Godbey's Commentary - Acts - Romans - Enter His Rest

PAUL’S TRIAL BEFORE KING AGRIPPA.
(Ver. 13 to Ver. 32, Chap. XXVI.)
This, by far the greatest prosecution of all, had no reference to the immediate destiny of Paul, i.e.,
they are no longer trying for his life, as that matter has gone out of their hands, transferred to the
emperor the moment Festus and his court admitted Paul’s appeal. But having admitted the appeal,
Festus finds himself in a terrible dilemma, apparently unanticipated, i.e., having admitted the appeal,
and put himself in a position where he is forced by law to send Paul to Rome to be tried by the
emperor, and, at the same time, having not a solitary allegation recognizable in Roman law to send
along with he criminal. Hence Festus sees that he has exposed himself to criticism and burlesque,
probably to his own serious official detriment. Will not the emperor say, “Is not this pro-consul of
Judea green as a gourd, to send to me a prisoner for trial, and not a solitary criminal charge against
him”? Hence we are not astonished at the solicitude of Festus and his serious dilemma in the matter.
When King Agrippa, a prince of the celebrated Herodian family, accompanied by his queen, Bernice,
come from Chalcis [their dominion, under the Roman emperor, the title of king being a mere
courtesy, because he was a member of the Herodian dynasty, though now only a Roman pro-consul],
come down to Cæsarea to pay Festus a royal visit, the latter, who is now much exercised over his
dilemma in Paul’s case, relates the whole matter to Agrippa, begging him, if possible, to help him
out of the entanglement. In all this we are gratified with the high-toned integrity of Festus, in
contradistinction to the condescending strategy and turpitude of his official predecessor, the
unfortunate Felix. Describing to King Agrippa the trial of Paul at his tribunal, in which he had
appealed to Cæsar, he very beautifully alludes to the transparent rascality of the high priest and his
confederates:
16. “To whom I responded that it is not a custom of the Romans to deliver up any man to death
before that the accused may have his accuser face to face, and may receive an opportunity of defense
concerning the charge.” Oh, what a noble law! how invaluable and appreciated here in America at
the present day. It was adopted in England when the Barons rebelled against the tyranny of King
John, and became the Magna Charta of English freedom. Thence transferred to America and adopted
by the Colonial Congress, it became the battle-cry in the Revolutionary War, finally triumphing in
the victories of Yorktown. It is this day the shibboleth of civil and religious liberty, without which
martyrs’ blood would flow as in days of yore. Festus assures Agrippa that there was nothing against
Paul except the superstitious clamors of the Jews charging him with disharmony in reference to their
own religion, but nothing involving criminality in Roman law, there being a controversy over one
“Jesus who is dead, whom Paul certifies incessantly that He liveth.” Agrippa, belonging to the
celebrated Herodian family though a mixture of Idumean and Jewish blood, ranked as a Jew and
claimed to be a loyal orthodox member of the Mosaic church. Hence we see Paul addresses him as
a brother in the church, unlike Lysias, Felix and Festus, who were heathen Romans.