Acts 25—26 (ESV)✞: Paul Appeals to Caesar, Paul Before Agrippa and Bernice, Paul’s Defense Before Agrippa, Paul Tells of His Conversion
Passage
I’m combining two whole chapters for this post, mostly because not much happens in Chapter 25 that I felt I specifically wanted to comment on1.
In 25:1–12✞ the new governor takes over. (They have similar names, unfortunately; the old governor was Felix and the new one is Festus.)
Once again the Jewish religious leaders come up with a plot to kill Paul. They ask Festus to send him back to Jerusalem, where they plan to carry it out, but he says no, he’s heading to Caesarea (where Paul is being held) anyway, so the Jewish religious leaders should just go there, and, “if there is anything wrong about the man, let [your representatives] bring charges against him” (v. 5✞).
As promised, Festus makes his way to Caesarea and Paul’s accusers bring “many and serious charges against him that they could not prove” (v. 7✞). Paul’s defense is simple: he hasn’t committed any offenses; not against the Jews, not against the Temple, and not against Caesar.
The trial (though it’s still not technically a “trial” because Paul hasn’t actually been charged with anything) is about to be delayed/extended even further when Paul decides he’s had enough:
9 But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, “Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried on these charges before me?” 10 But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself know very well. 11 If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.” 12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with his council, answered, “To Caesar you have appealed; to Caesar you shall go.”
I wouldn’t want to state this very strongly, given the fact that this was originally written in ancient Greek and translated into modern English, but Paul sounds frustrated to me.
Before this happens, however, a king named Agrippa comes along, with his sister Bernice. I’ll let the ESV Study Bible notes explain who they are:
Acts 25:13 Agrippa the king was Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I …, and great-grandson of Herod the Great … . He ruled over several minor, primarily Gentile territories. The emperor Claudius had conferred on Agrippa II rule over the temple in Jerusalem and the right to appoint the high priest (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.222, 223). Bernice was his sister and constant companion.
ESV Study Bible
Not that it matters, I suppose, but I’m glad I read that because I’d have assumed Bernice was Agrippa’s wife. Given that she’s not, it’s actually an interesting historical detail that Luke mentions her here; it’s not important to the plot, but it’s the kind of detail an eye witness would include.
Regardless, Festus explains to Agrippa his situation: the previous governor had left him with this man Paul whom the Jewish leaders were asking to have condemned but Festus didn’t know of any charges against Paul. When he brought the Jewish religious leaders to face Paul and present their charges there wasn’t anything a Roman governor could actually act on. When he asked Paul if he wanted to go back to Jerusalem Paul decided that no, he’d appeal the case to the emperor.
King Agrippa—who, as hinted at above, has to deal with a lot of Jewish matters—expresses interest in hearing Paul himself, so Festus arranges it.
We now go into Chapter 26, which is Paul’s “defense.” I’ll go through it bit-by-bit.
2 “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.
It’s no surprise that Agrippa wanted to hear from Paul. Given his familiarity with everything happening in the Jewish world he definitely would have been aware of “the Way,” or what we now call Christianity.
4 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.
Paul is not bragging here, nor is he trying to play an “I know the Scriptures better than you” card. He’s bringing out the fact that his conversion didn’t come out of nowhere—he was a Pharisee, meaning that he studied the Scriptures very intently!—and he didn’t throw Judaism away after he’d been converted because he feels that’s still important enough to bring up here.
In other words, Paul is not trying to claim that these new beliefs “do away with” Judaism; he’s claiming that Jesus fulfills Judaism’s promises.
6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?
I’m always tempted, when reading these arguments from Paul, to see him as continuing to try to derail the conversation, but I need to get off that point. This is a crucial point! Jesus wasn’t just some guy who had some neat ideas so we should listen to him; he wasn’t just a great teacher; he wasn’t just a moral force to follow. He was (and is) the Messiah; as he says in verse 7, Jesus is exactly who Jews have been waiting for.
The fact that Jesus was raised from the dead is not a point Paul has to argue around or downplay, it’s part of the reasoning Paul presents that Jesus is the Messiah.
When Paul rhetorically asks why people would find it incredible that God would raise the dead, he knew full well that people did find it incredible.
| People | Found it incredible because |
|---|---|
| Jews | There’s no way God would send His Messiah only to have him get crucified! Being “hung from a tree” was called out in the Scriptures as a curse, so why would God allow His Anointed one to be cursed? He was supposed to be a king, in the way David had been before him. |
| Gentiles | There’s no way an actual god would be raised from the dead! The whole point of an afterlife would be to get away from physical bodies to become spiritual – why would a “god” take a step backwards in attaining the spiritual body only to become physical again? |
If Paul could prove his point—if Jesus had really raised himself from the dead (as so many eye witnesses attested)—then it would show the Jews that their understanding of the Messiah would have to radically shift, and it would show the Gentiles that their whole understanding of spirituality would have to radically shift.
When Paul asks, “Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” he’s challenging some very core beliefs – and opening his audience up to the fact that there are huge possibilities on the other side of that shift in beliefs.
9 “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.
This is some lead-in for Paul to be able to discuss his conversion on the road to Damascus, but it’s important lead-in. Again, Paul wasn’t just anyone; he’d studied the Scriptures and come to the exact same conclusions that the Jewish religious leaders had: not only was there no way Jesus could possibly be the Messiah, but this belief was dangerous enough that Christians needed to be wiped out. (Though, again, they weren’t yet being called “Christians.”)
13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Anyone who writes about this passage is probably mandated by law2 to talk about “goads,” but as usual I’ll just copy and paste:
Acts 26:14 … To kick against the goads is a proverbial statement the Romans probably knew, meaning that one cannot ultimately resist God’s will. Goads were sharp sticks used to prod oxen, and if the oxen kicked in resistance, the drivers would keep them in line by using the goads more severely.
ESV Study Bible
In other words you’re stubbornly resisting something and only hurting yourself; the closest modern example I can think of is “beating your head against a brick wall,” though I think the connotations are slightly different. (Other translations might have “kick against the pricks” instead of “kick against the goads.”)
Anyway…
Paul was earlier emphasizing Jesus being raised from the dead because so much hangs on that one fact; here he recalls the moment where that fact was concretely presented to him – the moment, frankly, that everything changed for Paul. When you take away all of the thinking about what “could” or “could not” happen, and deal with the fact that it actually did happen, you have to start rethinking some things.
And so Jesus tells Paul why He’s presenting Himself in this way:
16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Jesus is completely turning Paul around, from persecuting His followers to spreading the Gospel and creating new followers! And he was going to be doing this among his own people (the Jews) and among the Gentiles (the non-Jews), which, again, would have been revolutionary: for thousands of years the Jews have believed that they were God’s chosen people, and Paul is saying that God is now opening up His kingdom to include everyone; I don’t know what the Romans thought of this (maybe nothing), but the Jewish religious leaders would have likely considered this blasphemy.
People could make a lot of hey out of the fact that Jesus mentions turning people “from the power of Satan to God,” but I don’t think we should start reading too much into that; he’s just saying there are two kingdoms in this world, Satan’s and God’s, and Paul is an early evangelist who is going to help move people from the former into the latter through his preaching. We shouldn’t focus on that one little part of the phrase, but instead read the entirety of verse 18 – of this entire sermon, in fact!
Paul concludes by mentioning how he followed the Lord’s instructions:
19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
I was going to quote more than this small chunk, except I wanted to take this opportunity to mention the Gospel one more time: Paul is articulating how the Gospel works here, in order: Step 1, we repent and turn to God, and Step 2, we perform deeds in keeping with that repentance.
That’s not how Romans would have understood things, nor is it how Jews would have understood things, nor is it how most 21st Century Christians understand things. The usual understanding is that we obey the rules, then God (if there is a God) rewards us by letting us into heaven; Paul and the other early Christian leaders tell us no, we repent and come to God, He brings us into His kingdom (which is already starting, not just something we get “eventually” when we go to a place called heaven), and out of the overflow of that we “perform deeds,” in keeping with that repentance.
But he continues…
21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”
Again, notice that Paul is not saying that Judaism is now “out of date,” or being “replaced” by Christianity. His claim—here and elsewhere—is that Jesus the Christ is exactly what “the prophets and Moses” predicted; not just that there would be a Messiah, but that he’d be a Messiah like Jesus!
Paul keeps talking about “my people and the Gentiles,” because he still considers himself a Jew. He doesn’t see himself starting a new religion, he sees himself continuing with the exact Scriptures he’s always been studying, but in light of what God has accomplished through His Son.
I’m not saying we can’t see Christianity and Judaism as being different things, a lot of time has passed and things have evolved, but that doesn’t make Paul wrong, either: we should see the New Testament as flowing directly from the Old Testament; the Old Testament is full of references to God’s ultimate plan, even if people before Jesus’ time didn’t fully understand it.
By this point Festus feels that Paul is going off the rails:
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” 25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
It’s interesting that Agrippa kind of ducks Paul’s question; he doesn’t dismiss it outright, but of course he doesn’t fall on his knees either. The ESV Study Bible comments on this, along with some discussion of the Greek text – don’t worry, it’s mostly painless:
Acts 26:28–29 In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian? Realizing that Paul was pressing for a “Christian” commitment, Agrippa put him off, quipping that it was too “short” a time for making such a decision. Paul picked up on Agrippa’s remark: short or long, he wanted everyone to trust Christ. The translation of this verse is not easy, because (1) “in a short time” (Gk. en oligō) might also mean “with a small effort”; (2) some take Agrippa’s words to be a statement rather than a question; (3) “to be” (Gk. poieō) could also mean “to act like”; and (4) there is some variation in the Greek manuscripts. However, most commentators favor a sense similar to that given in the ESV.
ESV Study Bible
Paul’s last line has always stayed with me: “I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
Regardless of who believes what, and whether Festus believes Paul is insane or whether he was convinced otherwise, he, Agrippa and Bernice agree on one thing: Paul hasn’t actually done anything deserving of death or punishment. If he hadn’t appealed to Caesar they could have let him go!
Perhaps Paul might rhetorically ask why that didn’t happen two years previously, when he was first put in jail, but I think he’s past that. Remember that the Holy Spirit has already told Paul he’ll be going to Rome to stand before Caesar, so I’m sure he’s probably just waiting on the Spirit’s timing now.
Being Called “Christians”
When I wrote this post I was wondering if this is the first time the term “Christian” is used in Acts, but then, providentially, I was listening to a podcast the night after I’d written the first draft and they talked about that very point. It’s not; it was mentioned back in Acts 11. I’m not surprised I’d forgotten, I wrote about Acts 11 close to a year before I wrote this post.
In fact, the podcast mentioned that the term “Christian” is used in three places:
- In Acts 11 we’re told that the believers in Antioch were the first ones called “Christians”
- Here in Acts 26 Agrippa is amused that Paul would try to convince him in such a short time to become a “Christian”
- In 1 Peter 4:12–19✞ Peter commends his readers not to be surprised when they are persecuted as followers of Christ (and at one point uses the term “Christian”), but to rejoice
What the podcasters pointed out, however, is that in all three cases the term seems to be used in a derogatory way. Or at least, it may be. Definitely here Agrippa seems to almost sneer as he says the word, and in 1 Peter he’s writing to people who are being persecuted as “Christians,” and he makes it sound like the only people using that term are people who don’t like Christians. I’m thinking that the mention in Acts 11 is also of a similar nature; instead of saying, “And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26✞), Luke could have written, “And Antioch is where the insult ‘Christian’ was first used.”
This is a nuance I’d never pulled out of the text on my own; I’m so used to hearing the term “Christian” all the time that I don’t think about it. It’s neutral; a person who doesn’t like Christians could use the term in an insulting manner and a person who loves Christians could use it as a compliment, or it could just be a statement of fact. It wouldn’t have occurred to me, reading the text, that it was so consistently being used negatively; I’ve always viewed it that the term first started getting used at Antioch and then after that they kept using it.
Now I’m left wondering when Christians did start claiming the term as their own and use it themselves.
Footnotes
- A personal failing, in other words; it’s not that Luke wasted a chapter! ↩
- Obvious humour, here, of course there aren’t such laws. ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment