Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 25

After three days he ascended . . .—Better, he went up. (See Note on Acts 24:1.)

Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews . . .—Some of the best manuscripts give the plural, “the chief priests.” It is clear that they hoped to take advantage of Festus’s newness to his office. He was likely enough, they thought, to accept their statements and to yield to the pressure of those who had shown themselves powerful enough to bring about his predecessor’s recall. And they have not forgotten their old tactics. Once again priests and scribes are ready to avail themselves of the weapon of the assassin. Possibly Festus had heard from Felix or Lysias, or others, of the former plot, and took care to be on his guard against this, and so the conspirators were again baffled.

Let them . . . which among you are able.—The adjective is probably used, as in 1 Corinthians 1:26, Revelation 6:15, in the sense of “powerful,” “chief,” rather than as specifically referring to their being able to accuse the man of whom they had complained. What Festus demanded was that the charges against St. Paul should be supported by the leaders and representatives of the people, and not by a hired rhetorician like Tertullus.

If there be any wickedness in him.—The better manuscripts give simply, “if there be anything,” practically, i.e., anything worth inquiring into.

Many and grievous complaints.—These were, we may well believe, of the same nature as those on which Tertullus had harangued. The line of St. Paul’s defence indicates the three counts of the indictment. He had broken, it was alleged, the law of Israel, which Rome recognised as the religion of the province, and was therefore subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin; he had profaned the Temple; he was a disturber of the peace of the empire, and taught that there was another king than Nero.

Willing to do the Jews a pleasure.—See Note on Acts 24:27. The invitation was in itself plausible enough. It practically admitted that there was no evidence on the last head of the accusation of which he, as procurator, needed to take cognizance. It offered the prisoner a trial before his own national tribunal, with the presence of the procurator as a check upon violence and injustice. It is manifest from St. Paul’s answer that this was practically what Festus meant. The proposed trial would, he says, not be before Caesar’s judgment seat, and he, for his part, preferred the secular to the ecclesiastical tribunal.