Appealing to Agrippa (3)

Appealing to Agrippa

Appealing to Agrippa

, Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, “There is a man left prisoner by Felix, and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him. So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed. Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them. But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.” Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” said he, “you will hear him.”

Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, “There is a man left prisoner by Felix, and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him. So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed. Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them. But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.” Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” said he, “you will hear him.”

So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. And Festus said, “King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish people petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had done nothing deserving death. And as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to go ahead and send him. But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write. For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him.”

One of the most tragic events during the Reagan Presidency was the Sunday morning terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, in which hundreds of Americans were killed or wounded as they slept. Many of us can still recall the terrible scenes as the dazed survivors worked to dig out their trapped brothers from beneath the rubble.

A few days after the tragedy, I recall coming across an extraordinary story. Marine Corps Commandant Paul X Kelly visited some of the wounded survivors then in a Frankfurt, Germany, hospital. Among them was Corporal Jeffrey Lee Nashton, severely wounded in the incident. Nashton had so many tubes running in and out of his body that a witness said he looked more like a machine than a man; yet he survived.

As Kelly neared him, Nashton, struggling to move because he was racked with pain, he motioned for a piece of paper and a pen. Then he wrote a brief note and passed it back to the Commandant. On the slip of paper were just two words -- "Semper Fi" the Latin motto of the Marines meaning "forever faithful." With those two simple words Nashton spoke for the millions of Americans who have sacrificed body and limb and their lives for their country -- those who have remained ‘forever faithful.’

Paul is also such a solider of the army of the Lord; one who has shown himself faithful in the midst of great spiritual warfare. Faithful in the midst of mayhem, many beatings, major accusations, multiple misunderstands and yes even malicious plots of murder. He has sacrificed his body, his limbs and his life for the cause of Christ Jesus. Paul has remained forever faithful.

During Paul’s relentless two-year trial, he has appealed to Felix, he has appealed to Festus, and now he appeals to Agrippa in his conquest to present his case before Caesar’s court. As Festus was about to give Paul over to the Jews in Jerusalem, Paul made a desperate appeal, he made evoked a last-ditch effort, and he quick played the ultimate appeal card. This was his right as a Roman citizen to have his trial taken over by Caesar’s higher court. This application to a higher court requested that the result of the lower court to be changed, counter demanded, or commutated, to be reversed; this process was called provocatio. Provocatio ensured that every Roman citizen had the right to appeal their trial to a higher court which would then take the whole case, trial, verdict, and sentence out of the hands of the lower court’.

Paul recognize that even if he was acquitted by Felix the governor and set free in Judea it would have been dangerous for him, given the plot against him. So, his case needed to be transferred to Rome because he could clearly see that for Festus, political expediency was overtaking justice. Moreover, his appealing to Caesar would enable him to visit the capital as planned, this puts him right where Jesus had promised, it places him in Rome where he could testify concerning Jesus.

Remember what Jesus had promise Paul in .

, The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.” You see even in the midst of a crooked trial, even in the midst of callous false accusations and in the midst of corrupt leadership. Jesus shows Himself faithful through His mysterious ways, His wonders to perform and through His sovereignty. Because of works of Christ on his behalf, Paul is encouraged to continue in his faithfulness even as his trial lingers on. Why? Because Jesus is forever faithful.

Let us pray …

Our God and our Father shows us this morning your faithful hand that covers the entirety of our lives. Show us your care, your concern, your compassion, your continual faithfulness, for you are forever faithful. You are our rock and refuge, you are a present help in the time of trouble, you are our guide and guardian, you are a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. You are our all in all, you are our God and you are forever faithful. We ask that you will write the words of this text upon our hearts as yet another example of your faithfulness.

It is in the matchless name of your Son and our Savior, the Lord Christ Jesus that we ask it all and all God’s children said Amen.

Paul’s trial which has been in recess is now being prepared for a hearing before yet another level of authority in his quest to be heard before Caesar. Festus is now bringing him before Agrippa the king.

13 Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea. So, before we get in the main thrush of the text let’s look at some history so that we can bring everyone’s actions in to clear context. First, we know that Herod Agrippa II was the last ruler in the Herodian line. His father was Herod Agrippa I, known as Herod the Great, whose antagonism towards the church in Jerusalem has been well noted in the book of Acts in the 12th chapter. Let’s take a quick look at that text.

, About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.”

It was Herod’s goal to kill Peter after the feast of Unleavened Bread was over, but God in His faithfulness sent an angel to release Peter from prison. Herod plans where for evil, but God’s plans were for the good of Peter. Herod’s plans were for death, but God’s plans were for Peter’s escape.

Herod Agrippa II made it clear where he stood concerning Christians, his violent and vicious acts against the church and against Christians showed his contempt for Christ. But this contempt seemed to be a family obsession for his grandfather Herod the Great committed violent and vicious acts against the church, against Christians and even tried to commit them toward Christ.

, Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” Here we see the seductive suggestion from Herod that he too, wanted to worship Jesus; yet this is a lie, he only wanted to learn the infant’s location so that he might kill him.

, Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

God sends an angel to warn the family of the impending danger from King Herod. Egypt is about 90 miles from Bethlehem and far outside the King’s jurisdiction. The words that end this text come from

, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Here is one of the most endearing passages in Hosea. The prophet uses another family metaphor, portraying the Lord not only as a husband but also as a father. This metaphor was not original to Hosea for it shows up a couple of places in Holy Scripture.

Namely, in Exodus. Look at , And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

The line “out of Egypt I called my son” means to show that Jesus is the “Son of God,” the heir of David who embodies Israel’s relationship to God.

Look at how this point and prophecy plays out in the reign of Herod Agrippa the great.

, Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

You see because of Herod the Great fear of the infant Jesus, he killed all the male children in Bethlehem … two years old or under. This small village may have had 10 to 30 boys of that age, this was a slaughter of the innocents. Herod the Great’s earlier query to the wise men about the time of the appearing of the star gave him an estimated time of birth of Jesus, his potential challenger.

Also, in this passage we see that Jeremiah used personification to describe the mothers of Israel using Rachel’s mourning for her children who had been removed from the land and carried off into exile, leaving Israel no longer a nation and a place considered dead.

Like the exile, this attempt on Jesus’ life was intended to wipe out the chosen one of God. So, we see that Herod Agrippa II comes by this contempt for Christ and Christians naturally.

Herod Agrippa II was educated in Rome at the court of Claudius and remained there until he was allowed to take charge of the region ruled by his uncle, Herod of Chalcis, in ad 50 or 52. This emperor had considered giving Agrippa charge of his father’s complete kingdom when he died in 44, but was dissuaded because of Agrippa’s youth. When he conferred on him his uncle’s kingdom, which was in Lebanon, he also gave him responsibility for the temple in Jerusalem, which included the appointment of the high priest. This is an important fact here, that the Roman emperor appoints the leader of the Jews. Their goal was to give the Jews the sense of having some control and yet at the same time controlling them. Sound familiar?

By the time Agrippa met Paul, his rule had been extended to include all of his father’s previous kingdom, now he had complete rule.

Now this young lady Bernice was actually Agrippa’s oldest sister, Drusilla the wife of Festus being the other. She had been married to his uncle, Herod of Chalcis, and had given him two sons. After his death in ad 48, she moved in with Agrippa II and entered into an incestuous relationship, she became her brother’s wife. In AD 63 she married Polemon, King of Cilicia. She did this only in an attempt to overcome the scandal, but she soon returned to Agrippa and they continued their marriage. So, despite their interest in Paul’s case and their apparent objectivity about his innocence, this sinfully compromised couple must have been as disturbed as Felix was to hear Paul’s testimony and to be challenged by his gospel of Christ Jesus. Being held accountable to the gospel’s call for righteous, self-control, and the ultimate judgment of those who do not come to Christ through faith.

Luke tells us that on this occasion that Agrippa and Bernice came to pay their respects to Festus, they arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. This visit was intended as an official welcome to Festus: it was quite natural for Agrippa as ruler of the neighboring territory to come to pay his respects to the new Judean governor, especially since Agrippa was a supporter of Rome and interested in Roman affairs. During this visit Festus saw the opportunity to seek the help of one who had a greater knowledge of Jewish affairs and who was respected by the emperor.

Festus presents the claims

14 And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the king... Luke gives us an imprecise span of time that Festus and Agrippa spent together, he simply says ‘many days’, which just indicates an extended encounter. Yet, Luke does dwell on the details of their exchange. He has Festus repeat some aspects of the preceding trial narrative as a court reporter would read back the transcript and added some new information, to highlight the realities of the case from his personal perspective. First, Festus lifts up the fact that he inherited Paul from Felix, 14b “There is a man left prisoner by Felix… So, Festus recalls the imprisonment of Paul by Felix and the approach made to him by the Jewish leadership, look at verse 15. 15 ‘And when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews laid out their case against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him.’

In is interesting that Festus does not mention the plot against Paul—which was presumably unknown to Agrippa. Yet, reveals for the first time that, when they brought charges against Paul, they asked ‘that he be condemned’ You see these leaders were not looking for justice they wanted “just him” to be condemned to death, to be punished for crimes that were yet unproved. Even though he does not say it, his next statement presupposes the request for Paul to be transferred into Jewish hands for punishment, without a further trial as an unfair request, listen.

, “I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.” Here we see Felix’s insistence that the Jewish leaders come to Caesarea to present their case against Paul, so that a properly conducted trial could go forth. He gives the impression that he was ‘strongly committed to Roman standards of justice’.

Yet his desire to do the Jews a favor, made him unwilling to release Paul because of the lack of evidence against him, calls this commitment into question. Festus clearly ‘did not have the same commitment to justice when it came to the verdict’. He also did not have the same commitment to justice when it came to showing favoritism to Paul if he could receive a bribe.

Festus confesses there is no case

Festus continues his presentation here. , So when they came together here, I made no delay, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought.

This statement is somewhat self-serving because its apparent goal is only to highlight the so-called urgency of his response. But he expresses genuine surprise that ‘when his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected’. Why you asked? Because that had no case!

Tertullus had previously suggested that there was a sociopolitical dimension to Paul’s ministry, warranting a trial before the Roman governor. Remember, what Tertullus had said, he lists at least four charges look at .

, For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him.”

This must have been on record as part of the prosecution’s case. The Jewish leaders’ request for Paul to be condemned seemed to confirm this. On this occasion, however, there was no claims, no charges and no case because there was no ‘proof, nothing requiring punishment under Roman law. Going even further, Festus reveals that the accusations raised against Paul were actually theological.

These were religious issues that the Jewish leaders had with Paul and should and would not concern Rome. But then as additional proof he mentions this, , Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. The expression is rightly translated their own religion, though some take it negatively to mean ‘their own superstition’. This phrase … And about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive; here it seems to be three different opinions other than are recorded by Luke: (1) Jews objected to among other things, to Paul’s belief in Jesus of Nazareth, whom they traduced as an impostor and deceiver; (2) Paul on the other hand argued, that he was the true Messiah; and in proof of it, affirmed that though they had put him to death, he was risen from the dead, and so was declared to be the Son of God with power: (3) Festus, has very likely, never heard of Jesus before, and therefore speaks of him in this manner; or if he had, he had entertained a contemptible opinion of him, as well as of the Jewish religion; and which he expresses, even in the presence of the king, who had outwardly at least embraced it.

Festus didn’t know much about Jesus—but he had heard the gospel from the apostle Paul. Paul had declared the gospel—that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and on the third day He rose again....

The resurrection of Jesus is still the dividing point—it is still the decisive point—it is still the dynamic point! We are not going to mesh with other religions—Christianity is not about religion—it is about a relationship with the Living God who rose from the dead and lives forevermore! You cannot be saved if you have not believed that Jesus rose again! Believing that Jesus died on the cross is not enough! He died and He rose again! We serve the Living Savior and Lord! This was the major sticking point with the Jews—Festus didn’t get it—it was not a big deal to the Roman governor! He wishes now that he could relive these days and turn to and trust in the certain Jesus who died and whom Paul affirmed was alive again!

A decision on this matter depends on the way we envisage Festus relating to Agrippa at this point. Luke shows us time and time again through the account of the trials before the Sanhedrin as the Pharisees declared, in chapter 23 ‘We find nothing wrong in this man’ and later before Felix in chapter 24 Paul exclaims ‘they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues.’ In both place we only find Paul highlighting his firm belief in the resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust. However, at least in this trial before Festus, he appears to have claimed that Jesus was the one in whom the resurrection hope of Israel was to be fulfilled, that was true then and it is true now. However, Festus correctly perceived that the debate was theological, not that which would demand a trial before the secular authorities. So, why didn’t he not say so earlier and acquit Paul? This clearly exposes his political compromise with the Jews and his failure to act justly according to Roman standards.

Festus now reveals that this trial has been delayed because of where he found himself.

20‘Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wanted to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them’.

The implication is that such a purely religious matter could best be solved in Jerusalem and without any Roman interference. However, this was not his only consideration, Festus was still trying to please the Jewish leadership and to curry favor with them. But, since Paul’s accusers had not been able to prove the capital charges made against him, he could not render a verdict. Yet, even if he was at a loss how to investigate such matters. (1) Why should he expose Paul to further danger in Jerusalem by releasing him to them? (2) Why should this Roman citizen not be granted immediate acquittal and release from prison? Festus cannot have it, both ways! Festus continues to hide the fact that he was actually ‘wishing to do the Jews a favor’.

Here he says nothing of Paul’s protests and arguments for justice, simply noting that Paul had ‘made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision’. The story is brought up to date with the information that Paul has been held as a prisoner before being sent to Caesar. Meanwhile, Agrippa hearing all this, expresses his own desire to hear Paul in person and is assured that this will happen on the next day. Look at , Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” said he, “you will hear him.”

Festus commits Paul to a new court.

Now we see that Festus has moved Paul into a new venue, into yet another level of authority concerning his case.

, ‘So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in’. First, Luke indicates that this was a grand occasion, complete with a glittering array of military and civic leaders coming forth and being present to hear Paul’s defense. This was Palestinian politics and theater in the first century at its very best.

Agrippa and Bernice are actors willing playing in his Festus’s drams. They have taken the exactly roles previously preformed by Herod the Great in the trial of Jesus.

Look at , ‘When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.’

For the Jewish king Agrippa, there is the reward of political flattery and deference: The Romans recognize his importance! Back to verse 23,

These influential people and their entourage gathered together in the audience room, probably in Herod’s palace, which would have been a large space designed for any kind of public hearing or lecture. Festus then initiated the proceedings, commanding that Paul be brought in. The contrast between the prisoner’s clothes and condition and the ostentation of those gathered to hear him must have been stark.

Festus introduces Paul to Agrippa and all who were present; he verbally exaggerated the political pressure he was under, stating that ‘the whole Jewish community’ had petitioned him about Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea, ‘shouting that he ought not to live any longer’.

At the same time, he acknowledged Paul’s innocence (‘I found he had done nothing deserving of death’). This is the second such declaration (23:29), and there will be a third (26:31), ‘so that Paul (like Jesus) will three times be exonerated by Roman justice’. These Roman officials are quite willing to recognize Paul’s innocence when they can do so cheaply, that is, when it has cost and is of no effect on Paul’s legal status and no political consequences. What is missing here in this dispute is love and respect for one another and their differing views.

During World War II, Hitler commanded all religious groups to unite so that he could control them. Among the Brethren assemblies, half complied and half refused. Those who went along with the order had a much easier time. Those who did not faced harsh persecution.

In almost every family of those who resisted, someone died in a concentration camp. When the war was over, feelings of bitterness ran deep between the groups and there was much tension. Finally they decided that the situation had to be healed. Leaders from each group met at a quiet retreat. For several days, each person spent time in prayer, examining his own heart in the light of Christ's commands.

Then they came together. Francis Schaeffer, who told of the incident, asked a friend who was there, "What did you do then?" "We were just one," he replied. As they confessed their hostility and bitterness to God and yielded to His control, the Holy Spirit created a spirit of unity among them. Love filled their hearts and dissolved their hatred. When love prevails among believers, especially in times of strong disagreement, it presents to the world an indisputable mark of a true follower of Jesus Christ.

There was no such common ground between these opposing groups, they could not yet recognize that the God of resurrection was the only one and true living God.

Festus further presents himself as a victim in connection with Paul’s unexpected ‘appeal to the Emperor’. He intends to send Paul to Rome, but this leaves him with a serious practical problem. The text tells us that he has ‘ nothing definite to write to my lord about him’. Felix needs the help of King Agrippa and his court, so that as a result of this ‘investigation’ he may have something to write. He needs to somehow justify all the time and effort spent on Paul before his boss.

Agrippa’s knowledge of Judaism and his good standing in Rome would have been helpful in compiling such a report. Festus apparently fears that, without a reasonable report on Paul, his own competence as a judge and provincial administrator will be called into question. Here, however, that threat is expressed in a very restrained fashion. , “For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him.”

We see here in the final analysis that Felix and Festus are presented as both showing favoritism to the Jews in dealing with Paul’s case and depriving the prisoner of justice.

Paul is a prisoner caught in a web of self-interested maneuvers by people who are vying are for support within the political jungle. However, Paul is not just a helpless victim. As opportunity comes, he continues to bear witness to his Lord. Although Paul continues to be denied justice and freedom, the saving purpose of God still has use for this resourceful and faithful prisoner. Because in the final analysis our God is building up his servant Paul to serve him even the more in places and purposes that he can’t even imagine, for our God is ‘forever faithful’.

One stormy night an elderly couple entered the lobby of a small hotel and asked for a room. The clerk said they were filled, as were all the hotels in town. "But I can't send a fine couple like you out in the rain," he said. "Would you be willing to sleep in my room?" The couple hesitated, but the clerk insisted. The next morning when the man paid his bill, he said, "You're the kind of man who should be managing the best hotel in the United States. Someday I'll build you one." The clerk smiled politely. A few years later the clerk received a letter from the elderly man, recalling that stormy night and asking him to come to New York. A round-trip ticket was enclosed. When the clerk arrived, his host took him to the corner of 5th Avenue and 34th Street, where stood a magnificent new building. "That," explained the man, "is the hotel I have built for you to manage." The man was William Waldorf Astor, and the hotel was the original Waldorf-Astoria. The young clerk, George C. Boldt, became its first manager.