Acts 25:6

Act 25:6-8. And when he had tarried there more than ten days — A short time for a new governor to stay at such a city as Jerusalem; he went down to Cesarea — As he had said, several of the Jews attending him, as being determined to lose no time, but to prosecute the affair in the most strenuous manner they possibly could; and the next day sitting in the judgment-seat — As the governor used to do, when any cause of consequence was brought before him; commanded Paul to be brought — And make his appearance. And the Jews, standing round about — An expression which intimates that there were many of them; laid many and grievous complaints against Paul — Doubtless like those which Tertullus had formerly advanced before Felix; which they could not prove — By proper witnesses. When many accusations against any one are heaped, frequently not one of them is true. While he answered, Neither against the law of the Jews, &c. — I openly deny their charge in every branch of it, and challenge them to make it out by proper evidence in any instance, or in any degree. To a general charge a general answer was sufficient.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_25:6. More than ten days.—According to the most reliable authorities this should be not more than eight or ten days.

Act_25:7. The many and grievous complaints, or charges, against Paul, which his accusers could not prove, were no doubt the same which had been preferred against him by Tertullus (Act_24:5-6).

Act_25:8. Paul’s defence shows that the accusations now put forward were the srme old charges to which he had already answered, only perhaps in a different order—heresy, sacrilege, sedition.

Act_25:9. Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judged?—The proposal of Festus not merely to shift the venue or place of trial from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, but to substitute an ecclesiastical for a civil court, with himself present merely as a spectator (which seems to be the import of before me), was perhaps dictated by two motives—a desire to please the Jews (see on Act_24:27), and a wish to rid himself of a troublesome responsibility. It had also an appearance of being fair to Paul in that it offered him a trial before a court of his own nation, with the presence of the procurator to see that no injustice was done. Only as Paul had been handed over as a Roman citizen to a Roman tribunal, the proposed change could not take place without the prisoner’s consent.

Act_25:10. I stand, or am standing, at Cæsar’s judgment seat.—Paul knew that his doom was sealed should his case be remitted back to Jerusalem, and hence claimed to be tried as a Roman citizen before a Roman court. It can hardly be that Paul intended to say, “I stand already in mind and purpose before the Emperor’s court, for God has shown me by a special revelation that I am to preach the gospel at Rome, and my trial there is accordingly part of the divinely ordered course of things which cannot be altered” (Wordsworth). As thou very well knowest.—This complete insight into the worthlessness of the charges brought against him, which Paul ascribes to Festus, may appear to conflict with Festus’s own statements in Act_25:18-20; Act_25:26 (Holtzmann); but both assertions may easily enough have been correct. Festus may not have perfectly comprehended the precise points in which Paul was alleged to have violated Jewish law; but he Lad discernment enough to perceive that sufficient to establish anything against his prisoner had not been advanced.

Act_25:11. I refuse not to die.—I make no entreaty against dying, I beg not myself off by prayers. “Not mercy, but only justice, asks Paul of Cæsar” (Besser). “We make no request for favour; if any one can convict us of wrong, be it little or great, we refuse not the sharpest punishment” (Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius). No man may deliver me unto them, or give me up to them as a favour.—“Not even Festus, if he will do what is right” (Besser). I appeal unto Cæsar.—“These important words were spoken by Paul,” says Stier, “being certainly impelled by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit” (compare Act_23:11.) So did the Christians in Bithynia in Pliny’s time do. “Paul felt indeed what a curse his people had brought upon themselves by compelling him to appeal to Caesar” (Besser).

Act_25:12. Conferred with the council.—I.e., with the Roman assessors who assisted him at the trial. The subject of consultation manifestly was as to whether the appeal should be admitted or refused. Appeals appear not to have been admitted in every case. Chap. Act_28:18-19 shows that Festus was disposed to release Paul, and probably would have done so had not the Sanhedrists objected. Weizsäcker comments upon the fact that Paul was thrice in danger of his life (Act_21:31; Act_23:12; Act_25:3), thrice accused by the Jews (Act_23:28; Act_24:1; Act_25:2; Acts 15), and thrice rescued by the Romans (Act_23:30; Act_24:22; Act_25:12), and finds in this word “thrice” a proof of manufactured history. This requires no refutation.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_25:6-12

Paul before Festus—an Appeal to the Emperor

I. The court constituted.

1. Some things the same on this as on the former occasion.

(1) The judgment hall—a room or chamber in Herod’s palace (see on Act_24:24, “Homiletical Analysis”).

(2) The prosecutors—the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem, and who may have been as before “Ananias with certain of the elders” (Act_24:1), including “the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews” (Act_25:2).

(3) The prisoner—Paul, who had already so triumphantly vindicated his innocence, and been so wonderfully protected by God.

(4) The charges—many and grievous things which could not be established against him (Act_25:7).

2. Some things different on this from what were on the former occasion.

(1) The judge.—Felix had given place to Porcius Festus, about whom little is known—though, like Felix, it would appear, he was not above pandering to the wishes of the Jews in the hope of currying favour with them (Act_25:9).

(2) The mode of procedure. On this occasion Tertullus was conspicuous by his absence. The prosecutors believed themselves able to dispense with the services of a hired advocate. Roman flattery and eloquence had not done much for them at the previous trial; perhaps clamour and vehemence would serve them better at this. At least this was the method adopted. “The Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood round about Festus, bringing against Paul many and grievous charges.”

(3) The order of the charges. Though in substance the same, the presentation of them appears to have been somewhat varied (see below).

II. The indictment preferred.

1. The old charges were revived. Sedition, schism, sacrilege; treason against the state, against the faith, against the temple; revolt against Cæsar, against Moses, against Jehovah; revolution—a serious civil crime; innovation—a heinous ecclesiastical offence; irreligion or impiety—a deadly sin. Had Paul been guilty of these he must have been a monster of wickedness indeed.

2. The new order in which the charges were presented. Schism, sacrilege, sedition. Not without craft had this alteration been made. At the first trial the high priest and the elders had hopes of enlisting the jealousy and power of Rome against Paul, and with this end in view they placed in the forefront of their indictment the charge of sedition. What more likely to gain the ear of a representative of Cæsar, than the allegation that the prisoner at the bar had been “a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world” (Act_24:5), saying “there is another king, one Jesus” (Act_17:7)? That card, however, had been tried and failed. It was now, therefore, their aim, if possible, to withdraw the prisoner from beneath the shelter of the Roman Ægis, and accordingly they shove the charge of sedition into the background, and advance into the purview of the procurator those of schism and sacrilege. They hoped in this way to persuade the new governor that the case was one which fell more within their jurisdiction than his, that it belonged to an ecclesiastical and spiritual rather than to a secular tribunal. The distinction between things secular and sacred, courts spiritual and ecclesiastical, and courts civil and criminal, was a sound one, but in their mouths it was being used not to secure right and justice, but to perpetrate cruelty and wrong.

III. The defence offered.

1. On every count in the indictment, as before, Paul pleaded not guilty. “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Cæsar” had he offended. He was no schismatic or heretic in the proper sense of that expression; what he preached was only a legitimate development and necessary fruit of the Hebrew faith. He had not violated the sanctity of the temple; the allegation that he had done so contradicted fact. He was no revolutionary against Cæsar’s throne; neither by word nor deed had he taught men to rise against the powers that be. From first to last Paul had been consistent in maintaining his innocence.

2. On every count in the indictment, as before, evidence in its support was wanting. Paul would be sure to call the attention of his judge to this, and Festus, it is clear, discerned that the charge of sedition was a bogus affair altogether (Act_25:18), while about the heresy he was simply at sea—that belonged to another sphere than the one in which he moved (Act_25:19-20). The sacrilege allegation he probably dropped out of view entirely, as an unfounded assertion, or as a matter too insignificant to be noticed. Nevertheless, baseless as the charges were, Festus wanted courage to sweep them aside, and liberate his prisoner. Precisely as Felix failed, so did he. Neither had the fortitude to follow conscience and do what was right.

IV. The proposition made.

1. A specious compromise.

(1) To drop the charges of sacrilege and sedition and restrict further investigations to the one point of divergence from the laws of the Jews. This would practically be a decision two-thirds in Paul’s favour.

(2) To proceed to Jerusalem, that the strictly religious question might be examined into by a court of his own people. This also, while it had the appearance of being fair to Paul, would be a virtual concession to what Festus understood to be the real wishes of the Jews.

(3) To have the trial conducted in the procurator’s presence as a guarantee that the prisoner would have even-handed justice.

2. The secret motive.

(1) The motive stated was to gain favour with the Jews. This was probably natural, considering that he was a new governor, and that they were a troublesome people, who had it in their power to impeach him, as they had impeached Felix his predecessor, before Cæsar—if not for real, for imaginary crimes, since, as he could see from Paul’s case, they were by no means fastidious as to the character of the weapons with which they struck a man down.

(2) The unrecorded motives probably were to shield Paul, if possible, and in any case to shift from himself all responsibility for his condemnation.

V. The appeal taken.

1. To whom? Cæsar, i.e., Nero. Paul demanded to be tried by the emperor himself. “Theoretically the emperor was but the imperator, or commander-in-chief of the armies of the state, appointed by the Senate, and acting under its direction. Consuls were still elected every year, and went through the shadowy functions of their office. Many of the provinces were directly under the control of the Senate, and were accordingly governed by proconsuls. But Augustus had contrived to concentrate in himself all the powers that in the days of the Republic had checked and balanced the exercise of individual authority. He was supreme pontiff, and as such regulated the religion of the state; permanent censor, and as such could give or recall the privileges of citizenship at His pleasure. The tribunicia potestas, which had originally been conferred on the tribunes of the plebs so that they might protect members of their order who appealed to them against the injustice of patrician magistrates, was attached to his office. As such he became the final court of appeal from all subordinate tribunals, and so by a subtle artifice, what had been intended as a safeguard to freedom, became the instrument of a centralised tyranny” (Plumptre).

2. For what reason? Because he was already standing before Cæsar’s judgment seat—i.e., was already pleading before a Roman tribunal, and no one, not even a procurator, had a right to withdraw him therefrom and hand him over to the Jews without his consent—which, of course, Paul was unwilling to give, for the following reasons.

(1) That as a panel at a Roman tribunal he was entitled to receive from that tribunal a verdict on his case.

(2) That he was perfectly prepared to accept that verdict, whatever it might be. Should he be found to have done wrong, and to have committed anything worthy of death, he refused not to die; but should, on the other hand, his innocence be established, he was entitled to be acquitted.

(3) That he was not amenable to any Jewish tribunal, since he had not violated any Jewish law, as Festus himself knew.

(4) That Paul also understood his doom would be sealed the moment he was handed over to the tender mercies of the Sanhedrim.

3. With what result? That his appeal was allowed. Having conferred privately with his own council of Roman assessors (see “Critical Remarks”), Festus, “with something like a sneer” in his words, intimated his acceptance of Paul’s decision. “He knew, it may be, better than the apostle to what kind of judge the latter was appealing, what long delays there would be before the cause was heard, how little chance there was of a righteous judgment at last” (Plumptre).

Learn.—

1. That false witnessing against good men and good causes is an old and common, as well as heinous sin.

2. That the desire of gaining popular favour often leads statesmen, judges, and private individuals to perpetrate acts of great injustice.

3. That Christians are not debarred by their religion from defending themselves against persecution and oppression by all lawful means.

4. That nothing inspires a man with courage in presence of his adversaries like a consciousness of innocence.

5. That God’s people are (or should be) ever ready to render due satisfaction for whatever evil deeds can be proved against them.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_25:6-12. A Court Scene in the Olden Time.

I. Infuriate and reckless pursuers.—

1. A multitude against one.

2. Men of power against a weak prisoner.

3. Persons regardless of truth against an individual who tried to keep a clean conscience.

II. A friendless but unmoved defender.—Strong in—

1. The consciousness of his innocence.

2. The justness of his claim—to be judged where he was.

3. The superiority of his soul to death.

III. A discerning but unprincipled judge—

1. Faithless to conscience. Knowing his duty, but declining to act upon it.

2. Showing respect of persons. Preferring the favour of the powerful and rich wicked to the rights of the humble but poor good.

3. Trampling on the weak. Sending Paul to Rome instead of granting him liberty.

Act_25:8. A Model Defence.

I. Short.—Consisting of one sentence.

II. Simple.—Containing no intricate reasoning or doubtful chicanery.

III. Direct.—Resting satisfied with a plain denial of the charges advanced.

IV. Exhaustive.—Leaving none of these untouched, but repudiating all alike.

V. Effective.—If it did not procure acquittal it at least showed the charges to be false.

Act_25:8-10. Christian Fortitude.—As exemplified in Paul.

I. Unlike the effrontery of the hypocrite.—Paul grounds his defence on solid fact and absolute truth.

II. Different from the defiance of the wicked.—Paul declines not to be examined once and again, having nothing to be ashamed of or conceal.

III. Having no resemblance to the obstinacy of the litigious.—Paul submits to every just decision, being willing even to die if he had done anything for which capital punishment is the only expiation.

Act_25:10. Cæsar’s Judgment Seat and Christ’s.—A contrast. In respect of—

I. The authorities by which they have been appointed.—Cæsar’s by the kings and emperors of earth. Christ’s by the King of kings, the Lord of eternity, and Sovereign of the universe.

II. The judges who have been entrusted with their procedure.—In the case of Cæsar’s mortal, fallible, and sinful men; in that of Christ’s, the Divine Son, who liveth evermore, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, in whom, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and with whom is no respect of persons.

III. The businesses which are transacted thereupon. In the case of Cæsar’s tribunal, the earthly and temporal affairs of men, so far as they affect men’s mundane interests; at Christ’s the concerns of the soul and the transactions of the life.

IV. The verdicts which are issued therefrom.—From Cæsar’s often such as are false and oppressive; from Christ’s always such as are just and true. The first may call for an appeal: the second are irreversible and final.

V. The parties who appear before them.—Some may never stand at Cæsar’s, but all must eventually stand at Christ’s, judgment-seat.

Act_25:11. Paul’s Appeal to Cæsar.

I. Evidenced a conscience void of offence toward God and man.—Had the apostle not been conscious of innocence he would hardly have ventured on this step, which was not the last stroke for liberty on the part of a despairing criminal, but the sober act of a good man who knew himself to be wronged.

II. Signalised a humble submission to divinely ordained authority.—Had the apostle not regarded Cæsar’s tribunal as in some respects invested with divine authority, he would scarcely have proposed to lay his case before it.

III. Showed a laudable desire to avoid unnecessary martyrdom.—Had Paul deemed it sinful to keep himself alive as long as possible, or right to throw away his life without an effort to preserve it, it is doubtful if he would have resorted to this tedious method of obtaining justice.

IV. Proved an unwearied zeal for the extension of the kingdom of God.—Having already been assured by God that he would preach the gospel at Rome also, Paul probably saw in this appeal which he took a means of attaining to what was already a burning passion in his soul.—From Gerok in Lange.

Difficulties connected with Paul’s Appeal to Cæsar.

I. How does this harmonise with Christ’s doctrine of non-resistance (Mat_5:39)? Answer: Paul, in appealing to Cæsar, does not propose retaliation, but only self-preservation, which is the first law of life, and is not forbidden to a Christian.

II. How does this accord with Paul’s exhortation to Christians not to go to law before the unrighteous but only before the saints (1Co_6:1)?—Answer: Paul does not propose to drag his accusers before the law, but only to vindicate his own character in the eyes of the law—which is always permissible to a Christian.

III. How does this square with Paul’s knowledge that Christ was with him and had promised to protect him?—How does his conduct compare with that of Ezra—e.g., who, in a time of difficulty and danger, refused to lean upon a secular arm (Ezr_8:22)? Answer: This may have been Christ’s way of protecting Paul.

IV. How does this comport with Paul s doctrine that the state has nothing whatever to do with judging spiritual matters (1Co_2:15)?—Answer: Paul does not propose to submit to Cæsar the question of his religious opinions, but only that of his civil Paul’s deportment.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 25:6. Οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα) not more than eight or ten, is the reading of the Latin Vulg. And this reading is supported by old Greek MSS., along with the Coptic (Memphitic) Version. An excellent reading.[142] So Οὐ ΠΛΕΊΟΥς ἩΜΈΡΑΙ ΔΕΚΑΔΎΟ, Κ.Τ.Λ., ch. Act 24:11, Act 4:22, Act 23:13. Others omit Οὐ, or also ὈΚΤΏ, or Οὐ ΠΛΕΊΟΥς. Eight or ten days are a sufficiently short time (Act 25:4) for the stay of the new governor in the city of Jerusalem. Within that time he could not conveniently have discussed Paul’s case.

[142] Which is rated more highly in the margin of Ed. 2 and the Germ. Vers. than in the larger Ed.—E. B.

ABC Vulg. Memph. read οὐ πλείους ὀκτώ, except that B has πλείονας. Rec. Text omits οὐ and ὀκτώ. Ee omit οὐ, but retain ὀκτώ. Lucifer retains both. Chrysostom in his commentary omits πλείους ἢ, but in the text retaius the words.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_25:6-7. Διατρίψας … δέκα] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at that time among the Jews at Jerusalem (ἐν αὐτοῖς), not merely the time that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal.

περιέστησαν] stood round Paul, as is evident from the preceding παραγ. δὲ αὐτοῦ. Comp. Act_25:18. Grotius and Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to τὸ βῆμα.

πολλὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ.] as in Joh_20:30.

αἰτιώματα (see the critical remarks), instead of αἰτιάματα, accusations, is not elsewhere preserved. Yet Eust. p. 1422, 21, has αἰτίωσις instead of αἰτίασις.

καταφέροντες (see the critical remarks), they brought against him. Gen_37:2; Deu_22:14.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 25:6 . ἡμέρας πλ ., see critical note, “not more than eight or ten days,” R.V., i.e. , the whole period of Festus’ stay ἐν αὐτοῖς . Blass sees in the words an indication of the vigour of action characterising Festus. The expression may, however, be used from the standpoint of Paul and his friends at Cæsarea, who did not know how much of his absence Festus had spent in Jerusalem, or how much on the journey (so Weiss and Wendt). τῇ ἐπαύριον : ten times in Acts, but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel, cf. , however, ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον , Luk 10:35 and Act 4:5 only (Hawkins). This evidently implies that the accusers had come down with Festus, and it may again indicate his promptness, cf. Act 25:17 . There does not seem any indication that this immediate action shows that he had been prejudiced against Paul in Jerusalem (Chrys.). ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος , Act 12:21 , Act 18:12 , and Act 25:10 below: seven times in Acts in this sense (Mat 27:19 , Joh 19:13 ), but nowhere in Luke’s Gospel; twice by St. Paul, Rom 14:10 , 2Co 5:10 . καθ . ἐπὶ τοῦ β .: a necessary formality, otherwise no legal effect would be given to the decision, cf. Schürer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 15, E.T., for this and other instances. ἀχθῆναι , cf. προσάγεσθαι , Polyc., Mart. , ix., 1 and 2.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We may repel an injury justly, but not with injury.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 6. When he had tarried - more than ten days] The strangeness of this mode of expression suggests the thought that our printed text is not quite correct in this place; and this suspicion is confirmed by an examination of MSS. and versions: ἡμερας ου πλειους οκτω η δεκα, NOT more than EIGHT OR ten days, is the reading of ABC, several others of great respectability, with the Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach admits this reading into the text: and of it Professor White says, Lectio indubie genuina: "This is doubtless the genuine reading."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. more than ten days] The oldest texts read “not more than eight or ten days.” This seems the more likely reading. It is more probable that the writer would use words to mark the shortness of the stay, than a form which would seem to describe ten days as a long residence at Jerusalem. Festus was evidently full of business and anxious to get it done.

and the next day] Rev. Ver. “on the morrow.” The Jewish authorities must have accepted the governor’s invitation, and have gone down along with him, so that the hearing could begin at once.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when he had tarried among them more than ten days,.... The Alexandrian copy, and three of Beza's copies, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version read, "no more than eight or ten days"; and the Syriac and Ethiopic versions leave out the phrase "no more", and read "when he had stayed there", as the former; that is, at Jerusalem; or "when he had remained among them", as the latter; the Jews, chief priests, and others, "eight or ten days"; the historian, not being certain to a day, expresses himself in this manner:

he went down to Caesarea; from whence he came, and where Paul was:

and the next day sitting in the judgment seat; the day after he was come to Caesarea, he sat upon the bench in the court of judicature, to try causes, and particularly the apostle's, which he was very desirous of knowing, for which reason he so soon took the bench: and

commanded Paul to be brought; from the place where he was kept a prisoner, to the judgment hall where Festus was.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.

Ver. 6. Commanded Paul to be brought] This is now the third time: and what if it had been the thirtieth? Cato (the very best of the Romans) as he was thirty-two times accused, so he was thirty-two times cleared and absolved.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

More than ten days - See the margin. The Syriac reads it, “eight or ten.” The Vulgate, “not more than eight or ten.” The Coptic, “eight or ten.” Griesbach supposes this to be the true reading, and has admitted it into the text.

Sitting in the judgment seat - On the tribunal; or holding a court for the trial of Paul.

Commanded Paul to be brought - To be brought up for trial. He had been secured, but was placed in the care of a soldier, who was commanded to let him have all the freedom that was consistent with his security.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

More than ten days; the margin gives an account of a diverse reading, unto which might be added another, viz. eight or ten days; which reading many follow, and is according unto the usual expression of such a short space of time, which need not to be exactly set down. Thus though God hath provided so, as there is little or no variety in setting down those truths or doctrines in Scripture which concern faith and manners, or our believing and holy living; yet in circumstances which (though they pertain to complete the history or genealogies in Scripture) are not necessary to be so exactly known, God left them not so, designed to exercise us in this state, wherein we know but in part, 1Co 13:9. Fundamental truths are not of such a depth but a lamb may wade or walk in them; but there are less material things of such a profundity, that an elephant may swim in them, and men of the highest understanding and deepest reach must cry out, ω Βαθος.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. More than ten days—Not so shortly, perhaps, as his answer in Act_25:4 implied; but his length of stay may have been in itself complimentary. But a better reading of the Greek text is not more than eight or ten days, which implies a keeping of his promise.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Not more than eight or ten days for more than ten days, A.V. and T.R.; on the morrow for the next day, A.V.; he sat... and commanded for sitting commanded, A.V. On the morrow (see ver. 17). To he brought (ajcqhnai). The technical word for bringing a prisoner before the (Act_6:12 Act_18:12; Luk_21:12 Luk_23:1, etc.)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Not more than ten days - A short space for a new governor to stay at such a city as Jerusalem. He could not with any convenience have heard and decided the cause of Paul within that time.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

more than ten

Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The beginning of the trial:

v. 6. And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day, sitting on the judgment-seat, commanded Paul to be brought.

v. 7. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.

v. 8. While he answered for himself, Neither against the Law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, nor yet against Caesar have I offended anything at all.

After the interview with the Jews, Festus remained in Jerusalem not more than eight or ten days, busy all the while in trying to get acquainted with the church government and with the various customs and usages of the Jews as they were acknowledged by the Roman government. Having journeyed down to Caesarea after that, he kept his promise to the Jews by setting the trial for the very next day. The narrative implies that the Jews had come down with Festus, and also indicates his promptness. When he had taken the judge’s chair, when he had sat down on the tribunal in the judgment-hall, he commanded that Paul be brought before him. When the prisoner had entered and taken the place indicated to him, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem crowded as near as they dared and stood round about him, their attitude being intended to intimidate him. Since any reference to their own Law and to disputes concerning their own customs would have been useless, they molded their charges to fit the occasion, bringing forth many and serious complaints. From the answer of Paul it seems that they tried to make his being a Christian a sin against their own Law, his supposed profanation of the Temple a sin against the Holy Place, and the alleged incitement of seditions a sin against Caesar. But all their assertions, with all their show of certainty, did not go for proof before the Roman tribunal, and proof the accusers were unable to bring. As for Paul, the threatening aspect, the dark scowls of the Jews, had no effect on him whatever, for with reference to every charge he was able to defend himself without the slightest difficulty. He maintained that he had committed a crime neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the Holy Place, nor against the emperor. Thus was truth and right vindicated against falsehood and evil; thus was the truss of Paul in his Lord rewarded with the Lord’s protection.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The equity and justice of Festus, an heathen judge, in his proceedings at St. Paul’s trial: he will have the high-priest and elders that accused him, speak to his face; he will have the matter examined by and before himself. When the malicious bring the innocent upon their trial, God will provide a judge for their turn.

Observe, 2. The indictment or charge which the Jews brought in against the apostle, That he had offended against the law, profaned the temple, and raised sedition against the Roman government.

Here we find the devil at his own trade; namely, stirring up the rage and malice of the world against the saints of God, under a pretence of their being enemies to the state, and subverters of civil government.

Observe, 3. That to be loaded with calumnies and reproaches has been the common lot and constant portion of the friends and servants of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity; The Jews laid many and grievous things against Paul, which they could not prove.

Reproach has been the reward of religion and righteousness: but St. Paul easily wipes off the several reproaches cast upon him, affirming himself to have been always a religious observer of the law, that he went into the temple upon a religious account, and that he had never taught nor practised any rebellion against Cesar. The servants of Christ are happy in their own innocency, and their adversaries render themselves odious by belying them, and laying that to their charge which every one can disprove.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6-8. He made no delay in granting them the promised hearing. (6) " And when he had remained among them not more than ten days, he went down to Cæsarea, and the next day sat upon his judgment seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around, bringing many and heavy charges against Paul, which they were not able to prove: (8) while he answered in defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Cæsar have I at all offended. " The specifications embraced in this defense are the same as in the defense against the speech of Tertullus before Felix, showing that the charges were still the same. Being a "ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes" was his sin against the law; the false imputation of taking Greeks into the temple, his sin against that holy place; and the excitement of sedition among the Jews, his sin against Cæsar. In the last specification, reference was had to the mobs which the Jews were in the habit of exciting against him, whose crimes were thus charged upon him.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

General Information:

Here the first three times the word "he" is used as well as the word "him," the words refer to Festus. The fourth word "he" refers to Paul.

General Information:

The word "they" refers to the Jews who came from Jerusalem.

down to Caesarea

Jerusalem is higher geographically than Caesarea. It was common to speak of coming down from Jerusalem.

sat in the judgment seat

Here "judgment seat" refers to Festus' ruling as judge over Paul's trial. AT: "sat upon the seat where he acted as judge" or "he sat down as judge" (See: Metonymy)

Paul to be brought to him

This can be stated in active form. AT: "his soldiers bring Paul to him" (See: Active or Passive)

When he arrived

"When he came and stood before Festus"

they brought many serious charges

Charging a person with a crime is spoken of as if it were an object that a person could bring to court. AT: "they spoke against Paul many serious things" (See: Metaphor)

against the temple

Paul says he did not break any rules about who could enter the Jerusalem temple. AT: "against the entry rules of the temple" (See: Synecdoche)

translationWords

Caesarea

judge

command

Paul

Jew

Jerusalem

temple

Caesar

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

6. ἡμέρας οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα with אABC. Vulg. ‘dies non amplius quam octo aut decem.’

6. ἡμέρας οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα, not more than eight or ten days. This seems a more likely reading than that of the Text. recept. It is more probable that the writer would use words to mark the shortness of the stay than a form which would seem to describe ten days as a long residence at Jerusalem. Festus was evidently full of business and anxious to get it done.

For the omission of ἤ after the comparative πλείους before numerals cf. Act 4:22, Act 23:13; Act 23:21, Act 24:11.

τῇ ἐπαύριον, the next day. The Jewish authorities must have accepted the governor’s invitation, and have gone down along with him, so that the hearing could begin at once. Probably they would think it good policy to join the party of Festus, as they might turn their opportunities on the journey to some account against St Paul.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6.] The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later mss., which have η for the ὀκτώ of the more ancient ones: thus η has been omitted on account of the η following. It is possible, as Meyer also observes, that a perverted notion of the necessity of an absolute precision in details in the inspired text, may have occasioned the erasure of one of the numbers.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Judgment - seat. See on ch. Act 7:5.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.