The next step in a trial featuring unsubstantiated charges and a solid defense should be acquittal. But Luke lets us know that a miscarriage of justice is in the making when he notes that Festus's next question is motivated by a desire to do the Jews a favor, what they have asked for (25:3; compare 24:27). Favoritism takes the blindfold off justice (Lev 19:15; Prov 17:15). Instead of declaring Paul innocent, Festus asks whether he is willing for the trial to be continued but with a change of venue to Jerusalem.

Paul's response and the way Festus later recounts the offer in conversation with Agrippa indicates that Festus's apparently innocent question about change of venue may cloak an inference of change of jurisdiction (25:11, 19-20). He could be implying that the Sanhedrin would be given immediate jurisdiction over this "religious" case and he would ratify whatever decision they take. In that way he promises that Paul will stand trial before me.

In a reverse parallelism construction, which climaxes with his appeal to Caesar, Paul evaluates his present and future judicial dealings with the Roman court and the Jews. He makes his statements turn on a profession of his integrity.

A. I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried.

B. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well.

C. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.

B. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them.

A. I appeal to Caesar!

Not only does Paul reveal his own integrity, stating that if guilty he will not refuse to undergo the law's full penalty, but he also unmasks the governor's failings. The governor knows Paul's innocence but won't declare an acquittal. The governor has proposed a change of venue which will in some way involve an illegal change of jurisdiction. To "hand Paul over" (charizomai) to the Jewish leaders is indeed to grant the Jews a favor (charis, 25:9). The only way to overcome these failings is for Paul to take the proceedings out of the hands of this lower court. By appealing directly for a trial before the imperial court, which was the right of every Roman citizen, Paul stops the judicial proceedings (Ulpian Digest 48.6.7, cited in Sherwin-White 1963:58).

Paul's shrewdness allows him to overcome the governor's moral failings and the fatal results that they would likely produce. It also enables Paul to retain the initiative of the divine "must" that has ultimate control of his personal destiny (23:11). Again God has providentially so ordered the decisions of individuals and nations that embedded in Roman law is an appeal mechanism that can now be employed by his witness, who was born a Roman citizen. But it requires Paul to exercise faith, courage, integrity and shrewdness.

Festus conferred with his council. It was customary for the governor, even the emperor, to have a body of assessors—higher-ranking military officers, younger civil servants in training and dignitaries from the local population—to help him evaluate court cases. Festus wants to make sure the appeal is in order based on the type of charges that have been brought. So assured, he makes the terse declaration You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go! The might of Rome protects; the might of Rome provides the transport. Paul will bear witness in Rome, possibly before the emperor himself (9:15; 23:11).