Life Project Blog

Acts 25:13-26:32

Apparently, Festus was troubled by Paul’s case; here was this guy Paul, who had done nothing against Roman law, being held in his jail. He had been accused of terrible crimes by the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, the only problem was they never quite mentioned what those crimes were, and it seemed to Festus that it came down to a doctrinal dispute of some kind that they couldn’t or wouldn’t quite make clear to him. Although he wanted to free Paul, he also wanted to keep the Jewish authorities on his side; he wasn’t sure what to do, except that Paul had exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal the matter to Caesar. Ah yes, there was an exit for Festus, just ship Paul off to Rome and let the bigwigs deal with him; yet this seemed to bother Festus.

When King Agrippa was in town for several days, Festus discussed this troubling case with him, and found that Agrippa was quite interested and desired to hear from Paul himself. It would seem that Agrippa was much more familiar with Jewish custom and practice; he may have known about Paul before coming to visit Caesarea.

Their audience with Paul takes up the entirety of chapter 26. Paul takes them through his testimony from childhood to the present day, as we have seen him do previously, yet most any lawyer would tell you that Paul made a mistake in doing so:

Festus said: “King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome. But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write. For I think it is unreasonable to send a prisoner on to Rome without specifying the charges against him.” (25:24-27)

Following this, Paul fills the whole chapter (26) with his narrative. All Paul needed to do was say that he had no idea what the Jews were accusing him of for he had done no wrong, and Festus is trapped by his own words; Paul should have withdrawn his appeal to Caesar and gone free. By talking more than that, there is always the chance that they find something to charge him with, so just shut up!

But Paul wasn’t trying to be set free, for he knew that God had another mission for him, this time in Rome (23:11).

In giving his testimony, Paul proclaimed the Gospel to all of the people in the room as Festus noted: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (26:28b).  At the end of the day, Festus and Agrippa agreed that Paul could be set free, except for his appeal to Caesar (26:30-32). Paul will be sent to Rome as soon as it can be arranged.

Acts 24:1-25:12

When the Jewish officials arrived in Caesarea, they presented a vague and flimsy case to Felix; there really isn’t any other way to describe it (24:1-9). If the Jews had known about the letter Felix had already received from the Jerusalem commander, I doubt they would have taken to approach they did, for as the case was presented to Felix, it was all about a Roman citizen who had been assaulted by a mob of provincials. Paul then made a very simple and clear defense (24:10-21) which was more or less in accord with the note Felix had received from the Jerusalem garrison. We have arrived at the place where Felix should probably have dismissed the charges, but Felix knew he was in a tough political spot and adjourned for the day, saying he would render his decision when the commander of the garrison arrived on the scene. Apparently, he wanted to examine the differences between the Jewish and Pauline accounts of events. The funny thing is… Luke makes no mention of there ever having been such a meeting.

The political problem for Felix is simple: Paul hasn’t broken any laws and is popular with one set of people in the city. The Jewish leaders are obviously not being truthful, but they are the leaders of the majority of the people in the region, and people who are famous for being fiercely independent and almost impossible to deal with honestly. If Felix does the right thing, he will likely have an insurrection on his hands. If he condemns Paul, he will possibly have violence and discord in the streets, and his career would be in danger either way. Thus, as any up and coming politician would do, he stalls for time.

He stalled by having a series of meetings with Paul over a two year period; Luke makes his thinking clear:

At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him. (24:26)

There’s nothing like a little cash to break a political stalemate.

Paul did not offer any bribes, and eventually, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus; no doubt his new posting would be less difficult.

When Festus took office, he seems to have gone to Jerusalem and discussed matters with the Jewish leaders, including the thorny question of what to do about the Paul case. Naturally, the Jews wanted a change of venue for the trial (which had already taken place) so they could set an ambush, but Festus wasn’t quite that gullible, and they would need to go to Caesarea.

In yet another hearing, the Jews brought their charges which were firmly denied by Paul. Hoping to gain favor with the Jews, Festus asked Paul if he would agree to a change of venue, and Paul opted to change the venue not to Jerusalem, but to Rome. Festus, having little choice in the matter at that point, granted the motion. Of course, Festus had no way of knowing that he was really nothing more than a pawn on God’s chess board, for it was His expressed will that Paul take the Gospel to Rome (23:11); Paul would travel there at Rome’s expense.

Yet, there was another interesting scene still to be played out in Caesarea…

Acts 22:30-23:11

After the scene in the torture chamber, the Roman commander must have gone to the Roman tribune, for he then summons the Sanhedrin into session and takes Paul before them in an effort to discover what Paul was being accused of. In spite of their brutality, it is difficult to accuse the Romans of being anything other than cunning in this scene, for their tactics have shifted in a fascinating way; they are now defending their citizen in a sense, and shifting the responsibility for the mob violence from the victim of the mob to the leaders of the people who had committed the violence. Remember that Luke has not mentioned that the Sanhedrin was behind the mob’s actions; it was some “Jews from Asia” who incited the crowd… Now, the Sanhedrin needs to give an account…

Paul begins his defense in 23:1. Isn’t that interesting; he hasn’t been accused of anything, in fact, the purpose of the meeting is to discover what the accusations are. Essentially, Paul makes a statement that in everything he has done; he has been a faithful servant of God.

Ananias became the high priest in 47 AD, and he was known to be extremely corrupt, according to the Jewish historian Josephus. When Ananias heard Paul’s statement, he ordered him struck in the mouth, in violation of the Law (Lev. 19:15):

“God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” (23:3)

Everyone was shocked that Paul would speak to the high priest in such a manner:

Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!”

Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’” (23:4-5)

Interesting response from Paul; did he really not know he was addressing the high priest, dressed as he was in his judge’s costume, seated in the high priest’s special chair? We know Paul’s eyesight was poor, but did he really not know?

I don’t believe for a second that Paul didn’t know whom he was addressing… but no one would have known he was the high priest by his actions, since he was violating the law he was there to enforce, and thus I would have to suggest that Paul spoke with irony in this instance. Paul got one pop in the mouth, the high priest got two.

OK, if the first part of the story is funny; the next part is hilarious…

In 23:6-10 we read that all Paul needed to do at this point is to say he had been attacked because he taught about the resurrection, and the Pharisees and Sadducees were at each-others’ throats. Nobody accused Paul of anything, and the Romans had to take Paul out of the now chaotic room by force… The scene ends with 23:11:

The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

A little ways back we saw that Paul had been led by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem, and that the same Holy Spirit had been warning others that he would have a rough time of it when he got there, that he would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles, giving us a riddle: What was going on here, isn’t that a contradiction? This is the answer to the riddle; Paul would take the Gospel to the very heart of the Roman Empire as a result of this chain of events.

Acts 22:22-29

As Paul addressed the mob, things went along for a short time in calm, and then he mentioned taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the mob went wild, demanding Paul’s murder. The Roman commander ordered Paul taken into the barracks where he ordered Paul to be interrogated.

At this point in the story, it is interesting to note that in the Roman worldview, the victim of a violent attack by a mob is arrested and interrogated, while the perpetrators of the violence are not; obviously this Paul guy did something, let’s make him tell us what he did.

Paul was to be encouraged to be forthcoming by flogging. This was the same kind of thing done to Jesus before His crucifixion; Paul was stripped naked, and his hands were tied to the top of a high post. If the post was high enough, his feet would actually have been off the ground, and then he would be struck repeatedly with a leather whip that was weighted down on the ends with bits of bone and rock that would rip his flesh apart… while being asked questions. This would have been by far the most severe torture he had ever endured up to this point, and it would likely result in lifelong injury or death if it went on long enough.

I have often been accused of having a rather odd sense of humor, and with that in mind I tell you that what happens next strikes me as one of the funniest scenes in all of Scripture; there is naked Paul tied to this post, his feet probably off the ground, and he asks a question…

“Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?” (22:25b)

The centurion who was tasked with getting a confession from Paul got a bit of a shock with that innocent little question and went straight to his commander, who received a shock of his own, and went directly to Paul:

The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”

“Yes, I am,” he answered.

Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.”

“But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied. (22:27-28)

The commander’s comment in 22:28 can be taken more than one way, but for me it looks like kind of an insult, as though he were saying that he had to pay a lot to become a citizen and now anybody can be a citizen. Whatever was going through his mind, Paul had the higher status, having been born a citizen. Notice that the men who were about to commit a serious crime got out of that room “immediately” and Luke tells us the commander himself was “alarmed”− this had been a close call for all concerned.

Now the Roman commander had a call to make: What was he going to do with Paul?