Acts 26:24

We have reason to think that Paul had a great deal more to say in defence of the gospel he preached, and for the honour of it, and to recommend it to the good opinion of this noble audience; he had just fallen upon that which was the life of the cause - the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and here he is in his element; now he warms more than before, his mouth is opened towards them, his heart is enlarged. Lead him but to this subject, and let him have leave to go on, and he will never know when to conclude; for the power of Christ's death, and the fellowship of his sufferings, are with him inexhaustible subjects. It was a thousand pities then that he should be interrupted, as he is here, and that, being permitted to speak for himself (Act 26:1), he should not be permitted to say all he designed. But it was a hardship often put upon him, and is a disappointment to us too, who read his discourse with so much pleasure. But there is no remedy, the court thinks it is time to proceed to give in their judgment upon his case.

I. Festus, the Roman governor, is of opinion that the poor man is crazed, and that Bedlam is the fittest place for him. he is convinced that he is no criminal, no bad man, that should be punished, but he takes him to be a lunatic, a distracted man, that should be pitied, but at the same time should not be heeded, nor a word he says regarded; and thus he thinks he has found out an expedient to excuse himself both from condemning Paul as a prisoner and from believing him as a preacher; for, if he be not compos mentis - in his senses, he is not to be either condemned or credited. Now here observe,

1. What it was that Festus said of him (Act 26:24): He said with a loud voice, did not whisper it to those that sat next him; if so, it had been the more excusable, but (without consulting Agrippa, to whose judgment he had seemed to pay profound deference, Act 25:26), said aloud, that he might oblige Paul to break off his discourse, and might divert the auditors from attending to it "Paul, thou art beside thyself, thou talkest like a madman, like one with a heated brain, that knowest not what thou sayest;" yet he does not suppose that a guilty conscience had disturbed his reason, nor that his sufferings, and the rage of his enemies against him, had given any shock to it; but he puts the most candid construction that could be upon his delirium: Much learning hath made thee mad, thou hast cracked thy brains with studying. This he speaks, not so much in anger, as in scorn and contempt. He did not understand what Paul said; it was above his capacity, it was all a riddle to him, and therefore he imputes it all to a heated imagination. Si non vis intelligi, debes negligi - if thou art not willing to be understood, thou oughtest to be neglected. (1.) He owns Paul to be a scholar, and a man of learning, because he could so readily refer to what Moses and the prophets wrote, books that he was a stranger to; and even this is turned to his reproach. The apostles, who were fishermen, were despised because they had no learning; Paul, who was a university-man, and bred a Pharisee, is despised as having too much learning, more than did him good. Thus the enemies of Christ's ministers will always have something or other to upbraid them with. (2.) He reproaches him as a madman. The prophets of the Old Testament were thus stigmatized, to prejudice people against them by putting them into an ill-name: Wherefore came this mad fellow unto thee? said the captains of the prophet, Kg2 9:11; Hos 9:7. John Baptist and Christ were represented as having a devil, as being crazed. It is probable that Paul now spoke with more life and earnestness than he did in the beginning of his discourse, and used more gestures that were expressive of his zeal, and therefore Festus put this invidious character upon him, which perhaps never a one in the company but himself thought of. It is not so harmless a suggestion as some make it to say concerning those that are zealous in religion above others that they are crazed.

2. How Paul cleared himself from this invidious imputation, which whether he had ever lain under before is not certain; it should seem, it had been said of him by the false apostles, for he ways (Co2 5:13), If we be beside ourselves, as they say we are, it is to God; but he was never charged with this before the Roman governor, and therefore he must say something to this. (1.) He denies the charge, with due respect indeed to the governor, but with justice to himself, protesting that there was neither ground nor colour for it (Act 26:25): "I am not mad, most noble Festus, nor ever was, nor any thing like it; the use of my reason, thanks be to God, has been all my days continued to me, and at this time I do not ramble, but speak the words of truth and soberness, and know what I say." Observe, Though Festus gave Paul this base and contemptuous usage, not becoming a gentlemen, much less a judge, yet Paul is so far from resenting it, and being provoked by it, that he gives him all possible respect, compliments him with his title of honour, most noble Festus, to teach us not to render railing for railing, nor one invidious character for another, but to speak civilly to those who speak slightly of us. It becomes us, upon all occasions, to speak the words of truth and soberness, and then we may despise the unjust censures of men. (2.) He appeals to Agrippa concerning what he spoke (Act 26:26): For the king knows of these things, concerning Christ, and his death and resurrection, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, which had their accomplishment therein. He therefore spoke freely before him, who knew these were no fancies, but matters of fact, knew something of them, and therefore would be willing to know more: For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; no, not that which he had related concerning his own conversion, and the commission he had received to preach the gospel. Agrippa could not but have heard of it, having been so long conversant among the Jews. This thing was not done in a corner; all the country rang of it; and any of the Jews present might have witnessed for him that they had heard it many a time from others, and therefore it was unreasonable to censure him as a distracted man for relating it, much more for speaking of the death and resurrection of Christ, which was so universally spoken of. Peter tells Cornelius and his friends (Act 10:37), That word you know which was published throughout all Judea concerning Christ; and therefore Agrippa could not be ignorant of it, and it was a shame for Festus that he was so.

II. Agrippa is so far from thinking him a madman that he thinks he never heard a man argue more strongly, nor talk more to the purpose.

1. Paul applies himself closely to Agrippa's conscience. Some think Festus was displeased at Paul because he kept his eye upon Agrippa, and directed his discourse to him all along, and that therefore he gave him that interruption, Act 26:24. But, if that was the thing that affronted him, Paul regards it not: he will speak to those who understand him, and whom he is likely to fasten something upon, and therefore still addresses Agrippa; and, because he had mentioned Moses and the prophets as confirming the gospel he preached, he refers Agrippa to them (Act 26:27): "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? Dost thou receive the scriptures of the Old Testament as a divine revelation, and admit them as foretelling good things to come?" He does not stay for an answer, but, in compliment to Agrippa, takes it for granted: I know that thou believest; for every one knew that Agrippa professed the Jews' religion, as his fathers had done, and therefore both knew the writings of the prophets and gave credit to them. Note, It is good dealing with those who have acquaintance with the scriptures and believe them; for such one has some hold of.

2. Agrippa owns there was a great deal of reason in what Paul said (Act 26:28): Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Some understand this as spoken ironically, and read it thus, Wouldst thou in so little a time persuade me to be a Christian? But, taking it so, it is an acknowledgement that Paul spoke very much to the purpose, and that, whatever others thought of it, to his mind there came a convincing power along with what he said: "Paul, thou art too hasty, thou canst not think to make a convert of me all of a sudden." Others take it as spoken seriously, and as a confession that he was in a manner, or within a little, convinced that Christ was the Messiah; for he could not but own, and had many a time thought so within himself, that the prophecies of the Old Testament had had their accomplishment in him; and now that it is urged thus solemnly upon him he is ready to yield to the conviction, he begins to sound a parley, and to think of rendering. He is as near being persuaded to believe in Christ as Felix, when he trembled, was to leave his sins: he sees a great deal of reason for Christianity; the proofs of it, he owns, are strong, and such as he cannot answer; the objections against it trifling, and such as he cannot for shame insist upon; so that if it were not for his obligations to the ceremonial law, and his respect to the religion of his fathers and of his country, or his regard to his dignity as a king and to his secular interests, he would turn Christian immediately. Note, Many are almost persuaded to be religious who are not quite persuaded; they are under strong convictions of their duty, and of the excellency of the ways of God, but yet are overruled by some external inducements, and do not pursue their convictions.

3. Paul, not being allowed time to pursue his argument, concludes with a compliment, or rather a pious wish that all his hearers were Christians, and this wish turned into a prayer: euxaimēn an tō Theō - I pray to God for it (Act 26:29); it was his heart's desire and prayer to God for them all that they might be saved, Rom 10:1. That not only thou but all that hear me this day (for he has the same kind design upon them all) were both almost, and altogether, such as I am, except these bonds. Hereby, (1.) He professes his resolution to cleave to his religion, as that which he was entirely satisfied in, and determined to live and die by. In wishing that they were all as he was, he does in effect declare against ever being as they were, whether Jews or Gentiles, how much soever it might be to his worldly advantage. He adheres to the instruction God gave to the prophet (Jer 15:19), Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. (2.) He intimates his satisfaction not only in the truth, but in the benefit and advantage of Christianity; he had so much comfort in it for the present, and was so sure it would end in his eternal happiness, that he could not wish better to the best friend he had in the world than to wish him such a one as he was, a faithful zealous disciple of Jesus Christ. Let my enemy be as the wicked, says Job, Job 27:7. Let my friend be as the Christian, says Paul. (3.) He intimates his trouble and concern that Agrippa went no further than being almost such a one as he was, almost a Christian, and not altogether one; for he wishes that he and the rest of them might be not only almost (what good would that do?) but altogether such as he was, sincere thorough-paced Christians. (4.) He intimates that it was the concern, and would be the unspeakable happiness, of every one of them to become true Christians - that there is grace enough in Christ for all, be they ever so many - enough for each, be they ever so craving. (5.) He intimates the hearty good-will he bore to them all; he wishes them, [1.] As well as he wished his own soul, that they might be as happy in Christ as he was. [2.] Better than he now was as to his outward condition, for he excepts these bonds; he wishes they might all be comforted Christians as he was, but not persecuted Christians as he was - that they might taste as much as he did of the advantages that attended religion, but not so much of its crosses. They had made light of his imprisonment, and were in no concern for him. Felix detained him in bonds to gratify the Jews. Now this would have tempted many a one to wish them all in his bonds, that they might know what it was to be confined as he was, and then they would know the better how to pity him; but he was so far from this that, when he wished them in bonds to Christ, he desired they might never be in bonds for Christ. Nothing could be said more tenderly nor with a better grace.

III. They all agree that Paul is an innocent man, and is wronged in his prosecution. 1. The court broke up with some precipitation (Act 26:30): When he had spoken that obliging word (Act 26:29), which moved them all, the king was afraid, if he were permitted to go on, he would say something yet more moving, which might work upon some of them to appear more in his favour than was convenient, and perhaps might prevail with them to turn Christians. The king himself found his own heart begin to yield, and durst not trust himself to hear more, but, like Felix, dismissed Paul for this time. They ought in justice to have asked the prisoner whether he had any more to say for himself; but they thought he had said enough, and therefore the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and those that sat with them, concluding the case was plain, and with this they contented themselves, when Paul had more to say which would have made it plainer. 2. They all concurred in an opinion of Paul's innocency, Act 26:31. The court withdrew to consult of the matter, to know one another's minds upon it, and they talked among themselves, all to the same purport, that this man does nothing worthy of bonds - he is not a dangerous man, whom it is prudent to confine. After this, Nero made a law for the putting of those to death who professed the Christian religion, but as yet there was no law of that kind among the Romans, and therefore no transgression; and this judgment of theirs is a testimony against that wicked law which Nero made not long after this, that Paul, the most active zealous Christian that ever was, was adjudged, even by those that were no friends to his way, to have done nothing worthy of death, or of bonds. Thus was he made manifest in the conscience of those who yet would not receive his doctrine; and the clamours of the hot-headed Jews, who cried out, Away with him, it is not fit he should live, were shamed by the moderate counsels of this court. 3. Agrippa gave his judgment that he might have been set at liberty, if he had not himself appealed to Caesar (Act 26:32), but by that appeal he had put a bar in his own door. Some think that by the Roman law this was true, that, when a prisoner had appealed to the supreme court, the inferior courts could no more discharge him than they could condemn him; and we suppose the law was so, if the prosecutors joined issue upon the appeal, and consented to it. But it does not appear that in Paul's case the prosecutors did so; he was forced to do it, to screen himself from their fury, when he saw the governor did not take the care he ought to have done for his protection. And therefore others think that Agrippa and Festus, being unwilling to disoblige the Jews by setting him at liberty, made this serve for an excuse of their continuing him in custody, when they themselves knew they might have justified the discharging of him. Agrippa, who was but almost persuaded to be a Christian, proves no better than if he had not been at all persuaded. And now I cannot tell, (1.) Whether Paul repented of his having appealed to Caesar, and wished he had not done it, blaming himself for it as a rash thing, now he saw that was the only thing that hindered his discharge. He had reason perhaps to reflect upon it with regret, and to charge himself with imprudence and impatience in it, and some distrust of the divine protection. He had better have appealed to God than to Caesar. It confirms what Solomon says (Ecc 6:12), Who knows what is good for man in this life? What we think is for our welfare often proves to be a trap; such short-sighted creatures are we, and so ill-advised in leaning, as we do, to our own understanding. Or, (2.) Whether, notwithstanding this, he was satisfied in what he had done, and was easy in his reflections upon it. His appealing to Caesar was lawful, and what became a Roman citizen, and would help to make his cause considerable; and forasmuch as when he did it it appeared to him, as the case then stood, to be for the best, though afterwards it appeared otherwise, he did not vex himself with any self-reproach in the matter, but believed there was a providence in it, and it would issue well at last. And besides, he was told in a vision that he must bear witness to Christ at Rome, Act 23:11. And it is all one to him whether he goes thither a prisoner or at his liberty; he knows the counsel of the Lord shall stand, and says, Let it stand. The will of the Lord be done.

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

Act_26:24-25

And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself.

The effects of Pauls defence on Festus

I. The charge of Festus. He did not denounce Paul as a hypocrite or a knave, but rather as a brainless fanatic. This impression, though false, might have been sincere. The charge of madness against the earnest advocates of Christianity is very--

1. Easy. It requires no thought. Nothing is less difficult than to dispose of great questions in this way.

2. Common. It is what the careless and the profligate are constantly alleging against earnest teachers.

3. Foolish. Because no class of men are influenced by higher reason than the genuine advocates of religion. Posterity has long since decided who was the madman, Paul or Festus.

II. The reply of Paul.

1. He respectfully denies the charge.

2. He describes the true character of his teaching. Truth here stands opposed to falsehood, and soberness to mental derangement. I speak, as if Paul had said, the words of reality and the words of reason.

3. He obliquely rebukes Festus. He turns from him as if he would ignore his existence, and addresses himself to the king. As if Paul had said to Festus, It is not surprising that you cannot understand me; you are not a Jew. You have already misunderstood me. I am not speaking to you, but to the king; for the king knoweth of these things, etc. In thus acknowledging the kings acquaintance with the subject, Pauls aim was not to flatter the monarch, but to humble Festus. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul and Festus--a contrast

1. It was no even-handed contest in which the apostle found himself engaged. It was the occasion of a great state ceremonial, a Dhurbar, when the Imperial Viceroy received the welcome and the homage of the most powerful native prince. Just at this time he had a quarrel with the Jews and was anxious to secure the support of Festus. He had recently added to the palace of the Herods a lofty dining hall from which his guests could look down upon the inner temple. The priests and guardians of the sacred precincts resented this act, and therefore built up a high wall, and shut out the kings view. Agrippa resented this indignity, and endeavoured to get the restriction removed. He applied to Festus for aid; and Festus warmly espoused his cause. All this we have on the authority of Josephus. I mention the fact here for two reasons. It illustrates--

(1) The historical accuracy of the sacred narrative. The narrative of St. Luke and that of Josephus fit together as separate pieces of an historical whole.

(2) The relative proportions of events which men inevitably take who are mixed up in them. The aggressive insolence of Agrippa was the one topic of general interest at the time. But this interview with Paul, who cared for it? Yet time has wholly reversed the verdict of contemporary history. Of the magnificent palace of the Herods, or the goodly buildings of the temple, not one stone is left standing upon another. The aggressiveness of Agrippa and the policy of Festus have alike passed away, but the words of St. Paul are living and germinating and fructifying still. The quarrel of Agrippa has vanished out of sight, the pleading of Paul is the inheritance of all ages.

2. The attitude of Festus towards St. Paul more especially demands our attention. Festus was not a man whose opinion could be lightly disregarded. We have not here to do with the sceptical, worldly, cynical Pilate, or a cruel, reckless profligate like Felix; but with a just, sincere, outspoken, prompt and vigorous ruler, the very man to whom in the common affairs of life we should entrust our case with confidence. Nothing could be more upright than his treatment of the prisoner from first to last. But he has no ideas and no aspirations beyond. When the future and the unseen are mentioned he is lost in confusion; he is as helpless in dealing with such topics of thought as one who is blind in discriminating the hues of the rainbow. He is blunt, even to contempt, when he refers to one Jesus which was dead whom Paul yet affirmed to be alive. This was decisive to his mind. Could any sane man maintain an absurdity like this! He listens for a time with patience while Paul pleads his cause, but at length he can no longer restrain himself. He is confirmed now in his first surmise. He rudely interrupts the prisoner, shouting rather than speaking, Thou art mad, Paul! All this talk about sin and repentance, and forgiveness and salvation, what is this but the very phantom of a diseased brain? This story of the apparition on the way to Damascus with the light and the loud voice has nothing in common with the solid experiences, the stern matter-of-fact duties of the Roman magistrate, and, in short, with the acknowledged realities of human life.

3. Yes, it was sheer madness--

(1) To commit social suicide as this Paul had done. He had given up a high and honourable position among his fellow countrymen; he was on the high road to preferment, and yet he suddenly gave up all--for what? To become an outcast; to be hated by the Jews and scorned by the Greeks; to drag out a miserable career of penury, of suffering, of toil and of danger; to be spurned by all men as the very filth and offscouring of society. Who has put the case more strongly than himself? Aye! he knew, no one could know better, that he was irretrievably mad as the world counts madness. We are fools, he says of himself, we are fools for Christs sake.

(2) To profess such a creed as Paul did. Whoever heard before of one claiming the allegiance and the worship of the whole world for a crucified malefactor? There was no difference of opinion here between Jew and Greek. On most questions affecting religion the one spoke a language quite unintelligible to the other; but here there was absolute unanimity of sentiment--Festus, Agrippa, Roman soldier, and Hebrew priest, alike must join in condemning these rovings. Here again no one knew better than the apostle himself how his teaching was regarded by the learning and the sagacity of his age. He knew it, he gloried in it, he invited all men to become mad as he was mad. This very madness, he maintained, was the indispensable condition of all higher knowledge. If any man thinketh to be wise in this world let him become a fool that he may be wise.

4. So, then, two wholly irreconcilable views of life confronted each other in Festus and Paul. Paul was sincere. Festus was also sincere. And yet between the two there is a yawning and impassable gulf. If Festus is right, Paul is mad. If Paul is right, Festus is blind.

5. From an evidential point of view this scene would suggest not a few important reflections.

(1) I may point, e.g., to the calmness and sobriety of the apostles statement, to the perfect assurance with which he details the history of his conversion and the grounds of his belief, to the manly and courteous simplicity with which he replies to the rebuke of Festus, and the sarcasm of Agrippa. Certainly nothing is more unlike the raving of the maniac.

(2) I might turn away from the scene itself to its results. The civilised world, after long wavering and much halting, did ultimately prefer the madness of Paul to the sanity of Festus. Reflect how enormous has been the gain to mankind from this preference, and how irretrievable would have been the loss if it had taken Festus instead of Paul. Christianity rescued a helpless world which was hastening to its ruin, endowed society with fresh vigour and youth by infusing into it new aspirations and hopes; and this reinvigorating influence contained in itself the potentiality of all that is noblest and best in modern civilisation and life.

6. But it is a practical and not an intellectual conviction which I would wish to enforce upon you--the magnitude of the alternative. No ingenuity or indifference can bridge over the gulf which separates the view of human life, taken by Festus, from the view of it by St. Paul--the view taken by the upright and reasonable man of the world, who lives only in the present, and the view taken by the Christian, whose whole soul is dominated with the presence of God, with the consciousness of sin, and with the conviction of eternity. God forbid that we should speak meanly of honesty, truth, uprightness, whatever in human life is lovely and of good report. But still the fact remains. Here are two antagonistic views of human life and human destiny. Men may strive to patch up a hollow compromise between them, but no truce can be real because no meeting point is visible. It is the alternative of sanity and madness, of light and darkness, of life and death. If you have decided that the Christian view is sanity, is light, is life, then it must not, it cannot be inoperative in you. It will pervade your whole life, and breathe the breath of heaven into the work of earth. All this stands to reason. It cannot be a matter of indifference whether you are responsible in your actions only to the judgments of human society or to an all-seeing Eye, who overlooks, misinterprets misjudges nothing. It cannot be a matter of indifference whether wrong-doing is simply a violation of order, attended with inconvenient consequences, or whether it is sin, that is, a rebellious defiance of an all-righteous, all-holy, Father in heaven; whether He who walked upon our earth eighteen centuries ago was a lunatic; or whether He was indeed the only begotten Son of God; whether this life is our entire life, or whether there is an eternal hereafter before which the triumphs of the present are just nothing at all. This, then, I say, this is the tremendous alternative. There is no halting between two opinions here; the chasm is broad and fathomless. Accept, therefore, the alternative which you have chosen; accept it with all its consequences, think over it, master it, live it. Men will taunt you with your inconsistency; but be not discouraged by this. Let the taunt nerve you to greater efforts. The inconsistency must necessarily be greater as the ideal is higher. Festus, no doubt, was a much more consistent man than St. Paul. The standard of Festus was the ordinary standard of honourable men, and it would seem he did not fall far short of it. The standard of St. Paul was absolute self-negation, and he is constantly bewailing his shortcomings. The mere voluptuary is far more consistent than either. His aim is sensual pleasure, and he devotes himself to it heart and soul. Endure to be called madman when you stand before the judgment seat of Festus. That is inevitable; only remember meanwhile that you are the sons of God, heirs of eternity. (Bp. Lightfoot.)

Illustrious fools and madmen

In one of his works the late Charles Kingsley makes the suggestive and vigorous remark that there never was anyone who spoke out the truth yet on the earth, who was not called a howling idiot for his pains at first. And to anyone who is at all acquainted with the general facts and teachings of history, the remark will appear by no means too sweeping. It may not perhaps be very difficult to get at the root and reason of this ascription of folly and madness to men of strong religious earnestness and devotion. The madman, for instance, is very frequently a man of one idea. Some one oppressive thought has burnt itself into his brain, absorbs his attention by day, and colours his dreams by night, and he seems to know and care for nothing beside. And it is not therefore much to be wondered at that men of the world, to whom money, power, pleasure, luxury, are the sole ends of existence, should transfer this aspect of a disordered mind to those who have lived and laboured under the impulsion of strong religious enthusiasm, and brand them as monomaniacs. Heretic! Fool! Fanatic! Madman! Antichrist! those and many more such-like epithets of choice, ecclesiastical Billingsgate were shot at Luther from the catapults of the Pope and the priests of Rome. John Wesley, the great religious reformer of the last century, did not escape being placed in shames high pillory; while the great leaders and pioneers of the modern missionary movement, as we know, took very high rank in the category of reputed fools and madmen. The mission of William Carey to India was publicly characterised in the British House of Commons by one of its aristocratic members, as the mission of a madman; and even such a man as Sydney Smith, the witty canon of St. Pauls, found in the first batch of missionaries that went out for the evangelisation of the heathen, what he thought fit targets for the arrows of his caustic wit and satire. Little detachments of maniacs! was the only sentence which his Christian charity could find wherewith to label them. In the domain of science we have the case of Robert Bacon, of whom it has been said by Dr. Friend that he was the miracle of his age, and possessed perhaps the greatest genius for mechanical science that has been known since the days of Archimedes. And how was this brilliant experimental philosopher of the thirteenth century treated when he had made known those wonderful discoveries in chemistry, astronomy, and mechanics, which were all anticipations of the inventions and findings of modern science? Why, as all readers of English history are well aware, he was accused by the ignorant monks of his order of being possessed with the devil. It was affirmed that he was a practiser of the black art, and was aided in his search for the philosophers stone by infernal spirits. These accusations, together with eleven or twelve years close confinement in a cell, were the rewards which his bigoted and fanatical contemporaries meted out to the early star preceding dawn of experimental science and philosophy. And the same rule we shall find holding good in relation to others who were conspicuous pioneers and factors in the social and material progress of the people. Especially was this the case with regard to the discoverers and propounders of the propelling power of steam, and to its practical application in the form of locomotive steam engines, steam vessels, and the like, for the promotion of more expeditious modes of travelling. The germ idea of the steam engine is doubtless to be traced to the machines, diagrams, and writings of Solomon de Caus; although the Marquis of Worcester is generally acknowledged to be the inventor. And yet both these men were accounted lunatics by their contemporaries, because of their doctrine concerning the moving power of steam. The former, we are told, travelled from Normandy to Paris to present a treatise to Louis XIII on the subject. His minister, Cardinal Richelieu, dismissed the applicant, and on account of his importunity imprisoned him as a dangerous madman. And the latter, the Marquis of Worcester, was accounted not only a quack, but an impostor, and had to suffer the most bitter reverses on account of his advocacy of the brilliant discovery which his observing genius had made. Those who followed in the footsteps of these men, and who carried out their theories and principles to such glorious issues, may not have had to encounter quite such bitter persecution; nevertheless they had to run the gauntlet of the mockery and opposition of those whose ignorance prevented them from perceiving, or whose interests precluded them from entertaining, such so-called mad and impracticable projects. When Fulton proposed to navigate the river Hudson in a steamboat he was met with rude jokes, incredulous smiles, and contemptuous sneers by the wiseacres of his day, who charitably denounced his idea as the silliest that ever entered a silly brain. And when George Stephenson, the Father of English Railways, proposed to run a train from Woolwich to London at the amazing rate of fourteen miles an hour, he was not only regarded by many as an impracticable dreamer, but by some as betraying premonitory symptoms of fitness for Bedlam and a straitjacket. It was the old trick of calling a man mad who is in advance of his fellows, until the madness becomes contagious and the tables turn; then, like the good boy in the fairy tale, on whose head the fools cap, placed there by his scoffing brothers, turned into a crown, the jeers of opponents become transmuted into praise, and the very nicknames of such madmen become glorious. Additional and similar illustrations of the point we are seeking to set out lie ready to hand for gleaning in other field s of human thought and activity, but which can only be indicated. It is, for instance, a well-known fact that Mesmer, the discoverer of animal magnetism, was thought to be possessed of Satanic agency when he propounded his theory and made known his wonderful discovery; and had he lived at one time in England he would in all probability have been burnt to death at the stake as a wizard. As it was he was bitterly persecuted, his life threatened, and for a time he suffered imprisonment. The annals of political reform would also supply striking examples of the same thing, as the cases of Cobden, Bright, and Villiers would abundantly testify, who were branded as fools and fanatics for the part they played in the abolition of the Corn Laws, by which the death-knell of protective monopolies was rung, and the cheap loaf placed upon the poor mans table. So, too, with the records of the great Temperance reform. The pioneers of that great social movement had to pay the penalty of men in advance of their time, of being looked upon and labelled as fools and madmen. (J. Cuttell.)

The worlds estimate of Christianity

I. The worlds opinion.

1. What it is. That earnest Christians are beside themselves. The world has no objection to act upon the principle live and let live. If Christians will only quietly go their own way they are welcome to it--to all their strange worship, doctrines, mode of living, hopes, etc. But when all this is pressed upon the devotees of business, pleasure, politics, etc., and declared to be the one thing needful, it evidences insanity and must be called by its proper name. What have practical common-sense men of the world to do with such dreams?

2. By whom it is entertained--

(1) By too many of the worlds magnates in the State, science, literature, commerce. Men who are wholly occupied with interests, in their view of vastly greater moment.

(2) By men who ought to know better. Agrippa probably held the same view as Festus, although he professedly held many of Pauls primary beliefs. So there are many like Festus in our congregations. As long as the preacher is content with expounding in a quiet manner and in polished sentences the commonly accepted principles of morality, they can bear with him; but as soon as he presses home with earnestness upon the conscience the awful realities of time and destiny it is set aside as vulgar madness.

3. Upon what it is founded.

(1) With Festus some attribute it to learning--over-taxation of the brain. The mind has been so overwhelmed with contemplation that it has lost its balance.

(2) Others put it down to narrowness or superficiality. The man does not think deeply enough, or his reading has not been sufficiently extensive, or he would know that the subjects which he declaims are open questions, and he would submit as hypotheses what he now insists on as dogmas.

(3) Others say it is the result of an unbalanced system in which passion is allowed to usurp the place of reason.

II. The Christian answer.

1. A strange thing is not necessarily the sign of madness nor the setter forth of them a madman. Otherwise Festuss charge would hold good in regard to some of the greatest men who have ever lived. What great discoverer, scientist, inventor, philanthropist, has not at first been thought mad--e.g., Colombus, Galileo, Stephenson, Howard, Wilberforce, etc.

2. Were it otherwise with the Christian the charge might well be substantiated. Knowing what Paul did, would he not have been beside himself if he had not acted as he did. To feel the greatness of the gospel facts and issues, and to suppress them or be indifferent to them--that is madness.

3. Who would not rather be mad with Paul than sane with Festus when we compare the character of each, and the service each rendered to the world?

4. Whether Christianity is insanity or truth and soberness can be tested by its effects. Does it drive men mad, or does it make them truthful and sober? Let Christian lives, institutions, literature, furnish the reply. (J. W. Burn.)

Christian enthusiasm, its reasonableness

Once, at Wotton, Rowland Hill was carried away by the impetuous rush of his feelings, and exclaimed, Because I am in earnest men call me an enthusiast, but I am not; mine are the words of truth and soberness. I once saw a gravel pit fall in, and bury three human beings alive. I shouted so loud for help that I was heard at the distance of a mile; help came, and rescued two of the poor sufferers. No one called me an enthusiast then; and when I see eternal destruction ready to fall on poor sinners, and about to entomb them irrecoverably in an eternal mass of woe, and call aloud on them to escape, shall I be called an enthusiast now?

A preachers sanity questioned

When Dr. Chalmers was converted, the change in his ministry was quickly apparent to all. The rationalists, to whose class he had belonged, commonly said: Tom Chalmers is mad. Some years after, when he was settled in Glasgow, a lady and gentleman on their way to hear him met a friend, who asked where they were going. On being told, he said, What! to hear that madman? They persuaded him to go for once and do the same, promising never to dispute with him about that title again, if he were inclined to apply it to the preacher after his sermon. To the surprise of all three, when Dr. Chalmers gave out his text, it was, I am not mad, most noble Felix, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. The sceptical hearer was not only convinced of the preachers sanity, but he was likewise converted to faith in Evangelical truth.

Who is the madman

Lieutenant Watson, a godly officer, in the Peninsular War, had to halt with his regiment for some minutes in the presence of the French, and in the prospect of immediate battle. While so circumstanced, he said, several wounded men were carried by, the blood streaming through the stretchers on which they were borne. I was standing near several young officers who had often made me a subject of ridicule. I thought it a good opportunity to speak a word which might prove in season, and began by remarking, You have often called me a fool and a madman, but a few moments may decide the question, with whom is madness and folly, in the presence of Him who is the Dispenser of life and death. A solemn awe seemed to impress them for the moment, and I went on to speak of Him who had deprived death of its sting, by receiving it in His own body on the accursed tree. They begged and entreated of me to stop, and said at such a time it was cruel to torture their minds with such things.

Who is mad Paul or Festus

Who is mad?

I. The Christian who--

1. Founds his faith on the sure revelation of God and the experience of the heart;

2. Regulates his life according to the commands of God, and makes sure steps on the narrow path of holiness;

3. Places his hopes on an eternity, which, amid all the changes of time, is ever before his eyes?

II. Or he who is not a Christian who--

1. Blindly derides what he cannot comprehend with his senses;

2. Staggers, the sport of his passions, helplessly on the broad road that leads to destruction;

3. Seeks his happiness in the present, which vanishes like a dream, and leaves nothing behind but a terrible awaking? (K. Gerok.)

Evangelistic madness

As soon as Berridge, of Everton, began to preach in a different strain from the neighbouring clergy they felt hurt at the emptiness of their own churches and the fulness of his. The squire, too, was much offended; he did not like to see so many strangers, and be so incommoded, and endeavoured to turn Mr. Berridge out of his living by a complaint to his bishop. Berridge being sent for by his lordship, was accosted thus: Well, Berridge, they tell me you go about preaching out of your own parish; did I institute you to any other than Everton? No, my lord. Well, then, you preach where you have no right to. It is true, my lord; I remember seeing five or six clergyman out of their own parishes playing at bowls. Pho, if you do not desist, you will very likely be sent to Huntingdon jail. As to that, my lord, I have no greater liking to a jail than other people; but I had rather go there with a good conscience, than be at liberty with a bad one. Here his lordship, looking hard at Berridge, gravely assured him, he was beside himself, and that in a few months he would be better or worse. Then, said he, my lord, you may make yourself easy in this business; for if I am better, you must suppose I shall desist of my own accord; and if worse, you need not send me to jail, as I shaft be provided with an accommodation in Bedlam.

But he said, I am not mad.

Earnest Christianity vindicated from the charge of madness

I. The charge. Thou art beside thyself.

1. It is urged by the avowed infidel against the professor of Christianity. The idea of regenerating society by means of the gospel is looked upon as being an insane dream.

2. It is urged by the nominal Christian against the earnest practiser and propagator of Christianity. Religion is quite right in its place, but let it keep there, else it will become a bore. Do not bring it into social life. Be religious quietly and respectably.

II. The vindication. I am not mad, most noble Festus. The vindication is polite.

1. The earnest Christian proves his superior wisdom by the end at which he aims--the regeneration of the heart, and the perfect development of the whole man.

2. The earnest Christian proves his superior wisdom by the means which he employs. These means are two fold.

(1) Faith in Christianity as a system.

(2) Devotion to Christ as a person.

(a) Personal surrender. Ye are Christs.

(b) Enthusiastic service - advocacy, giving, and working.

Admitting, then, the aim to be flight and wise, art not the means exclusively suitable? What but Christianity can regenerate and perfect man? Cold consent to a creed cannot do it. Enthusiasm has done every good thing that has been done in this world. Formalism hinders.

3. The earnest Christian proves his superior wisdom by the success which he achieves.

Conclusion: Who is the madman, the accused or the accuser? The accuser assuredly.

1. The avowed infidel is a fool. He is not sure that Christianity is a delusion or an imposition. He is resting upon a most improbable supposition.

2. The nominal Christian is a greater fool. He says he believes in the existence of God, in the Divinity of the Bible, in the claims of Christ, in the realities of eternity; yet he lives as though he believed them not. His practice belies his profession. (Thomas Baron.)

A moral duel

Concerning the two duellists in the text, notice--

1. Both were signally able men. The speech of Festus (see Act_25:27) shows this, and the high position to which his abilities had raised him. Paul was not less able, but even more so.

2. Both were well known.

3. Both had distinguished spectators. There were present Agrippa, the king, the chief captains, and the principal men of the city.

I. As secularism represented in the attack of the one. Festus was a man of the world, a worldling, a strong, enlightened, talented secularist. Two remarks concerning this attack.

1. It was dealt out by a man of distinguished power.

2. It was prompted by motives that seemed reasonable.

II. As Christianity represented in the defence of the other. Two remarks are suggested.

1. The defence was direct. Paul says, I am not mad.

2. The defence was rational. He says, I speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

3. The defence was respectful. Paul addresses his accuser as most noble [R.V., excellent] Festus. (Homilist.)

The sanity of Paul

Proved by--

I. His manner all through this trying time. He had endured enough to turn the strongest brain. The violence of the mob; the narrow escapes from scourging and assassination, with all the tremendous anxieties connected therewith, and with his trials before the various tribunals; the hope deferred by the policy of Felix; the strain involved by the appeal to Caesar, and now his arraignment before a crowded and distinguished court. Who else could have endured all this without mental derangement? Yet we see Paul uniformly calm, courteous, courageous, conciliatory, quick to see and prompt to seize every favouring opportunity, and adapting himself with an ease amounting to genius to every circumstance in which he was placed. If this is madness, who then is sane?

II. The matter of his defence. Two or three years had passed since his defence on the stairs, and nearly a quarter of a century since the event he describes. The slightest touch of insanity would be easy to detect in the inevitable variation of some important details. Yet all these accounts are consistent. No lapse of memory, no mental indistinctness or weakness is observable. No man ever gave the same account of an hallucination twice, and no man ever suffered for one as Paul did for his vision of Christ, or ever utilised it for the benefit of the race.

III. The effects of his conduct on the world. What madman has turned the course of history, which was running in a wrong direction, into the right? To morally revolutionise the world, to secure for his Master a following which no man can number of the very elect of the race, and to secure a place in the affections of untold millions, are hardly effects which we should attribute to the work of a madman.

IV. The common consent of the wisest and best of the past eighteen centuries who have found in Pauls words salvation from sin, comfort in sorrow, stimulus to high endeavour and hope in death. (J. W. Burn.)

The wise answer

Does a man speak foolishly?--suffer him gladly, for you are wise. Does he speak erroneously?--stop such a mans mouth with sound words which cannot be gainsaid. Does he speak truly?--rejoice in the truth. (Oliver Cromwell.)

Most noble Festus.--

The upper classes

1. Years ago an attached domestic, presuming on the privilege accorded to his class, roundly reproved his master for the sin of swearing, and gave a broad hint about the judgment to come. The laird, feeling that he had not a leg to stand on, cut the matter short by the remark, It has pleased Providence to place our family in a superior position in this world, and I trust He will do the same in the next. This is a real case, but in our day a rare one. On the other side there are everywhere many who wear coronets and pray. But between the two extremes of good and evil in the upper ten thousand how many diversities there are in character and circumstances.

2. Paul could appreciate another mans difficulties, and sympathise with those whose position magnified the offence of the Cross. There was strength in him, but there was sensibility also. He can neither be weak nor rude. He knew that it was harder for the Roman governor than for a meaner man to obey the gospel. He will not flatter him, nor suggest that there is a private door to admit him to heaven; yet in his polite address lies a principle permanent, precious, practical.

3. We speak of aristocracy in no narrow or technical sense, but of the uppermost state of society, whether birth, wealth, energy, intellect or learning may have been the immediate cause of their elevation. Now, while it is true that such need and get the offer of salvation on the same terms as those who stand on a lower platform, it is also true that some temptations peculiar to themselves increase their difficulty of accepting the gospel.

4. One of our Lords sayings in reference to the aristocracy of wealth throws light on our theme (Mat_19:23-24). Assuming that the needles eye represents the low, narrow door through the wall of a fortified city for use by night or time of war, when the great entrance must be shut--you have here a passage from danger into safety, not impracticable in its own nature, but impracticable to a camel because of its huge bulk. Thus the elevation of the highest class makes their entrance into Christs kingdom more difficult. Of this difficulty Jesus speaks with tenderness, and Paul follows His steps. Most noble Festus, he said, observing that the dignity of the governor was holding high the head of a sinful creature, and hindering him from bowing before the Cross of Christ, and he said it to gratify the great mans feelings, and so to get the lost man saved.

5. From the style of the apostles address a lesson shines, sending out its light beams, teaching two opposite classes of men.

I. For ardent Christians of every rank and especially Christians of humble station. If you are true disciples, none will dispute your nobility. If you are born again, you are high born, how low soever your place in the registers of earth. But beware of presuming upon your place and privilege. Be conscious of your defects, and meek in your deportment; be all things to all men that by all means you may save some. In particular, beware of throwing a stumbling block in the way of the noble, the rich, or the refined, by any species of rudeness. Take care lest you mistake vulgarity for faithfulness, and your ignorance for the simplicity that is in Christ. There are some near you who have not yet submitted to the gospel; their elevation makes it harder for them to bow down and go in by the strait gate. Had you stood on an equal height, perhaps you would not have been within the gate today. Be careful; what if they should turn away from Christ because of some rudeness they saw in you. Think of their peculiar difficulties; do not make them greater; take some out of the way if you can. He that winneth souls is wise.

II. For the most noble of every class there lies a lesson here. We frankly own that there are nobles among men. We address our chiefs, as Paul addressed Festus, and give the title of respect which is due. Sirs, you cherish a high sense of honour, you have a refined taste, you have exercised your understanding, and cannot pay any deference to mere assertion. Well, what follows? Great and good though these attainments be, what are you profited if you lose your soul? Strive to enter by the strait gate, for your attainments may be so worn as to imperil your salvation. Finally, beware of allowing the rudeness and other defects of those who profess to be Christians to scare you away from Christ. It will be no consolation to you if you are not saved, if you are able to convict Christians of faults. You are not asked to believe in Christians but in Christ. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

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

Act 26:24. And as he thus spake for himself — And was making his defence; Festus — Astonished, it seems, to hear him represent this despised gospel of Jesus of Nazareth as a matter of such high and universal concern, and designed to be the means of illuminating both Jews and Gentiles, and thinking the vision he had related, as introductory to that assertion, quite an incredible story; said, with a loud voice — Which reached the whole auditory; Paul, thou art beside thyself — To talk of men’s rising from the dead! and of a Jew’s enlightening, not only his own nation, but the polite and learned Greeks and Romans! Nay, Festus, it is thou that art beside thyself; that strikest quite wide of the mark. And no wonder: he saw that nature did not act in Paul; but the grace that acted in him he did not see. And therefore he took all this ardour, which animated the apostle, for a mere start of learned phrensy. Much learning doth make thee mad — Πολλα σε γραμματα εις μανιαν περιτρεπει, much study drives thee to madness. Perhaps he might know that Paul, in his present confinement, spent a great deal of time in reading; and this was the most decent turn that could be given to such a mad charge. Doubtless, Paul had a great deal more to say in defence of the gospel which he preached, and for the honour of it, and to recommend it to the good opinion of his noble audience. He had just fallen upon a subject that was the life of the cause in which he was engaged, the death and resurrection of Jesus: and here he was in his element, his soul was animated, his mouth was opened toward them, and his heart enlarged: and it is a thousand pities that he should have been interrupted, as he now was, and not permitted to say all he designed.

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

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_26:24. As he thus spake for himself.—Lit., he speaking these things in his defence—ταῦτα, these things, being the words just uttered about the resurrection, rather than the entire speech. The notion of a resurrection appeared as absurd to Festus as it had done to the Athenians (Act_17:32), and caused him to think Paul beside himself, raving, or mad, and to say so, not in jest (Olshausen), but in earnest, at the same time ascribing his insanity to his much learning—πολλὰ γράμματα, which, among the Jews, meant much theology (Joh_7:15; 2Ti_3:15).

Act_26:25. Most noble.—Powerful, or excellent (κράτιστε), as in Act_23:26, Act_24:3; Luk_1:3.

Act_26:26. Before.—Better, unto whom. Paul, with fearless confidence, appealed to Agrippa, who knew perfectly that the doctrines just referred to, of a crucified and risen Christ, on which his, Paul’s, gospel was founded, were not fancies, illusions, the ravings of a madman, but words of truth and soberness, because relating to facts which had been done and events which had taken place, not in a corner, but in the metropolis of Palestine, and therefore publicly.

Act_26:28. Almost (ἐν ὀλίγῳ = propemodum, a meaning of which no other example can be given) thou persuadest me to be or become (γενέσθαι) a Christian (Chrysostom, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Stier, Spence); or, with but little persuasion thou persuadest me to become, or, according to a different reading, thou believest (thyself able) to make of me a Christian; i.e., thou wouldest fain make me a Christion (R.V., Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Plumptre, Holtzmann, and others); or, in a little time (i.e., if you go on speaking thus) you will persuade me to become a Christian (Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, De Wette, Robinson, Hackett, and others). The third is admissible, but does not so well suit the apostle’s answer (see below). The second fits best if the alternative reading, ποιῆσαι for γενέσθαι be adopted. The first, though perhaps grammatically doubtful, harmonises best with the seriousness which Paul’s oration was calculated to inspire. The second and third are more or less ironical.

Act_26:29. Both almost and altogether.—Ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ (the best texts have ἐν μεγάλῳ), in little and in much. It must be admitted that this reply does not fit in well with the first of the above renderings, while it suits admirably the second and third, as thus: either, I would to God that whether with little or with much, or whether in a little time or in a great time, not thou only, etc. In spite, therefore, of the seemingly ironical character of the second and third, one or other of these should be preferred. These bonds.—(See Act_24:23; Act_24:27.)

Act_26:30.—Unwilling to hear more, the auditors rose up in order, according to their rank.

Act_26:31.—After conferring with one another Festus and Agrippa came to the same conclusion as had already three times been reached concerning Paul—first by the Pharisees (Act_23:9), next by Lysias (Act_23:29), and lastly by Festus (Act_25:25).

Act_26:32.—Agrippa adds that but for his appeal to Cæsar the apostle might have been set at liberty.

Note.—The authenticity of this and the two preceding chapters relating to Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea has been questioned on the following grounds:

1. That the two trials—before Felix and before Festus—have been artificially constructed by the author, and manifestly on the same plan, according to which in each the same incidents recur—the same motives for the accusation, the same murder-proposal of the Jews, the same appearing of Paul’s enemies before the Roman tribunal with their complaints, the same hearing before a regularly constituted court, the same failure in the evidence offered, the same protection and recognition of his innocence at the hands of the Roman procurator, and the same style of defence—viz., that Paul was an orthodox Jew, and indeed a Pharisee, who had been constrained by a irresistible Divine impulse to enter on his Gentile mission (Baur, Zeller, Holtzmann).

2. That the position adopted by Paul was more in accordance with that taken by the second-century apologists (Holtzmann).

3. That everything appears directed to show how Paul, who was persecuted by the fanaticism of the Jews, was protected through the righteousness of the Romans (Pfleiderer); and

4. That so completely is his innocence established, over against both Roman policy and Jewish hate, that his continued imprisonment (Weizsäcker) and deportation to Rome (Holtzmann) are simply inconceivable. But to all this it suffices to reply—

1. That similarity between two judicial processes does not necessarily establish the unreality of both or of either—and all the more if the processes were conducted by the same parties, against the same individual, about the same charge, and with the same evidence.

2. That second-century apologists may well have learnt how to defend themselves, by a careful studying of Paul’s defences.

3. That the favour shown by the Roman Governors to Paul accords with what is known of the Roman policy towards Christianity in the first century, and not with what is known of her policy in the second century (Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 194); and

4. That Paul’s continued imprisonment requires no explanation different from that given in the text—viz., the unwillingness of the Roman governors either to please the Jews by punishing Paul or to displease them by setting him free; while after his appeal to Cæsar had been allowed, it would probably not have been safe for either Festus or Agrippa to have disregarded it. But, even if they did, that would only show they had failed in their duty, not that the narrative in the Acts was unhistorical.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_26:24-32

Paul’s Two Distinguished Listeners, Festus and Agrippa; or, Two Souls Struggling against the Truth

I. Paul and Festus; or, the apostle and the governor.—

1. The exclamation of the governor. “Paul, thou art beside thyself,” or, thou art mad!—“much learning doth make thee mad,” or, doth turn thee to madness. So far as Festus was concerned, Paul, by his lofty oration, had effected this only, that Festus esteemed him a lunatic. Strange perversity of the world! When Paul of Tarsus raved against God, blasphemed Christ, and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the Christians, his contemporaries counted him both wise and prudent; now that, as Paul the aged, he talks in sublime strains of a crucified and risen Saviour, the world, as represented by the Judæan procurator, sets him down for a madman, or, at least, for one whose brain had been touched by overmuch study. Paul! much learning doth turn thee to madness. To the governor it seemed incomprehensible that one should not only rave about such transcendental delusions, but should actually risk his life in preaching them. Doubtless at the present day many hold with the governor that earnest and enthusiastic Christians, who base their prospects of present happiness and future felicity on such (as the world thinks) imaginary facts as the incarnation, propitiation, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ, are idle dreamers, foolish visionaries, crack-brained enthusiasts, half-mad fanatics who simply mistake the vague and shadowy creations of a disordered or diseased fancy for solid and substantial truths, and who accordingly sacrifice themselves for whims and crotchets. But for all that numbers of those who affect to regard Christians in this light have their secret misgivings that the Christians are right. That Festus felt uncomfortable beneath the glowing utterances of Paul is a plausible deduction from the fact that he rather shouted at than calmly expostulated with the apostle. Had he really believed the apostle to be beside himself, he would not have flamed forth into a rage against him, but would have pitied him, and perhaps spoken gently to him, or at least would have not troubled himself about his utterances. And so the circumstance that men of the world habitually become vehement and angry when denouncing the faith of Christians is a proof they are not inwardly convinced of its error.

2. The reply of the apostle. “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.” In repudiating the charge of the governor, Paul fell back upon two defences.

(1) The testimony of his own consciousness, which enabled him to assure Festus that he was neither “beside” nor beneath nor outside of himself, as insinuated, but in full possession of his faculties—not at all the victim of an ill-balanced judgment, an exuberant fancy, or an unbridled imagination, but the master of a calm, clear intellect and a sober, regulated reason, which understood well the thoughts it was thinking and the words it was uttering.

(2) The unchallengeable truthfulness of his assertions, in support of which he confidently appealed to the wide publicity which had been gained by the main facts of gospel history, the death and resurrection of Christ, which had not taken place in some remote corner of the country, but had occurred in its very centre and heart, the Metropolis itself, Jerusalem, and which therefore could not be unknown to the king, to whom accordingly he next directed his address. The apostle meant that if the story of Christ’s death and resurrection had not been true, it could easily have been demonstrated false, as the people of Jerusalem were well aware of all that had transpired. But so far from being exposed as an idle fiction, the report of the resurrection—of the crucifixion denial was impossible—had kept on spreading and gaining adherents during the last quarter of a century, which it could hardly have done had it been false.

II. Paul and Agrippa; or, the apostle and the king.—

1. The fervent appeal of the apostle. “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Whether the apostle, “who had studied psychology in the school of the Holy Ghost” (Leonhard and Spiegel) discerned in the king’s heart a secret inclination to yield to the truth as set forth in the apostle’s oration, must be left undecided.

(1) The ground on which Paul’s appeal rested appears to have been the assumption that Agrippa II., as a Jew, must have been perfectly cognisant of the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures predicted the coming of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah. That they did so has been frequently pointed out.

(2) The force of Paul’s appeal lay in this, that Agrippa, having been possessed of such knowledge, ought to have had no difficulty in recognising the reasonableness of Paul’s words, which simply declared that such predictions as were contained in the prophets had been fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s interpretation of the connection between these events and the Scripture prophecies might be at fault—nay, Paul’s assertion about the resurrection might be incorrect; but in the statements themselves no impartial judge could find evidence of unreason or folly.

2. The ambiguous answer of the king. “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; or, “with but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (R.V.); or, in a little time (at this rate) you will persuade me to become (or, you believe you can make of me) a Christian (see “Critical Remarks”). According to the first of these renderings, Agrippa was supposed to admit that Paul had almost carried the citadel of his judgment, and that only a little more was wanting to gain him altogether for the Christian cause. According to the second, his meaning ran that Paul must not imagine he could convert a Jewish sovereign like him with so little show of argument, or so inconsiderable effort. According to the third, that if Paul went on as he was doing he would soon make of him, Agrippa II., a Christian. The first had its source in incipient seriousness, the second in supercilious contempt, the third in superficial levity. Those who wish to think the best of Agrippa naturally prefer the first interpretation of his words, notwithstanding the grammatical difficulty attaching to them; those who adhere to the best text select the second or third interpretation of Agrippa’s words, though these charge him with feelings—either of irony or of jest—which certainly look incompatible with a situation so grave and solemn as that in which they were spoken.

3. The sublime ejaculation of the apostle. “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds”; or, “I would to God that whether with little or with much …” (R.V.); or, “whether in a little time or in much time”; or, adopting another reading, “whether with a little effort or with a great effort, not only thou, but also all that hear me this day,” etc. (see “Critical Remarks”). Taken either way, the sense of the apostle’s utterance practically amounted to this:

(1) that he wished, not only Agrippa, but all who listened to him that day, to be, like himself, Christians;

(2) that, could he only hope to see that wish fulfilled, he would willingly spend a long time or a short, and put forth a great effort or a small, as the case might be; and

(3) that the sole point in which he did not ask God that they might resemble him was “these bonds,” which he held up before them. The magnanimity of this reply has evoked never-failing admiration from all hearts capable of understanding and appreciating true heroism.

4. The response of the king. Obviously Agrippa’s was not a heart of the order just depicted. No sooner had the apostle’s words died away in the hushed atmosphere of the marble hall than Agrippa II. rose from his seat, followed by the governor, Bernice, and all that sat with them. Having withdrawn from the audience-chamber and talked amongst themselves, they came to the conclusion that Paul had committed no offence worthy of death. Most likely all concurred in pronouncing him a harmless fanatic. What they said to one another about his last words is not recorded. Possibly all were silent, each afraid to reveal to his neighbour the thoughts that had been stirred within his bosom. Only one more item of the conversation has been preserved. Agrippa II. expressed his mind to the governor, that, had Paul not appealed to Cæsar, he might forthwith have been set at liberty. The result of this “may have been that Festus modified his report and commended the apostle to the clemency of the court at Rome” (Hackett).

Learn—

1. The outrageous slanders that are sometimes propagated against Christians.

2. The certainty that truth and soberness lie rather with the Christian than with the worldling.

3. The fearlessness with which Christianity can make appeal to the court of enlightened reason.

4. The unwisdom of those who decline to allow themselves to be persuaded to become Christians.

5. The fervent desire true Christians possess that others should share the salvation of which they are conscious.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_26:24-29. Paul and His Princely Hearers; or, the different attitudes of men toward the gospel.

I. Festus, who turns entirely aside from it—“Paul, thou ravest!”

II. Agrippa, who is half turned towards it—“Almost thou persuadest me!”

III. Paul, who entirely lives in it—“I would to God that all who hear me were such as I am.”—Gerok, in Lange.

Act_26:24. Which is the Madman?—Paul or Festus? the Christian or the non-Christian?

I. The Christian who believes in a personal God—a God of power, who has made the universe, and a God of love, who has devised a way of salvation for man? Or the non-Christian who, if he acknowledges a God at all, conceives of Him as either hostile to, or indifferent about, man?

II. The Christian who believes that God has made known His mind and will to man for his salvation in the sacred Scriptures? Or the non-Christian who holds that God has never placed Himself in communication with the human race at all?

III. The Christian who believes that man, even in his sin, is a child of God, and a possible heir of immortality? Or the non-Christian whose creed is that man is nothing more than an animated clod which will in course of years mingle with the other (unanimated) clods of the valley, and be never more heard of, in this or any other world?

IV. The Christian who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s Son incarnate, who died and rose again, bringing life and immortality to light? Or, the non-Christian whose faith is that Jesus was a common and therefore a sinful man, who never rose from the dead, and that the grave will never open to restore a single form that goes down into its gloomy chambers!

V. The Christian who believes in a hereafter and lives for it? Or, the non-Christian who knows of no world but this, and lives and dies as if there were none?

Act_26:25. Words of Truth and Soberness.

I. Such were Paul’s words to all who heard his gospel.—

1. Proved from the past history of the Church. For the words of Paul remain to this day, whereas the wit of Festus has long since died away.

2. Confirmed by Christian experience. Since honest hearts in all ages have found in Paul’s words (written) their clearest light, best strength, and sweetest comfort.

3. They will likewise be placed in the light at the great day of eternity. Inasmuch as heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God endureth for ever.

II. Such should be the words of preachers still to all who listen to their teaching.—And such they will be—

1. If they discourse upon Pauls theme,—a crucified and risen Saviour.

2. If they speak with Paul’s earnestness—which all can imitate, though all cannot equal. What is wanted in preaching is not “sound and fury, signifying nothing,” but deep-toned and full-hearted fervour.

3. If they seek Paul’s aims,—the glory of Christ and the salvation of souls. None but words of truth and soberness will accomplish these.

Act_26:27. “Believest thou the prophets?”

I. A great question.—For modern readers of the Bible no less than for Agrippa.

1. Believest thou the Hebrew prophets were inspired? This question lies at the foundation of Christianity. If the Hebrew prophets were only statesmen, somewhat more far-seeing than their contemporaries, but in no sense channels of Divine communication for their age and generation, then it is vain to attempt to derive from their utterances any evidence in support of the Messiahship of Jesus. It was clearly in the faith that Old-Testament Scripture prophesied beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow that Paul appealed to them so confidently in support of his gospel; and those who think the foundations of the Christian system will remain undisturbed if the credibility of Old-Testament literature is impaired, have not reflected deeply enough on this momentous problem. As the New-Testament Scriptures are the flower and fruit, the crown and apex, of the Old, so are the Old-Testament Scriptures the root and support of the New.

2. Believest thou what the Hebrew prophets teach? Men might, and many do, believe the Hebrew prophets to have been inspired, who nevertheless disregard the testimony they furnish concerning the person and work of Christ. But the Christological argument derived from the Messianic prophecies was, in Paul’s judgment, and is in the estimation of many Bible scholars of to-day, one of the most powerful factors in demonstrating the truth of the New-Testament declarations with reference to Christ’s divinity, atoning work, and resurrection.

3. Believest thou that what the Hebrew prophets taught concerning Christ has been fulfilled? This practically means, Believest thou that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel and Saviour of the world? Believest thou that He was God’s Son incarnate, that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again according to the Scriptures? (1Co_15:1-4).

4. Believest thou for thyself, individually, in the Christ of whom the prophets spoke? All believing that stops short of this is worthless for saving.

II. A powerful argument.—Of which the following are the several steps:

1. He who believes in the prophets of the Old Testament should also believe in the apostles of the New. The authors of the New-Testament writings can produce as good claims to be inspired as could the prophets of the Old.

2. He who believes in the Messiah, foreshadowed by the prophets, should likewise believe in the Christ preached by the apostles. The first was the type of the second; the second is the antitype of the first. If the prophets spoke the truth when they said Christ should suffer and rise again, so did the apostles teach no falsehood when they affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, since they alleged that He both suffered and rose.

3. He who believes that Jesus is the Christ should likewise for himself believe in Him for salvation. This, after all, is the great question: Dost thou believe on the Son of God? (Joh_9:35). The man who accepts the testimony of both prophets and apostles should feel himself shut up to the acceptance of Christ as his personal Saviour.

Act_26:28. Almost Persuaded.—A condition of soul—

I. Frequently attained.—The heart touched, the mind enlightened, the will moved, the spirit trembling on the verge of a decision for Christ; nothing wanting but—the decision. Many reach this position as well as Agrippa.

II. Highly responsible.—Seeing that only a little is lacking to carry the spirit over into faith, the obligation to supply that little is the greater. What guilt will they incur who refuse or omit to take the final step that is necessary for salvation.

III. Extremely perilous.—Besides being in itself an unsafe condition, it is also an unstable one. No soul can remain permanently in the position these words describe. Either it will move on and become fully persuaded, or it will drift back and become less persuaded.

Almost a Christian.—A position—

I. Of gracious privilege.—Implying that one has been brought near the kingdom, and enabled to understand somewhat of its nature, of its terms of membership, of its duties, and of its blessings.

II. Of hopeful promise.—That the “almost” shall, before long, be converted into an “altogether.” That the one step wanting to make one a Christian shall be taken.

III. Of solemn responsibility.—That the one “almost” shall become “altogether” a Christian. That he shall not remain on the borders of the kingdom, but cross the boundary and enter in.

IV. Of great danger.—Lest one should be satisfied with being “almost” without becoming “altogether” a Christian.

Act_26:28-29. The Shortcomings of Agrippa.

I. What they were.—

1. He only says “almost,” not yet “altogether,” and thus at once recalls what he appears to allow. He remains standing without the doors of salvation, and will not enter in.

2. He only says, “Thou persuadest me”; but a persuasion is much less than faith or conviction, and may, as in this case, come to an end with the words which called it forth.

3. He only says, “to be a Christian,” meaning, to join thy party, in an external way, instead of saying, “I believingly accept thy testimony about Jesus.”

II. How they were answered.—

1. By suggesting that much more than he thought was still deficient in him. Every “almost,” like Agrippa’s, implies that much is still wanting.

2. By expressing a desire that, whether much or little was lacking, all might be fully persuaded. At whatever stage of nearness or distance they stood from the kingdom, he longed for the salvation of all.

3. By reminding him, and all who listened, that becoming a Christian meant more than joining the party of the Nazarenes, meant becoming like him, Paul, in everything except his bonds, meant becoming a lowly and devoted follower of Christ.—Compiled from Stier.

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.

26:24 Paul, you are insane: Festus, a Roman, thought all this talk about the prophets and resurrection was crazy (cp. 17:18, 32), and he concluded that Paul must have driven himself mad with too much study.

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

Act 26:24. Μαίνῃ Παῦλε, thou art mad, Paul) It is thou, Festus, who art mad. Festus saw that it is not nature which acts in Paul: he was not capable of seeing grace: wherefore he supposes that it was a Jewish kind of enthusiastic phrensy, of the same kind as was that among the Gentiles, according to their own fables. He does not ascribe to Paul habitual madness, but a particular act and feeling of madness then: comp. ch. Act 12:15.—γράμματα, learning) Festus accounts the apostle’s ardour as the effect of overmuch learning [Pedantry].

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

Act_26:24. While he was thus speaking in his defence, Festus said with a loud voice (μεγ. τῇ φωνῇ, see on Act_14:10), Thou art mad, Paul! ταῦτα is to be referred to the whole defence (as to ἀπολογ. τι, see on Luk_12:11), now interrupted by Festus (observe the present participle), but in which certainly the words spoken last (οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς κ.τ.λ.) were most unpalatable to the cold-hearted statesman, and at length raised his impatience to the point of breaking out aloud. His profane mind remained unaffected by the holy inspiration of the strange speaker, and took his utterances as the whims of a mind perverted by much study from the equilibrium of a sound understanding. His μαίνῃ! was indignant earnestness; with all the more earnestness and bitterness he expressed the idea of eccentricity by this hyperbolical μαίνῃ, the more he now saw his hope of being enlightened as to the true state of matters grievously disappointed. Comp. Soph. O. R. 1300: τίς σʼ, ὦ τλῆμον, προσέβη μανία! That solicitude of the procurator (Act_25:26), which naturally governed his tone of mind, was much too anxious and serious for a jest, such as Olshausen takes it to be. Nor does μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ suit this, on which Chrysostom already correctly remarks: οὕτω ην κ. ὀργῆς ἡ φωνή. The explanation, thou art an enthusiast! is nothing but a mistaken softening of the expression. So Kuhn (in Wolf), Majus (Obss. IV. p. 11 ff.), Loesner, Schleusner, Dindorf. However the furor propheticus may be nourished by plunging into πολλὰ γράμματα, the μαίνῃ in this sense is far less suited to the indignation of the annoyed Roman; and that Paul regarded himself as declared by him to be a madman, is evident from Act_26:25(ἀληθείας κ. σωφροσ.).

τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα)] multae literae (Vulgate), the much knowledge, learning, with which thou busiest thyself. See on Joh_7:15. Not: the many books, which thou readest (Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand), for, if so, we cannot see why the most naturally occurring word, βιβλία or βίβλοι, should not have been used.

The separation of πολλά from γράμ. by the interposition of σε puts the emphasis on πολλά. Bengel correctly adds: Videbat Festus, naturam non agere in Paulo; gratiam non vidit.

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 26:24 . ἀπολ .: the present participle, indicating that Festus broke in upon the speech, cf. Act 4:1 . μεγ . τῇ φ .: raising his voice, because interrupting in surprise and astonishment, and no doubt with something of impatience if not of anger (Chrysostom). Μαίνῃ : a hyperbolic, but not a jesting expression; the mention not only of a resurrection, but the expressed belief that this Christ Whom Festus could only describe as “one who was dead,” Act 25:19 , should bring light not only to Jews but even to Gentiles, to Romans like himself, was too much such a belief could only result from a disturbed brain, cf. Act 17:32 for the effect of the announcement of a resurrection and a judgment on the polished Athenians, cf. St.Joh 10:20 , where our Lord’s words provoked a similar pronouncement by the Jews, the learned Jews of the capital. μαίνεσθαι : “qui ita loquitur ut videatur mentis non compos esse,” Grimm, cf. Act 12:15 , 1Co 14:23 , opposite to σωφροσύνης ῥήματα ἀποφθ . (see also Page’s note); cf. the passage in Wis 5:3-4 , and Luckock, Footsteps of the Apostles , etc., ii., p. 263. τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα : “thy much learning,” R.V., giving the force of the article perhaps even more correctly, “that great learning of thine”. It is possible that the words may refer simply to the learning which Paul had just shown in his speech, of which we may have only a summary, and γράμμ . may be used of the sacred writings from which he had been quoting, and to which in his utterances he may have applied the actual word, and so Festus refers to them by the same term, cf. 2Ti 3:15 . Others refer the word to the many rolls which St. Paul had with him, and which he was so intent in studying. It is possible that the word may be used here as in Joh 7:15 , of sacred learning in general, of learning in the Rabbinical schools, and perhaps, as it is employed by a Roman, of learning in a more general sense still, although here including sacred learning = μαθήματα , cf. Plat., Apol. , 26 D. If books alone had been meant βιβλία or βίβλοι would have been the word used. περιτρέπει εἰς μανίαν : “doth turn thee to madness,” R.V., cf. our English phrase “his head is turned,” literally “turn thee round” (Humphry), cf. Jos., Ant. , ix., 4, 4, ii., 4, 1. It is possible that Festus used the expression with a certain delicacy, since in using it he recognises how much wisdom Paul had previously shown (Weiss, Bethge). After such an expression of opinion by Festus, and owing to the deference of Agrippa to the Romans, Knabenbauer thinks that the king could not have expressed himself seriously in the words which follow in Act 26:28 .

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

The wisdom of God is madness to fools, yet notwithstanding we must boldly avouch the truth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Festus said with a loud voice--surprised and bewildered.

Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad--"is turning thy head." The union of flowing Greek, deep acquaintance with the sacred writings of his nation, reference to a resurrection and other doctrines to a Roman utterly unintelligible, and, above all, lofty religious earnestness, so strange to the cultivated, cold-hearted skeptics of that day--may account for this sudden exclamation.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 24. Paul, thou art beside thyself] "Thou art mad, Paul!" "Thy great learning hath turned thee into a madman." As we sometimes say, thou art cracked, and thy brain is turned. By the τα πολλα γραμματα it is likely that Festus meant no more than this, that Paul had got such a vast variety of knowledge, that his brain was overcharged with it: for, in this speech, Paul makes no particular show of what we call learning; for he quotes none of their celebrated authors, as he did on other occasions; see Ac 17:28. But he here spoke of spiritual things, of which Festus, as a Roman heathen, could have no conception; and this would lead him to conclude that Paul was actually deranged. This is not an uncommon case with many professing Christianity; who, when a man speaks on experimental religion, on the life of God in the soul of man-of the knowledge of salvation, by the remission of sins-of the witness of the Spirit, c., c., things essential to that Christianity by which the soul is saved, are ready to cry out, Thou art mad: he is an enthusiast: that is, a religious madman one who is not worthy to be regarded and yet, strange to tell, these very persons who thus cry out are surprised that Festus should have supposed that Paul was beside himself!

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

24. Festus said with a loud voice. This outcry which Festus doth make doth show how much the truth of God prevaileth with the reprobate; to wit, though it be never so plain and evident, yet is it trodden under foot by their pride. For though those things which Paul had alleged out of the law and prophets had nothing in them which was anything like to madness, but were grounded in good reason, yet he doth attribute the same to madness, not because he seeth any absurdity, but because he refuseth those things which he doth not understand. Nothing was more foolish or more unsavory than the superstitions of the Gentiles, so that their high priests were for good causes ashamed to utter their mysteries, whose folly was more than ridiculous.

Festus doth grant that there was learning packed in Paul’s speech; nevertheless, because the gospel is hidden from the unbelievers, whose minds Satan hath blinded, (2 Corinthians 4:3) he thinketh that he is a brain-sick fellow which handleth matters intricately. So that though he cannot mock and openly contemn him, yet he is so far from being moved or inwardly touched, that he counteth him a man which is frenzy [frenzied] and of mad curiosity. And this is the cause that he cannot away to mark what he saith, lest he make him mad also; as many at this day fly from the word of God, lest they drown themselves in a labyrinth. And they think that we be mad because we move questions concerning hidden matters, and so become troublesome both to ourselves and also to others. Wherefore, being admonished by this example, let us beg of God that he will show us the light of his doctrine, and that he will therewithal give us a taste thereof, lest through obscurity and hardness it become unsavory, and at length proud loathsomeness break out into blasphemy.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(24) Festus said with a loud voice.—The description may be noted as one of the touches of vividness indicating that the writer relates what he had actually heard. The Roman governor forgot the usual dignity of his office, and burst, apparently, into a loud laugh of scorn.

Much learning doth make thee mad.—The Greek gives a neuter plural: Thy many writings are turning thee to madness. The word was one which was used by the Jews for the collected body of their sacred writings and traditions, as in the “letters” of Joh_7:15 and the “holy Scriptures” of 2Ti_3:15. Festus had probably heard the Law and the Prophets of Israel so described, and knew that St. Paul had with him “books and parchments” (2Ti_4:13), which he was continually studying. That one who had been crucified should rise from the dead and give light to the Gentiles seemed to him the very hallucination of insanity. So have men at all times thought of those who lived after a higher law than their own, whether their faith rested, as in St. Paul’s case, on an outward objective fact, or, as in Wis_5:4, on a true faith in the Unseen.

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

24–32. Interruption by Festus. Appeal to Agrippa. Consultation and decision

24 Festus said with a loud voice] Probably what had last fallen from Paul seemed to him little better than lunatic ravings. The Gospel of the Cross did appear as “foolishness” to the Gentile world. And this Gospel he had just heard in all its fulness: that the Christ by suffering of death and rising to life again should be the source of true enlightenment both to Jews and Gentiles.

Paul, thou art beside thyself [R. V. mad]. As the same word is taken up in the following verse, it is better that it should be rendered alike in both places.

much learning doth make thee mad] Lit. (with R. V.) “doth turn thee to madness.” But there is nothing gained by construing thus, and much is lost in English vigour. “Much learning” is literally “the many writings.” As in Joh_7:15, where the same word is rendered “letters,” it may mean study and learning generally. But it seems better to take it of those writings (viz. the Old Testament) to which Paul had been appealing. For as a religious literature no nation, not even the polished Greeks, had anything to place in comparison with the Sacred Books of the Jews.

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.

But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus,.... That is, Paul said, as the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read: he replied to Festus, to whom he gives his title of honour, not out of fear, nor flattery, but according to custom; and though he used him in such a reproachful manner, as if he was not himself, which he denies; nor did what he had said show anything of that kind, but the reverse, to which he appeals;

but speak forth the words of truth and soberness; which are true in themselves, being perfectly agreeable to the Scriptures of truth; and are what Christ, who is truth itself, had spoken, and of which he is the subject; and which the spirit of truth leads into, and owns and blesses: the Gospel in general, and all the doctrines of it, are words of truth; they are true, in opposition to that which is false, there is nothing of falsehood in them, no lie is of the truth; and to that which is fictitious, as the counterfeit Gospel of false teachers, which looks like the Gospel, and has the appearance of truth, but in reality is not; and to that which is but shadow, the Gospel, and the truths of it, are solid and substantial ones; hence the law and truth are opposed to each other, Joh 1:17 and there are particular doctrines of the Gospel, and such as the apostle had been speaking of, or referred unto, which are called truth, words of truth, and faithful sayings; as that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he is God manifest in the flesh, or is God and man in one person; that he came into the world to save the chief of sinners; that he suffered, died, and rose again from the dead; that justification is by his righteousness; and that as he is the first that rose from the dead, others will rise also; or that there will be a resurrection of the dead by him; see Jo1 2:21 Ti1 1:15. And these are "words of soberness" also; they are words of the highest wisdom, which contain the wisdom of God in a mystery, even hidden wisdom, the deep things of God, and such as could never have been found out by the wisdom of men; they are the means of bringing a man to himself, to his right mind, who before was not himself; of causing a man to think soberly of himself, and not more highly than he ought to think, even to think of himself, that he is the chief of sinners, and the least of saints; and of speaking soberly, wisely, and prudently; and of living soberly, righteously, and godly: they are doctrines, as delivered by the faithful ministers of them, which come from a sound and sober mind, and have a tendency to make wise and sober; and therefore should be spoken "forth", openly and boldly, freely and faithfully, constantly and continually, as they were by the apostle, whatever reproaches, calumnies, and reflections may be cast upon them for so doing, even though they may be called fools and madmen.

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

24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Ver. 24. Much learning hath made thee mad] Core diminuit harem, the seed is lessened, let it grow, as Ennius hath it. Paul was indeed a man of much learning; for besides the Bible, and the Jewish records, he had read the poets (whom also he citeth), and Plato, from whom he borrowed that excellent word αναζωπυρειν, 2Ti 1:6; "Stir up thy gift," &c. But if Paul were so great a scholar, why did not Festus show him more favour, or at least do him better justice? Aeneas Sylvius was wont to say of learning, that popular men should esteem it as silver, noblemen as gold, princes prize it as pearls. Festus might possibly have heard or read of Antony the Triumvir, that when Varro (his very enemy, and of a contrary faction) was proscribed for death, he thus gallantly superscribed his name, Vivat Varro vir doctissimus: Let Varro have his life for his learning’ sake. And if Antipater (saith Sir Walter Raleigh, Hist. of the World) upon his conquest had carried all other actions never so mildly, yet for killing Demosthenes, all that read his eloquent orations do condemn him for a bloody tyrant to this day.

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.

Festus said with a loud voice - Amazed at the zeal of Paul. Paul doubtless evinced deep interest in the subject, and great earnestness in the delivery of his defense.

Thou art beside thyself - Thou art deranged; thou art insane. The reasons why Festus thought Paul mad were, probably:

(1) His great earnestness and excitement on the subject.

(2) His laying such stress on the gospel of the despised Jesus of Nazareth, as if it were a matter of infinite moment. Festus despised it; and he regarded it as proof of derangement that so much importance was attached to it.

(3) Festus regarded, probably, the whole story of the vision that Paul said had appeared to him as the effect of an inflamed and excited imagination, and as a proof of delirium. This is not an uncommon charge against those who are Christians, and especially when they evince unusual zeal. Sinners regard them as under the influence of delirium and fanaticism; as terrified by imaginary and superstitious fears; or as misguided by fanatical leaders. Husbands often thus think their wives to be deranged, and parents perceive their children that, and wicked people assume the ministers of the gospel to be crazy. The frivolous think it proof of derangement that others are serious, anxious, and prayerful; the rich, that others are willing to part with their property to do good; the ambitious and worldly, that others are willing to leave their country and home to go among the Gentiles to spend their lives in making known the unsearchable riches of Christ. The really sober and rational part of the world they who fear God and keep his commandments; they who believe that eternity is before them, and who strive to live for it - are thus charged with insanity by those who are really deluded, and who are thus living lives of madness and folly. The tenants of a madhouse often think all others deranged but themselves; but there is no madness so great, no delirium so awful, as to neglect the eternal interest of the soul for the sake of the pleasures and honors which this life can give.

Much learning - It is probable that Festus was acquainted with the fact that Paul was a learned man. Paul had not, while before him, manifested particularly his learning. But Festus, acquainted in some way with the fact that he was well-educated, supposed that his brain had been turned, and that the effect of it was seen by devotion to a fanatical form of religion. The tendency of long-continued and intense application to produce mental derangement is everywhere known.

Doth make thee mad - Impels, drives, or excites thee περιτρέπει peritrepei to madness.

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

It is not surprising that Festus should have taken St. Paul for a madman. The resurrection of the dead, remission of sins, receiving baptism, and faith, announcing light to the nations, &c. were subjects completely unintelligible to a Roman. To a Jew the terms were customary and common. The eloquence and manner in which he spoke on these subjects, might shew him to be a man of great learning.

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).

Thou art beside thyself; this was the opinion of Festus concerning Paul, and such is the opinion of carnal and worldly men concerning such as are truly godly; as the prophet who came to Jehu was counted a mad fellow, 2Ki 9:11, and the friends of our Saviour thought him to be

beside himself, Mar 3:21. And it cannot be otherwise; for good men and bad men have quite different apprehensions concerning most things; and what one calls good, the other accounts evil; and what is wisdom to the one, is madness to the other.

Much learning doth make thee mad; much study many times increasing melancholy, which a sedentary and thoughtful life is most exposed unto. Paul is reckoned to have been skilful in the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin tongues; to have been well read in the poets; and certainly he was an excellent orator, as appears all along in his defence he made for his doctrine, and his life: but there was yet somewhat more than all this; Festus might feel a more than ordinary effect from Paul’s words, and not knowing of the Spirit by which he spake did attribute it to his learning, or madness, or to any thing but the true cause of it.

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

24. Loud voice—Filling the audience room with its imperious tones.

Mad—Become a monomaniac by poring over old manuscripts. The words for much learning are many writings, and often, by implication, much erudition. Plainly what suggests to Festus the idea of Paul’s half-crazed condition was his having a vision of a man who had risen from the dead, and thence having asserted a resurrection. And what suggested to Festus the cause of this monomania, namely, many manuscripts, was the fact that Paul drew the authority for both his vision and his doctrines from the Old Testament records. To say, as some do, that he saw Paul reading old parchments is not proved, yet may have been additionally true. To say with Dr. Hackett that Festus had heard that Paul was a scholar is to go still farther for a hypothetical solution when we have a clear one on the face of the record before us. Festus could not but know, at least, that Moses was held the lawgiver of the Jews, not only more ancient than Solon or Romulus, but a thousand years earlier than Homer himself. He knew that the prophets were the body of old Jewish literature. He saw that Paul had deeply read these musty records, and was deducing the risen Jesus from their pages. What, then, did he infer but that Paul had pored over the old archives until their conceptions had shaped themselves in his brain to a monomaniac day-dream about a dead man’s living and appearing in celestial splendour before his eyes? It was a most natural thought to a secular military Roman after the model of Pilate and Festus.

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

Made his defense for spake for himself, A.V. (ajpologoumenou, as ver. 2); saith for said, A.V.; mad for beside thyself, A.V.; thy much for much, A.V.; turn thee to madness for make thee mad, A.V.. With a loud voice. Another detail, betraying the eyewitness of the scene described. Thou art mad (mainh); Act_12:15; Joh_10:20; (mata). 1Co_14:23. Much learning (ta gra Sommata)? Joh_7:15, "How knoweth this man letters (gra) is equivalent to Whence hath this man this wisdom?." (Mat_13:54) And ajgrammatov in Act_4:13 is "unlearned." The excited interruption by Festus shows that he was unable to accept the truths enunciated by the apostle. The ideas of fulfilled prophecy, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of a crucified Jew giving light to the great Roman world, were" foolishness unto him," because he lacked spiritual discernment. He thought the apostle"s glowing words must be the outcome of a disordered mind. Turn thee to madness (eijv mani peritrepei). The word mania (mania) occurs only here in the New Testament. But it is the technical name in medical writers for the disease of mania, mania, and is also common in classical writers. The verb for "doth turn" (peritrepei) is also peculiar to St. Luke, being found only in this place. It is used by Plato, but specially by medical writers, as is also the substantive formed from it, peritroph, spoken of the "turn" taken by a disease, and the simple verb trepei and trepetai: e.g. etreye gnwmhn ejv manihn: ejv skuqrwppoh trepetai: toiv mainomenoisi allote men ejv ojrJghn allote dean (mirth) hJgnwmh trepetai, etc. (Hobart, p. 468).

Vers. 24-28. The Christian"s desire.

The point of deepest interest in this scene is Paul"s reply to Agrippa. There the nobility of the apostle is conspicuously present. But it is worth while to glance, first, at

I THE BLINDNESS OF SIN. (Ver. 24.) It makes mistakes of the greatest magnitude; it looks at the wisdom of God and mistakes it for madness. So it judged incarnate wisdom. (Joh_10:30) So we are to expect it will judge us; for "the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to the natural, (1Co_2:14) whether he be Greek (1Co_1:23) or Roman (text). That the whole Gentile world should be redeemed from sin and led by repentance into the kingdom of God by means of a suffering Savior this, which is the wisdom of God, deep and Divine, seemed to the proud man of the world nothing better than insanity itself. Enlightened by his Spirit, we detect in this the very essence of Divine wisdom. If the eternal Father, looking down upon us, sees his own wise procedure mistaken for and spoken of as madness, may we not be content that our human schemes and plans should sometimes receive the faint approval, or even the direct condemnation, of our fellows?

II THE CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE UNDER ATTACK. Paul was not abashed by the sudden outbreak of Festus, nor did he give way to unsuitable and injudicious resentment. He replied with calmness and dignity to the insulting charge of his Roman judge (ver. 25). When assailed in this way when charged with folly, error, fanaticism, or even madness the best thing we can do is to bear ourselves calmly, retaining mental and moral equability. This is the best way to disprove the allegations that are made.

(1) First let us be well assured of our position, not taking our ground until we have made all necessary inquiries and have every possible guarantee that we are on the side of "truth and soberness;" and then

(2) let us refuse to be disconcerted by abuse, oppose quiet dignity to angry crimination, and show a conscious rectitude which is far superior to violence, whether of word or deed.

III THE CHRISTIAN"S DESIRE FOR ALL WHOM HE CAN REACH. Paul turned appealingly from Festus to Agrippa. Some points in common there must be, he felt, between himself and his royal countryman (vers. 26, 27). The king put off the prisoner with a courtly sarcasm (ver. 28); but the apostle was not thus to be silenced. In noble language and with touching allusion to the fetters he wore, he expressed the earnest wish that, whether with ease or with difficulty, not only the king himself, but all who heard him, might be "such as he was." A pure and passionate desire filled his soul that all whom he could anywise affect might be elevated and blessed by that ennobling truth which the risen Savior had revealed to him. This holy earnestness of his may remind us:

1. That the truth of the gospel is that which can be indefinitely extended without making any man the poorer. If a man divides his gold among the poor, be loses it himself, but he who imparts heavenly wisdom, Christian influence, gains as he gives.

2. That it is the tendency of Christian truth to make its possessor desire to extend it. The contemplation of a God of love, the study of the life and spirit of the self-sacrificing Savior, the purity of the joy which it inspires in the human heart, these are fitted to produce in the soul a holy yearning to extend to others the blessedness we enjoy.

3. That it becomes us to put forth all our talents to diffuse the knowledge and to spread the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The thought of millions of souls starving that might feed on the bread of life should animate us with keen desire and scud us with elastic step in the path of deliverance and of life. C.

Vers. 24-32. A threefold illustration of the irrepressible energy of the truth.

This paragraph has its value, and that a great value, in the grouping of its contents. And the three members that make the group are worthy each of individual consideration as well. But here we notice only certain great though general facts.

I THE ENERGY OF TRUTH. It will not let Festus remain silent in the court. Immediately afterwards it shows that Agrippa cannot persuade himself to hold his peace before the pilsner and the court. And lastly, it finds them something to say "between themselves," in private, and that something was certainly a witness to the right.

II THE SUCCESS OF THE ENERGY OF TRUTH IN VERY VARIOUS CHARACTERS. Festus and Agrippa were as different in race, religion, character, as perhaps could be. But while the force of truth makes them both find an utterance when it had been wiser for them bad they kept silence, yet how amazingly different those utterances were! Festus taxes Paul with madness. Agrippa, whether utterly serious or not, bears testimony to the influence he feels from what Paul says, in its persuasiveness. Neither of them refuse, even though the case is involved in all possible publicity, to leave the last word with Paul. He does, as it were, hold the field, and in a very real sense finds himself left, not only in his own heart, but in the "pomp" of that open court, master of the field.

III THE REVENGE THAT THE ENERGY OF TRUTH TAKES. When open honor is not done spontaneously to it, its victory not proclaimed, and its rights smothered, how superficially soever, it secures its own in a yet more emphatic way. It secures a place indelible for itself, and on a page that shall endure to all time; and it owes nothing to human favor, no thanks to human patronage, no atom of indebtedness to any lifting hand of the great, the wise, the mighty, the proud. Never mind all the suppression of these, it transpires, and it gets all it needs from the very rehearsal of how they suppressed (vers. 30-32). B.

Vers. 24-26. An unwilling contribution to the truth.

The phenomena presented by Festus when, in struggling to insult the truth, he strengthens the body of testimony to it, are to be noticed. They are simply as follows:

I FESTUS CANNOT DENY THE SIGNS OF LEARNING IN ITS ADVOCATE. HOW many a time gospel truth has been decried because of the signs of ignorance in its advocates! The enemies of the gospel of almost all kinds love learning, would appraise it highly, and times without number have professed that this is their desideratum. But now it is all the contrary.

II FESTUS NOTES OBSERVANTLY THE SIGNS OF A FULL, DEEP ENTHUSIASM IN THE ADVOCATE OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL.

III FESTUS FINDS HIMSELF UTTERLY OUT OF SYMPATHY WITH SUCH SIGNS,

IV FESTUS MUST FIND SOMETHING TO SAY AND FIT TO BE SAID FROM THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY.

V IN HIS DIFFICULTY FESTUS IS BETRAYED INTO THE HUGEST ERROR.

VI THE "LOUD VOICE" OF FESTUS DIES OUT, AND GIVES PLACE TO FIRM THOUGH RESPECTFUL CONTRADICTION OF THE PRISONER. The theory of the "madness" of Paul not a whisper is heard of it again. B.

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

Festus said, Paul, thou art beside thyself - To talk of men's rising from the dead! And of a Jew's enlightening not only his own nation, but tho polite and learned Greeks and Romans! Nay, Festus, it is thou that art beside thyself. That strikest quite wide of the mark. And no wonder: he saw that nature did not act in Paul; but the grace that acted in him he did not see. And therefore he took all this ardour which animated the apostle for a mere start of learned phrensy.

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

Paul’s foremost wish:

v. 24. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thy self; much learning doth make thee mad.

v. 25. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

v. 26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

v. 27. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

v. 28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

v. 29. And Paul said, I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

Paul had spoken in all simplicity and truthfulness, without attempt at oratorical effect, only one of his sentences having the force of a rhetorical period. But his seriousness, and the conviction with which he presented his case, could not remain without influence upon his hearers. And almost involuntarily Festus, carried away with the force of the argumentation, interrupted Paul with the exclamation: Thou art beside thyself. The astounding announcements which Paul had made concerning the resurrection of Jesus and of the power of His Word caused the heathen governor to surmise that he must be insane, that he could not be conscious of what he was saying. Festus believed that much wisdom, great learning, had carried the prisoner away to temporary insanity. He may have referred only to the great learning which Paul had just exhibited, or he may have inferred as much from the great number of books which Paul had with him. All this, he believed, had driven the prisoner to madness. But Paul, addressing him as the honorable Festus, Your Excellency, calmly told him that he was not mad, but was uttering words of truth and sobriety. In the judgment of the blind children of this world to this day the faith of the Christians and their calm cheerfulness is considered madness and evidence that they cannot possibly be in their right mind. But they that talk thus have not the faintest idea of what Christianity is, nor of its calm, convincing truth. For the confirmation of this fact Paul called upon King Agrippa, stating that the latter had the proper understanding regarding these things, to whom therefore also Paul had spoken with such cheerful openness. Agrippa knew that Paul’s words were sober and sound statements, and that they were based upon facts. A Christian the king was not, but for the truth of history he would surely vouch, and the apostle was fully persuaded that none of these matters were hidden from him, for the entire movement, the establishment of the Christian religion, had not been done in a corner, hidden away from the eyes of the world, but it was a movement of which everyone in the entire country might have known and must have heard. Paul argued here as Jesus had done before him, Joh 18:21, referring to the fact that the Gospel-message had been proclaimed without the slightest attempt at secrecy. And Paul’s boldness: which he had exhibited throughout his address, now also causes him to turn frankly and address himself to Ring Agrippa with the direct question: Believest thou. King Agrippa: the prophets? I know that thou believest. This question was intended further to substantiate the words of Paul; for even if Festus could not consider his words as statements of truth and soberness. Agrippa could not be indifferent to them, since they were based upon the prophets, and Agrippa, as a Jew, at least nominally accepted the Old Testament books and based his belief upon them. It was a forcible appeal, and one which should have had its effect upon the heart and mind of the king. However, Agrippa would not permit himself to yield, but retorted: With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian? He wanted to indicate whether in irony or in cold indifference, that he could not be made a Christian so easily as all that. He wanted a stronger argument than a mere appeal to his faith to induce him to become a Christian. The sarcastic tone of the answer, however, did not intimidate Paul. With the same cheerful boldness as before he states his honest wish: that he hoped to God, whether by little or by much, not only Agrippa, but all those that heard him that day, might become Christians like himself, without, however, being obliged to wear the disgraceful marks of imprisonment, the fetters which confined him. So the apostle, who preached of love in such touching terms, 1Co 13:1-13, could not easily be provoked, and took no account of evil. in the same way all servants of the Lord must be careful to be neither dismayed nor provoked by the veiled and open taunts of the unbelievers, but continue to testify of Christ and issue invitations to all men to accept the message of the Gospel and become Christians.

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

Hitherto Festus had heard the apostle with great patience, but now he interrupts him, and tells him, he talks like a man that was crazed.

Carnal minds pass very uncharitable censures upon spiritual persons and spiritual things. Christ’s kindred said, he was beside himself, Mar 3:21. Festus here judged Paul to be mad, thinking that he had over-studied himself: by meddling with matters too high for his capacity, and too deep for his understanding, he had brought himself into a deep melancholy; Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning hath made thee mad.

But observe with what meekness and due terms of respect the apostle replied to this reviling governor, I am not mad, most noble Festus. Titles of respect and honour, given to persons in place and power, are agreeable to the mind of God, and countenanced by Christianity.

Observe, 2. What an happy victory and conquest the apostle had over his own passions; he waives the reflections Festus had made upon him; and had learned of his master, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again. It is an happy attainment for a man to be master of himself under a provocation, to be regulated by right reason, and not hurried by blind passion.

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

24. But shouts uproariously, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; many writings have turned thee into insanity,” seeing that Paul is a man of greatest learning, a real expert not only in the rabbinical lore of all bygone ages, but thoroughly posted in all the learning of the Gentiles. Such is the power of his oratory, the irresistible logic of his arguments and the irrefutable force of his burning pathos, that Festus leaps to the conclusion that immense study has overwrought his brain and turned him into insanity, thus finding a nigh way to account for all the troubles in the case.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

24. At this point in his speech, Paul was interrupted by Festus. It was a very strange speech in the ears of that dissolute heathen. It presented to him a man who from his youth had lived in strict devotion to a religion whose chief characteristic was the hope of a resurrection from the dead; who had once persecuted to death his present friends, but had been induced to change his course by a vision from heaven; and who, from that moment, had been enduring stripes, imprisonment, and constant exposure to death, in his efforts to inspire men with his own hope of a resurrection. Such a career he could not reconcile with those maxims of ease or of ambition which he regarded as the highest rule of life. Moreover, he saw this strange man, when called to answer to accusations of crime, appear to forget himself, and attempt to convert his judges rather than to defend himself. There was a magnanimity of soul displayed in both the past and the present of his career, which was above the comprehension of the sensuous politician, and which he could not reconcile with sound reason. He seems to have forgotten where he was, and the decorum of the occasion, so deeply was he absorbed in listening to and thinking of Paul. (24) " And as he offered these things in his defense, Festus cried, with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning has made you mad. "

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.

24–26. Paul, thou art beside thyself. The earnestness and fervor of Paul were so strange to Festus, his doctrine of the resurrection so novel, his manner so sincere, and his testimony so startling, that the Roman could only explain it by a mental delusion. The display of such vast knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures to Agrippa convinced him that intense study resulted in derangement. It must not be forgotten that Festus had just come into his position, and knew little of Paul.

I am not mad, most noble Festus. The courteous answer shows the mistake of Festus, a mistake due to his ignorance of the subject.

The king knoweth. The facts that he had cited in his discourse were well known to the king, viz., the predictions of the prophets, the hope of a Messiah, the death of Jesus, and the spread of the congregations of those who believed that he was a risen Lord.

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:

Paul and King Agrippa continue to talk together.

you are insane

"you are speaking nonsense" or "you are crazy"

your great learning makes you insane

"you have learned so much that you are now crazy"

I am not insane ... but

This can be stated in positive form. AT: "I am sane ... and" or "I am able to think well ... and" (See: Double Negatives)

most excellent Festus

"Festus, who deserves highest honors"

For the king ... to him ... from him

Paul is still speaking to King Agrippa, but he is referring to him in the third person. AT: "For you ... to you ... from you" (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

I speak freely

Paul was not afraid to speak to the king about Christ. AT: "I speak boldly"

I am persuaded

This can be stated in active form. AT: "I am sure" (See: Active or Passive)

that none of this is hidden from him

This can be stated in active and positive form. AT: "that he is aware of this" or "that you are aware of this" (See: Active or Passive and Litotes)

has not been done in a corner

This can be stated in active form. AT: "has not happened in a corner" (See: Active or Passive)

in a corner

This means doing something in secret as if a person went and did something in the corner of a room where no one can see him. AT: "in a dark place" or "in secret" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

Paul

true

king

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

24–32. INTERRUPTION BY FESTUS. APPEAL TO AGRIPPA. CONSULTATION AND DECISION

24. μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησίν, says with a loud voice. Probably what had last fallen from St Paul seemed to Festus little better than lunatic ravings. The Gospel of the Cross did appear as ‘foolishness’ to the Gentile world. And this Gospel he had just heard in all its fulness: that the Christ by suffering of death and rising to life again should be the source of true enlightenment both to Jews and Gentiles.

μαίνῃ Παῦλε, Paul, thou art mad. μαίνομαι occurs in the next verse, and the two places should accord, though sentiment clings to ‘Paul, thou art beside thyself.’

τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει, much learning doth make thee mad. Literally, ‘doth turn thee to madness.’ For γράμματα in the sense of ‘learning’ ‘letters,’ cf. Joh 7:15. It may be also that there is an allusion to the γράμματα, ‘the Jewish Scriptures,’ to which the Apostle had been so largely appealing. As a religious literature no nation, not even the polished Greeks, had anything to place in comparison with the sacred books of the Jews.

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.

24.] The words ταῦτα ἀπολογουμένον must refer, on account of the present part., to the Iast words spoken by Paul: but it is not necessary to suppose that these only produced the effect described on Festus. Mr. Humphry remarks, “Festus was probably not so well acquainted as his predecessor (ch. 24:10) with the character of the nation over which he had recently been called to preside. Hence he avails himself of Agrippa’s assistance (25:26). Hence also he is unable to comprehend the earnestness of St. Paul, so unlike the indifference with which religious and moral subjects were regarded by the upper classes at Rome. His self-love suggests to him, that one who presents such a contrast to his own apathy, must be mad: the convenient hypothesis that much learning had produced this result, may have occurred to him on hearing Paul quote prophecies in proof of his assertions.”

μαίνῃ] Thou art mad, not merely, ‘thou ravest,’ nor ‘thou art an enthusiast:’ nor are the words spoken in jest (Olsh.),—but in earnest (θυμοῦ ἦν κ. ὀργῆς ἡ φωνή, Chrys.). Festus finds himself by this speech of Paul yet more bewildered than before (De W.).

τὰ πολλὰ γράμμ.] Meyer understands Festus to allude to the many rolls which Paul had with him in his imprisonment (we might compare τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας of 2Ti 4:13) and studied (so also Heinrichs and Kuinoel),—but the ordinary interpretation, thy much learning, seems more natural, and so De W.

εἰς μ. περιτρέπει] Is turning thy brain.

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

Much learning doth make thee mad [τα πολλα σε γραμματα εις μανιαν περιτρεπει] . The A. V. omits the article with much learning : "the much knowledge" with which thou art busied. Rev., "thy much learning." Doth make thee mad : literally, is turning thee to madness.

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