Felix kept Paul in custody to appease the Jews in the hopes it would alleviate their complaints. Actually, it was the complaints of the Jews that eventually led Nero to recall Felix in disgrace. It appears that Porcius Festus was a prudent and honorable man and in other circumstances might have proven a successful ruler. Unfortunately, Felix left such a hotbed of bigotry, faction and intrigue, that Festus was initially biased against Paul and finally died in despair before his term of office had expired.

When Festus replaced Felix he found the case of the Jews against Paul among the items of unfinished business. When Festus was in Jerusalem, he saw through the plot of the high priests who wanted him to have Paul sent down from Caesarea to Jerusalem so that they might kill him en route. He let the matter rest until he himself went to Caesarea, and then he sent for Paul. The charges that the Jews made against him were the same, and as before, Paul pleaded "not guilty." Since the charges against him could not be proved, Festus was left in a difficult position. He wanted to remain in the good graces of the Jews, and yet he could not in clear conscience condemn Paul. Furthermore, he could not force a Roman citizen to submit to a provincial court, so he asked Paul if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem where Festus would oversee the trial. Historically, it is highly unlikely the Jews would have permitted a Roman leader to preside over or even participate in any trial of the Sanhedrin.

Festus was showing a preference to turning Paul over to the Jews, or at least returning him to the hostile environment of Jerusalem. Paul’s case had been in the courts for two years and the hearings had been innumerable. He refused to go through it again. So, he exercised his ultimate right as a citizen of Rome: he appealed to the emperor. If the case had to be tried again, it should be tried before the highest authority in the empire. After consulting with his counselors, Festus did the only thing he could do. He granted Paul’s request, and probably was relieved to have the burden shifted to someone else.

One thing we should remember is that Paul’s case is not strictly religious in the eyes of the authorities. The only grounds the Jews could legitimately provide are fabricated violations of the Jewish ceremonial law. However, that would not be enough to bring a death sentence on a Roman citizen. Consequently, they had two paths to follow. First, they could attempt to have him assassinated and avoid a formal decision. Second, they would have to create a charge that would justify a death sentence for a Roman citizen. The charge was that Paul was a dangerous insurrectionary. We will grant that riots seem to follow Paul from town to town, but in reality, he did not preach against the Roman government. He did not attempt to create insurrection at all. He simply insisted on preaching "Christ crucified" as should we all.

We have not enough facts to say with any certainty what caused the delay in the prosecution of Paul’s case. We can say the delay was inexcusable. There was no more evidence against Paul at the end of two years than there was the day he was arrested. It was simply a case of putting off the decision. Perhaps no one wanted to assume the responsibility for it. Whatever the reason, the delay went on, and Paul’s life was to that extent limited and bound. Unfortunately not all the victims of legal delay have the inner resources that Paul had which enabled him to survive the harassing circumstances of his life. What he did from day to day we do not know, but we know that imprisonment did not thwart his spirit; for before, when he and Silas were in jail, they sang hymns; and on other occasions when the days were long, Paul turned them to good effect by writing letters that are still read and treasured by the Christian world.

The fact that there was a higher authority to which he might appeal must have given Paul courage, even though the authority was vested for the moment in a man of no greater stature than Nero. The most sacred right of an individual is the right to be heard again and to have his case reconsidered by an impartial judge. Mistakes are made, new evidence is discovered, differences in judgment are inevitable, so that it is hard to pronounce a final judgment upon the merits of an individual who stand before the law. The fact that he has the right to carry his case to the highest authority in the land gives him the assurance that the gates are not permanently closed against him and that he is not the victim of human malice or mistaken judgment.

It is good to remember that above all the earthly courts there is a higher court, and that over and above all the judges of the world there is the "Judge eternal, throned in splendor." Many men and women have been misjudged in the courts of the world; their motives have been misunderstood; their actions have been misinterpreted; their lives mistakenly condemned. Let them never forget that there is another Judge, in whose judgments, there is no error, and whose justice is moderated by love. It is in that judgment alone that we ultimately stand. It is for the divine approval alone that we daily strive. And when justice as it is administered in the courts of the world goes askew, there is a justice in heaven to which our appeal can be made and before which we stand in the pure light of the truth. We can be assured in that court many human verdicts have been reversed.

Agrippa the king is Herod Agrippa II, the son of that other Herod who has gone down in history as the first royal persecutor of the church. Agrippa was in high favor at Rome and entrusted with the custody of the temple treasure and the appointment of the high priest. As a Jew with a Roman background and a regal setting, he was considered a good source of counsel for Festus.

When Agrippa and his sister arrived in Caesarea, Festus told him about Paul, and asked him to hear the case and give him the benefit of his counsel. You will note that Festus did not admit offering to oversee the case in Jerusalem. Agrippa was glad to hear Paul. He had almost certainly heard about him and as a cultivated Jew he would naturally be interested in this man who had traveled so widely and stirred up to much trouble. So the hearing was arranged. It had no legal status whatever; it was simply for the benefit of Festus and Agrippa. But it provided a magnificent setting for Paul’s final defense and for the summation of his case. The scene was one of pomp and ceremony. Paul appeared not so much a prisoner as a personage. The company to which he was to speak was the most distinguished that could be assembled. No rioting now, no provocations to anger; nothing but the most favorable circumstances for him to rehearse the thrilling story of his life. Agrippa was gracious to him and all the surroundings were eminently suitable.

Festus told King Agrippa that "all the multitude of the Jews" cried to him that Paul ought not to live any longer. Actually it was only the Jewish leaders who made the petition. As we pointed out earlier, the rank and file Jew in Jerusalem knew little of the conflict between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. The Harclean Syriac version (616 AD) of this text is much fuller and very vivid: "The whole Jewish people petitioned me – both in Jerusalem and here – that I should hand him over to them for torture without defense. But I was not able to hand him over on account of instructions which we have from the Emperor. So I said that if anyone wished to accuse him he should follow me to Caesarea where he was in custody. And then they arrived, they clamored that his life should be taken away. But when I had heard this and that side, I found that in no respect was he worthy of death. But when I said, ‘do you wish to be tried with them in Jerusalem?’ he appealed to Caesar."

Festus also told Agrippa, that he had no certain thing to write concerning the charges against Paul. He certainly could not bring up the questions concerning Jewish Ceremonial law as the basis for a Roman decision. He knew the problem concerned something about Jewish and Gentile Christians, but they were all part of the Jewish faith as far as he was concerned. Agrippa, being a Jew, had a better chance of understanding the subtleties of Jewish Ceremonial law and could perhaps provide a way of describing the charges in such a manner as to make sense within Roman Law.

It is interesting to note that "Letters Dimissory" is the form used to transfer clergy canonical residence from one diocese to another. This same approach and term (litterae dimissoriae) was used to transfer legal jurisdiction within the Roman system.