John Calvin Commentary Acts 25:18

"Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed;" — Acts 25:18 (ASV)

They laid no such crime to his charge. I marvel why Festus says that there was no such crime objected to Paul as he supposed, since he was accused of sedition. But we may again conjecture from this, indeed, plainly know, that their accusations were so vain that they should not have been brought before the judgment seat, as if a man uttered a slanderous speech rashly.

For this reason, Festus says that the substance of the case consisted in questions of the law. Therefore, we see that he makes a distinction between those offenses that were usually punished by human laws and the controversy that was between Paul and the Jews. This is not to say that religion should be corrupted freely, or that the impudence of those who overthrow the worship of God with their own inventions is tolerable. Rather, it is because Festus, being a Roman, did not care for Moses’ law. Therefore, he speaks so disdainfully when he says that they strove about their superstition, though this word, δεισιδαιμονια, is used by the Greeks in both a good and a bad sense—namely, because the worship of false gods was common everywhere.

Nevertheless, his meaning is that he does not care what kind of religion the Jews have. And it is no wonder if a man who was a Gentile (a heathen), and had not learned that the rule of godliness must be sought from the mouth of God, does not know how to distinguish between the pure worship of God and superstitions.

Therefore, we must hold fast to that mark by which we may discern the one from the other—that there is no godliness but that which is grounded in the knowledge of faith—lest we grope in darkness. Moreover, the Romans were so drunk with prosperous success that they thought they were more acceptable to God than any other people, just as today the Turks, because of their many victories, deride the doctrine of Christ.

This was a lamentable situation: that an unbeliever and idolater sits as judge among the Jews, to pass judgment on the sacred oracles of God according to his ignorance. But the entire fault lay with Paul’s adversaries, who did not care for the majesty of God, provided they could satisfy and obey their own madness.

Nevertheless, nothing remained for Paul to do but to clear himself of the crimes alleged against him. Similarly today, though internal conflicts among Christians defame the name of Christ and his gospel among the Turks and Jews, yet the defenders of holy doctrine, who are forced to enter the combat, are unjustly blamed.

Of one Jesus. There is no doubt that Paul spoke of Christ’s resurrection both gravely and with fitting vehemence. But Festus, because of his pride, did not consider it a suitable matter to concern himself with. Indeed, he does not openly deride Paul, but he plainly shows how negligently he listened when Paul spoke about Christ.

From this we see how little preaching avails—indeed, that it avails nothing at all—unless the Spirit of God inwardly touches the hearts of men. For the wicked treat lightly whatever is spoken, as if someone were telling them a tale of Robin Hood.

Therefore, there is no reason why the carelessness of many should trouble us today, since Paul had no success with Festus.

But this passage indicates that much was said in handling the matter that Luke does not mention. For Luke had not yet recorded Paul speaking about Christ in this particular hearing, and yet Festus’s report shows that Paul had spoken seriously before the Jews about his death and resurrection.

This could not have happened unless Paul had also addressed the principal points of the gospel.

Therefore, I surmise that Paul handled the matter in such a way that, after refuting the false accusations with which the Jews sought to incriminate him before the governor, and having found a suitable occasion, he afterward began to speak freely of Christ.