Acts 25:8

Act_25:8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated for his vindication, that, etc. On ἀπολογεῖσθαι with ὅτι (more frequently with ὡς), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22.

οὔτε κ.τ.λ.] These were consequently the three principal points to which the πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα of the Jews referred. Comp. Act_21:28, Act_24:5 f., to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly against Jesus.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 25:8 . Evidently the charges classed as before under three heads, (1) the Law, (2) the Temple, (3) the Empire. In this verse Hilgenfeld ascribes ὅτι … ἥμαρτον to his “author to Theophilus”(Jüngst, too, omits the words). But, not content with this, he concludes that the whole narrative which follows about Agrippa is to ratify the innocence of Paul before a crowned head of Judaism, cf. Act 9:15 , where υἱῶν τε Ἰσ . is also ascribed to the “author to Theophilus,” and perhaps also τε καὶ βασιλέωγ ; we are therefore to refer to this unknown writer the whole section Act 25:13 to Act 26:32 . ἥμαρτον with εἰς only here in Acts, three times in Luke’s Gospel, three times in 1 Cor., only once elsewhere in N.T., Mat 18:21 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 8. While he answered for himself] In this instance St. Luke gives only a general account, both of the accusations and of St. Paul's defense. But, from the words in this verse, the charges appear to have been threefold:

1. That he had broken the law.

2. That he had defiled the temple.

3. That he dealt in treasonable practices: to all of which he no doubt answered particularly; though we have nothing farther here than this, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. While he answered for himself] Rev. Ver., with MSS., “While Paul said in his defence.” He offered an “Apologia” for himself. He did not make a defence against the unsubstantiated charges, but alluded only to those points on which they would try to prove their case, i.e. his alleged attempt to defile the Temple, his breaches of the Jewish law, and any insurrectionary outbreaks, in which the accusers would try to prove him a leader, and which might be construed into opposition to the Roman power. On this last his accusers would lay most stress. St Luke has only given us the three heads of St Paul’s Apologia.

Neither against the law of the Jews] The accusation on the former occasion had not dwelt on this point, but in the course of two years they had discovered that the Apostle had taught among the Gentiles that circumcision was no necessary door for admission to Christianity, and this they would construe into an offence against the Jewish law.

have I offended any thing at all] Rev. Ver., “have I sinned at all.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

While he answered for himself,.... As he was allowed by the Roman laws to do, he pleaded his own cause, and showed the falsehood of the charges exhibited against him; by observing, that as the crimes alleged against him were reducible to three heads, neither of them were just and true:

neither against the law of the Jews; the law of Moses, whether moral, ceremonial, or judicial; not the moral law, that he was a strict observer of, both before and since his conversion; nor the ceremonial law, for though it was abolished, and he knew it was, yet for peace sake, and in condescension to the weakness of some, and in order to gain others, he submitted to it, and was performing a branch of it, when he was seized in the temple; nor the judicial law, which concerned the Jews as Jews, and their civil affairs: neither against the temple; at Jerusalem, the profanation of which he was charged with, by bringing a Gentile into it; which was a falsehood, at least a mistake:

nor yet against Caesar, have I offended at all; for he was charged with sedition, Act 24:5. Caesar was a common name to the Roman emperors, as Pharaoh was to the kings of Egypt; and which they took from Julius Caesar the first of them, who was succeeded by Augustus Caesar, under whom Christ was born; and he by Tiberius, under whom he suffered; the fourth was Caius Caligula; the fifth was Claudius, mentioned in Act 11:28 and the present Caesar, to whom Paul now appealed, was Nero; and though succeeding emperors bore this name, it was also given to the second in the empire, or the presumptive heir to it: authors are divided about the original of Caesar, the surname of Julius; some say he had it from the colour of his eyes, which were "Caesii", grey; others from "Caesaries", his fine head of hair; others from his killing of an elephant, which, in the language of the Moors, is called "Caesar": the more common opinion is, that he took his name from his mother's womb, being "Caeso", cut up at his birth, to make way for his passage into the world; in which manner also our King Edward the Sixth came into the world.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Ver. 8. Neither against the law of the Jews] Quam multa quam paucis! how much, how little, said Cicero of Brutus’ laconical epistle: and the same may I say of this defence, How much in a little! {See Trapp on "Act 24:12"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

While he answered ... - See this answer more at length in Act 24:10-21. As the accusations against him were the same now as then, he made to them the same reply.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Paul making answer,[2] or his apology, by the Greek. In the Latin, giving an account. In like manner, (ver. 16.) have liberty given to defend himself; in the Greek, to make his apology. In the Latin, till he take a place of defending himself.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Paulo rationem reddente, Greek: apologoumenou. Ver. 16. Locum defendendi accipiat, Greek: topon apologias laboi.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Paul answers unto the three crimes which he was charged with:

1. He had not offended against the law, having been always a religious observer of it: nor:

2. Against the temple, which he went into devoutly, and upon a religious account: nor:

3. Against Caesar; having never taught any rebellion, nor said or done any thing against his government.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. Answered—The three neithers of his answer indicate what were the three charges, namely, heresy against the law of the Jews, sacrilege against the temple, and treason against Cesar. This last charge of treason is new, and is probably founded on Paul’s assertion of the kingship of Jesus.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul said in his defense for he answered for himself, A.V. and T.R.; nor for neither, A.V.; against for yet against, A.V; sinned for offended anything, A.V. Said in his defense (ajpologoumenou); Act_24:10, note. The Law the temple, Caesar. The accusations against him fell under these three heads: (Act_24:5) he was the ringleader of an unlawful sect; he had profaned the temple; and he had stirred up insurrection against the government among the Jews. The accusations were false under every head.

Protestations of innocence.

The contrast between the two trials needs careful attention. On the second occasion, when Paul was tried before Festus, the Jews had no orator to plead for them, so the trial degenerated into a scene of passionate clamor, in which St. Paul simply met the many accusations against him by calm denials." The Jews seem to have brought no witnesses, and the apostle knew well enough that no Roman judge would listen to mere accusations unsupported by testimony. On the one side was accusation without witness; it was enough if, on the other side, there was the plea of "not guilty," and the solemn protestation of innocence. The charges so clamorously made were:

1. Of Paul"s heresy. He was declared to be a renegade Jew, whose teachings were proving most mischievous, and striking at the very foundations of the Mosaic religious system. St. Paul answered with an emphatic denial. He was but proclaiming those very truths for the sake of which the Mosaic system had been given, and of which it had testified, and for which it had been the preparation.

2. Of Paul"s sacrilege. This was, in the view of formal religionists, the height of all crime. Their charge rested on a statement of fact: this Paul had brought Trophimus, an Ephesian, into the temple, in order to pollute their temple and offer them an open insult. This Paul simply denied. There was no such fact. He had not brought Trophimus into the temple; and, if the Roman governor took any notice at all of this charge, he would certainly have demanded witnesses to prove the fact, and have thrown the burden of finding the necessary witnesses on the accusers, and not on the prisoner. 3. Of Paul"s treason. This the Jews could only insinuate, but this point they hoped would especially influence Festus. Such a man must be dangerous to the state; popular tumults have attended his presence in every city where he has gone. He ought not to be set at liberty. Festus was not in the least likely to be frightened into doing an injustice, and could read the character of his prisoner too well to pay any heed to their clamor and their insinuations. "If there was a single grain of filth in the Jewish accusations, Paul had not been guilty of anything approaching to a capital crime." It may be impressed that

(1) there are times in a man"s life when he is called upon to make a full defense of himself against any charges that may be brought against him. This is especially necessary when the charges take definite shape. and seem to have sanction and support. But

(2) there are times in life when a man should attempt no defense, but stand firmly on his plea of innocence, and wait his time for his righteousness to become clear as the noonday, This is best when the charges are vague, and evidently the results of misrepresentation and slander. It is hopeless to attempt the correction of such evils; we can only live them down. Our conduct must depend on the nature of the attack that is made on us. Even if specific charges are made, we may find it wisest to do as the apostle did, and throw the burden of proof altogether upon our accusers. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

While he answered - To a general charge a general answer was sufficient.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

See notes on verse 6

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. τοῦ Παύλου ἀπολογουμένου with אABC. Vulg. ‘Paulo rationem reddente.’

8. τοῦ Παύλου ἀπολογουμένου, while Paul said in his defence. He offered an ἀπολογία for himself. He did not make a defence against the unsubstantiated charges, but alluded only to those points on which they would try to prove their case, i.e. his alleged attempt to defile the Temple, his breaches of the Jewish Law, and any insurrectionary outbreaks, in which the accusers would try to prove him a leader, and which might be construed into opposition to the Roman power. On this last his accusers would lay most stress. St Luke has only given us the three heads of St Paul’s Apologia.

οὔτε εἰς τὸν νόμον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, κ.τ.λ., neither against the law of the Jews … have I sinned at all. The accusation on the former occasion had not dwelt on this point, but in the course of two years they had discovered that the Apostle had taught among the Gentiles that circumcision was no necessary door for admission to Christianity, and this they would construe into an offence against the Jewish Law.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8.] These were the three principal charges to which the πολ. κ. βαρ. αἰτ. of the Jews referred (Meyer).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Have I offended [ημαρτον] . See on the kindred noun aJmartia, sin, Mt 1:21.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.