CHAPTER 25

Acts 25:2. ὁ ἀρχιερεύς] οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς is decidedly attested. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The singular arose from Acts 24:1.

Acts 25:4. εἰς Καισάρ.] so Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testimony. Elz. Scholz have ἐν Καισαρείᾳ. An interpretation.

Acts 25:5. τούτῳ] A B C E א, min. Arm. Vulg. Lucifer, have ἄτοπον. So Lachm. and Born. But how easily, with the indefiniteness of the expression εἴ τι ἐστὶν ἐν κ.τ.λ., was ἄτοπον suggested as a gloss, perhaps from a recollection of Luke 23:41! This then supplanted the superfluous τούτῳ. Other codd. have τούτῳ ἄτοπον. And ἄτοπον is found variously inserted.

Acts 25:6. οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα] so Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, Born. But Elz. has πλείους ἢ δέχα, in opposition to A B C א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. As the oldest codd., in which the numbers are written as words, likewise all the oldest vss. (of which, however, several omit οὐ, and several οὐ πλείους), have ὀκτώ, it is very probable that in later witnesses the number written by the numeral sign η was absorbed by the following ἤ. Finally, the omission of οὐ was suggested by ἐν τάχει, Acts 25:4, as it was thought that διατρίψας δὲ … δέκα must be taken as a contrast to ἐν τάχει (he promised to depart speedily, yet he tarried, etc.).

Acts 25:7. αἰτιάματα] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. read αἰτιω̇ματα, which is so decidedly attested that, notwithstanding that this form does not occur elsewhere, it must be adopted.

φέροντες κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read καταφέροντες, following A B C א, loti. 40, Vulg. Lucifer. The Recepta is one interpretation of this; another is ἐπιφέρ. τῷ Π. in E.

Acts 25:11. γάρ] A B C E א, min. Copt. Slav. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, have οὖν, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. Rightly; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀδικῶ seemed entirely at variance with the preceding οὐδὲν ἠδίκησα.

Acts 25:15. δίκην] A B א, min. Bas. have καταδίκην. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. An interpretation.

Acts 25:16. After ἄνθρωπον Elz. Scholz have εἰς ἀπώλειαν. It is wanting in preponderating witnesses, and is an addition of the nature of a gloss.

Acts 25:18. ἐπέφερον] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἔφερον, according to decisive testimony.

After ὑπν. ἐγώ A C* have πονηράν (so Lachm.), and B E א** πονηρῶν (so Born.). Two different exegetical additions.

Acts 25:20. τούτων] has decisive attestation. But Elz. Scholz have τούτου, which (not to be taken with Grotius and others as the neuter) was occasioned by the preceding ὁ Παῦλος and the following εἰ βούλοιτο.

Acts 25:21. ἀναπέμψω is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testimony, instead of πέμψω. The reference of the compound was overlooked.

Acts 25:22. ἔφη, and afterwards ὁ δέ, are deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to A B א; and rightly. They were added by way of completion.

Acts 25:25. καταλαβόμενος] Lachm. and Born. read κατελαβόμην, following A B C E א** loti. Vulg. Copt. Syr., which witnesses also omit καί before αὐτοῦ. A logical emendation.

Acts 25:26. σχῶ, τι γράψαι] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read σχῶ, τί γράψω, according to A B C, min. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the preceding.

Acts 25:1. Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed.

ἐπιβαίνειν, with the dative. See Thuc. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. 1. 19; Diod. xvi. 66; Pind. Nem. iii. 19.

τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ (Acts 23:34); for the procurators were also called ἔπαρχοι. See Krebs in loc.

Acts 25:2-3. Ἐνεφάνισαν κ.τ.λ.] See on Acts 24:1.

οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς] see the critical remarks, as in Acts 22:30; consequently not merely the acting high priest (as in Acts 24:1), who at that time was Ishmael, son of Phabi, and successor of Ananias. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11.

καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων] thus not merely the πρεσβύτεροι, Acts 24:1. The opposition now came forward in a larger spiritual and secular representation of the nation against the enemy of the national religion. It is true that most of these πρῶτοι were without doubt Sanhedrists, and therefore also Festus, Acts 25:15, names them directly a potiori πρεσβύτεροι, Acts 25:15; but this does not justify the assertion of Grotius, that Luke here uses πρῶτοι as equivalent to πρεσβ. So also de Wette and Ewald. Acts 25:5 is opposed to this view.

αἰτούμενοι χάριν κ.τ.λ.] desiring for themselves favour against him. Comp. Acts 25:15.

ὅπως κ.τ.λ.] The design of παρεκάλ. αὐτ.

ἐνέδραν ποιοῦντες κ.τ.λ.] an accompanying definition to παρεκάλουν … Ἱερουσαλήμ, giving a significant explanation of the peculiar nature of this proceeding: inasmuch as they (thereby) formed a snare, in order to put him to death (through assassins), by the way.

Acts 25:4. For the reasons of the decision, see Acts 25:16.

By τηρεῖσθαι … ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the reply of refusal: “Paul remains at Caesarea,” is expressed indirectly indeed, but with imperative decidedness. Observe in this case the τηρεῖσθαι emphatically prefixed in contrast to μεταπέμψ., Acts 25:3.

εἰς Καισάρ.] In Caesarea, whither he was brought in custody, Acts 19:22, Acts 21:13.

Notice the contrast between the Jewish baseness and the strict order of the Roman government.

Acts 25:5. The decidedly attested order of the words is: οἱ οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν φησιν δύνατοι (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann). See on similar intervening insertions of φησι, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 13; Bornemann, ad loc.; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 472 D. οἱ δυνατοὶ ἐν ὑμ. are: the holders of power among you, i.e. those who are invested with the requisite official power (for making a public complaint in the name of the Jewish nation). Thus the usual literal meaning of δυνατός is to be retained, and it is neither to be explained, with Erasmus, as idonei; nor, with Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Homberg: quibus commodum est; nor, with Bengel: those who are strong for the journey; nor, with Er. Schmid and Wolf (comp. Castalio, de Dieu, and others): quibus in promptu sunt accusandi capita. Certainly if οἱ πρῶτοι, Acts 25:2, were the same as οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, then οἱ δυνατοὶ ἐν ὑμῖν would be unsuitable, as those persons in power were just the Sanhedrists; wherefore οἱ πρῶτοι must include also other prominent persons.

συγκαταβ.] having gone down with me. Thuc. vi. 30. 2; Diod. xii. 30; Wis 10:13; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 398.

εἴ τι ἐστίν] namely, an object of accusation.

Acts 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. Acts 25:18. Grotius and Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to τὸ βῆμα.

πολλὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ.] as in John 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. Genesis 37:2; Deuteronomy 22:14.

Acts 25:8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated for his vindication, that, etc. On ἀπολογεῖσθαι with ὅτι (more frequently with ὡς), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22.

οὔτε κ.τ.λ.] These were consequently the three principal points to which the πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα of the Jews referred. Comp. Acts 21:28, Acts 24:5 f., to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly against Jesus.

Acts 25:9. Χάριν καταθέσθαι] see on Acts 24:27.

θέλεις … ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ;) Grotius correctly renders: visne a Synedrio judicari me praesente? For that Festus meant a κρίνεσθαι by the Sanhedrim, is evident of itself from εἰς Ἱεροσ. ἀναβ. and ἐκεῖ.

ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ] coram me. Bengel aptly observes: hoc Festus speciose addit.

Paul must be asked the question, θέλεις, because he had already been delivered over to the higher Roman authority, and accordingly as a Roman citizen could not be compelled again to renounce the Roman tribunal.

If Festus had previously (Acts 25:4) without ceremony refused the request of the Jews, which was at variance with the course of Roman law, he now shows, on the other hand, after they had conformed to the ordinary mode of procedure, that he was quite willing to please them. Certainly he could not doubt beforehand that his θέλεις would be answered in the negative by Paul; yet by his question he made the Jews sensible at least that the frustration of their wish did not proceed from any indisposition on his part.

Acts 25:10. Paul gives a frank and firm refusal to that request, both positively (ἐπὶ τοῦ βήμ. Καίσ. κ.τ.λ.) and negatively (Ἰουδαίους οὐδὲν κ.τ.λ., to the Jews I have committed no offence).

ἐπὶ τ. βήμ. Καίσαρος] for “quae acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Caesaris, sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Caesare ipso gesta sint,” Ulpian. L. I. D. de offic. procuratoris.

κάλλιον] namely, than appears to follow from your question. Paul makes his judge feel that he ought not to have proposed that θέλεις κ.τ.λ. to him at all, as it could not but conflict with his own better conviction.

Acts 25:11. From his preceding declaration that he must be judged before the imperial tribunal, and not by Jews, Paul now reasons (οὖν, as the correct reading instead of γάρ, see the critical remarks) that he accordingly by no means refuses to die, if, namely, he is in the wrong; but in the opposite case, etc. In other words: “Accordingly, I submit myself to the penalty of the Roman law, if I am guilty; but if,” etc. And, in order to be sure of the protection of Roman law, amidst the inclination of Festus to please the Jews, he immediately adds the appeal to the Emperor.

εἰ … ἀδικῶ] If I am at fault. See Krüger, Index. Xen. Anab.; Jacobitz, ad Luc. Tim. 25, p. 25 f.; Heind. ad Plat. Protag. § 4, p. 463 f. The idea of the word presupposes the having done wrong (Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 5. 12), therefore the added καὶ ἄξιον θαν. πέπρ. contains a more precise definition of ἀδικῶ, and that according to the degree.

οὐ παραιτοῦμαι κ.τ.λ.] non deprecor. Comp. Joseph. Vit. 29; Herod. i. 24 : ψυχὴν δὲ παραιτεόμενον. Lys. adv. Sim. § Acts 4 : ἀξιῶ δὲ … εἰ μὲν ἀδικῷ, μηδεμιο͂ς συγγνώμης τυγχάνειν.

τὸ ἀποθανεῖν] “id ipsum agi, notat articulus,” Bengel. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 226[E. T. 262].

εἰ δὲ οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν] but if there exists nothing of that, of which they, etc. ὧν is by attraction for τούτων ἅ. Comp. Acts 24:8; Luke 23:14.

δύναται] namely, according to the possibility conditioned by the subsisting legal relations.

αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι] to surrender me to them out of complaisance. See on Acts 3:14.

Καίσαρα ἐπικαλ.] I appeal to the Emperor. See examples from Plutarch of ἐπικαλ. in Wetstein; also Plut. Graech. 16; in Dem. and others: ἐφιέναι. Certainly the revelation, Acts 23:11, contributed to Paul’s embracing this privilege of his citizenship (see Grotius in loc.; Krebs, de provocat. Pauli ad Caes. in his Opusc. p. 143 ff.). “Non vitae suae, quam ecclesiae consulens,” Augustine accordingly says, Ephesians 2.

Acts 25:12. The conference of Festus with the council acting as his advisers, as may be inferred from the answer afterwards given, referred to the question whether the ἐπίκλησις of the Emperor was to be granted without more ado. For in cases of peculiar danger, or of manifest groundlessness of the appeal, it might be refused. See Geib, l.c. p. 684 f. The consiliarii (Suet. Tib. 33) of the provincial rulers were called also πάρεδροι, assessores (Suet. Galba, 19). See generally, Perizonius, de Praetorio, p. 718; Ewald, p. 326.

After ἐπικέκλ., the elsewhere usual note of interrogation (which simply spoils the solemnity and force of the answer) is already condemned by Grotius.

Baumgarten thinks that, from the appeal to Caesar (which in his view will not have been pernicious to Paul), and from Acts 27:24, it may be inferred that the Acts of the Apostles is decidedly favourable to the supposition of a liberation of Paul from the Roman imprisonment. Too rash a conclusion. Neither the appeal nor Acts 27:24 points beyond Rome. To Rome he wished to go (appeal), and was to go (Acts 27:24).

Acts 25:13. This Marcus Agrippa was the well-meaning, but too weak, Herod Agrippa II., son of the elder Agrippa, grandson of Aristobulus, and the great-grandson of Herod I. Soon after the death of his father (Acts 12:23) he received from Claudius, at whose court he was brought up (Joseph. Antt. xix. 9. 2, xx. 1. 1), the principality of Chalcis, and instead of this, four years afterwards (A.D. 53), from the same emperor, the former tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, along with the title of king (Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1); and at a later period, from Nero, a further considerable increase of territory. He did not die till the third year of Trajan, being the last reigning prince of the Herodian house. See Ewald, p. 555 ff.; Gerlach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 62 ff.

Βερνίκη, also Beronice and Berenice (i.e. equivalent to Φερενίκη, Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 31), was his sister, formerly the wife of her uncle Herod the prince of Chalcis, after whose death she lived with her brother,—probably in an incestuous relation (Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 3),—a state of matters which was only for a short time interrupted by a second marriage, soon again dissolved, with the Cilician king Polemon (Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 5). At a later period still she became mistress of the Emperors Vespasian and Titus. See Gerlach, l.c.

ἀσπασόμενοι] It was quite in keeping with the relation of a Roman vassal, that he should welcome the new procurator soon after his accession to office.

Acts 25:14. The following conversation between Festus and Agrippa most naturally appears not as a communication by an ear-witness (Riehm, Kuinoel), but as drawn up by Luke himself as a free composition; for he had the materials for the purpose in his accurate information, received from Paul, as to the occurrence set forth in Acts 25:7 ff.

ἀνέθετο] he set forth, enarravit, Galatians 2:2. His design in this was (see Acts 25:26 f.) to learn the opinion of the king; for Agrippa, as an Idumean, as belonging himself to Judaism (comp. Acts 26:27; also Schoettg. Hor. p. 481), and especially as chief overseer of the temple and of the election of high priest (Joseph. Antt. xx. 1. 3), was accurately acquainted with the state of Jewish affairs.

Acts 25:15-16. Αἰτούμενοι κ.τ.λ.] asking for punishment against him. That δίκην (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Judges 1:7) is so to be taken (according to its very frequent use by the classical writers, see Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 162 f.; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 538), is shown by Acts 25:16. Comp. the passages with αἰτ. δίκ. in Wetstein.

πρὶν ἤ] refers to the conception of condemnation contained in καρίζεσθαι. As to the principle of Roman law here expressed, see Grotius in loc., and on Acts 16:37. Likewise as to the Greek law, see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 160. On the optative with πρίν after a negative clause, when the matter is reported “ut in cogitatione posita,” see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726.

Acts 25:17-20. After they had therefore come together here (to Caesarea, just as in Acts 25:24), I made no delay, etc. See examples of ἀναβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι (comp. ἀναβάλλεσθαι, Acts 24:22) in Wetstein.

Acts 25:18. περὶ οὗ] belongs to σταθέντες. Comp. Acts 25:7.

αἰτίαν ἔφερον (see the critical remarks): they brought no accusation. The classical expression would be αἰτ. ἐπιφέρειν (Herod. i. 26; Thuc. vi. 76; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 856 E; and often in the orators), or ἐπάγειν (Dem. 275. 4).

ὧν (instead of ἐκείνων ἃ) ὑπενόουν ἐγώ] In the case of a man already so long imprisoned, and assailed with such ardent hostility, Festus very naturally supposed that there existed some peculiar capital crimes, chiefly, perhaps, of a political nature. It is true that political charges were also brought forward (Acts 25:8), but “hinc iterum conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias, ut in judicii rationem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet,” Calvin.

Acts 25:19. περὶ τῆς ἰδίας δεισιδαιμ.] concerning their own religion. Festus prudently uses this vox media, leaving it to Agrippa to take the word in a good sense, but reserving withal his own view, which was certainly the Roman one of the Judaica superstitio (Quinctil. iii. 8). Comp. on Acts 17:22.

ζῆν] that he lives, namely, risen and not again dead. Moreover, the words καὶ περί τινος Ἰησοῦ … ζῆν bear quite the impress of the indifference and insignificance which Festus attached to this very point, inasmuch as, in regard to the τεθνηκότος, he does not even condescend to designate the mode of death, and, as regards the ζῆν, sees in it an empty pretence (ἔφασκεν, comp. Acts 24:9).

Acts 25:20. ἀπορούμενος] but I, uncertain on my part. Quite in accordance with the circumstances of the case (for before the king, Festus might not lay himself open to any imputation of partiality), Luke makes the procurator keep silence over the real motive of his proposal (Acts 25:9).

εἰς τὴν περὶ τούτων ζήτ.] regarding the investigation to be held on account of these (to me so strange) matters (ζήτησις in the judicial sense, as in Pol. vi. 16. 2). Instead of εἰς τὴν κ.τ.λ. (comp. Soph. Trach. 1233), Luke might have written only (as A H actually read) τὴν κ.τ.λ. (Heind. ad Plat. Crat. p. 409 C), or τῆς κ.τ.λ. (Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 557 D).

Acts 25:21. After, however, Paul had appealed to be kept in ward (Acts 25:4) for the cognizance (judicial decision, Wis 3:18, and often in the classical writers) of Augustus, etc.

τηρηθῆναι] is not equivalent to εἰς τὸ τηρηθ. (Grotius, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others), but is the contents of the expressed appeal, namely, the legal demand which it contained. After this appeal had been in law validly made, no further proceedings might be taken by the authorities at their own instance against the appellant. See Wetstein on Acts 25:11.

αὐτόν] is not to be written αὑτόν, as there is no reflexive emphasis.

Σεβαστός] Venerandus, the Lat. Augustus, the well-known title of the emperors since the time of Octavianus[157] (αὐτὸς γενόμενος ἀρχὴ σεβασμοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἔπειτα, Philo, Leg. ad Caium, p. 1012). Vell. Paterc. ii. 91; Dio Cass. liii. 16; Herodian, ii. 10. 19, iii. 13. 7; Strabo, vii. p. 291.

ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω (see the critical remarks[158]) is direct address. Comp. on Acts 23:12.

[157] See generally, Fincke, de appellationib. Caesarum honorif. et adulator. usque ad Hadrian., Regiom. 1867.

[158] On ἀναπέμπειν, to send up, of the transport of prisoners to Rome, comp. Polyb. i. 7. 12, xxix. 11. 9; Lucian, Tox. 17; and Jacob in loc. See also on Luke 23:7.

Acts 25:22. The narrative of Festus has excited the Jewish interest of the king, so that he also, on his part (κ. αὐτός), wishes to hear the prisoner.

ἐβουλόμην] quite like our: I wished [Germ.: ich wollte], namely, if it admitted of being done. Comp. Romans 9:3; Galatians 4:20. See Winer, p. 265 f. [E. T. 353]. Calvin erroneously infers from the imperfect that Agrippa had previously cherished a wish to hear Paul, but had hitherto refrained from expressing it, in order not to appear as if he had come for any other reason than to salute Festus.

αὔριον ἀκούσῃ … αὐτοῦ] The wish of the king is very welcome to the procurator. Why? see Acts 25:26.

Acts 25:23. Φαντασία, show, pomp, παραπομπή (1Ma 9:37), ambitio (Nep. x. 2. 2). See Polyb. xv. 25. 5, xvi. 21. 1, xxxii. 12. 6; Diog. L. iv. 53; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 152; and Wetstein.

τὸ ἀκροατήριον (Plut. Moral. p. 45 F, 937 D, Cat. 22) is the audience-chamber appointed for the present occasion. That it was, as is assumed, just the usual judgment-hall, is at least not conveyed in the words.

σύν τε τοῖς κ.τ.λ.] τέ is placed after σύν, not after χιλιάρχ., because the σύν is again mentally supplied before ἀνδράσι. See Schoemann, ad Isae. p. 325 f.; Stallb. ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. By τοῖς χιλιάρχοις (there were five cohorts, and therefore five tribunes in Caesarea) and by ἄνδρασι … πόλεως are meant the principal military and the prominent civil personages of the city.

Instead of τοῖς κατʼ ἐξοχὴν οὖσι, a classical writer would say τοῖς ἐξόχοις or ἐξοχωτάτοις. On the periphrastic κατά, see Winer, p. 396 [E. T. 528].

Acts 25:24-25. Θεωρεῖτε] Indicative.

πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος] appears to conflict with Acts 25:2; Acts 25:15, and is at all events an exaggeration. But how natural is it to suppose that the persons there named were accompanied by an impetuous crowd! Hence also ἐπιβοῶντες. On ἐνέτυχόν μοι, they have approached me, in a hostile spirit towards him, comp. 1Ma 8:32; 1Ma 10:61; 2Ma 4:36. On ἐνθάδε, comp. Acts 25:17.

καὶ αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου] and, on the other hand (καὶ … δέ, as in Acts 22:29; see on John 6:51), this person himself (itemque ipse ille).

Acts 25:26-27. Ἀσφαλές τι] something trustworthy, whereby the emperor (ὁ κύριος, Dominus, the appellation declined by Augustus and Tiberius, but accepted by their successors, see Wolf and Wetstein, also Dougt. Anal. p. 96; Fincke, l.c.) may inform himself certainly concerning the state of matters. Such a fixing of the real αἰτία had not been possible for the procurator, who had to draw up the literae dimissoriae, so long as the proceedings were constantly disturbed and confused by intentional fabrications of the Jews.

ἀνακρίσ.] A preliminary examination, “judicis edocendi causa,” Grotius. See also Heind. ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 277 E; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 141. 1.

In σχῶ τὶ γράψω (see the critical remarks) γράψω is the future (see on Php 1:22): what I am to write.

ἄλογον] unreasonable, absurd, Thuc. vi. 85. 1; Plat. Gorg. p. 519 E, Apol. p. 18 C. Without εἶναι: see Sauppe, and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 5.

τὰς κατʼ αὐτοῦ αἰτίας] This was just the ἀσφαλές, which was still wanting to the procurator. Without having made himself clear as to the contents of the charges brought against Paul, he would have been obliged frankly to report to the emperor that he was in ignorance of them. Olshausen, however, is hasty in holding that, with the placing of the apostle before Agrippa the prediction of the Lord (Matthew 10:18; Mark 13:9) was now for the first time fulfilled. We know far too little of the previous history of the other apostles to be able to take this ground. Perhaps the elder James and Peter had already stood before Herod (Agrippa I.), xii. 2, 3 f. But Paul stood here for the first time before a king, who, however, is by no means to be considered as the representative of the power of the heathen world (as Baumgarten supposes), as Agrippa was himself a Jew (see on Acts 25:14), ruled over the Jews, was by Paul addressed as a Jew (Acts 26:3; Acts 26:27), and was, in fact, even regarded as representative of the Jews (see παρʼ ὑμῖν, Acts 26:8).