Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 26:1
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
Act 26:1-23. Paul’s defence before Agrippa
1. and answered for himself] Rev. Ver. “and made his defence.” The verb is the same as before (Act 19:33, Act 24:10, Act 25:8) and intimates that what is coming is an apologia. St Luke here as in other places notices the gesture of the speaker.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then Paul stretched forth the hand – See the notes on Act 21:40. This was the usual posture of orators or public speakers. The ancient statues are commonly made in this way, with the right hand extended. The dress of the ancients favored this. The long and loose robe, or outer garment, was fastened usually with a hook or clasp on the right shoulder, and thus left the arm at full liberty.
And answered for himself – It cannot be supposed that Paul expected that his defense would be attended with a release from confinement, for he had himself appealed to the Roman emperor, Act 25:11. His design in speaking before Agrippa was, doubtless:
- To vindicate his character, and obtain Agrippas attestation to his innocence, that thus he might allay the anger of the Jews;
- To obtain a correct representation of the case to the emperor, as Festus had desired this in order that Agrippa might enable him to make a fair statement of the case Act 25:26-27; and,
- To defend his own conversion, and the truth of Christianity, and to preach the gospel in the hearing of Agrippa and his attendants, with a hope that their minds might be impressed by the truth, and that they might be converted to God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 26:1-32
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.
Paul before Agrippa
Here is all that Christianity ever asked for: an opportunity to speak for itself; and its answer is the one which must always be returned: I beseech thee to hear me patiently. Christianity always appears in person, its witnesses are always at hand, the court is never disappointed, the judge has never to wait. But Christianity must be heard patiently. Only the candid hearer can listen well. If we have put into our ears prejudices and foregone conclusions, the music of Christianity cannot make its way. We should allow the Word free course through the mind, and, when it has completed its deliverance, then we may make reply, and then should be willing to return the courtesy and to hear what reply can be made. Here is the only answer which is universally available. As Christian Churches and preachers, we ought to take our stand just here, and when Paul is done, we should say, one and all, That is our answer. Here is–
I. Personal testimony. Paul talks about nobody else but himself. If we have nothing to say out of our own consciousness we cannot preach. But we are afraid to speak about ourselves; and, in truth, I am not surprised at the fear. We allege, however, that our experience is something between ourselves and God. Paul never thought so; he was not so humble as we are; we rebuke him, we shame him.
II. Personal conversion. Are you ashamed of that old word? Men used to be converted; now they change their opinion and their standpoint and their attitude. Mountebanks! See where he began–which knew me from the beginning. That was the starting point; what was the end? I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. That is what we mean by conversion. Paul was not a profligate to be touched by emotions. His was not a vacant mind, ready for any new impression. He was not a fanatic, fond of exciting adventures. Here is a conversion based upon a distinct history. Ours is not so romantic, but is quite as real. The incidents were individual and local, but all the significance is universal. Christianity meets men on wrong courses. Saul was on his way to Damascus, intent upon doing a wrong thing. Are we not also on the wrong road with a wrong purpose, armed by the power of a wrong authority? Christianity fights with the weapon of light: I saw in the way a light item heaven. I have seen that light; this is my own experience. I see it now! I see the hideous iniquity, the shameful ingratitude, the infinite love, the sacrificial blood. That is conversion. Christianity is the religion of mental illumination and liberation.
III. A new mission. Rise, and stand upon thy feet, etc. Christianity does not perform in the mind the miracle of eviction without furnishing the mind with thoughts, convictions, and sublimities of its own. The reason why so many people have turned away from Christ is, that, though they have seen the light, they have not discharged the ministry. We must keep up visions by services; we must maintain theology by beneficence. Instead of sitting down and analysing feelings and impressions, in order to find out whether we are really Christians or not, we should go out and call the blind and the halt and the friendless to a daily feast, and in that act we should see how truly we are accepted of God. If Paul had retired as a gentleman of leisure he might have forgotten the vision, or have contracted it into an anecdote; but he made it the starting point of a new life; and in war, suffering, and agony, he got the confirmation of his best impressions. A working Church is a faithful Church; an honest, earnest, self-sacrificing Church is always orthodox.
IV. Divine inspiration. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue Conversion is followed by confirmation. Paul did not eat bread once for all: he sat daily at the table of the Lord; he obtained help of God. He needed it all; every night he needed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to sustain him after the wearing fray. Ministers, that is how we must live; we must obtain help from heaven; then we shall be able to say, Though the outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Paul before Agrippa
I. This interview took place under circumstances of unusual magnificence (Act 25:23). All the majesty and splendour of the Roman provincial government were collected on the occasion. On the other hand, the apostle was a prisoner, and certainly the very last man with whom any then present would have wished to change places. But now who is there that would not rather have been Paul, than either Agrippa, or Festus, or any of their train?
II. When the apostle has leave given him to speak, purely in self-defence, he conducts that defence so as to expound the truth as it is in Jesus. This was the case with all the primitive disciples. They taught in synagogues and in the markets, if men would let them; but, if they dragged them before magistrates, they turned the courts of law into preaching places, and instead of pleading for themselves, pleaded for their Master.
III. The energy and zeal that distinguished his address. This was so eminent that the governor broke in upon him with a rude and unceremonious interruption (Act 26:24).
IV. The dignity, wisdom, and energy of Pauls reply, which of itself is not only a complete refutation of the charge of madness, but a full vindication of religion in that respect, both as to its doctrine and its spirit. It is not easy for a man who is noisily interrupted to retain his self-possession, much less to take advantage of it, so as to increase the power and impressiveness of their discourse.
V. His appeal to Agrippa (Act 26:26-27). Every competent judge of eloquence will admit that this is one of the finest apostrophes that ever proceeded from the lips of man. It takes advantage of the common opinion of the Roman people, that the best defence that an accused person could make was to appeal to the knowledge and conscience of his judge. How much more of this sort the apostle might have uttered, it is impossible to say; but Agrippa had already heard more than enough. He interrupted the apostle, and then left him abruptly. Little as Agrippa thought it, that day was for him one of those critical seasons which occur to some men but once, to others often, on which hinges the dreadful alternative, whether a man shall be saved or lost.
VI. Three degrees of condition in relation to Christianity. Here is–
1. The Christian altogether.
2. The man who is a Christian almost.
3. The man who is a Christian not at all. (D. Katterns.)
Paul before Agrippa
Here we have–
I. The secret of Pauls success. I think myself happy. You do not hear any man until he is happy. Speaking under constraint, he cannot do justice to himself, nor to any great theme. Paul is happy: we shall therefore get his power at its very best. Conditions have much to do with speech and with hearing. Paul seems to have liked a Roman hearing. There was something in the grandeur of the circumstances that touched him and brought him up to his very best (Act 24:10). Hearers make speakers: the pew makes the pulpit.
II. His method of using opportunities for speaking. Paul is permitted to speak for himself; what does he do? He unfolds the gospel. But he was not asked to preach. But Paul cannot open his mouth without preaching; we expected that he would have defended himself according to Roman law. Paul makes no reference to Roman law. Paul always took the broad and vast view of things, and looking upon all life from the highest elevation, he saw it in its right proportion and colour and measure. Consider the opportunity and then consider the use made of it. Paul is all the while speaking about himself, and yet all the while he is preaching such a sermon as even he never preached before; he is rebuilding all the Christian argument and re-uttering in new tones and with new stretches of allusion and meaning the whole gospel of salvation. This should be a lesson to all men. We may speak about ourselves and yet hide ourselves in the glory of Another.
III. His peculiar, but ever-available way of illustrating religious mysteries. By relating personal miracles. Observe what a wonderful connection there is between the Act 26:8; Act 9:1-43. Suddenly Paul breaks out with the inquiry, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? Then as suddenly be reverts to his own case: I verily thought with myself Observe the word thought in both verses. Paraphrased, the case might stand thus: I know it is a marvellous thing that God should raise the dead, but I was dead in trespasses and in sins, and God raised me; if, therefore, he has raised me, I can see how the same God could work the same miracle on another ground and under other circumstances. God asks us to look within, that we may find the key to His kingdom. There is not a miracle in all the Bible that has not been wrought, in some form of counterpart or type, in our own life. You can steal my Christianity if it is only a theory; you cannot break through nor steal if it is hidden in my heart as a personal and actual experience.
IV. His method of testing heavenly visions (Act 26:19). By obeying them. Paul sets forth a very wonderful doctrine, namely, that he was not driven against his will to certain conclusions. Even here he asserts the freedom of the will–the attribute that makes a man. I was not disobedient. I am content to have all theology tested by this one process. You say you believe in God; what use have you made of Him? Take the Sermon upon the Mount: the way to test it is to obey it. Prove prayer by praying; prove the inspiration of the Scriptures by being inspired by their speech.
V. His way of proving his sanity: by being what the world calls mad. Festus did not know the meaning of the word inspiration–a word as much higher than information as the heaven is high above the earth. Festus, therefore, thought Paul was mad. So he was from the point of view occupied by Festus. Christianity is madness if materialism is true. It is one of two things with us: we are either right, or we are–not merely wrong–mad. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Pauls defence before Agrippa
He asserts–
I. That the thing for which they accused him was the great relief of the Jewish nation (Act 26:6-8).
1. The Messiah in whom he believed was the grand hope of the Jewish people. It was a hope–
(1) Founded on a Divine promise. The Old Testament was full of this promise (Gen 3:15; Gen 22:18; Gen 49:10; Deu 18:15; 2Sa 7:12; Psa 133:11; Isa 4:11; Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6-7; Jer 23:15; Jer 33:14-16; Eze 34:23; Dan 9:24; Mic 7:14; Zec 13:1-7; Mal 3:1).
(2) Mightily influential.
(a) In its extent: Our twelve tribes–the whole Jewish people.
(b) In its intensity: Instantly serving God day and night. Even to this day the hope of the Messiah burns in the heart of the Jewish people. The disappointments of ages have not quenched it.
2. The resurrection of Jesus demonstrated that He was this Messiah (Act 26:8). They would not accept the fact of Christs resurrection, though they could not deny it. The language implies that it was to the last degree absurd for them to consider the thing incredible.
II. That the cause he now espoused he once hated as much as they did. He understood their prejudices, for they were once his own (Act 26:9-11).
1. As a well-known Pharisee, he conscientiously set himself in opposition to Jesus of Nazareth. Conscientiousness is not virtue.
2. He manifested his opposition by the most violent persecution of Christs disciples.
III. That the change effected in him, and the commission he received, were manifestly Divine.
1. The change (Act 26:12-15).
2. The commission (Act 26:16-18). (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Pattis defence before Agrippa
Discloses–
I. Interesting features in Pauls character.
1. His marked courtesy (Act 26:2-3). True courtesy is–
(1) A combination of some of the best elements of human nature.
(a) A just recognition of the respect due to others.
(b) A proof that our reliance is upon the merit of our cause, and not upon brute force.
(2) An essential demand of Christianity upon all its disciples. Because–
(a) The grand law of Christianity is this: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
(b) Because Christianity demands of its disciples conformity to the example of the Lord.
(c) Because discourtesy is a violation of every instinct of a holy and meekly life.
2. Pauls candour (Act 26:4-6). Candour–
(1) Is
(a) frankness,
(b) clearness,
(c) conscientiousness,
(d) honesty.
(2) Implies in respect to ones life.
(a) Openness to inspection.
(b) Readiness to confess and abandon any evil.
(c) Desire to deal fairly with all.
(3) Is essential to a true Christian life.
(a) Because that to have a conscience void of offence before God and man is essential.
(b) Because concealment of facts, when necessary to be known, is inconsistent with the profession of a disciple of Christ.
3. Pauls courage (Act 26:6).
(1) Courage is based on the conviction that we are right.
(2) Courage is an essential power to prosecute a godly life.
(3) True Christian courage is the product of the Holy Spirit–Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.
II. Instructive facts of Pauls life (Act 26:8-19).
1. The fact that the apostle had once been a bold and cruel opposer of Christ and of Christianity (Act 26:9-11).
(1) His opposition was terribly cruel.
(a) Many of the saints did I shut up in prison.
(b) When they were put to death I gave my voice against them.
(c) I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme.
(2) His antagonism assumed the form of a real frenzy of hate.
(a) And being exceedingly mad against them.
(b) I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
(c) This confession of hate on the part of such a man as Paul afterward became, is almost incredible; but shows the terrible power that sin in any form has over anyone who yields to its regnant sway.
2. The great fact which led to the conversion of the great apostle (Act 26:12-19).
(1) He saw a supernal light (Act 26:13).
(a) The well-known shekinah brightness of paradise, the Red Sea deliverance, the tabernacle mercy seat, and the Transfiguration of Jesus, is here suggested.
(2) He heard a supernatural voice (Act 26:14). As the dazzling splendour of the light blinded his natural vision, so the commanding voice from heaven silenced the voices of prejudice and passion which he had so fanatically obeyed.
(3) To him appeared the Lord Jesus, which completely subdued his proud spirit, awakened his conscience to his daring sin, and wrought in him the most genuine penitence.
3. The practical disposition of the true convert (Act 26:20).
(1) Prompt and implicit obedience to Christs commands.
(2) Entire consecration to Christ, in a life of practical usefulness in promoting the truth of Christianity at whatever cost.
Conclusion:
1. The conversion of Saul is a demonstration of the Divine powers of Christianity, and of the resurrection of Christ.
2. The resurrection of Christ demonstrates the grand realities which constitute the basilar facts of Christianity:
(1) The atonement of Christ.
(2) The ascension of Christ.
(3) The intercession of Christ.
(4) The ultimate triumph of Christ over every foe.
(5) The prophecy of the full-orbed glory that awaits this world of which all inspired men have foretold. Let us say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. (D. C. Hughes.)
Pauls defence before Agrippa
Note–
I. What Agrippa knew (Act 26:3)–the questions concerning which Paul was accused. The first requisite in a judge is knowledge, without this sincerity, impartiality, etc., are wasted. It is not too much to demand, therefore, that those who sit in judgment on Christianity should first of all be sure of their facts. But how often is this requisite ignored.
II. What the Jews knew. Pauls consistency (Act 26:4-5). It was a bold thing to draw upon the knowledge of his adversaries. But Paul was confident that from all they knew of him they could prefer no true charge against him. Our manner of life has been known for long by many–neighbours, friends, relatives. How many of us could make this bold appeal?
III. What Paul knew.
1. That he had met with Jesus.
2. That he was turned from darkness to light, from Pharisaism to Christianity.
3. That he received a worldwide mission.
4. That he was obedient to the heavenly call: These were not fancies, dreams, but facts of consciousness. The Christian argument is based upon experience. Other evidences stand in the second rank.
IV. What Festus thought he knew–that Paul was mad. Which was simply a confession of ignorance. He could have satisfied himself about what Paul stated, but did not care to trouble himself about such manner of questions, consequently their strangeness to him suggested insanity on the part of the man who knew them true. A common trick today.
V. What Agrippa might have known–what it was to be a Christian; but like many others refused to embrace the opportunity.
VI. What all were obliged to know (Act 26:31). What a testimony after these repeated investigations. (J. W. Burn.)
Pauls sermon before Agrippa
I. The pulpit. Paul had stood in the Areopagus, in the Temple, in synagogues, but never in circumstances apparently more unfavourable than those here. A prisoner, his arm chained to that of a Roman soldier, he yet makes that prisoners bar a pulpit from which with unrivalled energy he proclaims Christ as the Saviour of men. Nay, the very clanking of the chain becomes eloquent as he said, Except these bonds. So around us everywhere are Gods imprisoned preachers–men and women upon the arm of whose efficiency are the chains of poverty, physical weakness, etc., and yet who preach from the couch of the invalid, the bare garret and the lonely hovel, sermons which carry with them the eloquence of lives that are as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing, etc. Their example teaches us that there are no circumstances so unpropitious that a loving consecration may not find in them opportunity for witness bearing for Christ.
II. The audience. A vast concourse of Jews, Romans, and barbarians, patricians and plebeians, citizens and soldiers. But in a more special sense it consisted of but a single soul. Pauls words are addressed particularly to Agrippa, one of Pauls own kindred after the flesh, whose conversion would set in motion influences for good the measure of which it would be impossible to foretell. There is many a patient, prayerful teacher who, as he looks Sabbath after Sabbath into the face of the one or two boys who come regularly to his class, grows disheartened at the smallness of the audience; but let him remember Pauls interest in Agrippa, and bear in mind the fact that one of those boys may be some chosen instrument through whom he will bring thousands into the kingdom. A single lever sets in motion whole acres of machinery, and so a single soul, inspired through your agency, may become a factor in the worlds conversion.
III. The sermon.
1. Its method.
(1) Directness.
(2) Gentleness.
(3) Fervour.
(4) Masterly skill. By a system of gradual approaches the citadel of Agrippas heart is besieged.
2. Its matter.
(1) The whole sermon centres in Christ.
(2) Prominence is given to Christs death and resurrection.
(3) These great verities are presented, not simply as historical facts, but as inwoven with his own religious experience.
(4) Pauls estimate of its power: To open their eyes, and to turn, etc. Here we have an admirable summary of the whole practical work of redemption.
IV. Its results. The visible results were not of a character to afford much encouragement. Agrippa was the only one who gave any evidence of conviction, and his convictions only led him to say, Almost thou persuadest me. Yet who can tell what harvest may have afterward come from the seed sown that day apparently in most unfriendly soil? Let the faithful worker for Christ take courage. (T. D. Witherspoon, D. D.)
Pauls stretched-out arm
I. A warning signal for all the great of the earth: Attend to the things which belong to your peace (verse 3).
II. A way mark for all the erring: Jesus receiveth sinners (verse 9-18).
III. A banner for all the preachers of the gospel: Endure hardship as good soldiers of Jesus Christ (verses 21:27).
IV. A rope of hope for all the lost: Be ye reconciled unto God (verse 29). (K. Gerok.)
After the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.
That many rest upon a strict way of religion, which yet cometh not up to, but often is besides, the appointment of the Word
The text is part of that narrative which relates to St. Pauls past conversation, wherein he described himself from the religious condition he then was in, and that, first, more generally, then more particularly. Generally: He was after the most strict way of religion. The original for religion, Plutarch tells us, cometh from the Thracians, eminently taken notice of for their devotion: and it is used sometimes in a good sense, sometimes in a bad sense, as it degenerateth into superstition. The original for sect is heresy, and so the several sects among philosophers were called heresies. It is the opinion of some that this word is always taken in an ill sense in the Scripture; but this place, with two or three more in the Acts, seems to imply the use of it in a middle or indifferent sense, any particular way that a man shall choose different from the road, although in the Epistles it is used in an ill sense. Therefore Tertullian calls it Sects Christianorum, the sect of the Christians. Now, this way Paul walked in is aggravated in the superlative sense; and so Josephus speaks of the Pharisees as those that were most accurate in the observance of instituted and traditional obedience: more particularly his way is described by its denomination, a Pharisee. Now, the Pharisees were called either, as some say, from a word to open and explain, because they expounded the Scripture, or from a word to separate and segregate. Therefore, to be a Pharisee was to be a scrupulous, anxious man, who did subtly examine all things. Hence they were so strict that they would not sleep upon any easy thing, lest they should have any vain or indecent thoughts so much as in their very dreams; and because of this strictness it was that they were so admired among the people. From the text we may observe that an extraordinary strict way taken up in religion is thought a sure and a good foundation by many for their eternal happiness. To discover this false sign several things are considerable, as–
1. The way to heaven is a strict and exact way, and all our duties are to be done with a curious circumspection. Our prayers are to be exact prayers, our obedience exact obedience. The Scripture makes it an exact course, and therefore my dissolute, careless, negligent walking can no more claim a title to heaven than darkness to light. Attend to this, you whose lives are as most of the world are, proud as they, profane as they, contemning of religion as they.
2. Now, that godliness must be strictness appeareth partly from the nature of grace, which is contrary to our affections, and so doth with prevailing power subdue them to the grief of the unregenerate part. Hence the Scripture calls it mortifying and crucifying the old man, which implieth the pain and agony our corrupt part is exercised with by grace.
3. Again, godliness must needs be exact–
(1) Because our duties are so bounded and circumstantiated in their principles, manner, and ends, that to do any good action is always to hit the mark, as to sin is to miss the scope and white. There is so much required in the cause, in the manner, in the motive, that we may cry out for every particular duty, which Paul did for one main one, Who is sufficient for these things? so that negligence, formality, and lukewarmness can no more consist with godliness that is of a strict and exact nature than hell with heaven.
(2) Therefore, in the second place, it argueth a tongue and a heart set on fire from hell to reproach and cry out against strictness in the way to heaven. Oh consider either Gods Word is wrong or thou art out of the way: thou art not yet such an atheist to assert the former, be therefore so far ingenious to acknowledge the latter.
(3) From hence it followeth that the number of those who are truly godly are very few. They are but a little flock; and they are but few, not only comparatively to the whole world, but in respect of titular and nominal Christians, who have the name and own the profession of Christ, but deny the power thereof.
4. As the way to heaven is a most strict and accurate way, so the Word of God doth only declare and reveal what that exactness is. So that as in matters to be believed there is no doctrine can be urged as necessary which is not contained in that writing, so in matters to be practised there is no degree or high strain of holiness that is a duty which is not also commanded in Gods Word: those two commands, one negatively, Thou shalt not lust, the other affirmatively, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and strength, do command for matter and manner all that possibly can be done by man, and therefore can never be fulfilled in this life, because of those innate and adherent corruptions in us.
5. Hence all strictness introduced that is not according to Scripture, how specious and glorious soever it may seem to be, yet it affords no true solid comfort to those that are employed therein.
(1) When the Scriptures or Word of God is accounted too low a thing to guide us, and therefore they expect a higher and more extraordinary teaching by the Spirit of God, and that for other matter than is contained therein.
(2) A second extraordinary strict way in which men support themselves is the undergoing voluntary penalties or bodily chastisements for sins past, or setting upon external austere discipline to prevent sin to come. The apostle describeth such (Col 2:21-23).
(3) An extraordinary strictness which maketh men confident is a voluntary abdication and actual dispossessing ourselves of all outward comforts, and applying ourselves only to religious exercises. How did this mistake seduce thousands of devout souls who were zealous for God, but wanted knowledge? Hence came those monasteries, renouncing of riches, wealth, and whatsoever comfort was in this life; as if those places, Unless a man forsake all and deny himself, taking up the cross and follow Me, etc., did command an actual abdication of all, and not rather an habitual preparation of heart to leave them all when God shall call for them.
(4) Men may judge their spiritual conditions the better because of an extraordinary strictness in Church discipline and Church dispensations when yet there is no ground at all for it. That there may be overmuch rigour in discipline appeareth plainly in 2Co 2:7, where the apostle blameth them, That they did not receive into favour that incestuous person who had truly repented. And the apostle doth in part suppose it is part of Satans subtle devices, when he cannot destroy a Church by profaneness and dissoluteness, to overthrow it by too much severity.
Use 1. Is there indeed a true Scripture strictness, without which heaven cannot be obtained? Then see what a gulf there is between heaven and you who live in all looseness, negligence, and careless contempt of what is good. The fire of Gods wrath will be heated seven times hotter for such opposers as thou art.
Use 2. Of admonition to examine and judge wisely of all strictness commanded to thee, for the devil may seduce thee in thy zeal, as well as in thy profaneness; and do not persuade thyself of grace, because of a more strict opinion or Church practice thou conceivest thyself to be in, for this is not the Scripture strictness in which the essence of godliness consists, for that lieth in the inward circumcision of the heart, in the powerful mortification of the affections, in walking humbly, in living by faith and heavenly-mindedness. (A. Burgess.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXVI.
Paul answers for himself before Agrippa, to whom he pays a true
compliment, in order to secure a favourable hearing, 1-3;
gives an account of his education from his youth up, 4, 5;
shows that the Jews persecuted him for his maintaining the
hope of the resurrection, 6-8;
states his persecution of the Christians, 9-11;
gives an account of his miraculous conversion, 12-16;
and of his call to the ministry, 16-18.
His obedience to that call, and his success in preaching the
doctrine of Christ crucified, 19-23.
While he is thus speaking, Festus interrupts him, and declares
him to be mad through his abundant learning, 24;
which charge he modestly refutes with inimitable address, and
appeals to King Agrippa for the truth and correctness of his
speech, 25-27.
On which, Agrippa confesses himself almost converted to
Christianity, 28.
Paul’s affectionate and elegant address to him on this
declaration, 29.
The council breaks up, and they all pronounce him innocent,
30-32.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXVI.
Verse 1. Then Paul stretched forth the hand] This act, as we have already seen on Ac 21:40, was merely to gain attention; it was no rhetorical flourish, nor designed for one. From knowing, partly by descriptions, and partly by ancient statues, how orators and others who address a concourse of people stood, we can easily conceive the attitude of St. Paul. When the right hand was stretched out, the left remained under the cloak, which being thrown off the right shoulder, to give the arm the fuller liberty, it then rested on the left: under these circumstances, the hand could be stretched out gracefully, but was confined to no one attitude, though the third and fourth fingers were generally clenched.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This stretching forth of his hand was:
1. To obtain silence of others whilst he spake; or:
2. To show his innocence, whilst he uses this modest confidence; or:
3. As other orators, when they begin to speak, move their hands. The providence of God wonderfully procures Paul a liberty to publish the gospel, and to make his case and religion known.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. Agrippa saidBeing a kinghe appears to have presided.
Paul stretched forth thehandchained to a soldier (Ac26:29, and see on Ac 12:6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Agrippa said unto Paul,…. After Festus had made the above speech to him, and to all present, and had introduced the affair of Paul, who now stood before them:
thou art permitted to speak for thyself; which a prisoner might not do, until he had leave; and this leave was granted by Festus the Roman governor, who was properly the judge, and not Agrippa, though the permission might be by both; and so the Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, “we have ordered”, or “permitted thee”, c.
Then Paul stretched forth the hand as orators used to do, when they were about to speak; or else to require silence; or it may be to show the freedom of his mind, and how ready he was to embrace the opportunity of pleading his own cause; being conscious to himself of his innocence, and relying on the ingenuity and integrity of his judge; and especially of the king, before whom he stood:
and answered for himself; or made an apology, or spoke in vindication of himself, in order to remove the charges brought against him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Paul’s Fifth Defence. |
| |
1 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: 2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: 3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. 4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; 5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? 9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. 11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
Agrippa was the most honourable person in the assembly, having the title of king bestowed upon him, though otherwise having only the power of other governors under the emperor, and, though not here superior, yet senior, to Festus; and therefore, Festus having opened the cause, Agrippa, as the mouth of the court, intimates to Paul a licence given him to speak for himself, v. 1. Paul was silent till he had this liberty allowed him; for those are not the most forward to speak that are best prepared to speak and speak best. This was a favour which the Jews would not allow him, or not without difficulty; but Agrippa freely gives it to him. And Paul’s cause was so good that he desired no more than to have liberty to speak for himself; he needed no advocate, no Tertullus, to speak for him. Notice is taken of his gesture: He stretched forth his hand, as one that was under no consternation at all, but had perfect freedom and command of himself; it also intimates that he was in earnest, and expected their attention while he answered for himself. Observe, He did not insist upon his having appealed to Csar as an excuse for being silent, did not say, “I will be examined no more till I come to the emperor himself;” but cheerfully embraced the opportunity of doing honour to the cause he suffered for. If we must be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us to every man that asketh us, much more to every man in authority, 1 Pet. iii. 15. Now in this former part of the speech,
I. Paul addressed himself with a very particular respect to Agrippa, Act 26:2; Act 26:3. He answered cheerfully before Felix, because he knew he had been many years a judge to that nation, ch. xxiv. 10. But his opinion of Agrippa goes further. Observe, 1. Being accused of the Jews, and having many base things laid to his charge, he is glad he has an opportunity of clearing himself; so far is he from imagining that his being an apostle exempted him from the jurisdiction of the civil powers. Magistracy is an ordinance of God, which we have all benefit by, and therefore must all be subject to. 2. Since he is forced to answer for himself, he is glad it is before king Agrippa, who, being himself a proselyte to the Jewish religion, understood all matters relating to it better than the other Roman governors did: I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. It seems, Agrippa was a scholar, and had been particularly conversant in the Jewish learning, was expert in the customs of the Jewish religion, and knew the nature of them, and that they were not designed to be either universal or perpetual. He was expert also in the questions that arose upon those customs, in determining which the Jews themselves were not all of a mind. Agrippa was well versed in the scriptures of the Old-Testament, and therefore could make a better judgment upon the controversy between him and the Jews concerning Jesus being the Messiah than another could. It is an encouragement to a preacher to have those to speak to that are intelligent, and can discern things that differ. When Paul says, Judge you what I say, yet he speaks as to wise men, 1 Cor. x. 15. 3. He therefore begs that he would hear him patiently, makrothymos—with long suffering. Paul designs a long discourse, and begs that Agrippa will hear him out, and not be weary; he designs a plain discourse, and begs that he will hear him with mildness, and not be angry. Paul had some reason to fear that as Agrippa, being a Jew, was well versed in the Jewish customs, and therefore the more competent judge of his cause, so he was soured in some measure with the Jewish leaven, and therefore prejudiced against Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles; he therefore says this to sweeten him: I beseech thee, hear me patiently. Surely the least we can expect, when we preach the faith of Christ, is to be heard patiently.
II. He professes that though he was hated and branded as a apostate, yet he still adhered to all that good which he was first educated and trained up in; his religion was always built upon the promise of God made unto the fathers; and this he still built upon.
1. See here what his religion was in his youth: His manner of life was well known,Act 26:4; Act 26:5. He was not indeed born among his own nation, but he was bred among them at Jerusalem. Though he had of late years been conversant with the Gentiles (which had given great offence to the Jews), yet at his setting out in the world he was intimately acquainted with the Jewish nation, and entirely in their interests. His education was neither foreign nor obscure; it was among his own nation at Jerusalem, where religion and learning flourished. All the Jews knew it, all that could remember so long, for Paul made himself remarkable betimes. Those that knew him from the beginning could testify for him that he was a Pharisee, that he was not only of the Jewish religion, and an observer of all the ordinances of it, but that he was of the most strict sect of that religion, most nice and exact in observing the institutions of it himself, and most rigid and critical in imposing them upon others. He was not only called a Pharisee, but he lived a Pharisee. All that knew him knew very well that never any Pharisee conformed more punctually to the rules of his order than he did. Nay, and he was of the better sort of Pharisees; for he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, who was an eminent rabbi of the school of house of Hillel, which was in much greater reputation for religion than the school or house of Samai. Now if Paul was a Pharisee, and lived a Pharisee, (1.) Then he was a scholar, a man of learning, and not an ignorant, illiterate, mechanic; the Pharisees knew the law, and were well versed in it, and in the traditional expositions of it. It was a reproach to the other apostles that they had not had an academical education, but were bred fishermen, ch. iv. 13. Therefore, that the unbelieving Jews might be left without excuse, here is an apostle raised up that had sat at the feet of their most eminent doctors. (2.) Then he was a moralist, a man of virtue, and not a rake or loose debauched young man. If he lived like a Pharisee, he was no drunkard nor fornicator; and, being a young Pharisee, we may hope he was no extortioner, nor had yet learned the arts which the crafty covetous old Pharisees had of devouring the houses of poor widows; but he was, as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. He was not chargeable with any instance of open vice and profaneness; and therefore, as he could not be thought to have deserted his religion because he did not know it (for he was a learned man), so he could not be thought to have deserted it because he did not love it, or was disaffected to the obligations of it, for he was a virtuous man, and not inclined to any immorality. (3.) Then he was orthodox, sound in the faith, and not a deist or sceptic, or a man of corrupt principles that led to infidelity. He was a Pharisee, in opposition to a Sadducee; he received those books of the Old Testament which the Sadducees rejected, believed a world of spirits, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the rewards and punishments of the future state, all which the Sadducees denied. They could not say, He quitted his religion for want of a principle, or for want of a due regard to divine revelation; no, he always had a veneration for the ancient promise made of God unto the fathers, and built his hope upon it.
Now though Paul knew very well that all this would not justify him before God, nor make a righteousness for him yet he knew it was for his reputation among the Jews, and an argument ad hominem–such as Agrippa would feel, that he was not such a man as they represented him to be. Though he counted it but loss that he might win Christ, yet he mentioned it when it might serve to honour Christ. He knew very well that all this while he was a stranger to the spiritual nature of the divine law, and to heart-religion, and that except his righteousness exceeded this he should never go to heaven; yet he reflects upon it with some satisfaction that he had not been before his conversion an atheistical, profane, vicious man, but, according to the light he had, had lived in all good conscience before God.
2. See here what his religion is. He has not indeed such a zeal for the ceremonial law as he had in his youth. The sacrifices and offerings appointed by that, he thinks, are superseded by the great sacrifice which they typified; ceremonial pollutions and purifications from them he makes no conscience of, and thinks the Levitical priesthood is honourably swallowed up in the priesthood of Christ; but for the main principles of his religion he is as zealous for them as ever, and more so, and resolves to live and die by them.
(1.) His religion is built upon the promise made of God unto the fathers. It is built upon divine revelation, which he receives and believes, and ventures his soul upon; it is built upon divine grace, and that grace manifested and conveyed by promise. The promise of God is the guide and ground of his religion, the promise made to the fathers, which was more ancient than the ceremonial law, that covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, and which the law, that was not till four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul, Gal. iii. 17. Christ and heaven are the two great doctrines of the gospel–that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Now these two are the matter of the promise made unto the fathers. It may look back as far as the promise made to father Adam, concerning the seed of the woman, and those discoveries of a future state which the first patriarchs acted faith upon, and were saved by that faith; but it respects chiefly the promise made to father Abraham, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, and that God would be a God to him, and to his seed after him: the former meaning Christ, the latter heaven; for, if God had not prepared for them a city, he would have been ashamed to have called himself their God. Heb. xi. 16.
(2.) His religion consists in the hopes of this promise. He places it not, as they did, in meats and drinks, and the observance of carnal ordinances (God had often shown what little account he made of them), but in a believing dependence upon God’s grace in the covenant, and upon the promise, which was the great charter by which the church was first incorporated. [1.] He had hope in Christ as the promised seed; he hoped to be blessed in him, to receive the blessing of God and to be truly blessed. [2.] He had hopes of heaven; this is expressly meant, as appears by comparing ch. xxiv. 15, That there shall be a resurrection of the dead. Paul had no confidence in the flesh, but in Christ; no expectation at all of great things in this world, but of greater things in the other world than any this world can pretend to; he had his eye upon a future state.
(3.) Herein he concurred with all the pious Jews; his faith was not only according to the scripture, but according to the testimony of the church, which was a support to it. Though they set him up as a mark, he was not singular: “Our twelve tribes, the body of the Jewish church, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come to this promise, that is, to the good promised.” The people of Israel are called the twelve tribes, because so they were at first; and, though we read not of the return of the ten tribes in a body, yet we have reason to think many particular persons, more or less of every tribe, returned to their own land; perhaps, by degrees, the greater part of those that were carried away. Christ speaks of the twelve tribes, Matt. xix. 28. Anna was of the tribe of Asher, Luke ii. 36. James directs his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, Jam. i. 1. “Our twelve tribes, which make up the body of our nation, to which I and others belong. Now all the Israelites profess to believe in this promise, both of Christ and heaven, and hope to come to the benefits of them. They all hope for a Messiah to come, and we that are Christians hope in a Messiah already come; so that we all agree to build upon the same promise. They look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, and this is what I look for. Why should I be looked upon as advancing something dangerous and heterodox, or as an apostate from the faith and worship of the Jewish church, when I agree with them in this fundamental article? I hope to come to the same heaven at last that they hope to come to; and, if we expect to meet so happily in our end, why should we fall out so unhappily by the way?” Nay, the Jewish church not only hoped to come to this promise, but, in the hope of it, they instantly served God day and night. The temple-service, which consisted in a continual course of religious duties, morning and evening, day and night, from the beginning of the year to the end of it, and was kept up by the priests and Levites, and the stationary men, as they called them, who continually attended there to lay their hands upon the public sacrifices, as the representatives of all the twelve tribes, this service was kept up in the profession of faith in the promise of eternal life, and, in expectation of it, Paul instantly serves God day and night in the gospel of his Son; the twelve tribes by their representatives do so in the law of Moses, but he and they do it in hope of the same promise: “Therefore they ought not to look upon me as a deserter from their church, so long as I hold by the same promise that they hold by.” Much more should Christians, who hope in the same Jesus, for the same heaven, though differing in the modes and ceremonies of worship, hope the best one of another, and live together in holy love. Or it may be meant of particular persons who continued in the communion of the Jewish church, and were very devout in their way, serving God with great intenseness, and a close application of mind, and constant in it, night and day, as Anna, who departed not from the temple, but served God (it is the same word here used) in fastings and prayers night and day, Luke ii. 37. “In this way they hope to come to the promise, and I hope they will.” Note, Those only can upon good grounds hope for eternal life that are diligent and constant in the service of God; and the prospect of that eternal life should engage us to diligence and constancy in all religious exercises. We should go on with our work with heaven in our eye. And of those that instantly serve God day and night, though not in our way, we ought to judge charitably.
(4.) This was what he was now suffering for–for preaching that doctrine which they themselves, if they did but understand themselves aright, must own: I am judged for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers. He stuck to the promise, against the ceremonial law, while his persecutors stuck to the ceremonial law, against the promise: “It is for this hope’s sake, king Agrippa, that I am accused of the Jews–because I do that which I think myself obliged to do by the hope of this promise.” It is common for men to hate and persecute the power of that religion in others which yet they pride themselves in the form of. Paul’s hope was what they themselves also allowed (ch. xxiv. 15), and yet they were thus enraged against him for practising according to that hope. But it was his honour that when he suffered as a Christian he suffered for the hope of Israel, ch. xxviii. 20.
(5.) This was what he would persuade all that heard him cordially to embrace (v. 8): Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead? This seems to come in somewhat abruptly; but it is probable Paul said much more than is here recorded, and that he explained the promise made to the fathers to be the promise of the resurrection and eternal life, and proved that he was in the right way of pursuing his hope of that happiness because he believed in Christ who had risen from the dead, which was a pledge and earnest of that resurrection which the fathers hoped for. Paul is therefore earnest to know the power of Christ’s resurrection, that by it he might attain to the resurrection of the dead; see Phi 3:10; Phi 3:11. Now many of his hearers were Gentiles, most of them perhaps, Festus particularly, and we may suppose, when they heard him speak so much of Christ’s resurrection, and of the resurrection from the dead, which the twelve tribes hoped for, that they mocked, as the Athenians did, began to smile at it, and whispered to one another what an absurd thing it was, which occasioned Paul thus to reason with them. What! is it thought incredible with you that God should raise the dead? So it may be read. If it be marvellous in your eyes, should it be marvellous in mine eyes, saith the Lord of hosts? Zech. viii. 6. If it be above the power of nature, yet it is not above the power of the God of nature. Note, There is no reason why we should think it at all incredible that God should raise the dead. We are not required to believe any thing that is incredible, any thing that implies a contradiction. There are motives of credibility sufficient to carry us through all the doctrines of the Christian religion, and this particularly of the resurrection of the dead. Has not God an infinite almighty power, to which nothing is impossible? Did not he make the world at first out of nothing, with a word’s speaking? Did he not form our bodies, form them out of the clay, and breathe into us the breath of life at first? and cannot the same power form them again out of their own clay, and put life into them again? Do we not see a kind of resurrection in nature, at the return of every spring? Has the sun such a force to raise dead plants, and should it seem incredible to us that God should raise dead bodies?
III. He acknowledges that while he continued a Pharisee he was a bitter enemy to Christians and Christianity, and thought he ought to be so, and continued so to the moment that Christ wrought that wonderful change in him. This he mentions,
1. To show that his becoming a Christian and a preacher was not the product and result of any previous disposition or inclination that way, or any gradual advance of thought in favour of the Christian doctrine; he did not reason himself into Christianity by a chain of arguments, but was brought into the highest degree of an assurance of it, immediately from the highest degree of prejudice against it, by which it appeared that he was made a Christian and a preacher by a supernatural power; so that his conversion in such a miraculous way was not only to himself, but to others also, a convincing proof of the truth of Christianity.
2. Perhaps he designs it for such an excuse of his persecutors as Christ made for his, when he said, They know not what they do. Paul himself once thought he did what he ought to do when he persecuted the disciples of Christ, and he charitably thinks they laboured under the like mistake. Observe,
(1.) What a fool he was in his opinion (v. 9): He thought with himself that he ought to do many things, every thing that lay in his power, contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, contrary to his doctrine, his honour, his interest. That name did not harm, yet, because it agreed not with the notion he had of the kingdom of the Messiah, he was for doing all he could against it. He thought he did God good service in persecuting those who called on the name of Jesus Christ. Note, It is possible for those to be confident they are in the right who yet are evidently in the wrong; and for those to think they are doing their duty who are wilfully persisting in the greatest sin. Those that hated their brethren, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified, Isa. lxvi. 5. Under colour and pretext of religion, the most barbarous and inhuman villanies have been not only justified, but sanctified and magnified, John xvi. 2.
(2.) What a fury he was in his practice, Act 26:10; Act 26:11. There is not a more violent principle in the world than conscience misinformed. When Paul thought it his duty to do all he could against the name of Christ, he spared no pains nor cost in it. He gives an account of what he did of that kind, and aggravates it as one that was truly penitent for it: I was a blasphemer, a persecutor, 1 Tim. i. 13. [1.] He filled the jails with Christians, as if they had been the worst of criminals, designing hereby not only to terrify them, but to make them odious to the people. He was the devil that cast some of them into prison (Rev. ii. 10), took them into custody, in order to their being prosecuted. Many of the saints did I shut up in prison (ch. xxvi. 10), both men and women, ch. viii. 3. [2.] He made himself the tool of the chief priests. Herein from them he received authority, as an inferior officer, to put their laws in execution, and proud enough he was to be a man in authority for such a purpose. [3.] He was very officious to vote, unasked for, the putting of Christians to death, particularly Stephen, to whose death Saul was consenting (ch. viii. 1), and so made himself particeps criminis–partaker of the crime. Perhaps he was, for his great zeal, though young, made a member of the sanhedrim, and there voted for the condemning of Christians to die; or, after they were condemned, he justified what was done, and commended it, and so made himself guilty ex post facto–after the deed was committed, as if he had been a judge or jury-man. [4.] He brought them under punishments of an inferior nature, in the synagogues, where they were scourged as transgressors of the rules of the synagogue. He had a hand in the punishing of many; nay, it should seem the same persons were by his means often punished, as he himself was five times, 2 Cor. xi. 24. [5.] He not only punished them for their religion, but, taking a pride in triumphing over men’s consciences, he forced them to abjure their religion, by putting them to the torture: “I compelled them to blaspheme Christ, and to say he was a deceiver and they were deceived in him–compelled them to deny their Master, and renounce their obligations to him.” Nothing will lie heavier upon persecutors than forcing men’s consciences, how much soever they may now triumph in the proselytes they have made by their violences. [6.] His rage swelled so against Christians and Christianity that Jerusalem itself was too narrow a stage for it to act upon, but, being exceedingly mad against them, he persecuted them even to strange cities. He was mad at them, to see how much they had to say for themselves, notwithstanding all he did against them, mad to see them multiply the more for their being afflicted. He was exceedingly mad; the stream of his fury would admit no banks, no bounds, but he was as much a terror to himself as he was to them, so great was his vexation within himself that he could not prevail, as well as his indignation against them. Persecutors are mad men, and some of them exceedingly mad. Paul was mad to see that those in other cities were not so outrageous against the Christians, and therefore made himself busy where he had no business, and persecuted the Christians even in strange cities. There is not a more restless principle than malice, especially that which pretends conscience.
This was Paul’s character, and this his manner of life in the beginning of his time; and therefore he could not be presumed to be a Christian by education or custom, or to be drawn in by hope of preferment, for all imaginable external objections lay against his being a Christian.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Thou art permitted ( ). Literally, It is permitted thee. As if Agrippa were master of ceremonies instead of Festus. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grand display while Festus has simply introduced Paul.
For thyself ( ). Some MSS. have (concerning). Paul is allowed to speak in his own behalf. No charges are made against him. In fact, Festus has admitted that he has no real proof of any charges.
Stretched forth his hand ( ). Dramatic oratorical gesture (not for silence as in Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16) with the chain still upon it (verse 29) linking him to the guard. First aorist active participle of , to stretch out.
Made his defence (). Inchoative imperfect of (middle), “began to make his defence.” This is the fullest of all Paul’s defences. He has no word of censure of his enemies or of resentment, but seizes the opportunity to preach Christ to such a distinguished company which he does with “singular dignity” (Furneaux). He is now bearing the name of Christ “before kings” (Ac 9:15). In general Paul follows the line of argument of the speech on the stairs (chapter Ac 22).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
PAUL’S FINAL DEFENCE IN ISRAEL BEFORE KING AGRIPPA
V. 1-29
1)“Then Agrippa said unto Paul,” (Agrippas de pros ton Paulon ephe) “Agrippa then said to Paul,” directly recognized Paul, by direct vocal address, as follows: (Agrippa as guest and king, presided over this hearing by right of country).
2) “Thou art permitted to speak for thyself,” (epitrepetai soi huper sequtou legein) “You are permitted to speak on behalf of yourself,” about this matter, at this time, on this occasion. The language of this verse indicates that, though not on formal trial, Paul was defending himself, in who he was, in what he was, in what he said, and in what he did, always.
3) “Then Paul stretched forth the hand,” (tote ho Paulos ekteinas ten cheira) “Then Paul stretching out his hand,” with a courteous, gracious gesture, and to indicate an emotional, sincere appreciation for the privilege of addressing King Agrippa and the huge throng that had crowded into the theatre arena that day.
4) “And answered for himself:” (apelogeito) “He defended himself,” against the extended, malicious charges that the Jews had bellowed against him. He was ready “rightly to divide the word of truth,” to give a “witness” for Jesus Christ and His church, to “defend the faith, – and to “give a reason for the hope that was in him, in meekness and in fear,” 2Ti 2:15; Act 1:8; Php_1:7; Php_1:17; 1Pe 3:15. The king little expected to hear such a moving speech, an oration.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE PROLONGED TRIAL
Acts 25-26
Now when Festus was come, into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
THERE are some men whose presence cannot be ignored. This is not due to their personality. It is not accounted for on the ground of their accomplishments; but, it is a resultant of office.
The Roman governor might be a despicable character. He often was, but his office was not to be disregarded. It was Paul himself who emphasized this principle. He wrote,
Let every soul he subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom 13:1-3).
Not once in all the varied and insulting experiences through which Paul passed did he object to his judge. He seemed to hold what is commonly true, that the just man has little to fear from the machinery of justice. He knew the righteousness of his cause and was not afraid to commit it to even the prejudiced, as this whole study abundantly illustrates, for here he passes from Felix to Festus, and from Festus to Agrippa, trusting that when it is all over, if injustice has been done him, Caesars court, the highest, will set it right.
Imperceptibly, therefore, we pass from the august appearance of Festus to the central subjectPaul, for, after all, Paul is the hero of this entire story. Let us think, then, of Paul Before Festus, Paul Left Over by Felix, and Paul Appealing to Agrippa.
PAUL BEFORE FESTUS
The Jews reveal impatience for his indictment. No sooner had Festus arrived than they had their report ready and their plan outlined. He should send for Paul and bring him to Jerusalem, and they would kill him while on the way.
The judges office has its distasteful side. Litigants are seldom justice-loving people. The judge is not to them the opportunity of justice. He is, rather, the possible medium of selfish plans. When did any litigant go to court, asking only that the truth be found out fully, and justice be meted out fairly? Is he not commonly there, as the priest and chief Jews were here, with a plan? Has he not already told his attorney what course to take, how to entangle the opposition and how to win the victory?
We knew a man who had, with another, a mutual contract that called for an arbitration committee in case of disagreement. The disagreement arose and the committee had to be created, and when the man arrived on the ground where the arbitration was to take place, he found that his opponent had already secured the consent of three of his friends to serve in this mutual capacity, and was profoundly offended when told that such was not the intent of the agreement; that it was his privilege to select one, and one onlythe second to be selected by the other party, and the third by those two. And when the spirit of the articles was carried out, and the committee created, the man who had expected to make the committee a medium of self-service, discovered, to his chagrin, that he had to suffer justice instead.
One of the marvelous things about the Bible is the fact that its history is true to life. In its personalities you see sample men. Its sacred pages are the reflectors of human nature.
Festus, however, had a plan of his own.
Festus answered, that Paul should he kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
Let them, therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought (Act 25:4-6).
A judge should be an independent mana man who thinks for himself. A judge should be a man who makes his own plans and determines the conditions of his own court. He should neither be swayed by the eloquence of a lawyer, nor by the swelling tides of public opinion.
In this country, the people determine, for the most part, at least, their own judges, and when a man sits in this place of importance and power, to be swayed by popular opinion, or legal eloquence, it is the fault of the people as well as the fault of the judge. Particularly is that fault with the people when they re-elect! Office tests men, and tells on the character. The untried are not to be prejudged, but the public servant, who has known years of service, writes his personal history with indelible ink, and the people read.
Some years ago, America put into the presidency a man whose literary and legal talents made him appear to be fitted for the office. At the end of four years, his unfitness was fully revealed and the people retired him, even at the expense of a great party.
More than once America has elected to her highest office an untried man. At the end of four years, he has proven himself a true manbrave, independent, dependable, and almost uniformly they have returned him for a second term. And in spite of the tradition that no man should serve a third term, it has been almost impossible to keep the people from demanding that the true man continue in this high station.
Pauls appeal to Caesars court was a criticism of Festus conduct. In Act 25:6-9 we find the record of official weakness. When the testimony was all in, it amounted to nothing. The complaints were unprovable, and when Paul had denied them in toto,
Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there he judged of these things before me?
Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgment seat, where I ought to he judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar (Act 25:9-11).
The highest court is commonly the safest. As a rule, only men of character attain to its honors as judges, and the more character in the judge, the better opportunity for the triumph of truth and right. In fact, in practically all the walks of life, one had best plead his case before the head man. If you want credit at a store, dont request it of a clerk. Get to the head of the credit department. If you would secure a pass on a railroad, dont appeal to the chief clerk. Find access to the vice-president.
Paul was a judge of men and had a working knowledge of affairs, and he knew the higher up he went the greater likelihood of righteous treatment.
It is often more trouble to get to the head man than it is to speak to one of his assistants, but the former is a worth while painstaking. It is rather more expensive to reach a supreme court than to settle difficulties in a squires court. But if the case is important, then the judgment involves a master wisdom. For righteousness, Caesars court is a thousandfold more satisfactory than the court of Festus. Let us lift the principle a little higher still.
There are those who fear the high and holy Judge of all the earth, but we are fully persuaded, both upon the basis of Bible testimony and that of personal experience, that even a sinner stands a better chance before the Most High God than at the court of human society.
There is many a man incarcerated in the State penitentiary who fears not the final judgment, since it is more easy to stand before a just and righteous God than it is to appear before unjust and unrighteous society.
O, sinner! your hope is not with men, not with the judges of the earth; it is with the Lordthe Judge of all. Paul appealed to Caesar. Your appeal, my appeal, is to Christ.
PAUL LEFT OVER BY FELIX
And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.
And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Pauls cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against Him.
To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him (Act 25:13-16).
The judge is often heir to legal troubles. They are passed down to him from predecessors. They are passed on to him from previous dockets. The court sheet is seldom clean. The man going out of office commonly leaves to his successor a vast deal of dirt-cleaning to be done. This is particularly true in American courts. They are cluttered affairs. They remind the inspector of a warehouse into which has been crowded the ill-mated furniture in many homes, and where, as you walk through, you wonder if there will ever be a clean-up.
It is now conceded that the cluttered court is both the occasion and explanation of American crimes. In the mother country, when a man commits a crime, he is promptly arrested, promptly indicted, and if guilty, promptly convicted; if innocent, promptly released. The certainty and suddenness of judgment are moral deterrents. The case continued custom, so long and so widely obtaining in America, is a State curse.
To be sure, ours is a new country and a great territory, and crimes committed in it are more easily covered than in the English isle, or the nations of the continent; but it is very generally conceded that our chief failure in all criminal procedure is that of speedy detection, speedy trial, and speedy judgment. Our criminals are arrested, and either released on bond or flung into jail. Months pass before any trial is had, causing favor toward the guilty, in that the true case against him weakens with time; testimony is ever increasingly difficult to secure, public feeling dies down, and even the judge himself is influenced by the thought that, though this is a crime, it was committed long ago.
The impression seems to prevail with the American bench that attorneys are to determine court procedure, time included, rather than the judge. If they want to drag an indifferent case into days, they are permitted to do so, and often, even the judge himself loses interest in the main objective before the end is reached, and must add other days in order to review and freshen his mind on the whole matter. Meantime, justice waits and crime complacently continues.
Festus shared his court troubles with the king. (Act 25:13-22). This is Herod Agrippa, the second. He had been trained in the Royal Palace of the Emperor, but he had not lost his interest in his own people, the Jews; and when, through the tetrarchy, his dominion was extended, it included Judaea. He was brother-in-law of Felix, and his scandal with Bernice was known to Jew and Gentile alike; and yet, his higher office made its appeal to Festus who both flattered Agrippa, and sought to escape his own duty, by asking his judgment in the Paul-in-stance.
There is, however, a dual principle here involved that has both its merit and demerit. It is always justifiable for the humbler office to consult the higher, and the man in comparative authority to consult the man of supreme authority.
Therein is the justification of prayer, especially such prayer as appeals to God for wisdom. When the King of Glory can be consulted, what folly to rely upon self-judgment. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God. But in this instance, so even in that, men may make of prayer itself a political procedure. That is to say, when duty is clear, they may delay it on the pretense of consulting God.
The judge, in humblest office, who knows what should be done, has little need of consultation. What he needs is courage, decision, and so the man who has a plain path before his feet need not ask God which way. The wiser part is to walk steadily therein.
In this action, Festus seems to have favored the separation of Church and State. He described these Jewish questions as matters of their own superstition, and doubted of such manner of questions for State consideration. It was, in fact, a case in point. The Church and State are separate. The first must not essay to control the second, and the second may not attempt to determine the faith of the first. As between the various religious opinions of the sects, the State has nothing to say; but it is very easy to carry even this principle too far, because, when a religious sect clearly violates the letter and spirit of State law, then it becomes commonly criminal as the King David case in Michigan. Or, when the individual religious opinion becomes inimical to public interest, then the State has a right to self-protection, as in the Wisconsin U. case. That is the principle on which we have advocated the passing and execution of anti-evolution laws. No servant of the state has a right to teach philosophies injurious to the public weal, and attempt to justify himself by naming such philosophies science. If history is replete with illustrations of anything, it is that all atheistic and materialistic philosophies have been hurtful to men as individuals and to men collectively.
France was nearly destroyed by deism in her schools, and Germany has lost her place in the sun by following Nietzsche too far in his false philosophy. Russia is, at this present moment, a holocaust of crimes committed in the name of sovietism. Those men in America who are striving to drive the Christian faith from the public school educational system and substitute instead a materialistic philosophy that leaves a term, expressing no fact whatever, as the explanation of all things, are enemies of the social organism, and against such the State has a perfect right to speak, as Tennessee has spoken, and Mississippi and Colorado have spoken.
Think of the instance of Loeb and Leopold. They adopted the Universitys philosophy of life and then proposed to put it into criminal practice, and the State rose and convicted and incarcerated them, and but for their youth would have justly hung them.
The true church is the best friend the State ever had; a false one is forever the States enemy. The function of the Church is religion; the function of the State is social administration. Their spheres are different, hence the necessity of their separation. But their interests overlap, hence the necessity of their co-operation.
But we conclude with
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
This record is found in the twenty-sixth chapter.
Here again, Paul pleads his own case (Act 26:1-26). It is an instance of noble self-defense.
Some of us are in honest doubt if the world needs attorneys. The attorney is supposed to be an expert in law, and to be able to protect the interests of his clients. But the man who sits in the place of judge ought also to be an expert in law, and no one appearing in his court should need other protection from any source. The judgment of the judge should be the sufficient protection of all parties.
It is doubtful if there has been a more conspicuous figure on the American continent than the famed Justice John of Richmond, Virginia. For years he performed all the functions of the court. Unless somebody demanded a jury, he was judge, jury and lawyer for both sides. He cross-questioned the witnesses. He did not seek to prejudice them one way or the other, but to discover from them the facts, and the public shortly found out that righteousness was favored in that court, unrighteousness was frowned upon, and few of his decisions were ever reversed.
It is our judgment that there is no feature of law more fair than that which privileges every man to plead his own case, if he desires to do so; and it is equally our judgment that when one has a righteous case, it would be better for him to adopt the apostolic method and to make his own statement.
The modern custom of asking questions and demanding yes and no answers, is hardly favorable to a knowledge of the truth. Expert attorneys know how to compel it to cover the truth instead. The straightforward rehearsal of Pauls experience, as reported in these verses, would impress any just judge, and had Paul stopped with his statement, This thing was not done in a corner, we believe he would have won his case.
It was his personal question that queered him. King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets? I know that thou believest! Agrippa answered, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian, has about it the suggestion of scorn. It is so now and apparently it has always been so, that even the believing judge on the bench does not want any reference to his faith made. He knows the public expects him to mete out justice and to be absolutely uninfluenced by religious feelings. Hence his resentment if they are referred to in the slightest. There is a sense in which this resentment is justified. State questions are not to be settled by religious sentiment. On the other hand, the true Christian man will not be silenced concerning the faith that is in him because he happens to stand before a State official.
The completion of the Book of Acts will prove that Paul was never put into any place where he felt it out of order, or even in the slightest degree unbecoming to bear his testimony to the Christ; and it was practically impossible for Paul to deal with any man, in station high or low, without trying to win him to the worship of Jesus.
If such an endeavor is resented by the judge, it will not be made an occasion of adverse judgment. Down deep in his heart, the veriest man of the world appreciates Christian consistency, and Christian enthusiasm, and Christian courage. Agrippa seems not to have been an exception; for, when the whole matter was over and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them, are gone aside to talk among themselves, they agreed, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
Paul, then, had triumphed. He had convinced the judge of the justice of his case. He had seemed innocent in the eyes of the king!
The innocent are always convincingly eloquent. The profound appeal Paul had made to Agrippa is voiced in the last verse, Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
That was an admission, We find no fault in him. It carried with it, also, a hint, at least, of contentment in a possible excuse. Felix had had his opportunity to set Paul free and had failed. Festus had had his opportunity to set Paul free and had failed. Now Agrippa has his opportunity to set Paul free, and he fails. Felix excused himself on the ground that Festus was coming and could hear Pauls defense. Festus excused himself on the ground that Agrippa was coming and he would wait for the judgment of one in a higher court. And now Agrippa has excused himself on the ground that since Caesars court is final, there is no occasion to interfere.
Alas, for the maneuvers of men in justifying delay in plain duty. And yet, let it be remembered that the final court will come and it will come for all men. The great day of the Assize will arrive. The final judge will sit in the throne of His glory,
and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand,
Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in:
Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.
Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.
Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in: naked, and ye clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited Me not.
Then shall they also answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?
Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (Mat 25:32-46).
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 26:1. Agrippa said unto Paul.On this occasion Agrippa, not Festus, presided over the tribunal. The stretching forth of the hand was the gesture of an orator preparing himself to speak, and differed from the act of beckoning or shaking with the hand (Act. 12:17, Act. 13:16, Act. 21:40), which was a signal demanding silence. The act is thus described: Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, dubousque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit (Apuleius, Met., 2:54, quoted by Meyer). The hand which Paul raised was chained (Act. 26:29). Answered for himself. Made his defence, or apology. This was the third occasion on which Paul had vindicated himselfthe first having been when he addressed the Jews (Act. 22:1), and the second when he stood before Felix (Act. 24:10). The present speech (Act. 26:2-23) divides itself into three parts. In the first (Act. 26:2-8), the apostle sets forth the solidarity of his own faith with that of his countrymen, in so far as each is a religion of hope; in the second (Act. 26:9-18) he explains the origin of his call to the apostolate; in the third (Act. 26:19-23) he shows how he was led to direct his apostolic activity towards the Gentiles.
Act. 26:2. The best MSS. omit the before Jews, as in Act. 26:7; Act. 26:21; Act. 25:10. Paul would represent the accusation as purely Jewish in its character, and indeed as proceeding from some only, not from all, of the Jews.
Act. 26:3. Especially gives the reason why Paul counted himself fortunate, not the quality or quantity of Agrippas knowledge, though Rabbinic writers speak of Agrippa as having excelled in a knowledge of the law (Hackett). Thee to be expert.The words in Greek are anakolouthic. Instead of an accusative, a genitive might rather have been expected. Patiently.Paul obviously proposed a somewhat extended oration.
Act. 26:4. My manner of life from my youth up.This appears to imply that Paul had been brought to Jerusalem at an early age (compare Act. 23:3), though he was seemingly absent from the Metropolis during the three years of our Lords ministry (2Co. 5:16).
Act. 26:5. From the beginning.The same idea as that contained in from my youth up. I lived a Pharisee.Observe the succession of the clauses, which state
(1) how long the Jews had known Paulfrom his youth up, or from the beginning;
(2) where they had known himin Jerusalem; and
(3) what they had known about himthat he had lived a Pharisee (compare Act. 22:3, Act. 23:6).
Act. 26:6. I stand here and am judged.Better, I stand here, being judged. Pauls complaint was that he was being tried, not for heterodoxy, but for orthodoxyfor the hope, etc.
Act. 26:7. Our twelve tribes.Paul, like James (Act. 1:1), considered the then existing Jewish people to be the legitimate representatives of the Twelve Tribes. Like James, he ignored the legend, so often repeated and revived, that the ten tribes of the northern kingdoms of Israel, after they had been carried away by Shalmaneser, had wandered far away, and were to be found, in disguise, in far-off regions of the world. The earliest appearance of the fable is in the apocryphal 2Es. 13:40-46, where they are said to have gone to a country where never mankind dwelt, that they might there keep the statutes which they never kept in their own land. The apostle, on the contrary, represents the whole body of the Twelve Tribes as alike serving God (Plumptre). While it is certainly true that the main body of the home-returning exiles consisted of members of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, it is equally indubitable that amongst them were members of other tribes, as, e.g., of Ephraim and Manasseh (1Ch. 9:3).
Act. 26:8. Why should it so thought a thing incredible with you?Another interpretation gives What! is it judged incredible with you? (Griesbach, Kuinoel, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson). That God should raise the dead!Lit., if God raises; presenting the question as one a sceptic might controvert, and being present, because the resurrection of Jesus was regarded by the apostle as illustrating a permanent attribute or power on the part of God (Hackett). The precise force of the question has been differently explained. Connected with the preceding verses, it has been understood as giving the inner kernel of the promise made unto the Jewish fathers, and as replying to a look of incredulity perhaps at the moment visible on the faces of his hearers (Holtzmann); regarded as introductory to the ensuing paragraph, it has been interpreted as signifying either that, since no Jew could hesitate to believe in the resurrection of the dead, what the apostle was about to rehearse should likewise be accepted as credible (Overbeck), or that the apostles faith in the Messiah, of which he was about to speak, had exactly that for its presupposition which no Jew would think of controvertingviz., that God was able to raise the dead (Wendt). Perhaps the first connection is the better.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 26:1-8
Pauls Appeal to His Past Life; or, a Vindication of his Jewish Orthodoxy
I. Pauls happiness in entering on his defence.One might naturally have supposed that Paul by this time would have felt it irksome to be called up to speak for himself, having already twice attempted to vindicate his innocence, before the Sanhedrim (Act. 22:1) and before Felix (Act. 24:10), but with no good resultonly with this, that for two long years he had been detained in bonds. Spirits of less noble mould than Pauls would have been crushedwould have renounced both faith in God and hope for themselves; but he, as sorrowful yet always rejoicing (2Co. 6:10), as perplexed but not in despair, persecuted but not forsaken, cast down but not destroyed (2Co. 4:8-9), continued bright and cheerful, never losing heart or hope, constantly confident that all things were working together for his good (Rom. 8:28), as well as for Gods purpose (Eph. 1:11), and therefore always ready to enter any door of service that might be opened, not so much for the vindication of himself as for the furtherance of the gospel and the cause of his Master. In particular, he welcomed the present opportunity of appearing before Agrippa and answering the charges that had been brought against him.
1. Because Agrippa was a king, and a king, it was written, should ever love judgment (Psa. 99:4) and practise righteousness (Isa. 32:1), yea, righteous lips should be his delight (Pro. 16:13), while to search out a matter was his honour (Pro. 25:2), and to do wickedness should be to him an abomination (Pro. 16:12).
2. Because Agrippa was an expert in all Jewish customs and questions, and would be able to comprehend the point or points at issue between him, Paul, and his countrymenpoints which had somewhat disconcerted the Governor (Act. 25:20). That Paul here praises the kings eminent knowledge of Jewish religion and morals is no empty flattery, but appears to rest on this, that Agrippa, more than any other member of his family, occupied himself with the peoples ecclesiastical affairs, although nothing definite concerning this has been handed down by tradition (Zckler). Rabbinic writers speak of Agrippa II. as having excelled in a knowledge of the law; and as the traditions which these Rabbinic writers follow could not have flowed from this passage, they confirm the representation here given by an unexpected agreement (Hackett). Possibly Agrippa II. had been carefully instructed in them by his father, Agrippa I., who was famous for his rigid observance of all Jewish customs and rites (Spence).
3. Because Agrippa was acquainted with the Scriptures, which formed the ultimate standard of judgment for all controverted points in religion. Though Paul made no mention of this in his courteous exordium, it lay clearly in the background of his consciousness (see Act. 26:27). Notice, that in all this Paul introduces no word in flattery of the young sovereign. Paul doubtless understood that
They do abuse the king that flatter him,
Whereas reproof, obedient and in order,
Fits kings as they are men, for they may err.Shakespeare.
II. Pauls request for a patient hearing of his case.
1. Because heretofore he had in every instance been interrupted and prevented from making a full statement of his defence. By the Jews, when he spoke from the castle stairs in Jerusalem (Act. 20:22); by the high priest, when he appeared before the Sanhedrim (Act. 23:2); by Felix, when he stood before that governor (Act. 24:22)though not stated, this seems to have been the exact state of matters; by Festus, who succeeded Felix (Act. 25:9). And now, before beginning, he bespeaks a different treatment from the Jewish sovereign.
2. Because he desired to make a complete presentation of his cause, without which justice could not be done either to himself, the accused party, or by Agrippa, whose opinion on his case was sought. If, through his imperfect exposition of the exact situation, Agrippa failed to apprehend the matter requiring judgment, then neither would Agrippa be able to return nor himself be likely to receive a righteous verdict. To a fair hearing and an honest sentence even the worst of criminals is entitled.
III. Pauls appeal to the knowledge of his contemporaries.All the Jews referred to were obviously all the Jews of Jerusalem and Juda; and these, the apostle urged, had intimate acquaintance with him.
1. Where they had known him. In Jerusalem, and therefore at first hand; not simply by report, as one living at a distance, say in Tarsus, outside the limits of the Holy Land. In the very Metropolis of Judaism, and therefore in the place where those lived who were most capable of observing and judging of his character (see on Act. 22:3).
2. How long they had known him. From his youth up. Not merely at one or two brief particular times. This statement implies that Paul had in early life, for some reason unknown, removed from Tarsus and settled at Jerusalem, where he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel (see Critical Remarks on Act. 22:3).
3. As what they had known him. Not as a heretic, or unbeliever, but as one who lived after the straitest sect of their religion, as a Pharisee, as a member of that community of which Josephus writes: The Pharisees are a Jewish sect who appear to be more religious than others, and who appear to interpret the law more strictly (Wars, I. Act. 5:2), and again: they are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of their country (Life, 38). All this the Jews knew, and, were they willingof which Paul was manifestly not surecould testify concerning him. That any of the grave and dignified members of the Sanhedrim were present in that great assembly that morning (Spence) cannot be gathered from the narrative, but had they been, they could, had they chosen, have bowed their heads in acquiescence to what Paul was stating to Agrippa.
IV. Pauls exposition of the charge preferred against himself.
1. An explanation. The offence for which he, a chained prisoner, was being presently examined and judged consisted, not in his having committed any civil crime, political misdemeanour, or religious aberration, but in his having cherished the hope of the promise which had been
(1) made unto the fathers, and which in Pauls judgment was contained in the sacred Scriptures as well as embraced more than the prediction of a Divine Messiah, even the announcement of a resurrection, and of a future glorified life (see Hints on Act. 26:6); and
(2) was cherished at that moment by all the Twelve Tribes, who earnestly served God day and night with a splendid ritual worship, the ultimate end and aim of which was to secure for them that eternal life, through the advent and work of Messiah, to whom their sacrificial ceremonialism and symbolism looked forward. He was therefore in complete harmony with the faith of his countrymen, and differed from them solely in this, that he held that promise to have been fulfilled in the historical appearing of Jesus of Nazareth, and that hope to be realised through His resurrection from the dead.
2. A defence. Did they question what he now asserted? Did they deem what he now preached a delusion? If he took for granted that God could raise the dead, why should that be pronounced by them incredible? Had their sacred books never spoken of a resurrection? Was so marvellous a phenomenon as the resuscitation of a dead body altogether unknown to them? It ought not to be, if they had read that sacred volume with sufficient care (see 1Ki. 17:17-23; 2Ki. 4:18-37; 2Ki. 13:21). His allegation, then, that he had seen the risen Christ ought not to be lightly waived aside, or the doctrine of a resurrection contemptuously rejected (see Hints on Act. 26:8).
Learn
1. The cheerfulness in trial which Divine grace can inspire.
2. The value of a wide and accurate knowledge in religion.
3. The advantage to be derived in after years from a well-spent youth.
4. The fundamental basis of all acceptable worshipthe promise of God.
5. The reasonableness of faith in the resurrection, and of hope of eternal life.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 26:1. Permitted to Speak for Himself.
I. A dangerous temptation.Before which all ministers require to be on their guard, lest, like false teachers, they should speak merely for themselves, for their own glory, or their own profit.
II. A painful duty.Which ministers sometimes need to perform, as when their ministerial usefulness is threatened by some prevailing calumny, or they are charged with offences they have not committed, and which, if not disproved, would bring their office into disrepute (2Co. 6:3).
III. A blessed privilege.Which all ministers have, and true ministers delight to avail themselves of, when it means to speak for their Master, Christfor His glory, for the advancement of His cause, for the diffusion of His truth, for the extension of His kingdom.
A Chained Prisoner on His Defence.A series of marvels.
I. Speaks before the great ones of the earth without trepidation.An example of holy courage (Psa. 27:1; Isa. 51:12).
II. Descants upon a lofty theme without faltering.A proof of high endowment (Psa. 37:30; Pro. 8:6).
III. Seeks the glory of God without a thought of self.A sign of great grace (Joh. 8:50).
IV. Enters on his task in sublime cheerfulness, without a symptom of despondent dulness.An instance of exalted faith.
V. Rises into glowing eloquence, without a taint of sordid speech.A mark of complete self-control.
Act. 26:2. The Secret of Pauls Joy in Addressing Agrippa.
I. What it was not.Neither
(1) gratification at being honoured to speak before a king, since Paul would as cheerfully have spoken before a common man; nor
(2) satisfaction at being able to clear his character from the charges brought against him, though Paul of course was by no means indifferent to this; nor
(3) delight at the opportunity of exposing the malice of his foes, which richly merited both exposure and rebuke, not to say punishment; nor
(4) expectation of thereby obtaining his release, since Paul knew that he must go to Rome.
II. What it was.
1. The prospect of being able to testify concerning and for Christ before one to whom the circumstances of the Jewish nation, the promises made to the fathers, and the history of Christ, were not unknown; and
2. The hope of gaining at least one convert, perhaps more than one, to the faith of his exalted Lord. Paul, stretching forth his hand, approached the king, and aimed at his heart (Besser).
The Character of Pauls Defence.
I. Humble without servility.
II. Fearless without pride.
III. Powerful without passion and rancour.
IV. Mild without laxity.
V. Prudent without art.
VI. Simple, yet not without skill.
Act. 26:3. A Patient Hearing.
I. Due to preachers of the gospelalways supposing them to be faithful and earnest. Because of
1. The Master they serveChrist.
2. The message they bringthe good news of reconciliation.
3. The end at which they aimthe salvation of their hearers.
II. Frequently denied to preachers.Because of
1. Dislike of both the preacher and his Master.
2. Disinclination towards both the subject and the aim of his message.
3. Dissatisfaction with the manner or the method of the preacher.
4. Pre-occupation with other thoughts or things.
Act. 26:4. My Manner of Life from My Youth Up; or, an Aged Christians Retrospect of his Past Career.
I. Sometimes necessary.This was the case with Paul when before Agrippa. It was needful for the vindication of himself to appeal to his previous history, from his youth upwards, to show that he had never really been out of harmony with the faith or practice of his people, as his enemies alleged. So Christians have sometimes to establish their own consistency by calling up their manner of life in former years.
II. Always difficult.Even Christians, like other people, are not above the temptation of dealing gently with themselves. It requires great grace to enable even a good man to be faithful in appreciating his own character, not to over-estimate his virtues or under-estimate his defects. Paul was eminently successful in this work of self-examination. What he claimed before Agrippa was not that his past life had been sinless in the sight of God, but merely that it had been externally faultless in the eyes of men.
III. Often profitable.When it leads to self-humiliation and repentance before God on account of shortcomings; when it shows that the past has been at least constantly conscientious, if not completely correct; when it enables one to see the guiding hand of a gracious Providence leading on from step to step towards the goal of conversion and salvation.
IV. Not always satisfactory.It was not so with Paul. He recognised that his past career had been outwardly correct and inwardly conscientious; but he found that notwithstanding he had been a persecutor and a blasphemerin short, the chief of sinners.
Act. 26:6. The Promise Made to the Fathers.
I. Divine in its origin.Made by God. Had the author been man, the promise would have been worthless.
II. Ancient in its date.Going back to the fathers of the faithful, yea, even to the first father of the human family.
III. Gracious in its character.Prompted by the spontaneous love and kindness of God.
IV. Great in its contents.A promise of salvation.
V. Varied in its form.
1. To Adam, the promise of a womans seed who should bruise the serpents head (Gen. 3:15).
2. To Abraham, the promise of a land (Gen. 12:1), of a seed (Gen. 13:15), of a son (Gen. 15:4).
3. To Israel under Moses, the promise of a law-giver like unto Moses (Deu. 18:18).
4. To David, the promise of a son who should sit and reign upon his throne for ever (2Sa. 7:12).
5. To Israel in the time of Isaiah, the promise
(1) of a virgins child, whose name should be called Immanuel (Isa. 7:14), Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6):
(2) of a suffering servant of Jehovah, who should bear the sins of many and make intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53:11-12).
6. To Israel, in the days of Jeremiah, the promise of one who should be called the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 33:15-16).
7. To Israel, in the era of Ezekiel, the promise of a shepherd king like David to rule over his people (Eze. 37:24).
8. To Israel, after the return from captivity, the promise of one called the Branch (Zec. 3:8).
VI. Sure in its fulfilment.This involved in the fact of its being the promise of a God who cannot lie.
VII. Realised in the person and work of Christ.This the burden of the gospel message, as it was the theme of Pauls preaching.
Act. 26:8. Raising the Deadcredible or incredible?
I. Incredible only on one or other, or all, of the following suppositions:
1. That the dead have entirely ceased to be. In this case they could not be raised, though other beings might be created in their stead.
2. That there is no power adequate to effect their resurrection. This will require to be admitted if there is no God, since a power less than Divine will not suffice.
3. That it is impossible for a Divine power, should there be such, to interfere with the ordinary laws of nature. This the position occupied by those who hold that the supernatural must never transcend the limits, but always restrict itself to the channels, of the natural.
4. That the Divine power, assuming such exists, has distinctly declined to interfere with natural law. This, however, God has nowhere donecertainly not in Scripture.
5. That the Divine Being has expressly asserted no such event as a resurrection will ever take place. This also He has nowhere affirmed.
II. Credible.
1. If the dead are still living, though they have passed beyond this mortal scene (Mat. 22:32).
2. If there be a God, as all nature cries aloud through all her works, as Scripture throughout asserts, and as mans own nature attests there is.
3. If God has distinctly promised that He will raise the dead. This He has most certainly done. Both Old and New Testaments supply texts in confirmation.
4. If Christ has already risen from the dead. That He has is what Paul asserted. For the sake of the truth of this his fellow-apostles as well as himself were willing to stake, and actually did stake, their lives.
5. If in the idea of a resurrection nothing contrary to reason exists. Whatever objections may be taken to its credibility, it cannot be asserted that the notion of a resurrection is either inconceivable or irrational.
6. If a resurrection would raise man to a higher stage of being than before. Were it certain that mans future rising would be a backward step, it might be difficult to credit the occurrence of any such event in the future.
7. If a resurrection would furnish to the universe an additional proof of the Divine glory. This assuredly it would. It would exhibit at once the glory of His grace and power.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
f.
Pauls defense before King Agrippa. Act. 25:13 bAct. 26:32.
Act. 25:13
Now when certain days were passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea, and saluted Festus.
Act. 25:14
And as they tarried there many days, Festus laid Pauls case before the king, saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix;
Act. 25:15
about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him.
Act. 25:16
To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have met the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him.
Act. 25:17
When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought.
Act. 25:18
Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed;
Act. 25:19
but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
Act. 25:20
And I, being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters,
Act. 25:21
But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be kept till I should send him to Caesar.
Act. 25:22
And Agrippa said unto Festus, I also could wish to hear the man myself. To-morrow, saith he, thou shalt hear him.
Act. 25:23
So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought in.
Act. 25:24
And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
Act. 25:25
But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death: and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him.
Act. 25:26
Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, king Agrippa, that, after examination, I may have somewhat to write.
Act. 25:27
For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him.
Act. 26:1
And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence:
Act. 26:2
I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews:
Act. 26:3
especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
Act. 26:4
My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Act. 26:5
having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Act. 26:6
And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers;
Act. 26:7
unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king!
Act. 26:8
Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?
Act. 26:9
I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Act. 26:10
And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them.
Act. 26:11
And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities.
Act. 26:12
Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests,
Act. 26:13
at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me.
Act. 26:14
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
Act. 26:15
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Act. 26:16
But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee;
Act. 26:17
delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee,
Act. 26:18
to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sancitified by faith in me.
Act. 26:19
Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Act. 26:20
but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
Act. 26:21
For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and assayed to kill me.
Act. 26:22
Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come;
Act. 26:23
how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.
Act. 26:24
And as he thus made his defence, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad.
Act. 26:25
But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness.
Act. 26:26
For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of those things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner.
Act. 26:27
King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
Act. 26:28
And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian.
Act. 26:29
And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds.
Act. 26:30
And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
Act. 26:31
and when they had withdrawn, they spake one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
Act. 26:32
And Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
Act. 25:13 Festus had not been in office long until he had a visit from royalty.
We might say that it was a visit of relatives, for the sister of the king was a sister to his wife. Agrippa, the king and Bernice. These came to bring greetings (and congratulations) but also to stay for many days. Among the many things of interest in the new post it was natural that Festus should mention the rather unique case of Paul. Luke had such a valuable source for his information that he could put the words of Festus to Agrippa in the first person. Luke causes Festus to say (paraphrasing his words):
933. What relation was King Agrippa to Festus?
Act. 25:14-19 There is a carry-over case from the rule of Felix. He was left a prisoner. When I arrived in Jerusalem, I heard more about him. It seems the chief priests expected me to turn him over to them as a token of my esteem. I, of course, answered that this was no custom prevailing among us Romans. (It evidently is among the Jews.) I said that our law was to face one another in the court and let the accused have equal opportunity with the accusers. They took me up on my offer and I heard their case the very next day.
Well, when the man was brought and the trial was under way I found there were no such charges as I at first imagined. I thought the man must have done some great evil to the Jews. But the only thing I could make out was an argument between them over one called Jesus whom the Jews said was dead but whom Paul strongly maintained to be alive.
Act. 25:20-22 Now I am not acquainted with such superstitious religious beliefs, so I asked Paul if he would go up to Jerusalem about this matter and be judged there before me. (Here Festus places an entirely different construction on his actions than truly happened). But what did the man do? He appealed to Caesar. So I have charged him to be kept for this trial before Augustus.
It could have been from the note found in Act. 25:22 that Agrippa had heard of Pauls imprisonment even before Festus gave him the details. The verse does seem to suggest that the king was rather anxiously awaiting a chance to hear from this strange prisoner.
I also was wishing that I could hear the man myself, said Agrippa.
Act. 25:23-27 Tomorrow you shall, answered Festus.
So according to the prearranged plan there was on the morrow a gathering not soon to be forgotten. To the king it was but another opportunity to amuse himself amid royal surroundings. This was to be done in full formal dress. The army generals were there! all the chief men of social position and rulers of the city were sent invitations. Bernice and Agrippa had on their royal robes. In the midst of all this splendor Paul appeared from the prison.
Did Paul hear the gossip of the jailor the night before the gathering? Did he know just what occasioned this appearance? Did he have knowledge that he was to speak before a king? To all these questions we will have no answer but it is interesting to speculate.
Festus had called the meeting so he now makes a formal speech of introduction. Paul stands between two soldiers with the light chain dangling from his left wrist. Festus stands before Agrippa and gestures toward Paul and says:
King Agrippa, and all others here present, behold the man, This is the one that has caused all the Jews to cry out that he should be killed, I heard this cry both here and in Jerusalem. I have tried him and found nothing at all worthy of death, but here is our problem. He has appealed to Augustus, and I will send him. But I have nothing to write of him to the emperor. I know not the details of this case. But you can help me, and especially you, King Agrippa, since you know much more about the Jewish religion than I. You can appreciate my position, that it does seem altogether unreasonable to send a prisoner with no charges.
934.
What seemed to be the greatest concern of Festus in the case of Paul?
935.
What false construction did Festus put upon his actions?
936.
Did Agrippa know of Paul before Festus told of him?
937.
Describe briefly the assembly before whom Paul was to speak.
938.
What did Festus say was the purpose of the trial?
939.
Who was in the place of highest authority in this trial?
940.
Would it be a good plan for us to tell the details of our conversion even as Paul did here?
So spoke the governor in words of flattery and not without a note of real need.
Act. 26:1 Everyone else had been speaking about and for the apostle, Agrippa gestures from his elevated seat to Paul and says;
Paul, thou art permitted to speak for thyself.
PAULS DEFENSE BEFORE AGRIPPA
Act. 26:2-29
Introduction. Act. 26:2-3.
Proposition: To demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ and that he, Paul, was innocent.
IPauls early life. Act. 26:4-8.
1.
Was among the Jews and well known by them. Act. 26:4-5 a.
2.
Was a strict Pharisee, Act. 26:5 b.
3.
Now judged for the things he and all the Jews believed. Act. 26:6-7.
4.
Application to the king. Act. 26:8.
IIHis persecution of the Christians. Act. 26:9-11.
1.
He opposed Jesus of Nazareth and His teaching. Act. 26:9.
2.
Intense persecution at Jerusalem. Act. 26:10.
3.
Details of his madness, even to foreign cities. Act. 26:11.
IIIHis conversion. Act. 26:12-19.
1.
On the road Damascus at noon and attended with an intense light. Act. 26:12-13.
2.
The voice, the message of Jesus to Saul. Act. 26:14-18.
3.
Pauls ready and complete response to the vision and voice. Act. 26:19.
IVPauls labors following his conversion. Act. 26:20.
VThe application of what has just been said to the present situation. Act. 26:21-23.
1.
The reason for his being taken in the temple was because he was carrying out the commission of Christ. Act. 26:21.
2.
What he says now and has preached before is nothing but what the prophets have said should come. Act. 26:22-23.
VIThe interruption of Festus and Pauls answer. Act. 26:24-25.
VIIThe application of Pauls answer to the king. Act. 26:26-29.
1.
The knowledge of king Agrippa of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Act. 26:26.
2.
Appeal to Agrippa and his knowledge of the prophets. Act. 26:27.
3.
Agrippas conviction and almost persuasion. Act. 26:28.
4.
Pauls reply. Act. 26:29.
Now we shall proceed to carefully examine the details of this outline.
Introduction. Act. 26:2-3.
Paul counted this occasion a real privilege, which indeed it was. But more especially because of whom he had as an audience. Not just a king, but King Agrippa. The apostle states that he was very glad to speak to this one, but why? Well, a bit of background is in order here to appreciate what is to follow.
Here is a little chart of the Herod family to show you the relationship of this Herod to the rest of them.
You can see that this man was the last one of the Herods to appear in history.
When Paul said that this man knew of these things, i.e. the events of the life of Christ and of Sauls own conversion, it was surely true that he did! His grandfather attempted to kill Jesus when He was an infant. His father had attempted to kill the apostle Peter. All his life he must have heard of this one Jesus of Nazareth. It could have been that he also knew the writings of the prophets. His father being quite a student of the Jewish religion had taught him these things. At least his association with the Jews had taught him many points of their history and prophets. Herod Agrippa was himself part Jew, his mother was a Jewess.
Paul seems to have a high estimate of the knowledge of this one on such matters. The apostle says: . . . Thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews.
This was a fine introduction designed to secure the favorable attention and interest of the king and the rest of the audience. And what an audience!
Paul now proceeds to demonstrate through the telling of the history of his own life that he is innocent of all the charges laid against him and that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Messiah.
I.
Pauls early life. Act. 26:4-8.
1.
Was among the Jews and well known. Act. 26:4-5.
Paul was going to take his time in explaining enough of the background to prove both his complete innocence and the validity of his conversion and commission. He says first then that he was not an intruding stranger with an unusual heresy and strange teaching. He said in thought: King Agrippa, these persons who accuse me have known me and of me since my childhood. My whole life has been in closest association with my people, the Jews. A good share of my life has been spent in Jerusalem,
2.
Was a strict Pharisee. Act. 26:5 b.
Then to show in the future of his discussion the validity of his change he mentions his zeal for the law, To say that he was a Pharisee was to say that he stood for the law of Moses in the strongest, strictest manner. Indeed, Paul was to later describe himself during this period as a Pharisee of the Pharisees. The implications of this statement were well understood by Agrippa, if not by the others.
941.
Why did Paul consider it a special privilege to speak before King Agrippa?
942.
Show how it would surely be true that Agrippa knew of the things of the life of Christ and Paul.
943.
What two things did Paul hope to prove by a background explanation of his life?
944.
Why mention the fact that he was a Pharisee?
3.
Now to be judged for what he and all other Jews believed, Act. 26:6-7
And nowThis is surely suggestive of a great contrast; what he was then and what he was as he stood before the king. What a change! It must also contain a note of irony for the apostle is saying that his charges are based only on what he did believe, does now believe, and what the Jews have always believed.
. . . The hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain.
The hope referred to was the coming of the Messiah. This hope was based on a promise, a promise given by God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and others. And so it was the mainspring of the Jews hope. In this promise they saw deliverance and exaltation. How sad it was that when He came to His own . . . they received Him not. . .
Paul is saying to the king that his charges are not those of some wicked villany but concern the coming of the king of the Jews.
Ah! What a descriptive phrase is given as to the great desire of the Jews for the Messiah. Mark it:
. . . earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain.
This can point out to us how earnest, and zealous, and self-sacrificing we can be and still be wrong.
4.
Application to the king. Act. 26:8.
If you will recall the words of Festus to Agrippa you will remember that the governor told the king of the discussion over the resurrection (cf. Act. 25:19). Paul evidently spoke of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a proof of the Messiahship. Indeed, the resurrection would prove that this Jesus was the Messiah, or Christ. This thought was new and startling to the king, but none the less convincing. With these thoughts in mind we can appreciate the words of Paul to Agrippa: Why is it judged incredible with you if God doth raise the dead?
945.
How did Paul use the word our to an advantage, as in Act. 25:6?
946.
What is the hope referred to in Act. 25:6?
947.
What can we learn for ourselves in the earnest desire of the Jews for the Messiah?
948.
How would King Agrippa know of the resurrection? Why would he think it incredible?
II.
His persecution of the Christians. Act. 26:9-11.
1.
He opposed Jesus of Nazareth and His teaching. Act. 26:9.
Paul is saying: Oh, king, if you feel in opposition to this One and this new teaching, I can say that I appreciate your feeling, having felt the very same myself. Indeed, to me it was a holy responsibility. I verily thought . . . I ought to . . .
This name and its authority to me were very odious and anything I could do contrary to it, that I did.
2.
Intense persecution at Jerusalem. Act. 26:10.
And this I did in Jerusalem. (I say it with shame). I not only shut up Christians in jail, but when they were tried in the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, I gave my black pebble against them, and for their death. You ask how I could carry out the work of an officer of the law? I received permission from the chief priests to do so.
3.
Details of his madness; even to foreign cities. Act. 26:11.
Many times did the Jews find me in the synagogue. For what reason? to worship God? No. I was heretic hunting and when I found a suspect I grilled him with questions of this false Messiah until I made him blaspheme (as I thought), and then I could throw him in jail and vote for his death at the council. When there were no more to be found in Jerusalem I was so mad that I did not hesitate to pursue them even to foreign cities.
III.
His conversion. Act. 26:12-19.
(You are referred to the harmony of the three accounts of the conversion of Saul on pages 120121. There is little we could add here that is not already written there.)
IV.
Pauls labors following his conversion. Act. 26:20.
In this one descriptive verse is compacted all the efforts of the apostle to preach the gospel in the first, second and third journeys, as well as his efforts to preach immediately following his conversion. So much time and so many events could hardly be described in so short a space.
V.
The application of what has just been said to the present situation. Act. 26:21-23.
1.
The reason he was taken in the temple was because he was carrying out the commission of Christ. Act. 26:21.
If Paul was arrested for fulfilling divine summons, those who arrested him were in the wrong. The content of his preaching was but a fulfillment of the promise of the prophets. In this manner Paul showed that the cause for which the Jews seized him in the temple was indeed baseless.
2.
What I say now, I have preached before, and this is nothing but what Moses and the prophets have said would come. Act. 26:22-23.
949.
How would a statement of Pauls persecution of the Christians help in getting the message to King Agrippa?
950.
In what manner did Paul give his vote against them?
951.
How did Paul strive to make them blaspheme?
952.
How did the fact that Paul was carrying out the commission of the Messiah reflect on those who arrested him?
953.
How does Paul use Moses and the prophets in his message?
Paul now plainly states, for the benefit of those listening, that God was with him and approved the things he did and the contrary was true of those who opposed him. It was only through Gods intervention that I stand here before you this day. But as I do, I want to bear this news that all inspired spokesmen from Moses through all the prophets have borne: The Messiah was foreordained to suffer and die.
Further that: He was to be raised from the dead and by this means (His death and resurrection) He would be able to give the light of hope to all people.
Although arrested on a false charge, tried in mockery and treated shamefully, by my own people, the Lord stood by me and delivered me out of it all. I stand here before you today, O king, to testify of the same message for which I have been so treated. That message contains nothing but what Moses and the prophets said would come to pass. I want to tell to the small and the great that the Messiah was to suffer and to die and rise again from the dead. Yea, by this means He was able after His resurrection to proclaim the light of hope to all people.
VI.
The interruption of Festus and Pauls answer. Act. 26:24-25.
Festus had hoped by this hearing to learn certain things that could help in his letter to the emperor. But he was totally unprepared to hear this strange tale. Will you try to imagine how this record must have sounded to a complete outsider? Festus listened in open-mouthed amazement at Pauls account of:
(1)
The intense hatred of one religion against another (and both believing in the same God).
(2)
The leader of one side overcome and changed to the opposite side by a bright light on a road in Syria.
(3)
The wholehearted zeal of the new convert and apostle.
(4)
The persecution by those with whom he once worked.
(5)
And now he says the message he has to bring tells of the raising of a man from the dead.
954.
Why was Festus so amazed at Pauls message?
Festus could not help but perceive that this one who spoke, spoke with intelligence on the subject of the Jewish religion. This one is indeed a learned man, but his speculations into these matters have turned his brain. This is not helping my purpose at allhe is giving me nothing that I could write to the emperor. Festus burst forth in this loud impetuous ejaculation:
955.
How could Fetus speak of Pauls learning?
Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee to madness.
Paul answers as only one led by the Holy Spirit could answer. Without a moments hesitation he replies to Festus: I am not mad, most excellent Festus (politely using the official title for the governor), but speak forth words of truth and soberness.
Paul is saying to Festus that what he has to say is neither fanciful nor nonsensical, but rather the oppositetruth and soberness. And then for the benefit of both Festus and Agrippa, Paul makes the next remark:
The king knows that the thoughts I am presenting so freely are all the events of the life of Jesus and those things that have happened to me are doubtless already known by the king. None of these things happened in secret.
Now to obtain again the attention of the king that had been diverted by the interruption of Festus, Paul says: King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? Ah, I know of thy background and religious profession. I know thou believest.
And, Paul might also have concluded that the king believed from the expression on his face. It is my conviction that king Agrippa was deeply stirred by what Paul preached. I also believe that Paul could see this and for that reason asked the above question. It was for this same reason that Agrippa replied as he did to Pauls pointed question.
With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian.
There are those who feel that the king was saying this as a jest or as a slighting remark, the thought being (according to them) that Agrippa said to Paul: Ah, you are trying to make a Christian of me with just a little persuasion.
But I cannot see that such a remark fits into the tenor of the meeting. It is my conviction that King Agrippa was stirred in the same manner that Sergius Paulus was in Salamis. (Act. 13:7)
What a wonderful answer does Paul give to the statement of Agrippa. He turns the rejection of the king into a definite advantage. He says in thought: I would that it were Gods will that whether with little persuasion or with much persuasion both those of no standing (in this world) and those of great standing, would become as I amlifting his right manacled handexcept these bonds.
956.
How did Paul show courtesy in answering Festus?
957.
How did Paul prove that what he was saying was truth and soberness?
958.
Why was Paul so sure that the king believed?
959.
Do you believe Agrippa was serious in his reply to Paul?
960.
Show how Paul turned rejection into advantage.
VII.
The break-up of the meeting. Act. 26:30-32.
The signal that the trial and defense were over was given by the rising of the king from his chair. All others also rose and began moving out of the room. Paul was again led to his place of confinement. What were the thoughts of the apostle as he returned from this meeting? He could at least feel that he was free from the blood of all menincluding that of a king. When Bernice, Festus and Agrippa had withdrawn to themselves, Festus said: Why, this man should not even be in prison. He has done nothing worthy of imprisonment.
To this thought both Bernice and Agrippa agree. Agrippa comments further on the subject by saying:
This man might have been set at liberty had he not appealed unto Caesar.
Of course whether Agrippa would have agreed to his release and to the acceptance of the censure of the Jews is questionable, but this was a concession at least.
961.
What do you suppose were the thoughts of the apostle as he returned to jail?
962.
Do you believe Agrippa would have freed Paul if there had been no appeal to Caesar?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXVI.
(1) Then Paul stretched forth the hand.The characteristic attitude reminds us of Act. 21:40. Here it acquires a fresh pictorial vividness from the fact that St. Paul now stood before the court as a prisoner, with one arm, probably the left, chained to the soldier who kept guard over him. (Comp. Act. 26:29.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 26
THE DEFENCE OF A CHANGED MAN ( Act 26:1-11 ) 26:1-11 Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak on your own behalf.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and began his defence. “With regard to the charges made against me by the Jews, King Agrippa, I count myself fortunate to be about to state my defence before you, especially because you are an expert in all Jewish customs and questions. Therefore I ask you to give me a patient hearing. All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, which from the beginning I lived amongst my people in Jerusalem. They already know from of old, if they are willing to testify to it, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion; and now it is for the hope of the promise that was made to our fathers that I stand on trial, that hope to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, earnestly worshipping God day and night. It is for that hope, your Majesty, that I am accused. Why should you judge it to be incredible if God raises the dead? It is true that I myself thought it right to do many things in opposition to the name of Jesus of Nazareth; and this I did in Jerusalem. When I had received authority from the chief priests, I shut up many of the saints in prison; and, when they were executed, I gave my vote against them. Often throughout all the synagogues I took vengeance on them and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my insane fury against them I even extended this persecution of them to cities abroad.”
One of the extraordinary things about the great characters in the New Testament story is that they were never afraid to confess what once they had been. Here in the presence of the king, Paul frankly confesses that there was a day when he had tried to blast the Christians out of existence.
There was a famous evangelist called Brownlow North. In his early days he had lived a life that was anything but Christian. Once, just before he was to enter the pulpit in a church in Aberdeen, he received a letter. This letter informed him that its writer had evidence of some disgraceful thing which Brownlow North had done before he became a Christian; and it went on to say that the writer proposed to interrupt the service and to tell the whole congregation of that sin if he preached. Brownlow North took the letter into the pulpit; he read it to the congregation; he told of the thing that once he had done; and then he told them that Christ had changed him and that Christ could do the same for them. He used the very evidence of his shame to turn it to the glory of Christ.
Denney used to say that the great function of Christianity was in the last analysis to make bad men good. The great Christians have never been afraid to point to themselves as living examples of the power of Christ. It is true that a man can never change himself; but it is also gloriously true that what he cannot do, Jesus Christ can do for him.
In this passage Paul insists that the centre of his whole message is the resurrection. His witness is not of someone who has lived and died but of One who is gloriously present and alive for evermore. For Paul every day is Easter Day.
SURRENDER FOR SERVICE ( Act 26:12-18 ) 26:12-18 “When, in these circumstances, I was on my way to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, as I was on the road at midday, I saw, your Majesty. a light from heaven, more brilliant than the sun, shining round about me and my fellow-travellers. When we had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the spikes.’ I said, ‘Who are you, sir’ The Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But up! and stand upon your feet! For this is why I have appeared to you–to appoint you a servant and a witness of how you have seen me and of further visions you will have; for I am choosing you from the People and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share amongst those who have been sanctified by faith in me.'”
This passage is full of interest.
(i) The Greek word apostolos ( G652) literally means, one who is sent forth. For instance, an ambassador is an apostolos ( G652) or apostle. The interesting thing is that an emissary of the Sanhedrin was technically known as an apostolos ( G652) of the Sanhedrin. That means that Paul began this journey as the apostle of the Sanhedrin and ended it as the apostle of Christ.
(ii) Paul was pressing on with his journey at midday. Unless a traveller was in a really desperate hurry he rested during the midday heat. So we see how Paul was driving himself on this mission of persecution. Beyond doubt he was trying by violent action to still the doubts that were in his heart.
(iii) The Risen Christ told Paul that it was hard for him to kick against the spikes. When a young ox was first yoked it tried to kick its way out. If it was yoked to a one handed plough, the ploughman held in his hand a long staff with a sharpened end which he held close to the ox’s heels so that every time it kicked it was jagged with the spike. If it was yoked to a wagon, the front of the wagon had a bar studded with wooden spikes which jagged the ox if it kicked. The young ox had to learn submission the hard way and so had Paul.
Act 26:17-18 give a perfect summary of what Christ does for men. (a) He opens their eyes. When Christ comes into a man’s life he enables him to see things he never saw before. (b) He turns them from the darkness to the light. Before a man meets Christ it is as if he were facing the wrong way; after meeting Christ he is walking towards the light and his way is clear before him. (e) He transfers him from the power of Satan to the power of God. Once evil had him in thrall but now God’s triumphant power enables him to live in victorious goodness. (d) He gives him forgiveness of sins and a share with the sanctified. For the past, the penalty of sin is broken; for the future, life is recreated and purified.
A TASK ACCEPTED ( Act 26:19-23 ) 26:19-23 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. But first of all to those in Damascus, and to Jerusalem, and throughout the whole land of Judaea and to the Gentiles, I brought the message to repent and turn to God and do deeds to match their repentance. Because of this the Jews seized me in the Temple and tried to do away with me. So then because I have received the help of God up to this day, I stand bearing witness to great and small, saying nothing beyond those things which both the prophets and Moses said would happen, that the Anointed One must suffer, that as a consequence of his resurrection from the dead he must be the first to bring the tidings of light to the People and to the Gentiles.”
Here we have a vivid summary of the substance of the message which Paul preached.
(i) He called on men to repent. The Greek word for repent literally means change one’s mind. To repent means to realize that the kind of life we are living is wrong and that we must adopt a completely new set of values. To that end, it involves two things. It involves sorrow for what we have been and it involves the resolve that by the grace of God we will be changed.
(ii) He called on men to turn to God. So often we have our backs to God. It may be in thoughtless disregard; it may be because we have deliberately gone to the far countries of the soul. But. however that may be, Paul calls on us to let the God who was nothing to us become the God who is everything to us.
(iii) He called on men to do deeds to match their repentance. The proof of genuine repentance and turning to God is a certain kind of life. But these deeds are not merely the reaction of someone whose life is governed by a new series of laws; they are the result of a new love. The man who has come to know the love of God in Jesus Christ knows now that if he sins he does not only break God’s law; he breaks God’s heart.
A KING IMPRESSED ( Act 26:24-31 ) 26:24-31 As Paul was making his defence, Festus cried out, “Paul, you are mad. Much learning has turned you to madness.” But Paul said, “I am not mad, Festus, your Excellency, but I am uttering words of truth and sense. The king has knowledge of these things and it is to him that I boldly talk; for I do not think that any of these things are escaping him; for this was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” Agrippa said, “You surely think that you are not going to take long to persuade me to be a Christian.” Paul answered, “I could pray that, whether it takes short or long, not only you but also all who are listening to me today were such as I am, apart from these fetters.” The king and the governor and Bernice and those who were sitting with them rose up; and when they had withdrawn they kept saying to each other, “This man does nothing which merits death or fetters.” And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
It is not so much what is actually said in this passage which is interesting as the atmosphere which the reader can feel behind it. Paul was a prisoner. At that very moment he was wearing his fetters, as he himself makes clear. And yet the impression given unmistakably is that he is the dominating personality in the scene. Festus does not speak to him as a criminal. No doubt he knew Paul’s record as a trained rabbi; no doubt he had seen Paul’s room scattered with the scrolls and the parchments which were the earliest Christian books. Agrippa, listening to Paul, is more on trial than Paul is. And the end of the matter is that a rather bewildered company cannot see any real reason why Paul should be tried in Rome or anywhere else. Paul has in him a power which raises him head and shoulders above all others in any company. The word used for the power of God in Greek is dunamis ( G1411) ; it is the word from which dynamite comes. The man who has the Risen Christ at his side need fear no one.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
5. Paul’s Fourth Defence that before Agrippa , Act 26:1-32 .
1. Agrippa said As highest in rank as well as referee by the procurator, Agrippa is president of the occasion.
A proper understanding of this noble piece of Christian oratory requires the reader to note two things:
1. This is not properly a judicial trial, as said note Act 25:23.
2. The charge against Paul, and to which he replies is this: He has infringed that Roman law which requires upon pain of death that every man shall adhere to his own national religion. To show himself not guilty of this charge, Paul maintains that his is in fact the true Judaism. He first shows how strict a Jew he originally was, and how persecuting he was of the followers of Jesus, (Act 26:4-11😉 next how he was converted and commissioned (like Moses) by the visible Shekinah, and the audible voice from above, (Act 26:12-21😉 and third, that all this is but the continuity of the Old Testament religion, inasmuch as it, as a whole, is embraced in the prophets and even in Moses, (Act 26:22-29😉 and this true identity, we may say by the way, of Christianity with true and primitive Mosaism is the gist of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The whole tone of Paul’s mind in the speech appears buoyant and elastic, exhibiting both in his artistic argument, his rounded periods, and in his prompt and masterly replies, a temperament and character raised by the occasion to the height of its demand.
Speak for thyself To show that he may be reported to Cesar as innocent of all wrong.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
PART THIRD.
CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.
Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.
I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Agrippa said to Paul, “You are permitted to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence.’
At this point Agrippa turned to Paul and gave him permission to put forward his defence against the charge that had not been made against him, and the accusations of the Jews.
We should pause and consider here the position in which Paul now found himself. Every notable person in Caesarea, both Jew and Gentile, was gathered there, together with King Agrippa II and the Roman procurator. We may ask how else could Paul have ever been able to face such a remarkable audience? Men whom the church would never ordinarily be able to reach were all gathered with instructions to listen carefully to the words of Paul. And it was not a trial. Everything was relaxed. What an opportunity it presented. God alone is aware of what fruit eventually came out of that hearing. For every now and again we learn of powerful men who had responded to Christ and become His own. And as he stood there Paul remembered the words of the Lord, ‘You shall be brought before kings and rulers for My sake’ (Luk 21:12) and ‘the Holy Spirit will teach you in the same hour what you ought to say’ (Luk 12:12).
Paul’s Presentation of His Defence and of the Good News.
This is the final brick in Luke’s presentation of the hope of the resurrection presented through the words of Paul. Not only does he give these speeches in order to demonstrate that Paul is innocent, but as evidence of the resurrection from one who saw Jesus alive and had spoken to Him. The first half of Acts bore constant witness to the resurrection by the Apostles. This last half bears constant witness to it through the words of Paul (Act 13:30; Act 13:34-37; Act 17:18; Act 17:31; Act 22:7-10; Act 22:14; Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Act 26:6-8; Act 26:14-18).
The threefold repetition of Paul’s experience with the risen Christ on the way to Damascus, of which this is the third (compare Act 9:1-18; Act 22:6-16), reveals how important an evidence Luke saw this whole incident to be. It was further confirmation of the resurrection as originally described and evidenced, was itself evidence of the glory of Jesus Christ in His risen state, and in a sense spoke of what every Christians experience should be. It was also confirmation of Jesus Christ’s intended activity through His own, and of His worldwide purpose. His message was equally intended for the Gentiles. The threefoldness stressed completeness and would therefore draw special attention to the incident so that thoughts would be concentrated on it. And the later hearing audiences in the church, would, as Acts was read through, be impressed, on the second description of it, by how important it apparently was, and totally grasped by it on the third.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
PAUL’S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AND THEN TO ROME (19:21-28:31).
Here we begin a new section of Acts. It commences with Paul’s purposing to go to Jerusalem, followed by an incident, which, while it brings to the conclusion his ministry in Ephesus, very much introduces the new section. From this point on all changes. Paul’s ‘journey to Jerusalem’ and then to Rome has begun, with Paul driven along by the Holy Spirit.
The ending of the previous section as suggested by the closing summary in Act 19:20 (see introduction), together with a clear reference in Act 19:21 to the new direction in which Paul’s thinking is taking him, both emphasise that this is a new section leading up to his arrival in Rome. Just as Jesus had previously ‘changed direction’ in Luke when He set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51), so it was to be with Paul now as he too sets his face towards Jerusalem. It is possibly not without significance that Jesus’ ‘journey’ also began after a major confrontation with evil spirits, which included an example of one who used the name of Jesus while not being a recognised disciple (compare Act 19:12-19 with Luk 9:37-50).
From this point on Paul’s purposing in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome takes possession of the narrative (Act 19:21; Act 20:16; Act 20:22-23; Act 21:10-13; Act 21:17), and it will be followed by the Journey to Rome itself. And this whole journey is deliberately seen by Luke as commencing from Ephesus, a major centre of idolatry and the of Imperial cult, where there is uproar and Paul is restricted from preaching, and as, in contrast, deliberately ending with the triumph of a pure, unadulterated Apostolic ministry in Rome where all is quiet and he can preach without restriction. We can contrast with this how initially in Section 1 the commission commenced in a pure and unadulterated fashion in Jerusalem (Act 1:3-9) and ended in idolatry in Caesarea (Act 12:20-23). This is now the reverse the same thing in reverse.
Looked at from this point of view we could briefly summarise Acts in three major sections as follows:
The Great Commission is given in Jerusalem in the purity and triumph of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as King. The word powerfully goes out to Jerusalem and to its surrounding area, and then in an initial outreach to the Gentiles. Jerusalem reject their Messiah and opt for an earthly ruler whose acceptance of divine honours results in judgment (Act 19:1-12).
The word goes out triumphantly to the Dispersion and the Gentiles and it is confirmed that they will not be required to be circumcised or conform to the detailed Jewish traditions contained in what is described as ‘the Law of Moses’ (Act 13:1 to Act 19:20).
Paul’s journey to Rome commences amidst rampant idolatry and glorying in the royal rule of Artemis and Rome, and comes to completion with Paul, the Apostle, triumphantly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingly Rule of God from his own house in Rome (Act 19:21 to Act 28:31).
It will be seen by this that with this final section the great commission has in Luke’s eyes been virtually carried out. Apostolic witness has been established in the centre of the Roman world itself and will now reach out to every part of that world, and the command ‘You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth’ is on the point of fulfilment.
This final section, in which Paul will make his testimony to the resurrection before kings and rulers, may be analysed as follows.
a Satan counterattacks against Paul’s too successful Ministry in Ephesus and throughout Asia Minor and causes uproar resulting in his ministry being unsuccessfully attacked by the worshippers of ‘Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians’. This city, with its three ‘temple-keepers’ for the Temple of Artemis and the two Imperial Cult Temples, is symbolic of the political and religious alliance between idolatry and Rome which has nothing to offer but greed and verbosity. It expresses the essence of the kingly rule of Rome. And here God’s triumph in Asia over those Temples has been pictured in terms of wholesale desertion of the Temple of Artemis (mention of the emperor cult would have been foolish) by those who have become Christians and will in the parallel below be contrasted and compared with Paul freely proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God in Rome (Act 19:21-41).
b Paul’s progress towards Jerusalem is diverted because of further threats and he meets with disciples for seven days at Troas (Act 20:1-6).
c The final voyage commences and a great sign is given of God’s presence with Paul. Eutychus is raised from the dead (Act 20:7-12).
d Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus who meet him at Miletus and he gives warning of the dangers of spiritual catastrophe ahead and turns them to the word of His grace. If they obey Him all will be saved (Act 20:13-38).
e A series of maritime stages, and of prophecy (Act 19:4; Act 19:11), which reveals that God is with Paul (Act 21:1-16).
f Paul proves his true dedication in Jerusalem and his conformity with the Law and does nothing that is worthy of death but the doors of the Temple are closed against him (Act 21:17-30).
g Paul is arrested and gives his testimony of his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 21:31 to Act 22:29).
h Paul appears before the Sanhedrin and points to the hope of the resurrection (Act 22:30 to Act 23:9).
i He is rescued by the chief captain and is informed by the Lord that as he has testified in Jerusalem so he will testify in Rome (Act 23:11).
j The Jews plan an ambush, which is thwarted by Paul’s nephew (Act 23:12-25).
k Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea (Act 23:26-35).
l Paul makes his defence before Felix stressing the hope of the resurrection (Act 24:1-22).
k Paul is kept at Felix’ pleasure for two years (with opportunities in Caesarea) (Act 24:23-27).
j The Jews plan to ambush Paul again, an attempt which is thwarted by Festus (Act 25:1-5).
i Paul appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar. To Rome he will go (Act 25:6-12).
h Paul is brought before Agrippa and gives his testimony stressing his hope in the resurrection (Act 25:23 to Act 26:8).
g Paul gives his testimony concerning his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 26:9-23).
f Paul is declared to have done nothing worthy of death and thus to have conformed to the Law, but King Herod Agrippa II closes his heart against his message (Act 26:28-32).
e A series of maritime stages and of prophecy (Act 19:10; Act 19:21-26) which confirms that God is with Paul (27.l-26).
d Paul speaks to those at sea, warning of the dangers of physical catastrophe ahead unless they obey God’s words. If they obey Him all will be delivered (Act 27:27-44).
c Paul is delivered from death through snakebite and Publius’ father and others are healed, which are the signs of God’s presence with him, and the voyage comes to an end after these great signs have been given (Act 28:1-13).
b Paul meets with disciples for seven days at Puteoli and then at the Appii Forum (Act 28:14-15).
a Paul commences his ministry in Rome where, living in quietness, he has clear course to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God (Act 28:16-31).
Thus in ‘a’ the section commences at the very centre of idolatry which symbolises with its three temples (depicted in terms of the Temple of Artemis) the political and religious power of Rome, the kingly rule of Rome, which is being undermined by the Good News which has ‘almost spread throughout all Asia’ involving ‘much people’. It begins with uproar and an attempt to prevent the spread of the Good News and reveals the ultimate emptiness of that religion. All they can do is shout slogans including the name of Artemis, but though they shout it long and loud that name has no power and results in a rebuke from their ruler. In the parallel the section ends with quiet effectiveness and the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God being given free rein. This is in reverse to section 1 which commenced with the call to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (Act 1:3) and ended with the collapse of the kingly rule of Israel through pride and idolatry (Act 12:20-23).
In ‘b’ Paul meets with God’s people for ‘seven days, the divinely perfect period, at the commencement of his journey, and then in the parallel he again meets with the people of God for ‘seven days’ at the end of his journey. Wherever he goes, there are the people of God.
In ‘c’ God reveals that His presence is with Paul by the raising of the dead, and in the parallel His presence by protection from the Snake and the healing of Publius.
In ‘d’ we have a significant parallel between Paul’s warning of the need for the church at Ephesus to avoid spiritual catastrophe through ‘the word of His grace’ and in the parallel ‘d’ the experience of being saved from a great storm through His gracious word, but only if they are obedient to it, which results in deliverance for all.
In ‘e’ and its parallel we have Paul’s voyages, each accompanied by prophecy indicating God’s continuing concern for Paul.
In ‘f’ Paul proves his dedication and that he is free from all charges that he is not faithful to the Law of Moses, and in the parallel Agrippa II confirms him to be free of all guilt.
In ‘g’ Paul give his testimony concerning receiving his commission from the risen Jesus, and in the parallel this testimony is repeated and the commission expanded.
In ‘h’ Paul proclaims the hope of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin, and in the parallel he proclaims the hope of the resurrection before Felix, Agrippa and the gathered Gentiles.
In ‘i’ the Lord tells him that he will testify at Rome, while in the parallel the procurator Festus declares that he will testify at Rome. God’s will is carried out by the Roman power.
In ‘ j’ a determined plan by the Jews to ambush Paul and kill him is thwarted, and in the parallel a further ambush two years later is thwarted. God is continually watching over Paul.
In ‘k’ Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, and in the parallel spends two years there with access given to the ‘his friends’ so that he can freely minister.
In ‘l’ we have the central point around which all revolves. Paul declares to Felix and the elders of Jerusalem the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust in accordance with the Scriptures.
It will be noted that the central part of this chiasmus is built around the hope of the resurrection which is mentioned three times, first in ‘h’, then centrally in ‘l’ and then again in ‘h’, and these are sandwiched between two descriptions of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Jesus (in ‘g’ and in the parallel ‘g’). The defeat of idolatry and the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God have as their central cause the hope of the resurrection and the revelation of the risen Jesus.
We must now look at the section in more detail.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Festus Calls On Agrippa’s Assistance In Formulating a Case And Paul Gives His Testimony To Them Both (25:13-26:23).
Festus now condemns himself by admitting that he has no charge to bring against Paul. He is sending him to Caesar to be judged, but he does not know why. He has no case against Paul. This suits Luke’s apologetic purpose but it shows up Roman provincial justice (while exonerating the emperor).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul’s Speech to King Agrippa Act 26:1-29 records Paul’s speech before King Agrippa. This speech will be the third testimony of his conversion on the Damascus Road recorded in the book of Acts (see Act 22:1-21, Act 26:1-23). Paul’s divine calling on the Damascus Road and the visitation by Ananias (Act 9:1-18) served as an anchor for his soul throughout his life. In fact, he will often refer back to this event. It is during some of his most difficult trials that he stands upon his divine visitations to strengthen him and secure himself in his calling.
John Chrysostom notes that Paul’s argument builds itself upon two testimonies: the Old Testament Scriptures testify of the hope of the resurrection of the dead, and Paul himself encountered the resurrected Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus through a divine vision. [306]
[306] John Chrysostom, The Homilies of John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, On the Acts of the Apostles, Translated, With Notes and Indices, Part I Homilies XXIX-LV, in The Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and the West (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1852), 686.
Act 26:1 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
Act 26:1
Paul had gained years of experience in oratory skills debating with Jews in their synagogues about the resurrection of Jesus and His claim as the Messiah. While still bound with chains handing down from his outstretched hands (which are mentioned in Act 26:29), he speaks with confidence, while showing proper respect to those whom he is addressing.
Act 26:29, “And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.”
Albert Barnes notes that ancient statues express the posture of an orator, with the right hand extended. [307]
[307] Albert Barnes, Acts, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Acts 26:1.
Act 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
Act 26:2
[308] Adam Clarke, The Acts of the Apostles, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Acts 26:2.
Act 26:3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
Act 26:3
Act 24:24, “And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.”
Act 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Act 26:4
[309] Adam Clarke, The Acts of the Apostles, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Acts 26:4.
[310] John Nolland, Luke 1:1-9:20 , in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35A (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), S. 129.
[311] John Gill, The Gospel of Luke, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Luke 2:41.
Luk 2:42, “And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.”
Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Act 26:4-5
[312] W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2 (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 501.
Act 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
Act 26:7 Act 26:7
Mar 4:27, “And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.”
Mar 5:5, “And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.”
Luk 2:37, “And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.”
Luk 18:7, “And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?”
Act 9:24, “But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.”
Act 20:31, “Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.”
Act 26:7, “Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.”
1Th 2:9, “For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.”
1Th 3:10, “Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?”
2Th 3:8, “Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:”
1Ti 5:5, “Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.”
2Ti 1:3, “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;”
Act 26:6-7 Comments The Promise – The EGT notes that Israel’s promise was of Israel’s full restoration in the form of a Messianic kingdom, preceded by the resurrection from the dead. [313] Alfred Edersheim says this hope expressed itself when the multitudes of Israel came out to hear the preaching of John the Baptist, and when they gathered in Galilee to listen to Jesus Christ teach about the kingdom of heaven, and when they opened their homes to those whom Jesus sent out by twos. This hope also expressed itself in the apocalyptic literature [314] that has become popular among the Jews for several centuries. [315] This hope kept Anna in the Temple night and day praying for her people. This hope moved various Jews to rise up in sedition against Roman rule in Palestine. This hope is why various Jewish sects emerged, such as the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes, all preparing themselves for the coming of the Messiah. In other words, this hope and expectation of the Messiah and all that the rabbis taught in the synagogues concerning him were continually upon the minds of the Jewish people. Thus, King Agrippa clearly understood Paul’s references to this hope of Israel.
[313] W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2 (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 501.
[314] Apocalyptic literature became popular among the Jews several centuries before Christ. The Jewish apocalyptic books entitled 1 Enoch, The Assumption of Moses (The Testament of Moses), 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), 2 Baruch, and Apocalypse of Abraham are believed to have been written from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. Other Jewish writings, such as Sibylline Oracles, Jubilees, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, contain passages that are apocalyptic in nature. See R. J. Bauckham, “Apocalyptic,” in New Bible Dictionary, second edition, ed. J. D. Douglas (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishing, c1962, 1982), 54.
[315] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.), 67.
Act 26:11 “I persecuted them even unto strange cities” Comments – The phrase “strange cities” literally reads “the outside cities.” Paul travels to those cities outside of the land of Palestine.
Act 26:14 “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me” – Comments In the Parable of the Judgment of the Nations (Mat 25:31-46) Jesus says, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Therefore, when Saul of Tarsus was persecuting Christians, he was persecuting Jesus.
Act 26:14 “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” Word Study on “pricks” – Strong says the Greek word “pricks” ( ) (G2759) means, “a point, a sting, a goad.”
Comments Within the context of Act 9:5, the word “pricks” refers to the ox-goad, which was made from a long stick with some sharp object fastened on its end, being used to poke the ox and get him to move forward in his harness to pull the cart. We can imagine Paul traveling along the Damascus road in a convoy of horses, men, and wagons, with a team of oxen being prodded along the way using an ox goad. This metaphor that Jesus uses would have immediate application to what Paul was doing to the Christian in his efforts to persecute and imprison them.
Heinrich Meyer translates the phrase “kick against the prick” as, “It is for thee a difficult undertaking.” [316]
[316] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, trans. Paton J. Gloag, ed. William P. Dickson (New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1884), 275.
The classical Greek and Latin writers used the phrase “kick against the prick” often enough to assume that it was, as Basil Gildersleeve suggests, an ancient proverb. [317]
[317] Basil L. Gildersleeve, Pindar The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York: American Book Company, 1885), 267. The ancient Athenian tragedian Euripides (480-406 B.C.) writes, “Better to yield him prayer and sacrifice, Than kick against the pricks, since Dionyse, Is God, and thou but mortal.” (The Bacchae 191) See Euripides, The Bacchae of Euripides, trans. Gilbert Murray (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, c1904, 1920), 46. The ancient Greek lyric poet Pindar (522-443 B.C.) writes, “But he, the patient and the wise. Who to the yoke his neck applies, Lifts not, like oxen prone to feel Each casual sting, his angry heel Be my complacent temper shown, Conversing with the good alone.” (The Second Pythian Ode 2.173-175) See Pindar, Pindar and Anacreon, trans. C. A. Wheelwright and Thomas Bourne (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1846), 106. The ancient Roman playwright Terence (195/185-159 B.C.) writes, “Yes, yes, it is folly kicking against the pricks.” (Phormia 1.2.27) See John Sargeaunt, Terance, vol. 2, in The Loeb Classical Library, eds. T. E. Page, E. Capps, and W. H. D. Rouse (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1959), 15.
Act 26:17 Comments – The Scriptures list three people groups that God has used throughout His redemptive history: the Church, the Jews and the Gentiles. These groups are all listed together in 1Co 10:32, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” We see a reference to such a distinction of people groups in Act 26:17.
Act 26:14-18 Comments Paul’s Divine Commission In Act 26:14-18 Paul recounts an aspect of his divine commission from the Lord during his Damascus Road conversion that he did not mention in the two earlier accounts of this event (Act 9:1-8; Act 22:6-11). Saul was commissioned by the chief priests to go to Damascus on their “divine” assignment. The Lord instead gives him a new assignment in the midst of his Jewish one, appointing him to a far greater commission than his task at hand. While the Jewish leaders were sending Paul as far as Damascus, the Lord tells Paul that he was destined to travel to the nations. In this vision, the Lord also says, “unto which I myself will send you;” thus, such a heavenly commission radically altered how Paul understood a divine assignment. He now understood that he was to receive his directions for divine service from the Lord and not from men. This is why Paul opens his epistle to the Galatians saying, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)” (Gal 1:1)
Act 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Act 26:20 Act 26:20
Gal 1:22, “And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:”
Act 26:26 Comments – Paul proves his denial of madness by appealing to fact that the Gospel was well-known by many. At this time in early Church history, approximately thirty years since the resurrection of Christ Jesus (A.D. 30 to 60), the stories of Jesus Christ had embedded themselves among the Jews, and among many Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire. It was not a story that was easily forgotten, as were other Jewish insurgents in Palestine. This story was now being proclaimed with passion and conviction from all corners of the Roman Empire.
Act 26:28 “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” – Comments – Heinrich Meyer translates the phrase in the instrumental case, thus reading “With little thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” Others render it as a temporal phrase, “In a short (time) thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” Still others understand it temporally to mean, “for a little, i.e. almost, thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” [318]
[318] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, trans. Paton J. Gloag, ed. William P. Dickson (New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1884), 283.
Act 26:28 Comments – A man must be convicted of sin to see the need of salvation, not merely persuaded (Luk 16:31).
Luk 16:31, “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28
2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35
3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22
4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38
5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32
6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.
2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”
Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.
Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.
Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”
Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”
Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Witness of Paul’s Arrest, Imprisonment, and Trials (A.D. 58-62) The final major division of the book of Acts (Act 21:1 to Act 28:31) serves as Luke’s testimony of the arrest and trials of Paul the apostle, his trip by sea to Rome, and preparation for a hearing before the Roman emperor, the highest court in the Roman Empire. G. H. C. MacGregor notes that this large portion of material devoted to Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and journey to Rome fills about one fourth of the book of Acts. He suggests several reasons. (1) Luke was an Eyewitness of these Events Luke was an eye witness of these dramatic events of Paul’s arrest, trials and journey to Rome. The nature of such events must have created a strong impact upon his life. (2) The Gospels are Structured with a Similar Disproportion of Jesus’ Arrest, Passion and Resurrection – By comparing this large portion of material to a similar structure in the Gospels, MacGregor suggests that Luke draws a parallel plot with the story of Paul. (3) Luke is Writing an Apology for Paul Many scholars believe Luke is writing an apology in defense of Paul. MacGregor bases this view upon the five speeches of Paul’s defense that are recorded in this section of Acts: Paul’s speech to the Jewish mob (Act 22:3-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix, the Roman governor (Act 24:10-21), to Festus, the Roman governor (Act 25:8-11), and to King Herod (Act 26:2-23). A number of scholars support the proposition that the impetus behind these events was an effort to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, which leads to the suggestion that Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke as a legal brief in anticipation of Paul’s trial before the Roman court. MacGregor argues that this motif is woven throughout Paul’s missionary journeys when Luke carefully records his encounters with Roman authorities in various cities. He notes that Luke records statements by Lysias, Festus, and Felix regarding the failure by the Jews to prove Paul’s guilt under Roman Law. He adds that Luke ends the book by portraying Paul as a peaceful man entertaining guests while imprisoned in Rome, in stark contrast to the zealous violence of the Jews that Rome was accustomed to encountering. [258] We may add that Luke’s opening to his Gospel and Acts serve as a petition to Theophilus.
[258] G. H. C. MacGregor and Theodore P. Ferris, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1954), 284-285.
The accounts of Paul’s five trials and apologetic speeches recorded in Act 21:1 to Act 26:32 show that Paul had exhausted the judicial systems in Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, before departing for Rome. In each of these trials, Luke proves Paul’s innocence. The only court left was an appeal to the highest court in Rome. These five trials serve as a testimony that Paul had a legal right to appeal unto Caesar, and that he was beyond doubt innocent of his allegations by the Jews.
One more important aspect of this passage is that divine oracles are embedded within the narrative material of Act 21:1 to Act 28:31. For example, Paul received divine oracles from the seven daughters of Philip the evangelist and the prophet Agabus (Act 21:8); he testifies of his divine vision on the road to Damascus and of the prophecy of Ananias (Act 22:6-16); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation while in prison at Caesarea (Act 23:11); Paul testifies again of his divine vision on the road to Damascus (Act 26:12-19); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation at sea (Act 27:20-26).
Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:1 to Act 28:31:
1. Prophecies of Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem Act 21:1-14
2. Paul’s Arrest and First Speech to Jewish Mob Act 21:15 to Act 22:29
3. Paul’s Second Speech Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:35
4. Paul’s Third Speech Before Felix the Governor Act 24:1-27
5. Paul’s Fourth Speech Before Festus the Governor Act 25:1-12
6. Paul’s Fifth Speech Before King Agrippa Act 25:13 to Act 26:32
7. The Witness of Paul’s Trip to Rome Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Fifth Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before Agrippa and Bernice (A.D. 60) Act 25:13 to Act 26:32 gives us the lengthy testimony of Paul standing trial before King Agrippa. This is the fifth and final speech that Paul will make before his accusers before setting forth to Rome to face the highest court in the Roman Empire. Paul has spoken before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he has been taken before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he has stood before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he has stood before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12), and now he stands before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Festus Recounts Paul’s Defense to King Agrippa Act 25:13-22
2. The Opening Speech of Festus Act 25:23-27
3. Paul’s Speech to King Agrippa Act 26:1-29
4. The Verdict of King Agrippa Act 26:30-32
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Hearing before Agrippa.
Paul’s introduction to his speech:
v. 1. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand and answered for himself:
v. 2. I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews,
v. 3. especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. Although Festus was the procurator of the province, yet he courteously yielded to Agrippa, as his guest and as king, the rank of presiding officer. And Agrippa’s opening words show that he was just as careful in observing the demands of politeness, for he does not speak in his own name in addressing Paul, but in the third person: It is permitted thee to speak for thyself. Here with Paul was given the floor and the privilege to present his case as he saw fit. And Paul, in opening his speech, employed the gesture which is represented in so many ancient statues. Throwing his cloak, or mantle, off his right shoulder, to be held securely by the left hand, he stretched out his right hand in a gesture commanding attention. In his defense he addressed himself first to King Agrippa directly. He considered himself fortunate because of the fact that he was about to make his defense before this king concerning all those things of which he was accused of the Jews. There was no trace of self-consciousness and of fear in the appearance of Paul. “Had he been conscious of guilt, he should have feared being tried in the presence of one who knew all the facts; but this is a mark of a clear conscience, not to shrink from a judge who has an accurate knowledge of the circumstances, hut even to rejoice and to call himself happy. ” (Chrysostomus.) And Paul rejoiced all the more since he knew that Agrippa, having been in charge of the government of the Temple for many years, was well versed regarding all the customs, the usages, as well as the questions, the theoretical discussions which were prevalent among Jews everywhere. Agrippa, like all the Idumeans since the time of Herod the Great, had been brought up in the Jewish faith, and for that reason had been given oversight of religious affairs in Jerusalem, although the city otherwise was under the Roman procurator. For this reason Paul asked the king to listen to him patiently, with all magnanimity. Paul’s manner of address was not that of fawning servility, but was the expression of genuine pleasure, due in part probably to the hope of gaining Agrippa for the cause of Christ. The speech of the Christians should at all times he calculated, if not to gain converts for Christ directly, at least not to harm His cause in any way.
Paul’s early life and belief:
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Act 26:1
And for then, A.V.; his for the, A.V.; made his defense for answered for himself, A.V. Agrippa said. It was by the courtesy of Festus that Agrippa thus took the chief place. It was, perhaps, with the like courtesy that Agrippa said, impersonally, Thou art permitted, without specifying whether by himself or by Festus. Stretched forth his hand. The action of an orator, rendered in this case still more impressive by the chains which hung upon his arms. Luke here relates what he saw. Made his defense (); Act 25:8; Act 24:10, note.
Act 26:2
That I am to make my defense before thee this day for because I shall answer for myself this day before thee, A.V.; by for of, A.V.
Act 26:3
Thou art expert for I know thee to be expert, A.V. and T.R. Expert; , here only in the New Testament, but found in the LXX. applied to God, : and 1Sa 28:3 and 2Ki 21:6, as the rendering of , a wizard. It is seldom found in classical Greek. According to the R.T., which is that generally adopted (Meyer, Kuinoel, Wordsworth, Alford, etc.), the accusative is put, by a not uncommon construction, for the genitive absolute, as in Eph 1:18. The marginal rendering, because thou art especially expert, seems preferable to that in the text. Customs and questions. For the use of and applied to Jewish customs and controversies, see Act 6:14; Act 16:21; Act 21:21, etc.; and Act 25:19, note.
Act 26:4
Then from my youth up for for my youth. A.V.; from the beginning for at the first. A.V.; and at for at, A.V. and T.R. My manner of life, etc. The same testimony of a good conscience as that in Act 23:1 and Act 24:16. The word occurs only here in the New Testament. But we find the phrase, , “the manner of life according to the Law,” in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and in Symmachus (Psa 38:6), though not in classical Greek. The verb occurs in 1Pe 4:2, and not infrequently in the LXX. From my youth up, which was from the beginning among my own nation, etc., having knowledge of me from the first (in 1Pe 4:5). No appeal could be stronger as to the notoriety of his whole life spent in the midst of his own people, observed and known of all. The T.R. implies that his youth was spent at Jerusalem, according to what he himself tells us in Act 22:3. The R.T. does so less distinctly. (For St. Paul’s account of his early Pharisaism, comp. Gal 1:13, Gal 1:14; Php 3:5, Php 3:6.)
Act 26:5
Having knowledge of me from the first for which knew me from the beginning, A.V.; be willing to for would, A.V.; how that for that, A.V.; straitest for most straitest, A.V. Straitest (); see Act 22:3; Act 18:26, etc. Sect (); see Act 24:14, note. He does not disclaim being still a Pharisee. On the contrary, in the next verse (Act 24:6) he declares, as he had done in Act 23:6, that it was for the chief hope of the Pharisees that he was now accused. He tries to enlist all the good feeling that yet remained among the Jews on his side.
Act 26:6
Here to be judged for and am judged, A.V. To be judged ( ); rather, I stand on my trial. The A.V. seems to give the sense well. The hope of the promise. The hope of the kingdom of Christ, which necessarily implies the resurrection of the dead. This hope, which rested upon God’s promise to the fathers, Paul clung to; this hope his Sadducean persecutors denied. He, then, was the true Jew; he was faithful to Moses and the prophets; he claimed the sympathy and support of all true Israelites, and specially of King Agrippa.
Act 26:7
Earnestly for instantly, A.V.; might and day for day and night, A.V.; attain for come, A.V.; and concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O King! for for which hope‘s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews, A.V. and T.R. Our twelve tribes. only occurs here, in the Sibylline oracles, and in the protevangel. Jacob., 3, and in Clement’s 1 Corinthians 55, but is formed, after the analogy of such words as (Herod., 5.66), and the like. The idea of the twelve tribes of Israel is part of the essential conception of the Israel of God. So our Lord (Mat 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 7:4, etc.). St. Paul felt and spoke like a thorough Israelite. Earnestly; , only here and in 2 Macc. 14:38 (where Razis is said to have risked his body and his life for the religion of the Jews, , “with all vehemence,” A.V.), and Judith 4:9, where the phrase, , “with great vehemency,” “with great fervency,” A.V., occurs twice, applied to prayer and to self-humiliation. The adjective occurs in Act 12:5; Luk 22:44; 1Pe 4:8; and in 1Pe 1:22. Serving (); i.e. serving with worship, prayers, sacrifices and the like. The allusion is to the temple service, with its worship by night and by day (comp. Psa 134:1; 1Ch 9:33).
Act 26:8
Why is it judged incredible with you, if for why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that, A.V.; doth for should, A.V. Why is it judged, etc. The use of d is somewhat peculiar. It cannot stand for , but it is nearly equivalent to “whether,” as in Act 26:23. The question proposed to the mind is here whether God has raised the dead; and in Act 26:23 whether Christ has suffered, whether he is the first to rise. In the latter case St. Paul gives the answer by his witness to the truth, affirming that it is so. In the former case he chides his hearers for giving the answer of unbelief, and saying that it is not so.
Act 26:9
I verily. He gently excuses their unbelief by confessing that he himself had once felt like them, and insinuates the hope that they would change their minds as he had, and proceeds to give them good reason for doing so. Contrary to the Name (Gal 1:13; 1Ti 1:13). Jesus of Nazareth. By so designating the Lord of glory, he avows himself a member of “the sect of the Nazarenes” (see Act 2:22; Act 3:6; Act 4:10; Act 10:33, etc.).
Act 26:10
And this for which thing, A.V.; I both shut up for did I shut up, A.V. (with a change of order); prisons for prison, A.V.; vote for voice, A.V. I shut up. The is emphatic. The verb , peculiar to St. Luke (see Luk 3:20) is much used by medical writers. Were put to death; , a word frequent in St. Luke’s writings, and much used in medical works, as well as (Act 8:1). The phrase is unusual; is the more common phrase, both in Josephus and in classical writers. I gave my vote, etc. Not, as Meyer and others take it, “I assented to it, at the moment of their being killed,” equivalent to of Act 22:20; but rather,” when the Christians were being punished with death, I was one of those who in the Sanhedrim voted for their death.”
Act 26:11
Punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme for I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme, A.V.; foreign for strange, A.V. In all the synagogues. Those in Jerusalem, as the contrast of the foreign cities shows. (For the facts, see Act 8:1, Act 8:3.) I strove, etc. The “compelled” of the A.V. is the natural rendering of (Mat 14:22; Luk 14:23; Act 28:19, etc.); but it does not necessarily follow that the compulsion was successful. It might be in some cases, and not in others. Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, says that those who were accused of being Christians cleared themselves by calling upon the gods, offering to the image of the emperor, and cursing Christ, none of which things, it is said, true Christians (“qui sunt revera Christiani“) can be compelled to do (‘Epist.,’ 10, 95, quoted by Kuinoel). Mad against them; , only here; but the adjective , frantic, is not uncommon in classical writers.
Act 26:12
Journeyed for went, A.V.; with the authority of for with authority from, A.V. and T.R. Commission; , here only in the New Testament. But is a “steward” (Mat 20:8; Luk 8:3); and hence the Roman procurator was called in Greek, , and so were governors generally, as those who acted with a delegated authority. The chief priests. In Act 9:1 Saul is said to have applied to “the chief priest” for authority. The high priest, as president of the Sanhedrim, acted with the other chief priests (Act 9:14).
Act 26:13
On for in, A.V.; that for which, A.V. At midday. “About noon” (Act 22:6). It enhanced the wonder of that light from heaven that it should be seen above the brightness of the sun at midday, in such a latitude.
Act 26:14
Saying unto me in the Hebrew language for speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, A.V. and T.R.; goad for pricks, A.V. I heard a voice saying, etc. (see Act 9:7, note). In the Hebrew language. This is an additional detail not mentioned in Act 9:4 or Act 22:8; but recalled here, as tending to confirm St. Paul’s claim to be a thorough Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and, moreover, to represent Christianity as a thing not alien from, but rather in thorough harmony with, the true national life and spirit of Israel. It is hard for thee to kick, etc. This, also, according to the best manuscripts, is an additional detail not mentioned before. The proverb , to kick against the ox-goads, as the unbroken bullock does to his own hurt, instead of quietly submitting, as he must do at last, to go the way and the pace his master chooses he should go, is found in Pindar, AEschylus, Euripides, Plautus, Terence, etc. The passages are given in Bochart, ‘Hierozoicon.,’ part 1. lib. it. Acts 39.; in Kninoel, and in Bishop Wordsworth. The passage in Eurip., ‘Baach,’ 1. 793, 794, brings out the force of the proverb, viz. fruitless resistance to a superior power, most distinctly: “Better to sacrifice to him, than, being mortal, by vainly raging against God, to kick against the goads.” Saul had better yield at once to the constraining grace of God, and no longer do despite to the Spirit of grace. It does not appear clearly that the proverb was used by the Hebrews. Dr. Donaldson affirms that” there is no Jewish use of this proverbial expression.” And this is borne out by Lightfoot, who adduces the two passages, Deu 32:15 and 1Sa 2:9, as the only evidences of the existence of such a proverb, together with a rabbinical saying, “R. Bibai sat and taught, and R. Isaac Ben Cahna kicked against him” (‘Exereit. on Acts,’ 9:5). It is, therefore, a curious question how this classical phrase came to be used here. Bishop Wordsworth says, “Even in heaven our Lord did not disdain to use a proverb familiar to the heathen world.” But, perhaps, we may assume that such a proverb was substantially in use among the Jews, though no distinct evidence of it has been preserved; and that St. Paul, in rendering the Hebrew words of Jesus into Greek, made use of the language of Euripides, with which he was familiar, in a ease bearing a strong analogy to his own, viz. the resistance of Pentheus to the claims of Bacchus. This is to a certain extent borne out by the use of the words and (Act 5:39; Act 23:1-35. 9); the latter of which is twice used in the ‘Bacchae’ of Euripides, though not common elsewhere. It is, however, found in 2 Macc. 7:19.
Act 26:15
The Lord for he, A.V. and T.R.
Act 26:16
Arise for rise, A.V.; to this end have I, etc., for I have, etc., for this purpose, A.V.; appoint for make, A.V.; the things wherein thou hast seen me for these things which thou hast seen, A.V. and T.R.; the things wherein for those things in the which, A.V. For to this end have I appeared, etc. On comparing this statement with those in Act 9:6 and Act 22:10, Act 22:14, Act 22:15, it appears that in this condensed account given before King Agrippa, St. Paul blends into one message the words spoken to him when the Lord first appeared to him, and the instruction subsequently given to him through Ananias, and the words spoken to him in the trance (Act 22:17-21). This may especially be inferred from Act 9:6, and again from comparing Act 22:15 with this verse.
Act 26:17
Unto whom for unto whom note, A.V. Unto [the Gentiles]. These seem to be the words heard in the trance reported in Act 22:21, the sequel to which, as contained in Act 22:18, the apostle would then have recited, had he not been cut short by the furious cries of the Jews.
Act 26:18
That they may turn for and to turn them, A.V. and T.R.; remission for forgiveness, A.V.; an inheritance for inheritance, A.V.; that for which, A.V.; faith in me for faith that is in me, A.V. To open their eyes (comp. Luk 4:18 and the LXX. of Isa 61:1; 2Co 4:4-6, etc.). That they may turn from darkness to light (comp. Col 1:12, Col 1:13; Eph 5:8; 1Pe 2:9, etc.). Remission of sins (see Act 2:38; Act 3:19; Act 10:43).
Act 26:19
Wherefore for whereupon, A.V. Disobedient (); see Luk 1:17; Rom 1:30, etc. The turn of the phrase is moat skillful; as if be should say, “Can you blame me for obeying such a heavenly message? How could I act otherwise, being thus directed?” Vision (); Luk 1:22; Luk 24:23; 2Co 12:1. Found also repeatedly in the LXX. of Daniel and Wisdom (comp. the use of , Act 1:3).
Act 26:20
Declared for showed, A.V.; both to them of Damascus first for first unto them of Damascus, A.V. and T.R.; country for coasts, A.V.; also for then, A.V.; doing for and do, A.V.; worthy of for meet for, A.V. Them of Damascus first, etc. He enumerates his evangelical labors in the order in which they took place: at Damascus first, as related in Act 9:19-22; then at Jerusalem, as in Act 9:26-29; and then those on a larger and wider scale, among the Jews of Palestine and the heathen in all the countries which he visited. Throughout all the country of Judaea. This does not allude to any preaching in the land of Judaea at the time of his first visit to Jerusalem (Act 9:25), because he says in Gal 1:22, that at that time, viz. before he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, he was still “unknown by face unto the Churches of Judaea.” But he had opportunities later of preaching in Judaea. For instance, the language of Act 11:29 suggests that such an opportunity may have arisen when Paul and Barnabas carried up the alms of the Christians at Antioch “unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea.” Another opportunity he manifestly had when he passed with Barnabas through Phoenicia and Samaria to Jerusalem, as related in Act 15:3. Another, when he went from Caesarea to Jerusalem, as related in Act 18:22. Again, there was room for working among the Jews in Palestine while he was staying at Caesarea “many days,” and journeying to Jerusalem, as we read in Act 21:10, Act 21:15. So that there is no contradiction whatever between the statement in this verse and that in Gal 1:22. The clauses in this verse are two:
(1) “both to them at Damascus, and at Jerusalem first;” and
(2) “and throughout all Judaea, and to the Gentiles.”
Act 26:21
This cause for these causes, A.V.; seized for caught, A.V.; essayed for went about, A.V. For this cause. Here again is a most telling statement. “I have spent my life in trying to persuade men to repent and turn to God, and for doing so the Jews seek to kill me. Can this be right? Will not you, O King Agrippa, protect me from such an unjust requital?” To kill me; , here and in Act 5:30 only in the New Testament; not in the LXX., but in Polybius, and in Hippocrates and Galen, of surgical operations.
Act 26:22
The help that is from God for help of God, A.V.; stand for continue, A.V.; testifying for witnessing, A.V.; nothing but what for none other things than those which, A.V. Help, etc.; , here only and in Wis. 13:18, still of Divine help; in medical writers frequently, of aid from medicine and physicians; common also in classical writers, of auxiliary forces. It is properly spoken of help and allies from without (Bengel). I stand; i.e. I continue unmoved, steadfast, and, by God’s help, not crushed by my enemies. Testifying. The natural rendering of the R.T. . The T.R. , followed by , would mean “borne witness to,” “approved,” as in Act 6:3; Act 10:22, etc., and so Meyer understands it here. But makes much better sense, and is much better supported by manuscript authority. It is in close agreement with Act 9:15 and Act 22:15, that St Paul should thus “testify“ to small and great.
Act 26:23
How that the Christ must for that Christ should, A.V.; how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim for that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show, A.V.; both to for unto, A.V. and T.R. How that ()); see Act 26:8, note. Must suffer; only here and in profane Greek writers. The exact meaning of is “liable to suffering,” just as (from ) means “liable to death,” i.e. mortal. But just as in use comes to mean “one who must die,” so means “one who must suffer;” and so we read in Luk 24:26, ; “Ought not Christ to have suffered,” etc.? And so again in Luk 24:46 (T.R.), , “It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead,” where the turn of thought is exactly the same as here. The Vulgate renders it by passibilis. The Fathers contrast the state of Christ in glory with his state in the flesh by the words and , “impassible” and “passible.” That he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim, etc. Most commentators, from Chrysostom downwards, connect the first with the resurrection. “First from the resurrection,” equal to (Col 1:18). As Meyer truly says, “The chief stress of this sentence lies on .“ The A.V. gives the sense by a periphrasis; only it must be well understood that it was especially by being the first to rise, and so to bring life and immortality to light, that Christ showed light to the people. The words may, of course, be construed as the R.V. does, but such a rendering is not in accordance with the spirit of the passage or the analogy of other passages. Christ was the first rise, and he will be followed by them that are his. But it is not true to say that he was the first to give light to Jews and Gentiles, and will be followed by others doing the same. (For the sentiment, setup. Luk 2:32.) Note on the whole the enormous stress laid by St. Paul on the fulfillment of prophecy as a proof of the truth of the gospel, following therein our Lord himself (Luk 24:25, Luk 24:27, Luk 24:44, Luk 24:45).
Act 26:24
Made his defense for spake for himself, A.V. (, as Act 26:2); saith for said, A.V.; mad for beside thyself, A.V.; thy much for much, A.V.; turn thee to madness for make thee mad, A.V. With a loud voice. Another detail, betraying the eyewitness of the scene described. Thou art mad (); Act 12:15; Joh 10:20; 1Co 14:23. Much learning ( ). So Joh 7:15, “How knoweth this man letters ()?” is equivalent to Whence hath this man this wisdom? (Mat 13:54). And in Act 4:13 is “unlearned.” The excited interruption by Festus shows that he was unable to accept the truths enunciated by the apostle. The ideas of fulfilled prophecy, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of a crucified Jew giving light to the great Roman world, were” foolishness unto him,” because he lacked spiritual discernment. He thought the apostle’s glowing words must be the outcome of a disordered mind. Turn thee to madness ( ). The word (mania) occurs only here in the New Testament. But it is the technical name in medical writers for the disease of , mania, and is also common in classical writers. The verb for “doth turn” () is also peculiar to St. Luke, being found only in this place. It is used by Plato, but specially by medical writers, as is also the substantive formed from it, , spoken of the “turn” taken by a disease, and the simple verb and : e.g. : : (mirth) , etc..
Act 26:25
Paul saith for he said, A.V. and T.R.; excellent for noble, A.V.; words for the words, A.V. Most excellent (). It appears to be the proper title to give the procurator (see Act 23:1-35. 26; Act 24:3). St. Luke also applies it to Theophilus (Luk 1:3). In classical Greek are the aristocracy. Soberness (); sound or sober mindedness; just the opposite of the of which he was accused. See the use of (Mar 5:15; Luk 8:35; 2Co 5:13, etc.), and of , etc. So also in Plato, is opposed to .
Act 26:26
Unto for before, A.V.; is hidden for are hidden, A.V.; this hath not been for this thing was not, A.V. For the king, etc. Something in Agrippa’s manner showed St. Paul that he was not unaffected by what he had heard. And so with his usual quickness and tact he appeals to him to confirm the “words of truth and soberness” which he had just addressed to the skeptical Festus. I speak freely. He was indeed a prisoner and in chains, as he so touchingly said (in Act 26:29), but the word of God in his mouth was not bound. (see Act 9:27; Act 13:46; Act 14:3; Act 18:26; Act 19:8; and the frequent use of ).
Act 26:28
And for then, A.V.; with but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian for almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian, A.V. With but little persuasion ( …). This saying of Agrippa’s is obscure and variously explained. The A.V., following Chrysostom, Beza, Luther, etc., takes to mean “within a little” or” almost,” like the Hebrew , which is very suitable to the context. The corresponding , or, as otherwise read, would then mean, as in the A.V., “altogether,” and the sense of the whole passage is striking and appropriate. But there is some difficulty in getting Otis meaning out of the words. The natural way of expressing it would be , or , or . Hence many other commentators take to mean “in a short time,” and the sense to be either “you are making short work of my conversion: you are persuading me to become a Christian as suddenly as you yourself did;” with a corresponding sense for , “in a long time,” i.e. whether it takes a short or a long time, I pray God you may become a Christian like myself;” or, “you are soon persuading me,” you will soon persuade me if you go on any longer in this strain. Others, again, preferring the reading in Act 26:29, take to mean “with little trouble,” or “with few words,” as Eph 3:5 (understanding or ), “lightly” (Alford), and then the opposite would mean “with much trouble,” “with many words,” i.e. “with difficulty.” But this is rather a fiat rendering. Another difference of opinion is whether the words of Agrippa are to be taken ironically, or sarcastically, or jestingly, or whether they are to be taken seriously, as the words of a man shaken in his convictions and seriously impressed by what he had heard. The whole turn of the narrative seems to favor the latter view. Another view, started by Chrysostom, is that Agrippa used the words in one sense, and St. Paul (mistakenly or advisedly) took them in another. Another possible explanation is that is here used in the sense in which Thucydides employs the phrase, and , viz. “in a narrow place;” and that Agrippa meant to say, “By your appeal to the prophets you press me hard; you have got me into a corner. I am in a , a ‘ narrow room; ‘ I hardly know how to get out of it.” The would then mean a” large room,” a (Psa 30:8). This would suppose and to have become proverbial phrases.
Act 26:29
Whether with little or with much for both almost, and altogether, A.V.; might become for were, A.V. (the order of the words is also changed). I would to God; literally, I would pray to God. It is not very different from the of Rom 9:3. All acknowledge the extreme beauty and taste of this reply, combining the firmness of the martyr with the courtesy of the gentleman. “Loquitur Paulus ex sensu suae beatitudinis, cum amore latissimo” (Bengel).
Act 26:30
And the king rose up for and when he had thus spoken, the king, etc., A.V. and T.R. They that sat with them. The chief captains and principal men and the royal attendants of Act 25:23.
Act 26:31
Had withdrawn for were gone aside, A.V.; spake one to another for talked between themselves, A.V. Had withdrawn; viz. from the public hall, the of Act 25:23, into the private room, “the withdrawing-room” adjoining it. There they freely talked over the trial, and all agreed that the prisoner had done nothing to deserve either death or imprisonment. Paul had made a favorable impression upon both Jews and Romans.
Act 26:32
And Agrippa said for then said Agrippa, A.V. Agrippa said unto Festus. Festus had consulted Agrippa, as one conversant with Jewish questions, about the case of Paul (Act 25:14-21). And in the place of hearing he had publicly stated that he had brought him before King Agrippa to be examined, that, “after examination had,” he might know what to write to the emperor. Accordingly Agrippa now gives it as his opinion that the prisoner might have been discharged if he had not appealed to Caesar. Festus was of the same opinion, and doubtless wrote to Nero to that effect. The result was that he was acquitted before the emperor’s tribunal at Rome, at the end of two years.
HOMILETICS
Act 26:1-26
The apology.
We are struck with a contrast between the conduct of our Lord when he stood before the bar of Caiaphas and of Pontius Pilate, and that of St. Paul when he was brought before Festus and Agrippa. It is written of Jesus, when the Jews accused him before Caiaphas, that “he held his peace.” And again, as he stood before Pontius Pilate the governor, when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, that he answered nothing. And even when Pilate himself appealed to him, he gave him no answer, not even to one word; but, like a lamb dumb before the shearer, opened not his month. St. Paul, on the contrary, when his enemies launched vehement accusations against him, stood boldly on his defense. With infinite wisdom, eloquence, and spirit, he rebutted their charges, and asserted his innocence of them. Both before the Sanhedrim and before Felix, as well as before Festus and Agrippa, he maintained his own cause with consummate skill and dignity; not cowed by their violence, nor losing his temper in meeting their attack; but confronting them with the boldness of a pure conscience, and with the energy of an invincible courage. Can we assign any reason for this remarkable difference between the conduct of the Master and the servant under such similar circumstances? It is, of course, possible that the patience and silence of Jesus was the result of that conscious innocence and perfect sinlessness which belonged to the Son of man alone, and could not be shared by even the holiest of his servants. As he would not allow his servants to draw the sword in his defense, so neither would he speak a word to vindicate his innocence and uphold his cause. It may have been part of his Divine mission of suffering to be absolutely passive in receiving injuries by word, as he was in enduring the shame and agony of the cross. Unresisted slander, unresented blasphemies, undenied accusations, may have been as truly parts of the Passion, as the spitting, and the smiting on the cheek, and the crown of thorns, and the piercing of the hands and feet were. His answer, his apology, his acquittal, were to be the resurrection from the dead; and, awaiting that apology at the hands of his Father, silent endurance was to be his part. The difference between his sinlessness as the Son and the inferior goodness of the apostle mixed with sin, and between the vindication of the Son to be proclaimed by the resurrection and the vindication of the apostle to be effected by ordinary means, may be one ground of the difference, which we are considering. But there is another obvious difference between the two cases. Christ must suffer. According to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Jesus was to lay down his life as a sacrifice for sin. And he was willing to do so. His own will was one with the Father’s will, that thus it should be. As, therefore, he would not pray to his Father to send him twelve legions of angels, to free him from his enemies, so neither would he resist his condemnation by assertions or proofs of his sinless purity. He was silent before his unjust judges, as he bore his cross, as he stretched out his hands upon it, as finally he bowed the head and gave up the ghost. It was otherwise with St. Paul. He had no life to give for the world’s sins, nor was he yet to die at all. He had more years to run in his Lord’s service, nor did he know when his time would come. He must live and work awhile for the souls of Jews and Gentiles, and must leave no stone unturned to exhibit his integrity before mankind. Apart from the natural feelings of the man, it was his duty to repel those charges which would hinder him in his work. Hence his noble apology. A free confession of his errors and his faults; a lofty assertion of the integrity of his course; a lucid narrative of his wondrous life; a bold confession of the change in his soul; a holy boast of his faith in Jesus and the works which were its fruit; a pregnant proclamation of Christ’s gospel in the ears of his accusers and judges; and a fervent appeal to Festus and Agrippa, such as an archangel might address to the sons of men from the heights of heaven, so grand is its superiority;these make up that apology which has a moving eloquence in it as fresh to-day as eighteen hundred years ago; an apology which gives us a portraiture of the apologist well calculated to rivet our affection to him, and to command our admiration of a character to which, in the whole range of secular and sacred history, we can scarcely find quidquam simile aut secundum, worthy to be placed by its side as a rival in Christian heroism..
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Act 26:8
The credibility of the resurrection.
If it be an incredible doctrine, it must be so because to raise men from the dead is physically impossible or morally unlikely in a very high degree. But
I. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
1. The continuance of the spirit in existence after death is certainly not impossible; indeed, it is the discontinuance which has seemed so impossible that to many thinkers its permanency appears to be a necessity. The difficulty, to many minds, is to understand how a spirit can be dissolved and destroyed.
2. Its reassociation with a human body of some kind is also possible, and to almighty power and wisdom easy of execution. The same Divine strength and skill which created and fashioned man as he is can surely continue his existence and his powers under similar conditions to the present ones. He who has made us what we are can make us again, more or less closely associated with the bodily frame which is our present home and organ.
II. To RAISE HIS OWN SON FROM THE DEAD IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE WORLD OF HIS DIVINITY, and of the heavenly origin of the faith he taught, is credible enough. Granted that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the world, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so far from being incredible or even improbable, is positively demanded.
III. To RAISE FROM THE DEAD THE FOLLOWERS OF A RISEN AND ASCENDED SAVIOR is perfectly credible. Granted what we have assumed, and that, therefore, Jesus Christ is Savior, Lord, and Friend of believing, loving, and faithful disciples, it follows that he would exert his Divine power and raise them to his heavenly kingdom, that they might share his honor and his blessedness. The real difficulty is not in the resurrection of Jesus Christ or in that of his disciples; it is in the assumption which lies behindthe assumption that Jesus Christ was one who came down from heaven to redeem a fallen race. That granted, everything else follows necessarily. We maintain that
IV. A DIVINE REDEMPTION IS A CREDIBLE AND NOT AN INCREDIBLE IDEA. There is much within us and around us that points to the presence of a holy and living Father of spirits. If we make our appeal to our own heartsand there is nothing higher than a living human heart from which to argue to the Divinewe shall conclude that to restore his fallen children by the sacrifice of himself was just that very thing which the infinite Father would do. There is nothing more probable, more credible than that.
1. Redeeming love is a well-attested fact.
2. The resurrection of Christ is involved in that fact.
3. The resurrection of man is an inference from that.
(1) Regard it as a certainty.
(2) Prepare for it as an event in which we have all the deepest personal interest.C.
Act 26:9, Act 26:10
Gradations in guilt.
The old notion that, as sin is committed against an infinite God, it must itself be an infinite evil, and that, therefore, all sins are equally heinous and offensive, is held no longer. Its logic is unsound, and our moral sense contradicts the theory. The fact is that the degrees of human guilt in the multitude of actions men perform, under a vast variety of conditions, are indefinitely numerous. Only the Omniscient can possibly discriminate and compute them. But there are some simple principles on which we may safely rely for our spiritual guidance. We judge
I. THAT DELIBERATE AND DIRECT ANTAGONISM TO CHRIST IS THE GUILTIEST OF ALL POSITIONS. “Doing things contrary to Jesus Christ,” when these things are done by an agent who knows what he does, reaches the very summit of iniquity. “This is the condemnation, that light is come,” etc. When men oppose themselves to Christian truth because” their deeds are evil,” because “their craft is in danger,” Because they hate the light which exposes their sin and robs them of their gains or their enjoyments, then they stand in the very front rank of criminality; they deliberately take up arms against their Maker; “They take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder,” etc.; they say, “This is the Son; come, let us kill him,” etc. Surely God will trouble these “with his sore displeasure” (Psa 2:5).
II. THAT DELIBERATE NEUTRALITY IS A MOST SERIOUS SIN, When men refrain from taking an active part against the cause of Christ and his truth, doing “nothing contrary,” etc., they shun the very worst possible thing. But when they attempt to take neutral ground, and either
(1) reject the claims which Christ makes on their personal subjection (Mat 9:9; Mat 11:28, Mat 11:29, etc.), or
(2) refuse to render the help they can bring to his cause (Mat 21:30; Mat 25:18, etc.), then they fall into great condemnation, and must “bear their iniquity” (see Mat 7:26, Mat 7:27; Luk 13:25-28; Jdg 5:23).
III. THAT IGNORANCE CHANGES THE CHARACTER AND MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE DEGREE OF GUILT. Clearly Paul was not so guilty in his acts of persecution as he would have been, had he not “thought that he ought to do many things contrary,” etc. He himself tells us that this ignorance of his was a great mitigation of the sinfulness of his act (see 1Ti 1:13). Our Lord also gave his own Divine sanction to this truth when suffering the pangs of crucifixion (Luk 23:1-56. 34).
1. Ignorance changes the character of the sin. What Paul was guilty of in those days was not the deliberate attempt to crush the work of a Divine Redeemer; he would have recoiled from so doing, had the act presented itself thus to his mind. His mistake, his condemnation, was that he had not fairly and impartially considered the claims of Jesus of Nazareth; that he had blindly assumed that his teachers were right, guiltily neglecting all the proofs which the Savior had given that he was the Messiah “that should come into the world.”
2. It also greatly reduces its turpitude, not to have inquired as we should have donethis is wrong and blameworthy. But it is not so serious an offence, in the sight of God or of man, as willfully and wantonly to conspire against the Lord, and to seek to positively hinder the coming of his kingdom. It may rightly comfort those who, like Paul, have to look hack on offences which they have committed, when they can say, with him, “I verily thought,” etc.; when it can be said to them, “Brethren, I vet that through ignorance ye did it” (Act 3:17).
IV. THAT ONLY ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE EXONERATES FROM BLAME. It is conceivable that men may be so circumstanced that their ignorance is absolute, and therefore wholly faultless. In this case there is no guilt. But how seldom is it of this kind! Usually when we do “things contrary” to truth, righteousness, God, we might have known better if we had inquired more promptly or more purely. We may not excuse ourselves if we have kept out of our mind any light we might have admitted. We may apply this to
(1) the doctrines we are accepting;
(2) the leaders we are encouraging;
(3) the business we are conducting;
(4) the family we are training.C.
Act 26:16-18
Minister and messenger.
The charge given by the manifested Savior to the stricken and awakened Saul is one which, in a true sense, though in smaller measure, we can apply to ourselves. We look at
I. THE TWOFOLD RELATION IN WHICH HE WAS TO STAND. “To make thee a minister and a witness.” Paul was to be
(1) related to Christ as his servant, and to be
(2) related to his fellow-men as their teacher. We are to engage in every Christian work as those who carry with them everywhere a sense of obedience to a Divine Master. We are to do and say nothing which we feel that he does not desire us to do or to say. We are also to feel flint, in regard to our fellows, we are as those who have a Divine message to deliver. If we are content to expound our own views, to establish our own position, or to secure a large following for ourselves, we fall miserably short of our true vocation; we are called to convey Christ’s message to mankind.
II. THE TWOFOLD SOURCE WHENCE HE WAS TO DRAW HIS MESSAGE. He was to bear witness “both of these things which he had seen, and of those things in the which Christ would appear unto him” (Act 26:16). Not only was he to narrate what he already knew, but he was to convey and enforce the truths which were soon to be revealed to him. We are to draw continually on this double source. We are
(1) to repeat the facts and truths with which past experience and study have made us familiar; and also
(2) to unfold those later and maturer views which our Lord will be revealing to our open and inquiring minds.
III. THE TWOFOLD PROTECTION OF WHICH HE WAS ASSURED. “Delivering thee from the (Jewish) people, and from the Gentiles” (Act 26:17). He was to encounter serious perils and difficulties, but he would escape the one and surmount the other. He would find himself opposed and thwarted by the Jews and the Gentiles, by those who were “nigh” and by those who were “afar off,” by the children of privilege from whom he might have hoped to receive help, and by the sons of ignorance from whom he might have expected to endure hostility. By whomsoever assailed, the Divine Savior would be his defense. We, too, may expect to be opposed by two partiesby those within and by “them that are without,” by the heirs of privilege and by the aliens and strangers. If we are faithful and trustful, we may safely cast ourselves on the care of our Divine Friend, who, if he does not save us from, will assuredly save us in, the disappointments and the sufferings which will threaten us as champions of his cause.
IV. THE TWOFOLD ISSUE OF HIS WORK.
1. Spiritual illumination. Those to whom he was to go would turn “from darkness to light,” their “eyes having been opened.” Having been blind to the existence, or to the nature and character, or to the claims of God; or blind to the worth of the human soul, or to the true end and aim of human life, or to the solemnity of death and judgment; or blind to the excellency of holy service, to the beauty of holiness, to the blessedness of consecration and self-denial; they were to perceive, to understand, to rejoice in the truth, to walk in the light. Their experience in the spiritual realm would answer to his in the material world who should awake from blackest night to brightest day.
2. Deliverance. “From the power of Satan irate God” (Act 26:18). In ignorance and sin men are the bondmen of the evil one, held in his cords, subject to his sway. Delivered from the power of sin, they become the freedmen of Christ; they walk in “the glorious liberty of the children of God.” From a degrading bondage they are rescued, that they may rejoice in a holy, elevating freedom.
V. THE TWOFOLD BLESSING HE WAS TO PROMISE.
1. Forgiveness of sins.
2. Sanctification”that they may receive,” etc. (Act 26:18). Immediately on the exercise of faith they were to receive the abounding mercy of God, that “forgiveness“ which means not only the not holding them under condemnation, but also the positive reception of them into Divine favor, the admission of them to the Father’s table, the reinstatement of them into all the privileges of sonship. And gradually they were to rise into a state of sanctification, leaving old and evil things behind, and reaching forth to that which is before; attaining to the stature of Christian manhood, becoming holy even as God is holy (1Pe 1:16).
VI. THE ONE CONDITION ON WHICH HE MUST INSIST. “By faith that is in me.” Every blessing promised was and is to be attained by faith in Jesus Christ himself. Not the acceptance of a creed, nor admission to a Church, nor submission to a ceremony, but a living faith in a living Savior; the cordial acceptance of Jesus Christ himself as the Divine Savior, the rightful Lord, the all-sufficient Friend of the human heart.C.
Act 26:19
“The heavenly vision,” a sermon to the young.
When Paul was “apprehended of Christ Jesus” on his way to Damascus, he was yet a young man. He was still at the outset of his career; his life was still before him. When that heavenly vision came, and he saw the Lord, he himself and his whole life were absolutely changed. The current which had surged so swiftly in one line then turned and flowed steadily and uninterruptedly in the opposite direction. That vision from God revolutionized, transformed his whole self and all his plans and hopes. What visions have we now, and what influence have they on our hearts and lives? We reply
I. THAT TO THE YOUNG THERE COMMONLY OCCURS SOME VISION FROM HEAVEN. We do not expect the miraculous now. God may, and probably does, make known his will in ways that are outside and above the ordinary and the natural; but we have no right to reckon on these. He does come to us by the illuminating influences of his Holy Spirit, and he thus elevates the mind, awakens the soul, subdues the will, renews the nature, transforms the life. God visits us through various means, acts upon us by many instruments, wins us in different ways. The heavenly vision is sure to come during the days of youth, when the mind is more open and the heart more tender; “for of such is the kingdom of God.”
1. It may take the form of a vision of Jesus Christhis excellency and claims. The young heart may see him, as it had never before, as One who is infinitely worthy of trust, of love, of service, of submission.
2. Or it may take the form of a vision of human lifeits seriousness and responsibility. The mind may awake to this great fact: having regarded human life as nothing better than a thing to be enjoyed, or as an opportunity for making money, or gaining a brief reputation, or attaining to some social position, it comes to see, in the light of God’s revealing truth, that it may be something immeasurably more and higherthat it may be made a sacred opportunity of spiritual culture, of holy usefulness, and of Divine service.
3. Or it may take the form of a vision of the human soulits greatness and value. It may suddenly become conscious of the fact that God has created us for himself, that we may possess his likeness, live his life, and share his immortality; that within the humblest human frame resides a spirit whose worth the wealth of a planet will not weigh.
II. THAT THEN COMES THE TIME FOR THE GREAT DECISION. There are other occasions in the course of human life when a decisive choice is made; when it is resolved what vocation shall be pursued, what life-companion taken, what country adopted for a home, etc.; but there is no occasion which compares with this in sacred interest, in lasting issues. It may be even said that “on this winged hour eternity is hung.” Obedience or disobedience to the heavenly vision makes all the difference between success and failure, between peace and unrest of soul, between life and death. Obedience means
(1) becoming right with God;
(2) spending a life in accordance with his will and in harmony with our true and deeper cravings;
(3) a title to everlasting joy in the future.
Disobedience means the sad and dark opposites of these:
(1) remaining under God’s displeasure;
(2) living a life at variance with his purpose and the true end of man;
(3) rejecting the offer of eternal life.C.
Act 26:20-23
The penalty and the resources of a devoted life.
There is no trace of egotism, in the offensive sense of the word, in this simple sketch of the apostle’s course. He is simply telling the truth concerning himself out of a pure heart. But in so doing he gives us the picture of
I. A DEVOTED LIFE.
1. He began at the earliest possible time to carry out the Master’s will”showed first unto them of Damascus” (Act 26:20).
2. He labored in the most difficult and dangerous sphere”and at Jerusalem.”
3. He went wherever the guiding finger pointed”throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles.”
4. He was not afraid of those who were high not disregardful of those who were low “witnessing both to small and great” (Act 26:22).
5. He preached everywhere unpalatable but indispensable truth” that they should repent and do works meet for repentance” (Act 26:20).
6. He was undeterred by any obstacles from continuing in his career”I continue unto this day” (Act 26:22). We are not all charged by our Master to do the kind of work for which Paul was his “chosen vessel;” but we are all called upon to devote our powers to his holy service, our lives to his praise and glory; and it behooves us, as it became him, to begin early, to accept whatever duty the Lord may lay upon us, to shrink from no service because it seems uninviting or perilous to be thorough in all we do for him, and to persist through good and evil report even to the end, until he shall take the weapon from out’ hand.
II. THE PENALTY OF DEVOTEDNESS. “For these causes the Jews caught me,” etc. (Act 26:21). Paul’s faithful and fearless devotedness to the wilt and the carnie of Jesus Christ led him into the utmost danger, and caused him the severest losses and trials. The less of consecration the less of persecution; the more of the one the more of the other. So, in some degree, now. “Yea, and all that wilt live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2Ti 3:12). All are not expected to face the same trials. The apostle had his own difficulties to surmount and dangers to front. The missionary has his; the minister has his; the reformer has his. The Christian man in everyday life has his own penalties of devotedness to pay. Enthusiastic zeal, perfect purity, unswerving truthfulness, incorruptible fidelity,these qualities, and such as these, cannot be continually manifested without calling out and calling down the hostility, condemnation, and opposition of the world. If we take not up the cross thus and follow Christ, we are “not worthy of him.”
III. Two SOURCES OF STRENGTH.
1. The help to be had of God: “having obtained help of God” (Act 26:22). Christ appeared to him at Jerusalem, at Troas, at Corinth, and sustained him by special visitations. All along his path he had the upholding hand of the Almighty about him.
2. Consciousness of integrity. There was no ground for this hatred of him, this relentless persecution. He was not really the renegade his enemies took him for. His conduct could be fully justified by their own authorities; he had been saying “none other things than these,” etc. (Act 26:22, Act 26:23). He had a conscience void of offence toward man as well as toward God; he was as guiltless before his own countrymen as he was before Caesar. Here we have two sources of strength under those persecutions which are the inevitable outcome of our fidelity. Divine sustenancethe guidance of the heavenly Father, the watchful care of the Divine Savior, the comfort of the Holy Ghost. Consciousness of rectitudethe feeling that we are saying and doing “none other things” than the Word of God will justify, and than those who abuse and injure us would themselves approve if they would only judge us with open and impartial mind.C.
Act 26:24-28
The Christian’s desire.
The point of deepest interest in this scene is Paul’s reply to Agrippa. There the nobility of the apostle is conspicuously present. But it is worth while to glance, first, at
I. THE BLINDNESS OF SIN. (Act 26:24.) It makes mistakes of the greatest magnitude; it looks at the wisdom of God and mistakes it for madness. So it judged incarnate wisdom (Joh 10:30). So we are to expect it will judge us; for “the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to the natural man” (1Co 2:14), whether he be Greek (1Co 1:23) or Roman (text). That the whole Gentile world should be redeemed from sin and led by repentance into the kingdom of God by means of a suffering Saviorthis, which is the wisdom of God, deep and Divine, seemed to the proud man of the world nothing better than insanity itself. Enlightened by his Spirit, we detect in this the very essence of Divine wisdom. If the eternal Father, looking down upon us, sees his own wise procedure mistaken for and spoken of as madness, may we not be content that our human schemes and plans should sometimes receive the faint approval, or even the direct condemnation, of our fellows?
II. THE CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE UNDER ATTACK. Paul was not abashed by the sudden outbreak of Festus, nor did he give way to unsuitable and injudicious resentment. He replied with calmness and dignity to the insulting charge of his Roman judge (Act 26:25). When assailed in this waywhen charged with folly, error, fanaticism, or even madnessthe best thing we can do is to bear ourselves calmly, retaining mental and moral equability. This is the best way to disprove the allegations that are made.
(1) First let us be well assured of our position, not taking our ground until we have made all necessary inquiries and have every possible guarantee that we are on the side of “truth and soberness;” and then
(2) let us refuse to be disconcerted by abuse, oppose quiet dignity to angry crimination, and show a conscious rectitude which is far superior to violence, whether of word or deed.
III. THE CHRISTIAN‘S DESIRE FOR ALL WHOM HE CAN REACH. Paul turned appealingly from Festus to Agrippa. Some points in common there must be, he felt, between himself and his royal countryman (Act 26:26, Act 26:27). The king put off the prisoner with a courtly sarcasm (Act 26:28); but the apostle was not thus to be silenced. In noble language and with touching allusion to the fetters he wore, he expressed the earnest wish that, whether with ease or with difficulty, not only the king himself, but all who heard him, might be “such as he was.” A pure and passionate desire filled his soul that all whom he could anywise affect might be elevated and blessed by that ennobling truth which the risen Savior had revealed to him. This holy earnestness of his may remind us:
1. That the truth of the gospel is that which can be indefinitely extended without making any man the poorer. If a man divides his gold among the poor, be loses it himself, but he who imparts heavenly wisdom, Christian influence, gains as he gives.
2. That it is the tendency of Christian truth to make its possessor desire to extend it. The contemplation of a God of love, the study of the life and spirit of the self-sacrificing Savior, the purity of the joy which it inspires in the human heart,these are fitted to produce in the soul a holy yearning to extend to others the blessedness we enjoy.
3. That it becomes us to put forth all our talents to diffuse the knowledge and to spread the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The thought of millions of souls starving that might feed on the bread of life should animate us with keen desire and scud us with elastic step in the path of deliverance and of life.C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Act 26:1-32
Paul before Festus and Agrippa.
His address may be divided as follows:
I. THE REMARKABLE STORY OF HIS LIFE. (Act 26:1-18.)
1. His life in Judaism. He had been brought up, as all knew, in the strictest sect of his religion, a Pharisee. Paul’s example, it has been remarked, lends no countenance to the fallacy that dissolute students make the best preachers. He had been conscientious from the first, a friend of virtue, and a servant of the Law. He had not sacrificed his youth to vice, nor wooed with unabashed front the means of weakness and debility, physical or moral. “One cannot believe that men of this kind are so quickly converted. Ordination does not change the heart, nor is the surplice or gown a means of grace.”
2. The charge against him. Notwithstanding that an evil leaven of passion or zeal had worked in him in those unconverted days (and he does not conceal it), he had retained the Pharisaic hope of the resurrection of the dead. The zeal of the Jews, on the other hand, against the gospel, tended to cut them off from living connection with the religion of their fathers, and from the blessings of the better covenant which superseded the old. And this zeal of unbelief was blind. What was there incredible in the idea of the resurrection of the dead? The question may be generalized to the unbelieverWhat is there at bottom so incredible in any of the great objects of Christian faith? The form of the belief may change, the substance remains from age to age.
3. His own resistance to conviction. He can speak feelingly to these skeptics, for he has known the most stubborn doubt and resistance himself. He had been under an illusion. He had thought it a duty to oppose Jesus. There is a deep and pure joy in confession, and in the knowledge that one’s own sincere experience will be profitable as guide and warning to others. He is ever ready to speak on this matter; it is one of his noblest traits (Act 22:1-30.; 1Ti 1:16). The blessed change he can never forget; he is a living wonder to himself and to many. Let preachers derive their best material from the experience of their heart and life.
4. His conversion. (Act 26:13-18.) The splendor of that light from heaven shining on his path of blind fury can never be forgotten. And the first beam which breaks through the night of our sin and stubbornness is worthy of eternal recollection and meditation (2Co 4:6). The glory of the once humiliated but now enthroned Savior surpasses all. With the light comes the voice, which humiliates and raises, rebukes and cheers. The voice echoes the secret voice of his conscience, hitherto, in the intoxication of his passion, half heard or not heard at all. But it is also a voice which is loftier than that of the self-condemning conscienceDivine, pardoning, and cheering. “Stand up!” God slays and makes alive. The like voice was heard upon the holy mount (Mat 17:7). From that moment Saul rose up a new creature in Christ Jesus. And it is the revelation of the love of God, a thought mightier than all our own doubt, a force in the soul irresistible against our passion and hate, which must conquer us and in our lowliness make us for the first time truly great.
5. His ordination. It may be viewed as an example of true ordination to the sacred calling.
(1) It is a Divine act. The prayers and the laying on of hands will not suffice to turn the worldling into the spiritual man. There must be the inner sanctification and anointing. “Power from on high” must be received, by which a man may stand and witness and serve.
(2) It appoints to service, and only to honor through service. Neither dignified titles nor riches are promised to Paul, but toil and suffering even unto death. The best orders a man can have are to be found in his ability to teach and in the evidence of fruit from his teaching.
(3) Paul was to be a witness, not only of that which he had already seen, but of that which was yet to be shown to him. And so with every genuine preacher. The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from the consciousness of the Christian thinker and student, from the practical experience of life as well as from his Word. Along with the command there goes the blessing; with the commission the promise of protection in its discharge. And the faithful servant of Christ may be assured in like manner that when he is to be employed he will be defended; “the good hand of God” will be upon him (as with Nehemiah) until his work is done.
(4) Sketch of his life-work. Its aim is instruction”to open eyes;” conversion”to turn men from darkness to light,” etc.; induction into the new covenant, or kingdom of grace”that they may receive forgiveness of sins;” glorification”a lot among them that are sanctified.” Faith in Christ the means to all. He had been following out this Divine program. He had obeyed without hesitation the heavenly vision, and in various places had been calling men to repentance and to the new life. In the faithful pursuit of his calling and because of it, he had encountered opposition; yet had been supported by God’s help to the present day. His teaching was but a continuation and fulfillment of the ancient teaching of the prophets. The three great points of his preaching werethe humiliation of Christ, his resurrection, and the gospel for all nations. So clear, straightforward, manly, and consistent was the tenor of his address.
II. EFFECT UPON THE LISTENERS.
1. On Festus. He represents the cynic or indifferentist in matters of religion, or the worldly view of the unspiritual man. Character is spiritually discerned only by inward and outward sympathy. The best in Paul was misunderstood, as his worst had been. Says Luther, “The world esteems others as prudent so long as they are mad, and as mad when they cease to be mad and become wise.” Saul passed for a wise and able man in the days of his persecuting fury. When he “came to himself,” and was clothed in a right mind, he was reckoned mad. One day the tables will be turned, and the children of this world will say,” We fools held his life to be senseless, and now he is numbered among the children of God” (Wis. 5:5). The deep truth is that the exaltation of the poet, the prophet, the mystic, and the believer are hardly distinguishable to the superficial glance from madness or from sensual intoxication. So was it on the day of Pentecost. And of the Christ himself they said, “He is mad, and hath a devil” (Joh 10:20). But Paul replies to Festus that the substance of his words is true, and the temper in which he has spoken is rational. The history of Christianity has proved the truth of this. The world in the long run is not governed by unreason, but by reason struggling against unreason. In every popular revival of Christianity there may be seen a manifestation of what looks like folly and unreason; but to a deeper view there is a “method in this madness.”
2. On Agrippa. Here is an awakened conscience. Paul recognizes in him the stirrings of faith, and boldly aims a blow at his conscience. “Those are the true court preachers who will not be deterred by the star on the breast from asking whether the Morning Star shines in the heart.” But Agrippa fences. What he feels he will not avow. He would lead a double liferepresenting one thing to the world, thinking another himself. He is the type of a numerous class, who would gladly be blessed, were it not for the strait door and the narrow path, which they will not tread (Luk 13:24). How near we may be to bliss, yet how far from it! The heart may be touched, the intellect illuminated, the will aroused, the hour acceptable, and yetsome deep stream of passion runs at our feet, which we will not ford; some “cunning bosom sin” keeps out tile good angels of repentance and faith that would enter. The reply of Paul to Agrippa’s light words again brings out a sharp contrast. Better be the “prisoner of Jesus Christ” than the prisoner of passion! Better the regal freedom of the redeemed man’s soul, in poverty and chains, than the splendor of the potentate enslaved by lust and by the fear of men! In the audience-chamber we have thus the most diverse attitudes of mind towards Christianity represented. Paul, in the full inspiration of faith and life in the Son of God; Agrippa, convinced but not converted; Bernice, probably recalcitrant; Festus, hardened in indifferent cynicism. Some wanting little, others much, to make them Christians. But what is the practical difference between almost saved and quite damned? And so, the sermon ended, the audience disperses with commendations on the eloquence of the preacher and the manliness of his bearing. There is a certain tragedy in every such break-up of a congregation. Every man goes to his own place; and a savor of life unto life or of death unto death has been tasted by many.J.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Act 26:1-32
The apostolic defense in the presence of Festus and Agrippa.
I. THE BEARING OF THE MAN. Dignity, gentleness, courtesya true Christian gentleman.
II. THE APPEAL TO FACTS. The incontrovertible evidence. “Once I was a persecutor; now I am a disciple.”
III. THE PROCLAMATION OF A DIVINE MISSION. Showing that there was reason in his firmness and confidence; he was divinely sent and would be divinely cared for.
IV. THE CHALLENGE TO TRY HIS DOCTRINE AND WORK BY THE STANDARD OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. Those who oppose him are the offenders. He is simply a witness. This is the true strength of all God’s people. They build on the Word which is already given. They show the harmony between Scripture and fact.
V. THE PERSONAL APPEAL included in the address, both to the Jews and to the heathen. “Would to God you were such as I.”
VI. THE DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF THE ADDRESS on the two different men. To the Gentile it was simply foolishness; to the apostate Jew it was a voice of God speaking to the slumbering conscience. Agrippa’s irony meant resistance to the Holy Ghost. Although neither were converted, they were both impressed with the simplicity and sincerity and harmlessness of the man. But again the hand of God was over him. Had he been set at liberty, his life would soon have been sacrificed. So Luther’s imprisonment in the Wartburg was his protection from enemies.R.
Act 26:8
Resurrection in the light of revelation.
“Why should it be thought,” etc.? Grounds of the incredible. Contradiction of reason. Contradiction of experience. Absolute isolation of a fact. A statement is credible because it is rational, because it has been predicted, because it is analogous to and harmonious with experience, because it is morally and practically serviceable to humanity.
I. THE APPEAL TO FAITH. You believe so much; why not this? The Jewish Scriptures contained the doctrine of resurrection. Enoch. Abraham’s anticipation of Isaac’s resurrection. Moses. Elijah. The teaching of the Psalms and prophets. The growth of the doctrine through the post-Exilian times. Even the heathen not without much that prepared the way for the truth. Doctrine of the dead and of the future life. Longing for the perfection of humanity. Moral helplessness.
II. THE CHALLENGE OF CHRISTIANITY TO PERSONAL ACCEPTANCE.
1. The credible ought to be accepted, if it comes with the evidence of fact.
2. The real root of unbelief is personal and moral. Paul refers to himself, “I was once as you are; but the facts were too much for me.”
3. The resurrection is not a mere speculative doctrine or unpractical mystery, but it is the root of the whole system of Christianity; it stands at the entrance of the new way, into which we are all invited, both as sealing the testimony of Christ, and as opening the new world to our faith and setting our affection on things above.R.
Act 26:18
The mission of the gospel to the world.
“To open their eyes,” etc.
I. THE STATE OF THE WORLD WITHOUT CHRIST.
1. Darkness. Intellectual. Moral. No exceptions. The light of the Greek and Roman worlds turned by sin into grosser darkness. Superstition.
2. The rule of evil spirits. The power possessed by false teachers. The dominion of the senses. The reign of fear.
3. The condemnation of Divine righteousness. Impossibility that such ignorance should remain. The visitations of judgment. Awful calamities of the ancient world, the working out of sin.
II. THE DISPENSATION OF MERCY.
1. The preparation of light through the ages revealing the Divine purpose.
2. The advent of Jesus Christ and the lifting up of the light into the heavens.
3. The mission of the gospel through its preachers, so different from anything seen in the heathen world. “How shall they hear without a preacher?”
4. The fulfillment of the mission from age to age, add its prospects of speedy accomplishment. They are turning to the light, and all the world shall see the salvation.R.
Act 26:22
The believing retrospect.
“Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day.” Times when retrospect and the grateful acknowledgment which flows from it are especially profitable. At the critical junctures of life. When a testimony for God is demanded of us for the sake of others. “Unto this day.”
I. THE HIGHER VIEW OF LIFE.
1. A mission, a testimony.
2. A co-operation with the Divine work, running parallel with the line of infinite wisdom and righteousness.
3. A gracious fruit of heavenly bestowment. “Help from God.”
4. A life lived by prayer, linked on to the throne of grace.
II. AN ENCOURAGING AND STIMULATING EXAMPLE. The profitable use which should be made of biography. The lessons of Paul’s life. Divine strength made perfect in human weakness, Teaching us:
1. To follow the Spirit.
2. To depend upon the Divine control of circumstances and of the oppositions of men.
3. To maintain confidence and courage by laying hold of a great future.
4. To be bold in speaking for Christ, especially when we can say, as Paul could, that he “said nothing but what the prophets and Moses said.” The sure ground is the written Word. To preach ourselves is to obtain no help from God; to magnify his Word is to ensure his blessing and be sustained to the end.R.
Act 26:28
The great decision.
“Then Agrippa said unto Paul,” etc. Times when the attitude and bearing of one person wonderfully set forth the majesty of truth. Jesus before Pontius Pilate. Luther at Worms. Paul at Caesarea. Agrippa face to face with the sincerity he despised; Festus with a religion altogether different from that of Rome. The assembly of courtiers and soldiers and abandoned people in the presence of spiritual reality. The reversal of the appearances Paul really trying the offenders against God at the bar of Christ’s truth. The effect of the simple narrative of facts and its powerful appeals. Though scorn and mockery in Agrippa’s words, still confession of his inability to reply. Whether as in Authorized or as in Revised Version, the meaning is the same: “I am not persuaded, though I cannot deny anything you say.”
I. DECIDED CHRISTIANITY is the only true position. “To be a Christian” is to be fully persuaded.
1. Decided faith. Not belief about truth, but persuasion that Jesus is our Savior.
2. Essential change. “To be” that which we were not before. Not a mere change of external position towards Christianity, but the surrender of the whole self to the Law of Christ.
3. Public profession. The name” Christian” distinguished the man from others. It was assumed as a pledge of fellowship and united action. The Church is the voice of Christ, his living representative and witness. We must identify ourselves with his body, by being grafted as members into it.
II. CHRISTIANITY APPEALS TO THOSE WHO ARE OPEN TO PERSUASION.
1. It is possible to be unpersuaded, because inwardly resisting truth, because self-deceived, because demanding that which is not reasonable, as the hardened skeptic, the trifler with opportunity, the proud intellect, the light-minded and pleasure-loving.
2. The commonest and yet most responsible of all positions is that which, like Agrippa’s, is near persuasion, yet distinctly waiving off the appeal. It is an awful spiritual danger to turn away from an open door.
3. It is better to be persuaded by the gracious appeal than compelled to acknowledge the truth by the overwhelming evidence of judgment. Paul’s position before Agrippa a prediction of the future trial of all men, when they shall be manifestly brought into the presence of those who have been persuaded, and the unreasonableness and guilt of their unbelief will be shown forth in contrast with the simple faith and loving obedience of those who shall be honored with Christ’s name and glory upon them. The obstacle to full persuasion should be sought within. There is little more required. Neither the truth itself, nor its method of presentation, nor the circumstances of our life, nor the difficulties of our profession, are any excuse for our remaining unpersuaded. The reality behind the veil of external appearance in the court at Caesarea. Paul’s good conscience, strength, hope, comfort, final victory, all should persuade us to be altogether such as he was then and is now.R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Act 26:3
The conditions of hearing to profit.
“Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.” The occasion of these words of the apostle may be justly viewed all round as a model occasion of public speaking for the preacher, and of listening for the hearer. A certain amount of result, and of very powerful result, was gained, though confessedly not all that could have been wished. It is not the less to be noticed that just that, however, was gained which may be supposed obtainable by the faithful use of the best human means. And for the rest, the work was stayed where, in the very truest sense, we are warranted to say, “Permitte cetera Deo,“ or the results belong to God. The occasion, perhaps unintentionally enough, reveals the great standing conditions of effective preaching and profiting hearing. There must be
I. ONE COMPETENT TO SPEAK.
1. He must know his subject.
2. He must feel deeply his subject.
3. He must handle a subject which concerns his hearers, and is neither above them nor beside their needs.
4. He must know the graces of speech, but specially that of respectfulness and courtesy towards those whose ear he wishes to gain. Who might command may sometimes better “beseech” (Phm 1:8, Phm 1:9), and so much the more if one thing that he asks for is the thing so rare, so difficult, patience.
II. THOSE PREPARED TO HEAR. Different considerations will determine the question in what such preparedness may most truly consist. We have hero to do with only a certain human range of preparedness.
1. The hearer must be open, ready, willing to hear and capable of understanding. Paul does not speak hollow words. He knows he can make much greater progress With Agrippa than with Festus, because Agrippa was really not unversed in matters of revealed truth.
2. The hearer must be prepared to give his mind patiently to the great subjects that may be exhibited to him. They are what may well require patience.
3. He must be honest to make decision and to take action on what he has heard. So far Agrippa went a long way towards being “a good hearer” of the Word.
4. If the case be such, he must-be ready to give full public profession of his decision. In this Agrippa failed. He and Festus only “talked between themselves.”B.
Act 26:6-8
The hope of the promise.
It is a thing of deepest interest and significance that we can note so clearly, so repeatedly, what it was ever lay so close to the heart that craved the better, that was not dead, that reached towards light. It was ever that one transporting hope that grows out of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the hope of future and eternal life, the vista of an abiding city, a heavenly Canaan, and for their behoove “an house not made with hands,” We learn here that, under whatever various aspects and with whatever needful accompaniments
I. THE OLD ORIGINAL REVELATION WAS A REVELATION OF WHAT SHOULD BE THE CONTRADICTION OF SIN‘S PRONOUNCED WORK, DEATH. The hope of the promise was the hope of eternal life and of heaven.
II. THAT THIS FIRST REAL REVELATION SHAPED ITSELF IN THE FORM OF A “PROMISE,” “MADE OF GOD,” TO A CERTAIN FEW, WHO WOULD HALLOW IT ABOVE ALL ELSE THEY HAD.
III. THAT IT WAS ONE LONG REMEMBERED, CLUNG TO TENACIOUSLY, AND IN THESE RESPECTS WELL JUSTIFYING ITS DIVINE ADAPTATION.
IV. THAT, MISUNDERSTOOD THOUGH IT MIGHT BE, IT TURNED ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, IN ONE TREMENDOUS INSTANCE OF IT, NAMELY, THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.
V. THAT, THE FATAL WEAKNESS AND SIN OF THOSE TO WHOM THIS PROMISE, AN HEIRLOOM SO PRECIOUS, WAS GIVEN, REVEALED THEMSELVES, WHEN THE VERY HOUR OF UNSPEAKABLE GLORY CAME, AND WITH IT THE TEST CAME, AND NATURE REGARDED REVELATION AS INCREDIBLE, AND THE EYES OF NATURE DISCREDITED THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, THOUGH THE DIVINE FACT WAS THERE, THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. One of the correctest commentaries on the letter and the spirit of this striking and beautiful passage and the similar parallel passages, is found in the exquisite little poem of J. H. Newman, entitled “Moses seeing the Land.”
“My father’s hope! my childhood’s dream!
The promise from on high!
Long waited for I its glories beam
Now when my death is nigh.
“My death is come, but not decay;
Nor eye nor mind is dim;
The keenness of youth’s vigorous day
Thrills in each nerve and limb.
“Blest scene! thrice welcome after toil
If no deceit I view;
Oh, might my lips but press the soil,
And prove the vision true!
“Its glorious heights, its wealthy plains,
Its many-tinted groves,
They call! But he my steps restrains
Who chastens whom he loves.
“Ah! now they melt they are but shades
I die!yet is no rest,
O Lord! in store, since Canaan fades
But seen, and not possest?”
B.
Act 26:11
The reckless rushing to assume the moral responsibilities of othersan exceeding madness.
We are to understand this extraordinary verse to reveal rather what Paul confesses it was in his heart to do, and in the nature of his own actions to cause others to do, than what he succeeded in doing, in all respects. The two or three touches give us a wonderfully and strangely vivid picture. And suggest, not so much for Paul who confessed and forsook his evil way, but for many others who do neither the one nor the other, how suicidal their course, when, uncontent with the weight of their own responsibilities, they would presume to tamper with the conscience of others, and lade themselves with some share in all that is most dread of the moral nature of their fellows. Let us notice that those who will forcibly seek to interfere with the moral and religious convictions of others do
I. RUN THE GREAT RISK OF INFLUENCING OTHERS TO SIN AGAINST THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE.
II. PRESUME TO SUPPOSE THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE TO BE THE ABSOLUTELY SAFE STANDARD.
III. EXPOSE THEMSELVES, ON NO GREATER WARRANT, TO STAYING A GOOD WORK THAT OTHERWISE WAS GROWING IN THE HEART OF ANOTHER.
IV. VERY POSSIBLY AVAIL TO MAKE PRONOUNCED BLASPHEMERS, BACKSLIDERS, APOSTATES.
V. BECOME AT LEAST STUMBLING–BLOCKS TO OTHERS, AND CAUSES OF LOSS AND PERHAPS OF INFINITE MENTAL PAIN AND DISASTROUS CONFLICT TO THEM. Against every one of these courted responsibilities Christ’s own clearest warnings are offered, and his calmest, most solemn judgments pronounced upon those who taught them.B.
Act 26:18
The ascended Savior’s description of his own work among men.
From the suddenly opened window of heaven into the suddenly opened ear of Paul, the ascended Jesus conveys in very brief the description of the work his gospel is to accomplish in the heart and life of the saved. The present description is fivefold. Each various representation of Christ’s work in the world invites our grateful, loving attention. Each such fresh representation throws fresh hues of beauty and of loveliness upon our own appreciation of the work. Jesus says here that he sends Paul to do five things for men, in his Name, by his warrant, through aid of his power.
I. TO RESTORE A FACULTY. Whatever things men see, who see not Christ, Divine truth, the deep needs and grand opportunities of their own souls, they see the unimportant instead of the all-important. This is not to have the eye open, but shut.
II. TO TURN RESTORED VISION FROM THE DREAD VANITY OF DARKNESS TO ALL THE WEALTH OF LIGHT AND OF WHAT LIGHT CAN SHOW. The power Jesus gives he satisfies. The craving he implants he provides for. The hope he awakens he will not deceive. The eye he opens shall not wander and grope and bemoan darkness, dimness, vague mist, but field after field of higher light and Diviner prospect shall feed its rejoicing sense.
III. To RESCUE MEN FROM A FIERCE, LONG, CONFESSED THRALDOM AND STARTLE THEM WITH RENEWED TITLE OF SONS OF GOD, INSTEAD OF SLAVES OF SATAN.
IV. To GIVE THEM THE HEALING, COMFORTING, ASSURING PRESENT GIFT OF PARDON OF THE FAST. Of what a fearful load will this at once relieve them! How dreadful the outlook still is made, whatever it might be, if it is haunted by the visions of the past, nay, far more, overtaken by the dead hand of the past, and stricken down in every attempt of its own hand, because of the overwhelming arrears due! That which might be the brightest future is dashed by memories only sometimes, but much more by memories that come barbed with sternest actual pains and with demands that cannot be satisfied.
V. TO FIND THEM A PLACE AMONG A PEOPLE TRAINED BY A NEW, A SPECIAL, A HIGHEST KIND OF TRAINING. The place is found beyond a doubt here, as truly as there can be, as there is a “heaven on earth.” In its perfection it is to be found, when years upon years have rolled; ever till then, holding out the thought of home, the haven of rest, the heart of perfect peace, the Church of ravishing worship, the unimaginable bliss of heaven, whatever that may be, and of God himself. How vast that contrast! What a change and growth from the first to this fifth stage! Now first our eye needs to be opened, then what will it be when each blessed one may say, “As for me, I behold thy face in righteousness; I am satisfied, awake, with thy likeness?”B.
Act 26:18
(end)
Christ’s own stress laid on faith in a personal object.
“And an inheritance among them that are sanctified,” etc. The utterances of the ascended Savior to the man who was to be in a double sense the great first apostle of his religion to all the world cannot but be regarded by us as invested with the very fullest interest. The philosophy of religion is simple with Jesus; and he throws into clear prominence certain things, which may surely mark for us the prominence we should give them. Notice
I. THE MANIFEST STRESS LAID ON FAITH IN THE PERSON CHRIST. “Faith, that which centers in me.” So we may justly expound the words of Christ. Jesus speaks thus emphatically to protect against mysticism, defeat, deviation.
1. Faith in a living person can mean nothing short of general trust in him (unless particular qualification be expressed, e.g. faith in a person as a financier, etc.) and great trust in him, unless some qualification of measure be expressly stated, as is never done to Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ will include, therefore,
(1) trust in his teaching;
(2) trust in his example;
(3) trust in his loving, sympathetic guidance;
(4) trust in all that he says, in all that in his providence he does;
(5) trust in the worthiness of his service; as well as
(6) trust on the part of the soul’s deepest demands for him, in his last “power to save.”
2. The service or office of faith is here suggested. It is not remarked on here in its elevating influence on the individual character, and in its present points of superiority over sight for such a nature as ours. But it is instanced in its function as the link of connection, real, vital connection, between Christ and any man. It has, in itself, elevating as are the conception and the gradual training inherent in it, no sufficient, no sovereign, certainly no saving, efficacy. It is nothing that is to be depended upon, of and in itself. But it leads to One, unites to One, keeps an open communication with One, and clings mightily to the end unto One, who is to be depended on, with all the heart, and mind, and strength, and soul.
3. The great calm, peace, divinest content and foretaste of heaven’s own happiness that are commanded by real trust should always be credited to faith in Christ. If these fail and when they fail, it is not that faith fails of its office, or that Christ fails of his goodness, but that men sever this golden link awhile, or let this golden conduit pitifully leak awhile.
II. THE PLACE GIVEN TO FAITH IN THE PERSONAL CHRIST IN RELATION TO SANCTIFICATION. It appears from this pronouncement of Jesus that “faith that is in him” is responsible for our sanctification. There is no limitation to the statement that sanctification depends on faith in Jesus.
1. It rises out of that faith or trust already spoken of. Without the real and living connection with Christ, there would be no entrance possible to the knowledge and the privileges which come with him.
2. It is fed the whole way along by the truth, the example, the guidance, the sympathizing love, of Jesus.
3. It avails to take away that surest foe of all to sanctification, trust in self, at one stroke, but a stroke that must be felt life’s length.
4. Up to the very last, it is that simplest, purest, most depending trust of the soul on Jesus when it faces “the valley,” and “the river,” and “the shadow,” and “the unknown,” which completes, so far as we can trace it at all, the sanctification of man. If at that last moment the bond of faith should break, alas! all would break. But in that last moment, what reason we have to think that there is One who makes its strength equal to all the strain which by any possibility could be put upon it!
III. THE PLACE BELONGING TO FAITH IN THE PERSONAL CHRIST AS THE WAY TO “THE INHERITANCE.” “The inheritance,” it distinctly appears, is that of a prepared place for a prepared people. The preparation is one; it is that of sanctification attained by faith only. The way to “the inheritance,” therefore, cannot be found, except by the paths of faith, the “faith that is in Christ.” And the review of the whole would teach us that it were well-nigh impossible to summarize more forcibly and briefly in one the offices of “faith that is in Christ.” His own is the emphasis here given to it. And he shows that it runs like a golden cord through the whole work of redemption.B.
Act 26:19
The make of a heavenly vision, and its use.
These words are part of Paul’s own description of his conversion. He has been telling the fact, and explaining the manner and circumstances of it. In fewest words he has spoken of the blinding light from heaven at midday, but far above the brightness of a midday sun; of the voice which he heard when prostrate on the earth; of its summons to him to rise, and to be ready promptly to begin a career of activity and of danger perhaps, alike unparalleled. Then calling it altogether a “vision,” and a “heavenly vision,” he says, “I was not disobedient to it.” For three days he remained blind; for three days, so complete was the mastery of mind over body, he did neither eat nor drink. They led him by the hand to Damascus; there the Divine will and purpose concerning him were further unfolded to him by Ananias; and there he found a grateful shelter awhile with Christ’s disciplesthose very persons whom he had set out to discomfit and persecute. Twenty-seven years, or thereabout, have now passed away, and looking back on that time, Paul saysand the trial of those twenty-seven years amply bear him out”Whereupon I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.” It will be instructive to notice
I. WHAT IT IS WHICH PAUL HERE TERMS A “HEAVENLY VISION.” The charm of words often beguiles, sometimes misleads, and, like distance, lends enchantment to the view. A heavenly visionmust not every one covet it? Certainly every one would not covet this of Paul’s. A “heavenly vision,” if given, must it not be irresistible? Will it not be made of fairy forms, of rainbow colors, of angel movements, of seraphs music? Poetry and dream, imagination and the refinedness of inspiration,these will be the material and make of it. But, no, it is not so; it was not so now. A heavenly vision may be as practical, of matter as hard, of manner as unceremonious and unwelcome, as the most ordinary reality of our everyday vexed and harassed life. In this, every one of us finds occasionally the hard knocks of hard facts, and so we may in a heavenly vision. And this was the kind of which Paul here speaks. The light was bright, but not with fancy’s brightness, but with blinding effect. For the rest, judge in one moment the characteristics of the heavenly vision that, beginning with blinding, goes on by giving the strong rider a heavy fall to the earth. No dreamy whisperings succeed, nor strains seraphic, but summons short and sharp, with his name twice repeated. The remonstrant and upbraiding questions succeed, and fear and trembling and unknown astonishment are the result. This sort of vision, whatever it may he called, is, according to our general thought, not so much of heavenly as of earthly things. Yet these were the facts of Paul’s vision, and equally fact is it that he terms it heavenly. And here is our lesson, that the warnings from heaven, and the persuasions that come from heaven, and the instructions that date from heaven, may, while we stay here, savor and have to savor much of the material and the methods of earth, so far as regards the instruments of them. The heavenly vision shall best justify its name often for you, when it apprizes you experimentally, not of the delicious sensations of angels, but of the fear and trembling and anguished amazement that pertain to sinful hearts and injured consciences. Paul was right; for his vision did come from heaven, and it pointed up to heaven, and it led him back with it to heaven, and an innumerable host of others also. Hard fare brought the prodigal back to himself and home to his father; and it was so with Paul, severe and unceremonious handling brought Paul to himself and his Savior and his life-work; and it may be so with us, that hard blows and smarting wounds and crowding cares may be the appointed means of calling us to ourselves, our God, and our home. So also when these come to me, even me, me myself, is it not the equivalent of the name named, and sharply named twice, “Saul, Saul”? We often individually doubt our mercies, and fail to give God praise for them; seldom do we fail to cry out individually because of our pains, or to murmur at God because of them.
II. How PAUL SAYS HE TREATED IT. The treatment which Paul returned for his most merciful, but so to call it rough, usage in this heavenly vision, was prompt attention, practical obedience. The kindest, gentlest providences you may so abuse that they turn into bitter, hard experiences, and memories of pain and shame. The hardest, sternest providences may be so accepted, so treated, that they become transmuted into the brightest spots of memory, the happiest realities of a painful life, and the undoubted points of departure for a new and holier life. Of what seem the unlikeliest materials, it is possible to secure heavenly advantageby obedience to the convictions, the thoughts, the suggestions that come of the pain and darkness and fearful care that were enrapt in them. For what reason, however, does Paul say, “I was ‘not disobedient,'” instead of “I was obedient”?
1. Perhaps he chooses his expression of real, deep modesty before God. “Disobedient,” he thought to himself, “I will no longer be,” and that thought lingered still with him, though, as to being fully and adequately obedient,” who is sufficient for it?” The twenty-seven years that have now sped away have just done this for him, made him feel that to be perfectly obedient will need an energy and an unfalteringness never seen below the sun, except in the one Lord and Master himself.
2. Or was the mode of Paul’s language rather due to the thought, perhaps all but unconsciously felt, that disobedience was the broad road and wide gate, whereat the many go in, the million to one and he had been long of the number? But Paul would say, “Being ‘by the grace of God what I am,’ I would no longer be disobedient, nor ‘walk in their counsel.’ Use we then our providences, though dark and stern, and let us not be unfaithful to their suggestions. It will be a great step towards baulking the fruitfulness of evil, and towards producing an abundant fruitfulness of good. To be not disobedient may soon usher in the ambition and the joys of a real and hearty obedience. The word may tremble on human lip, to say, “I have been obedient,” but with a good conscience before man and God, Paul prefers to say, “I was not disobedient.”B.
Act 26:20
The mission and burden of the evangelist.
Three great themes are here announced by Paul. They stand in close relation with one another. The chain of truth and of highest duty is short, of three links, but most strong and most useful. The apostle, describing his own great work as the first evangelist to the wide world, describes for all time and for all place the work of the evangelist. However far beyond religion may go, may be taught, may develop itself to an opening eye, a quickened imagination, a deepening heart, and an inspired outlook, it begins here, and rests on these three things. The preacher of Christ to humanity must preach
I. REPENTANCES.
1. Conviction of sin.
2. Deep sorrow for sin.
3. Confession of sin.
II. THE CONDITIONTHAT MAN “TURN TO GOD.” There is, no doubt, a crisis in the inner life, in the very man himself, called fitly the turning to God. Let it be produced as it may; let it be concealed or manifest as it may; let it be short and sharp and very defined to day and hour, or the reverse; yet this is a fact in the moral spiritual history of one called by Christ and obeying that call. So much so that the call itself shall in part be worded thus: “Turn;” “Turn to God;” “Turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die?” The reversal of the old life, old character, old principle of action, cannot be more plainly asserted as a necessity.
III. THE NECESSITYOF PRACTICAL HOLINESS OF LIFE. Christ will not allow profession, will not accept mysticism, does not acknowledge vague dreaming, nor admit the idler. Change from the old, honest departure from the past, reality of a new future, are his watchwords.B.
Act 26:22, Act 26:23
A good confession.
If Festus and Agrippa had known half of what Paul had been passing through since his journey to Damascus was so peremptorily stopped, they would well understand why he interposes the acknowledgment, so full of dependence and of humble gratitude, “Therefore having obtained help of God, I continue unto this day” Paul takes credit to himself for neither his work, nor suffering, nor safety. These are all due to his sovereign “Leader“ and “Commander” and Protector. But he makes a good confession indeed, one, if trueand none deny its truthmost worthy of imitation, of all and every one who would in any measure be a follower in his work. He claims justly, and not boastfully, but for manifestly other reason, that he has maintained
I. A PERSEVERING WITNESS.
II. AN IMPARTIAL WITNESS.
III. AN UNCHANGING CONSISTENT SCRIPTURAL WITNESS. Paul wishes to lay stress on this, that he had been to “the Law and the testimony and the prophets;” and had been true to them; had not gone beside nor beyond them, and had not fallen short of them, as his people and opponents were, in fact, guilty of doing.
IV. A STRONG WITNESS TO FOUR THINGS IN ESPECIAL. These were the four grand truths imbedded in the Law, enshrined in the testimony, and many a time bursting out like hope’s own light from the prophets. These were
(1) the death,
(2) the resurrection, of Christ;
(3) the “great Light” he would be to “his people,”
(4) to all the world.
V. A WITNESS MARVELLOUSLY OWNED BY THE “HELP OF GOD.” In a lower sense, no doubt, but in a very true sense, Paul had done and suffered the things that none other could, “save God were with him.”B.
Act 26:24-32
A threefold illustration of the irrepressible energy of the truth.
This paragraph has its value, and that a great value, in the grouping of its contents. And the three members that make the group are worthy each of individual consideration as well. But here we notice only certain great though general facts.
I. THE ENERGY OF TRUTH. It will not let Festus remain silent in the court. Immediately afterwards it shows that Agrippa cannot persuade himself to hold his peace before the pilsner and the court. And lastly, it finds them something to say “between themselves,” in private, and that something was certainly a witness to the right.
II. THE SUCCESS OF THE ENERGY OF TRUTH IN VERY VARIOUS CHARACTERS. Festus and Agrippa were as different in race, religion, character, as perhaps could be. But while the force of truth makes them both find an utterance when it had been wiser for them bad they kept silence, yet how amazingly different those utterances were! Festus taxes Paul with madness. Agrippa, whether utterly serious or not, bears testimony to the influence he feels from what Paul says, in its persuasiveness. Neither of them refuse, even though the case is involved in all possible publicity, to leave the last word with Paul. He does, as it were, hold the field, and in a very real sense finds himself left, not only in his own heart, but in the “pomp” of that open court, master of the field.
III. THE REVENGE THAT THE ENERGY OF TRUTH TAKES. When open honor is not done spontaneously to it, its victory not proclaimed, and its rights smothered, how superficially soever, it secures its own in a yet more emphatic way. It secures a place indelible for itself, and on a page that shall endure to all time; and it owes nothing to human favor, no thanks to human patronage, no atom of indebtedness to any lifting hand of the great, the wise, the mighty, the proud. Never mind all the suppression of these, it transpires, and it gets all it needs from the very rehearsal of how they suppressed (Act 26:30-32).B.
Act 26:24-26
An unwilling contribution to the truth.
The phenomena presented by Festus when, in struggling to insult the truth, he strengthens the body of testimony to it, are to be noticed. They are simply as follows:
I. FESTUS CANNOT DENY THE SIGNS OF LEARNING IN ITS ADVOCATE. HOW many a time gospel truth has been decried because of the signs of ignorance in its advocates! The enemies of the gospel of almost all kinds love learning, would appraise it highly, and times without number have professed that this is their desideratum. But now it is all the contrary.
II. FESTUS NOTES OBSERVANTLY THE SIGNS OF A FULL, DEEP ENTHUSIASM IN THE ADVOCATE OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL.
III. FESTUS FINDS HIMSELF UTTERLY OUT OF SYMPATHY WITH SUCH SIGNS,
IV. FESTUS MUST FIND SOMETHING TO SAY AND FIT TO BE SAID FROM THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY.
V. IN HIS DIFFICULTY FESTUS IS BETRAYED INTO THE HUGEST ERROR.
VI. THE “LOUD VOICE” OF FESTUS DIES OUT, AND GIVES PLACE TO FIRM THOUGH RESPECTFUL CONTRADICTION OF THE PRISONER. The theory of the “madness” of Paulnot a whisper is heard of it again.B.
Act 26:28, Act 26:29
A mournful “almost,” on a light lip.
If these words of Agrippa were spoken satirically, as some think, or were intended to express even the essence of satire, yet after all, this would make very little difference to the standpoint from which we consider them. It would make a great difference indeed to Agrippa himself, but would scarcely diminish aught from the many lessons we may gather from them. Agrippa, too, like Festus, it would appear, felt compelled to make some pronouncement from the chair of authority, but again (notable to observe), the last word lay with Paul. And “a word” indeed it was! This episode, consisting of Agrippa’s behavior on this occasion, may be justly viewed in the following lights. It illustrates
I. THE AMAZING ENERGY OF GOSPEL TRUTH AGAINST WONDERFULLY SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES. Many of these obstacles are most easily imagined. But take this one, as typical of the rest, that from Agrippa, being who he was, where he was, and closely surrounded by the company in which he was, should be wrung, and yet without any appearance of its being wrung, such a confession! Supposing that the language of Agrippa does not mean to own to the experience of any deep emotion or of any powerful impression produced upon him, still that Agrippa can put these words, spiced with taunting, as they then were, upon his lips, was indicative of something very different from scouting and scorning (as Festus would have done) the most distant approach to the thought.
II. THE AMAZING ENERGY OF AN OPPOSING HUMAN NATURE. For the practical issue of all was that Agrippa remained himself. He did not come over to Paul or to Paul’s Master. He did remain with Festus, himself and his sins both “secret” and “presumptuous.”
III. THE POINT WHERE THIS HUMAN NATURE WON. Human and sinful nature won, either at the point of “almost “that so well-known “almost” of conviction, inborn, but for all that still-born!or at the point of a very trifling easy gibe made to do duty for the hour, nay, it was only the moment. Paul has just, undenied, claimed Agrippa, as versed both in Law and in fact. Agrippa cannot, does not, deny it. But that his knowledge may seem to make him look a little less small in the eyes of Festus and the court around, at what he cannot deny, he can indulge in a flingthe fling that of a man who says, “You‘ll find it no so easy matter to make me real, true, sincere, and ready to give in to what nevertheless I cannot deny.” Paul must have thought now of the heart that is in man, “We are not ignorant of its devices.”
IV. THE POSITION WHICH THE SINCERE ADVOCATE OF GOSPEL TRUTH HOLDS EVES WHEN MOST OPPRESSED. For the closing language of Paulso pitying, so meek, so Savior-like, so yearningwas indeed a triumph of God’s grace and of goodness in man. At the unlikeliest moment the lips of Paul breathe out what sounds like nothing else so much as a parting benediction, a forgiving prayer, an irresistible argument of most pathetic affection. He would pour oil on the troubled waters, he would reduce the storm to a Divine calm, he would cover up all a sinful, shameful, humiliating past with the love and forgivingness and hope that must in a moment overspread all the scene, if only Agrippa were such in the salvation of Jesus as he was, less his chains. Why, there was no comparison for one moment then between the real glory of Paul and the varnished brilliance of Agrippa. So God secures his own. So Jesus is mindful of his true servants. So the Spirit puts wisdom into the heart and words into the lips of those faithful to his inspiration. And the insulted prisoner dispenses reward and punishment to his judges.B.
Act 26:30-32
Secret acquittals.
These closing verses of a chapter thrilling with interest suggest the subject of the various acquittals that men both good and bad obtain. The range of value belonging to acquittals received by men from men is vast indeed. They stand in strange contrast to the one acquittal or one condemnation which awaits each and every man in his turn, on the threshold of the hereafter. The present passage, however, will confine attention to one class of acquittals rather than invite thought to range at large. And we may think
I. OF THE SECRET ACQUITTAL OF MAN BY MEN.
1. The man is innocent: his judges know it; their inner judgment acquits him; their very lips acquit him, but only “between themselves.” They say it not to the innocent accused, not to the accusers, not to the world. Their real verdict transpiresGod takes care of thatbut it is no thanks to them, and it is not the good it should be to him, the victim of their injustice, who was given to them that they might do justice. This is one sort of secret acquittal.
2. The man is guilty: his judges know it; their deepest judgment finds him guilty; their lips pronounce it “between themselves.” And circumstances are such that they pronounce their verdict of guilty before man also. Yet for all that, the secret thought of their heart is that they will acquit, and their covered deed is acquittal. They mete not out equal justice. Their weights and balances are not fair and just. They condone and countenancethe criminal. And this is another sort of secret acquittal, as mischievous and disastrous as any can be. For such as these nothing can be said except the words of rebuke, of unsparing condemnation, of well-visited scorn.
II. OF THE SECRET ACQUITTAL OF A TRUE MAN‘S OWN CONSCIENCE. The brightest pages of history are written with instances of this kind of secret acquittal. From Josephand, were all the truth known, from a much earlier than Josephto the perfect, the sublime, the spotless innocence of Jesus, and again with fresh impulse onward by Stephen, and Paul, and Peter, and John, and the martyrs, and an unnumbered host, of whom the world was not worthy!the record Of such acquittal is safely written. What a wonderful resource an innocent conscience! What a store of peace it means! What a defense against misery, anguish, remorse, and hell on earth! It is already the bud of Heaven’s unspeakable bliss.
III. OF THE SECRET ACQUITTAL OF GOD‘S OWN VERDICT, At present, God’s verdict is often veiled from view, silent for the ear as the star that shines the most distant and the coldestand all the scene seems filled up with sight and sound of human judgment. Yet two things are to be said.
1. That the man who thinks knows that this is only the surface appearance; that a time far otherwise conditioned hastens to meet this present scene, and prepares a strange reversal.
2. That to the heart of the humble, God-fearing man, there is given the individual and most precious earnest of Divine approval and complacency and love many a time. That peace which the world cannot give God’s secret acquittal does give, and it is the sort of peace that both “sheds itself abroad” with all the swiftness and persuasiveness of fragrance itself, and preserves the sacred secret of its sweetness. Whatever else Paul had or had not, he had three acquittals, and they were all for the present secretthe acquittal of the unjust judges, and this was no usual honor; of his own conscience; and of the holy Master and God.B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Act 26:5
St. Paul a Pharisee.
Very remarkable is the skill shown by the apostle in the adaptation of his defenses before different rulers. This Agrippa prided himself upon his Jewish knowledge, and would be quite familiar with the Jewish sects. The offences charged against St. Paul related chiefly to Jewish ceremonial and rights, so the apostle could make no answer which would influence Agrippa so certainly as the answer given in the text, “After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” Agrippa would know that a man born and brought up as a Pharisee was not in the least likely to offend against the customs and rites which that body so jealously preserved. Conybeare and Howson say, “Not only was Paul a Pharisee, but his fathers and teachers belonged to this sect. This is nearly all we know of St. Paul’s parents. We can conceive of the apostle as born in the Pharisaic family, and as brought up from his infancy in the ‘straitest sect’ of the Jewish religion. His childhood was nurtured in the strictest belief, as he had before him the example of his father who prayed and walked with broad phylacteries, and were scrupulous and exact in their legal observances. He had, moreover, the memory and tradition of ancestral piety, for he tells us that he served God ‘from his forefathers.’ Everything, therefore, tended to prepare him to be an eminent member of that theological party to which so many of the Jews were looking for the preservation of their natural life, and extension of their natural creed.” Compare St. Paul’s account of himself as given in Gal 1:14; Php 3:5, Php 3:6. We dwell on the fact of St. Paul’s Pharisaic birth, education, and sympathies, in order to show
I. HOW THESE AFFECTED HIS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS. He ought to have been peculiarly acceptable to the Jews. The bias of his life was wholly in favor of ceremonial Judaism. He might have been looked to as one of the noblest champions of Mosaism. He did come out as a leader of the party which persecuted the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. He had never separated himself from the Jewish rites and ordinances. To the close of life he maintained his Pharisaism. He pleaded, indeed, for liberty from ritual bonds on behalf of the Gentile converts, but he did not take the liberty for himself; so that, if the Jews had not yielded to blinding prejudice, they might have found in this Christian Pharisee the conservator of all the essentials of Mosaism. It should be clearly seen that St. Paul at once admitted the new light that came from God, and jealously conserved the old, which had also come from him. No doubt the apostle saw that the Jewish system would fade away, and give place to a spiritual religion for which simpler forms would suffice; but it was no part of his mission to hurry on the time of the passing away. His point was thisJewish bonds must not be laid on Gentile converts. Judaism cannot be aggressive; it must keep well within its own lines and limits.
II. How ST. PAUL‘S PHARISAISM BORE UPON THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM. It made those charges seem ridiculous. One brought up as a zealous Pharisee insultingly defiling the sacred temple was simply absurd. Such a man could not have done such a thing. And the assumption further was that the public teachings of such a man could not be out of harmony with true Judaism. Men are true to themselves: they do not make themselves ridiculous by such open inconsistencies. St. Paul may plead in answer to all their charges, “I was, I am, a Pharisee.”
III. How ST. PAUL‘S PHARISAIC EDUCATION BECAME A PREPARATION FOR HIS CHRISTIAN FAITH AND LIFE. Such an education established a strong conviction concerning three things.
1. The direct ruling and intervention of Jehovah, so that, at any time, any of his servants might have direct and personal communications from him. The fathers and the prophets had received such revelations, and revelations and visions may come to men still.
2. The importance of Holy Scripture, as given by inspiration of God.
3. And the expectation of Messiah, as fulfilling Scripture prophecy and promise. It may easily be shown how those Pharisaic sentiments prepared fur
(1) the vision at Damascus;
(2) the key which that vision gave to Scripture, and especially to the figure of Messiah presented in the Scripture. Compare the difference of result if St. Paul had been by birth and education a doubting, skeptical Sadducee. True Christianity is the natural and proper outcome of true Pharisaism. Those who were loyal to the idea of the theocracy, and to the Scripture as the human expression of the Divine will and purpose, ought to have been led to a full acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, the Savior, the Son of God. Illustrate and impress that in a man’s early years is displayed the character that is to distinguish his whole life; and that we are all greatly dependent on the tone of the influences that surround our infancy and childhood. Manhood should not, indeed, witness the mere continuance of childhood’s prejudices, it should be the true and worthy development, adaptation, and application of childhood’s principles.R.T.
Act 26:6
The Messianic promise.
“The words of this verse include the whole expectation of a Divine kingdom, of which the Christ was to be the Head, as well as the specific belief in a resurrection of the dead.” It is said of the early revelations of God, by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners” (Revised Version). And the presentation of Messiah in the Old Testament Scriptures has been likened to the painting of a great picture, on which, during the many ages, many hands have worked. At first we have but the barest outline figure, drawn by God himself in the promise to our first parents. Then patriarch, lawgiver, judge, king, poet, and prophet in their turn become artist-painters, and help to fill in the wondrous outline, until in the later days of Isaiah the Messiah stands forth full and clear before us, the suffering, conquering King. Dealing with the scriptural promise of Messiah, the Prince and Savior, we note
I. THAT IT WAS EARLY GIVES. In the world’s very morning. In the first hem’s of the world’s sin and woe. Almost before the shadow of man’s sin could fall upon his life, God sent forth this great ray of hope.
II. THAT IT WAS OFTEN RENEWED. For every generation; for every new set of circumstances. In ever-varied forms. With a gracious advancing clearness and fullness. The actual instances provide the illustrations. For lists of them, see appendices to modern Bibles.
III. THAT IT WAS STRANGELY MISCONCEIVED. Because men would not take the Messianic figure as a whole, but chose the parts of it which they preferred. And because men did not take the revelation in its simplicity, but read it in the light of their circumstances, and especially of their temporal necessities. So a nation whose liberty had been taken from them only saw in Messianic promise a liberator, a Judas Maccabeus, a triumphing prince, after the pattern indicated by Daniel. Messiah is for men, not for Jews only, for sinners, and not for an enslaved nation only.R.T.
Act 26:8
The incredibility of the resurrection.
This sudden appeal appears to be made for two reasons.
1. Because Agrippa professed to believe in the Scriptures, which certainly contained records of resurrections (see 1Ki 17:17-23; 2Ki 4:18-37).
2. Because the Sadducee party was the one which was most active against the apostle, and they were chiefly offended by his preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, based upon the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. Possibly St. Paul may have known that the doctrine of resurrection was a stumbling-block and hindrance to Agrippa. Men in all ages have stumbled at the difficulty of resurrection. It appears to be so contrary to the order of nature; and, so far as human power and skill are concerned, death is so manifestly an irremediable woe. But is resurrection incredible? Three answers may be given.
I. THAT DEPENDS UPON THE EVIDENCES OF THE FACT. It is credible enough if it can be adequately proved. And the test case must be the resurrection of our Lord. It is not enough to dismiss this case as miraculous; we must fairly consider the proofs of the fact. Review them as given by St. Paul in 1Co 15:1-58., and set them alongside the historical details given in the Gospels, showing the credibility of the witnesses, etc. The position taken by Hume is a very presumptuous one, that it is more likely the evidence is false than that the miraculous event is true. No fact of history can be received unless its testimony is accepted without prejudice.
II. THE RESURRECTION IS NOT THE GREATEST OF MIRACLES. If we can accept greater, it cannot be unreasonable to accept it. St. Augustine well expresses this point. He says, “It is a greater miracle to make that which is not than to repair that which is. Why cannot God raise us after we are turned into dust, who, if we ever were reduced to nothing, could give us a being?” To create man is a greater miracle than to re-create him; and we are not unreasonable in asserting that he who can accomplish the one can certainly accomplish the other.
III. THE WORLD IS FULL OF ANALOGIES WHICH HELP TO MAKE REASONABLE THE BELIEF IN RESURRECTION. These are fully given in works on the resurrection, and are familiarly used in sermons on this topic. Especially may analogies be found in springtime resurrections and insect changes. Science, too, finds analogies, for it discovers that nothing really is destroyed, but all things reappear in other and varied forms. It is but a beginning of argument on behalf of the sure and sublime truth of the resurrection, but it is an important beginning to be able to sayIt is not a thing incredible that God should raise the dead.R.T.
Act 26:22, Act 26:23
St. Paul’s message compared with prophecy.
Reference to and support from Holy Scripture was a characteristic feature of the apostle’s public teachings and preachings. To understand the importance of this feature of his work we should take into consideration not only the general views entertained of Scripture as the revealed and authoritative Word of God, but also, and more particularly, the sentiment concerning Scripture cherished by pious Jews. It is almost impossible to exaggerate in speaking of their reverence for it. It was their final court of appeal. It was the voice of their God to them. It was the ground of their hope that Messiah, the Deliverer and Prince, would come. It may also be noticed that they much more readily found Messianic references in prophecy and promise than we can do; and we find it difficult to see the points which even the New Testament writers make, probably because our characteristic logical and critical qualities of mind differ so materially from the figurative and imaginative characteristics of the Eastern mind. How St. Paul used appeals to Scripture, and especially Scripture prophecy, may be illustrated from his speech at Antioch in Pisidia (Act 13:16-41), and from his Epistles. Further illustration of the method, as peculiar to the apostles and Christian teachers, may be found in St. Peter’s speech at Pentecost, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. In our text Moses is mentioned with the prophets, because there were some who placed the Pentateuch in a higher rank than the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Paul gives the leading points of his preaching, and affirms, what he would be prepared quite fully to illustrate and to prove, that these points are not really new, but have been all foreshadowed and declared by Jehovah’s prophets. He takes three topics.
1. Messiah was to suffer.
2. Messiah was to rise from the dead.
3. Messiah was to be the Light of life to both Jew and Gentile.
I. MESSIAH WAS TO SUFFER, or should be capable of suffering. “The great body of the Jews had fixed their thoughts only on the prophetic visions of the glories of the Messiah’s kingdom. Even the disciples of Jesus were slow to receive any other thought than that of conquest and triumph. It was not until they were led, after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, into our Lord’s own school of prophetic interpretation, and l aught to recognize the under-current of types and prophecies that pointed to a righteous Sufferer as well as to a righteous King, that they were able to receive the truth.” Show
(1) the prophetic figure of a suffering Messiah from Psa 22:1-31. and Isaiah lilt., with references to passages in Jeremiah and Lamentations; and
(2) point out how precisely the historical facts of our Lord’s sufferings fit into the preparatory prophecy.
II. MESSIAH WAS TO RISE FROM THE DEAD. Illustrate the prophecies on this point from Psa 16:10; Psa 30:3; Psa 41:10; Psa 118:7; Hos 6:2, etc. Show how the fact of his resurrection answers to the prophecy. Aid may be found in St. Peter’s speeches recorded in Act 2:1-47. and 3.
III. MESSIAH WAS TO BE THE LIGHT OF LIFE TO BOTH JEW AND GENTILE. This had been one of St. Paul’s strongest points, and he had abundant Old Testament references to show that Messiah’s mission was not limited to Jews. Refer in illustration to Psa 45:1-17.; Isa 11:10; Isa 42:1, etc. Show that the apostle could direct attention to the fact that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles by the vision given to St. Peter at Joppa, and the admission of Cornelius to the Church. He could also plead that in the Gentile cities God had attended the preaching of his gospel with the power of the Holy Ghost, and Churches among the Gentiles had been founded on the faith of Christ. So prophecy had been fulfilled; it was satisfied in Jesus of Nazareth, who suffered for our sins, rose again for our justification, and is preached in all the world as the all-sufficient Savior.R.T.
Act 26:29
“Both almost, and altogether.”
By comparing the translation of Act 26:28 in the Revised Version, it will be seen that the traditional associations of the words cannot be maintained, and that Agrippa had other thoughts than those which are usually supposed. But it is certain that St. Paul made use of Agrippa’s words to point a persuasion, and recognized the possibility of the state which may be described as “almost a Christian.” And so we are still justified in basing a homily on the condition of the “almost persuaded” upon this passage. The subject may be pleasantly introduced by a description of the pompous scene. Agrippa prided himself upon his semi-royalty, and so Festus arranged for as much of state grandeur as possible. St. Paul was brought chained to his soldier-guard, and spoke with but one hand free. His fervor and eloquence moved Agrippa more than he cared to admit even to himself. He dreaded any further pressure, and therefore tried to turn aside the apostle’s pleadings with the lightness of a laugh. St. Paul was too much in earnest to take the king other than seriously, and so he responds with the passion and persuasion of our text. He turns the king’s words into a plea against continuing any longer in an unsaying relation to Christianity. And still we find, in regard to vital personal religion, that very many come up, as it were, to the door, but do not enter in. There are amongst us manyvery manywho are only almost Christians.
I. WHO AMONG US MAY WE THINK OF AS ONLY ALMOST CHRISTIANS?
1. The child of pious parents, surrounded by gracious influences, led to the house of God, the child of many prayers, growing up to manhood or womanhood, yet not wholly Christ’s today.
2. The regular attendant at Christian services; often moved to tears, and, it may be, to some passing resolves; but emotions pass, decision is delayed, and they are only almost Christians yet.
3. There may even be aged people trembling down to life’s close, who, having put off religious decision again and again, seem now unable to make the effort, and are in peril of dying only almost Christians.
4. There are parents who have converted children, but are themselves the old side of the border-laud, yet in “trespasses and sins.”
5. There are those who have been aroused to religious anxiety, but whose experience, varying for years, has never yet risen to full surrender. Each of these classes may be described with precise adaptation to the congregation addressed.
II. WHAT REASONS CAN BE FOUND FOR SO MANY REMAINING ONLY ALMOST CHRISTIANS? In the case of Agrippa the message seemed novel and strange, and there seemed excuse for requiring time to think it over. In our case the message may seem old and familiar, and it may have lost its awakening and persuading power. Sometimes the hindrance is:
1. intellectual. It may be sonic perplexity or difficulty in relation to Christian doctrine. Or it may be the influence of the intellectual tone of the society in which a man mingles.
2. Or the hindrance may be lack of sufficient motive: especially an inadequate impression of the evil and peril of sin. To use a figure, the boat lies rocking just outside the harbor bar, and there is not wave enough to lift it over. Therefore must the true preacher find motive and persuasion, urging, in Christ’s stead, “Be ye reconciled unto God.”
3. But the chief hindrances are moral. It was Agrippa’s self-indulgent and immoral life which really turned the shafts aside. The pride of self stands in our way. Decision for Christ involves surrendera giving up of that “self-reliance” which is so dear to flesh and blood. Illustrate from the story of the young rich ruler; and recall our Lord’s teachings about the “strait gate and the narrow way.” This may be the reason why we are not “altogether” Christians. There is a cable holding under the water somewhere, and the ship cannot float out free into the ocean of God. Illustrate some cables. The last to yield is usually feeling; we wait for feeling, and, waiting, let the golden hours of opportunity slip by.
III. WHAT REALLY IS IT TO BE ONLY ALMOST PERSUADED? See it in the estimate we form of Agrippa’s character. He is utterly weak and ignoble. We admire the confessor and the martyr; we scorn the hesitating and indecisivesuch as Reuben, “unstable as water.” The people at Athens very properly ordained that every one should be fined who would take neither side in politics. It is a condition which dishonors God more than open rebellion, because it assumes that there really are some considerations to be set against his claims, some reasons why we should not love and serve him. And such indecision effectually shuts us out from the benefits of the gospel provision. The “almost Christian” has
(1) no sense of pardoned sin;
(2) no joy of peace with God;
(3) no strength from the consciously present Savior;
(4) no title to the everlasting heritage.
Impress that in religious matters there really is no borderland. Illustrate by the story of the wreck of the Royal Charter. The fore part ledged on a rock, the back part, flapped by the waves, broke away and sank in deep water with all that were in it. Just at the moment of parting a young man stood on the hinder part, and made a leap for dear life. He was saved, for he could decide and act. Then plead, as St. Paul pleaded, that, whether by little persuasion or by much, men would end their state of indecision, and become altogether Christ’s.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Act 26:1. Paul stretched forth the hand, Elsner shews this to have been esteemed at that time a very decent expression of earnestness in one who spoke in public; though some of the most illustrious Greek orators in earlier ages, as Pericles, Themistocles, Aristides, thought it a point of modesty to avoid it. But this was the effect of a false taste; and it is certain, that the prince of orators, Demosthenes, often made use of this gesture.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 26:1-3 . ] it is (herewith) permitted to thee to speak for thyself, i.e . to defend thyself. Comp. Soph. Aj . 151, El . 545; Xen. Hist . i. 7. 16.
] after stretching forth his hand , is not equivalent to the , Act 12:17 , Act 13:16 (in opposition to Er. Schmid and Hammond), because this latter had for its object the of the hearers (Act 12:17 ); but it conveys a trait descriptive of the solemnity of this moment: Paul comes forward in the attitude of an orator, with all the ingenuousness and candour of a good conscience , although the chain hung on his hands, Act 26:29 . Comp. in contrast to the simple gesture of Paul, the artificially rhetorical one in Apuleius, Metamorph . ii. p. 54: “Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit.” According to Lange’s fancy, it is an intimation that “he stretched out his hand at length for once to an intelligent judge .”
How true and dignified is also here (comp. Act 24:10 ) the conciliatory exordium, with which Paul commences his speech!
] by Jews (generally), not: by the Jews, comp. Act 25:10 . In regard to Jewish accusations, Paul esteemed himself fortunate that he was to defend himself before Agrippa , as the latter was best informed about Jewish customs and controversies.
Act 26:3 . ] as thou art most (more than all other authorities) cognizant . The speech, continuing by a participial construction, is joined on in an abnormal case, as if an accusative expression had been previously used (such as , Plat. Apol . p. 24 B). Less simply Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 272 [E. T. 317]. See on Eph 1:18 , and Stallb. ad Plat. Rep . p. 386 B. The view of Bornemann is very harsh (as entirely closes the previous construction, and commences a new sentence of the speech): that Paul has put the accusative, because he had it in view to continue subsequently with , but omitted to do so on account of .
.] among Jews throughout . See Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 499].
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
II. Paul publicly defends himself before Festus and Agrippa, and, indeed, so successfully, that his address makes a deep impression, and produces a general conviction of his innocence
Act 26:1-32
1Then [But] Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for [concerning1] thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: 2I think [esteem] myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall [that I can, ] answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the [by] Jews: 3Especially because I know thee to be expert in [Especially as thou art acquainted with] all customs and questions which are among [questions of] the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee2 to hear me patiently. 4My manner of life [, then, ( )] from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; 5Which [Who] knew me from the beginning, if they would [were willing to] testify, that after the most straitest [the strictest] sect [] of our religion I lived [as] a Pharisee. 6And now I stand and am judged for [concerning] the hope of the promise made of [by] God unto3 our fathers: 7Unto which promise [unto which] our twelve tribes [the twelve tribes of our nation], instantly [intently] serving God day and night,4 hope to come. For which [this] hopes sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the5 [by] Jews. 8Why should it be thought a thing [Why is it judged among you to be] incredible with you [here om. with you], that God should raise the [whether () God raises () them that are dead? 9I verily thought [I thought indeed ( )] with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary [in opposition] to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10Which thing [Which] I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in6 prison, [prisons (), after] having received [such, ] authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them [I assented to it]. 11And I punished them oft in every synagogue [all the synagogues, . .] and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad [furious] against them, I persecuted them even unto strange [foreign] cities. 12Whereupon as [Amid which ( 7) also] I went [journeyed] to Damascus with authority and commission from8 the chief priests, 13At midday, O king, I saw in the way [. And on the way, I saw, O king, at midday] a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about [around] me and them which [those who] journeyed with me. 14And when we were [had] all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying9 in the Hebrew tongue [dialect], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks [against goads]. 15And [But] I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [But the Lord10] said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16But rise [arise], and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make [employ] thee [as] a minister [servant, ], and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which [and of those in which] I will [yet] appear unto thee; 17Delivering [And I rescue] thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto [among] whom now I send thee,11 17[In order] To open their eyes, and to turn them [eyes, so that they may turn] from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and [an] inheritance among them which [who] are sanctified by faith that is in me [faith in me]. 19Whereupon [Wherefore], O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20But shewed [proclaimed] first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout [in] all the coasts [region, ] of Judea, and then [and also] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn [back] to God, and do works meet for [worthy of] repentance. 21For these causes [On this account] the Jews caught [seized] me in the temple, and went about [attempted] to kill me. 22Having therefore [However (), having] obtained help of [from] God, I continue unto this day, [unto this day I stand] witnessing12 both to small and great, saying none [no] other things than those [of] which the prophets and Moses did say should come [said that they would come to pass, ]: 23That Christ should [Whether () the Messiah ( ) was to] suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew [suffer, whether he, as the first of the resurrection of the dead, was to proclaim a] light unto the people,13 and to the Gentiles.
24And [But] as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad [is leading thee to madness, ]. 25But he14 said, I am not mad [I am not beside myself], most noble Festus; but speak [utter] forth the [om. the] words of truth and soberness [saneness]. 26For the king knoweth of these things, before [to, ] whom also I speak freely [gladly address myself]: for I am persuaded [convinced] that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. 28Then [But] Agrippa said15 unto Paul, Almost [With little (effort)] thou persuadest me to be16 [become ()] a Christian. [!] 29And [But] Paul said17, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that [who] hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether [day, would, through little or great18 (means), become] such as I am, except these bonds. 30And when he had thus spoken, the [om. And when he had thus spoken19] king [Then the king] rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: 31And when they were gone aside [had withdrawn], they talked between themselves [conversed among themselves], saying, This man doeth nothing [that is] worthy of death or of bonds. 32Then said Agrippa [But Agrippa said] unto Festus, This man might [could, ] have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cesar [to the emperor].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 26:1. Thou art permitted.It is Agrippa, not Festus, who grants Paul permission to speak in defence of himself; as a king, he held the highest rank in the assembly, and, moreover, as the guest of the Procurator, enjoyed the honor of acting as the presiding officer. Hence he opens the proceedings, precisely as, according to Act 26:30, if he does not formally close, he at least abruptly arrests them. At the same time, he says, with great consideration, not: , but: , in order not to derogate from the honor due to the governor. Paul immediately begins his address, stretching forth his arm (to which a chain was attached, Act 26:29); it was a gesture frequently made by those who delivered formal addresses before courts of justice.
Act 26:2-5. a. I think myself happy.Paul was influenced to employ such courteous terms chiefly by the fact that Agrippa was well acquainted with Jewish customs and questions; the Talmud, indeed, mentions several events in his life, which furnished him with opportunities to exhibit his knowledge of the Mosaic law; (see Schoettgen: Hor Hebr. on Acts 25.). can scarcely, with Meyer, be connected with , in the sense of: best of all (better than all others) acquainted with; it properly belongs to the main proposition: . ., as assigning the chief reason for which Paul esteems himself happy in being permitted to speak in his own defence precisely before Agrippa. It was an additional pleasure to the apostle that he had found an opportunity to deliver his testimony in the presence of a king (comp. Act 9:15); hence he gives the latter his proper title, and repeats it (Act 26:7; Act 26:19; Act 26:26-27), in order to show that he ascribes special importance to the circumstance.The participial clause in the accusative, , is occasioned by looseness in the construction, as after in Act 26:2, the genitive should, strictly speaking, have reappeared. [The accusative, . is undoubtedly to be regarded as anacoluthic a case which often occurs when participles are also introduced. (Winer: 32. 7, and 63. 2. d.).For instances in classic authors, see Viger. (ed. Herm.). cap. 6. sect. 1. 12.Tr.]
b. My manner of life [, then,]. exhibits inferentially the reasons for which the speaker at once commences his defence, namely, the confidence which he derives from Agrippas acquaintance with the general subject, and the hope which he entertains that he will be heard with favor and patience.At the first, ; this expression is even more emphatic than: from my youth. Paul states, first, how long the Jews had known him; secondly, where they learned to know him; and, thirdly, what they knew of him, namely, as a Pharisee, Act 26:5. The words . – – ., (which agree with . . . in Act 22:3), imply that Saul had been brought at a very tender age to Jerusalem, and had been reared in that city. Hencesays Paulthey already know me, even before I describe myself, namely, that I had lived as a Pharisee, according to the rules of the strictest sect. Comp. Act 22:3. [Most straitest is an anomalous pleonasm, not found in the original, but handed down from Tyndale through the later English versions. Straitest, i.e., strictest, etc. (Alexander).Tr.].If they would [were willing, , to] testify, that is: they would, perhaps, not be sufficiently candid and honorable to do so. They might apprehend that such an admission on their part would confer additional honor on Paul.
Act 26:6-8. And now I stand and am judged.Here the apostle rapidly passes from the earliest period of his life to which he had referred, to the present moment; he testifies that, however widely his present position and sentiments might seem to differ from those of that earlier period, he was, nevertheless, accused and subjected to a trial, not on account of apostasy from the Israelitic religion, but, on the contrary, on account of his adherence to the common and genuine faith and hope of Israel. And this hopehe continuesrests on the express promise and the revelation which God had granted to the fathers; it is a hope which the whole nation sincerely and earnestly entertains. Paul mentions the twelve tribes [a theocratic honorable designation of the totality of the people; comp. Jam 1:1.The word is analogous in form to , Herodot. V. 66. (Meyer).Tr.], without referring to any localities in which at that time individuals belonging to the nation might dwell; hence the descendants of the ten tribes, possibly still in the regions of their exile, are included. Now this hope can be no other than the Messianic hope; hence Paul here intends to say that all devout Israelites hoped for the Messiah whom God had promised, and that he himself, moreover, believed that the divine promise had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, who had appeared, and had risen from the dead. This latter thought leads him to ask the question, Act 26:8, which directly assails doubt and unbelief. He addresses it to all who are present (), including Agrippa and Festus, and assumes that, with respect to this point, they are unbelievers. [ a question introduced with much animation. Quid? incredibile judicatur apud vos? So Beza, Griesb., Kuin., and others. But the Greek note of interrogation (;) after is omitted, on the contrary, by Grotius, Calovius, Knapp, Matthaei, Lachm., Meyer, who point and interpret; Cur incredibile, etc. (de Wette). Alexander seems to prefer the former punctuation, i.e., What! Is it judged incredible, etc. and Howson (Conyb. and H. II. 303) adopts the same view. Hackett, like Lechler in his translation, prefers the latter, and agrees with Meyer, who says that standing alone, is never so employed (as a question), and that if Paul had introduced the pronoun as an exclamation or interrogation, he would have said, or , or .Tr.]. The expression refers interrogatively to the object, in so far as he who deems it incredible, denies its reality. Hence is here equivalent to whether, precisely as in Act 26:23. It cannot mean that, which would be ungrammatical. This objection does not apply to the translation if (Meyer, in accordance with the Vulgate and Erasmus), which, however, does not seem to correspond to the frame of mind either of Paul, or of those who doubted.The tense of is significantnot preterite, referring to the resurrection of Jesus, nor future, as referring to the general resurrectionbut present, in order to indicate that the question does not refer to a special historical event, but to a conception of a general character, or, in other words, to an abiding attribute or power of God.
Act 26:9-11. I verily thought.Here Paul resumes the subject which he had for a moment dropped (in Act 26:6-8), and again refers to his personal history; does not connect the statement that follows, as an inference, with the unbelief to which Paul had adverted in Act 26:8 (Meyer) [who interprets thus: In consequence of this unbelief ( ), I myself was once an avowed enemy of the name of Jesus. Alexander thus interprets : Well, then, as I was saying, being such a Pharisee, I thought, etc.Tr.].That I ought to do. i e., I considered it to be clearly my duty to oppose the name of Jesus, and prevent the confession of it. Here Paul gives to the Christians the name of saints, which he had avoided in his address to the people at Jerusalem, Act 22:4; but on the present occasion he designedly employs the term in the presence of hearers who were unbiassed, and it is his object at the same time, both to bear witness for Christ and His church by using it, and to confess his own guilt. [De Wette, on the contrary, says: He unconsciously employs an expression which could be intelligible to none but Christians. It is of very frequent occurrence in the Pauline epistles.Tr.].When they were put to death, I gave my voice against them [I assented to it].Hence it may be inferred that Stephen was, in truth, not the only one who suffered martyrdom during the persecution to which reference is here made. The phrase , strictly speaking, means: to deposit the calculus or pebble used as a ballot; here, however, it can as little designate literally the act of a judge and lawful assessor in a court, as our own [German] word beistimmen, which originally had the same meaning [but is now used in the sense: to agree or concur with, to assent or consent.Tr.]. Paul indicates by the word only a moral assent and approval.
Act 26:12-14. With authority and commission; that is, he went as the authorized agent and representative of the chief priests. Four peculiarities may be observed in the narrative which follows, and which refers to the appearance of Jesus in the vicinity of Damascus:1. Some traits which give prominence to the overpowering effect of that appearance; for instance, the light which shone around, exceeded the brightness of the sun, Act 26:13, whereas the language in Act 9:3 is simply, , and in Act 22:6, ; moreover, all the attendants of Paul fell to the earth, Act 26:14, whereas this circumstance is not mentioned in Act 22:7, and the statement is, apparently, even contradicted in Act 9:7, (on which verse, see the Exeg. note, above).2. The remark that the voice spoke in the Hebrew, that is, the Araman dialect, which is not made in the two parallel passages; in Act 22:7, it was the less needed, as Paul himself spoke on that occasion in the Araman [ch. Act 21:40].3. The addition in Act 26:14, namely, , which, in Act 9:5, is to be rejected for critical reasons, and, in Act 22:7 is exhibited only in a single uncial manuscript [E], and in a few versions [but not in the Vulg.Tr.]. The image itself is derived from the peculiar mode in which the ox was employed. The oriental farmer followed the plough [furnished with only one handle], and guided it with his left hand. In his right he held a rod which was six or eight feet long, to the end of which a goad was attached. When the animal was refractory and kicked, the driver applied the goad, which, in consequence of the violent movement of the animal, inflicted on it additional pain. The figurative expression implied that Pauls own will, Which offered resistance, would necessarily be subdued by the express command of the Redeemer, who appeared to him in overwhelming glory. [The proverb was familiarly employed by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans. For numerous passages in the Latin and Greek classics, see Kuinoel on Act 9:5-6, and Grotius on Act 26:14.Tr.].4. The circumstance that the revelation concerning both the calling of Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles, and also concerning the protection which he would enjoy amid dangers that threatened him (a revelation received by Paul in Damascus through Ananias, according to Act 9:10 ff., and Acts 22. ff.), is here represented as an immediate and direct revelation received from Jesus on the wayas an integral part of the Redeemers personal revelation. There were two reasons, a negative and a positive, which influenced Paul in making this statement. It was, on the one hand, important, when he addressed Jewish hearers, to give prominence to the fact (Act 22:12 ff.) that a Jew, who was a devout man, according to the law, had been the medium of communication; whereas this circumstance could have had no weight in the judgment of Agrippa and the other hearers whom Paul now addresses. (Baumgarten very judiciously directs attention to this fact). On the other hand, Paul was led to make his statement in this form, because it was important to him that this revelation, which, it is true, he received through the medium of Ananias, should also be distinctly understood to be one which he had received from Christ himself. Hence he here takes the liberty to make a statement in a form which does not, in a servile manner, observe the mere letter and the special circumstances. And it is by no means necessary, for the purpose of removing any apparent discrepancy, to assume that Jesus had actually, at his first appearance, given Paul a general view of his subsequent labors, which Baumgarten (II. 2. p.295) represents as having been possibly the case, although he does not positively and explicitly adopt this hypothesis.It was just as little necessary for Stier to despair, in view of the misconduct of the learned theologians, and to exhibit the warmth of feeling which appears in his protest against our interpretation of the passage before us (in his Reden d. Ap. II. 301 ff.[Discourses of the Apostles, 2d ed.Stier introduces these words in a note, p. 302, as here quoted by Lechler, whom he mentions by name. He dissents from Lechler, and regards the statements as having been actually made by the Saviour when he appeared to Paul.Stiers merits as a learned, orthodox, devout, and skilful expositor of the divine word, are conceded by all; but his manner of speaking of his contemporaries, seems at times to be arrogant and contemptuous, and has given offence to many of them.Tr.].For we have by no means assumed that, in Act 26:16-18, he represents his own thoughts as having been expressed in words by the Lord; we maintain, on the contrary, that Paul here quotes words actually spoken to him by the Lord through Ananias. For the words in Act 9:15-16, demonstrate that the exalted Lord did really reveal precisely these thoughts to Ananias. And the only question that can here arise, is this: Did Ananias at once repeat to Paul all that the Lord had said to him? However probable it is per se that an affirmative answer would accord with the truth, the language in Act 9:17, nevertheless, awakens a doubt: but the testimony of the apostle himself, in Act 22:15, decides the point in the affirmative, although he here very summarily repeats the words of Ananias. Hence we do not consider our opinion [stated in Lechlers first edition, to which Stier referred.Tr.] as successfully refuted, that, in Act 26:16-18, the apostle combines words of Christ which He spoke through the mouth of Ananias, with those which the Redeemer personally and directly addressed to him in the vicinity of Damascus. And here we think that we are as little guilty of learned misconduct as Stier himself is, when, in commenting on the words in Mat 19:5, he openly avows that the words which (not an apostle of the Lord, but) the Redeemer Himself quotes as words of God, were not spoken directly by God, but were spoken by God through Adam. (Reden, etc., [Discourses of the Lord Jesus, according to Matthew]. II. 266. 2d ed.). [Alford fully sustains Lechler, without, however, naming him, and adds: It would be not only irreverent, but false, to imagine that he (Paul) put his own thoughts into the mouth of our Lord; but I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of maintaining that all these words were actually spoken to him at some time by the Lord. The message delivered by Ananias certainly furnished some of them the commission which he received is not followed into its details, but summed up as committed to him by the Lord himself, etc.Tr.]
Act 26:15-17. I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.Jesus informs Paul of the purpose for which He appeared, namely, that he should become a minister and witness of Jesus, especially with a view to the conversion of Gentiles; the apostle receives an assurance of the Redeemers protection, whenever his mission exposes him to danger. primarily means: to appoint, to elect; such, however, cannot here be the sense of the word; the only meaning which is appropriate, and in which, moreover, the word occurs in Polybius, is: to take in hand, to employ for a certain purpose. Paul was to be a witness of that which he already had seen, and of that which he would yet see. The latter is so expressed ( ), as to imply that Jesus himself would personally be the sole or main object of these future visions, as he was (according to ) of all that Paul so far saw ( ). [For the construction, etc., see Winer: Gram. N. T., 39. 3, obs. 1.Tr.]. The participle grammatically belongs to , but in point of fact to . cannot here mean: to choose or elect (Kuinoel [whose word is eligere.Tr.]), because Saul was not chosen from the Gentiles, but from Israel, and because the participle refers, as the construction shows, to a circumstance which followed, not to one which preceded, the mission to the Gentiles; hence the word can have no other meaning here, except that of forcibly extricating, rescuing from dangers. The mission of Paul refers, primarily, to Israel ( , Act 26:17); the Gentiles are mentioned only in the second place: it is precisely in this manner that Paul likewise expresses himself in his Epistles.
Act 26:18. But the purpose of his mission is stated in such a manner, that it can be understood only as referring to Gentiles. Paul was required to open their eyes, that is, to open the mind and awaken it for the reception of the truth; and the object of this was, in order that they might turn, etc., ( is here used intransitively [for which use of the active, see Robinson: Lex. N. T., p. 285, and, therefore, not ut convertas.Tr. ], and indicates the object or purpose of . The change is described by means of two antithetical propositions, the first referring to light and darkness, and the second to the controlling power of Satan and the (liberating) communion with God. [Darkness and light are common figures in the New Testament, not only for ignorance and knowledge, especially of spiritual things, but for the several states or characters, of which these are necessary incidents, a state of sin and one of holiness. (Alex.).Tr.]. Finally, the last gracious purpose of God in their conversion ( ), is represented as referring to the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of an inheritance, i.e., of a share in the glory of the sanctified. But both of these,forgiveness, and salvationcan be obtained solely by faith in Jesus ( ). [The words – – belong to . (Meyer).Our English translators and some others join – – with ; but the words specify evidently the condition by which believers obtain the pardon of sin and an interest in the heavenly inheritance; . is added merely to indicate the spiritual nature of the . (Hackett).Tr.]
Act 26:19-23. a. WhereuponI was not disobedient.Paul now speaks of his resolution to obey the divine call, and of the labors in which he subsequently engaged, Act 26:19-20. As that callhe sayswas accompanied by a heavenly appearance which with great power convinced him, he did not refuse to obey (as the Jews no doubt thought that he should have done). The words indicate that, in truth, the point in question was, whether he would obey or resist the will of God. But is not to be understood as referring exclusively to the promise of such a field of labor, as is described in the words which immediately precede (Meyer) [as being the ground of Pauls prompt obedience], but refers to the whole character of the appearance, as described in Act 26:13 ff. All the work which Paul performed, from the time of his conversion to the present day, he comprehensively describes in Act 26:20 as a proclamation, in which he had insisted on a change of mind (also on the part of the Jews) and a return to God (on the part of the Gentiles), and had required as an evidence of sincerity such acts as proceed from a change of heart. And he specifies as his fourfold field of labor, first, the two cities of Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole region of Judea, and, lastly, the heathen world.
b. At length Paul reaches, by a rapid transition, the present moment. I continue unto this day, i.e., I stand () unharmed, and continue to discharge the duties of my office, as I was rescued by divine aid from the hands of murderers. [from the depon. verb ] (not ) [from ; see note 12, appended to the text, above.Tr.], refers to in Act 26:16. The sense is: I bear witness before small and great, i.e., before men of high and of low rank. The interpretation according to which the passive participle means: well-reported of by small and great (Meyer), does not suit the connection [it would represent Paul as misstating well-known facts, as claiming that all testified in his favor]; for the very circumstance that he is at the moment delivering an address in defence of himself, shows that opponents and accusers are near him; moreover, the context indicates that , like in the same verse, is descriptive of Pauls personal acts. The participial proposition then explains that the testimony which he delivered in the presence of all persons, was nothing else than a proclamation of the actual fulfilment of the promises made by the prophets and Moses respecting things that should come to pass. The object of the scriptural promise and of the fulfilment, of which Paul bore witness, is introduced by him interrogatively in Act 26:23, as it was controverted by the Jews [so that should be translated, not, affirmatively, that, as in the English version, but whether or if (Meyer, de Wette, Alford, Alexander, Hackett, etc.Tr.]. The questions are virtually three in number: 1. Whether the Messiah was , i.e., not only capable of suffering [so the Vulgate translates, passibilis, Tr.], but also subject or liable to suffering, necessitate patiendi obnoxius; this is the constant use of the word in the classics [Winer: 16. 3, c. a.Tr.]. 2. Whether the Messiah would rise, and be the first in the domain of the resurrection [comp. the firstborn from the dead, Col 1:18, and also 1Co 15:23 (Meyer).Tr.]. 3. Whether the Messiah would proclaim light (salvation) not only to the people of Israel, but also to the Gentiles. The last two thoughts are grammatically blended together, and appear as a single question, but the two points in it are to be carefully distinguished.
Act 26:24. Paul, thou art beside thyself.This exclamation of Festus interrupted the address of Paul. [Videbat Festus, naturam non agere in Paulo: gratiam non vidit; quare furorem putat esse Judaicum, etc. (Bengel).Tr.]. He does not, however, refer exclusively to the concluding words of the apostle, but rather to the whole address, especially to that part which described the appearance of Jesus. Such a statement seemed to the Roman to be perfect folly. He unquestionably spoke seriously, and did not mean to say jestingly: Thou art an enthusiast! For, in that case, he would not have spoken with that loud voice, which indicated emotion. He imagined that the man before him had injured his mind by severe study. (The word , in accordance with the usual interpretation, means learning, not books, as Kuinoel and others understand it [for, in that case, he would have said or . (Meyer).Tr.]
Act 26:25-27. I am not mad [not beside myself].[Most noble, excellent, or honorablean official title, not a personal description; Act 24:3. (Alex.).Tr.]. The apostle denies, with perfect calmness and due respect, but in the most positive terms, that such a reproach is deserved, and declares that his language was (objectively) the language of truth, and (subjectively), that of soberness [self-consciousness, sanity]. here means, presence of mind, a sound mind, which is self-possessed, as contradistinguished from a disordered mind.As an evidence that his statements are objectively true (), Paul appeals in Act 26:26 to Agrippa, who was necessarily acquainted with the facts. The words: none of these things [ ] refer principally to those facts connected with the life of Jesus and the history of the Christian church, which Paul had mentioned in his discourse. With thesehe saysthe king is necessarily acquainted, as they were attended with the utmost publicity. [ , in angulo, i. e., clam, occulte, id. quod , Joh 18:20; Mat 10:27; Luk 12:3. (Kuinoel).Tr.]. However, he endeavors to win Agrippa for the cause of the truth, not only by appealing to his knowledge, which was derived from public report, but also by appealing to his conscience and heart, Act 26:27; he takes hold of Agrippa’s faith in the prophets with such tenacity, that the latter can scarcely escape.
Act 26:28-29. It is indeed possible that for a moment a serious impression was made on the king; still, he immediately replies in derisive terms: With little effort (with feeble means) thou persuadest me to become [] a Christian! [The kings reply was: Thou wilt soon persuade me to be a Christian. The words were doubtless spoken ironically and in contempt. (Contb. etc. II. 306.)Tr.]. does not mean: in a short time (Calvin; Wetstein; de Wette [Kuin.; Ols.; Neander; Lange; with, or without, (Meyer).Tr.]. Nor does it mean; almost (Chrysostom; Luther; Grotius: [Engl. vers.; Beza; i.e., propemodum, parum abest, quin.]. It cannot mean the former, on account of , since should, for critical reasons, be preferred [to of text. rec.; see note 18, appended to the text above.Tr.]. The latter sense [almost] would necessarily have been expressed with the genitive , or with [or .]. The correct meaning is given by Oecumenius: [ ] [, , ] [ .]. See Meyer: [Com. ad. loc.].[It is held at present to be unphilological to translate , almost. (Hackett).I understand the words of Agrippa thus:I am not so easily to be made a Christian of as thou supposest. Most of the ancient commentators take the words as implying some effect on Agrippas mind, and as spoken in earnest; but this think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically. (Alford). If a note of interrogation is placed after , the sense, in accordance with Lechler’s and Alfords interpretation of , will be: Canst thou furnish no stronger argument than this appeal to my faith, to induce me to become a Christian?Tr.]. This is the second passage in the Acts (see Act 11:26), in which the name Christian occurs; it is here contemptuously pronounced by one who is not a Christian. But Paul replies with great earnestness and holy ardor: . . ., literally: I could indeed pray to God (namely, if I should follow the impulse of my heart.). [So Winer: Gram. N. T. 42. 1. b.Tr.]. . , that is: through little or great means. [Meyer adds the following note, on p. 485 of his Com. Those interpreters who take in the sense of brevi tempore, here translate, in accordance with the reading : whether it be in a shorter or a longer time (de Wette). Those who take . in the sense of propemodum, translate: non propemodum tantum, sed plane (Grot.). According to our interpretation (i.e., Thou persuadest me with little effort ( instrum.) to become a Christian!), the sense is not affected, whether we read or .Tr.].Except these bonds, says Paul, pointing to the chain by which he had been attached to the soldier who guarded him, but which now hung from his arm.
Act 26:30-32. a. The king rose up.Agrippa closed the proceedings by arising from his seat; the procurator and the others, in regular order, followed his example. After they had withdrawn to another apartment, (for . does not mean that they simply went aside in the same place of hearing, Act 25:23), they discussed the case of Paul, and came to the conclusion that the man [ , which again is contemptuous (Con. and Howson, etc. . 307, n. 2.)Tr.] was certainly not engaged in any criminal designs. ( is not to be taken in the sense of the aorist or perfect, as Kuinoel supposed, but expresses a judgment respecting his general character and whole life, including the present period.). Agrippa declared, in substance, that Paul could with propriety have been acquitted and discharged (.), namely at an earlier stage of the proceedings, if he had not appealed to the emperor; as such an appeal at once arrested all judicial proceedings, arid removed a case from the jurisdiction of an inferior court.
b. The address of Paul in the presence of Agrippa is one of the longest which Luke has reported; it is, like that which he made on the stairs of the tower of Antonia in Jerusalem, a defence of himself against unjust accusations. On this occasion, however, he does not address a highly excited Jewish audience, but the most eminent persons of the countryking Agrippa, and the imperial procurator, together with various officers. Hence, the circumstances do not, in Pauls view, require him to demonstrate his personal innocence; he accordingly proceeds to vindicate his mission and labors as an apostle, and, at the same time, to defend Christianity itself.The present discourse is distinguished, from beginning to end, by a peculiarly joyful spirit, a lofty tone, and a boldness which was certain of ultimately obtaining the victory. Although it assumes the form of a defence, it is, nevertheless, essentially aggressive in the noblest sense of that term; whereas the address in Acts 22 was, strictly speaking, defensive in its character. Da Costa, with great felicity, describes the present discourse as a truly royal word of the apostle, pronounced in the presence of hearers to whom the world assigned a royal rank, whereas the defence made at Jerusalem was the word of an humble sinner, whose love urged him to exhort his fellow-sinners to practise the duty of lovethe word of one who had formerly been a zealot, addressed to those who still remained blind zealots (Acts, II. p. 231.).But on both occasions he exhibits Christianity in its unity with the old covenant; and on both, too, his own conversion to Christ and the appearance of Jesus on the way to Damascus, which led to that conversion, are the prominent topics of his discourse. The only difference is found in the circumstance that in Acts 22 he assigns a special value to the communications which he received at Damascus from Ananias, a devout man according to the law, Act 26:12, while, in the present case, he does not mention this man, but speaks of the message received from the Lord through him, as simply a revelation of Christ.We have here the last public testimony which the apostle delivered on the soil of Palestine; it was, moreover, delivered before the most distinguished assembly, in a secular point of view, in the presence of which he had ever appearedthe king, who then ruled over a part of Canaan, the procurator of the Roman emperor, and many military officers and civil magistrates, who occupied the highest positions in social life.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The apostle assumes the offensive, in Act 26:8, against doubt and unbelief. Instead of restricting himself to a defence of his personal acts, or (in accordance with his usual custom, which, for wise reasons, he observed), of testifying positively to the truth, and addressing his confession to the conscience of his hearers, he suddenly changes his mode, and assails their understanding and all their doubts. He transfers the war to the enemys country, and demands that doubt or unbelief should justify itself on rational grounds, if it claims regard. It is true that he does not minutely investigate the subject, but contents himself with a question to which no answer is returned. But he, nevertheless, shows the proper mode in which, when the circumstances are favorable, Christianity may vindicate itself. For doubt and the denial of the truth often proceed merely from prejudices and pretentious axioms, which, when closely examined, are found to be altogether worthless.
2. Paul gives us, in Act 26:18, an admirable description of the operations of divine grace. His mission had a twofold object: 1. Illumination, or the imparting of knowledge respecting both sin and salvation; 2. Conversion, i.e., a turning of the will from misery to divine aid, from darkness to light, from the dominion of Satan to God. The result of conversion, then, is: 1. Forgiveness of sins, or Justification; 2. The imparting, by grace, of a title to salvation. The personal means by which forgiveness and the inheritance are received, the ( ) is, faith in Christnothing more, but also, nothing less. [There is here an allusion to the doctrine thus stated in the Formula of Concord, p. 687 ult.: Ad justificationem enim tantum haec requiruntur atque necessaria sunt: gratia Dei, meritum Christi, et fides, etc. The first is called causa (justificationis) efficiens (impellens interna); the second: causa meritoria (impellens externa), i.e., plenaria Christi satisfactio; the third: causa apprehendens (, organica), i.e., fides salvifica.Tr.]. And when we view the forgiveness of sins in the light in which it is here exhibited, we perceive that Paul distinctly sets forth the doctrine of justification by faith. It should, besides, be noticed that it is only the act of enlightening which is here ascribed to the apostle (, . .), whereas the conversion itself is the act of the hearers (, intransitive). But even in this aspect a great work is assigned to the human action of a teacher; he is the organ of the redeeming grace of God.
3. The apostle, in this discourse, delivers his testimony in an indirect manner, it is true, but, nevertheless, clearly and emphatically, respecting the freedom of the human will, or, in other words, respecting the resistibility of the operations of divine grace. This thought may already be found in the passage to which allusion has just been made, Act 26:18 (and comp. Act 26:20), in so far as conversion in general is represented as a personal actas the unconstrained act of the will of the individual. This truth is, however, still more distinctly set forth in Pauls remarks (Act 26:19, comp. with Act 26:13 ff.) on his own conversion. While he declares that he was not disobedient() to the Redeemer who appeared from heaven, he indirectly indicates that it would have been possible to refrain from obeying the divine will, and to resist it. This possibility is even included in the words addressed to him by the Redeemer, Act 26:14, although they have in appearance an opposite meaning: It is hard for thee to kick against goads! For this proverbial language is by no means intended to convey the meaning that it had been made absolutely impossible for Saul to offer resistance to the Lord, but only that very painful experiences would inevitably result from any act of resistance which he would commit. That heavenly light was ineffably brilliant; that divine glory humbled human pride; the fulness of power in which the exalted Saviour appeared to Saul, was deeply felt; all these circumstances naturally added to the glory of the grace of God which sought to win a human soul without restricting its personal liberty, without a single trace of constraint and violence; for that divine grace asked for nothing but a voluntary love, an unconstrained obedience, and a willing surrender of the soul.
4. A threefold question occurs in Act 26:23, which is of deep interest in its relation to the Christology of the Old Testament. The question is first proposed: Whether the Messianic prophecy recognizes a suffering [as well as a triumphant] Messiah; i.e., whether, in accordance with the promises of the Old Testament, the Messiah was not only capable of suffering, but also was actually subjected to suffering in his walk and laborsor whether the contrary was the case. The latterthe negativeaccorded with the traditional opinions of the Jews. But the formerthe affirmativewas asserted from the beginning in the predictions of Jesus concerning his sufferings (Mat 16:21, and elsewhere, ), and in his discourses after the resurrection (e. g., , Luk 24:26, and comp. Luk 24:46).Secondly: Whether the Messiah would be the first of the resurrection of the dead; comp. Luk 24:46. The word here claims special attention; it cannot be understood in its full meaning unless we connect with it the view which Paul himself more fully develops in 1Co 15:20 ff.; Luk 24:45 ff.; Rom 5:17-18, namely, that Christ, the second Adam, begins a series of developments of life and resurrection for the benefit of mankind. This circumstance is another indication of the Pauline genuineness of the discourses ascribed in the Acts to the apostle, although it has hitherto been scarcely noticed.Thirdly: Whether the Messiah, as the suffering and risen One, would proclaim salvation both to Israel and to the Gentiles. This thought very forcibly reminds us of those which the risen Saviour expressed in Luk 24:47, compared with the preceding verse. There can be no doubt that the universality of Christianity is here primarily set forth, and that, as far as the Messianic prophecies are concerned, it is supported by a number of passages in the prophets.
5. To the reproach that he manifests extravagance and madness, Paul replies with the assurance that he is speaking words marked by truth and self-consciousness. The truth of divine revelation is demonstrated, in addition to other evidences, by the just proportions and the sound judgment which the form in which it is conveyed, assumestruth, not without soberness [of judgment], but also, soberness, not without truth. If we should regard sobriety of judgment and due or rational proportions as the sole and unconditional criteria of truth, we would soon, in an arbitrary manner, curtail and dilute the truth itself.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 26:1. Thou art permitted to speak for [concerning] thyself.Although the apostle was permitted to speak in his own defence, he availed himself of the opportunity to defend the honor of Jesus Christ alone. He here furnishes an important criterion by which the servants of Christ may be distinguished from false teachers. It is the sole object of the latter, in all their public discourses, to speak for themselves, to display their skill, to gain popular favor. But the sentiments of an upright man, such as John was, are thus expressed: Christ must increase, but I must decrease. [Joh 3:30]. (Ap. Past.).Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and answered for himself.May Paul, who, with the chain hanging from his arm, stretches forth his hand, and bears witness of the grace which he had received, open the mouth of every preacher, and the ear of every hearer! (Williger).While Paul stretched forth his hand, he approached the king, and sought to reach his heart. (Besser).
Act 26:2. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, etc.Paul gladly availed himself of this opportunity, and confidently hoped that a favorable result would be produced. The Christian does not solely look to the actual and future result, but gratefully avails himself of every opportunity which God affords, for performing a present duty. (Rieger).The apostle was very happy when he received permission to speak in the presence of king Agrippa; but the reason is also distinctly stated. He rejoiced, not on account of the honor of addressing a king, nor because an opportunity was afforded for assailing his enemies and taking revenge, but because he was thus enabled to proclaim the truth of Jesus in a public manner, and solemnly bear witness to it in the presence of Agrippa, to whom the circumstances of the Jewish nation, the promises made to the fathers, and the history of Christ were not unknown. Hence it appears not only that Pauls happiness consisted in preaching Christ on every occasion, and that this privilege made even bondage or imprisonment welcome, but also that he very diligently and judiciously availed himself of every opportunity which was offered for proclaiming and glorifying the name of Jesus. (Ap. Past).
Act 26:3. Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.The introduction, like the whole discourse, is characterized by a spirit of humility which exhibits no trace of servility, by a fearlessness which is without arrogance, by vigor without passion and resentment, by gentleness without weakness, by prudence without cunning, and by simplicity without awkwardness.
Act 26:4-5. My manner of life I lived a Pharisee.It was observed above, on Act 22:3 [Homilet.], that a man might do the works of the law, and suppose that he was zealous toward God, and, nevertheless, might continue to be an enemy of Christ. But we may now remark, on the other hand, in answer to those who imagine that the best ministers are sometimes those who once were dissolute students, that Pauls case by no means sanctions this view. Even if he was an enemy of Christ during the period of his unbelief, he was, nevertheless, a friend of virtue, as far as his knowledge extended, a member of the strictest Jewish sect, and, according to the law, blameless [Php 3:6]. He did not sacrifice his youthful years and strength, in carnal lusts, to Satan. We have no authority for assuming that persons of this description are very readily converted. The rite of ordination does not change, nor does a black coat convert, the heart. (Ap. Past.).
Act 26:6-7. The hope of the promise, etc.When the apostle speaks of his former mode of serving God, as a Pharisee, he does not indeed conceal the unholy zeal by which he had then been controlled; still, he also distinctly mentions a pure element which he was able to retain, namely, the faith and hope of the resurrection. The Jews, on the other hand, by the rage with which they now assailed the Gospel of Christ, destroyed their own religion received from the fathers, and, in reality, rejected all the additional gifts which the God of their fathers was willing to bestow. (Rieger).
Act 26:8. Why incredible that God should raise the dead?This is a question addressed to the conscience of all who deny the resurrection, and is intended to urge them to examine the foundation, or, rather, the want of a foundation, of their unbelief.
Act 26:9-12. I verily thought that I ought to do many things contrary to, etc.Paul must have perceived that a special blessing attended his practice of referring to his own case, as that of a grievous sinner, on whom, nevertheless, God had conferred abundant graceand as that of a bloodthirsty persecutor, who had now become a joyful confessor of his Saviour. He had already referred to it in Act 22:4 ff.; again he mentions it here, in the presence of Agrippa, and a third time speaks of it in 1Ti 1:12-14. Little as he was accustomed to speak of and for himself, he becomes copious when he recurs to this subject. The blessed change which Jesus had effected in his soul, was, to him, a perpetual miracle; he could not forget, the grace which had been granted to him. He tells to Jews and Gentiles, to kings and princes, all that God had wrought in him. He assigns in 1Ti 1:16 his reason for speaking of it to all men: For a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Blessed is that teacher, who not only by his words, but also by his example, teaches and preaches, guides and edifies his hearers. (Ap. Past.).
Act 26:13. At midday I saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun.The first ray of light, with which our conversion began, is worthy of eternal remembrance and gratitude, 2Co 4:6. (Starke).If the face of Christ did shine as the sun, even while he abode on earth in the state of humiliation, Mat 17:2, how much more brightly it would shine, when he assumed all power and authority in heaven. Rev 1:16. (id.).
Act 26:14-15. [I am Jesus, etc.It is hard for thee, etc.On these words see the Hom. and Pract. remarks by Gerok, above, on Act 9:5.Tr.].
Act 26:16-17.But rise, etc.The Lord killeth and maketh alivehe bringeth low, and lifteth up.He raiseth them that are bowed down. 1Sa 2:6-7; Psa 146:8. (Starke).The same evangelical word was addressed to the three disciples on the holy mount, when they heard the voice out of the cloud, and fell on their face, Mat 17:7. And Saul, too, arose, in order to stand, by the power of Jesus Christ, unto this day, Act 26:22. (Besser).To make thee a minister and witness, etc.This is a glorious representation of a truly divine ordination to the ministry. Here observe: I. A genuine ordination is a divine work. Prayer, and the imposition of hands are not of themselves sufficient to change an unconverted and worldly-minded man into a faithful witness of Jesus. It is, first, necessary that the Lord should heal him internally, anoint, and ordain him; Jesus alone can impart the needed ability to stand, to witness, and to minister. II. Jesus does not appoint Paul to be an eminent bishop and an ecclesiastic of high rank, but, when He assigns to him the highest spiritual dignity of the apostolic office, makes him a witness and a servant [minister, .]. The Lord promises him no comforts, no titles of honor, no riches; but, to bear witness of Him, to be His servant, amid toils and labors, persecutions and torturessuch is the apostolic office, the highest dignity of the disciples of Jesus. How unlike ecclesiastics of rank in our day are, in many cases, to this ordained witness of Jesus! III. Christ makes Paul a witness, not only of those things which he had now already seen, but also of those in which He would yet appear to him. Thus a faithful servant of Jesus should always make progress. Our earlier experience of the grace of Jesus must be daily renewed and re-animated by new experiences of His saving grace, so that our witness may ever be active and vigorous. IV. The Lord Jesus, at the same time, bestows a safe-conduct or passport at the ordination, by promising that while Paul labors as a witness and servant, He will be a protector and deliverer, Act 26:17. A faithful witness of Jesus may always entertain the assurance that when the Lord employs him, He always has the ability and the will to be a Protector. (Ap. Past).The Lord faithfully remembered the promise which he gave to his apostle. The work to which He originally called Paul, and the words which He addressed to him at the beginning, have now, after twenty-four years of apostolical labors, been abundantly established, before many thousands of persons who were saved, and before still more numerous enemies who were subdued. (Besser).
Act 26:18. To open their eyes, etc.Behold here a complete plan or sketch of the New Testament office of the ministry. Its objects are: I. The instruction of mento open their eyes; II. Their conversionto turn them, etc.; III. Their forgivenessthat they may receive forgiveness of sins; IV. Their salvationinheritance among, etc.; and, V. Faith is the means by which such results are producedby faith, etc.
Act 26:19. Whereupon I was not disobedient.Not even Pauls conversion was irresistible. (Bengel).Paul ascribes his obedience to the divine character of the appearance which he had seen, but especially, (if we also refer to the words which immediately precede), to the nature of the precious office which was intrusted to him. He could not resist this heavenly callhe saysbecause this precious office was conferred on him by divine authorityan office by which many thousands of benighted souls were to be enlightened and made partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light [Col 1:12]. Surely, if all teachers would diligently consider what eternal glory they could give to God, and how great a salvation they could secure for themselves and for others, they would become more diligent, more faithful, and more obedient. (Ap. Past.).
Act 26:20. But shewed first unto them of Damascus, etc.Precisely where we may have given the greatest offence, we should begin to remove it (Starke).The apostle brought forth such abundant fruits, because he began to labor as soon as he received the call. Our strength is impaired by delay. (Ap. Past.).That they should repent and turn to God.Without repentance, Christ avails us nothing; but, on the other hand, there can be no genuine repentance, without Christ. It is only the evangelical preaching of repentance, that produces fruit. (From Ap. Past.).
Act 26:21. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple.A teacher who desires to have the testimony of his own conscience that he is faithful to God, must at all times be ready even to die as a martyr for all the truths of the Christian religion, especially for the doctrine of repentance and conversion, and of works meet for repentance; let him never consent to suppress such truths for the sake of pleasing men. (Starke).
Act 26:22. Having therefore obtained help of God.Here was the triumph of the faith of a witness of Jesus, who dreaded no labors and no sufferings, in his zeal to obey the call of his Lord. Herein he gloried, amid the shame of his bonds. Who can, with truth, employ the same language? (Ap. Past.).Continue unto this day, witnessing, etc.Paul rejoices that he continues unto this day; but he also assigns the reasonthat he might bear witness. It is right and just that we should thank the Lord for prolonging our lives, and sustaining us amid so many dangers and evils. But the continuance of our life could be no real benefit and joy, if it were devoted to any other purpose than that of diligently serving our Saviour. (id.).Saying none other things than those which the prophets, etc.He exhibited the same order of salvation to small and to great, to the lofty and the low, and taught nothing but that which was revealed in the word of God. He preached Christ, and set him forth alike in his humiliation and in his exaltation, Act 26:23; he sought to gain both Jews and Gentiles, Act 26:23. He exhibits, in every aspect, an image of a faithful teacher, which is worthy of imitation. (id.).
Act 26:23. That Christ should suffer should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the Gentiles.These are the three chief points in the writings of the prophets: The sufferings of ChristHis resurrection,and, The publication of these truths among all nations; and precisely these three were, most of all, unwelcome to the Jews. The first gave them offence; the second was denied by them; and the third awakened their envy. (Starke).
Act 26:24. Paul, thou art beside thyself.The world deems men to be prudent while they are mad, and to be mad when they cease to rave, and become prudent. As long as Saul raved and raged, he was regarded as a prudent and able man; but when he was made acquainted with his madness, and had become a Christian, men believed that he was a madman. A change will, however, yet take place, and worldly men will say of the righteous: We fools accounted his life madness; how is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot is among the saints! Wisdom of Son 5:4-5. (Lindhammer).Was this, then, all that Paul gainedto be regarded as a madman! Observe how a worldly-minded man, such as Festus was, could not conceive that any one of sound mind would entertain such a faith, and venture his life in defence of it. When he cannot accuse a disciple of Christ of hypocrisy, because he too plainly perceives the evidences of sincerity, the only expedient that remains is, to ascribe the whole to a disordered mind. Festus professes to know even the causes of the latter: Much learning doth make thee mad. Charges of the same kind are still made in our day. When a preacher receives the gift of wielding the sword of the word with ability, the world is not unwilling to concede, that, to a certain extent, he does possess talent, but alleges that he preaches the Gospel only for the purpose of displaying his skill. And yet, we are surely not actors; and, as little is it madness, when, in the name of the living God, we speak of eternity, of a Saviour, or of the resurrection. Such words are rational and true, and are supported by the eternal truth of God; and nothing more unequivocally demonstrates their truth than precisely the opposition of the human heart. (Palmer).flow often we hear, in the present day, the language of this wisdom of Festus, to which the preaching of the cross is foolishness. A childlike and simple faith in the whole revealed truth of the Scriptures, is represented as belonging to the narrow-mindedness of old times; the doctrine of justification by faith in the merits of Christ, is called a pagan, sanguinary, theology, etc. When any one begins to occupy himself earnestly and seriously with the duties of religion, and breaks the ties which had bound him to the world, he is pitied as a man whom religious melancholy has betrayed into extravagances, and whose mind has become affected by the excessive study of the Bible. Did they not blaspheme the gracious influences of the pentecostal Spirit, and accuse the disciples of being intoxicated (Act 2:13)? Did they not say even of Christ: He hath a devil. and is mad? (Joh 10:20). (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act 26:25-26. I am not mad, most noble Festus.Paul did not reply to Festus in harsh and mocking terms, but modestly represented that the reproach was undeserved; he referred to the fact that the whole history of Jesus was generally known, as the events of His life had not occurred in a corner, but had been exhibited to the eyes of the world. He also appealed to the testimony and the conscience of Agrippa; he boldly spoke in the presence of Festus as a man in full possession of his senses and filled with the joy which his faith imparted. He taught, from the fulness of a heart which divine grace had convinced and blessed, that Christianity is no fable, and that faith is not madness. Faithful teachers should study this example, and imitate it, both when they encounter scoffers of religion in society, and when duty requires them to bear witness in their writings against scoffers and free-thinkers. (Ap. Past.).I speak forth the words of truth and soberness (Luthers version: I speak true and rational words). The words which he pronounced were true; the manner in which he pronounced them, was rational. (Besser).
Act 26:27. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?Paul, who had studied psychology in the school of the Holy Ghost, at once perceived the secret spark of a tendency to believe the word, which glimmered in the heart of Agrippa. Impelled by hope, and by his love for the king of the Jews, he boldly addresses a question to the heart and conscience of the latter, not yet despairing of success in his attempt to conduct him, through the means of the predictions of the prophets to Christ, the true King of Israel. Those are the true court preachers who are not deterred by the star on the breast of the prince, from inquiring whether the heavenly morning star is also shining in his breast. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act 26:28. Almost thou persuadest me. [With little effort (Luther: Not much is wanting, etc.).]With little effort thou persuadest me to become a Christian! Agrippa means: It seems that you expect to make a Christian of me by a short process; I should, however, think that something more is needed in order to persuade a king of the Jews to become a Christian. (Besser).These words seem indeed to be uttered in a mocking tone; and yet, while the king jested, he was not easy at heart. He was inwardly moved, but, as a statesmen, wished to conceal his emotion. Such Almost-Christians are still numerous, even in our day. The world would willingly be saved, if it were not for the words: Strive to enter in at the strait gate, etc. Luk 13:24. (Starke).How often we, too, have been near the kingdom of heaven! We had almost passed from darkness to light, from unbelief to faith, from sin to repentance, from inward trouble to peace, from the world to God. The heart was touched, the mind enlightened, the will aroused; the hour was favorablethe hour of grace, which might have decided on our blessed eternity; not much was wanting. But the little that was wanting, we would not yield; we could not part from some object which we prized; there was some favorite sin, which we could not abandon. Our thoughts were again diverted from the subject, a temptation presented itselfand the hour of grace passed by; the treasure which we had almost grasped, was again lost, and again were we far from the Lord.
Act 26:29. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, etc.When Agrippa had uttered the light jest, Paul replied with deep and holy earnestness.What sorrow and pain, what holy zeal for the honor of the Lord, those bold words express! That love, which so ardently desired the salvation of all, sought to fan into a bright flame the feeble spark of faith which glimmered in the answer of Agrippa. Paul gives an assurance even to those who stood at a greater distanceto Festus and the other persons of rankof his intercessory love, and kindly and urgently invites them not to allow the hour of grace to pass away unimproved. (Leonh. and Sp.).What various sentiments with respect to the Gospel of Christ were entertained by those who were now assembled in this place of hearing (Act 25:23)! Paul, living solely by the faith of the Son of God [Gal 2:20]Agrippa, touchedBernice, more indifferentFestus, still less moved. How gladly Paul would have conducted them all to that blessedness, which he derived from his holy faith! (Rieger).Much was wanting in the case of Festuslittle, in that of Agrippa. But Paul teaches that the grace of God can remove every hinderance to faith, whether small or great; and he expresses his earnest desire that Festus, as well as Agrippa, and all who heard him, might surmount every obstacle, accept the offered grace, and enter into fellowship with Christ. Thus a witness of Jesus does not allow himself to be discouraged, but even in the case of the worst scoffers and the most hardened men, still hopes that they will be converted, and become partakers of the grace of God. (Ap. Past.).
Act 26:30. And when he had thus spoken [see note 19, appended to the text, above.Tr.], the king rose up.The king could listen no longer to the man before him, who spoke with increasing boldness; the smile died away on his lips, and he abruptly put an end to the proceedings. (Besser).Faithful servants of Jesus are grieved when they perceive that their discourses produce no other fruit than that the hearers say: The preacher is a good manorHe is a devout manorHe has spoken well. And yet, such is here the experience of the holy apostle. After he had testified of Jesus with the utmost sincerity, joy and power, and had with so much confidence opened his heart to all the hearers, whose salvation he earnestly desired, they all arose, conversed together, and at last said: That is a good man. Should they not have learned much more, on far more important subjects, from his discourse? Such is the world. (Ap. Past.).
ON THE WHOLE .The apostle Pauls remarkable experience of life, Act 26:1-18 : I. His conduct as a Jew, Act 26:4-5; and, II. Now, the enmity of the Jews, Act 26:6-8; III. His opposition to Jesus, Act 26:9-12; and, IV. Now, his wonderful conversion, Act 26:13-18. (Lisco).
The calling of Paul: I. The Lord overpowers the obdurate spirit of his enemy, Act 26:5-15; II. He converts the subdued enemy into a blessed servant, Act 26:15-18. (id.)
That the faith of those who are converted is even yet to bear fruit similar to that which appears in the conduct of the apostle Paul: I. By earnestly calling on the unconverted to repent, Act 26:19-20; II. By boldly bearing witness of Christ, Act 26:21-23. (id.).
The impressions which a Christian receives, when he surveys his life in the light of revelation: I. He looks back to the time spent in the service of sin; II. He looks upward to that grace which took away his sins; III. He looks forward to that glorious home, to which his renewed life aspires. (id.).
How does the power of the divine word manifest itself in the case of those who perish? I. By attracting them to itself. The word acts on them. (a) It reveals to the worldly-minded man a higher world, hitherto unknown to him, on which he gazes with astonishment. Festus exclaims: Paul, thou art beside thyself! Act 26:24. (b) Where the word of God discovers traces of an earlier divine life, it attaches itself to these, and calls up remembrances of a time when faith existed in the soul. King Agrippa, believest thou? I know that thou believest, Act 26:27. It revives the earlier love, for the purpose of establishing anew, by its aid, the faith that had yielded, Act 26:26-28. It inspires respect for all who are sincere believers, Act 26:29; Act 26:31-32.
II. By repelling them. They resist the influence of the word. (a) The worldly-minded man soon persuades himself that a fervid zeal in the cause of that which is exalted and divine, is only religious enthusiasm, or fanaticism. (Festus, Act 26:24). (b) Better impulses and emotions are suppressed, and succeeded by levity and indifference. (Agrippa, Act 26:28-32). (id.).
Paul and Agrippa: I. Pauls holy zealAgrippas levity and mockery; II. Pauls joyful assurance of faithAgrippas lamentable want of decision; III. Pauls apostolic and overflowing loveAgrippas affected indifference. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? a question addressed to the conscience of all who deny the resurrection: I. Is it the pride of a mind of limited powers, which rejects all that it cannot comprehend? II. Is it the despondency of a faint heart, which will not believe in the infinite power of the Creator? III. Is it the agony of an evil conscience, which dreads eternity and the judgment?
The three narratives of Pauls conversion, or, The visitations of divine grace are never forgotten by the children of God: the narrative is furnished thrice (Act 26:12-18; Act 9:1-22; Act 22:3-21), so that it may, I. Give eternal praise to the Lordto his wonderful power, and his wonderful love; II. Furnish a salutary admonition to the children of Godreminding them of the sins which they committed, and of the grace which was granted to them; III. Be an abiding monitor for the worldrebuking sin, and inviting men to enter the way of salvation. (Compare the Hom. and Pract. remarks on Acts 9. and Acts 22).
The blessed work which the office of the ministry of the word performs for sinners, Act 26:18 : I. To open their eyes to the light of truth; II. To turn their hearts from the works of darkness; III. To give peace to their conscience, by the forgiveness of sins; IV. To sanctify their walk, and prepare them to become partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.
Paul, a model, as a noble witness of God, Act 26:22-23 : I. By whose aid he bears witness; by that of the Lord, whose strength is made perfect in his weakness [2Co 12:9]: Having therefore obtained help of God, etc., Act 26:22. II. In whose presence he bears witness; in that of all who have ears to hear: witnessing both to small and greata light unto the people (of the Jews), and to the Gentiles, Act 26:22-23. III. To whom he bears witness; to Christ, who was promised and had come, who was crucified and is risen: Saying none other things than, etc., Act 26:22.
Paul, thou art beside thyself: much learning doth make thee mad! language, which admonishes all preachers of the Gospel to examine themselves: I. Whether their doctrine does not betray any unscriptural extravagance; II. Whether carnal passion does not mingle with their zeal; III. Whether their eloquence is not, in part, sustained by unspiritual arts.
Paul, thou art beside thyself! the judgment which the worldly-minded man usually forms of the people of God: I. He thinks that he can overwhelm them by representing their childlike Christian faith as narrowness of mind, their devout Christian life as religious melancholy, and their joyful Christian hope as fanaticism. But, in reality, II. The worldly-minded man condemns himself; for he exposes his own poverty of spirit, which cannot understand divine thingshis hardness of heart, which pays no attention to the admonition of the Holy Ghostand the miserable state of his soul, which cannot conceive the blessedness of the children of God.
Who is beside himself? Paul or Festus? The Christian, or he who is not a Christian? I. Is the Christian beside himself, whose faith is established on the infallible revelations of God in the Scriptures and in the experience of the heart, or rather he who, without examination, blindly denies all that he cannot comprehend, or touch with his hands? II. Is the Christian beside himself, who regulates his life according to the commands of God, and walks securely in the narrow way of sanctification, or rather he who is the sport of his passions, and who staggers along the broad road that leads to destruction? III. Is the Christian beside himself, whose hope is fixed on an eternity, which, amid all the changes of time, appears steadily before his view, or rather he who seeks for happiness in the transitory things of this lifea life which passes away like a dream, and leaves nothing behind but a terrible awakening ?
That Paul was fully justified in saying: I speak forth the words of truth and soberness (Act 26:25): I. Proved from the past history of the church of Christ; for these words of Paul abide unto the present day, whereas the wit of Festus has long since become silent; II. Confirmed by the prompt assent of every honest heart, which still derives its most cheerful light, its greatest, strength, and its richest consolations from these words; III. Demonstrated hereafter, on the great day of eternity; for heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God endureth for ever.
King Agrippa, believest thou? a solemn question, suited to the courts of kings: I. Exhorting princes and nobles to seek the salvation of their souls; II. Exhorting court preachers to fulfil their duty with fidelity.
Paul and his princely hearers, or, The various positions which men assume with respect to Christian truth: I. Festus, who altogether rejects it, saying: Paul, thou art beside thyself; II. Agrippa, who partially inclines to it, saying: Almost thou persuadest me; III. Paul, whose life is bound up in it [Gen 44:30], saying: I would to God, etc., Act 26:29.
When does a sermon really benefit us? I. When it convinces, and does not merely persuade us; II. When it wins us altogether, and not almost; III. When it influences not only an individual, but all that hear.
The dangerous expression: Almost [With little effort]: dangerous, for it, I. Encourages the delusion that it is easy to enter into the kingdom of heaven; II. Increases our responsibility, if we had been not far from the kingdom of God, and, nevertheless, did not enter in.
The curse of lukewarmness in matters of religion: the lukewarm are, I. An abomination unto the Lord, who demands the whole heart. Because thou art lukewarm I will spew thee out of my mouth [Rev 3:16]; II. The derision of the world, which wantonly sports with them; III. A torment to themselves, without strength or comfort.
The men of rank who had listened to the discourse of Paul, Act 26:30-32 : I. Apparently, a gracious dismissal of the upright servant of the Lord; II. In reality, a decorous flight before the word of divine truth.
[Act 26:27. The faith of king Agrippa: I. Historical notices; (a) his life; (b) his character. II. The nature of his faith; (a) he was indebted for it merely to his birth and education; (b) it did not possess that power which is derived from personal religious experience; III. Its real value; (a) it withheld him from no sins; (b) it did not attach him to Christ; IV. The lessons which it affords; (a) faith in the divine origin of our holy religion may be professed even by the unconverted; (b) the vast difference between a living and a dead faith.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1]Act 26:1. is far better supported [viz., by A. C. E. H. and Cod. Sin.] than . [The text. rec. adopts with B (e sil). and G.Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf. read .Tr.]
[2]Act 26:3. [ is inserted in text. rec. after with C. G. H. Syr., but is omitted by A. B. E., Cod. Sin., Vulg., and cancelled by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf.Tr.]
[3]Act 26:6. The reading [found in A. B. E. Cod. Sin., and adopted by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf.] should be preferred to . . [of text. rec. with C. G. H.]., which immediately follows [not in text. rec., which, with G. H. omits it], is sustained, it is true, by the majority of the uncial manuscripts [by A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. (nostros)], but would scarcely have been dropped, if it had been originally employed, whilst it might easily have been inserted by a later hand. [ is inserted as genuine by Lach. and Alf.; Meyer regards it as an interpolation.Tr.]
[4]Act 26:7. a. [The margin of the English Bible remarks that the Greek exhibits the following order of the words: night and day.Comp. Luk 2:37; Act 9:24; etc.As the entire day of 24 hours, with the Jews, began at sunset, the night was usually mentioned before the day. Tynd., Cranm., and Geneva Bible, exhibit day and night; Wicl. and Rheims: night and day.Tr.]
[5]Act 26:7. b. ., without the article [as in Act 26:2], which is wanting in all the uncial manuscripts [including Cod. Sin.], is the original reading. [ is omitted by recent editors generally.The proper name in the same verse, , is inserted in text. rec. with G. H., but is omitted in A. B. C. E. Vulg., and is generally cancelled by recent editors, except Scholz.Cod. Sin. reads: —.Tr.]
[6]Act 26:10. is the reading sustained by all the uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E. G. and Cod. Sin.] except one [H.], which omits the preposition. [, omitted in text. rec. is inserted by recent editors generally.Tr.]
[7]Act 26:12. a. [of text. rec.] alter , is decidedly sustained. [It is retained by Alf. with G. H., but omitted by Lach. and Born. with A. B. C. E. and Cod. Sin.Tr.]
[8]Act 26:12. b. [The reading (text. rec.) before ., which is found in C. G. H. is retained by Alf., but is omitted by Lach. and Born. with A. E.B. and Cod. Sin. omit only , but retain .Tr.]
[9]Act 26:14. The words , seem to be the original reading; whereas the abbreviated reading, which omits . — [found in A. B. C. E., and Vulg.] was made to suit the parallel passages, Act 9:4; Act 22:7 [The full reading of text. rec., found in G. H. and most of the minuscules, is retained by Alf. The reading adopted by Lachmann precisely agrees with that now found in Cod. Sin., namely: —. In this place Cod. Sin. exhibits no traces of any correction by a later hand.Tr.]
[10]Act 26:15. after [not adopted by text. rec.], is sustained by all the uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin., and Vulg. (Dominus)], with the exception of one [H., and several church fathers.Alf. omits but Lach., Tisch., and Born. adopt it.Tr.]
[11]Act 26:17. [The text. rec. reads: with some minuscules; Vulg. nunc ego mitto te. is substituted for in A. B. C. E. G. H. In A. B. C. follows ., but precedes in G. II.Alf. adopts the latter order, but Lach. and Tisch. read . , and this is the reading exhibited by Cod. Sin.Tr.]
[12]Act 26:22. [adopted by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf.] is found in four uncial manuscripts [A. B. G. H., and also Cod. Sin.]. The reading of text. rec.: , passive, is sustained by only one manuscript of the first rank [by E.]. Hence Griesbach had already adopted . Lachmann and Tischendorf concurred with him; Meyer alone has recently defended the passive, without, however, furnishing satisfactory reasons. The newly discovered Sinaitic Codex also bear witness in favor of . [In the same verse, for . . ., of text. rec. with G. H., Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alt., with A. B. E. and Cod. Sin. read . . .Tr.]
[13]Act 26:23. [The text. rec. omits before with G.; but it is found in A. B. E. H. and Cod. Sin., and is inserted by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.Tr.]
[14]Act 26:25. after is wanting in several manuscripts [G. H. etc.], and is a later addition. [It is found in A. B. E. Cod. Sin., and Vulg. (Et Paulus); it is omitted in text. rec. and by Alf., but adopted by Lach., Tisch. and Born.Tr.]
[15]Act 26:28. a. after . ., is wanting in several manuscripts [in A. B. Cod. Sin. minuscules, Vulg.], and was erroneously inserted in the text. rec. [It is found in E. G. H., but is dropped by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.Tr.]
[16]Act 26:28. b. [For , after . of text. rec. with E. G. H., Lach. and Born. read , with A. B. and Cod. Sin.Meyer says that is decidedly attested, and that the reading is to be thus explained: was added as a gloss to — . He adds in a note: The reading which was adopted, occasioned in A. a change of into , which Lachm. (Prf. p.10.) regards as correct: Parva opera speras fore ut me Christianum facias. Alford, who retains . says that apparently proceeded from a confusion of two readings, one of which was . .Tisch. retained . in the edition of 1849.Tr.]
[17]Act 26:29. a. [of text. rec.] after II. is also [like , in Act 26:28] an interpolation. [It is found in G. H., but omitted in A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and is cancelled by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.Tr.]
[18]Act 26:29. b. The authorities in favor, respectively, of [before ] and of [of text. rec.] had hitherto been of equal weight [. being found in A. B. Vulg. (magno), and . in G. H. fathers, etc.]. Internal evidence alone had led critics like Lachmann and Tischendorf [also Borneman and Alford] to prefer the former. Their opinion has been established as correct, by the Sinaitic Codex, so that at present the weight of the external evidence is also decidedly in favor of .
[19]Act 26:30. The words . before , are not found either in Cod. Alex. [A.], or in Cod. Vat. [B.], and were undoubtedly interpolated. [They are found in G. H. but are not reproduced in the Vulgate, and are rejected by recent critics generally, being inserted from A. B. after . The words are omitted in Cod. Sin., which proceeds, after Act 26:29 thus: .Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Paul is permitted to speak for Himself. He makes his Defence: declares his Conversion, and the Manner of it. He is interrupted by Festus. He again reassumes his Discourse, and speaks to Agrippa. The whole Court breakup, astonished at what they had heard, and separate.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:[212] (2) I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
We shall enter at once into an apprehension of Paul’s design in this defense, if we consider the frivolous and false charges, which indirectly the Jews had brought against him. A pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition, the Orator Tertullus would have insinuated Paul was, by way of bringing him under the Governor’s displeasure, as an enemy to Caesar; but the conduct of the Apostle was too peaceable, and orderly, to suffer by such accusations. Paul, therefore, very wisely, entered not into the smallest defense of his conduct, in this department, but confined himself, to what referred to his attachment to the cause of Christ. That he had honored the temple, instead of prophaning it; was fulfilling the law, instead of breaking it; and giving the highest glory to God, instead of blaspheming God; the Apostle would fully prove, by shewing, that in preaching Christ all these things were included. Paul, therefore, enters with delight upon his defense, waves his hand, as was the custom of public speakers in those days to do, by way of calling attention, professeth himself happy in the opportunity afforded him, and begs in particular the patient indulgence of Agrippa, that he might go through the short, but interesting subject, which would explain the whole of his conduct, and fully prove his innocency.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Reasons for Doubt
Act 26:8
That is a new apologetic; that is a Strategic move of the first order. This is new to me; that is a masterstroke. What a sagacious statesman was the Apostle Paul! Hitherto we had been thinking that it was the place of faith to give reasons; the Apostle pushes the war to the other side, and says, You must give reasons for your doubt. Why, that opens a wide field of criticism and observation and profitable comment. It is the Apostle who says, Stand up, and defend yourself; you are a doubter why do you doubt? give a reason for the doubt and the fear or the unbelief within you.
I. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that all these outward and sensuous things were created? Tell me, be downright frank with me, why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should have created the universe? I think it is about the most believable statement that can be made; it seems to me, compared with any other theory, the simplest of all philosophies. If I want rest on all these subjects I read Genesis first chapter and first verse: ‘In the beginning’. When was that? The dateless date. ‘ God.’ I like that word; it is a kind of sanctuary word, temple word, there is something in it. ‘ created.’ That word is the best I have yet heard upon this subject All material forces, magnitudes, splendours, utilities were created, set agoing, shaped, vitalised by a Personality equal to the occasion. I like that explanation best. Sirs, it is the most rational explanation. I must have mystery on the one side or the other; I will either have the mystery of light or the mystery of darkness, and I prefer, let me repeat, the mystery of light. Whoever shaped all these things must have been greater than the things he shaped; if so, how great!
II. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that all these things are ruled by a gracious and tender and most minute Providence? If you tell me they are so, you give me rest, and you give me peace, and that peace rises into singing joy.
III. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that we are going on through Christ Jesus, Man of the cross, Man of the redeeming blood, to a blessed and ever-growing destiny or future? Let me say that it would be more difficult for me to believe that the grave ends everything than to believe that angels will come for me and whisper to me and promise me a great future of service in the world unseen.
IV. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should create, sustain, redeem everything?
I believe it is easier to defend the faith than to defend doubt or to defend unbelief. I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God, God the Son, the redeeming, universal, eternal Saviour of the world. More than that: I will not listen to any man who comes to preach about his doubts. He ought to be in the congregation, and not in the pulpit; and if any of you, my brother ministers, want to tell your doubts, I would advise you to tell them in the open air a well-ventilated place, and an opportunity which any earnest-minded man might covet.
References. XXVI. 8. A. Ainger, Sermons Preached in the Temple Church, p. 196. W. H. Brookfield, Sermons, p. 168. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii. No. 1067. XXVI. 10. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 438. XXVI. 11. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 212; ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 202. XXVI. 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv. No. 202. Expositor (4th Series), vol. iv. p. 197; ibid. vol. vii. p. 126.
Is It Worth While? (A Missionary Sermon)
Act 26:15-18
These words must ever form one of the great charters of missionary work; they are wonderfully comprehensive. They were, indeed, originally the charter with which the Divine Head of the Church delivered to the great Apostle his commission to preach the Gospel first to his own kinsmen, and then to the Gentile world; but they contain, as we should expect, the germs of the commission which will be needed by the Gospel messenger till the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled, and Israel has been grafted in again, and the number of the elect completed until the militant kingdom is over.
One of the greatest temptations by which the devil hinders the spreading of the Gospel in the present day is the apparently simple but fatal suggestion, ‘Is it worth while?’
It is indeed no new trial. The dull reception of the missionary of our own day is the same in kind with that which awaited the Divinely commissioned Apostle on his arrival at the great centre of the heathen world. ‘We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spake any harm of thee.’ Could any reception be less inspiring or fall more flat? Indeed, we might rise far higher and say that this is but following the example of Him who ‘came to His own, and His own received Him not’.
But this temptation under the simple form of the question, ‘Is it any good?’ is, I believe, specially a temptation of the missionary of the present day. The reaction from our former state of ignorance regarding the religions of the heathen world has led to an undue valuation of the fragments of the truth which they undoubtedly contain: the high spiritual aspirations of the Vedas, the theism of the Koran, the practical maxims of Confucius, the careful asceticism of the Buddhists all this and more with which you are all acquainted, has left a tendency on some minds to minimise unduly the difference between the Christian and non-Christian state. The same tendency also follows from the separation in our day of Christianity from education; the immediate advantages to the uncivilised world even of secular education are so manifestly great that there is a tendency to ask ‘What more is needed?’ We have been civilising the world this century more diligently than Christianising it, and we are in danger now of being dazzled by sparks of our own kindling.
In striking contrast with this danger stands the great mission charter which I have chosen for my text.
I. The charter begins and ends with the personal Jesus. ‘I am Jesus,’ are the opening words, ‘Faith in Me,’ is the close. This is the beginning and end of the missionary’s power and message: Jesus, His Birth, His Death, His Resurrection, His Ascension, the living, reigning Jesus. Whatever agencies are used, whatever secondary methods may be necessary war, conquest, civilisation this is the and of it all, from Him, and in Him, and to Him all must be, or all will fail.
II. Next, the great heathen world, as seen by Him who is the Light of the World, who lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, is nevertheless declared to be in a state of darkness they are blind, they do not see the real abiding objects of sight; the Apostle was to go and open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light; nothing visible is good was the saying of one of the earliest of Christian martyrs, and it is true relatively to the invisible. The soul, the mind, the heart, the inner powers of the heathen man were known to Him who made them, and have unused capacities like rudimentary sight-powers which have never been developed by their true use in the light.
III. But further, in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, all things are naked and open. Both systems of creation lie plain before Him. He is the Maker of all things, invisible as well as visible. We cannot see these things as He sees them, but He sees the hosts of evil spirits, the principalities and powers which, under the power of their chief, make up the army of the evil one; and the heathen world He tells us is in an especial way under their sway. Therefore another object of the charter is declared to be ‘to turn them from the power of Satan unto God,’ ‘to deliver them,’ as the Apostle afterwards himself expresses it, ‘from the power of darkness, and translate them into the kingdom of the Son of His love’.
The great heathen world, as Christ sees it, is living in an especial way under the organised power of Satan.
IV. A fourth condition of the heathen world, as it lies beneath the eye of God, is also given in this great charter of missionary work a condition which we might have expected from what has been already said, the condition, namely, of sin. The heathen world needs forgiveness and sanctification, and this is not accomplished by the varnish of modern civilisation, even though it be laid on by Christian hands. The charter tells us how, and how only, it is to be done ‘by faith that is in Me’ ‘that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me’.
It was to take the light, the light which was ‘to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of the people Israel,’ that the great Apostle was commissioned and went. It seemed to him worth while. If implied the life of vanity and uncertainty, a life of alienation from God the life he knew most certainly implied a real belief in God; an access laid open to the presence of God; a conscious nearness to God; restoration back again to God. ‘O God, Thou art my God.’ Unity, reunion between man and God, and man and his fellow-men, peace on earth, man indwelt by God.
References. XXVI. 16. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 268. XXVI. 16-18. H. S. Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxiii. p. 91. XXVI. 16-20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx. No. 1774. XXVI. 18. J. D. Thompson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 131.
St. Paul’s Vision of Christ’s Body
Act 26:19
I. The Pauline Message. This was no sudden revelation to St. Paul in its final form. It was the outcome of a life of discipleship. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, and so it grew and expanded before his spiritual eyes until it left nothing outside its range, until it offered to him that unity after which all thinkers are consciously or unconsciously striving, and in the end he was able to conceive it as a whole, to express it, however inadequately, in terms of human language, and to propose it for all time to come as the profoundest and the most ennobling philosophy of the life of mankind.
II. The Heavenly Vision. We must consider the heavenly vision as it first smote on St. Paul’s astonished eyes. For what he then saw and heard held in germ all that he was to learn hereafter. The Lord’s first words to him contained implicitly the whole mystery of the Father. It was not merely that the Lord appeared and spoke to him. It proved that He was still alive in spite of death. That indeed was much. It was enough to make him feel that he was found fighting against God, as his master Gamaliel had once feared might be the case. But the Lord’s words here, as elsewhere, are instinct with love. They go out beyond the first suggestion of their meaning, and they find their full significance only in the light of the truth which St Paul was himself destined to proclaim. When once we have grasped the corporate relation of Christ and His disciples, the words are discovered to be profoundly significant. If we were to inquire what made the truth implicit we should have to study his whole life for the answer; we should have to consider the three elements of his manhood which fitted him for his peculiar vision. Paul the Hebrew, Paul the Greek, Paul the Roman all these went to the making of Paul the Apostle. This was the man whose many-sided being found satisfaction in the Christ, when it pleased God to reveal His Son to him.
III. The Pauline Mission. This was the man who was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Plainly such a man as this was a man to be claimed for a great cause, was a chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ to the Gentiles. Not only had he the large mind which could carry everywhere Stephen’s liberal designs, but he knew what he was doing in accepting a mission to those who were beyond the frontiers of Judaism, and he intended absolute unity between Jew and Gentile from the very first, and could never surrender it, no, not for an hour. He could never allow the possibility of a broken Christianity, which should admit of two Churches, Jewish and Gentile. The Gentile was co-heir and concorporate with the Jew or he was nothing at all. In one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same function. The individual must know his place in that body, and fill it with deference and self-restraint. He must recognise that others are as necessary to the body, though they do not serve it with a gift like his. The life of the body is one, though its manifestations are various. It takes all members to make a body, and no member is living at all apart from the whole body. The body is Christ.
Thought and Action
Act 26:19
St. Paul is now looking back from near the end of his career to the day of his great change. From that day to this his life had been summed up in the two words, vision and obedience.
I. The first apparent view of any life is presented by its output of deeds. The Christian life is not that of visionaries, it is a life of action. The first thought of those who live it day by day is of something immediately to be done. It is this practical quality of the Christian life which keeps it both healthy and honourable. For the soul as for the nation, service is the highest honour. A right man’s view of his profession can never be merely that it is a means of gain, but that it is a chance for service; and the same thing is true of even our most intimate and private actions.
Yet this cannot be all. Every one remembers Langland’s immortal figure of Haukyn the active man, who has not time to clean his coat Mephistopheles is Goethe’s great incarnation of fierce and clever action wholly without contemplation. And these are but extreme forms of what is seen around us every day.
St. Paul had no magic secret that kept labour sweet to him; he had only vision and obedience. But he had them in that order vision first, and obedience following from it. It is not mere action that is the secret of a healthy life, but action performed in loyalty to something we have seen.
II. In a still wider application the same principle is true, for the inward thought invariably affects the outward life and expresses itself sooner or later there. Not that one necessarily carries out into deeds all one’s cherished thoughts. Dr. Bain affirms the ‘possibility of leading a life of imagination wholly distinct from the life of action’; and Mr. Lecky says that ‘a course may be continually pursued in imagination without leading to corresponding actions’. This is undoubtedly true, but it is a thoroughly dangerous fact. On the one hand, it produces dreamers whose dreams are so far apart from their conduct as to rank them among the hypocrites. On the other hand, if the dreaming be bad, the danger is very great that in times of temptation the man will fall. For the most part, in temptation, little depends upon the will at the moment; we stand or fall according to our habitual thoughts, which either hold us back or predispose us then. And apart from that, there can be no doubt that there goes out from every life upon those around it, a constant and subtle influence which is determined almost wholly by the inner life of vision the life of imagination and thought. Thoreau has wisely said: ‘If ever I did a man good… it was something exceptional and insignificant compared with the good or evil I am constantly doing by being what I am’. A man’s atmosphere and spirit are always more powerful influences than his deeds and words.
Thus it is not surprising that the matter on which Christianity lays most stress is vision. The thoughts and imaginations of the heart; a taste for fine and clean things, and an instinctive shrinking from their opposites; above all a clear conception of Jesus Christ and a definitely accepted relation between the soul and Him these are the Christian fundamentals.
John Kelman, Ephemera Eternitatis, p. 34.
Loyalty to Vision
Act 26:19
St. Paul’s career as a Christian began in two supreme events a vision and a commission. To the end he goes back to them, and traces their effect upon his future, telling and retelling the story of his conversion. Yet no reader of his writings can fail to see that vision blends and alternates with action throughout his course. The Epistles are constantly turning from marvellous lights of revelation to most practical directions for living. Thus from him we learn loyalty both to past and present light.
I. Loyalty to past vision. The management of thoughts and swift imaginations is proverbially difficult, and there is much disloyalty to the visions of the past.
Apart from anything for which we are responsible, we are so constituted as to live in a constant change and flux both of moods and of intellectual and spiritual powers. Such changes depend on bodily health, surrounding circumstances, and countless other causes which we cannot wholly command. Accordingly it will often happen that we have to remember what we have once seen, and to carry out the resolutions which then we formed.
In such an hour idleness is fatal. If we cannot see to do the highest things, let us at least do something. ‘If the energy, the clearness, the power of intuition, is flagging in us, if we cannot do our best work, still let us do what we can for we can always do something… if not vivid and spiritual work, then the plain needful drudgery.’ But besides that there is often the necessity for dogged perseverance in a course whose value we can no longer see.
II. Loyalty to present vision. The grim and cheerless course we have just described is not, however, the normal way of Christian living. There is a snare in trusting to the past too much, and striving to be faithful to brilliant spiritual experiences which are no longer any more than memories. The Christian ideal is loyalty to a vision constantly seen at the time of action. It may be necessary sometimes to fight today’s battle by the light of other days, but as a rule of life that is unsatisfactory and insufficient. It is good to remember God’s grace in the past, and to recall His promises for the future, but it is better to have some clear vision at the hour. As Constantine saw the cross on the field of battle, so we should see our spiritual help and backing at the time of our practical need.
John Kelman, Ephemera Eternitatis, p. 39.
References. XXVI. 19. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lessons for the Christian Year, pt. iii. p. 165. A. H. Bradford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvi. p. 81. Church Times, vol. lx. p. 58. J. A. Robertson, Church Family Newspaper, vol. xv. p. 612. M. G. Glazebrook, Prospice, p. 123. J. G. Greenhough, The Mind of Christ in St. Paul, p. 241. XXVI. 19, 20. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. i. p. 157. XXVI. 22. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 244. XXVI. 22, 23. Ibid. vol. xii. p. 170. XXVI. 23. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 373. XXVI. 24. M. G. Glazebrook, Prospice, p. 173. XXVI. 25. Expository Sermons on the New Testament, p. 134. XXVI. 28. G. Bellett, Parochial Sermons, p. 43. R. C. Trench, Sermons New and Old, p. 11. W. H. Brookfield, Sermons, p. 175. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xv. No. 871. J. Tolefree Parr, The White Life, p. 216. XXVI. 28, 29. C. Bradley, The Christian Life, p. 305. J. M. Lang, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 264.
The Christian Life Worth More Than All Things Else
Act 26:29
There are only two scenes in the New Testament which are finer than this, and they are in some respects similar scenes; Christ before Herod, and again before Pontius Pilate. With that exception there is nothing more admirable in history than the Apostle’s attitude and language here. He had to plead his cause before an august audience. They were a wholly unsympathetic audience. But Paul was one who feared God and feared no one else, and who, when he got on his favourite theme of Christ, lost himself in it. There he stood, with his rough, much-worn garments, his thin, scarred face, with all the marks upon him of privation and ill-usage, and chains on his hands and feet. And Paul, lifting up his manacled arms in face of all their splendour, said: ‘Would to God that you could be as I am’. He had taken the proper measurement of those men and women. He knew that his life was as much greater, fuller, and happier than theirs as the power of a Csar was more and wider than that of the meanest slave in his empire.
I. It is in the spirit of these words that every real Christian speaks today and makes his appeal to his fellow-men and women. In the spirit of these words he measures and judges all things. In his deepest heart he does not believe that any man or woman is to be envied, no matter how greatly favoured by fortune, or that any condition of life is to be desired, however splendid and attractive its advantages, if there is no Christian faith and Christian hope as its centre and foundation. We who are Christians do not always put the true estimate upon our privileges. We envy the wise, the distinguished, and even the easeful and luxurious who seem to have no crosses and no cares. But suppose some magician were to come and say: I will give you all that, and take away all your crosses; I will make your house a palace of wealth and your names illustrious, if you will just sell me your bit of faith and your hope in God, if you will let go the heavenly light by which you walk. Not for all the world would you consent to that awful sacrifice. No, you would turn from the tempter to look up in the face of Christ and say: Take from me anything Thou wilt, but go not Thou away.
II. We know beyond all question that the Christian life has far more in it than any other. It has more of the things which make for real joy. It has more true friendships. It has far larger objects to strive for. It has greater hopes to stimulate it. And hence you can understand the fervour and the very passion with which we appeal to others to be reconciled to God and to make the Christian life their own.
J. G. Greenhough, The Cross in Modern Life, p. 201.
References. XXVI. 29. J. Aspinall, Parish Sermons (2nd Series), p. 163. XXVI. 30. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 293. XXVI. 31. Ibid. vol. vii. p. 117. XXVII. 1. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 124. XXVII. 6-14 H. Smith, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 417. XXVII. 9. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 350. XXVII. 12. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 131. XXVII. 13, 14. J. Aspinall, Parish Sermons (1st Series), p. 90. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in a Religious House, vol. ii. p. 485. XXVII. 18. J. Aspinall, Parish Sermons (1st Series), p. 109. XXVII. 20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii. No. 1070.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Chapter 92
Prayer
Almighty God, may we, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, be counted worthy at the last to take part in the song of Moses and the Lamb. We have hope that this shall be so, if our hearts condemn us not. We believe that thou dost speak through them the word of confidence. We feel that we must take part in the song which praises thee, for our whole life answers thy life, our whole nature rises in response to thy light. We love thee; we love thy Son, by whom alone we know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Knowing the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, we would praise the great Three-One now and evermore. May we not lose the inspiration of the sanctuary, but rule the whole week with it, controlling and subduing everything by its holy power. Spirit of the living God, dwell in our hearts, burn in the sanctuary of our love, and let the radiation of thy glory touch every point of our life and make us beautiful with light. Sometimes we are standing quite near thee: we are upon the mountain whilst the dew is there; we are lifted up so high in soul that we can see beyond the boundary and hear voices from upper lands. These are the days of the Son of man upon the earth; these are the times that transfigure our life and make it burn with transcendent glory. Then we come down to fight the battle to be stunned by the tumultuous fray in the valley; then we forget the glory and cease to think of thee, and miss not, as we ought to do, the presence Divine. But thou knowest it all; our life is not hidden from thee. Thou didst make it in all its curiosity and mystery, and strange wonder and terrible painfulness. It is thy life, not ours; it is part of thine own eternity. Thou hast entrusted it to us; and we know not, oftentimes, what to make of it. We say we would not live alway; we pine for rest, we cry for sleep: we know that unconsciousness has its blessing as well as consciousness. So thou dost take us aside awhile; thou hast made a bed for us soft and warm; thou dost lay us down in our weariness and watch us in our helplessness, and in the morning we start again with new youth and new hope. This is thy way; half day, half night is our life half battle, half sleep. This is thy love, thou God of light. Thou dost recover us in sleep; thou dost redeem our life by rest. Thou art alway redeeming the children of men. We bless thee for all upward ways; for all hills lifting themselves towards the blue sky they are helps. To climb is to pray; to ascend the mountain is to get away from the place of graves. Thou hast set the mystery of thy mercy round about us, and within us and above us, and every place is the gate of heaven. We have come together to be blessed, to feel forgiven through the infinite love of the Son of God. We have brought our burdens, knowing that we shall not take them away again. We will try to sing thy praise, for thou art worthy to receive our adoration and our love for all thou hast done for us. We pray always for one another; we find words for each other’s speechlessness; we pray in the language of our friends, and in their sighing we intercede. Give the old man to know that there is no old age, that life is one ascent into eternal youth. Let the beginner know that there are no endings in thy circle, and charm him with the confidence that in thy strength he will make his life a victory. Speak to the man bent on wrong courses; strike him down, not with lightning, but with light, so that though he be blind for a day or two, he may by-and-by receive his vision. Let the little ones be first remembered, for thou lovest them most of all. They are thy Church, though we know it not. We are still turning the children away, away from thy table because they do not understand it as if a child did not understand it better than a grown man. Behold the little ones here and at home, and make them glad with purest joy, and hopeful because of thy presence and strength. As for those who are putrid dead thou art the Resurrection and the Life. O Christ! we must leave our dead at thy feet. We tried to save them and we failed they would die. We leave them in thy hands. Comfort the poor sick ones who want to be with us today, but are bowed down by weakness. Bless every one who goes out to try to make the world better by teaching and proclaiming thy word, by offering prayer in ears unaccustomed to hear the sacred eloquence. And the Lord grant that at the eventide we may be stronger than in the morning, and that having fought the battle, we may be but the eagerer to renew the fray. Amen.
Act 26:1-32
1. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
2. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
3. Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
4. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5. Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
6. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers;
7. Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
10. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee,
17. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
19. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20. But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Juda, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23. That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
24. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
25. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
27. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
30. And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
31. And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
32. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Csar.
Paul Before Agrippa
Here is all that Christianity ever asked for: an opportunity to speak for itself. This is just what Christianity wants the Agrippa of all time to say: “Christianity, thou art permitted to speak for thyself.” The answer of Christianity is the answer which must always be returned: “I beseech thee to hear me patiently.” In that high courtesy the noble discourse begins. Christianity always appears in person, its witnesses are always at hand, the court is never disappointed, the judge has never to wait: Christianity is an incarnation; not an argument in words, but logic in life. But Christianity must be heard patiently. Only the candid hearer can listen well. If we have put into our ears prejudices, foregone conclusions, obstinate convictions, through such impediments the music of Christianity cannot make its way. The mind must say, “For the time being I put myself at thy disposal; write upon me what thou hast to write; I will hear thee to the very end.” That is the difficulty which we have to contend with. We are troubled by interruption. Who can sit still? Though we do not loudly and audibly interrupt, we may interrupt silently and mentally. We should allow the word free course through the mind, and, when it has completed its deliverance, then we may make reply. It seems so easy to listen; and yet there is nothing more difficult. It may be questioned whether six men in any congregation ever do listen. To listen is a discipline. We hear the broad sounds, not the fine ones; we pick out the great words that is, words of bulk and great size but not all the little beautiful jewels of speech that make up the wealth of the glorious exposition and appeal. Christianity simply wants to be heard to be heard candidly, patiently, thoroughly; and, when Christianity has ceased to ply us with her exposition and exhortation, she will be willing to return the courtesy and to hear what reply can be made. This is what Christianity cannot get the opportunity of making itself heard. She has to speak in the crowd, to compete with the clatter of machinery, to make her voice penetrate through the rattle of wheels on hard pavements. The world that should make a theatre for her, and sit without breathing till the magical eloquence is done, listens with impatience, and therefore does not listen at all interrupts vocally or mentally, and therefore spoils the wizardry; and so the one speech that could and should convert the world, the world never hears. There should be but one sermon one day with Christ should have converted the world if the world would have listened.
Here is the only answer which is universally available. The defence of Christianity stands precisely at this point today, in so far as it is effective. This is the only answer that ever made any converts. Other answers make defenders and controversialists and pedants; this answer makes Christians and workers. But the world wants something larger the world likes to be imposed upon by bulk. As Christian churches and Christian preachers, we ought to take our definite stand just here, and when Paul is done, we should say, one and all, “That is our answer.”
Let us examine it.
It is personal testimony. Paul talks about nobody else but himself. He says, in effect, “This happened to me; had it occurred to some one beside, I might have mistaken the statement. I might have dropped some links of the chain, I might have misconceived the purpose of the speaker; but this happened to me. If you contradict this statement, you contradict me; you make me a false witness.” That throws new elements into any great controversy, and Christianity alone can bear that application of the personal element. It swallows up all egotism. If we have nothing to say out of our own consciousness and experience, we cannot preach. He only can preach who can say, “I was struck with light and made blind; for three days I saw nothing, and then new sight was given to me.” “If Christianity were a wrangle in words, I cannot tell who might arise to make new terms and to insist upon new definitions, but I stand,” says the great Pauline preacher, “not upon ever-changing opinions, but upon indestructible instincts and indisputable facts.” We are afraid to speak about ourselves; and, in truth, I am not surprised at the fear. We are so humble that we dare not speak about our experience; we think it ought to be something between ourselves and God. Paul never thought so; he began in the morning by saying, “By the grace of God, I am what I am”; and at night, when he put away the sword and the shield for the day, he said, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He was not so humble as we are; we rebuke him, we shame him.
Not only was this personal testimony, but it was an instance of personal conversion. Are you ashamed of that old word? Men used to be converted; now they change their opinion and their standpoint and their attitude. Mountebanks! In the old time souls were converted turned right round and of this heroic time Paul is the most illustrious instance and example. See where he began “which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” That was the starting-point; what was the end? “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” That is what we mean by conversion. The definition is concrete and absolute. Paul was not a profligate to be touched by emotions, for a moment to cry over his sins and for another moment to affect contrition for them. Paul’s was not a vacant mind, ready for any new impression, anxious to receive one, earnestly desirous for some new thought to come and take possession of the unfurnished brain. Paul was not a fanatic, fond of exciting adventures, as there may be amongst ourselves, persons who go the round of the sects, who make friends today and renounce them tomorrow, and rush with irrational enthusiasm into new alliances on the third day. This is the kind of man he was: “my manner of life from my youth” I go back to first days “after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” He was stubborn, haughty, utterly convinced; his mind was verily preoccupied. “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.” That was the man at the first; at the last what was that same man? Ready to be offered, looking for the crown of righteousness which the Lord Christ, the righteous Judge, would give to him. That is what we mean by conversion that is to say, turning right round and going straight away in the other direction. And if the Christian Church does not affect that kind of good, I know not that any other kind of good is really worth effecting, except as a means to an end. But with how bad a skill have we modified the word “conversion.” We move now on a pivot; we turn round and round and call it progress. If any one should ask us what we mean by conversion, we would point to the case of Paul.
Here is a conversion based upon a distinct history. Ours is not so romantic, but it is quite as real. This is our life. The incidents were individual and local, but all the significance is universal, both as to nature and as to place. Look at those incidents. Christianity meets men on wrong courses: Paul, then called Saul, was on his way to Damascus, intent upon doing a wrong thing. Are we not also on the wrong road with a wrong purpose, armed by the power of a wrong authority? There is nothing so romantic in this as at first we may have supposed. So far, I have been with this very man; I remember him, I remember his distended nostrils, his fire-lighted eye, the fierce blow of his fist; I once touched him, I was once mistaken for him a man on the wrong road. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” Do not fasten your attention upon the word Damascus and say you were never there. Damascus in this history is a symbolical word, and stands for wrong courses, wrong purposes, wrong destinies. Christianity fights with the weapon of light: “I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun.” I have seen that light; this is my own experience. Where is the so-called romance? I remember the moment of illumination; my mind goes back to the point of intensity; I exclaimed, “I see it now! I see the hideous iniquity, I see the shameful ingratitude, I see the infinite love, I see the sacrificial Blood yes, I see it!” That is conversion. Christianity is the religion of light, the religion of mental illumination and mental explanation and mental liberation. Never did you find Christianity lead man from a great place into a little one, from a grand view to a circumscribed point. Christianity never made any man less than he was before. Christianity is the religion of evolution in respect of bringing men up to their higher selves, their nobler powers, their sublimer capacities. Man does not know what he is until he has been touched by the full meaning of the Cross of the Son of God.
Christianity entrusts with new missions. “Rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister.” Christianity does not perform in the mind the miracle of eviction, casting out of the mind all that was in it, without furnishing the mind with thoughts, convictions, and sublimities of its own. The reason why so many people have turned away from Christ is, that, though they have seen the light, they have not discharged the ministry they were content with the vision; they forgot the obedience. The grandest sermon may be forgotten; the brightest vision from heaven may become but an impression gradually fading away upon the inattentive memory. We must keep up visions by services; we must maintain theology by beneficence. We cannot live upon the sublime incidents of external life; we can only persevere in grace by persevering in goodness. Are we certain that we have seen the light? We cannot be certain unless we are quite sure that our last action in life was to do some good to mankind. Instead of sitting down and analysing feelings, frames, moods, sensations, and impressions, in order to find out whether we are really Christians or not, we should go out and call the blind and the halt and the poor, the maimed and the friendless to a daily feast, and in that act we should see how truly we are accepted of God. If Paul had retired as a gentleman of leisure, he might have forgotten the vision, or have contracted it into an anecdote; but he made it the starting-point of a new life, and in war, suffering, and agony, he got the confirmation of his best impressions. A working Church is a faithful Church; an honest, earnest, self-sacrificing Church is always orthodox. This is the argument which can be translated into all languages, adapted to all intellectual capacities, and pressed upon all sorts of hearers, so as utterly to silence their objections. There is no reply to self-sacrifice for Christ’s sake.
Christianity sustains by Divine inspirations. Paul said in the twenty-second verse, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue ” Conversion is followed by confirmation. The great point of illumination is sustained by continual gifts from heaven to the waiting and obedient heart. Paul did not eat bread once for all: he sat daily at the table of the Lord; he obtained help of God. He needed it all; every night he needed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to sustain him after the wearing fray. His life was oozing out of him, his nerves were shattered, his hopes were put to a greater distance; the enemy seemed to be stronger than he was, so much so, that tomorrow he could not have gone out had he not obtained help of God. Ministers, that is how we must live; we must obtain help from heaven; then we shall be able to say, “Though the outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day,” and out of the grave of the night must come the resurrection of the morning. Then shall we be to ourselves and to our friends a surprise of power, a revelation of the sustaining grace of God.
This is the answer of Christianity to ever-questioning Agrippa. Difficult argument there is none; verbal refinement and curiosities there are none. There is experience, there is faithfulness to the facts of life, there is the assignment of a cause equal to the sublimest effect We have wandered from these lines; hence our loss and weakness. We ourselves have ceased to be the living logic, the incarnate argument. We now refer the inquiring Agrippa to the ponderous volume he has no heart to read, instead of pointing him to a life pure as light, undivided as love, unreserved in sacrifice.
Chapter 93
Prayer
Almighty God, thou art always giving unto us a new hope. Thou art the God of hope; thou art pointing us every day to the day that is yet to come the bright day, the Sabbath day, the day without night. This hope have we in thy Son. He hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light. So now our conversation is in heaven, our expectation is in the skies. We expert the Lord Jesus, who shall change our common body and make it like unto his own glorious body, according to the power whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. The power is one; the power is infinite. All power, in heaven and on earth, was given unto him on the third day, and that power is the defence of his redeemed. We abide under the shadow of the Almighty; we do not trust to our own weakness it is a daily disappointment and humiliation we trust to the Infinite Strength, the eternal Son of God the One Priest, whose prayer is our intercession. We bless thee for every ray of light: it is always a kindly surprise; the morning always exceeds our expectation and finds our imagining at fault. We cannot overtake the splendour of thy light; we know not the fulness of thy glory. When we think we have seen it all, behold, a new gleam throws all other light into darkness, and we stand in the rapture of a glad amazement. Thou hast yet more light to break forth; we have not seen the morning of which all other mornings are but types. We shall be satisfied, when we awake, with thy likeness. In the presence of that likeness, we shall need nor sun, nor moon, nor summer day, for thy countenance is its own noontide, and thy smile is our heaven. For all thy training of our life how can we bless thee? We have not understood it; sometimes we have appeared to resent it; we did not know what thou wast doing with us. Thou didst cause us to be driven away into the wilderness, to be sold into far-off lands, to undergo captivities and humiliation; thou didst strip us and rob us and beat us with great violence; and we knew not that we needed it all to make us men. The chastening for the time being was not pleasant or joyous, but grievous; but now, even in this little afterward, we begin to see somewhat of its gracious intent, and by-and-by, when the light is sufficient and our vision is enlarged and purified, we shall see thy purpose, we shall kiss thy rod, we shall bless thy chastisements. We pray thee for the great outlook, for the eyes that can see the unseen, for the great and Divine heart that knows without learning, that sees without looking that secret, sympathetic power which knows and feels and rejoices by a law which men have not yet put into words. Give us an unction from the Holy One, and we shall know all things, and know them not the less that we are wholly unable to explain them. We bless thee that our explanation runs short; we thank thee for fountains that have no equivalent vessels. We bless thee for these inner knowings these charges of knowledge and of power which we cannot express in words, and have weighed in scales made by men. We know that we know. Our knowledge is an inspiration, our attainment is a gift of the Holy Ghost; we have communications from the skies. Enrich us with all needful knowledge in Christ Jesus, thy dear Son. May we grow in acquaintance with the purpose of his heart; may we burn with Christ; may we sometimes be almost unable to say what is the difference between him and ourselves because we are so absorbed in his love, so filled with his spirit, so desirous to obey his will. Comfort the weary; give joy to those who sit in desolation; bring back the sunny hope that has fled from the young heart for a little while; make our houses homes; in the grate may a fire burn that does not consume the dwelling, but which shall interpret to us, in a thousand agonies and beauties, the Great Fire thy very Self that warms the universe. As for our sin, thou hast answered it. We bring it to thee, for thou alone canst heal the leper-heart; with thee is all cleansing, thou dying, rising, triumphing, interceding Son of God. Amen.
Paul Before Agrippa
Act 26:1-32
( Continued )
Paul uses an expression which is full of significance in regard to all speakers: “I think myself happy.” Now we shall hear him! You do not hear any man until he is happy. Speaking under constraint, you get a wrong idea and measure of the man, for he cannot do justice to himself, nor can he do justice to any great theme. Paul is happy: we shall therefore get his power at its very best; the audience fits him: he can fly in this firmament. Conditions have much to do with speech and with hearing. The man is not the same man under all conditions. We say about other things and say truly “Circumstances alter cases.” Paul seems to have liked a Roman hearing. There was something in the augustness and imperial grandeur of the circumstances that touched him and brought him up to his very best. Even before Felix he said he would the more cheerfully answer for himself because that bad procurator had been a judge for a longer period than others. Before Agrippa he says, “I think myself happy.” Now he will spread himself out; he will spare nothing; we shall hear all the music of his soul. It should mark a crisis in a life to hear Paul’s defence. Why do we not make more red-letter days in our life? To read this defence sympathetically, to get into the swing and rhythm of this noble eloquence, should make us young again with hope and fearlessness and confident triumph, at the last, in Christ. Hearers make speakers: the pew makes the pulpit. Give any apostle an opportunity of feeling happy, and you will at once evoke from his soul music which would otherwise lie dumbly and hopelessly within him. We are to hear a happy speaker. The opportunity given to Paul is to speak for himself; how does he do it? By unfolding the Gospel. “But he was not asked to preach.” But Paul cannot open his mouth without preaching to speak is to preach, to breathe is to pray, to be is to plead for Christ. “But the audience, as to its judicial structure, is a Roman one.” No matter; Paul makes known the riches of his Lord’s grace. When Agrippa said unto Paul, “Thou art permitted to speak for thyself,” we expected that Paul would have defended himself according to Roman law. Paul makes no reference to Roman law. Paul always took the broad and vast view of things, and looking upon all life from the highest elevation, he saw it in its right proportion and colour and measure. He was never overwhelmed by details: he had the great religious art of putting things right back from him that he might look at them as they really were. These details leap upon us, clutch us, sting us, take away from us a large portion of our best strength. We have not that sovereign power, that sacred spiritual energy which can take hold of them and say to them, “Stand back, till I see what you really are in number, force, and value.” Consider the opportunity and then consider the use made of it. Paul is all the while speaking about himself, and yet all the while he is preaching such a sermon as even he never preached before. He keeps to the point and yet takes a long tether; he never leaves the first personal attitude and relation, and yet all the while he is rebuilding all the Christian argument and reuttering in new tones and with new stretches of allusion and meaning the whole Gospel of salvation. This should be a lesson to all men. We may speak about ourselves and yet hide ourselves in the glory of Another. We need not make our experience egotistic even the use of the first personal pronoun need not imply any self-consciousness: it may be used without being abused. If we could have heard Paul say “I,” we should have seen that it but helped him to hook himself on to the Christ in whose being his own was lost. There is a way in all things; there is a manner self-explaining. The thing to be noticed is, that Paul never glories except in the Cross of Christ. Standing before kings, he never changes his theme. Happy in his opportunities, he is only happy because he can draw a fuller portraiture of the One Saviour of the world.
In the next place, observe Paul’s peculiar, but ever-available way of illustrating religious mysteries. Paul illustrated religious mysteries by relating personal miracles. Observe what a wonderful connection there is between the eighth verse and the ninth. Suddenly Paul breaks out with the inquiry, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Then as suddenly he reverts to his own case: “I verily thought with myself ” Observe the word “thought” in both verses: first, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible”; and then, “I verily thought with myself” about myself “that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” What is the argument? Evidently this: there are incredible things in theology, but there are also incredible things in personal history; seeing that the incredible things in personal history occur every day face us and challenge us at every turn of life; seeing that we must accept them why should it be thought a thing incredible that along theological lines there should be mysteries equally direct and equally stubborn as to apprehension and solution? That is the key of true learning. Paraphrased, the case might stand thus: “I know it is a marvellous thing that God should raise the dead, but God has raised me from the dead; I was dead in trespasses and in sins, I was the captive of death quite dead and God raised me; if, therefore, he has raised me having worked a miracle of resurrection or regeneration in my heart I can see how the same God could work the same miracle on another ground and under other circumstances.” Such is the way to lay hold upon religious mysteries and their sacred and infinite meaning. We must avail ourselves of personal analogies, experiences, and wonders wrought in our own heart and life. God asks us to look within, that we may find the key to his kingdom. Where we have erred so much and lost so much is that we have been looking for the key in the wrong place. We ourselves are witnesses. There is not a miracle in all the Bible that has not been wrought, in some form of counterpart or type, in our own life. Paul got such a view of himself as to entitle him to set against outward religious mysteries the miracles which had been wrought in his own nature. You can steal my Christianity if it is only a theory; you cannot break through nor steal if it is hidden in my heart as a personal and actual experience. There should be less discussion and more life; there should be less challenge to the controversial foe and more beneficence, humbleness of mind, snow-white pureness of soul; and with these you may strike the most audacious enemy dumb. If you come to consider the resurrection of the dead from a merely intellectual point of view, it cannot be explained. Everything that is merely intellectual is, more or less, either a difficulty in the way of the resurrection or a circumstance which renders it impossible. The resurrection of the dead does not come within the reason of the mind. I will therefore search my life, and I find that I myself, a. Christian man, may say I have been raised from the dead. There is nothing more remarkable in the rising of the sheeted dead from the deep grave, than in my being what I now am as compared with what I once was. This is Paul’s argument. He said, “When they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities and now I count myself unhappy, except in their society. The God that did that can raise the dead. I am myself a miracle, and therefore, from the height of my own experience and in the bliss of my own consciousness, I can receive as an august article in my theological creed the article that God can raise the dead.” Paul drives the inquiry home. “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you?” you limit the Holy One of Israel; you enlarge yourselves at the Divine expense; you put things wholly out of right relation and colour; in doubting the resurrection of the dead, you set up the idolatry of yourselves. We must not measure the Divine by the human, but the human by the Divine. Deepen your Christian experience, enlarge and ennoble your intercourse with God in the secret places of the sanctuary; draw to him more wrestingly and lovingly, and, rising from the altar where you have been lost to time and sense, you will see all things in a new light, and when objections and difficulties are put in your way you will be able to reply, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” We deal with weak men when we deal with persons who have no answer in themselves. You may have lost your argument because you had to take down a book to prove it, and the book was not in the library when you wanted it. When shall we get rid of the notion that Christianity is to be defended by books? It is to be illustrated by them; it is to be magnified, in some of its human aspects, by books; but the defence of the Christian mystery must be in the Christian consciousness. In this great argument, grace is genius, experience is eloquence. So it is with all preaching and teaching: we do but recite a lesson unless we speak out of the deep, true experience of the renewed and sanctified heart and will.
Paul, having thus shown us his way of regarding religious mysteries, proceeds to reveal his method of testing heavenly visions. In the nineteenth verse Paul said, “Whereupon, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” The argument is, that visions are to be tested by obeying them. Visions will break down in the obedience if they are only nightmares. You cannot keep a nightmare about you for a long time with any consent of the will, with any sympathy of the soul, or turn it to any high utility. Then Paul sets forth a very wonderful doctrine here namely, that he was not irresistibly converted driven against his will to certain conclusions; scourged to the stake; made to go. Even here he asserts the freedom of the will the attribute that makes a man. Plainly, Paul consented to this: “I was not disobedient”; in other words: “Whereupon I obeyed, I answered affirmatively, I gave my consent; I consented to the vision as certainly as I once consented to the death of the Christians.” The way, then, to test all visions is to take them into the life, and see how they will bear the agony of daily strain. I am content to have all theology tested by this one process. You say you believe in God; what use have you made of him? You insult God by merely intellectually entertaining him. He says, “I must go with you” in the going he proves himself. “Where wilt thou go?” “Everywhere!” That is the proof. If your god will not submit to that test, he is but a Baal, on whom you cannot safely rely a Baal who will shame you on Carmel, who, when he finds you a hundred strong, will let you cry to the empty heavens, and take no notice of your piteous appeal. The God of the Bible says, “I will go with you: now we will go to business; now we will go out into the summer fields, and read the apocalypse of nature; now we will suffer in the sick-chamber; now we will go into the churchyard, and lay our dear dead down there; now it is dark, you must sleep, and I will watch you.” That is the God in whom I want to believe. His appeal is its own proof; what he wants to do is the thing that proves his reality. So it is with all Christian doctrine. Take the Sermon upon the Mount: the way to test it is to obey it. Some of us have fallen short of that high mark. What we have done with the Sermon upon the Mount is this: we have analysed it, we have parsed its grammar, we have discussed its theories, we have marvelled at its liquid music, we have admired it, we have recited it, we have bound it in leather and in gold; having so treated it, any man can steal it from us. But if we were to obey it make it part and parcel of the substance of our nature if we were to regulate the step of our life by its solemn music, it would become so inwrought into the very fibre and tissue of our nature as to be inseparable from us; we would live the wondrous speech, and be an epistle known and read of all men. You are troubled in your theology because you are disobedient in your heart. If you would only live your theology, you would put an end to all controversy. Prove prayer by praying; prove the inspiration of the Scriptures by being inspired by their speech. Obedience, let us say again and again, is the true confirmation of vision and of knowledge; and where the obedience brings joy, rest, hope, strength where it lifts us up to a new stature, broadens us with a nobler expansion, attunes us to a Diviner music we may be sure that the vision which originated it was a vision that shone from heaven.
Here is also Paul’s way of proving his sanity: by being what the world calls mad. Festus had never heard such a speech before; Festus was not as happy as Paul; Festus was out of this high running. He “said with a loud voice” quite startled out of his cold Roman propriety “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” Festus thought it was learning that is, letter-learning, book knowledge, a marvellous upgathering and focalising of information and pieces of wonderful news. Festus did not know the meaning of the word inspiration a word so much higher than information as the heaven is high above the earth. Festus, therefore, thought Paul was mad. So he was from the point of view occupied by Festus. Christianity is madness if materialism is true. If this world is all; if that distant, grey, mocking thing you call the horizon is the boundary; if the stars are mere glints of wandering fire that cannot be accounted for, and that are working out no purpose; if the heaven is an infinite emptiness; if the Cross of Christ is not the means of saving the world then there can be no such madness as spiritual religion, Christian faith, and Christian hope. It is one of two things with us: we are either right, or we are not merely wrong mad; obviously and scandalously wrong, absurd, frantic, imposed upon, and impostors in relation to other people. I know that we have fallen into a tepid state; I am aware that we have lost our first love, and have taken up with some new philanthropising; but in the days that revealed Christianity, in the days that created the Church, no man Festus, Felix, Agrippa no man, however low or high, could look at the Christians without feeling that they were the great men of the world. They gave up everything: “they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” Poor fools! they might have dined at good tables, they might have drunk foaming wines, and they might have made quite a figure in many a social circle; but “they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword.” Then they were mad, or inspired!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXXI
PAUL AND FESTUS; FESTUS AND AGRIPPA; PAUL AND AGRIPPA
Acts 25-26.
Felix was superseded as procurator of Judea, and on departing he seeks to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound. He was superseded on account of the many complaints of his mal-administration sent to Rome by the dissatisfied Jews. Knowing that he would have to give an account of these matters when he got to Rome, he wanted to put the Jews under obligation to him by leaving Paul bound so as to modify their testimony against him when he was held to account.
We know but little about Festus beyond what our record tells us, but Josephus discusses him pretty freely, and gives him a good name as a conscientious ruler. Having been only three days at the political capital, Caesarea, he went to Jerusalem to spend ten days studying the situation, as a ruler ought to do, trying to get acquainted with the character of the people over whom he was to rule. In Act 25:1-5 ; Act 25:15-16 , we have an account of a request preferred by Jewish officials to Festus concerning Paul, and the reply of Festus. These facts show three things:
1. That this was a great hazard to Paul, because, when a new procurator arrived, he would quite naturally wish to conciliate the people by granting their first request. To grant it meant death to Paul.
2. The fact that after Paul had been in prison for two years, this Jewish hate, unsleeping and unrelenting, showed itself Just as soon as a new procurator puts his foot in their capital, is a demonstration of its intensity.
3. The facts are very highly commendatory to Festus. The Jews requested first as a favor, as the Greek word says, that Festus send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried. Festus replied that it was not a Roman custom to grant as a favor that a man should be tried not according to law; that there must be an opportunity for the accused to face his accusers, and the evidence must be looked into, and inasmuch as Paul was already there in custody in Caesarea, instead of sending him to Jerusalem, the ones in authority in Jerusalem could come up to Caesarea to press their cage, and not try to get a change of venue. All that is very fine on the part of Festus. We now come to the
TRIAL BEFORE FESTUS
We find three accounts of this trial. The first is Luke’s own account, Act 25:6-12 ; then the account given by Festus himself, Act 25:13-21 ; and then the account of Paul, Act 28:17-19 . If we compare this trial with the previous one before Felix, we find that the only difference is that in this case the Jews have no orator, or lawyer, or at least there is nothing said about it. The charges are exactly the same. They fail in their proof, just as they did before. They convince Festus, Just as they had convinced Felix, that there was nothing in their accusations for the Roman court to take cognizance of.
The instant duty of Festus was to pronounce Paul acquitted and release him. But instead of doing his known duty, he makes a proposition to Paul. Commencing at Act 25:9 , we read: “But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?” It is a little difficult to know exactly what that proposition means. We may construe it. “Wilt thou consent to a change of venue, and let me try the case over again at Jerusalem?” or it may mean, “Are you willing, if I am present, to let this case be taken to Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin try you?” It may mean either one of those two things, and I think it means the latter. I judge so from Paul’s response.
This proposition was unfair, even if he meant that he would try the case, because it put the place of trial where animosity against the prisoner was such that his life would be in danger. Second, it was judicially unfair to seek to do this on account of the desire to please the Jews. Why should he please the Jews any more than he should Paul? What was a judge to do with things of that kind? Besides being unfair, it reversed his former decision. When the Jews asked originally that Paul be sent to Jerusalem for trial, he refused. Now in asking Paul if he was willing to go to Jerusalem to be retried, it reverses the other decision. Furthermore, he misrepresented his motive in making it. Luke says in Act 25:9 that Festus made the proposition, desiring to please the Jews. Festus in telling about it, Act 25:20 , says: “And I, being perplexed how to enquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters.” He gives as his motive that he had some doubt in his mind about the manner of his question, but Luke gives his motive as a desire to please the Jews.
This proposition meant great hazard to Paul. He knew the Jews. He knew, and Lysias knew, and Festus knew, because he had all the correspondence and testimony previously taken, that the sole object of the trial was to get an opportunity to assassinate Paul. Paul recognized this, and said to Festus, the judge, “You know that I am guilty of no offense,” and now he saw that if Festus wavered, which he was doing, and sent him to Jerusalem, that meant death to him. How would he escape that? He escapes by an appeal to Caesar: “You tried this case; you admit there is nothing against me; now you propose to send me to Jerusalem to be tried over again; I appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen.”
This proposition of Festus exhibits him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem. He stands so well in the first case, and everything he says is so much to the point and judicially fair! Now, evidently, he is learning something about the Jewish character, and the power of Jewish hate. He has seen that the Jews have brought about a recall of Felix, and his selfishness is appealed to: “Now, must I forget that I am a fair judge, and look at the case as it will likely affect me if I get these people mad?” That doesn’t present him to us as half the man that the other does. Thus we may account for his wavering his selfishness for the fear that he might get himself into complications with the Jews.
Here I explain briefly the appeal to Caesar. When Rome was a republic it elected tribunes. These tribunes had the power at any time to arrest a case, or in court stop its proceedings without assigning a reason, and have it tried before them, and if the case had been tried and adjudicated, these tribunes had the power to reverse it. When Rome became an empire, the Emperor assumed all the functions of the tribunes. In other words, the Emperor had the power and the authority to stop the proceedings of any court in the empire, and he had the power of a petit court, and then he had the power to reverse any decision that had been rendered. An ordinary man that lived in the province, as the Jews, the Ephesians, or the Galatians, could not appeal to Caesar. What the proconsul, the procurator, or the propraetor did was final. But a Roman citizen living in any of these countries, just by simply saying, “I appeal to Caesar,” could stop any case, anywhere. They could proceed no further after he made that appeal. There was not anything left for the Roman consul, or procurator, to do except just to say what Festus said: “Thou hast appealed unto Caesar; unto Caesar shalt thou go.” There was only one exception. If the Roman citizen was a bandit or a pirate, and caught in the very act of robbery or piracy, he could not appeal to Caesar.
FESTUS AND AGRIPPA
The case, now being taken out of the hands of either the Sanhedrin or of Festus himself, all that this procurator could do was to send Paul by the first good opportunity to Rome, and to send all the papers in the case and refer it to Caesar. But an opportunity did not come every day for sailing ships, going in the right direction, and while they were waiting for a ship, Agrippa II, the king of Chalcis, and his sister Bernice, came to pay a complimentary visit to the new procurator, and it occurred to Festus to lay this case before Agrippa. He had this special object in view: Agrippa had great influence. Agrippa had charge of all the Temple officers, and power to appoint a high priest. He was the last king of any kind that the Jews had except the spiritual king, Jesus. Festus, having recognized the turbulent character of the Jews, if he could get a concurrence of judgment on this case from this king, himself a Jew, it would greatly disarm any opposition of the Jews on account of Paul.
Luke’s account gives a plain, straightforward statement of the case, commencing at Act 25:13 , and extending to Act 25:22 . Festus states the whole case to Agrippa, and when we look at the two, side by side, we discover that Festus’ statement of the case to Agrippa is much more complimentary to himself than Luke’s statement of the case. That little piece of human nature, to which I have already referred, comes in. Robert Burns says, and very much to the point, Och! Mankind is unco weak, But little to be trusted, If self the wavering balance touch, ‘Tis rarely right adjusted.
In other words, “Let a fellow state his own case and he is a hero,” “but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out.” That is what the Bible says about it.
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
Let us look at the assembly described in Act 25:23 , and the great opportunities afforded to Paul. (See Conybeare and Howson, Vol. II, pp. 294-98, and Farrar in his Life of Paul .) That Act 25:23 says, “So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains, and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in.”
That was a very imposing assembly. King Agrippa and Bernice were out in full regal regalia. I suspect every woman that was permitted to be present went there largely to see how Bernice was dressed in her court dress, as much as to hear Paul’s case. All the chief captains of the Roman legion were there. The Roman cohorts and that was a very imposing body of distinguished men that had been on a hundred battlefields were there. They were the conquerors of a hundred countries. That word, “pomp,” signifies a great deal. “Then came the chief men of the city,” and it was a great city at that time. A very imposing assembly indeed, and here is a poor preacher that has an opportunity to speak before this grand audience. There are people before him that have never heard a sermon in their lives; some that knew him but little, if anything, about the religion that was dearer to him than life. But God’s providence had managed it so that he was thus to stand before kings and testify of the grace of God. We may live to a good old age without ever having such an opportunity. A schoolboy thinks it is a great thing if he is selected to deliver one of the commencement addresses, or represent his society in a debate, but this was a bigger thing than that.
Festus, in introducing the case, throws light on the requirements of the Roman law, and he certainly knew what to gay. Let us see how he introduces Paul. He is the master of ceremonies: “And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and as he himself appealed to the emperor, I determined to send him.. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord [calls Caesar, ‘my lord’]. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him.” That is a very admirable statement. The Roman law required that when a man was sent up to Rome on appeal, all the papers relating to the case should be sent, and all the testimony that had been taken, and a clear statement made by one who sent him as to what he was accused of. Now we come to:
PAUL’S DEFENSE
Here, as elsewhere, Paul arises to the greatness of the occasion. His speech has always been recognized as a classic. Many a time as a schoolboy I have spoken it. I know nothing in literature that I put ahead of it. It was just exactly the right thing to say under the circumstances. Some people lose their heads on great occasions; some, like a young hunter the first time he sees a deer, take what is called a “buck ague” or what young people claim to be “stage fright,” or what some young bridegrooms know to be “marriage fright.” I have stood up to marry men that were shaking so that the women had to hold them up. I never saw a woman lose her self-possession, but I have known men to be scared nearly into a fit. Paul exhibits the most marvelous self-possession and voices the clearest ideas not a superfluous word. Let us analyze the address:
1. The exordium: “I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews.” Festus was not. He was competent to try the legal questions in full, but he didn’t know anything about their customs, their laws, their traditions, and their fanaticism, but Agrippa did; he knew all about them. Paul said, “I count myself happy to have an opportunity to discuss it before a competent judge one who is expert in the matters that are involved, and before a man who can detect any false statement in a moment.” That is the exordium.
2. The next thing that he sets forth is that he himself is thoroughly well known to the whole Jewish people, and particularly this accusing crowd, for he was brought up at Jerusalem. They know all his manner of life; they know that according to the strictest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee. Agrippa could understand that! so he was not a stranger, with doubtful antecedents to be met. It was just about like trying George Washington at Mount Vernon.
3. Next he names, with unerring accuracy, the three real accusatives that they have against him:
(a) His first crime is that he is judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Of course, if the Sadducees were officials of the Sanhedrin, they would have their grievance against him. He had been going all over their country testifying to a case of the resurrection of the dead. Then he goes on to show that this doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as Agrippa is bound to know, was the thing toward which all Jews were looking, and was the end of all Israel worship. That was the great hope of the entire nation, and his first crime was, that he testified to the resurrection of the dead. Then he calls attention to the fact that the person who was risen from the dead, Jesus, was one whom he himself had exceedingly opposed. That he had not believed in him at all; that he had persecuted him; but that on the way to Damascus with authority, given him by the Jewish officials, that were here pressing the case, to persecute, he met Jesus who was risen, his resurrection proving his claims; that face to face he met him, and that his experience turned him from persecution to the preacher of that which he had persecuted.
(b) “And then when Jesus met me he commissioned me to preach to the Gentiles; that is my next offense, that I preached to the Gentiles. I did that under the commission of Jesus, to whose resurrection I bear witness.”
(c) “Then my third offense is that I claim that this Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. My answer to that is that I have not said a thing more than the law and the prophets have said; that the Messiah would suffer and be put to death and rise again the third day, and that he would be a light to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.”
Did you ever see anything more clearly to the point? And those were the three crimes: (1) That he testified to the resurrection; (2) that he preached salvation to the Gentiles;
(3) that he claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Take those three things out of the way and there is no grievance against him, and yet in occupying that position he had the evidence of his own eyewitness and personal experience, for he saw the risen Lord, and he preached nothing more than the law and the prophets taught concerning the Messiah.
Right at that point (for here the address is properly ended), Festus interrupts: “Paul, Paul, you are mad; you study so much that you have lost your mind; talk about prophets and the law and a man risen from the dead!” With the utmost courtesy, giving Festus his legal title, he says, “I am not mad, Most Excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. King Agrippa, you know it. These things were not done in a corner; it is not some magical sleight-ofhand, in a dark room, with only a few people present; these things all took place in broad daylight before ten thousand witnesses, and Agrippa knows, everybody knows, the things to be true. It is not madness with me, it is soberness.” Then he whirls upon King Agrippa, saying, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.”
Then followed Agrippa’s words (A. V.), “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” As some people render it, he spoke ironically, “Would thou with a few words attempt to make me a Christian?” and that closed the incident. The effect on Festus was that Paul was a sincere enthusiast; that his mind was unbalanced by hard study. How may we account for the impression? It is the impression made upon worldly men, who witness any great enthusiasm of God’s people, just as the reception of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was construed to be intoxication. As Paul says, the natural man discerneth not the things of God; they are of spiritual discernment. Thus Paul himself says that a man may come into the assembly, and conclude from the way they are going on that they are crazy. That is the way the Athenians looked at it when Paul got up and talked about the resurrection of the dead at Athens.
Before we can determine what the effect on Agrippa was we have to know what Agrippa meant by what he said. Great hosts of people, and particularly radical higher critics, and the great modern scholars, say that Agrippa spoke ironically. Conybeare and Howson take this stand. So does Farrar. So does Meyer in his Greek Commentary, and an abundance of others. I don’t believe that. I do not agree with them for two reasons. We cannot understand Paul’s reply if that is what he meant. Paul responds, “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” He knew what Agrippa meant, and you cannot fit that reply of Paul’s into this finical interpretation of the critics, and so I do not accept that rendering of it. My second reason is that Agrippa showed that the arrow had hit him. He stopped the proceedings right then and there, and got up and left. When you shoot a deer, as I have done many a time, the deer that is hit will separate from the crowd at once. If he is hit hard he will separate from the crowd and go off into the thicket, and that is exactly what Agrippa did, he took his sister and left. And so I think the effect on Agrippa was this: He looked in the face of that calm, noble, Spirit-guided man, knowing the facts of the history thoroughly, heard him tell about that Christian experience, and thought in his royal heart with regard to Paul, “Isn’t it the greatest thing in the world to be a Christian?” And I think he ran to get rid of his impression.
There are certain great texts in his address. One is this: “Why should it be though a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” It would be incredible if some man was going to raise the dead, but why should it be thought a thing unbelievable if God should raise the dead. This is no harder to do than to create a man out of nothing. What is a miracle to God? I have preached on that many a time. God is the explanation of the miracle, of the universe, and of regeneration. A second great text is, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Many a time have I preached from that, as has nearly every other preacher, and he has my permission to go on preaching it in the way that common minds will clearly understand it. I do not care who may differ with me in this interpretation of it. Those King James revisers were great scholars, and far more orthodox than some of the later ones. Another great subject is, “What is madness to the world is truth and soberness if we only consider it from the right point of view.”
A great hymn suggested by it is, “Almost Persuaded.” I have seen Major W. E. Penn stand up before an audience of three thousand people and with a mighty choir standing before him, sing, “Almost persuaded Almost, but lost!”
Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Act 26:29 ) places him far above his judges and auditors: “I would to God that . . . not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds,” and he holds up his chains. In other words, “I do not want them to have any of my sufferings, but I would that every one were not only close to the line but would step over the line this day.” I heard a great Washington preacher preach on that text in Waco and his theme was “Paul’s Benevolence.” He wanted to see people altogether such as he was, but not to have the troubles that were his. But Agrippa closed the hearing right at this point because it got too hot for him too personal. Yet both Agrippa and Festus solemnly decided that there was not a thing in those accusations against Paul, and he might be set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar.
There is a subsequent value to Paul in this verdict. The value is this, that when Festus sent the account and wrote what the charges were, he put in such a favorable commendation of Paul that when he got to Rome he was not subject to harsh imprisonment. He had an opportunity to preach; and the value of it is seen in that he had friends visiting him continuously, and when he was tried he was acquitted.
There is an eternal remembrance lingering in the minds of Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice. They are all now in their eternal home. Memory is a wonderful thing, as Abraham said to the rich man in hell. A remembrance for those three is that marvelous day at Caesarea, when that noble sufferer, that great preacher, stood before them, and tried to entice them across the line of salvation with the power of his life and his benevolence. Just here let us compare, “Felix trembled,” “Agrippa almost persuaded,” Luk 10:11 : “that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you,” and Mar 12:34 : “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” From these four scriptures the conclusion is that a man may be pierced with remorse and tremble at the shadows of a coming hell; that a man may be almost persuaded to be a Christian; that a man may see salvation come right up to his very door; that a man may be nigh unto the kingdom of God, and yet be lost.
Upon this point I give some quotations bearing on the value of one’s opportunity, and the danger of its neglect. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar (Act IV, Scene 3), uses this language: There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows, and in miseries.
Then there is this quotation from Lowell’s book of the Crisis: Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with falsehood, For the good or evil side.
It came to these men that day; they had the opportunity in their time to decide for good or evil. There was a tide that day in their lives. If they had taken that tide at its flood that day at its highest point, its crest their lives would have ended in salvation, but omitted, all the voyage of their lives was bound in shallows and in miseries.
QUESTIONS 1. What the scripture and the themes of this chapter?
2. Why was Felix superseded as procurator of Judea, and why, on departing, does he seek to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound?
3. What do we know of Festus, his successor?
4. How does Festus commence his administration?
5. What request concerning Paul was made by Jewish officials to Festus?
6. Why was this a great hazard to Paul?
7. How does it exhibit the Jewish hatred of Paul?
8. How does the reply of Festus commend him?
9. How many and what accounts do we have of this trial?
10. Compare this trial with the previous one before Felix.
11. What then the instant duty of Featus?
12. Instead of doing his known duty, what proposition does he make to Paul, and what the exact force of it?
13. What the judicial unfairness of this proposition?
14. How does it reverse his former decision?
15. How does he misrepesent his motive in making it?
16. What the great hazard to Paul, what his recognition of it, and his method of escape?
17. How does this proposition of Festus exhibit him in a less favorable light than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem?
18. How may we account for his wavering?
19. Explain the appeal to Caesar.
20. In sending Paul to Caesar, what must the procurator send with him, and what their facility of travel at this time from Caeaarea to Rome?
21. Why does Festus relate Paul’s case to Agrippa and permit Paul to speak before him?
22. Compare the Festus statement of the case to Agrippa with Luke’s account of the same matter, and tell what you discover.
23, What does Robert Burns say very much to the point?
24. Was this a judicial investigation before Agrippa, and why?
25. Of what prophecy was it in part a fulfilment?
26. What may we say of the assembly described in verse 23, and the great opportunities afforded Paul?
27. How does Festus introduce the case, and what light does his introduction throw on the requirements of the Roman law?
28. Does Paul rise to the greatness of the occasion? If so, how?
29. What is Paul’s exordium, and what was his purpose in it?
30. How does Paul appeal to Agrippa in this speech?
31. What were the three accusations against him, and how did he answer them?
32. What was the effect on Festus, and how may we account for it?
33. What the effect on Agrippa, and what the exact force of the authorized version of Act 26:28 ?
34. What great texts in his address, and what uses made of them?
35. What great hymn suggested by Agrippa’s answer to Paul?
36. How does Paul’s reply to Agrippa (Act 26:29 ) place him far above his judges and auditors?
37. Why did Agrippa close the hearing right at this point?
38. What was the verdict?
39. What subsequent value to Paul in this verdict?
40. What eternal remembrance must linger in the minds of Festus, Agrippa and Bernice?
41. Comparing the case of Felix, the case of Agrippa, Luk 10:11 ; Mar 12:34 , what may we conclude?
42. What quotations cited bearing on the value of one’s opportunity and the danger of its neglect?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
Ver. 1. And answered for himself ] This the apostle doth most artificially and effectually. Raptare eum iudices credas, as one saith concerning Cicero, involvere, praecipitem agere, nec incendere auditorem, sed ipsum putes ardere: animorum denique quendam credas Deum.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Act 26:1 . ] The stretching out of the hand by a speaker was not, as Hammond supposes, the same as the of ch. Act 12:17 ; Act 13:16 . The latter was to ensure silence; but this, a formal attitude usual with orators. Apuleius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it very precisely: ‘Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit.’ The hand was chained . ., Act 26:29 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
CHAP. Act 24:1 to Act 26:32 . ] PAUL’S IMPRISONMENT AT CSAREA.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 26:1 . , Burton, p. 9, on “the aoristic present”. Agrippa as a king and as a guest presides; and Paul addresses himself specially to him, cf. Act 26:2 ; Act 26:7 ; Act 26:13 ; Act 26:19 ; Act 26:27 ; cf. Act 28:16 , 1Co 14:34 , for the passive with infinitive, and for other instances of the word in the same sense as here Act 21:39-40 , Act 27:3 ; the verb is similarly used in all of the Gospels (three times in Luke), and in 1Co 16:7 , 1Ti 2:12 , Heb 6:3 . : not the same as in Act 12:17 , Act 13:16 ; here not to ensure silence, but gestus est oratorius , cf. Act 26:29 . , see above, Act 24:10 , although not formally on trial, the word shows that the Apostle was defending himself.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts Chapter 26
Luke sets the scene vividly before us. The king, whose opinion the governor sought, and who himself was desirous of hearing, gives courteous leave, and the prisoner enters on his defence with out-stretched hand. Orators no doubt used the same action to engage the ear of their countrymen, rhetoricians in their schools; but Paul’s heart went out thus in desire over souls about to hear that message from God which, in whatever manner put, is the turning-point of salvation or perdition to all in contact with it. No doubt the soul is beyond all price for everyone in view of such everlasting issues. Yet it was no light thing even for the apostle to confront, without his seeking it but at their own desire, the great ones of the earth with all that swelled their train.
‘And Agrippa said to Paul, It is permitted thee to speak for1 thyself. Then Paul stretched out his hand and entered on his defence. Touching all things of which I am accused by Jews, king Agrippa, I count myself happy that I am to make my defence before thee today,2 especially as thou art skilled in all customs and questions that are among Jews. Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
‘My manner of life then from my youth which was from the beginning among my nation and3 at Jerusalem know all Jews, knowing me before from the outset, if they be willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which our twelve tribes earnestly serving night and day hope to arrive. And concerning this hope I am accused by4 Jews, O king4. Why is it judged incredible with you if God raiseth dead [men]?’ (vers. 1-8).
1 Here and elsewhere in these verses occur several readings scarce affecting a version.
2 Beza alone adopted (in his edition of 1582 and afterwards) ‘in uno codice peruetusto – certainly an error, for the three cursives that give it are comparatively modern. Had he known there would have been better reason, as AC, et al., have it. But either is a gloss.
3 ABEgr., et al.
4 and omitted by the best authorities by almost all.
It may be a small matter, yet it is well to avoid the mistake of confounding the apostle’s act here with what he did in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Act 13:16 ), or what Alexander did in the tumultuous assembly at Ephesus (Act 19:33 ). This was ‘beckoning with the hand’, quite different in character and aim from stretching it forth, here too with a chain. What a witness of the world’s enmity to God’s infinite grace in Christ! For, to say nothing of his loving labours, wherein had His servant done wrong? He was sharing the sufferings of Christ.
It will be observed that the apostle graciously passes by the various calumnies of the Jews which had been put forward by their venal orator and the unscrupulous men who supported his charges. He expresses his satisfaction at having to speak before one so exceptionally competent as the king in all the ways and controversies of Jews, as he does not fail even in this acknowledgment to preface it with an allusion to such accusations coming from Jews, not ‘the’ Jews.
In this connection there is no article in the text of verses 2, 3, as there should be none in verses 4 and 7, though in verse 4 there is much conflict among the MSS. (even the best uncials), and only Lachmann, and Alford, Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort, follow BCpm. E, et al., here, against the rest in omitting the article. Nor is it to be wondered at that Tischendorf who had dropped it in his later editions up to the seventh, went back in his eighth to that of his earlier issues in 1841 and both of 1842. The fact is that the sense required in this phrase here seems without example in the New Testament, where in other cases is the correct form, and the article, as far as I have noticed, could not be omitted without damage. Here there is a distinct and unusual peculiarity; for ‘all the Jews’ are not meant, but all Jews knowing Paul before from the outset. This accordingly requires .
All Greek Testament students know of course the late Dean Alford’s note on verse 2, which seems a long-standing reproach to scholars and ought to have been repudiated far and wide: for I cannot doubt there must be not a few besides the late Bishop of Durham, who are aware of the fallacy. ‘There is no force in Meyer’s observation that by the article before , Paul wishes to express that the charges were made by some, not by all of the Jews. That omission is the one so often overlooked by the German critics (e.g., Stier also here), after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. ? 1, and compare in the next verse, of which the above cannot be said’ (Greek Test. ii.. 276, fifth ed. 1865).
Now it is admitted that the celebrated German expositor’s remark is imperfect, even though in many cases true. The omission of the article is due here and everywhere to presenting the word or combination of words characteristically, whilst the use of the article presents it as an object before the mind. There may be a very few exceptions, but these only prove that the rule is otherwise universal. And prepositions are in no way an exception, though they admit freely of serving to define the characteristic design of the anarthrous construction, which has been overlooked by English scholars quite as much perhaps as German. This is exactly one of the great defects of Bishop Middleton’s able treatise, which has for effect the making imaginary exceptions as numerous as the rule. This of itself ought to have indicated failure in generalization. John iv. 9 is a plain illustration of the principle: not only which every one sees, but where the article for either would be out of place if the object were, as it certainly is, to mark both characteristically.
It is no question of ‘some’ no doubt. And the article might have been with truth prefixed to both; but the meaning would have been altered. The two peoples would then stand contrasted as objects, not characteristically as they are now. Compare for this a selection from the book of the Acts: Act 2:5 , Act 2:7 , Act 2:9-11 ; Act 11:19 ; Act 14:1 , Act 14:5 , Act 14:19 ; Act 18:4 ; Act 19:10 , Act 19:17 ; Act 20:21 ; Act 25:10 . Again, any intelligent examination of the Greek Testament cannot fail to convince that the preposition makes no difference whatever. The article is or is not used with the word in question like every other, in accordance with its principle of insertion or omission.
Thus in Mat 28:15 character is the point, and therefore it is . In Joh 4:22 the Jews are the object, and hence it is : so in Joh 10:19 , and Joh 11:54 , ; in Joh 11:19 , ; in Joh 18:38 , . It is really a total oversight of the nice shades of thought in the Greek language to conceive that there is the least laxity or exception after prepositions. Perhaps the notion is due to the difficulty of always representing the distinction in English, which sometimes compels us to use our definite article where there is none in Greek. But this is no right reason to deny that there is invariably an intended difference. Weigh Act 23:8 where we have and without the article, though there is no preposition. If had been prefixed to each, it would have been true; but the absence of the article makes them characteristic, however hard it may be to express it in English.
And there is an analogous difference in the cases before us, alike when with or without prepositions. ‘I am accused by Jews’ in verses 2 and 7 is far more forcible than if the article had been inserted. It was not lost on Agrippa or Festus or the Jews that heard it. Of all men Jews were the last to have accused Paul for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection that is from among the dead. Sadduceanism had alas! withered up their old faith. As a fact too, which may have weighed with Meyer and Stier, the Pharisees diverged in Act 23 from the dominant faction which persecuted Paul. The preposition clearly gives no licence, () Jews, not the Jews, being meant. Nor is it otherwise with , however confidently urged. Doubtless ‘according to the Jews’ would have been true in fact but it is stated characteristically, and here again as ‘Jews’, not ‘the Jews’ is the force intended, so it is evident once more that the preposition does not really affect the question. The article is inserted or omitted with prepositions on its own principle. Lastly, to be correct, would require qualifying the subject, is correct as it is given; for it means only all such Jews as previously knew Paul from the outset. In a word it is characteristic and therefore anarthrous. Not only is the more usual expression, but quite distinct in sense; for it means the whole Jewish people as a known, definite and complete object, whereas the phrase here means all Jews qualified by the peculiar and described knowledge of Paul.
Returning from this digression, we may note that the apostle begs for a patient hearing from one so skilled as Agrippa, and dwells (vers. 4, 5) on his known early life under strict Pharisaic belief and discipline ‘among my nation and at Jerusalem’, as all Jews cognisant from its outset could testify if willing.
But the question, he insists, for which he stood for judgment was the hope of the promise made by God unto our fathers (ver. 6), unto which our twelve tribes earnestly serving, day and night, hope to arrive (ver. 7). How strange and flagrant that, of all men, Jews should lay accusation against him for that hope! Certainly his testimony to the risen Jesus did not weaken faith in the promise of the Messiah or in the resurrection of the dead. Yet the whole nation in their public and earnest service of God night and day bore witness of their hope of attaining to that promise. Why is it judged incredible if God raises dead men? The prisoner assuredly did believe what the service of the chosen nation confessed night and day. Were Jews then gainsayers of their own boasted faith?
The apostle returns from argument to the account of his own life, from which he had turned aside for a moment.
‘I therefore thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus the Nazarene; which things I also did in Jerusalem; and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received the authority from the chief priests, and I railed against [them] when they were put to death; and throughout all the synagogues, often punishing I was compelling them to blaspheme, and being exceedingly mad against them I was pursuing them even as far as to the outside cities’ (vers. 9-11).
We have repeated allusions in the Epistles to Paul’s life before conversion. Thus to the Galatians he wrote, ‘For ye have heard of my manner of life at one time in Judaism that beyond bounds I was persecuting the church and ravaging it, and was advancing in Judaism beyond many of mine own age in my race, being more exceedingly’ a zealot of my ancestral traditions’ (Gal 1:13 , Gal 1:14 ). To the Philippians his language is, ‘As to law a Pharisee, as to zeal persecuting the church, as to righteousness that is in law found blameless’ (Phi 3:5 , Phi 3:6 ). Lastly, to Timothy (1Ti 1:13 ) he says, ‘Though formerly a blasphemer, and a persecutor and an insulter; but I obtained mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief.’
Here he lets us see how unsafe a guide conscience is for the natural man, no matter what may be his religious helps. He considered it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and zealously persecute all who called on Him. Nor does God accept such a plea. He had sent His Son with adequate proof of His Messiahship for all who would compare His written word with the facts of Jesus the Nazarene: prophecy accomplished, miracles wrought not only by Himself but by His servants, and of a character quite peculiar, yet harmonizing with a teaching altogether unexampled; and a moral power of holy life ending in a death of deepest shame on the cross, which He ever held out as not man’s sin only, but God’s grace as the ransom for sinners, to the reality of which all sacrifices pointed from Abel downward. Paul therefore had acted ignorantly in unbelief, as do others who refuse all revelation or misuse one part to reject another still fuller and more glorious.
The greater the religious zeal in such a state of unbelief, the farther it carries the devotee from the present testimony of God. Hence it was that Paul gave himself up with all his soul to opposing the faith of Jesus as the Christ in Jerusalem, which he would feel was outraged by His claims. Here, before Agrippa, he does not hesitate to confess to his own shame that he shut up ‘many of the saints’ in prisons. To the Jews he had employed the more vague expression, ‘this Way’ (Act 22:4 ); as Luke in the history spoke of ‘the disciples of the Lord’ (Act 9:1 ). How little he so thought when he received the requisite authority from the chief priests! Nor was it only imprisoning. When it was a question of putting them to death, had he not given an adverse vote? Notably it was so in Stephen’s case, as this Book records. Had he not visited all the synagogues, often punishing souls and forcing out blasphemy if possible? And had he not in his excessive madness pursued them even into cities outside the land?
But a mighty change was at hand. Not a hint of relenting appears here or elsewhere, not one emotion of pity for the victims, not a trace of self-judgment or hesitation in his own course. Who verified so conspicuously the Lord’s own words? ‘They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you shall think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor Me’ (Joh 16:2 , Joh 16:3 ). This is the new revelation of the Messiah come and rejected; and on that rejection bringing to light the Father and the Son, wholly unknown to those who in their zeal for the law broke out into hatred and persecution of what was beyond them and condemned their unbelief.
‘On which [business] when proceeding unto Damascus with authority and commission of the chief-priests, at midday on the road I saw, O king a light above the brightness of the sun shining round me and those that were proceeding with me. And when we all fell to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? [It is] hard for thee to kick against goads. And I said, Who art Thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest’ (vers. 12-15).
Never was sovereign grace so signally demonstrated. I do not speak of the wonder. But now evidently the Lord was giving a typical case, in the letter it would seem for the Jews by and by, in spirit for the Christian now. For what could more completely prove that Christ is all to him that believes? To a man up to that moment blinded by his legal zeal against the grace of God in Christ, that very Christ reveals Himself, sweeping into nothingness all that a Jew boasted of and rested in, and identifying Himself in the glory of God with the One Who died, between two crucified robbers, the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
On earth Messiah is to be set God’s King on His holy hill of Zion. This is the decree. Judgment will surely silence all that oppose, be they kings or nations, rulers or peoples. Their rage is as vain as all their imaginations to the contrary. Execution of judgment will make all plain to every eye. Then will Messiah ask and receive the nations for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. Then will He break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. It will be no longer as now grace preached, but the kingdom established by divine power seen and felt beyond question; and the kings of the earth will be wise, and the judges instructed, serving Jehovah with fear and rejoicing with trembling (Psa 2 ).
Now Christ sits in heaven on the Father’s throne, and has a new object of love and a new testimony carried on here below by the Holy Spirit suited to His glory on high and that object of love is the church which is His body. This mystery is great, as it must be, for we speak about Christ and about the church; concurrently with which goes forth the gospel of God’s grace to every creature under heaven, all distinctions of Jew and Gentile vanishing meanwhile.
Paul was called to be a minister, both of the church and of the gospel, as he says himself in Col 1:23-25 . And the special manner of his conversion was exactly suited in the wisdom and goodness of God to this ministry. For it was not only unmistakable grace in its deepest character, but from heavenly glory entirely above the distinctions so important on earth. And Paul alone was there personally favoured, though the truth of it was to act most powerfully on souls all over the earth. This may help to show the immense importance of what the apostle recounted that day, in substance recorded now for the third time in the brief Book of the Acts.
Impossible to doubt that a divine person speaks out from the brightness beyond that of the sun at midday. If all were prostrate and heard but a sound, Paul could not mistake the voice of His lips, saying to him (and in the Hebrew language), ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’ How overwhelming, yet how blessed, to hear in answer to his question of astonishment, ‘I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest’! Thus even from the starting-point he heard the truth that the saints are one with Him. To persecute them is to persecute Jesus.
Doubtless the blessed apostle had revelations of the Lord, and from Him, not a few afterwards; and the bearings of the mystery, as well as its consequences were made known to him by the Spirit. It is, however, full of interest to learn that the germ of all was planted in him, as we see here, from the moment that grace wrought in his soul and brought him into God’s marvellous light. He obeyed the truth immediately. It is hard to kick against goads, on the one hand; and on the other the Lord had drawn his heart into the love of the truth, whatever it might cost.
He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, which thenceforth gave its impress to his life, his faith, and his testimony. ‘And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that He is the Son of God.’ He was Messiah, but far more; eternally the Son; now exalted and given to be Head to the church in the heavenly places; universal Lord to the glory of God the Father, in virtue of Whose name all things shall bow; as indeed He is our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Henceforth Saul could and did say, ‘For me to live is Christ’.
The decisive words, ‘I am Jesus,’ were uttered to one who could not doubt the utterer was the Lord; nor this only, but ‘I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest’, the germ of that mystery (and it is a great one) which the astonished hearer was to develop beyond all others, even of the apostles. Thereon follows what is of the deepest interest.
‘But rise up and stand on thy feet; for to this end I appeared to thee, to appoint thee a servant and a witness both of what thou hast seen and of those things wherein I shall appear to thee, taking thee out from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness unto light and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith that is in Me. Whence, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but reported both to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and through all the country of Jud?a and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to slay me. Having therefore obtained help that is from God I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said should come, whether Christ should suffer, whether He first by resurrection of [the] dead should announce light both to the people and to the Gentiles (vers. 16-23).
Such a vision to such an end stamped on Paul the apostolic title in its highest character. It was from heaven in the power of resurrection life and ascension glory; and this not only by one determining act, but with the guarantee of all that was to be made known from him personally in the future. We should not know from this account that he was blind for three days and that Ananias was sent directly by the Lord to heal as well as baptize him. Nor have we particulars of his testimony either in Damascus or in Jerusalem, any more than of his going away into Arabia. Each fact is set forth where it was called for; all was stated not only with truthfulness but according to holy and divine design, as is invariably the case in scripture. The Lord led either Luke or Paul according to His will to say what was fitting. Here the apostle gives summarily what was of moment for his audience, and for all that should read and weigh the words afterwards.
It was not only to convert and save him that the Lord had spoken to Saul of Tarsus. He was to arise and stand on his feet; for the Lord had appeared to him to appoint him a servant () and a witness both of what he then saw and of those things in which He was to appear to him. A work lay before him of immense magnitude and unprecedented character. And the Lord’s revelations then and afterwards were of all moment. He was to be a typical servant too, though his own calling might be unique; for no such appearing of the Lord was to be the portion of those who should follow in the faith and footsteps of Paul.
Verse 17 is not well given by either the Revisers or the Authorized Version. Though the word may bear ‘delivering’, as it often signifies, its simpler meaning of ‘taking out’ is far more suitable to the context and the truth intended and verified in the apostle’s career. It is admitted on all hands that the Lord’s taking Saul out from the people (or the Jews) is suitable, but De Wette and Meyer allege that it does not chime in with the Gentiles. This seems quite a mistake. Separation from both is most appropriate to characterize his position, and there is no need to extend ‘unto whom I send thee’ beyond the latter. He was to be apostle of Gentiles or uncircumcision, and as such magnifies his function in Rom 11:13 , Rom 11:14 . The ‘I’ is emphatic, and the adverb ‘now’ only added by inferior witnesses.
The difficulty these scholars feel is owing to their ignorance of Christian position, and even of Christianity according to scripture. For the Jew believing in Christ is not levelled down to a Gentile, nor yet is the believing Gentile raised up to that of the Jew; but the Holy Spirit unites both to Christ in heavenly glory, while at the same time the gospel of grace goes forth indiscriminately, but to the Gentile practically, as the once favoured nation is given up to temporary blindness in God’s just judgment. Never was there a more striking representative of both than the apostle, minister of the church and minister of the gospel (Col 1:23-25 ). Stier has only noticed half the beauty of the contrast; for if Peter declares himself a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed’, Paul was a witness of the glory of Christ and a partaker of His sufferings; and it is him we are called to imitate, though we only by faith see Christ glorified. To share His sufferings is the Christian’s and the believer’s moral glory.
Then follows in verse 18 a vivid description of Paul’s work among the Gentiles: ‘to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness unto light and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith that is in Me’. Doubtless Jews needed these operations of grace no less really than the nations; but in the latter case the necessity was far more conspicuous, besotted as they were not only in shameless immorality but by gross superstitions which darkened and demoralized them more than if they had had no religion at all. If, as the Jews say, it was reserved for the Messiah to open the eyes of the blind literally, here we see how He sent His apostle to do the work not physically alone but, morally. And this was manifested by Gentiles, when they heard the call of the Lord, turning from darkness into light, and (defining yet more their sources) from the power of Satan unto God, followed by the great characteristic privileges of the gospel, the reception of remission of sins and allotment among the sanctified by faith in Christ. For there was now a new, deeper, fuller sanctification, not fleshly or by ordinance merely as Israel’s was; but living and genuine by believing on Christ, the permanent result of an accomplished separation to God from the Christian’s starting-point.
The effect of such an announcement of sovereign grace, not only for Paul himself but in his mission, was immediate and Immense ‘Whence, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but reported both to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and through all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance’ (vers. 19, 20). Undoubtedly, it had been not only rebellion, but madness and destruction to have slighted such a vision and call; but this voucher the apostle gave, which nothing but self-willed folly could evade or escape, a life of unequalled sufferings as well as labours in bearing witness of its truth – truth so all-important to every child of man. Hence his burning zeal in reporting to all near or far off that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. For as the ground of the gospel consists of a Person revealed and facts accomplished (not merely a promise as of old), no call to believe can be agreeable to man’s heart, and grace only can effect aught vital or acceptable, the conscience being bad and the will estranged from God, yea enmity against Him.
There are doctrines infinitely deeper elsewhere, and beyond comparison nearer to man’s heart, to say nothing of their essential furtherance of God’s glory. But all the doctrines flow from Christ and His work, and a renewed child can rest confidingly in both and be drawn out in wonder love and praise, as well as in a life of devotedness and self-sacrifice. This, however, never can be apart from repentance and turning to God. As surely as there is the faith of God’s elect there is a divinely wrought repentance, which through the confidence which Christ inspires wins the soul to God in self-abhorrence and earnest pursuit of His will, doing works worthy of repentance.
It would be incredible if it were not the most certain fact that a faith and life so formed are abominable in Jewish eyes. ‘On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to slay me’ (ver. 21). But none of these things swerved or even moved the blessed apostle, save to sorrow over them. ‘Having therefore obtained help that is from God, I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing but what Moses and the prophets said should come, whether Christ should suffer, whether he first by resurrection of [the] dead should announce light both to the people and to the Gentiles’ (vers. 22, 23).
It is not that the Jews erred in looking for a glorious kingdom of Messiah, of which Israel should be the centre on earth, but that the law and the prophets were clear that the Messiah should suffer and die as a sacrifice, as well as in rejection by man and even Israel, and thus risen from the dead bong in blessing of grace and mercy to faith before the glory be revealed publicly. For it needs no reasoning to prove that the suffering and death cannot be after the glory; ‘but first must He suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.’ ‘Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?’ So Christ, beginning from Moses and all the prophets, interpreted in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luk 24:27 ).
The truth was fairly set before the king. The prophets and Moses had told out what was now accomplished in the Christ that Paul preached. If their testimony was divine, He Who had suffered and risen from the dead is their sure fulfilment, however much may remain. The question whether the Christ should suffer, and whether He first by rising from death should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles can admit of no answer but the most distinct affirmation. The Messiah to suffer, die, rise, and so shed light on man universally, is the surest force of the law and the prophets. This alone gives meaning to sacrifices, this explains the cleansing of the defiled. No doubt there is the kingdom to come, and the judgment of the world as well as of the dead, but the basis even of all the rest lay in the dead and risen Messiah, the object of faith for salvation to every believer, Jew or Gentile. Here, however, the apostle does not go beyond present facts.
‘And as he thus defended himself, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad, much learning doth turn thee to madness. But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king is cognizant of these things, unto whom also I speak with openness; for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this hath not been done in a corner. Believest thou, king Agrippa, the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa [said] unto Paul, With little [pains] thou art persuading1 to make me a Christian. And Paul [said], I would to God that both with little and with great [pains]2 not thou only but also all that hear me this day should become as I too am, except these bonds. And 3the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them; and when they had retired, they spoke one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or bonds. And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar’ (vers. 24-32).
1 A reads , ‘thou art persuading thyself’, which Alford adopts, but BEHLP, et al, support as in the Text. Rec. Only instead of AB and four cursives with several ancient versions sustain .
2 AB, six cursives, and almost all the ancient versions instead of , as in most copies followed by the Text. Rec.
3 The Text. Rec. adds ‘when he said these things’ with the mass, contrary to the most ancient and best copies. The ancient text gives the impression of an abrupt closure on Agrippa’s part; the addition takes it away.
Festus, ignorant of God and His word and bewildered to the highest degree by the assertion of Messiah’s resurrection, forgot the gravity of the occasion and of his own office, and branded the apostle as a madman, though softening the term by imputing it to his much reading. Calm in the sense of God’s presence and of the truth which alone gives true freedom, Paul shows the only moral elevation discernible in that splendid throng, and so with real courtesy rebuts the senseless charge with words bearing the stamp of the ‘truth’ he testified, and of the ‘sobriety’ in which he laid all before others.
Love gives a single eye. With that keen discernment which characterized him, he turns from the benighted heathen who saw nothing beyond the present life and therefore saw it only as a question of power and pleasure and fame, an utter degradation for the undying soul, consistent only in shutting out the light of the truth and even the warning of conscience not wholly ignorant of sin. From the heathen he turns to the Jewish king who, immoral though he was, knew what altogether condemned himself as well as the glorious visions of which Messiah is the centre in Holy Writ. ‘For the king’, said he, ‘is cognizant of these things, unto whom also I speak with openness, for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him: for this hath not been done in a corner.’ It was notorious that no man living was more interested in or familiar with all that affected the Jews than the younger Herod Agrippa. But how little such acquaintance with facts avails, unless the Holy Spirit bring the word of God home to an exercised conscience! unless a soul bow to God in the overwhelming sense of its own sin and ruin, yet clinging to the hope of mercy in Him! Still to one that owned scripture as divine the apostle could speak as he could not with the same degree of freedom to another who denied and scorned it.
Therefore he turns in the most unexpected way with an appeal to the king’s conscience: ‘King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.’ Surprised out of his imperturbable self-complacency, and endeavouring to cover his confusion by a jest the king replies for it is no answer, ‘With little pains thou art persuading to make me a Christian.’ Thus appears to be the sense if we take into account the critical reading in what follows. Were the Received Text justified which gives , ‘much’, this rendering could hardly stand, for the more natural force would then be ‘in a little while’, distinguished from ‘much time’
It is plain that Agrippa had no answer to what had been shown from scripture and the gospel facts. It is equally plain that the conclusion was irresistible, which he strove to parry. The truth is no question of reasoning but of faith in the testimony of God: only there is no root save in the conscience that owns sin and looks to God’s grace in spite of it. And Christ and His work on the cross give the troubled soul confidence; because God sent His Son into the world for the twofold blessing, blessings equally needed by the sinner and flowing from God Himself, that we should live through Christ, and that He should die a propitiation for us. Faith in God’s testimony of His love Who therefore gave His Son receives these infinite blessings in Christ. But it is not mere mind that makes the discovery; and if it were, it could avail nothing. It is only to the babe, to the broken in heart? to the consciously ruined sinner, that the truth comes from God. For He is calling souls to the knowledge of Himself, not training theologians. It is salvation made known in Christ, not religious science which the world builds up for itself out of it.
So the apostle takes up the king’s word to escape further parley, and takes it up with a love and dignity suited to the Holy Spirit that dwelt in him. It is the simple but deep utterance of a heart supremely happy in the Saviour, and in the assurance of grace in Him that could embrace not Agrippa only but all that composed his audience that day, What mercy to man! What goodness of God! What inexhaustible power and fullness in the name of Jesus! Even in the most general form such an ardent wish of blessing had been much. But the more clearly we regard his words the wonder grows. ‘I would to God that both with little and with great pains not thou only but also all that hear me this day should become as I too am, except these bonds.’
This largeness of heart suits admirably Paul who made known God’s righteousness unto all and upon all those that believe. This readiness to take all pains is in keeping with the debtor both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and to foolish, who working night and day not to burden any, preached the gospel to all. But the perfect happiness of his soul flows over when he wishes to God for them that they might be as he too was. What! the man who had been beaten for dead, and in prison for years, known to be innocent by successive governors, yet chained to a soldier night and day to please a people whom these governors despised and hated. Yes, this is the man who wishes for them all, by little pains and by great as the case might be, that they might not be forgiven or saved only, good a wish as this is, but far far more, that they might become even as he, filled with the conscious joy of being blessed with Christ and enjoying the present cloudless favour of God. Indeed nothing less is normal Christianity. Yet he adds, ‘except these bonds’: this he could not, did not, wish for one of them. Truly it was a soul that kept itself in the dove of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Was there one heart that responded, one conscience pierced? We know not, but only that forthwith the court retired, yet owned that the prisoner’s cause deserved neither death nor bonds. Agrippa especially, and he was the most competent to speak, declared that he might have been set at liberty but for his appeal to Caesar. How little the king knew God’s purpose or ways! Paul, as he suffered with Christ, was called in due time to suffer for Him. In due time he was to have his wish to become conformed to the death of Christ (Phi 3:9-11 ).
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 26:1
1Agrippa said to Paul, “You are permitted to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded to make his defense:
Act 26:1 “stretched out his hand” This was a gesture of greeting and oratorical introduction (cf. Act 12:17; Act 13:16; Act 21:40, in which gestures of the hand are used for attention and silence).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
unto. Greek. pros. App-104.
Thou art permitted. Literally It is permitted thee. Greek. epitrepo. Same word as “suffer” and “give licence” (Act 21:39, Act 21:40).
for = in behalf of. Greek. huper. App-104.
answered, &c. = was making his defence. Greek. apologeomai. See Act 19:33.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Act 26:1.] The stretching out of the hand by a speaker was not, as Hammond supposes, the same as the of ch. Act 12:17; Act 13:16. The latter was to ensure silence; but this, a formal attitude usual with orators. Apuleius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it very precisely: Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit. The hand was chained- . ., Act 26:29.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Let’s open our Bibles to the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts.
Paul was rescued by Lysias, the captain of the Roman guard from the mob that was attempting to beat him to death in Jerusalem on the temple mount. He was taken into protective custody by the Roman government and sent under special guard to Caesarea for his protection, where he appeared before the governor Felix who held Paul a prisoner for two years, more or less, as a political pawn. When Festus became the governor in Felix’s place, who had been replaced by the Roman Empire because of his corruption, Festus served Paul’s case and began to give Paul the run-around saying, “Are you willing to go to Jerusalem and answer these charges?” Paul said, “I appeal to Caesar.” Being a Roman citizen, Festus was obliged to send him to Caesar, but he had a problem. The problem was this: he could not really send him to Caesar without legitimate charges being made against him, and there were no legitimate charges. And so, he explained his problem to Herod Agrippa who came to pay a courtesy visit, and Herod Agrippa said, “Well, I will hear his case.” The whole idea now of Herod Agrippa hearing Paul’s case is that there might be made formal charges to send with Paul as he made his appeal unto Caesar.
And so, as we get into Chapter 26, we find that Herod Agrippa, who is the great-grandson of Herod the Great, who ordered the murder of the children at the time of the birth of Christ, who was the grand-nephew of Herod Antipas, who had ordered the death of John the Baptist, the son of Herod Agrippa I, who had put James to death and had imprisoned Peter. Herod Agrippa II, and Paul is now standing before him there in Caesarea to declare his cause, and the idea is that they might formulate charges against him to send with him as he goes to Rome.
Then Agrippa said unto Paul [after Festus announced the whole thing, Agrippa said unto Paul,] You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand and answered for himself ( Act 26:1 ).
Now, we usually see portrayed in the Roman court are, “Friends, countrymen,” you know, and you usually see them with a wave of the hand. And evidently, Paul had probably picked up this Roman custom. So now, appearing before Agrippa, Paul said, “I count it a privilege, Agrippa.” So he stretched forth his hand to answer for himself. He said,
I am really happy, king Agrippa, to be able to explain to you today the things that I’m accused of by the Jews: Especially because I know that you are an expert in all of the customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to listen to me patiently ( Act 26:2-3 ).
And so it was true that Herod Agrippa had become a real student of Jewish law and of Jewish custom, and he was noted for his vast understanding of the Jewish religion. Having read the scriptures and studied the prophets, he knew them well. Paul said, “I’m really very happy to be able to explain to you my case, because I know that you have a background in these things.” He said,
My manner of life from my youth, which was first among my own nation at Jerusalem, all of the Jews know. And those which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, would tell you that after the straightest sect of the religion, I was a Pharisee ( Act 26:4-5 ).
And the Pharisees were indeed the most orthodox of the orthodox; they were the radicals. They were the ones who went the second mile in a sense to be very exacting as far as the religious practices worked, because everything had to be just perfect for the Pharisees. They had their traditions and their customs. And now he said,
I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers ( Act 26:6 ).
He is referring to the promise of the Messiah.
And Paul said, “It is because of the promises that were made to our fathers, because I hoped in these promises that I stand here to be judged.” Interesting, knowing that Herod Agrippa knew the prophesies. He brings him right to these promises that God had made.
Unto which promise are twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, are hoping to come. [All of the Jews are hoping for the Messiah,] for which hope sake, king Agrippa, I have been accused of the Jews. Now why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? ( Act 26:7-8 )
Now, Paul the apostle, I am certain, was praying and hoping that somehow, some way, he could convert King Agrippa to the faith in Jesus Christ. I’m sure that Paul was thinking, “If this guy would just get turned on for the Lord, being the king over this territory, what an influence he could be.” Paul’s whole defense has one real purpose, and that is to convert Agrippa. And so he begins right away drawing Agrippa in saying, “Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?”
Most of the problems that people have today is with their concept of God. Most of the problems that people have with scriptures today is because of their concept of God. J.B. Phillips wrote a book, “Your God is Too Small,” and that is true of many people. Their concept of God is too small; it’s too limited. They have what they call the anthropomorphic concept of God. Man’s concepts of God, man’s idea of God or man creating God, and whenever a man creates a God, he creates Him too small.
There are people who are concerned today with many problems in the Bible. The parting of the Red Sea, the preservation of Jonah in the belly of the whale; things of this nature. They bring these up as troubling, difficult scriptures to deal with, only because their concept of God is too small. God could have actually made a trident submarine to surface and take Jonah in, then people wouldn’t have so much of a problem with it. But surely, if He can make the universe, He can make a fish large enough to house Jonah. God prepared a great fish. It wasn’t just any old shark or whale or whatever, it was a fish that God had prepared. So, if your concept of God is all that it should be, why should you think it a thing incredible that God could create a fish large enough to keep Jonah for three days? Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?
Difficulty must always be measured by the capacity of the agent doing the work. Now we look at this structure in which we worship tonight. You say, “Oh, this must have been a hard building to make.” No, it wasn’t. We had skilled workmen doing the job. We had men who knew what they were doing; skilled men on the job. It was a very easy task for them, for they had the proper skills and proper equipment. Now, to look at this building and say that we hired a bunch of trained dogs to put it up, then indeed it would have been difficult, because of the capacity of the agents that we’ve called upon to do the work. “Go grab the board, Rover, and bring it over to me. I want to nail it down here.” Well, you could have great difficulty because of the agent you called upon to do the work. But when God is the agent doing the work, any talk of difficulty is absurd. So the idea of resurrection from the dead, “Oh, that’s hard to take; that’s hard to believe.” And, of course, it was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead which was the thing that was really troubling; it was the stumbling block.
So Paul zeros right in on that area of difficulty, and he shows the inconsistency of the difficulty because God was the one who raised Him from the dead. “Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?” The Bible begins with these words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” ( Gen 1:1 ). If you can swallow that, you should have no problem with Jonah. If you can believe the first verse of the Bible, you should have no difficulty with the rest of it. A God who is big enough to create the heaven and the earth is big enough to do anything and everything else that the Bible says that He did. “Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?” I think that our lack of faith is always demonstrated by our great surprise when God has done something in response to our prayers. And we, so many times, even when we see the work of God, can hardly believe it. Our concept is so limiting. God help us, and God free us from a narrow concept, that we might see in Him the fullness of His glory and power and majesty and abilities. “Now, unto Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that you ask or think” ( Eph 3:20 ). Oh, God help us to get a correct concept of God. God free us from our narrow limited concepts.
Now, Paul begins with his own testimony.
I really thought within myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, which I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the Saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priest, and when they were put to death I gave my voice against them ( Act 26:9-10 ).
Again, Paul, no doubt, was a member of the Sanhedrin. He’s talking about the voice in the Sanhedrin, the vote against the Christians, putting them to death. He said he consented to the death of Stephen and those other early Christian martyrs. Paul consented to their deaths. “I gave my voice against them.”
And I punished them often in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme ( Act 26:11 );
Don’t you know that must have troubled Paul in his later Christian years when he thought of what a havoc he had wrecked upon the church before his conversion? I imagine he thought about those people that he had forced to blaspheme God, or to blaspheme Jesus Christ. I imagine it just really cut Paul deeply.
It is interesting how that here we have seen God do such a marvelous work, especially among those people who were drug-oriented. We’ve seen the glorious hand of God working in their lives, delivering them from hard drugs and setting them free from bondage and from addiction and all, and in many cases we’ve had people come to the Lord here who were once dealers. In fact, some of the major dealers in Southern California are now pastoring Calvary Chapels. But it was interesting to me, that so often when these fellows were converted who were dealers, we had several of them who immediately went to all of those that they were dealing drugs to to tell them that they weren’t going to be dealing any more, but to tell them that they had something better than drugs now that they wanted to share with them. And they sought to undo the evil that they had done by sharing Christ with these, that before they had dealt the drugs to, because it bothered them that they were guilty of helping to destroy lives.
I imagine such was the case with Paul. It probably really bothered him that he had actually forced Christians to blaspheme the name of Jesus. He said,
Whereupon as I went to Damascus with the authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the path a light from heaven, that was brighter than the brightness of the sun. It was shining all around me and those which were journeying with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks or the goads ( Act 26:12-14 ).
In those days, when they would put the yoke on a young ox, the young ox wouldn’t like that yoke and often it would begin to kick. And so, the fellow with the plow, if he had a single plow, would have this pole with a sharp point on it, and every time the ox would kick, he would hold that goad there at the back of the heel of the ox, so the ox soon learned not to kick. You go ahead and object, but it’s going to hurt, and the Lord said, “It’s been hard for you, Paul, to kick against the goads.”
The Spirit of God was no doubt dealing with Paul before his conversion experience. I believe that watching Stephen’s death, no doubt, had a tremendous affect upon Paul. The Bible said that Stephen’s face was shining like an angel and as they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Oh Father, don’t lay this sin to their charge. Into thy hands I commend my spirit.” I’m certain that this had a powerful affect; it was a goad. Paul found himself kicking against it, but somehow there was a conviction there that, “Hey, I’ve never seen anybody quite like that. I’ve never felt anything quite like what I felt when he was speaking.”
And Paul answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Arise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared unto you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of these things which you have seen, and of those things in which I will appear unto you; delivering you from the people [that is, from a ministry to the Jews], and from the Gentiles, unto whom I will send thee ( Act 26:15-17 ),
So his commission, basically from the beginning, was to go to the Gentiles.
Now his purpose or the purpose of the gospel, of the gospel itself entailed the opening of their eyes. That implies blindness. Paul, later writing to the Ephesian church said, “The god of this world has blinded their eyes that they cannot see.” A man who does not know Jesus Christ is blind to the truth many times. It’s worse when he’s not blind to the truth, but still does not believe. But the god of this world has blinded men’s eyes that they cannot see the truth. So Paul was to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.
There are two kingdoms in the world to date, two spheres of government: the government of God, and the government of Satan. They are mutually exclusive and antagonistic. Every man exists in one of these two kingdoms. You tonight are living in the kingdom of light or the kingdom of darkness. You’re living under the control of Satan or under the control of God. There are only two governing spheres of the universe. In the beginning there was just one, the kingdom of God. All things in obedience and in subjection unto him; God created angelic beings. One special being known as Lucifer, the anointed cherub, rebelled against the authority of God and formed a second government, the government of death and darkness. Ultimately, Satan’s kingdom is going to come down. In fact, it is close to the end of Satan’s reign now.
When Jesus returns, and I believe it will be very soon, to establish God’s kingdom upon the earth, at that time Satan will be bound and cast into the abusso. After a thousand years he will receive a short reprieve from the abusso, and at the end of that short period he will then be cast into gehenna, into outer darkness, the kingdom of darkness, cast into outer darkness.
How far out does space go? Well, it would seem that space probably goes to infinity. I can conceive of space just going out forever. Now, they do say that the universe as we know it, the galactic systems, go out probably some twelve billion light years. Now, those galaxies that are twelve billion light years away, their light is so faint that they can only be seen by the most powerful telescopes and, of course, then I think that there’s just a lot of, you know, how do they know there are twelve billion light years or ten billion light years when you get that far away? Let us say a person could travel out into space a hundred billion light years, beyond the furthest galaxy, so far out into space that the light of the universe does not penetrate that far. The Bible speaks of, “…unto whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever” ( Jud 1:13 ). There’s something very foreboding about darkness.
I was in the Oregon caves when I was a child, and way down there in the caves, as we were deep inside the earth there, they turned off all of the lights. And they said, “This is total darkness.” It’s the first and probably only time in my life I’ve been in total darkness. Total darkness is something that is very eerie. It is so dark you can almost feel it. I know that as a child, the first thing I did is just put my hand up and wave it in front of my eyes as close as I could to see if I couldn’t perceive any kind of movement at all, which I couldn’t; total darkness. “…unto whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.”
The kingdom of darkness will one day be in the blackness of darkness forever, and in the universe there will be only one kingdom again, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of light and life, and all of those within it subject unto God and to His authority, and what a beautiful universe that will be. How I long for that day, when every rebellious act and thought is put out and God reigns supreme.
So Paul’s ministry was to deliver people from this kingdom of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of light, to free them from the power of Satan that they might come unto God in order that they might receive the forgiveness of their sins, which is the affect of the gospel and the inheritance among those that are set apart by faith in Jesus Christ. So we who have come to believe in Jesus Christ have an inheritance. The Bible speaks about the inheritance of the saints in light. Sons of God is sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, “In that day I will say unto them, Come ye blessed of the Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world” ( Mat 25:34 ).
And it’s so easy to become a part of that kingdom; just by believing in Jesus Christ, those who believe in Him, who have submitted to His Lordship. It is a kingdom. You believe that Jesus is King. You bow to His authority, and by that bowing to his authority, yielding yourself to the authority of Jesus, you become a subject of His kingdom.
And so, Paul said,
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but I showed first unto them of Damascus, and then in Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then unto the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do the works that demonstrate repentance ( Act 26:19-20 ).
So Paul was calling upon people, even as John the Baptist, and even as Jesus did, to change, to turn, to turn from a life dominated by the flesh to the life dominated by the Spirit.
The word repent means actually, to change, and it isn’t a true repentance unless there is a change. There are many people who confuse sorrow with repentance. Now, I would imagine that if you would take a poll at San Quentin of the inmates there, and if you asked them, “Are you sorry for . . . ” Well, if you just ask them if you’re sorry, I’m sure you would get the answer, “Yes.” If they were honest, “Are you sorry for your crime that brought you here?” I don’t think that the answer would automatically be, “Yes.” If you’d say, “Are you sorry you got caught?” “Yes.”
So there is a difference between sorrow over what you’ve done and sorrow over being caught at what you’ve done. There are a lot of people who are sorry for their sins. They say, “I repent.” No, you didn’t. You haven’t changed. You’re still doing the same thing. That isn’t repentance. Repentance means to change. So Paul was calling on people to change for a life lived after the flesh to a life living after the Spirit.
And for these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and they were trying to kill me. Now having therefore obtained the help of God, I’m here today ( Act 26:21-22 ),
I mean if God hadn’t helped, I wouldn’t be here today. But you know . . . and it’s interesting having obtained the help of God. Now, God uses human instruments. Actually, it was the Roman soldiers that came and rescued Paul from that angry mob. Again, we need to recognize the supernatural in the natural. God works in natural ways.
We are looking always, it seems, for some ethereal hocus-pocus kind of a thing. And yes, now God is, you know, I feel chills, I feel tinglings; God is here! But we need to recognize God more in the natural. It is a spiritually insensitive person who can only recognize God in the violent you might say, only if there’s a great shaking or a great fire or a great movement of some kind. Oh, God is here! But you need to recognize the work of God in very natural ways.
There is the farmer who in the midst of this heavy storm was warned by the sheriff at ten o’clock in the morning that he’d better leave his farm, that they were expecting a flood in that area. And the farmer says, “Thank you, sheriff, but I’ve lived here for all my life, and so I’ll just, you know, stay here. I’ve never seen any flood come up to the house yet.” It continued to rain and the river started to rise, and at two o’clock in the afternoon a highway patrolman came by. The water was beginning to get up close to the house and he called to the farmer, and he said, “We’re evacuating this area. You better leave!” The farmer’s sitting there on his porch says, “Well, I’ve lived here all my life and I’m not really worried. I know the river and I’ll be alright. Thank you for your warning.” The water continued to rise; came up three feet in the house, and so the farmer climbed up on the roof, and the coastguard sent a helicopter over, and they shined the light down on the farmer, and they said, “We’re here to evacuate you!” He said, “No, that’s not necessary. I’ve lived here all my life, and I’m not worried about it.” So the river continued to rise until the farmhouse was swept from its foundation and went tumbling down and the farmer drowned. He said, “Lord, I don’t understand. I trusted You all my life. Why would You let me drown in the flood when I was trusting You? I don’t understand that, Lord. It seems when I trusted You that You would’ve rescued me from drowning.” The Lord says, “Well, let me look at the record here a minute. According to my records, I sent the sheriff by at ten o’clock in the morning. Then I sent the highway patrol by in the afternoon, and I even sent the coastguard in the evening.”
But you see, we don’t recognize God in the natural things, which we need to do. We need to recognize God in the natural things. So Paul, talking about the fact that the Roman soldiers actually came and rescued him from the mob, he is saying that, “I obtained the help of God. God helped me and delivered me from them who were trying to beat me to death, and thus God has sustained me to this day.” Recognizing that God uses human instruments to accomplish his purposes and his work. But seeing God in it, that’s our problem. We don’t see God in the everyday commonplace things. God make me more conscious of Him. We’re prone to take so many things for granted.
And Paul said,
I have been witnessing both to the small and to the great, and I’ve not said any other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come ( Act 26:22 ):
I haven’t added to the scripture, I’ve only been preaching the scripture, the things the prophets and Moses said would come,
That Christ should suffer ( Act 26:23 ),
That is, that the Messiah should suffer. Now, this was something that was foreign to Jewish thought. This was the thing that offended the Jews concerning Christ. They had in their minds the concept that the Messiah was going to set up a political kingdom, and to run the Romans out, and to establish a kingdom over the earth with Jerusalem as its center. And those scriptures that prophesied the Messiah being despised and rejected, those scriptures that prophesied the Messiah being cut off and receive nothing for himself, they spiritualized those scriptures.
Now, we find today a sequel, in that many people spiritualize the scriptures of the coming again of Jesus Christ. “Well actually, He’s coming in us, you see, and we are to be manifested. And the church in its glorified state upon the earth will be the second coming of Jesus. We are the body of Christ.” And they spiritualized the actual coming again of Jesus Christ, even as the Jews were spiritualizing those prophesies that related to His suffering, and only accepting those prophesies that related to His kingdom, His glory, His power.
So Paul said, “I was only telling them what their scriptures told them, that Christ was going to suffer.”
and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. As Paul was speaking, Festus [the Roman governor broke in and he] said with a loud voice, Paul, you’re beside yourself; your much learning has made you mad ( Act 26:23-24 ).
Now, a man beside himself was the man who talked to himself. You know, when a person gets in conversation with himself he’s usually in serious trouble, and many times this is a sign of mental incompetence, when a person, you see them talking to themselves and answering themselves, and arguing with themselves and all. You’re beside yourself. “Your much learning has made you mad.” He was probably able to observe Paul’s tremendous study habits. Paul was an avid student; read all the time. He said, “Timothy, please come and bring me the parchments when you come.” You know he was looking for study material.
But Paul said, I’m not mad, O noble Festus; but I speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knows of these things, of which I am speaking freely: for I’m persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner ( Act 26:25-26 ).
Now I’m sure that King Agrippa is aware of these things. He’s aware of Jesus Christ, he’s aware of the crucifixion, he’s aware of the prophets, the scriptures. These things weren’t done in a corner. And now Paul turns to nail him.
King Agrippa you believe the prophets? I know you believe the prophets ( Act 26:27 ).
This is known as the presumptive close. You know, you show them the various colors that they can buy these towels in. They have all these lovely shades of color. Now the presumptive close, you say, “Now, let’s see, which color did you want to order?” You know, you don’t say, “Do you want to buy these towels?” You presume they’re going to buy and you say, “Which color now did you want, or which color did you like? Oh, the purple. Alright. How many of those did you want?” Paul is using this presumptive close. “Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? Oh, I know you believe the prophets.”
Agrippa says, [Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on, hold on.] Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian ( Act 26:28 ).
Now, just what Agrippa said is a matter of great controversy among many Bible commentators. I don’t intend to enter into the controversy. Some believe that Agrippa was saying it scornfully, such as, “Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian. Are you out of your head? You think you’re going to persuade me? Are you trying to persuade me to become a Christian?” Or did he actually say, “Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” Was he close really to conversion? We don’t know. We’ll have to leave that with the commentators to fight out. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
And Paul said, I would to God, that not only you, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and all together ( Act 26:29 )
Now, Paul’s answer seems to indicate that he was just really saying, “Hey Paul, almost thou persuadest me.” That there was actually a real persuasion of Agrippa. Paul said, “I wish it wasn’t almost, but all together.”
I wish you were just like I am, except [I would have wished] these bonds [on you] ( Act 26:29 ).
Not almost, I wish it was altogether.
I think the tragedy of Agrippa so close. I think the tragedy of many lives today, so close. You see a person who comes very close to the kingdom, almost persuaded. But just somehow, they don’t take that final step in, and you think, “Oh, how tragic to be so close to eternal life, so close to the kingdom of God, so close to freedom from sin.” “Oh, would to God it was not just almost, but all together persuaded.”
And so when Paul had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice ( Act 26:30 ),
Who had been married twice before she moved in with her brother. And Bernice and King Agrippa were brother and sister. Later on she was to become the mistress of a couple of Roman emperors. Having heard this witness and the story of Jesus Christ, they now rose up,
And when they were gone aside, they talked among themselves, saying, This man has done nothing worthy of death or imprisonment. And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar ( Act 26:31-32 ).
You could have set him free. God had plans, though, for Paul in Rome. And so, to Rome we go.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Three times we have in Holy Writ a graphic report of the conversion of Paul. This may be accounted for partly from its being one of the most remarkable events of early sacred history, Paul having had a greater effect upon the Christian Church than any other living man. At the same time I think it teaches us that the Holy Spirit sets especial store by the facts connected with this very remarkable conversion. If he gives it three times, in the sacred volume, we ought to give it a triple attention, and see if we cannot learn therefrom.
Act 26:1-3. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I think myself happy, king Agrippa. because I shall never answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews. Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
With what courtesy does he speak! Paul is bold; but see how he is all things to all men! And he begins an address for his life with great adroitness and skill; teaching us that we are to use all the courtesies of life to those to whom they belong, and never to cause needless irritation. There is enough offence in the Cross of itself, without our being offensive when uplifting it.
Act 26:4-7. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews, which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers. Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hopes sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
For the Pharisees did hold very firmly the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and Paul often instances this, as being the very thing, though no longer a Pharisee, to which he was glad to give witness.
Act 26:8-11. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem; and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
He had the courage of his convictions. Believing a thing, he did not let it lie idle. He regarded the Christians as a pestilent sect, and, therefore, he hunted them down. He abhorred the name of Jesus of Nazareth as that of an imposter, and, therefore, he determined that no stone should be left unturned to overthrow his power.
Act 26:12-14. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Not It is hard for me to bear it, but It is hard for thee; as if, though conscious of being persecuted, our Lord. in that divine unselfishness which is so natural to him, forgot the kicks that were given to him, and only thought of the injury which Saul was doing to himself, when, like an ox that strikes cut against the goad, he injured himself.
Act 26:15-28. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul,
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Act 26:1. , It is permitted) Elegantly the impersonal form is used, permission is granted to thee, by Festus and by Agrippa. Agrippa was desiring to hear him.-, for) not merely concerning thyself. [This no doubt is what Paul has in hand; but in such a way as that he rather speaks concerning Christ.-V. g.]- , having stretched forth his hand) bound with a chain though it was. This gesture was appropriate both to the boldness of speech of Paul, and to the securing of his hearers attention.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 26:1-32
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
Act 26:1-32
1 And Agrippa said unto Paul,-After Festus had introduced the case, Agrippa seems to assume the chairmanship of the meeting; so he addressed Paul and told him that he was permitted to speak for himself. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grandest place. No charges are preferred against Paul; Festus had admitted that he had no proof of any charges. When Paul was granted the privilege of speaking for himself, he stretched forth his hand. This was the usual gesture for silence. Paul now stood before the assembly as a prisoner, with one arm, probably his left arm, chained to the soldier who guarded him. A wide contrast in earthly pomp and glory between Paul, an innocent prisoner in chains, and the royal robed court is here seen.
2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa,-Paul now makes his defence. It is not a defence in the strictest sense of that word; Paul is only being examined that Festus may learn more about him. Paul did not flatter King Agrippa when he said, I think myself happy, but was speaking courteously to the king. He was glad of the opportunity to preach Christ. The accusations which were made against him involved the gospel. It is only another opportunity for Paul to preach the gospel. Agrippa could understand Paul in all his references to Jewish beliefs and hopes. Pauls beginning in his defense before Felix (Act 24:10) was adorned with courteous language.
3 especially because thou art expert in all customs-Agrippa knew the Jewish religion; he knew the sects of Pharisees and Sad- ducees; he knew their expectations of a Messiah, their ceremonial laws; hence, he could hear Paul with patience and understanding. Pauls defense is divided into two divisions: (1) his early life which was well known as a Pharisee (Act 22:3; Gal 1:14; Php 3:5-6), and (2) his life as a prisoner. Agrippa II was especially fitted to act as judge, for he was not merely a ruler of Jewish lands, and the appointed guardian of the temple, but he was also in religion, professedly at least, a Jew. His father, Agrippa I, was famous for his rigid observance of Jewish rites.
4-5 My manner of life then from my youth up,-Pauls early life in Tarsus and in Jerusalem was open and known to all. Here Paul emphasizes his training and beliefs before his conversion. It is thought that Paul went as a youth to Jerusalem from Tarsus to get his education. Since all the Jews knew of his early life they could testify, if they would, that Paul belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, and was very jealous of all the tenets of faith and practice of the Pharisees. After the straitest sect comes from the Greek akribestaten hairesin, which is a superlative expression.
Paul was most rigid and precise in his life as a Pharisee. The word for sect is the same as that used in Act 24:5, and is sometimes translated heresy. Religion is from the Greek threskeias, and is the old word for religious worship or discipline. Paul knew the rules of the Pharisees, and he lived rigidly according to these rules.
6-7 And now I stand here to be judged-Thus far Agrippa could bear testimony to the truthfulness of all that Paul had said. It was his belief in the fulfillment of an old national hope that had brought him to the place that he now stands as a prisoner before Agrippa. The Pharisees had firmly and persistently hoped in the promises of God that a Messianic kingdom would be established, and Paul in preaching Christ was declaring that that hope had been realized. It was a strange paradox! Paul was now a prisoner for the very thing which the Jews emphasized so strongly and believed so confidently, and now he was made a prisoner by the Jews themselves! Paul had made the resurrection of Christ the basis of his gospel of the Messianic kingdom, and this had enraged the Jews. Paul declared that Jesus, who had been crucified and buried, was now raised from the dead, but the Jews denied this. (Act 25:19.)
8 Why is it judged incredible with you,-Paul turned suddenly from Agrippa to the audience. Incredible means unfaithful (Luk 12:46), faithless (Joh 20:27), or unbelievable. It is from the Greek apiston. The Greek shows that Paul is not only addressing Agrippa, but his audience. If God can or does raise the dead, why should anyone not believe that he has raised Jesus? If he has raised Jesus, has not the crucified One become the Christ? All that Paul had done was to preach that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; he had preached that this Jesus had been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead, and that he was now at the right hand of God, reigning over his Messianic kingdom. Why should Agrippa and others not believe in him ?
9 I verily thought with myself-Here Paul in his defense makes a turn to his conversion. His words express sympathy for those who are now as he was before his conversion; he had been led from unbelief to faith; he will not become discouraged even in Agrippa in a like transition. (1Ti 1:12-17.) Paul did not reason himself into Christianity by a chain of arguments, but he was brought into the highest degree of faith in it from the highest degree of prejudice. Paul is politely saying that he could excuse them more readily, because he was then sincerely doing the same kind of wrong to others which he was suffering then as a prisoner.
10 And this I also did in Jerusalem:-Paul here relates some incidents of his persecution of Christians before he was converted. He was an official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions the chief priests” who were Saddu- cees, though he himself was a Pharisee. Both Pharisees and Sad- ducees were then joined in persecuting Christians. When they were put to death, he says: I gave my vote against them. The Greek katenegka psephon literally means I cast down my pebble. The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Rev 2:17) and black ones for conviction or condemnation. They literally cast the pebbles into the urn. Many think from this that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and if a member of it, that he was married at that time, as no one was permitted to be a member of the Sanhedrin who was unmarried. It is possible to take this language figuratively as meaning that he gave his approval; hence, he would not be necessarily a member of the Sanhedrin. It seems more likely that he was a member. We know that he was not married when he wrote 1Co 7:7 f. It is possible that he was a widower at the time he wrote First Corinthians.
11 And punishing them oftentimes-Paul had no mercy on Christians at that time. Paul describes very accurately his zeal in persecuting Christians. He went from one synagogue to another in Jerusalem searching for Christians that he might bring them before the proper authorities and punish them. Sometimes the local Sanhedrin sat in the synagogues and were judges under Jewish law; punishment was administered in the presence of the judges and in the synagogues. (Mat 10:17 Mat 23:34; Mar 13:9.) I strove to make them blaspheme indicates that he was not successful in making them blaspheme. He attempted to make them blaspheme because the sentence of death was passed upon the one who blasphemed. In his mad efforts to cause them to blaspheme he used every means available. To blaspheme means to speak against God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Christians did not yield and maintained their integrity before God. Being exceedingly mad against them means that Paul not only acted in ignorance (1Ti 1:13), but that he might plead the temporary insanity of madness. He even went into strange cities, or foreign cities, which means that he went into cities outside Judea, perhaps in Galilee and Samaria, and especially Damascus.
12-13 Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus-Paul was clothed with his official authority as he journeyed to one of these foreign cities, Damascus. This is the third account in Acts of Pauls conversion; the other two accounts are found in chapters 9 and 22. In this third account of Pauls conversion some new details are introduced; they are as follows: (1) it was at midday (verse 13); (2) the light was above the brightness of the sun (verse 13) ; (3) this light enveloped not only Paul, but those that journeyed with me (verse 13) ; (4) the whole company fell to the earth (verse 14); (5) Jesus spoke in the Hebrew language (verse 14); (6) he said, It is hard for thee to kick against the goad (verse 14); and (7) a much fuller account of what Jesus said to him, and in particular how he commissioned him to preach to the Gentiles (verses 16, 18). The variations noted in the three records of his conversion impress us with the truthfulness of the narrative, because they are so natural as to be a certain accompaniment of the same story told at different times.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth,-Paul and the entire company traveling with him were smitten to the earth, and Paul heard the voice of the Christ speaking to him in the Hebrew language, and asking him why he persecuted Christ. The voice quoted a proverb: It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. This is found as a proverb in both Greek and Latin literature; some think that there was a similar proverb among the Hebrews. A reference to this proverb by Paul at this time would impress upon Festus and Agrippa Pauls culture and education. This throws some light on the state of Pauls mind before his conversion. Some think that Paul was already stifling conscientious doubts and scruples, and that he is warned against rebelling against Gods will and wounding his conscience the more deeply. The goad was a stick six or eight feet long. The plow had but one handle and the plowman held the plow with one hand and the goad in the other; it was carried horizontally and used to prod the ox to make him go faster or obey the plowman. If the ox kicked when pricked with the goad he received a severer prod.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord?-Here the record is brief; Saul simply asks who spoke to him, or Who art thou, Lord? The record of the answer of Jesus is equally brief; he simply says, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. The word persecute is the Latin persequor, which means to follow through or after. Paul was following the disciples of Jesus and punishing them; to persecute a disciple of Jesus is to persecute him.
16 But arise, and stand upon thy feet:-Paul had been cast down; now he is to be raised up; he was smitten down and humbled before God that he might be exalted. There was no occasion for Paul to be afraid; he is summoned to a new and nobler work. He is to cease his persecution of Christ and go preach him as the Savior of man. He was to become a witness for Christ both in what he had already seen and heard and what he was yet to see and hear. Paul was an apostle because Jesus had appeared to him, taught him, and commissioned him. (1Co 9:1 1Co 15:8.) Paul had other visions besides the one on the road to Damascus. (Act 18:9 Act 23:11; 2Co 12:2.) Paul is here given a twofold mission : (1) he is to be a minister, which meant a servant; the service was to proclaim remission of sins and an inheritance among the saints to the Gentiles; (2) furthermore, he was to be a witness; that is, he was to testify what he had seen and heard. The witness oftentimes must go further than verbal testimony: he must suffer and perhaps die for Christ. Witness and martyr are represented by the same word in the Greek, martures.
17-18 delivering thee from the people,-Delivering is from the Greek exairoumenos, which means both to choose out, to select one from many and also to rescue, to deliver. Some commentators hold to one meaning here and others to the latter sense; even some have given it both meanings. It seems that the American Standard revisers have given it the correct meaning. It must have been an encouragement to Paul to recall the assurance given him; he could face the trials and persecution with the assurance that the Lord would deliver him from the enemy. We have here condensed what Jesus said to Saul: (1) as he lay on the ground; (2) by the mouth of Ananias; (3) and in the vision in the temple. Paul was commissioned to convince, enlighten, and instruct. By enlightening the people they could see their lost condition; by instructing them they would know how to turn from darkness to light, and be delivered from the power of Satan unto God; they would then be cleansed of their sins and receive a promise of an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ. Satan is from the Greek satana, and means adversary, the inveterate adversary of God and all good; Satan is the head of the kingdom of evil, and of the whole hierarchy of evil spirits and evil influences. (2Co 11:14; Eph 1:21 Eph 6:12; Col 2:15; 2Th 2:9.) Pauls recitation of these words of Jesus to him justifies himself before this cultured audience for his response to the command of Jesus, which resulted in Pauls arrest and imprisonment.
19-20 Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient- Paul here makes a direct address to Agrippa. He had made it clear that his command had come from God, his message was a heavenly vision. He emphasized the divinity and authority by which he was commanded; he omitted the personal affliction of blindness and restoration to sight. The divine authority of his command is made clear to Agrippa; this would impress Agrippa more than the others. For Paul to be disobedient to this command from heaven would have been disobedience to God. How could any devout Jew refuse to obey the command? Next Paul began to recite what he did; he began to declare both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles the gospel of God. This included a demand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance of sins, and obedience in baptism. This sketch of Pauls work showed to Agrippa that he began with his own people, and then went to the Gentiles. His service both to Jew and Gentile, according to his commission, was promptly rendered; he did not hesitate for a moment, but began at once. We know from the record that Luke has given that it is easy to trace Pauls preaching at Damascus and Jerusalem. Barnabas testified that he preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus (Act 9:27), and that in Jerusalem he disputed against the Grecian Jews (Act 9:28-29), but we have some difficulty in fixing the exact date of his preaching throughout all the country of Judea. Works worthy of repentance is an expression frequently used by John the Baptist. (Mat 3:8.) This meant the natural fruit of true repentance.
21 For this cause the Jews seized me-Paul here tells Agrippa why he was arrested or seized by the Jews; first, because he went about preaching the gospel, and especially because he delivered the message to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, thereby proclaiming that the kingdom of the Messiah made no distinction on account of nationality. Pauls unpardonable sin in the eyes of the Jews was his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul had been seized violently and illegally; he had been retained as a prisoner without cause; he now stood before Agrippa in chains as a prisoner for obeying God.
22 Having therefore obtained the help-Paul attributed the help that he had obtained from God as the source of his strength to continue suffering for Christ Jesus. The divine assistance enabled him to continue his work. The same source from which his commission had come was the source of his help. The memories of the stoning which he had received at Lystra, the persecutions of Philippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica, the danger in the theatre of Ephesus, and the later deadly perils at Jerusalem, all were endured by the help that was from Jehovah. Paul did not regard rank or age; he preached the gospel both to small and great. He had preached the gospel to the poor, and now he was preaching it to King Agrippa and Governor Festus and the nobility of Caesarea. He had not gone beyond what the prophets and Moses did say should come. He neither added to nor left off anything that had been said through Moses and the prophets.
23 how that the Christ must suffer,-The prophets had foretold the sufferings that Christ would endure; some give the interpretation of must suffer to mean that there was no escape of Christ from suffering; others give this the meaning of his nature as to how he may suffer; that is, the degree of sufferings that he could endure. When John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, it was a new idea to those who had studied Isaiah and learned that the Messiah would be the suffering servant of God. Paul here showed two things: (1) that the Messiah was divinely destined to suffer; and (2) that the Messiah having suffered was the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead. Christ having been raised from the dead would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. People usually means Gods people, Israel, as distinguished from the heathen.
24 And as he thus made his defence,-At this point Paul was rudely interrupted by Festus; it seems that he forgot the usual dignity of his office and burst out into a loud laugh of scorn and said; Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad. Mad is from the Greek mainei, which means raving. Festus did not understand Pauls enthusiasm and his speaking of visions and the resurrection of the dead. He thought that Pauls much learning was turning him to madness. Much learning literally means many letters. (Joh 7:15.) Our word mania, or maniac, comes from the Greek manei. Paul had not displayed any high degree of learning, but what he had said was beyond the comprehension of Festus.
25 But Paul saith, I am not mad,-Paul was not mad; he was not a maniac as Festus declared, but spoke the truth. He spoke words of truth and not vain imaginations or fancies; he had no disease of the mind; his words were well chosen and expressed accurately what he had seen, heard, and experienced. Paul addressed Festus with his usual courtesy. He had not spoken words of fancy, but solid facts; not wild flight of the imagination, but literal and exact truth.
26 For the king knoweth of these things,-Festus did not understand, but King Agrippa understood. Agrippa was a Jew by practice, and knew about the hopes that the nation had in a coming Messiah; he knew something of the predictions of the prophets. He had heard much about Paul; hence, he understood Paul. Paul knew that his manner of life before his conversion and after his conversion was known to the public; furthermore, he knew that the crucifixion and burial and resurrection of Christ were public facts. Christians did not try to keep them secret, but published them to the world. The Jews had attempted to stop the preaching of these facts, but had failed to do so. Pauls experiences were not kept secret either; his vision on the road to Damascus, his coming to Jerusalem, and all that he had done had been published. Agrippa knew all these things. After answering Festus. Paul turned and continued his address to Agrippa.
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?-Paul had cornered Agrippa; he makes this direct appeal to Agrippa. As a professor of the Jewish religion Agrippa had accepted the prophets; hence, Pauls direct challenge to him. He must now reject the prophets or believe Paul. He must give up the Jewish religion or believe what Paul had preached. Paul probes the heart of Agrippa a little deeper when he added: I know that thou believest. There was nothing left now for Agrippa but to believe what Paul had preached or to reject it. To reject it would be to reject the prophets and the Jewish religion. Agrippa might dispute Pauls interpretation of prophecy, but he could not as a Jew and in the presence of a Jew speak of Paul as Festus had.
28 And Agrippa said unto Paul,-Agrippa is forced to make reply; he could not evade; neither could he deny what Paul had said. Paul had not accused his enemies of any crime. His defence was the preaching of the gospel; he did not plead for himself, but reasoned and persuaded Agrippa to accept Christ. What a turn affairs had taken! The Authorized Version has Agrippa saying: Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. En oli- gio does not mean almost, but it is not clear as to what it does mean. Some think that it may refer to time, in little time, while others think that it means with small effort you are trying to persuade me to be a Christian; while still others think that Agrippa is speaking ironically, but not unpleasantly. He seems to push it aside for the time being, as if to say: Do you think that you can make me become a Christian by your speech making? Festus was contemptuously ignorant; King Agrippa was sadly in-different. Christian is here used the second time by Luke. The first time is in Act 11:26. There were many reasons for hindrances in the way of Agrippas becoming a Christian. His wealth, his throne, his companion, his associations with Bernice and others, all were hindrances in becoming a Christian. Perhaps his nature was touched and he was, like Felix, made to tremble; but also like Felix, he procrastinated, with no intention ever to accept the Christ.
29 And Paul said, I would to God,-Paul makes a very happy response to Agrippa. We can gather some from Pauls answer as to what Agrippa meant. If Agrippa spoke ironically or sarcastically, Paul ignored his tone and responded courteously and sympathetically. Whether with little or with much may be translated both in little and in great; it may mean that Paul says: I would pray to God, not as you put it, lightly, but as fully as I can, or I would pray to God that whether persuaded with little evidence or much, or I would pray to God that both in a little measure and in a great measure Agrippa might become a Christian. He desired that Agrippa become as he was except these bonds. He would have Agrippa and all others be Christians, but would have them free from the persecution and bonds which he had to endure. Paul had been brought before the assembly chained after the Roman fashion to a soldier or soldiers who kept guard over him. These chains had not been removed while Paul made his defence. Paul was bound in chains, but Agrippa and the others were in the bonds of ignorance, bonds of sin, and bonds of imperfection.
30-31 And the king rose up, and the governor,-The entire company led by King Agrippa rose up as if to dismiss Pauls address. The royal assembly had gathered with pomp; some of them may have been moved with curiosity; others to do honor to King Agrippa; but they withdrew-some of them hopelessly ignorant of what they had heard; others withdrew with indifference, and possibly tired of listening to Paul; still others with some conviction and a clearer understanding of Pauls case. When they had retired, they spake one to another, and expressed themselves as being convinced that Paul had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds. They may have assembled with different motives and viewpoints, but they are all agreed on this one thing; namely, Paul is innocent. Pauls words had made a favorable impression on them. However, they were all puzzled as to what disposition to make of Pauls case. Paul had won none of them to Christ, but he had won their favor. Festus was left by their confusion in the same predicament that he was before Paul made his defence. Why did they not set him free ?
32 And Agrippa said unto Festus,-This answers why Paul had not been set free. Agrippa told Festus that Paul could have been set free if he had not appealed unto Caesar. Paul had appealed to Caesar only because Festus had tried to get him to go to Jerusalem and be tried there. Festus comes out with no honor in the case. Since Agrippa had some influence with Caesar, it may be that Festus could write something favorable to Paul when sending him to Rome. The authorities could not free themselves from the responsibility for the safe custody of Paul, and by releasing him, they would expose his life to the conspiracies of the Jews. So at least Paul gained that safe journey to Rome which he had for many years been wishing to make.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Agrippa intimated to Paul that he might speak, and the apostle spent a moment in introductory words, and then uttered his great apologia, in which a twofold purpose is evident, first, his own defense, and, second, the declaration of the way of salvation. In defending himself he ignored the charges against him, but explained the change of front in his own career. Thus he dealt with the underlying reason which had prompted his enemies’ opposition. He gave the story of his conversion, his commission, his consecration. Throughout it is evident that he was making plain the way of life.
Festus, a Gentile, saw nothing in Paul’s discourse save evidences of madness. While Paul was answering Festus, he addressed himself principally to Agrippa, and evidently attempted to constrain him to honesty on the basis of intellectual conviction. Agrippa’s answer, accurately translated in the Revision, “with but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian,” was a contemptuous sneer. Paul’s rejoinder was at once dignified and tender. He calmly assumed the authority of his own position, even though he was a prisoner wearing a chain; and then in exquisite tenderness wishing that Agrippa might be such as he was, he added the words, “except these bonds.”
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Paul Permitted to Speak for Himself
Act 26:1-11
Though Pauls defense before Agrippa is in substance the same as that from the castle stairs at Jerusalem, it differs in the extended description of the remarkable change which had passed over his life in consequence of the direct interposition of Jesus Christ. And in the opening paragraph he lays great stress on his determined opposition to the doctrine of Christ, as a proof that his conversion was trustworthy evidence.
Stretching out his hand, the Apostle began by congratulating himself on the opportunity of laying his case before the great-grandson of Herod the Great, whose elaborate training in all matters of the Jewish religion made him unusually competent to deal with the matters in debate. He asked why it should be so hard to credit the attested fact of the Lords resurrection. He granted that he himself had resisted the evidence when he had first heard it. Indeed, he had everything to lose if he accepted it. His fiery persecution of the Christians proved at least that he was an impartial witness. So he pleaded before that group of high and mighty potentates. What a contrast between their splendid robes and sparkling jewels, and the poor, worn, shackled prisoner! But they are remembered only because of this chance connection with Paul, while Paul has led the mightiest minds of subsequent ages.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
In this chapter of Acts we are given the account of Pauls testimony before Festus and Agrippa. In Acts 22 we noted that Pauls testimony is recorded five times in Scripture. Here in Acts 26 we read the third account of his conversion. Even though he was addressing King Agrippa, who had been brought up in the Jewish religion, he had in mind the Roman governor Festus. Therefore he presented the story of his great experience in a way that ought to have appealed to a Gentile as well as to King Agrippa. Paul was following his own rule for reaching men for Christ, I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some (1Co 9:22).
The first eleven verses of Acts 26 are devoted (at least in large measure) to the time of Pauls unconverted days. We are told that Agrippa said to Paul: Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself. Recognizing Agrippas acquaintance with the Jewish religion, Paul felt that he would be able to understand at least in measure something of what he had gone through.
Paul recounted his life as a young man who thoroughly believed in Judaism as the final revelation from God. He declared: My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
You will notice the peculiar grammatical construction of a part of this sentence, the most straitest sect of our religion. One is reminded of Mark Antonyms expression as given by Shakespeare, That was the most unkindest cut of all. Ordinarily we do not use a double superlative like this, but the apostle Paul wanted to stress the fact that no man was ever more firmly convinced that Judaism was Gods final word to mankind than he was. He believed in it with all his heart. He lived it. He was not simply a Jew by profession.
Many today call themselves Jews, yet are not at all careful about observing the customs of the Jewish people or the ordinances of the Jewish religion. It was otherwise with this young man. He was most punctilious about attending to everything that the law commanded. He carried out not only what was written in the law of Moses but the additional traditions of the Pharisees in Israel.
The Pharisees were the most religious and the most conscientious of Jews. I know we Gentiles are accustomed to think of Pharisees as though they were all hypocrites, but that is not necessarily true. Many of them were hypocrites, just as there are many professing Christians today who are hypocrites. The Lord Jesus had some very stern things to say to some of the Pharisees. Woe unto you, Pharisees, hypocrites. He condemned them for making long prayers in public just in order that they might be seen of men. He condemned them for sounding a trumpet to announce that they were giving alms. But on the other hand there were Pharisees who were sincere and intensely earnest. Saul of Tarsus was one of these. No man is a hypocrite who can say, I live what I profess; and Saul could say, I lived a Pharisee.
Even as a Christian he wanted Agrippa to understand that he was not divorced from the great outstanding truths of Judaism. There is not one truth that God has revealed through Moses and the prophets that is denied by Bible-believing Christians. We believe with our Jewish brethren in the unity of the Godhead, but we also believe that God is a trinity, revealed in three glorious persons-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We believe in the importance of knowing God, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, and living in obedience to His Word. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, and in the final judgment-the eternal punishment of men who die in their sins, and the everlasting blessedness of the righteous. So Paul could say to Agrippa, The Jews who have known me could testify that I have lived a Pharisee.
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hopes sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews (26:6-7).
What did he mean by that? He meant this: I am standing here today in chains because I believe with all my heart what every honest Jew believes. I believe in the resurrection of the dead, but I believe that Jesus Christ has already been resurrected. I believe in the Messiah promised to Israel, and that Jesus Christ is that Messiah, and that he died for our sins, just as depicted in Isaiah 53. I believe that He was raised from the dead and taken up to the Fathers right hand as described in Psalm 110; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Paul could say, I believe all of these things, and I stand here a fettered man because I believe with all my heart what you Jews profess to believe. I am convinced that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish hope.
Then he added, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? I take it that here he was addressing Festus directly, for Festus had ridiculed the thought that Jesus Christ could be alive again. But why should one think it incredible that the same Lord who created this universe, and breathed into man the breath of life, could also be able to bring back His own blessed Son from the dead, or any others whom death has claimed?
Then Paul continued to tell Agrippa something of the circumstances of his life before he knew Christ. He said, I thought I ought to be opposed to Jesus Christ. I have no doubt there are some people who really believe they are doing right in opposing the gospel of the grace of God. Let me stress this: Sincerity of belief does not in itself prove anything. You might, for instance, board a railroad train and be absolutely sincere in thinking that it was going to take you to Minneapolis, and yet you might later discover that it was going to Omaha. Your sincerity of belief would not alter the facts. It would not change anything. Saul of Tarsus sincerely believed that Christianity was a delusion. He sincerely believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a deceiver. He sincerely believed that the Christians were a fanatical people who ought to be rooted out of the world. He was sincere, but he was sincerely wrong. You see, you need to test your facts by the revelation God has given. Should not a people seek unto their God?…To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa 8:19-20).
Sincerely believing that Christianity was wrong, Paul acted accordingly: Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. This seems to imply that Paul himself was a member of the Jewish high council, otherwise he would not have been entitled to participate in their deliberations. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. In these words he covered his whole life from his childhood up to the moment of the great crisis when the Lord Jesus was revealed to him as the Son of the living God.
Next, Paul related his conversion experience. However you may try to explain the event on the Damascus road, however you may understand it, the fact remains that something happened that day which changed this man completely. He himself told us what happened. You may not want to believe him, but then how are you going to account for the marvelous change in his life and in his way of thinking and acting from that moment on? One instant he is the hater of the Lord Jesus Christ and the bitter persecutor of Christians; the next he is a humble, obedient Christian, willing to lay down his very life for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And for thirty years he continued in the position he took that day. What brought it about? He had seen the Christ of God. God was pleased to reveal the Lord Jesus directly to this man. He felt himself struck to the ground, a light from heaven shining round about him. He said, I could not see for the glory of that light. He heard a voice in the language that he loved the best-the Hebrew tongue-calling him by name and pleading with him tenderly, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
In commenting on Pauls conversion experience (Acts 9), we noted that something within Saul revolted against the bitterness of persecution. He was uneasy at heart. Perhaps he remembered the light that he had seen in the face of Stephen who, looking like an angel, cried, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And he may have remembered Stephens words, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Perhaps Paul was conscious of the prayers of his kinsmen, to whom he referred in Romans 16 as those who were in Christ before me. Who can question but that these kinsmen of Saul often prayed for their young relative, prayed that God might speak to him and quicken him, that he might come to see and know the Lord Jesus! So he was like a refractory ox kicking against the goad that was prodding him. When Jesus appeared, he cried out, trembling and amazed, Who art thou, Lord? And a voice came back, an audible voice from Heaven, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. The revelation of Jesus Christ changed everything! That is what conversion really is-when a man is brought for the first time in his life to look in saving faith upon the face of the Lord Jesus.
Some try to explain away the wonder of Pauls conversion. Someone in Britain years ago insisted that it was to be explained in this way: Paul was evidently an epileptic, and as he went along the Damascus road he had a fit and fell to the ground, foaming at the mouth, and thereafter was a changed man! Spurgeon said, Oh, blessed epilepsy that made such a wonderful change in this man! Would God that all who oppose the name of Jesus Christ might become epileptics in the same sense.
Some are saying today that it was a sunstroke. A modern writer declared that as Saul traveled on the road the sun became so hot he was struck and fell to the ground, and that was his conversion! As I read it, I thought, Would God that all modernists could be so sunstruck that they might begin to preach Christ, and so come back to the grand old gospel of redemption by the blood of Jesus! And yet I am quite in agreement with the modernist explanation except for one letter. It was a Son-stroke, not a sunstroke! It was the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus the Son that struck home to the very heart of that man and opened his eyes to see the One he had been persecuting-the Savior of sinners. And so the great change took place.
The voice of the Lord continued speaking to Paul: I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee. This was Pauls ordination to the ministry. No human hands had anything to do with it. Henceforth he could say:
Christ, the Son of God, hath sent me
Through the midnight lands;
Mine the mighty ordination
Of the pierced hands.
The blessed Christ of God commissioned Saul that day to be His messenger. He was to go forth as His witness. As such he would be rescued from his own people, the Jews, and the Gentiles, unto whom now he was to be sent; for this mans work was to be particularly among the Gentiles, though he never forgot his own people. Everywhere he went it was the Jew first.
What was his commission? To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. What a glorious, full commission was this! It is as though the Lord was saying, Saul, all over the world men are sitting in darkness, and in the shadow of death. They are blind; they cannot see. But you are to go out as My servant and, as you proclaim My Word, these blinded eyes will be opened and men will be turned from darkness to light, from the awful, ruinous power of Satan to God Himself who waits in grace to save them. When they turn to Him, they will be cleared of every charge that God had against them, and they will have a glorious inheritance among those who are separated unto God in Christ Jesus through faith. This was his message, and this is the message that God is still sending out into the world. Oh, how mens eyes need to be opened! They are open enough to the things of this world, but they are blind to the things of eternity. And Gods truth alone can give enlightenment. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple (Psa 119:130).
Beginning with Act 26:19, we read something of Pauls life after his conversion. He said the essence of his message to Jew and Gentile alike was that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Sometimes we are told that repentance has no place in the message for this present glorious dispensation of grace. But here is the man who is preeminently the apostle of grace saying in essence, Wherever I have gone, this has been my message, to tell both Jews and Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God, and do works that prove their repentance.
What is repentance? It is a complete change of attitude. It is a rightabout-face. Here is a man who is living in open, flagrant sin, and he does not care anything about the things of God and is totally indifferent to the claims of righteousness. But once the Spirit of God takes hold of him, he suddenly comes face to face with his sins in the presence of God. He turns rightabout-face and comes to the God he has been spurning and to the Christ he has been rejecting and he confesses his sins and puts his trust in the Savior. All this is involved in repentance.
We look at yet another man. He is not living in open sin, but has been living a very religious life. He has been very self-righteous. He has been thoroughly satisfied that because of his own goodness and because of his punctilious attention to his religious duties, God will accept him and eventually take him to be with Himself. But suddenly he is brought to realize that all his own righteousnesses are but filthy rags, that nothing he can do will make him fit for Gods presence, and he faces this honestly before God. For him too there is a change of attitude. He turns away from all confidence in self, the flesh, his religion, and cries: In my hand no price I bring; simply to Thy cross I cling. This is repentance. It is a rightabout-face.
And so everywhere that Paul went he preached repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And today God, through His servants still calls on all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead (Act 17:30-31). It is repent or perish; turn or burn! Face your sins now and find deliverance from them or face them in the day of judgment when it will be too late for deliverance.
In bringing his marvelous account to a close Paul added: I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come (26:22). That is, there is not one thing in Christianity that is contrary to any truth revealed in the Old Testament. There is a greater fullness. We have been given additional light on many old truths, but every servant of Christ today who is really faithful to the Word can say what Paul said.
Paul himself opened up wonderful truths of grace not hitherto made known. The glorious truth of the believers justification from all things; his union with Christ; the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the truth of the one body. In all these truths Paul shared the light revealed to him as the messenger of the risen Christ.
As Paul spoke for himself, Festus the skeptic, Festus the rationalist who would not acknowledge the miraculous, leaned forward and cried, Paul, you are going crazy. You have been dwelling too much on religious problems, and have lost your wits; you dont know what you are talking about. Paul looked the Roman governor straight in the face, not a sign of fanaticism about him, and calmly, coolly, answered: I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Turning to Agrippa for corroboration, he said: For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
Then addressing Agrippa directly, he pressed the question home: King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? Without waiting for an answer, he added, I know that thou believest. And Agrippa, leaning forward, exclaimed, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Possibly that is not an exact translation. Perhaps it was, as a more literal translation records it: With but little persuasion would you try to make a Christian of me! Paul answered: I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. And he held up his manacled hands! Oh, Agrippa, I wish you and Festus and Bernice and all the rest here, I wish that you had the same blessed hope that I have. And that is what we say to all who do not know Christ.
Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar. But God had permitted him so to appeal in order that he might witness in Rome.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Act 26:8
The Resurrection a Fact of History.
I The fact that Christ has risen from the dead is the assumption on which St. Paul builds up all his teaching on the subject of the resurrection. It is true that we should consider more carefully than we are in the habit of doing what is involved in this. There are signs that modern religious thought stands in need of the invigorating influence of the facts on which Christian theology is constructed. St. Paul preached two facts-one, the resurrection of Christ in the body, as the firstfruits of the general resurrection of mankind; the other, the spiritual resurrection, as directly connected with the former, as flowing immediately from it. How easy would the Apostle’s task comparatively have been, if he had thought it right to conceal the first fact and publish only the second! He would have pleased rather than alienated the intellectual Greek by expounding the miracle of a spiritual resurrection, if he had only consented not to press the physical resurrection of Christ-God’s power over our bodies as well as souls. The Sadducee would not have interrupted his discourse, but listened on, and smiled to listen to a dream so beautiful. But St. Paul had nothing to consider but truth, and he spoke it to the end.
II. If Christ has not risen, then is your faith vain and our preaching vain. Beware of dreaming that somehow, some day, there will be a change in you from evil to good-from restlessness to rest-from sorrow to joy-while at the same time you hold it as an open question whether Christ rose again. Let us not dream that we can rise out of our dark selves, save by what St. Paul calls in no figure, but as the most literal of facts, “the power of His resurrection.”
A. Ainger, Sermons, p. 195.
I. However far back the successive orders in creation may date, however dim and incalculably distant, or however comparatively recent the period of their first issue from the creative influence and however gradual the mode of it-nay, however in the course of countless myriads of centuries they may have developed, according to some conjectures from some single, original, and very inferior type-still the first production of that original and inferior type was a miracle, for nothing can come out of nothing except by an act, not of combination but of new creation; and the first appearance of that something, however imperfectly organised, was a miracle. It would seem to be an inference from this that for the performance by the Almighty of some transaction hitherto unprecedented, the only condition wanted is a competent necessity, an adequate occasion, a sufficient inducement.
II. With the competency of the occasion comes the special exercise of omnipotence. If the beneficent design of affording a life’s happiness to the creature and its progeny was sufficient to evoke the exertion of omnipotence in the creation and animation of a worm, was the authentication of the sublimest hopes of mankind, the confirmation of their belief in Jesus, the revival of their confidence in immortality,-was this too small an object to demand, to deserve, to justify, to render probable the employment of almighty power in the reanimation of the Son of God? If the enjoyment of one day’s life to a little insect were enough to evoke a miracle in the creation of the ephemeris, was the assurance of immortality to all mankind, the verification of the gospel, and the planting of the foundation-stone of Christianity,-was this too little to be worthy of even such a miracle, so vast, stupendous, and august as the resurrection of the Redeemer?
W. H. Brookfield, Sermons, p. 168.
I. Why should it be thought a thing incredible to us that God should raise the dead? If I am God’s child, partaker of Divine nature, I have the right to say that the natural, the credible, the probable hypothesis is, that my Father would give me an immortal existence; and if I can say that, then I have the right to remind you that if revivification of the spirit of man be probable, all this mass of historical testimony that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter morning regains its old value, and that it becomes natural, credible, possible, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
II. What are the consequences of so momentous a belief as that? Why, first, that we believe Christ’s testimony about God, that we have an eternal Father, that He so loved us as to send His only begotten Son to save us from our sins, that He would not that the vilest and weakest should perish, but that all should come to repentance. What is more credible than that message, in sight of the fact that on Easter morning Christ overcame death? Do not let any man mistake. If we let go our hold of this truth, there will necessarily follow a lowering of hope and effort in every direction. If man thinks himself to be no better than a beast, he will live the life of a beast, he will seek the joys of a beast, seeking his happiness merely in sensual gratification. If we are not immortal, how can we sustain heroic effort or prolong sacrifice? And if when we leave our beloved at the edge of the grave we have to pronounce over their insensible remains, “Vale, vale in ternum vale,” then I say it is madness to encourage those deep affections of the heart, which then would become a despair and a torment. How shall we escape these terrible consequences? Simply, I believe, by clinging to Him who is the Resurrection and the Life, who has on this blessed Easter day conquered death and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Bishop Moorhouse, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxix., p. 273.
References: Act 26:8.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1067; E. G. Robinson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., p. 250; W. M. Taylor, The Gospel Miracles, p. 61; Act 26:9.-Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 120. Act 26:9-11.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., p. 47. Act 26:14.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 202; Ibid., My Sermon Notes: Gospels and Acts, p. 195. Act 26:16-20.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., No. 1774.
Act 26:18
I. The object of faith is Christ. “Faith that is in Me,” which is directed towards Christ as its object. Christianity is not merely a system of truths about God, nor a code of morality deducible from these. In its character of a revelation it is the revelation of God in the person of His Son. Christianity in the soul is not the belief of these truths about God, still less the acceptance and practice of these pure ethics, but the affiance and the confidence of the whole spirit fixed upon the redeeming, revealing Christ. The whole attitude of a man’s mind is different, according as he is trusting a person or according as he is believing something about a person. And this, therefore, is the first broad truth that lies here. Faith has reference not merely to a doctrine, not to a system, but deeper than all these, to a living Lord,-“faith that is in Me.”
II. Consider the nature and the essence of the act of faith itself. Whom we are to trust in we have seen; what it is to have faith may be very briefly stated. If the object of faith be more than truths, more than unseen realities, more than promises, if the object be a living person,-then there follows inseparably this, that faith is not merely the assent of the understanding, that faith is not merely the persuasion of the reality of unseen things, that faith is not merely the confident expectation of future good; but that faith is the personal relation of him that believes with the living Person its object-the relation which is expressed not more clearly, but perhaps a little more forcibly, to us by substituting another word, and saying, Faith is trust.
III. The power of faith. If a man believes, he is saved. Why so? Not as some people sometimes seem to fancy-as if in faith itself there were any merit. A living trust in Jesus has power unto salvation only because it is the means by which the power of God unto salvation may come into my heart.
IV. Note, finally, the guilt and criminality of unbelief. It is the will, the heart, the whole moral being, that is concerned. Why does a man not trust Jesus Christ? For one reason only, because he will not. Unbelief is criminal because it is a moral act, an act of the whole nature. Belief or unbelief is the test of a man’s whole spiritual condition, just because it is the whole being, affections, will, conscience, and all, as well as the understanding, which are concerned in it; and therefore Christ, who says “Sanctified by faith that is in Me,” says likewise, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.”
A. Maclaren, Sermons in Manchester, 1st series, p. 167.
Act 26:18
For us, as well as for St. Paul, were these words spoken. For us, in these far days, did that vision of exceeding brilliancy appear, which put to shame the light even of the mid-day Eastern sun; and for our sakes, as well as for his, were these words spoken, by which the whole current of his life was changed, and an entirely new future opened out before him. Remember:-
I. How light is used elsewhere in the Bible as a symbol and a type of God. From the time when the creative voice of God is heard sounding through the darkness of chaos, from the time when first the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, calling light into existence, down almost to the concluding words of the last page of the Book of Revelation the symbolical meanings and uses of light are scattered broadcast over the sacred page. The words of our text contain, in brief, the history of every man who attains finally to salvation. Born in darkness, it is necessary that a light from heaven should shine into a man’s soul before he can be made fit to enter in through the gates into the city, or be worthy to stand in the presence of Almighty God.
II. Though from one point of view man is but a shadow which easily departeth, yet what a foreshadowing of futurity there is in the higher parts of man! What mysterious powers man finds in himself! What lessons are taught us by the marvellous capacities which a man is conscious of as existing within himself from time to time!-powers and capacities which he cannot fully understand, and which are not even at all times fully under his control, and yet are possessed of a power and a strength which at times positively startle him. Look at that impalpable thing we call a soul. Without entering on any definition of that mysterious power of existence, we can yet learn many lessons from it. We learn that there is within us, so to speak, an existence which shall live consciously through all the ages of eternity and in this life is now only very partially within our power; but within us there is a spiritual life which can be exalted or debased, conformed more to the image of God or to the image of Satan, according to our behaviour in this world, and the measure of grace given to us, and our use or abuse of that grace. There is an illumination of the heart for which all should crave. There is One, gentle in speech, tender in manner, loving in heart, who has declared Himself the enlightener of all that come to Him. It matters not to what stage of the spiritual life we have yet attained: we all need that light to guide us “ever more and more unto that perfect day.” Fear not if that light seem to be long in coming. Let us be ever striving manfully towards that light, and then, though at times storms may beat upon us, yet for us, too, at length there will come the rift in the cloud, and for us at even-time it shall be light.
E. Wilberforce, Penny Pulpit, No. 697.
References: Act 26:18.-Good Words, vol. iii., pp. 315, 317; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 343.
Act 26:19
The Heavenly Vision.
I. Note, first, that the heavenly vision shines for us too.
II. The vision of Christ, howsoever perceived, comes demanding obedience.
III. This obedience is in our own power to give or to withhold.
IV. This obedience may, in a moment, revolutionise a life.
A. Maclaren, The Unchanging Christ, p. 236.
Reference: Act 26:19.-A. Macleod, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 360.
Act 26:19-20
Conversion of St. Paul.
I. The conversion of St. Paul meant that he became convinced of the mission of Jesus Christ. It convinced him of that only, as he says himself, because it pleased God to reveal His Son in him, because he was brought to know that the Son of God was the Lord of his spirit and the Lord of man, and that this Son of God must be that Jesus whom he had rejected as a crucified man.
II. St. Paul’s conversion was, as to its law and principle, a typical one, and the circumstances in it which are never likely to recur were designed to fix that which is universal in it more deeply in our minds. Do I mean that we all have need of a conversion such as his was? I can only answer, Wherever there is aversion, there must, I conceive, be conversion. Wherever the eye shrinks from the light, there must be some power to make it turn to the light. If we are not conscious of anything which makes us unwilling to have our deeds made manifest, I cannot admit that unconsciousness as a decisive proof that there is nothing. I rather think that those who are most desirous of truth feel most their inclination to be false, crave most for help against their falsehood. St. Paul’s conversion was the joyful recognition of an Almighty Friend whom he had suspected as an enemy, and his conversion created no chasm between his earlier years and his later. It brought into unity years that had seemed to be hopelessly asunder; for now he knew that God had been with him at Tarsus, in his rabbinical studies, in his mental anguish. Periods that he would once have given the world to blot out for ever were overshadowed by a Divine love and forgiveness which made the memory of them precious to him.
III. There was a crisis in St. Paul’s life. There may be a crisis in the life of every one of us. But the crisis of a fever does not determine the issue of death or of recovery. And this crisis is only the moment when we yield passively to the death which has been always stealing upon us and threatening to devour us, or put our trust in One who has undergone death that He might deliver us out of the jaws of it. Let the history of St. Paul’s conversion teach us that we are to interpret repentance, “Turning to God.” It is to have no other sense in our vocabulary.
F. D. Maurice, Sermons, 1st series, p. 157.
References: Act 26:24, Act 26:25.-T. J. Crawford, The Preaching of the Cross, p. 76. Act 26:25.-Expository Outlines on the New Testament, p. 134; Good Words, vol. iii., pp. 186, 187; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 106; vol. iii., p. 30; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 265.
Act 26:26
The Publicity of Christianity.
I. This statement, made in reference to a particular case, holds good in regard to the whole doctrine and claim of Christianity. The juggler has his secrets; the crafty man has his darkened rooms; the imposter has his hidden wires and invisible screws; whereas the truly honest teacher conceals himself behind no curtains, mutters no incoherent incantations, but walks openly in the sunny day, and shows his heart alike to the keenest reader and to the simplest child. This is precisely the case with Christianity. We are invited by Christianity to look upon disclosures as open as the sky, and to rest upon assurances which are strong and simple as the rocks. Of Christianity we may say truly, “This thing was not done in a corner.” It was not done when men were asleep; it was not huddled up, lest any man should detect a flaw in the process; it was done openly; there was brightness on every side,-there was a challenge to every enemy. All this I claim as pointing an argument in support of Christianity.
II. Can any other religion show anything like this in wealth and splendour of publicity? All this publicity is but the practical side of a great argument, and applies to us in this day. Christ does not want any sneaking followers; He calls for courage, simplicity, boldness, emphasis, earnestness of tone. Christianity has a practical as well as a controversial side. Take out of your history, out of your families, out of your own individual lives, all that Christianity has done directly and indirectly, and you exhaust civilisation, you exhaust yourselves. To act, that is preaching. There is an eloquence of behaviour; there is a logic of conduct; there is a high controversy; and men of simple, pure, lustrous character win the victory.
Parker, City Temple, vol. iii., p. 217.
Act 26:28
Note:-
I. Some of those hopeful and encouraging indications of character which may be found in a person who, after all, is nothing more than an almost Christian. Thus, (1) There may be a great deal of religious knowledge in such a person. This was evidently the case with Agrippa. He was a man in advance of his age. It was in no spirit of fulsome compliment, we are sure, that Paul gave as a reason for the satisfaction he felt in pleading before such a judge-“Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews”; and then appealing to his acquaintance with Jewish theology to certify whether, in believing the possibility of a resurrection, he was doing more than filling up the outline of those hopes and anticipations which their twelve tribes had cherished, from the days of Abraham until that day. And so, also, it may be with us. We may be before many around us in religious intelligence, may be mighty in the Scriptures, deeply read in creeds, exact, sound in all our views of the plan of salvation; and yet, by reason of all this knowledge being unapplied-the will not being influenced by it, the affections not purified by it-may be no better Christians than Agrippa was. (2) Other qualities of head and heart will easily occur to you as both consistent with, and often specially marking, the religion of an almost Christian-such as amicableness of disposition, gentleness of temper, tastes, studies, feelings, tenderness, which, if nothing were told us to the contrary, we should be ready to conclude were hopeful indications of the Christian character. The counterfeit deceives many, and often deceives ourselves.
II. Why is it that people persuaded to go so far in the Christian life cannot be persuaded to go further? The religion of the almost Christian would go further if there were anything of sincerity in such religion as he has already. But there is not. True religion is never worth anything till you come to take some pleasure in it for itself. But this absence of love for God is not the only reason why people are satisfied to remain almost, and not altogether, Christians. There is the predominant love in the heart of something else. Little as he would like to be told it, the almost Christian might with equal truth be designated the almost idolater. The great truth that stands out everywhere in God’s Word is that in the future world there are two states, and two states only. We read nothing about a middle condition-nothing about a paradise of mediocrity-nothing about a heaven for the almost saved. And so if we must fix a value on such a persuasion as Agrippa had, and such a persuasion as, it must be feared, many have with him, it must be this-that it had been better for him never to have been persuaded at all.
D. Moore, Penny Pulpit, No. 3162.
I. What were the gains of Agrippa? For a few years more he kept the glories to which he clung; he played his part of king on the world’s stage, and men bowed to him the crooked hinges of the knee and paid him lip homage, and he sat in the chief place of honour at wearisome feasts, and was the principal figure in hollow court ceremonials and empty pageants of state; and then the play was over and his little day was done, and darkness of night swallowed up all, and he carried nothing away with him when he died (except indeed his sins); neither did his pomp follow him. His gains were not after all so very large, and, such as they were, they did not tarry with him long.
II. But his losses, or rather his loss? He lost himself. He had not gained the whole world-only a miserable little fragment of it, and this but for a moment, for a little inch of time; but in the grasping and gaining of this he had made that terrible loss-shipwreck-of which Christ speaks-had lost himself; in other words, had lost all. Whatever our bonds may be, it is worth the while to break them, as in the strength of Christ they can be broken. These mountains of opposition, it is worth while to cry to Him that He would make them plain. It is well worth the while. A few years hence, and it will be with every one of us as it was with King Agrippa not very long after these memorable words were uttered, and then how utterly insignificant, not merely to others but to ourselves, will it be whether we were here in high places or in low, rich or poor, talked about or obscure, whether we trod lonely paths or were grouped in joyful households of love, whether our faces were oftener soiled with tears or drest with smiles. But for us, gathered as we then shall be within the veil, and waiting for the judgment of the great day, one thing shall have attained an awful significance, shall stand out alone, as the final question, the only surviving question of our lives: Were we almost Christ’s or altogether? in other words, Were we Christ’s or were we not?
R. C. Trench, Sermons, New and Old, p. 11.
I. Agrippa was a king, and must have thought of the state, station, power that he would in all likelihood have to lay down if he took up the religious profession of an obscure, despised, and persecuted sect. He loved the praise of man, and thought of the taunts, the jeers, the neglect he would have to encounter from those with whose views and habits his own had heretofore been congenial. He was a proud man, and he would have to confess that for all his life he had been in the wrong, while the fishermen of Galilee were in the right. He was the friend of Csar, and thirty years before it had been most truly, though most insidiously, said, “If thou let this man go thou art not Csar’s friend!” His kingdom was of this world, and the kingdom of Christ was not. Such thoughts we may imagine passing through his mind with the rapidity of instinct. He counted the cost after his fashion, but it was too great. He never adopted either the profession or the moral practice of a Christian.
II. The case of many of us resembles that of Agrippa. We remain yet to be persuaded altogether, and distinctly to adopt the active practical life which belongs to the designation we profess, and are only almost persuaded to obey the Lord of Truth at all hazards, and to adorn the gospel of charity in all things and through all difficulties. Every rational conviction of the conscience is a visitant from God-an angel sent to trouble the pool; and if it be neglected, then both the conviction and the opportunity that has awakened it must be recorded against you. Be sure of this-every neglect of such opportunities is trifling with God; and every such trifling will operate to the abatement of His long suffering, till at length the fatal sentence will be pronounced: “He is joined to idols-let him alone.”
W. H. Brookfield, Sermons, p. 175.
References: Act 26:28.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xv., No. 871; R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 127; J. Natt, Posthumous Sermons, p. 371; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., pp. 105, 258; vol. v., p. 105. Act 26:29.-Sermons for Boys and Girls, p. 200; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., pp. 114, 184.
Acts 26
St. Paul’s Defence before Agrippa.
Observe:-
I. What is the central truth of the Christian system. It is a very suggestive fact that Festus had got hold of the kernel of the whole subject, as we see in his conversation with Agrippa, when he said, “Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” Now, this can be accounted for only on the supposition that Paul had given special prominence to the resurrection of Christ. It was, and is in fact, the very keystone of the arch, and everything else depends on it.
II. What is the normal type of the Christian man. It is a man of faith. Paul’s faith had a peculiar influence. He was not one of those who seek to divorce religion from life. Nay, rather, his religion was his life, and his life was his religion. The two things interpenetrated each other. Religion was the very atmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being; and his faith regulated even the minutest details of his conduct. To be a Christian is to have faith in the living personal Saviour, Jesus Christ, and to have that faith itself a living thing pervading the conduct.
III. Observe the gate of entrance into the Christian life. This is illustrated both in Paul and in Agrippa. St. Paul was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. But now look at Agrippa. In Paul’s appeal a heavenly vision had been given to him also. He is urged to accept Jesus and His salvation; but he is disobedient, and resists the appeal, either with disdain or with a twinge of conscience which makes him feel that he is doing violence to his better nature. No man becomes a Christian against his will; it is by willing to be so that he becomes a Christian, and it is over this willing that the whole battle of conversion has to be fought. The if he will is the Thermopyl of the whole conflict, the narrow and intense hinge on which the whole matter turns-the gate into the Christian life.
IV. Observe, finally, that short of this gate of entrance, no matter whether we be near or far from it, there is no salvation. “Almost saved,” if it be no more, is in the end altogether lost, and that in the most melancholy circumstances.
W. M. Taylor, Paul the Missionary, p. 425.
References: Acts 26-W. M. Taylor, The Gospel Miracles, p. 61; J. Natt, Posthumous Sermons, p. 371; Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 1.20; R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 127; Sermons for Boys and Girls, p. 200; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 202; vol. xxx., No. 1774; vol. xv., No. 871; C. J. Vaughan, The Church of the First Days, vol. iii., p. 321; Parker, City Temple, vol. iii., p. 217; A. Maclaren, Sermons Preached in Manchester, 1863, p. 180; A. Brookfield, Sermons, p. 168; R. W. Dale, Discourses on Special Occasions, p. 179. Act 27:1-3.-T. Gasquoine, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 401. Act 27:1-6.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. viii., p. 60. Act 27:6.-A. M. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 184. Act 27:13, Act 27:14.-J. M. Neale, Sermons in a Religious House, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 485. Act 27:15-26.-T. Gasquoine, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 27. Act 27:20.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1070; R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, p. 71. Act 27:21.-G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons and Addresses in Marlborough College, p. 28. Act 27:22.-J. O. Davies, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxi., p. 560.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 26
1. The Address of the Apostle Paul (Act 26:2-23).
2. The Interruption by Festus and the Appeal to the King (Act 26:24-29).
3. The Verdict (Act 26:30-32).
The opening words of the Apostle are indeed gracious. Even as he stands in chains the great Apostle counts himself happy. His happiness consisted in the knowledge that he was now privileged to bear witness of His Lord and the Gospel committed to him before such an audience. What an opportunity it was to him, and how he rejoiced that he could speak of Him, whom he served. He also honored the King by a brief remark in which he expressed his delight in speaking before one who was so well acquainted with Jewish customs and questions. Then he restates his life as a Pharisee.
At once he touches upon the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? The whole history of Israel bears witness to the fact that God can bring life from the dead. The very origin of the nation demonstrates this, for Sarahs womb was a grave, and God brought life out of that grave. Many promises of the past vouched for Gods power to raise the dead. The nation had this promise that spiritual and national death is to give way to spiritual and national life (Eze 37:1-15; Hos 6:1-3). The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ proved Him to be the Holy One and the Hope of Israel. In this sense Peter speaks of His resurrection. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Pe 1:3). The grave of the Lord Jesus was for the disciples the grave of their national hope, but His resurrection from the dead the revival of that hope. Once more he also relates the sad story of how he persecuted the saints. Upon that dark background he can now flash forth again the story of his conversion.
Then the proper moment had arrived to state the Gospel message before this company. It is a terse statement of the message which the Lord had committed unto him. All the elements of the Gospel are contained in the eighteenth verse. There is first the condition of man by nature. Eyes, which are blind, in darkness, under the power of Satan. The eyes are to be opened and through the Gospel man is turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God. In Col 1:12 the same is stated. Then the blessings of conversion. Forgiveness of sins and an inheritance. Faith is the means of all this; sanctification, that is separation, in conversion by faith that is in me. One wonders if the Holy Spirit even then did not bless the message to some heart, and the Grace of God bestowed these blessings upon some believing sinners. It may have been so. The day will make it known.
Festus interrupted him, and when Paul addressed the King directly, he answered him by saying: Almost persuadest thou me to become a Christian. The meaning is rather by a little more persuasion you might make me a Christian. No doubt conviction had taken hold on him. In this half mocking way he answers the Apostle. How many after him have acted in the same way and rejected the Grace, which stood ready to save.
The verdict of a private consultation is This Man doeth nothing worthy of death. Herod Agrippa said unto Festus This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar. If Paul had not made his appeal to Caesar he might have then been freed. We have seen before that his appeal to Rome was according to the will of the Lord. To Rome then he goes. All is ordered by a gracious Lord.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
72. PAUL’S TESTIMONY BEFORE AGRIPPA
Act 26:1-32
Though Paul stood before a Roman tribunal in defense of his life, he seized the opportunity to tell both the court and his accusers what God had done for him and in him by his free and sovereign grace in Christ. In the thirty-two verses of this chapter, he describes himself, his life, his conversion, and his ministry. In doing so, he faithfully fulfilled his responsibility as Jehovah’s servant (Isa 44:8; Act 1:8), preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified even to his captors. The preaching of the gospel always calls for sinners to become followers of Christ, trusting him as Lord and Savior. Agrippa understood that from Paul’s words and said, after Paul had finished speaking, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” What did Paul tell Agrippa that so moved him?
First, THE APOSTLE TOLD AGRIPPA THAT HE HAD BEEN A LOST RELIGIOUS ZEALOT (Act 26:1-11). He said, “After the most strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee” (Act 26:5). Saul of Tarsus never was a profligate, immoral person. He was from his youth an upright, religious man, a man of principle and integrity. Like the rich young ruler, he kept the law from his youth up. In so far as the letter of the law and its outward requirements were concerned, he was blameless (Php 3:4-6). Yet, he was lost! Unlike most religious people, Saul was a very zealous man. He was devoted. He studied the Scriptures with diligence. He talked about the things of God with zeal. He was wholehearted, earnest, and thoroughly committed. Saul of Tarsus never neglected the hour of prayer, the study of God’s Word, or the house of God. So zealous was he in religion that, in accordance with Old Testament law, he persecuted those who followed Jesus of Nazareth relentlessly, believing them to be blasphemers. Saul was so zealous that most who truly worship God must blush with shame, when comparing themselves to him. Yet, he was lost! Moreover, Saul of Tarsus was thoroughly orthodox in his doctrine. This man was no scoffer, skeptic, or liberal. And he certainly was not an Arminian! Even before he was converted, he knew and embraced doctrinal truth (Act 26:4-8). I do not mean to suggest that he had spiritual understanding. But his doctrine was basically orthodox. Saul was a Pharisee. He believed in divine election, divine sovereignty, absolute predestination, total depravity, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection of the dead, and even particular redemption. No Pharisee, or anyone else who understands the Old Testament sacrifices, ever dreamed of a universal atonement! Saul even looked for the Christ, believing all the Old Testament prophecies relating to him. His doctrine was right. Yet, he was lost! Saul believed in Christ as a matter of doctrine, but he did not know Christ. He believed all that the Bible said about Christ; but he did not know him (Joh 17:3). He was a lost religious zealot.
Secondly, AT GOD’S APPOINTED TIME, SAUL OF TARSUS WAS CONFRONTED, CONQUERED, AND CONVERTED BY THE GRACE AND POWER OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (Act 26:12-15). There is a time of love appointed by God for the saving of each of his elect (Eze 16:8; Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3; Gal 4:4-6). For Saul, the appointed time and place of mercy was when he was on his way to Damascus to persecute the saints of God there. Suddenly, the Son of God stepped into his life. He was not seeking the Lord; but the Lord sought him. He was not looking for grace; but grace looked for him. He did not find the Savior; but the Savior found him (Isa 65:1; Act 9:1-20; Act 22:6-21).
He was “in the way”. Though he did not know it, Saul was in the way that would lead him to Christ, following a prearranged path, walking in a preordained way. Each of his steps were ordered by the Lord, predestinated and marked out before the world began (Pro 16:9; Rom 8:28).
Saul of Tarsus was an object of God’s electing love. There were many travelling the Damascus road that day; but only one was called by God’s effectual power and grace because only one had been chosen and redeemed. The irresistible grace and call came only to the chosen (Rom 8:29-30; 2Th 2:13-14).
The proud Pharisee was conquered and subdued by the revelation of Christ. The Lord Jesus met him in the way, revealed himself in him, and called him with a call he could not resist. He saw the Lord (Act 26:13), heard his voice (Act 26:14), and surrendered to his will (Act 26:15). All who are saved by God’s grace are saved by the same sovereign intervention of God into their lives (Eph 2:1-6; Gal 1:15-16).
Thirdly, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF PUT PAUL INTO THE MINISTRY (Act 26:16-18). God’s preachers do not decide to go into the ministry and begin looking for a place to preach. Any man who goes looking for a place to preach will compromise to get it and compromise to keep it. God’s preachers are made by God and put into the work of the ministry by him. Paul said, “I was made a minister” (Eph 3:7-11). God’s preachers are sent by God with a message to proclaim to men. As it was with Paul, so it is with all who are called of God to preach the gospel. Their message and their method is determined by God. Paul was required to preach what he had experienced, no more and no less (Act 26:16). It was his privilege and responsibility to carry the light of the gospel into a world of darkness and superstition (Act 26:18). The message he was sent to preach was clear and simple (Act 26:18). The Lord Jesus sent Paul to preach to sinners the forgiveness of sin by his blood (Eph 1:6), the hope of eternal life by his grace (2Th 2:16), and sanctification (holiness) by faith in him (1Co 1:30).
Fourthly, PAUL WAS OBEDIENT TO HIS MASTER (Act 26:19-23). Wherever he went, he preached the gospel to all, Jews and Gentiles. His message was always the same (1Co 2:2). He constantly preached repentance toward God (Act 26:20), redemption by Christ (Act 26:23), and the resurrection of the dead (Act 26:23). He preached the first resurrection, which is spiritual regeneration by the power and grace of God the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:3-8; Joh 5:25; Rev 20:6), and the resurrection of the body at the last day (Joh 5:28; 1Th 4:13-18).
Fifthly, BEING CALLED OF GOD, PAUL WAS FAR MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SOULS OF MEN AND THE GLORY OF GOD THAN HE WAS HIS OWN COMFORT AND WELFARE (Act 26:24-32). He stands as a prisoner in chains before Festus and Agrippa. Yet, he is not seeking freedom, or even to prove his innocence. Paul’s obvious intent in this defence of himself was to make Christ known to his captors. Read the chapter carefully. Throughout these verses, Paul was pointing Festus, Felix, Bernice, and his accusers to Christ as the Hope of Israel (Act 26:6), the crucified Savior (Act 26:9), the Light from Heaven (Act 26:13), the exalted Lord (Act 26:13-15), the Head of the Church (Act 26:14), and the sovereign God (Act 26:16-23). He told them that forgiveness, eternal life, repentance, redemption, sanctification, resurrection, and faith are all the gifts of God’s free, saving grace in Christ. Festus considered him nothing but a madman (Act 26:24-25). But Paul (Act 26:26-32), sensing that he had gotten Agrippa’s attention, pressed the claims of Christ upon him personally and urgently. Agrippa was according to his own words, “almost persuaded” to become a worshipper and follower of Christ – “Almost persuaded”, but lost at last! Being reproved and instructed, Agrippa deliberately hardened his heart. Therefore, he perished. All who follow his example should tremble with fear (Pro 29:1).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Thou: Act 25:16, Pro 18:13, Pro 18:17, Joh 7:51
stretched: Pro 1:24, Eze 16:27, Rom 10:21
answered: Act 26:2, Act 22:1
Reciprocal: 2Sa 14:12 – Say on Psa 119:46 – speak Luk 12:12 – General Act 9:15 – and kings Act 17:19 – May Act 18:14 – when Act 19:33 – his Act 24:10 – had Act 25:13 – king Rom 1:1 – Paul Phi 1:17 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
ON THIS OCCASION there were no tedious preliminary proceedings. Agrippa immediately gave Paul permission to speak for himself. Thus set free, he was able to dispense with all mere details of self-defence, and come straight to the message with which God had entrusted him, after acknowledging Agrippas expert knowledge, and beseeching for a patient hearing.
He began by stating that he had been brought up in the strictest form of Judaism amongst the Pharisees, and that what was now charged against him was in connection with the hope that all Israel had entertained from the days when God gave His promise. That hope they still held, but Paul maintained there had been a fulfilment of it in Christ, and particularly in His resurrection. So from the outset of his address he kept the resurrection well to the fore, as being the main point at issue. Yet resurrection lay beyond mens thoughts, whether Jewish or pagan; hence his question, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? It would be utterly incredible if only men were in question: bring God in-the real, true, living God-and it is incredible that it should not be.
In this third account of his conversion we find the Apostle greatly emphasizing the determined and furious opposition to Christ which characterized him at the beginning. He was indeed a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, as he told Timothy: he carried it to the point of being exceedingly mad against the disciples, and persecuting them even to distant cities. This was the way in which he did the many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. It was at midday, when the sun shines most strongly, that another light brighter than the sun arrested him on the road to Damascus, and the voice of the Lord was heard. The uncreated light threw the created light into the shade.
Several interesting features, not mentioned in the earlier accounts, appear here. The light from heaven brought the whole company down into the dust, and not Paul only. Further, the voice was in the Hebrew tongue. This is remarkable, for we have been told earlier that though his companions heard the voice it conveyed nothing to them. It was in their own language, yet they did not understand. They were affected physically, but only Paul was affected spiritually. The essential element in conversion is not great sights, nor wonderful sounds, but the life-giving work of the Holy Ghost. Jesus was manifested only to Paul, and that in such a way that he discovered Him to be his Lord.
When he owned Jesus to be his Lord, he was told plainly what he was to do as regards his own personal salvation. That we learned from the earlier accounts. Here only are we told that at the same time the Lord told him with equal plainness, that He was apprehending him to make him the servant of His will in a very special way. He was to be a witness to others of that which had just been revealed to him, and of further things that yet were to be made known to him by the Lord. Here only do we learn of the way in which the Lord commissioned him from the outset, and what the terms of that commission were. They are very striking, and they account very fully for the remarkable career which we have been tracing in the earlier chapters.
The Lords purpose was that he should be delivered, or taken out from among the people, and the Gentiles; that is, he was to be separated both from his own people, the Jews, and from the Gentiles, so as to stand in a place distinct from both. It has often been said that the Lords words, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, were the first intimation that the saints were His body: we may perhaps say that the words we are now considering were the first intimation of the distinct place the church occupies, called out from both Jew and Gentile. Paul started by himself being put in the place into which were brought all those who believed the Gospel that he was commissioned to preach.
But, as the end of verse Act 26:17 says, he was specially sent to the Gentiles. As we have before noticed, he was blessed to many Jews as long as he followed his commission in the Gentile world; it was only when he turned aside from this to address himself specially to his Jewish brethren, that he failed to reach them. How fully this warns us that our Master must be supreme, and that our wisdom is to abide by His plan for our lives and service. To the Gentiles he was to go, that he might open their eyes.
This was a new departure in Gods ways, for hitherto they had been left to go their own way. They had been in darkness and ignorance, but now their eyes were to be opened.
If, through Pauls labours, their eyes were effectually opened, they would turn from darkness and the power of Satan to light and God. This is what we mean by conversion. It must of course involve conviction of sin, for none of us can come into the light of God without that conviction being wrought in us. But then as the result of turning there is the reception of forgiveness. There is the Divine act of forgiveness in which we may rejoice, and not only so, but we also enter into an inheritance which we share in common with all those who are set apart for God. Forgiveness is what we may call the negative blessing of the Gospel and the inheritance is the positive. Forgiveness is a loss rather than a gain-the loss of our sins; of the love of them as well as of the penalty they entail. The inheritance is what we gain.
And all this is by faith that is in Me. Here we have the way in which the blessing is reached. Not by works, but by faith; and of that faith Christ is the Object. The virtue is not in the faith but in the Object in whom faith rests. Thus from the very moment of his conversion Pauls future course and ministry was marked out for him, and by revelation from the Lord he was given the message that he was to preach. We have then in verse Act 26:18, a complete summary of the blessings that the Gospel brings to the one who receives it in faith. The eyes of his heart and mind are opened to the truth; he is brought out of darkness into light, and from Satans power unto God; his sins are forgiven and he knows it; he shares in the inheritance common to those who with himself are set apart for God.
Having received these instructions, Paul had been faithful to his commission, and beginning where he was and widening out to the nations, he had showed to men everywhere what their response to the Gospel should be. They should repent; they should turn to God; they should do works in keeping with the repentance they professed. Repentance involves that coming into the light which enables one to see and judge ones own sinfulness, and then the confession of it before God. Now the more we see our own sin, the more we distrust ourselves; the more we distrust ourselves, the more we learn to trust in God: consequently turning to God follows this turning from ourselves. All this is an inward process of mind and heart of a more or less secret nature, but if it is real it soon produces actions and works in keeping with it. If there be no works meet for repentance, we may be sure that the repentance professed is not the genuine article. Paul insisted on all three things, and he knew of course that not only are they Gods appointed way in which the blessings of the Gospel are received, but they are themselves produced by the Gospel, where it is received in faith.
Now it was just this which had so stirred up the animosity of the Jews, for if this was the way of entrance into Gods favour, it was as much open to the Gentile as to the Jew. But he made very plain to Agrippa that what had been predicted by Moses and the prophets lay at the foundation of all that he had preached. He announced the suffering of Christ; His resurrection; and that as risen He should bring the light of God to all mankind -not only Jews, but Gentiles also. How clearly this last point is stated in Isa 49:1-26, just as the death and resurrection of Christ are predicted in Isa 53:1-12.
In verse Act 26:23 then we have a plain testimony rendered to Agrippa, Festus, and all others present, as to the glorious basis of fact on which the Gospel rests. Indeed we may say that primarily the preaching of the Gospel is the declaration of those facts, and we need to keep them in the forefront of our preaching today as much as in Pauls day. Then, as we have seen, verse Act 26:18 gives us the blessings that the Gospel confers; and verse Act 26:20 the way in which the Gospel blessings are received.
To the pagan mind of the Roman the idea of resurrection was simply incredible, as Paul had anticipated at the opening of his address, so the mention of Christ risen from the dead moved Festus to a loud exclamation. How often through the centuries has the Christian been charged with madness! Here is the first recorded instance of the taunt being flung by the man of the world. Yet it was not vulgar abuse, for Festus was a polished Roman. He did at least attribute Pauls madness to an excess of study and learning. But mad he thought him nevertheless!
Pauls reply was moving in its dignified simplicity. He addressed Festus in a way that became his high estate, and then asserted that on the contrary what he had said were words of truth and soberness. To Festus it was all the romance of an intoxicated mind, for the gods that he venerated wielded no powers beyond the grave. Feeble man can kill and bring down to the grave-that is an easy thing: only of the living God can it be said, The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up (1Sa 2:6). Let us all aim so to declare the Gospel that our hearers may recognize that we are speaking the sober truth.
Having answered Festus, Paul launched an appeal to Agrippa, knowing that he professed to believe the prophetic Scriptures, and would therefore know that what he preached as fact had been foretold there. The appeal evidently went home. Agrippas answer, we fear, was not a confession that he was very nearly convinced of the truth of the Gospel, but rather an attempt in a semi-jocular way to throw off the effect of the appeal. He said in effect, In a little you will be making a Christian of me! From his words it is evident that the term Christian, first coined at Antioch, had by now obtained wide currency. By it the disciples were very accurately described. About Pauls rejoinder there is a moral elevation which is not easily surpassed. A poor prisoner stands in the midst of great pomp and magnificence and desires for his august judges that they might be just as he himself is, save for his bonds! As the angels looked down on that sight they saw an heir of everlasting and supernal glory standing before potsherds of the earth robed for a brief moment in tawdry display. Paul knew that, and that there was nothing better for any man than to be almost and altogether such as he was.
This closed the session. Paul had the last word; and we rejoice to note how, filled with the Holy Ghost, he is standing in the full height of the great calling that had reached him-the calling that has reached us too.
Once more also is his innocence declared by competent authority. Had he not appealed to Caesar he might have been free.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
1
Act 26:1. Agrippa was courteously invited to share the judicial “bench” with Festus. Under such a privilege, he bade the defendant to make a speech in his own behalf. Stretched forth his hand was a gesture of respect for the court, and a call to attention.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 26:1. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. On this occasion Agrippa, invested with the royal dignity, although only a subject monarch, sat in the presidents place during the hearing. He opens the proceedings; but it is noteworthy to observe that the king does not say, I permit thee to speak (), but, Thou art permitted; literally, It is permitted thee ( ), thus courteously remembering the presence of the Roman procurator, to whom really the power in Csarea and Jerusalem belonged. The prisoner Paul, it must not be forgotten, on this occasion was not pleading before his judges: the appeal to Csar, which had been allowed, had removed him from all provincial jurisdiction; he was simply here asked to give an account of the Nazarene or Christian faith, and to state what was the point at issue between him and the supreme council of the Sanhedrim, by whom he was considered unworthy to live.
Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself. This was a usual gesture on the part of the speaker, especially of one accustomed to address masses of men and public assemblies. Here the effect must have been impressivethe hand was chained. He answered with arguments not dissimilar at first sight to those used by him when he was arrested in the temple and he spoke to the Jews from the steps leading to the Antonia Tower. On both occasions he rehearses the marvellous story of the Divine appearance which led to his conversion to the faith of Jesus; but now he relates the history not with the view of asserting his own innocence of any of the charges alleged against him, but to show the grounds upon which he delivered his solemn message. He claims to be still a true, loyal Jew, for that the Christianity which he taught was but the realisation of the hopes set forth in the Old Testament prophets. Mr. Humphry well summarises the leading differences between the two speeches of the apostle in the following terms:On the steps of Antonia he addressed the infuriated populace, and made his defence against the charges, with which he was hotly pressed, of profaning the temple and apostatising from the Mosaic law. He now passes by these accusations, and addressing himself to a more intelligent and dispassionate hearer, he takes the highest ground, and holds himself up as the apostle and messenger of God. With this view, therefore, he paints in more striking colours the awful scene of his conversion, and repeats more minutely that heavenly call which was impossible for him to disobey, and in obeying which, though he incurred the displeasure of his countrymen, he continued to receive the Divine support(Act 26:22).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The person whom the apostle makes his defence before: Agrippa, Agrippa a king of whom he begs the favour patiently to hear him. It is a great favour for great men so much as to hear an innocent, good man plead for himself; Agrippa, who, by reason of his birth and breeding among the Jews, was acquainted with the scriptures, the law, and the prophets.
Observe, 2. How the providence of God wonderfully procures St. Paul a liberty to speak for himself: hereby he had an opportunity at once to make known his case, and to publish the gospel.
But note farther, That as the providence of God procured him liberty, so the good Spirit of God gave him ability to speak efficaciously and effectually, with such evidence and demonstration, that he not only took the ears but captivated the consciences of the whole court, and almost persuaded the king himself to turn Christian.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Paul Tells Agrippa About his Early Life
Though Festus had the full authority of Rome behind him, it was Agrippa who told Paul he was permitted to speak. Paul stretched out his hand and began by saying he was happy to make his defense before the king, especially because Agrippa would have been familiar with Jewish teachings and customs. He begged the king to be patient, apparently planning to speak at some length.
Though born in the city of Tarsus, Paul stressed that he was brought up in Jerusalem and was well known among the Jews. Some of his accusers may well have remembered the zealous young Pharisee from his school days and time as a persecutor. He told Agrippa that he was now being judged “for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers,” a likely reference to the promised Messiah. Of course, the hope that Messiah brought was of the resurrection of the dead. Paul argued that this very hope was sought by all the tribes of Israel. In fact, he said their daily earnest service was based upon that very hope. Yet, Paul claimed the essence of that hope was the basis of the Jews’ accusations against him! The apostle simply asked King Agrippa, “Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?” This question seems to show that his accusers were primarily of the Sadducees ( Act 26:1-8 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 26:1-3. Then Agrippa said unto Paul Agrippa was the most honourable person in the assembly, having the title of king bestowed upon him, though otherwise not superior to Festus, as only having the power of other governors under the emperor. But as Festus had opened the cause, and Agrippa, though not here superior, yet, was senior to Festus, therefore, as the mouth of the court, he intimates to Paul that liberty was given him to speak for himself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand Chained as it was: a decent expression of his own earnestness, and proper to engage the attention of his hearers; answered for himself Not only refuting the accusation of the Jews, but enlarging upon the faith of the gospel. I think myself happy I consider it as no small advantage to me and my cause; King Agrippa There is a peculiar force in thus addressing a person by name: Agrippa felt this; because I shall answer for myself before thee Though Agrippa was not sitting as judge in this place, yet his opinion and judgment could not but have much influence with Festus. Especially because I know thee to be expert, &c. , to be knowing, or skilled, which Festus was not; in all customs In practical matters; and questions In speculative. This word Festus had used in the absence of Paul, (Act 25:19,) who, by the divine leading, here repeats and explains it. Agrippa had peculiar advantages for an accurate knowledge of the Jewish customs and questions, from his education under his father Herod, and his long abode at Jerusalem. Nothing can be imagined more suitable, or more graceful, than this whole discourse of Paul before Agrippa, in which the seriousness of the Christian, the boldness of the apostle, and the politeness of the gentleman and the scholar, appear in a most beautiful contrast, or rather, a most happy union.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
XXVI: 1-3. Festus having stated the case, and the assembly being in waiting, the king assumed the presidency of the assembly. (1) Then Agrippa said to Paul, You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and offered his defense: (2) I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall defend myself this day before you, touching all the things of which I am accused by the Jews; (3) especially as you are acquainted with all the customs and questions among the Jews. Wherefore, I beseech you to hear me patiently. It must have been his left hand which he stretched forth as he began this exordium, for his right was chained to the soldier who guarded him. The compliment to Agrippa for his acquaintance with Jewish customs and controversies was not undeserved. It afforded Paul unfeigned gratification to know, that, after so many efforts to make himself understood by such men as Lysias, Felix, and Festus, he was at length in the presence of one who could fully understand and appreciate his cause.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Acts Chapter 26
Pauls address to king Agrippa furnishes us with the most complete picture of the entire position of the apostle, as he himself looked at it when his long service and the light of the Holy Ghost illuminated his backward glance.
He does not speak of the assembly-that was a doctrine for instruction, and not a part of his history. But everything that related to his personal history, in connection with his ministry, he gives in detail. He had been a strict Pharisee; and here he connects the doctrine of Christ with the hopes of the Jews. He was in bonds for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers. No doubt resurrection entered into it. Why should the king think resurrection impossible, that God was not able to raise the dead? This brings him to another point. He had verily thought with himself that he ought to do many things against Jesus of Nazareth, and had carried them out with all the energy of his character, and with the bigotry of a devout Jew. His present condition, as a witness among the Gentiles, depended on the change wrought in him by the revelation of the Lord when he was engaged in seeking to destroy His name. Near Damascus a light brighter than the sun struck them all to the earth, and he alone heard the voice of the Righteous One, so that he knew from His own mouth that it was Jesus, and that He looked upon those who believed in Him as Himself. He could not resist such a testimony. But as this was the great grievance to the Jews, he shews that his own position was formally marked out by the Lord Himself. He was called to give ocular evidence of the glory which he had seen; that is, of Jesus in that glory; and of other things also, for the manifestation of which Jesus would again appear to him. A glorious Christ known (personally) only in heaven was the subject of the testimony committed to him. For this purpose He had set Paul apart from the Jews as much as from the Gentiles, his mission belonging immediately to heaven, having its origin there; and he was sent formally by the Lord of glory to the Gentiles, to change their position with respect to God through faith in this glorious Jesus, opening their eyes, bringing them out of darkness into light, from the power of Satan to God, and giving them an inheritance among the sanctified. This was a definite work. The apostle was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, and he had taught the Gentiles to turn to God, and to act as those who had done so. For this cause the Jews sought to kill him.
Nothing more simple, more truthful, than this history. It put the case of Paul and the conduct of the Jews in the clearest light. When called to order by Festus, who naturally thought it nothing more than irrational enthusiasm, he appeals with perfect dignity and quick discernment to Agrippas knowledge of the facts upon which all this was based: for the thing had not been done in a corner.
Agrippa was not far from being convinced; but his heart was unchanged. The wish that Paul expresses brings the matter back to its moral reality. The meeting is dissolved. The king resumes his kingly place in courtesy and condescension, and the disciple that of a prisoner; but, whatever might be the apostles position, we see in him a heart thoroughly happy and filled with the Spirit and love of God. Two years of prison had brought him no depression of heart or faith, but had only set him free from his harassing connection with the Jews, to give him moments spent with God.
Agrippa, surprised and carried away by Pauls clear and straightforward narrative, [35] relieves himself from the pressure of Pauls personal address by saying, In a little you are going to make a Christian of me. Charity might have said, Would to God that thou wert! But there is a spring in the heart of Paul that does not stop there. Would to God, says he, that not only thou, but all those that hear me, were … altogether such as I am, except these bonds! What happiness and what love (and in God these two things go together) are expressed in these words! A poor prisoner, aged and rejected, at the end of his career he is rich in God. Blessed years that he had spent in prison! He could give himself as a model of happiness; for it filled his heart. There are conditions of soul which unmistakably declare themselves. And why should he not be happy? His fatigues ended, his work in a certain sense finished, he possessed Christ and in Him all things. The glorious Jesus, who had brought him into the pains and labour of the testimony, was now his possession and his crown. Such is ever the case. The cross in service-by virtue of what Christ is-is the enjoyment of all that He is, when the service is ended; and in some sort is the measure of that enjoyment. This was the case with Christ Himself, in all its fulness; it is ours, in our measure, according to the sovereign grace of God. Only Pauls expression supposes the Holy Ghost acting fully in the heart in order that it may be free to enjoy, and that the Spirit is not grieved.
A glorious Jesus-a Jesus who loved him, a Jesus who put the seal of His approbation and love upon his service, a Jesus who would take him to Himself in glory, and with whom he was one (and that known according to the abundant power of the Holy Ghost, according to divine righteousness), a Jesus who revealed the Father, and through whom he had the place of adoption-was the infinite source of joy to Paul, the glorious object of his heart and of his faith; and, being known in love, filled his heart with that love overflowing towards all men. What could he wish them better than to be as he was except his bonds? How, filled with this love, could he not wish it, or not be full of this large affection? Jesus was its measure.
Footnotes for Acts Chapter 26
35: It is hardly to be read almost. Relieving himself, Agrippa says, Youll soon be making a Christian of me, covering his feelings, as I have said, by a slighting speech. But I have no doubt his mind was greatly wrought upon.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
Act 26:1. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, the usual signal to gain attention; it indicates presence of mind in the speaker, and that his auditory is large. Though the notice was short, the court would be crowded.
Act 26:2. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee. Festus, it would seem, had given Agrippa the first place on the bench, because of his age and superior knowledge of the law. This exordium is full of grace and dignity, and very properly so, the emperor having made Herod governor of the treasures of the temple.
Act 26:4-5. My manner of life, as before related in Act 23:24. The mind of the judge being prepared, the narration of Pauls life naturally follows, for narration in all cases according to Quitilian is the second part of a discourse. So Cicero in his oration for Milo says, That after being the whole day in the senate, during a long session, he returned home, changed his dress, and rested for some time, while his wife got ready to go into the country.
Act 26:6-8. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? The Hebrew scriptures abound with this hope. Here is the digression, not always necessary in a discourse, but it often prepares the mind before we enter fully into the subject in hand. The speaker may here correct errors, recal or soften severities, or enhance a virtue. In the narration of Pauls life, it was natural to tread in the steps of his fathers, while waiting for Israels Hope. From Act 26:9 to Act 26:18, a succession of propositions and arguments follow, which forms the substance of this powerful address.
Act 26:10. When they were put to death, I gave my voice, , my vote against them. Those christians were dragged out of prison, and put to death by the sword. Much uncertainty veils those tragic occurrences. The court was Roman, having the power of life and death. The accusations then would be of sedition; and during the dreadful massacre, some christians might have had recourse to self-defence. Act 8:4. We are also uncertain in what capacity Paul attended these courts. His father, being a Roman officer, might have procured a commission for his son; and some think so, because in salutations he twice uses the phrase, my fellow- soldier. Be that as it might, those bloody deeds of persecuting and wasting the church lay heavy on his mind.
Act 26:11. Being exceedingly mad against them ira est furor, I would scarcely allow a man to live, unless he was of my religion. Judea was too small a sphere for my zeal. I even desired ecclesiastical authority to arrest the Nazarenes in Damascus, and bring them up to Jerusalem for judgment.
Act 26:13. At midday, oh king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. To stop this man in error, to convert him from his sins, to cover the flock in Damascus, and to call an ambassador for the conversion of the gentile world, the Lord Christ appeared to him in the way, as stated on Act 22:14. 1Co 9:1.
Act 26:14. When we were all fallen to the earth. And who can stand before Jehovah? How can rebels lift up their heads? A nation of elders and people, prostrated on mount Carmel when the fire fell from heaven. 1 Kings 18. Daniel fell down as dead before a celestial presence; and the three apostles all fell down to the earth before the same glory at the transfiguration. Mat 17:6.
Act 26:15. And I said, Who art thou Lord? This was the first voice to Paul; and like Samuel, he did not know the voice. Many emotions rise in the heart from the Spirit of God, which are not properly distinguished by the mind.
Act 26:16. I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister: . Montanus, designare, to designate thee to be a minister, and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those in which I will appear unto thee. Erasmus turns it, prpararem, because I would prepare thee to be a minister. designates
(1) A ministry.
(2) The flight of birds, in which some one mostly takes the lead.
(3) Though the primitive designates a rower with oars, yet that acceptation here is foreign to the sense.
To represent Paul as an under rower, totally misguides the reader. The Lord appeared to him, that he might be a plenary witness of his resurrection, and the first apostle of the gentile world, as in the next words.
Act 26:17. Delivering thee from the people, in all assaults of the jews, and from the gentiles, to whom now I send thee. So far Pauls whole life had realized the truth of the divine promise.
Act 26:18. To open their eyes. The gentiles walked in the vanity of their minds; they had no mediator, no consecrated altar, no fountain for the ablution of crimes, no idea how real virtue was to be recovered, no certainty of life and immortality; and the worship of their gods, how sincere soever their hearts might be, was a theogony of the imagination. Pauls mission was to deliver them from the yoke of demons, by the power and grace of the gospel; to console them with the remission of sins, the regeneration of their nature, and the assurance of eternal life. To them christianity was morally a translation out of darkness into marvellous light.
Act 26:19. Whereupon, oh king Arippa, I was not disobedient. My whole life in Syria, in proconsular Asia, and in Greece, has been spent in conformity to my divine call. Here we come to that part of Pauls defence called by Quintilian peroration, by some called the coronation, and by others the conclusion of a discourse. It calls upon a person to decide according to evidence, and act in conformity to wisdom and equity. St. Paul, being thus divinely called, decided at once to hazard all, and devote life in conformity to his mission, and to turn the world to God.
Act 26:24. Paul, thou art beside thyself. No marvel that schools and courts should think us deranged, because we seek our happiness in unseen things, for the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. Yet we are not mad; faith is the substance of the things for which we hope and wait. We feed in ordinances as the sheep in green pastures, and have in our hearts the earnests of future bliss.
Act 26:27. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Admirable stroke of eloquence conclusive, victorious! If thou believest the prophets, thou oughtest to believe me; for my call and conversion, and a life of twenty eight years of hard labour and severe sufferings, have every characteristic that attended the divine legation of Moses. The glory, the voice in the one, are the same as in the other; and the perseverance of the prince of prophets, corresponds with my unceasing care for the church.
Act 26:28. Then Agrippa said to Paul, almost thou persuadest me to be a christian; words extorted from the king by the power and unction of Pauls apology. , in some, or in a small degree, thou persuadest me. The English follows Tremellius. Propemodum persuades mihi, ut sim christianus. The Mons Testament, of high authority, reads, Il ne sen faut gueres qua vous ne me persuadiez detre christien. It is not a little that thou persuadest me to be a christian. Aye, indeed; but Agrippa forsook no sin. He did not so much as lift up a little finger to share the cross with Paul against the weight of persecution. He let an innocent man go off in chains to Rome. The almost christians, though they attend worship, forsake not their sins. They crowd theatres, and attend the sports and pleasures of the age. In a word, the best of almost christians, who have some exterior decency of morals and duties, are not christians in reality. They are often under the power of sin, and are destitute of the experimental religion described in the sixth collect after Trinity Sunday. Oh God, who hast prepared, &c.
Act 26:32. This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Csar. So Paul, in age and infirmities, must now go a bitter and disastrous voyage to preach in chains to the Roman court.
Let us follow him with a feeling heart, and while we lose sight of the ship in the seas, retrace the steps of his journies, his conflicts, and labours in the Lord, as laid down chiefly by Theophylact.
Paul was converted in the second or third year after our Saviours crucifixion. He received the knowledge of the gospel by special revelation. Gal 1:12. Being designated and qualified by learning for the ministry, he immediately made a circuit in Asia for three years, and returned to Jerusalem. The trance he had in the temple is placed by some in the second year of Claudius, when he brought alms from the rich gentile churches to the poor saints in Judas; and not at this first visit. His next evangelical course was to Antioch in company with Jude, Silas, and Barnabas. Act 13:1. Here the Holy Ghost separated Barnabas and Paul to go to many ports and towns of the gentiles; to Seleucia, the island of Cyprus, to Salamis, and Paphos, the two principal towns in the island. Thence to Perga, called Pergamos, Rev 1:11, in the province of Pamphylia: Act 26:13. From thence to Antioch in Pisidia: Act 26:14. They next went to Derbe, Iconium, Lystra, and back to Antioch, and thence to Attalia, called in Boistes dictionary, Satalia, once a great and flourishing city of Anatolia, about one hundred and fifty miles south-east of Constantinople. In Act 15:30; Act 15:41, we find Paul again at Antioch, and passing through Syria and Cilicia, the place of his nativity, confirming the churches. Thence to Derbe and Lystra again: Act 16:1. Then a western tour was made through the provinces of Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia: Act 26:6-7.
At Troas Paul received his vision to cross over to Macedonia, where after visiting Samothracia and Neapolis, he arrived at Philippi, the capital. Here he planted the first church, and did the same at Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth: chap. 16. 17. 18. Thence, after a considerable stay, he crossed over into Asia again, and came to Ephesus. Afterwards he made a tour through western Asia, and came to this city again: Act 19:1. He now, as is apparent from chap. 20., made a second, but rather a rapid tour through his old sphere of labours in Greece. This was requisite to confirm the churches. On his return to Asia, he was accompanied with many ministers, and being urgent to reach Jerusalem the third time, he sent for the elders of Ephesus to Miletus, to whom he delivered a most admirable charge. Act 20:17. From Jerusalem by Csarea he went a state prisoner to Rome, where he remained a prisoner at large for two years. Luke now left him, and consequently he could not mention his release, and future travels in Italy, Spain, and France. Euseb. book 2. chap. 25. After this he returned to Rome, and suffered martyrdom in the same persecution with St. Peter, and some say on the same day. All however agree that St. Paul laboured about thirty five years. The learned Valesius, in his notes on the above chapter, seems to support the evidence of his martyrdom by sufficient authorities. But as Augustine observes, though the writings of christians in the first three centuries were almost infinite, few of them having come down to him, little can be said of those times. See general reflections on chap. 28.
REFLECTIONS.
What greater proofs can we have of the truth and certainty of the christian religion than are exhibited in the conversion, in the labours and sufferings of St. Paul? A persecutor, furious as a wolf against the flock, turned and changed in a moment! Could he and the peace-officers, generally men of common sense, be deceived? Could the whole church at Damascus be deceived, as to the facts of the light and glory, which brought the rebels to the ground? Could the Almighty, to human appearance, have called a more suitable man, as the first missionary of the gentile world? Could any stroke of grace have more effectually relieved the fears of the saints, or paralysed the arm of persecutors, than the manifestations of the divine glory which attended Pauls conversion? The inward endowments of the Holy Ghost in his conversion, corresponded with the exterior glory of his call; he received remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, the word of faith, were given to him at the same time. He saw the Lord, the Holy and the Just One, and boldly declared his resurrection. Had there been any flaw or collusion in the apostles, and hundreds of Galileans who saw him also, the sharp eyes of this man would have detected the fallacy. We have now the witness in our hearts.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 26:1-23. Paul Speaks before Agrippa.It is Agrippa the vassal king, not Festus the representative of the sovereign power, who calls on Paul to speak, and to whom Paul addresses himself throughout, even after the intervention of Festus (Act 26:24-26). In Act 9:15 it was predicted that Paul would speak before kings, and he now does so. The speech is in elegant Greek, and abounds in classical turns and expressions, suited for such an audience. The king is not called a Jew, but complimented on his familiarity with Jewish ways and questions. Expressions are piled up to indicate that all the Jews, both in his own nation (i.e. at Tarsus) and at Jerusalem know that from his earliest days Paul was never anything but a Pharisee. To the Jewish king this might be a recommendation. He repeats that it is for believing in the Resurrection that he is prosecuted (see Act 23:6-9), which will not bear scrutiny, since the Pharisees generally believed in it. He was prosecuted for the consequences he inferred from the resurrection of Christ, viz. that the Law was not essential to salvation. The question in Acts 8 is therefore irrelevant, though it throws light on early controversies in which the Christians may have sought to shelter their belief behind that of the Pharisees. On the story of Pauls conversion (Act 26:9-18), see Act 9:2 ff*. The words gave my vote against them (Act 26:10) are not to be taken strictly; he no doubt did what he could in local synagogues to secure their punishment, but he could have no vote there nor in the Sanhedrin. He also strove to make them blaspheme, i.e. to abjure Jesus (cf. 1Co 1:23). On the power he may have had from the high priests (Act 26:12), see Act 9:2*. The slight changes from the earlier versions of the story: that the whole party fell down; that the voice went on, in the proverbial expression, It is hard . . . pricks; that the message conveyed in ch. 9 through Ananias is here spoken by the Lord Himself; all show how much the story was repeated and how it varied in repetition. The principal facts and words are in all three versions. Pauls witness (Act 26:16) is to be both of what is revealed to him in his first vision and of what will be revealed to him of Christ in visions yet to come, and he is (to be?) delivered (this word may also mean chosen) from Jew and Gentile alike, to be sent to both alike, to fulfil to them prophetic predictions (Jer 1:7, Isa 35:5). Passages of later Pauline epistles are also echoed here; cf. Eph 2:2, Col 1:13. In his own account, the Gentiles are his mark; see Gal 1:16. Agrippa is personally called on (Act 26:19) to recognise that Paul was faithful to this charge. The statement (Act 26:20) that he preached at Damascus and at Jerusalem and throughout all Juda, agrees with Act 26:9, but can with difficulty be reconciled with Gal 1:16 f.* That his preaching to the Jews and Gentiles was the reason of the attack made on him by the Jews in the Temple (Act 26:21) is not the whole truth (see Act 21:27-30). The help by which he was freed from that peril (Act 26:22) and enabled to continue his testimony, was brought to him by Lysias, whom he is here made to recognise as an instrument of God. What he states as his Gospel is what in Luk 24:44-47 the risen Lord Himself puts in the mouths of His followers, that the prophets and Moses are fulfilled in Him, that the Christ is not only a Conqueror but a Sufferer; but special weight is laid here on the Resurrection. Christ as the first risen from the dead is the great proclaimer of light to Jew and Gentile. A parallel to this will scarcely be found in the Pauline writings (cf. 1Pe 2:9, Joh 1:4; Joh 8:12).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
At Agrippa’s invitation to him to speak, Paul is fully prepared. He expresses his happiness at being privileged to answer for himself to the king, especially because he knew Agrippa to be an expert in reference to the customs of the Jews and as to questions connected with the Jewish law. He respectfully requests to be heard patiently. He refers briefly to his own past history, well known to the Jews, that he had lived in strict conformity to the Jewish law, a Pharisee.
He immediately declares the reason for the Jews’ enmity against him, however. It was actually because he stood for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers of his nation. All Israel, the twelve tribes, still have hope as to the promise, however dim and blurred it may have become in their eyes. He credits them with “instantly serving God” (though of course their zeal for God is not according to knowledge — Rom 10:2) in view of this hope. What is the true character of this hope? Actually it is of a resurrected Messiah eventually taking His rightful place in authority and dignity over Israel and the world. Of course the Jews knew the many scriptures that speak of the Messiah’s coming glory, but were not so acquainted with the large number of Old Testament scriptures that clearly indicated His resurrection. Of course, to be raised, He must die first, and these two things Israel was too blinded to consider.
Therefore Paul asks his pointed question, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” It was simply and clearly because Paul preached the resurrected Christ that he was so hated by the Jews, though in this was the very answer to the ages-long aspirations of the nation Israel! Why should they not rejoice to hear a message so wonderful and true?
Paul fully admits in verse 9 that he had had the same strong prejudice against the name of Jesus of Nazareth as did most of Israel, considering that he ought to actively oppose Him, which he did by persecution of those who confessed His name. He had done this in Jerusalem, imprisoning many and advocating their being put to death. In every synagogue he carried on this campaign, compelling men to blaspheme. Evidently this involved his seeking to force them to speak against the name of Jesus under threat of death. This extended also even to foreign cities.
Now he recounts his experience in journeying to Damascus with authority given him by the chief priests. Their authority was rather reduced to nothing by the light from heaven, brighter than the sun at noonday. It prostrated all who were traveling together. We are not told whether the others at the time testified of this to the chief priests later, or not, but if so, the chief priests could likely just as easily bribe them to keep quiet or lie about it just as they had the soldiers guarding the grave of the Lord Jesus (Mat 28:11-15). The voice was addressed directly to Saul, however, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” His case was similar to that of an animal’s kicking when goaded by its driver in a way it does not like. For Saul was rebelling against God’s dealings with him and finding it harder than he would have liked to admit.
When he questioned, “Who art thou, Lord?” the amazing answer was “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” If this were not true, what could have possibly changed this determined man from a bitter enemy of Jesus into His devoted servant? This itself may have given Agrippa food for serious thought, but not Festus. The Lord did not make Saul a mystical, introspective recluse, reflecting on the wonder of his visions and revelations. Rather, He had appeared to Saul for the purpose of making him a witness of what he had seen, as well as of other things for which in the future He would appear to Paul, taking him out from the people (Israel) and from the Gentiles. This was certainly an unusual and sovereign operation of God. Paul was fully set apart from both Israel and the nations in order to be a witness to both of these. As to people recognizing this, a great deal would depend on the reality of the man himself. Honest, considerate men would discern this.
The Lord had given Paul a five-fold description of the object of his testimony, first, to open men’s eyes; secondly, to turn them from darkness to light; thirdly, to turn them from the power of Satan to God. These things show the tragic condition into which man by nature has sunk, a condition he hates to admit, just as many refuse to face symptoms of serious disease until it is too late. But if honesty would admit this, then the last two objectives would be of wonderful value to them: fourthly, that they may receive forgiveness of sins; and fifthly, to receive an inheritance among those sanctified to God; these things being by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Forgiveness, a vital present reality for the genuine believer, introduces him into the blessing of an eternal inheritance, together with all those who have been “sanctified” or set apart for so precious a purpose.
Again as at the first (v.2) it is King Agrippa himself whom Paul addresses, telling him he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but began immediately at Damascus, later at Jerusalem and in Judea to bear witness as he was told; then going further to declare to Gentiles the same message, calling upon men to repent and turn to God, doing works that would be evidence of repentance. This was consistent with the message of John the Baptist (Mat 3:2-8), who also bore witness that Jesus was the Son of God (Joh 1:32-34).
These were the reasons, he declares, that the Jews had caught him in the temple with the intention of killing him. Yet he ascribes to God the fact of His being protected and able to continue witnessing both to small and great (notice “small” first), strictly conforming to what the Old Testament (Moses and the prophets) had prophesied, that Christ the Messiah should be the first who should rise from among the dead and bring the pure light of God to both Jews and Gentiles. As to the Jews’ strong objection to Gentiles hearing the gospel of grace: if the message was false, why were they not glad that Gentiles (whom they despised) were being corrupted by error?
What Paul had said was totally outside of the material realm in which Festus lived, and Festus, though in utter darkness himself, loudly objected that Paul was mentally affected, and attributed his insanity to much learning. Festus was evidently of that class of people who excuse themselves from learning on the grounds that it might lead them into mental affectation, and specially if they learn what the Bible says! This attitude is plain stupidity, not to speak of its being an insult to God.
Paul however answers with calm dignity and becoming respect, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.” The attitude and demeanor of Paul should have been enough to make Festus question his own assessment of the case. Paul adds that the king (Agrippa) knew of the things of which he spoke, things well known among the Jews particularly, for they had not been done in a corner, but publicized in such a way that Agrippa would certainly have some acquaintance with the facts.
Then Paul boldly, yet respectfully addresses a pointed question to the king, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Though it seems evident that Agrippa was seriously affected by what Paul said, yet his reply to Paul was intended to dismiss the question, not as in the King James Version, “Almost thou persuadest me,” but “In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian” (J.N.D.). He was not contemptuous, yet he had no intention of confessing Christ before that assemblage, but virtually tells Paul, “You are trying to convert me.”
Paul responds, “I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I am, except these bonds” (J.N.D.). The earnest reality of these words must have had some real effect on all who were present, and only eternity will reveal the results.
The king stood up, indicating of course that the hearing was concluded: he did not want to be further embarrassed. Others followed, including Festus. Talking together then privately, they were agreed that Paul was not guilty of any crime that deserved either death or imprisonment. Agrippa certainly gave Festus no help in suggesting a charge to be laid before Caesar, but told Festus that Paul may have been set at liberty it he had not appealed to Caesar. It was not Festus who said this, but why could the case not have been even then dismissed without troubling Caesar with it? Perhaps the pride of Festus was involved, but one most important reason is that God intended this to be the means by which Paul would bear witness before great men at Rome.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Paul’s speech to the dignitaries 26:1-23
Paul was not on trial here. When he had appealed to Caesar (Act 25:11), he had guaranteed that his next trial would be before the emperor. This was just a hearing designed to acquaint Agrippa with Paul’s case so Agrippa could give Festus help in understanding it and communicating it to the emperor.
"This testimony of Paul is not a defense of himself. It is a declaration of the gospel with the evident purpose of winning Agrippa and the others present to Christ. This is a dramatic scene, and this chapter is one of the greatest pieces of literature, either secular or inspired. . . .
"There is a consummate passion filling the soul of the apostle as he speaks. I think this is his masterpiece. His message on Mars’ Hill is great, but it does not compare at all to this message." [Note: McGee, 4:624, 626.]
The Lord had told Paul that he would bear His name before the Gentiles and kings (Act 9:15). Jesus had also told His disciples that before the Tribulation enemies would deliver them to prison and bring them before kings and governors for His name’s sake. This, He said, would lead to an opportunity for their testimony (Luk 21:12-13). This is exactly what happened to Paul, and he used this opportunity to give his testimony, as this chapter records. [Note: See Alister E. McGrath, "Apologetics to the Romans," Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):391.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Paul apparently stretched out his hand assuming the pose of an orator. The phrase "stretched out his hand" in Greek differs from the similar ones in Act 13:16 and Act 21:40. This defense is Paul’s fullest, most formal, and climactic of all the ones Luke recorded in Acts (cf. Act 22:1-21; Act 23:1-6; Act 24:10-21; Act 25:8; Act 25:10-11). It is quite similar to the one he delivered from the steps of the Antonia Fortress (Act 22:1-21), but he selected his words here carefully to appeal to Agrippa and the other Romans present. [Note: See Witherington, pp. 735-36.]