The King Agrippa who comes to pay his respects to Festus was Marcus Julius Agrippa II (A.D. 27-100), son of Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-25) and great-grandson of Herod the Great (Mt 2:1-23). Brought up in Rome in the court of Claudius, he was a favorite of the emperor, though too young to immediately succeed his father at his death in A.D. 44. In A.D. 50, following the death of his uncle (Herod of Chalcis, A.D. 48) he was granted the petty kingdom of Chalcis, northeast of Judea. He later exchanged it for the tetrarchy of Philip, Abilene (or Abila), Trachonitis and Acra (the tetrarchy of Varus) in A.D. 53. In A.D. 56 Nero added to his kingdom the Galilean cities of Tarichea and Tiberias with their surrounding lands and the Perean city of Julias (or Betharamphta) with fourteen villages belonging to it (compare Josephus Jewish Wars 2.220-23, 247, 252; Jewish Antiquities 20.104, 138, 159; Longenecker 1981:547). He had supreme power in Jewish religious life, for the Romans gave him the right to appoint the high priest and custodianship of the temple treasure and the high priest's vestments (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20.213, 222). He was the last of the Herodian line.

Accompanying him now is his sister Bernice, a year younger than he. She had been engaged to Marcus, a nephew of the philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Then she married her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis. At his death she returned to live with her brother Agrippa II and engaged in an incestuous relationship with him. This gained her notoriety both in Palestine and in Rome (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20.145-46; Juvenal Satires 6.156-60).

Festus discusses Paul's case with Agrippa, laying it before him so he could get his opinion on it. In the process Paul is described in four ways.

1. He has been left as a prisoner (Acts 25:14). Luke's verb form (the perfect periphrastic) stresses the continuing results of Felix's past decision. Paul as prisoner lives out a paradox that persecution brings. Though he is innocent (23:29; compare Lk 23:4, 15, 22), he is treated as a criminal—in bonds, without freedom, knowing all the shame brought by incarceration and implied guilt (Acts 23:18; 26:29; 28:16; compare Lk 22:37; 23:32). Yet Paul's status has resulted from fulfillment of prophecy and obedience to the path of suffering that all faithful witnesses to the truth must tread (Lk 21:12; Acts 20:23; 21:11, 13; also see Lk 22:37, 42).

2. Paul was opposed yet protected (Acts 25:15-16). Now it becomes clear: it was not just a change of venue that the Jerusalem Jews sought (vv. 2-3); they wanted a change of jurisdiction, as Paul had asserted (v. 11). They wanted Festus to agree that Paul was guilty of a capital offense against their law and that he should be handed over to them for summary execution. Had they taken the time to explain to Festus about crimes that merited "death at the hands of heaven" and how the Romans had accommodated the Jews' concern about "temple defilement" offenses (see comment at 21:30)? Festus's reliance on a basic principle of Roman justice was Paul's protection. "Our law, Senators, requires that the accused shall himself hear the charge preferred against him and shall be judged after he has made his own defense" (Appian Roman History: Civil Wars 3.54; compare Ulpian Digest 48.17.1, cited in Haenchen 1971:672). So it was not only a desire for convenience but also a commitment to justice that preserved Paul's life. That justice is also the biblical way (Deut 19:15-21).

3. Paul was tried, but no punishable charges resulted (Acts 25:17-19). Festus with customary efficiency convened the court (compare 25:6). Taking a hostile stance, the accusers surprised the governor by making religious charges: some points of dispute . . . about their own religion (compare 25:7). This was the consistent understanding of Roman officials about the nature of Jewish opposition to Christianity (18:15; 23:29). Evidently Festus has concluded there is nothing to the sedition charges; Paul has indeed done nothing wrong . . . against Caesar (25:8). Paul is not guilty of violating Caesar's decrees against creating disturbances in the Jewish community. Festus has not decided about Paul's culpability in the temple defilement matter, an issue of dual jurisdiction.

The main point of dispute is a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive (v. 19). The phrasing reveals Festus's attitude toward Christ's resurrection and innocently communicates the prominent role it played in Paul's defense. Though more general references to "resurrection of the dead" have peppered Paul's defense (23:6; 24:15, 21), we now know that Jesus' resurrection is the central point of contention. Paul certainly made that clear in his speech before the temple mob (22:7-10, 14-15, 17-21).

Paul began with the objective historical fact of the resurrection, and so must we. It is the essential foundation for any supernatural working whereby we come to our "defining moment" of meeting our risen Savior and entering into a personal relationship with him.

4. Paul was offered a change of venue but instead appealed to Caesar (25:20-21). Festus was at a loss—perplexed—about this testimony to supernatural events (compare Lk 24:4; Acts 2:12; 5:24; 10:17). Not only the nature of the evidence but also the limits of his sphere of authority rendered Festus incompetent to judge these matters (Lk 20:25). This trial was about "God's" sphere, not "Caesar's." But Festus's perplexity did not keep him from trying, as his offer of a change of venue shows.

Festus and all governmental officials following him do well to learn the limits provided by a biblically grounded distinction between the proper spheres of authority of church and state. The state's judicial wisdom is never competent to decide matters of theology. Its power is never a valid enforcer of church/temple decisions.

The way Luke describes Paul's request as an appeal to be held over for the Emperor's (literally, "His Majesty's") decision shows that he was asking not only for removal from a Roman provincial tribunal to the imperial court but also for protection during the process. Festus' order was, literally, "to send him up to Caesar" (anapempo, a technical term for transfer to a superior tribunal; Josephus Jewish Wars 2.571).

With some curiosity, possibly disdain, Agrippa says he would like to hear "the person." The imperfect eboulomen is either a true past indicating a wish he had entertained for some time (compare Lk 9:9; 23:8) or a desiderative intended to soften the remark and make it more polite, diffident or vague (Williams 1985:414). Festus accedes to his desire: Tomorrow you will hear him.

To hear a messenger with the word of God is the first step on the path to saving faith (Lk 8:8, 15, 18; Acts 4:4; 10:22, 33; 13:44; 18:8). Agrippa and Festus at this point unwittingly appear to model two essential prerequisites for receiving the gospel: a teachable spirit and a desire to hear the message.