Deeper Commentary
ACTS CHAPTER 26
26:1 And Agrippa said to Paul: You are permitted to speak for yourself.
Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defence- "For yourself"
may be a reference here to how Paul defended himself, and did not use any
advocate or legal team. We recall how the Jews had made use of one,
Tertullus, to make their case in an earlier trial. Paul was using these
trials as an opportunity to witness to the Gospel and not just to defend
himself. We can sense his eagerness as he makes his case for Christ.
26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence
before you this day concerning all the things of which I am accused by the
Jews- Agrippa was Herod Agrippa the second. The whole Herod family had
had the Gospel witnessed to them. Herod the Great was told of the birth of
the Lord by the wise men and Jewish scribes; his son Antipas and
granddaughter Herodias were witnessed to by John the Baptist; his son
Agrippa the first had killed James and tried to kill Peter because their
message had tweaked his conscience; and now his son Agrippa II was being
witnessed to by Paul. This was a family the Lord surely tried to appeal
to. Again we sense Paul's eager using of these trials as an opportunity to
witness; as his appeal to Caesar had been accepted, he could have actually
refused to testify in this trial. But he eagerly used the opportunity to
witness by all means, and we need to take some of that spirit with us in
our lives.
The codex Beza adds at this point: "taking courage, and receiving comfort
by the Holy Spirit". In this case, Paul is directly alluding to his Lord's
promise to provide the right words to say in times of public witness under
persecution such as this (Mt. 10:18-20).
26:3 Especially because you are expert in all customs and questions
which are among the Jews. Therefore, I beg that you hear me patiently-
"Hear me patiently" is an allusion to the LXX of Prov. 25:15: "By long
patience is a prince persuaded". Paul had the spiritual ambition to even
try to convert Agrippa. We too need that ambition, never writing people
off as unreachable by our witness. Agrippa "the prince" is perhaps framed
in terms of this verse when he is recorded as replying using the same word
as in Prov. 25:15: "You almost persuade me to be a Christian"
(:28).
26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was from the beginning
among my own nation and at Jerusalem, do all the Jews know- The Jews
who were accusing Paul had personally known him in his Pharisee days. They
were personal witnesses of his transformation.
26:5 Having knowledge of me from the first (if they are willing to
admit it) that after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee-
The Jews were unwilling to admit [Gk. 'be legal witnesses in court'] that
they knew Paul's past. For it was his radical transformation which was in
fact the great witness to the utter truth of Paul's case. By denying it,
they were witnesses against themselves. They were in denial of his
transformation, which was the proof of the things he taught about the Lord
Jesus. And likewise, presentation of true theology alone in our age will
convert very few. It is the truth of it seen in our lives which is the
compelling witness.
26:6- see on Acts 22:6.
And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God
to our fathers- This is another
statement to the effect that the Christian Gospel offered the same sure
hope which the promise to Abraham and the fathers offered to Abraham and
his singular seed. The Lord's death had opened the scope of that promise
to whoever wished to associate with the seed. Paul is arguing that the
accusations against him are really all about the promise God made to the
Jewish fathers. The Jews were therefore accusing God far more than
himself.
26:7 To which our twelve tribes earnestly serve night and day, hoping
to attain the promises. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews,
O king!- "Night and day" refers to the evening and morning synagogue
services, where the promises to Abraham were alluded to or repeated. Paul
goes on to explain that the hope of attaining the promises implied belief
in a resurrection; for the promises of eternal inheritance, blessing etc.
had clearly not been obtained and could only be obtained by
immortalization. The Sadducees amongst his accusers would of course take
issue with this, as they denied the resurrection and argued that the
promises gave hope only in this life. Hence their manic materialism. But
Paul doesn't appear to raise that point; his appeal at this point was to
his judges, seeking to convert them, rather than seeking to expose the
obvious lines of weakness in the position of his opponents. And this needs
to be remembered in all our witness; that we are seeking to convert to
Christ, rather than merely exposing logical error in those who are against
us.
26:8 Why would any of you think it incredible that God raises the dead?-
If we have really died and resurrected with the Lord, we will be dead unto
the things of this world (Col. 2:20; 3:1). This is why Paul could imply
that the greatest proof that Christ had risen from the dead was the change
in character which had occurred within him (Acts 26:8 ff.). This was “the
power of his resurrection"; and it works within us too. The death and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth aren’t just facts we know; if they are
truly believed, there is within them the power of ultimate transformation.
"Any of you..." is an attempt to soften the force of Paul's repeated appeals to Agrippa personally as "you". Paul has so far said nothing specific about the resurrection. But he sees that Agrippa thinks or [Gk. krino] 'judges' that incredible, a bridge too far for his faith. But Paul implies that in fact, Agrippa is not judging Paul personally so much as judging within his own mind whether Christ rose from the dead. Which, Paul is implying, is what this court case is all about. Paul cuts to the essence- the whole issue was not about him personally and his alleged desecration of the temple. It was about whether men judged that Jesus had resurrected. That was the core of the case, psychologically and subconsciously; and this is why Paul goes on to unashamedly preach to Agrippa and seek his conversion. Just as God made huge personal efforts to convert men like Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzar. At least we must take the lesson that we should seek to convert literally all men; for all have a conscience.
26:9 I truly thought that I should do many things contrary to the name
of Jesus of Nazareth- The "thought" connects with the challenge of :8
as to why any should "think" resurrection to be incredible. Paul is saying
that his changed thinking could be replicated in them also changing their
thinking about the Lord Jesus.
26:10 And this I did in Jerusalem, and I shut up many of the saints in
prisons, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they
were put to death I gave my vote against them- "This I did" shows that
his "thought" of :9 became action; he is recognizing the truth of the
Lord's teaching that thought is action. The repeated account of Paul's
conversion in Acts, when the record is highly abbreviated otherwise, is
because Paul is set up as the parade example of all conversions to Christ
(1 Tim. 1:13-18).
26:11
And in all the synagogues I often punished them- I am convinced that a
major reason for the success of the early church was that they weren’t
paranoid about issues of fellowship and guilt-by-association; they were
simply radical preachers. They preached an exclusive message, but they
wished to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The Lord Himself taught that
the time would come when His followers would be disfellowshipped from the
synagogues. But He doesn’t teach them to leave the synagogues, even though
first century Judaism was both doctrinally and morally corrupt. Acts 26:11
would seem to imply that there were Christians “in every synagogue”.
Trying to force them to blaspheme-
Gk. 'necessitated'. It could be claimed that it is never 'necessary' to
blaspheme; for some died under torture, not accepting any way out, and
thus shall receive a "better resurrection" (Heb. 11:35). But Paul takes a
more gracious view here; he recognized that the torture he had applied
left the Christians with no other human choice but to blaspheme the name
of Jesus, and he takes full blame for this. See on 1 Tim. 1:13.
And being furiously enraged at them, I persecuted them even in foreign cities- Paul’s progressive
appreciation of his own sinfulness is reflected in how he describes what
he did in persecuting Christians in ever more terrible terms, the older he
gets. He describes his victims as “men and women” whom he ‘arrested’ (Acts
8:3; 22:4), then he admits he threatened and murdered them (Acts 9:3),
then he persecuted “the way” unto death (Acts 22:4); then he speaks of
them as “those who believe” (Acts 22:19) and finally, in a crescendo of
shame with himself, he speaks of how he furiously persecuted, like a wild
animal, unto the death, “many of the saints”, not only in Palestine but
also “to foreign [Gentile] cities” (Acts 26:10,11). He came to appreciate
his brethren the more, as he came to realize the more his own sinfulness.
And this is surely a pattern for us all.
26:12- see on Acts 22:6.
Thus I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the
chief priests- These were the very
men who were accusing him, and he is now stating that they were involved
as accessories to extrajudicial murder and torture. "Thus I journeyed"
invites his audience to imagine the rabid thinking which dominated his
mind; the psychological change in him could only have been achieved by
external agency. And that agency was the spirit of the risen Lord.
26:13- see on Acts 22:6.
But at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the
brightness of the sun, shining around me and those that journeyed with me- The repeated "O King"
is because Paul was specifically seeking to convert Agrippa. His spiritual
ambition in attempting this is an encouragement to us all in our witness
to those who seem so unreachable by the Gospel we preach. "Shining around
me" suggests the light was not shone down from Heaven as in a beam; but
that the Lord Himself stood near Paul, next to him. The word literally
means 'to be a halo around'. Paul was in this sense sanctified, made a
saint, through standing with the Lord. Those with him could have responded
to this grace too, but chose not to. "And those that journeyed with me"
would suggest that the Lord sought to bring them from darkness to light
also, but they refused to understand the word spoken, although they heard
it.
26:14 And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying
to me in Aramaic: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you
to kick against the cattle prod- The idea is that Paul understood the
voice that was speaking; whereas the men with him heard the voice but
chose not to understand. Perhaps Saul had been observing oxen ploughing
along the road to Damascus, hence the usage of that analogy. The Lord's
question as to "why" Saul so persecuted the believers in the body of
Christ was left unanswered. The answer was that Paul's bad conscience was
leading him to denial, and that denial was expressing itself in
unreasonable anger. And the Jews who were persecuting Paul were in just
the same situation. They knew in their consciences that Jesus of Nazareth
had been their Messiah; "this is the heir, come let us kill Him" was how
the Lord's parable explained it. That guilty conscience meant a desire to
eliminate those like Paul who had at first denied it and then accepted it.
They were driven by the very same psychological factors which Paul was
driven by.
26:15 And I said: Who are you, Lord? And the Lord said: I am Jesus whom
you persecute- The question "Why?" was answered by Saul with the
question "Who are you, Lord?". This may not have been a request for
information. It is perhaps in the spirit of Jacob's meeting with Angel,
wrestling God as Saul had done, and then asking the Angel's name as Jacob
did (Gen. 32:29). As the Lord Jesus called Saul by name, so the Angel gave
Jacob a new name, Israel. And it could be that although unrecorded, the
Lord then changed Saul to Paul. To ask someone's name can be understood as
a Hebraism for recognizing their greatness or superiority.
26:16 But arise, and stand upon your feet- This is a quotation from
Ezekiel's experience, having seen the glory of God and being asked to go
and witness it to an Israel who would not listen because they preferred
Babylon (Ez. 2:1,2).
For to this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a servant and a
witness both of the things in which you have seen me, and of the things
which I will reveal to you- “A servant” is literally, a slave. The apostles in
their letters usually open by reminding their readers that they are slaves
of the Lord Jesus- this is how they saw themselves. Paul was called to be
a slave of the Gospel (Acts 26:16; Gk. hypereten- a galley slave,
rowing the boat chained to the oars). There were slaves who were made
stewards or managers [‘bishops’] of the Master’s business, but essentially
they themselves were still slaves.
26:17 Delivering you from the people of the Jews and from the Gentiles,
to whom I send you- Paul was therefore confident that he could not be
ultimately destroyed by the union of Jews and Gentiles now gathered
against him. But we must factor in here that eventually, the Lord did not
deliver him from Gentile power and he died under Nero's persecution. The
promise of deliverance was therefore in order that he might conduct his
intended ministry; but when that ministry was over, then he was in fact
delivered to the power of Gentile persecution and execution.
26:18 To
open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light- The Lord Jesus seems
to have encouraged Paul to see Moses as his hero. Thus he asked him to go
and live in Arabia before beginning his ministry, just as Moses did (Gal.
1:17). When he appeared to Paul on the Damascus road, he spoke in terms
reminiscent of the Angel's commission to Moses at the burning bush: “I
have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a
witness both of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things in
the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the (Jewish)
people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to...turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they
may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance... Whereupon... I (Paul)
was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:16-19). Moses was
promised that he would be protected from Pharaoh so that he could bring
out God's people from the darkness of Egyptian slavery ("the power of
Satan"); going from darkness to light is used by Peter as an idiom to
describe Israel's deliverance from Egypt, which the new Israel should
emulate (1 Pet. 2:9). Moses led Israel out of Egypt so that they might be
reconciled to God, and be led by him to the promised inheritance of
Canaan. As Moses was eventually obedient to that heavenly vision, so was
Paul- although perhaps he too went through (unrecorded) struggles to be
obedient to it, after the pattern of Moses being so reluctant.
Paul was to bring others to the light just as John had (Lk. 1:77,79 =
Acts 13:47; 26:18,23).
God’s manifestation of His word through preaching is limited by the amount
of manifestation His preachers allow it. Through the first century
preaching of the Gospel, men and women were "turned from darkness to
light... that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified" (Acts 26:18).
And from the power of Satan to God-
There are some clear contrasts drawn here:
|
To open their eyes |
(They were blind). |
|
To turn them from darkness |
to light. |
|
From the power of Satan (sin) |
unto God (cp. 1 Jn. 1:5). |
|
(Unforgiven)
|
receive forgiveness of sins. |
|
(Gentiles without inheritance by faith in “the hope of Israel”) |
them (the Jews) that had access to sanctification by faith. |
Ephesians 4:17–20 almost seems to directly allude back to this passage in
Acts 26:18: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you
henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God
through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their
heart; who being past feeling have given themselves over unto
lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not
so learned Christ...”. Being under the power of Satan is therefore a
result of having an empty, vain, fleshly mind (i.e. the Satan of evil
desires in our mind having full power) and being ignorant, without
understanding. Matthew 13:19 says that Satan (cp. Mk. 4:15) has power over
a person because of their lack of understanding of the Word. Ephesians
4:17–20 is referring to the same thing as “the power of Satan” defined in
Acts 26:18. “To open their eyes” implies to have the eyes of understanding
opened (cp. Eph. 1:18).
Acts 26:18 implies that it was “the power of Satan” that stopped the
Gentiles from sharing the inheritance of the Gospel which was preached to
the Jews in the promises (Gal. 3:8; Jn. 4:22). “Satan” is often connected
with the Law and the Jewish system. Maybe this is another example. Note
too the allusions in this verse to Is. 42:6,7: “I... will... keep you, and
give you for a... light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring
out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of
the prison house”. This equates the power of Satan with a prison house,
and the Law is likened to a prison in Gal. 3:23 and 4:3.
There are allusions in Acts 26:18 to the Jews’ crucifixion of Jesus: “This
is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Lk. 22:53); “Satan” (the Jews)
has desired to have you” (Lk. 22:31), Jesus warned the disciples at the
last supper.
The previous verse (Acts 26:17) shows the Lord Jesus strengthening Paul to
be brave in his mission to the Gentiles – “delivering you from the
[Jewish] people, and from the Gentiles”. Jesus Himself was “delivered to
the Gentiles” (Lk. 18:32–33) for crucifixion by the Jews, and Mk. 15:15
implies Jesus was delivered to “the people”, too. The phrase “the people’
frequently occurs in the crucifixion records. It is as if Jesus is saying:
‘I was delivered to the Gentiles and (Jewish) people because of My
preaching; I am now commissioning you to preach, facing the same battle
against (the Jewish) Satan and man’s blindness to the Word of God, due to
his love of the flesh, as I did; but I will deliver you from the Gentiles
and Jewish people, rather than deliver you to them, as I was. You are
going to spend your life going through the same experiences as I faced in
My last hours’. Thus, in yet another way, we can understand how Paul could
say “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20).
To the end they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among
those that are sanctified by faith in me- Salvation is not a purely personal matter. It is part of a
shared experience, something we obtain a part in. Christ is His
body. He doesn't exist separate from His body; for all existence in the
Bible is bodily existence. And we are His body. He is us. Likewise
we are the branches of the Christ-vine (Jn. 15). Because we are all in the
one body of Christ, therefore we are intimately associated with the other
parts of the body.
26:19- see on Acts 13:9.
Therefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision- "Disobedient" is
literally 'not persuaded'. Paul is saying that he was not unpersuaded by
the Lord's appearance. And this is the same word used by Agrippa in :28,
when he says Paul has almost persuaded him to become a Christian. Paul was
witnessing from his own experience of being persuaded by the Lord; and he
wants to persuade others.
26:20- see on Acts 13:24,25.
But declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout
all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing
deeds appropriate to their repentance- It seems likely that Paul went to hear John the
Baptist preach; "there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of
Jerusalem" (Mk. 1:5), and at this time Paul was living in Jerusalem. I
believe Paul heard John and was convicted by him of Christ. John preached
the need to "bring forth fruits meet unto repentance" (Mt. 3:8); and Paul
here made those his own watchwords in his world-wide preaching.
Paul preached that men "should repent and turn to God, and do works meet
for repentance" (Acts 26:18-20). As with Mt. 21:28-31, this refers
primarily to baptism. "Repent and turn to God" surely matches "Repent and
be baptized" in Acts 2:38. Turning to God is associated with baptism in
Acts 9:35; 11:21; 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:9. Following conversion, our
works should match the profession of faith we have made. But there is no
proof here for the equation 'Forgiveness = repentance + forsaking'. The
"works" seem to refer to positive achievement rather than undoing the
results of past failures. Works meet for repentance are fruits of
repentance (Mt. 3:8 cp. Lk. 3:8). We have shown that there are different
degrees of fruit/ repentance which God accepts, and that this fruit is
brought forth to God, and that its development takes time. We
cannot therefore disfellowship a believer for not bringing forth fruit in
one aspect of his life.
16:21 For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill
me- The "cause" was that they had been called upon to repent, and
their refusal to do so was leading them to try to kill Paul. This is how
conscience works. We seek to eliminate the persons or issues causing our
guilt, and which summon us to repentance. The opposition to Christian
preaching is exactly because it is [or should be] a call to repentance.
26:22 Therefore, having obtained the help that is from God, I stand to
this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the
prophets and Moses did say should happen- "The help that is from God"
was the gift of the Spirit, both in cleansing Paul psychologically from
his past, and in empowering him in his life's work of witness. Paul
testified to the Lord Jesus (e.g. Acts 26:22; 1 Cor. 15:15 s.w.), and He
in turn bore witness to the [preaching of] the word of his grace (Acts
15:8). In Paul's witness lay His witness. The reference to "small and
great" is yet another hint that Paul is witnessing specifically at this
time to "the great", his judges. And Paul insists that he is saying
nothing radically new, and therefore Judaism ought to have no problem with
him teaching what was in their own Scriptures.
26:23 That the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise
from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to
the Gentiles- Elsewhere, Paul took a prophecy concerning how Christ
personally would be the light of the whole world (Is. 49:6), and applies
it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the
whole world himself (Acts 13:47- although here in 26:23 he applies
it to Jesus personally). Paul even says that this prophecy of Christ as
the light of the world was a commandment to him; all that is true
of the Lord Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are in
Him. Note that Paul says that God has commanded us to witness; it
wasn’t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied Isaiah’s
words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to
us, to all who are in Christ. And when on trial, Paul explained his
preaching to the Jews “and then to the Gentiles” as being related to
the fact that he had to “shew” the Gospel to them because Christ rose from
the dead to “shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles” (Acts
26:20,23). In other words, he saw his personal preaching as shewing forth
the light of Jesus personally.
The RV offers another slant on this. The Lord Jesus was the light of the
world on account of His resurrection: “He first by the resurrection from
the dead should proclaim light both to the [Jewish] people and to the
Gentiles” (Acts 26:23 RV). If we are baptized into His death and
resurrection, we too are the light of this world in that the light of His
life breaks forth in us. And this is exactly why belief in His
resurrection is an imperative to preach it. And it’s why the great
commission flows straight out of the resurrection narrative.
We have suggested elsewhere that Paul was first called to the Gospel by
the preaching of John the Baptist. He initially refused to heed the call
to “do works meet for repentance”. But, fully aware of this, he preached
this very same message to others (Mt. 3:8 cp. Acts 26:20).
26:24 And as he thus made his defence, Festus said with a loud voice:
Paul, you are mad. Your much learning is turning you mad- The loudness
of the voice was surely a statement of the depth of unease within his
conscience. Again, we see a basic psychological lesson: the louder a
person shouts down another, the louder is the internal voice of their own
disquiet at the truth being presented. Luke uses the same term in
describing how the Jews "with loud voices" demanded both the Lord's
crucifixion and the death of Stephen, who had likewise touched their
consciences (Lk. 23:23; Acts 7:57). The reference to "much learning", much
reading of words, may be a reference to how Paul perhaps had begged for
the scriptures to be brought to him in his confinement, and he spent his
time for those many months poring over the parchments. We recall how he
begged Timothy to bring him such scrolls when imprisoned in Rome.
26:25 But Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak
words of truth and soberness- Point blank disagreement with a powerful
judge who is shouting at you isn't a smart thing to do. But Paul was there
to witness, to seek to convert his judges, rather than to justify himself.
If he were out for self-preservation, as are most men who stand in the
dock, he would have let this accusation go unchallenged. But Paul is
alluding to how he had been "exceedingly mad" before his conversion (:11);
and now he was sane.
26:26 For the king knows of these things, to whom also I speak freely.
For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him. For this
has not been done in a corner- Paul is really out to convert the king;
he says that the king knows the truth of all he is saying, and appeals for
him to be honest to his conscience and not kick against the goads. The
king was of course appraised of the situation with Paul- everybody knew
that. So "none of these things is hidden from him" more naturally refers
to the truth of the appeal Paul is making to him.
Paul exhorts us to speak ‘freely’ in our preaching (2 Cor. 3:12), just as
he himself “spoke freely’ in his witness to Agrippa. He there is our
pattern. Our salvation is through faith in God's absolute grace; but if it
is real faith, we will preach it on the housetops, we simply can't
keep the knowledge of such grace, such great salvation, to
ourselves. "Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of speech" in
preaching (2 Cor. 3:12 YLT).
Despite this direct and emotional appeal, Paul still framed it in terms
understandable by his audience; "this has not been done in a corner" is a
quotation from Plato.
26:27 King Agrippa, do
you believe the prophets? I know you believe- This suggests
that Paul in full flow, even shackled and in prison clothes, had a fleck
of arrogance and aggression in his presentation. He was challenging the
very conscience of his king and judge. He addresses Agrippa
directly by the personal pronoun "you" (:2,3,7,19,27), and mentions his
name, when usually a king was addressed by titles and not addressed as
"you" in this way. This sets a pattern for our personal appeal to people
in our preaching. To ask a personal question like
that of your king-judge was just not to be done in court. It would be
judged today as contempt of court. But Paul was not standing there in
self-defence, but for witness, all out of persuade towards faith in
Christ. And that is what our witness should be; not self-defending our
theological positions, but earnestly seeking to persuade towards faith in
our hearers. How did Paul know that Agrippa believed the prophets? Was
there an awkward silence in response to his question? Or was Paul being
purely rhetorical, hastening on to say that he knew or recognized that
Agrippa claimed to believe the Jewish prophets. We can assume that Luke's
highly abbreviated account of the trial has left out frequent quotation
from the prophets by Paul, in order to demonstrate that the Lord had to
die, rise again and be witnessed to by the members of His glorified body.
26:28
And Agrippa said to
Paul: You almost persuade me to become a Christian-
Paul was not against using persuasion; he didn’t
just ‘preach the truth’ and leave it for others to decide. Agrippa
commented: “With but a little [more] persuasion thou wouldest fain make me
a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little
[persuasion] or with much, not only thou but also all that hear me this
day, might become such as I am” (Acts 26:28,29 RV). Paul wasn’t against
using persuasion to bring men unto his Lord, and neither should we be. He
didn't just make a lame witness to true propositions and leave it to his
audience to believe or disbelieve it.
Agrippa's words "You almost persuade me to become a Christian" may have
been muttered as an aside; and they may have been a total departure from
how a king-judge is supposed to act in court. The power of Paul's
testimony was such that even he had to admit the effect it was having upon
him. We can be encouraged that the message we preach is of huge power in
the consciences of others, regardless of all the apparent disinterest. If
you stand on a street corner handing out fliers advertising a product,
people will be mildly polite in covering their disinterest. But when they
see it's about religion or Christianity... their body language often
changes. And if they read further what is on the tract, their response is
utterly unlike the response observable in a person reading a flier
advertising a product for sale.
26:29 And Paul said: I will pray to God, that whether in a little time
or a longer time, not you only, but also all that hear me this day might
become as I am (apart from these chains)- This was Paul's whole
intention. His ambition to make converts knew no bounds. He wasn't only
going for Agrippa... he wished the entire audience, including the Jews,
would follow his example and path of conversion. They too could stop
kicking against the goads of their own consciences and be released into
the wonderful freedom of the bondservants of the Lord Jesus. "Apart from
these chains" is one of several times when Paul's deep frustration with
his situation cannot help but come through. He wasn't appealing for
release- for he had appealed to be heard by Caesar, knowing this meant yet
more prison time. He made that appeal in order for the Gospel to spread;
but he paid a great price for it, willingly. For his "chains" were a deep
frustration to him. But he was willing to endure them longer, so that the
Gospel could be spread on the very highest levels of the world in which he
lived.
26:30 And the king rose up and the governor and Bernice and they that
sat with them- The rising up of the judge was to signal that the
proceedings were over. We are left with the impression that there was no
summing up speech by the judge; just a hasty and abrupt end to the
proceedings, with Paul having had the last word in :29, in appealing for
conversion. The abrupt ending of the court proceedings is a powerful
testimony to the power of Paul's witness. He had so touched the
consciences of his judges that the trial was ended in a moment. Surely no
other accused person has ever achieved anything like this in human
history; bearing in mind that his judges were the most powerful political
rulers in his area.
26:31 And when they had withdrawn, they spoke to each other, saying:
This man does nothing worthy of death or of imprisonment- We can
imagine them chatting things over later that evening, over coffee [or
whatever], as it were. Again Luke is making the point that Paul chose to
appeal to Caesar because he wanted to visit Rome in order to witness to
the Gospel there, and perhaps he had some idea of getting Christianity
legally recognized as a religion just as Judaism was. Perhaps we should
give due weight to the present tense, "does nothing"; there obviously had
to be some reason given in the documentation accompanying Paul's case, but
the reasons given would have to result to alleged past behaviour rather
than anything ongoing. The anti-Christian legislation of Nero was yet to
come. Agrippa and Festus obviously didn't want their private chat with
each other broadcast; and yet here it is, recorded publicly for all
generations. Perhaps Luke initially got his information from Agrippa or a
source close to him. Perhaps he became a secret believer. In 28:18 Paul
speaks as if it were common knowledge that Agrippa and Festus would have
released him had he not appealed to Caesar. Or perhaps inspiration beamed
this information into Luke. He is obviously drawing parallels with how the
Roman powers found no fault in the Lord Jesus, but Jewish insistence all
the same led to His death. It could be another way of emphasizing that
Paul's imprisonment and final demise was ultimately the fault of the Jews
and not the Romans. They truly were the great satan / adversary to the
Lord's work in the first century- and are often referred to as such. The
extended record of Paul's trials demonstrates that Claudius Lysias, Festus
and Agrippa all concluded Paul was innocent; but it was Jewish envy and
political machinations, therefore, which kept him imprisoned.
26:32 And Agrippa said to Festus: This man might have been set at
liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar- See on :31. Again the
connections are with the Lord's death; Pilate was determined to set the
Lord at liberty (Acts 3:13 s.w.), but the Jews machinated so that Roman
power was overridden. Surely Paul perceived the connections at the time,
and would have taken great encouragement from realizing that his
sufferings were those of his Lord. And we are to understand our life
experience likewise. Paul was so frustrated by the "chain" of his
imprisonment, and we are left to wonder whether he would have been better
not to appeal to Caesar, not to force through the fulfilment of the Lord's
words that he must bear witness in Rome, and allow the Lord's word of
promise to come true in His own way and time. This may have allowed him a
few more years of powerful ministry. Looking back at our own lives, we can
see how the paths taken could have been so much more effective if we had
not tried to force things through in our own strength.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
