Acts 26:1

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, Act 26:1. 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 Caesar 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, Pe1 3:15. 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, Act 24:10. 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, Co1 10:15. 3. He therefore begs that he would hear him patiently, makrothumōs - 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, Act 4:13. 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 3:17. 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 11:16.

(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 Act 24:15, 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, Mat 19:28. Anna was of the tribe of Asher, Luk 2:36. James directs his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, Jam 1:1. "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, Luk 2:37. "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 (Act 24:15), 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, Act 28:20.

(5.) This was what he would persuade all that heard him cordially to embrace (Act 26:8): 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? Zac 8:6. 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 (Act 26:9): 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 66:5. Under colour and pretext of religion, the most barbarous and inhuman villanies have been not only justified, but sanctified and magnified, Joh 16:2.

(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, Ti1 1:13. [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 2:10), took them into custody, in order to their being prosecuted. Many of the saints did I shut up in prison (Act 26:10), both men and women, Act 8:3. [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 (Act 8:1), 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, Co2 11:24. [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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

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.

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. — Γνωστην οντα σε, 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

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 himself—the 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 Agrippa’s 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 Lord’s 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 Paul—from his youth up, or from the beginning;

(2) where they had known him—in Jerusalem; and

(3) what they had known about him—that 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. Paul’s complaint was that he was being tried, not for heterodoxy, but for “orthodoxy”—for 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; εἰ presenting the question as one a sceptic might controvert, and ἐγείρει 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 apostle’s faith in the Messiah, of which he was about to speak, had exactly that for its presupposition which no Jew would think of controverting—viz., that God was able to raise the dead (Wendt). Perhaps the first connection is the better.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_26:1-8

Paul’s Appeal to His Past Life; or, a Vindication of his Jewish Orthodoxy

I. Paul’s 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 result—only with this, that for two long years he had been detained in bonds. Spirits of less noble mould than Paul’s would have been crushed—would 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 God’s 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 countrymen—points which had somewhat disconcerted the Governor (Act_25:20). “That Paul here praises the king’s 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 people’s ecclesiastical affairs, although nothing definite concerning this has been handed down by tradition” (Zöckler). 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s appeal to the knowledge of his contemporaries.—“All the Jews” referred to were obviously all the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa; 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 willing—of which Paul was manifestly not sure—could 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. Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 worship—the 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, Christ—for 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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 gospel—always supposing them to be faithful and earnest. Because of—

1. The Master they serve—Christ.

2. The message they bring—the good news of reconciliation.

3. The end at which they aim—the 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 Christian’s 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 blasphemer—in 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 woman’s seed who should bruise the serpent’s 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 virgin’s 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 Paul’s preaching.

Act_26:8. Raising the Dead—credible 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 done—certainly 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 man’s 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 man’s 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 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, μέλλων] 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, (μὲν οὖν)] 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 [αἵρεσιν] 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] hope’s 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 (εἰ) God raises (ἐγείρει) them that are dead? 9I verily thought [I thought indeed (μὲν οὖν)] 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 (φυλακαῖς), after] having received [such, τὴν] 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, πάσας τ. σ.] and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad [furious] against them, I persecuted them even unto strange [foreign] cities. 12Whereupon as [Amid which (ἐν οἶς χαὶ7) 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, ὑπηρέτην], 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, χώραν] 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 (οὖν), 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, μελλόντων γίνεσθαι]: 23That Christ should [Whether (εἰ) the Messiah (ὁ Χριστός) 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, εἰς μανἰαν]. 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, πρὸς] 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 (γενέσθαι)] 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, ἐδύνατο] 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: ἐπιτρὲπω σοι, but: ἐπιτρέπεται, 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: Horæ Hebr. on Acts 25.). Μάλιστα can scarcely, with Meyer, be connected with γνώστην, in the sense of: “best of all (better than all others) acquainted with;” it properly belongs to the main proposition: ἤγημαι ἐμ. μακ., 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, γνώστην ὄντα, is occasioned by looseness in the construction, as after σοῦ in Act_26:2, the genitive should, strictly speaking, have reappeared. [“The accusative, γν. ὄντα 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,].—Οὖν exhibits inferentially the reasons for which the speaker at once commences his defence, namely, the confidence which he derives from Agrippa’s acquaintance with the general subject, and the hope which he entertains that he will be heard with favor and patience.—At the first, ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς; 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 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς γεν. - - ἐν Ἱερ., (which agree with ἀνατεθρ. ἐν τ. πόλει τ. in Act_22:3), imply that Saul had been brought at a very tender age to Jerusalem, and had been reared in that city. Hence—says Paul—they 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, ἐὰν θέλωσι, 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 hope—he continues—rests 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 [δωδεκάφυλον—a theocratic honorable designation of the totality of the people; comp. Jam_1:1.—The word is analogous in form to δεκάφυλος, 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 (ὑμῖν), including Agrippa and Festus, and assumes that, with respect to this point, they are unbelievers. [“Τί ἄπιστον κρίνεται—a question introduced with much animation. Quid? incredibile judicatur apud vos? So Beza, Griesb., Kuin., and others. But the Greek note of interrogation (;) after τι 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 τι 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, τί γαρ or τί οὖν, or τί δέ.—Tr.]. The expression ἐι … ἑγείρει refers interrogatively to the object, in so far as he who deems it incredible, denies its reality. Hence εἰ 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 ἐγείρει is significant—not preterite, referring to the resurrection of Jesus, nor future, as referring to the general resurrection—but 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; οὖν 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 (μὲν οὖν), I myself was once an avowed enemy of the name of Jesus.’ Alexander thus interprets οὖν: ‘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 ψῆφον καταφέρειν, 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, φῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ οὑρανοῦ, and in Act_22:6, φῶς ἱκανόν; 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 Aramæan 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 Aramæan [ch. Act_21:40].—3. The addition in Act_26:14, namely, σκληρόν … λακτίζειν, 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 Paul’s 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 πρὸς κέντρα λακτὶζειν 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 way—as an integral part of the Redeemer’s 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.—Stier’s 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 Lechler’s 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 Redeemer’s protection, whenever his mission exposes him to danger. Προχειρίσασθαι 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 (ὦν ὀφθήσομαι), as to imply that Jesus himself would personally be the sole or main object of these future visions, as he was (according to ὤφθην) of all that Paul so far saw (ὦν είδες). [For the construction, etc., see Winer: Gram. N. T., § 39. 3, obs. 1.—Tr.]. The participle ἐξαιροὐμενος grammatically belongs to ὀφθήσομαι, but in point of fact to προχειρίσασθαι. Ἐξαιρεῖσθαι 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 (ὁ λαός, 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., (τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι 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 ἀνοῖξαι. 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 (τοῦ λαβεῖν), 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 salvation—can be obtained solely by faith in Jesus (τοῦ λαβεῖν … πίστει τῇ εἰς ἐμέ). [“The words πίστει - - ἐμέ belong to λαβεῖν.” (Meyer).—“Our English translators and some others join πίστει - - ἐμέ with ἡγιασμένοις; but the words specify evidently the condition by which believers obtain the pardon of sin and an interest in the heavenly inheritance; ἡγιασμ. is added merely to indicate the spiritual nature of the κλῆρον.” (Hackett).—Tr.]

Act_26:19-23. a. Whereupon—I 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 call—he says—was 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 οὐκ ἐγενόμην ἀπειθὴς indicate that, in truth, the point in question was, whether he would obey or resist the will of God. But ὅθεν 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 Paul’s 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 (ἔστηκα) unharmed, and continue to discharge the duties of my office, as I was rescued by divine aid from the hands of murderers. Μαρτυρόμενος [from the depon. verb μαρτύρομαι] (not μαρτυρούμενος) [from μαρτυρέω; see note 12, appended to the text, above.—Tr.], refers to μάρτυς 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 μαρτυρούμενος 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 μαρτυρόμενος, like λέγων in the same verse, is descriptive of Paul’s 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 εἰ 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 παθητός, 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 γράμματα, in accordance with the usual interpretation, means learning, not “books,” as Kuinoel and others understand it [for, in that case, he would have said βιβλία or βίβλοι. (Meyer).—Tr.]

Act_26:25-27. I am not mad [not beside myself].—[“Most noble, excellent, or honorable—an 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]. Σωφροσύνη 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 (γάρ), Paul appeals in Act_26:26 to Agrippa, who was necessarily acquainted with the facts. The words: none of these things [τι τούτων οὐ] 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 these—he says—the king is necessarily acquainted, as they were attended with the utmost publicity. [Ἐν γωνίᾳ, in angulo, i. e., clam, occulte, id. quod ἐν κρυπτῷ, 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 [γενέσθαι] a Christian! [“The king’s 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.]. Ἐν ολίγῳ does not mean: “in a short time” (Calvin; Wetstein; de Wette [Kuin.; Ols.; Neander; Lange; with, or without, χρόνῳ (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 ἐν μεγάλῳ, since ἐν μεγάλῳ should, for critical reasons, be preferred [to ἐν πολλῷ of text. rec.; see note 18, appended to the text above.—Tr.]. The latter sense [“almost”] would necessarily have been expressed with the genitive ὀλίγου, or with παρʼ ὀλίγον [or ὀλίγου δεῖ.]. The correct meaning is given by Oecumenius: [ἐν ὀλίγῳ τουτέστι] διʼ ὀλίγων ῥημάτων [, Ἐν βραχέσι λόγοις, ἐν ὀλίγῃ διδασκαλίᾳ] χωρὶς πολλοῦ πόνου [καὶ δυνεχοῦς διαλέξεως.]. See Meyer: [Com. ad. loc.].—[“It is held at present to be unphilological to translate ἐν ὀλίγῳ, 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 Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest; but this think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically.” (Alford). If a note of interrogation is placed after γενέσθαι, the sense, in accordance with Lechler's and Alford’s interpretation of ἐν ὀλίγῳ, 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: εὐξαίμην ἂν τῷ θεῷ κ. τ. λ., 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.].—καὶ ἐν ὀλ. καὶ ἐν μεγάλῳ, that is: “through little or great means.” [Meyer adds the following note, on p. 485 of his Com. “Those interpreters who take ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of brevi tempore, here translate, in accordance with the reading πολλῷ: ‘whether it be in a shorter or a longer time’ (de Wette). Those who take ἐν ὀλ. in the sense of propemodum, translate: non propemodum tantum, sed plane (Grot.). According to our interpretation (i.e., ‘Thou persuadest me with little effort (ἐν instrum.) to become a Christian!’), the sense is not affected, whether we read ἐν πολλῷ or ἐν μεγάλῳ.”—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 ἀναχωρ. 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 [ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὖτος, which again is contemptuous (Con. and Howson, etc. ΙΙ. 307, n. 2.)—Tr.] was certainly not engaged in any criminal designs. (Πράσσει 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 (ἀπολελ.), 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 country—king Agrippa, and the imperial procurator, together with various officers. Hence, the circumstances do not, in Paul’s 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 love—the 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 appeared—the 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 enemy’s 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 ὄργανον ληπτικὸν (τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς) is, faith in Christ—nothing 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 (ληπτικὴ, 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 (ἀποστέλλω, ἀνοῖξαι ὀφ. αὐτ.), whereas the conversion itself is the act of the hearers (ἐπιστρέψαι, 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 act—as the unconstrained act of the will of the individual. This truth is, however, still more distinctly set forth in Paul’s remarks (Act_26:19, comp. with Act_26:13 ff.) on his own conversion. While he declares that he was not disobedient(οὐκ ἀπειθὴς) 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 labors—or whether the contrary was the case. The latter—the negative—accorded with the traditional opinions of the Jews. But the former—the affirmative—was asserted from the beginning in the predictions of Jesus concerning his sufferings (Mat_16:21, and elsewhere, ὅτι δεῖ—παθεῖν), and in his discourses after the resurrection (e. g., ἔδει παθεῖυ τὸν Χριστόν, 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 πρῶτος 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, assumes—truth, 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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 grace—and 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 alive—he 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,” ὑπηρέτην.]. 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 tortures—such 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 men—“to open their eyes”; II. Their conversion—“to turn them,” etc.; III. Their forgiveness—“that they may receive forgiveness of sins;” IV. Their salvation—“inheritance among, etc.”; and, V. Faith is the means by which such results are produced—“by faith, etc.”

Act_26:19. Whereupon … I was not disobedient.—Not even Paul’s 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 call—he says—because this precious office was conferred on him by divine authority—an 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 reason—that 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 Christ—His 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 gained—to 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 (Luther’s 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 favorable—the 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 itself—and 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 distance—to Festus and the other persons of rank—of 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, touched—Bernice, more indifferent—Festus, 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 Festus—little, 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 man—or—He is a devout man—or—He 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 Paul’s 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. Paul’s holy zeal—Agrippa’s levity and mockery; II. Paul’s joyful assurance of faith—Agrippa’s lamentable want of decision; III. Paul’s apostolic and overflowing love—Agrippa’s 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 Paul’s 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 Lord—to his wonderful power, and his wonderful love; II. Furnish a salutary admonition to the children of God—reminding them of the sins which they committed, and of the grace which was granted to them; III. Be an abiding monitor for the world—rebuking 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 great—a 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 things—his hardness of heart, which pays no attention to the admonition of the Holy Ghost—and 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 life—a 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. περί is far better supported [viz., by A. C. E. H. and Cod. Sin.] than ὑπέρ. [The text. rec. adopts ὑπέρ with B (e sil). and G.—Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf. read περί.—Tr.]

[2]Act_26:3. [σου is inserted in text. rec. after δέομαί 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 εἰς τοὺς πατέρας [found in A. B. E. Cod. Sin., and adopted by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf.] should be preferred to πρὸς τ. π. [of text. rec. with C. G. H.].—Ἡμῶν, 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. [Ἡμῶν 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. ὑπὸ Ἰουδ., without the article [as in Act_26:2], which is wanting in all the uncial manuscripts [including Cod. Sin.], is the original reading. [Τῶν is omitted by recent editors generally.—The proper name in the same verse, Ἀγρίππα, 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: εγκαλουμαι υπο Ιουδαιων βασιλευ τι ---.—Tr.]

[6]Act_26:10. ἐν φυλακαῖς is the reading sustained by all the uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E. G. and Cod. Sin.] except one [H.], which omits the preposition. [Ἐν, omitted in text. rec. is inserted by recent editors generally.—Tr.]

[7]Act_26:12. a. καί [of text. rec.] alter ἐν οἶς, 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 τῆς παρὰ (text. rec.) before τῶν ἀρχ., 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 παρὰ, but retain τῆς.—Tr.]

[9]Act_26:14. The words φωνὴν λαλοῦσαν πρός με καὶ λέγουσαν, seem to be the original reading; whereas the abbreviated reading, which omits λαλ. --- και [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: φωνὴν λέγουσαν πρός με τῇ ---. In this place Cod. Sin. exhibits no traces of any correction by a later hand.—Tr.]

[10]Act_26:15. κύριος after ὁ δὲ [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 κύριος but Lach., Tisch., and Born. adopt it.—Tr.]

[11]Act_26:17. [The text. rec. reads: νῦν σε ἀποστέλλω with some minuscules; Vulg. nunc ego mitto te.—Ἐγω is substituted for νῦν in A. B. C. E. G. H. In A. B. C. σε follows ἀποσ., but precedes in G. II.—Alf. adopts the latter order, but Lach. and Tisch. read ἐγω ἀποσ. σε, and this is the reading exhibited by Cod. Sin.—Tr.]

[12]Act_26:22. μαρτυρόμενος [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.: μαρτυρούμενος, passive, is sustained by only one manuscript of the first rank [by E.]. Hence Griesbach had already adopted μαρτυρόμ. 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 μαρτυρόμενος. [In the same verse, for παρὰ. τ. θ., of text. rec. with G. H., Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alt., with A. B. E. and Cod. Sin. read ἀπὸ. τ. θ.—Tr.]

[13]Act_26:23. [The text. rec. omits τε before λαῷ 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. Παῦλος after ὁ δέ 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. ἔφη after πρὸς τ. Παῦλ., 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 γενέσθαι, after Χρισ. of text. rec. with E. G. H., Lach. and Born. read ποιῆσαι, with A. B. and Cod. Sin.—Meyer says that γενέσθαι is decidedly attested, and that the reading ποιῆσαι is to be thus explained: ποιήσῃ was added as a gloss to πείθεις --- γενέσθαι. He adds in a note: “The reading ποιῆσαι which was adopted, occasioned in A. a change of πείθεις into ΠΕΙΘΗΙ, which Lachm. (Præf. p.10.) regards as correct: ‘Parva opera speras fore ut me Christianum facias.’ Alford, who retains γεν. says that ποιῆσαι “apparently proceeded from a confusion of two readings, one of which was με Χρισ. ποιησεις.”—Tisch. retained γεν. in the edition of 1849.—Tr.]

[17]Act_26:29. a. εἶπεν [of text. rec.] after ὁ δέ II. is also [like ἔφη, 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 μεγάλῳ [before οὐ μόνον] and of πολλῷ [of text. rec.] had hitherto been of equal weight [μεγ. being found in A. B. Vulg. (magno), and πολ. 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 μεγάλῳ.

[19]Act_26:30. The words καὶ ταῦτα εἰπόντος αυτοῦ. before ἀνέστη, 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, τε being inserted from A. B. after ἀνέστη. The words are omitted in Cod. Sin., which proceeds, after Act_26:29 thus: ανεστη τε ο βασιλ ….—Tr.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26:1-23 In his eloquent defense before King Agrippa, Paul argued that his preaching was completely consistent with the Jewish faith. The defense begins with a courteous acknowledgement of Agrippa’s competence to hear the evidence (26:2-3), outlines the nature of Paul’s background, Jewish training, and membership in the Pharisees (26:4-5), and explains that the charges against him are merely for believing the fulfillment of Jewish hopes for the resurrection (26:6-8). Paul then tells the story of his conversion from strong opponent of Christianity (26:9-11) through a vision on the way to Damascus (26:12-18; see 9:1-18). His preaching was nothing more than obeying this divine vision (26:19-20). Even though he encountered violent opposition from his fellow Jews (26:21), God protected him as he taught a message that the Jews should have embraced (26:22-23). This defense is a model for Christians put on trial for their faith (see 9:15; Luke 21:12-15).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 26:1. Ἐπιτρέπεται, 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.—ὑπὲρ, 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.]—ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_26:1-3. Ἐπιτρέπεταί σοι] 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.

ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα] after stretching forth his hand, is not equivalent to the κατασείσας τῇ χειρί, Act_12:17, Act_13:16 (in opposition to Er. Schmid and Hammond), because this latter had for its object the σιγᾶν 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 Langes 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!

ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων] 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. μάλιστα γνώστην ὄντα σε] 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 πρός σε … ἀπολογεῖσθαι, 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 διὸ δέομαι 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 αἰτῶ … ἀκοῦσαί μου, but omitted to do so on account of πάντων … ζητημάτων.

κατὰ Ἰουδ.] among Jews throughout. See Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 499].

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 26:1 . ἐπιτρέπεται , 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 . ἐκτείνας : not the same as in Act 12:17 , Act 13:16 ; here not to ensure silence, but gestus est oratorius , cf. Act 26:29 . ἀπελογεῖτο , see above, Act 24:10 , although not formally on trial, the word shows that the Apostle was defending himself.

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

Act 26:1-23. PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE AGRIPPA

1. ἀπελογεῖτο, 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 (ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα).

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.

26:1.] The stretching out of the hand by a speaker was not, as Hammond supposes, the same as the κατασείειν τῇ χειρί of ch. 12:17; 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—τούτων τ. δεσμ., ver. 29.

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

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.

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

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.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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.

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 Agrippa’s 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.

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

St. Paul having obtained liberty of speaking, stretches out his right hand, disengaging from his cloak. We must recollect that St. Paul still bore his chains about him, those chains in which he gloried; (ver. 26.) it is therefore necessary to suppose that his left hand only was tied; or, what is less likely, that these chains were not so tight nor heavy as to hinder the easy motion of the right. It is observed by Apuleius, that orators in this action closed the two shorter fingers, and had the others extended. (Calmet)

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).

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.

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

Defence before Agrippa

1-32. St. Paul before Agrippa. This speech, though in form a defence to the Jews, is really intended by St. Luke to be St. Paul's defence to the world—an apology for his whole life and work.

Analysis. Opening compliment to Agrippa (Act_26:2-3); the Apostle's orthodox Pharisaic education (Act_26:4-5); he is really called in question because he believes in the hope of all orthodox Jews, the coming of the Messiah, and the Resurrection (Act_26:6-8); his persecution of the Church in the time of his ignorance (Act_26:9-11); his conversion and divine commission to preach to the Gentiles (Act_26:12-18); his subsequent conduct the result of a direct divine command (Act_26:19); his labours among Jews and Gentiles (Act_26:20); the hostility of the Jews (Act_26:21); the conclusion, emphasising the fact that Christianity is nothing but orthodox Judaism properly understood. Moses and the prophets taught, (1) that the Messiah should come; (2) that He should suffer; (3) that He should rise again from the dead, the first-fruits of them that sleep; (4) that in the Messiah's days the religion of Israel would be taught to the Gentiles. This is precisely what St. Paul preaches, and therefore he claims acquittal from Agrippa, and from all orthodox Jews (Act_26:22-23, Act_26:27).

5. See Act_22:3; Act_23:6; Php_3:5.

6. The promise] viz. of the Messiah, made to Abraham, Gen_22:18 also of the Resurrection, for it was believed by the Pharisees and orthodox Jews that all Jews would be raised to life to share in the Messianic kingdom.

7. Instantly] RV 'earnestly.'

9, 10. 'I once found the same difficulty in believing that God does actually raise the dead; and therefore I bitterly persecuted those who proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus, just as you are now persecuting me.'

9. Contrary to the name] i.e. in order to suppress the confession and invocation of it.

10. My voice] RV 'my vote.' The Gk. means 'the vote of a judge,' and establishes the fact that at the time of the death of Stephen, Paul, though so young a man, was a member of the Sanhedrin.

12-18. See on Act_9:3; Act_22:6.

16-18. It appears from Act_9:6; Act_22:10 that all the directions that Jesus gave to Paul at the moment of his conversion were, 'Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.' The command to preach to the Gentiles was apparently given through Ananias (Act_22:15), and more definitely in a subsequent vision at Jerusalem (Act_22:21). It seems reasonable, therefore, to suppose that St. Paul here summarises the contents of more than one revelation.

23. That Christ should suffer] RV 'how that the Christ must suffer'; RM 'if the Christ must suffer,' or, 'whether the Christ must suffer': see Luk_24:26, Luk_24:46 and Isaiah 53. The first] see 1Co_15:20, 'the firstfruits of them that slept'; Col_1:18, 'the firstborn from the dead'; Rev_1:5, 'the first begotten of the dead.'

Light] see Luk_2:32; Isa_9:2; Isa_42:6; Isa_49:6; Isa_60:1-3. The people] i.e. the Jewish nation, 'the people of God.'

24. The exclamation of Festus shows impatience and perhaps anger at the idea that an uneducated peasant like Jesus (one, moreover, who had been crucified) could have anything to teach a Roman like himself. Much learning] lit. 'the numerous writings,' probably the writings of Moses and the prophets, quoted by St. Paul in his speech. Or the reference may be a general one to the Apostle's wellknown studious habits.

25. Observe the good temper and courtesy of St. Paul's retort.

Most noble] see Luk_1:3, 'most excellent Theophilus' (same word).

28. Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian] This translation is now given up. The best rendering seems to be, 'Too easily art thou persuading thyself that thou canst make me a Christian!'

32. Agrippa, speaking as a Jew, pronounces St. Paul's views orthodox, or at least not heretical. There is nothing in them, he thinks, contrary to the OT., though, of course he does not accept them as true.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (ajpelogeito); Act_25:8 Act_24:10, note.

Vers. 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 E. JOHNSON Vers. 1-32. Paul before Festus and Agrippa.

His address may be divided as follows:

I THE REMARKABLE STORY OF HIS LIFE. (Vers. 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 unbeliever What 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. (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.

1. His conversion. (Vers. 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 conscience Divine, 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.

2. 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 open eyes;" conversion turn men from darkness to light," etc.; induction into the new covenant, or kingdom of grace they may receive forgiveness of sins;" glorification 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 were the 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". (RAPC 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 life representing 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 yet some 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

Vers. 1-32. The apostolic defense in the presence of Festus and Agrippa.

I THE BEARING OF THE MAN. Dignity, gentleness, courtesy a 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.

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

And Paul stretching forth his 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 accusations of the Jews, but enlarging upon the faith of the Gospel.

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

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 Sarah’s womb was a grave, and God brought life out of that grave. Many promises of the past vouched for God’s 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.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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:

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 æternum 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 Cæsar, and thirty years before it had been most truly, though most insidiously, said, "If thou let this man go thou art not Cæsar’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 Thermopylæ 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.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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.

Acts Chapter 26

Paul’s 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 Agrippa’s 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 apostle’s 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 Paul’s clear and straightforward narrative, [35] relieves himself from the pressure of Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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, “You’ll 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.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Not Agrippa, but Festus had the authority in the province, but this meeting was arranged in order that Agrippa might investigate the case and assist Festus in formulating the charges (see 25:26, 27); hence the king calls upon Paul to speak.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Festus has brought Paul before King Agrippa. In verse 2, Paul gives his defense to King Agrippa.

Agrippa

Agrippa was the current reigning king in Palestine, though he ruled over only a few territories. See how you translated this name in Acts 25:13.

stretched out his hand

"held out his hand" or "gestured with his hand"

made his defense

The abstract noun "defense" can be stated as a verb. AT: "began to defend himself against those who were accusing him" (See: Abstract Nouns)

I regard myself as happy

Paul was happy because he considered his appearance before Agrippa to be an opportunity to speak about the gospel.

to make my case

This phrase means to describe one's situation, so that those in court can discuss and make a decision about it. AT: "to defend myself"

against all the accusations of the Jews

The abstract noun "accusations" can be stated as the verb "accuse." AT: "against all the Jews who are accusing me" (See: Abstract Nouns)

the Jews

This does not mean all the Jews. AT: "the Jewish leaders" (See: Synecdoche)

questions

You can make explicit what kinds of questions this means. AT: "questions about religious matters" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Paul

king

accuse

Jew

patient

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.