Click Here to see Lesson 22 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

Paul Before Festus and King Herod Agrippa II

Last week the subject was Paul’s trials in Caesarea. It was a long, 2-year process, because Paul was the victim of what we might call a "Mexican standoff." The first Roman judge, Governor Antonius Felix, knows Paul is innocent of any charges, but delays a decision because he wants Paul to give him a bribe. On the other hand, Paul’s accusers—high priest Ananias and the Sanhedrin—refuse to send "eyewitnesses" to appear in Caesarea, because they want Paul sent to Jerusalem for trial in a Jewish court. (They plan to kill him en route or—failing that—condemn him to death for desecrating the temple.) For two years, the governor waits for a bribe, while the Sanhedrin lobbies behind the scenes to change the venue to Jerusalem.

This comes to an end when Felix falls afoul of Caesar Nero and is replaced by a new governor, Porcius Festus. Festus seems to be a sincere and honorable man, but someone has suggested he’s like a lawyer trying to arbitrate a heated discussion between two physicists. He knows it’s unfair to keep Paul so long without a decision and wants to settle the case. But the Sanhedrin still demand Paul be sent to them for trial in Jewish court; and Paul refuses, because as a Roman citizen he has special rights in Roman courts. Yet although the Sanhedrin have failed present a viable case, Festus knows it will inflame them if he declares Paul "not guilty"; and that’s not the best way for a new governor to start out his tenure. So Paul is forced to appeal to a higher Roman court: the emperor himself.

This appeal surprises and confuses Festus. And as he contemplates what to do, he receives a "meet and greet" visit from the ruler of a neighboring Roman puppet kingdom, King Herod Agrippa II, with his sister Bernice. Festus asks for Agrippa’s help . . . specifically to put together the indictment to send to Caesar with Paul, but perhaps more generally to understand these inexplicable Jews!

Why ask for Agrippa’s help? Because Agrippa and Bernice are Jews . . . but pro-Roman and educated in Rome. Festus has sensed the Sanhedrin has a hidden agenda about Paul, and feels he can get good advice from Agrippa and Bernice. After all, their younger sister Drusilla was the wife of departing Governor Felix, who understood the Jews well!

But who is Herod Agrippa II? . . . and can he give Festus the advice he needs? He is great grandson of Herod the Great, and son of Herod Agrippa I . . . the "King Herod" who tried to kill Peter in Acts 12, and was struck dead in the theater of Caesarea shortly thereafter. When his father died, Agrippa was only 17. Caesar Claudius did not think Agrippa could handle a kingdom at this age, but later gave him the title of King and the region of Gaulanitis—a Gentile area which adjoins Galilee, ruled by Festus.

In reality, Agrippa is just a playboy . . . immoral and extravagant, living life to the hilt. His capital is Caesarea Philippi, but he doesn’t live there; Agrippa lives in Beirut—which is a lot more fun—with his older sister Bernice. Agrippa never married, and Bernice is a widow; no problem: they carry on an incestuous relationship, condemned by Jewish religious leaders. None of Herod’s descendants are very admirable!

Acts 25:14-22 records a private conversation between Festus and Agrippa . . . and because of the presence of these verses I want to introduce and discuss the concept of "skeptical faithfulness." First, let’s define it. When we encounter difficult passages in the bible, we respond in one of 3 ways:

• The first is to say: "God said it, I believe it; that settles it."
• The second is to say: "That’s absurd, and proves the Bible is a ‘fairy tale.’"

Neither is a thoughtful response. Both reflect a decision already made—on faith—that the bible is true or false. The facts don’t matter to people with this attitude.

The third response is more thoughtful: "I’d like to check it out." But as one sincerely tries to "check it out," one finds not everything is clearly "true" or "false"—especially things that happened 1900 years or more ago. For example, 42 years ago there was no secular record that Governor Pontius Pilate ever existed. Anti-Christian scholars said this proved the New Testament is a fabrication . . . but pro-Christian scholars said the absence of proof is not disproof. Yet the creation of the nation of Israel caused an explosion in Biblical Archaeology, and in 1961—within the lifetime of most of us—a stone inscription was found with Pilate’s name, proving he did exist. Even in science—which we may think is cut and dry—new theories usually have vigorous proponents and opponents . . . and often must be revised.

Our conclusions about the bible are always skewed by our perspective . . . either a preference to disbelieve: "If there is anything questionable, I’ll claim the bible is false" . . . or a preference to believe: "I’ll give God—or the bible writers—the benefit of the doubt. I’ll believe the bible is true if there is a rational explanation for what the bible says." This is what I call "skeptical faithfulness." But the point is: it always requires an element of faith to believe or disbelieve the bible. . . all scholarly opinion is based on some degree of presupposition. It’s like the recent UN debate over Iraq: when inspectors found undeclared weapons of mass destruction, anti-Saddam countries said: "See, it proves Saddam is hiding undeclared weapons"; but pro-Saddam countries said: "See, it proves the inspections are working." Same data; different reactions.

Let’s return to Acts 25:14-22. A "private conversation" between two heads of state like Festus and Agrippa is rarely "private": there are normally guards and advisers and miscellaneous officials. But the question is: "How did Luke get access to such a conversation?" There are only two possibilities: Luke made it all up . . . OR a Christian is among Festus’ or Agrippa’s entourage, and reported the conversation to Paul or Luke. What’s the answer? What do you believe? . . . there’s no possible way to know for sure.

The only thing we know for sure is that Luke has shown himself a reliable historian . . . proved right by skeptical secular historians. For example, he calls Sergius Paulus Proconsul of Cyprus, and he calls the city officials of Thessalonica "politarchs." For years historians unanimously thought Luke was wrong on these titles . . . but within the last 100-plus years archaeology has proved Luke was right!

I believe Acts 25:14-22 is indeed a private discussion between Festus and Agrippa. I believe that during the 2-year "Mexican standoff"—in which Felix "frequently" (Acts 24:26) invited Paul to give public witness for Jesus in Caesarea before some of the most important people in the world—that Paul made converts. I believe one of those converts heard this conversation and reported it to Paul or Luke. And if this is true, it’s a remarkable demonstration of the power of the gospel!

So let’s assume Luke is right, and that the conversation between Festus and Agrippa took place much as reported. Festus openly shares his problem with Agrippa; his honesty is refreshing . . . which seems to confirm it is a private conversation. Festus is confused because, when he went to Jerusalem for his first meeting with the Sanhedrin, they made very serious charges against Paul. Yet when he brought everyone together for a court hearing in Caesarea, the entire case changed . . . they brought up only "some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (Acts 25:19). Festus shares that he just didn’t know what to do, but proposed—probably at the suggestion of the Sanhedrin—that Paul "go to Jerusalem and stand trial" in a Jewish court, where the charges seemed to belong, but Paul refused, and instead appealed to Caesar. Festus just can’t figure these Jews out!

Agrippa agrees to help . . . and volunteers to hear Paul. Festus is no doubt delighted, and the next day he brings in Paul for a public audience including "the high ranking officers and the leading men of the city." Luke records "Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp" (Acts 25:23); from what we know about these two, a grand and lavish entrance would indeed seem to be in character!

Festus lays out the purpose of the hearing . . . formally, because this is a formal hearing. The Jews of Jerusalem wanted Paul to die, but he had done nothing deserving death. He was being sent to Rome to be judged by Caesar because he had demanded trial by Caesar’s court, but Festus doesn’t know what to tell Caesar are the charges against Paul . . . so this hearing will determine the bill of particulars to send to Caesar.

Rather than question him, Agrippa lets Paul speak for himself. Paul addresses Agrippa directly . . . not Festus. Why? Festus is essentially a good man, but one with virtually no knowledge of Jewish scripture . . . and hence no foundation upon which to build faith in Jesus. Moreover, Paul has already talked to Festus—probably at length. On the other hand, Agrippa may be an incestuous playboy, but he is, as Paul says, "well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies." Agrippa thinks like a Hellenized Jew; Paul is a Hellenized Jew; and Hellenized Jews have been very receptive to Jesus. If Paul can convict Agrippa of his sin—as he did with Felix . . . who knows what might happen! He asks Agrippa "to listen . . . patiently" (Acts 26:3).

Paul tells Agrippa he was raised a Pharisee (Acts 26:4-7), and he believes traditional Pharisee doctrine—including resurrection of the dead and God’s other promises to the Jews. He claims this is why he is on trial. This establishes his expertise and emphasizes that Jesus’ resurrection—which the Sanhedrin denies—is Jewish doctrine. Paul talks about his work to persecute Christians on behalf of the Sanhedrin . . . then his conversion on the road to Damascus, emphasizing and expanding on the voice from heaven of the resurrected Jesus: "I am sending you to (the Gentiles), to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me" (Acts 26:17-18). Paul says he was "seized in the temple courts" (Acts 26:21) by the Jews because he preached a message "to repent and turn to God and prove repentance by deeds" (Acts 26:20-21) . . . and he closes by saying the good news of Jesus is nothing more than the message preached by the Jewish prophets (Acts 26:22-23).

The reaction to Paul is extremely revealing. Let’s read it:

Paul makes Festus uncomfortable, and he reacts: "Paul, I don’t have a clue what you just said, . . . but don’t think I’m going to believe you just because you’re smarter and better educated than I am. Maybe you’re just crazy." This reaction is not unusual.

Listen again to Paul’s response, and take it to heart: "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am," saved by believing in Jesus. Yes, he says "all who are listening to me today" . . . not just Festus and Agrippa. We may have just read the outline of the message Paul delivered in Felix’ court for the past two years.

Next week Paul goes to Rome—as a prisoner, awaiting trial by Caesar. The text is longer than usual, because Acts gives so much detail about the trip—including a shipwreck, in which Paul very nearly loses his life. We’ll also read about his ministry in Malta—and his ministry in Rome. And how did Caesar decide his case . . . ?