Acts 26:24-32

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 26:24. As he thus spake for himself.—Lit., he speaking these things in his defence—ταῦτα, these things, being the words just uttered about the resurrection, rather than the entire speech. The notion of a resurrection appeared as absurd to Festus as it had done to the Athenians (Acts 17:32), and caused him to think Paul beside himself, raving, or mad, and to say so, not in jest (Olshausen), but in earnest, at the same time ascribing his insanity to his much learning—πολλὰ γράμματα, which, among the Jews, meant much theology (John 7:15; 2 Timothy 3:15).

Acts 26:25. Most noble.—Powerful, or excellent (κράτιστε), as in Acts 23:26, Acts 24:3; Luke 1:3.

Acts 26:26. Before.—Better, unto whom. Paul, with fearless confidence, appealed to Agrippa, who knew perfectly that the doctrines just referred to, of a crucified and risen Christ, on which his, Paul’s, gospel was founded, were not fancies, illusions, the ravings of a madman, but words of truth and soberness, because relating to facts which had been done and events which had taken place, not in a corner, but in the metropolis of Palestine, and therefore publicly.

Acts 26:28. Almost (ἐν ὀλίγῳ = propemodum, a meaning of which no other example can be given) thou persuadest me to be or become (γενέσθαι) a Christian (Chrysostom, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Stier, Spence); or, with but little persuasion thou persuadest me to become, or, according to a different reading, thou believest (thyself able) to make of me a Christian; i.e., thou wouldest fain make me a Christion (R.V., Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Plumptre, Holtzmann, and others); or, in a little time (i.e., if you go on speaking thus) you will persuade me to become a Christian (Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, De Wette, Robinson, Hackett, and others). The third is admissible, but does not so well suit the apostle’s answer (see below). The second fits best if the alternative reading, ποιῆσαι for γενέσθαι be adopted. The first, though perhaps grammatically doubtful, harmonises best with the seriousness which Paul’s oration was calculated to inspire. The second and third are more or less ironical.

Acts 26:29. Both almost and altogether.—Ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ (the best texts have ἐν μεγάλῳ), in little and in much. It must be admitted that this reply does not fit in well with the first of the above renderings, while it suits admirably the second and third, as thus: either, I would to God that whether with little or with much, or whether in a little time or in a great time, not thou only, etc. In spite, therefore, of the seemingly ironical character of the second and third, one or other of these should be preferred. These bonds.—(See Acts 24:23; Acts 24:27.)

Acts 26:30.—Unwilling to hear more, the auditors rose up in order, according to their rank.

Acts 26:31.—After conferring with one another Festus and Agrippa came to the same conclusion as had already three times been reached concerning Paul—first by the Pharisees (Acts 23:9), next by Lysias (Acts 23:29), and lastly by Festus (Acts 25:25).

Acts 26:32.—Agrippa adds that but for his appeal to Cæsar the apostle might have been set at liberty.

Note.—The authenticity of this and the two preceding Chapter s relating to Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea has been questioned on the following grounds:

1. That the two trials—before Felix and before Festus—have been artificially constructed by the author, and manifestly on the same plan, according to which in each the same incidents recur—the same motives for the accusation, the same murder-proposal of the Jews, the same appearing of Paul’s enemies before the Roman tribunal with their complaints, the same hearing before a regularly constituted court, the same failure in the evidence offered, the same protection and recognition of his innocence at the hands of the Roman procurator, and the same style of defence—viz., that Paul was an orthodox Jew, and indeed a Pharisee, who had been constrained by a irresistible Divine impulse to enter on his Gentile mission (Baur, Zeller, Holtzmann).
2. That the position adopted by Paul was more in accordance with that taken by the second-century apologists (Holtzmann).
3. That everything appears directed to show how Paul, who was persecuted by the fanaticism of the Jews, was protected through the righteousness of the Romans (Pfleiderer); and
4. That so completely is his innocence established, over against both Roman policy and Jewish hate, that his continued imprisonment (Weizsäcker) and deportation to Rome (Holtzmann) are simply inconceivable. But to all this it suffices to reply—
1. That similarity between two judicial processes does not necessarily establish the unreality of both or of either—and all the more if the processes were conducted by the same parties, against the same individual, about the same charge, and with the same evidence.
2. That second-century apologists may well have learnt how to defend themselves, by a careful studying of Paul’s defences.
3. That the favour shown by the Roman Governors to Paul accords with what is known of the Roman policy towards Christianity in the first century, and not with what is known of her policy in the second century (Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 194); and

4. That Paul’s continued imprisonment requires no explanation different from that given in the text—viz., the unwillingness of the Roman governors either to please the Jews by punishing Paul or to displease them by setting him free; while after his appeal to Cæsar had been allowed, it would probably not have been safe for either Festus or Agrippa to have disregarded it. But, even if they did, that would only show they had failed in their duty, not that the narrative in the Acts was unhistorical.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 26:24

Paul’s Two Distinguished Listeners, Festus and Agrippa; or, Two Souls Struggling against the Truth

I. Paul and Festus; or, the apostle and the governor.—

1. The exclamation of the governor. “Paul, thou art beside thyself,” or, thou art mad!—“much learning doth make thee mad,” or, doth turn thee to madness. So far as Festus was concerned, Paul, by his lofty oration, had effected this only, that Festus esteemed him a lunatic. Strange perversity of the world! When Paul of Tarsus raved against God, blasphemed Christ, and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the Christians, his contemporaries counted him both wise and prudent; now that, as Paul the aged, he talks in sublime strains of a crucified and risen Saviour, the world, as represented by the Judæan procurator, sets him down for a madman, or, at least, for one whose brain had been touched by overmuch study. Paul! much learning doth turn thee to madness. To the governor it seemed incomprehensible that one should not only rave about such transcendental delusions, but should actually risk his life in preaching them. Doubtless at the present day many hold with the governor that earnest and enthusiastic Christians, who base their prospects of present happiness and future felicity on such (as the world thinks) imaginary facts as the incarnation, propitiation, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ, are idle dreamers, foolish visionaries, crack-brained enthusiasts, half-mad fanatics who simply mistake the vague and shadowy creations of a disordered or diseased fancy for solid and substantial truths, and who accordingly sacrifice themselves for whims and crotchets. But for all that numbers of those who affect to regard Christians in this light have their secret misgivings that the Christians are right. That Festus felt uncomfortable beneath the glowing utterances of Paul is a plausible deduction from the fact that he rather shouted at than calmly expostulated with the apostle. Had he really believed the apostle to be beside himself, he would not have flamed forth into a rage against him, but would have pitied him, and perhaps spoken gently to him, or at least would have not troubled himself about his utterances. And so the circumstance that men of the world habitually become vehement and angry when denouncing the faith of Christians is a proof they are not inwardly convinced of its error.

2. The reply of the apostle. “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.” In repudiating the charge of the governor, Paul fell back upon two defences.

(1) The testimony of his own consciousness, which enabled him to assure Festus that he was neither “beside” nor beneath nor outside of himself, as insinuated, but in full possession of his faculties—not at all the victim of an ill-balanced judgment, an exuberant fancy, or an unbridled imagination, but the master of a calm, clear intellect and a sober, regulated reason, which understood well the thoughts it was thinking and the words it was uttering.
(2) The unchallengeable truthfulness of his assertions, in support of which he confidently appealed to the wide publicity which had been gained by the main facts of gospel history, the death and resurrection of Christ, which had not taken place in some remote corner of the country, but had occurred in its very centre and heart, the Metropolis itself, Jerusalem, and which therefore could not be unknown to the king, to whom accordingly he next directed his address. The apostle meant that if the story of Christ’s death and resurrection had not been true, it could easily have been demonstrated false, as the people of Jerusalem were well aware of all that had transpired. But so far from being exposed as an idle fiction, the report of the resurrection—of the crucifixion denial was impossible—had kept on spreading and gaining adherents during the last quarter of a century, which it could hardly have done had it been false.

II. Paul and Agrippa; or, the apostle and the king.—

1. The fervent appeal of the apostle. “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Whether the apostle, “who had studied psychology in the school of the Holy Ghost” (Leonhard and Spiegel) discerned in the king’s heart a secret inclination to yield to the truth as set forth in the apostle’s oration, must be left undecided.

(1) The ground on which Paul’s appeal rested appears to have been the assumption that Agrippa II., as a Jew, must have been perfectly cognisant of the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures predicted the coming of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah. That they did so has been frequently pointed out.
(2) The force of Paul’s appeal lay in this, that Agrippa, having been possessed of such knowledge, ought to have had no difficulty in recognising the reasonableness of Paul’s words, which simply declared that such predictions as were contained in the prophets had been fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s interpretation of the connection between these events and the Scripture prophecies might be at fault—nay, Paul’s assertion about the resurrection might be incorrect; but in the statements themselves no impartial judge could find evidence of unreason or folly.
2. The ambiguous answer of the king. “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; or, “with but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (R.V.); or, in a little time (at this rate) you will persuade me to become (or, you believe you can make of me) a Christian (see “Critical Remarks”). According to the first of these renderings, Agrippa was supposed to admit that Paul had almost carried the citadel of his judgment, and that only a little more was wanting to gain him altogether for the Christian cause. According to the second, his meaning ran that Paul must not imagine he could convert a Jewish sovereign like him with so little show of argument, or so inconsiderable effort. According to the third, that if Paul went on as he was doing he would soon make of him, Agrippa II., a Christian. The first had its source in incipient seriousness, the second in supercilious contempt, the third in superficial levity. Those who wish to think the best of Agrippa naturally prefer the first interpretation of his words, notwithstanding the grammatical difficulty attaching to them; those who adhere to the best text select the second or third interpretation of Agrippa’s words, though these charge him with feelings—either of irony or of jest—which certainly look incompatible with a situation so grave and solemn as that in which they were spoken.

3. The sublime ejaculation of the apostle. “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds”; or, “I would to God that whether with little or with much …” (R.V.); or, “whether in a little time or in much time”; or, adopting another reading, “whether with a little effort or with a great effort, not only thou, but also all that hear me this day,” etc. (see “Critical Remarks”). Taken either way, the sense of the apostle’s utterance practically amounted to this:

(1) that he wished, not only Agrippa, but all who listened to him that day, to be, like himself, Christians;
(2) that, could he only hope to see that wish fulfilled, he would willingly spend a long time or a short, and put forth a great effort or a small, as the case might be; and
(3) that the sole point in which he did not ask God that they might resemble him was “these bonds,” which he held up before them. The magnanimity of this reply has evoked never-failing admiration from all hearts capable of understanding and appreciating true heroism.
4. The response of the king. Obviously Agrippa’s was not a heart of the order just depicted. No sooner had the apostle’s words died away in the hushed atmosphere of the marble hall than Agrippa II. rose from his seat, followed by the governor, Bernice, and all that sat with them. Having withdrawn from the audience-chamber and talked amongst themselves, they came to the conclusion that Paul had committed no offence worthy of death. Most likely all concurred in pronouncing him a harmless fanatic. What they said to one another about his last words is not recorded. Possibly all were silent, each afraid to reveal to his neighbour the thoughts that had been stirred within his bosom. Only one more item of the conversation has been preserved. Agrippa II. expressed his mind to the governor, that, had Paul not appealed to Cæsar, he might forthwith have been set at liberty. The result of this “may have been that Festus modified his report and commended the apostle to the clemency of the court at Rome” (Hackett).

Learn—

1. The outrageous slanders that are sometimes propagated against Christians.
2. The certainty that truth and soberness lie rather with the Christian than with the worldling.
3. The fearlessness with which Christianity can make appeal to the court of enlightened reason.
4. The unwisdom of those who decline to allow themselves to be persuaded to become Christians.
5. The fervent desire true Christians possess that others should share the salvation of which they are conscious.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 26:24. Paul and His Princely Hearers; or, the different attitudes of men toward the gospel.

I. Festus, who turns entirely aside from it—“Paul, thou ravest!”

II. Agrippa, who is half turned towards it—“Almost thou persuadest me!”

III. Paul, who entirely lives in it—“I would to God that all who hear me were such as I am.”—Gerok, in Lange.

Acts 26:24. Which is the Madman?—Paul or Festus? the Christian or the non-Christian?

I. The Christian who believes in a personal God—a God of power, who has made the universe, and a God of love, who has devised a way of salvation for man? Or the non-Christian who, if he acknowledges a God at all, conceives of Him as either hostile to, or indifferent about, man?

II. The Christian who believes that God has made known His mind and will to man for his salvation in the sacred Scriptures? Or the non-Christian who holds that God has never placed Himself in communication with the human race at all?

III. The Christian who believes that man, even in his sin, is a child of God, and a possible heir of immortality? Or the non-Christian whose creed is that man is nothing more than an animated clod which will in course of years mingle with the other (unanimated) clods of the valley, and be never more heard of, in this or any other world?

IV. The Christian who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s Son incarnate, who died and rose again, bringing life and immortality to light? Or, the non-Christian whose faith is that Jesus was a common and therefore a sinful man, who never rose from the dead, and that the grave will never open to restore a single form that goes down into its gloomy chambers!

V. The Christian who believes in a hereafter and lives for it? Or, the non-Christian who knows of no world but this, and lives and dies as if there were none?

Acts 26:25. Words of Truth and Soberness.

I. Such were Paul’s words to all who heard his gospel.—

1. Proved from the past history of the Church. For the words of Paul remain to this day, whereas the wit of Festus has long since died away.

2. Confirmed by Christian experience. Since honest hearts in all ages have found in Paul’s words (written) their clearest light, best strength, and sweetest comfort.

3. They will likewise be placed in the light at the great day of eternity. Inasmuch as heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God endureth for ever.

II. Such should be the words of preachers still to all who listen to their teaching.—And such they will be—

1. If they discourse upon Pauls theme,—a crucified and risen Saviour.

2. If they speak with Paul’s earnestness—which all can imitate, though all cannot equal. What is wanted in preaching is not “sound and fury, signifying nothing,” but deep-toned and full-hearted fervour.

3. If they seek Paul’s aims,—the glory of Christ and the salvation of souls. None but words of truth and soberness will accomplish these.

Acts 26:27. “Believest thou the prophets?”

I. A great question.—For modern readers of the Bible no less than for Agrippa.

1. Believest thou the Hebrew prophets were inspired? This question lies at the foundation of Christianity. If the Hebrew prophets were only statesmen, somewhat more far-seeing than their contemporaries, but in no sense channels of Divine communication for their age and generation, then it is vain to attempt to derive from their utterances any evidence in support of the Messiahship of Jesus. It was clearly in the faith that Old-Testament Scripture prophesied beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow that Paul appealed to them so confidently in support of his gospel; and those who think the foundations of the Christian system will remain undisturbed if the credibility of Old-Testament literature is impaired, have not reflected deeply enough on this momentous problem. As the New-Testament Scriptures are the flower and fruit, the crown and apex, of the Old, so are the Old-Testament Scriptures the root and support of the New.

2. Believest thou what the Hebrew prophets teach? Men might, and many do, believe the Hebrew prophets to have been inspired, who nevertheless disregard the testimony they furnish concerning the person and work of Christ. But the Christological argument derived from the Messianic prophecies was, in Paul’s judgment, and is in the estimation of many Bible scholars of to-day, one of the most powerful factors in demonstrating the truth of the New-Testament declarations with reference to Christ’s divinity, atoning work, and resurrection.

3. Believest thou that what the Hebrew prophets taught concerning Christ has been fulfilled? This practically means, Believest thou that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel and Saviour of the world? Believest thou that He was God’s Son incarnate, that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again according to the Scriptures? (1 Corinthians 15:1).

4. Believest thou for thyself, individually, in the Christ of whom the prophets spoke? All believing that stops short of this is worthless for saving.

II. A powerful argument.—Of which the following are the several steps:

1. He who believes in the prophets of the Old Testament should also believe in the apostles of the New. The authors of the New-Testament writings can produce as good claims to be inspired as could the prophets of the Old.

2. He who believes in the Messiah, foreshadowed by the prophets, should likewise believe in the Christ preached by the apostles. The first was the type of the second; the second is the antitype of the first. If the prophets spoke the truth when they said Christ should suffer and rise again, so did the apostles teach no falsehood when they affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, since they alleged that He both suffered and rose.

3. He who believes that Jesus is the Christ should likewise for himself believe in Him for salvation. This, after all, is the great question: Dost thou believe on the Son of God? (John 9:35). The man who accepts the testimony of both prophets and apostles should feel himself shut up to the acceptance of Christ as his personal Saviour.

Acts 26:28. Almost Persuaded.—A condition of soul—

I. Frequently attained.—The heart touched, the mind enlightened, the will moved, the spirit trembling on the verge of a decision for Christ; nothing wanting but—the decision. Many reach this position as well as Agrippa.

II. Highly responsible.—Seeing that only a little is lacking to carry the spirit over into faith, the obligation to supply that little is the greater. What guilt will they incur who refuse or omit to take the final step that is necessary for salvation.

III. Extremely perilous.—Besides being in itself an unsafe condition, it is also an unstable one. No soul can remain permanently in the position these words describe. Either it will move on and become fully persuaded, or it will drift back and become less persuaded.

Almost a Christian.—A position—

I. Of gracious privilege.—Implying that one has been brought near the kingdom, and enabled to understand somewhat of its nature, of its terms of membership, of its duties, and of its blessings.

II. Of hopeful promise.—That the “almost” shall, before long, be converted into an “altogether.” That the one step wanting to make one a Christian shall be taken.

III. Of solemn responsibility.—That the one “almost” shall become “altogether” a Christian. That he shall not remain on the borders of the kingdom, but cross the boundary and enter in.

IV. Of great danger.—Lest one should be satisfied with being “almost” without becoming “altogether” a Christian.

Acts 26:28. The Shortcomings of Agrippa.

I. What they were.—

1. He only says “almost,” not yet “altogether,” and thus at once recalls what he appears to allow. He remains standing without the doors of salvation, and will not enter in.

2. He only says, “Thou persuadest me”; but a persuasion is much less than faith or conviction, and may, as in this case, come to an end with the words which called it forth.

3. He only says, “to be a Christian,” meaning, to join thy party, in an external way, instead of saying, “I believingly accept thy testimony about Jesus.”

II. How they were answered.—

1. By suggesting that much more than he thought was still deficient in him. Every “almost,” like Agrippa’s, implies that much is still wanting.

2. By expressing a desire that, whether much or little was lacking, all might be fully persuaded. At whatever stage of nearness or distance they stood from the kingdom, he longed for the salvation of all.

3. By reminding him, and all who listened, that becoming a Christian meant more than joining the party of the Nazarenes, meant becoming like him, Paul, in everything except his bonds, meant becoming a lowly and devoted follower of Christ.—Compiled from Stier.