article71

§66 Paul Before Agrippa (Acts 25:23–26:32)

25:23 / On the morrow, Paul was brought in before a large and distinguished audience (cf. 9:15; Luke 21:12). Besides the governor and his guests of honor, there were the high ranking officers, that is, the tribunes or prefects of the cohorts stationed at Caesarea (see note on 10:1) and the leading men of the city. These may have included Jews, but the majority at least would have been Gentiles. The occasion was one of great pomp. This translates the word phantasia (cf. our “fantasy”), which points to the transitory nature of this “show of dress and ceremonial, of decoration and grand titles” (Rackham, p. 461). In contrast, Paul stood before them chained and in humble garb.

25:24–27 / In introducing Paul to his guests, Festus described him as the man concerning whom the whole Jewish community had petitioned him both in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea (v. 24). By “the whole Jewish community” he may only have meant the Sanhedrin, as representing the nation (cf. vv. 2, 7, 15). But it was not unheard of that a crowd in Jerusalem should add their voice to the demands of their leaders (cf. Mark 15:11), whereas in Caesarea, the great bitterness between Jews and Gentiles may well have found expression in a Jewish demonstration against the “apostle to Gentiles.” Festus himself had found no crime in Paul deserving death (v. 25). It was unreasonable, however, that he should send him to Rome without an explanation of the charges against him (v. 27), and he hoped that as a result of this meeting Agrippa could help him to find something to say. It might seem from this that the procurator was not bound to write. But of course he was. A statement of the charges would have had to be sent to the emperor with the appellant. But Festus was hoping to do more and explain what the charges meant. Sherwin-White describes his dilemma: “The complication and prolongation of the trial of Paul arose from the fact that the charge was political—hence the procurators were reluctant to dismiss it out of hand—and yet the evidence was theological, hence the procurators were quite unable to understand it” (p. 51). The present occasion was not a trial. In that regard, the most that can be said of it is that it was an informal hearing. But above all, perhaps, it was an entertainment—“a gala performance of Roman justice” (Ehrhardt, p. 120).

26:1–3 / With regard to both its form and its content we have here the high point of the speeches of Acts. It is the most polished of all the speeches, adorned with rare words and marked by an elaborate, even grandiose, style. The credit for this must go largely to Luke, and yet Paul still makes himself heard. As for content—at Antioch we had his gospel for Jews (13:16–41), at Miletus his message for Christians (20:18–35), but here we have his Good News for all the world, proclaimed out of his own experience of God’s grace. This is now the third and most important of Paul’s statements in his own defense and the third account in this book of his conversion (see disc. on 21:37–22:5).

As guest of honor, it fell to Agrippa to invite Paul to speak, and it was to him especially that Paul addressed his remarks (cf. vv. 2, 13, 19, 27). Though chained, Paul does not appear to have been hampered in his movements and was able to adopt his customary pose (v. 1; see disc. on 13:16). Luke describes him as “defending” himself, though he was not formally on trial. Indeed, Paul uses this same terminology himself (see disc. on 22:1), declaring that he was glad to make [his] defense before the king, who was well acquainted with Jewish customs and controversies (vv. 2, 3, the captatio benevolentiae; see disc. on 24:2f.).

26:4–6 / He spoke first of his early life. This could be summed up as “sincere but mistaken,” with verse 9 epitomizing his error. Paul assumed that his past was known to the Jews, but for the sake of his present audience, he touched briefly on its salient points. He had been brought up in his own country, literally, among his own “nation” (v. 4). This might have been a reference to Tarsus, but in view of 22:3, is more likely to have meant Judea, with in Jerusalem added by way of more precise definition. For a long time he had lived as a Pharisee, the strictest sect of the Jewish religion (v. 5). His purpose in stating this was to establish his credentials as a Jew (which were clearly impeccable) and then to suggest that there was no discontinuity between his Jewish upbringing and his present belief. The hope instilled by the one had been fulfilled by the other. It was a strange irony, therefore, that he should now be on trial—the reference was to the whole legal process in which he was embroiled—for the very hope that he shared with the Jews (v. 6).

26:7 / The hope of which Paul spoke was not merely that of resurrection (cf. 23:6; 24:15), but the broader hope of the Messiah and the kingdom of God, of which the resurrection of the dead was a part (cf. 28:20). This, at least, appears to be the implication of the reference to the twelve tribes, which conjures up thoughts of the eschatological in-gathering of the tribes and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel—conceived of by most Jews in terms of this world and by most Christians in spiritual terms (see disc. on 1:6 and 3:21 and notes). The longing of the Jews for the eschaton is expressed in the words, as they earnestly serve God day and night (see disc. on 12:5 for similar language and Luke 2:36–38 for the same earnest prayer for the Messiah).

26:8 / But the Messiah had already come. Paul’s distress at the Jews’ blindness to this lies behind the question of this verse (cf. v. 18; 28:26f.). The point of the question has been variously understood. Some see it as a reference to the general resurrection and therefore as an appeal to the Sadducees, some of whom may have been present. Others find here a reference to the instances in the Old Testament in which life was restored (e.g., 1 Kings 17:17–23; 2 Kings 4:18–37), seeing this as the first step in the argument that “there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (24:15). It seems best, however, to understand the question as an appeal to the great truth to which Paul was leading, namely, that Jesus, though crucified, had become “the first to rise from the dead” (v. 23) and so had been shown to be the Messiah and the one who had fulfilled all of Israel’s hopes (cf. Rom. 1:4).

26:9–10 / Verse 8 was something of an aside, and Paul now returned to the narrative of his early life. His purpose was still to establish his credentials (see disc. on vv. 4ff.) and perhaps to make the point also that it had taken the most compelling of reasons to make him other than the zealous Jew he had been, bent on persecuting the church. Here a note of shame creeps into the narrative. By the emphasis of the opening words of verse 9 (in the Greek), Paul showed that he now regarded his opposition to Jesus as an act of utter self-delusion. The emphatic I of verse 10 (in the Greek) maintains that theme, as does the description of his victims as the saints (see disc. on 9:13). And not only had he put many of the saints in prison (the Greek has “prisons”), but had exacerbated his guilt by acquiescing in the execution of some of them.

It is difficult to know how literally to take Paul’s statement in verse 10. It purports to give an account of what he had done in Jerusalem, and from that we must suppose that his reference was to decisions taken by the Sanhedrin, not some lesser synagogal court. But would Paul have been a member of that august body to have actually “voted against” Christians who had been brought before it? It is doubtful, not only on account of his probable age at the time, but also because of his apparently obscure origins. The Sanhedrin was an assembly of aristocrats, composed of men of mature years and influence. It is just possible, of course, that he had won a place in their ranks on sheer ability, but it is safer to assume that “voted against” means simply that he “approved,” the expression used in 22:20. As for Christians being put to death, Paul may have been using a generalizing plural for dramatic effect, but the circumstances in Judea that had made possible Stephen’s death may well have made others possible also (see note on 7:58).

26:11 / From Jerusalem he had extended his persecuting activities even to foreign cities. The imperfect tense of the verb “to persecute” may simply mark the beginning of his proposed foreign campaign, which, in fact, never got any farther than the outskirts of Damascus (the inceptive imperfect). Or (and this is preferable in view of the “prisons” of v. 10), it may be understood of repeated acts of persecution elsewhere before he set out for that city. He had worked from the synagogues, which functioned as local courts with powers of discipline over their members, that is, over the local Jewish communities. And by having those members punished who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he had tried to force them to blaspheme (the name of Jesus) (cf. 13:45; 18:6). Again the tense of the Greek verb (imperfect) may indicate repeated attempts, but the real significance of the expression is that it leaves open the question whether he ever succeeded. In contrast to the abhorrence that he now felt for his own part in this, there is an undisguised note of admiration in Paul’s words for the fortitude of those who suffered at his hands.

26:12–13 / Next Paul spoke of the critical moment of his life. His encounter with the risen Lord was a crisis both in the Greek sense of judgment and in the modern sense of a turning point. As he had traveled to Damascus armed with the authority and commission of the chief priests (v. 12; in 9:1 the high priest, but cf. 9:14, 21), who were now, of course, his chief accusers, a divine light had shone about him. If anything, the Greek expression rendered about noon (v. 13) is more emphatic than that similarly translated in 22:6. Paul wanted it clearly understood that what had happened had happened in the bright light of midday and that even then the light had outshone the sun (here expressly stated, though certainly implied in 9:3 and 22:6) to penetrate the darkness of his own mind. In the Greek, the sentence reaches its climax in the word light: “At midday, on the road, I saw, O King, from heaven, much brighter than the sun, shining around me, a light.” This light had also enveloped his traveling companions. This is made clearer than in the earlier accounts (9:7; 22:6, 9). It was an important point, for it underlined the objectivity of the experience.

26:14–15 / At this, they all fell to the ground. In 9:4 and 22:7 Paul alone is said to have fallen, and in 9:7 Luke remarks that the men with Paul had “stood speechless,” but they may have fallen and then stood up. Nothing is said here of Paul’s being blinded by the light or, for that matter, of his entering Damascus and being visited by Ananias. The story is left incomplete when compared with 9:7 and 22:11ff. Instead, the focus here is on the voice. Paul alone had understood it (see disc. on 9:7 and 22:9), and it had spoken to him in Hebrew (Aramaic; cf. 21:40). This had been intimated in 9:4 and 22:7 by the use of the Semitic form of his name, Saul; however Paul added this explanation here because he was now speaking in Greek but, in citing the actual words, wished to retain the form in which they were indelibly imprinted on his memory.

The same question is found in all three accounts, Why do you persecute me? (v. 14), but here alone is added what was in fact a familiar proverb of the ancient world, It is hard for you to kick against the goads (cf. esp. Euripides, Bacchae 794f.; also Aeschylus Agamemnon 1624; Terence Phormio 1.2.27; Ps. Sol. 16:4). Some have seen in this a witness to Paul’s uneasy conscience, which he had tried to quieten by ever more frantic activity, but it is not wise to press a proverbial saying too closely with regard to his state of mind (see disc. on 9:1–19). He may simply have added it now to stress (with the wisdom of hindsight) the foolhardiness of what he had been attempting to do (cf. 5:39; Ps. 2:3, 4). The general sense of the proverb is that it is foolish to struggle against one’s destiny. Paul’s question in verse 15 and Jesus’ response are much as in the earlier accounts. As in 22:10, Paul fell back into the Christian habit of calling Jesus the Lord.

26:16 / Next he told of his commission. If this is indeed what Jesus said to him on the road, it is by far the most detailed account that we have of that part of the story. But in fact it is probably a conflation of what was later communicated by Ananias and later still was shown to Paul in the vision that he had in the temple (9:15; 22:14). These details were omitted here as of no consequence to his present audience. As Paul now told the story, he was ordered to get up and stand on (his) feet, for the Lord had work for him to do (cf. Ezek. 2:1). He had been appointed (for this verb, see disc. on 22:14) “as a servant and as a witness” (for “witness,” cf. 1:8, 22; etc.; the word “servant” is used of John Mark in 13:5), that he should tell others what he had seen (the risen, ascended Son in the glory of the Father) and what he would be shown in time to come, literally (with Jesus speaking), “the things in which I will appear to you.” The reference is to visions (cf. esp. 22:17–21; but also 18:9f.; 23:11).

26:17–18 / These verses detail Paul’s calling and at the same time provide an outline of his life from his conversion to the establishing of churches among the Gentiles. He was promised protection from your own people and from the Gentiles (v. 17), but only in the sense that he would be enabled to fulfill his calling, not that he would be spared any suffering in the process (cf. 2 Tim. 2:9). He was given a commission to open the people’s eyes (v. 18). There may have been some play intended on the idea of his spiritual blindness before and his physical blindness after his conversion. But more significantly, the language is that in which Isaiah had prophesied future salvation (Isa. 35:5; 42:6f.; cf. Matt. 9:30). That salvation was now a present reality, and Paul was to take news of it to Jews and to Gentiles. The to them of verse 17 includes both (cf. 9:15). His commission was to preach for conversion, to turn them from darkness to light (a frequent metaphor in the Pauline epistles, e.g., Rom. 2:19; 13:12; 2 Cor. 4:6; 6:14; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:12; 1 Thess. 5:5), that is, from the power of Satan to God, that their sins might be forgiven and they might have a place among the people of God (lit., “an inheritance in those who have been sanctified,” v. 18; see disc. on 9:13; 20:32). This statement bears a remarkable likeness to Colossians 1:12–14 and assures us that this résumé of Paul’s speech is based on reliable information. (Note: Luke does not appear to have had access to Paul’s letters.) But not any preaching will lead to conversion. Effective preaching to that end must center on Christ, for only in him is this salvation found (Jesus is the me of verse 18, for he is the speaker; cf. 4:12). Here the operative phrase is faith in me, placed for emphasis in the Greek text at the end of the sentence. The thought is of entrusting oneself entirely to Christ (it is the faith that is “into him”; see disc. on 10:43). Verse 18 is the epitome of the (Pauline) gospel.

26:19–20 / Finally, Paul told his audience what the outcome was of his calling. The renewed address, So then, King Agrippa (v. 19), marks the beginning of Paul’s real defense. He had been accused of teaching contrary to the Jewish law, and though he flatly denied the charge, he recognized that some explanation was needed of his years among the Gentiles. These verses provide it. He was not disobedient to the vision from heaven (the Damascus Road experience, v. 19), which is to say that he obeyed it enthusiastically, preaching first to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea (see note on 1:8), and to the Gentiles also (v. 20). If we take this verse as simply covering the sequence of events in 9:20–30, there is clearly a contradiction with Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:22 that he was “personally unknown to the churches of Judea.” But this might be another instance of the kind of compression that we noticed in verses 16–18, so that the one reference to his preaching in Judea encompasses all his subsequent contacts with the province, where over the years he may well have preached extensively and certainly had the opportunity to do so (11:30; 12:25; 15:3; 18:22; 21:7–16). A further difficulty, however, has been found in the change of construction in the Greek at the point where he speaks of his preaching in all Judea. This has led to speculation whether the text is corrupt or whether these words are a scribal addition. But though the sentence is admittedly awkward, it is not ungrammatical, and indeed, the change of construction makes some sense as marking the difference between preaching “in” Damascus and Jerusalem and “among” the Gentiles (all datives) and preaching “throughout” Judea (an accusative of extent). His message had been essentially a call to repentance (cf. 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 20:21), to conversion—they were to turn to God (v. 20; cf. 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:9), and to the kind of conduct that exemplified both. This message had been preached to Jews and to Gentiles alike.

26:21–23 / It was his ministry to the Gentiles, and that he had treated the Gentiles as on the same footing as they were, however, that had provoked the ire of the Jews (how far in Jewish thought the Gentiles were from equality may be seen in texts such as Psalms of Solomon 17:32 and 2 Baruch 72; see disc. on 22:22f.). So they had seized him in the temple and had tried to kill him. Paul said nothing of his alleged profanation of the temple. That was not an issue. Nor did he say anything of the Roman intervention. That was well known. It was also providential—I have had God’s help, he declared, to this very day (v. 22). Hence he was able to stand before them, a witness to small and great alike (v. 22), probably a reference to the various ranks within his audience (cf. Rev. 11:18; 13:16; 19:5), though it could be understood in terms of their ages, “to the young (Agrippa?) and the old (Festus?).”

Despite what they said, there was nothing anti-Jewish in his preaching. On the contrary, it was concerned with the fulfillment of the prophecy found in their Scriptures that the Christ would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead (v. 23). This is almost the language of 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23. But where in the prophets and Moses is it said that the Messiah must suffer? The immediate answer would have been in the Servant Songs of Isaiah (see disc. on 8:32ff. and notes). And where does it say that he must be the first to rise from the dead? Again the answer may have been found in Isaiah, for it was said that the Servant would see life (Isa. 53:10). But there were other passages, such as Psalms 2, 16, and 118 (see disc. on 2:25ff.; 4:11; 13:33ff.). And because Jesus had fulfilled these prophecies, he could be said to have fulfilled all prophecies that spoke of the light of salvation (v. 23; cf. Isa. 9:1f.; 49:6; Luke 2:29ff.; Acts 13:47), for his resurrection was not merely a demonstration of his own life, but the grounds of the proclamation of life to all, both to his own people and to the Gentiles (v. 23).

26:24 / The speech had reached its climax in verse 23, so that Paul had already said what was most important for him to say when Festus interrupted him. The governor had found nothing in the speech of interest to him. He was out of his depth and angry because of it. “Too much study,” the Preacher had said, “will wear you out” (Eccles. 12:12); Festus announced in a loud voice (because he was interrupting) that in Paul’s case too much study was a danger to sanity. He was not jesting. Not only this talk of a resurrection, but the suggestion that Jesus, whom Festus could only describe as “a dead man” (25:19), should bring light and life to others was, he thought, the product of a disturbed mind (cf. 17:32; 2 Cor. 5:11, 13).

26:25 / Paul answered that he was not mad. What he had said about Jesus was true and reasonable. No one doubted his sincerity, but against the assertion that he was living in a world of fantasy, he claimed that he was speaking objective truth and that his appreciation of the facts was based on the opposite of madness, namely, “sobriety”—the possession of a right mind. There is nothing irrational in Christianity in the sense of claims that are contrary to reason, though there is much that goes beyond human reason and can only be apprehended by faith. For the title most excellent, see note on 1:1, and for the verb “to speak,” which implies that Paul spoke as a prophet, see the discussion on 2:4.

26:26–27 / It was evident from this little exchange that Paul was not getting through to the governor. With Agrippa, however, it might be different. So Paul addressed him “with boldness” (NIV I can speak freely, v. 26; see disc. on 4:13), appealing to what was common knowledge concerning Jesus, for the “Jesus event” was not something done in a corner (v. 26; cf. Plato, Gorgias 485). He then pressed home the appeal by asking Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures. He was certain he did and that the king would agree, moreover, that there was nothing irrational in believing that their prophecies would be fulfilled. After that, he could only hope that Agrippa would take the next step and accept that they had found their fulfillment in Jesus.

26:28–29 / But Agrippa backed away from this direct approach. He parried Paul’s question with a facetious retort: Do you think that in such a short time [or with so little effort] you can persuade me to be a Christian? Paul replied that it was his prayer that they all might become as he was, except for his chains. He had spoken of faith (vv. 11, 18) and hope (v. 6f.) and, in these closing words, had revealed a love that was “not rude” or “self-seeking” or “easily angered” and that kept “no record of wrongs” (1 Cor. 13:5f.). But he did not take up Agrippa’s word “Christian,” either because he did not know it or because he only knew it as an expression of contempt (see disc. on 11:26b). The lightness of his last remark about the chains (the plural may have been rhetorical) may have eased the situation a little, but for all that, the conversation had become uncomfortably personal and was quickly brought to an end.

26:30–32 / Agrippa rose, and with him the governor, Bernice, and the other guests (the order of rank was carefully observed), and withdrew from the hall. Later they readily admitted to one another that Paul had done nothing deserving even imprisonment, much less death, and could have been acquitted had he not appealed to Caesar. Legally, he could still have been acquitted, but it was no longer simply a question of law, “but of the relations between the emperor and his subordinates, and of that element of non-constitutional power which the Romans called auctoritas, ‘prestige,’ on which the supremacy of the Princeps so largely depended. No sensible man with hopes of promotion would dream of short-circuiting the appeal to Caesar unless he had specific authority to do so.… To have acquitted him despite the appeal would have been to offend both the emperor and the province” (Sherwin-White, p. 65). However, Agrippa’s opinion of the case must have been noted in the report sent to Rome and may in some part account for the treatment accorded Paul on his arrival (28:16).