context (cf. 3 Macc. 3:30) implies a verbatim copy (New Docs. 1 [1976], § 26; cf. 2 [1977]. § 27).
54.Cf. 22:28 (p. 421 with n. 41).
55.The equestrain order or order of “kinghts” (equites) ranked next after the senatorial order. For the title 
see p. 29, n. 3.
56.Compare Gallio’s pronouncement in 18:15. Lysias thus makes his contribution to the testimonies to Christians’ law-abiding conduct unobtrusively presented by Luke.
57.In Luke’s account of the abortive hearing before the Sanhedrin (vv. 1–10) this charge is not mentioned. It was raised at Paul’s hearing before Felix (24:6).
58.The Western text exhibits a more vivid reading: “And when he had read the letter, he asked Paul, ‘From what province are you?’ He said, ? Cilician.’ And when he understood this, he said …”
59.“The third hour of the night,” according to v. 23. The Romans divided the period between sunset and sunrise into twelve hours, on the analogy of the twelve hours of daylight.
60.Cf. Josephus, BJ I.99, 417; Ant. 13.390; 16.142.
61.Cf. M. Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, E.T. (London, 1983), pp. 119–20.
62.Thus Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, hearing that Jesus came from Galilee, remitted his case to Herod Antipas, to whose tetrarchy Galilee belonged. Antipas appreciated the courtesy, but was too wise to take advantage of it (Luke 23:6–12). See p. 99 with n. 44.
63.For Herod’s “most costly palace” see Josephus, Ant. 15.331. It now provided the procurator’s headquarters. Lat. praetorium (whence the loanword 
) denoted the official residence of the Roman governor of an imperial province. In Mark 15:16 and John 18:28 it is used for Pilate’s headquarters in Jerusalem (probably Herod’s palace on the western wall). In Phil. 1:13 it probably refers to the praetorian guard in Rome.
64.Tacitus (History 5.9) gives Felix’s nomen gentile as Antonius, implying that, like his brother Pallas, he was manumitted by Antonia, mother of the Emperor Claudius. But the MSS of Josephus (Ant. 20.137) give his nomen gentile as Claudius, which would imply that he was manumitted by Claudius, who inherited his mother’s household after her death. An inscription found in 1956 at Bir el-Malik, near Athlit, Israel, mentions a procurator named Tiberius Claudius, whose cognomen is tantalizingly missing. See M. Avi-Yonah, “The Epitaph of T. Mucius Clemens,” IEJ 16 (1966), pp. 258–64, with plate 28; F. F. Bruce, “The Full Name of the Procurator Felix,”JSNT 1 (1978), pp. 33–36; C. J. Hemer, “The Name of Felix Again,” JSNT 31 (1987), pp. 45–59.
65.Josephus, BJ 2.247; Ant. 20.137–38.
66.This may be inferred from Tacitus, Annals 12.137–38.
67.Tacitus, History 5.9.
68.Suetonius, Life of Claudius 28.
69.Tacitus, History 5.9.
70.See 24:24 (p. 447 with n. 36).
ACTS 24
2. Paul Accused before Felix (24:1–9)
1 Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some of the elders and an orator named Tertullus. They laid information against Paul before the governor.
2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him as follows: “Your Excellency!1 Since through you we enjoy great peace, and since through your providence improvements continue to be made for this nation,
3 we accept this with all gratitude, at all times and in all ways.
4 Not to weary2 you further, I beg you, of your clemency, to accord us a brief hearing.
5 We have found this man to be a pest, a fomenter of strife among Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the party of the Nazarenes.
6 He even tried to profane the temple, but we arrested him [and intended to judge him according to our law,
7 when Lysias, the military tribune, came on the scene and took him away out of our hands with great violence,
8 ordering his accusers to come to you.]3 By questioning him you can learn for yourself about all the things of which we accuse him.”
9 The Jews also joined in the attack, affirming that this was so.
1 Five days after Paul’s arrival, a deputation from the Sanhedrin, led by the high priest, came down to Caesarea to state their case against Paul. They enlisted the services of an advocate named Tertullus to state it in the conventional terms of forensic rhetoric. The advocate was probably a Hellenistic Jew; his name was a common one throughout the Roman world.
2–4 No doubt what is given here is a bare summary of the speech which Tertullus made for the prosecution, but it may be true to life in devoting so large a proportion of what was said to the lavish flattery of the exordium. This was part of the rhetorical fashion of the time. Tertullus might speak of the “great peace” enjoyed by the people of Judaea as a result of Felix’s administration, but there were many Judaeans who, if they had known it in time, would have applied to this “peace” the epigram about the Romans which Tacitus puts into the mouth of the Caledonian hero Calgacus: “they make a desert and call it peace.”4
The reference to the governor’s “providence”5 is reminiscent of what is said of the high priest Onias III in 2 Macc. 4:6, “he saw that without the king’s providence public affairs could not again reach a peaceful settlement.” This kind of language was regarded as appropriate in addressing rulers, especially in the Near East. It was customary also to promise brevity, as Tertullus does here (v. 4); the promise was sometimes kept, sometimes not, but it was calculated to secure goodwill for the speaker at the outset of his speech. So was such flattery as the reference to Felix’s clemency or moderation6—a reference singularly unsuited to a ruler whose ferocity is attested by both Josephus and Tacitus.
5–6 After the excessive courtesy of his proem, Tertullus proceeds to the charges against Paul. After a general characterization of him as a perfect pest—a term with sinister implications, not excluding a hint of treason—he becomes more specific, moving from the less particular to the more particular: Paul is (a) a fomenter of risings among Jews all over the empire, (b) a ringleader of the Nazarene sect, (c) a man who had attempted to violate the sanctity of the temple.7
In calling Paul a pest,8 Tertullus suggested that he habitually stirred up subversion of public law and order. The charge is similar to that brought against Paul and his companions at Thessalonica (17:6–7).9 The charge of treason against the emperor was explicit there, and is probably implicit here: if Paul does not rebut it directly on this occasion before Felix, he rebuts it directly on a later occasion before Festus (25:8).10 One of Luke’s prime motives in writing his twofold history is to demonstrate that there is no substance in this charge of subversion brought not only against Paul but against Christians in general—that competent and impartial judges had repeatedly confirmed the innocence of the Christian movement and the Christian missionaries in respect of Roman law.
As for the charge of fomenting unrest among Jews throughout the empire, it was well known that recent years had seen such unrest in some of the largest Jewish communities—those in Alexandria and Rome, for exampie11—where Paul had not been involved. But it was also undeniable that Paul’s presence in a city had been accompanied time after time by disturbances within the Jewish communities. It had been so in the cities of South Galatia, in Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus.12 Paul indeed had nothing to do with the political “messianism” which operated like a ferment at that time in many parts of the dispersion as well as in the land of Israel,13 but it called for more discrimination than many Roman magistrates were able to exercise to distinguish his teaching from the propaganda of messianic agitators.
The next count in the indictment against Paul was that he was a ringleader of the Nazarenes.14 Was Felix expected to have some idea of what this meant? If so, what sort of impression was this information intended to make on his mind? Perhaps Felix, with his “rather accurate knowledge of the Way” (v. 22), had a clearer idea of the Nazarenes than most Roman officials would have had. This is the only place in the New Testament where the term “Nazarene”—or “Nazoraean,” as the particular Greek word here used may be more exactly rendered—is used of the followers of Jesus; elsewhere it is used only of Jesus himself. The most probable view is that it was first applied to Jesus because his hometown was Nazareth, and that from him it came to be used of his followers also. It was apparently used of Jewish Christians from very early days, and remained their designation in Semitic speech: to this day Christians in general are known in Hebrew and Arabic as “Nazarenes.”15 But the word, or one very much like it, may have been current among first-century Jews to denote a group or a tendency on which Felix might be expected to look with disfavor;16 the evidence is inadequate for anything like a positive statement.
The final charge was more concrete and more serious: Paul, it was alleged, had attempted to profane the temple in Jerusalem. It was not so concrete as the rumor which had led to the attack on Paul, which was that he had actually taken a Gentile within the forbidden precincts. If a prima facie case had been established in support of this rumor, then Paul could have been handed over to the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction. But his accusers evidently knew that such a prima facie case could not be established, as eyewitnesses were not forthcoming. A charge of attempted profanation was more difficult to prove or disprove; Tertullus’s case was that, by arresting him, the temple authorities had prevented his attempt from being carried out. To represent the riotous attack by the mob as an orderly arrest carried out by the temple police was to twist the facts even more violently than Lysias had done in his letter to Felix; but by this account Tertullus tried to score a point against Lysias, who would have had no right to interfere with those who were maintaining law and order within the temple courts in accordance with their appointed duty.
7–9 The complaint against Lysias is made explicit in the expanded Western text, which has found its way into the Received Text and so into the KJV (as the last clause of v. 6 plus the whole of v. 7 and the beginning of v. 8). The reader who recollects the narrative of 21:27–36 must be amused by this complaint of the “great violence” with which Lysias snatched Paul from those who were trying to lynch him rather than proposing to take him into custody so that he might have a fair trial according to Jewish law! The tone of the Western addition is so thoroughly in accord with the rest of Tertullus’s speech that one is inclined to accept it as genuine. It makes one minor difference to the sense: if the addition is accepted, then “by questioning him” (v. 8) probably means “by questioning Lysias”; otherwise it means “by questioning Paul.” It might be regarded as a point in favor of the shorter reading that it is in fact Paul whom the governor invites to speak after Tertullus; but of course Lysias was not present to give his version: after Paul’s reply the governor postpones further inquiry until Lysias himself comes down to Caesarea (v. 22).
Tertullus’s speech seems to tail away in a lame and impotent conclusion that forms a striking contrast to the rhetorical flourish with which it starts. But J. H. Moulton is probably too hard on him when he says that he “arrives at the goal by way of anacoluthon—Luke cruelly reports the orator verbatim.”17 This is only a summary of his speech, and even so Tertullus is not the only speaker on this occasion who falls into anacoluthon.18 The deputation from the Sanhedrin appears at any rate to have been satisfied with his presentation of the case, for they affirmed their agreement with his statement of affairs.
3. Paul’s Defense before Felix (24:10–21)
10 The governor then beckoned to Paul to speak,19 and he replied: “Knowing that you have been a judge of this nation for many years, I gladly speak in my own defense.
11 You can ascertain that it is not more than twelve days since I came up to Jerusalem to worship.
12 Neither in the temple did they find me disputing with anyone or collecting a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor anywhere in the city;
13 neither can they provide proof of any of the charges which they now bring against me.
14 But this I confess to you: I worship the God of our fathers according to the Way,20 which they call a ‘party,’ believing all that is laid down by the law or written in the prophets.
15 I have the same hope in God as they themselves accept—that there is to be a resurrection both of the righteous and of the unrighteous.
16 For this reason I train myself to maintain a blameless conscience continuously in the sight of God and humanity.
17 After a lapse of several years I came to brings alms to my nation and offerings.
18 While I was thus engaged, they found me purified in the temple, gathering no crowd and causing no disturbance.
19 But there were some Jews from Asia21—they ought to have been here in your presence to state any charge they might have to bring against me.
20 Or let these men themselves say what crime they found in me when I was made to stand before the Sanhedrin,
21 apart from this one declaration which I made aloud as I stood among them: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today!’ ”
10 When Felix motioned to Paul to reply to Tertullus’s speech for the prosecution, he opened likewise with a complimentary exordium, but one which was briefer and less fulsome than his accuser’s. He professed himself the readier to make his defense before Felix because Felix was no newcomer to the administration of Judaea: he had governed the province for several years, and the experience of Jews and Judaism which he had gained in that time would enable him to assess the charges against Paul more accurately.
11–13 He went on to explain that he had been absent from Jerusalem for several years until his recent arrival in the city as a worshiper at the festival of Pentecost. Five years in fact had elapsed since his last visit to Jerusalem—the very brief visit which receives a bare mention in 18:22. The twelve days which he mentions were the days during which he was present in Jerusalem since his recent arrival in the city: they are reckoned up to his being taken by night to Caesarea.22 During those twelve days he had little opportunity to cause trouble—for the last three of them, indeed, he had been a prisoner in the Antonia fortress. And during the time that he was a free agent he had done nothing to which exception could be taken: he had engaged in no public disputation, nor had he gathered a crowd or provoked a riotous assembly, whether in the temple courts, the synagogues, or anywhere in the city. He would have been within his rights had he engaged in public debate, but on this occasion he did not wish to draw unnecessary attention to himself or do anything to embarrass the leaders of the Jerusalem church (who were no doubt sufficiently embarrassed by the mere presence of Paul in the city). His accusers, he said, might bring a variety of charges against him, but there was not one which they could substantiate.
14–16 While he had done none of the things that his opponents alleged, Paul had no hesitation in declaring what he actually did: he worshiped the ancestral God of Israel (as he had every freedom to do under Roman law) according to the true Way—that Way which his accusers described as a party or sect, although in fact it embraced and fulfilled most faithfully Israel’s national hope. Far from deviating in any particular from the basis of Israel’s ancient faith, he believed wholeheartedly all that the sacred scriptures contained—“all that is laid down by the law or written in the prophets”—and cherished the hope of resurrection, as most Jews did.23 He seems to imply that his accusers themselves shared this hope; the high priest and other members of the Sadducean party, of course, did not share it, claiming in this regard (as in a number of others) to be old-fashioned conservatives.24 There may, however, have been some Pharisees among the “elders” (members of the Sanhedrin) who had come down to Caesarea with the high priest.
It is interesting to note that this is the only place in the New Testament where Paul is unambiguously credited with believing in a resurrection for the unrighteous as well as for the righteous dead.25 There is no need to doubt that, like other Pharisees, he had inherited the belief in such a twofold resurrection, but when he develops the doctrine in his letters, he concentrates on the hope set before “those who belong to Christ,” for whom resurrection (at the advent of Christ) will be participation in his resurrection, the harvest of which his resurrection was the firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:20–23; cf. Phil. 3:20–21). As it is, with this firm belief in a coming resurrection, with its corollary of an appearance before the divine tribunal, he constantly set himself26 (he tells Felix, as he had already told the Sanhedrin) to maintain a clear conscience before God and human beings alike.27
17 The reason for his coming to Jerusalem after a lapse of several years, he averred, was to bring alms and offerings to his fellow-Jews there. This is the clearest reference in Acts—indeed, one might say it is the only reference—to the collection which Paul had organized in the churches of his Gentile mission field for the relief of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem.28 Since, in response to the Jerusalem church leaders’ request to him and Barnabas to “remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10), this gift was designed more particularly “for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:26), it could properly be described as “alms.” As for the accompanying term “offerings,” Paul makes it very plain (especially in 2 Cor. 8:1–9:15) that the gift was a tribute of thanksgiving to God as well as a donation for the relief of his people. Paul obviously attached great importance to the collection: in his eyes it was a proper acknowledgment on the part of the Gentile Christians of the debt which they owed to Jerusalem, from which the gospel had set out on its progress to them, and he also hoped that it might arouse in the Jerusalem church (many of whose members looked with suspicion on the Gentile mission) a sense of gratitude to the Gentile believers which would help to weld both groups into a spiritual unity. In this last respect the collection achieved at best only partial success, if indeed it was not an outright failure.
Luke evidently knew about the collection but, equally evidently, he is very reticent about it. This may have been because the enterprise ended in disaster; another possible reason is that at Paul’s trial it was misrepresented as an improper diversion of money that ought to have swelled the Jerusalem temple tax, and Luke judged it wise to refer to it only in the most general terms.29
18–19 Shortly after his coming to Jerusalem, Paul continued, he was set upon in the temple precincts, when he had just completed a purificatory ceremony in an orderly manner. He had done nothing to occasion the public tumult that broke out: those responsible for it were some Jews from the province of Asia. Those Asian Jews ought to have appeared before Felix as Paul’s accusers, or as witnesses for the prosecution, if they had any serious charge to bring against him. This was a strong point in his defense: the people who had raised the hue and cry in the first instance, claiming to be eyewitnesses of his alleged sacrilege, had not troubled to be present. It may be that the Sanhedrin thought it best that the Asian Jews should not come before the court, as cross-examination would soon have revealed the hollowness of their charges, and a Roman judge would not look lightly on people who wasted his time with unfounded accusations.
20–21 But, since the Asian Jews had not seen fit to put in an appearance, said Paul, let the members of the Sanhedrin who were present state more explicitly than Tertullus had done what crime he was discovered to have committed when the tribune brought him before their court for examination in Jerusalem. The only crime with which they could charge him as a result of that examination was the crime of having declared that the real point at issue in his case was the question of the resurrection of the dead—in other words, no crime at all.30
4. Felix Adjourns Proceedings (24:22–23)
22 Felix then deferred further hearing: he had a rather accurate know i edge of the Way. “When the tribune Lysias comes down,” he said, “I will give my decision in your case.”
23 He gave orders to the centurion that Paul should be kept in charge under open arrest, and that none of his friends should be prevented from looking after him.
22 Felix appears to have summed up the situation fairly accurately. How he came by his special knowledge of the Christian movement is not said; it has been thought that it was through his wife Drusilla, a member of the Herod family—but what opportunities had she of knowing about it? At any rate he probably saw where the truth of the matter lay, but for the present he adjourned proceedings, perhaps with the formula Amplius (“judgment reserved”).31 The evidence of Lysias would plainly be of first-rate value; he had given a brief summary of events in his letter (23:25–30), but in view of the conflicting statements made by Tertullus and Paul, it would be necessary to ascertain further details from Lysias.32
23 Meanwhile he gave orders that Paul was to be kept in custody but to be allowed a reasonable degree of consideration, as befitted a Roman citizen against whom no crime was proved. In particular, he was free to receive visits and any other kind of attention from his friends—possibly members of the church of Caesarea or some Gentile Christians who had accompanied him to Jerusalem and had now come to Caesarea to see if they could do anything for him.
Luke does not say if Lysias did come down to Caesarea or if Felix resumed the hearing. Probably Lysias came and supplied further information, but no decision was reached. Felix saw, no doubt, that the case against Paul could not stand, but he did not wish to offend the Sanhedrin by discharging him. He had given enough offense during his administration of Judaea, and he did not care to give more, especially as he could no longer count on the unchallenged influence of his brother Pallas at the imperial court as he had been able to do under the principate of Claudius.33
5. Paul’s Interviews with Felix (24:24–26)
24 After some days Felix came with Drusilla his wife, who was a Jewess.34 He listened to him speaking about faith in Christ Jesus.
25 As Paul conversed about righteousness, self-control, and the future judgment, Felix became afraid. “You may go for the present,” he said; “when I have a spare moment I will summon you.”
26 At the same time he was hopeful that Paul would give him money, so he sent for him quite often and talked with him.
24 Having this eminent Christian in custody in Caesarea, Felix availed himself of the opportunity to improve his already “rather accurate” knowledge of the Way. According to the Western text, it was Drusilla who was specially anxious to meet Paul. Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and at this time was not yet twenty years old. As a small girl she had been betrothed to the crown prince of Commagene, in eastern Asia Minor, but the marriage did not take place because the prospective bridegroom refused to become a proselyte to Judaism. Then her brother Agrippa II35 gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa (modern Homs), a petty state in Syria. But when she was still only sixteen, Felix, with the help (it is said) of a Cypriot magician called Atomos,36 persuaded her to leave her husband and come to be his wife, promising her (with a play on his name) every “felicity” if she did so. Accordingly, she joined Felix as his third wife, and bore him a son named Agrippa, who met his death in the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79.37
25 Felix and Drusilla, then, sent for Paul and listened as he expounded the Christian faith. But he made it clear that the gospel had ethical implications and, as he talked about these, Felix and Drusilla felt that the interview had taken an uncomfortably personal turn. It was certainly not such an “abstract discussion” as Joseph Klausner supposed;38 on the contrary, Paul’s distinguished hearers had probably never listened to such pointed and practical teaching in their lives as when he talked to them about “righteousness and self-control and the future judgment”—three subjects about which that couple specially needed to be informed. No wonder that Felix trembled and decided that he had heard enough for the time being.
26 But he was sufficiently interested to call Paul to his presence fairly frequently and engage him in conversation, although (as Luke suggests) there was a further motive for these repeated interviews. In spite of stern and reiterated edicts against bribery, the wheels of Roman justice, especially in some of the provinces, ran more smoothly and rapidly if they were judiciously oiled; and a number of provincial governors were deplorably venal. Felix had the impression that Paul was in a position to pay a handsome bribe for his release. How he got that impression is uncertain; the fact that Paul had lately come to Jerusalem with substantial “alms and offerings” perhaps gave him the idea that Paul had access to further funds.39 But Felix’s expectations in this matter were disappointed.
6. Felix Replaced by Festus; Paul Left in Custody (24:27)
27 But after two years Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus, and, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Jews, he left Paul a prisoner.
27 The two years are most naturally taken to indicate the time that elapsed between Felix’s judicial hearing of Paul and his recall from office.40 It is much less likely that they indicate the duration of Felix’s procuratorship of Judaea. The occasion of Felix’s recall from his office was an outbreak of civil strife between the Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, in which Felix intervened with troops in such a way as to cause much bloodshed among the leaders of the Jewish faction.41 On his return to Rome he would have faced a severe penalty, Josephus informs us, had it not been for the advocacy of his brother Pallas.42 Pallas had been removed from his post as head of the imperial civil service in A.D. 55, but (largely on account of his colossal wealth) he retained great influence for several years after that.43
Felix was succeeded as procurator of Judaea by Porcius Festus, whose brief administration, though troubled by outbreaks of insurgency, was not marked by such excesses as those of his predecessor and successors.44 But the change of administration brought no advantage to Paul. Felix left him in custody, hoping that this at least would be accepted by the Jewish authorities as a gesture of goodwill; and the arrival of a new and inexperienced governor meant the reopening of the case in circumstances less favorable to Paul.
(cf. 23:26). See p. 29, n. 3 (on 1:1).
, “hinder”; here perhaps in one of the senses of 
, “weary,” “bore.”3. The words within square brackets are added in the Western text, and were taken over into TR. They are not found in the Byzantine witnesses, and are therefore not included in The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. Z. C. Hodges and A. L. Farstad (Nashville, TN, 1982).
4. Tacitus, Agricola 30.
. It was a favorite term among the Stoics; cf. the title of a treatise by Chrysippus, Concerning Providence ( 
). Its only other NT occurrence is in the nontechnical sense of “provision” (Rom. 13:14).
, a term which was used at this time almost as an honorific title: “Your Clemency.”7. Compare the threefold structure of the charge brought against our Lord before Pilate (Luke 23:2).
. Cf. Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrines (November 10, A.D 41) in which he warns the Jews of that city that, if they persist in activities which arouse his suspicion, he “will proceed against them with the utmost severity for fomenting a general plague ( 
) which infests the whole world” (P.Lond. 1912, line 99).9. Cf. p. 325, n. 14.
10. F. J. Kramer notes that it was not uncommon to “throw in for good measure a maiestas charge along with other less deadly accusations” (Astrology in Roman Law and Politics [Philadelphia, 1954], p. 252).
11. For Alexandria cf. Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrines (n. 8 above); for Rome cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25.4 (see p. 347, n. 9).
12. Cf. 13:45, 50; 14:2–5; 17:5–9, 13; 18:6, 12–17; 19:9; 20:19.
13. Political messianism is a loose term for movements which sought the establishment of Judaean independence by the use of armed force, but it did not necessarily involve belief in an individual Messiah. Thus the anti-Roman revolt of A.D. 66 was not in the strict sense messianic, whereas that of A.D. 132 was.
), like the Sadducees in 5:17 and the Pharisees in 15:5. In Judaea they were still reckoned as a Jewish party, albeit a subversive and heretical party from the chief-priestly point of view.
, Arab. 
, Aram./Syr. 
(the name by which the Mandaeans are called in their sacred writings). Jesus and his followers are regularly called 
in the Talmud; the earliest recorded use of the Hebrew word to denote followers of Jesus is in the birkat hammînîm (see p. 428, n. 20). Possibly the Jews associated the word with the “branch (Heb. 
) of violence” which, according to the Hebrew text of Sir. 40:15, “has no tender twig” (i.e., no lasting posterity), just as Christians associated it with the messianic Branch (Heb. 
) of Isa. 11:1 (probably the scripture alluded to in Matt. 2:23).
or “observants.” Epiphanius makes a distinction between Nasaraeans (
) and Nazoraeans (
) in his collection of heresies, the former coming fifth in his list of Jewish heresies (Panarion 1.18), the latter coming ninth in his list of Christian heresies (Pan. 1.29). By the Nazoraeans he means those Jewish Christians who were not in communion with the catholic church, but the Nasaraeans he represents as an ascetic Jewish group, similar to but not identical with the Essenes, living east of the Jordan and dating back to pre-Christian times. But Epiphanius may be as far astray in distinguishing the Nasaraeans and Nazoraeans as he is in distinguishing the Essenes (Pan.1.10) and Ossenes (Pan.1.19).17. MHT I, pp. 224–25.
18. Paul himself does it in vv. 18–19, as frequently in his letters (see n. 21 below).
19. The Western text (represented by the marginal reading of the Harclean Syriac) expands: “The governor then beckoned to Paul to make his defense, and he took up a godlike attitude and said …” A godlike attitude was thought fitting in an orator (which Paul did not pretend to be).
), as they call it.”
) is a subject without a verb.22. So A. Schlatter, Die Apostelgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1948), p. 285, and E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (Oxford, 1971), p. 654. The five days which he had now spent in Caesarea are not included. The notes of time since his arrival in Jerusalem are detailed and precise: Day 1, Paul arrives in Jerusalem (21:17); Day 2, Paul and his companions received by James and the elders (21:18); Day 3, Paul initiates the purification ceremony (21:26); Days 3–9, the seven days of purification (21:27); Day 9, Paul attacked in the temple and rescued by Roman soldiers (21:27–22:29); Day 10, Paul brought before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10); Day 11, Plot against Paul; Paul sent away from Jerusalem (23:12–30); Day 12, Paul arrives in Caesarea (23:31–33).
23. Again he emphasizes the centrality of the resurrection hope in his preaching (cf. 23:6; 26:8); that he related the resurrection hope explicitly to Jesus’ resurrection is made evident by 25:19. Cf. L. De Lorenzi (ed.).Résurrection du Christ et des chrétiens (1 Co 15), SMT:SBO 8 (Rome, 1985).
24. See p. 429 with nn. 21 and 22 (on 23:8).
25. For the resurrection of the righteous cf. Luke 14:14; 20:35–36. For the resurrection of the unrighteous in addition to the righteous cf. John 5:28–29 and Rev. 20:12–15. It is usually taken to be the sense of Dan. 12:2 (another interpretation, favored by Sa‘adya Ga’on and others, regards those who are destined “to shame and everlasting contempt” as being left unraised in “the dust of the earth”). It is unlikely that Paul has the resurrection of the unrighteous in view when he says that “in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).
, “I exercise myself” (the only NT instance of the world). There is a note of moral strictness in the world, without the later sense of asceticism (which in Pauline Greek is expressed by 
, “severity to the body,” as in Col. 2:23).27. See p. 424 with n. 2 (on 23:1).
28. G. W. H. Lampe, St. Luke and the Church of Jerusalem (London, 1969), p. 24, suggests that the reference may be “only to his acts of Jewish piety in the Temple concerned with the vows and sacrifices that he undertook” (cf. 21:23–26).
29. For the collection see pp. 371–72 with nn. 45 and 46 (on 19:21), pp. 381–82 (on 20:3 and 4). See also K. Holl, “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde” (1921), in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte. 2: Der Osten (Tübingen, 1928), pp. 44–67; C. H. Buck, “The Collection for the Saints,” HTR 43 (1950), pp. 1–29; J. Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (London, 1954), pp. 51–58, 60, 69–72; D. Georgi, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Hamburg, 1965); K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (London. 1966); K. Berger, “Almosen für Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kollekte,” NTS 23 (1976–77), pp. 180–204; S. Garofalo, “Un chef d’oeuvre pastoral de Paul: la collecte,” in Paul de Tarse: Apôtre du notre temps, ed. L. De Lorenzi, SMT:SBO 1 (Rome, 1979), pp. 575–93.
30. F. W. Farrar read a confession of wrong into the words of v. 21: “In the remark of St. Paul before the tribunal of Felix I seem to see—though none have noticed it—a certain sense of compunction for the method in which he had extricated himself from a pressing danger” (The Life and Work of St. Paul, II [London, 1879], p. 328).
31. The proceedings now adjourned by Felix are identified by J. A. T. Robinson as Paul’s “first defense,” to which reference is made in 2 Tim. 4:16 (Redating the New Testament [London, 1976], p. 74; cf. his Can We Trust the New Testament? [London, 1977], pp. 65–66).
32. As Tertullus had suggested, according to the Western text of vv. 7–8.
33. According to Tacitus (Annals 13.14.1) Pallas was deposed by Nero in A.D. 55 from his very influential post as head of the imperial treasury. See n. 43 below.
34. The Western text (preserved in the margin of the Harclean Syriac) adds: “who asked to see Paul and hear him speak, so wishing to satisfy her he summoned Paul.”
35. See pp. 456–57 with n. 23 (on 25:13).
36. It would be farfetched to connect Atomos with Etymas (Hetoimas), the Western reading of the name of Elymas, the Cypriot magician of 13:8. Some manuscripts of Ant. 20.142 have “Simon” in place of “Atomos.”
37. See Josephus, Ant. 19.354; 20.139–44.
38. J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, E.T. (London, 1944), p. 406.
39. W. M. Ramsay supposed that Paul had command of considerable personal resources around this time, that the expenses of his trial and of his periods of custody in Caesarea and Rome were met from his hereditary property, which may have “come to him as legal heir (whose right could not be interfered with by any will)” (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 310–12). But the whole matter belongs to the realm of speculation—as money matters often do!
40. Paul may have found these two years tedious, but for Luke, says J. H. Moulton, they “were doubtless the opportunity of collecting material for his Gospel and the earlier parts of Acts” (MHT II, p. 19).
41. Josephus, BJ 2.266–70; Ant. 20.173–78, 182–84.
42. Josephus, Ant. 20.182.
43. Even when he was dismissed from office, Pallas could stipulate successfully that there should be no scrutiny of his conduct in office and that his accounts with the state should be treated as balanced (Tacitus, Annals 13.14.2). His influence lasted until A.D. 62, when he fell victim to Nero’s desire to lay hands on his wealth (Tacitus, Annals 14.65.1). There is nothing in the circumstances of Pallas’s career to rule out his effective intervention on behalf of Felix in (say) A.D. 59.
44. Cf. Josephus, BJ 2.271; Ant. 20.182–97. Festus appears to have governed Judaea from A.D. 59 to his death in 62. Eusebius gives A.D. 55 as the year of Felix’s replacement by Festus (Chronicon, year of Abraham 2072), and in this he has been followed not only by Jerome but by some scholars of more recent date (see K. Lake in Beginnings 1.5, pp. 464–67, 470–73; H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte [Tübingen, 21972], pp. 129–30). But this gives Felix too short a rule and compresses Paul’s career since Gallio’s proconsulship of Achaia(see p. 352 with n. 38, on 18:12) into too narrow a space. A more reliable pointer to the date of Felix’s replacement has been found in a change in the Judaean provincial coinage attested for Nero’s fifth year (A.D. 58–59); this coin issue “is more likely to be the work of a new procurator than of an outgoing one who had already minted a large issue” (E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, SJLA 20 [Leiden, 1976], p. 269, n. 40). See F. W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage (London, 1864), p. 153; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 27; cf. also H. J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (New York,1955), p. 10; Schürer 1, p. 255, n. 42.
ACTS 25
7. Festus Visits Jerusalem (25:1–5)
1 When Festus arrived in his province, he went up after three days from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
2 There the chief priests and principal men of the Jews laid information before him against Paul and appealed to him,
3 seeking a favor to Paul’s disadvantage, to send for him to come to Jerusalem. They planned1 to ambush and kill him on the way.
4 Festus replied that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea, for which he himself was shortly about to set out.
5 “So,” he said, “let your leading men come down with me and state their accusation against this man, if they have any fault to find with him.”2
1–3 It was desirable that a new procurator should make the acquaintance as soon as possible of the leading national authorities of his province. Accordingly, three days after his taking up office in Caesarea, Festus went up to Jerusalem to meet the chief priests and other leaders of the Sanhedrin. After the preliminary salutations, they lost no time in exploiting the favor which Felix had done them by leaving Paul a prisoner in Caesarea. Counting perhaps on the new governor’s inexperience, they raised the question of Paul with him, and asked him to send orders to Caesarea to have Paul brought up to Jerusalem. The zealous forty who had been frustrated in an earlier plot against Paul, or others who emulated their zeal, might find a better opportunity to do away with him on the road from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
4–5 Festus, however, saw no need to accede to this particular request. He did not intend to make a long stay in Jerusalem; he was shortly to go back to Caesarea, and if a responsible deputation from the Jewish rulers went along with him, they could state their case against Paul before him there.
8. Paul Appeals to Caesar (25:6–12)
6 When he had spent some days among them, not more than eight or ten, he went down to Caesarea. Next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought.
7 When he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood round him, urging against him many serious charges which they were not able to prove.
8 Paul for his part replied in defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I done anything wrong.”
9 Then Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be judged there before me with regard to these charges?”
10 Paul said, “It is before Caesar’s tribunal that I stand; it is there that I ought to be judged.3 I have committed no crime against the Jews, as you know very well.
11 If I am guilty, if I have done anything deserving the death penalty, I do not ask to escape death. But if there is no substance in these men’s accusations against me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
12 Festus then conferred with his council and answered, “You have appealed to Caesar, have you? You shall go to Caesar.”
6–8 The whole case against Paul was now opened afresh, thanks to Felix’s neglect to pronounce his acquittal and discharge him. Festus spent a little over a week in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea, and a deputation from the Sanhedrin accompanied him. The day after their arrival in Caesarea, Festus took his seat as judge,4 ordered Paul to be brought into court, and gave his accusers an opportunity to restate their charges against him. This they proceeded to do, but although the many charges which they brought were serious in character and deadly in intention (being probably a repetition of those detailed by Tertullus before Felix), they could produce no evidence in their support. No witnesses were forthcoming to supply proof of them, and all that Paul needed to do when replying in his defense was to deny them categorically one by one.
The nature of the charges can be inferred from Paul’s threefold denial. He was charged in general with breaking the Jewish law and in particular with violating the sanctity of the temple. As for the general charge, Luke represents him as observing the Jewish law punctiliously, and Paul himself agrees that he observes it when living among law-abiding Jews (1 Cor. 9:20)—especially in Judaea, where the Sanhedrin’s writ ran. (What he did in the Gentile lands was outside their jurisdiction.) As for the particular charge of temple profanation, those who first raised a clamor against him on this ground did not come forward as witnesses when the alleged crime was recent; no evidence in its support could be produced now. If a prima facie case could have been made out against him on this score, he could have been handed over to the Sanhedrin for trial; but unsubstantiated charges did not constitute a prima facie case.5
The charge of acting against the emperor’s interests was a very serious one, of which Caesar’s representative was bound to take special notice. It was probably a repetition of the charge brought against Paul and his friends at Thessalonica (17:6–7) and an expansion of Tertullus’s characterization of him as a “pest” (24:5).6 But by charging him with fomenting disorder in the provinces Paul’s accusers overreached themselves, for this was a matter which fell decidedly within the imperial jurisdiction, not the Sanhedrin’s, and one on which Paul might very properly appeal to the emperor himself.
9 Between the Sanhedrin’s charges and Paul’s denials Festus was at a loss, the more so since he could not make out what their real grievance against him was. But he had newly entered on his period of office as governor of Judaea, the Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the nation he had come to govern, and it would be politic to begin his administration by doing something to gain their goodwill, if this could be done without infringing Roman justice. Roman justice must by all means be maintained when the accused man was a Roman citizen. But it was a matter of indifference so far as Roman justice was concerned whether the reopened case was heard in Caesarea or in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin plainly desired it to be heard in Jerusalem: he would at least concede this to them. So he proposed to Paul that he should go up to Jerusalem and have the matter dealt with there; Festus himself would be the judge. It seemed a reasonable enough proposal, the more so since the one specific crime with which Paul was charged, the violation of the sanctity of the temple, was allegedly committed at Jerusalem.
10–11 But Paul did not regard the proposal as reasonable at all. To go back to Jerusalem meant placing himself in jeopardy all over again. If Festus began by making one concession to the Sanhedrin, he might be persuaded to make further concessions even more prejudicial to Paul’s safety. Felix had been an experienced administrator of Judaea when Paul’s case was submitted to him, but Festus was a novice, and his inexperience might well be exploited to Paul’s detriment. There was one way open to Paul as a Roman citizen to escape from this precarious situation, even if it was a way attended by special risks of its own. It was not, he assured Festus, that he wished to circumvent the law of Rome or escape the due penalty for anything he might have done. If he had in fact committed a capital crime, as his accusers maintained, he was prepared to suffer the supreme penalty for it; but if there was no substance in their charges, he must not be placed in their power. Let Roman justice decide. As Festus was Caesar’s representative, the tribunal before which Paul stood was Caesar’s; but since he had not sufficient confidence in the impartiality of that subordinate tribunal, he appealed to the supreme tribunal. “I appeal to Caesar,” he declared.
The right of appeal (prouocatio) to the emperor arose out of the earlier right of appeal to the sovereign people (the populus Romanus), one of the most ancient rights of a Roman citizen, traditionally going back to the foundation of the republic in 509 B.C. It was usually exercised by appealing against a magistrate’s verdict, but might be exercised at any earlier stage of proceedings, claiming “that the investigation be carried out in Rome and judgment passed by the emperor himself.”7 At an early stage in his principate, Augustus was granted the right to judge on appeal;8 not many years later, the Julian law on public disorder safeguarded Roman citizens not only against degrading forms of coercion or punishment but also against being sentenced after an appeal had been voiced or being prevented from going to Rome to have the appeal heard there within a reasonable time.9
Paul did not appeal while Felix was in office: Felix had virtually decided that there was no case against him and was simply postponing the formal acquittal and discharge. One day (Paul might have hoped) Felix’s procrastination would come to an end and Paul would be released. But with Felix’s recall a new and potentially dangerous situation was developing for Paul; hence his momentous decision. Paul had not lost confidence in Roman justice, of which he had happy experience in a number of places, notably in Corinth before Gallio’s tribunal.10 But he feared that in Jerusalem Roman justice might be overborne by powerful local influences. There was no reason (so far as he knew) for such fear in Rome. There (it might well seem to a Roman citizen who had never actually visited Rome) Roman justice would be administered most impartially.
Ordinary provincial subjects of the empire had no such privilege as citizens enjoyed. The distinction between the two categories continued to be observed for a long time to come. For example, when the younger Pliny was confronted by the alarming spread of Christianity in Bithynia in A.D. 112, he took summary action against ordinary provincials convicted as Christians, but those who were Roman citizens he sent to Rome for appropriate examination and judgment by the emperor, not being quite sure himself of the correct legal procedure.11
To us who know Nero’s record in relation to Roman Christianity, it may seem strange that Paul should have appealed to him with such confidence. But whatever Nero’s personal character might be, the first five years of his principate (A.D. 54–59), when the imperial administration was carried on under the influence of his tutor Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, and Afranius Burrus, prefect of the praetorian guard, were looked back to as a miniature golden age. There was little in A.D. 59 that gave warning of the events of A.D 64 and 65.
12 Festus heard Paul’s words with much relief. By appealing to Caesar, Paul enabled him to escape from a responsibility with which he felt unable to cope. He conferred with his council12—a body consisting of the higher officials of his administration and younger men who accompanied him in order to gain some experience of provincial government—and willingly agreed that Paul’s case should be referred to Rome (in fact, once Paul had made his appeal, Festus had no option in the matter).
Paul probably made his appeal not only in the interests of his personal safety but also from a desire to win recognition for the Gentile churches as authorized associations13 in their own right. And he may have been moved more than anything else by the incomparable opportunity which the hearing of his appeal would provide of preaching the gospel at the seat of imperial power.14
9. Agrippa II and Bernice Visit Festus (25:13–22)
13 When some days had elapsed, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus.
14 As they were spending several days there, Festus acquainted the king with Paul’s case: “There is a man,” he said, “who has been left behind by Felix as a prisoner.
15 When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and elders of the Jews laid information before me, asking for an adverse verdict against him.
16 I told them in reply that it is not the custom for the Romans to hand over anyone for punishment before the accused person meets his accusers face to face and has an opportunity to defend himself against the charge.
17 So, when they had come together here, I made no delay but took my seat on the tribunal the next day and ordered the man to be brought.
18 They took their stand around him but charged him with none of the offenses15 that I supposed they would allege.
19 Instead, the charges concerned some disputes which they had with him about their own religion,16 and in particular about one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul claimed to be alive.
20 Since I was at a loss how to handle an investigation of these things, I asked if he would go up to Jerusalem and stand his trial about them there.
21 But Paul appealed to be kept in custody for His Imperial Majesty’s examination and decision,17 so I gave orders for him to be kept until I could send him up18 to Caesar.”
22 Agrippa said to Festus, “I should like to hear the man myself.” “You shall hear him tomorrow,” said Festus.
13 Only one problem now remained for Festus. When he sent Paul to Rome, to have his case heard before the emperor, it would be necessary for him to send a report of the case as it had developed up to the moment of Paul’s appeal. No doubt records of the hearings before Felix could be consulted, and perhaps Lysias’s letter (23:26–30) and further evidence were accessible, but Festus himself would be responsible for the wording of the report, and if it was to be coherent and intelligible he would require a better grasp of the matters at issue than he possessed at present. Listening to the speeches for the prosecution and the defense had only increased his perplexity.
Fortunately for Festus, a way out of this difficulty presented itself. Herod Agrippa II, ruler of a client kingdom to the northeast of Festus’s province, arrived in Caesarea on a complimentary visit, to congratulate the new procurator on his appointment. This man was reputed to be an expert in Jewish religious questions, and Festus hoped he might give him some unofficial help in drafting his report.
Marcus Julius Agrippa, as he calls himself on his coins (using his name as a Roman citizen), was the son of Herod Agrippa I.19 He was in Rome when his father died in A.D. 44, and the Emperor Claudius was disposed to make him king of the Jews in succession to his father; but because of the younger Agrippa’s youth (he was seventeen years old at the time) he was dissuaded from this plan, and Judaea was once more administered by Roman governors. In A.D. 50, however, Claudius gave him the kingdom of Chalcis (in Lebanon), in succession to his father’s brother Herod, together with the right of appointing the Jewish high priests.20 In 53 he gave up this kingdom in exchange for a larger one consisting of the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias.21 This territory was augmented three years later by Nero, who added to it the regions of Tiberias and Tarichaea, west of the lake of Galilee, together with Julias in Peraea and fourteen neighboring villages. In token of gratitude to Nero, Agrippa changed the name of his capital, Caesarea Philippi (modern Banyas),22 to Neronias.23
On this visit Agrippa was accompanied by his sister, Julia Bernice.24 She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, born in A.D. 28. She was given by her father in marriage to his brother Herod, king of Chalcis.25 When Herod died in 48, she lived in the house of her brother Agrippa. Later she married Polemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa.26 On inscriptions she is entitled “queen” and even “great queen.”27
14–19 At a suitable opportunity during Agrippa’s stay in Caesarea, Festus broached the subject of Paul. He told the king how Paul had been left a prisoner by Felix, how the Sanhedrin had asked him to pronounce a verdict of “guilty” against him, and how he had given them an answer in strict accordance with the principles of Roman justice: the accused party must have an opportunity in open court of hearing the charges against him and replying to them.28 When such a court was held at Caesarea, the accusers said their say, but to Festus’s surprise and perplexity, the accusations seemed to center around disputed points of Jewish religion, with particular reference to “one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul claimed to be alive.” Paul had already insisted, before the Sanhedrin and before Felix, that his case rested on the resurrection hope. Now it appears, more explicitly than before, that he linked his insistence on the resurrection hope closely with the fact that Jesus had already been raised from the dead. That Jesus’ resurrection was the real point at issue had evidently been made clear enough in the hearing before Festus, although Festus did not realize its import. Agrippa probably knew enough about the Christian movement to have his interest whetted by what Festus told him.
20–22 Festus went on to tell him of his suggestion that Paul should go up to Jerusalem and have the trial conducted there, and of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Paul was now being kept in custody at Caesarea until an opportunity arrived of sending him to Rome to have his appeal heard. “Well,” said Agrippa, “I should like to hear the man for myself.” Festus accordingly undertook to arrange an audience for the following day.
10. Paul Appears before Agrippa (25:23–27)
23 So the next day, when King Agrippa and Bernice came with great ceremony and entered the audience chamber, with military tribunes and the most distinguished men of the city,29 Festus gave the order and Paul was brought in.
24 Then Festus said, “King Agrippa, and all gentlemen30 who are present with us, you see this man. The whole community of the Jews made request of me, both at Jerusalem and here,31 clamoring that he ought to remain alive no longer.
25 But I gathered that he had done nothing deserving the death penalty, and when he himself appealed to His Imperial Majesty, I decided to send him (to Rome).
26 But I am unable to write anything definite32 about him to my sovereign lord. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, in order that, when we have held an inquiry, I may have something to write.
27 It seems absurd to me, in remanding a prisoner, not to indicate the charges brought against him.”
23 The next day, then, an audience was held. It was attended not only by Agrippa and his sister, but by members of the procurator’s staff33 and leading citizens of Caesarea (who would be mainly, if not altogether, Gentiles). Festus himself, as was proper, was in charge of the proceedings. There is quiet humor in Luke’s account of the “great ceremony”34 with which they assembled: Luke had a true sense of values, and knew that in Paul there was a native greatness which had no need to be decked with the trappings of grandeur that surrounded his distinguished hearers. History has vindicated Luke’s perspective. It has been suggested that, by bringing Paul into contact with so many notabilities, Luke aimed at enhancing his status in the eyes of readers;35 but even then some people who read this account would reckon that it was a privilege for those notabilities to have this brief contact with Paul. And most people nowadays who know anything about Agrippa and Bernice and Festus know of them as persons who for a brief period of time crossed Paul’s path and heard him speak words which might have brought much blessing to them had they been disposed to pay serious heed to what he said. All these very important people would have been greatly surprised, and not a little scandalized, could they have foreseen the relative estimates that later generations would form of them and of the prisoner who now stood before them to state his case.
24–27 Paul was then conducted into the audience chamber, and Festus introduced him to Agrippa and the others, telling how he could find no substance in the capital charges which his Jewish accusers urged against him, and how Paul had appealed to Caesar. It is plain from these words that Festus was quite at a loss about the terms in which he should draw up his report on Paul’s case—“I am unable to write anything definite about him to my sovereign lord,”36 he said—and that he would be very glad for Agrippa’s help in this matter. He therefore handed over the conduct of the inquiry to his royal visitor.
It was a purely unofficial inquiry;37 it was in no sense a trial. Agrippa had no authority to conduct a trial in Judaea, and in any case, since Paul had now appealed to Caesar, he could be subjected to no further trial until his appeal was heard in Rome. The inquiry was held in order that Agrippa might understand enough of Paul’s case to help Festus frame his report. Festus alone was responsible for framing it, though he was free to receive help from whatever source he chose. He was bound to send a report: in saying that it would be absurd to remand a prisoner to the supreme court and not indicate the charges laid against him he did not imply that it was open to him to send Paul to Rome without any account of the charges and of the conduct of proceedings thus far.38
1. The Western text is probably represented by the fuller reading of the Syriac Harclean margin: “those who had made a vow to get him into their hands planned …” (ascribing this plot to the plotters of 23:12–15).
2. Lit., “if there is anything improper (
, with which cf. Luke 23:41) in the man.”
3. Cod. B repeats the participle “standing” (
): “standing before Caesar’s tribunal, I am standing where I ought to be judged” (an attractive reading, which Lake and Cadbury adopt).
4. This formality was necessary for his decision to have legal validity. For a Roman magistrate’s “tribunal” (
) cf. 18:12, 16;Matt. 27:19; John 19:13; Josephus, BJ 2.172, 301; 3.532 (according to Josephus, Ant. 18.207, Philip the tetrarch took his official seat of office, his 
, around with him when he toured his tetrarchy in order to judge cases without delay).
5. Cf. 21:27–29 (p. 409 with nn. 47–49).
6. See p. 325 with nn. 13–16, pp. 439–40 with nn. 8–13.
7. Schürer I, p. 369.
8. Dio Cassius, History 51.19; in Dio’s Greek phrase 
A. H. M. Jones recognized the equivalent of Lat. ex prouocatione cognoscere (Studies in Roman Government and Law [Oxford, 1960], p. 96).
9. Digest 48.6–7; Paulus, Sententiae 5.26.1.
10. Cf. 18:12–17 (pp. 351–54).
11. Pliny, Epistles 10.96.4. There was a gradual erosion of the privileges of citizens as the second century advanced (this is evident from the Letter of the Churches of Lyon and Vienne, reproduced in Eusebius, HE 5.1, describing the persecution of Christians in the Rhone valley in A.D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius), until in A.D. 212 the citizenship was extended to all freeborn subjects of the empire. Luke’s account of Paul’s appeal is consistent with all that is known of relevant conditions in the late fifties of the first century. See A. H. M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law, pp. 51–98; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 57–70; P. Garnsey, “The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire,” JRS 58 (1966), pp. 167–89.
12. Gk. 
, comprising his 
or comites.
13. The legal status desired is expressed by collegium licitum (Digest 47.22) rather than by Tertullian’s religio licita (Apology 21.1), which is not a technical term of Roman law.
14. Cf. Eph. 6:19–20; Phil. 1:19–20, and possibly 2 Tim. 4:17.
15. Lit., “brought no charge of evil things” (
); P74 A C and other witnessess read “no evil charge” (
); C2 read the accusative 
, “evil things,” in apposition with, 
while the Byzantine text omits “evil” altogether.
16. Gk. 
, which may be mildly disparaging (“superstition”) or not according to the context. The disparaging sense is inappropriate here, since Festus was addressing a distinguished Jew. Cf. the adjective 
in 17:22 (p. 335 with n. 56).
17. Gk. 
. Here and in v. 25 Festus refers to the emperor by the Greek title 
, the equivalent of Lat. Augustus (cf. KJV).
18. That is, “send him up” (
, “remand,” “refer”) to the higher court to which he had appealed.
19. See 12:1–23.
20. Between A.D. 6 and 37 the high priests were appointed by Roman governors. The right of appointment was granted to Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 41. When he died three years later, a Jewish deputation visited Rome and protested to Claudius against the attempt made by Cuspius Fadus, newly appointed procurator of Judaea, to secure the right of appointment (which carried with it the custody of the high-priestly vestments) for himself. Their protest was supported by the younger Agrippa, and Claudius conciliated them by giving the right to Herod of Chalcis (brother of the elder Agrippa). See Josephus, Ant. 20.6–16.
21. This was the territory which the Emperor Gaius had given to Herod Agrippa I in A.D 37. For the two tetrarchies cf. Luke 3:1 where Philip’s tetrarchy is described as “the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis” and that of Lysanias as “Abilene.” See Schürer I, pp. 561–73.
22. Caesarea Philippi—“Philip’s Caesarea”—was so called to distinguish it from Caesarea Maritima, on the Mediterranean seaboard of Judaea. It was the capital of Philip’s tetrarchy from 4 B.C.to his death in A.D. 34. Banyas is the Arabic pronunciation of the earlier Greek name Paneas.
23. Agrippa did his best to prevent the revolt of A.D. 66 (see the dissuasive speech attributed to him by Josephus, BJ 2.345–401). When his efforts failed, he remained loyal to Rome and was rewarded after the war with a further increase of territory and (in 75) with promotion to praetorian rank. He corresponded with Josephus about the latter’s Jewish War, confirming its accuracy (Josephus, Life 362–66; Ap. 1.51). He died about A.D. 100, leaving no children, and has thus been called “the last of the Herods.” See Josephus, BJ 2.233, 245, 247, 309, 337–407; 3.56–57; 7.97; Ant. 19.354, 360–62; 20.104, 135, 138–40, 159, 179, 189–93, 203, 211–13; Life 34, 38–39, 46, 48, 52, 61, 74, 112, 114, 126, 131, 149, 154–55, 162, 180–82, 185, 220, 340–56, 359, 362–67, 381–84, 388–91, 397–98, 407–8, 410; also A. H. M. Jones, The Herods of Judaea (Oxford, 1938), pp. 207–31; Schürer I, pp. 471–83.
24. “Bernice” was the popular Hellenistic pronunciation of the Macedonian name Berenice (the form by which Josephus always refers to her).
25. To him she bore two sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus (Josephus, Ant. 20.104). A remarkable number of marriages between uncles and nieces took place within the Herod family. Thus Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, was married successively to two of her father’s half-brothers—Herod (Philip) and Herod Antipas; her daughter Salome was married to her father’s half-brother, Philip the tetrarch.
26. Like her brother, she tried hard to avert the war which broke out in A.D. 66. In spring of that year she performed a Nazirite vow in Jerusalem, and attempted, but in vain (and not without considerable personal risk), to prevent a massacre of Jews by the procurator Gessius Florus. Later, however, when her house (together with Agrippa’s) was burned down by insurgent extremists, she became an ardent pro-Flavian. She attracted the attention of Titus during the war, and lived with him on the Palatine when she came to Rome with her brother in 75. Titus would have married her, had it not been for strong expressions of disapproval among the citizens of Rome, which made him sever his connection with her. See Josephus, BJ 2.217, 220–21, 310–14, 333–34, 405, 426, 595; Ant. 19.276–77, 354; 20.104, 143, 145–46; Life 48, 119, 180–81, 343, 355; Juvenal, Satire 6.156–60; Tacitus, Histories 2.2; Suetonius, Titus 7.1; Dio Cassius, History 65.15; 66.18; also G. H. Macurdy, “Julia Berenice,” AJP 56 (1933), pp. 246–53.
27. On a Latin inscription from Beirut she is called “Queen Berenice, daughter of the great king Agrippa” (Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions [1927], pp. 243–44); on a Greek inscription she is called “Julia Berenice, the great queen” (IG III.556 = C1G 361).
28. F. Field quotes from Appian, Civil War 3.54: “The law requires, members of the council, that a man who is on trial should hear the accusation and speak in his own defense before judgment is passed on him” (Notes on the Translation of the New Testament [Cambridge, 1899], p. 140).
29. A Western addition is preserved in the Syriac Harclean margin: “who had come down from the province.”
30. Gk. 
The masculine is formal, and Bernice would not feel herself to be expressly ignored.
31. After “and here” the Western text reads (to the end of v. 25): “that I should hand him over to them for punishment without any defense. But I could not hand him over, on account of the commands which we have from His Imperial Majesty. But if any one was going to accuse him, I said that he should follow me to Caesarea, where he was in custody; and when they came, they clamored that he should be put to death. But when I heard one side and the other, I found that he was in no way worthy of death. But when I said, ‘Are you willing to be judged before them in Jerusalem?’ he appealed to Caesar.”
32. Gk. 
, “secure.”
33. The military tribunes included on his staff were five in number, as there were five auxiliary cohorts stationed at Caesarea (Josephus, Ant. 19.365).
34. Gk. 
The Greek word survives as a loanword in Palestinian Arabic (fantasya), in the sense of a festal procession.
35. See the discussion in E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 673–75, 678–79.
36. “To my 
”: the title 
with a divine connotation was given to Roman emperors by their subjects in the eastern provinces as it had been given to the Ptolemies and other dynasts; Deissmann notes that there is a remarkable rise in the frequency of such inscriptions under Nero and his successors (Light from the Ancient East, E.T. [London, 21927], pp. 353–62; cf. New Docs. 2 [1977], § 6).
37. The word 
in v. 26 means “preliminary investigation” when it is used technically; here it is used nontechnically of an informal inquiry.
38. Such a report was called litterae dimissoriae or litterae apostoli (Digest 49.6.1).