Acts of the Apostles Chapters 23-26 Select Verses Antique Commentary Notes

John Gill
Act 23:26 Claudius Lysias, unto the most excellent Governor Felix,…. This is the inscription of the letter, and by it we learn the name of the chief captain, so often spoken of in this and the two preceding chapters, which was Claudius Lysias; the first of these names is a Roman one, and which he might take from the Emperor Claudius, for he was not a Roman born; and the latter seems to be a Greek name, and was his proper name, and, he himself very likely was a Greek, since he purchased his freedom with money; one of this name was Archon of Athens (p); and another is reckoned by Cicero (q), among the famous orators of Greece, and is often cited by Harpocratian (r); one of Antiochus’s noblemen, and who was of the blood royal, and acted as a general against the Jews, was of this name (s).

“So he left Lysias, a nobleman, and one of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of Egypt:” (1 Maccabees 3:32)

The chief captain calls Felix the governor

the most excellent, which was a title of honour that belonged to him as a governor; the same is given to Theophilus, Luk_1:3 sendeth greeting; or wishes all health and prosperity.

(p) Fabrieii Bibliograph. Antiqu. p. 213. (q) De Claris Orator. vel Brutus, c. 32. (r) Lex Decem Orator. (s) 1 Maccab. iii. 32.

A.T. Robertson
Act 23:27
Was seized (sullēmphthenta). First aorist passive participle of sullambanō.

Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman (exeilamen mathōn hoti Romaios estin). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle (mathōn from manthanō) after the principal verb exeilamen (second aorist middle of exaireō, to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.

A.T. Robertson
Act 23:29
Concerning questions of their law (peri zētēmata tou nomou autōn). The very distinction drawn by Gallio in Corinth (Act_18:14.). On the word see note on Act_15:2.

But to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds (mēden de axion thanatou ē desmōn echonta enklēma). Literally, “having no accusation (or crime) worthy of death or of bonds.” This phrase here only in the N.T. Egklēma is old word for accusation or crime from egkaleō used in Act_23:28and in the N.T. only here and Act_25:16. Lysias thus expresses the opinion that Paul ought to be set free and the lenient treatment that Paul received in Caesarea and Rome (first imprisonment) is probably due to this report of Lysias. Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appears declares him innocent (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, Festus).

John Gill
Act 23:30 And when it was told me,…. As it was by Paul’s sister’s son,

how that the Jews laid wait for the man; had formed a conspiracy to take away his life, and laid a scheme in order to it, and at least intended, if they were not actually in ambush, to seize him as he should be brought from the castle to the sanhedrim:

I sent straightway to thee; the prisoner Paul, under a guard of soldiers; this he did directly, as soon as ever he heard of the design of the Jews; and he sent him to Felix, as being governor, to whom the judgment of this affair properly belonged, and who was best qualified for it, at least in the chief captain’s account; and who doubtless consulted his own honour and safety, lest he should incur blame and disgrace, should a Roman have been slain through any neglect or want of care in him:

and gave commandment to his accusers also, to say before thee what they had against him; it is reasonable to conclude, that he said nothing of this to them, though he might have determined he would, till after Paul was sent away; otherwise the affair would have been discovered, which he desired might be concealed:

farewell; which is the conclusion of the epistle, and is a wish of health and happiness.

John Gill
Act 23:31 Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul,…. Out of the castle, and put him upon a beast, as the chief captain had ordered the centurions, and they had directed the soldiers to do:

and brought him by night to Antipatris: they set out from Jerusalem at the third hour, or about nine o’clock at night, and travelled all night, and by break of day came to Antipatris; a city which lay in the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea: it was built by Herod the great, in the best soil of his kingdom, enriched with rivers and woods (t); and was so called by him, in memory of his father Antipater; it before went by the name of Chabar Zaba (u), or Capharsaba; the Jewish writers place it in the utmost borders of the land of Judea (w); hence that phrase so often used by them, from Gebath to Antipatris (x), in like sense as from Dan to Beersheba, these two places being the utmost borders of the land; here it was that Simon the just, with some of the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem, met Alexander the great, who travelled all night, as these soldiers with Paul did, and came to Antipatris at sun rising (y). It was forty two miles from Jerusalem. It was in the road from Judea to Galilee, as appears from the following canon of the Jews, concerning divorces (z);

“if a husband says to his wife, lo, this is thy divorce, if I do not come thirty days hence, and he goes from Judea to Galilee, and comes to Antipatris and returns, it becomes void:”

the way from Jerusalem to Caesarea lay through Nicopolis, Lydda, Antipatris, and Betthar; from Jerusalem to Nicopolis, according to the old Jerusalem Itinerary (a), were twenty two miles; from thence to Lydda, ten miles; and from Lydda to Antipatris ten more (which make forty two miles, as before observed); and from Antipatris to Betthar ten miles, and from thence to Caesarea, sixteen more: so that when the apostle was at Antipatris, he had twenty six miles more to go to Caesarea; and hence it appears, that the length of the journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea was sixty eight miles; though Josephus (b) makes the distance to be six hundred furlongs, or seventy five miles: and that the way from the one to the other lay through the places before mentioned, may be illustrated from what the same writer says, of some persons travelling from Caesarea to Jerusalem; so he relates (c), concerning Quadratus governor of Syria, that from Tyre he came to Caesarea, from Caesarea to Lydda, and from Lydda to Jerusalem; and of Cestius the Roman general, he says (d), that from Caesarea he came to Antipatris, and from Antipatris to Lydda, and from Lydda to Jerusalem, which clearly seems to be the same road the apostle went; and so Jerom (e), in the account he gives of the journey of Paula, says, that she came to Caesarea, where she saw the house of Cornelius, the cottage of Philip, and the beds of the four virgin prophetesses; and from thence to Antipatris, a little town half pulled down, which Herod called after his father’s name; and from thence to Lydda, now Diospolis, famous for the resurrection of Dorcas, and the healing of Aeneas. Antipatris is, by Ptolomy (f), placed at the west of Jordan, and is mentioned along with Gaza, Lydda, and Emmaus; some take it to be the same with Capharsalama, mentioned in:

“Nicanor also, when he saw that his counsel was discovered, went out to fight against Judas beside Capharsalama:” (1 Maccabees 7:31)

and others say, it is the same that is since called Assur or Arsuf, a town on the sea coast, which is not likely, since it does not appear that Antipatris was a maritime city. The apostle could not now stay to preach the Gospel in this place, nor do we elsewhere read or hear of a Gospel church state in it, until the “fifth” century; when it appears (g) there was a church here, and Polychronius was bishop of it, who was present at the council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451; and in the “eighth” century there were many Christians dwelt here, for in the year 744 there were many of them killed by the Arabians.

(t) Josephus De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 21. sect 9. (u) Ib. Antiqu. l. 13. c. 15. sect. 1. & l. 16. c. 5. sect. 2. (w) Bartenora in Misn. Gittin, c. 7. sect. 7. (x) T. Hieros. Taanioth, fol. 69. 2. & Megilia, fol. 70. 1. & T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 62. 2. & Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 2. Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 18. 2. & Juchasin, fol. 108. 1. & Jarchi in Eccl. xi. 6. (y) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 69. 1. (z) Misn. Gittin, c. 7. sect. 7. (a) Apud Reland. Palestina Illustrata, l. 2. c. 4. p. 417. (b) De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 5. (c) Ib. l. 2. c. 12. sect. 5, 6. (d) Ib. c. 19. sect. 1. (e) Epitaph. Paulae, fol. 59. A. (f) Geograph. l. 5. c. 16. (g) Vid. Reland. Palestina Ilustrata, l. 3. p. 569, 570.

Adam Clarke
Act 23:32
On the morrow they left the horsemen – Being now so far from Jerusalem, they considered Paul in a state of safety from the Jews, and that the seventy horse would be a sufficient guard; the four hundred foot, therefore, returned to Jerusalem, and the horse went on to Caesarea with Paul. We need not suppose that all this troop did reach Antipatris on the same night in which they left Jerusalem; therefore, instead of, they brought him by night to Antipatris, we may understand the text thus – Then the soldiers took Paul by night, and brought him to Antipatris. And the thirty-second verse need not to be understood as if the foot reached the castle of Antonia the next day, (though all this was possible), but that, having reached Antipatris, and refreshed themselves, they set out the same day, on their march to Jerusalem; on the morrow they returned, that is, they began their march back again to the castle. See on Act_24:1 (note).

A.T. Robertson
Act 23:34
When he had read it (anagnous). Second aorist active participle of anaginōskō, to know again, to read.

Of what province he was (ek poias eparcheias estin). Tense of estin (is) retained in indirect question. Poias is strictly “of what kind of” province, whether senatorial or imperial. Cilicia, like Judea, was under the control of the propraetor of Syria (imperial province). Paul’s arrest was in Jerusalem and so under the jurisdiction of Felix unless it was a matter of insurrection when he could appeal to the propraetor of Syria.

Albert Barnes
Act 23:35
In Herod’s judgment hall – Greek: in the praetorium of Herod. The word used here denoted formerly “the tent of the Roman praetor”; and since that was the place where justice was administered, it came to be applied to “halls (courts) of justice.” This had been raised probably by Herod the Great as his palace, or as a place for administering justice. It is probable, also, that prisons, or places of security, would be attached to such places.

John Gill
Act 23:35 I will hear thee, said he,…. The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, “we will hear”, which is a grand courtly way of speaking:

when thine accusers are come; which Lysias, in his letter, informed him that he had ordered them to come; which shows the governor to have some sense of justice and integrity, being desirous to hear both sides before he judged of the affair, though there was so much said in the chief captain’s letter in favour of Paul’s innocence, and against his enemies.

And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall; or palace: this was a place built by Herod the great at Caesarea, of whose magnificent buildings here Josephus gives a large account. For besides the famous haven or port which he made here, he adorned the place with splendid palaces, he built a theatre, and an amphitheatre, and a “forum” (h), which was either a market place, or a court of judicature; and if the latter, perhaps the same that is here meant, in a part of which, or in a place adjoining to it, the apostle was put. Here he was kept by a guard of soldiers, but not in close confinement; he had much liberty, and his friends and acquaintance had leave to come to him; see Act_24:23. We read (i) of דיטי של קיסרין, which some interpret “the chamber of the judges of Caesarea”; or the place where they sat in judgment, and may be the same that is here meant; though others interpret it a prison; and so it seems was this judgment hall of Herod’s.

(h) Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 21. sect. 5, 8. (i) Megillat Esther, fol. 85. 1.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:1
And with an Orator, one Tertullus (kai rhētoros Tertullou tinos). A deputation of elders along with the high priest Ananias, not the whole Sanhedrin, but no hint of the forty conspirators or of the Asian Jews. The Sanhedrin had become divided so that now it is probably Ananias (mortally offended) and the Sadducees who take the lead in the prosecution of Paul. It is not clear whether after five days is from Paul’s departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea. If he spent nine days in Jerusalem, then the five days would be counted from then (Act_23:11). The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin orator) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero pro Cael 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also. Rhētōr is a common old Greek word meaning a forensic orator or advocate but here only in the N.T. The Latin rhetor was a teacher of rhetoric, a very different thing. Tertullus is a diminutive of Tertius (Rom_16:22).

Informed (enephanisan). Same verb as in Act_23:15, Act_23:22, somewhat like our modern “indictment,” certainly accusations “against Paul” (kata tou Paulou). They were down on Paul and the hired barrister was prosecuting attorney. For the legal form see Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. II., p. 162, line 19.

John Gill
Act 24:1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,…. From Jerusalem to Caesarea: these five days are to be reckoned not from the seizing of Paul in the temple, but from his coming to Caesarea; the Alexandrian copy reads, “after some days”, leaving it undetermined how many: the high priest, with the elders, the members of the sanhedrim, with “some” of them, as the same copy and the Vulgate Latin version read, came down hither; not merely as accusers, by the order of the chief captain, but willingly, and of their own accord, to vindicate themselves and their people, lest they should fall under the displeasure of the Roman governor, for encouraging tumults and riots: the high priest must be conscious to himself that he had acted in an illegal manner, in ordering Paul to be smitten on the mouth, in the midst of the council, in the presence of the chief captain; and if it had not been for the soldiers, Paul had been pulled to pieces in the council: and the elders knew what a hand they had in the conspiracy against his life; and they were sensible that this plot was discovered, and Paul was secretly conveyed away; and what the captain had wrote to the governor, they could not tell, and therefore made the more haste down to him, to set themselves right, and get Paul condemned:

and with a certain orator named Tertullus: this man, by his name, seems to have been a Roman; and because he might know the Roman, or the Greek language, or both, which the Jews did not so well understand, and was very well acquainted with all the forms in the Roman courts of judicature, as well as was an eloquent orator; therefore they pitched upon him, and took him down with them to open and plead their cause. The name Tertullus is a diminutive from Tertius, as Marullus from Marius, Lucullus from Lucius, and Catullus from Catius. The father of the wife of Titus, before he was emperor, was of this name (k); and some say her name was Tertulla; and the grandmother of Vespasian, by his father’s side, was of this name, under whom he was brought up (l). This man’s title, in the Greek text, is ρητωρ, “Rhetor”, a rhetorician; but though with the Latins an “orator” and a “rhetorician” are distinguished, an orator being one that pleads causes in courts, and a rhetorician a professor of rhetoric; yet, with the Greeks, the “Rhetor” is an orator; so Demosthenes was called; and so Cicero calls himself (m).

Who informed the governor against Paul; brought in a bill of information against him, setting forth his crimes, and declaring themselves his accusers; they appeared in open court against him, and accused him; for this is not to be restrained to Tertullus, but is said of the high priest, and elders with him; for, the word is in the plural number, though the Syriac version reads in the singular, and seems to refer it to the high priest.

(k) Sueton. in Vita Titi, l. 11. c. 4. (l) Ib. Vita Vespasian. c. 2. (m) De Oratore, l. 3. p. 225.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:5
For we have found (heurontes gar). Second aorist active participle of heuriskō, but without a principal verb in the sentence. Probably we have here only a “summary of the charges against Paul” (Page).

A pestilent fellow (loimon). An old word for pest, plague, pestilence, Paul the pest. In N.T. only here and Luk_21:11 (loimoi kai limoi, pestilences and famines) which see. Latin pestis. Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer.

A mover of insurrections (kinounta staseis). This was an offence against Roman law if it could be proven. “Plotted against at Damascus, plotted against at Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonica, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, cause of a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem” (Furneaux). Specious proof could have been produced, but was not. Tertullus went on to other charges with which a Roman court had no concern (instance Gallio in Corinth).

Throughout the world (kata tēn oikoumenēn). The Roman inhabited earth (gēn) as in Act_17:6.

A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (prōtostatēn tēs tōn Nazōraiōn haireseōs). Prōtostatēs is an old word in common use from prōtos and histēmi, a front-rank man, a chief, a champion. Here only in the N.T. This charge is certainly true. About “sect” (hairesis) see note on Act_5:17. Nazōraioi here only in the plural in the N.T., elsewhere of Jesus (Mat_2:23; Mat_26:71; Luk_18:37; Joh_18:5, Joh_18:7; Joh_19:19; Act_2:22; Act_3:6; Act_4:10; Act_6:14; Act_22:8; Act_26:9). The disciple is not above his Master. There was a sneer in the term as applied to Jesus and here to his followers.

John Gill
Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow,…. Pointing to Paul, the prisoner at the bar; the word here used signifies the “pest” or “plague” itself; and it was usual with orators among the Romans, when they would represent a man as a very wicked man, as dangerous to the state, and unworthy to live in it, to call him the pest of the city, or of the country, or of the empire, as may be observed in several places in Cicero’s Orations.

And a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world: sedition was severely punished by the Romans, being what they carefully watched and guarded against, and was what the Jews were supposed to be very prone unto; and Tertullus would suggest, that the several riots, and tumults, and seditions, fomented by the Jews, in the several parts of the Roman empire, here called the world, were occasioned by the apostle: the crime charged upon him is greatly aggravated, as that not only he was guilty of sedition, but that he was the mover of it, and that he stirred up all the Jews to it, and that in every part of the world, or empire, than which nothing was more false; the Jews often raised up a mob against him, but he never rioted them, and much less moved them against the Roman government: and to this charge he adds,

and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; not Nazarites, as Calvin seems to understand the passage; for these were men of great repute among the Jews, and for Paul to be at the head of them would never be brought against him as a charge: but Nazarenes, that is, Christians, so called by way of contempt and reproach, from Jesus of Nazareth; which name and sect being contemptible among the Romans, as well as Jews, are here mentioned to make the apostle more odious.

Adam Clarke
Act 24:6
Hath gone about to profane the temple – This was a heavy charge, if it could have been substantiated, because the Jews were permitted by the Romans to put any person to death who profaned their temple. This charge was founded on the gross calumny mentioned, Act_21:28, Act_21:29; for, as they had seen Trophimus, an Ephesian, with Paul in the city, they pretended that he had brought him into the temple.

Would have judged according to our law – He pretended that they would have tried the case fairly, had not the chief captain taken him violently out of their hands; whereas, had not Lysias interfered, they would have murdered him on the spot.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:12
Disputing (dialegomenon). Simply conversing, discussing, arguing, and then disputing, common verb in old Greek and in N.T. (especially in Acts).

Stirring up a crowd (epistasin poiounta ochlou). Epistasis is a late word from ephistēmi, to make an onset or rush. Only twice in the N.T., 2Co_11:28 (the pressure or care of the churches) and here (making a rush of a crowd). The papyri give examples also for “onset.” So Paul denies the two charges that were serious and the only one that concerned Roman law (insurrection).

John Gill
Act 24:12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man,…. Either about civil or religious affairs: not that it was criminal to dispute in the temple; it was a common thing for the doctors to dispute about matters of religion, in the porches, and courts, and chambers of the temple, as it may be observed they often did with Christ; but the apostle mentions this to show, that he was so far from moving sedition among the people of the Jews, that he never so much as entered into any conversation with them, upon any subject whatever: true indeed, he was in the temple, and was found there, but not disputing with any, but purifying himself according to the law of Moses:

neither raising up the people; stirring them up to sedition, and tumult, to rebel against the Roman government:

neither in the synagogues; where there were the greatest concourse of people, and the best opportunity of sowing seditious principles, and of which there were many in the city of Jerusalem. The Jews say (p) there were four hundred and sixty synagogues in Jerusalem; some say (q) four hundred and eighty:

nor in the city; of Jerusalem, in any of the public streets or markets, where there were any number of people collected together; the apostle mentions the most noted and public places, where any thing of this kind might most reasonably be thought to be done.

(p) T. Hieros. Cetubot, fol. 35. 3. (q) Ib. Megilla, fol. 73. 4.

John Gill
Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. As that he was a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a profaner of the temple these things they could not set forth in any clear light, and bring testimonies, or give demonstration of; they could not make them appear to be true, which it lay upon them to do, or otherwise in course he ought be acquitted: this was challenging and defying them to make good their assertions.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:14
I confess (homologō). The only charge left was that of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This Paul frankly confesses is true. He uses the word in its full sense. He is “guilty” of that.

After the Way (kata tēn hodon). This word Paul had already applied to Christianity (Act_22:4). He prefers it to “sect” (hairesin which means a choosing, then a division). Paul claims Christianity to be the real (whole, catholic) Judaism, not a “sect” of it. But he will show that Christianity is not a deviation from Judaism, but the fulfilment of it (Page) as he has already shown in Galatians 3; Romans 9.

So serve I the God of our fathers (houtōs latreuō tōi patrōiōi theōi). Paul has not stretched the truth at all. He has confirmed the claim made before the Sanhedrin that he is a spiritual Pharisee in the truest sense (Act_23:6). He reasserts his faith in all the law and the prophets, holding to the Messianic hope. A curious “heretic” surely!

Which these themselves also look for (hēn kai autoi houtoi prosdechontai). Probably with a gesture towards his accusers. He does not treat them all as Sadducees. See note on Tit_2:13 for similar use of the verb (prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida, looking for the happy hope).

Adam Clarke
Act 24:14
That after the way which they call heresy – See the explanation of this word in the note on Act_5:17 (note), and see before, Act_24:5 (note), where what is here translated heresy, is there rendered sect. At this time the word had no bad acceptation, in reference to religious opinions. The Pharisees themselves, the most respectable body among the Jews, are called a sect; for Paul, defending himself before Agrippa, says that he lived a Pharisee according to the strictest αἱρεσιν, sect, or heresy of their religion. And Josephus, who was a Pharisee, speaks, της των Φαρισαιων αἱρεσεως, of the heresy or sect of the Pharisees. Life, chap. xxxviii. Therefore it is evident that the word heresy had no bad meaning among the Jews; it meant simply a religious sect. Why then did they use it by way of degradation to St. Paul? This seems to have been the cause. They had already two accredited sects in the land, the Pharisees and Sadducees: the interests of each of these were pretty well balanced, and each had a part in the government, for the council, or Sanhedrin, was composed both of Sadducees and Pharisees: see Act_23:6. They were afraid that the Christians, whom they called Nazarenes, should form a new sect, and divide the interests of both the preceding; and what they feared, that they charged them with; and, on this account, the Christians had both the Pharisees and the Sadducees for their enemies. They had charged Jesus Christ with plotting against the state, and endeavoring to raise seditions; and they charged his followers with the same. This they deemed a proper engine to bring a jealous government into action.

So worship I the God of my fathers – I bring in no new object of worship; no new religious creed. I believe all things as they profess to believe; and acknowledge the Law and the Prophets as divinely inspired books; and have never, in the smallest measure, detracted from the authority or authenticity of either.

John Gill
Act 24:15 And have hope towards God,…. Of an interest in him, and of enjoying eternal life and happiness with him in a future state:

which they themselves also allow; that is, some of the Jews, not the Sadducees, for they denied what is afterwards asserted; but the Pharisees, who believed the immortality of the soul, and its existence in a future state:

and that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; agreeably to the doctrine of Christ in Joh_5:28. In this article the Pharisees of those times were sounder than the modern Jews; for though the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of their thirteen articles of faith, and is a fundamental one, which he that does not believe, cannot be said to be of the Jewish religion; yet they limit it entirely to the righteous (s), and will not allow that the wicked shall rise again: and this notion obtained also very early; for in their Talmud (t) it is reported, as the saying of R. Abhu, that

“the day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead; the resurrection of the dead is לצדיקים, for the righteous, but the rain is both for the righteous, and the wicked.”

Though Abarbinel (u) says, that the sense of this expression is not, that they that are not just shall have no part in the resurrection, but that hereby is declared the benefit and reward to be enjoyed at the resurrection; that that is not like rain, from whence both just and unjust equally receive advantage; whereas only the reward is for the righteous, but not for the ungodly: moreover, he observes, that this saying was not received and approved of by all the wise men, particularly that R. Joseph dissented, and others agreed with him; and as for himself, he openly declares, that that assertion, that the just among the Israelites only shall rise again, is foreign from truth, since the Scripture affirms, Dan_12:2 “that many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”; but if there should be no other than the righteous in the resurrection, they would without doubt be very few; besides it is said, “some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt”; and Isaiah says, Isa_66:24 “and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me”; which shows, that the ungodly shall rise again, to receive their due punishment: and Manasseh ben Israel (w), in the last century, argued for the resurrection of both the godly and ungodly, from the same passages of Scripture; and yet he was not of opinion, that the resurrection would be general and common to all men, only that some of all sorts, good, and bad, and middling, would rise again, and which he supposed was the sense of the ancients. It is certain the Jews are divided in their sentiments about this matter; some of them utterly deny that any other shall rise but the just; yea, they affirm (x), that only the just among the Israelites, and not any of the nations of the world shall rise; others say that all shall rise at the resurrection of the dead, excepting the generation of the flood (y); and others (z) think, that only they that have been very bad, or very good, shall rise, but not those that are between both; but certain it is, as the apostle affirms, that all shall rise, both just and unjust: the just are they who are made so by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and who being created anew unto righteousness and true holiness, live soberly, righteously, and godly; the unjust are they who are destitute of righteousness, and are filled with all unrighteousness; and these latter, as well as the former, will rise again from the dead; which is clear, not only from the words of Christ, and the writings of the apostles, but from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, particularly Dan_12:2 and also from the justice of God, which requires that they who have sinned in the body, should be punished in the body; wherefore it is necessary on this account, that the bodies of the wicked should be raised, that they with their souls may receive the full and just recompense of reward; and likewise from the general judgment, which will include the righteous and the wicked, and who must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive for the deeds done in the body, whether good or evil; in order to which there must be a resurrection of them; to which add, the account the Scripture gives of the punishment of the wicked in hell, which supposes the resurrection of the body, and in which the body and soul will be both destroyed. Indeed there will be a difference between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, both in the time of their rising, the dead in Christ will rise first at the beginning of the thousand years, the wicked not until they are ended; and in the means and manner of their rising; they will be both raised by Christ, but the one by virtue of union to him, the other merely by his power; the just will rise in bodies not only immortal, and incorruptible, but powerful, spiritual, and glorious, even like to the glorious body of Christ; the wicked will rise with bodies immortal, but not free from sin, nor glorious: yea, their resurrection will differ in the end of it; the one will rise to everlasting life and glory, the other to everlasting shame and damnation.

(s) Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. sect. 1. Kimchi in Isa. xxvi 19. Aben Ezra & Saadiah Gaon in Dan. xii. 2. (t) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 7. 1. (u) Prefat. in Isa. fol. 3. 1. (w) De Resurrectione Mortuorum, l. 2. c. 8. (x) Vid. Pocock, Not. Miscel. in port. Mosis, p. 183. (y) Pirke Eliezer, c. 34. (z) Vid. Menassah ben Israel, ut supra.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:17
After many years (di’ etōn pleionōn). “At an interval (dia) of more (pleionōn) years” (than a few, one must add), not “after many years.” If, as is likely Paul went up to Jerusalem in Act_18:22, that was some five years ago and would justify “pleionōn” (several years ago or some years ago).

To bring alms (eleēmosunas poiēson). Another (see proskunēsōn in Act_24:11) example of the future participle of purpose in the N.T. These “alms” (on eleēmosunas See Mat_6:1, Mat_6:4, and note on Act_10:2, common in Tobit and is in the papyri) were for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Co_16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8; 2Co_9:1-15; Rom_15:26) who were none the less Jews. “And offerings” (kai prosphoras). The very word used in Act_21:26 of the offerings or sacrifices made by Paul for the four brethren and himself. It does not follow that it was Paul’s original purpose to make these “offerings” before he came to Jerusalem (cf. Act_18:18). He came up to worship (Act_24:11) and to be present at Pentecost (Act_20:16).

Albert Barnes
Act 24:21
Except it be for this one voice – For this one expression or declaration. This was what Paul had said before the council – the main thing on which he had insisted, and he calls on them to testify to this, and to show, if they could, that in this declaration he had been wrong. Chubb and other infidels have supposed that Paul here acknowledges that he was wrong in the declaration which he made when he said that he was called in question for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead Act_23:6, and that his conscience reproached him for appearing to be time-serving, for concealing the true cause of offence against him, and for attempting to take advantage of their divisions of sentiment, thus endeavoring to produce discord in the council. But against this supposition we may urge the following considerations:
(1) Paul wished to fix their attention on the main thing which he had said before the council.
(2) It was true, as has been shown on the passage (Act_23:1-10), that this was the principal doctrine which Paul had been defending.
(3) If they were prepared to witness against him for holding and teaching the resurrection of the dead as a false or evil doctrine, he called on them to do it. As this had been the only thing which they had witnessed before the council, he calls on them to testify to what they knew only, and to show, if they could, that this was wrong.
Touching the resurrection … – Respecting the resurrection, Act_23:6.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:22
Having more exact knowledge (akribesteron eidōs). “Knowing” (second perfect active participle of oida) “more accurately” (comparative of adverb akribōs). More accurately than what? Than the Sanhedrin supposed he had “concerning the Way” (ta peri tēs hodou, the things concerning the Way, common in Acts for Christianity). How Felix had gained this knowledge of Christianity is not stated. Philip the Evangelist lived here in Caesarea and there was a church also. Drusilla was a Jewess and may have told him something. Besides, it is wholly possible that Felix knew of the decision of Gallio in Corinth that Christianity was a religio licita as a form of Judaism. As a Roman official he knew perfectly well that the Sanhedrin with the help of Tertullus had failed utterly to make out a case against Paul. He could have released Paul and probably would have done so but for fear of offending the Jews whose ruler he was and the hope that Paul (note “alms” in Act_24:17) might offer him bribes for his liberty.

Deferred them (anebaleto autous). Second aorist middle indicative of anaballō, old verb (only here in N.T.) to throw or toss up, to put back or off, in middle to put off from one, to delay, to adjourn. Felix adjourned the case without a decision under a plausible pretext, that he required the presence of Lysias in person, which was not the case. Lysias had already said that Paul was innocent and was never summoned to Caesarea, so far as we know. Since Paul was a Roman citizen, Lysias could have thrown some light on the riot, if he had any.

Shall come down (katabēi). Second aorist active subjunctive of katabainō.

I will determine your matter (diagnōsomai ta kath’ humās). Future middle of diaginōskō, old and common verb to know accurately or thoroughly (dia). In the N.T. only here (legal sense) and Act_23:15. “The things according to you” (plural, the matters between Paul and the Sanhedrin).

Albert Barnes
Act 24:22
Having more perfect knowledge of that way – Our translation of this verse is very obscure, and critics are divided about the proper interpretation of the original. Many (Erasmus, Luther, Michaelis, Morus, etc.) render it, “Although he had a more perfect knowledge of the Christian doctrine than Paul’s accusers had, yet he deferred the hearing of the cause until Lysias had come down.” They observe that he might have obtained this knowledge not only from the letter of Lysias, but from public rumour, as there were doubtless Christians at Caesarea. They suppose that he deferred the cause either with the hope of receiving a bribe from Paul (compare Act_24:26), or to gratify the Jews with his being longer detained as a prisoner. Others, among whom are Beza, Grotius, Rosenmuller, and Doddridge, suppose that it should be rendered, “He deferred them, and said, after I have been more accurately informed concerning this way, when Lysias has come down, I will hear the cause.” This is doubtless the true interpretation of the passage, and it is rendered more probable by the fact that Felix sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith of Christ Act_24:24, evidently with the design to make himself better acquainted with the charges against him, and the nature of his belief.

Of that way – Of the Christian religion. This expression is repeatedly used by Luke to denote the Christian doctrine. See the notes on Act_9:2.

He deferred them – He put them off; he postponed the decision of the case; he adjourned the trial.

When Lysias … – Lysias had been acquainted with the excitement and its causes, and Felix regarded him as an important witness in regard to the true nature of the charges against Paul.

I will know the uttermost … – I shall be fully informed, and prepared to decide the cause.

John Gill
Act 24:23 And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul,…. In custody, to watch and guard him, and look after him, that he went not away, since he was neither condemned nor acquitted; and therefore must be retained a prisoner, till one or other was done:

and to let him have liberty; not to go where he pleased, or out of the place of confinement, for then there would have been no need of the after direction, not to prohibit his friends from coming to him; but to free him from his bonds and close confinement; which was done, partly on account of his being a Roman, and partly because he took him to be an innocent man, and it may be because he hoped to receive money from him:

that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him; but that they should have free access to him, and the liberty of conversation with him; which layouts granted show that he was inclined to the side of Paul, both through the defence that he had made for himself, and through the letter which Lysias sent him, as well as through the knowledge he had gained by long observation and experience, of the temper and disposition of the Jews, their priests and elders.

Albert Barnes
Act 24:23
And he commanded … – It is evident from this verse that Felix was disposed to show Paul all the favors that were consistent with his safe keeping. He esteemed him to be a persecuted man, and doubtless regarded the charges against him as entirely malicious. What was Felix’s motive in this cannot be certainly known. It is not improbable, however, that he detained him:
(1) To gratify the Jews by keeping him in custody as if he were guilty, and,
(2) That he hoped the friends of Paul would give him money to release him. Perhaps it was for this purpose that he gave orders that his friends should have free access to him, that thus Paul might be furnished with the means of purchasing his freedom.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:24
With Drusilla his wife (sun Drousillēi tēi idiēi gunaiki). Felix had induced her to leave her former husband Aziz, King of Emesa. She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I (Drusilla, Mariamne, Bernice). Her father murdered James, her great-uncle Herod Antipas slew John the Baptist, her great-grandfather (Herod the Great) killed the babes of Bethlehem. Perhaps the mention of Drusilla as “his own wife” is to show that it was not a formal trial on this occasion. Page thinks that she was responsible for the interview because of her curiosity to hear Paul.
Sent for (metepempsato). First aorist middle of metapempō as usual (Act_10:5).

Albert Barnes
Act 24:24
Felix came with his wife Drusilla – Drusilla was the daughter of Herod Agrippa the elder, and was engaged to be married to Epiphanes, the son of King Antiochus, on condition that he would embrace the Jewish religion; but as he afterward refused to do that, the contract was broken off. Afterward she was given in marriage, by her brother Agrippa the younger, to Azizus, king of Emesa, upon his consent to be circumcised. When Felix was governor of Judea, he saw Drusilla and fell in love with her, and sent to her Simon, one of his friends, a Jew, by birth a Cyprian, who pretended to be a magician, to endearour to persuade her to forsake her husband and to marry Felix. Accordingly, in order to avoid the envy of her sister Bernice, who treated her ill on account of her beauty, “she was prevailed on,” says Josephus, “to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix” (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 7, sections 1 and 2). She was, therefore, living in adultery with him, and this was probably the reason why Paul dwelt in his discourse before Felix particularly on “temperance,” or chastity. See the notes on Act_24:25.

He sent for Paul, and heard him – Perhaps he did this in order to be more fully acquainted with the case which was submitted to him. It is possible, also, that it might have been to gratify his wife, who was a Jewess, and who doubtless had a desire to be acquainted with the principles of this new sect. It is certain, also, that one object which Felix had in this was to let Paul see how dependent he was on him, and to induce him to purchase his liberty.

Concerning the faith in Christ – Concerning the Christian religion. Faith in Christ is often used to denote the whole of Christianity, as it is the leading and characteristic feature of the religion of the gospel.

Adam Clarke
Act 24:25
As he reasoned of righteousness – Δικαιοσυνης; The principles and requisitions of justice and right, between God and man; and between man and his fellows, in all relations and connections of life.
Temperance – Εγκρατειας, Chastity; self-government or moderation with regard to a man’s appetites, passions, and propensities of all kinds.

And judgment to come – Κριματος του μελλοντος; The day of retribution, in which the unjust, intemperate, and incontinent, must give account of all the deeds done in the body. This discourse of St. Paul was most solemnly and pointedly adapted to the state of the person to whom it was addressed. Felix was tyrannous and oppressive in his government; lived under the power of avarice and unbridled appetites; and his incontinence, intemperance, and injustice, appear fully in depriving the king of Emesa of his wife, and in his conduct towards St. Paul, and the motives by which that conduct was regulated. And as to Drusilla, who had forsaken the husband of her youth, and forgotten the covenant of her God, and become the willing companion of this bad man, she was worthy of the strongest reprehension; and Paul’s reasoning on righteousness, temperance, and judgment, was not less applicable to her than to her unprincipled paramour.

Felix trembled – “The reason of Felix’s fear,” says Bp. Pearce, “seems to have been, lest Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and knew that what she had done was against the law of Moses, might be influenced by Paul’s discourse, and Felix’s happiness with her disturbed. What is said of Felix, Act_24:26, seems to show that he had no remorse of conscience for what he had done.” On the head of Drusilla’s scruples, he had little to fear; the king of Emesa, her husband, had been dead about three years before this; and as to Jewish scruples, she could be little affected by them: she had already acted in opposition to the Jewish law, and she is said to have turned heathen for the sake of Felix. We may therefore hope that Felix felt regret for the iniquities of his life; and that his conscience was neither so seared nor so hardened, as not to receive and retain some gracious impressions from such a discourse, delivered by the authority, and accompanied with the influence, of the Spirit of God. His frequently sending for the apostle, to speak with him in private, is a proof that he wished to receive farther instructions in a matter in which he was so deeply interested; though he certainly was not without motives of a baser kind; for he hoped to get money for the liberation of the apostle.

Go thy way for this time – His conscience had received as much terror and alarm as it was capable of bearing; and probably he wished to hide, by privacy, the confusion and dismay which, by this time, were fully evident in his countenance.

A.T. Robertson
Act 24:26
He hoped withal (hama kai elpizōn). “At the same time also hoping.” Paul had mentioned the “alms” (Act_24:17) and that excited the avarice of Felix for “money” (chrēmata). Roman law demanded exile and confiscation for a magistrate who accepted bribes, but it was lax in the provinces. Felix had doubtless received them before. Josephus (Ant. XX. 8, 9) represents Felix as greedy for money.

The oftener (puknoteron). Comparative adverb of puknos, old word, in N.T. only here and Luk_5:33 which see and 1Ti_5:23. Kin to pugmē (Mar_7:3) which see from pukō, thick, dense, compact. Paul kept on not offering a bribe, but Felix continued to have hopes (present tense elpizōn), kept on sending for him (present tense metapempomenos), and kept on communing (imperfect active hōmilei from homileō, old word as in Act_20:11; Luk_24:14, which see, only N.T. examples of this word). But he was doomed to disappointment. He was never terrified again.

John Gill
Act 24:26 He hoped also that money would have been given him of Paul,…. For he observed from his own defence, that he came up to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings; and he perceived by Tertullus’s indictment, that he was at the head of a large body of men; that he was some considerable person, at least who was in great esteem among some sort of people, and whose life and liberty were valuable: and he might hope if Paul had not money of his own, yet his friends would supply him with a sufficiency to obtain his freedom; and it may be that it was with this view that he ordered that they should have free access to him and minister to him, that so he might have to give to him:

that he might loose him; from all confinement, and set him at entire liberty:

wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him; but not about religious matters, but about his civil affairs; suggesting he would release him for a sum of money, which the apostle did not listen to, being unwilling to encourage such evil practices, or to make use of unlawful means to free himself.

A.T. Robertson Act 24:27
But when two years were fulfilled (dietias de plērōtheisēs). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of plēroō, common verb to fill full. Dietia, late word in lxx and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and Act_28:30. Compound of dia, two (duo, dis) and etos, year. So Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luk_1:1-4).

Was succeeded by (elaben diadochon). Literally, “received as successor.” Diadochos is an old word from diadechomai, to receive in succession (dia, duo, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 115) gives papyri examples where hoi diadochoi means “higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies,” probably “deputies,” a usage growing out of the “successors” of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary), though here the original notion of “successor” occurs (cf. Josephus, Ant. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix “received” a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead.

Porcius Festus (Porkion Phēston). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (Ant. XX. 8, 9) says that “Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix.” The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by a.d. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came a.d. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and sicarii. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, a.d. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews.

Desiring to gain favour with the Jews (thelōn te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive katathesthai from katatithēmi, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and Act_25:9 in N.T., though in some MSS. in Mar_15:46. It is a banking figure.

Left Paul in bonds (katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon). Effective aorist active indicative of kataleipō, to leave behind. Paul “in bonds” (dedemenon, perfect passive participle of deō, to bind) was the “deposit” (katathesthai) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody “because of Drusilla” (dia Drousillan). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. So Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul’s Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put 2Ti_4:9-22 here in spite of the flat contradiction with Act_21:29 about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Ti_4:20), a “mistake” which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.

John Gill
Act 24:27 But after two years,…. Not of Felix’s government, for he had been judge many years in that nation, but of the apostle’s confinement at Caesarea:

Porcius Festus came in Felix’s room; was made governor of Judea by Nero in his stead; who having had many and loud complaints against him for malpractice, moved him: and so Josephus (f) says, that Festus succeeded Felix in the government of Judea, and calls him as here, Porcius Festus; in the Arabic version he is called Porcinius Festus, and in the Vulgate Latin version Portius Festus, but his name was not Portius, from “porta”, a gate, but “Porcius”, a porcis, from hogs; it was common with the Romans to take names from the brute creatures; so Suillius from swine, Caprarius and Caprilius from goats, Bubulcus from oxen, and Ovinius from sheep. The famous Cato was of the family of the Porcii; his name was M. Porcius Cato, and came from Tusculum, a place about twelve miles from Rome, where there is a mountain which still retains the name of Porcius; we read also of Porcius Licinius, a Latin poet, whose fragments are still extant; whether this man was of the same family is not certain, it is very likely he might: his surname Festus signifies joyful and cheerful, as one keeping a feast; this was a name common with the Romans, as Rufus Festus, Pompeius Festus, and others:

and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound; he had done many injuries to their persons and properties, he had greatly abused them, and incensed them against him; and now he was sent for to Rome, to answer for his maladministration; wherefore, to gratify the Jews, and to oblige them, in hopes that they would not follow him with charges and accusations, at least would mitigate them, and not bear hard upon him, he leaves Paul bound at Caesarea, when it was in his power to have loosed him, and who he knew was an innocent person: but this piece of policy did him no service, for the persons he had wronged, the chief of the Jews at Caesarea, went to Rome, and accused him to Caesar; and he was sent by his successor thither, to appear before Nero, and answer to the charges exhibited against him; and had it not been for his brother Pallas, who was in great authority at court, he had been severely punished (g).

(f) De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 14. sect. 1. & Antiqu. l. 20. c. 7. sect. 9. (g) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 20. c. 7. sect. 9.

John Gill
Act 25:13 And after certain days,…. Several days after the above appeal made by Paul:

King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus: this King Agrippa was the son of Herod Agrippa, who killed James the brother of John, and of whose death mention is made in Act_12:1 the Jewish chronologer (h) calls him Agrippa the Second, the son of Agrippa the First, the fifth king of the family of Herod: he was not king of Judea, this was reduced again into a province by Claudius; and upon the death of his uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, he was by the said emperor made king of that place, who afterwards removed him from thence to a greater kingdom, and gave him the tetrarchy, which was Philip’s, his great uncle’s; namely, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, to which he added the kingdom of Lysanias; (see Luk_3:1) and the province which Varus had; and to these Nero added four cities, with what belonged to them; in Peraea, Abila and Julias, and in Galilee, Tarichea and Tiberias (i). The Jewish writers often make mention of him, calling him, as here, King Agrippa; See Gill on Act_26:3, and so does Josephus (k). According to the above chronologer (l) he was had to Rome by Vespasian, when he went to be made Caesar; and was put to death by him, three years and a half before the destruction of the temple; though others say he lived some years after it: and some of the Jewish writers affirm, that in his days the temple was destroyed (m). Agrippa, though he was a Jew, his name was a Roman name; Augustus Caesar had a relation of this name (n), who had a son of the same name, and a daughter called Agrippina; and Herod the great being much obliged to the Romans, took the name from them, and gave it to one of his sons, the father of this king: the name originally was given to such persons, who at their birth came forth not with their heads first, as is the usual way of births, but with their feet first, and which is accounted a difficult birth; and “ab aegritudine”, from the grief, trouble, and weariness of it, such are called Agrippas (o). Bernice, who is said to be with King Agrippa, is not the name of a man, as some have supposed, because said to sit in the judgment hall with the king, but of a woman; so called, in the dialect of the Macedonians, for Pheronice, which signifies one that carries away the victory; and this same person is, in Suetonius (p), called Queen Beronice, for whom Titus the emperor is said to have a very great love, and was near upon marrying her: she was not wife of Agrippa, as the Arabic version reads, but his sister; his father left besides him, three daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, which last was the wife of Felix, Act_24:24. Bernice was first married to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis (q), and after his death to Polemon, king of Cilicia, from whom she separated, and lived in too great familiarity with her brother Agrippa, as she had done before her second marriage, as was suspected (r), to which incest Juvenal refers (s); and with whom she now was, who came together to pay a visit to Festus, upon his coming to his government, and to congratulate him upon it.
(h) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 26. 1. (i) Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 11. sect. 5. & c. 12. sect. 1. 8. & c. 13. sect. 2. (k) Antiqu. l. 20. c. 8. sect. 1. (l) Tzemach David, ib. col. 2. (m) Jarchi & Bartenora in Misn. Sota, c. 7. sect. 8. (n) Sueton. in Vita Augusti, c. 63, 64. (o) A. Gell. Noct. Attic. l. 16. c. 16. (p) In Vita Titi, c. 7. (q) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 19. c. 5. sect. 1. & c. 9. sect. 1. & de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 11. sect. 5, 6. (r) Antiqu. l. 20. c. 6. sect. 3. (s) Satyr 6.

Adam Clarke
Act 25:13
King Agrippa – This was the son of Herod Agrippa, who is mentioned Act_12:1. Upon the death of his father’s youngest brother, Herod, he succeeded him in the kingdom of Chalcis, by the favor of the Emperor Claudius: Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 4, s. 2; and Bell. lib. ii. cap. 12, s. 1. Afterwards, Claudius removed him from that kingdom to a larger one, giving him the tetrarchy of Philip, which contained Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulonitis. He gave him, likewise, the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and the province which Varus had governed. Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6, s. 1; Bell. lib. ii. cap. 19, s. 8. Nero made a farther addition, and gave him four cities, Abila, Julias in Peraea, Tarichaea and Tiberias in Galilee: Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 7, s. 4; Bell. lib. ii. cap 13, s. 2. Claudius gave him the power of appointing the high priest among the Jews; Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 1, s. 3; and instances of his exercising this power may be seen in Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 7, s. 8, 11. This king was strongly attached to the Romans, and did every thing in his power to prevent the Jews from rebelling against them; and, when he could not prevail, he united his troops to those of Titus, and assisted in the siege of Jerusalem: he survived the ruin of his country several years. See Bishop Pearce and Calmet.
Bernice, or, as she is sometimes called, Berenice, was sister of this Agrippa, and of the Drusilla mentioned Act_24:24 : She was at first married to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, Jos. Antiq. lib. xix. cap. 9, s. 1; and, on his death, went to live with her brother Agrippa, with whom she was violently suspected to lead an incestuous life. Juvenal, as usual, mentions this in the broadest manner – Sat. vi. ver. 155: – “Next, a most valuable diamond, rendered more precious by being put on the finger of Berenice; a barbarian gave it to this incestuous woman formerly; and Agrippa gave this to his sister.”

Josephus mentions the report of her having criminal conversation with her brother Agrippa, φημης επισχουσης, ὁτι τἀδελφῳ συνῃει. To shield herself from this scandal, she persuaded Polemo, king of Cilicia, to embrace the Jewish religion, and marry her; this he was induced to do on account of her great riches; but she soon left him, and he revolted to heathenism: see Jos. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 7, s. 3. After this, she lived often with her brother, and her life was by no means creditable; she had, however, address to ingratiate herself with Titus Vespasian, and there were even rumors of her becoming empress – propterque insignem reginae Berenices amorem, cui etiam nuptias pollicitus ferebatur. – Suet. in Vit. Titi. Which was prevented by the murmurs of the Roman people: Berenicen statim ab urbe dimisit, invitus invitam. – Ibid. Tacitus also, Hist. lib. ii. cap. 1, speaks of her love intrigue with Titus. From all accounts she must have been a woman of great address; and, upon the whole, an exceptionable character.

Albert Barnes
Act 25:16
It is not the manner … – He here states the reasons which he gave the Jews for not delivering Paul into their hands. In Act_25:4-5, we have an account of the fact that he would not accede to the requests of the Jews; and he here states that the reason of his refusal was that it was contrary to the Roman law. Appian, in his Roman History, says, “It is not their custom to condemn men before they are heard.” Philo (DePraesi. Rom.) says the same thing. In Tacitus (History, ii.) it is said, “A defendant is not to be prohibited from adducing all things by which his innocence may be established.” It was for this that the equity of the Roman jurisprudence was celebrated throughout the world. We may remark that it is a subject of sincere gratitude to the God of our nation that this privilege is enjoyed in the highest perfection in this land. It is a right which every man has: to be heard; to know the charges against him; to be confronted with the witnesses; to make his defense; and to be tried by the laws, and not by the passions and caprices of people. In this respect our jurisprudence surpasses all that Rome ever enjoyed, and is not inferior to that of the most favored nation of the earth.

To deliver – To give him up as a favor χαρίζεσθαι charizesthai to popular clamor and caprice. Yet our Saviour, in violation of the Roman laws, was thus given up by Pilate, Mat_27:18-25.

Have the accusers face to face – That he may know who they are and hear their accusations. Nothing contributes more to justice than this. Tyrants permit people to be accused without knowing who the accusers are, and without an opportunity of meeting the charges. It is one great principle of modern jurisprudence that the accused may know the accusers, and be permitted to confront the witnesses, and to adduce all the testimony possible in his own defense.

And have licence – Greek: “place of apology” – may have the liberty of defending himself.

Adam Clarke
Act 25:17 Therefore when they were come hither,…. To Caesarea, namely the chief priests and elders of the Jews:

without any delay on the morrow, I sat on the judgment seat: that is, the next day after they came down, Festus went into the judgment hall, and took his place there, in order to hear this cause; which circumstance he mentions, to show how expeditious he was:

and I commanded the man to be brought forth: from his place of confinement, to the hall, to answer for himself.

Albert Barnes
Act 25:18
They brought none accusation of such things as I supposed – It was natural for Festus, at the first view of things, to suppose that Paul must be guilty of some very atrocious crime. When he found that he had been twice snatched from the hands of the Jews; that he had been brought to Caesarea, as a prisoner, two years before; that he had been tried once before the Sanhedrin, and once before the governor of the province; that he had now lain two years in bonds; and that the high priest and all the heads of the Jewish nation had united in accusing him, and whose condemnation they loudly demanded; when, I say, he considered all this, it was natural for him to suppose the apostle to be some flagitious wretch; but when he had tried the case, and heard their accusations and his defense, how surprised was he to find that scarcely any thing that amounted to a crime was laid to his charge; and that nothing that was laid to his charge could be proved!

Albert Barnes
Act 25:19
But had certain questions – Certain inquiries, or litigated and disputed subjects; certain points of dispute in which they differed – ζητήματα τινα zētēmata tina.
Of their own superstition – δεισιδαιμονίας deisidaimonias. This word properly denotes “the worship or fear of demons”; but it was applied by the Greeks and Romans to the worship of their gods. It is the same word which is used in Act_17:22, where it is used in a good sense. See the notes on that place. There are two reasons for thinking that Festus used the word here in a good sense, and not in the sense in which we use the word “superstition”:

(1) It was the word by which the worship of the Greeks and Romans, and, therefore, of Festus himself, was denoted, and he would naturally use it in a similar sense in applying it to the Jews. He would describe their worship in such language as he was accustomed to use when speaking of religion.
(2) He knew that Agrippa was a Jew. Festus would not probably speak of the religion of his royal guest as superstition, but would speak of it with respect. He meant, therefore, to say simply that they had certain inquiries about their own religion, but accused him of no crime against the Roman laws.

And of one Jesus, which was dead – Greek: “of one dead Jesus.” It is evident that Festus had no belief that Jesus had been raised up, and in this he would expect that Agrippa would concur with him. Paul had admitted that Jesus had been put to death, but he maintained that he had been raised from the dead. As Festus did not believe this, he spoke of it with the utmost contempt. “They had a dispute about one dead Jesus, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” In this manner a Roman magistrate could speak of this glorious truth of the Christian religion, and this shows the spirit with which the great mass of philosophers and statesmen regarded its doctrines.

A.T. Robertson
Act 25:20
Being perplexed (aporoumenos). Present middle participle of the common verb aporeō (a privative and poros way), to be in doubt which way to turn, already in Mar_6:20 which see and Luk_24:4. The Textus Receptus has eis after here, but critical text has only the accusative which this verb allows (Mar_6:20) as in Thucydides and Plato.

How to inquire concerning these things (tēn peri toutōn zētēsin). Literally, “as to the inquiry concerning these things.” This is not the reason given by Luke in Act_25:9(wanting to curry favour with the Jews), but doubtless this motive also actuated Festus as both could be true.

Whether he would go to Jerusalem (ei bouloito poreuesthai eis Ierosoluma). Optative in indirect question after elegon (asked or said) imperfect active, though the present indicative could have been retained with change of person: “Dost thou wish, etc.,” (ei boulēi, etc.). See Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1031, 1044. This is the question put to Paul in Act_25:9though theleis is there used.

A.T. Robertson
Act 25:21
When Paul had appealed (tou Paulou epikalesamenou). Genitive absolute with first aorist middle participle of epikaleomai, the technical word for appeal (Act_25:11, Act_25:12). The first aorist passive infinitive tērēthēnai (to be kept) is the object of the participle.

For the decision of the emperor (eis tēn tou Sebastou diagnōsin). Diagnōsin (cf. diagnōsomai Act_24:22, I will determine) is the regular word for a legal examination (cognitio), thorough sifting (dia), here only in N.T. Instead of “the Emperor” it should be “the Augustus,” as Sebastos is simply the Greek translation of Augustus, the adjective (Revered, Reverent) assumed by Octavius b.c. 27 as the agnomen that summed up all his various offices instead of Rex so offensive to the Romans having led to the death of Julius Caesar. The successors of Octavius assumed Augustus as a title. The Greek term Sebastos has the notion of worship (cf. sebasma in Acts Act_17:25). In the N.T. only here, Act_25:25; Act_27:1 (of the legion). It was more imposing than “Caesar” which was originally a family name (always official in the N.T.) and it fell in with the tendency toward emperor-worship which later played such a large part in Roman life and which Christians opposed so bitterly. China is having a revival of this idea in the insistence on bowing three times to the picture of Sun-Yat-Sen.

Till I should send him to Caesar (heōs an anapempsō auton pros Kaisara). Here anapempsō can be either future indicative or first aorist subjunctive (identical in first person singular), aorist subjunctive the usual construction with heōs for future time (Robertson, Grammar, p. 876). Literally, “send up” (ana) to a superior (the emperor). Common in this sense in the papyri and Koiné[28928]š writers. Here “Caesar” is used as the title of Nero instead of “Augustus” as Kurios (Lord) occurs in Act_25:26.

A.T. Robertson
Act 25:22
I also could wish (eboulomēn kai autos). The imperfect for courtesy, rather than the blunt boulomai, I wish, I want. Literally, “I myself also was wishing” (while you were talking), a compliment to the interesting story told by Festus. The use of an with the imperfect would really mean that he does not wish (a conclusion of the second class condition, determined as unfulfilled). An with the optative would show only a languid desire. The imperfect is keen enough and yet polite enough to leave the decision with Festus if inconvenient for any reason (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 885-7). Agrippa may have heard much about Christianity.

John Gill
Act 25:22 Then Agrippa said to Festus,…. After he had given him the above account:

I would also hear the man myself; Agrippa being a Jew by profession, and knowing more of these things than Festus did, and very likely had heard much concerning Jesus Christ; and if not of the apostle, yet however of the Christian religion; and therefore he was very desirous, not only out of curiosity to see the man, but to hear him; and get some further information and knowledge about the things in dispute, between the Jews and Christians, in which Festus was very ready to gratify him:

tomorrow, said he, thou shall hear him: and sooner things could not well be prepared for an affair of this kind, and for so grand a meeting.

A.T. Robertson
Act 25:23
When Agrippa was come and Bernice (elthontos tou Agrippa kai tēs Bernikēs). Genitive absolute, the participle agreeing in number and gender (masculine singular, elthontos) with Agrippa, Bernikēs being added as an afterthought.

With great pomp (meta pollēs phantasias). Phantasia is a Koiné[28928]š word (Polybius, Diodorus, etc.) from the old verb phantazō (Heb_12:21) and it from phainō, common verb to show, to make an appearance. This is the only N.T. example of phantasia, though the kindred common word phantasma (appearance) occurs twice in the sense of apparition or spectre (Mat_14:26; Mar_6:49). Herodotus (VII. 10) used the verb phantazō for a showy parade. Festus decided to gratify the wish of Agrippa by making the “hearing” of Paul the prisoner (Act_25:22) an occasion for paying a compliment to Agrippa (Rackham) by a public gathering of the notables in Caesarea. Festus just assumed that Paul would fall in with this plan for a grand entertainment though he did not have to do it.

Into the place of hearing (eis to akroatērion). From akroaomai (to be a hearer) and, like the Latin auditorium, in Roman law means the place set aside for hearing, and deciding cases. Here only in the N.T. Late word, several times in Plutarch and other Koiné[28928]š writers. The hearing was “semi-official” (Page) as is seen in Act_25:26.

With the chief captains (sun te chiliarchois). Chiliarchs, each a leader of a thousand. There were five cohorts of soldiers stationed in Caesarea.

And the principal men of the city (kai andrasin tois kat’ exochēn). The use of kat’ exochēn, like our French phrase par excellence, occurs here only in the N.T., and not in the ancient Greek, but it is found in inscriptions of the first century a.d. (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary). Exochē in medical writers is any protuberance or swelling. Cf. our phrase “outstanding men.”
At the command of Festus (keleusantos tou Phēstou). Genitive absolute again, “Festus having commanded.”

Adam Clarke
Act 25:23
With great pomp – Μετα πολλης φαντασιας; With much phantasy, great splendor, great parade, superb attendance or splendid retinue: in this sense the Greek word is used by the best writers. Wetstein has very justly remarked, that these children of Herod the Great made this pompous appearance in that very city where, a few years before, their father, for his Pride, was smitten of God, and eaten up by worms! How seldom do the living lay any of God’s judgments to heart!

The place of hearing – A sort of audience chamber, in the palace of Festus. This was not a trial of Paul; there were no Jews present to accuse him, and he could not be tried but at Rome, as he had appealed to Caesar. These grandees wished to hear the man speak of his religion, and in his own defense, through a principle of curiosity.

John Gill
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God,…. Both to preach the Gospel, and escape danger; for he had delivered him many a time both from Jews and Gentiles, according to his promise, Act_26:17 and particularly from the Asiatic Jews, when they were about to kill him, by the means of Lysias the chief captain, who rescued him out of their hands; and also from the lying in wait of the Jews to take away his life, and the various methods they used both with Felix and Festus to get him into their power: but the Lord appeared for him, and saved him from all their pernicious designs against him; and therefore he could say as follows,

I continue unto this day: in the land of the living, though in bonds:

witnessing both to small and great; to kings and subjects, as now to Agrippa, Festus, the chief captains and principal inhabitants of Caesarea, and to the common people assembled; to high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old; to persons of every state, age, and sex:

saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. This he mentions in opposition to the charge against him, as that he spoke against the law of Moses, as well as against the temple, and the people of the Jews; whereas his doctrine was perfectly agreeable to the writings of Moses, and the prophets, concerning the Messiah, they speak of in many places, and the Jews expected. There is an entire harmony and agreement between the writings of Moses, and the prophets of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New, in all the doctrines of the Gospel revelation; in the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, and of the proper deity of each person; in the doctrines respecting the person, offices, and work of Christ; that he is the Son of God, God and man in one person, and the only Mediator between God and man; and that he is prophet, priest, and King; and that the great work he was appointed to, undertook, and came about, and has fulfilled, is the redemption of his people; and in the several doctrines of grace concerning the choice of men to salvation, the covenant made with Christ on account of them, their redemption, justification, and pardon, their repentance and good works, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state: the particular things instanced in, the apostle preached, and Moses and the prophets said should be, and in which they agreed, are as follow.

A.T. Robertson
Act 26:23
How that the Christ must suffer (ei pathētos ho Christos). Literally, “if the Messiah is subject to suffering.” Ei can here mean “whether” as in Heb_7:15. This use of a verbal in ̇tos for capability or possibility occurs in the N.T. alone in pathētos (Robertson, Grammar, p. 157). This word occurs in Plutarch in this sense. It is like the Latin patibilis and is from paschō. Here alone in N.T. Paul is speaking from the Jewish point of view. Most rabbis had not rightly understood Isa_53:1-12. When the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” (Joh_1:29) it was a startling idea. It is not then “must suffer” here, but “can suffer.” The Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block to the rabbis.

How that he first by the resurrection of the dead (ei prōtos exō anastaseōs nekrōn). Same construction with ei (whether). This point Paul had often discussed with the Jews: “whether he (the Messiah) by a resurrection of dead people.” Others had been raised from the dead, but Christ is the first (prōtos) who arose from the dead and no longer dies (Rom_6:19) and proclaims light (phōs mellei kataggellein). Paul is still speaking from the Jewish standpoint: “is about to (going to) proclaim light.” See Act_26:18for “light” and Luk_2:32.
Both to the people and to the Gentiles (tōi te laōi kai tois ethnesin). See Act_26:17. It was at the word Gentiles (ethnē) that the mob lost control of themselves in the speech from the stairs (Act_22:21.). So it is here, only not because of that word, but because of the word “resurrection” (anastasis).

Adam Clarke Act 26:23
That Christ should suffer – That the Christ, or Messiah, should suffer. This, though fully revealed in the prophets, the prejudices of the Jews would not permit them to receive: they expected their Messiah to be a glorious secular prince; and, to reconcile the fifty-third of Isaiah with their system, they formed the childish notion of two Messiahs – Messiah ben David, who should reign, conquer, and triumph; and Messiah ben Ephraim, who should suffer and be put to death. A distinction which has not the smallest foundation in the whole Bible.
As the apostle says he preached none other things than those which Moses and the prophets said should come, therefore he understood that both Moses and the prophets spoke of the resurrection of the dead, as well as of the passion and resurrection of Christ. If this be so, the favourite system of a learned bishop cannot be true; viz. that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was unknown to the ancient Jews.

That he should be the first that should rise from the dead – That is, that he should be the first who should rise from the dead so as to die no more; and to give, in his own person, the proof of the resurrection of the human body, no more to return under the empire of death. In no other sense can Jesus Christ be said to be the first that rose again from the dead; for Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite. A dead man, put into the sepulchre of the Prophet Elisha, was restored to life as soon as he touched the prophet’s bones. Christ himself had raised the widow’s son at Nain; and he had also raised Lazarus, and several others. All these died again; but the human nature of our Lord was raised from the dead, and can die no more. Thus he was the first who rose again from the dead to return no more into the empire of death.

And should show light unto the people – Should give the true knowledge of the law and the prophets to the Jews; for these are meant by the term people, as in Act_26:17. And to the Gentiles, who had no revelation, and who sat in the valley of the shadow of death: these also, through Christ, should be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and be made a glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. That the Messiah should be the light both of the Jews and Gentiles, the prophets had clearly foretold: see Isa_60:1 : Arise and shine, or be illuminated, for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. And again, Isa_49:6 : I will give thee for a Light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth. With such sayings as these Agrippa was well acquainted, from his education as a Jew.

A.T. Robertson
Act 26:24
As he thus made his defence (tauta autou apologoumenou). Genitive absolute again with present middle participle. Paul was still speaking when Festus interrupted him in great excitement.

With a loud voice (megalēi tēi phōnēi). Associative instrumental case showing manner (Robertson, Grammar, p. 530) and the predicate use of the adjective, “with the voice loud” (elevated).

Thou art mad (mainēi). Old verb for raving. See also Joh_10:20; Act_12:15; 1Co_14:23. The enthusiasm of Paul was too much for Festus and then he had spoken of visions and resurrection from the dead (Act_26:8). “Thou art going mad” (linear present), Festus means.

Thy much learning doth turn thee to madness (ta polla se grammata eis manian peritrepei). “Is turning thee round.” Old verb peritrepō, but only here in N.T. Festus thought that Paul’s “much learning” (=“many letters,” cf. Joh_7:15 of Jesus) of the Hebrew Scriptures to which he had referred was turning his head to madness (wheels in his head) and he was going mad right before them all. The old word mania (our mania, frenzy, cf. maniac) occurs here only in N.T. Note unusual position of se between polla and grammata (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 418, 420)

Adam Clarke
Act 26:24
Paul, thou art beside thyself – “Thou art mad, Paul!” “Thy great learning hath turned thee into a madman.” As we sometimes say, thou art cracked, and thy brain is turned. By the τα πολλα γραμματα it is likely that Festus meant no more than this, that Paul had got such a vast variety of knowledge, that his brain was overcharged with it: for, in this speech, Paul makes no particular show of what we call learning; for he quotes none of their celebrated authors, as he did on other occasions; see Act_17:28. But he here spoke of spiritual things, of which Festus, as a Roman heathen, could have no conception; and this would lead him to conclude that Paul was actually deranged. This is not an uncommon case with many professing Christianity; who, when a man speaks on experimental religion, on the life of God in the soul of man – of the knowledge of salvation, by the remission of sins – of the witness of the Spirit, etc., etc., things essential to that Christianity by which the soul is saved, are ready to cry out, Thou art mad: he is an enthusiast: that is, a religious madman; one who is not worthy to be regarded; and yet, strange to tell, these very persons who thus cry out are surprised that Festus should have supposed that Paul was beside himself!

Adam Clarke
Act 26:25
I am not mad, most noble Festus – This most sensible, appropriate, and modest answer, was the fullest proof he could give of his sound sense and discretion. The title, ΚρατιϚε, most noble, or most excellent, which he gives to Festus, shows at once that he was far above indulging any sentiment of anger or displeasure at Festus, though he had called him a madman; and it shows farther that, with the strictest conscientiousness, even an apostle may give titles of respect to men in power, which taken literally, imply much more than the persons deserve to whom they are applied. ΚρατιϚος, which implies most excellent, was merely a title which belonged to the office of Festus. St. Paul hereby acknowledges him as the governor; while, perhaps, moral excellence of any kind could with no propriety be attributed to him.

Speak forth the words of truth and soberness – Αληθειας και σωφροσυνης, Words of truth and of mental soundness. The very terms used by the apostle would at once convince Festus that he was mistaken. The σωφροσυνη of the apostle was elegantly opposed to the μανια of the governor: the one signifying mental derangement, the other mental sanity. Never was an answer, on the spur of the moment, more happily conceived.

Albert Barnes
Act 26:25
I am not mad – I am not deranged. There are few more happy turns than what Paul gives to this accusation of Festus. He might have appealed to the course of his argument; he might have dwelt on the importance of the subject, and continued to reason; but he makes an appeal at once to Agrippa, and brings him in for a witness that he was not deranged. This would be far more likely to make an impression on the mind of Festus than anything that Paul could say in self-defense. The same reply, “I am not mad,” can be made by all Christians to the charge of derangement which the world brings against them. They have come, like the prodigal son Luk_15:17, to their right mind; and by beginning to act as if there were a God and Saviour, as if they were to die, as if there were a boundless eternity before them, they are conducting according to the dictates of reason. And as Paul appealed to Agrippa, who was not a Christian, for the reasonableness and soberness of his own views and conduct, so may all Christians appeal to sinners themselves as witnesses that they are acting as immortal beings should act. All people know that if there is an eternity, it is right to prepare for it; if there is a God, it is proper to serve him; if a Saviour died for us, we should love him; if a hell, we should avoid it; if a heaven, we should seek it. And even when they charge us with folly and derangement, we may turn at once upon them, and appeal to their own consciences, and ask them if all our anxieties, and prayers, and efforts, and self-denials are not right? One of the best ways of convicting sinners is to appeal to them just as Paul did to Agrippa. When so appealed to, they will usually acknowledge the force of the appeal, and will admit that the solicitude of Christians for their salvation is according to the dictates of reason.

Most noble Festus – This was the usual title of the Roman governor. Compare Act_24:3.

Of truth – In accordance with the predictions of Moses and the prophets, and the facts which have occurred in the death and resurrection of the Messiah. In proof of this he appeals to Agrippa, Act_26:26-27. Truth here stands opposed to delusion, imposture, and fraud.

And soberness – Soberness σωφροσύνη sōphrosunē, wisdom) stands opposed here to madness or derangement, and denotes “sanity of mind.” The words which I speak are those of a sane man, conscious of what he is saying, and impressed with its truth. They were the words, also, of a man who, under the charge of derangement, evinced the most perfect self-possession and command of his feelings, and who uttered sentiments deep, impressive, and worthy the attention of all mankind.

John Gill
Act 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things,…. Something of them, of the sufferings and resurrection of the Messiah, and of his showing light to Jews and Gentiles, as they are spoken of by Moses and the prophets, whose writings Agrippa was conversant with, and of these things as fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth; at least he had heard the report of them, how that they were said to be accomplished in him.

Before whom also I speak freely; because of the knowledge he had of these things:

for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; as that Moses and the prophets have foretold then, and that they have had their fulfilment in Jesus;

for this thing was not done in a corner: the ministry of Jesus was, public, his miracles were done openly, his suffering the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate was generally known, and his resurrection from the dead was a well attested fact, and the ministration of his Gospel to Jews and Gentiles was notorious. The Arabic and Ethiopic versions refer this to Paul’s words and actions, that what he had said and done were not private but public, and of which Agrippa had had, by one means or another, a full account; but the other sense is best.

Albert Barnes
Act 26:26
For the king – King Agrippa.

Knoweth – He had been many years in that region, and the fame of Jesus and of Paul’s conversion were probably well known to him.

These things – The things pertaining to the early persecutions of Christians; the spread of the gospel; and the remarkable conversion of Paul. Though Agrippa might not have been fully informed respecting these things, yet he had an acquaintance with Moses and the prophets; he knew the Jewish expectation respecting the Messiah; and he could not be ignorant respecting the remarkable public events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and of his having been put to death by order of Pontius Pilate on the cross.

I speak freely – I speak openly – boldly. I use no disguise; and I speak the more confidently before him, because, from his situation, he must be acquainted with the truth of what I say. Truth is always bold and free, and it is an evidence of honesty when a man is willing to declare everything without reserve before those who are qualified to detect him if he is an impostor. Such evidence of truth and honesty was given by Paul.

For I am persuaded – I am convinced; I doubt not that he is well acquainted with these things.

Are hidden from him – That he is unacquainted with them.

For this thing – The thing to which Paul had mainly referred in this defense, his own conversion to the Christian religion.

Was not done in a corner – Did not occur secretly and obscurely, but was public, and was of such a character as to attract attention. The conversion of a leading persecutor, such as Paul had been, and in the manner in which that conversion had taken place, could not but attract attention and remark; and although the Jews would endeavor as much as possible to conceal it, yet Paul might presume that it could not be entirely unknown to Agrippa.

A.T. Robertson
Act 26:27
I know that thou believest (oida hoti pisteueis). Paul had “cornered” Agrippa by this direct challenge. As the Jew in charge of the temple he was bound to confess his faith in the prophets. But Paul had interpreted the prophets about the Messiah in a way that fell in with his claim that Jesus was the Messiah risen from the dead. To say, “Yes” would place himself in Paul’s hands. To say “No” would mean that he did not believe the prophets. Agrippa had listened with the keenest interest, but he slipped out of the coils with adroitness and a touch of humour.

Albert Barnes
Act 26:27
King Agrippa – This bold personal address is an instance of Paul’s happy manner of appeal. He does it to bring in the testimony of Agrippa to meet the charge of Festus that he was deranged.

Believest thou the prophets? – The prophecies respecting the character, the sufferings, and the death of the Messiah.

I know that thou believest – Agrippa was a Jew; and, as such, he of course believed the prophets. Perhaps, too, from what Paul knew of his personal character, he might confidently affirm that he professed to be a believer. Instead, therefore, of waiting for his answer, Paul anticipated it, and said that he knew that Agrippa professed to believe all these prophecies respecting the Messiah. His design is evident. It is:

(1) To meet the charge of derangement, and to bring in the testimony of Agrippa, who well understood the subject, to the importance and the truth of what he was saying.
(2) To press on the conscience of his royal hearer the evidence of the Christian religion, and to secure, if possible, his conversion. “Since thou believest the prophecies, and since I have shown that they are fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth; that he corresponds in person, character, and work, with the prophets, it follows that his religion is true.” Paul lost no opportunity in pressing the truth on every class of people. He had such a conviction of the truth of Christianity that he was deterred by no rank, station, or office; by no fear of the rich, the great, and the learned; but everywhere urged the evidence of that religion as indisputable. In this lay the secret of no small part of his success. A man who really believes the truth will be ready to defend it. A man who truly loves religion will not be ashamed of it anywhere.

A.T. Robertson
Act 26:28
With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian (en oligōi me peitheis Christianon poiēsai). The Authorized rendering is impossible: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” En oligōi does not mean “almost.” That would require oligou, par’ oligon, or dei oligou. It is not clear, however, precisely what en oligoi does mean. It may refer to time (in little time) or a short cut, but that does not suit well en megalōi in Act_26:29. Tyndale and Crammer rendered it “somewhat” (in small measure or degree). There are, alas, many “somewhat” Christians. Most likely the idea is “in (or with) small effort you are trying to persuade (peitheis, conative present active indicative) me in order to make me a Christian.” This takes the infinitive poiēsai to be purpose (Page renders it by “so as”) and thus avoids trying to make poiēsai like genesthai (become). The aorist is punctiliar action for single act, not “perfect.” The tone of Agrippa is ironical, but not unpleasant. He pushes it aside with a shrug of the shoulders. The use of “Christian” is natural here as in the other two instances (Act_11:26; 1Pe_4:16).

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 26:28
Almost — or, “in a little time.”

thou persuadest me to be a Christian — Most modern interpreters think the ordinary translation inadmissible, and take the meaning to be, “Thou thinkest to make me with little persuasion (or small trouble) a Christian” – but I am not to be so easily turned. But the apostle’s reply can scarcely suit any but the sense given in our authorized version, which is that adopted by Chrysostom and some of the best scholars since. The objection on which so much stress is laid, that the word “Christian” was at that time only a term of contempt, has no force except on the other side; for taking it in that view, the sense is, “Thou wilt soon have me one of that despised sect.”

Albert Barnes
Act 26:28
Then Agrippa said unto Paul – He could not deny that he believed the prophecies in the Old Testament. He could not deny that the argument was a strong one that they had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. He could not deny that the evidence of the miraculous interposition of God in the conversion of Paul was overwhelming; and instead, therefore, of charging him, as Festus had done, with derangement, he candidly and honestly avows the impression which the proof had made on his mind.

Almost – Except a very little – ἐν ὀλίγῳ en oligō. Thou hast nearly convinced me that Christianity is true, and persuaded me to embrace it. The arguments of Paul had been so rational; the appeal which he had made to his belief of the prophets had been so irresistible, that he had been nearly convinced of the truth of Christianity. We are to remember:

(1) That Agrippa was a Jew, and that he would look on this whole subject in a different manner from the Roman Festus.
(2) That he does not appear to have partaken of the violent passions and prejudices of the Jews who had accused Paul.
(3) HIS character, as given by Josephus, is that of a mild, candid, and ingenuous man. He had no particular hostility to Christians; he knew that they were not justly charged with sedition and crime; and he saw the conclusion to which a belief of the prophets inevitably tended. Yet, as in thousands of other cases, he was not quite persuaded to be a Christian. What was included in the “almost”; what prevented his being quite persuaded, we know not. It may have been that the evidence was not so clear to his mind as he would profess to desire; or that he was not willing to give up his sins; or that he was too proud to rank himself with the followers of Jesus of Nazareth; or that, like Felix, he was willing to defer it to a more convenient season. There is every reason to believe that he was never quite persuaded to embrace the Lord Jesus, and that he was never nearer the kingdom of heaven than at this moment. It was the crisis, the turning-point in Agrippa’s life, and in his eternal destiny; and, like thousands of others, he neglected or refused to allow the full conviction of the truth on his mind, and died in his sins.

Thou persuadest me – Thou dost convince me of the truth of the Christian religion, and persuadest me to embrace it.

To be a Christian – On the name Christian, see the notes on Act_11:26. On this deeply interesting case we may observe:

(1) That there are many in the same situation as Agrippa- many who are almost, but not altogether, persuaded to be Christians. They are found among:
(a) Those who have been religiously educated;
(b) Those who are convinced by argument of the truth of Christianity;
(c) Those whose consciences are awakened, and who feel their guilt, and the necessity of some better portion than this world can furnish.

(2) Such persons are deterred from being altogether Christians by the following, among other causes:
(a) By the love of sin – the love of sin in general, or some particular sin which they are not willing to abandon;
(b) By the fear of shame, persecution, or contempt, if they become Christians;
(c) By the temptations of the world – its cares, vanities, and allurements- which are often presented most strongly in just this state of mind;
(d) By the love of office, the pride of rank and power, as in the case of Agrippa;
(e) By a disposition, like Felix, to delay to a more favorable time the work of religion, until life has wasted away, and death approaches, and it is too late, and the unhappy man dies almost a Christian.

(3) This state of mind is one of special interest and special danger. It is not one of safety, and it is not one that implies any certainty that the “almost Christian” will ever be saved. There is no reason to believe that Agrippa ever became fully persuaded to become a Christian. To be almost persuaded to do a thing which we ought to do, and yet not to do it, is the very position of guilt and danger. And it is no wonder that many are brought to this point – the turning-point, the crisis of life – and then lose their anxiety, and die in their sins. May the God of grace keep us from resting in being almost persuaded to be Christians! May every one who shall read this account of Agrippa be admonished by his convictions, and be alarmed by the fact that he then paused, and that his convictions there ended! And may every one resolve by the help of God to forsake every thing that prevents his becoming an entire believer, and without delay embrace the Son of God as his Saviour!

Act 26:29
I would to God (euxaimēn an tōi theōi). Conclusion of fourth-class condition (optative with an), undetermined with less likelihood, the so-called potential optative (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). Polite and courteous wish (first aorist middle optative of euchomai).

Whether with little or with much (kai en mikrōi kai en megalōi). Literally, “both in little and in great,” or “both with little and with great pains” or “both in some measure and in great measure.” Paul takes kindly the sarcasm of Agrippa.

Such as I am (toioutous hopoios kai egō eimi). Accusative toioutous with the infinitive genesthai. Paul uses these two qualitative pronouns instead of repeating the word “Christian.”
Except these bonds (parektos tōn desmōn toutōn). Ablative case with parektos (late preposition for the old parek). Paul lifts his right manacled hand with exquisite grace and good feeling.

Albert Barnes
Act 26:29
I would to God – I pray to God; I earnestly desire it of God. This shows:
(1) Paul’s intense desire that Agrippa, and all who heard him, might be saved.
(2) His steady and constant belief that none but God could incline people to become altogether Christians. Paul knew well that there was nothing that would overcome the reluctance of the human heart to be an entire Christian but the grace and mercy of God. He had addressed to his hearers the convincing arguments of religion, and he now breathed forth his earnest prayer to God that those arguments might be effectual. So prays every faithful minister of the cross.

All that hear me – Festus, and the military and civil officers who had been assembled to hear his defense, Act_25:23.

Were both almost, and altogether … – Paul had no higher wish for them than that they might have the faith and consolations which he himself enjoyed. He had so firm a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and had experienced so much of its supports amidst his persecutions and trials, that his highest desire for them was that they might experience the same inexpressibly pure and holy consolations. He well knew that there was neither happiness nor safety in being almost a Christian; and he desired, therefore, that they would give themselves, as he had done, entirely and altogether to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Except these bonds – These chains. This is an exceedingly happy and touching appeal. Probably Paul, when he said this, lifted up his arm with the chain attached to it. His wish was that in all respects they might partake of the effects of the gospel, except those chains. Those he did not wish them to bear. The persecutions, the unjust trials, and the imprisonments which he had been called to suffer in the cause, he did not desire them to endure. True Christians wish others to partake of the full blessings of religion. The trials which they themselves experienced from without in unjust persecutions, ridicule, and slander, they do not wish them to endure. The trials which they themselves experience from an evil heart, from corrupt passions, and from temptations, they do not wish others to experience. But even with these, religion confers infinitely more pure joy than the world can give; and even though others should be called to experience severe trials for their religion, still Christians wish that all should partake of the pure consolations which Christianity alone can furnish in this world and the world to come. Compare Mar_10:30.

Albert Barnes
Act 26:31
This man doeth nothing worthy of death – This was the conclusion to which they had come after hearing all that the Jews had to allege against him. It was the result of the whole investigation; and we have, therefore, the concurring testimony of Claudius Lysias Act_23:29, of Felix Acts 24, of Festus Act_25:26-27, and of Agrippa, as to the innocence of Paul. More honorable and satisfactory testimony of his innocence he could not have desired. It was a full acquittal from all the charges against him; and though he was to be sent to Rome, yet he went there with every favorable prospect of being acquitted there also.

Matthew Poole
Act 26:31
Gone aside; either to their houses, or to some apartment nigh to the tribunal. They acquit Paul; for as yet Nero had not made those bloody laws, whereby the profession of Christianity was made capital.

John Gill
Act 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus,…. As declaring his sense, and by way of advice and counsel; but not as determining anything himself, for that lay in the breast of Festus, the Roman governor and judge:

this man might have been set at liberty; from his bonds and imprisonment; for ought that appears against him, or any law to the contrary:

if he had not appealed unto Caesar; wherefore an inferior judge could not release him; but so it was ordered in divine Providence, that he should appeal to Caesar, that he might go to Rome, and there bear a testimony for Christ; however, this declaration of Agrippa, and what he and the governor and the rest said among themselves, are a considerable proof of the innocence of the apostle.