22-23 The Scene
In this chapter Luke introduces us to another prominent figure in the history of the Jews in the First Century: Herod Agrippa II. About him F. F. Bruce gives the following helpful summary:
“After the death of his father, Herod Agrippa I, in A.D. 44 the younger Agrippa, then seventeen years old, was judged by Claudius and his advisers too immature to be appointed king of the Jews in his place, but he was given a less unmanageable district farther north to rule with the title of king, and at the present time his kingdom comprised the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, east and north of the Lake of Galilee, together with the cities of Tiberius and Tarichaeae west of the Lake, and Julias in Peraea, with their surrounding villages. His capital was Caesarea Philippi (now Banyas), which he renamed Neronias as a compliment to the Emperor Nero. In addition to his royal dignity, he enjoyed from AD 48 to 66 the privilege of appointing (and deposing) high priests of Israel” (Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free 364-65).This hearing was held in the ἀκροατήριον audience hall (Lat. auditorium) of the procurator, of the palace in Caesarea with much pageantry (μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας) and ceremony.
“Luke describes Agrippa and Bernice as entering the audience chamber of Herod the great’s palace in Caesarea 'with great pomp,' accompanied by a procession of 'high ranking officers and the leading men of the city.' The Romans always knew how to process well. The sight of Agrippa’s royal robes, Bernice’s finery, and the military and civil dignitaries decked out in their official attire doubtless overwhelmed those unaccustomed to such displays” (NIV Comm.).
"With all the high–ranking officers and the leading men of the city present as well as the king and queen, this provided the new governor with what today would be considered a ‘photo opportunity’" (IVP-NBC).Paul, then, has been brought to speak before King Agrippa and others so they might help Festus know what to write in his letter of report. Paul has especially been brought before Agrippa, so that after Paul has been examined by the entire body, Festus will be better prepared to make his report, called litterae dimissoriae sive apostoli (in Digest 49.6.1).
The contrast between the spectacular display of royal attire and Roman military on the one hand and Paul’s appearing in ordinary clothes and bound with a chain must have been striking. Luke undoubtedly wishes us to see the irony. Paul serves a much more glorious king, the risen Jesus.
“The pretense that Festus needs still an other hearing so that he could have something definite to write in a letter accompanying Paul to Rome is transparent (Acts 25:26). He surely had enough of the ‘facts’ (such as they were) by this time. But we are to understand in his deference and referral to Agrippa a very clever political maneuver. Agrippa II and his sister Bernice were, after all, the perfect powers to consult and co-opt. On one side they represented the Jews. On the other side, they were ardent clients of the Roman state, and familiar with Caesar's family” (Johnson, Acts 427f).The scene and the portrayal of the key characters is thoroughly authentic. Festus acts precisely as a moderately educated upwardly mobile Roman provincial governor would. Unlike both Paul and Agrippa, he is thoroughly pagan, but diplomatic, polite, sensitive to the beliefs of those he attempts to govern, and politically savvy. His language is politically correct: referring to the emperor Nero in v. 25 as “the revered (or august) one” (Greek τὸν Σεβαστὸν, = Roman Augustus), and in v. 26 as “the lord” (τῷ κυρίῳ), implying the emperor’s divine status claimed by Nero and his successors (not “my lord” as in ESV; NIV’s “His Majesty” comes a little closer to the idea). There is a good deal of posturing and play-acting going on, but Luke does not overdraw it so as to make fun of these prominent people.
“Paul is therefore placed before a first century ‘show trial’ that is part entertainment for the guests, part a subtle political maneuver. Indeed, Agrippa and Bernice are made to play for Festus exactly the role taken by Herod in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:6-12). For the Jewish king, there is the reward of political flattery and deference: the Romans recognize his importance! For the procurator, there is a sharing of responsibility: that's what friends are for (see Luke 23:12)!” (Johnson 428).
24-25 Festus explains his previous actions regarding Paul
26-27 Festus explains “why we are here today”.
He needs something to write to Nero, in particular he needs specific charges against Paul. In a Jewish trial the defendant was not obligated to say anything in his own defense, lest he inadvertently incriminate himself: the burden of proof was always on the accusers, who had to produce two or more witnesses whose testimony agreed fully. But in a Roman trial the accused could be required to speak. Paul understood that, as did Agrippa.
26:1-23 Paul’s speech before Agrippa
1-3 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: 2 “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.1-3 Opening words of Paul to Agrippa. Polite and confident. Paul had every reason to expect a fair hearing from Agrippa, who even better than Felix had knowledge of the Jewish religious reasons for the charges against him. With all the hypersensitivity today toward ethnic slurs, a reader today would wonder why Paul (who is himself a Jew), speaking to Agrippa (likewise a Jew) calls his accusers “the Jews” (v. 2-3). But there is no denigration implied by this usage. And in the first instance (v. 2) the Greek lacks the definite article, so that it should be translated not “accusations of the Jews (as a group)”, but “accusations lodged by Jews”, meaning accusations of actions violating specifically Jewish religious laws, not Roman civil ones. Paul wants a fair and informed decision, not a rash and emotional one.
In v. 3 Paul acknowledges Agrippa’s familiarity with Jewish customs (ἐθοι) and controversies (ζητήματα). Both are important: the customs (matters all Jews agreed upon), since Paul was accused of violating Jewish purity laws, and the controversies (matters which distinguished the various sects within Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, etc), since Paul has claimed — and will do so again — that it is the Sadducean denial of the doctrine of resurrection that lies at the base of the charges against him and the rejection of the fundamental fact of Paul’s gospel: the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Though he stands in the presence of a whole hall-full of dignitaries, Jewish and Roman, it is to the Jewish King Agrippa, that Paul specifically directs his remarks and his arguments. Several times he addresses Agrippa directly with rhetorical questions (vv. 7-8, 13, 19, 26-27).
4 “The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5 They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7 This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. 8 Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? 9 “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.As he explained previously in his defense against the Jewish prosecutor Tertullus, Paul’s argues the improbability of the charges against him in the light of his well-known previous behavior, not just in the past two years of his life but from childhood. Though born in Tarsus, Paul had spent his childhood and young adulthood in Jerusalem, where he had studied under Gamaliel, one of the most highly-regarded rabbis of his day. Paul's life from his youth up was well known to the Jewish populace, and in fact that in defense of orthodox Judaism he had led the persecution of the believers in Jesus (verses 9 and following).
And against the charge that he has made a complete turnabout he insists that it is the very doctrine which forms the center of Pharisaism, as opposed to Sadducee beliefs—namely the resurrection of the dead—that led him to faith in the resurrected Jesus! It is Paul, not his opponents, who is the true Pharisee! His challenging question in v. 8 “Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?” was directed to a mixed audience of Jewish Sadducees, Pharisees and pagan Romans. All but the Pharisees would definitely reject the idea. Pagan Greeks and Romans acknowledged that the soul survived after death, but thought ridiculous the idea that a dead and decayed body could be restored to life.
It should be observed that the Sadducees rejected resurrection not because they believed God was powerless to raise dead people, but because they believed that there was no evidence in the Pentateuch that he ever did so or intended to do so in the future. To the Sadducees, the rest of our Old Testament was not inspired Scripture on the same level as the books of Moses.
9-11 Paul describes his earlier opposition to the Christians, which he even characterizes as an “obsession” (v. 11 NIV, περισσῶς ἐμμαινόμενος, cf. μαίνομαι “be driven to insanity by a god”). As this former obsession drove Paul to go to foreign cities to suppress Christianity, so his new obsession (cf. what Festus says in v. 24 εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει) drives him all over the Greco-Roman world to spread the Christian gospel. Paul is arguing that, despite the apparent complete reversal of his life course, there is in fact a deep, underlying continuity. The continuity is the desire to follow the God of Israel, who has now shown himself fully in the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, whom he raised from the dead. Paul in not insane: he is wholly committed to the faith of his fathers.
“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and 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 goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21 That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22 But I have had God’s help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”In vv. 12-18 Paul reaches the climax of his story: the light from heaven and the voice of the resurrected and ascended Jesus appointing him as a “servant and witness” to “what you have seen of me and what I will show you”. Paul went to Damascus “with the authority and commission of the chief priests” (some of whom were sitting there hearing Paul now), but now he has gone throughout Syria, Asia Minor and Greece, and hopes to go to Rome with the authority and commission of the ascended Jesus. To those sitting in that hall to examine him—Jewish accusers and Roman custodians—he reports Jesus’ promise: “I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles” (v. 17). Of course, that had been being fulfilled ever since the Damascus Road appearance, but it was also ironically being fulfilled at the very moment Paul was speaking (see v. 22).
The “them” to whom Jesus said he was sending Paul included both his own people (the Jews) and the Gentiles (v. 23), and it included everyone sitting in that hall. The words are very strong: to “open their (blind) eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God”. Paul’s “defense” has turned into an extremely powerful presentation of the gospel, entailing an indictment of his entire audience.
26:24-29 Paul’s interchange with Festus and Agrippa
At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” 25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” 28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”It may have been the bold assertion that God raised Jesus from the dead or the obvious inclusion of the Romans in the audience among those to be turned from blindness and darkness to the light (whether or not these pagans understood who Satan was!) that caused Festus to interrupt Paul in mid-speech and to exclaim that he must be insane.
Paul’s reply (v. 25) is courteous—addressing the Roman as “most excellent Festus”—but firm: “I am not insane … what I am saying is both true and reasonable”. It is true because there are hundreds of eyewitnesses to substantiate the occurrence, and it is reasonable because it conforms to Old Testament and Pharisaic expectation that God would raise the righteous dead in the End Times, and with Jesus as the beginning the End Times are prefigured, if not inaugurated.
Paul then turns to Agrippa to offer to Festus substantiation: “the king is familiar with these things [both the testimony of Judean eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, and the OT predictions of resurrection and the Pharisaic doctrines]”, and none of this [reports of Jesus’ resurrection] has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner”.
Agrippa’s hasty reply (v. 28) to Paul’s question if he “believed the prophets”, that is, that they predicted Jesus as the Messiah (v. 27), needs to be reflected upon: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” First of all, Paul had not used the term “Christian” in his appeal, nor did most Jewish believers at this time. The term was used by outsiders of believers in Jesus, and mainly in Antioch and other gentile centers. Agrippa can only be using the term here as mild disdain. Secondly, he may have known of Paul’s many “serious talks” with Felix in the vain attempt to bring him to faith. He may also allude to the lengthy training that young Jews underwent in order to become well-informed Pharisees or Sadducees. Thirdly, his answer reflects ignorance of how people become believers in Jesus: they are not “persuaded” by human logic, but convicted of the truth by the Holy Spirit, who may or may not use a Christian’s words of testimony.
26:29 Paul ignores the third point about “persuading”, but picks up on the first two when he says “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you [Agrippa] but all who are listening to me today [Festus, Jewish leaders, Roman military] may become what I am, except for these chains”, i.e., Paul would love for them to become believers and forthright witnesses.
26:30-32 Festus & Agrippa discuss their conclusions regarding Paul
The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. 31 They left the room, and while talking with one another, they said, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.” 32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.Agrippa is the center of attention, and protocol dictated that he should rise first to signal to all others in the room that they should rise and leave. Agrippa then discussed with Festus, and perhaps with others as well (“while talking with one another”), his impressions of Paul’s testimony. He could only conclude that there was no basis for any charge deserving of either imprisonment or death. He felt it unfortunate that Paul’s appeal to Caesar now prevented him from immediate release. But to Paul that circumstance was part of God’s plan, which would have desirable consequences.
Theologically, one has to ask what Luke is trying to say regarding Israel's condition at this point in his narrative? Has the end been reached? Johnson (Acts 407) says “no”:
“The string has not run out entirely. There will be more debate and defense in the presence of the Jewish leaders. In Rome Paul will even find some partial acceptance by the local leaders (Acts 28:24). But the official Jewish leadership represented by the chief priest and council shows itself to be what it had been from the beginning: closed to the message of the prophet whom God had raised up, envious of the success found by this message among those outside, and moved to murderous rage against its most prominent preachers.”Johnson furthermore adds:
“The message is clear. If the Christians are to argue what they regard as their legitimate claims to represent the authentic Israel, it will not be possible within the context of direct confrontation with the Jewish leadership. which has shown itself not only unwilling to hear those claims but unwilling to let those making them continue to live. Any debate or defense can take place only within the protection offered by the Roman order . The tragic dimensions of this are clear, if we observe that the identity Paul claims only as an expedient (his Roman citizenship) secures him safety and a hearing based on a recognition of that right, whereas the identity Paul claims to be his own with all sincerity for his entire life (his Jewish heritage) is utterly rejected, and he is given no fair hearing by the leaders of his own people.”
