494
Χαρίσασθαι: Καΐσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι.
12. τότε 6 Φῆστος, συλλαλή-
A , / σας μετὰ τοῦ συμβουλίου, ἀπεκρίθη, Καίσαρα ἐπικέκλησαι, ἐπὶ
Καίσαρα πορεύσῃ.
further Introd., p. 31.--- χαρίσασθαι: “to grant me by favour,” R.V. margin, cf. iii. 14, xxv. 16, xxvii. 24 (Philem. ver. 22), only in Luke and Paul in N.T.; see on its importance as marking the “Με” section, xxvii. 24, and other parts of Acts, Zeller, Acts, ii., 318, E.T. Paul must have known what this “‘ giving αρ” to the Jews would involve.—Katoapa ἐπικ.: Appello: provoco ad Casarem: “Si apud acta quis appellaverit, satis erit sidicat : Appello.” Digest., xlix., 1, 2, except in the case of notorious robbers and agitators whose guilt was clear, zbid., 16. But we must distinguish between an appeal against a sentence already pronounced, and a claim at the com- mencement of a process that the whole matter should be referred to the emperor. It would appear from this passage, cf. vv. 21, 26, 32, that Roman citizens charged with capital offences could make this kind of appeal, for the whole narra- tive 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 Schirer, Alferd, and others, and similar instances in Renan, Saint Paul, p. 543, Schurer, Fewish People, div. 1., vol. ii., p. 5ο, and div. ii., vol. Π., p. 278, E.T., and also “Appeal,” Has- tings’ 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 danger- ous than under Felix: if he accepted the suggestion that he should go up to Jerusalem and be tried before the San- hedrim, 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 cbe 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, xix. 21, and his Lord’s promise of the fulfilment of that desire, xxiii. 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 Nésgen, 435). It has been main- tained that there was every reason to suppose that St. Paul would have ob- tained his acquittal at the hands of the Roman authorities, especially after Agrippa’s declaration of his innocence, xxvi. 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.
Ver. 12. μετὰ τοῦ συµβ., {1.Ε., his assessors, assessores consiliarii, with whom the procurators were wont to consult in the administration of the law. They were probably composed, in part at all events, of the higher officials of the court, cf. Suet., Tiber., 33, Lamprid., Vita Alex. Sev., 46, Jos., Ant., xiv., I0, 2, Schirer, fewish People, div. i., vol. ii., p. 60, E.T.; and see further on the word Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 65, and references in Grimm-Thayer, sub v. It would seem that the procurator could only reject such an appeal at his peril, unless in cases where delay might be followed by danger, or when there was manifestly no room for an appeal, Dig., xlix., 5, and see Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, p. 252, and Blass, in loco.—K. ἐπικ.: no question, W.H., R.V., Weiss (as in A.V.) ; “asynd. rhetori- cum cum anaphora,” Blass, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 18, 21, 27. The decision of the procurator that the appeal must be al- lowed, and the words in which it was