^a For the Jewish population of Palestine, Porcius Festus was a welcome successor to Felix. Nothing is known of him before he assumed the governorship of Judea. Nor can the time of his nomination for the post or his arrival in Palestine be precisely fixed, though it was probably sometime in A.D. 60. He inherited all the troubles and tensions that were mounting during Felix’s administration. His term of office was cut short by his death in A.D. 62.

^b The situation in Palestine demanded immediate action to bring together opposing groups within the Jewish nation. Therefore on arriving in Palestine, Festus took only three days to settle in at Caesarea before going up to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the nation.

^c The High Priest at Jerusalem when Festus took office was Ishmael, appointed by Herod Agrippa II to succeed Ananias during the final days of Felix’s governorship. Ananias, however, continued to exercise a dominant role in Jerusalem right up to his death at the hands of the Jewish people in A.D. 66. This is probably why Luke speaks of ‘the chief priests’ and not just the High Priest as appearing with the elders before Festus when he came to Jerusalem.

^d The phrase ‘chief priests and leaders’ would refer to the Sanhedrin.

^e Counting on the new governor’s inexperience, the Jewish authorities urged Festus to transfer Paul’s case to Jerusalem for trial. They were hoping to ambush and murder him on the way. Perhaps also they hoped that with such a change of venue, if their plans for an ambush were again frustrated, they could arrange to have Paul tried before the Sanhedrin on the single charge of profaning the Temple for which they had the right to impose the death penalty.

^f Unwittingly, Festus overturned their plans by inviting the Jewish leaders to return with him to Caesarea and press charges against Paul there. Evidently he desired to carry out only such business as was absolutely necessary on his first visit to Jerusalem and preferred to preside over any extended trial back at Caesarea particularly since the prisoner was already there.

^g Paul had not defied its customs by taking Trophimus into the forbidden areas.

^h Paul proclaimed the Kingdom of God but not as a political rival of Rome. He always taught respect for law and order (see Ro 13:1-7) and prayer for civil rulers.

ⁱ Festus was at a loss to know what to make of the Jewish charges and Paul’s denials. Yet the Sanhedrin plainly wanted the case transferred to Jerusalem for trial; and as the new governor of Judea, Festus saw no reason why he could not concede the Jews this. He seemed not to have fully appreciated what lay behind their request and apparently thought it would be politically wise to gain their goodwill by a change of venue.

^j Festus had said that the trial would be before him. So Paul insisted that he was then standing in the Roman civil court. He wanted to keep his trial there rather than suffer at the hands of a Jewish religious court. Paul knew that to return to Jerusalem would place him in serious jeopardy. It would likely involve being turned over to the Sanhedrin. Once he was in Jerusalem, the Jewish authorities would pressure Festus to have Paul turned over to them for trial on the charge of profaning the Temple.

^k As a Roman citizen, he could refuse to go to a local provincial court. Instead he looked to a higher Roman court. But being unsure as to just what action Festus might take in the matter if left at that, Paul went on to claim one final right he had as a Roman citizen: “I appeal to Caesar!” He saw clearly that he could hope for justice and acquittal only from the Romans, not from the Jews. Roman law at this time protected Roman citizens by their right of appeal to the Emperor. It was the right of every Roman citizen to have his case heard before Caesar himself (or his representative) in Rome. This was the highest court of appeal, and winning such a case could have led to more than just Paul’s acquittal. It could have resulted in official recognition of Christianity as distinct from Judaism. Nero had become the emperor by this time. It may seem some- what strange that Paul should have preferred to appeal to the Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), the persecutor of Christians at Rome, rather than continue to entrust his case to Festus, whether at Caesarea or Jerusalem. But the early years of Nero’s rule were looked upon as something of a Golden Age. There was little in A.D. 60 that warned of Nero’s character and how his relationship with Christianity would turn sour during the last five years of his life.

^l These were the officials and legal experts who made up the advisory council for the Roman governor. Festus’ discussion with his advisors was probably not whether an appeal to Caesar should be allowed. Rather, he had to determine (i) whether the charges against his prisoner was within his jurisdiction and (ii) whether it was either just or feasible to acquit the prisoner and make the appeal unnecessary. Since the charges against Paul concerned political sedition or rebellion, which in Roman law could be punished by death, and profaning of the Jerusalem Temple, which in Jewish law called for death, Festus had no choice but to acknowledge the extraordinary character of the charge and accept Paul’s appeal. At this point Festus still had the legal right to pronounce an acquittal after the act of appeal. However, no newly arrived governor would dream of antagonizing the leaders of the people he sought to govern by acquitting one against whom they were so vehemently opposed. It was more a political than legal decision Festus had to make, and he was probably only too glad to have this way out of a very sticky situation. So he agreed to the appeal.