Acts 25:23-27

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 25:23. The chief captains were the chiliarchs or commanders of the cohorts stationed at Cæsarea—which cohorts were five in number (Jos., Wars, III. iv. 2).

Acts 25:24. All the multitude of the Jews, the procurator says, had dealt with or made suit to him because the Jewish rulers in their action had only interpreted the popular outcry against the apostle (Hackett), or because a crowd may have gone with them to the procurator’s residence in order to enforce their application by clamouring for the same object (Meyer).

Acts 25:25 supplies a valuable attestation of the governor’s conviction that Paul had committed nothing worthy of death—i.e., was practically innocent of the charges preferred against him.

Acts 25:26. No certain thing to write.—In cases of appeal “it was necessary to transmit to the emperor a written account of the offence charged as having been committed, and also of all the judicial proceedings that may have taken place in relation to it. Documents of this description were called apostoli or literæ dimissoriæ” (Hackett). My Lord, κύριος, Dominus, was a title which neither Augustus nor Tiberius would accept because it implied the relation of master and slave, and because properly it belonged only to the gods (Tacit., Annals, ii. 87; Suetonius, Aug., 53), Caligula and all the emperors who followed him had no such scruples. The use of it now by Luke, when a few years earlier it would have been inappropriate, is another mark of historical veracity.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 25:23

A Third Hearing before Agrippa and Bernice; or, Festus’s Excuse for calling forth his Prisoner

I. The brilliant assemblage.—The persons composing it were the most illustrious of the day, the élite and fashion of Cæsarea.

1. A Roman governor. Porcius Festus, Felix’s successor, who had recently entered on his procuratorship over Palestine (A.D. 60–62), and who in some degree succeeded in restoring order to the country which had been seriously disquieted during his predecessor’s reign (Jos., Ant., XX. viii. 9, 10). Of these Roman governors generally, not inaptly styled “a splendid series of provincial administrators,” it has been said “we can find among them examples occasionally of cruelty, occasionally of rapacity, but never of incompetence” (Waddington, Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, p. 18; quoted by Ramsay in The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 174).

2. A royal pair. Agrippa II., the last of the Herods (born in 27 A.D., made King of Chalcis A.D. 50, died A.D. 100, in the third year of Trajan), accompanied by his beautiful sister Bernice, who had once been, through marriage with Polemon, Queen of Cilicia, Paul’s native province (see preceding “Homily and Critical Remarks” on Acts 25:13). Kingly dignity and queenly loveliness are gifts bestowed on few. When attended by moral elevation and grace, they become both worthy of admiration and powerful in influence. When dissociated from these, and much more when allied with depravity, as was the case in Agrippa and Bernice, they attract towards themselves the scorn and contempt of all good men and women.

3. A company of officers. Five in number, these were the military tribunes, or commanders of the imperial forces stationed at the garrison, who waited on and served the procurator, and whose presence on this occasion was, no doubt, intended to put honour on Festus’s distinguished guests, if not to overawe the lonely prisoner who was about to be summoned forth before such august notabilities. If the former, it was all the honour the sinful pair were worth receiving, and perhaps all they could have appreciated; if the latter, it signally failed in accomplishing the end for which it was designed.

4. A group of magistrates. The principal men of the city, the civic authorities of Cæsarea, were probably accustomed to receive invitations from the governor when great occasions were going forward in the palace.

II. The splendid auditorium.—The palace of Herod (see on Acts 23:35).

1. A scene of magnificent displays. It was within this gorgeous chamber that the kings and governors of past days had been wont to hold their celebrations, when, as on the present occasion they exhibited all the pomp and paraphernalia that were supposed to lend lustre to their royal and imperial majesties. The account of what took place on this memorable day reads like a description given by one who had been an eyewitness of the scene: “The splendour of the procession and the glittering appearance of the court, crowded with those royal and princely personages and their retinue, Roman and Jewish guards, the Sanhedrim officials, the stately garb of the high priest and his fellows, the head of the hierarchy of Israel” (it is doubtful, however, if these were present), “must have been very striking; all honour on this occasion was evidently shown to King Agrippa II., the last Jew who legally bore the royal title” (Spence).

2. A hall of bloody memories (see on Acts 23:35). It would hardly be possible for Agrippa to forget the tragic associations which adhered to the place in which they were then assembled. The blare of trumpets might dull, but would not be able to altogether shut out the cries of murdered men and women that in imagination he heard echoing through the hall. The magnificence of the scene before him would not prevent him from seeing on its marble pavement stains of blood, which to other eyes may have been invisible

3. A place of gracious opportunities. Such an opportunity had been given to Felix and Drusilla when Paul reasoned before them of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come (Acts 24:24); and such another was about to be afforded to the gay company then assembled within its walls.

III. The noteworthy prisoner.—Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, now the prisoner of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:1). Remarkable for three things:

1. The evil reputation he enjoyed at the hands of his countrymen. “All the multitude of the Jews,” both at Jerusalem and at Cæsarea, cried out that he was no longer worthy to live. Could they have obtained their desire he should instantly have been torn to pieces, or stoned to death. And yet he was the noblest man that Palestine had produced—whether for excellence of talent, nobility of soul, or beneficence of life! Verily the world does not always know its great or good men. Paul at this moment might have taken to himself for consolation the eighth beatitude (Matthew 5:11).

2. The baseless character of the charges preferred against him. Three times over he had been put upon his trial—before the council (Acts 23:9; Acts 23:29), before Felix (Acts 24:22), and before Festus (Acts 25:18)—and each time the verdict had been practically given in his favour. He had committed nothing worthy of death, or of imprisonment. And yet he was remanded to confinement! “God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.” Paul had still to preach the gospel to Agrippa, and to his countrymen at Rome; and for both reasons he was yet, in God’s providence, detained as a prisoner.

3. The noble courage he had all through displayed. Never quaking through fear of man, never shrinking from the severest ordeals, never apologising for the message he delivered, never pleading with his persecutors for mercy, but always only for justice, never hesitating to proclaim the glorious truths of Christ crucified and risen, of which he had been appointed a witness and herald; but always calm, heroic, self-forgetful, earnest, tender, and confident. Probably a more sublime testimony to the efficacy of Divine grace in supporting a faithful minister of the gospel amid weakness, weariness, pain, shame, hardship, and oppression has never been furnished to the Church or the world!

IV. The trumpery excuse.—After a pompous harangue the governor pretends to give an explanation to his guests of the reason why he had commanded the apostle to be fetched from his confinement. The excuse was—

1. Ostensibly good. Having determined to forward Paul to Rome, it was unreasonable to send on a prisoner for judgment without specifying the charges that had been brought against him. No doubt; and it was illegal as well, since Roman law demanded that such a document should accompany every case that was transmitted to the emperor. Then he had nothing certain to write about the case and hoped that Agrippa, being a Jew, might assist him to the better understanding of its intricacies. This, too, was a proper course to follow, if it really was so that he felt at a loss what to report to the Emperor.

2. Barely true. Festus understood perfectly that Paul had committed nothing worthy of death—that was one certain thing he could have written. Festus knew that Paul’s offence was neither social nor political, but only ecclesiastical and religious, and that as yet the policy of Rome was not to intermeddle with such disputes—which was a second certain thing he could have reported to Augustus. Besides, Festus knew that the real reason for Paul’s production was to afford Agrippa and Bernice an opportunity of hearing that remarkable man. Hence, in a strict sense, Festus’s explanation was not precisely in accordance with truth.

Learn.—

1. The mystery of Divine providence, which seats an Agrippa upon the throne and consigns a Paul to a prison.
2. The insignificance of earthly pomp when compared with the glory of moral and religious worth, as seen in the external decoration of Agrippa and Bernice, when set alongside of the inner graces of Paul.

3. The truth of Jesus Christ’s predictions that His servants should suffer persecution (Matthew 10:18; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12), and in particular that Paul should bear His name before kings (Acts 9:15).

4. The infatuation which sometimes impels communities to hate and even slay their best men. Seen in the conduct of the Jews towards Paul.
5. The involuntary testimony that the world is often compelled to bear as to the moral excellence of Christians—illustrated by Festus’s declaration concerning Paul.
6. The disregard for strict truth which is often found in great no less than in mean men.
7. The unreasonableness of continuing a man in prison against whom it is difficult to find a charge that will bear writing down.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 25:23. A Christian Service in a Strange Place.

I. The cathedral, church, or chapel. The judgment hall in Herod’s palace. This hall had been built by wicked hands, had been often stained with blood, had frequently echoed to the cries of despair and the shouts of bacchanalian revelry, and had more than once reverberated to the sound of Paul. But any place will do to preach the gospel in.

II. The congregation.—

1. Brilliant. Consisting of the civic and military dignitaries of Cæsarea, the aristocracy and fashion of its population.

2. Mixed. Comprising persons of royal birth, and persons of low degree, statesmen and rulers with their servants and subjects.

3. Sinful. All alike needful of the gracious blessings of the gospel. Of different degrees of wickedness, they were one in this, that all needed salvation.

III. The preacher.—

1. A shackled prisoner. Paul, when he stood before that gay throng which crowded Herod’s judgment hall, was chained by his right hand to a Roman soldier.

2. A spiritual freeman. In all that company Paul alone was possessed of true liberty.

“He is the freeman whom the truth makes free
And all are slaves besides” (Cowper).

3. A fearless prophet. Conscious of innocence, and depending on his Lord, Paul was not abashed before so much material splendour and earthly glory.

4. An eloquent orator. Sufficiently proved by the oration he delivered when called upon to speak in his de fence

(26.).

IV. The sermon—The apology he uttered, setting forth:

1. The groundless character of the charges advanced against him. Thus confirming the conclusion at which Festus had already arrived (Acts 25:25).

2. The supernatural character of the call which had transformed him into a Christian apostle. Thus explaining that his countrymen, in seeking his death, were practically fighting against God.

3. The necessary character of his mission to the Gentiles. Thus showing that in all he did he was acting under the impulse of a higher will than his own (see chap. 26).

Acts 25:24. Behold this Man! (Compare John 19:5: Behold the Man!)

I. An Israelite indeed, and yet hated by his co-religionists.—They had lost the inner kernel of the Old Testament religion, and were trying to live upon the husk; they had abandoned the spirit, and were become slaves of the letter. He, on the other hand, had cast aside the letter, and was living on the spirit of it, had thrown away the husk, and was retaining the kernel.

II. An innocent man, and yet consigned to prison.—In this certainly he was not worse treated than his Master had been, who, though He did no sin, was yet put to death as a common malefactor. Though the law was not made for a righteous man but for the unrighteous (1 Timothy 1:9), yet its penalties and prisons often fall to the righteous rather than to the wicked.

III. A friendless prisoner, and yet a fearless confessor.—Though Paul had friends in Cæsarea whose visits cheered and relieved his captivity (Acts 24:23), it is not certain that they were permitted to stand beside him in Herod’s palace on that memorable day. Nevertheless, it need not be doubted that the Lord stood by him (Matthew 10:19; Matthew 28:20), and that the presence of this heavenly friend was more to him than ten thousands of human allies and supporters, enabling him to say with the Hebrew Psalmist: “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalms 27:1)

Acts 25:26. No Certain Thing to Write; or, the Uncertainties of Infidelity.

I. Whether there be no God.—The fool may say in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). The transgressor may wish there were no God. The materialist may assert and imagine he has proved there is no God. But neither fool nor philosopher can be sure that their conclusions are right.

II. Whether Jesus of Nazareth was only a man.—That He was a man all—believers and unbelievers—are agreed. That He was only a man has been vehemently and persistently affirmed by rejectors of His divinity. But they can never demonstrate to the satisfaction of others that such a thing as an incarnation is impossible.

III. Whether there be no hereafter.—This also has been blatantly proclaimed by the champions of infidelity; but as no one has ever returned from the grave they cannot positively know that there is no conscious existence beyond.

IV. Whether there be no hell.—By many it is confidently maintained that eternal punishment is only an imagination of mediæval theologians; but until the great hereafter comes with its awakening experiences, it will be impossible with regard to this to cherish more than a hope. N.B.—If Christians were uncertain that the things most surely believed among them were realities, they would be in no worse position than the unbelievers are who reject them; but Christians can say with reference to their faith in God, Christ, Immortality, Heaven, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables” (2 Peter 1:16).

Acts 25:27. Unreasonable Things, whoever does them.

I. To commit a man to gaol who has done no wrong.
II. To punish a man on account of his religion.
III. To oppress the single and de fenceless in order to please the many and the strong.
IV. To expect to crush a good cause or a good man by means of persecution.

Acts 25:23. Festus’s Audience Chamber at Cœsarea.

I. A drawing-room of worldly glory; constituted such by the splendour of the assembled nobility (Acts 25:23).

II. A lecture room of holy doctrine; constituted such by the testimony of the Apostle (Acts 26:1).

III. A judgment hall of Divine majesty; constituted such by the impression of the apostolic discourse, which discloses the secrets of all hearts (Acts 26:24).—Gerok in Lange.