Acts 25:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

See how again the Jews are condemned not by Paul, but by the ruler. Having acted according to this custom, he found no guilt in him. Therefore he was perplexed, as is clear from the following words: “The accusers brought none of the charges that I supposed.” He said this in order to cover his own sin.

The slanderers brought an accusation against him, but they did not prove it. Their slander and insolence seemed suspicious, and the examination of the case confirmed nothing.

King Herod Agrippa, that is, Herod Agrippa II, was the son of Herod Agrippa I (Acts ch. 12). He possessed the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Lk 3:1) with the title of king.

He was the last king from the family of the Herods, with whom this royal line came to an end. Being in vassal relations to Rome, he considered it his duty to congratulate Festus on his new appointment.

For this purpose, soon after Festus entered the office of procurator of Judea, Agrippa came to Caesarea. Wishing to show courtesy to his guest, Festus proposed that Herod hear Paul's case.

Herod confessed the same Jewish faith and was therefore more able to understand this case than he, the Roman procurator. For, as Festus observed, Paul's accusers disputed with him over certain questions of their worship (verses 13-27).

During this visit of Agrippa, Festus brought to the attention of his distinguished guest the difficult case of the prisoner Paul. He told Agrippa about the fury aroused throughout the Jewish people at the mere mention of this man’s name, and about the fruitlessness of the trial just concluded. However much the Jews tried to distort the essence of the matter, it was clear that it consisted in subtleties of the Mosaic law. It also concerned the question of “a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive,” and, in general, matters that did not fall under Festus’s jurisdiction.

“They brought none of the charges that I supposed.” Because of the accusers’ insistence and bitterness against Paul, the procurator evidently assumed that Paul had committed serious crimes, especially of a political character. But he was mistaken in his assumptions. It is true that a political charge had also been made, but probably of such a kind that the procurator himself attached no importance to it. As the writer of Acts noted above, they were generally unable to prove the accusations against Paul (v. 7).

In Festus' report about Paul's case, the new and most interesting point is the mention of Jesus Christ and the fact that the Apostle Paul taught His Resurrection.

Although Festus, according to the custom of eminent Romans of that time, treated Jesus Christ with a certain disdain, he nevertheless made Agrippa understand that the essence of Paul's case lay precisely in this Jesus and His Resurrection.

"Naturally, he says, concerning a certain Jesus, since he was a man with authority and paid no heed to the Lord."

"He shows the same frivolity and indifference that Pilate displayed when questioning the Lord (see Jn 18:38). He considered Paul's speech about the Lord's Resurrection an empty fable, as the Greek word μανία shows (see Acts 26:24).