“But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.”
It would appear, from their first request being peremptorily denied them, how little solicitous their governors were to please them. The successors of Felix and Festus were not better disposed than their predecessors. Their extortions and oppressions were pushed so far, that the Jews attempted at last to deliver themselves by rebellion, which proved their utter ruin and extirpation. Indeed it was in vain to resist, for they already began to feel the truth of our Saviour’s prediction, in their subjugation to the Gentiles. Josephus bears ample testimony to the fulfilment of the prophecy. (The Jewish War, lib. ii. chap 16. &c.) (Haydock)
“Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.”
Among you that are able.[1] It may signify, such as are powerful among you, or such as are able by health, and willing. (Witham)
“While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.”
Paul making answer,[2] or his apology, by the Greek. In the Latin, giving an account. In like manner, (ver. 16.) have liberty given to defend himself; in the Greek, to make his apology. In the Latin, till he take a place of defending himself.
“Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.”
St. Paul, seeing Festus only sought a plea to get rid of his cause, by putting it into the hands of the Sanhedrim, appeals to Cęsar. According to the ordinary rules of jurisprudence, appeals are only made after sentence is pronounced; but Roman citizens had a privilege of anticipating the sentence, when the judge did any thing contrary to justice; as Festus evidently did in this case, by wishing to deliver Paul, a Roman citizen, to the tribunal of his declared enemies, the Jews. The apostle knew he was secured by making this appeal: as the Roman law declared provincial governors violators of the public peace, who should either strike, or imprison, or put to death a Roman citizen, that appealed to the emperor. (Calmet) — Hence Pliny sent some Christians to Rome for this same reason, as he writes himself in his epistles. (Lib. x. ep. 97.) Fuerunt alii similis amentię, quos, quia cives Romani erant, annotavi in urbem remittendos.
“And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.”
Agrippa. This was son of the king of the same name, who imprisoned St. Peter, and put St. James to death. Bernice was his sister, and one of the most infamous of women. Her character has merited her a place in one of Juvenal’s satires, 5th.
“But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
Their own superstition.[3] Their particular religion, and manner of worshipping their God. (Witham)
“But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar. hearing: or, judgment”
Augustus Nero, who was then the Roman emperor.
“Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. To morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.”
Agrippa has the same curiosity of hearing Paul, as Herod formerly had of seeing Jesus. The apostle’s name had, no doubt, become famous enough to reach the ears, and arrest the attention of Agrippa. Curiosity is certainly not the best motive a person can bring with him to the investigation of religious truth: still it may occasionally become productive of good. The king was half persuaded to embrace the Christian faith. A better motive, or more serious attention, may induce some to embrace the truth, which accident may first have discovered to them. (Haydock)
“Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.”
To my lord. This was a title the emperors afterwards took, but which Augustus and Tiberius are said by Pliny, in his epistle to Trajan, and by Tertullian, to have refused, as too assuming and too high, ut nimis sublimem atque gloriosum. This was perhaps done, that none might bear the title at a time when the Lord of lords was to appear on the earth. (Tirinus) — Whilst we can approve and admire the motives which actuated the emperors in refusing this title, we cannot go the lengths which some modern enthusiasts do, (mostly Americans, Quakers, &c.) who pretend it is blasphemy to call a mortal man a lord, as if that name were incommunicable to any but the Creator of the universe. Whence they derive this article of faith it will not be easy for us to guess; certainly not from Scripture, in which the word Dominus or Lord, applied to man, occurs almost as frequently as King. Certainly not from our Saviour’s words, who give both himself and others this title, (Mark xiv. 14. and other places.) nor from St. Paul’s doctrine, who also uses this word indiscriminately through his epistles, Galatians iv. 1; Ephesians vi. v.; &c. Hence we are justified in retaining this practice, in opposition to their cavils; and in treating that opinion as superstitious and void of foundation, which makes it a necessary part of religion to use no titles. (Haydock)