Expositor's Greek Testament
Acts 25:11. εἰ μὲν γὰρ, see critical note, “if then (οὗν) I am a wrongdoer,” referring to his standing before Cæsar’s judgment-seat, and not to the ἠδίκησα in
Acts 25:10.—ἀδικεῖν: only here absolutely in N.T.; the verb occurs five times in Acts, once in Luke’s Gospel, and once in St. Matthew, but not elsewhere in the Gospels (Friedrich, p. 23).—ἄξιον θαν., i.e., according to Roman law.—οὐ παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν: non recuso, Vulgate, so Blass; the verb is only used here in Acts, but it occurs three times in St. Luke’s Gospel, three times in Hebrews, once in
Mark 15:6, W.H[392]—
In the present passage, and in
1 Timothy 4:7;
1 Timothy 5:11,
2 Timothy 2:23,
Titus 3:10,
Hebrews 12:25 (twice), the word is rendered “refuse,” R.V. text; but in
Luke 14:18-19, the word is rendered “to make excuse”; “excused”: Jos., Ant., vii., 8, 2; but in each case the Greek verb literally means “to beg off from,” and the Latin deprecor might well express the verb both here and in Luke 14, l.c., cf.
Esther 4:8 in the sense of supplicating, and for the sense as above
2Ma 2:31, 3Ma 6:27; see also Grimm sub v. for different shades of meaning.
In Jos., Vita, 29, we have the phrase θανεῖνοὐ παραιτοῦμαι: upon which Krenkel insists as an instance of dependence upon Josephus, but not only is the phrase here somewhat different verbally, οὐ παραι. τὸ ἀποθ., the article expressing more emphatically, as Bengel says, id ipsum agi; but cf. the instances quoted by Wetstein of the use of similar phrases in Greek, and of the Latin deprecor, e.g., Dion. Hal., A.V., 29. τὸν μὲγ οὖν θάνατον … οὐ παραιτοῦμαι.
See further Introd., p. 31.—χαρίσασθαι: “to grant me by favour,” R.V. margin, cf.
Acts 3:14,
Acts 25:16,
Acts 27:24 (
Philemon 1:22), only in Luke and Paul in N.T.; see on its importance as marking the “We” section,
Acts 27:24, and other parts of Acts, Zeller, Acts, ii., 318, E.T.
Paul must have known what this “giving up” to the Jews would involve.—Καίσαρα ἐπικ.: Appello: provoco ad Cæsarem: “Si apud acta quis appellaverit, satis erit si dicat: Appello.” Digest., xlix., 1, 2, except in the case of notorious robbers and agitators whose guilt was clear, ibid., 16.
But we must distinguish between an appeal against a sentence already pronounced, and a claim at the commencement of a process that the whole matter should be referred to the emperor.
It would appear from this passage, cf.
Acts 27:21;
Acts 27:26;
Acts 27:32, that Roman citizens charged with capital offences could make this kind of appeal, for the whole narrative is based upon the fact that Paul had not yet been tried, and that he was to be kept for a thorough inquiry by the emperor, and to be brought to Rome for this purpose, cf. Pliny, Epist., x., 97, quoted by Schürer, Alford, and others, and similar instances in Renan, Saint Paul, p. 543, Schürer, Jewish People, div. 1., vol. ii., p. 59, and div. ii., vol. ii., p. 278, E.T., and also “Appeal,” Hastings’ B.D., and below, p. 514.—
This step of St. Paul’s was very natural. During his imprisonment under Felix he had hoped against hope that he might have been released, but although the character of Festus might have given him a more reasonable anticipation of justice, he had seen enough of the procurator to detect the vacillation which led him also to curry favour with the Jews.
From some points of view his position under Festus was more dangerous than under Felix: if he accepted the suggestion that he should go up to Jerusalem and be tried before the Sanhedrim, he could not doubt that his judges would find him guilty; if he declined, and Festus became the judge, there was still the manifest danger that the better judgment of the magistrate would be warped by the selfishness of the politician. Moreover, he may well have thought that at a distant court, where there might be difficulty in collecting evidence against him, he would fare better in spite of the danger and expense of the appeal.
But whilst we may thus base St. Paul’s action upon probable human motives, his own keen and long desire to see Rome,
Acts 19:21, and his Lord’s promise of the fulfilment of that desire,
Acts 23:11, could not have been without influence upon his decision, although other motives need not be altogether excluded, as St. Chrysostom, Ewald, Neander and Meyer (see Nösgen, 435). It has been maintained that there was every reason to suppose that St. Paul would have obtained his acquittal at the hands of the Roman authorities, especially after Agrippa’s declaration of his innocence,
Acts 26:32.
But St. Paul’s appeal had been already made before Agrippa had heard him, and he may well have come to the conclusion that the best he could hope for from Festus was a further period of imprisonment, whilst his release would only expose him to the bitter and relentless animosity of the Jews.
Two years of enforced imprisonment had been patiently borne, and the Apostle would be eager (can we doubt it?) to bear further witness before Gentiles and kings of his belief in Jesus as the Christ, and of repentance and faith towards God.
[392] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
