TRACINGS FROM THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES
XVIII. PAUL AT CSESAREA.
ACTS xxiii. 33—xxvi. 32.
ABOUT ten days had elapsed since Paul, bidding farewell to
Philip the Evangelist and the Christian community at Caesarea, had started for
Jerusalem with Luke and others, as well as certain brethren who belonged to
that city. Now he had returned to the political capital of the province, the
seat of the Roman government, and escorted by cavalry. He had gone up to
Jerusalem a free man. He returned a prisoner. But though his personal liberty
was thereby denied him, power to minister the truth of God was still vouchsafed
him, and opportunities for that service were not to be wholly lacking. Of
magistrates and governors he had already had some experience. What provincial
magistrates might do in defiance of righteousness he had learnt at Philippi.
Before proconsuls he had also stood, first at Paphos, as the expounder of truth
to the open ear of Sergius Paulus ; then at Corinth, where Gallio refused to be
the instrument of Jewish tyranny, in order to condemn one who had not broken
any law of the Empire. Now of procurators in Judaea he was to have experience,
first of Felix, and then of Porcius Festus.
On his arrival at Cresarea
he stood before Felix for the first time. It was but a short interview, and
spent chiefly in the governor reading the letter of Claudius Lysias, and then
asking Paul, in relation to his Roman citizenship we suppose, to what province
he belonged. Learning it was Cilicia, he promised attention to the matter when
Paul's accusers should come. For Lysias, having remitted the case to Felix, his
superior, had ordered the accusers to prosecute their suit before the
procurator at Csesarea.
Felix. - Of Felix we must now speak.
Originally, like his brother Pallas, a slave, he had, in common with him, been
purchased by Antonia, the mother of the Emperor Claudius. Pallas was probably
naturally the most gifted of the two brothers. Both set free, they after the
death of Antonia attached themselves to the Emperor. Pallas got into high
office in the Imperial household. Felix got advancement in the army. Through
Pallas's influence with Agrippina, the fourth wife of Claudius Caesar, his
brother Felix, for services rendered by Pallas to the Jews, got nominated to
the procuratorship of Judea. Considering his origin and rise, we need not be
surprised to learn that nobility of character was not one of his virtues.
Self-interest, furthered by any means in his power, governed the man. So
whatever stood in the way of that he was ready to sacrifice. Of this we have a
sad example in the history of Jonathan, an ex-high-priest, at whose request it
had been that Felix was nominated to his procuratorship. Felix therefore owed
Jonathan much. Yet, because he ventured to remonstrate with the governor for
his tyrannical ways, he was marked out for assassination. Felix corrupted
Doras, a friend of Jonathan, to plot against the latter's life. This he did.
And by the Sicarii* or assassins, the ex-high-priest was killed, and no one was
brought to justice for the murder.
* The Sicarii, Josephus writes (Ant., XX.
viii. 10), "made use of small swords, not much different in length from the
Persian aoinacte, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicce [or sickles],
as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their
denomination, and with those weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled
themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in
crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily
slew those that they had a mind to slay."
Again, practising
dissimulation towards Eleazar, a notorious bandit though he was, in order to
get him into his hands, he had no sooner secured him than he sent him bound in
chains to Rome. Such wily planning may for a time succeed, but the one who thus
acts forfeits the esteem and confidence of honourable men. No one admires or
respects such a character. Eleazar had trusted to the governor's honour, and
found to what a faithless man he had listened.
Then, too, nothing was to
stand in Felix' way of gratifying his passions. So, through Simon the
Magician,* he got Brasilia, the sister of Agrippa II., and wife of Azizus, King
of Emesa, to forsake her husband, and to live with him. Azizus dying a short
time after, perhaps of a broken heart, Drusilla became the wife of Felix. No
wonder that Tacitus (Hist., v. 9) in a well-known passage described him as one
who "had the soul of a slave with the power of a sovereign, and exercised his
power in all manner of cruelty and lust." Avarice, too, was a vice which
characterised him. Bribes he would take, and bribes he sought (Acts xxiv. 26).
On the other hand, he was not deficient in courage or decision. He had
manifested that in dealing with banditti who had infested the province. So the
compliment paid him by Tertullus (xxiv. 2, 3) had truth in it. Added to all
this, he already had some knowledge of "the way," as Luke calls it, which made
him the less ready to be swayed by the unsupported accusations of the Jews
against Paul. Such was the man in whose hands, under God, Paul's life and
person were for a time placed.
* This so-called magician was, Josephus tells
us (Ant., XX. vii. 2), a Jew, a Cypriot by birth. Some would identify him with
Simon Magus of Acts viii. But if Justin Martyr is correct, that cannot be, for
Magus, was said to be a native of Samaria.
The Trial. Five days
went by, during which Paul was kept a prisoner in Herod's palace, or
praetorium. At the end of that time Ananias, the high priest, appeared with
certain elders, we may presume those of the Sadducean party, in response to the
charge of Lysias to present themselves before Felix. An orator accompanied
them, one Tertullus, of mere local celebrity probably, to whom they trusted to
present their cause in the most favourable light. Whether he was a Jew or a
Roman the history does not intimate; for the words of the last clause of ver. 6
to the end of the first clause of ver. 8 of chap. xxiv. should probably be
omitted. Did we retain that passage, it would indicate that he was a Jew, from
the words "our law " (6). Omitting it, as seems more proper, his nationality is
not declared. Evidently Ananias and the elders determined to use all efforts to
crush Paul at this time, and so took down this orator with them to plead on
their behalf. So far for the accusers.
What about the accused? No orator
that we hear of volunteered to present his case in the most favourable light
before the court. No one pleaded his cause. Was he deserted? Was he worse off
for this? He had One with him unknown to Ananias, Tertullus, or Felix; and
relying on His help and guidance, he could with perfect equanimity let the
orator speak, and that necessarily first, assured that neither human eloquence,
nor unblushing flattery, nor artful misrepresentation could really damage his
defence. The Lord had told the disciples, "Ye shall be brought before governors
and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when
they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall
be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that
spsak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matt. x. 18-20).
This Paul, like Stephen before him, would now prove.
The
Accusation. Tertullus, as the prosecutor, now began to plead, but in the
presence of the accused. With flattery, yet not unmixed with truth, the
advocate commenced. Felix had acted against the robbers which had infested the
province, and had in measure put them down. Now there was another matter in
which he might, Tertullus would imply, profitably engage, and gain widespread
popularity and the thanks of a grateful nation. The man, the defendant, was a
pestilent fellow, so should of course be put down by the strong arm of the law.
But more, he was a mover of seditions (or, insurrections) among all the Jews
throughout the world. If robbers in the province had been put down, here was
one whose influence and evil work extended throughout the Empire. So averred
Tertullus. What an opportunity for Felix, then, to ingratiate himself with the
whole province, and to deserve the thanks of the Emperor himself, for stopping,
by the power with which he was entrusted, further seditions which the prisoner
at the bar might otherwise stir up. An enemy of the nation! An enemy to the
peace of the Empire! What a monster Paul must be! But not all had yet been
stated that could be, and should be. He was a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazoraeans; and last, but not least in the eyes of a Jew, he had profaned the
Temple. Four definite counts, then, there were.
1st. He was a
pestilent fellow.
2nd. He was a mover of seditions among all the
Jews throughout the Roman Empire.
3rd. He was a ringleader of the
Nazorseans.
4th. He had profaned the Temple.
What the Jews would
have put first - the profanation of the Temple, a grave crime, and one that by
their regulations deserved death - Tertullus put last, placing in the
foreground those other charges, which he expected would tell more on Felix.
Would Felix show himself in this affair to be Caesar's friend? Would he earn
the thanks of the Jewish nation? Now was his opportunity to prove himself a
worthy governor by dealing severely with Paul. Tertullus knew his man. But he
did not know that God was behind it all, nor that Paul was yet to visit Rome;
so all attempts of the Jews to compass his death would prove
abortive.
Then was all that Tertullus had said really true? Was Paul
under the cloak of religion such a pestilent fellow as the orator would wish to
make out? Corroboration was required in support of the accusations.
Corroboration was at hand. The Jews who came with Tertullus joined in setting
on Paul. And now Felix, by examination of the prisoner in open court, could
easily satisfy himself of the truth of the indictment. But more, the Jews had a
grievance in this matter, which must be laid before the governor. This
Tertullus now mentions. Condign punishment would have been meted out to the
offender, now the prisoner at the bar, by those at Jerusalem. How that had been
hindered Felix of course knew. So the Jewish advocate does not particularise
it. In what different lights the same action can be presented! Lysias claimed
merit for what he had done (xxiii. 27). The Jews regarded it as interference
with their rights of apprehending and dealing with Paul. Yet they had no right
to inflict the punishment of death without the sanction of the Roman
authorities.
The Defence. Tertullus had finished. The Jews there
assembled had supported the allegations. It now came to Paul's turn to speak.
An undefended prisoner, with not one solitary witness to testify in his favour,
could he hope to escape conviction? Would the high priest and the elders have
travelled from Jerusalem to Csesarea to take up a trumpery case, or to engage
in a doubtful contest? If they, with the orator, had appeared before Felix, the
case must be one of real importance, and the conviction of the offender a
public duty. So many might have reasoned. Was Paul abashed? Was he appalled at
the task before him? At the sign from the governor that he was at liberty to
speak, he began cheerily, and, we can add, confidently. "Forasmuch as I know
that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do cheerfully [we
should read] answer for myself" (xxiv. 10). Felix had been procurator for about
five years - a longer period of office than was usually allotted to such
provincial governors. He had, therefore, the more time to become acquainted
with Jewish ecclesiastical matters than if he had but lately entered on his
office. Evidently, too, as our historian informs us, he was not wholly ignorant
of the rise and presence of Christianity in the very bosom of Judaism, and he
may have had opportunities of learning that the Nazareans, as Tertullus called
them, were not so bad as their countrymen would paint them. Tertullus had
complimented Felix when he began. Paul did not, though he gave the governor,
and rightly, credit for some little acquaintance with such matters as engaged
his attention that day. At once Paul plunged into the grave subjects of the
indictment. "A pestilent fellow" Tertullus had called him. What had brought
Paul to Jerusalem at that time? He came to bring alms to his own nation (17).
Was that like a pestilent fellow? But twelve days, too, had elapsed since he
had entered Jerusalem. What had he been doing there? Purifying himself
according to the Mosaic ritual and worshipping God. A strange kind of pestilent
fellow certainly! Was he a seditious person, a fomenter of political
disturbances among his countrymen? Neither in the Temple nor in the city had he
attracted people round him. He was quietly waiting for the time to offer
sacrifices, neither disputing in the Temple, nor in any synagogue, nor stirring
up the people in the city. Moreover, this supposed mover of seditions among all
the Jews in the Empire worshipped the God of their fathers, believing firmly in
a resurrection of the just and of the unjust. Hence, with that in prospect, he
exercised himself to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and
toward men. Was all that like a pestilent fellow, or a raiser of seditions?
Openly and fearless of contradiction he could thus speak in the presence of
Ananias and his company. And certainly no one on this occasion rose up before
Felix and challenged the truthfulness of his statements. But two other charges
there were. To the one he pleaded guilty. He was a Christian. He was not
ashamed of it. "After the manner which they call heresy, so worship I the God
of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the
prophets" (14). Now this grave offence, as it was in the eyes of a Jew, was
none in Roman law. The other charge, that of profaning the Temple, was wholly
untrue; and it was enough for Paul to comment, and justly, on the absence of
any supposed witnesses of such an offence. That charge fell, therefore, to the
ground. Certain Jews from Asia had made the accusation, but none of them were
present to support it. Had Ananias secured the services of Tertullus, and
forgotten to see that material witnesses should be forthcoming? Or did he not
know that this accusation was untenable'? As high priest it became him to
vindicate the honour of the Temple, if Paul had polluted it.
Paul, in
his turn, had finished. Felix clearly perceived that there was no ground for
his condemnation: and very likely thinking to reap pecuniary profit out of the
case, he deferred judgment till Lysias should come. This, it seems, never
happened. The Jews, therefore, returned to Jerusalem discomfited, whilst Paul
was still kept a prisoner at Caesarea. Liberty, however, was allowed him to
receive the visits of his friends who might minister to him.
Fresh
Honours. Two years thus passed. But fresh honours the Lord put on His
servant. He had been allowed to bear testimony to Him in Jerusalem. He was now
to be permitted to speak for Him at Caesarea. There were Christians, as we
know, at Caesarea, and had been for years. And though Felix had been for five
years or more resident in that town, he had never commanded, we may be sure,
any of them to acquaint him with their tenets, or to let them preach to him. A
Nazarean preach at Caesarea to a Roman! That would be strange. Yet it was true.
For Paul, not for Philip, or Luke, or Aristarchus, Felix sent. The prisoner in
bonds should tell the governor of the grace of God, and of His love shown in
giving His Son to die for the guilty and the lost. Felix sent for Paul. The
movement and the desire were on the governor's part, and he heard him
concerning the faith in Christ Jesus, as perhaps we should read. The gospel of
God's grace was preached in the governor's palace, and to him directly. How
many were present we know not; nor whether it was a strictly private interview,
which perhaps is more probable, we cannot definitely say. Of two who were
listeners we do, however, read - Felix and his wife (or, as perhaps Luke wrote,
his own wife), for he had now married her. What a pair! What an occasion! Of
Drusilla we have already made mention (p. 331). Now these two, open sinners as
they had been, together listened to the stirring, burning words of Paul, in
which righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come were subjects of which he
treated, handled, we may be sure, by a master's hand, and under the guidance of
the Spirit of God. Bold was Paul. Neither Tertullus nor Ananias would have
dared thus to speak in the governor's presence. But Paul, was bold. Yet it was
not boldness springing from rashness. It was the boldness of the man who knew
the Lord was on his side, and who was sure of the power of the Spirit. Felix
felt, as doubtless he had never felt before, the power of the Word. Not that
there was eloquence, which moved the feelings, and carried the listener away.
But there was power in the Apostle's reasoning. Felix trembled. And well he
might; for a coming judgment, when unrighteousness will be exposed and judged,
is no soothing theme. And the thought of eternity for one unprepared is
anything but exhilarating. He felt the awfulness of the judgment to come for
one like him, guilty of unrighteousness, adultery, and avarice, if indeed his
conscience could acquit him of the crime of murder. Was Drusilla alarmed? Was
she too moved? About her the historian maintains silence. But Felix was - he
trembled. The preacher was in earnest; the address was powerful. The governor
became afraid; he was terrified.
Very probably he never expected to hear
such a solemn discourse, and never before had listened to one whose very words
were like daggers penetrating his inmost soul. The rebukes of Jonathan, the
ex-high-priest, had been as nothing compared with this. The words of the former
enraged him. Those of the latter terrified him. Yet he did not resent them as
an impertinence. He felt the force of what Paul had said, which, without
charging Felix with any of his enormities, yet brought them to his remembrance,
shown up in their true light. Conscience can speak, and when it does the
individual must be silent. The past life of the governor rose up before him as
the foreground of the picture of which judgment and eternity were the
background, and all lit up with a lurid light. For the first time in his life
Felix was in the light. But light, unless Divine grace is known and enjoyed, is
too much for the responsible and guilty creature. To get away from it is the
natural impulse. So he dismissed Paul, saying, "Go thy way for this time; and
when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee" (xxiv. 25). Many a one
had doubtless trembled before Felix as the governor. Felix now trembled at the
words of Paul the prisoner.
But avarice still possessed him. Their last
meeting had not taken place. He sent for him often, and communed with him; not
that he desired salvation, but he wished for money to be offered, "that he
might loose him." We say this, because, though the words we have quoted from
ver. 26 are not found in the oldest uncials, they are quite in accord with the
governor's known character. But Paul, we may be sure, at the different
interviews which followed, neither spoke honeyed words, nor sought to curry
favour with Drusilla, in order to procure his liberty. And Felix never got the
smallest encouragement to hope that a bribe would be forthcoming. Two full
years passed. The governor and his prisoner were still in the same relative
position to each other, when Felix was recalled. Now the time of retribution in
this world might be for him at hand. To secure, then, the favour of the Jews he
left Paul bound. Yet, like many another crafty plan, the object was defeated.
Paul was left bound at Caesarea. The Jews accused Felix at Borne. And it
required all the influence of his brother Pallas with the Emperor Nero to
shield the unrighteous governor from the consequences of his flagrant
enormities.
Festus. The new procurator arrived, Porcius Festus by
name, a better man than his predecessor, and one who seemed to wish to act
aright. The post, however, was doubtless a diflicult one to fill successfully
and with credit to himself. Naturally he would desire to keep on good terms
with the Jews on the one hand. Then Paul, on the other, still in bonds, the
procurator must take up and deal with the case righteously. That was man's side
of the matter. But there was another. The Lord had suffered Paul to be left in
bonds by Felix because He had still work for His servant at Caesarea. Paul's
matter, however, would be no longer vexatiously delayed.
Another Note
of Time. The arrival of Festus into the province gives us another, a third,
date in the history of the Acts. Herod Agrippa I. died, as we have already
stated, A.D. 44. Gallio's proconsulship, the next date furnished us by Luke,
was in A.D. 53. Now Festus's supersession of Felix took place A.D. 60. About
seven years, then, had rolled by since Paul's appearance at Corinth before the
tribunal of Gallio. And since Paul had, under Felix, been two years in prison
at Caesarea, the Apostle's last visit to Jerusalem must have taken place in the
year 58 A.D., five years after his first visit to the capital of Achaia. For
three years of this period Piul was labouring uninterruptedly at Ephesus,
leaving two years for his return to Antioch (xviii. 22), his passage through
Asia Minor to Ephesus, his three months' sojourn in Greece, and his last
journey to Jerusalem. Before Festus. - Three days after the governor's arrival
at Ciesarea he went up to Jerusalem. Whilst there he was spoken to about the
case. A new governor might be more pliant than the previous one. So the chief
priests* and chiefs of the Jews approached Festus, and desired that he would
have Paul brought to Jerusalem, and there tried, intending to waylay and kill
him on the road. But God watched over His servant. Festus refused compliance
with that request, answering, properly, that Paul should be tried at Caesarea,
his accusers, as many as were able, going down thither to prosecute.
* "The
chief priests," not high priest, is here the best-attested reading. Ishmael the
son of Fabi was high priest at this juncture. Perhaps he felt, after Ananias'
defeat, the folly of prosecuting further the matter, and so was not foremost in
approaching the governor. Agrippa II. had deposed Ananias, and had appointed
Ishmael to the office. How low had religion sunk among the Jews, when they
quietly acquiesced in the civil power deposing and installing the high priests
!
Eight or ten days having passed - so the historian probably wrote -
Festus returned to Caesarea. On the following day, sitting on the judgment
seat, Paul was brought before him. For the first time in his career the
governor was made practically acquainted with one of the difficulties connected
with that procuratorship. The laws of the Jews, of Divine enactment, and
consecrated by age, having been promulgated, as far as found in Scripture,
centuries before Rome was founded, or the rise of the Babylonish power
symbolised in Daniel ii. as the head of gold, those laws differed from heathen
customs and Greek constitutions, as well as from Roman jurisprudence; so that a
death penalty might be incurred under them, unknown to the statute-book of the
Roman Empire. And now, brought face to face with this difficulty, what should
Festus do ?
The trial proceeded. Once more had the Apostle to listen to
many and grievous charges brought against him, none of which could be legally
established. That was evident. And Paul, on answering, pressed that on his
judge, saying, "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the
Temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended anything at all" (xxv. 8).
Puzzled evidently as to what he should do was Porcius Festus. Unfounded charges
were no grounds on which to punish any one in a Roman court of justice.
Willing, however, to earn popularity with the Jews, he asked if Paul would go
to Jerusalem, and there be judged before him. His question to Paul was a
confession that he could not legally change the venue in that fashion. For that
Paul's consent would be required. Would he give it? Paul knew better than
Festus the risk of life that he would run, and answered the procurator at once:
"I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews I
have done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. If then [so we should read] I be
an offender, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die :
but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may
deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar" (xxv. 10, 11). Paul could teach
Festus his duty. The proper tribunal for a Roman citizen in that province was
not Jerusalem, but Caesarea. There was the seat of government, and there was
the court of the representative of the Emperor. Would Festus wish to take the
cause to Jerusalem, to be there tried before him ? That was not the right way
of dealing with a Roman. Paul thereupon claimed his privilege as a Roman. He
appealed to Caesar. The proposition just made by Festus brought matters to a
point. "Hast thou appealed," he said, "unto Caesar shalt thou go."
Thenceforward Paul was kept in bonds till it should be convenient to send him
with other prisoners to Rome. Meanwhile a further honour was to be put on him.
The procurator, King Agrippa, Bernice, and all the chief officials of the Roman
power in the province were to hear from him of his conversion, and of the
mission with which the Lord Jesus in glory had entrusted him - a mission that
directly and blessedly concerned the Gentiles.
Agrippa and
Bernice. An appeal to the Emperor was the right of a Roman citizen, though
a certain discretion was allowed the provincial governors to yield to or to
withhold the privilege. In this case there was no ground for disallowing it,
and Festus and his council were agreed on that point.
Now a new scene opens
before us, consequent on the arrival at Caesarea of King Agrippa and Bernice to
salute the new procurator. Of these two we must speak.
Agrippa was the
son of Herod Agrippa I., whose awful end is related in Acts xii. At the death
of his father (A.D. 44), the Emperor Claudius, thinking him too young to
succeed to all the territories that Herod Agrippa had recently received,
appointed him King of Chalcis (A.D. 48 or 49). At the age of twenty-six he
received from the Emperor an increase of territory, consequent on the death of
his great-uncle Herod Philip. This included Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Batanea,
and Abilene, which last had originally been ruled over by the tetrarch Lysanias
(Luke iii. 1). On the accession of the Emperor Nero, Agrippa, who evidently
played his cards well, received further extension of territory by the addition
of the cities of Abila and Julias in Persea, and of Tarichsea and Tiberias in
Galilee. His residence was at Caesarea Philippi. Besides this, he was invested
with the prerogative of appointing the high priests, and with the wardenship of
the Temple, and the disposition of the Corban, or sacred treasure.*
*
Josephus, Ant., XX. i. 3.
Bernice was his sister, and the eldest
daughter of Herod Agrippa I., her youngest sister being the beautiful Drusilla,
of whom we have already made mention. Of Bernice, morally, there is nothing
good to report. She seems to have sunk lower than her sister Drusilla. She was
married three times, first to Marcus, next to her uncle Herod of Chalcis, then
to Polemo II., king of part of Cilicia. Like her sisters Mariamne and Drusilla,
she deserted her husband, King Polemo, and was at the time of this visit living
with her brother Agrippa at Caesarea Philippi; and if reports are true, and the
lines of the Roman satirist Juvenal (Sat., vi. 156) are correct, her relations
with her brother must be described as incestuous. Infatuating men by her
charms, she had that fatal gift of beauty, ensnaring indeed to the other sex,
and which has blasted the character of not a few who have possessed it. And if
Tacitus (Hist., ii. 81) is correct, as referred to by Dean Alford, she was the
mistress of Vespasian, and then (Suet., Tit., c. 7) the mistress of Titus his
son, who would, it is said, have married her, but the jealousy of the Romans
forbade it. Such were the guests of Festus at Caesarea.
To Festus the
presence of Agrippa II. at this juncture must have seemed very opportune. He
had to forward Paul to Rome, but knew not what to say about him to Nero. The
questions that the Jews had raised he did not understand, and one great subject
of contention seemed foolish to him. It was about, he said, one Jesus who was
dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive (xxv. 19). Could Agrippa help him in this
matter? He a Jew, was better able to understand the mind of his countrymen, and
the cause of their open hostility to Paul. Of Paul, Agrippa had doubtless
already heard. Now an opportunity thus unexpectedly occurred for him to see and
hear the one who stirred up, as no other living person did, the intense hatred
and malice of his countrymen. The matter introduced by Festus, Agrippa
expressed his wish to hear that man. That desire could be easily gratified.
"To-morrow," said Festus, "thou shalt hear him " (xxv. 22).
Before
Agrippa. The morrow came. And Agrippa and Bernice, with great pomp, with
the chief captains, and with the principal men of the city, being assembled by
Festus in the hall of audience, Paul was brought in before them. We must
remember that this was not a fresh trial, so we read not of a judgment seat, as
in a previous verse of the chapter (6). It was an opportunity provided for
Agrippa to hear the remarkable man, but a prisoner, whose case fairly puzzled
the procurator. No accusers, therefore, were present, nor were they intended to
be. To hear Paul was the object of the meeting (22) ; and probably to do
Agrippa honour, the chief captains and principal men of the city were
assembled. All present, and Paul before them, but bound, Festus briefly stated
the object of the meeting, that, after examination had, he might have somewhat
to write to the Emperor. Then Agrippa, addressing Paul, told him he was at
liberty to speak for himself. He began. At last he stood before one who was
expert in all customs and questions that were among the Jews. So he craved a
patient hearing.
Of his life before his conversion he first spoke. All
at Jerusalem were acquainted with it. He had been a Pharisee, and now he stood
to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, he could
say, addressing King Agrippa as a Jew. What that promise was, and consequently
what the hope of it meant, the Apostle had stated in the synagogue at Antioch
in Pisidia (xiii. 32-34). Agrippa well knew to what Paul referred - the promise
of a Saviour, and the deliverance of the nation under Him from their enemies
(Luke i. 68-75.) The fulfilment, however, of the national expectation involved
really the resurrection of the Deliverer. This Paul preached, and announced the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Why should resurrection be a stumbling-block?
Is it incredible that God should (or, if God doth) raise the dead ? (Acts xxvi.
8).
Then going on to narrate his course as a persecutor,* he described
the manner of his remarkable conversion. This was the second time that he
narrated that history. Now on each occasion we get something not mentioned
elsewhere. The Lord's words, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,"
are really, as we previously stated (p. 122), only met with in this recital,
and their meaning would be well understood by his audience, for the simile was
not unknown to Greek and Roman writers. Then, too, we see how the Apostle, on
these two occasions on which he recounted the history of the turning-point in
his life, considered the audience which he was addressing. On the stairs at
Jerusalem (xxii. 12-16) he puts Ananias forward, dwelling on the good report
that he had of all the Jews in Damascus, and recounts more at length than Luke
had done (ix. 17) what that good man said to him. On this occasion, addressing
the Roman procurator, and in the presence and hearing of Roman officials, he
makes known that which previously has not been mentioned - viz., the Lord's
communication to him when on the ground, which marked out his special sphere of
service to be among the Gentiles. How suited was this! Which of his audience
would have felt an interest in the character borne by Ananias, or in the
details of his visit to Paul? But which of the Gentiles in that hall of
audience was not concerned really in the announcement of Divine grace to be
offered to them? So here we read : "Rise, stand upon thy feet: for I have
appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both
of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will
appear unto thee ; delivering [or perhaps, taking thee out] from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom I [omitting, now] send thee, to open their
eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in Me" (xxvi. 16-18). The moral condition
of Gentiles stated - blind, in darkness, and under Satanic power; by the
preaching of the Gospel eyes could be opened, to light could they be turned,
and deliverance From the devil's thraldom could be effected and consciously
known. Further, grace would be enjoyed - the grace of forgiveness of sins; and
an inheritance be shared in, everlasting in duration (Heb. ix. 15), and limited
in extent only by the confines of heaven and earth (Eph. i. 10-14).
*(1 Cor.
xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13; Phil. iii. 6 ; 1 Tim. i. 13). And martyrdoms by his
instrumentality were not unknown. Only of one do we read, that of Stephen ; but
the Apostle here intimates that his was not the only one by any means. How
exceedingly mad had he been! All this made his sudden conversion the more
remarkable.
Before this august assembly, the elite of the province, with
the king, too, and his sister as listeners, Paul had the privilege and the
honour of announcing the Divine purpose of ministering to men wholly unworthy
of it everlasting blessing, but only in connection with the Lord Jesus - i.e.,
by faith in Him (Acts xxvi. 18). Agrippa had watched the flowing tide at Rome
to ingratiate himself with the Emperors Claudius and Nero, and was rewarded
with territory over which he ruled as king. Small, however, very small, was his
kingdom compared with that of the Emperor's; and poor in wealth was he compared
with many who had borne on earth the title of king. Now he heard, and all the
Romans assembled heard, of an inheritance in which they could have part,
compared with which that of the Caesars was as nothing. Transient, too, was the
possession of the Imperial throne. Everlasting was the inheritance to which
Paul referred. What blessings for Gentiles to hear about, and to know of being
within their reach !
Charged, then, with such a message, received in
such a way, and from such a Person as the Lord, the crucified One, but now in
glory, what could Paul do but spread it abroad? This he had done, insisting on
Jews and on Gentiles repenting and turning to God, and doing works meet for
repentance - i.e., worthy of it. For this, he told Agrippa, the Jews seized him
in the Temple, and sought to kill him. Would he renounce his line of ministry
in consequence? Agrippa shall hear : "Having therefore obtained help of God, I
continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other
things than those which both the prophets and Moses did say should come : that
the Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from
the dead, and [or better, that He first by resurrection of the dead] should
proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles " (xxvi. 22,
23).
Upon this Festus, who had listened, and, we may believe, earnestly,
interposed, saying in a loud voice, "Paul, thou art beside thyself; much
learning doth make thee mad" (24). To him, a heathen, the doctrine of the
resurrection seemed, as it did to philosophers at Athens (xvii. 32), but arrant
folly. At once the Apostle replied, "I am not mad, most noble [or, most
excellent] Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness" (xxvi.
25); and referred him to Agrippa, who could confirm what he, Paul, had just
declared. Then turning abruptly to Agrippa, and addressing him, he said, "King
Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." Confirmation
of the Apostle's teaching was found in the prophets. Agrippa, as a Jew,
professed to believe them. If he did, how could he stand out against
Christianity, resisting the proved fulfilment in the life and death of the Lord
of that which they had written? Thus suddenly appealed to, and so publicly, and
put thereby into a corner, as we should say, the king evidently felt himself in
a difficult position, and replied, either in jest or in irony, as it appears,
"With but little * persuasion, thou wouldest fain make me a Christian " (28).
Did Paul think that he could be so easily turned round, and enroll himself
amongst the despised and hated company of the Christians? Paul had allowed
himself to be suddenly turned round. Did he think that he, the king, could be
so easily moved? Did the king then by his retort veil the embarrassment in
which the Apostle's appeal had put him? It looks like it. Paul replied, taking
up the expression used by Agrippa. He had nothing to conceal, nothing of which
he was ashamed. So he openly expressed his desire. "I would to God, that
whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this
day, might become such as I am, except these bonds " (29).
* This is a more
correct translation of the original. "Almost" of the Authorised Version, it is
generally agreed, does not represent the meaning of Agrippa. Were that
translation admissible, it might convey the thought that the king was in
earnest. The rendering above, which is that of the Revised Version, gives
ground to believe that he spoke in irony, or in jest.
A fine answer,
which, whatever effect it had on any of the company, has called forth the
unqualified admiration of many and many a reader since that time. What had Paul
suffered? What was he then suffering, deprived of his liberty, and attacked as
he had been as a malefactor? What might he yet suffer? Did he then envy those
around him, seemingly more fortunate than himself ? Did he envy the worldly
success and advancement of the king, and his continued enjoyment of Imperial
favours? Would he exchange his lot for that of Agrippa's ? We know he would
not. Yet he had a wish, an earnest desire. For whom? For himself? No, but for
others, even for every unconverted person in that hall. What was it? He tells
them. That they might be as he was, his bonds excepted. Happy Paul, we may
indeed say. The love of God and the love of Christ he enjoyed, of which the
great ones before him knew nothing. He had, too, a home in which they had no
part, and a future to which they could not look forward, and such as they had
never conceived. He knew, too, the ground he was on before God, standing on the
accepted sacrifice. The procurator's duration of power was limited. The reign
of Agrippa, however prolonged, could not last for ever. Bernice's fascinating
powers must decline. But Paul would in time be with Christ on high, and find
his home in the Father's house - a home made ready for him by the Lord Jesus
Christ, with whom he will reign for ever and ever. What could earth provide to
equal this? What could an Emperor bestow, or even enjoy, to rival it
?
Agrippa now rose, not wishing to prolong the interview. With him rose
Festus, Bernice, and all the chief men there present. Then conferring apart,
they unanimously agreed that Paul was innocent of any crime of which the law
that they had to administer took cognisance. And Agrippa further ventured the
remark, that it was only Paul's appeal to the Emperor which stood in the way of
his immediate liberation. What was Festus, then, to write? What did he write?
Who now can say?
The Apostle's innocence was established. Lysias had
arrived at that conclusion, after hearing what the Sanhedrin had to say against
him (xxiii. 29). Felix, too, tacitly confessed it, when, giving orders to the
centurion to detain him in custody till the coming of Lysias, he allowed him
indulgence, as well as the privilege of seeing his friends and of being
ministered to by them. And now Festus, Agrippa, and the governor's council all
agreed in declaring his innocence. Not one who had legal jurisdiction over him
but was convinced of the groundlessness of the charges persistently urged by
the Jews. But more. Throughout his detention at Caesarea the moral superiority
of Paul shines out most clearly. Before Felix the prisoner and the governor had
virtually changed places. The prisoner it was who advocated righteousness and
temperance, and all that in view of a coming judgment. The governor had grossly
violated the principles which one in his position ought to have practised, as
well as upheld. And Paul by his powerful address made Felix tremble. The latter
must have felt, and inwardly owned, that the former was immeasurably his
superior. The thought of a coming judgment, at which Felix was terrified, Paul
could face with equanimity ; for, justified by faith, we have peace with God
(Rom. v. 1). Then as to Festus and Agrippa. What moral greatness was displayed
in that answer to Agrippa! He knew whom he believed, and was persuaded that He
was able to keep that which the Apostle had committed unto Him against that day
(2 Tim. i. 12). A prisoner he might be, his liberty thus curtailed;
persecution, too, he had suffered; and martyrdom might end his course: yet with
all that he was better off than the officials before whom he stood. He had what
they had not, yet nothing that they might not come to share in with him, if
they turned to the Saviour of sinners. Paul's position of acceptance before
God, and the future in store for him, he desired for each one of them who would
have it. Before Felix he stands as a preacher of righteousness. Before Festus
and Agrippa he appears as the possessor of blessing, which far outweighed all
that earth could provide or human favour could bestow.
Taken Out.
We must now notice some points in his defence, or suggested by it. First, he
was taken out, rather than delivered, from the people - i.e., Israel - and from
the Gentiles (Acts xxvi. 17). Called out for heaven, and one of the Church of
God, he was, as 1 Cor. x. 32 teaches, distinct from Jews and Gentiles, apart
from both. In this all Christians share, forming that third class on earth of
which that passage just referred to speaks. An interesting point this is, and
has for those who understand it important results. The Church is something
distinct from anything before known. The Church is no development of Judaism.
It is something wholly different from it. Judaising teaching has no place in it
really.
The Twelve Tribes. Next we are reminded by his address of
the unbroken unity before God of the twelve tribes of Israel. Since the days of
Rehoboam they had been divided. Yet Elijah viewed them as a whole before God,
erecting his altar on Carmel (1 Kings xviii. 31) of twelve stones, according to
the number of the twelve tribes. Captivity overtook the ten before
Nebuchadnezzar carried captive the kingdom of Judah. To this day the ten have
never returned, though they will, as Ezekiel (xx. 38-42) teaches us; and they
will be again united under David their king (Ezek. xxxvii. 19-28). So after the
return of the remnant from Babylon, the little company gathered together at
Jerusalem did not forget the rest of their brethren. For they offered on the
day of the dedication of the house a sin-offering for all Israel, twelve
he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel (Ezra vi. 17). Little
likelihood of the nation's restoration, some might have thought. Such was not
the view of faith, which Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the returned
remnant had learnt to cherish. At all times and under all circumstances the
people learnt to view them as a whole before God, and that from the days of
Moses downwards. In the tabernacle this was symbolised during the dark hours of
the night, as the light from the candlestick shone on the golden table, and on
the twelve loaves of shew-bread thereon. Of the twelve tribes James writes
(James i, 1). To the twelve tribes Paul, as we have seen, referred as presently
existing (Acts xxvi. 7). By-and-by it will be seen where they are on earth,
when they emerge from their condition of dry bones, coming forth from their
graves, and entering the land of Israel (Ezek. xxxvii. 11, 12). Nor on high
will heavenly saints forget them, for their names will be eiiduringly written
on the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 12).
In the days, then, of
Israel's apostasy under Ahab, Elijah, as we see, proclaimed the unbroken unity
of the twelve. In the days of the nation's weakness the returned remnant
thought of the whole nation. In Christian times James recognised their
continued existence (James i. 1), and Paul confessed his belief in their final
restoration and blessing under their Messiah in accordance with the prophetic
word (Isa. xi. 11-16). The elect nation can never perish.
Ministry to
Israel. We have noticed two points arising out of the Apostle's address. To
a third let us briefly draw attention. In chapter xx. we have, stated by Paul
himself, the chief subjects of his ministry. In our present chapter (xxvi. 22)
we learn of the great use he made of the prophetic Scriptures. As he commenced
(ix. 22), so he evidently went on. To them he turned his countrymen, and
showed, with what blessed results to many, that the Lord Jesus Christ must be
the One of whom Moses and the prophets did write, thus settling their faith on
Christ in the written word of God. How Peter appealed to the Old Testament his
sermon on the day of Pentecost bears witness. How Paul used that portion of
revelation, then the only written revelation, his address at Antioch in Pisidia
illustrates, and the Epistle to the Hebrews abundantly confirms. It was of
course a new line of things, but quite in keeping with the mind of the Spirit
in the Apostle's day, to open up the Old Testament Scriptures, and to show how
the crucified One really answered to the inspired descriptions of Him who was
to come. Christian teaching, whilst it unfolds much that was then new and
distinctively characteristic of this dispensation, opens up also the Old
Testament, and furnishes the only key, even Christ, to unlock that which before
He came was as a sealed book oftentimes to the prophets themselves (1 Peter i.
10-12). Of the Old Testament both Peter and Paul made much use.
A
Coincidence. Agrippa and Bernice were now in the city in which their father
had died about fifteen years before, smitten manifestly by the hand of God,
through the instrumentality of an angel, shortly after that he had killed James
by the sword, and had attempted, in order to please the Jews, to put Peter also
to death. Now his son and daughter, finding themselves at Caesarea, had the
opportunity of hearing the great champion of Christianity - the Apostle Paul.
Where death had visited their father, life, everlasting life, was put within
their reach, had they desired it. He who made Felix tremble could have spoken
words of life to them, if they had been willing. What an opportunity was
theirs! Agrippa was unwilling to be convinced. Of Bernice we read nothing. The
opportunity passed away then unimproved, and as far as we know never to return.
The memories of the past might well have made them thoughtful, had not the
deceitfulness of riches and the lust of other things stood in the way. And in
time the brother and sister passed away. Familiar with courtly circles on
earth, if they died unconverted, they will never reign with Christ, nor behold
this earth basking in the sunshine of His presence. With the glitter of earthly
pomp they were well acquainted. The glorious day of the Lord's return they will
never behold.
Women. We have called attention (p. 280) to the men
noticed in the Acts as serving in the work. Ere closing this part of the book
we would remind the reader of women whose names will never be forgotten, as
Tabitha of Joppa, Mary the mother of John Mark of Jerusalem, Lydia of Thyatira
who dwelt at Philippi, and Priscilla the wife of Aquila. To these we would add
Damaris of Athens, and one not mentioned in the Acts, but connected with its
history, Phoebe of Cenchrea. Tabitha made garments for the poor (ix. 39). Mary
at Jerusalem opened her house for prayer on the night of Peter's miraculous
release (xii.). Lydia persuaded Paul and his company to make her abode their
home whilst staying at Philippi (xvi.). Priscilla with Aquila received Paul
under their roof at Corinth, helped Apollos to a better understanding of grace
and truth (xviii.), and cheerfully, surely, prepared their house for a company
of Christians to meet in week after week to show the Lord's death. Of Damaris
we know nothing but that she identified herself with Paul at Athens (xvii. 34).
Of Phoebe we learn elsewhere that she had been a succourer of many, and of Paul
also (Rom. xvi. 2). All these have honourable mention in Scripture. Moving most
of them probably in quiet spheres of life, they did what they could ; and with
womanly tact and intuition, as well as Christian love, they ministered as
opportunity was afforded; and the Holy Ghost has placed on record the
distinctive character of their services. How different do these shine out
compared with Drusilla and Bernice ! Self, the love of influence and of
admiration, to say nothing more, were guiding principles with the latter.
Unostentatious yet true service for God and for Christ was the aim and desire
of the former.
Go To Chapter Nineteen