Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 25:1 - 25:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
D.—THE NEW PROCURATOR, PORCIUS FESTUS, RESUMES, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE JEWS, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE OF PAUL; BUT WHEN THE LATTER APPEALS TO THE EMPEROR, THE PROCURATOR ADMITS THE APPEAL
b. The acting high priest at that time was Ismael, the son of Phabi, whom Felix had already appointed in place of Ananias (Jos. Antiq. xx. 8. 8 and 11). But on the present occasion all the chief priests [see note 1, appended to the text above.—Tr.] and the chief men of the people in general, presented themselves, and had an audience with the new procurator. The phrase ïἱ ðñῶôïé is not identical in meaning with “elders” (Grotius, de Wette), but, irrespectively of any official rank, denotes the most eminent, the most influential men, of the nation. They doubtless availed themselves of the occasion on which they paid their first visit to Festus, to direct his attention to the present matter, as one in which the whole nation was interested. The proposal which they made to the new governor, and to which they begged him to accede, as the first favor which he would grant, virtually expressed their wish that he would order the prisoner to be brought up to Jerusalem and placed before his judgment-seat, inasmuch as he himself was now present in the capital. The participle ἐíÝäñáí ðïéïῦíôåò , belonging to ðáñåêÜëïõí , Act_25:2, implies that at the time when they made the request, they were already forming secret and hostile plans, and making preparations to destroy the apostle. [“ Ðïéïῦíôåò , not for ðïéÞóïíôåò ; they were making, contriving, the ambush already.” (Alf.)—Tr.]
Act_25:4-6. That Paul should be kept at Cesarea.—The meaning of Festus is, that Paul was then at Cesarea and would remain there, and that his own stay in Jerusalem would be so brief, that it was not worth while to bring up the prisoner from Cesarea. [“ Ôçñåῖóèáé . The English version ‘should be kept’ is rather too peremptory. Festus doubtless expresses this decision, but in the most conciliating form.” (Conyb. and H. II. 298, n. 7).—Tr.]. Ïἱ äõíáôïὶ ἐí ὑìῖí , “those among you who exercise authority,” i.e., those who had authority to act, on account of their office and rank; for some of the Jews then present may have been prominent only by birth, wealth, etc., whereas, in any case of judicial proceedings, the Roman governor regarded those alone as competent to act, who were invested with office. It is an arbitrary mode of interpretation, to represent äõíáôïὶ as referring to those who were able to perform the journey (Bengel), or who were able to produce any charge against Paul.
Act_25:7-8. The Jews … stood round about; they surrounded the apostle in a menacing manner, and attempted to intimidate him. [ Áὐôὸí , after ðåñéÝóô ., is adopted by Lach. and Tisch., in accordance with A. B. C. E. G., also Cod. Sin., many minuscules, Syr. Vulg. (eum), etc.; it is omitted by text. rec. and Alf., in accordance with H.—E. reads áὐôῷ . Meyer says: “They surrounded Paul, as Ðáñáã . äὲ áὐôïῦ , (the words immediately preceding ðåñéÝóô .), plainly show; it is an error to refer ðåñéÝóô . (as Grotius and Kuinoel do), to ôὸ âῆìá .”—Tr.]. The first two charges—the violation of the law, and the profanation of the temple—were those which had been previously made: but it is evident from Act_25:8 [ ïὔôå åἰò Êáßóáñá ] that a third charge, referring to a political offence, was now added. Paul was slanderously described as a traitor, as if he were guilty of an offence against the Roman sovereignty or the emperor himself; the accusation is, possibly, analogous to that which is mentioned in Act_17:6-7.
Act_25:9. There be judged … before me.—The expression ἐð ʼ ἐìïῦ is ambiguous, and was, perhaps, designedly chosen. It might mean: me judice (as it evidently does in Act_23:30; Act_26:2); but it might also mean: coram me; in this latter sense, the Jewish Sanhedrin would have constituted the court, and the procurator would have been present simply for the purpose of watching the trial. Indeed, the [apostle’s] journey to Jerusalem [Act_25:3], and the transfer of the trial to that city [as requested by the Jews], would have had no object, if a change of the tribunal had not been intended; and it was only in the latter case that an actual and special favor [ ÷Üñéí , Act_25:3], would have been granted to the Jews.
Act_25:10-11. I stand at Cesar’s judgment seat—It is evident that, as Paul understood the question, he was asked whether he was willing to be tried before the Sanhedrin, as the court. He withholds his consent, for these reasons: 1. Because he already stood before the imperial tribunal, and, consequently, his sentence would there be properly pronounced. (He says: âÞì . Êáßóáñïò , inasmuch as the procurator was the representative of Cesar, and pronounced sentence in the name of the emperor).—2. Because he was guilty of no offence against the Jews, as Festus indeed well knew, and knew better than he was willing to admit— êÜëëéïí , i.e., than the expressions of the procurator seemed to imply. [“ ÊÜëëéïí —not for the superlative; the comparative is elliptical, requiring ‘than …’ to be supplied by the hearer … it means: ‘better than thou choosest to confess’ ” (Alf.). This is the interpretation of de Wette, Hackett, etc. See Winer, § 35. 4. “Hence, Festus, as Paul implies, should not have asked such a question ( èÝëåéò , etc., Act_25:9), as it was in opposition to his own better knowledge and conviction.” (Meyer).—Tr.]. This declaration of the apostle was made with deliberation, and was sufficiently definite. He proceeds, in Act_25:11, to draw an inference from it. “Hence ( ïὖí , not ãÜñ [note 6, appended to the text.—Tr.])”—says he—I subject myself to the punishment which the law decrees, in case I have deserved it; but, if the accusation is unfounded, I claim the protection of the law (Meyer). When Paul uses the word ÷áñßóáóèáé , he says, without reserve, that as the whole question turned on a point of law, no act would be legal, by which he would be surrendered to the Jews, as a favor to the latter.—He avails himself, finally, of the legal right of an appeal to the emperor himself, and, in doing so, employs the most concise terms. It is obvious that he was induced to adopt this course by the circumstance that Festus did not seem disposed to maintain with firmness the position which he had previously taken in reference to the wishes of the Jews; hence Paul had reason to apprehend that, ultimately, he might not be protected against the machinations of his deadly enemies. He was, besides, encouraged to take this step, by the promise which he had received (Act_23:11), that he should bear witness of Jesus in Rome, before he died. All these circumstances, in their combination, convinced him that it was now his duty to resort to the right of appeal; and in pursuing this course, he was influenced not so much by any considerations connected with himself, as by a sense of his duty as a witness. As a Roman citizen, he possessed the right of appealing to the emperor; it was strictly forbidden by the Lex Julia that any impediment should be placed in the way of a Roman citizen who had appealed. That appeal itself might be made in writing, but also orally, when, as in the present case, it was made during the course of judicial proceedings. (See the appropriate passages of the Roman Law in Wetstein).
Act_25:12. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council [with his own óõìâïýëéïí , not with the óõíÝäñéïí of the Jews.—Tr.]. This council consisted of certain officers, whom Suetonius calls consiliarii (Tiber, c. 33), and also assessores (Galba, c. 19). The consultation referred to the question whether Paul’s appeal ought to be admitted and confirmed, [inasmuch as there were a few cases, such as those of bandits, pirates, etc., in which the right of appeal was disallowed; but no doubt could be entertained on this head, in the present instance, and the appeal was at once sustained. (Conyb. and H. II. 301.).—The text. rec. introduces the Greek note of interrogation after Êáßóáñá ἐðéêÝêëçóáé (Hast thou, etc.?). “Griesbach had already rejected the usual note of interrogation in this place, as it only tends to destroy the solemnity and weight of the decision.” (Meyer). “The sentence is not interrogative, as in the authorized (English) version, but the words express a solemn decision of the Procurator and his Assessors.” Conyb. etc. II. 301. n. 3). This is the opinion now generally entertained (Alexander; Hackett, etc.) and recent editors substitute a comma for the note of interrogation.—Tr.].
2. The path of the apostle conducts him, according to the counsel of God, from Jerusalem to Rome, and, indeed, at that period, the path of the Church of Christ led from Jerusalem to Rome. But the manner in which this counsel of God was fulfilled, is very remarkable, when viewed as an index of the ways of providence. The falsehood and deceit of the one party, and the weakness of the other, ultimately leave the imprisoned apostle no other choice than that of making an appeal to the emperor himself. It was not in a calculating spirit, nor from cowardice or caprice, that he adopted this resolution; he found himself, on the contrary, compelled to take such a step; his act in availing himself of this right, which the law conceded, assumed a moral character.—Now, at that moment, when the Roman procurator formally declared that the appeal was admitted, and that Paul should proceed on his journey to the emperor, a decisive turning point in the life of the apostle was reached. His watchword henceforth was: “On, to Rome!” The point which he had for years longed to reach (Act_19:21), and to which a divine revelation assured him that he was appointed to proceed (Act_23:11), was now already brought much nearer to his eye. But many sins were committed by men before the promise was actually fulfilled. The evil which men intended, God meant unto good, Gen_50:20.
Act_25:3. And desired favor against him.—The lives and bodies of Christians are so little valued, that they are given away, when others ask for such favors, Mat_14:6-11; Mar_15:15. (Starke).
Act_25:4-5. But Festus answered, etc.—God here protected Paul in a wonderful manner. The reply of Festus, and the statement in Act_25:9, show that it cost him an effort, when he refused, in a direct manner, to grant the request of the Jews; he might, by complying with it, have become popular among them, at the very commencement of his administration. But he was not controlled by passion, and submitted to be guided by God in the path of justice.—And Paul himself was not aware of the extent of the danger from which his life was again rescued, Act_25:3. How numerous are the cases, in which we have been protected and rescued, and of which we shall remain in ignorance, until we hereafter stand before the throne of God! (Williger).
Act_25:6. Commanded Paul to be brought.—In the whole history of these judicial proceedings, we do not in a single instance observe the apostle thrusting himself forward before the tribunal. He invariably waits until he is commanded to appear; and whenever he is allowed to speak, he confines himself within the limits of his defence, without in the least degree meditating revenge on his blood-thirsty accusers. He furnishes a noble example to every servant of God, teaching that it is our duty to forget personal insults, to leave vengeance to God, to deny ourselves when we suffer for Christ’s sake, and to overcome our enemies by patience and gentleness. (Ap. Past.).
Act_25:7. Many and grievous complaints,—which they could not prove.—Here, too, the lot of the servant is like that of the Master. Even as false witnesses appeared in the presence of the pagan, Pilate, against Christ, but could furnish no adequate support for their calumnies, so the attempt of the Jews against Paul in the presence of Festus, was a complete failure. In both cases the false accusations were the same: violation of the law, profanation of the temple, rebellion against the emperor. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act_25:8. Neither against the law, etc.—The more simple and direct the defence is, the more closely it resembles the mind and conduct of Christ, Joh_18:20-21. (Starke).
Act_25:9. But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure.—Although men, who are not influenced by the fear of God, may, for a season, pursue the right path, they can at any time, when earthly motives are presented, deviate from it, and act deceitfully. Hence we should put confidence, not in men, but in God. Psa_118:8-9. (Starke).
Act_25:10-11. Then said Paul, I stand at Cesar’s judgment seat … I appeal unto Cesar.—Imperial and legal privileges, letters of safe-conduct, civil rights, etc., have been established, in order that the devout might be comforted, and the plans of evil men might be defeated. (Mark this, ye scorners!). Hence God has ordained the powers that be, and supplied laws and documents, legal rights and penalties, for the purpose of curbing a wanton spirit, and protecting defenceless and devout men. Rom_13:1-4. (Starke).—Besides the three national afflictions of war, pestilence and famine, there is a fourth—protracted law-suits, in which advocates are often the representatives of a boundless eternity. Paul’s suit did not yet come to an end. 1Co_6:7. (id.).—The apostle would not have appealed to the emperor, if he had not known that it was the divine will that he should bear witness also at Rome [Act_23:11]. By means of this appeal the Lord opened an avenue for his servant, so that the latter could make known his testimony of Jesus even in the capital of the world. (Ap. Past.).—He appealed to the emperor, not that he might obtain aid from a man like Nero, but that he might, by such an avenue, reach the city of Rome. His appeal is, at the same time, a striking rebuke of that false spirituality, which regards it as an unchristian course to appeal to the civil law and to the civil magistrates for aid in maintaining our rights. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act_25:12.—Hast thou appealed unto Cesar? unto Cesar shalt thou go.—“Yes, Festus, thou art rights—Paul must go to Rome, not, however, because thou and thy council have so decided, but because it was so appointed by the counsel of God. Thus even the highest authorities of the Roman Empire, (which was, in its very nature, hostile to the kingdom of heaven), were compelled to subserve the purposes and ways of the kingdom of Jesus.”—“The wheels of divine providence carry all things forward, and men are obliged to coöperate, although they do not know it. They imagine, however, that they do the work.” (Gossner).
ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act_25:1-12.—The noble firmness of the Christian in maintaining his rights: it differs, I. From the effrontery of the hypocrite; for it relies on a defence which is sustained by facts, Act_25:7-8 : II. From the defiant spirit of the criminal; for it does not attempt to evade a legal investigation, Act_25:9-10 : III. From the obstinacy of contentious men; for it submits to a just decision. (Bobe).
I appeal unto Cesar.
This language furnishes the evidence, I. Of a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men [Act_24:16]; II. Of an humble submission to the powers that are ordained of God; III. Of an evangelical and sober avoidance of an unnecessary martyrdom; IV. Of an unwearied zeal for the extension of the kingdom of God. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Impartiality and justice, the noblest ornaments of a magistrate: I. Festus does not decline to listen to the complaints against Paul, Act_25:1-4; II. He receives the statements both of the accusers and of the accused, Act_25:6-8; III. He allows the accused to appeal to the emperor, Act_25:9-12. (Lisco).
How does a Christian maintain his rights? I. Without arrogance, Act_25:6-8; II. Without fear, Act_25:9-12. (id.).
The conduct of the Christian when a change of rulers occur: I. Towards those who depart; (a) he does not judge harshly, for he knows that they now stand before the Supreme Judge; (b) nor does he praise immoderately, for he now sees that the glory of the world is vanity. II. Towards those who assume office; (a) he neither entertains unreasonable hopes, for he knows that there is no new thing under the sun (Ecc_1:9); (b) nor does he yield to anxious fears, for he believes the words: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever.” [Heb_13:8].
Paul before Fetus—an instructive illustration of the truth that both the children of the world, and the children of the light, respectively, remain the same: I. The children of the world; (a) Paul’s accusers, Act_25:2-3; Act_25:7. They have “learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.” They repeat the old falsehoods, and resort to their former base arts
the same, indeed which they had employed against Christ, in the presence of Pilate; (b) Paul’s judges. The frivolous and unprincipled Felix is succeeded by the proud Festus. The latter at first pursues a noble course, Act_25:4-5, but soon afterwards abandons the cause of justice, like his predecessor, in order to gain the favor of men, Act_25:9; in short, the name is changed, but the same worldly-minded character re-appears. II. The children of God; (a) Paul is still the same, after an imprisonment of two years his undaunted courage, his lofty spirit, his composure and presence of mind are unchanged; the statements which he makes, are as lucid and as firm as those of any earlier day, Act_25:8-10; but (b) he is also still the same in meekness and patience. He exhibits no revengeful feeling towards his malignant foes, no disposition to resist his unrighteous judges, no impatience during the long period of his trial; on the contrary, he calmly submits to the authority of human law, and trusts with implicit confidence in the divine protection, Act_25:12.
Paul’s appeal to the emperor, leads us to ask: Whither shall the Christian turn, when his rights are withheld? He may appeal, I. From the sentence of unrighteous men, to the judgment of the righteous; II. From the passions of the moment, to the justice of a future period; III. From the opinions of the external world, to the testimony of his own conscience; IV. From the tribunal of men to the judgment-seat of God.
Hast thou appealed to Cesar? unto Cesar shalt thou go. Whence did this decision, on which the life or death of Paul depended, proceed? I. From an external source; it was pronounced by Festus, as the magistrate invested with authority; II. From an internal source; Paul willed it, as the apostle of the Gentiles; III. From a heavenly source; it was sanctioned by the Lord, as the King of kings. (Application to important epochs in the life of the Christian.).
[Act_25:8. The judgment which we form of our own moral conduct: I. The necessity of forming an accurate judgment of, etc.; (a) else we cannot know whether we are growing in grace; (b) we unconsciously yield to many temptations; (c) we can entertain no well-founded hope of heaven. II. The difficulties which we here encounter; (a) the natural ignorance and perverseness of the human heart; (b) the suggestions of vanity; (c) our spiritual sloth. III. The means which may secure success; (a) continued meditation on the day of judgment; (b) diligent study of the Scriptures; (c) watchfulness, self-examination, and prayer.—Tr.].
Footnotes:
Act_25:2. ὁ ἀñ÷éåñåýò [of text. rec.] is unquestionably less strongly attested by external evidence than the plural ïἱ ἁñ÷éåñåῖò . [The singular is found in H., but the plural in A. B. C. E. G. Cod. Sin., Syr. Vulg. (principes sacerdotum). Alf. who retains the singular, says: “It has been imagined that ὁ ἀñ÷ . has been a correction to suit the former part of the narrative. But it is much more probable that ïἱ ἀñ÷ . has been substituted for it, to suit the assertion of Festus, Act_25:15.” This was the opinion expressed by de Wette in big last edition. Meyer says (3d edition, 1861): “The singular is a correction from Act_24:1.” Lach., Tisch., and Born., adopt the plural.—Tr.]
Act_25:4. The reading åἰò ÊáéóÜñåéáí is sustained by the four oldest manuscripts [A. B. C. E. and also Cod. Sin.]; it should be preferred to ἐí Êáéóáñåéᾳ . [The latter, adopted by the text. rec., and retained by Scholz, is found in G. H.—Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf. read åἰò Ê .—Tr.]
Act_25:5. ἄôïðïí , instead of ôïýôῳ is indeed attested by four important manuscripts [A. B. C. E. also Cod. Sin., a number of minuscules, and Vulg. (crimen)]; it should, nevertheless, be cancelled with Tischendorf [in the edition of 1849], as spurious; but it may have easily been interpolated as an explanation [“as a gloss on ôé ; see Luk_23:41” (Alford, from Meyer)], while the omission of the word [if it originally belonged to the text], would be improbable. [The word is omitted in G. H. and in a number of minuscules; it is dropped by the text. rec., and by Alf, but is substituted for ôïýôῳ by Lach. and Born.—“The word wickedness, although not printed in Italics, is supplied by the translators, being found neither in the common text nor in the critical editions; but several of the oldest copies have a Greek word ( ἄôïðïí ) elsewhere rendered harm (Act_28:6), amiss (Luk_23:41), unreasonable (2Th_3:2). The idea of fault or crime is of course suggested even by the shorter reading, “if there be any thing in this (or the) man.” (Alexander).—Tr.]
Act_25:6. The majority of the manuscripts [A. B. C. E., and Vulg.] exhibit: ïὐ ðëåßïõò ὀêôὼ ἤ äÝêá , and this reading should be regarded as genuine. Two manuscripts [G. H.] read: ðëåßïõò ἢ äÝêá [and this is the reading adopted by text. rec.]; in one minuscule [no. 137], and several versions [Syr. etc.], the words ïὐ ðëåßïõò were dropped. [E. omits ïὐ ; B. reads ðëåßïíáò .—The margin of the Engl. Bible has the following note: “More than ten days; or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”—Recent editors generally read: ïὐ ðë . ὀê . ἢ äÝêá . Alford, quoting from Meyer, says: “The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later MSS., which have ç for the ὀêôὼ of the more ancient ones; thus ç (the letter of the Greek alphabet representing eight) has been omitted on account of the ç (the particle disjunctive, meaning or) which follows.”—Cod. Sin. reads: ïõ ðëåéïõò çìåñáò ïêôù ç äåêá .—Tr.]
Act_25:7. êáôáöÝñïíôåò [found in A. B. C., Cod. Sin. and Vulg. (objicientes)], is far more strongly attested than ἐðéöÝñ . [E.], and the simple form öÝñïíôåò [G. and H.], each of which is found only in one uncial manuscript. [But the latter is found in two.—Lach., Tisch., and Alf., read êáôáö .—For áἰôéÜìáôá , of text. rec., with many minuscules, recent editors read áἰôéþìáôá , with A. B. C. E. G. H. Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Act_25:11. ïὖí is decidedly attested [by A. B. C. E. and Cod. Sin.]; ãÜñ [of G. H. Vulg. (si enim), and text. rec.], is evidently a correction. [“ åἰ ìὲí ïὖí seemed to the copyists to contradict ïὐäὲí ἠäéêçóá in the preceding verse.” (Meyer). Recent editors generally substitute ïὖí for ãÜñ .—Tr.]