The New Governor
“Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Csesarea to Jerusalem. Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, and desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him, etc.” — Acts xxv.
THEEE was a change of government. Eelix was recalled, and Eestus succeeded him as procurator of Judea. The new governor coming from Italy by sea, landed at Csesarea, remained at that port three days, and then went up to Jerusalem. Doubtless he desired to inform himself regarding the state of parties among the Jews in the interior, that he might be able more intelligently to administer the government at Caesarea.
We may find an analogous case on a much larger scale in our own administration of India. The new governor arrives at Calcutta, a city of recent origin, built by the dominating power on navigable waters, as the seat of authority. But he will do well, soon after his arrival, to make a progress into the interior — to visit Benares, Delhi, Lahore — the great capitals of the native races, or the seats of their religious worship. It is there that he may best learn the disposition of the natives, and the condition of the country, thus qualifying himself to conduct the machinery of government. A very necessary precaution, as we know to our cost: greased cartridges may kindle a rebellion.
In this spirit Festus visited Jerusalem almost immediately after his arrival in the country, that he might take the measure of men and of parties in the Jewish capital; and so be prepared to adopt such measures as should be most likely to calm the boding discontent of a subjugated nation. As soon as the governor appeared in Jerusalem, the high priest and his party approached him with the view of securing his ear against Paul. How eagerly they hunt him down! It appears as if these men could not sleep soundly on God’s earth as long as the missionary of the cross lived on it. He was cherishing the bud of Judaism into its natural fruit; but to develop the germ into the full gospel would cast off these usurpers who sat there in Moses’ seat: Paul had no mercy either on their greed or their superstitions; therefore they were bent on his ruin. This process has repeated itself down through the dark ages. Persecutions have seeded themselves from that generation to this, as surely as thistles — and as mischievously.
The priest party endeavoured to induce the governor to summon Paul to Jerusalem to be tried. They had their own reason for this: they meant to revive the scheme of assassination. Festus, however, was firm: Let the prisoner remain at Csesarea; I shall shortly take up my residence there; let his accusers come thither to conduct the prosecution against him in the ordinary form. It was of the Lord that Festus — though unaware, apparently, of their designs — refused to comply with them. Probably his reasons for refusing were very prosaic and commonplace. He was a stranger; he did not feel at home amongst the Jewish dignitaries in their sacred city. The permanent officers of the government who in such cases must be his councillors were resident in Csesarea. His legal advisers were there. No; he will not summon the prisoner to Jerusalem, and begin his judicial career in such adverse circumstances; he will rather go down to the seat of government. With all his officers around him, he will more firmly plant the first steps of his course in the administration of the country. When the Supreme has a purpose to be accomplished, he has instruments at hand, whether the elements of nature, or the thoughts that spring secretly in human hearts.
By arrangement, no doubt, between the prosecutors and the judge, Paul’s case was called on the very day after the governor had returned to Caesarea. He gave his first attention to the case which the Jewish authorities first pressed upon his attention. The court was constituted, and the pleadings on both sides heard; but the trial instituted with so much formality came to nothing. Instead of pronouncing judgment on the evidence, Festus suddenly demanded of the prisoner whether he would consent to go up to Jerusalem, and there be tried in his presence.
This may have been an honest proposal, founded on real reasons; for Festus may have discovered gradually as the pleadings went on that the case in its own nature belonged to the ecclesiastical court of the Sanhedrim, and that he, as a Roman, was not competent to pronounce in it an intelligent judgment. The request, “Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judged of these things before me?” may mean that the Jewish Sanhedrim should try the cause under the superintendence and in presence of the governor. But there is also too good reason to believe that the enemies of Paul had, in the interval, obtained access to the governor, and gained him over. At all events, at Csesarea he himself proposed the very measure which at Jerusalem he rejected.
This was the turning-point; and the crisis could no longer be averted. While Paul was a man of strong faith, he was also a man of strong reason. He was cool and clear; he measured men, and framed his own plans with consummate political skill. Finding now that he had no other shield between his life and the assassin’s dagger, Paul launched at length the bolt he had long kept concealed, — “I appeal unto Caesar.”
During the period of the republic, an appeal lay to the people, or the tribunes their representatives; but now all these rights were vested in the emperor. Ordinary provincials were entirely in the power of the governor, but those who possessed the privilege of Roman citizens enjoyed the right of appeal. In Oriental romance you often meet with a traveller who possesses a mysterious talisman, which he always carries about, capable of preserving his life in the last extremity. The owner of the charm abstains from using it in ordinary dangers; and it is only when all other hope fails that at last he brings it forth. The right of appeal to the emperor was Paul’s talisman; it was employed only in the last resort. But it was effectual. It represented the Roman empire; it wielded the power paramount of the world. Neither Festus on the one hand, nor the Jewish rulers on the other, dared to touch a hair of the prisoner’s head while he lay under the shelter of imperial law.
There is a grand burst of indignation accompanying the appeal. This man does well to be angry; he spares neither his judge nor his accusers. “To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.” In consenting, contrary to his own first judgment, to remove the diet to Jerusalem, Festus had in effect agreed to deliver the victim into the murderers’ hands; and so now it behoved Paul to protect himself from the Roman procurator, as well as from the Jewish priests. By the constitution of the empire, a provincial judge might, on his own responsibility, refuse the privilege of appeal to notorious criminals, although their names were inscribed on the roll of citizens; but it was plain enough on all sides that Paul was no criminal — no reckless disturber of the peace. He was evidently a man of purity and power. If the governor, yielding to the importunity of the Jews, venture to override this citizen’s rights, the act reported at Rome will rebound with damaging effect on his own head. The legal assessors of the governor, on being consulted (ver. 12), advised that it would not be safe to ignore the privileges of the appellant. Thus man proposes; but God disposes. All things were ordered so as to bear the apostle of the Gentiles to the metropolis of the Gentile world.
The decision of the court is pronounced: “Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go.” Paul, for his part, must have heard the words with profound emotion; but the prevailing element was joy. At length, according to his own long-cherished desire, and the Saviour s gracious promise, he has the assured prospect of reaching Rome. He will get a free passage at the emperor’s expense, while he travels on the business of the heavenly King.
Not long after this event, Herod Agrippa — son of that Herod who beheaded the Baptist — who by favour of the emperor ruled over a portion of Syria with the title of king, came to Caesarea, on a visit of ceremony to the new governor. Precisely in the same manner the various dependent sovereigns, who are still permitted to retain authority in various portions of our Indian empire, assemble to pay their respects to the viceroy appointed by the Queen. He politely acknowledges their dignities in presence of ’ the natives; but they understand well enough that they hold their crowns at the disposal of the power which he represents. a
Although by birth an Idumean, and educated at Rome, Agrippa was a Jew by adoption. On this visit he was ac- to companied by Bernice, in what capacity the Scripture does not say; but it is abundantly testified by contemporary L history that vices were involved in their relations which L ought not even to be named amongst Christians. The bad L fame of this woman for unblushing effrontery in the practice of complicated and shameful vice, was proverbial in those L regions and times. ’
Another scene ensues, in some respects similar to that of rj Paul and Felix; and yet, both in its subjects and results, L exhibiting several features in marked contrast with its pre- ^,
The Gospel fulfils the Law. decessor. But in the essential features these two episodes hang like companion pictures on the wall. Agrippa, like Felix, sought, not the pardon of sin, but the gratification of curiosity; and he fared accordingly. “Blessed are they that hunger.” But this man was not blessed; he died, not for want of food, but for want of hunger. This is a disease that wastes the world still.
xcv.