Paul's Credentials as a Jew
Acts 26:1-8
The hearing of Paul’s case before Festus and Agrippa was now underway. In attendance were all the notable citizens of Caesarea, including the chief officers of the Roman army. Festus had already opened the hearing by asking Agrippa what formal charges should confront Paul when he appeared before the emperor’s court in Rome (Acts 25:24–27). Agrippa responded by inviting Paul to speak in his own defense.
Paul stretched forth his hand, no doubt in a salute expressing respect for the mighty rulers before him.1 Though chained (see v. 29 below), he was able to move his arm. He then began his speech in a manner exactly appropriate to the occasion. Without sinking into flattery, he expressed gratitude that Agrippa had consented to hear his case, for he knew that Agrippa was an expert on all questions important to the Jews. He implied that from such a man he could expect sympathy and fairness. Many commentators have noted that in this speech before Agrippa, Paul departed from his usual style and adopted a language that was highly formal and literary.2
Paul started off by countering the accusation that Christianity was an illegal sect. As we have noted before, Jewish religion had been granted legal standing by the Romans. The Jews therefore had a right to pursue their religious customs without fear of Roman censure or interference. In answer to the Jewish leaders who portrayed Paul's religion as something outside the law, Paul declared that from the beginning of his life, he had always been loyal to his heritage as a Jew. His enemies, if they were willing to tell the truth, could be called as witnesses to verify this claim. They could confirm that in his "manner of life," he was "from his youth," and presumably until now, a Pharisee. Therefore, he was, so far as Roman law was concerned, still within the fold of Jewish religion.
Paul then focused on the chief point of contention between himself and his adversaries—whether Jesus rose from the dead. Paul did not actually refer to Jesus' resurrection. Rather, he alluded to it when he said that he was standing on trial because he held to "the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers." The hope that he meant was the hope of living again after death, the same hope that had always motivated the people of Israel to serve God diligently, lest they fail to qualify for the resurrection of the just. When the early church supported this hope by proclaiming that one man had already risen from the dead, it was positioning itself in the mainstream of Jewish religion. Paul went no further in affirming Jesus’ resurrection except to ask Agrippa the simple question, why would you find it incredible?
Paul's Role in Persecuting the Church
Acts 26:9-11
Paul continued by rehearsing the events leading up to his own conversion. His initial outlook on the way of Jesus was antagonism, soon becoming so inflamed that he vigorously persecuted the church. With authority granted by the high priests, he shut up many saints in jail. When they were tried as offenders worthy of death, he "gave his voice"—in other words, cast his vote3—against them. By implying that he belonged to a deliberative body, his wording strongly supports our conclusion earlier, when we discussed the sad events reported in Acts 7, that he belonged to the Sanhedrin.4 The same chapter in Acts informs us that Paul then consented to the death of one man, Stephen (Acts 7:58), but now in Caesarea, the apostle’s choice of a plural pronoun when he confessed, "they were put to death," suggests that he had a hand in the martyrdom of others as well.
He was so relentless in oppressing believers in Christ that he went from synagogue to synagogue to root them out and punish them. He even "compelled them" to blaspheme—that is, blaspheme against Christ, not against the God that Paul thought he was serving. His wording does not, however, indicate that he succeeded in perverting their faith. A better translation is, "tried to compel them."5
Finally, his zeal became so all-consuming that he sought to eradicate the church in places far removed from Jerusalem. Again, the plural form of a word gives us new insight, for he said that he carried his campaign of persecution not just to one city, but to "cities." Therefore, Damascus was not the first place he went as a persecutor. Churches in other places had already felt his wrath.
Paul's Conversion
Acts 26:12-19
But on his way to Damascus, his life changed. In the next portion of the speech, Paul retold the story of his conversion, giving us the third rendition found in the Book of Acts. But at this time he added some details missing in the other accounts. He said that suddenly he was engulfed by a great light. The other accounts do not remark on its brightness except to say that it was great. Now Paul revealed that its brightness exceeded the sun. Like John, who also saw the glorified Christ (Rev. 1:16), Paul could not think of any other suitable comparison.
Getting Practical
Exceeding glory
Glory like a sun is not the possession of Christ alone, but will be the inheritance of all saints (Matt. 13:43).
Another new detail divulged by this account of Paul's conversion is that the great light smote the whole company of travelers to the ground. An earlier account says that the others stood speechless while Paul conversed with the Lord (Acts 9:7). We may assume that Luke would not have given us both accounts in their present wording if he saw a contradiction. An easy way to harmonize them is to suppose that after the light struck them all down, the others soon regained their feet while Paul remained prostrate.6
Paul said that he then heard a voice speaking to him. In a further expansion of earlier accounts, he specified which language the Lord used. He spoke to Paul in "Hebrew," doubtless, as in Acts 21:40, a reference to Aramaic, the common tongue in first-century Palestine.7 Perhaps Paul added this detail to alert his hearers that his report of Jesus’ words would not be an exact quotation. If so, he was being sensitive to the special need of precise wording in a legal setting. Yet in one detail he gave exactly what Jesus said. No doubt as a precious memory, he recalled the term of address. The Lord said "Saoul, Saoul," using his Hebrew name rather than his Greek name Saulos.8 This bridge to his true, innermost identity was a deeply loving touch. Also, the repetition of his name was an affirmation of the speaker's own identity, for it was reminiscent of how the Lord had spoken to others (Gen. 22:11; 46:2; 1 Sam. 3:1–8).
The Lord's words were somewhat more extended than we would deduce from the other accounts, which omit any reference to Paul's future service for Christ. Yet we should not suspect that he is combining the message he heard on the road to Damascus with some message he heard later, such as during his first visit to the Temple after His conversion (Acts 22:18-21), for he says next that he "was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision [singular]."9 He therefore remembered the vision on the road as the source of the divine commission governing his life. Already on that occasion, Paul learned what his work would be. He would carry the gospel to the gentiles. The life-shaping significance of his first encounter with the Lord is clearly affirmed in Galatians, his earliest epistle (Gal. 1:1, 15–16).10
Yet in traveling far from his own nation and preaching to multitudes alien to his own people, he would not be turning against the Jews and becoming their enemy. Rather, he would be God’s instrument for showing mercy to people besides the Jews. God wished to open the eyes of gentiles, thereby turning them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to the power of God, so that they too might receive eternal life. In Christ’s wording, He revealed that Paul would have a primary role in fulfilling the commission which the Father had laid on Christ Himself. This commission, also declaring God’s intent to open the eyes of gentiles and bring them to the light, was first revealed seven centuries earlier to the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–9, especially vv. 6, 7). The Father then spoke of Christ as the servant in whom He delighted (v. 1). During His earthly ministry, Jesus identified Himself as the light of the world (John 8:12).
His Career in Retrospect
Acts 26:20-23
No doubt with a ring of triumph in his voice, Paul then declared that he had fulfilled the solemn task Christ bequeathed to him. He had not failed to obey the heavenly vision, but had carried the gospel to places far and wide.
Getting Practical
Keeping our focus away from the past
Paul's statement that he had faithfully carried out his calling is similar to others we find in his writings (2 Tim. 4:7). His confidence that he had compiled a record that God will approve on the Day of Judgment is a rebuke to us. Can any of us speak with the same confidence? Probably not. Probably all of us who have served God for many years can remember how we have failed Him. What is the remedy? We find the remedy also in Paul's writings (Phil. 3:12-15). It is that we should forget the past and look to the future.
To rehearse accomplishments in ministry was altogether appropriate when Paul was defending himself in a court of law. But generally it is not profitable to dwell upon our past record, whether good or bad. The only record that need concern us now is the one starting with today.
As Paul reviewed his life of service, he remembered that he preached Christ "to those first in Damascus, and Jerusalem, and to all the country of Judea, and to the nations [gentiles11]."12 His message had always been the same. He had urged his hearers to come into a right relationship with God by repenting of their sins and living lives devoted to good works. Paul stressed the good works that Christians do because he was addressing two leaders of government. He wanted them to understand that Christians are good citizens.
Pondering a Question
When did Paul evangelize Judea?
Paul’s statement that he had preached Christ throughout Judea has befuddled scholars, since the Book of Acts does not include Judea among the regions touched by his missionary journeys.13 Yet we do find many passing references to time he spent in Judea during his travels: on his mission with Barnabas to provide famine relief in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25); on his trips before and after his attendance at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2, 25–30); on his visit to Jerusalem after his second missionary journey (Acts 18:22), and on his final trip to Jerusalem (Acts 21:15). It is very possible that some of these comings and goings from the capital city were leisurely rides or walks with many stops along the way, giving Paul an opportunity to proclaim the gospel.
Delving Still Deeper
Words dropped or inserted by CT
In verse 20, TR says, literally, "But to those in Damascus first also Jerusalem, and to all the region of Judaea and to the nations, declaring to repent and to turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance."14 CT says, literally, "But to those in Damascus first and also Jerusalem, and all the region of Judaea and to the nations, declaring to repent and to turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance."15 There are two key differences in the Greek. CT omits εις ("to") before "all the region of Judaea" but adds τε ("and") before "Jerusalem."
F. F. Bruce, generally a supporter of CT, admits that the omission of εις is "corrupt or solecistic,"16 a conclusion forced upon him because the omission leaves the succeeding phrase in the wrong grammatical case (accusative).17 The textual authority James Ropes went so far as to say, "As Greek, the text without εις is hardly tolerable. The omission may be a very ancient accidental error."18
The addition of τε is less problematic, yet diminishes the contrast that Paul apparently intended to draw between his outreach immediately after his conversion (to Damascus and Jerusalem) and his outreach in later years (to the rest of the Jewish and gentile worlds). A possible translation of verse 20 is, "But to those first in Damascus and Jerusalem."
To counter the accusations brought against him, Paul showed that his enemies were insincere. All their attempts to characterize him as an evildoer were a smokescreen for their real complaint—that they did not like his preaching. Now it was evident why Paul had just summarized his preaching as prodding men to good works. He wanted the rulers before him to see how unreasonable the Jews were. These Jews sought to condemn a man whose only offense was that he worked diligently to turn men from wickedness to righteousness.
Yet, as Paul went on to say, his enemies had not been able to stop him. In Jerusalem, God intervened to save his life, and with God's help Paul was still preaching the same message he had always preached. What was that message? It was to declare fulfillment of all of the Old Testament Scriptures which look ahead to three momentous events: (1) Christ would suffer and die, (2) He would rise again from the grave, and (3) He would send light—that is, the knowledge of how to be saved—to both Jews and gentiles (Isa. 49:6). Implicit in Paul's words was the claim that Christ was the man Jesus.
Hardness of Proud Hearts
Acts 26:24-29
Festus had heard enough. He interrupted Paul with a loud voice, accusing him of being crazy. He attributed Paul's dementia to much learning. From his sneering outburst in objection to Paul's message, we can draw some obvious conclusions. First, Paul must have displayed the speech and bearing of a learned man. Even a ruler accustomed to men trying to impress him could see that Paul was a person of rare accomplishments. Second, Festus must have been a hardheaded skeptic with no use for supernatural religion. Earlier, he characterized Jewish beliefs as superstition. Now, he said that Paul was crazy, no doubt because he could think of no other way to explain Paul's vision of Christ.
Paul calmly brushed aside the charge. He replied that he spoke words of truth and "sobriety," the latter term bearing the sense "soundness of mind."19 Paul was simply denying the charge that Festus had just leveled against him. Yet to soften his rebuke of Festus, he called him "most noble." Then, evidently because he did not feel that further dialogue with Festus would be profitable, he paid him no further attention and turned rather to Agrippa. He must have hoped that the king's heart would prove to be softer than the heart of Festus.
Paul was not content simply to defend himself. He wanted to persuade his hearers, especially Agrippa, to believe in Christ. However, issuing a gospel invitation to a king required great delicacy. Paul started by expressing the conviction that Agrippa already knew a great deal about "these things," undoubtedly referring to the beginnings and beliefs of the church as well as to the role of Paul in spreading the new faith throughout the gentile world. Therefore, without hearing more from Paul, Agrippa was already in a position to declare his view of Jesus. But instead of asking Agrippa about Jesus directly, Paul posed a different question. He asked whether Agrippa believed the prophets. To encourage an affirmative answer, Paul immediately expressed his confidence that Agrippa did believe them. Agrippa’s support of Jewish religion was in fact a feature of his public policy.20 He himself had some Jewish blood,21 and one of his official duties granted by the Romans was to appoint the Jewish high priest.22 In contrast to the decadence of his private life, he put on an outward show of religious piety. Yet Paul's willingness to call him a believer in the prophets suggests that the king was not altogether a hypocrite. The apostle was evidently trying to stir some longing for truth in Agrippa's heart, to encourage some glimmers of awakening faith.
But Agrippa escaped the net of love that the great fisherman of souls was spreading about him. He responded, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." "Almost" does not appear in the Greek.23 The meaning of his words has been much debated, for they are cryptic, to say the least. A literal translation runs as follows, "In a little you persuade me to become a Christian."24 The best guide to their meaning lies in Paul's response. He said, again according to a literal translation, "I would wish to God, both in a little and in much, not only thou but also all those hearing me this day should become such as I also [or simply 'as I'25] am, except these bonds."26 Both "little" and "much" clearly speak of similarity to Paul. So, Paul seems to have construed Agrippa's meaning to be this: "You persuade me in a little [that is, in a few matters or beliefs, or in a little measure or degree] to become a Christian." Other interpretations, since they make Paul's answer irrelevant or twist it to make it relevant, put Paul in the place of misjudging the man. But Agrippa was a well-known figure, not a perfect stranger, and Paul was a man of discernment. Also, Paul was present at the scene and could observe many nonverbal signs of the man's attitude. Of chief significance is that the Holy Spirit was helping Paul to say what was appropriate and needful (Matt. 10:17–20). Thus, we may be confident that the correct interpretation of Agrippa's words is the one Paul himself reached.
Delving Still Deeper
Other interpretations
Quite a few have been put forward.
- "In a little" means "in a short time."27 The reference is either to the brief time span of the speech that Paul has just given or to the brief time span of further delay before Agrippa will be persuaded. In the latter case, a proper translation would be "soon."28
- It means "to summarize" or "briefly."29 The same Greek words in Ephesians 3:3 are translated "in few words."30 If any of these is a correct translation, they probably refer to Agrippa’s answer. He may in fact be contrasting his words with Paul’s. He may even be saying that Paul’s speech has been overlong.
- It means "with little argument" or "with little effort."31 This interpretation is favored by most New Testament scholars today.
A correct translation does not, however, remove all uncertainty as to Agrippa's meaning. His words could have been ironic, perhaps with overtones of sarcasm which would have been evident in his tone of voice. So understood, he is echoing Festus’s contempt for Paul’s message. Also, his words could have been framed as a question. Again, his tone of voice would have revealed their intent. But Luke, likely an observer on the scene and, if not, certainly with access to firsthand accounts, gives them as a simple declarative statement and adds no comment. If the king had meant them as irony or inquiry, Luke was surely obliged to clarify their meaning. Otherwise he was guilty of dishonest or at least irresponsible reporting, for he was withholding light that the reader needs to ascertain the true sense of the king's words. We might even accuse him of doctoring facts to make the king look somewhat favorable to Paul's message.
Yet it is possible that the king was speaking judicially.32 That is, he was simply offering a sober review of Paul's message so far. Yet the context does not support this interpretation.
Agrippa's words were in answer to Paul's question, "Do you believe the prophets?" It is therefore reasonable to suppose that Luke records both question and answer because the answer was in fact Agrippa's statement of what he believed. Indeed, when putting his question to Agrippa, Paul claimed to know that the right answer was, "Yes." We may assume that Paul, speaking under the Spirit's direction, was giving a correct picture of Agrippa's heart. Some adherence to religious faith was certainly this man's public stance, and, according to Paul, it was not merely pretense. If Paul misjudged the man and Agrippa did not believe the prophets, the king might have said, "No," or he might have dodged the question for political reasons. Yet his actual answer was quite different. It might be rephrased, "You have shown me that in some measure I can accept your Christian beliefs." We cannot dismiss his words as mere political posturing, for to take even a small step toward the Christian sect would have alienated a larger constituency, the Jews.
Paul's response to Agrippa is also enlightening. To make the apostle's statement fit their interpretation, some scholars have argued that the Greek for "both almost, and altogether" (literally, "both in a little and in much") carries the idea "either with few words or with many,"33 or "whether it takes a short time or a long time."34 In reply to Agrippa’s comment, Paul was supposedly saying that he sought decisions for Christ whether they arose from a brief presentation of the truth, such as he had just given, or an extended presentation. But this reading refuses to look below the surface.
- Paul's response is downright peculiar if he meant that the value of a gospel message depended on its results rather than on its length. That would be a belaboring of the obvious.
- The Greek words these scholars render as "either . . . or" or "whether . . . or" are kai . . . kai.35 But neither rendering is a standard translation. The KJV shuns both in all places where the twin connectives appear in the New Testament.36 Rather, in dozens of places it equates them to "both . . . and,"37 which we can justly regard as their ordinary meaning. Therefore, in the text we are now considering, kai . . . kai clearly signify degrees of similarity to Paul rather than alternative ways of presenting a gospel message.
- Luke's purpose, as we have often said, was to build a record of Paul's ministry that would aid his defense in Rome. He included the comments of both Festus and Agrippa because they put Paul in a good light. Although Festus surely meant to be insulting, he nevertheless certified Paul as a highly learned man. Agrippa's comment was helpful to Paul only if he was saying that in some measure he shared or respected Paul's beliefs.
Thus, no interpretation that sidesteps Agrippa's limited endorsement of Christianity fits the context.
Many modern scholars are prone to twisted interpretations because they tend to see the apostles and other early Christians as an inferior species, both superstitious and pragmatically careless in their handling of facts. We get a better picture of what happened in Caesarea if we listen to Luke and Paul rather than to skeptical publish-or-perish academicians.
Fashionable unbelief forces these scholars off track in two judgments especially. They cannot admit the mighty work that God had done through Paul before the events recorded in Acts 28. As a result, they underestimate his stature in the eyes of his judges. Also, they cannot admit that as a vehicle of divine power, his words were convicting enough to make an ungodly king hover on the edge of conversion.
Getting Practical
"Almost Persuaded"
This title of an old and well-beloved gospel song is based on Agrippa's words to Paul. For generations, preachers used it at the close of gospel messages to encourage decisions for Christ, and its value was proven by results. Sadly, many recent commentators on the Book of Acts have lamented the song's popularity in days past on the grounds that it misrepresents what really happened. Agrippa, they say, did not seriously consider Paul's message.
Is that true? If we have understood his words correctly—"You have shown me that in some measure I can accept your Christian beliefs"—he certainly seems under conviction. Characterizing his heart as "almost persuaded" is by no means far-fetched.
God's blessing on this song as an evangelistic tool surely overrides any doubt that it is appropriate, for God is no compromiser in matters of principle. In His arsenal of weapons for spiritual warfare, He keeps nothing less than perfect truth.
How deeply Agrippa was touched by Paul’s testimony, we do not know. In his desire to hear Paul speak, in his partially agreeable answer to Paul, and in his clemency toward Paul, we find solid evidence that he was wrestling with the claims of Christ. But sadly, when viewed by itself, his last statement does not mean that he was taking the momentous step of saving faith. In fact, he did not become a changed man. The reason is that he, like many others who come under conviction, suffered from an unbreakable hardness of heart. A life of unbridled self-indulgence had eroded his guilt for sin and his sense of need for a Savior. Now, at the climactic moment in the history of his soul, he could not reach out and take eternal life at the expense of admitting he was a sinner.
The closing words of Paul's testimony, expressing his solemn desire before God that not only Agrippa, but his whole audience, were Christians like himself, breathe sad resignation to the unbelief all around him. We can imagine that he said them almost with tears.
Hollow Vindication
Acts 26:30-32
Having heard enough to satisfy them, the rulers brought the hearing to an end. They rose from their seats and went aside to compare their reactions and consider their options. They all agreed that Paul was innocent—he had not done anything to warrant arrest and imprisonment. Much less had he done anything to warrant trial and conviction on a capital charge. How then should his case be handled? Agrippa offered his judgment that they had no decision to make. Paul had taken other options off the table by appealing to Caesar. Perhaps Agrippa was unaware that Festus had left Paul no choice. If Paul had allowed a trial to proceed in Caesarea with Festus serving as judge, he had little prospect of a just verdict. So, appealing to Caesar was the rational course to take.
Now, as Agrippa and everyone else well understood, there was no legal room to release Paul. As we have said before, it was viewed as seriously dishonoring Caesar to resolve a case that had been formally committed to his judgment.38 Festus's only remaining role was to send the prisoner to Rome with an adequate summary of the case against him.39
Pondering a Question
How did Luke know what the two rulers said to each other?
Luke's comment, "When they were gone aside, they talked between themselves," does not disallow the possibility that other men stood by and heard what they said. The witnesses might have been personal attendants, or dignitaries invited to the hearing. Someone in the group might have been a sympathizer with the Christian cause who later reported the words of the rulers to Paul or Paul's circle.
Delving Deeper
The purpose of Acts
Luke's fairly detailed record of Paul's trials in Caesarea strongly supports the hypothesis that the Book of Acts was written to assist Paul's defense in Rome. Of special relevance would be an accurate judicial history of the case. Luke is at pains to include every pronouncement by the court in Paul's favor. He therefore quotes the remark of Festus that he is at a loss to write any charge against Paul (Acts 25:26–27), as well as Agrippa's observation that the man would be eligible for release except for his appeal to Caesar (v. 32).
Getting Practical
Strong foundation
Indeed, we sometimes overlook one of the strongest arguments for the truth of our Christian faith. The argument is, why not? Is there any work or wonder we cannot assign to God because it is too incredible? The Bible is far from being a record of impossibilities if God is real and good and all-powerful.
We can take the same view of God’s promises. Is there any promise we should doubt because it is too incredible? Again, He would fail to keep it only if He is not real and good and all-powerful. Let us approach every promise we find in His Word with the simple faith wonderfully expressed in the question, why not?