Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, December 22nd, 2024
the Fourth Week of Advent
Attention!
StudyLight.org has pledged to help build churches in Uganda. Help us with that pledge and support pastors in the heart of Africa.
Click here to join the effort!

Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Acts 26:10

"And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, after receiving authority from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being put to death.
New American Standard Bible

Bible Study Resources

Concordances:
Nave's Topical Bible - Court;   Defense;   Paul;   Zeal, Religious;   Thompson Chain Reference - Bondage, Physical;   Imprisonment;   Suffering for Righteousness' S;   Torrey's Topical Textbook - Martyrdom;   Persecution;  
Dictionaries:
Baker Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Christians, Names of;   Kill, Killing;   Paul the Apostle;   Saints;   Charles Buck Theological Dictionary - Ordination;   Holman Bible Dictionary - Acts;   Capital Punishment;   Crimes and Punishments;   Oration, Orator;   Paul;   Preaching in the Bible;   Prison, Prisoners;   Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Caesarea;   Damascus;   Judaea;   Nero;   Paul the Apostle;   Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Authority;   Damascus, Damascenes;   Disciple;   Herod;   Paul;   Pharisees;   Police;   Roman Law in the Nt;   Voice;   Vote;   Morrish Bible Dictionary - Herod, Family of;   30 To Do, Practise;   People's Dictionary of the Bible - Festus;   Paul;  
Encyclopedias:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Authority in Religion;   Give;  
Devotionals:
Every Day Light - Devotion for December 15;  
Unselected Authors

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Acts 26:10. Many of the saints — From what is said in this verse, it seems that Paul, before his conversion, was invested with much power: he imprisoned the Christians; punished many in various synagogues; compelled them to blaspheme-to renounce, and, perhaps, to execrate Christ, in order to save their lives; and gave his voice, exerted all his influence and authority, against them, in order that they might be put to death; and from this it would seem that there were other persons put to death besides St. Stephen, though their names are not mentioned.

Bibliographical Information
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "The Adam Clarke Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​acc/​acts-26.html. 1832.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary


Paul again declared innocent (25:13-26:32)

Among those who came to Caesarea to pay their respects to the new governor was Herod Agrippa II. This man was the son of Herod Agrippa I (the governor mentioned in 12:1-4,20-23) and the brother of Bernice and Drusilla (13; cf. 24:24; see ‘The New Testament World’). He was Rome’s appointed ruler over certain areas in the far north of Palestine, but he had no power in the region governed by Festus. He was, however, an expert on Jewish affairs (see 26:3,27,31), and Festus was quick to seek his advice on Paul’s case (14-22).
Festus’ problem was that he had to send Paul to Caesar for trial, but he had no idea what to say to Caesar about the case. He did not know what accusations the Jews brought against Paul or why they wanted him executed (23-27).
Paul was pleased at last to have the opportunity to put his case before a ruler who had a good knowledge of the Jewish religion (26:1-3). His account of events was similar to that which he gave to the Jewish mob in Jerusalem two years earlier, but with an occasional change of emphasis to suit the present audience. Like most loyal Jews, Paul believed in the resurrection of the dead, but when he preached that Jesus’ resurrection brought the Jews’ age-long hopes to fulfilment, they persecuted him (4-8).
To some extent Paul could understand the Jews’ feelings, because he himself had once persecuted the followers of Jesus (9-11). But the risen Lord Jesus appeared to him and sent him to preach the forgiveness of sins to all people, Jews and Gentiles alike (12-18). Paul willingly obeyed, because he now saw that the salvation brought by Jesus the Messiah was the fulfilment of all that the law and the prophets foretold (19-23).
Festus could not follow the argument at all and thought that Paul was mad (24). Agrippa, however, was familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and understood what Paul was saying. Paul therefore appealed to him for support (25-27). Agrippa replied, either light-heartedly or sarcastically, that Paul was being over-enthusiastic if he thought he could convert him to Christianity in such a short time (28-29). Nevertheless, he was honest enough to admit that Paul had done nothing that deserved imprisonment (30-32).
By one example after another Luke was making it clear to Theophilus that the Christians were not unlawful or rebellious. In addition to those already mentioned who found no guilt in Paul (namely, the Jerusalem army commander, the Jewish Sanhedrin and two Roman governors), an independent expert on Jewish affairs also declared him to be innocent.

Bibliographical Information
Fleming, Donald C. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Fleming's Bridgeway Bible Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​bbc/​acts-26.html. 2005.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prison, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them.

Many of the saints … Although Paul had avoided calling the Christians "saints" when he spoke in Jerusalem, here before an unbiased audience he did so, "in order to bear witness for Christ and his church." Lange, as quoted by John Wesley, op. cit., in loco.

They were put to death … indicates that many more Christians lost their lives through Saul's activities than would be supposed from the mention of Stephen only in the New Testament.

I gave my vote against them … There is no way that this can mean merely that "I approved." "The Greek here means, `I cast down my pebble,' … They literally cast their pebbles into the urn, white for acquittal, black for condemnation." H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 402. Despite the fact of Barnes and others denying that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 350. strong agreement is felt here with Boles, Hervey and Dummelow who declared that this clause is equivalent to: "I was one of those who in the Sanhedrin voted for their death." A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 265. From the fact of Paul's being in all probability a member of the Sanhedrin (Howson concluded that he was also a married man. J. S. Howson, op. cit., p. 64. The silence of the New Testament on that proves nothing, for Paul's "suffering the loss of all things for Christ" (Philippians 3:8) might well have included his being forsaken by his wife.

Bibliographical Information
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​bcc/​acts-26.html. Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Which thing I also did ... - Acts 8:3.

And many of the saints ... - Many Christians, Acts 8:3.

And when they were put to death - In the history of those transactions, there is no account of any Christian being put to death except Stephen, Acts 7:0. But there is no improbability in supposing that the same thing which had happened to Stephen had occurred in other cases. Stephen was the first martyr, and as he was a prominent man his case is particularly recorded.

I gave my voice - Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin, and this does not mean that he voted, but simply that he joined in the persecution; he approved it; he assented to the putting of the saints to death. Compare Acts 22:20. The Syriac renders it, “I joined with those who condemned them.” It is evident, also, that Paul instigated them in this persecution, and urged them on to deeds of blood and cruelty.

Bibliographical Information
Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​bnb/​acts-26.html. 1870.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

10.Which thing I did. He proveth by his very facts with what force of zeal he was carried away to strive against Christ, until greater force did pull him back, and made him go the quite contrary way. Furthermore, his adversaries were witnesses of this his vehemency, so that it was most certain that he was suddenly changed; and undoubtedly the priests would never have put him in any such office, unless he had behaved himself courageously in exercising cruelty; and it was meet that he should be very courageous who should satisfy their fury. This is also to be noted, that Paul was not ashamed to confess how sore he had offended against God, so that that might turn to the glory of Christ. It was to him undoubtedly reproachful, to have been carried away with blind zeal, so that he enforced those to blaspheme which did desire to serve God; to have troubled the good and simple diversely; to have given sentence of the shedding of innocent blood; finally, to have lifted up his horns even unto heaven, until he was thrown down. But he doth not spare his own estimation, but doth willingly utter his own shame, that the mercy of God may the more plainly appear thereby. −

Wherefore, there could no sinister suspicion rest in his speech, seeing that (without having any respect of himself) he saith, that he did utterly offend − (619) in those things whereby he got the praise of all the people. Therefore, he condemneth his very zeal of madness, which others did honor. −

Whereby it appeareth how filthy the ambition of those men is, who are ashamed simply to confess, if they have offended through ignorance or error. For although they do not altogether excuse the same, yet they go about to lessen or paint these things, for which they ought humbly with sorrow and tears to crave pardon. But though Paul might have retained the fame of a courageous man, yet he confesseth he was a madman. For the participle which Luke useth importeth thus much, that he compelled many to blaspheme. By this we know that there was great corruption even in the very first fruits of believers, seeing that having first professed themselves to be disciples of Christ, and being afterwards discouraged with fear or stripes, they did not only deny him, but also spake evil of his blessed name. Though the very denial itself containeth an horrible blasphemy. −

(619)

Ultro sibi in crimen imputat,” voluntarily charges upon himself as criminal.

Bibliographical Information
Calvin, John. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​cal/​acts-26.html. 1840-57.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Let's open our Bibles to the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts.

Paul was rescued by Lysias, the captain of the Roman guard from the mob that was attempting to beat him to death in Jerusalem on the temple mount. He was taken into protective custody by the Roman government and sent under special guard to Caesarea for his protection, where he appeared before the governor Felix who held Paul a prisoner for two years, more or less, as a political pawn. When Festus became the governor in Felix's place, who had been replaced by the Roman Empire because of his corruption, Festus served Paul's case and began to give Paul the run-around saying, "Are you willing to go to Jerusalem and answer these charges?" Paul said, "I appeal to Caesar." Being a Roman citizen, Festus was obliged to send him to Caesar, but he had a problem. The problem was this: he could not really send him to Caesar without legitimate charges being made against him, and there were no legitimate charges. And so, he explained his problem to Herod Agrippa who came to pay a courtesy visit, and Herod Agrippa said, "Well, I will hear his case." The whole idea now of Herod Agrippa hearing Paul's case is that there might be made formal charges to send with Paul as he made his appeal unto Caesar.

And so, as we get into Chapter 26, we find that Herod Agrippa, who is the great-grandson of Herod the Great, who ordered the murder of the children at the time of the birth of Christ, who was the grand-nephew of Herod Antipas, who had ordered the death of John the Baptist, the son of Herod Agrippa I, who had put James to death and had imprisoned Peter. Herod Agrippa II, and Paul is now standing before him there in Caesarea to declare his cause, and the idea is that they might formulate charges against him to send with him as he goes to Rome.

Then Agrippa said unto Paul [after Festus announced the whole thing, Agrippa said unto Paul,] You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand and answered for himself ( Acts 26:1 ).

Now, we usually see portrayed in the Roman court are, "Friends, countrymen," you know, and you usually see them with a wave of the hand. And evidently, Paul had probably picked up this Roman custom. So now, appearing before Agrippa, Paul said, "I count it a privilege, Agrippa." So he stretched forth his hand to answer for himself. He said,

I am really happy, king Agrippa, to be able to explain to you today the things that I'm accused of by the Jews: Especially because I know that you are an expert in all of the customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to listen to me patiently ( Acts 26:2-3 ).

And so it was true that Herod Agrippa had become a real student of Jewish law and of Jewish custom, and he was noted for his vast understanding of the Jewish religion. Having read the scriptures and studied the prophets, he knew them well. Paul said, "I'm really very happy to be able to explain to you my case, because I know that you have a background in these things." He said,

My manner of life from my youth, which was first among my own nation at Jerusalem, all of the Jews know. And those which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, would tell you that after the straightest sect of the religion, I was a Pharisee ( Acts 26:4-5 ).

And the Pharisees were indeed the most orthodox of the orthodox; they were the radicals. They were the ones who went the second mile in a sense to be very exacting as far as the religious practices worked, because everything had to be just perfect for the Pharisees. They had their traditions and their customs. And now he said,

I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers ( Acts 26:6 ).

He is referring to the promise of the Messiah.

And Paul said, "It is because of the promises that were made to our fathers, because I hoped in these promises that I stand here to be judged." Interesting, knowing that Herod Agrippa knew the prophesies. He brings him right to these promises that God had made.

Unto which promise are twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, are hoping to come. [All of the Jews are hoping for the Messiah,] for which hope sake, king Agrippa, I have been accused of the Jews. Now why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? ( Acts 26:7-8 )

Now, Paul the apostle, I am certain, was praying and hoping that somehow, some way, he could convert King Agrippa to the faith in Jesus Christ. I'm sure that Paul was thinking, "If this guy would just get turned on for the Lord, being the king over this territory, what an influence he could be." Paul's whole defense has one real purpose, and that is to convert Agrippa. And so he begins right away drawing Agrippa in saying, "Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?"

Most of the problems that people have today is with their concept of God. Most of the problems that people have with scriptures today is because of their concept of God. J.B. Phillips wrote a book, "Your God is Too Small," and that is true of many people. Their concept of God is too small; it's too limited. They have what they call the anthropomorphic concept of God. Man's concepts of God, man's idea of God or man creating God, and whenever a man creates a God, he creates Him too small.

There are people who are concerned today with many problems in the Bible. The parting of the Red Sea, the preservation of Jonah in the belly of the whale; things of this nature. They bring these up as troubling, difficult scriptures to deal with, only because their concept of God is too small. God could have actually made a trident submarine to surface and take Jonah in, then people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. But surely, if He can make the universe, He can make a fish large enough to house Jonah. God prepared a great fish. It wasn't just any old shark or whale or whatever, it was a fish that God had prepared. So, if your concept of God is all that it should be, why should you think it a thing incredible that God could create a fish large enough to keep Jonah for three days? Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?

Difficulty must always be measured by the capacity of the agent doing the work. Now we look at this structure in which we worship tonight. You say, "Oh, this must have been a hard building to make." No, it wasn't. We had skilled workmen doing the job. We had men who knew what they were doing; skilled men on the job. It was a very easy task for them, for they had the proper skills and proper equipment. Now, to look at this building and say that we hired a bunch of trained dogs to put it up, then indeed it would have been difficult, because of the capacity of the agents that we've called upon to do the work. "Go grab the board, Rover, and bring it over to me. I want to nail it down here." Well, you could have great difficulty because of the agent you called upon to do the work. But when God is the agent doing the work, any talk of difficulty is absurd. So the idea of resurrection from the dead, "Oh, that's hard to take; that's hard to believe." And, of course, it was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead which was the thing that was really troubling; it was the stumbling block.

So Paul zeros right in on that area of difficulty, and he shows the inconsistency of the difficulty because God was the one who raised Him from the dead. "Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?" The Bible begins with these words, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1 ). If you can swallow that, you should have no problem with Jonah. If you can believe the first verse of the Bible, you should have no difficulty with the rest of it. A God who is big enough to create the heaven and the earth is big enough to do anything and everything else that the Bible says that He did. "Why should you think it a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?" I think that our lack of faith is always demonstrated by our great surprise when God has done something in response to our prayers. And we, so many times, even when we see the work of God, can hardly believe it. Our concept is so limiting. God help us, and God free us from a narrow concept, that we might see in Him the fullness of His glory and power and majesty and abilities. "Now, unto Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that you ask or think" ( Ephesians 3:20 ). Oh, God help us to get a correct concept of God. God free us from our narrow limited concepts.

Now, Paul begins with his own testimony.

I really thought within myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, which I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the Saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priest, and when they were put to death I gave my voice against them ( Acts 26:9-10 ).

Again, Paul, no doubt, was a member of the Sanhedrin. He's talking about the voice in the Sanhedrin, the vote against the Christians, putting them to death. He said he consented to the death of Stephen and those other early Christian martyrs. Paul consented to their deaths. "I gave my voice against them."

And I punished them often in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme ( Acts 26:11 );

Don't you know that must have troubled Paul in his later Christian years when he thought of what a havoc he had wrecked upon the church before his conversion? I imagine he thought about those people that he had forced to blaspheme God, or to blaspheme Jesus Christ. I imagine it just really cut Paul deeply.

It is interesting how that here we have seen God do such a marvelous work, especially among those people who were drug-oriented. We've seen the glorious hand of God working in their lives, delivering them from hard drugs and setting them free from bondage and from addiction and all, and in many cases we've had people come to the Lord here who were once dealers. In fact, some of the major dealers in Southern California are now pastoring Calvary Chapels. But it was interesting to me, that so often when these fellows were converted who were dealers, we had several of them who immediately went to all of those that they were dealing drugs to to tell them that they weren't going to be dealing any more, but to tell them that they had something better than drugs now that they wanted to share with them. And they sought to undo the evil that they had done by sharing Christ with these, that before they had dealt the drugs to, because it bothered them that they were guilty of helping to destroy lives.

I imagine such was the case with Paul. It probably really bothered him that he had actually forced Christians to blaspheme the name of Jesus. He said,

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with the authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the path a light from heaven, that was brighter than the brightness of the sun. It was shining all around me and those which were journeying with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks or the goads ( Acts 26:12-14 ).

In those days, when they would put the yoke on a young ox, the young ox wouldn't like that yoke and often it would begin to kick. And so, the fellow with the plow, if he had a single plow, would have this pole with a sharp point on it, and every time the ox would kick, he would hold that goad there at the back of the heel of the ox, so the ox soon learned not to kick. You go ahead and object, but it's going to hurt, and the Lord said, "It's been hard for you, Paul, to kick against the goads."

The Spirit of God was no doubt dealing with Paul before his conversion experience. I believe that watching Stephen's death, no doubt, had a tremendous affect upon Paul. The Bible said that Stephen's face was shining like an angel and as they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Oh Father, don't lay this sin to their charge. Into thy hands I commend my spirit." I'm certain that this had a powerful affect; it was a goad. Paul found himself kicking against it, but somehow there was a conviction there that, "Hey, I've never seen anybody quite like that. I've never felt anything quite like what I felt when he was speaking."

And Paul answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Arise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared unto you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of these things which you have seen, and of those things in which I will appear unto you; delivering you from the people [that is, from a ministry to the Jews], and from the Gentiles, unto whom I will send thee ( Acts 26:15-17 ),

So his commission, basically from the beginning, was to go to the Gentiles.

Now his purpose or the purpose of the gospel, of the gospel itself entailed the opening of their eyes. That implies blindness. Paul, later writing to the Ephesian church said, "The god of this world has blinded their eyes that they cannot see." A man who does not know Jesus Christ is blind to the truth many times. It's worse when he's not blind to the truth, but still does not believe. But the god of this world has blinded men's eyes that they cannot see the truth. So Paul was to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.

There are two kingdoms in the world to date, two spheres of government: the government of God, and the government of Satan. They are mutually exclusive and antagonistic. Every man exists in one of these two kingdoms. You tonight are living in the kingdom of light or the kingdom of darkness. You're living under the control of Satan or under the control of God. There are only two governing spheres of the universe. In the beginning there was just one, the kingdom of God. All things in obedience and in subjection unto him; God created angelic beings. One special being known as Lucifer, the anointed cherub, rebelled against the authority of God and formed a second government, the government of death and darkness. Ultimately, Satan's kingdom is going to come down. In fact, it is close to the end of Satan's reign now.

When Jesus returns, and I believe it will be very soon, to establish God's kingdom upon the earth, at that time Satan will be bound and cast into the abusso. After a thousand years he will receive a short reprieve from the abusso, and at the end of that short period he will then be cast into gehenna, into outer darkness, the kingdom of darkness, cast into outer darkness.

How far out does space go? Well, it would seem that space probably goes to infinity. I can conceive of space just going out forever. Now, they do say that the universe as we know it, the galactic systems, go out probably some twelve billion light years. Now, those galaxies that are twelve billion light years away, their light is so faint that they can only be seen by the most powerful telescopes and, of course, then I think that there's just a lot of, you know, how do they know there are twelve billion light years or ten billion light years when you get that far away? Let us say a person could travel out into space a hundred billion light years, beyond the furthest galaxy, so far out into space that the light of the universe does not penetrate that far. The Bible speaks of, "...unto whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" ( Jude 1:13 ). There's something very foreboding about darkness.

I was in the Oregon caves when I was a child, and way down there in the caves, as we were deep inside the earth there, they turned off all of the lights. And they said, "This is total darkness." It's the first and probably only time in my life I've been in total darkness. Total darkness is something that is very eerie. It is so dark you can almost feel it. I know that as a child, the first thing I did is just put my hand up and wave it in front of my eyes as close as I could to see if I couldn't perceive any kind of movement at all, which I couldn't; total darkness. "...unto whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever."

The kingdom of darkness will one day be in the blackness of darkness forever, and in the universe there will be only one kingdom again, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of light and life, and all of those within it subject unto God and to His authority, and what a beautiful universe that will be. How I long for that day, when every rebellious act and thought is put out and God reigns supreme.

So Paul's ministry was to deliver people from this kingdom of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of light, to free them from the power of Satan that they might come unto God in order that they might receive the forgiveness of their sins, which is the affect of the gospel and the inheritance among those that are set apart by faith in Jesus Christ. So we who have come to believe in Jesus Christ have an inheritance. The Bible speaks about the inheritance of the saints in light. Sons of God is sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, "In that day I will say unto them, Come ye blessed of the Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world" ( Matthew 25:34 ).

And it's so easy to become a part of that kingdom; just by believing in Jesus Christ, those who believe in Him, who have submitted to His Lordship. It is a kingdom. You believe that Jesus is King. You bow to His authority, and by that bowing to his authority, yielding yourself to the authority of Jesus, you become a subject of His kingdom.

And so, Paul said,

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but I showed first unto them of Damascus, and then in Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then unto the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do the works that demonstrate repentance ( Acts 26:19-20 ).

So Paul was calling upon people, even as John the Baptist, and even as Jesus did, to change, to turn, to turn from a life dominated by the flesh to the life dominated by the Spirit.

The word repent means actually, to change, and it isn't a true repentance unless there is a change. There are many people who confuse sorrow with repentance. Now, I would imagine that if you would take a poll at San Quentin of the inmates there, and if you asked them, "Are you sorry for . . . " Well, if you just ask them if you're sorry, I'm sure you would get the answer, "Yes." If they were honest, "Are you sorry for your crime that brought you here?" I don't think that the answer would automatically be, "Yes." If you'd say, "Are you sorry you got caught?" "Yes."

So there is a difference between sorrow over what you've done and sorrow over being caught at what you've done. There are a lot of people who are sorry for their sins. They say, "I repent." No, you didn't. You haven't changed. You're still doing the same thing. That isn't repentance. Repentance means to change. So Paul was calling on people to change for a life lived after the flesh to a life living after the Spirit.

And for these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and they were trying to kill me. Now having therefore obtained the help of God, I'm here today ( Acts 26:21-22 ),

I mean if God hadn't helped, I wouldn't be here today. But you know . . . and it's interesting having obtained the help of God. Now, God uses human instruments. Actually, it was the Roman soldiers that came and rescued Paul from that angry mob. Again, we need to recognize the supernatural in the natural. God works in natural ways.

We are looking always, it seems, for some ethereal hocus-pocus kind of a thing. And yes, now God is, you know, I feel chills, I feel tinglings; God is here! But we need to recognize God more in the natural. It is a spiritually insensitive person who can only recognize God in the violent you might say, only if there's a great shaking or a great fire or a great movement of some kind. Oh, God is here! But you need to recognize the work of God in very natural ways.

There is the farmer who in the midst of this heavy storm was warned by the sheriff at ten o'clock in the morning that he'd better leave his farm, that they were expecting a flood in that area. And the farmer says, "Thank you, sheriff, but I've lived here for all my life, and so I'll just, you know, stay here. I've never seen any flood come up to the house yet." It continued to rain and the river started to rise, and at two o'clock in the afternoon a highway patrolman came by. The water was beginning to get up close to the house and he called to the farmer, and he said, "We're evacuating this area. You better leave!" The farmer's sitting there on his porch says, "Well, I've lived here all my life and I'm not really worried. I know the river and I'll be alright. Thank you for your warning." The water continued to rise; came up three feet in the house, and so the farmer climbed up on the roof, and the coastguard sent a helicopter over, and they shined the light down on the farmer, and they said, "We're here to evacuate you!" He said, "No, that's not necessary. I've lived here all my life, and I'm not worried about it." So the river continued to rise until the farmhouse was swept from its foundation and went tumbling down and the farmer drowned. He said, "Lord, I don't understand. I trusted You all my life. Why would You let me drown in the flood when I was trusting You? I don't understand that, Lord. It seems when I trusted You that You would've rescued me from drowning." The Lord says, "Well, let me look at the record here a minute. According to my records, I sent the sheriff by at ten o'clock in the morning. Then I sent the highway patrol by in the afternoon, and I even sent the coastguard in the evening."

But you see, we don't recognize God in the natural things, which we need to do. We need to recognize God in the natural things. So Paul, talking about the fact that the Roman soldiers actually came and rescued him from the mob, he is saying that, "I obtained the help of God. God helped me and delivered me from them who were trying to beat me to death, and thus God has sustained me to this day." Recognizing that God uses human instruments to accomplish his purposes and his work. But seeing God in it, that's our problem. We don't see God in the everyday commonplace things. God make me more conscious of Him. We're prone to take so many things for granted.

And Paul said,

I have been witnessing both to the small and to the great, and I've not said any other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come ( Acts 26:22 ):

I haven't added to the scripture, I've only been preaching the scripture, the things the prophets and Moses said would come,

That Christ should suffer ( Acts 26:23 ),

That is, that the Messiah should suffer. Now, this was something that was foreign to Jewish thought. This was the thing that offended the Jews concerning Christ. They had in their minds the concept that the Messiah was going to set up a political kingdom, and to run the Romans out, and to establish a kingdom over the earth with Jerusalem as its center. And those scriptures that prophesied the Messiah being despised and rejected, those scriptures that prophesied the Messiah being cut off and receive nothing for himself, they spiritualized those scriptures.

Now, we find today a sequel, in that many people spiritualize the scriptures of the coming again of Jesus Christ. "Well actually, He's coming in us, you see, and we are to be manifested. And the church in its glorified state upon the earth will be the second coming of Jesus. We are the body of Christ." And they spiritualized the actual coming again of Jesus Christ, even as the Jews were spiritualizing those prophesies that related to His suffering, and only accepting those prophesies that related to His kingdom, His glory, His power.

So Paul said, "I was only telling them what their scriptures told them, that Christ was going to suffer."

and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. As Paul was speaking, Festus [the Roman governor broke in and he] said with a loud voice, Paul, you're beside yourself; your much learning has made you mad ( Acts 26:23-24 ).

Now, a man beside himself was the man who talked to himself. You know, when a person gets in conversation with himself he's usually in serious trouble, and many times this is a sign of mental incompetence, when a person, you see them talking to themselves and answering themselves, and arguing with themselves and all. You're beside yourself. "Your much learning has made you mad." He was probably able to observe Paul's tremendous study habits. Paul was an avid student; read all the time. He said, "Timothy, please come and bring me the parchments when you come." You know he was looking for study material.

But Paul said, I'm not mad, O noble Festus; but I speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knows of these things, of which I am speaking freely: for I'm persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner ( Acts 26:25-26 ).

Now I'm sure that King Agrippa is aware of these things. He's aware of Jesus Christ, he's aware of the crucifixion, he's aware of the prophets, the scriptures. These things weren't done in a corner. And now Paul turns to nail him.

King Agrippa you believe the prophets? I know you believe the prophets ( Acts 26:27 ).

This is known as the presumptive close. You know, you show them the various colors that they can buy these towels in. They have all these lovely shades of color. Now the presumptive close, you say, "Now, let's see, which color did you want to order?" You know, you don't say, "Do you want to buy these towels?" You presume they're going to buy and you say, "Which color now did you want, or which color did you like? Oh, the purple. Alright. How many of those did you want?" Paul is using this presumptive close. "Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? Oh, I know you believe the prophets."

Agrippa says, [Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on, hold on.] Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian ( Acts 26:28 ).

Now, just what Agrippa said is a matter of great controversy among many Bible commentators. I don't intend to enter into the controversy. Some believe that Agrippa was saying it scornfully, such as, "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian. Are you out of your head? You think you're going to persuade me? Are you trying to persuade me to become a Christian?" Or did he actually say, "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian." Was he close really to conversion? We don't know. We'll have to leave that with the commentators to fight out. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

And Paul said, I would to God, that not only you, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and all together ( Acts 26:29 )

Now, Paul's answer seems to indicate that he was just really saying, "Hey Paul, almost thou persuadest me." That there was actually a real persuasion of Agrippa. Paul said, "I wish it wasn't almost, but all together."

I wish you were just like I am, except [I would have wished] these bonds [on you] ( Acts 26:29 ).

Not almost, I wish it was altogether.

I think the tragedy of Agrippa so close. I think the tragedy of many lives today, so close. You see a person who comes very close to the kingdom, almost persuaded. But just somehow, they don't take that final step in, and you think, "Oh, how tragic to be so close to eternal life, so close to the kingdom of God, so close to freedom from sin." "Oh, would to God it was not just almost, but all together persuaded."

And so when Paul had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice ( Acts 26:30 ),

Who had been married twice before she moved in with her brother. And Bernice and King Agrippa were brother and sister. Later on she was to become the mistress of a couple of Roman emperors. Having heard this witness and the story of Jesus Christ, they now rose up,

And when they were gone aside, they talked among themselves, saying, This man has done nothing worthy of death or imprisonment. And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed to Caesar ( Acts 26:31-32 ).

You could have set him free. God had plans, though, for Paul in Rome. And so, to Rome we go.

"



Bibliographical Information
Smith, Charles Ward. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Smith's Bible Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​csc/​acts-26.html. 2014.

Contending for the Faith

Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

It must have been difficult for the apostle to use the term "saints" in reference to the brethren he is guilty of persecuting (see notes on 9:13).

There is considerable discussion as to the meaning of the statement, "I gave my voice (vote) against them." Various scholars think this statement indicates Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. This possibility opens up additional speculation that as a member of this court Paul would have been by necessity a married man. This writer agrees with Barnes, Lenski, and McGarvey that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. Rather he was given the "authority and commission" (26:12) by this court to represent them in the binding and murder of the "saints" (see notes on 9:2; 22:4-5).

Bibliographical Information
Editor Charles Baily, "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Contending for the Faith". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​ctf/​acts-26.html. 1993-2022.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Paul’s speech to the dignitaries 26:1-23

Paul was not on trial here. When he had appealed to Caesar (Acts 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." [Note: McGee, 4:624, 626.]

The Lord had told Paul that he would bear His name before the Gentiles and kings (Acts 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. [Note: See Alister E. McGrath, "Apologetics to the Romans," Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):391.]

Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Dr. Constable's Expository Notes". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​dcc/​acts-26.html. 2012.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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" (Acts 26:10) may be metaphorical (cf. Acts 8:1; Acts 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 Corinthians 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." [Note: Barclay, pp. 193-94.]

Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Dr. Constable's Expository Notes". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​dcc/​acts-26.html. 2012.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 26

THE DEFENCE OF A CHANGED MAN ( Acts 26:1-11 )

26:1-11 Agrippa said to Paul, "You have permission to speak on your own behalf." Then Paul stretched out his hand and began his defence. "With regard to the charges made against me by the Jews, King Agrippa, I count myself fortunate to be about to state my defence before you, especially because you are an expert in all Jewish customs and questions. Therefore I ask you to give me a patient hearing. All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, which from the beginning I lived amongst my people in Jerusalem. They already know from of old, if they are willing to testify to it, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion; and now it is for the hope of the promise that was made to our fathers that I stand on trial, that hope to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, earnestly worshipping God day and night. It is for that hope, your Majesty, that I am accused. Why should you judge it to be incredible if God raises the dead? It is true that I myself thought it right to do many things in opposition to the name of Jesus of Nazareth; and this I did in Jerusalem. When I had received authority from the chief priests, I shut up many of the saints in prison; and, when they were executed, I gave my vote against them. Often throughout all the synagogues I took vengeance on them and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my insane fury against them I even extended this persecution of them to cities abroad."

One of the extraordinary things about the great characters in the New Testament story is that they were never afraid to confess what once they had been. Here in the presence of the king, Paul frankly confesses that there was a day when he had tried to blast the Christians out of existence.

There was a famous evangelist called Brownlow North. In his early days he had lived a life that was anything but Christian. Once, just before he was to enter the pulpit in a church in Aberdeen, he received a letter. This letter informed him that its writer had evidence of some disgraceful thing which Brownlow North had done before he became a Christian; and it went on to say that the writer proposed to interrupt the service and to tell the whole congregation of that sin if he preached. Brownlow North took the letter into the pulpit; he read it to the congregation; he told of the thing that once he had done; and then he told them that Christ had changed him and that Christ could do the same for them. He used the very evidence of his shame to turn it to the glory of Christ.

Denney used to say that the great function of Christianity was in the last analysis to make bad men good. The great Christians have never been afraid to point to themselves as living examples of the power of Christ. 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.

In this passage Paul insists that the centre of his whole message is the resurrection. His witness is not of someone who has lived and died but of One who is gloriously present and alive for evermore. For Paul every day is Easter Day.

SURRENDER FOR SERVICE ( Acts 26:12-18 )

26:12-18 "When, in these circumstances, I was on my way to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, as I was on the road at midday, I saw, your Majesty. a light from heaven, more brilliant than the sun, shining round about me and my fellow-travellers. When we had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the spikes.' I said, 'Who are you, sir' The Lord replied, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But up! and stand upon your feet! For this is why I have appeared to you--to appoint you a servant and a witness of how you have seen me and of further visions you will have; for I am choosing you from the People and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share amongst those who have been sanctified by faith in me.'"

This passage is full of interest.

(i) The Greek word apostolos ( G652) literally means, one who is sent forth. For instance, an ambassador is an apostolos ( G652) or apostle. The interesting thing is that an emissary of the Sanhedrin was technically known as an apostolos ( G652) of the Sanhedrin. That means that Paul began this journey as the apostle of the Sanhedrin and ended it as the apostle of Christ.

(ii) Paul was pressing on with his journey at midday. Unless a traveller was in a really desperate hurry he rested during the midday heat. So we see how Paul was driving himself on this mission of persecution. Beyond doubt he was trying by violent action to still the doubts that were in his heart.

(iii) The Risen Christ told Paul that it was hard for him to kick against the spikes. When a young ox was first yoked it tried to kick its way out. If it was yoked to a one handed plough, the ploughman held in his hand a long staff with a sharpened end which he held close to the ox's heels so that every time it kicked it was jagged with the spike. If it was yoked to a wagon, the front of the wagon had a bar studded with wooden spikes which jagged the ox if it kicked. The young ox had to learn submission the hard way and so had Paul.

Acts 26:17-18 give a perfect summary of what Christ does for men. (a) He opens their eyes. When Christ comes into a man's life he enables him to see things he never saw before. (b) He turns them from the darkness to the light. Before a man meets Christ it is as if he were facing the wrong way; after meeting Christ he is walking towards the light and his way is clear before him. (e) He transfers him from the power of Satan to the power of God. Once evil had him in thrall but now God's triumphant power enables him to live in victorious goodness. (d) He gives him forgiveness of sins and a share with the sanctified. For the past, the penalty of sin is broken; for the future, life is recreated and purified.

A TASK ACCEPTED ( Acts 26:19-23 )

26:19-23 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. But first of all to those in Damascus, and to Jerusalem, and throughout the whole land of Judaea and to the Gentiles, I brought the message to repent and turn to God and do deeds to match their repentance. Because of this the Jews seized me in the Temple and tried to do away with me. So then because I have received the help of God up to this day, I stand bearing witness to great and small, saying nothing beyond those things which both the prophets and Moses said would happen, that the Anointed One must suffer, that as a consequence of his resurrection from the dead he must be the first to bring the tidings of light to the People and to the Gentiles."

Here we have a vivid summary of the substance of the message which Paul preached.

(i) He called on men to repent. The Greek word for repent literally means change one's mind. To repent means to realize that the kind of life we are living is wrong and that we must adopt a completely new set of values. To that end, it involves two things. It involves sorrow for what we have been and it involves the resolve that by the grace of God we will be changed.

(ii) He called on men to turn to God. So often we have our backs to God. It may be in thoughtless disregard; it may be because we have deliberately gone to the far countries of the soul. But. however that may be, Paul calls on us to let the God who was nothing to us become the God who is everything to us.

(iii) He called on men to do deeds to match their repentance. The proof of genuine repentance and turning to God is a certain kind of life. But these deeds are not merely the reaction of someone whose life is governed by a new series of laws; they are the result of a new love. The man who has come to know the love of God in Jesus Christ knows now that if he sins he does not only break God's law; he breaks God's heart.

A KING IMPRESSED ( Acts 26:24-31 )

26:24-31 As Paul was making his defence, Festus cried out, "Paul, you are mad. Much learning has turned you to madness." But Paul said, "I am not mad, Festus, your Excellency, but I am uttering words of truth and sense. The king has knowledge of these things and it is to him that I boldly talk; for I do not think that any of these things are escaping him; for this was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do." Agrippa said, "You surely think that you are not going to take long to persuade me to be a Christian." Paul answered, "I could pray that, whether it takes short or long, not only you but also all who are listening to me today were such as I am, apart from these fetters." The king and the governor and Bernice and those who were sitting with them rose up; and when they had withdrawn they kept saying to each other, "This man does nothing which merits death or fetters." And Agrippa said to Festus, "This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar."

It is not so much what is actually said in this passage which is interesting as the atmosphere which the reader can feel behind it. Paul was a prisoner. At that very moment he was wearing his fetters, as he himself makes clear. And yet the impression given unmistakably is that he is the dominating personality in the scene. Festus does not speak to him as a criminal. No doubt he knew Paul's record as a trained rabbi; no doubt he had seen Paul's room scattered with the scrolls and the parchments which were the earliest Christian books. Agrippa, listening to Paul, is more on trial than Paul is. And the end of the matter is that a rather bewildered company cannot see any real reason why Paul should be tried in Rome or anywhere else. Paul has in him a power which raises him head and shoulders above all others in any company. The word used for the power of God in Greek is dunamis ( G1411) ; it is the word from which dynamite comes. The man who has the Risen Christ at his side need fear no one.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Bibliographical Information
Barclay, William. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "William Barclay's Daily Study Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​dsb/​acts-26.html. 1956-1959.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Which thing I also did in Jerusalem,.... The metropolis of Judea, where he had had his education, and was well known; here he consented to the death of Stephen, and held the clothes of the witnesses while they stoned him; and here he haled men and women out of their houses, and committed them to prison, and made havoc of the church of Christ, and destroyed the faith, and those that professed it, as much as in him lay.

And many of the saints I shut up in prison; at Jerusalem; see Acts 8:3.

having received authority from the chief priests; to take them up, and imprison them.

And when they were put to death; for it seems there were more than Stephen put to death, though we have no account of them:

I gave my voice against them; not that he sat in council, or was a member of the Jewish sanhedrim, and voted for the execution of the Christians, but he was pleased with the sentence they passed, and approved of it; or he joined the zealots, who, without any form of law, seized on the Christians, and put them to death wherever they found them; and this he assented to, and encouraged: some render the words, "I carried the sentence"; as the Vulgate Latin version; that is, the sentence of condemnation, which the Jewish sanhedrim passed upon the disciples and followers of Christ: this Saul took, and carried, it may be, both to the Roman governor, to be signed by him, and to the officers to put it in execution; so industrious and forward was he in persecuting the saints.

Bibliographical Information
Gill, John. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​geb/​acts-26.html. 1999.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

Paul's Fifth Defence.


      1 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:   2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:   3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.   4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;   5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.   6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:   7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.   8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?   9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.   10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.   11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

      Agrippa was the most honourable person in the assembly, having the title of king bestowed upon him, though otherwise having only the power of other governors under the emperor, and, though not here superior, yet senior, to Festus; and therefore, Festus having opened the cause, Agrippa, as the mouth of the court, intimates to Paul a licence given him to speak for himself,Acts 26:1; Acts 26:1. Paul was silent till he had this liberty allowed him; for those are not the most forward to speak that are best prepared to speak and speak best. This was a favour which the Jews would not allow him, or not without difficulty; but Agrippa freely gives it to him. And Paul's cause was so good that he desired no more than to have liberty to speak for himself; he needed no advocate, no Tertullus, to speak for him. Notice is taken of his gesture: He stretched forth his hand, as one that was under no consternation at all, but had perfect freedom and command of himself; it also intimates that he was in earnest, and expected their attention while he answered for himself. Observe, He did not insist upon his having appealed to Cæsar as an excuse for being silent, did not say, "I will be examined no more till I come to the emperor himself;" but cheerfully embraced the opportunity of doing honour to the cause he suffered for. If we must be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us to every man that asketh us, much more to every man in authority, 1 Peter 3:15. Now in this former part of the speech,

      I. Paul addressed himself with a very particular respect to Agrippa, Acts 26:2; Acts 26:3. He answered cheerfully before Felix, because he knew he had been many years a judge to that nation,Acts 24:10; Acts 24:10. But his opinion of Agrippa goes further. Observe, 1. Being accused of the Jews, and having many base things laid to his charge, he is glad he has an opportunity of clearing himself; so far is he from imagining that his being an apostle exempted him from the jurisdiction of the civil powers. Magistracy is an ordinance of God, which we have all benefit by, and therefore must all be subject to. 2. Since he is forced to answer for himself, he is glad it is before king Agrippa, who, being himself a proselyte to the Jewish religion, understood all matters relating to it better than the other Roman governors did: I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. It seems, Agrippa was a scholar, and had been particularly conversant in the Jewish learning, was expert in the customs of the Jewish religion, and knew the nature of them, and that they were not designed to be either universal or perpetual. He was expert also in the questions that arose upon those customs, in determining which the Jews themselves were not all of a mind. Agrippa was well versed in the scriptures of the Old-Testament, and therefore could make a better judgment upon the controversy between him and the Jews concerning Jesus being the Messiah than another could. It is an encouragement to a preacher to have those to speak to that are intelligent, and can discern things that differ. When Paul says, Judge you what I say, yet he speaks as to wise men,1 Corinthians 10:15. 3. He therefore begs that he would hear him patiently, makrothymos--with long suffering. Paul designs a long discourse, and begs that Agrippa will hear him out, and not be weary; he designs a plain discourse, and begs that he will hear him with mildness, and not be angry. Paul had some reason to fear that as Agrippa, being a Jew, was well versed in the Jewish customs, and therefore the more competent judge of his cause, so he was soured in some measure with the Jewish leaven, and therefore prejudiced against Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles; he therefore says this to sweeten him: I beseech thee, hear me patiently. Surely the least we can expect, when we preach the faith of Christ, is to be heard patiently.

      II. He professes that though he was hated and branded as a apostate, yet he still adhered to all that good which he was first educated and trained up in; his religion was always built upon the promise of God made unto the fathers; and this he still built upon.

      1. See here what his religion was in his youth: His manner of life was well known,Acts 26:4; Acts 26:5. He was not indeed born among his own nation, but he was bred among them at Jerusalem. Though he had of late years been conversant with the Gentiles (which had given great offence to the Jews), yet at his setting out in the world he was intimately acquainted with the Jewish nation, and entirely in their interests. His education was neither foreign nor obscure; it was among his own nation at Jerusalem, where religion and learning flourished. All the Jews knew it, all that could remember so long, for Paul made himself remarkable betimes. Those that knew him from the beginning could testify for him that he was a Pharisee, that he was not only of the Jewish religion, and an observer of all the ordinances of it, but that he was of the most strict sect of that religion, most nice and exact in observing the institutions of it himself, and most rigid and critical in imposing them upon others. He was not only called a Pharisee, but he lived a Pharisee. All that knew him knew very well that never any Pharisee conformed more punctually to the rules of his order than he did. Nay, and he was of the better sort of Pharisees; for he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, who was an eminent rabbi of the school of house of Hillel, which was in much greater reputation for religion than the school or house of Samai. Now if Paul was a Pharisee, and lived a Pharisee, (1.) Then he was a scholar, a man of learning, and not an ignorant, illiterate, mechanic; the Pharisees knew the law, and were well versed in it, and in the traditional expositions of it. It was a reproach to the other apostles that they had not had an academical education, but were bred fishermen, Acts 4:13; Acts 4:13. Therefore, that the unbelieving Jews might be left without excuse, here is an apostle raised up that had sat at the feet of their most eminent doctors. (2.) Then he was a moralist, a man of virtue, and not a rake or loose debauched young man. If he lived like a Pharisee, he was no drunkard nor fornicator; and, being a young Pharisee, we may hope he was no extortioner, nor had yet learned the arts which the crafty covetous old Pharisees had of devouring the houses of poor widows; but he was, as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. He was not chargeable with any instance of open vice and profaneness; and therefore, as he could not be thought to have deserted his religion because he did not know it (for he was a learned man), so he could not be thought to have deserted it because he did not love it, or was disaffected to the obligations of it, for he was a virtuous man, and not inclined to any immorality. (3.) Then he was orthodox, sound in the faith, and not a deist or sceptic, or a man of corrupt principles that led to infidelity. He was a Pharisee, in opposition to a Sadducee; he received those books of the Old Testament which the Sadducees rejected, believed a world of spirits, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the rewards and punishments of the future state, all which the Sadducees denied. They could not say, He quitted his religion for want of a principle, or for want of a due regard to divine revelation; no, he always had a veneration for the ancient promise made of God unto the fathers, and built his hope upon it.

      Now though Paul knew very well that all this would not justify him before God, nor make a righteousness for him yet he knew it was for his reputation among the Jews, and an argument ad hominem--such as Agrippa would feel, that he was not such a man as they represented him to be. Though he counted it but loss that he might win Christ, yet he mentioned it when it might serve to honour Christ. He knew very well that all this while he was a stranger to the spiritual nature of the divine law, and to heart-religion, and that except his righteousness exceeded this he should never go to heaven; yet he reflects upon it with some satisfaction that he had not been before his conversion an atheistical, profane, vicious man, but, according to the light he had, had lived in all good conscience before God.

      2. See here what his religion is. He has not indeed such a zeal for the ceremonial law as he had in his youth. The sacrifices and offerings appointed by that, he thinks, are superseded by the great sacrifice which they typified; ceremonial pollutions and purifications from them he makes no conscience of, and thinks the Levitical priesthood is honourably swallowed up in the priesthood of Christ; but for the main principles of his religion he is as zealous for them as ever, and more so, and resolves to live and die by them.

      (1.) His religion is built upon the promise made of God unto the fathers. It is built upon divine revelation, which he receives and believes, and ventures his soul upon; it is built upon divine grace, and that grace manifested and conveyed by promise. The promise of God is the guide and ground of his religion, the promise made to the fathers, which was more ancient than the ceremonial law, that covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, and which the law, that was not till four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul,Galatians 3:17. Christ and heaven are the two great doctrines of the gospel--that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Now these two are the matter of the promise made unto the fathers. It may look back as far as the promise made to father Adam, concerning the seed of the woman, and those discoveries of a future state which the first patriarchs acted faith upon, and were saved by that faith; but it respects chiefly the promise made to father Abraham, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, and that God would be a God to him, and to his seed after him: the former meaning Christ, the latter heaven; for, if God had not prepared for them a city, he would have been ashamed to have called himself their God.Hebrews 11:16.

      (2.) His religion consists in the hopes of this promise. He places it not, as they did, in meats and drinks, and the observance of carnal ordinances (God had often shown what little account he made of them), but in a believing dependence upon God's grace in the covenant, and upon the promise, which was the great charter by which the church was first incorporated. [1.] He had hope in Christ as the promised seed; he hoped to be blessed in him, to receive the blessing of God and to be truly blessed. [2.] He had hopes of heaven; this is expressly meant, as appears by comparing Acts 24:15; Acts 24:15, That there shall be a resurrection of the dead. Paul had no confidence in the flesh, but in Christ; no expectation at all of great things in this world, but of greater things in the other world than any this world can pretend to; he had his eye upon a future state.

      (3.) Herein he concurred with all the pious Jews; his faith was not only according to the scripture, but according to the testimony of the church, which was a support to it. Though they set him up as a mark, he was not singular: "Our twelve tribes, the body of the Jewish church, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come to this promise, that is, to the good promised." The people of Israel are called the twelve tribes, because so they were at first; and, though we read not of the return of the ten tribes in a body, yet we have reason to think many particular persons, more or less of every tribe, returned to their own land; perhaps, by degrees, the greater part of those that were carried away. Christ speaks of the twelve tribes,Matthew 19:28. Anna was of the tribe of Asher, Luke 2:36. James directs his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,James 1:1. "Our twelve tribes, which make up the body of our nation, to which I and others belong. Now all the Israelites profess to believe in this promise, both of Christ and heaven, and hope to come to the benefits of them. They all hope for a Messiah to come, and we that are Christians hope in a Messiah already come; so that we all agree to build upon the same promise. They look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, and this is what I look for. Why should I be looked upon as advancing something dangerous and heterodox, or as an apostate from the faith and worship of the Jewish church, when I agree with them in this fundamental article? I hope to come to the same heaven at last that they hope to come to; and, if we expect to meet so happily in our end, why should we fall out so unhappily by the way?" Nay, the Jewish church not only hoped to come to this promise, but, in the hope of it, they instantly served God day and night. The temple-service, which consisted in a continual course of religious duties, morning and evening, day and night, from the beginning of the year to the end of it, and was kept up by the priests and Levites, and the stationary men, as they called them, who continually attended there to lay their hands upon the public sacrifices, as the representatives of all the twelve tribes, this service was kept up in the profession of faith in the promise of eternal life, and, in expectation of it, Paul instantly serves God day and night in the gospel of his Son; the twelve tribes by their representatives do so in the law of Moses, but he and they do it in hope of the same promise: "Therefore they ought not to look upon me as a deserter from their church, so long as I hold by the same promise that they hold by." Much more should Christians, who hope in the same Jesus, for the same heaven, though differing in the modes and ceremonies of worship, hope the best one of another, and live together in holy love. Or it may be meant of particular persons who continued in the communion of the Jewish church, and were very devout in their way, serving God with great intenseness, and a close application of mind, and constant in it, night and day, as Anna, who departed not from the temple, but served God (it is the same word here used) in fastings and prayers night and day,Luke 2:37. "In this way they hope to come to the promise, and I hope they will." Note, Those only can upon good grounds hope for eternal life that are diligent and constant in the service of God; and the prospect of that eternal life should engage us to diligence and constancy in all religious exercises. We should go on with our work with heaven in our eye. And of those that instantly serve God day and night, though not in our way, we ought to judge charitably.

      (4.) This was what he was now suffering for--for preaching that doctrine which they themselves, if they did but understand themselves aright, must own: I am judged for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers. He stuck to the promise, against the ceremonial law, while his persecutors stuck to the ceremonial law, against the promise: "It is for this hope's sake, king Agrippa, that I am accused of the Jews--because I do that which I think myself obliged to do by the hope of this promise." It is common for men to hate and persecute the power of that religion in others which yet they pride themselves in the form of. Paul's hope was what they themselves also allowed (Acts 24:15; Acts 24:15), and yet they were thus enraged against him for practising according to that hope. But it was his honour that when he suffered as a Christian he suffered for the hope of Israel,Acts 28:20; Acts 28:20.

      (5.) This was what he would persuade all that heard him cordially to embrace (Acts 26:8; Acts 26:8): Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead? This seems to come in somewhat abruptly; but it is probable Paul said much more than is here recorded, and that he explained the promise made to the fathers to be the promise of the resurrection and eternal life, and proved that he was in the right way of pursuing his hope of that happiness because he believed in Christ who had risen from the dead, which was a pledge and earnest of that resurrection which the fathers hoped for. Paul is therefore earnest to know the power of Christ's resurrection, that by it he might attain to the resurrection of the dead; see Philippians 3:10; Philippians 3:11. Now many of his hearers were Gentiles, most of them perhaps, Festus particularly, and we may suppose, when they heard him speak so much of Christ's resurrection, and of the resurrection from the dead, which the twelve tribes hoped for, that they mocked, as the Athenians did, began to smile at it, and whispered to one another what an absurd thing it was, which occasioned Paul thus to reason with them. What! is it thought incredible with you that God should raise the dead? So it may be read. If it be marvellous in your eyes, should it be marvellous in mine eyes, saith the Lord of hosts?Zechariah 8:6. If it be above the power of nature, yet it is not above the power of the God of nature. Note, There is no reason why we should think it at all incredible that God should raise the dead. We are not required to believe any thing that is incredible, any thing that implies a contradiction. There are motives of credibility sufficient to carry us through all the doctrines of the Christian religion, and this particularly of the resurrection of the dead. Has not God an infinite almighty power, to which nothing is impossible? Did not he make the world at first out of nothing, with a word's speaking? Did he not form our bodies, form them out of the clay, and breathe into us the breath of life at first? and cannot the same power form them again out of their own clay, and put life into them again? Do we not see a kind of resurrection in nature, at the return of every spring? Has the sun such a force to raise dead plants, and should it seem incredible to us that God should raise dead bodies?

      III. He acknowledges that while he continued a Pharisee he was a bitter enemy to Christians and Christianity, and thought he ought to be so, and continued so to the moment that Christ wrought that wonderful change in him. This he mentions,

      1. To show that his becoming a Christian and a preacher was not the product and result of any previous disposition or inclination that way, or any gradual advance of thought in favour of the Christian doctrine; he did not reason himself into Christianity by a chain of arguments, but was brought into the highest degree of an assurance of it, immediately from the highest degree of prejudice against it, by which it appeared that he was made a Christian and a preacher by a supernatural power; so that his conversion in such a miraculous way was not only to himself, but to others also, a convincing proof of the truth of Christianity.

      2. Perhaps he designs it for such an excuse of his persecutors as Christ made for his, when he said, They know not what they do. Paul himself once thought he did what he ought to do when he persecuted the disciples of Christ, and he charitably thinks they laboured under the like mistake. Observe,

      (1.) What a fool he was in his opinion (Acts 26:9; Acts 26:9): He thought with himself that he ought to do many things, every thing that lay in his power, contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, contrary to his doctrine, his honour, his interest. That name did not harm, yet, because it agreed not with the notion he had of the kingdom of the Messiah, he was for doing all he could against it. He thought he did God good service in persecuting those who called on the name of Jesus Christ. Note, It is possible for those to be confident they are in the right who yet are evidently in the wrong; and for those to think they are doing their duty who are wilfully persisting in the greatest sin. Those that hated their brethren, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified,Isaiah 66:5. Under colour and pretext of religion, the most barbarous and inhuman villanies have been not only justified, but sanctified and magnified, John 16:2.

      (2.) What a fury he was in his practice, Acts 26:10; Acts 26:11. There is not a more violent principle in the world than conscience misinformed. When Paul thought it his duty to do all he could against the name of Christ, he spared no pains nor cost in it. He gives an account of what he did of that kind, and aggravates it as one that was truly penitent for it: I was a blasphemer, a persecutor,1 Timothy 1:13. [1.] He filled the jails with Christians, as if they had been the worst of criminals, designing hereby not only to terrify them, but to make them odious to the people. He was the devil that cast some of them into prison (Revelation 2:10), took them into custody, in order to their being prosecuted. Many of the saints did I shut up in prison (Acts 26:10; Acts 26:10), both men and women,Acts 8:3; Acts 8:3. [2.] He made himself the tool of the chief priests. Herein from them he received authority, as an inferior officer, to put their laws in execution, and proud enough he was to be a man in authority for such a purpose. [3.] He was very officious to vote, unasked for, the putting of Christians to death, particularly Stephen, to whose death Saul was consenting (Acts 8:1; Acts 8:1), and so made himself particeps criminis--partaker of the crime. Perhaps he was, for his great zeal, though young, made a member of the sanhedrim, and there voted for the condemning of Christians to die; or, after they were condemned, he justified what was done, and commended it, and so made himself guilty ex post facto--after the deed was committed, as if he had been a judge or jury-man. [4.] He brought them under punishments of an inferior nature, in the synagogues, where they were scourged as transgressors of the rules of the synagogue. He had a hand in the punishing of many; nay, it should seem the same persons were by his means often punished, as he himself was five times, 2 Corinthians 11:24. [5.] He not only punished them for their religion, but, taking a pride in triumphing over men's consciences, he forced them to abjure their religion, by putting them to the torture: "I compelled them to blaspheme Christ, and to say he was a deceiver and they were deceived in him--compelled them to deny their Master, and renounce their obligations to him." Nothing will lie heavier upon persecutors than forcing men's consciences, how much soever they may now triumph in the proselytes they have made by their violences. [6.] His rage swelled so against Christians and Christianity that Jerusalem itself was too narrow a stage for it to act upon, but, being exceedingly mad against them, he persecuted them even to strange cities. He was mad at them, to see how much they had to say for themselves, notwithstanding all he did against them, mad to see them multiply the more for their being afflicted. He was exceedingly mad; the stream of his fury would admit no banks, no bounds, but he was as much a terror to himself as he was to them, so great was his vexation within himself that he could not prevail, as well as his indignation against them. Persecutors are mad men, and some of them exceedingly mad. Paul was mad to see that those in other cities were not so outrageous against the Christians, and therefore made himself busy where he had no business, and persecuted the Christians even in strange cities. There is not a more restless principle than malice, especially that which pretends conscience.

      This was Paul's character, and this his manner of life in the beginning of his time; and therefore he could not be presumed to be a Christian by education or custom, or to be drawn in by hope of preferment, for all imaginable external objections lay against his being a Christian.

Bibliographical Information
Henry, Matthew. "Complete Commentary on Acts 26:10". "Henry's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​mhm/​acts-26.html. 1706.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

The closing chapters from 21 to the end of the book are devoted to an episode full of interest and profit Paul's course from Jerusalem to Rome. And here we find ourselves in an atmosphere considerably different from what we have had before. It is no longer the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, either inaugurating the great work of God on the earth at Jerusalem, nor His equally wonderful energy in breaking through the old bottles of Judaism, when grace flowed freely, first to Samaria, then to the Gentiles, and in principle, as we know, in due time to the ends of the earth. Neither have we the apostle separated, as it is said, unto the gospel of God. These were the three great divisions and the main contents of the book up to the point we are arrived at. But now the apostle is about to become a prisoner, nor this without warning. The Holy Ghost, as we may see on the surface of the verses I have read, admonished the apostle time after time; but the apostle shows us the most striking combination of what was truly heavenly in faith and life with the strongest clinging of heart to his brethren after the flesh. This is what makes the difficulty of appreciating his history by no means small. But one may say that what was infirmity must be allowed to be infirmity on the noblest side (if any thing be so, which I do not deny,) of the human heart. Nevertheless we have the immediate effect in the lesson that even this does force us into altogether new circumstances wherein God never fails to magnify Himself. He knows how to turn even that which may have been in itself mistaken to His own glory, and then He in grace forms new channels and suited ways, not without a righteous judgment of the error even if it were in the best, and so much the more remarkably because it was in the best. And this I believe to be the prominent lesson of these later chapters of the Acts.

Let us, however, pursue the course of the divine instruction.

The apostle goes on his way and finds disciples, and tarries among them, as we are told, at Tyre for "seven days." This seems to have been a common term of stay we can readily conceive why. One great reason, I do not doubt, was to enjoy the fellowship of the saints together, to spend with the Christians in a new place that day which has the strongest possible claim on the heart that is true to Jesus the first day of the week. This was expressly shown in Acts 20:1-38. The Spirit of God does not repeat the same express statement here. Nevertheless I do not think we are far astray if we connect the seven days of the apostolic visit with that which was stated plainly in verses 6, 7, of that chapter. At Troas it was said that "we abode seven days; and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples (or rather, we) came together to break bread, Paul preached." Here there is no such positive affirmation, but still the mention in a similar way of seven days with the disciples may well open a question for spiritual judgment what the motive was for such a term. I do not doubt myself that it was to have the joy of meeting all saints in each locality as opportunity served, and of cheering and strengthening them on their course.

No doubt the spiritual instincts of the children of God would lead them always to desire to be together. For my own part I cannot understand a child of God who on principle could abstain from any occasion that summoned round the name of the Lord the members of the household of faith. It appears to me that, far from being a waste of time or from any other object being of the same moment, it is simply a question whether we value Christ, whether we truly are walking in the Spirit, if we live in the Spirit, whether the objects of the constant active love of God are also in measure the objects of our love in Christ's name.

I think therefore that it is according to the Lord that the children of God should if practicable be together every day. To this the power of the Spirit would lead: only the circumstances in which we are placed in this world necessarily hinder it. Therefore the true principle according to the word of God is a coming together whenever it is practicable; and we do well to cherish a real exercise of heart and conscience in judging what the practicability is, or rather whether the impracticability be real or imaginary. Very often it will turn out to be in our will, an excuse for spiritual idleness, a want of affection to the children of God, and a want of sense of our own need. Accordingly obstacles are allowed in own minds, such as the claims of business, or the family, or even the work of the Lord. Now all these have their place. Surely God would have all His children to seek to glorify Him, whatever may be their duty. They have natural duties in this world; and the wonderful power of Christianity is seen in filling with what is divine that which without Christ would be merely of nature; and this should ramify the whole course of a man's life after he belongs to Christ. And so again the claims of children for instance, or parents, or the like, cannot be disputed; but then if they are really taken up for Christ, I do not think it will be found that it is to the loss of either parents or children, or that the little time is missed in the long run that is spent in seeking the strength of the Lord, and in communion according to our measure. We ought to be open for both; and we shall ourselves never have any power to help unless we have the sense of the need of help from others; but both will be found together.

It appears to me that through the blessed apostle the Spirit of God gives us in these passing touches, and in recounting them valuable hints as to the spirit that animated him in his course. We may know in some slight degree what it is to be long on a journey without due rest, food, or shelter; and passing from one country and continent to another was by no means then the easy thing that it is in modern times. We have all the habit of being rapidly enough in motion, and anxious to get to the end. We can understand how the apostle, with so many hindrances in the way, might feel the comfort of these repeated stays, seven days in one place, seven days in another, as we have seen, expressly showing. the desire of his heart. after communion as well as confirming their souls. Such is what we find in this blessed man's course: in our little measure surely it ought to be so with us.

On this occasion, however, the disciples told Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem. This was serious. There is no other comment upon it. We know not what the apostle said or did, further than this, that the apostle certainly went up to Jerusalem all the same. "When we had accomplished these days, we departed and went our way." Then we have the beautiful scene of the wives and the children. This has its value. There is a marked absence of allusion to children in the Acts of the Apostles, where much is said among men and saints and servants of God. But we do hear of them in that, which is confessedly suitable. Here they are brought forward, but not as a superstitious church ere long did, among other things, to receive a portion from the table of the Lord: things were soon to change if not to arrive at that pass yet; but we do see them in the expression of the love that filled all, and the desire to reap to the very last moment the blessing of having an apostle in their midst. In short, the children were there no less in token of respectful love to him who was going, but also set in the attitude to receive whatever blessing the Lord might be pleased to bestow upon them. "And they all brought us on our way with wives and children," it is said, "till we were out of the city, and we kneeled down and prayed, and, when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship, and they returned home again."

Another means of letting us into the ways of God among His people is found at Caesarea. "We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven." We cannot well have forgotten his labours in earlier days at Samaria, and round about. But we are told here what we had not learnt then, that "the same man had four daughters." As unmarried, they were remaining in their father's house; and they prophesied. There is no reason why a woman should not have this or most other gifts as much as a man. I do not say the same kind of gift always. Surely God is wise and gives suited gifts whether to men or women, or, it may be, I was going to say, to children. The Lord is sovereign and knows how, as putting all who now believe in the body of Christ, so also to give them a work suitable to the purposes of His own grace. Certainly He did clothe these four daughters of Philip with a very special spiritual power. They had one of the highest characters of spiritual gift they prophesied. And if they were invested with this power, certainly it was not to be put under a bushel but to be exercised: the only question is how.

Now scripture, if we be but subject, is quite explicit as to this. In the first place, prophecy stands confessedly in the highest rank of teaching, but it is teaching. Next, the apostle is himself the person who tells us that he does not suffer a woman to teach. This is clearly decisive; if we bow to the apostle as inspired to give us God's mind, we ought to know that it is not the place of a Christian woman to teach. He is speaking on this topic, not in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, but in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 He is drawing the line between men and women in 1 Timothy 2:1-15. The latter epistle forbids the women as a class to teach. The other and still closer word in the former epistle, commands them to be silent in the assembly. At Corinth, apparently, there was some difficulty as to godly order and the right relations of men and women, because the Corinthians, being a people of speculative habits, instead of believing, reasoned about things. It was the tendency of the Greek mind to question everything. They could not understand that, if God had given a woman as good a gift as a man, she was not equally to use it. We can all feel their difficulty. Such reasoners are not wanting now. The fault of it all was, and is, that. God is left out. His will was not in the thought of the Corinthians. There was no waiting on the Lord to ascertain what was His mind. Clearly, if He has called the church into being, it cannot but be made for His own glory. He has His own mind and will about the church, and He has therefore spread out in His word how all the gifts of His grace are to be exercised.

Now the passages in1 Corinthians 14:1-40; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 and in 1 Timothy 2:1-15 appear to me to be perfectly plain as to the relative place of the woman, whatever may be her gift. This may be said to decide only as to one sphere the assembly where the woman, according to scripture, is precluded from the exercise of her gift. I may say further, that in those days it did not occur to them that women. would go forth publicly to preach the word. Bad as the state of things was in early days, they seem to me to have looked for a greater sense of modesty on the part of women. There is not the slightest doubt that many females with the best intentions have thus preached, as they do still. They, or their friends, defend their course by appeals to the blessing of God on the one hand, and on the other to the crying need of perishing sinners everywhere. But nothing can be more certain than that scripture (and this is the standard) leaves them without the slightest warrant from the Lord for their line of conduct. Public preaching of the gospel on the part of women is never contemplated in scripture. It was bad enough for the Corinthians to think that they might speak among the faithful. It might have seemed that there women had the shelter of godly men; that there they were not offensively putting themselves forward before all sorts of people in the world, as must be the case in evangelising. Among the godly they may have imagined a veil, so, to speak, drawn over them more or less. But in modern times the end is supposed to justify the means. Gross as the Corinthians were, I must confess that to my mind the plans of our own day seem even more grievous, and with less excuse for them.

However this may be, we see here that the daughters of Philip did prophesy. No doubt it was in their father's house, as already intimated: otherwise the word of God would thus be set one part against another.

While they tarried there, a certain prophet came down from Judea, who repeats the warning to the apostle. Binding his own hands and feet with Paul's girdle he declares, "So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." And thus it was accomplished to the letter. Nevertheless, spite of the tears of the saints, spite of the warning of this prophet, as of others before, Paul, with mind made up, answers, "What mean ye to weep and to break my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

After all the apostle goes accordingly, and in Jerusalem the brethren receive him gladly. "And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present." It is evident from this picture that all ecclesiastically was in due order at Jerusalem. An apostle was there who had an apparently high place of local dignity. Besides there were the ordinary overseers whom the Holy Ghost had set as guides and leaders in the assembly (that is, the local charge of elders). "And when Paul had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." They owned the way in which the Lord had been glorified. At the same time their word to him is, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands" (the true meaning is tens of thousands, myriads, which may probably give some a larger thought than is familiar of the vast and rapid spread of the gospel at that time among that nation) "of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." This was a mistake. Such was not the course of the apostle.

What Paul really taught was the impropriety of putting Gentiles under the law: he did not interfere with the Jews at this time, Later a distinct and peremptory message came from the Holy Ghost; but the process of the Lord with them was gradual His method with His ancient people I deem of importance for us to learn and imitate. It is perfectly true that it was in the mind of God in due time to bring out fully the deliverance of both Jew and Gentile from the law; but this was not done all at once, at least as regards the Jew. What the apostle set himself decidedly against was the effort to bring the Gentiles under law; and this was precisely what Pharisaic brethren were zealous for. Whether Judaizing Christians or the Gentiles themselves took up the law, the apostle did most resolutely reject and condemn the fatal error. But as regarded the Jews themselves there was the truest forbearance, flowing from, not characteristic largeness of heart only, but tender consideration for scrupulous consciences. If God had not yet sent out the final word that told them the old covenant was ready to vanish away, how could he who so closely followed His ways be hasty? The early days were really a time of transition, where Christ was ministered first to Jew and then to Gentile. The Gentile, never having been under law, was far more simple than the Jew in appreciating the liberty of the gospel. The Jew was tolerated in his prejudices until the closing message came from God, warning them of the danger of apostasy from the gospel through their adhesion to the law.

Having dwelt on this in sketching the epistle to the Hebrews, there is the less reason to say more about it now. But that epistle was to the Hebrew believers the last trumpet which summoned them to renounce all connection with the old system. Up to that time there had been a gradual transition, the gap widening, the difference more pronounced, but still every tie was not broken till this the final call. Such a way strikes me as worthy of our God a way which to our precipitate minds might seem somewhat difficult, because we have been mostly trained as Gentiles. Since we have entered into the truth of God more perfectly, we have seen the enormous mischief of bringing in the law and mixing it up with the gospel.

Let us remember then that, whilst the Holy Ghost always maintained liberty for the Gentile, there was unquestionably a time of waiting on the Jew. Even the apostle Paul was no exception to patience with their prejudices. As to the twelve, they seem to have feebly enough entered into this liberty from the law. Doubtless Paul, as being apostle of the Gentiles, called from heaven by the risen Jesus, and witness of sovereign grace, apprehended it after a different sort and richer measure; but we shall find that even he could warmly sympathise to a great extent with the feelings of a Jew. He is the one to whom, under God, we are indebted for knowing anything about Christianity in its full form and real strength; yet, for all that, it is quite evident that he had, if not Jewish prejudice, certainly the warmest Jewish attachments; and, in point of fact, it was the strength of his affection to the ancient people of God that brought him into the trouble recorded in these concluding chapters of this book, the Acts of the Apostles.

This, we must remember, to a certain extent, may be viewed as an answer to the love found in our blessed Lord Himself; but then there were striking differences. In our Lord, love for Israel was, as all else, perfect: there was not, nor could be, the faintest admixture of a blemish. We know well the bare hint of such a thought would be repulsive to our faith and our love for His person. To the Christian it is impossible to conceive it for an instant. At the same time, we know His love for that people was felt and expressed up to the last. It was His persistent love which brought Him into the circumstances of utter rejection when God's time was come, and He suffered all the consequence of their hatred (though infinitely more also for sin in atonement, which was His alone). Now the apostle knew what it was to love Israel and suffer for that love. Not only among the Gentiles, but among the saints, the more he loved the less, he was loved. This was true; but, if in general true there, emphatically was it to be verified among the Jews. Thus stands the wonderful fact in the history of the apostle Paul: the very man who brought out the church distinctly, and showed its heavenly character as none other approached; the very man that proved the absolute abolition of the old ties and relations, swallowing. up all in Christ exalted to the right hand of God: he is the man whose heart retained the strongest attachment of love to the ancient people of God. And I have not the smallest doubt that God gives us in this case a grave but gracious warning of its danger. Were it an apostle, were it the greatest of the apostles, still Paul was not Christ, and what in Christ could be and was absolute perfection, in Paul was not. Yet Paul was a man who puts all that have been since that day into the shade.

If I may express my feelings here, let me say that I felt nothing a greater trial to my own spirit than touching on this very theme. I could not point out any one thing I shrink from more than having the appearance of reflecting on such a servant of Christ. Yet God has written the history of all this, and He has written it surely not for sentiment and silence, but for utterance and common profit. He has written it, no doubt, that we should feel our own great shortcomings, end that we should beware of our spirit in setting up to condemn such an one as the great apostle of the Gentiles.

Still, I repeat, the Holy Ghost has recorded here His own warnings on the one side, and on the other the refusal of the apostle to act on them, if I may venture so to say, though it were through fulness of tender love, and an ever-burning affection for his brethren after the flesh. Alas! when we think of our faults; when we reflect how little they spring from anything that is lovely; when we recollect how much they are mixed with. worldliness, and impatience, and pride, and vanity, and self; when we observe that he was so deeply chastened, and met with such a distressing stop to the world-wide work which God had given him, in what a light do our faults appear! He had a pressure of trial such as few men ever knew beside himself; and, what might embitter it to him, all this the natural effect of slighting the admonitions of the Spirit of God by yielding to his undying love for a people out of whom, after all, he had been divinely separated to the work the Lord had given him to do. God having given us the account, whatever may be one's own feelings, can it be doubted that we are bound to read, and by grace to seek to understand? Yea, not this only, but may we apply it for the present blessing of our souls, and for our progress in the path of Christ here below, whatever it may be. We may have the smallest possible sphere; but, after all, a saint is a saint, and very dear to God, who magnifies Himself in the least of those that are His.

It is assuredly for our profit and to God's own glory that the Holy Ghost has written this remarkable appendix to the history the onward history of the Acts of the Apostles. Here we have a check which brings in new things, the fruit of persisting in going up to Jerusalem spite of the Spirit's testimony against it. The more blessed the man, the more serious the miss of firm footing. There is one step outside what the Spirit enjoined, whatever may be the mingling of that which is beautiful and lovely; at the same time, it was not the full height, so to speak, of the guidance of the Spirit of God. This exposed the apostle to something more, as it always does; and, indeed, so much the more, because it was such an one as Paul. The same principle is plain in David's life. The lack of energy, which might have been comparatively a little hurt to another, became the gravest snare to David; and, found out of the path of the Lord, he soon slips into the meshes of the devil. Not that I mean anything in the least degree tantamount in the apostle Paul; far from it; for, indeed, in this case the apostle was mercifully preserved from anything that gave the smallest activity to the corruption of nature. It was simply a defect, as it appears to me, of watching against his own love for Israel, and thus setting aside, consequently, the warnings that the Spirit gave. The tears and appeals seem to have rather stimulated and strengthened his desire, and accordingly this exposed him to what was a snare, not immoral but religious, through listening to others below his own measure. He took the advice of James.

"What is it, therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads" what a position for the apostle to find himself in! "and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning. thee, are nothing." Without pretending that there was nothing in the previous line of Paul tending to this (compare Acts 18:18), it is evident that the object was to give the appearance that he was a very good Jew indeed. Was this warrantable, or the whole truth? Was he not a somewhat ambiguous Jew? I believe that, as we have seen, there was an undisguised respect for what once had the sanction of God. And here was just the difference in his case from our blessed Lord's perfect ways. Up to the cross, we all know, the legal economy or first covenant had the sanction of God; after the cross, in principle it was judged. The apostle surely had weighed and appraised it all; he did not require any man to show him the truth. At the same time there was no small mingling of love for the people; and we know well how it may intercept that singleness of eye which is the safeguard of every Christian man.

The apostle then listens to his brethren about a matter in which he was incomparably more competent to form a sound judgment than any of them, Accordingly he suffers the consequence. He is found purifying himself along with the men who had a vow. He enters the temple, "to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended" which it is well known had to do with the Nazarite vow "the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place; and further brought Greeks also into. the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." The next verse shows us why. It was a mistake; nevertheless it was enough to rouse the feelings of all Israel. "All the city was moved, and the people ran together," and the issue was a frightful tumult, and the apostle was in danger of being killed by their violent hands, when the chief captain comes and rescues him. This paves the way for the remarkable address which the apostle delivers in the Hebrew tongue, given in the next chapter. Acts 22:1-30.

The mention of the Hebrew tongue appears to confirm the true key to the difference between this account of the apostle's conversion and others. It is not precisely in this book as in the gospels, where a different. way of presenting the same fact or discourse of our Lord Jesus obtains, according to the character of the design in hand; yet is it the same principle at bottom. Even in the same book a difference of design may be traced. There may be observed this in the three accounts in which Paul's conversion is given: first, the historical. account; secondly, Paul's own statement to the Jews; and, thirdly, Paul's to the Jews and Gentiles as to the Roman governor and king Agrippa. This is the true reason of the difference there is in the manner in which facts are presented. We need not enter minutely into detail.

On examination you will find what is said to be correct, that here as is evident he adopts a language which was for the very purpose of arresting the attention in appealing to the affections of the Jew; he speaks in their familiar tongue, and accordingly gives an account of his conversion in such a way as he considered conciliatory to the feelings of the Jews. To these there was one thing which was unpardonable; but this was the very glory of his apostleship, the direct object for which God raised him up. Thus, with the most gracious of intentions, and with the warmest love towards his countrymen after the flesh, the apostle gives an account of his conversion and the miraculous circumstances that attended it, of his meeting with Ananias, a devout man according to the law, which he takes particular pains to state there, and of the trance into which he afterwards fell at Jerusalem in the temple whilst praying. But he tells them out that which he must easily have known (and so much the more because of his accurate understanding of the feelings of the Jews) would rouse them to the uttermost: in short, he lets them know that the Lord called him and sent him to the Gentiles.

It was quite enough. The moment the sound of "Gentiles" reached their ears, all their feelings of Jewish pride took fire, and at once they cried out, "Away with such a fellow from the earth! It is not fit that he should live." As they cried and cast off their clothes to throw dust into the air, the chiliarch commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging. There he put himself in the wrong; for Paul was not only a Jew but a citizen of Rome; and he was so by a better title than the commandant who thus ordered him to be bound. The apostle quietly states the fact. I dare not judge him, though there may be some Christians who would: he was clearly entitled to remind those that were the guardians of the law of their own transgression. He uses no means further, but merely tells them how things stood.

It appears to me that it is a morbid squeamishness rather than true spiritual wisdom that would cavil at such an act on the part of the apostle. Every one knows that it is easy to be a martyr in theory, and that those who are martyrs in theory are seldom so in practice. Here was one destined to torture, and really one of the most blessed witnesses of the Lord all through. Faith enables one to see things clearly. Should the guardians of law break the law? Faith never teaches one to court danger and difficulty, but to walk the path of Christ in peace and thankfulness. The Lord has not called His servants to desert it. I dare say some of us may have been struck with the fact that the Lord told them when they were persecuted in one city to flee to another. Assuredly this is not courting martyrdom, but the very reverse; and if the Lord Himself gave such a word to His servants in Judea and to His disciples (as is well known), it appears to me that it is at least hazardous without grave spiritual ground to face a danger so decided of condemning the guiltless who are entitled to our reverence. Here we have no sign of anything said by the Holy Ghost in the form of warning; and therefore, observe, it is not in the least degree a setting aside what is clearly laid down elsewhere. We have seen the Holy Ghost admonishing the apostle, when carried far in ardent love, and we can easily see that He had a sovereign title, both to guide and to correct even if it were an apostle.

Nothing of the kind appears here. It was a fact which the Roman officer had overlooked illegally, and the apostle was entitled to state the fact. It was in no way a going to law. Need it be said that such a recourse to the powers that be would have little become a follower and servant of Jesus? It was in no way using such means as man would have employed; it was the simplest possible statement of a circumstance serious in the eye of the law, and it had its effect. "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman." The chiliarch enquires accordingly. You must remember that to say you were a Roman, if you were not, was a capital offence against the government, which of course they never failed to visit with the severest punishment. To claim it untruly was too dangerous to be often attempted, as it exposed a man to the imminent risk of death. The officials of the Roman empire were rarely disposed therefore to question such a claim, especially where it was made by a man who, on the face of it, was such a character as the apostle, little as he might be known to any of them.

So "straightway," it is said, "they departed from him which should have examined him, and the chiliarch also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." However, man strives to preserve his dignity after his own fashion. "On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands," (that is to say, he leaves him still a prisoner which he had no right to do,) "and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them." The apostle seeks no further redress, and was as far as possible from the desire or thought of punishing the man for the mistake he had made. For this evidently would have been a departure from grace: but the occasion helps to give a little insight into this wonderful man of God. For when the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by to smite him that said he had lived in all good conscience, Paul turns quickly upon him with the words "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (and so He did); "for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Acts 23:1-35.

This is a fine instance of the most simple, and at the same time admirable, way in which grace recovers, even if there be a momentary slip of haste mingling with it. There can be no doubt at all that the high priest had acted in a way entirely contrary to the law. There was therefore an indisputable right to rebuke him. At the same time I suppose that his decided character, and his keen sense of the glaring injustice, did betray itself in his utterance. Further, it is an instance of what is found often elsewhere in Scripture. God may be with a deed which on one side of it may have haste mingling with it, but on the other real truth and righteousness. What was done here by the high priest was glaringly contrary to the law of which he was the professed administrator. Nor certainly did God permit these solemn words to fall to the ground without bearing fruit. Paul at once, however, corrects himself, and owns that had he known him to be the high priest, he would not have spoken so; that is to say, whatever might be the character of the man, Paul was not one to lower the office. He would leave it to God to judge that which was unworthy of it.

There is another thing that claims our notice. Is there not a certain peculiarity discernible in a measure in the apostle now? First of all there was haste of spirit. Is there as firm treading as before in the path where the power of the Spirit of God rested on him? Do we not find an adroitness, may I venture to say, though wishing in no way to utter a word too much, as is easily done? But still is there not a cleverness in the way in which the apostle, when he perceived that one part of the council were Sadduccees and the other Pharisees, cried out, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees;* of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"?

*The plural form is recommended to us by the most ancient uncials, some good cursives, the Vulgate and the Syriac; the singular prevails in the great majority of copies and versions. Being more natural or customary, though far less energetic, we can understand copyists falling into it.

This does not seem according to the simple and full activity of the Spirit of God that we have seen in the apostle when he was away from Jerusalem. He had gone where he had been divinely warned not to go; and it matters not who it is, if it were even the greatest of the apostles, is there not a sensible difference when there is the smallest divergence from the peaceful guidance of the Holy Ghost? And if this is true of him, what shall we say of ourselves? Do not allow your lips to utter strong things about the apostle Paul; but let your own consciences, and let mine, take heed to our own ways, and above all beware of this that we be not found slighting one word that comes to us from the Holy Ghost. Let us weigh and cherish every expression of God's mind. In this ease the apostle Paul could not doubt it. It was not doubt; but he strengthened himself now that the time was come to suffer. He had made up his mind for the worst that man might or could do. Was it all that was there? In truth there was more than this; but I think the comparative lack of calm, the exposure to haste, and the other features that appear in this remarkable history, are meant to be signs to our souls of the real truth of the case as it now stood.

The consequence was soon apparent on this occasion. The diversion produced was no doubt what men would call politic; that is, the apostle designed to divide and conquer. He made good use of the one party that had whatever there was of zeal and orthodoxy. There is not the smallest pandering to the Sadducees, which would have been far from the Spirit of God. Now I am very far from saying or implying any unworthy ways; but I do mean that there was a kind of availing himself of the difference that reigned between these that held to the word of God with, at any rate, an outward religious respect, and those that despised it; and this is a danger that no man is free from, particularly in circumstances of danger. The apostle yielded to it then. He stated the fact that the hope and resurrection of the dead were in question; but still the question arises, What was his motive for putting it so? What does the Spirit of God bring out before us here? Was it simply the truth? Was it only Christ? I doubt so.

It seems clear that the discerning eye of the apostle saw the horrible state of the high priest and his party, that whatever might be the honour of the office, yet, in the defiled and defiling hands that now held it, it was only used for their own worst purposes against the truth and grace of God. Accordingly he availed himself of the strong feeling of the sounder part of the nation, and thus gained what might have seemed unexpected adherents among the Pharisees. It did not give him after all the advantage. To the believer is not this always the result? I doubt very much the weight of such a gain. Have we not learnt that the true gain is Christ? and that to take our side unqualifiedly with the Lord, by God's grace to shut our eyes to all consequences, and our ears to all censure, and just go on holding to that which we know is acceptable in His eyes and for His own glory, is not this the only true path of service, as it certainly is the precursor of victory? In this case it would be a victory unmixedly for the Master. Such an idea as one's own victory ought not to be in a Christian man's mind. Let our desires be simply for the Lord for His grace and truth, for His own work and glory in the church. His name is ill-served by making use even of the most reputable of His adversaries. Those zealous for the law, one cannot but know, are opposed to the gospel, the Pharisee no less than the Sadducee. The apostle presents to the multitude "the hope and resurrection of the dead." He does not commit himself to speaking about Jesus; he does not say a word of the gospel. Had he brought in either, all would have come to nothing: the Pharisee would have resented the word just as much as the Sadducee. Leaving out what was adverse to his purpose, he puts forward that which he knew would set one part of his enemies against the other.

Yet here was vouchsafed no small comfort from the Lord to His servant. "And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." What a proof of what the Lord is, even in (yea, because of) those very circumstances when the apostle's heart might have been exceedingly cast down! He had persisted in going up to Jerusalem, and brought himself into what certainly looks like a false position, and as a fact exposed him to a number of disasters and painful oppositions. The Lord at this very time, when things looked gloomiest, appeared to His servant, and comforted him. Instead of a word of reproach, on the contrary it is all that could bid him good cheer.

How good the Lord is! How perfect in His ways! He knows how to deal with a mistake whenever there is one, while He righteously deals with it so much the more in one who ought not to have made it, a mistake in his case being a thousand times more serious than in another. Nevertheless, the Lord has nothing but comfort to administer at such a time. "Be of good cheer, for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness of me in Rome." He was not going to be killed. This was just before the conspiracy appeared. What could man do? Why should he be afraid then? The Lord meant him to go to Rome: his heart's desire was to go there. That is what his heart was set upon next to Jerusalem; and he had his way in going to Jerusalem; and now the Lord was about to take him to Rome. To Rome he was going, but he was to visit it bearing the marks of having been up to Jerusalem. He was going to Rome a prisoner; bringing the message surely of the grace of God, but not without the experience of what it cost to have yielded to his love for the ancient people of God. He was going to Rome with a deeper sense of what his true calling was. His allotted work lay among the Gentiles pre-eminently and especially among the uncircumcision. Why did he not cleave simply and solely to his calling?

Nor were the foes of the gospel scrupulous, spite of their boasted attachment to the law of God. A conspiracy was forming among the unhappy Jews, and the Lord in His providence brings it to light by one that was kinsman of the apostle, to whose heart the ties of flesh and blood appealed with some strength, if there were no higher motive. No doubt he must have been a Jew to have been in the secrets of that portion of the nation which was bent upon the destruction of the apostle. He divulges the secret, first to Paul, subsequently to the chiliarch. Accordingly Lysias (for this was his name) gets ready a detachment of soldiers, and horsemen, and spearmen, during the night, and sends Paul to Felix the governor with a letter. Little did the Roman think that his letter was to be read by you and me; little did he know that there was an eye that looked him through and through as he wrote. That the false and the true should be proclaimed on the housetops he never counted on. "Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, sendeth greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them; then came I with the troop and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman." He understood nothing of the sort; he was merely deceiving his superior, seeking in fact to make capital out of that which was error and fault; for, as we have seen, he began with a positive infraction of Roman law. He had bound, and this for the purpose of scourging, one no less a citizen than himself. He was guilty of claiming credit and zeal, where he had been both remiss and hasty. Oh, how little does the world think that the secrets of the most private letter, the counsels of the cabinet, the movements of kings, of governors, and ministers of state, of military chiefs and their men, no matter who or what, are all before One who sees all and forgets nothing.

Acts 24:1-27. Paul, however, is rescued; and now comes another scene. Ananias, the high priest, descends with the leaders to try their fortune before the governor with the captive. On this occasion they hire an orator to plead for them. If he begins with the grossest flattery and pomposity of speech, the apostle answers with as strikingly admirable and quiet dignity, exactly suited to the circumstances.

Here the apostle, then, when the governor beckoned him to speak, explains how utterly false were all the charges of this hired rhetorician. He loved his nation too well instead of being in anywise their troubler, as he had been represented. "As thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogue, nor in the city." There was therefore no such case as Tertullus had set forth: "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; who also hath gone about to profane the temple." He had only been a few days in Jerusalem, and was there worshipping, not seeking to trouble anybody. "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Then he frankly states what had brought him up on this occasion. "I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings." He really did love them. "Whereupon," he says, "certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult; who ought to have been here before thee, and object what wrong they had against me." But the witnesses were not found. In point of fact, there was nothing tangible to allege against him. It was merely the outburst of priestly hatred and popular fury, followed by a conspiracy formed to murder; and when this failed, the effort was to bring about a judicial condemnation. Who could fail to see the mere will and malice of man? It had no other origin or character.

"When Felix heard these things, he adjourned them, saying, When Lysias the chiliarch shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter. And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty." His wise experienced eye at once saw how things were: there was not the slightest ground for the charges against the apostle. Hence the unusual order not of liberty only, but. that none of his acquaintance were to be forbidden to come or to minister to him. Nay, more than this: "When Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith of Christ." But there was no compromise: he heard what he did not expect. It was not the resurrection now; it was an appeal to conscience morally, or, as it is said here, "He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." All has its season, and this was a word exactly suited to the man and the woman to whom Paul preached. It was well timed. Any one who is at all acquainted with the history of this personage for he is an historical character knows that he was peculiarly guilty, and that these words of the apostle were directly levelled at, and a condemnation therefore of, his moral delinquency.

Felix trembles, accordingly, and talks about hearing him at another time; but that convenient time never came. "He hoped also that money should have been given him." How truly, therefore, and how seasonably, had Paul "reasoned to him of righteousness!" "He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him." Besides, you see the character of the man in what follows. "After two years Porcius Festus came in Felix's room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound." There was no justice to be got out of this unjust judge. It was not that he wanted sense, or wisdom, or judgment. He had all these, and so much the worse for him; but he was willing to sacrifice everything for his own ends. He had been foiled in his desire for money; and now to please those Jews whom he heartily despised willing to do something that would ingratiate himself with them without costing him anything he leaves Paul bound.

Festus in due time appears to our view in the next chapter (Acts 25:1-27) He had the same desire. He was no better than his predecessor. Festus proposes in a singular way that Paul should go up to Jerusalem. This, was an unheard of thing for a Roman governor the chief representative of the empire to send one who had been brought before him back to Jerusalem to be judged by the Jews. Paul at once takes his stand on the well-known principle of the Roman empire that ought to have guided Festus. He says, "I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. But if I be an offender, and have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." This is clearly a matter of spiritual judgment. Paul had now committed himself to this course, as later he actually went before Caesar. It was irrevocable. There was no human possibility of change now. He had uttered the word; before Caesar he must go. Nevertheless, a short time after this we find Agrippa comes down, and the Roman governor, knowing well the active mind of the king, tells him the story of Paul. He felt his own weakness in having to do with such a case, and he knew the interest of Agrippa. Agrippa accordingly tells the governor that he would like to hear the man himself.

On the next day, "when Agrippa therefore was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chiliarchs and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth." And here we find a remarkably fine contrast with all the glitter and pomp of the court. The king himself was a most capable man, but destitute of moral purpose. His wife, however she might be favoured naturally, was alas! a woman of no character whatever. Both of them were under the most painful cloud of suspicion even in the minds of the heathen themselves, not to speak of the Jews. These are the persons who, with the Roman governor, sit in judgment upon the apostle. And then comes forth the prisoner bound with chains. But oh what a chasm separated them from him! What a difference in the eyes of God! What a sight it was to Him to behold these judges dealing with such a man without one shred to cover them of what was of Himself nay, with that which was most shameful and debasing. In all the splendour of earth's rank and dignity they sat to hear the poor but rich prisoner of the Lord. And Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32) said to him, "Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee." If we find the full peace and blessedness of this honoured man of God, what the Lord wrought, and the mighty power of His grace, we see the most dignified yet lowly courtesy towards those who listened, Agrippa especially. "Because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently."

He expounds therefore all his history, how he had been trained from his youth in the strictest sect among the Jews, and again mentions how he was judged for the hope of the promise made of God to "our" fathers, Thus he reasons on the resurrection: "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you if God raises the dead?" He at once brings in this which every Pharisee acknowledged, and which was the main test of orthodoxy among the Jews. This is applied to the history of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, all turned on it. If it was true that God had raised Him from the dead, what was the position of the Jews, and what the glory of Jesus? All turned therefore on the resurrection.

Then he points out the facts of his own conversion. It was not favourable circumstances that had thrown him in the way of the gospel; it was the very reverse of attachment to the Christians or of any lukewarmness toward the law. All his prepossessions were for Israel, all his prejudices against the gospel. Nevertheless while he had carried this to the uttermost, while with the authority of the chief priests he had sought to persecute them to death, the grace of God surmounted all either of religious ties or religious hatred in the heart of Paul. "When I went to Damascus," he says, "with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun."

And not more surely was the heavenly light which streamed upon the apostle above all nature's light, than the grace which God showed that day completely eclipsed all that was of man in his heart and previous history. All disappeared before the all-overcoming strength of the goodness of God in Christ. "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against goads. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." The work was done. I say not that there was all the peace and blessedness he was afterwards to enjoy, but there was effected then the entrance of that spiritual light of Christ that dealt with his conscience in all its depths. At once, down to the very roots of his moral being, all was stirred up, and the good seed, the seed of everlasting life, was sown underneath. He is bidden to rise and stand upon his feet. "For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee."

The word is not exactly as we have it "delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles." It is hard here to see the propriety of that term "delivering" in our common Bibles. In this connection it was not a question so much of a rescue as of taking him out from the people and from the Gentiles. The Lord was severing him from the Jew no less than the Gentile. It is also more than Peter speaks of inActs 15:1-41; Acts 15:1-41 (taking out from the Gentiles a people for His name); which we have seen already, as it was of prime importance to insist on it at the great council of Jerusalem. It was of course still true that God is taking out a people for His name; but in the case of Saul of Tarsus the Lord speaks of taking him out from the Jew no less than the heathen. It is a separation therefore unto the new work of God from both Jew and Gentile. "Unto whom," speaking of the Gentiles, "now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified through faith that is in me."

Nor was Paul disobedient to the heavenly vision. He bowed to the Lord. He was right, as became a man taught of God. And he "showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they, should repent and turn to God, and do works worthy of repentance." For these were the true causes of Jewish hostility.

There was no setting himself up against the law. God forbid that this should ever be an object for a Christian man! He does not call us to a negative testimony, even if legitimate; He calls us to a task far more truly of Himself. It is not against evil so much as for good that God gives us a mission. We must hold this fact always as a fixed principle. I grant you that he who is called out to a purpose that is worthy of God does judge what is evil; nay, not merely this, but judges especially what looks ever so good. Correcting evil by power is not the present purpose of God for the Christian or the church; and be assured His will is the only true directory and the only safe ground for us in everything.

Let us then always enquire, what according to scripture does God design and desire for His people now? What is His real revealed work now? To what therefore is He calling you and me? To what did He set apart the apostle then? It was certainly not the pulling down of the Jews or their legal economy. Judgment was coming on that nation soon, but as long as God forbore Paul lingered over them in patient love; and was he not quite right? But God was calling out a people from the Gentiles as well as from the Jews, and separating him from all his antecedents, from everything that his heart was so fondly bound up in: for never was mortal man that loved Israel more than the apostle Paul did. But God took him out of all his old Jewish associations as well as the Gentiles, to whom now He sent him.

It is evident that we must be separated from human influences even of the best kind, in order to be a fit vessel for God's purposes where the need is greatest. If you would effectually help others, you must always be above the motives and ways that sway them. Impossible to deal rightly with a person if you are merely on the same level with him. This is the reason why, if a brother be overtaken in a fault, what is wanted is a truly spiritual soul to seek his restoration. A careless Christian would spoil the case; because, if he who is in fault can put his finger on something like his own shortcoming in the one who deals with him, it gives him an excuse for his own sin, and a ground for censuring, his censor. Whereas, if there had been the true effect of the grace of God in him who appeals to his soul; if grace has both brought out from all that is evil and sustained in good, so that he can be accused of nothing against the Lord, I need not say how God honours it as His will and special provision for dealing with those who are involved in any fault. Here, in the apostle Paul, is the same principle, though in a far deeper and larger way. Indeed, it is but the assertion of grace that mighty principle of God's goodness in power, working spite of evil according to all that is in His heart.

Paul, then, was taken clean out of everything, both Jew and Gentile, but sent to the Gentile especially. "And the bare sound of this it was that horrified the Jews; nor could they reconcile how one who had burning love to the Jew could at the same time be the prominent, untiring witness of grace to the Gentiles. In their legal pride they could not forgive it. The most hostile feelings broke out against Paul, coupled with the madness of envy and jealousy against the Gentiles. So he tells them, "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having, therefore, obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing else than those things which Moses and the prophets did say should come; whether Christ should suffer; whether he should be the first through resurrection of the dead to announce light," etc.

As he thus explains, the Roman governor interrupts him in the exclamation, that much learning had made him mad. Paul replies, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness." There is all possible respect, it will be observed; at the same time, he could not without protest allow the ignorance of a blind heathen to put such a stigma on the truth. He appeals to one beside Festus certainly an impartial witness as far as Christianity was concerned. "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." The alleged facts of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus were not unknown to Herod Agrippa. They were universally talked of by all who concerned themselves with Israel.

Suddenly he turns with a direct question: "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest them. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Though I do not agree with some modern efforts as to this clause, I admit that the word "almost" hardly gives the true force. "In a little degree you are persuading me." In what spirit was this said? It seems to be a sentiment into which he was surprised, and in this sense wrung out from him. He could not deny the truth of what the apostle asserted. He would not disclaim his own prophets. He was, in point of fact, shut up in a corner as far as regarded the facts and the prophecies that spoke of them beforehand. Thus, cool a man of the world as he was, the surprise of the pointed enquiry of the apostle obliged him to acknowledge that in a little degree Paul was persuading him to be a Christian. This does not intimate, of course, that he really believed in the Lord Jesus; but the premisses of the apostle did involve the conclusion that Jewish prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ, so that Agrippa could not but own a certain impression made on his mind.

But Paul answers in a spirit truly admirable, and this not alone with wisdom, nor with loving desire only. There is another element, too, exceedingly sweet, as showing the state of the apostle at this time, and his own soul's deep present enjoyment of the Lord and of His grace. "I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both in a little and in a great degree such as I am, except these bonds." I hardly know such an answer from man's lips. We have wonderful words of others as well as of Paul elsewhere; but to my mind, throughout the compass even of this blessed book, it would be hard to find an expression of grace and truth, with the condition of happiness which the Spirit vouchsafes, more admirably suited to the circumstances of all concerned more perfectly reflecting what God gives by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul could not wish his bonds for any, however he might glory in them for himself. He boasted to be a prisoner of Jesus Christ; but he could not desire such fare then at least for such as he desired to be brought to the Lord. The time might come, no doubt, when those who proved good soldiers in that warfare might rejoice, even as he rejoiced, in his sufferings for Christ's sake and for his body's sake, as well as for the gospel. But this he could with all his heart wish, that they might be, not only in some measure (even if it were only a little), but in a great degree such as he was. It is not merely that they might be Christians; still less that they might be converted; but "such as I am."

The wish embraces both the reality or standing and the state of the Christian; yea, such enjoyment as filled Paul's own heart at the very moment when he stood in bonds before this splendid court. Did not Paul know the dark cloud that hung over Agrippa and Bernice, not to speak of others? Grace surmounts all evil, as it overcomes and forgives the worst enemies. There is not one bitter reflection, nor a denunciatory word. Grace wishes its best even for those who are bent on the pleasures of sin for a season. We know that judgment is sure and just; but grace can rise to a higher kind of justice not that of earth or of man, but of God, who can be just, and justify him that believes "the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ." This was what filled his heart, and it was the full unhindered strength of God's own grace made good and seen in Christ that was now working in his own soul. It was drawn out by his delight and enjoyment of the Christ to whom he had been bearing witness, whose glory made pale all that a Roman governor or a Jewish king could boast. It was not the surprise, but the overflowing heart of one who looked right into eternity who recalled once more the brightness of the glory of heaven, wherein he had seen Christ Himself brighter than all that glory the source, power, and fulness of it all, and the giver of it also to those who believe. It was this that filled him then, and strengthened him to utter such an expression of divine love.

The court breaks up, Agrippa acknowledging himself that Paul might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar. This is to be noted.

Acts 27:1-44. The next chapter details the singularly instructive voyage of the apostle: where, instead of being a prisoner, he looks as if he was really the master of the ship; and, indeed, had his word been duly heeded in time, they would have been preserved in safety. How wonderful a thing faith is! How blessed the faithfulness that flows from faith; how completely it is the power of God in whatever position a man may be!

Here you find the apostle on his way to the Gentiles. All was clear now. He is away from that which was a charmed circle to him, where his bow did not abide in strength, but now, as before Festus and Agrippa, has returned to his old vigour. All is found in its place: no proofs are wanted where every fact proves it.

Acts 28:1-31. The last chapter shows us not only the journey to Rome, but the apostle reaching it. There, too, we find how truly the power of God is with him. He is received and no small kindness shown by the inhabitants in the island of Malta. And Paul illustrates how far any word of the Lord is in vain by accomplishing one of the peculiar promises in the disputed verses at the end of Mark. This strikes the minds of these heathen, so that afterwards we find the father of the great man in the island with Paul, who prays and lays his hands upon him and heals him. "When this was done, others also which had diseases in the island came, and were healed: who also honoured us with many honours; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary."

Arrived in Italy, they taste the comfort of brotherly love. "We found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days; and so we went toward Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii Forum, and Tres Tabernae; whom, when Paul saw, he thanked God and took courage." What a joy it is for a humble brother to be the means of inspiring the apostle Paul with fresh cheer along the road of Christ; and how we defraud ourselves as well as our brethren of so much blessing by our little faith and scanty love in identifying ourselves with the most despised and suffering for the name of the Lord! To what a work are we not called! What a wonderful mission is that which the Lord confers upon the simplest soul that names the name of Jesus! May He wake us up to feel how blessed we are, and what a spring of blessing He is! Out of them, it is said, "shall flow rivers of living water." Here, observe, it was the apostle himself; and, though it may seem strange to some, even he could find the sweetness and the power of the ministry of love.

To Rome Paul goes, and there he dwells with a soldier that keeps him; and in due time he sees the Jews, and lays before them the gospel at full length. Alas! it was the same tale; for man is everywhere the same, but God is too. "Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive."

The sentence, the long-suspended sentence, of judicial hardening was now about to fall in all its withering strength. It had been hanging over the nation ever since the days of Isaiah the prophet; for not without ground was it uttered then. Still the patience of God pursued its way, till Jesus came and was rejected, when the clouds gathered more thickly. Now not only the Holy Ghost was come, but He had testified of the risen glorified man, from Jerusalem to Rome. But if He had testified, the Jews, instead of being, as they ought to have been, the first to receive God's testimony, were in point of fact the first to refuse the most active and obstinate emissaries of unbelief and of Satan's power, not only not entering in themselves, but forbidding those who would. Accordingly, then and most justly fell that pall of judgment because of unbelief under which they lie to this day. But the gospel goes to the Gentiles; and spite of all that had wrought hitherto, or might work hereafter, they were to hear, and they have heard; and we are ourselves, thanks be to God, the witnesses of it.

Bibliographical Information
Kelly, William. "Commentary on Acts 26:10". Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible. https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​wkc/​acts-26.html. 1860-1890.
 
adsfree-icon
Ads FreeProfile