Acts 25:13-27

And after certain days King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea.

Agrippa and Bernice

Each of the characters thus brought on the scene has a somewhat memorable history.

1. The former closes the line of the Herodian house. He was the son of the Agrippa whose tragic end is related in Acts 12:20, and was but seventeen years of age at the time of his father’s death, in A.D. 44. He did Hot succeed to the kingdom of Judaea, which was placed under the government of a procurator; but on the death of his uncle Herod, the king of Chalets, in A.D. 48, received the sovereignty of that region from Claudius, and with it the superintendence of the temple and the nomination of the high priests. Four years later he received the tetrarchies that had been governed by his great-uncles Philip and Lysanias (Luke 3:1), with the title of king. In A.D. 55 Nero increased his kingdom by adding some of the cities of Galilee (Jos. “Ant.” 19, 9, § 1; 20:1, § 3; 8, § 4). He lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem, and died under Trajan (A.D. 100) at the age of seventy-three.

2. The history of Bernice, or Berenice (the name seems to have been a Macedonian form of Pherenice), reads like a horrible romance, or a page from the chronicles of the Borgias. She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and was married at an early age to her uncle the king of Chalets. Alliances of this nature were common in the Herodian house, and the Herodias of the Gospels passed from an incestuous marriage to an incestuous adultery (See Matthew 14:1). On his death Berenice remained for some years a widow, but dark rumours began to spread that her brother Agrippa, who had succeeded to the principality of Chalcis, and who gave her, as in the instance before us, something like queenly honours, was living with her in a yet darker form of incest, and was producing in Judaea the vices of which his father’s friend, Caligula, had set so terrible an example (Sueton. “Calig.” c. 24). With a view to screening herself against these suspicions, she persuaded Polemon, king of Cilicia, to take her as his queen, and to profess himself a convert to Judaism, as Azizus had done for her sister Drusilla, and accept circumcision. The ill-omened marriage did not prosper. The queen’s unbridled passions once more gained the mastery. She left her husband, and he got rid at once of her and her religion. Her powers of fascination, however, were still great, and she knew how to profit by them in the hour of her country’s ruin. Vespasian was attracted by her queenly dignity, and yet more by the magnificence of her queenly gifts. His son Titus took his place in her long list of lovers. She came as his mistress to Rome, and it was said that he had promised her marriage. This, however, was more than even the senate of the empire could tolerate, and Titus was compelled by the pressure of public opinion to dismiss her, but his grief in doing so was matter of notoriety. “Dimisit invitus invitam” (Sueton. “Titus,” c. 7; Tacit, “Hist.” 2.81; Jos. “Ant.” 20.7, § 3). The whole story furnished Juvenal with a picture of depravity which stands almost as a pendent to that of Messalina (“Sat.” 6.155-9). (Dean Plumptre.)

Paul’s introduction to Agrippa

Here we have--

I. Bitter antagonism. This is revealed in the Jews. They hated “the one Jesus whom Paul preached as having died and risen again.” There are men now who hate Christianity--its principles, author, advocates, and disciples. The opposition, however, is as futile as it is wicked.

II. Idle curiosity. This is revealed in Agrippa. “I will also hear the man myself.” Being a Jew, he could not have been ignorant of Paul, and now an opportunity occurred for him to see the man and hear his tale. His wish was not a wish for spiritual instruction. Multitudes now go to hear preachers from the same motive.

III. Proud indifference. This is revealed in Festus. He cared nothing about “this one Jesus who was dead, and whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” Religious indifferentism is the prevalent sin of Christendom. This is worse, for many reasons, than theoretic infidelity.

IV. Vital faith. This is revealed in Paul.

1. Paul had a faith.

2. His faith was in Christ.

3. His faith was his very life.

To it he lived, and for it he was prepared to suffer and to die. “For me to live,” he said, “is Christ, and to die is gain.” (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul before princes and rulers

A noble picture, from which we recognise--

I. The glory of God, who sets open doors before His servants even in bonds, and knocks with His Word at palaces as well as huts.

II. The fidelity of His servant who bears testimony to the Lord everywhere undazzled by the splendour of human greatness, and unclogged by the fetters of his own trouble. (K. Gerok.)

The principles of a sound administration

I. It should do everything which belongs to its office.

1. In respect of accusers: to receive and listen to them patiently (verses 15-18).

2. In respect of the accused: to hear their defence impartially, and to protect their persons against the craft and violence of their enemies (verses 16, 18, 21).

II. It should omit everything which does not belong to its office.

1. It should assume no judgment in matters of faith.

2. It should not arbitrarily anticipate the higher judge (verse 25), but conscientiously prepare the way. (K. Gerok.)

The judgment of worldly men concerning matters of faith

1. Their highest standpoint is that of civil law, as here with Festus.

2. Their judgment is depreciatory: they reckon them as belonging to the domain of superstition, and pride themselves on not understanding such questions (verses 19-21).

3. Their sympathy is, as with Agrippa, an affair of curiosity and fashion (verse 22). (Lisco.)

The blindness of mere worldly education in matters of Christian truth

1. The precious articles of the Christian faith are to it the offspring of superstition, not worth the trouble of being accurately instructed therein (verses 19, 20).

2. The living Head of the Church is “one Jesus” who is dead, of whose power and presence there is no trace (verse 19).

3. The chosen servants of God are to it incomprehensible and whimsical men, of whom nothing can be made (verses 24-27). (K. Gerok.)

Face to face

When any member of Mr. Kilpin’s church at Exeter came with details of real or supposed injuries received from a fellow member, after listening to the reporter, Mr. Kilpin would inquire if they had mentioned these grievances to their offending brother or sister. If the reply was in the negative--and usually it was so--he would then calmly order a messenger to fetch the offender, remarking that it would be ungenerous to decide, and unscriptural to act, merely from hearing the statement of one party. This determination always produced alarm, and the request that nothing might be mentioned to the party implicated. Assertions and proofs are very different grounds for the exercise of judgment, and are more distinct than angry persons imagine.