1 The brief periods of transition in leadership are always filled with potential for success or failure. Roman provincial governors depended heavily upon the urban elites of the major cities of their provinces for collaboration, and the system worked through reciprocal exchange of “favors” (cf. v. 3 αἰτούμενοι χάριν, = Latin Vulgate postulantes gratiam). Upon his arrival in Palestine Porcius Festus wasted no time (“three days”) in traveling to Jerusalem to confer with the “power elite” there, which consisted of the High Priest and his relatives (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς “the chief priests”, note the plural!), and the influential members of the Sanhedrin (“the principal men of the Jews” = the “elders”).
2 “The above tells us some significant things about our narrative. (1) It is not surprising that v. 2 tells us that Festus met with high priests (plural) and "the first of Judea" (i.e., members of the ruling elite). He was seeking as wide a base of support as possible, and his interest was not just in those who were actually in power but also in those who wielded power whether officially or behind the scenes. (2) In view of what Josephus tells us about the way [the current High Priest] Ishmael and the elites dealt with their rivals, it is totally believable that they might be party to an ambush of Paul. (3) That Festus wanted stable alliances with all the local elite is also shown by his consulting of Agrippa and Bernice. This consultation and Paul's appearance before them are quite believable since the Jewish elites were not all united, but rather were factionalized. The regiving of Paul's defense speech is also believable since Agrippa had not personally had the matter presented to him.” (Witherington, Acts 719).
3 While the Judaean leadership was complicit with the forty assassins in the previous attempt on Paul’s life, here they seem to be the actual instigators. “… we learn only that their hostility to Paul has not waned in the least despite a two-year period of imprisonment . At the first opportunity, they seek from the new governor a reversal of venue, to get Paul back in their own control. More than that, they have abandoned any pretense of legal process: they actively seek to kill Paul by way of ambush (25:3). Yet, when they are brought to Caesarea and 'surround' Paul , their 'many and weighty charges' come to nothing, for they bring no proof for any of them (25:7)” (Luke Timothy Johnson, Acts 422f).
“Felix's term of office was notorious not only for its corruption, but also for its failure to deal with the social unrest caused by the brigands and revolutionaries. Now in this setting, if we are to believe Josephus, the Jewish priesthood and Sanhedrin wanted a strong Roman hand, since they themselves were against the brigands. In fact, so angry were the Jewish leaders at Felix's failure in this respect, that after his removal, they went to Rome with formal complaints against him. In contrast, Festus is given generally good marks for his handling of the brigandage issue” (Johnson, 423).
Under Festus’ administration the Jewish leaders were still against the Jewish terrorist/freedom-fighters (sicarii) and in favor of maintaining good relations with the Roman government. the atmosphere eventually changed during the following decade under the corrupt administration of the next two Roman governors. By the end of their reigns the leaders had shifted their position and actively collaborated with the sicarii (Jewish terrorist/freedom-fighters).
“The leaders had swung to the anti-Roman side. There are several explanations for this, and all of them probably contain some truth. First of all, the effects of Jewish terrorism by the Sicarii had finally begun to be felt. Josephus asserts that the prefect Felix ordered the Sicarii's assassination of the high priest Jonathan. This is implausible, but the very suggestion may indicate the hatred that the Jewish priestly aristocracy had come to feel toward Rome. The prospect of falling victim to attack by the Sicarii may have discouraged the leaders from continuing to compromise with Rome in acts of repression from which they had nothing to gain. Florus's last move was just the latest example.It is always useful to compare the author’s narration of a sequence of events or exchange of words with how one of the participants later recalls it. So compare 25:1-12 with 25:14-21 (Festus’ own retelling of the events to Agrippa). Among the differences that Festus mentions are: (1) that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem initially “asked for a sentence against” Paul; (2) that Festus educated them on Roman legal customs; (3) the “serious charges” which Paul’s accusers “could not prove” are revealed to be not what Festus was expecting (v. 18-19) but points of disagreement about religion and about a man named Jesus [Luke did not mention that Paul’s rebuttal (v. 8) contained arguments about Jesus, but it is probable that it did]; (4) Festus does not mention in v. 21 that he in fact had to confer with his council (v. 12) before complying with Paul’s request.
In addition, it is obvious that the Jewish aristocracy could expect nothing more from Rome. A succession of high priests had not been able to bring about any improvement in the Jews' material situation or legal status: the struggle against the "provocations" of prefects and procurators was unending. In the incident at Caesarea on the Sea that led to the war, the leaders had been stripped before being humiliated by Florus. Threatened by the Sicarii, humiliated by the Romans, these Jewish leaders had nothing to lose by throwing themselves into the revolt that had just broken out” (Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome 120).
When it was clear to Paul that Festus could not resist the temptation to yield to the request of the authorities in Jerusalem to send him there for what could have been either a trumped up trial or (more likely) a simple assassination, he used his legal right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the court of the emperor.
“In making this request [in v. 11], Paul affirms his Roman citizenship and Roman identity, for it is his status as a citizen that affords him the right to have his case heard in Rome. Thus, when his request is granted, Paul embarks for Rome not as a lowly marturos but as a Romaios. In doing so, he wins a change of venue not only for himself, but for the Church as well. Jesus did not step beyond the sacred circle of Israel, but Paul travels in other circles” (Earl Schwartz, 'The Trials of Jesus and Paul', Journal of Law and Religion, 9/2 (1992), 501-13).22 Festus did not summon or invite Agrippa and his sister Bernice to Caesarea in order to advise him about Paul: rather Luke tells us that they came to Caesarea to give him an official welcome (v. 13). It was merely serendipitous that Agrippa (II), who knew Jewish law and had Roman-authorized jurisdiction and control over the Jerusalem temple, where the original disturbance had broken out against Paul, was now available to advise Festus. But Festus already was in possession of more than enough information about the case to formulate the documents and reports to Nero which wold accompany Paul to Rome. All of this posturing and pretending to need more information was part of the political drama which was the daily fare of Roman provincial administrators like Festus. To Paul it would have appeared not just ridiculous, but positively fraught with danger for himself, and even more for the community of believers in Judea and for the gospel.
At the beginning of our commentary on this chapter I asked “Where is God in all this?” The answer was that God was working behind the scenes. But is there nothing else in this chapter that can speak to our hearts and lives and prepare us to be good witnesses to Christ?
Yes, I believe it is in the behavior of Paul throughout this corrupt and dangerous business. First of all, he is quiet, respectful and law-abiding. He does not shout or interrupt: he waits for his turn to speak at the instruction of the Roman governor. He does not revile his accusers. Secondly, he speaks truthfully. For a faithful servant of Christ, the truth is always on your side. It needs no embellishment. Unlike the ambitious and deceitful Festus, Paul did not need to recast events in his own favor. He told the simple truth. Thirdly, he showed courage in the face of a possible death sentence, but he also used his legal rights to do whatever was possible to thwart an illegal execution. We are reminded of his words in his letter to the Philippian church: he was willing to die for the gospel (yes, even eager to “depart and be with Christ, which is far better”), yet wanting to remain and minister the gospel for as long as God permitted him. As citizens we too have legal rights: rights to free speech, including religious speech. It is important for us therefore to use these rights whenever possible and to resist the arguments of those who in the name of "sensitivity" wish to keep Christians from using the public arena to proclaim the gospel.
Yes, there is much in this little chapter for the Holy Spirit to use to encourage and embolden us to be (like Paul) faithful, courageous and truthful in our witness to the gospel of Christ.
