Acts 26:1-8

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 26:1. Agrippa said unto Paul.—On this occasion Agrippa, not Festus, presided over the tribunal. The “stretching forth” of the hand was the gesture of an orator preparing himself to speak, and differed from the act of “beckoning” or shaking “with the hand” (Acts 12:17, Acts 13:16, Acts 21:40), which was a signal demanding silence. The act is thus described: “Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, dubousque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit” (Apuleius, Met., 2:54, quoted by Meyer). The hand which Paul raised was chained (Acts 26:29). Answered for himself. Made his defence, or apology. This was the third occasion on which Paul had vindicated himself—the first having been when he addressed the Jews (Acts 22:1), and the second when he stood before Felix (Acts 24:10). The present speech (Acts 26:2) divides itself into three parts. In the first (Acts 26:2), the apostle sets forth the solidarity of his own faith with that of his countrymen, in so far as each is a religion of hope; in the second (Acts 26:9) he explains the origin of his call to the apostolate; in the third (Acts 26:19) he shows how he was led to direct his apostolic activity towards the Gentiles.

Acts 26:2. The best MSS. omit “the” before Jews, as in Acts 26:7; Acts 26:21; Acts 25:10. Paul would represent the accusation as purely Jewish in its character, and indeed as proceeding from some only, not from all, of the Jews.

Acts 26:3. Especially gives the reason why Paul counted himself fortunate, not the quality or quantity of Agrippa’s knowledge, though “Rabbinic writers speak of Agrippa as having excelled in a knowledge of the law” (Hackett). Thee to be expert.—The words in Greek are anakolouthic. Instead of an accusative, a genitive might rather have been expected. Patiently.—Paul obviously proposed a somewhat extended oration.

Acts 26:4. My manner of life from my youth up.—This appears to imply that Paul had been brought to Jerusalem at an early age (compare Acts 23:3), though he was seemingly absent from the Metropolis during the three years of our Lord’s ministry (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Acts 26:5. From the beginning.—The same idea as that contained in “from my youth up.” I lived a Pharisee.—Observe the succession of the clauses, which state

(1) how long the Jews had known Paul—from his youth up, or from the beginning;
(2) where they had known him—in Jerusalem; and

(3) what they had known about him—that he had lived a Pharisee (compare Acts 22:3, Acts 23:6).

Acts 26:6. I stand here and am judged.—Better, I stand here, being judged. Paul’s complaint was that he was being tried, not for heterodoxy, but for “orthodoxy”—for the hope, etc.

Acts 26:7. Our twelve tribes.—Paul, like James (Acts 1:1), considered the then existing Jewish people to be the legitimate representatives of the Twelve Tribes. Like James, he ignored “the legend, so often repeated and revived, that the ten tribes of the northern kingdoms of Israel, after they had been carried away by Shalmaneser, had wandered far away, and were to be found, in disguise, in far-off regions of the world. The earliest appearance of the fable is in the apocryphal 2Es. 13:40-46, where they are said to have gone to ‘a country where never mankind dwelt, that they might there keep the statutes which they never kept in their own land.’ The apostle, on the contrary, represents the whole body of the Twelve Tribes as alike serving God” (Plumptre). While it is certainly true that the main body of the home-returning exiles consisted of members of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, it is equally indubitable that amongst them were members of other tribes, as, e.g., of Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 9:3).

Acts 26:8. Why should it so thought a thing incredible with you?—Another interpretation gives “What! is it judged incredible with you?” (Griesbach, Kuinoel, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson). That God should raise the dead!—Lit., if God raises; εἰ presenting the question as one a sceptic might controvert, and ἐγείρει being present, because the resurrection of Jesus was regarded by the apostle as illustrating “a permanent attribute or power on the part of God” (Hackett). The precise force of the question has been differently explained. Connected with the preceding verses, it has been understood as giving the inner kernel of the promise made unto the Jewish fathers, and as replying to a look of incredulity perhaps at the moment visible on the faces of his hearers (Holtzmann); regarded as introductory to the ensuing paragraph, it has been interpreted as signifying either that, since no Jew could hesitate to believe in the resurrection of the dead, what the apostle was about to rehearse should likewise be accepted as credible (Overbeck), or that the apostle’s faith in the Messiah, of which he was about to speak, had exactly that for its presupposition which no Jew would think of controverting—viz., that God was able to raise the dead (Wendt). Perhaps the first connection is the better.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 26:1

Paul’s Appeal to His Past Life; or, a Vindication of his Jewish Orthodoxy

I. Paul’s happiness in entering on his defence.—One might naturally have supposed that Paul by this time would have felt it irksome to be called up to speak for himself, having already twice attempted to vindicate his innocence, before the Sanhedrim (Acts 22:1) and before Felix (Acts 24:10), but with no good result—only with this, that for two long years he had been detained in bonds. Spirits of less noble mould than Paul’s would have been crushed—would have renounced both faith in God and hope for themselves; but he, “as sorrowful yet always rejoicing” (2 Corinthians 6:10), as “perplexed but not in despair, persecuted but not forsaken, cast down but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8), continued bright and cheerful, never losing heart or hope, constantly confident that all things were working together for his good (Romans 8:28), as well as for God’s purpose (Ephesians 1:11), and therefore always ready to enter any door of service that might be opened, not so much for the vindication of himself as for the furtherance of the gospel and the cause of his Master. In particular, he welcomed the present opportunity of appearing before Agrippa and answering the charges that had been brought against him.

1. Because Agrippa was a king, and a king, it was written, should ever love judgment (Psalms 99:4) and practise righteousness (Isaiah 32:1), yea, righteous lips should be his delight (Proverbs 16:13), while to search out a matter was his honour (Proverbs 25:2), and to do wickedness should be to him an abomination (Proverbs 16:12).

2. Because Agrippa was an expert in all Jewish customs and questions, and would be able to comprehend the point or points at issue between him, Paul, and his countrymen—points which had somewhat disconcerted the Governor (Acts 25:20). “That Paul here praises the king’s eminent knowledge of Jewish religion and morals is no empty flattery, but appears to rest on this, that Agrippa, more than any other member of his family, occupied himself with the people’s ecclesiastical affairs, although nothing definite concerning this has been handed down by tradition” (Zöckler). Rabbinic writers speak of Agrippa II. as having excelled in a knowledge of the law; and “as the traditions which these Rabbinic writers follow could not have flowed from this passage, they confirm the representation here given by an unexpected agreement” (Hackett). Possibly Agrippa II. had been carefully instructed in them by his father, Agrippa I., who was “famous for his rigid observance of all Jewish customs and rites” (Spence).

3. Because Agrippa was acquainted with the Scriptures, which formed the ultimate standard of judgment for all controverted points in religion. Though Paul made no mention of this in his courteous exordium, it lay clearly in the background of his consciousness (see Acts 26:27). Notice, that in all this Paul introduces no word in flattery of the young sovereign. Paul doubtless understood that—

“They do abuse the king that flatter him,
Whereas reproof, obedient and in order,
Fits kings as they are men, for they may err.”—Shakespeare.

II. Paul’s request for a patient hearing of his case.—

1. Because heretofore he had in every instance been interrupted and prevented from making a full statement of his defence. By the Jews, when he spoke from the castle stairs in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22); by the high priest, when he appeared before the Sanhedrim (Acts 23:2); by Felix, when he stood before that governor (Acts 24:22)—though not stated, this seems to have been the exact state of matters; by Festus, who succeeded Felix (Acts 25:9). And now, before beginning, he bespeaks a different treatment from the Jewish sovereign.

2. Because he desired to make a complete presentation of his cause, without which justice could not be done either to himself, the accused party, or by Agrippa, whose opinion on his case was sought. If, through his imperfect exposition of the exact situation, Agrippa failed to apprehend the matter requiring judgment, then neither would Agrippa be able to return nor himself be likely to receive a righteous verdict. To a fair hearing and an honest sentence even the worst of criminals is entitled.

III. Paul’s appeal to the knowledge of his contemporaries.—“All the Jews” referred to were obviously all the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa; and these, the apostle urged, had intimate acquaintance with him.

1. Where they had known him. In Jerusalem, and therefore at first hand; not simply by report, as one living at a distance, say in Tarsus, outside the limits of the Holy Land. In the very Metropolis of Judaism, and therefore in the place where those lived who were most capable of observing and judging of his character (see on Acts 22:3).

2. How long they had known him. From his youth up. Not merely at one or two brief particular times. This statement implies that Paul had in early life, for some reason unknown, removed from Tarsus and settled at Jerusalem, where he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel (see “Critical Remarks” on Acts 22:3).

3. As what they had known him. Not as a heretic, or unbeliever, but as one who lived after the straitest sect of their religion, as a Pharisee, as a member of that community of which Josephus writes: “The Pharisees are a Jewish sect who appear to be more religious than others, and who appear to interpret the law more strictly” (Wars, I. Act. 5:2), and again: “they are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of their country” (Life, 38). All this the Jews knew, and, were they willing—of which Paul was manifestly not sure—could testify concerning him. That any of the “grave and dignified members of the Sanhedrim” were “present in that great assembly that morning” (Spence) cannot be gathered from the narrative, but had they been, they could, had they chosen, have bowed their heads in acquiescence to what Paul was stating to Agrippa.

IV. Paul’s exposition of the charge preferred against himself.—

1. An explanation. The offence for which he, a chained prisoner, was being presently examined and judged consisted, not in his having committed any civil crime, political misdemeanour, or religious aberration, but in his having cherished the hope of the promise which had been

(1) made unto the fathers, and which in Paul’s judgment was contained in the sacred Scriptures as well as embraced more than the prediction of a Divine Messiah, even the announcement of a resurrection, and of a future glorified life (see “Hints” on Acts 26:6); and

(2) was cherished at that moment by all the Twelve Tribes, who earnestly served God day and night with a splendid ritual worship, the ultimate end and aim of which was to secure for them that eternal life, through the advent and work of Messiah, to whom their sacrificial ceremonialism and symbolism looked forward. He was therefore in complete harmony with the faith of his countrymen, and differed from them solely in this, that he held that promise to have been fulfilled in the historical appearing of Jesus of Nazareth, and that hope to be realised through His resurrection from the dead.
2. A defence. Did they question what he now asserted? Did they deem what he now preached a delusion? If he took for granted that God could raise the dead, why should that be pronounced by them incredible? Had their sacred books never spoken of a resurrection? Was so marvellous a phenomenon as the resuscitation of a dead body altogether unknown to them? It ought not to be, if they had read that sacred volume with sufficient care (see 1 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 4:18; 2 Kings 13:21). His allegation, then, that he had seen the risen Christ ought not to be lightly waived aside, or the doctrine of a resurrection contemptuously rejected (see “Hints” on Acts 26:8).

Learn—

1. The cheerfulness in trial which Divine grace can inspire.
2. The value of a wide and accurate knowledge in religion.
3. The advantage to be derived in after years from a well-spent youth.
4. The fundamental basis of all acceptable worship—the promise of God.
5. The reasonableness of faith in the resurrection, and of hope of eternal life.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 26:1. Permitted to Speak for Himself.

I. A dangerous temptation.—Before which all ministers require to be on their guard, lest, like false teachers, they should speak merely for themselves, for their own glory, or their own profit.

II. A painful duty.—Which ministers sometimes need to perform, as when their ministerial usefulness is threatened by some prevailing calumny, or they are charged with offences they have not committed, and which, if not disproved, would bring their office into disrepute (2 Corinthians 6:3).

III. A blessed privilege.—Which all ministers have, and true ministers delight to avail themselves of, when it means to speak for their Master, Christ—for His glory, for the advancement of His cause, for the diffusion of His truth, for the extension of His kingdom.

A Chained Prisoner on His Defence.—A series of marvels.

I. Speaks before the great ones of the earth without trepidation.—An example of holy courage (Psalms 27:1; Isaiah 51:12).

II. Descants upon a lofty theme without faltering.—A proof of high endowment (Psalms 37:30; Proverbs 8:6).

III. Seeks the glory of God without a thought of self.—A sign of great grace (John 8:50).

IV. Enters on his task in sublime cheerfulness, without a symptom of despondent dulness.—An instance of exalted faith.

V. Rises into glowing eloquence, without a taint of sordid speech.—A mark of complete self-control.

Acts 26:2. The Secret of Paul’s Joy in Addressing Agrippa.

I. What it was not.—Neither

(1) gratification at being honoured to speak before a king, since Paul would as cheerfully have spoken before a common man; nor

(2) satisfaction at being able to clear his character from the charges brought against him, though Paul of course was by no means indifferent to this; nor

(3) delight at the opportunity of exposing the malice of his foes, which richly merited both exposure and rebuke, not to say punishment; nor

(4) expectation of thereby obtaining his release, since Paul knew that he must go to Rome.

II. What it was.—

1. The prospect of being able to testify concerning and for Christ before one “to whom the circumstances of the Jewish nation, the promises made to the fathers, and the history of Christ, were not unknown”; and

2. The hope of gaining at least one convert, perhaps more than one, to the faith of his exalted Lord. “Paul, stretching forth his hand, approached the king, and aimed at his heart” (Besser).

The Character of Paul’s Defence.

I. Humble without servility.

II. Fearless without pride.

III. Powerful without passion and rancour.

IV. Mild without laxity.

V. Prudent without art.

VI. Simple, yet not without skill.

Acts 26:3. A Patient Hearing.

I. Due to preachers of the gospel—always supposing them to be faithful and earnest. Because of—

1. The Master they serve—Christ.
2. The message they bring—the good news of reconciliation.
3. The end at which they aim—the salvation of their hearers.

II. Frequently denied to preachers.—Because of—

1. Dislike of both the preacher and his Master.
2. Disinclination towards both the subject and the aim of his message.
3. Dissatisfaction with the manner or the method of the preacher.
4. Pre-occupation with other thoughts or things.

Acts 26:4. My Manner of Life from My Youth Up; or, an Aged Christian’s Retrospect of his Past Career.

I. Sometimes necessary.—This was the case with Paul when before Agrippa. It was needful for the vindication of himself to appeal to his previous history, from his youth upwards, to show that he had never really been out of harmony with the faith or practice of his people, as his enemies alleged. So Christians have sometimes to establish their own consistency by calling up their manner of life in former years.

II. Always difficult.—Even Christians, like other people, are not above the temptation of dealing gently with themselves. It requires great grace to enable even a good man to be faithful in appreciating his own character, not to over-estimate his virtues or under-estimate his defects. Paul was eminently successful in this work of self-examination. What he claimed before Agrippa was not that his past life had been sinless in the sight of God, but merely that it had been externally faultless in the eyes of men.

III. Often profitable.—When it leads to self-humiliation and repentance before God on account of shortcomings; when it shows that the past has been at least constantly conscientious, if not completely correct; when it enables one to see the guiding hand of a gracious Providence leading on from step to step towards the goal of conversion and salvation.

IV. Not always satisfactory.—It was not so with Paul. He recognised that his past career had been outwardly correct and inwardly conscientious; but he found that notwithstanding he had been a persecutor and a blasphemer—in short, the chief of sinners.

Acts 26:6. The Promise Made to the Fathers.

I. Divine in its origin.—Made by God. Had the author been man, the promise would have been worthless.

II. Ancient in its date.—Going back to the fathers of the faithful, yea, even to the first father of the human family.

III. Gracious in its character.—Prompted by the spontaneous love and kindness of God.

IV. Great in its contents.—A promise of salvation.

V. Varied in its form.—

1. To Adam, the promise of a woman’s seed who should bruise the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15).

2. To Abraham, the promise of a land (Genesis 12:1), of a seed (Genesis 13:15), of a son (Genesis 15:4).

3. To Israel under Moses, the promise of a law-giver like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18).

4. To David, the promise of a son who should sit and reign upon his throne for ever (2 Samuel 7:12).

5. To Israel in the time of Isaiah, the promise

(1) of a virgin’s child, whose name should be called Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6):

(2) of a suffering servant of Jehovah, who should bear the sins of many and make intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:11).

6. To Israel, in the days of Jeremiah, the promise of one who should be called the Lord our Righteousness (Jeremiah 33:15).

7. To Israel, in the era of Ezekiel, the promise of a shepherd king like David to rule over his people (Ezekiel 37:24).

8. To Israel, after the return from captivity, the promise of one called “the Branch” (Zechariah 3:8).

VI. Sure in its fulfilment.—This involved in the fact of its being the promise of a God who cannot lie.

VII. Realised in the person and work of Christ.—This the burden of the gospel message, as it was the theme of Paul’s preaching.

Acts 26:8. Raising the Dead—credible or incredible?

I. Incredible only on one or other, or all, of the following suppositions:

1. That the dead have entirely ceased to be. In this case they could not be raised, though other beings might be created in their stead.

2. That there is no power adequate to effect their resurrection. This will require to be admitted if there is no God, since a power less than Divine will not suffice.

3. That it is impossible for a Divine power, should there be such, to interfere with the ordinary laws of nature. This the position occupied by those who hold that the supernatural must never transcend the limits, but always restrict itself to the channels, of the natural.

4. That the Divine power, assuming such exists, has distinctly declined to interfere with natural law. This, however, God has nowhere done—certainly not in Scripture.

5. That the Divine Being has expressly asserted no such event as a resurrection will ever take place. This also He has nowhere affirmed.

II. Credible.—

1. If the dead are still living, though they have passed beyond this mortal scene (Matthew 22:32).

2. If there be a God, as all nature cries aloud through all her works, as Scripture throughout asserts, and as man’s own nature attests there is.

3. If God has distinctly promised that He will raise the dead. This He has most certainly done. Both Old and New Testaments supply texts in confirmation.

4. If Christ has already risen from the dead. That He has is what Paul asserted. For the sake of the truth of this his fellow-apostles as well as himself were willing to stake, and actually did stake, their lives.

5. If in the idea of a resurrection nothing contrary to reason exists. Whatever objections may be taken to its credibility, it cannot be asserted that the notion of a resurrection is either inconceivable or irrational.

6. If a resurrection would raise man to a higher stage of being than before. Were it certain that man’s future rising would be a backward step, it might be difficult to credit the occurrence of any such event in the future.

7. If a resurrection would furnish to the universe an additional proof of the Divine glory. This assuredly it would. It would exhibit at once the glory of His grace and power.