Homiletics Analysis: Acts 25:13–22
Content & Intent
This Text — Content:
Acts 25:13–22 records the arrival of King Agrippa II and Bernice at Caesarea to pay their respects to the newly appointed governor Festus. In the course of their visit, Festus recounts to Agrippa the case of Paul — a prisoner left behind by Felix whose accusers could produce no criminal charge but only disputes about “their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive” (v. 19). Festus explains his own perplexity regarding how to handle the matter, describes his conversation with Paul about whether he would be willing to go to Jerusalem for trial, notes that Paul appealed to Caesar, and concludes by requesting Agrippa’s counsel since Paul’s case must be forwarded to Rome but Festus has nothing definitive to write. The section closes with Agrippa expressing a desire to hear Paul himself, which Festus immediately arranges.
The passage is transitional and dialogical: no sermon, no defense, no miracle. Paul himself does not speak. What dominates the scene is Festus speaking to Agrippa about Paul, and specifically about the resurrection claim that sits at the center of everything.
This Text — Intent:
Luke’s intent in preserving this scene is not merely to document Roman legal procedure but to demonstrate how sovereign providence moves the most powerful human actors — a Roman governor, a Jewish client king — as instruments to bring Paul and the gospel before the highest available audience in the region. God is not behind the scenes; He is directing the scene. Festus, entirely without spiritual perception, nevertheless articulates the core of the gospel (“a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive”) and confesses he does not know what to make of it. Agrippa, the very person with authority and competence to assess Jewish religious questions, is drawn in by curiosity and positioned to hear the gospel. The passage is designed to show the reader that the gospel advances not despite imperial power and legal entanglement but through them — and that the resurrection claim cannot be suppressed even by those who do not believe it.
Subject Sentence:
God sovereignly maneuvers Roman power and Jewish royalty to bring the resurrection claim before those who cannot ignore it.
Primary Claim:
God is demonstrating that no legal system, no political authority, and no human indifference can contain the forward movement of the gospel — His sovereign purpose overrules every circumstance and positions the resurrection claim precisely where He intends it to be heard.
Interpretive Evaluation
The passage as Lukan apologetic versus Lukan theology of mission: A significant interpretive question involves Luke’s primary purpose in this section. Some interpreters — notably those reading Acts as a legal apologetic (Sherwin-White, some traditional commentators) — read chapters 24–26 primarily as a demonstration that Christianity is legally innocent and deserving of religio licita status within the Roman Empire. On this reading, Festus’s perplexity is significant mainly as evidence that Paul committed no crime. This reading is worth acknowledging: Luke clearly does intend to show Paul’s innocence repeatedly, and the legal framing is not incidental. However, to read these chapters primarily as legal apologetics is to miss what Luke consistently foregrounds throughout Acts — not Paul’s innocence per se, but the unstoppable advance of the gospel through every circumstance, including imprisonment. The legal-apologetic reading treats the container as the content. The Reformed and redemptive-historical reading recognizes that the legal machinery serves the missionary purpose.
Festus’s description of the gospel (v. 19): Verse 19 is exegetically significant. Festus, a Gentile with no theological investment, summarizes Paul’s preaching as centered on “a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive.” Some interpreters treat this as evidence that even sympathetic Romans found the resurrection claim intellectually embarrassing — essentially a first-century example of the resurrection being a stumbling block to sophisticated minds. This reading partially holds and is worth qualifying: Festus clearly does not understand the claim’s weight, but Luke’s point is precisely that the resurrection cannot be neutralized even by those who do not comprehend it. Festus’s very perplexity is the resurrection’s power — he is forced to articulate it accurately even while finding it baffling. The claim cannot be domesticated into a dispute about religious opinion; it breaks out of every category Festus tries to put it in.
Agrippa’s interest as spiritual openness versus strategic curiosity: Some commentators read Agrippa’s desire to hear Paul (v. 22) as evidence of genuine spiritual seeking. This is difficult to sustain from the text alone. Agrippa is a client king with political and cultural expertise in Jewish affairs — his interest in Paul’s case is most naturally read as expert curiosity, not spiritual hunger. Luke’s point is not that Agrippa is being drawn to faith at this moment but that his very competence and curiosity make him the ideal audience for what Paul is about to say in chapter 26. Providence does not require willing instruments; it uses even the merely curious to accomplish its purposes.
Reformed reading: The passage is best read as a specimen of Lukan theology of sovereign advance — the same pattern that runs from Acts 1:8 through to the end of the book. God uses Festus’s perplexity, Agrippa’s curiosity, Roman legal procedure, and Paul’s appeal to Caesar as a single orchestrated movement that positions the resurrection claim before the highest available ears in the region. The passage is not about Paul’s competence, Festus’s fairness, or Agrippa’s potential faith — it is about the Lord’s faithfulness to His word that Paul would bear witness “before kings” (Acts 9:15).
Key Canonical Support
Acts 9:15 — The Lord’s commission to Ananias concerning Paul: “He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” This passage is the direct fulfillment of that word; Agrippa is “kings,” and the commission is being executed in real time.
Luke 21:12–15 — Jesus’ prediction that His followers would be brought before kings and governors, and that they should not prepare their testimony in advance because He would give them words that opponents could not contradict. Acts 25:13–22 is the staging ground for exactly this kind of providentially arranged testimony.
Proverbs 21:1 — “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Agrippa’s curiosity and Festus’s initiative in arranging the hearing are human actions that God is directing without coercion or manipulation.
Philippians 1:12–14 — Paul’s own reflection that his imprisonment has “served to advance the gospel.” The Acts 25 passage is a historical illustration of precisely this principle — the legal process does not impede the gospel; it becomes its vehicle.
Isaiah 55:10–11 — God’s word will not return to Him void but will accomplish what He purposes. Even Festus’s clumsy, uncomprehending summary of the resurrection (“a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive”) is the word going out — God’s purposes are not dependent on the eloquence or faith of those who carry the claim forward.
Aim:
To show from this passage that the believer’s confidence in gospel advance is grounded not in favorable circumstances or powerful advocates but in the sovereign faithfulness of God who positions His word exactly where He intends it to land.
Content Table
| Verse(s) | Content | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Agrippa and Bernice arrive at Caesarea to greet Festus | Agrippa II is Herod Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I (Acts 12); client king of Judea’s northeastern territories; expert in Jewish affairs. Bernice is his sister. |
| 14a | After several days, Festus lays Paul’s case before Agrippa | Festus initiates the conversation — not Agrippa. The political visit becomes the occasion for providence. |
| 14b–15 | Festus describes Paul as a man left behind by Felix, against whom the Jewish leadership sought condemnation | Festus characterizes Paul’s opponents accurately: they “asked for a sentence against him.” Felix left the problem unsolved. |
| 16 | Festus explains that Roman law requires accusers and accused to face each other before condemnation | A point of Roman legal principle — Festus is trying to explain to Agrippa why he didn’t simply condemn Paul to please the Jews. He demonstrates procedural integrity, however motivated. |
| 17–18 | Festus describes the Jerusalem hearing: he convened court promptly; the accusers brought no criminal charges | “No charge in his case that I supposed” — Festus expected serious crimes; he found only theological dispute. |
| 19 | Festus summarizes the dispute: “their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive” | The theological and exegetical center of the passage. The resurrection claim is articulated by an unbeliever with complete accuracy and complete incomprehension. Deisidaimonia (“religion/superstition”) is a neutral-to-slightly-condescending term for religious observance. |
| 20 | Festus expresses his perplexity and describes asking Paul about going to Jerusalem | “Being at a loss how to investigate these questions” — Festus is honestly out of his depth. This is not false modesty. |
| 21 | Paul appealed to be kept in custody for Caesar’s decision; Festus ordered him held until sent to Augustus | “Augustus” (Sebastos) — the imperial title. Paul’s appeal to Caesar is now on record; Festus is obligated to forward the case. |
| 22 | Agrippa expresses desire to hear Paul; Festus arranges it for the next day | “I myself have been wanting to hear the man” — Agrippa’s curiosity is immediate and personal. The scene is now set for Acts 26. |
Divisions Table
| Division | Verses | Label |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13–14a | The Occasion: A Political Visit Becomes a Providential Appointment |
| 2 | 14b–16 | The Summary: Festus Describes the Case and His Procedural Dilemma |
| 3 | 17–19 | The Core: Festus Articulates the Resurrection Claim He Cannot Resolve |
| 4 | 20–21 | The Complication: Paul’s Appeal to Caesar and Festus’s Obligation |
| 5 | 22 | The Opening: Agrippa Is Drawn In and the Hearing Is Arranged |
Subject Sentence & Primary Claim (restated)
Subject Sentence: God sovereignly maneuvers Roman power and Jewish royalty to bring the resurrection claim before those who cannot ignore it.
Primary Claim: God is demonstrating that no legal system, no political authority, and no human indifference can contain the forward movement of the gospel — His sovereign purpose overrules every circumstance and positions the resurrection claim precisely where He intends it to be heard.
Applications (Five)
1. Reframe your “stuck” circumstances as potential staging grounds for gospel advance. (Mind/Belief) Paul is in custody, without a verdict, caught between a governor who cannot judge him and a capital that has not yet received his appeal. By every visible measure, his situation is stalled. But Luke records this passage so that the reader sees what Paul could not — that every element of the stall is a component of the setup. The believer who faces institutional obstruction, unanswered prayers for open doors, or prolonged seasons of waiting is not outside God’s purpose — they may be inside the preparation. Cultivate the interpretive habit of asking not “why is nothing happening?” but “what is God positioning?”
2. Rest your confidence in the resurrection claim’s own indestructibility, not in the competence of those who carry it. (Affections/Worship) Festus articulates the resurrection with accuracy and without faith. He does not know what to do with it. He finds it baffling and somewhat embarrassing. And yet the claim goes forward — to Agrippa’s ears, to Rome’s ears, and through Luke’s account to every reader since. The gospel does not depend on articulate advocates, sympathetic authorities, or spiritually prepared audiences. Worship the God whose word cannot be contained by those who misunderstand it, and release the anxiety that says “if I don’t explain this perfectly, the opportunity is lost.”
3. Refuse the conclusion that political or institutional hostility is evidence of gospel failure. (Mind/Belief) It would have been easy — and wrong — to read Paul’s legal entanglement as evidence that his mission had been derailed. The Jewish leadership opposed him. Felix left him in prison. Festus is perplexed. None of these are signs of failure; all of them are instruments of advance. The contemporary believer who looks at cultural hostility toward Christianity, shrinking institutional tolerance for Christian witness, or personal professional cost for faith-based conviction and concludes “the gospel is losing” has misread the pattern Acts is establishing. God’s purposes are not defeated by opposition; they frequently run through it.
4. Pray with specific expectation that God will position the gospel before people who currently have no intention of receiving it. (Will/Behavior) Agrippa came to Caesarea to congratulate Festus on his new posting. He did not come to hear a prisoner preach. Festus raised Paul’s case because he needed advice, not because he was seeking spiritual direction. Neither man intended to be drawn into proximity with the resurrection claim — and yet both were. Identify one person in your life or sphere of influence who seems structurally insulated from the gospel — powerful, busy, self-sufficient, surrounded by the wrong people. Pray specifically that God would engineer a Festus-to-Agrippa moment: a conversation neither party planned that results in the claim being heard.
5. Let the sovereignty of God in gospel advance free you from the idol of strategic control. (Affections/Worship) The church in every generation is tempted to believe that gospel advance depends primarily on the right strategy, the right platform, the right cultural moment, the right political alignment, or the right messenger. Acts 25:13–22 shows God advancing His purposes through a confused pagan governor, a politically ambitious client king, an imperial legal appeal, and a prisoner who says nothing in this passage at all. The idol of strategic control whispers that if we just get the conditions right, the gospel will move. This passage calls that idol by name and dismantles it: God is the strategist. Your job is faithful presence and bold witness when the door opens — not engineering the door.
Theological Importance
Theological Importance:
This passage teaches that God’s sovereign governance of history is not confined to the explicitly spiritual or religious but operates precisely through the mundane machinery of political power, legal process, and human curiosity. Festus is not praying; Agrippa is not seeking; and yet both become unwitting instruments of the divine purpose that Paul would stand before kings. The passage also presents the resurrection of Jesus as the irreducible center of Paul’s message — so central that even a Roman governor with no theological vocabulary cannot describe the case without articulating it. God’s purposes cannot be paraphrased into something more politically manageable: the resurrection claim keeps surfacing, in Festus’s own words, as the thing that makes the whole matter impossible to dismiss. This is a passage about the sovereignty of God over the seemingly secular — the king’s heart, the governor’s perplexity, the legal calendar, and the question of who gets invited to which meeting are all, without their participants knowing it, in God’s hands.
Reformed Theological Significance
Reformed Theological Significance:
This passage is a sustained illustration of what Reformed theology calls concursus — the divine and human agencies operating simultaneously, with God’s sovereign will being accomplished through, not despite, secondary causes. Festus acts freely, makes his own decisions, and has his own reasons — and is simultaneously executing God’s commission that Paul would testify before kings. There is no manipulation, no override, and no suspension of Festus’s or Agrippa’s agency; there is only the confident Reformed confidence that the Lord of history bends every river of circumstance toward His purposed sea. The passage also reinforces the Reformed insistence on the objectivity of the gospel: the resurrection claim carries its own power independent of the spiritual state of the one who voices it. Festus testifies to Christ’s resurrection without believing it, and the claim lands in Agrippa’s ears with enough force to generate immediate desire to hear more. This is not a contradiction of the Spirit’s role in regeneration — it is a picture of the word going out before the Spirit brings it home, the grain being scattered before the harvest is gathered. The gospel is not dependent on perfect messengers; it is dependent on the perfect Lord who sends it.
Main Takeaway
God has never needed favorable circumstances, powerful allies, or willing messengers to advance His gospel — He has only needed to be God. Paul is in chains, Festus is confused, Agrippa came for a courtesy call, and none of that matters: the resurrection claim is about to be heard by a king, exactly as the Lord said it would be. Whatever room you think the gospel cannot enter, whatever door you are certain is closed, whatever situation looks like an ending — look again. God is probably arranging the next hearing.
Preaching/Teaching Pitfalls
Preaching/Teaching Pitfalls:
Treating this passage as primarily about Roman legal procedure or Paul’s innocence. The legal details are real and Luke records them accurately — but turning this into a sermon on Roman jurisprudence or Paul’s legal rights misses the theological freight entirely. Festus’s procedural scruples matter not because Rome was fair but because fairness became God’s instrument. Keep the legal frame as context; keep the sovereign advance as content.
Using Festus’s perplexity as a launching pad for a sermon on unbelief’s blindness without noting what his perplexity actually accomplishes. It is tempting to treat Festus’s “being at a loss” as simply illustrative of how the unregenerate mind cannot receive the things of God. That is true — but in this passage, Festus’s very inability to categorize the resurrection is what keeps him from suppressing it. He cannot dismiss what he cannot classify. The homiletical move is not “see how blind unbelief is” but “see how God uses even blind unbelief to protect and advance His purposes.”
Making Agrippa’s curiosity in verse 22 the emotional climax of the passage. This is a staging passage — it does not resolve; it positions. The dramatic climax is Acts 26, not Acts 25:22. A sermon on this passage should resist the temptation to press Agrippa’s curiosity as a model for spiritual seeking or to project onto him a spiritual state the text does not support. The point is that providence drew him in — not that he was already on his way to faith.
Skipping verse 19 or treating it as mere historical color. Verse 19 is the theological center of this passage. Festus, without intending to preach, preaches — he names Jesus, names His death, and names the resurrection claim. A preacher who races past this verse to get to the narrative movement has missed the moment where Luke shows his hand: the gospel cannot be talked around, only talked about, even by those who do not believe it.
Collapsing the passage’s lesson into a generic “God is in control” comfort-statement. The passage is not teaching generic providence — it is teaching specific, directional, gospel-advancing providence. “God is in control” as a standalone statement can become a passive comfort that asks nothing of the hearer. This passage is asking the hearer to reinterpret their apparently stalled circumstances as potential staging grounds, to pray with expectation for specific gospel-positioning moments, and to release the idol of strategic control. The comfort is real but it is not passive.
Neglecting Paul’s silence. Paul says nothing in this passage — and that is itself theologically instructive. Sometimes the believer’s role in God’s advancing purpose is simply to be present and available, not to perform. The passage stages the testimony before Paul utters a word. A preacher who treats Acts 25:13–22 without noting the significance of Paul’s silence in a passage that is entirely about him misses a practical application: God’s work to position the gospel does not always require our visible participation in the moment it is happening.