Wednesdays are for the New Testament
8/28/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 25" In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pages 449-460). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
We recall that Paul had been imprisoned in Caesarea for some time, then the governor Felix was replaced by Festus. In Acts 25:1-5 the new governor went on a tour of his province to meet the resident authorities, including those in Jerusalem (Bruce 1988, p. 450). The high priests, having asked that Paul be transferred to Jerusalem, were told they could bring their case to Jerusalem instead.
Back in Caesarea, in Acts 25:6-12, with representatives of the Sanhedrin present, Festus opened Paul's case again (Bruce 1988, p. 451). Bruce observes that the charges against Paul were likely the same alleged to Felix by Tertullus, and had no evidence or witnesses. Paul's denial of the charges was in three parts. He denied breaking the law, violating the temple, and acting against the emperor (Bruce 1988, p. 452). There was inadequate evidence to return him to the Sanhedrin. The charge of acting against the emperor likewise had no evidence, and was not within the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction. Bruce observes it would have been in the governor's best interest to do the Sanhedrin a favor, yet with Paul being a Roman citizen he was obligated to uphold Roman law. His suggested change of venue seemed reasonable. However, in verses 10-11 Paul, knowing the possible outcome of the move, requested he be heard by Caesar, his right as a Roman (Bruce 1988, p. 453). This, Bruce notes, was a well established principle in Roman law. Though the emperor Nero was known by the year 64 to be vicious, especially toward Christians, Bruce notes that now, between 54 and 59, with the guidance of Seneca and Burrus, there was relative peace (Bruce 1988, p. 454). Paul's appeal was legally binding and also readily accepted by Festus.
Acts 25:13-22 describe a visit to Festus by Agrippa Ii and bernice. It was necessary for Festus to send a report to Rome along with Paul. He may have thought the insight of Agrippa would be helpful to him (Bruce 1988, p. 455). Bruce provides some brief details about Agrippa, the son of Herod Agrippa I (Bruce 1988, p. 456). Bernice, the sister of Agrippa II, was also present on the visit to Caesarea (Bruce 1988, p. 457). While Festus does not appear to have understood the importance of the claim of resurrection, Agrippa certainly did (Bruce 1988, p. 458).
In Acts 25:23-27, we read of an assembly for an audience of Paul with Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, and other dignitaries (Bruce 1988, p. 458). Bruce notes the irony inherent in Paul, an apostle of God the Son, being brought to speak with world rulers who were less significant in the long run than Paul (Bruce 1988, p. 459). As we saw earlier, the purpose of the hearing was to help Festus form a report to send to Caesar. It was not an actual legal inquiry.
8/28/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 25" In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pages 449-460). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
We recall that Paul had been imprisoned in Caesarea for some time, then the governor Felix was replaced by Festus. In Acts 25:1-5 the new governor went on a tour of his province to meet the resident authorities, including those in Jerusalem (Bruce 1988, p. 450). The high priests, having asked that Paul be transferred to Jerusalem, were told they could bring their case to Jerusalem instead.
Back in Caesarea, in Acts 25:6-12, with representatives of the Sanhedrin present, Festus opened Paul's case again (Bruce 1988, p. 451). Bruce observes that the charges against Paul were likely the same alleged to Felix by Tertullus, and had no evidence or witnesses. Paul's denial of the charges was in three parts. He denied breaking the law, violating the temple, and acting against the emperor (Bruce 1988, p. 452). There was inadequate evidence to return him to the Sanhedrin. The charge of acting against the emperor likewise had no evidence, and was not within the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction. Bruce observes it would have been in the governor's best interest to do the Sanhedrin a favor, yet with Paul being a Roman citizen he was obligated to uphold Roman law. His suggested change of venue seemed reasonable. However, in verses 10-11 Paul, knowing the possible outcome of the move, requested he be heard by Caesar, his right as a Roman (Bruce 1988, p. 453). This, Bruce notes, was a well established principle in Roman law. Though the emperor Nero was known by the year 64 to be vicious, especially toward Christians, Bruce notes that now, between 54 and 59, with the guidance of Seneca and Burrus, there was relative peace (Bruce 1988, p. 454). Paul's appeal was legally binding and also readily accepted by Festus.
Acts 25:13-22 describe a visit to Festus by Agrippa Ii and bernice. It was necessary for Festus to send a report to Rome along with Paul. He may have thought the insight of Agrippa would be helpful to him (Bruce 1988, p. 455). Bruce provides some brief details about Agrippa, the son of Herod Agrippa I (Bruce 1988, p. 456). Bernice, the sister of Agrippa II, was also present on the visit to Caesarea (Bruce 1988, p. 457). While Festus does not appear to have understood the importance of the claim of resurrection, Agrippa certainly did (Bruce 1988, p. 458).
In Acts 25:23-27, we read of an assembly for an audience of Paul with Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, and other dignitaries (Bruce 1988, p. 458). Bruce notes the irony inherent in Paul, an apostle of God the Son, being brought to speak with world rulers who were less significant in the long run than Paul (Bruce 1988, p. 459). As we saw earlier, the purpose of the hearing was to help Festus form a report to send to Caesar. It was not an actual legal inquiry.
RSS Feed