ACTS 25:13–27
PAUL BEFORE KING AGRIPPA AND THE SEARCH FOR A CHARGE
BRIEF INTERPRETATION
Text – Acts 25:13–27
13 Some days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus.
14 Since they were staying there several days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the king, saying, “There is a man here left in custody by Felix.
15 When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and elders of the Jews brought charges against him and demanded his condemnation.
16 I replied to them that it was not Roman practice to hand over anyone before the accused had faced the accusers and had opportunity to defend himself against the charge.
17 So when they came together here, I made no delay; the next day I took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought in.
18 When the accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected.
19 Instead they had some issues with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who had died but whom Paul claimed was alive.
20 Since I was at a loss how to investigate this controversy, I asked if he were willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these charges.
21 But when Paul appealed to be held in custody for the decision of the Emperor, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar.
22 Agrippa said to Festus, “I too would like to hear the man.” He replied, “Tomorrow you will hear him.”
23 So the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then at Festus’ command Paul was brought in.
24 Festus said, “King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish population petitioned me both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer.
25 But I found that he had done nothing deserving death, and when he appealed to the Emperor I decided to send him.
26 But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you, especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after this examination I may have something to write.
27 For it seems senseless to me to send up a prisoner without indicating the charges against him.”
Historical and Jewish Context
King Agrippa II, a client king under Roman authority, was well-versed in Jewish customs and controversies. Bernice, his sister, often appeared with him in public despite scandal surrounding their relationship. Festus, as a Roman governor, faced the legal obligation to send a clear charge with any prisoner appealed to Caesar. The elaborate public display (“with great pomp”) reflects Roman political culture and contrasts sharply with Paul’s chains. The confusion surrounding the charge highlights how Christianity was still poorly understood by Roman authorities.
Catholic Theological Perspective
This passage reveals the paradox of Christian witness: Paul stands in chains, yet he is the only one who truly understands the heart of the matter—Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Earthly authorities possess power and pageantry but lack clarity about truth. The Resurrection remains the central “problem” for both Jewish and Roman systems, as it challenges all worldly assumptions about power, death, and authority. God places Paul before kings not to be judged, but to bear witness, fulfilling Christ’s promise (Acts 9:15).
Parallels in Scripture
Acts 9:15 – Chosen to testify before kings
Luke 21:12–13 – Witness before rulers
1 Corinthians 1:27 – God’s wisdom confounding the wise
John 18:37 – Christ before Pilate
Psalm 119:46 – Speaking of God’s law before kings
Key Terms
King Agrippa – Jewish authority under Rome
Bernice – Symbol of political power and scandal
Great pomp – Earthly display of authority
Jesus…whom Paul claimed was alive – Core of the Gospel
Appealed to the Emperor – Legal path to Rome
Nothing definite to write – The innocence of Paul
Catholic Liturgical Significance
Acts 25:13–27 is proclaimed during the Easter Season, underscoring that the Resurrection of Jesus is the heart of Christian witness and the source of confusion for those who do not believe.
Conclusion
Acts 25:13–27 exposes the emptiness of worldly power when separated from truth. While rulers search for charges, Paul stands as a free witness to the risen Christ. God uses courts and kings not to silence the Gospel, but to give it a greater stage.
Reflection
Do I measure success by external status or by faithfulness to truth?
Am I ready to witness to the Resurrection even when misunderstood?
How does the risen Christ challenge my assumptions about power and success?
Prayer
Risen Lord Jesus, You stand at the center of history and judgment. Give me courage to witness to Your Resurrection before all people, humility amid misunderstanding, and confidence that truth will prevail over every human court. Amen.
DETAILED INTERPRETATION
INTRODUCTION
Governor Festus, seeking guidance on how to handle Paul’s case, brings him before King Agrippa and Bernice. Festus candidly admits his difficulty: the charges against Paul are complex, and he finds no solid basis for condemnation. This consultation with Agrippa, an expert in Jewish law and customs, underscores the gravity of Paul’s situation and the careful deliberation required in matters of justice.
Paul is presented before Agrippa not merely for legal assessment but also as an opportunity to testify to the truth of Christ. Festus admits that he would have released Paul if not for the Jews’ insistence, revealing the tension between political expedience and faithfulness to justice. God’s providence is evident, guiding the process so that Paul will continue to witness before influential leaders, demonstrating that even human legal systems can serve divine purposes.
Acts 25:13 – “Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to welcome Festus.”
Interpretation
This verse introduces new figures and signals a providential widening of Paul’s audience. As Festus settles into his governorship, King Agrippa and Bernice arrive, creating an opportunity for Paul’s case—and Paul’s witness—to be heard at a higher and more public level.
“Now when some days had passed” indicates a brief interval after the decision to send Paul to Caesar. The case is moving forward, yet the narrative pauses to show how God arranges additional encounters before Paul departs.
“Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived” brings royal presence into the scene. Their arrival adds political weight and social visibility. Paul’s situation will soon be discussed before a broader and more influential audience.
“At Caesarea” emphasizes the Roman administrative center where Jewish leadership and Roman authority intersect. Caesarea becomes the stage for interaction between imperial governance and Jewish royalty.
“To welcome Festus” reveals the purpose of the visit: official courtesy and alliance-building. Such welcome strengthens relationships and coordination between local rulers and Roman administration. In God’s providence, this diplomatic occasion becomes another platform for the Gospel.
The verse teaches that God can open doors for witness through ordinary public events—visits, formal greetings, and political transitions—placing His servants before those who wield authority.
Historical and Jewish Context
King Agrippa here refers to Herod Agrippa II, a client king with influence in Jewish affairs and connections to Rome. His presence would be significant to Festus, especially in matters involving Jewish law and religious disputes.
Bernice, Agrippa’s sister, was a prominent figure who often accompanied him. Their visit to welcome a new governor was consistent with political protocol and regional diplomacy.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence guides the mission through historical circumstances (cf. CCC 302). The arrival of Agrippa and Bernice prepares for Paul to testify not only before Roman officials but also before Jewish royalty—fulfilling the pattern that the Gospel is proclaimed before rulers and kings.
This verse also reminds us that the Church’s witness is not confined to sacred places. God brings the message into public life, where truth can confront power with humility and courage.
Key Terms
Some days — interval showing unfolding providential timing
Agrippa — Jewish client king with influence in religious matters
Bernice — Agrippa’s sister and royal companion
Caesarea — administrative center and setting for official proceedings
Welcome — diplomatic courtesy establishing alliance and goodwill
Conclusion
Acts 25:13 introduces Agrippa and Bernice arriving to welcome Festus at Caesarea. Their presence sets the stage for Paul’s case to be examined more broadly and for the Gospel to be heard in even higher circles.
Reflection
Do I recognize that God may arrange unexpected audiences and moments for witness? Am I ready to speak of Christ with humility and clarity when providence opens doors through ordinary events?
Prayer
Lord, guide the unfolding of events in my life so that I may witness to You wherever You lead me. Grant me courage and wisdom to speak truth with charity before all people, including those in positions of influence. Amen.
Acts 25:14 – “And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the king, saying, ‘There is a man left prisoner by Felix,’”
Interpretation
This verse shows Festus seeking counsel and clarity regarding Paul’s unresolved case. The arrival of King Agrippa becomes an opportunity for Festus to understand the Jewish dimensions of the dispute and to prepare a coherent report for Caesar.
“And as they stayed there many days” indicates an extended visit. The length of their stay allows for deeper discussion and administrative matters beyond mere formal welcome.
“Festus laid Paul’s case before the king” reveals consultation. Festus brings the case to Agrippa because Agrippa has expertise in Jewish affairs and religious controversies. Festus likely wants insight into the real nature of the accusations and how to present them properly.
“Saying, ‘There is a man left prisoner by Felix’” highlights the injustice and complexity of the situation. Paul is still detained from the prior administration, and Festus has inherited a case that is politically sensitive and legally unclear.
The verse teaches that unresolved injustice can be passed along through systems, yet God’s providence continues to move the case toward clarity. It also shows that God can place His servant’s situation before influential listeners, preparing the way for further testimony.
Historical and Jewish Context
A new governor would need to send documentation with a prisoner who appealed to Caesar. Festus must explain the charges, yet Paul’s case appears primarily religious rather than criminal. Consulting Agrippa helps Festus navigate Jewish issues and avoid sending a confused or inadequate report.
Agrippa II, though a client king, had significant familiarity with Jewish customs and controversies. His perspective would be valuable in a case involving “the Way” and disputes about resurrection and the Temple.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence works through human consultation and administrative processes (cf. CCC 302). Festus’s need for clarity becomes the pathway by which Paul will testify before Agrippa, extending the Gospel’s reach into royal circles.
This verse also reminds us that the faithful may suffer unjust delays, yet God can use those very delays to open new moments of witness and to unfold His plan beyond what we could arrange.
Key Terms
Stayed many days — extended time allowing deeper discussion
Laid the case — presented for counsel and understanding
King — Agrippa II, knowledgeable in Jewish matters
Left prisoner — continued detention without resolution
Felix — former governor whose political choices prolonged Paul’s confinement
Conclusion
Acts 25:14 shows Festus presenting Paul’s case to King Agrippa during an extended visit. Paul remains a prisoner inherited from Felix’s administration, yet God is arranging new hearings and new audiences for the apostle’s witness.
Reflection
When I encounter unresolved problems or delayed justice, do I trust that God can bring clarity in His time? Am I willing to seek wise counsel and handle matters truthfully rather than for convenience?
Prayer
Lord, bring light and clarity where confusion persists. Guide leaders to seek truth and justice, and sustain those who suffer prolonged uncertainty. Use every delay and every conversation to advance Your providential plan. Amen.
Acts 25:15 – “When I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews gave information about him, asking for sentence against him.”
Interpretation
This verse shows Festus summarizing the intensity and intent of the Jerusalem leadership. Their goal is not merely a fair hearing, but a sentence—an outcome already desired before evidence is established.
“When I was at Jerusalem” situates the origin of the renewed pressure. Festus indicates that as soon as he arrived, the case was brought forward, revealing the leaders’ urgency and persistence.
“The chief priests and the elders of the Jews” identifies the accusers as the highest religious and communal authorities. Their unified action shows organized opposition against Paul.
“Gave information about him” suggests formal presentation of allegations. Yet the context implies that the information is shaped to secure condemnation, not to seek impartial truth.
“Asking for sentence against him” reveals their objective plainly. They seek a verdict of punishment rather than a just examination. The language indicates that their request is aimed at final condemnation, likely severe, rather than at fair process.
The verse teaches that opposition can become hardened to the point of seeking outcomes before truth is examined. It also shows how God’s servant may face institutional pressure, yet God continues to guide events toward wider testimony.
Historical and Jewish Context
In Roman governance, local leaders often sought decisive action from a new governor to remove sources of unrest. By requesting “sentence,” the Jewish leaders present Paul as a problem needing immediate resolution.
The mention of chief priests and elders underscores how religious disputes could be framed as matters of public stability, pressing Roman officials for punitive decisions.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church teaches that justice must be rooted in truth and due process. Seeking “sentence” without proven guilt reflects a distortion of justice and a misuse of authority.
Yet God’s providence remains at work (cf. CCC 302). Festus’s recounting of these pressures to Agrippa sets the stage for Paul to speak again, and for the real nature of the dispute to be clarified before more influential listeners.
Key Terms
Chief priests — leading religious authorities urging condemnation
Elders — influential Jewish leaders forming a prosecuting body
Information — allegations presented to shape judgment
Sentence — verdict of punishment sought in advance
Condemnation — desired outcome rather than impartial inquiry
Conclusion
Acts 25:15 reveals that the Jerusalem leaders demanded a sentence against Paul. The verse exposes a pursuit of condemnation rather than justice, while preparing the narrative for further clarification of the case under God’s providential guidance.
Reflection
Do I ever desire a conclusion before hearing the full truth? Am I careful to seek justice and charity, refusing to join pressures that aim at condemnation rather than discernment?
Prayer
Lord, guard my heart from prejudice and rushed judgment. Teach me to seek truth with fairness and mercy, and guide all leaders to resist pressure that distorts justice. Amen.
Acts 25:16 – “I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any one before the accused met the accusers face to face, and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.”
Interpretation
This verse highlights a key principle of justice in Roman legal practice: due process. Festus explains that he refused the leaders’ request for immediate condemnation because Roman law required the accused to confront accusers and respond to charges.
“I answered them” shows Festus asserting legal standards against local pressure. He does not simply comply with demands; he appeals to established procedure.
“That it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any one” emphasizes a consistent legal norm. “Give up” implies handing someone over for punishment or condemnation without proper trial—something Roman procedure, at least in principle, sought to avoid.
“Before the accused met the accusers face to face” expresses accountability. Accusers must appear publicly, and the accused must be allowed to hear the charges directly. This prevents secret condemnation and forces accusations into the light.
“And had opportunity to make his defense” affirms a fundamental right: the chance to answer and explain. Justice requires hearing both sides, not merely the loudest or most influential.
“Concerning the charge laid against him” stresses specificity. A defense must respond to defined charges, not vague hostility. The process demands clarity, evidence, and fair examination.
The verse teaches that rightful authority should protect justice by insisting on due process, even when political pressure urges quick condemnation.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman courts generally required formal hearings with accusers present, allowing interrogation and response. Festus is presenting himself as a governor who follows Roman standards rather than yielding to local demands for immediate punishment.
This also highlights the contrast with earlier violence in Jerusalem. Roman procedure functions here as a restraint on mob justice and on religious hostility translated into political pressure.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church values justice, truth, and the dignity of the human person. Due process is a practical expression of these principles because it guards against false witness and arbitrary condemnation.
God’s providence works through lawful structures to protect His servants (cf. CCC 302). Even imperfect systems can serve as instruments of protection when they uphold the basic demands of justice and fairness.
Key Terms
Custom of the Romans — established legal procedure
Give up — surrender for punishment without due process
Face to face — direct confrontation ensuring accountability
Defense — opportunity to answer charges
Charge — specific allegation requiring proof and clarity
Conclusion
Acts 25:16 shows Festus insisting that Roman law requires accusers and accused to meet, and that the accused must have opportunity for defense. This principle of due process restrains unjust condemnation and, in God’s providence, continues to protect Paul.
Reflection
Do I insist on fairness and hearing both sides before forming judgments? When pressured to condemn quickly, do I uphold truth and justice, even if it is unpopular?
Prayer
Lord, form my heart in justice and charity. Help me respect the dignity of every person, seek truth carefully, and resist any pressure that leads to rash judgment or unfair condemnation. Amen.
Acts 25:17 – “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.”
Interpretation
This verse shows Festus emphasizing his promptness and adherence to due process. He presents himself as a governor who did not stall the case, but convened a lawful hearing quickly once the accusers arrived.
“So when they came together here” refers to the accusers assembling in Caesarea. Festus underscores that he required them to come to the proper jurisdiction, maintaining order and security.
“I made no delay” highlights efficiency and procedural seriousness. Festus wants Agrippa to see that he handled the matter responsibly, without unnecessary postponement like Felix had done.
“But on the next day took my seat on the tribunal” shows formal judicial action. The governor assumes his role as judge in an official setting, indicating that the case was treated as a legal matter, not as a private favor.
“And ordered the man to be brought” confirms that Paul was given his proper appearance in court. Festus stresses that he followed the expected process: the accused was present, charges were presented, and the hearing proceeded under authority.
The verse teaches that justice is served not only by fairness but also by timely procedure. Delays can become tools of injustice, while prompt hearings can protect truth and restrain manipulation.
Historical and Jewish Context
In Roman administration, a governor’s tribunal session was a formal public act. Convening promptly would demonstrate competence and help prevent unrest, especially when local leaders pressed for outcomes.
Festus’s mention of “no delay” may also contrast with Felix’s two-year postponement, highlighting Festus’s intention to appear decisive and orderly.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church values just process and responsible governance. Promptness in handling disputes can protect the vulnerable and reduce opportunities for corruption or violent plotting.
God’s providence continues to guide Paul’s path (cf. CCC 302). Festus’s efficiency, whatever his motives, provides Paul another platform to testify and prevents hidden schemes from gaining time and advantage.
Key Terms
Came together — accusers assembled for formal hearing
No delay — prompt handling, avoiding prolonged injustice
Tribunal — official judgment seat of the governor
Ordered — lawful command under authority
Brought — formal presentation of the accused in court
Conclusion
Acts 25:17 shows Festus convening a prompt tribunal once the accusers arrived and ordering Paul to be brought. The verse highlights timely due process, which restrains manipulation and continues to provide Paul a lawful setting for witness.
Reflection
Do I avoid procrastination in matters of justice and responsibility? When decisions affect others, do I act promptly and fairly, resisting delays that can harm truth and dignity?
Prayer
Lord, grant wisdom and diligence to all who judge and govern. Help me act promptly when truth and justice require it, and guide me to serve others with fairness, clarity, and responsible care. Amen.
Acts 25:18 – “When the accusers stood up, they brought no charge in his case of such evils as I supposed;”
Interpretation
This verse reveals Festus’s surprise: the accusations against Paul do not concern the serious crimes he expected. What was presented as a grave threat turns out to be something quite different—more religious dispute than criminal wrongdoing.
“When the accusers stood up” indicates the formal courtroom moment. The prosecution rises to present its case publicly, under the governor’s authority and in the presence of the accused.
“They brought no charge in his case” highlights the emptiness of provable accusations. Festus observes that the charges lacked substance in the realm of Roman law—no clear criminal offense that could justify severe punishment.
“Of such evils as I supposed” shows Festus’s expectation of serious wrongdoing—perhaps sedition, violence, or threats to public order. Instead, the accusers fail to produce the kind of criminal allegations that would warrant Roman condemnation.
The verse teaches that hostility can exaggerate a person’s danger, but truth becomes evident when accusations are tested in a setting that demands clarity and evidence.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman governors were chiefly concerned with crimes that threatened order—riot, rebellion, and public instability. Festus’s statement implies that the Jewish leaders attempted to frame Paul as dangerous, but their claims did not match Roman categories of “evils.”
This also reflects the recurring pattern in Acts: opponents attempt to translate theological conflict into political accusation, yet the lack of concrete proof repeatedly exposes the real issue as doctrinal dispute.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church recognizes that the Gospel may be opposed and misrepresented, yet it is not a force of civil evil. Festus’s observation indirectly confirms that Paul is not guilty of the sort of criminal wrongdoing alleged.
God’s providence continues to protect Paul through the exposure of truth (cf. CCC 302). When accusations are examined honestly, their exaggerations collapse, and the servant of God is preserved for continued witness.
Key Terms
Accusers — those presenting charges against Paul
Charge — formal allegation requiring proof
Evils — serious crimes or moral wrongs expected by Festus
Supposed — assumed beforehand, based on the accusers’ pressure
Roman law — legal framework focused on public order and punishable offenses
Conclusion
Acts 25:18 shows that Festus expected serious crimes but found none in the accusations. The charges lacked the “evils” he assumed, revealing that the case is not grounded in criminal wrongdoing but in disputed religious claims.
Reflection
Do I ever assume the worst about others based on strong accusations? Do I allow facts and evidence to correct my assumptions before I form judgments?
Prayer
Lord, purify my mind from rash assumptions. Teach me to seek truth with patience and fairness, and to uphold justice without being swayed by exaggeration or hostility. Amen.
Acts 25:19 – “But 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.”
Interpretation
This verse clarifies the true nature of the case: it is not primarily a Roman criminal matter, but a religious dispute centered on Jesus and the Resurrection. Festus unintentionally summarizes the heart of the Gospel, even if he does not grasp its full meaning.
“But they had certain points of dispute” indicates disagreement rather than proven crime. Festus recognizes that the accusations are rooted in contested claims, not in clear violations of Roman law.
“With him about their own religion” shows that the conflict arises within Jewish religious life. The dispute concerns interpretation, worship, and belief—matters deeply serious to the parties involved, yet not inherently criminal in Roman categories.
“And about a certain Jesus” is a striking phrase. Festus speaks from an outsider’s perspective, referring to Jesus without theological understanding. Yet the name of Jesus stands at the center of the entire controversy.
“Who was dead” acknowledges the historical fact of Jesus’ death. Festus treats it as settled history from his point of view.
“But whom Paul asserted to be alive” proclaims the Christian claim: the Resurrection. Paul’s witness is that Jesus is not merely a figure of the past but the living Lord. This is the decisive point that provokes opposition and transforms the dispute from mere debate into a matter of salvation.
The verse teaches that the Resurrection is the dividing line: it challenges unbelief, provokes controversy, and becomes the core of Christian testimony. It also shows how the Gospel enters public discourse—even when spoken by those who do not yet believe.
Historical and Jewish Context
Jewish disputes often involved messianic claims and interpretation of Scripture. The proclamation of Jesus as risen would have been seen by many leaders as a threat to established authority and a challenge to their interpretation of the Law and the prophets.
For a Roman governor, such disputes could appear puzzling and irrelevant to criminal law. Festus’s wording reflects a Roman outsider trying to summarize a controversy he finds difficult to categorize.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church teaches that Jesus truly died and truly rose, and that His Resurrection is the foundation of faith (cf. CCC 638–655). Paul’s “assertion” is not mere opinion; it is apostolic witness to the living Christ.
This verse also underlines the Church’s mission: to proclaim the risen Lord in every setting—religious, civic, and political—until all nations hear that Christ is alive.
Key Terms
Dispute — contested religious disagreement, not proven crime
Religion — Jewish faith and its interpretation
Jesus — the crucified and risen Lord, center of the controversy
Dead — the reality of the Crucifixion
Alive — the Resurrection proclaimed by apostolic witness
Conclusion
Acts 25:19 reveals that the real issue is a dispute about faith—especially about Jesus, who was dead but whom Paul proclaims to be alive. The verse points directly to the Resurrection as the heart of Paul’s testimony and the true reason for opposition.
Reflection
Do I live as though Jesus is truly alive, present, and Lord of my life? Am I willing to witness to the Resurrection with conviction and charity, even when others see it as merely a “dispute”?
Prayer
Lord Jesus, strengthen my faith in Your Resurrection. Help me to live in the power of Your living presence, to witness with courage and humility, and to bring Your light to every place where truth is questioned. Amen.
Acts 25:20 – “Being at a loss how to investigate these questions, I asked whether he wished to go to Jerusalem and be tried there regarding them.”
Interpretation
This verse reveals Festus’s uncertainty and the political complexity of Paul’s case. He admits that the issues raised are religious and unfamiliar to him, and he explains why he proposed a Jerusalem trial—an attempt to handle a matter he found difficult to judge.
“Being at a loss” shows genuine confusion. Festus does not clearly understand the theological questions involved, especially disputes about Jesus and resurrection, so he struggles to frame them in Roman legal categories.
“How to investigate these questions” highlights the problem: the case concerns doctrinal matters rather than criminal offenses. Festus lacks the competence or clarity to evaluate Jewish religious disputes with confidence.
“I asked whether he wished to go to Jerusalem” recalls the proposal in Acts 25:9. Festus presented the transfer as a choice, but it also served Festus’s interest in shifting a difficult matter into a setting where Jewish authorities might manage it more directly.
“And be tried there regarding them” shows that the “trial” would focus on religious questions. Festus implies that Jerusalem is the more appropriate venue for disputes tied to Jewish religion—yet the narrative also makes clear that such a move would expose Paul to danger and political manipulation.
The verse teaches that leaders sometimes seek convenient solutions when they lack understanding. Yet God’s providence protects His servants by giving them wisdom to respond prudently and to choose the path that preserves justice and life.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman governors often struggled with local religious controversies. When charges were primarily doctrinal, officials might seek local venues or mediation to avoid misjudgment and political fallout.
Jerusalem, however, was volatile and dominated by leaders hostile to Paul. A transfer there could easily become unjust, and earlier plots show that Paul’s safety would be threatened.
Catholic Theological Perspective
This verse reminds us that truth can be misunderstood by those outside the faith, and that religious questions may be treated as administrative burdens rather than matters of salvation.
Yet God’s providence remains at work (cf. CCC 302). Festus’s confusion becomes the setting in which Paul’s appeal to Caesar is recognized as both lawful and providential, leading the Gospel toward Rome.
Key Terms
At a loss — uncertainty and lack of clarity
Investigate — examine or judge within legal procedure
Questions — religious disputes, especially about Jesus and resurrection
Jerusalem — religious center but also place of hostility toward Paul
Tried — formal hearing, though focused on doctrinal issues
Conclusion
Acts 25:20 shows Festus admitting confusion about the religious issues and explaining his proposal of a Jerusalem trial. The verse highlights how misunderstanding and political convenience can shape legal decisions, while God continues to guide and protect Paul through prudent choices.
Reflection
When I do not understand something important, do I seek truth patiently, or do I look for the easiest way to pass it along? Do I trust God to guide me when I face complex questions and pressures?
Prayer
Lord, grant wisdom and humility to all who must judge matters they do not fully understand. Give me patience to seek truth, courage to act justly, and trust in Your providence when decisions are difficult. Amen.
Acts 25:21 – “But when Paul appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.”
Interpretation
This verse shows the formal consequence of Paul’s appeal: continued custody under Roman protection until transfer to Caesar. What seems like continued imprisonment is, in fact, a safeguarded path toward a higher hearing and a wider witness.
“But when Paul appealed” recalls Paul’s decisive legal action. He invokes his right to be judged at the imperial level, refusing to be handed over to local hostility.
“To be kept in custody” may sound restrictive, yet it functions as protection. Paul remains under Roman guard, shielded from assassination plots and from unjust surrender to his enemies.
“For the decision of the emperor” identifies the highest authority. Paul’s case is no longer to be decided by local politics or regional pressure but by imperial judgment.
“I commanded him to be held” shows Festus issuing an official order. Paul’s detention is now not an unresolved delay, but a defined holding status pending transfer.
“Until I could send him to Caesar” indicates the next step: transport to Rome. The governor must arrange procedures, documentation, and escort. Paul’s mission is moving forward through formal channels.
The verse teaches that God can use even custody and limitation to protect His servants and to advance His plan. What appears like confinement can become the corridor through which God leads His witness to greater horizons.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman legal practice required that an appellant be held securely until transfer to the emperor’s court. The governor would also need to prepare a written statement of charges—one reason Festus sought clarity from Agrippa.
Custody also ensured the prisoner’s availability and prevented local attempts at violence during transition.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence works through lawful structures to protect and guide His servants (cf. CCC 302). Paul’s appeal is both prudent and providential, leading him toward Rome, where the Gospel will be proclaimed in the heart of the empire.
This verse also reflects the Christian meaning of trial: the faithful may remain constrained, yet their witness is not confined. God can turn limitation into mission.
Key Terms
Appealed — invoked the right to higher judgment
Custody — protective detention under authority
Emperor — Caesar, the supreme Roman judge
Commanded — official legal order by the governor
Send — transfer to Rome for imperial hearing
Conclusion
Acts 25:21 confirms that Paul’s appeal results in protective custody until he can be sent to Caesar. The verse shows lawful process advancing and God’s providence guiding Paul toward the next stage of witness.
Reflection
When my freedom feels limited, do I trust that God can still protect and guide me? Do I see that obedience, patience, and prudent action can be pathways for God’s mission?
Prayer
Lord, strengthen my trust when circumstances confine me. Protect all who are vulnerable to injustice, and guide Your servants through lawful means toward the places where You desire their witness to shine. Amen.
Acts 25:22 – “And Agrippa said to Festus, ‘I would like to hear the man myself.’ Tomorrow,’ said he, ‘you shall hear him.’”
Interpretation
This verse opens a providential opportunity for Paul’s testimony. King Agrippa expresses personal interest, and Festus immediately arranges for Paul to speak. The Gospel is about to be heard in a royal setting.
“And Agrippa said to Festus” shows the king’s active engagement. Agrippa does not remain a distant observer; he directly requests access to Paul, signaling that the case is significant and worthy of attention.
“I would like to hear the man myself” reveals curiosity and personal involvement. Agrippa wants firsthand understanding rather than summaries. This desire to “hear” becomes a doorway for Paul to proclaim the truth about Christ in a new arena.
“Tomorrow” indicates urgency. The hearing is not postponed indefinitely; Festus schedules it promptly, showing that he is willing to use Agrippa’s presence to clarify the case and possibly to prepare a more coherent report for Caesar.
“You shall hear him” confirms a formal arrangement. Paul’s voice will be heard, not only in defense, but as witness. God’s providence continues to place Paul before rulers, as the Lord had promised.
The verse teaches that God can open unexpected doors through human curiosity and official arrangements. Even a prisoner is granted an audience, and the Gospel gains a platform among the powerful.
Historical and Jewish Context
Agrippa II had familiarity with Jewish customs and controversies. His desire to hear Paul likely arises from interest in the dispute about “the Way” and the claims surrounding Jesus.
For Festus, Agrippa’s hearing would be useful. Festus needs to send Paul to Caesar with an explanation of the charges, and Agrippa’s insight could help clarify what the accusations truly mean.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence guides the spread of the Gospel through historical circumstances (cf. CCC 302). Paul’s impending testimony before Agrippa fulfills the apostolic pattern of witness before kings and rulers.
This verse also reminds the Church that evangelization often begins with a simple desire to “hear.” Curiosity can become the first step toward encountering truth, and the faithful must be ready to speak when the opportunity is given.
Key Terms
Agrippa — king with knowledge of Jewish affairs
Hear — desire for firsthand testimony and understanding
Tomorrow — prompt scheduling, providential timing
Audience — opportunity for Paul’s defense and witness
Witness — proclamation of Christ even in royal settings
Conclusion
Acts 25:22 shows Agrippa requesting to hear Paul and Festus arranging the hearing for the next day. The verse signals a new stage of public witness, as God places Paul before royal authority to speak the truth about Christ.
Reflection
When someone shows interest in faith, do I respond with readiness and clarity? Do I recognize that God may use curiosity—my own or another’s—as an opening for deeper truth?
Prayer
Lord, grant me readiness to witness when You open doors. Use even small questions and simple curiosity to lead hearts toward You, and give me wisdom and courage to speak the Gospel with charity and truth. Amen.
Acts 25:23 – “So on the morrow 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.”
Interpretation
This verse sets the stage for a highly public and dramatic hearing. Paul, a prisoner, is brought into a hall filled with royal splendor and civic power. The contrast highlights how God places His servant before the mighty, not by human influence, but by providence.
“So on the morrow” emphasizes prompt fulfillment of the plan. The hearing takes place quickly, showing that Paul’s case is now moving toward a more formal and public examination.
“Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp” describes ceremonial splendor and royal display. Their entrance is marked by outward grandeur—symbols of status, wealth, and authority.
“And they entered the audience hall” indicates an official setting designed for public proceedings. The hall becomes the stage where political authority, social prominence, and legal procedure converge.
“With the military tribunes” adds the presence of Roman power and security. Tribunes represent command and order, reinforcing the seriousness of the gathering.
“And the prominent men of the city” shows that civic elites are present. This is not a private conversation but a public event involving leading figures, increasing the visibility of Paul’s testimony.
“Then at the command of Festus Paul was brought in” reveals the striking contrast: the prisoner is summoned into the midst of pomp and power. Yet Paul is not merely on display—he is about to speak, and the Gospel will be proclaimed before rulers and leaders.
The verse teaches that worldly grandeur does not determine true authority. God can place the humble witness in the center of power, so that Christ may be made known where human influence is greatest.
Historical and Jewish Context
Royal visits were often accompanied by ceremonial display. Such “pomp” reinforced legitimacy and alliance with Roman administration.
The presence of tribunes and prominent citizens suggests both security concerns and the formal prestige of the occasion. Festus likely uses this public assembly to clarify the case and prepare an orderly report to Caesar.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence arranges moments where the Gospel is heard in places of influence (cf. CCC 302). Paul’s presence in this hall fulfills the pattern of apostolic witness “before kings.”
This verse also reveals a spiritual contrast: earthly power is clothed in spectacle, while the apostle stands with the quiet authority of truth. The Church’s mission often unfolds precisely in such contrasts—weakness bearing witness before strength.
Key Terms
Morrow — the next day, providential timing
Pomp — ceremonial display of worldly power
Audience hall — official public setting for hearing and presentation
Military tribunes — Roman officers representing order and authority
Prominent men — civic elites and leading citizens
Command — Festus’s authoritative order
Brought in — Paul presented to testify before leaders
Conclusion
Acts 25:23 portrays a grand public assembly where royal, military, and civic authority gather—and Paul is brought in at Festus’s command. God is placing His servant before the powerful, preparing a moment where the Gospel will be heard in the very centers of influence.
Reflection
Do I fear the presence of worldly power, or do I trust that truth has its own authority? Am I willing to witness with humility and courage when God places me before influential voices?
Prayer
Lord, give me courage to stand for truth without fear. Teach me to value the authority of Your Word above worldly display, and use my life to witness to Christ wherever You place me, whether in obscurity or before the powerful. Amen.
Acts 25:24 – “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 at Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer.’”
Interpretation
This verse shows Festus publicly framing Paul’s case before a distinguished assembly. He emphasizes the intensity of Jewish opposition, presenting Paul as a man targeted by widespread demand for condemnation, even though the charges remain unclear.
“And Festus said” indicates a formal opening statement. Festus addresses the gathered leaders to explain why Paul has been brought into such a public setting.
“King Agrippa, and all who are present with us” highlights the breadth of the audience. Festus speaks not only to Agrippa but to military and civic leaders as well, making Paul’s case a matter of public record and shared observation.
“You see this man” presents Paul as the focal point of controversy. Festus draws attention to Paul as the object of dispute, almost as if the man himself—rather than any proven crime—is what has become the issue.
“About whom the whole Jewish people petitioned me” is rhetorical and sweeping. Festus portrays the pressure as broad and communal, even if it is chiefly driven by leaders. The aim is to show Agrippa that this is a serious and persistent conflict.
“Both at Jerusalem and here” shows that the demand followed Festus across locations. From the moment he entered office in Jerusalem to proceedings in Caesarea, the leadership pursued Paul’s condemnation.
“Shouting that he ought not to live any longer” reveals the extremity of their hostility. The crowd’s demand is not merely for judgment but for death. Festus underscores the emotional intensity, which stands in stark contrast to the lack of proven wrongdoing.
The verse teaches that public pressure can be loud and even murderous, yet truth and justice cannot be determined by shouting. The faithful must trust God when hostility becomes irrational and relentless.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman officials often faced intense petitions from local groups. “Shouting” suggests agitation and a public outcry, similar to earlier scenes in Acts where crowds demanded action without evidence.
By describing the demand for Paul’s death, Festus is also explaining why the case is politically delicate. He must manage unrest, yet he must also uphold Roman procedure.
Catholic Theological Perspective
This verse reflects how hatred can escalate into a desire to eliminate the witness rather than to engage the truth. The Church recognizes that fidelity to Christ may provoke opposition, even to the point of persecution.
God’s providence remains active (cf. CCC 302). Though many demand Paul’s death, God continues to preserve him, placing him before rulers so that the Gospel may be proclaimed with clarity and courage.
Key Terms
Petitioned — pressed formally with requests and demands
Whole Jewish people — rhetorical generalization emphasizing intensity
Jerusalem — center of the original hostility
Here — Caesarea, where the formal hearing is held
Shouting — emotional pressure and mob-like insistence
Ought not to live — demand for death, revealing extreme hatred
Conclusion
Acts 25:24 shows Festus presenting Paul as a man pursued by intense petitions and death demands from Jewish opponents in both Jerusalem and Caesarea. The verse highlights the danger of mob pressure and prepares the way for Paul to testify before Agrippa and the assembled leaders.
Reflection
When strong voices demand harsh outcomes, do I remain committed to truth and justice? Do I resist joining in condemnation driven by emotion rather than evidence?
Prayer
Lord, strengthen my heart to seek justice and truth even when crowds shout otherwise. Protect those who are unjustly targeted, and grant courage and peace to all who suffer for fidelity to You. Amen.
Acts 25:25 – “But I found that he had done nothing deserving death; and as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to send him.”
Interpretation
This verse shows Festus admitting Paul’s innocence regarding capital crime while also explaining the legal necessity created by Paul’s appeal. Festus recognizes that the demand for death is not supported by wrongdoing, yet the case must proceed to Caesar because Paul has invoked his right.
“But I found” indicates Festus’s personal assessment. After hearing the accusations and Paul’s defense, Festus reaches a conclusion based on the proceedings.
“That he had done nothing deserving death” is a clear judgment. Festus recognizes that Paul is not guilty of a crime warranting execution. This undermines the crowd’s demand and exposes the disproportion of their hostility.
“And as he himself appealed to the emperor” recalls Paul’s decisive legal step. Festus acknowledges that the transfer is now required because Paul has invoked the highest Roman authority.
“I decided to send him” shows the outcome. Even though Festus does not see guilt deserving death, he will send Paul to Rome because the appeal obliges him to do so. This decision also serves, in God’s providence, as the path by which Paul’s witness reaches the heart of the empire.
The verse teaches that justice can sometimes be recognized but still delayed by political realities and procedural complexity. Yet God can use even such imperfect situations to advance His saving plan.
Historical and Jewish Context
Roman governors were responsible to report and transfer cases when a Roman citizen appealed to Caesar. Festus’s dilemma is that he sees no capital offense, yet he must send Paul and explain the charges—one reason for involving Agrippa.
This verse also reflects the common pressure on governors: balancing local demands with Roman legal standards, especially when crowds demanded harsh punishment.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church affirms the dignity of the person and the moral duty of authorities to judge according to truth. Festus’s admission that Paul deserves no death points to the injustice of persecution driven by hatred.
God’s providence remains sovereign (cf. CCC 302). Paul’s appeal becomes the means by which the Gospel is carried toward Rome. What human leaders treat as administrative necessity becomes, in God’s plan, a missionary road.
Key Terms
Found — concluded after examination
Nothing deserving death — absence of capital guilt
Appealed — invoked right to the emperor’s judgment
Emperor — Caesar, supreme Roman authority
Send — transfer to Rome for hearing
Conclusion
Acts 25:25 shows Festus acknowledging that Paul has done nothing deserving death, yet deciding to send him because of his appeal to the emperor. The verse highlights both the weakness of the accusations and the providential movement of Paul’s mission toward Rome.
Reflection
Do I stand for what is true even when others demand harsh outcomes? When justice is delayed, do I trust that God can still guide events toward His purpose?
Prayer
Lord, guide all authorities to judge with truth and courage. Protect the innocent from unjust condemnation, and strengthen me to trust Your providence when human systems are imperfect. Lead Your Church forward even through trials, so that the Gospel may reach every place. Amen.
Acts 25:26 – “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, that after we have examined him I may have something to write.”
Interpretation
This verse reveals Festus’s practical dilemma: he must send Paul to Caesar, yet he lacks a clear criminal charge to report. The public hearing before Agrippa is arranged to clarify the matter and produce a coherent statement for the emperor.
“But I have nothing definite to write” shows uncertainty. Festus recognizes that the accusations are not clearly criminal in Roman terms. He lacks specific, provable charges that would justify a formal report.
“To my lord” refers to the emperor. Festus must communicate responsibly with the highest authority, and he recognizes the seriousness of sending a prisoner without clear grounds.
“Therefore I have brought him before you all” indicates a public consultation. Festus wants the assembly—royal, military, and civic leaders—to hear Paul, so the case can be assessed openly rather than in private confusion.
“And especially before you, King Agrippa” highlights Agrippa’s unique value. Agrippa’s knowledge of Jewish religion and disputes makes him best suited to interpret the accusations and help Festus understand what should be reported.
“That after we have examined him” shows the method: formal questioning. Festus hopes that Paul’s testimony will clarify the disputed issues and expose whether any actionable offense exists.
“I may have something to write” is the goal: an official report. Festus is seeking a defensible explanation to accompany Paul to Rome, ensuring that the transfer is administratively and legally coherent.
The verse teaches that even when human authorities are confused, God can use their need for clarity to create new platforms for witness. Paul will speak again, and the Gospel will be heard in the highest circles.
Historical and Jewish Context
When a prisoner appealed to Caesar, the governor had to send a written statement of the case. Festus’s confession of having “nothing definite” underscores that the dispute is religious, not a straightforward Roman crime.
Agrippa’s role as a client king with expertise in Jewish matters made him a useful advisor for Festus, who needed help interpreting a controversy about Jesus and the resurrection.
Catholic Theological Perspective
God’s providence governs even administrative necessities (cf. CCC 302). Festus’s uncertainty becomes the reason Paul is heard before Agrippa, further fulfilling the apostolic pattern of proclaiming Christ before rulers.
This verse also reminds the faithful that truth often advances through inquiry. When the Gospel is examined, it is not diminished; rather, it is clarified and proclaimed more widely.
Key Terms
Nothing definite — lack of clear, specific criminal charge
My lord — the emperor, Caesar
Brought before — summoned for public hearing
Especially — priority given to Agrippa’s insight
Examined — formal questioning to establish facts
Write — official report required for transfer to Rome
Conclusion
Acts 25:26 shows Festus’s dilemma: he must send Paul to Caesar but lacks definite charges. Therefore he brings Paul before the assembly, especially before Agrippa, so that examination will provide something coherent to report—an arrangement that also provides Paul a powerful मंच for witness.
Reflection
When others are confused about faith or truth, do I respond with patience and clarity? Do I trust that God can use questions and examinations to open wider opportunities for witness?
Prayer
Lord, give me wisdom to speak clearly when truth is questioned. Use moments of inquiry to reveal Your light, and guide all leaders to seek what is just and true. Strengthen Your servants to witness faithfully whenever they are called to speak. Amen.
Acts 25:27 – “For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him.”
Interpretation
This verse concludes Festus’s explanation with a straightforward appeal to reason and proper procedure. He acknowledges that it would be improper to send Paul to the emperor without a clear statement of the accusations—highlighting again that Paul’s case lacks definite criminal grounds.
“For it seems to me unreasonable” shows Festus’s practical judgment. He recognizes that Roman administration must be coherent and defensible, especially when communicating with the emperor.
“In sending a prisoner” points to the seriousness of the action. To send a man in chains implies that the state has legitimate reasons for detention and prosecution.
“Not to indicate the charges against him” identifies the problem: lack of specific accusations that fit Roman legal categories. Festus admits that the case has not produced clear crimes; the controversy is largely religious and disputed, not easily framed as Roman wrongdoing.
The verse teaches that justice requires clarity and truth. Accusation without defined charges leads to arbitrary detention, bureaucratic injustice, and misuse of authority.
Historical and Jewish Context
When governors forwarded a case to Caesar, they were expected to provide a written account of charges and circumstances. Festus’s concern reflects standard administrative responsibility.
His statement also highlights the fundamental weakness of the prosecution: despite intense hostility and repeated petitions, no clear Roman crime has been established.
Catholic Theological Perspective
The Church upholds the dignity of the human person and the moral duty of authorities to act justly, transparently, and truthfully. Detaining and transferring someone without clear charges risks grave injustice.
Yet God’s providence remains present (cf. CCC 302). Even this administrative concern becomes the means by which Paul is heard publicly and the Gospel is proclaimed before powerful audiences, moving ever closer to Rome.
Key Terms
Unreasonable — lacking rational and legal coherence
Prisoner — one held under state authority
Charges — defined accusations requiring evidence
Indicate — state clearly in an official report
Due process — clarity and fairness required for justice
Conclusion
Acts 25:27 shows Festus acknowledging that it is unreasonable to send Paul to Caesar without stating clear charges. The verse underlines the weakness of the case against Paul and calls attention to the necessity of truth and clarity in justice.
Reflection
Do I value clarity and truth, especially when another person’s reputation or freedom is at stake? Do I resist forming judgments or taking actions based on vague accusations?
Prayer
Lord, form my heart in truth and justice. Guide those who govern to act with integrity and transparency, and protect the innocent from detention or condemnation without clear cause. Help me to speak responsibly and to uphold the dignity of every person. Amen.
CONCLUSION
Acts 25:13–27 highlights the interplay of human authority, legal procedure, and divine providence. Paul’s case, though complex and fraught with danger, becomes an occasion for testimony before prominent leaders. God uses the deliberations of Festus and Agrippa to advance Paul’s mission, showing that His plans cannot be thwarted by opposition or procedural obstacles.
For believers today, this passage teaches trust in God’s guidance even in complicated or intimidating situations. Challenges and delays do not hinder the fulfillment of His mission. Christians are called to witness faithfully and wisely, trusting that God can work through circumstances, authorities, and human decisions to accomplish His purposes.
PRAYER
Lord God, guide us to remain steadfast and courageous in difficult circumstances. Help us to witness Your truth faithfully, even before those in authority, and trust in Your providence to direct every outcome. Strengthen our hearts to proclaim Your Word with integrity, confident that You use all things for the advancement of Your Kingdom. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.