This is the longest of Paul's five defenses. It centers on the gospel with an evangelistic appeal rather than on the charges against Paul. This emphasis harmonizes with Luke's evangelistic purpose in Luke and Acts and is a fitting climax to that purpose. It also documents God's faithfulness in allowing Paul to witness before kings (cf. 9:15).
"Inherent in Luke's account are at least three apologetic themes: (1) Paul's relations with the Roman provincial government in Judea did not end in dissonance but with an acknowledgment of his innocence (cf. 25:25; 26:31); (2) even though the Jewish high priests and Sanhedrin opposed Paul, the Jewish king who in Rome's eyes outranked them agreed with a verdict of innocence (cf. 26:32); and (3) Paul's innocence was demonstrated not only before Roman and Jewish rulers but also publicly before the high ranking officers and the leading men of the city' (25:23)."921
25:23 Festus used this occasion to honor Agrippa and Bernice before the local Caesarean leaders. There were five commanders based in Caesarea each with responsibility for 1,000 soldiers. They all had the same authority as Claudius Lysias, the commander of the cohort based in Jerusalem (cf. 21:31-23:30; 24:22). Beside these commanders many prominent men of the city were present in the auditorium of the governor's palace. Agrippa and Bernice conducted themselves like very important individuals, but Paul was the truly significant person in this gathering, as history has demonstrated (cf. Luke 21:12).
25:24-27 In reviewing the reasons for conducting this hearing, Festus acknowledged that Paul had done nothing worthy of death as the Jews had charged (v. 25). He referred to the emperor (Gr. sebastos, cf. v. 21) as his lord (kyrios, majesty rather than deity,922vv. 25, 26), but Paul would preach his Lord, a higher authority than Nero, to this crowd (cf. John 19:19). Festus decided to send Paul to Nero rather than sending him back to Jerusalem (v. 9; cf. 26:32). After explaining his need in face-saving language, Festus turned the hearing over to Agrippa.
Luke undoubtedly included Festus' preamble in Acts because it was another testimony by a Roman official that Paul and Christianity were not threats to the empire.
Paul was not on trial here. When he had appealed to Caesar (25:11), he had guaranteed that his next trial would be before the emperor. This was just a hearing designed to acquaint Agrippa with Paul's case so Agrippa could give Festus help in understanding it and communicating it to the emperor.
"This testimony of Paul is not a defense of himself. It is a declaration of the gospel with the evident purpose of winning Agrippa and the others present to Christ. This is a dramatic scene, and this chapter is one of the greatest pieces of literature, either secular or inspired. . . .
"There is a consummate passion filling the soul of the apostle as he speaks. I think this is his masterpiece. His message on Mars' Hill is great, but it does not compare at all to this message."923
The Lord had told Paul that he would bear His name before the Gentiles and kings (9:15). Jesus had also told His disciples that before the Tribulation enemies would deliver them to prison and bring them before kings and governors for His name's sake. This, He said, would lead to an opportunity for their testimony (Luke 21:12-13). This is exactly what happened to Paul, and he used this opportunity to give his testimony, as this chapter records.924
26:1 Paul apparently stretched out his hand to salute the king. The phrase "stretched out his hand"in Greek differs from the similar ones in 13:16 and 21:40. This defense is Paul's fullest, most formal, and climactic of all the ones Luke recorded in Acts (cf. 22:1-21; 23:1-6; 24:10-21; 25:8, 10-11). It is quite similar to the one he delivered from the steps of the Antonia Fortress (22:1-21), but he selected his words here carefully to appeal to Agrippa and the other Romans present.
26:2-3 Paul began with a customary introduction in which he complemented the king sincerely and urged him to listen patiently. He did not promise a short defense (cf. 24:2-4, 10).
"This was just the kind of situation Paul had longed for during two bleak years in prison--viz., a knowledgeable judge and a not inherently antagonistic audience before whom he could not only make his defense but also proclaim his message."925
26:4-7 The essence of the controversy surrounding Paul's ministry and teaching, he explained, was the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel, namely salvation through a Messiah. This promise included personal spiritual salvation as well as national deliverance and blessing that the Hebrew prophets had predicted. The agent of this salvation would be a Savior whom God would anoint and who would rise from the dead. Paul's conclusions concerning that Savior were the basis for the Jews' antagonism against him.
Paul said that it was because of his Jewish heritage, not in spite of it, that he believed and preached what he did. The Jewish hope finds fulfillment in the Christian gospel. It was, therefore, ironic that the Jews, of all people, should have charged him with disloyalty.
"Paul is arguing that he has been consistent in his loyalty to the Jewish hope, whereas vv. 7-8 imply that his opponents are strangely inconsistent; what the people earnestly desire, the focus of their hope, is rejected when it arrives."926
When Paul referred to his nation (v. 4), he may have had the province of Cilicia or the Jewish community in Tarsus in mind. Personal maintenance of ritual purity and strict tithing marked the lives of Pharisees primarily (v. 5). Paul's mention of the 12 tribes of Israel (v. 7) shows that he did not believe that 10 of the tribes became lost, as some cults today claim (cf. 2:9; Matt. 19:28; Luke 2:26; 22:30; James 1:1; Rev. 7:4; 21:12).927
26:8 Paul's reference to the resurrection was appropriate because Jesus' identification as the Messiah depended on His resurrection. None of Paul's hearers could reasonably doubt the resurrection of the dead since God had raised Jesus from the dead.
26:9-11 As a Pharisaic Jew Paul had opposed the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. He had disbelieved in the resurrection of Jesus who did not seem to fit the scriptural image of that Savior. "Cast my vote"(v. 10) may be metaphorical (cf. 8:1; 22:20) or, less likely, literal. There is no evidence that Paul was ever a member of the Sanhedrin, but he could have voted to punish Christians in lower courts such as the ones that existed in local synagogues. Paul tried to force Christians to blaspheme by getting them to say that Jesus was not the Christ or by getting them to curse Him (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). He was so zealous for his errant belief that he even pursued Christians to foreign cities to persecute them.
"The great Christians have never been afraid to point to themselves as living and walking examples of the power of Christ. The gospel to them was not a form of words; it was not a form of intellectual belief; it was a power unto salvation. It is true that a man can never change himself; but it is also gloriously true that what he cannot do, Jesus Christ can do for him."928
26:12-14 Luke recorded that Paul added two new bits of information that he had not mentioned in his previous testimonies (v. 14). On the Damascus road the Lord had spoken to him in Aramaic, probably to confirm to Paul that the One addressing him was the God of the Jews.
Goads were sharp sticks used to drive cattle. The figure of kicking against goads was and is a common rural metaphor that describes opposing the inevitable (like "banging your head against a wall"). Such action only hurts the one doing it, not the object of his hostility. This was the case in Paul's antagonism to God that his persecution of Christians expressed.
"In the Greek world this was a well-known expression for opposition to deity (cf. Euripides Bacchanals794-95; Aeschylus Prometheus Bound324-25; Agamemnon1624; Pindar Pythia2.94-95; Terence Phormio1.2.27). Paul may have picked it up in Tarsus or during his missionary journeys. He used it here to show his Greek-oriented audience the implications of the question Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' Lest he be misunderstood as proclaiming only a Galilean prophet he had formerly opposed, he pointed out to his hearers what was obvious to any Jew: correction by a voice from heaven meant opposition to God himself. So he used a current expression familiar to Agrippa and the others . . ."929
Paul related his conversion experience on this occasion very graphically, and he stressed the significance of these events.
26:15-17 Paul brought Jesus' words on the Damascus road (cf. 9:5-6; 22:8, 10), His instructions through Ananias (cf. 22:14-15), and His command in Paul's Jerusalem vision (cf. 22:18-21) together here. He did so to summarize and to stress the divine commission that Jesus Christ gave him concerning his particular mission in life (cf. Jer. 1:7-8; Ezek. 2:1, 3). His reference to being sent to Gentiles would have drawn a favorable reaction from his Gentile audience.
"Paul's language here becomes noticeably more biblical; he sees his call as a commission to become one of God's prophets like Ezekiel or Jeremiah and to share the role of the Servant of Yahweh."930
26:18 This verse recalls the divine commission of Messiah (cf. Isa. 35:5; 42:6-7, 16). It is one of the best summary statements of not only Paul's mission but also the mission of every believer (cf. Matt. 28:19-20; Col. 1:12-14). The sanctification in view is positional; God sets a person apart for a special purpose when he or she trusts Christ.
Paul had gone to Damascus as the apostle (i.e., sent one) of the Sanhedrin. He returned as the apostle of Jesus Christ.931
26:19-20 We should probably understand verse 20 as a general description of Paul's ministry rather than as a strictly chronological reference in view of 9:20-30 and Galatians 1:18-24.
"Repent"again means essentially to change the mind. Note the distinction between repenting and performing deeds appropriate to repentance that Paul made in verse 20.
"What is repentance? It is a complete change of attitude. It is a right-about-face. Here is a man who is going on living in open, flagrant sin, and he does not care anything about the things of God and is totally indifferent to the claims of righteousness. But laid hold of by the Spirit of God, that man suddenly comes face to face with his sins in the presence of God, and he turns right-about-face and comes to the God he has been spurning and to the Christ he has been rejecting and he confesses his sins and puts his trust in the Savior. All this is involved in repentance.
"Here is another man. He is not living in open sin, but he has been living a very religious life. He has been very self-righteous. He has been thoroughly satisfied that because of his own goodness and because of his punctilious attention to his religious duties, God will accept him and eventually take him to be with Himself. But suddenly he is brought to realize that all his own righteousnesses are as filthy rags, that nothing he can do will make him fit for God's presence, and he faces this honestly before God. For him too there is a change of attitude. He turns away from all confidence in self, the flesh, his religion, and cries: In my hand no price I bring; simply to thy cross I cling.' This is repentance. It is a right-about-face."932
26:21 "For this reason"refers to Paul's preaching to Gentiles (v. 20). Paul did not explain here exactly what he preached to the Gentiles, namely that they could obtain salvation simply by faith in Christ. This message is what infuriated the Jews and led to Paul's arrest. Nevertheless Paul did give his hearers enough information about Jesus Christ so they could believe in Him.
26:22-23 God had stood by Paul and had helped him, as He had promised (v. 22; cf v. 17). Paul preached a message thoroughly in harmony with Israel's faith (cf. 3:18; 17:3). Verse 23 may be Luke's condensation of Paul's exposition of many Old Testament messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled (e.g., Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 53:10; 60:3). Many of the Jews rejected the ideas of a suffering Messiah, His resurrection from the dead, and direct ministry to Gentiles, but Paul found support for these in the Old Testament.
26:24 Paul's knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures impressed Festus, added confirmation that Paul probably said more than Luke chose to record here. The Greek words ta polla . . . grammata, translated "great learning"(lit. the many writings), indicate that it was Paul's knowledge of the Scriptures that impressed Festus, not his general knowledge. However the governor did not understand the significance of Paul's beliefs. To him they seemed incomprehensible. He concluded that Paul was a zealous obscurantist and a bit crazy to risk his life defending such foolish ideas.
"Festus' comment sounds like an interruption while Paul is still in full spate, but in fact the speech has reached its conclusion."933
"Down through the ages Festus's response has been echoed by men and women too trapped by the natural to be open to the supernatural, too confined by the practical' to care about life everlasting."934
Some of Jesus' accusers also thought that He was mad. People sometimes think that we are mad when we explain the gospel to them and urge them to believe in the Lord.
26:25-27 Paul asserted that what Festus called madness was true and reasonable. What had not been done in a corner (v. 26) was the fulfillment of prophecy by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the preaching of the gospel. Jesus' ministry was well known in Palestine. "Done in a corner"was another Greek idiom of the day.935If Agrippa believed the prophets, Paul believed he could not help concluding that Jesus fulfilled what they predicted. Paul was backing the king into a corner. All of this was beyond Festus, but Agrippa knew the issues, and Paul was aiming his presentation of the gospel at him primarily. The accused had now become the accuser.
26:28 Agrippa was now on the spot. If he agreed with Paul or even appeared to agree, he would have lost face with Festus as well as the rest of the Romans present. Festus had just said he thought Paul was mad. On the other hand, if Agrippa said he did not believe the prophets, his influence over his Jewish hearers and subjects would have ended. Consequently Agrippa replied noncommittally, "You are trying to make a Christian out of me in such a short interview!"His response does not mean that he was on the verge of becoming a Christian, as the AV translation implies: "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian."
"The reply is light-hearted, but not ironic."936
26:29 Paul responded to the king very politely but firmly. He wished that all his hearers, not just Agrippa, might become Christians. Paul's reference to his chains may have been literal--he may have been wearing chains as he spoke--or perhaps metaphorical--he may have been referring to his condition as a prisoner. I am not aware of any evidence that Agrippa ever became a Christian.
"The speech before King Agrippa is more than a defense speech. It begins as a defense speech (cf. v. 1), and it develops aspects of previous defense speeches, but its functions are broader. It combines themes from the defense speeches with themes from the earlier narrative, reaching back to the missions of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, and fashions these into a summary statement of Paul's place in the unfolding purpose of God. Then Paul continues his mission before our eyes as his review of his past message becomes present proclamation, ending with a missionary appeal to King Agrippa."937
By rising to his feet Agrippa signaled the end of the hearing. Everyone else rose out of respect for him. Luke implied that everyone present concurred that Paul was completely innocent. This had previously been the verdict of the Pharisees (23:9), Claudius Lysias (23:29), and Festus (25:25). Now Agrippa, a Roman ruler with Jewish blood in his veins who was sympathetic to the Jews, voiced the same opinion (v. 32). In Agrippa's opinion Paul did not even need to be in prison, much less die for what he had done.
"The effect of the scene as a whole is to emphasize the uprightness of Roman legal proceedings over against the partiality and injustice of the Jews, and to show that, when measured by Roman law, Paul's behavior appeared to be free from any guilt; mad he might appear to be, but not a criminal. There is tremendous emphasis on the climax: This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.'"938
"It may finally be asked whether Luke was justified in devoting so much of his limited space to Paul's examinations before the various tribunals of Rome. Paul's case, it should be remembered, was a test case. If he was finally acquitted, and the Pastoral Epistles are solid evidence that he was, Luke's final purpose is clear."939
