Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 26:1 - 26:32
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
II. Paul publicly defends himself before Festus and Agrippa, and, indeed, so successfully, that his address makes a deep impression, and produces a general conviction of his innocence
24And [But] as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad [is leading thee to madness, åἰò ìáíἰáí ]. 25But he said, I am not mad [I am not beside myself], most noble Festus; but speak [utter] forth the [om. the] words of truth and soberness [saneness]. 26For the king knoweth of these things, before [to, ðñὸò ] whom also I speak freely [gladly address myself]: for I am persuaded [convinced] that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. 28Then [But] Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost [With little (effort)] thou persuadest me to be [become ( ãåíÝóèáé )] a Christian. [!] 29And [But] Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that [who] hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether [day, would, through little or great (means), become] such as I am, except these bonds. 30And when he had thus spoken, the [om. And when he had thus spoken] king [Then the king] rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: 31And when they were gone aside [had withdrawn], they talked between themselves [conversed among themselves], saying, This man doeth nothing [that is] worthy of death or of bonds. 32Then said Agrippa [But Agrippa said] unto Festus, This man might [could, ἐäýíáôï ] have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cesar [to the emperor].
Act_26:2-5. a. I think myself happy.—Paul was influenced to employ such courteous terms chiefly by the fact that Agrippa was well acquainted with Jewish customs and questions; the Talmud, indeed, mentions several events in his life, which furnished him with opportunities to exhibit his knowledge of the Mosaic law; (see Schoettgen: Horæ Hebr. on Acts 25.). ÌÜëéóôá can scarcely, with Meyer, be connected with ãíþóôçí , in the sense of: “best of all (better than all others) acquainted with;” it properly belongs to the main proposition: ἤãçìáé ἐì . ìáê ., as assigning the chief reason for which Paul esteems himself happy in being permitted to speak in his own defence precisely before Agrippa. It was an additional pleasure to the apostle that he had found an opportunity to deliver his testimony in the presence of a king (comp. Act_9:15); hence he gives the latter his proper title, and repeats it (Act_26:7; Act_26:19; Act_26:26-27), in order to show that he ascribes special importance to the circumstance.—The participial clause in the accusative, ãíþóôçí ὄíôá , is occasioned by looseness in the construction, as after óïῦ in Act_26:2, the genitive should, strictly speaking, have reappeared. [“The accusative, ãí . ὄíôá is undoubtedly to be regarded as anacoluthic … a case which often occurs when participles are also introduced.” (Winer: § 32. 7, and § 63. 2. d.).—For instances in classic authors, see Viger. (ed. Herm.). cap. 6. sect. 1. § 12.—Tr.]
b. My manner of life [, then,].— Ïὖí exhibits inferentially the reasons for which the speaker at once commences his defence, namely, the confidence which he derives from Agrippa’s acquaintance with the general subject, and the hope which he entertains that he will be heard with favor and patience.—At the first, ἀð ʼ ἀñ÷ῆò ; this expression is even more emphatic than: “from my youth.” Paul states, first, how long the Jews had known him; secondly, where they learned to know him; and, thirdly, what they knew of him, namely, as a Pharisee, Act_26:5. The words ἀð ʼ ἀñ÷ῆò ãåí . - - ἐí Ἱåñ ., (which agree with ἀíáôåèñ . ἐí ô . ðüëåé ô . in Act_22:3), imply that Saul had been brought at a very tender age to Jerusalem, and had been reared in that city. Hence—says Paul—they already know me, even before I describe myself, namely, that I had lived as a Pharisee, according to the rules of the strictest sect. Comp. Act_22:3. [“Most straitest is an anomalous pleonasm, not found in the original, but handed down from Tyndale through the later English versions. Straitest, i.e., strictest, etc. (Alexander).—Tr.].—If they would [were willing, ἐὰí èÝëùóé , to] testify, that is: they would, perhaps, not be sufficiently candid and honorable to do so. They might apprehend that such an admission on their part would confer additional honor on Paul.
Act_26:6-8. And now I stand and am judged.—Here the apostle rapidly passes from the earliest period of his life to which he had referred, to the present moment; he testifies that, however widely his present position and sentiments might seem to differ from those of that earlier period, he was, nevertheless, accused and subjected to a trial, not on account of apostasy from the Israelitic religion, but, on the contrary, on account of his adherence to the common and genuine faith and hope of Israel. And this hope—he continues—rests on the express promise and the revelation which God had granted to the fathers; it is a hope which the whole nation sincerely and earnestly entertains. Paul mentions the twelve tribes [ äùäåêÜöõëïí —a theocratic honorable designation of the totality of the people; comp. Jam_1:1.—The word is analogous in form to äåêÜöõëïò , Herodot. V. 66. (Meyer).—Tr.], without referring to any localities in which at that time individuals belonging to the nation might dwell; hence the descendants of the ten tribes, possibly still in the regions of their exile, are included. Now this hope can be no other than the Messianic hope; hence Paul here intends to say that all devout Israelites hoped for the Messiah whom God had promised, and that he himself, moreover, believed that the divine promise had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, who had appeared, and had risen from the dead. This latter thought leads him to ask the question, Act_26:8, which directly assails doubt and unbelief. He addresses it to all who are present ( ὑìῖí ), including Agrippa and Festus, and assumes that, with respect to this point, they are unbelievers. [“ Ôß ἄðéóôïí êñßíåôáé —a question introduced with much animation. Quid? incredibile judicatur apud vos? So Beza, Griesb., Kuin., and others. But the Greek note of interrogation (;) after ôé is omitted, on the contrary, by Grotius, Calovius, Knapp, Matthaei, Lachm., Meyer, who point and interpret; Cur incredibile, etc.” (de Wette). Alexander seems to prefer the former punctuation, i.e., “What! Is it judged incredible, etc.” and Howson (Conyb. and H. II. 303) adopts the same view. Hackett, like Lechler in his translation, prefers the latter, and agrees with Meyer, who says that ôé standing alone, is never so employed (as a question), and that if Paul had introduced the pronoun as an exclamation or interrogation, he would have said, ôß ãáñ or ôß ïὖí , or ôß äÝ .—Tr.]. The expression ἐé … ἑãåßñåé refers interrogatively to the object, in so far as he who deems it incredible, denies its reality. Hence åἰ is here equivalent to “whether,” precisely as in Act_26:23. It cannot mean “that,” which would be ungrammatical. This objection does not apply to the translation “if” (Meyer, in accordance with the Vulgate and Erasmus), which, however, does not seem to correspond to the frame of mind either of Paul, or of those who doubted.—The tense of ἐãåßñåé is significant—not preterite, referring to the resurrection of Jesus, nor future, as referring to the general resurrection—but present, in order to indicate that the question does not refer to a special historical event, but to a conception of a general character, or, in other words, to an abiding attribute or power of God.
Act_26:9-11. I verily thought.—Here Paul resumes the subject which he had for a moment dropped (in Act_26:6-8), and again refers to his personal history; ïὖí does not connect the statement that follows, as an inference, with the unbelief to which Paul had adverted in Act_26:8 (Meyer) [who interprets thus: ‘In consequence of this unbelief ( ìὲí ïὖí ), I myself was once an avowed enemy of the name of Jesus.’ Alexander thus interprets ïὖí : ‘Well, then, as I was saying, being such a Pharisee, I thought, etc.’—Tr.].—That I ought to do. i e., ‘I considered it to be clearly my duty to oppose the name of Jesus, and prevent the confession of it.’ Here Paul gives to the Christians the name of saints, which he had avoided in his address to the people at Jerusalem, Act_22:4; but on the present occasion he designedly employs the term in the presence of hearers who were unbiassed, and it is his object at the same time, both to bear witness for Christ and His church by using it, and to confess his own guilt. [De Wette, on the contrary, says: “He unconsciously employs an expression which could be intelligible to none but Christians.” It is of very frequent occurrence in the Pauline epistles.—Tr.].—When they were put to death, I gave my voice against them [I assented to it].—Hence it may be inferred that Stephen was, in truth, not the only one who suffered martyrdom during the persecution to which reference is here made. The phrase øῆöïí êáôáöÝñåéí , strictly speaking, means: to deposit the calculus or pebble used as a ballot; here, however, it can as little designate literally the act of a judge and lawful assessor in a court, as our own [German] word “beistimmen,” which originally had the same meaning [but is now used in the sense: to agree or concur with, to assent or consent.—Tr.]. Paul indicates by the word only a moral assent and approval.
Act_26:12-14. With authority and commission; that is, he went as the authorized agent and representative of the chief priests. Four peculiarities may be observed in the narrative which follows, and which refers to the appearance of Jesus in the vicinity of Damascus:—1. Some traits which give prominence to the overpowering effect of that appearance; for instance, the light which shone around, exceeded the brightness of the sun, Act_26:13, whereas the language in Act_9:3 is simply, öῶò ἀðὸ ôïῦ ïὑñáíïῦ , and in Act_22:6, öῶò ἱêáíüí ; moreover, all the attendants of Paul fell to the earth, Act_26:14, whereas this circumstance is not mentioned in Act_22:7, and the statement is, apparently, even contradicted in Act_9:7, (on which verse, see the Exeg. note, above).—2. The remark that the voice spoke in the Hebrew, that is, the Aramæan dialect, which is not made in the two parallel passages; in Act_22:7, it was the less needed, as Paul himself spoke on that occasion in the Aramæan [ch. Act_21:40].—3. The addition in Act_26:14, namely, óêëçñüí … ëáêôßæåéí , which, in Act_9:5, is to be rejected for critical reasons, and, in Act_22:7 is exhibited only in a single uncial manuscript [E], and in a few versions [but not in the Vulg.—Tr.]. The image itself is derived from the peculiar mode in which the ox was employed. The oriental farmer followed the plough [furnished with only one handle], and guided it with his left hand. In his right he held a rod which was six or eight feet long, to the end of which a goad was attached. When the animal was refractory and kicked, the driver applied the goad, which, in consequence of the violent movement of the animal, inflicted on it additional pain. The figurative expression implied that Paul’s own will, Which offered resistance, would necessarily be subdued by the express command of the Redeemer, who appeared to him in overwhelming glory. [The proverb ðñὸò êÝíôñá ëáêôὶæåéí was familiarly employed by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans. For numerous passages in the Latin and Greek classics, see Kuinoel on Act_9:5-6, and Grotius on Act_26:14.—Tr.].—4. The circumstance that the revelation concerning both the calling of Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles, and also concerning the protection which he would enjoy amid dangers that threatened him (a revelation received by Paul in Damascus through Ananias, according to Act_9:10 ff., and Acts 22. ff.), is here represented as an immediate and direct revelation received from Jesus on the way—as an integral part of the Redeemer’s personal revelation. There were two reasons, a negative and a positive, which influenced Paul in making this statement. It was, on the one hand, important, when he addressed Jewish hearers, to give prominence to the fact (Act_22:12 ff.) that a Jew, who was “a devout man, according to the law,” had been the medium of communication; whereas this circumstance could have had no weight in the judgment of Agrippa and the other hearers whom Paul now addresses. (Baumgarten very judiciously directs attention to this fact). On the other hand, Paul was led to make his statement in this form, because it was important to him that this revelation, which, it is true, he received through the medium of Ananias, should also be distinctly understood to be one which he had received from Christ himself. Hence he here takes the liberty to make a statement in a form which does not, in a servile manner, observe the mere letter and the special circumstances. And it is by no means necessary, for the purpose of removing any apparent discrepancy, to assume that Jesus had actually, at his first appearance, given Paul a general view of his subsequent labors, which Baumgarten (II. 2. p.295) represents as having been possibly the case, although he does not positively and explicitly adopt this hypothesis.—It was just as little necessary for Stier “to despair, in view of the misconduct of the learned theologians,” and to exhibit the warmth of feeling which appears in his protest against our interpretation of the passage before us (in his Reden d. Ap. II. 301 ff.—[Discourses of the Apostles, 2d ed.—Stier introduces these words in a note, p. 302, as here quoted by Lechler, whom he mentions by name. He dissents from Lechler, and regards the statements as having been actually made by the Saviour when he appeared to Paul.—Stier’s merits as a learned, orthodox, devout, and skilful expositor of the divine word, are conceded by all; but his manner of speaking of his contemporaries, seems at times to be arrogant and contemptuous, and has given offence to many of them.—Tr.].—For we have by no means assumed that, in Act_26:16-18, he represents “his own thoughts as having been expressed in words by the Lord;” we maintain, on the contrary, that Paul here quotes words actually spoken to him by the Lord through Ananias. For the words in Act_9:15-16, demonstrate that the exalted Lord did really reveal precisely these thoughts to Ananias. And the only question that can here arise, is this: Did Ananias at once repeat to Paul all that the Lord had said to him? However probable it is per se that an affirmative answer would accord with the truth, the language in Act_9:17, nevertheless, awakens a doubt: but the testimony of the apostle himself, in Act_22:15, decides the point in the affirmative, although he here very summarily repeats the words of Ananias. Hence we do not consider our opinion [stated in Lechler’s first edition, to which Stier referred.—Tr.] as successfully refuted, that, in Act_26:16-18, the apostle combines words of Christ which He spoke through the mouth of Ananias, with those which the Redeemer personally and directly addressed to him in the vicinity of Damascus. And here we think that we are as little guilty of “learned misconduct” as Stier himself is, when, in commenting on the words in Mat_19:5, he openly avows that the words which (not an apostle of the Lord, but) the Redeemer Himself quotes as words of God, were not spoken directly by God, but were spoken by God “through Adam.” (Reden, etc., [Discourses of the Lord Jesus, according to Matthew]. II. 266. 2d ed.). [Alford fully sustains Lechler, without, however, naming him, and adds: “It would be not only irreverent, but false, to imagine that he (Paul) put his own thoughts into the mouth of our Lord; but I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of maintaining that all these words were actually spoken to him at some time by the Lord. The message delivered by Ananias certainly furnished some of them … the commission which he received is not followed into its details, but summed up as committed to him by the Lord himself, etc.”—Tr.]
Act_26:15-17. I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.—Jesus informs Paul of the purpose for which He appeared, namely, that he should become a minister and witness of Jesus, especially with a view to the conversion of Gentiles; the apostle receives an assurance of the Redeemer’s protection, whenever his mission exposes him to danger. Ðñï÷åéñßóáóèáé primarily means: to appoint, to elect; such, however, cannot here be the sense of the word; the only meaning which is appropriate, and in which, moreover, the word occurs in Polybius, is: to take in hand, to employ for a certain purpose. Paul was to be a witness of that which he already had seen, and of that which he would yet see. The latter is so expressed ( ὦí ὀöèÞóïìáé ), as to imply that Jesus himself would personally be the sole or main object of these future visions, as he was (according to ὤöèçí ) of all that Paul so far saw ( ὦí åßäåò ). [For the construction, etc., see Winer: Gram. N. T., § 39. 3, obs. 1.—Tr.]. The participle ἐîáéñïὐìåíïò grammatically belongs to ὀöèÞóïìáé , but in point of fact to ðñï÷åéñßóáóèáé . Ἐîáéñåῖóèáé cannot here mean: to choose or elect (Kuinoel [whose word is eligere.—Tr.]), because Saul was not chosen from the Gentiles, but from Israel, and because the participle refers, as the construction shows, to a circumstance which followed, not to one which preceded, the mission to the Gentiles; hence the word can have no other meaning here, except that of forcibly extricating, rescuing from dangers. The mission of Paul refers, primarily, to Israel ( ὁ ëáüò , Act_26:17); the Gentiles are mentioned only in the second place: it is precisely in this manner that Paul likewise expresses himself in his Epistles.
Act_26:18. But the purpose of his mission is stated in such a manner, that it can be understood only as referring to Gentiles. Paul was required to open their eyes, that is, to open the mind and awaken it for the reception of the truth; and the object of this was, in order that they might turn, etc., ( ôïῦ ἐðéóôñÝøáé is here used intransitively [for which use of the active, see Robinson: Lex. N. T., p. 285, and, therefore, not ut convertas.—Tr. ], and indicates the object or purpose of ἀíïῖîáé . The change is described by means of two antithetical propositions, the first referring to light and darkness, and the second to the controlling power of Satan and the (liberating) communion with God. [“Darkness and light are common figures in the New Testament, not only for ignorance and knowledge, especially of spiritual things, but for the several states or characters, of which these are necessary incidents, a state of sin and one of holiness.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. Finally, the last gracious purpose of God in their conversion ( ôïῦ ëáâåῖí ), is represented as referring to the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of an inheritance, i.e., of a share in the glory of the sanctified. But both of these,—forgiveness, and salvation—can be obtained solely by faith in Jesus ( ôïῦ ëáâåῖí … ðßóôåé ôῇ åἰò ἐìÝ ). [“The words ðßóôåé - - ἐìÝ belong to ëáâåῖí .” (Meyer).—“Our English translators and some others join ðßóôåé - - ἐìÝ with ἡãéáóìÝíïéò ; but the words specify evidently the condition by which believers obtain the pardon of sin and an interest in the heavenly inheritance; ἡãéáóì . is added merely to indicate the spiritual nature of the êëῆñïí .” (Hackett).—Tr.]
Act_26:19-23. a. Whereupon—I was not disobedient.—Paul now speaks of his resolution to obey the divine call, and of the labors in which he subsequently engaged, Act_26:19-20. As that call—he says—was accompanied by a heavenly appearance which with great power convinced him, he did not refuse to obey (as the Jews no doubt thought that he should have done). The words ïὐê ἐãåíüìçí ἀðåéèὴò indicate that, in truth, the point in question was, whether he would obey or resist the will of God. But ὅèåí is not to be understood as referring exclusively to the promise of such a field of labor, as is described in the words which immediately precede (Meyer) [as being the ground of Paul’s prompt obedience], but refers to the whole character of the appearance, as described in Act_26:13 ff. All the work which Paul performed, from the time of his conversion to the present day, he comprehensively describes in Act_26:20 as a proclamation, in which he had insisted on a change of mind (also on the part of the Jews) and a return to God (on the part of the Gentiles), and had required as an evidence of sincerity such acts as proceed from a change of heart. And he specifies as his fourfold field of labor, first, the two cities of Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole region of Judea, and, lastly, the heathen world.
b. At length Paul reaches, by a rapid transition, the present moment. I continue unto this day, i.e., I stand ( ἔóôçêá ) unharmed, and continue to discharge the duties of my office, as I was rescued by divine aid from the hands of murderers. Ìáñôõñüìåíïò [from the depon. verb ìáñôýñïìáé ] (not ìáñôõñïýìåíïò ) [from ìáñôõñÝù ; see note 12, appended to the text, above.—Tr.], refers to ìÜñôõò in Act_26:16. The sense is: “I bear witness before small and great,” i.e., before men of high and of low rank. The interpretation according to which the passive participle ìáñôõñïýìåíïò means: “well-reported of by small and great” (Meyer), does not suit the connection [it would represent Paul as misstating well-known facts, as claiming that all testified in his favor]; for the very circumstance that he is at the moment delivering an address in defence of himself, shows that opponents and accusers are near him; moreover, the context indicates that ìáñôõñüìåíïò , like ëÝãùí in the same verse, is descriptive of Paul’s personal acts. The participial proposition then explains that the testimony which he delivered in the presence of all persons, was nothing else than a proclamation of the actual fulfilment of the promises made by the prophets and Moses respecting things that should come to pass. The object of the scriptural promise and of the fulfilment, of which Paul bore witness, is introduced by him interrogatively in Act_26:23, as it was controverted by the Jews [so that åἰ should be translated, not, affirmatively, “that,” as in the English version, but “whether” or “if” (Meyer, de Wette, Alford, Alexander, Hackett, etc.—Tr.]. The questions are virtually three in number: 1. Whether the Messiah was ðáèçôüò , i.e., not only capable of suffering [so the Vulgate translates, passibilis, Tr.], but also subject or liable to suffering, necessitate patiendi obnoxius; this is the constant use of the word in the classics [Winer: § 16. 3, c. a.—Tr.]. 2. Whether the Messiah would rise, and be the first in the domain of the resurrection [comp. “the firstborn from the dead,” Col_1:18, and also 1Co_15:23 (Meyer).—Tr.]. 3. Whether the Messiah would proclaim light (salvation) not only to the people of Israel, but also to the Gentiles. The last two thoughts are grammatically blended together, and appear as a single question, but the two points in it are to be carefully distinguished.
Act_26:24. Paul, thou art beside thyself.—This exclamation of Festus interrupted the address of Paul. [Videbat Festus, naturam non agere in Paulo: gratiam non vidit; quare furorem putat esse Judaicum, etc. (Bengel).—Tr.]. He does not, however, refer exclusively to the concluding words of the apostle, but rather to the whole address, especially to that part which described the appearance of Jesus. Such a statement seemed to the Roman to be perfect folly. He unquestionably spoke seriously, and did not mean to say jestingly: “Thou art an enthusiast!” For, in that case, he would not have spoken with that “loud voice,” which indicated emotion. He imagined that the man before him had injured his mind by severe study. (The word ãñÜììáôá , in accordance with the usual interpretation, means learning, not “books,” as Kuinoel and others understand it [for, in that case, he would have said âéâëßá or âßâëïé . (Meyer).—Tr.]
Act_26:25-27. I am not mad [not beside myself].—[“Most noble, excellent, or honorable—an official title, not a personal description; Act_24:3.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. The apostle denies, with perfect calmness and due respect, but in the most positive terms, that such a reproach is deserved, and declares that his language was (objectively) the language of truth, and (subjectively), that of soberness [self-consciousness, sanity]. Óùöñïóýíç here means, presence of mind, a sound mind, which is self-possessed, as contradistinguished from a disordered mind.—As an evidence that his statements are objectively true ( ãÜñ ), Paul appeals in Act_26:26 to Agrippa, who was necessarily acquainted with the facts. The words: none of these things [ ôé ôïýôùí ïὐ ] refer principally to those facts connected with the life of Jesus and the history of the Christian church, which Paul had mentioned in his discourse. With these—he says—the king is necessarily acquainted, as they were attended with the utmost publicity. [ Ἐí ãùíßᾳ , in angulo, i. e., clam, occulte, id. quod ἐí êñõðôῷ , Joh_18:20; Mat_10:27; Luk_12:3. (Kuinoel).—Tr.]. However, he endeavors to win Agrippa for the cause of the truth, not only by appealing to his knowledge, which was derived from public report, but also by appealing to his conscience and heart, Act_26:27; he takes hold of Agrippa's faith in the prophets with such tenacity, that the latter can scarcely escape.
Act_26:28-29. It is indeed possible that for a moment a serious impression was made on the king; still, he immediately replies in derisive terms: With little effort (with feeble means) thou persuadest me to become [ ãåíÝóèáé ] a Christian! [“The king’s reply was: ‘Thou wilt soon persuade me to be a Christian.’ The words were doubtless spoken ironically and in contempt.” (Contb. etc. II. 306.)—Tr.]. Ἐí ïëßãῳ does not mean: “in a short time” (Calvin; Wetstein; de Wette [Kuin.; Ols.; Neander; Lange; with, or without, ÷ñüíῳ (Meyer).—Tr.]. Nor does it mean; “almost” (Chrysostom; Luther; Grotius: [Engl. vers.; Beza; i.e., propemodum, parum abest, quin.]. It cannot mean the former, on account of ἐí ìåãÜëῳ , since ἐí ìåãÜëῳ should, for critical reasons, be preferred [to ἐí ðïëëῷ of text. rec.; see note 18, appended to the text above.—Tr.]. The latter sense [“almost”] would necessarily have been expressed with the genitive ὀëßãïõ , or with ðáñ ʼ ὀëßãïí [or ὀëßãïõ äåῖ .]. The correct meaning is given by Oecumenius: [ ἐí ὀëßãῳ ôïõôÝóôé ] äé ʼ ὀëßãùí ῥçìÜôùí [, Ἐí âñá÷Ýóé ëüãïéò , ἐí ὀëßãῃ äéäáóêáëßᾳ ] ÷ùñὶò ðïëëïῦ ðüíïõ [ êáὶ äõíå÷ïῦò äéáëÝîåùò .]. See Meyer: [Com. ad. loc.].—[“It is held at present to be unphilological to translate ἐí ὀëßãῳ , almost.” (Hackett).—“I understand the words of Agrippa thus:—‘I am not so easily to be made a Christian of as thou supposest.’ Most of the ancient commentators take the words as implying some effect on Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest; but this think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically.” (Alford). If a note of interrogation is placed after ãåíÝóèáé , the sense, in accordance with Lechler's and Alford’s interpretation of ἐí ὀëßãῳ , will be: ‘Canst thou furnish no stronger argument than this appeal to my faith, to induce me to become a Christian?’—Tr.]. This is the second passage in the Acts (see Act_11:26), in which the name Christian occurs; it is here contemptuously pronounced by one who is not a Christian. But Paul replies with great earnestness and holy ardor: åὐîáßìçí ἂí ôῷ èåῷ ê . ô . ë ., literally: “I could indeed pray to God (namely, if I should follow the impulse of my heart.). [So Winer: Gram. N. T. § 42. 1. b.—Tr.].— êáὶ ἐí ὀë . êáὶ ἐí ìåãÜëῳ , that is: “through little or great means.” [Meyer adds the following note, on p. 485 of his Com. “Those interpreters who take ἐí ὀëßãῳ in the sense of brevi tempore, here translate, in accordance with the reading ðïëëῷ : ‘whether it be in a shorter or a longer time’ (de Wette). Those who take ἐí ὀë . in the sense of propemodum, translate: non propemodum tantum, sed plane (Grot.). According to our interpretation (i.e., ‘Thou persuadest me with little effort ( ἐí instrum.) to become a Christian!’), the sense is not affected, whether we read ἐí ðïëëῷ or ἐí ìåãÜëῳ .”—Tr.].—Except these bonds, says Paul, pointing to the chain by which he had been attached to the soldier who guarded him, but which now hung from his arm.
Act_26:30-32. a. The king rose up.—Agrippa closed the proceedings by arising from his seat; the procurator and the others, in regular order, followed his example. After they had withdrawn to another apartment, (for ἀíá÷ùñ . does not mean that they simply went aside in the same “place of hearing,” Act_25:23), they discussed the case of Paul, and came to the conclusion that the man [ ὁ ἄíèñùðïò ïὖôïò , which again is contemptuous (Con. and Howson , etc. ÉÉ . 307, n. 2.)— Tr.] was certainly not engaged in any criminal designs. ( ÐñÜóóåé is not to be taken in the sense of the aorist or perfect, as Kuinoel supposed, but expresses a judgment respecting his general character and whole life, including the present period.). Agrippa declared, in substance, that Paul could with propriety have been acquitted and discharged ( ἀðïëåë .), namely at an earlier stage of the proceedings, if he had not appealed to the emperor; as such an appeal at once arrested all judicial proceedings, arid removed a case from the jurisdiction of an inferior court.
b. The address of Paul in the presence of Agrippa is one of the longest which Luke has reported; it is, like that which he made on the stairs of the tower of Antonia in Jerusalem, a defence of himself against unjust accusations. On this occasion, however, he does not address a highly excited Jewish audience, but the most eminent persons of the country—king Agrippa, and the imperial procurator, together with various officers. Hence, the circumstances do not, in Paul’s view, require him to demonstrate his personal innocence; he accordingly proceeds to vindicate his mission and labors as an apostle, and, at the same time, to defend Christianity itself.—The present discourse is distinguished, from beginning to end, by a peculiarly joyful spirit, a lofty tone, and a boldness which was certain of ultimately obtaining the victory. Although it assumes the form of a defence, it is, nevertheless, essentially aggressive in the noblest sense of that term; whereas the address in Acts 22 was, strictly speaking, defensive in its character. Da Costa, with great felicity, describes the present discourse as a truly royal word of the apostle, pronounced in the presence of hearers to whom the world assigned a royal rank, whereas the defence made at Jerusalem was the word of an humble sinner, whose love urged him to exhort his fellow-sinners to practise the duty of love—the word of one who had formerly been a zealot, addressed to those who still remained blind zealots (Acts, II. p. 231.).—But on both occasions he exhibits Christianity in its unity with the old covenant; and on both, too, his own conversion to Christ and the appearance of Jesus on the way to Damascus, which led to that conversion, are the prominent topics of his discourse. The only difference is found in the circumstance that in Acts 22 he assigns a special value to the communications which he received at Damascus from Ananias, a devout man according to the law, Act_26:12, while, in the present case, he does not mention this man, but speaks of the message received from the Lord through him, as simply a revelation of Christ.—We have here the last public testimony which the apostle delivered on the soil of Palestine; it was, moreover, delivered before the most distinguished assembly, in a secular point of view, in the presence of which he had ever appeared—the king, who then ruled over a part of Canaan, the procurator of the Roman emperor, and many military officers and civil magistrates, who occupied the highest positions in social life.
2. Paul gives us, in Act_26:18, an admirable description of the operations of divine grace. His mission had a twofold object: 1. Illumination, or the imparting of knowledge respecting both sin and salvation; 2. Conversion, i.e., a turning of the will from misery to divine aid, from darkness to light, from the dominion of Satan to God. The result of conversion, then, is: 1. Forgiveness of sins, or Justification; 2. The imparting, by grace, of a title to salvation. The personal means by which forgiveness and the inheritance are received, the ὄñãáíïí ëçðôéêὸí ( ôïῦ ëáâåῖí áὐôïὺò ) is, faith in Christ—nothing more, but also, nothing less. [There is here an allusion to the doctrine thus stated in the Formula of Concord, p. 687 ult.: “Ad justificationem enim tantum haec requiruntur atque necessaria sunt: gratia Dei, meritum Christi, et fides, etc.” The first is called causa (justificationis) efficiens (impellens interna); the second: causa meritoria (impellens externa), i.e., plenaria Christi satisfactio; the third: causa apprehendens ( ëçðôéêὴ , organica), i.e., fides salvifica.—Tr.]. And when we view the forgiveness of sins in the light in which it is here exhibited, we perceive that Paul distinctly sets forth the doctrine of justification by faith. It should, besides, be noticed that it is only the act of enlightening which is here ascribed to the apostle ( ἀðïóôÝëëù , ἀíïῖîáé ὀö . áὐô .), whereas the conversion itself is the act of the hearers ( ἐðéóôñÝøáé , intransitive). But even in this aspect a great work is assigned to the human action of a teacher; he is the organ of the redeeming grace of God.
3. The apostle, in this discourse, delivers his testimony in an indirect manner, it is true, but, nevertheless, clearly and emphatically, respecting the freedom of the human will, or, in other words, respecting the resistibility of the operations of divine grace. This thought may already be found in the passage to which allusion has just been made, Act_26:18 (and comp. Act_26:20), in so far as conversion in general is represented as a personal act—as the unconstrained act of the will of the individual. This truth is, however, still more distinctly set forth in Paul’s remarks (Act_26:19, comp. with Act_26:13 ff.) on his own conversion. While he declares that he was not disobedient( ïὐê ἀðåéèὴò ) to the Redeemer who appeared from heaven, he indirectly indicates that it would have been possible to refrain from obeying the divine will, and to resist it. This possibility is even included in the words addressed to him by the Redeemer, Act_26:14, although they have in appearance an opposite meaning: “It is hard for thee to kick against goads!” For this proverbial language is by no means intended to convey the meaning that it had been made absolutely impossible for Saul to offer resistance to the Lord, but only that very painful experiences would inevitably result from any act of resistance which he would commit. That heavenly light was ineffably brilliant; that divine glory humbled human pride; the fulness of power in which the exalted Saviour appeared to Saul, was deeply felt; all these circumstances naturally added to the glory of the grace of God which sought to win a human soul without restricting its personal liberty, without a single trace of constraint and violence; for that divine grace asked for nothing but a voluntary love, an unconstrained obedience, and a willing surrender of the soul.
4. A threefold question occurs in Act_26:23, which is of deep interest in its relation to the Christology of the Old Testament. The question is first proposed: Whether the Messianic prophecy recognizes a suffering [as well as a triumphant] Messiah; i.e., whether, in accordance with the promises of the Old Testament, the Messiah was not only capable of suffering, but also was actually subjected to suffering in his walk and labors—or whether the contrary was the case. The latter—the negative—accorded with the traditional opinions of the Jews. But the former—the affirmative—was asserted from the beginning in the predictions of Jesus concerning his sufferings (Mat_16:21, and elsewhere, ὅôé äåῖ — ðáèåῖí ), and in his discourses after the resurrection (e. g., ἔäåé ðáèåῖõ ôὸí ×ñéóôüí , Luk_24:26, and comp. Luk_24:46).—Secondly: Whether the Messiah would be the first of the resurrection of the dead; comp. Luk_24:46. The word ðñῶôïò here claims special attention; it cannot be understood in its full meaning unless we connect with it the view which Paul himself more fully develops in 1Co_15:20 ff.; Luk_24:45 ff.; Rom_5:17-18, namely, that Christ, the second Adam, begins a series of developments of life and resurrection for the benefit of mankind. This circumstance is another indication of the Pauline genuineness of the discourses ascribed in the Acts to the apostle, although it has hitherto been scarcely noticed.—Thirdly: Whether the Messiah, as the suffering and risen One, would proclaim salvation both to Israel and to the Gentiles. This thought very forcibly reminds us of those which the risen Saviour expressed in Luk_24:47, compared with the preceding verse. There can be no doubt that the universality of Christianity is here primarily set forth, and that, as far as the Messianic prophecies are concerned, it is supported by a number of passages in the prophets.
5. To the reproach that he manifests extravagance and madness, Paul replies with the assurance that he is speaking words marked by truth and self-consciousness. The truth of divine revelation is demonstrated, in addition to other evidences, by the just proportions and the sound judgment which the form in which it is conveyed, assumes—truth, not without soberness [of judgment], but also, soberness, not without truth. If we should regard sobriety of judgment and due or rational proportions as the sole and unconditional criteria of truth, we would soon, in an arbitrary manner, curtail and dilute the truth itself.