Acts 26
LenskiCHAPTER XXVI
PAUL’S ADDRESS BEFORE AGRIPPA
Acts 26:1
1The ardent young Pharisee who believes in Israel’s great hope of the resurrection and is now accused by Jews for that very hope (v. 4–8). It proceeds by presenting this Pharisee as
Acts 26:2
2Concerning all things of which I am being accused by Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself happy as being about to make defense before thee today, especially thou being an expert regarding all both the customs and questions among Jews. Wherefore I beg, patiently to hear me.
In the very first phrase Paul strikes squarely the subject about which Festus was in difficulty; Paul will speak about all the Jewish accusations and evade none. On ὧν see 24:8, 13. Note the absence of the article: “by Jews”; this absence is repeated. Jews they were, these Sadducees, not “the Jews,” not even representative Jews. When comparing Paul’s opening words with those of Tertullus in 24:2–4, we at once see the great difference. The latter are open and insincere flattery, the former register a pertinent and a valuable fact.
Agrippa had had the control of the Temple plus the appointment of the high priests by gift from Caesar, was himself a Jew as far as religion was concerned, and thus knew both the customs and the questions of the Jews. Paul says he is glad to present his case before a man possessed of this information. He certainly was. It was far different from dealing with a pagan like Felix to whom all these Jewish matters were new, strange, perhaps incomprehensible.
A few verbs have the perfect in the present sense. Such a verb is ἥγημαι, “I consider.” When it is used, as here, with the reflexive pronoun “myself,” the force of the middle voice in the verb itself is probably largely lost, R. 690. As in 23:30, ἐπί is again to be taken in the sense of “before.”
Acts 26:3
3We construe μάλιστα with ὄντα. Most interesting is γνώστηνὄντασε, which B.-D. 137, 3 calls “a constructionless accusative,” which is a meaningless term, and R. 1130, with similar hesitancy, calls it “a possible accusative absolute,” although it is practically the only one occurring in the New Testament. Some texts insert ἐπιστάμενος, “knowing thee as being an expert,” which, however, fails to explain the other texts. Why hesitate in regard to this lone appearance of an accusative absolute: “thou being an expert,” γνώστην with the objective genitive, “one who knows all the Jewish customs and questions”? Κατά is stronger than a mere genitive would be: “among (throughout) Jews”—again no article. Agrippa knew all the Jewish customs or practices, likewise all the questions which divided the Jews into parties such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians. Paul implies that the more a man knows about these matters, the more easily he will see how innocent Paul is of any crime or fault regarding Jews.
Paul intends to present his entire case and thus begs Agrippa to hear him (aorist to indicate complete hearing) patiently. Paul begins with perfect calmness and dignity. We have already stated why he addressed the king alone. One sentence suffices for the introduction. It stated very much the right thing in the right way both for the king and for the audience.
4, 5)First the ardent young Pharisee. With the neat transitional μὲνοὗν Paul presents this period of his life. Now my manner of life from youth up, as spent from the beginning in my nation and in Jerusalem, know all Jews having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our worship I lived a Pharisee. And now on hope of the promise made to our fathers I stand as being judged—unto which our twelve tribes, with intentness serving God night and day, hope to attain—concerning which hope I am being accused by Jews, O king! Why is it judged incredible with you if God raises the dead? Paul’s life in its earlier period was like an open book to all Jews who knew him at the time, and we know that these were many, including the whole Sanhedrin of those years.
In only two other places do we find the word βίωσις, “manner of life,” Lebensweise; and ἐκ designates the starting point. “In my nation” is general; “also in Jerusalem” specifies the Jewish capital in particular. It was necessary to specify Jerusalem, for here Paul was educated (22:3), and here he rose to his height as a Pharisee. We must construe together: “all Jews formerly knowing me from the first,” and thus need no article, “all the Jews”; and ἴσασι is the literary Attic form for the vernacular οἴδασι. The condition of expectancy: “if they be willing to testify,” assumes such willingness, and the ὅτι clause states what their testimony would be: “that according to the strictest sect of our worship I lived a Pharisee,” the predicative “Pharisee” being placed last for the sake of emphasis. On “sect” see 5:17.
Θρησκεία is the cultus exterior, and a θρῆσκος is one who is diligent in all cultus acts. This word is eminently in place because Pharisees were most scrupulous in regard to outward religious observances (Matt. 23:14, etc.). In v. 7 Paul uses λατρεύω, to serve God with sacrifice, a service that was obligatory for all. Paul rightly calls the Pharisees “the strictest sect” (one of the three superlatives in the New Testament t -τατος); they were, indeed, most exacting in their formalism. Paul includes this as well as their work-righteousness and spurious holiness when he here says that he lived as a Pharisee.
Acts 26:4
4Almost killed by Jews when he is caught in the Temple (v. 19–21) and yet is
Acts 26:5
5A constant witness to this day of the old prophecies that have now been fulfilled in the suffering and the risen Christ (v. 22, 23).
The address is most compact. From start to finish it presents just what drives Jews (note: not the Jews) to accuse and to seek to kill Paul. It omits every side issue and all points that are immaterial to the main issue. Failure to understand this has produced the discussion in regard to agreement with Luke’s narration in 9:1, etc., and Paul’s other address in 22:1, etc. The biographical data are made to focus in the hope of the resurrection which was held by Israel, which hope was realized in Jesus who is the Christ.
Paul took the cue from Festus instantly: “especially before thee, king Agrippa,” and addressed Agrippa alone. But Paul did not thereby ignore Festus as though he were through with him or disregarded the rest of the audience. The reverse is true. By addressing the king alone every ear was made the keener to catch what the king was supposed to be especially able to understand. This gained for Paul even more than many a speaker tries to secure by centering his attention on one auditor alone. The fact that Paul gripped every person present is clearly evidenced by the circumstance that it was Festus who cried out at last (v. 24) although Paul was not addressing him.
Being the procurator, he could interrupt Paul, others in the assembly had to restrain themselves. But into the ears of every Gentile present sank most deeply every significant statement Paul made about Jesus and the Gentiles (v. 17, 18, 20, 23). And every Jew present was struck by what Paul said about the hope of the promise made to the fathers by God about the twelve tribes serving God night and day in that hope (v. 6, 7), about the prophets and Moses (v. 22), and about this Jesus of Nazareth realizing the ancient hope by his resurrection to glory as “the Christ” (v. 23). Today we must struggle to feel the tremendous impact upon all that was made by almost every statement of this living address. It presented the full sweep of the gospel in the life of its greatest witness who glowed with its power as few have ever glowed.
Add the living voice, the ring of profoundest conviction, the truth instinctively felt as truth. Where had these personages ever heard such a voice and such truth before? Paul was witnessing in supreme fashion (v. 22, 23) on repentance, forgiveness, the inheritance of heaven, the works meet for repentance (v. 18, 20), for Jew and Gentile alike in the risen Christ. It was personal, straight to the soul, the more effective for being only biographical. Then came the dramatic end: the cry of Festus and Paul’s telling answer, the question to Agrippa, his answer, and Paul’s reply. Paul was reaching home. Who had anticipated anything like this from one who was nothing but a Jewish prisoner? Dignitaries in ranks, a procurator, a king—and a prisoner! And this prisoner dominated them all.
When one now enters upon the details of the address, their variety and the discussion of them must not dim the power that floods through them and reveals the Lord’s chosen witness at the height of his work. What he said at his two trials in Rome where he was acquitted in the one and sent to the axman’s block in the other, is not reported to us. Did he face Nero himself? To what height did his testimony then rise? The record left us does not extend that far.
Acts 26:6
6Here, however, the point to be noted is that the Pharisees ever held fast to and defended most strenuously the hope of the promise of the resurrection against the small though powerful sect of the Sadducees (23:8). In regard to this doctrine Paul was as much as ever a strenuous Pharisee. He is becoming dramatic. Every Jew who knew him in his early years will testify that he was a genuine Pharisee. “And now” he is being judged on the ground (ἐπί) of his hoping for the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers by God! What a contradictory situation! Paul as yet purposely withholds the substance of this hope and promise, namely the resurrection of the dead.
It is assumed that Agrippa the Jew at once understands. Others will understand in a moment. “On hope” = for hoping, for having such a hope; and “of the promise” is the objective genitive, hope of the promise being hope in its fulfillment.
“God” himself, the God in whom Agrippa believes, the great God of Israel to whom all Jews bow in distinction from all pagans, made this glorious promise, made it “to the fathers,” whom all Jews are proud to acknowledge as their fathers. The Scriptures are not mentioned but only the great fact which they report, this glorious, this supreme promise. When Paul lived as a Pharisee here in Jerusalem, no Jew ever dreamed of bringing him to judgment before a court, Jewish or pagan, for hoping in this promise; but now—here he stands, accused and being judged, and before a pagan judge (Festus) to whom this hope and this promise mean nothing!
Acts 26:7
7Two relative clauses follow; but in order to get their force we must remember that in the Greek relatives such as these have demonstrative force. Thus, “unto which” = “unto which very promise (i. e., its fulfillment) the twelve tribes, with intentness serving God night and day, hope to arrive.” This accusation against Paul is one that charges criminality against the δωδεκάφυλον of Israel itself. This substantivized adjective = das Zwoelfstaemmegeschlecht, the twelve-tribe-body.
It is unwarranted to say that Paul “had no knowledge of the ‘lost ten tribes’.” He certainly knew the history of the ten tribes which constituted the northern kingdom called Israel. Their deportation left some few behind, who, mixed with Gentiles, became the Samaritans, the enemies of the Jews. Some eventually returned from exile but were amalgamated with the Jews (Judah and Benjamin). Many remained in the foreign land and became mixed with the Jews of the Babylonian captivity in the so-called Dispersion. But the bulk of the ten tribes was really “lost.” They were idolatrous in their own northern kingdom and were absorbed in foreign paganism so that all trace of them disappeared. Smith, Bible Dictionary I, 387, and other accounts.
Paul uses δωδεκάφυλον with reference to the Jews in general who are found in the world as still representing the original twelve tribes. James 1:1 addresses “the twelve tribes” and has in mind all Jews who had been converted to Christianity in the Diaspora. Thus they were still more reduced in number and yet were the representatives of the original twelve tribes.
The neuter present participle λατρεῦον modifies δωδεκάφυλον and is modal: this body of the twelve tribes hopes to attain the promise, i. e., its fulfillment, “by serving with intentness night and day,” by rendering that service to God which is obligatory upon all. Ἐκτενεία is a stretched-out, straining effort like that of a runner making for his goal. “Night and day” (the same order of words found in 20:31) is the usual form for our “day and night.” The verb “hopes” is vital in the statement by resuming the noun “hope”; on hope Paul is being judged, and the twelve-tribe-body ever hopes with the same hope.
Clinching this contrast and bringing out the monstrosity involved, Paul repeats the noun hope and again uses a relative with demonstrative force: “concerning which hope,” i. e., “concerning this very hope I am being accused by Jews, O king!” The thing is almost incredible although, alas, true. Think of it. “Jews” are accusing one of their own race for holding to the hope that has ever lifted their nation above paganism! Again “Jews,” minus the article, and here especially we feel that Paul has in mind “people who call themselves Jews but are not real Jews at all”—Jews, renegades to the great hope of Judaism. The simple Greek vocative is best rendered “O king.”
Acts 26:8
8From the address, “king,” Paul turns to the assembly in general with a dramatic rhetorical question. Whereas he has thus far spoken of “hope” and “the promise made by God” he now mentions the substance of that promise and that hope. “Why is it judged incredible with you if God raises the dead?” In spite of the marked singular vocative “king” and the equally marked plural “with you,” it has been supposed that the king is included in this plural “you.” No; Agrippa was not a Sadducee, especially not with reference to this doctrine. This does not imply that he was a Pharisee. He was a Jew like the mass of the people were, an adherent of no particular party and thus, like this mass, a believer in the resurrection, the hope of all Israel, excluding only the small sect of the Sadducees. Paul’s entire address to the king, notably also its climax (v. 27–29), is not an effort to convince a Sadducee of the resurrection but a joyful testimony to a Jewish believer in the resurrection of Paul’s own faith in that hope as realized especially in Jesus, the risen Christ. Thus understood, all is clear and convincing, otherwise all would be out of line.
We have shown why Paul makes his address to Agrippa, but the whole audience is before him. It is largely pagan, and therefore this Jewish hope in the resurrection was “incredible.” Like Jesus (Matt. 22:23–33), Paul would have met a Sadducee with the Scriptures. These pagans he meets with the one word “God,” the God who is God. With one crushing blow he strikes their incredulity and ignorance. The question comes like a flash. Its answer is as plain as day.
It is not only credible that God should raise the dead, it is wholly incredible that he should not—if, indeed, he is God and not merely one of the pagan gods. Paul wisely uses a question and thereby throws the burden of answering wholly upon his hearers. That question undoubtedly struck home. It was simplicity itself and could not easily be thrown off. It staggered the pagan mind with a thought it had never seriously entertained. Agrippa was a Jew and as such believed in the resurrection, and before these pagans Paul was bringing out this faith as one that was shared by the Jewish king.
This question was thus an impenetrable shield that was suddenly raised by Paul in order to cover also the king before these pagans. Incredible—no, this king is believing nothing incredible by holding to Israel’s supreme hope!
The condition, εἰ with the indicative, is one of reality: “if God raises the dead,” and assumes that he indeed does. This εἰ is not ὅτι, nor is it to be taken in the sense of ὅτι (declarative), R. 1024. While either could be used, the one is different from the other; we make the same difference in thought between an assumption and a mere fact as such. The present tense “raises the dead” makes the condition general, he raises them at any time as his will may determine. Paul includes every resurrection, those reported in the Old Testament, those in the New—had he not himself brought Eutychus back to life (20:10, etc.)?—in particular the resurrection of Jesus to glory and the resurrection at the end of the world. The absence of the article with νεκρούς draws attention to the quality of the noun: “dead,” such as are dead.
In this first part of the address Paul shows that the basic issue in his accusations is the great hope of Israel in God’s promise of the resurrection. All these accusations fall in a heap the moment this issue becomes clear.
Acts 26:9
9In the second part of the address Paul presents his career as the violent persecutor of all that was marked by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Although he was a Pharisee and believed in the resurrection he acted just like those who are now thirsting for his blood. Note that μὲνοὗν marks the second part as it does the first (v. 4), both are only transitional, “now,” not “verily” (our versions).
Now I myself (emphatic ἐγώ) thought for myself that I had to commit many hostile things against the name of Jesus, the Nazarene; which also I did in Jerusalem. And I myself both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received the authority from the high priests, and when they were being made away with, I gave my vote. And throughout all the synagogues, by often punishing them, I was forcing them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I was pursuing them to even the outside cities. This account of Paul’s evil activities is fuller than the statements found in 9:1 and 22:4, 5.
Paul takes the entire blame for this mad persecution of the Christians upon himself: “I myself thought for myself,” etc., (personal construction of this verb). Δεῖν, expressing any type of necessity, here denotes that of personal conviction; it is the infinitive in indirect discourse. At this point Paul introduces “the name of Jesus” and calls him “the Nazarene” just as Peter did in 2:22; see also 3:6; 4:10. Agrippa at once understands, the rest of the audience also. At once also that name reveals as in a flash what Paul aimed at when he spoke of the promise, the hope, and God raising the dead, namely this that God raised up Jesus as the Messiah. Not until he reaches the end (v. 23) is this stated out-right; here, in the second section of the address, it is Paul’s opposition to this Jesus that is sketched.
On the lips of Paul, even in a connection such as this, “the name” means “the revelation” (see 2:21, and all the other passages that have this significant ὄνομα). Paul says that his overpowering conviction was that this NAME and all it embraced and conveyed must be abolished root and branch: “it was necessary to commit many hostile things against the name,” etc.
Acts 26:10
10This very thing, too, he did (the relative with the same force it has in v. 7) first in Jerusalem and then also in the outside cities (v. 11). With the emphatic ἐγώ he again assumes the full responsibility. It was he who, having received “the (i. e., necessary) authority from the high priests,” locked up many of the saints in prisons. By calling them “saints” Paul confesses his great guilt; Luke uses this term in 9:13 and elsewhere. Now follows the worst part: “they being made away with,” the present participle being iterative to indicate the frequent trials, “I cast my vote,” i. e., affirmatively, an idiomatic expression in the Greek (see the similar terms in 1:26; 19:19). Ἀναιρέω, “to make away with,” is the significant verb which is used so often with reference to Jesus beginning with 2:23, then also with reference to the attempts against Paul himself. Paul voted for the death of many Christians.
Stephen’s martyrdom was followed by others. We see no way of mitigating this fact although attempts to do so have been made. See the remarks on 9:1. How the Sanhedrin managed the executions and obtained the procurator’s assent we are unable to say.
Is κατήνεγκαψῆφον to be understood literally? The ancient Greeks voted with pebbles, white ones for acquittal, black ones for conviction. The writer has seen this method of voting employed even at the present time: a box attached to a long handle, had a drawer containing white and black marbles, each voter picked out one and dropped it through a hole in the top of the box, the marbles used for voting falling into an upper drawer. The verb “to blackball” is derived from this way of voting.
The main point, however, concerns the question as to how Paul came to have a vote in these trials, and whether he voted by actually casting a pebble or not. Was he himself a Sanhedrist? And since this body was composed of married men, was he at that time married and later became a widower? We can be certain of the main fact expressed in these questions, namely that Paul never belonged to the Sanhedrin as one of its members. The record shows so many contacts of Paul with the Sanhedrin that, if he had been one of the members, that fact would undoubtedly have been stated. It would have been too pertinent to have been passed over in silence in 7:58–8:3; 9:1, etc.; 22:3–5, and elsewhere.
This lone remark about Paul’s voting is too slender a support to suffice as a basis for so great a fact. With that falls the thought of his marriage.
The one thing we do not know is the capacity in which Paul voted. One way out of the difficulty is to regard this voting as figurative, as consenting heartily to the death of these saints; but we see no reason for this peculiar figure and prefer to predicate a real vote. Was Paul, perhaps, empowered to vote as the accredited agent of the Sanhedrin, the agent who had apprehended these as being the most guilty persons?
Acts 26:11
11As the next greatest crime Paul mentions the fact that throughout all the synagogues of Jerusalem he often forced the saints to blaspheme, and when they fled, he pursued them even to outside cities. The point to be decided is whether the imperfect ἠνάγκαζον is conative (R., W. P.): “tried to force,” i. e., without succeeding, or whether the tense is iterative: forced again and again. The fact that Paul has already said that he brought many to death is adduced in support of the former idea, those who remained firm were executed; those who yielded, blasphemed. Other considerations point in the same direction. We have two parallel imperfects; ἠνάγκαζον and ἐδίωκον, and it is natural to understand them in the same way.
But the latter cannot be conative: “tried to pursue,” for Paul did this very thing. Now it is possible to regard one imperfect as conative and the other as iterative, but such a construction would be very odd. The adverb: “by often punishing them I was forcing,” etc., certainly agrees only with the iterative sense. Finally, we have iteration in the preceding: “when they were being made away with,” and it is most natural to continue this in connection with the next-mentioned atrocities.
As much as we should like to believe that no saint of that time denied the faith, we fear that a good many did. Paul uses the infinitive “to blaspheme” (also iterative present tense), namely to revile Jesus as not being the Christ. This verb is spoken from Paul’s present standpoint. He now sees that he forced these poor Christians to utter what was really blasphemy. The fact that Paul went to outside cities before he attempted his journey to Damascus is stated only here; but it is natural to think that he would not at once leap from Jerusalem to Damascus. It is easy to see Paul’s reason for so fully stating his rage against the Name of Jesus: Agrippa is to understand that Paul was even more bloodthirsty against this Name than his accusers now are.
They are persecuting him and him alone; Paul was wiping out all the Christians near and far away. But let us not lose the connection: the promise of God, the hope of the fathers and of the twelve tribes centers and culminates in Jesus, in his glorious resurrection. This is the inner connection, and Paul now continues with this.
Acts 26:12
12In his third part Paul states how this Jesus met and checked him in the midst of his bloody career, yea, turned him into a minister and witness of this Jesus. Even now Paul does not mention Christ’s resurrection—he does not need to do so. That and the glorious enthronement stand out by themselves. Agrippa is to tell himself a few things as Paul proceeds. Before him stands the fiercest enemy Jesus had ever had, this enemy converted into the most fervent apostle—a miraculous transformation that is unaccountable save for what Paul now tells.
In connection with which things, while journeying to Damascus with authority and commission of the high priests, at midday along the road I saw, O king, a light that shone from heaven beyond the brilliance of the sun around me and those journeying with me. And, we all having fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why art thou persecuting me? Hard for thee to be kicking against goads! And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I, I am Jesus, whom thou art persecuting!
Ἐνοἶς is neither “whereupon” (our versions) nor “on this errand” (R. V. margin) but “in connection with which matters,” the relative is again used as in v. 7 and 10: “in connection with the very things just stated,” especially Paul’s ravaging the outside cities. We need not repeat what has been said in 9:2–5, and 22:5, etc. The double: “authority and commission” emphasizes this point; the expedition was to execute a task that had been officially “turned over” to Paul.
Acts 26:13
13The fact that the light appeared “at midday” is told also in 22:6. When the Syrian sun which is always intense was at its zenith and its maximum intensity, this miraculous light which was beyond the sun’s brilliance suddenly flooded Paul and his companions. Note the dramatic vocative, “O king!” at this point. It happened years ago but is as vivid to Paul as it was at the time when the miracle occurred.
Acts 26:14
14The fact that “all” fell prostrate when the superearthly light enveloped them is reported only here. As regards ἀκούω with the accusative (here; 9:4; 22:9) and again with the genitive (9:7; 22:7), the explanation that at times no difference is intended, is questionable. The genitive connotes the person speaking, the accusative the thing spoken. Examine these five passages from this angle. Paul is speaking in the presence of Romans and of Greeks and thus mentions that what he heard spoken (accusative φωνὴνλέγουσαν) was by way of the Hebrew (meaning Aramaic) language (not “dialect,” see 2:6), which explains “Saul, Saul” as the name applied to him who now went by the name of Paul. The words: “Hard for thee to be kicking against goads!” belong only in Paul’s present narration; copyists interpolated them in 9:5 (A.
V.). The statement is proverbial and has been traced in Greek poetry and Greek prose through five centuries B. C. and four A. D. A goad, a sharp stick, was used to prod oxen to a more rapid pace; feeling its prod, they might kick back and thereby only wound themselves more severely, and σκληρόν is to be understood in this sense. This saying is not found in Jewish literature.
Since Jesus spoke to Paul in Aramaic, the question arises whether Paul gave only the sense of the Aramaic, or whether Jesus spoke these very words in Aramaic. The former seems to be correct. But this does not imply that in some other Scripture passages which have the word κέντρον or “sting” we may find the original Aramaic expression employed here by Jesus. We cannot substitute the sting of a scorpion for the goads prodding oxen (1 Cor. 15:55, 56; Hos. 13:14; Rev. 9:10). A sting that kills and against which no one kicks his heel is far from a goad that pricks and, when kicked against, hurts only the more.
Figurative language often becomes lucid when its connection with the literal is noted. That is the case here. “Why persecutest thou me?” and the repetition, “whom thou persecutest,” were the goads of the law that were driven into the conscience of Saul. See 9:5: the force of the question aimed at contrition. Paul might in anger kick against these goads. They would strike more deeply, affect him the more painfully. The statement was thus a call to contrition by yielding to the blows of the law.
We find no thought here which intimates that the Lord’s will is irresistible. We likewise decline to extend the reference to the entire future life of Paul, especially to its providential leadings. This word refers only to the sharp, penetrating question of Jesus, this stab of the law into Saul’s tough conscience.
Acts 26:15
15Paul’s question and the Lord’s answer are reported exactly as they are recorded in 9:5.
Acts 26:16
16Then, instead of narrating the rest in historical form as Luke does in 9:16, etc., Paul adds only a summary of all that the Lord communicated to him regarding the apostleship to which he had been chosen. For this is the point Paul intends to impress: he, the worst persecutor, is made a minister and witness by the Lord’s own gracious act. To tell all about Ananias whom the Lord used as his instrument in dealing with Paul would only complicate the narrative and blur the chief point Paul is impressing by bringing in unessential details. So also in retelling what the Lord communicated to him Paul uses language that is largely his own, a wording that conveys fully and precisely to this audience what the Lord said and had in mind.
But arise and stand upon thy feet. For this did I appear to thee to appoint thee for myself as a helper and a witness both of the things thou didst see and of the things I will let thee see, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles to whom I myself am commissioning thee, to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God in order that they receive remission of sins and a lot among those that have been sanctified by faith in me.
Ἀλλά breaks off and turns to something else, see 9:5. The command to arise is intensified by the order to stand on the feet. That is all that Paul could do; he was blind and could not walk without being led. All this Paul omits in order to center attention completely upon what the Lord communicated to him through Ananias.
This communication is introduced by γάρ, which is merely explanatory in many instances. Here it explains that Paul is to get up on his feet and to move on in order to receive these communications which are at once stated. “I appeared unto thee” states directly that Paul saw Jesus in the superearthly light. To Agrippa and to all who knew how Jesus had been crucified this simple statement conveyed volumes, following, as it did, v. 6–8 regarding Israel’s hope of the promise of the resurrection. As the risen, ascended, glorified Christ he appeared to this persecutor Paul. That shattered every denial of his resurrection, no matter by whom it was made, every denial of his Messiahship, no matter by whom it was made.
The middle infinitive denotes purpose: “to appoint thee for myself as a helper and a witness,” etc. On the verb see 3:20, where it is used with reference to Jesus as being one appointed. The predicate nouns make clear what Paul was to be. A ὑπηρέτης is an “underling”; the Levite Temple police were called “underlings,” and when Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary tour he was their “helper” or “attendant,” their ὑπηρέτης. Thus Paul was to be subject to the Lord’s orders and do what the Lord told him.
At the same time he was to be the Lord’s “witness,” one who is qualified to testify in regard to what he has seen with his own eyes. This refers specifically to Christ as risen and glorified and puts Paul on a par with the other apostles as the chosen witnesses (1:8). Both terms describe Paul’s apostleship. The Lord’s personal appearance was only mediate, namely as qualifying Paul for his office, for the testimony he was to bear to Jews and especially to Gentiles. Here we have the explanation of all the work Paul had done, for which certain Jews hated him so intensely.
Of what Paul was to be a witness is stated by two relative clauses, each with ὧν (τούτωνἅ). They puzzle the grammarians, namely με in the first, and ὧν in the second with the future passive ὀφθήσομαι. It is rather certain that both ὧν, being connected as they are with “both—and,” are to be construed alike. So we decline to construe τούτωνδἰἅ (Winer) in the second instance. The addition of “me” in the first clause does not have adequate textual support. Read: “a witness of what things thou didst see” (like the A.
V., and the R. V. margin); not: “wherein thou didst see me” (like the R. V.). On the second clause see R. 819, etc. The proposal to make both ὧν attractions from οἷς (“wherein,” R. V.) is untenable.
R. 806 (bottom) notes that Blass considers that the passive, rather than the middle, has a permissive sense. We submit the question whether this passive is not permissive: “a witness of what things I shall let thee see.” We note that Zahn at least has sehen lassen wird (permissive). While B.-P. 918 suspects that the reading is not in order, he translates: Zeuge fuer das, als was du mich gesehen hast, und fuer das, als was ich dir (noch) erscheinen werde, both ἅ are regarded as being predicative. The sense is fortunately plain. Paul is to testify in regard to this sight of the risen and the glorified Jesus and of other appearances the Lord may yet grant him. The two relatives, however, stress the features or particulars of these appearances as the object of Paul’s testimony.
Acts 26:17
17The fact that ἐξαιρούμενος means “delivering thee” and thus modifies the subject of ὀφθήσομαι and does not refer back to ὤφθην is evident. The New Testament uses this word only in the former sense. Luke, for instance, does so in 7:10; 12:11; 23:27, Paul in Gal. 1:4; also the LXX, and Isa. 48:10 is scarcely an exception. To introduce the classics and the papyri as evidence for the second meaning without presenting the evidence for the other is unfair. The thought is that Jesus promises “to take out” Paul, out of the dangers that threaten him in his witness-bearing. The idea that the Lord is choosing Paul out of the midst of Jews and out of the midst of Gentiles is unwarranted as far as Gentiles are concerned. Since mortal danger threatened Paul first from the Jews (9:23, etc., 29), these are named first.
Now Paul mentions his commission: “to whom I myself am commissioning thee” or “do commission thee.” It need not surprise us that the Jews are included in this statement, for even when Paul labored among the Gentiles he always began his work with the Jews. Agrippa and all those present are to know that Paul went out to bear his testimony under a specific order from no less a master than the risen Christ himself, and that the protection of this glorious Master accompanied him in all his work.
Acts 26:18
18The three infinitives with τοῦ denote purpose, and the second depends on the first, the third on the second, connectives being out of place. Paul uses his own language in describing the purpose that Jesus wanted him to carry out. The aorists are effective. The Jews certainly needed to have their eyes opened as well as the Gentiles. By opening their eyes he was to turn them from darkness to light, from falsehood to truth, and thus from the authority of Satan (whose domain is darkness and evil) to God (who is light and dwells in light). And by this turning to God (conversion) both Jews and Gentiles were to receive remission of sins (ἄφεσις, explained in 2:38) and thus “a lot among those that have been sanctified by faith in me” (Jesus). Κλῆρος is “lot,” a portion or part allotted, and not “inheritance” (our versions), which would be κληρονομία.
An inheritance awaits its possessor, a lot is at once his. Those who believe immediately find their place among the ἡγιασμένοι (explained in 20:32). Emphatically at the end comes πίστει, to which τῇ, also with emphasis, adds εἰςἐμέ: “by faith, that (faith) which is in me” (directed toward me). Faith is the subjective means of sanctification. And this stress on faith shows that sanctification is here to be understood in the wider sense as separation unto God and Christ by all that cuts us loose from Satan (justification and remission and holy living).
Here Paul is doing his apostolic witnessing, preaching the gospel to king and procurator and all these grandees and their attendants. Although they scarcely realize it, Paul is making this hall a church, is reaching out to their souls, is opening their eyes, etc., is trying to make the blessed lot theirs. That is the wonderful thing about this meeting. If Festus wanted a “judicial examination” of Paul (25:26), Agrippa needed no probing questions to bring out everything. Paul was only too glad to tell it all himself because Jesus had made him a great witness.
Acts 26:19
19In this fourth part of the address Paul explains that he was almost killed for having thus borne witness to the Lord. This is the real cause of the rage of the Jews against him. As a result, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision but proceeded to proclaim first to those both in Damascus and Jerusalem and as far as the country district of Judea and (finally) to the Gentiles to repent and to turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. On account of these things Jews, having seized me in the Temple, were trying to murder me.
With ὅθεν, “whence,” Paul states the result of all that precedes. The renewed address, “King Agrippa,” marks the importance of what Paul now states. The negative statement: “I was not disobedient,” is a litotes, “I was obedient”; yet by putting it negatively Paul intends to suggest that he might after all have proved disobedient. For all that the Lord did and said implies a sudden and amazing reversal for Paul: from deadly persecution of Jesus to ardent testimony for Jesus. The aorist is best taken as stating only the fact. “The heavenly vision” intends to include the entire revelation of Jesus, that given directly to Paul on the road outside of Damascus plus that which came to him through Ananias.
This passage is often interpreted in a rather narrow manner. It refers not only to the obedience of conversion but equally and even especially to that of testifying as an apostle. Paul might have hesitated in regard to the latter, might have wished only to repent of his persecutions and to live quietly as a repentant disciple. But he obeyed in all respects. As far as Paul’s conversion is concerned, this statement of his shows that grace does not work irresistibly (Matt. 23:37). Faith is often called obedience to Christ, unbelief disobedience.
But there is a difference between them. The obedience of faith, the yielding of the will in conversion, is wholly the result of the gracious operation of God; while the disobedience of unbelief, the wilful, obdurate rejection of Christ, is wholly the work of man himself. When Paul declares that he was not disobedient he takes no credit for himself. The credit belongs in toto to the heavenly vision vouchsafed to him. He does imply, however, that disobedience on his part would have been a damnable act. To yield to grace is normal, for it is accomplished by gratia sufficiens; to spurn this grace is abnormal, a monstrous act that is criminal in the highest degree.
Acts 26:20
20The imperfect ἀπήγγελλον intends to describe all of Paul’s proclaiming of the gospel, which also was not as yet finished. He mentions briefly all the places where he preached. But the wording has puzzled many and has thus produced various interpretations. Some find four places that are coordinated, others three, whereas the two τοῖς present only two, the same two that were mentioned in v. 17: the λαός (Jews) and the Gentiles. For many the chief difficulty lies in the accusative πᾶσαντὴνχώραν, which is apparently out of line with the three datives. This disturbed even the ancient text critics who felt that they must insert εἰς before this accusative, and later commentators have followed them. They, of course, use εἰς because of the accusative; they really would like to have ἐν with the dative or a simple dative.
The adverb “first” refers not to Damascus alone but to everything that is mentioned up to the Gentiles. For Damascus and Jerusalem are here a unit, they are written after one preposition and joined by “both and.” And the accusative of extent is attached, not as a coordinate place, but in the sense of “as far as” (R. 469). This is very necessary, indeed. A dative would be misleading, for it would state that Paul worked in the country of Judea as he did in the two cities named. This was not the case as we see from Gal. 1:18–24; Acts 9:26–30; 22:17–21. He was in Jerusalem for only two weeks, the people of Judea did not know him.
This accusative states that Paul’s proclaiming Christ in Damascus and in Jerusalem got to be known all over Judea as something that was almost incredible. The second τοῖς then states the second field of Paul’s operations, the Gentiles, to whom he finally went. Thus Paul traces his past movements in a most exact manner.
But the chief point is what he kept proclaiming to Jews and then to Gentiles. He told them to repent (see 2:38), to turn to God (v. 18), and to show it by doing works worthy of repentance, ἄξια, of such weight as to show that they belonged to repentance. That is what Paul had done, and nothing but that. What was wrong about that? Could anyone possibly say that Jews should not repent, not turn to God, not do corresponding works? And what Jew could say that the Gentiles should not do the same? Why, in the very address Paul was now making and in these very statements he was uttering he was continuing the same work, calling on his present audience which was made up of Jew and Gentile to repent, turn, do those works.
Acts 26:21
21But “on account of these things,” Paul tells Agrippa, “Jews,” (no article), when they found an opportunity, seized him in the Temple and were trying to beat him to death with their hands (21:27, etc.). Yes, “Jews”—the last people on earth who should have wanted such blessed work stopped! Here Agrippa has the true facts of Paul’s case, what was really behind all this business of trials, accusations, etc.
Acts 26:22
22Now the fifth part of the address: Paul a constant witness to this day. As in v. 4 and again in v. 9, so here, too, οὗν marks a new turn of thought, one that accords with what precedes. Having, therefore, obtained help from God, to this day I stand testifying to both small and great, declaring nothing beyond what the prophets did utter as about to occur, also Moses, on whether the Christ is subject to suffering, and whether he as the first of the resurrection of the dead will announce light to the people and to the Gentiles.
It was due to the help of God alone that those Jews did not accomplish what they tried, to murder Paul. Ἐπικουρῖα is the help afforded by an ally who hastens to support. Since these foes were thirsting for Paul’s blood, he would have perished if he had been left alone. The article before the added phrase lends this emphasis: it was the special help, “that from God” the Almighty himself, who rules in the midst of his enemies. The second aorist participle τυχών with a neuter object means: “having obtained.”
Paul does not complain about the treatment he received from the Jews, his own nationalists. Two years of Roman imprisonment have not embittered him against those who occasioned it by their murderous attack upon him in the Temple. Not one harsh or hateful word appears in his address. What he sees is this wonderful help of God which came to his rescue at that critical moment and by rescuing him then enabled him to stand as a constant confessor to this very day.
A note of victory is sounded in ἕστηκα, “I stand.” The perfect of this verb is always used in the present sense. Nothing has been able to move or to overthrow Paul in his testifying. His word recalls Luther’s famous utterance at Worms: “Here I stand,” etc., and he, too, said something about God helping him. “To this day” is pertinent because of the illustrious audience brought to Paul for his testimony. We prefer the reading μαρτυρόμενος, “testifying to both small and great” (i. e., low and high, among the latter even a governor and a king) to μαρτυρόμενος, “attested by both small and great.” The double indirect object has singulars and is individualizing. As a matter of fact, “small and great” did not always “attest” Paul, and therefore this reading is not acceptable. All the apostles were witnesses (1:8), and v. 16 shows how Jesus qualified Paul especially and appointed him as such a witness. “Testifying” was his one office and business. And he testified the same thing to all; whether a man was small in importance or great changed nothing of that testimony.
The important point in what Paul says about his unchanging testimony is the fact that he declares not a single thing beyond what the prophets have long ago spoken, at the head of them Moses himself, regarding what was to occur. Ἐκτὸςὧν = τούτωνἅ, and μελλόντων thus also becomes genitive. Note the emphasis on Moses because he is named at the end. “The things about to occur” are the Messianic things. Moses and the prophets said they would come. Some of them had come: redemption, the outpouring of the Spirit, the establishment of the new covenant, and a new covenant people; others, such as the final judgment, were yet to come. Now Paul spoke of these things in absolute accord with Moses and the prophets whenever he spoke either of those features already come or of the others that were yet to come. One of the tremendous features of his testimony, especially to the Jews, was this very point of actual and literal fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies.
Where was the crime in clinging so closely to Moses and the prophets? What Jew would dare to condemn Paul for that? And what Roman court could find a crime in that? The condemnation would fall back on Moses and the prophets themselves. By accusing Paul, these Jews were outlawing their own prophets, their own Old Testament mediator. Paul is driving straight at Agrippa as a Jew. He is surrounding him so with these prophets and Moses that, unless he wants to repudiate them, by believing their Messianic utterances, he must accept also their fulfillment in Jesus. Here is a sample of the effective way in which Paul operated upon Jews with Moses and the prophets.
Acts 26:23
23Paul is, however, never content with general terms and statements. In v. 17, 18 he specifies in detail; at the end of v. 20 he again does so. So he here mentions the two points that are absolutely vital in telling just what Moses and the prophets foretold and what has now actually been fulfilled. His wording is such as to include both the prophecies involved and their fulfillment as accomplished. This explains the two εἰ of indirect questions in part. We give up the idea that εἰ = ὅτι (R. 1024) or that these clauses are protases, which either include the apodosis or need none. We question whether εἰ is ever equal to ὅτι, and that idea is advanced here because Paul might have said “that” but said something else instead.
Paul states the two questions on which all his discussions with Jews regarding the prophets and Moses and the fulfillment of their utterances turned. Both εἰ clauses are appositions to μελλόντωνγίνεσθαι, this genitive being attracted from its accusative as modifying ὧν, an original ἅ. Both clauses are original accusatives that have been attracted to genitives. Construe: “what things the prophets and Moses uttered as about to occur, as to whether,” etc. The R. V. and its two marginal efforts are unsatisfactory because the case of these clauses is not noted, their case as appositions.
As Moses and the prophets spoke, so Paul testifies. And first of all “on whether the Christ is subject to suffering.” All of them plus Paul do most emphatically so affirm. The question is put in a general form by being stated in regard to “the Christ.” In support of his affirmation Paul had all the prophecies, but he had them as now literally fulfilled in Jesus, “the Christ.” The Jews would have no Messiah who could (and did) suffer and die. The very thought was an offense to them. But the prophecies and their fulfillment were solidly against them. They would have only a Christ who would be an earthly conquering and triumphant hero.
M.-M. 473, and others, make παθητός the only verbal in τος that has a weakened sense, “capable of suffering,” patibilis (a sort of active); C.-K. 841, however, writes “seems” and leaves the meaning doubtful. Regard this verbal as a plain passive: “subject to suffering.” Jesus was not merely capable of suffering, he was subjected to suffering just as the prophecies declared.
Dramatically and without a connective the second clause is added: “on whether he as the first of the resurrection of the dead will announce light,” etc. Like παθητός, πρῶτος is placed emphatically forward. And we must read as a unit: πρῶτοςἐξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν (ἐξ does not mean “by,” R. V.; the A. V. is much truer), als Erster aus Totenauferweckung = “first risen from the dead.” The Greek omits the articles, and thus each term has its full qualitative force. This “first” conveys a great power.
As the first he would have to break the power of death and the tomb in order to arise. Thus he could, indeed, announce “light” to the people (λαός, Jews) and to the Gentiles. Death and the tomb are dark, “light” is their opposite. And this light is the hope (v. 6, 7) of our own blessed resurrection through him who is “first.” Col. 1:18. The Christ was to rise by his own power, corruption was not even to touch him (2:27, 31). He was not to enter this life again and, like Lazarus, to die a second time but to rise glorified, to live in glory forever.
This the Sadducees would deny emphatically. Not so the Pharisees and the people generally. Their great difficulty was the lowly, crucified Jesus, the fact that he should be this “first,” and that these prophecies should thus center in him and in this resurrection glory.
Here μέλλει with the present infinitive is a circumscribed future with prophetic force. Once more (v. 17, 20) we have side by side “the people” (Jews) and “the Gentiles.” This kind of a Christ could be what he was for no single nation such as the Jews. His light (v. 18) with all its spiritual and eternal blessings was too great, too universal for that. But with the term “Gentiles” Paul again touched all the Romans and the non-Jews present. This light of the suffering, risen, and glorified Christ was for all of them.
Acts 26:24
24Not until one puts himself fully into the situation can he catch just what the interruption by Festus means. But he offering these things in defense, Festus, with the voice elevated, says, Thou ravest, Paul! Much learning is turning thee to raving!
The procurator can contain himself no longer. The intensity of feeling produced by Paul’s presentation charged Festus like an electric current which finally leaped out in a flash. Involuntarily the man explodes. This effect, so dramatically revealed, lets us feel how the rest of this audience must likewise have been stirred in varying degrees. While the governor Festus speaks, those of less authority refrain from speaking. Agrippa among them. Festus had turned Paul over to Agrippa (25:26), and Paul had throughout addressed Agrippa as the one to whom he had been referred. This makes the interruption by Festus the more astonishing.
He at first listened with the hope of hearing something that might serve him in writing to the emperor (25:27). That hope vanished promptly. Paul spoke again about the matters Festus had mentioned to Agrippa in 25:19 and with such power as to make the governor react. This Roman pagan had evidently never read the Greek Old Testament, and all the things said about Jesus, the Nazarene, dead, risen to glory, appearing to Paul in divine light, and commissioning him to proclaim light, repentance, etc., were utterly beyond him, a new world that startled and crashed into all his old pagan conceptions.
“With the voice loud (elevated, note the predicative position of the adjective)” betrays the tension of Festus. His shout, “Thou ravest, Paul!” is neither anger nor resentment; it is self-defense, a thrust to remove all that Paul was saying. In this respect it was like that word of the fools at Pentecost, who called the apostles and believers drunk (2:13). If Paul is just raving, if his mind is unbalanced, that excuses Festus—he may brush aside all that Paul says. It is a helpless, pitiful, foolish self-defense, the only thing this Roman can think of in order to thrust Paul’s words aside.
Moreover, Festus’ word is not sincere. If he really thought Paul unbalanced mentally he would not shout at him, he would smile in pity and try to catch Agrippa’s eye with a significant look, gesture, or whisper. If Paul were crazy, the case would automatically end despite Paul’s appeal to Caesar. No governor would send a lunatic to the emperor’s court.
It is significant that Festus does not stop with the shout, “Thou ravest, Paul!” He adds the explanation that much learning is turning Paul to raving. By τὰπολλὰγράμματα he cannot refer to books, for Paul had no library while he was in prison. Festus is not mitigating his charge of raving, he is trying to substantiate it. And by doing so he shows that his shout is not caused by anger. But this supposed cause of raving is the insipid notion that, when a man devotes himself too much, in the opinion of men, to one subject, he is off balance, and that, when he speaks with all his heart and soul on that subject, he shows that he is deranged. The explanation is like the charge: a helpless attempt to remove all that is said so effectively.
In his W. P. R. makes the present tenses inchoative as though Paul was starting to go mad, beginning to turn to raving. But this idea of “going mad right before them all” as though Festus was frightened about that, does not lie in the tenses.
Acts 26:25
25But Paul says, I am not raving, Most Excellent Festus. On the contrary, I am speaking forth utterances of truth and sanity. For the king knows concerning these things, to whom also I speak, using entire freedom; for I am persuaded that not a single one of these things is hidden from him, for this thing has not been done in a corner.
Without speaking in a loud voice, with perfect composure and telling clarity, Paul promptly answers the governor’s excited allegations. The manner in which Paul replies shows the wildness of those allegations. “As long as Paul was exceedingly mad (v. 11) and raved he passed for a bright fellow; but when he knew that he had been raving and became a Christian, they thought him mad.” Lindhammer.
With all due respect but with directness Paul denies that he is raving. On κράτιστε, “Your Excellency,” compare 23:26, and Luke 1:4. The dignified way in which Paul accords this title to Festus could not fail to have its effect. To the governor’s shouted, “Paul!” he calmly replies, “Your Excellency Festus.” The negation is fortified by its corresponding affirmation. Just the opposite is the fact: Paul is speaking forth utterances that are marked by truth and sanity (qualifying genitives which are far stronger than adjectives). Luke alone uses ἀποφθέγγεσθαι (2:4), a choice verb which was used by the LXX with reference to prophesying, and by later Greek writers with reference to oracles.
It fits well into Paul’s dignified statement. Ἀλήθεια = reality, “truth” in this sense; it is objective. Σωφροσύνη = “sanity” or saneness, the direct opposite of μανία, “insane or raving”; this term is subjective. The two terms are straight to the point.
Acts 26:26
26Festus tried to substantiate his judgment of Paul by a common notion; Paul substantiates his denial by appealing to Agrippa himself as a witness: “For the king knows concerning these things,” but the Greek reverses subject and predicate and thus places emphasis on both. The implication is that Festus, who hears of these things for the first time, is not, because of their strangeness, justified in thinking them the ravings of an unbalanced mind. The addition, “to whom also I speak, using entire freedom” (παρρησιαζόμενος), has a causal note, for it states why Paul spoke as he did: he was addressing the king, a person who was fully informed on the subject. To him, Paul says, he could speak without hesitation or reserve, for he would understand. Although he had been reared and educated at Rome, Agrippa adhered to Judaism. He had been made guardian of the Temple with power to appoint the high priests and thus was obliged’ even officially to know all about Jewish affairs, the Jewish Scriptures, etc.
Yet Paul is careful when he refers to this knowledge of the king. With a second and then with a third γάρ he explains. It is his subjective assurance that the king knows. The emphasis rests on λανθάνειν and on οὑδέν: “there has escaped him of these things, I am assured, not a single thing.” The subject of λανθάνειν is τὶ followed by οὑδέν, and αὑτόν is the object. R. 1094. The Greek doubles the negatives and thereby makes them stronger in a way that seems odd to the English ear: “I am not persuaded that not a thing escapes him.” Paul felt certain that none of the things he had referred to in his address had been lost on Agrippa. It would have been foolish to have introduced other things.
Paul even adds the reason for this assurance: “this thing has not been done in a corner.” Subject and predicate are again reversed with a strong emphasis on “this thing.” Paul says, “these things,” the plural spreading out the details, and then, “this thing,” the singular regarding everything as a great unit. All that was said about Jesus was transacted in the very capital of the nation, and the Sanhedrin and the procurator Pilate were involved, and Jesus was a national figure, whose fame filled even the surrounding lands. “Not in a corner” is not only a powerful litotes for, “on what for Judaism at least was the world stage,” but it at the same time informs this ignorant governor that what Paul has been talking about is not some notion that was developed in his own deranged mind, nor an obscure little affair that nobody knows anything about, but a thing that is so great and vital, so public and far-reaching, that Agrippa has been obliged to give it his full royal attention.
Festus resembles Lysias in making a move, now one, now another, and each time realizing just too late that it was the wrong move. We must not overlook the fact that even in this august presence (see 25:23) Paul just naturally gravitates to the position of master of the situation. He is a prisoner before a king and a procurator in all their pomp of power, yet it is he who takes things into his hands. He makes no false moves; he keeps true to his mission, his great purpose; he scores at every turn.
Acts 26:27
27Paul had accomplished a great deal when he had stirred Festus into excited exclamation. Now Paul does more, he questions Agrippa, the king himself. The king was to give Paul an ἀνάκρισις, a probing examination such as a judge gave a prisoner in ancient days (prosecutors do it now), and Paul had given complete information to the king so that he found no room for a question. And now Paul has put himself into a position where he can question the king who was to question him. The tables have somehow turned. Paul’s question is, however, pastoral, personal, spiritual as alone befits Paul and his mission.
In the most natural way he turns from the procurator with whom he has finished to the king and asks: Dost thou, King Agrippa, believe the prophets? Perhaps startled a bit, the king hesitates, and Paul gives the answer for him: I know that thou dost believe. Πιστεύεις with the dative asks whether the king believes that what the prophets say is true, is fact and not fancies or lies. Paul is not asking too much, he is inquiring only as to Agrippa’s assent. When he makes answer for the king, the answer is the only creditable one Agrippa could give as an honest Jew. How could he reply that he does not believe the prophets?
But we must catch the full implications. Agrippa does not adopt Paul’s answer, neither does he repudiate it. Paul had brought out the truth that the prophets and Moses, too, had declared that these things should occur: the Christ suffering and dying and then as the First-risen bringing light and salvation to Jews and to Gentiles (v. 23). Any Jew who believed the prophets would thus after what Paul had said have to face the further question as to whether he believed these supreme utterances of the prophets. Then the next question would confront him, whether these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, the Nazarene. A straight yes to Paul’s question, Agrippa saw, led straight into these admissions.
Yet a no would repudiate his Judaism—and he was the Temple guardian and the appointer of high priests! Agrippa shrank from both. He is one of the many who, when they are brought face to face with the truth by the great alternatives of the Word, dodge the issue. Felix did the same before this same apostle. A tertium is always possible: the unmanly, cowardly act of evasion.
Acts 26:28
28But Agrippa to Paul: In short order thou art persuading me to become a Christian! Paul, however, I would wish to God that both in short order and in great measure not only thou but all those hearing me today become such as also I myself am, except these bonds!
The omission of the verbs of saying in these two verses makes the narrative more dramatic even as what they narrate is the dramatic climax of Paul’s address. The history of the exegesis of these two verses is too long and too varied to be surveyed here. Ἐνὀλίγῳ cannot mean “almost” (A. V.), and the revival hymn, “Almost persuaded,” loses its Scriptural basis. Agrippa’s word is not a scoff, nor is it “spoken ironically and in contempt.” To find a twinkle of humor in it, to which Paul replies with a similar humorous touch, is too frivolous to need refutation. Confronted by a yes or no alternative, Agrippa evades both and in the presence of this high company assumes a superior tone. In the discussion of the linguistic difficulties the real point of Agrippa’s remark is lost.
From the simple question of believing the prophets Agrippa at once leaps to the question of becoming a Christian. Paul’s question asks in regard to the first step toward Christianity, Agrippa answers in regard to the final goal. He saw it all and lets Paul know this.
He used even the word “Christian” (see 11:26) which originated in Syrian Antioch and thus became known to him since he ruled a part of Syria. The word itself, as well as the whole reply, betray the intimate knowledge Agrippa had of the things to which Paul had referred even as Paul also was sure he had this knowledge. Of the two preferred readings γενέσθαι and ποιῆσαι we select the former. Zahn calls it “incomparably better attested,” we think well attested is sufficient. In his answer Paul, too, uses this infinitive. It agrees with the active πείθεις far better than ποιῆσαι does, which would fit only the passive πείθῃ which is found in one text. But this point is of minor importance and scarcely involves the sense as such.
The real question concerns ἐνὀλίγῳ in Agrippa’s answer, and then the combination of this phrase with ἐνμεγάλῳ in Paul’s rejoinder. Many authorities think that this combination rules out the idea of time in ἐνὀλίγῳ because it is certainly ruled out in ἐνμεγάλῳ. But this view overlooks two points. The phrases are combined by καί—καί, “both—and,” which the R. V. translates “whether—or,” but the text should then have ἥ. Combined thus, Paul’s phrases present no alternative but the contrary, the second presents an addition.
If Paul had intended to use alternatives he would have paired ἐνὀλίγῳ with ἐνπολλῷ, and the R. V. translates as though he had done so: “with little or with much,” i. e., Paul would like to see Agrippa become a Christian whether it took little or much to make him one. Or Paul would have paired ἐνὀλίγῳ with ἐνμακρῷ; “whether with little or with long time.” Paul did neither, nor did he use ἥ, “or,” and have alternatives. He said ἐνμεγάλῳ, which is diverse and which the correlatives καί—καί add: “both in short order (time) and in great degree (measure).” Compare Zahn.
Agrippa charges Paul with persuading him to Christianity “in short order,” i. e., by means of his believing the prophets. Ἐνὀλίγῳ has the emphasis. The sense is: “Thou art rushing me off my feet!” There is no inchoative or conative idea in πείθεις (R. 880). Agrippa imagines that he sees through Paul’s scheme and with an air of lofty superiority that is intended to impress the company lets Paul know that he sees through his plan of operation. Here we see the man’s evasion. He turns from the prophets and their plain, compelling utterances about the Christ by looking only at Paul and Paul’s purpose. He gets rid of the great fact that it ought to be only a short cut from the prophets and the prophecies to faith in Christ for any true and sincere Jew who believes these holy prophets of God. No; whatever Agrippa thinks of these prophets, letting them point him so directly to Jesus as the Christ is out of the question for him, a Herod, a king, although a Jew in profession.
Acts 26:29
29Paul’s reply meets the king squarely. Since Agrippa centers on Paul instead of on the prophets presented to him by Paul, the apostle bares his whole heart to the king, yea, to all here present: “I would wish (or pray) to God that both in short order and in great degree not only thou but all those hearing me today become such as also I myself am, etc.!” Here is not a man who is by a quick turn trying to coerce the king into becoming a Christian; here is a man whose whole soul is wrapped up in God, whose one fervent prayer could ever be only this, to see all men, just as he himself is, completely won for God, for the prophets of God, and for the Christ of God revealed by God through these prophets—yea, see them thus “both in short order,” the time cannot be too short, “and in great degree or measure,” with no halfway measures about it. Nor does Paul hesitate to make himself the pattern for Agrippa and for all those hearing him today. His strong ἐγώ is full of holy pride. It confesses joyfully what Paul is as a Christian. He knows in whom he believes. Would to God that all this company, with the king making the beginning, might do the same! 1 Cor. 7:7.
Paul repeats the king’s “in short order” and completes it with “in great measure.” Instead of yielding and saying that he has no such hurry in mind he does the opposite and adds even great measure. It does Paul an injustice to let him say that a longer time would also be satisfactory. Aside from the fact that he says the opposite, delays in following the prophets often prove fatal. The optative with ἄν is a protasis of potentiality and in exclamations is always without an apodosis. The aorist γενέσθαι is in place, for full actuality is referred to. The margin “in all respects,” desired by the American Committee of the R. V., reveals that these translators did not understand Paul’s telling phrases.
On the basis of the final phrase “except these bonds” the commentators feel that Paul stood before this illustrious company in chains; the author followed this lead in his St. Paul, 222, etc. In 25:23 we have given the reasons why we consider this idea a mistake. We here note the plural παρεκτὸςτῶνδεσμῶντούτων, which should make one pause. Would Paul appear before this audience manacled with more than one chain? No one calls this a plural of the category. Where chains are referred to we have the word for them as in Luke 8:29 and in Acts 22:25 and 28:20. This plural δεσμά (at times the masculine) occurs frequently, and we submit that in no instance does it signify “chains.” Begin with v. 31, which is rather plain, also 16:26, and then look through the epistles. We rest on this survey.
Δέσμιος, too, means only “prisoner.” “Bonds” (neuter plural) = bondage, imprisonment, all that confines a man as a δέσμιος. Even in 28:16 we feel certain that no chains were used; 28:20 is different. Roman law forbade the use of chains on Roman citizens when they became prisoners. We thus do not think that Paul made a dramatic gesture when he uttered this final phrase and held up his arm with the clanking chain or both arms with two chains—and they have been described as being long enough for that purpose.
Acts 26:30
30And the king rose up and the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. And having withdrawn, they continued to speak to each other, saying, Nothing worthy of death or of bonds is this man doing. But Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.
The king ended the audience by rising to leave. It had been arranged at his request (25:22), and thus he was privileged to prolong or to shorten it, the governor politely deferring to him. Agrippa had felt Paul’s touch upon his heart, and from this strange and unexpected power he withdrew. It was his hour of grace, and when he withdrew he left salvation behind him. How many are like him along the road the gospel has traveled! The others also arose according to rank.
That is why Bernice is mentioned after the governor. It was done in state and with due precedence. Some are ready to say that, as far as a saving effect was concerned, Paul’s efforts had been in vain. We hesitate in regard to that. The gospel has its own way of not returning void. It was lost upon the main personages, but was it lost on all who heard Paul that day?
Acts 26:31
31They withdrew and discussed the case. While the imperfect is descriptive it is more; it holds the reader in suspense for the final aorist in v. 32. The verdict of all the dignitaries that are privileged to speak is unanimous: Paul is guilty of nothing that deserves either death or bonds, and here δεσμά certainly means only imprisonment and not “chains.” It is the same verdict that Festus himself had publicly pronounced at the opening of the audience in 25:25; it was the more readily reiterated now.
Acts 26:32
32This leads to the final word, which was spoken directly to Festus by Agrippa, that Paul might have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar. That is all that Agrippa, to whom Paul’s case had been especially presented, could say. Small comfort for Festus this “might have been.” It was he who has mismanaged the case and maneuvered himself into this awkward position of having to send to Caesar a prisoner who had been pronounced innocent by himself and by all others who had heard him. What the helpless and inefficient fellow finally wrote to Caesar no one knows; it was certainly nothing incriminating. When the court of Caesar tried Paul’s case, he was promptly acquitted.
The condition is that of past unreality, the apodosis without ἄν as so often with certain verbs, R. 1014. Ordinarily aorists are used in order to place the unreality in the past. Here this is achieved by the past in the protasis and by the imperfect plus a perfect infinitive in the apodosis. The sentence is conditional and nothing more, past unreality even in the apodosis (R. 887 regards it as present). We dissent from R. 886 in having the imperfect ἐδύατο function also as the tense used in an unfulfilled possibility. In our opinion it cannot serve in such a double capacity. See another case of this in 24:19.
What prevented Paul’s release under the present circumstances was not only the fact that he had appealed but that he had appealed effectively, Festus having formally accepted the appeal (25:12) in open court before the Sanhedrists who had appeared as accusers. Agrippa puts it mildly, in reality it was Festus who had tied his own hands.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.
M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.