(2) The Tribes’ Continual Worship (26:7)
(2) The Tribes’ Continual Worship (26:7)
Although many other sedentary nations also were divided into “tribes,”1231 sometimes even twelve tribes,1232 the phrase “our twelve tribes” refers to Israel,1233 for which Luke sees a future hope when restored under apostolic leadership (Luke 22:30 [= Q Matt 19:28]). Scripture already associated the image of resurrection (see comment on Acts 26:6) with the reuniting of regathered Judah and Israel (Ezek 37:12–23). Even more prominently in Jewish tradition, the lost tribes would be restored in the eschatological time.1234 Paul’s particular compound form, δωδεκάφυλον, probably reflects an elevated style (only here in biblical Greek; cf. λαὸς ὁ δωδεκάφυλος, Sib. Or. 11.36, possibly late first-century B.C.E. Egypt).1235
The call to “serve” or “worship” (λατρεύω) God belonged to Israel (Luke 1:74; 4:8; Acts 7:7) and the language often bears a cultic sense (Luke 2:37; 4:8; cf. Acts 7:42); Paul also described his own service to God with this verb (Acts 24:14; 27:23).1236 Serving “night and day” might evoke temple service (1 Chr 9:33; Ps 134:1, albeit neither with this verb; Rev 7:15);1237 Luke’s ideal example of this lifestyle is Anna the prophetess, who worshiped God in the temple night and day (Luke 2:37). Paul’s recognition that Israel worships God night and day compliments Israel’s zeal1238 (as the historical Paul did even when critiquing Israel, Rom 10:2). The verb καταντάω is common in Acts (nine of thirteen times in the NT), but the other NT uses are in Pauline literature and parallel the sense more closely, especially Phil 3:11 (attaining the resurrection).
Ironically, it is this very hope1239 of the resurrection for which Paul now stands accused by leaders of a nation that mostly shared the same hope (Acts 26:7, end; cf. 26:6a; see comment on Acts 24:15); he will explain the opposition more specifically in 26:21. Paul remains consistent with his earlier claim that the genuine basis for opposition is a disagreement over the fact and nature of the resurrection (23:6; 24:21–22). A defendant might link his case with a higher (and sometimes widely accepted) cause, so that (for example) the attack on the defendant was an attack on the city and what it stood for.1240 Paul is attacked by his people for defending the very heritage of his people. An argument from probability (see comment on Acts 26:8) also works better if the desire that the defendant articulates is one shared and understood by his audience—for example, the prosperity of his people.1241
V. GOD CAN RAISE THE DEAD (26:8)
The central objection to Paul’s position was (especially among Greeks and those influenced by them, 17:32) the resurrection; but resurrection is not a problem for an omnipotent God. Although the term is frequent in Acts (roughly 21 times), Paul’s “judged unbelievable” may echo his “I stand being judged for the promise” (26:6): Paul makes his case rise or fall with Jesus’s resurrection, affording opportunity for him to focus on that question. His actions rest on his faith, and their theological defensibility (and his reliability as a witness) rests on its truth.
(1) Believing the Resurrection
If the logic of the flow of thought in the context seems tenuous to us, it is partly because Luke’s summary is terse; but it is not hard to follow. The promise of Israel’s restoration (26:6–7) is intimately connected with the hope of the resurrection (26:8; cf. Ezek 37:12–14; Dan 12:1–2), for which Paul is on trial (Acts 26:6). The concrete historical expression of this hope already fulfilled is in Jesus (26:9; cf. 4:2; in more detail 26:23); only disbelief in the resurrection of the body could be used to justify rejecting the eyewitness claims of those who have encountered the risen Christ (26:13–20). Yet those who accept the existence of an omnipotent God need not deny resurrection (26:8)—something Festus has been inclined to do (cf. 25:19).
Jesus’s resurrection (26:9) is part of the eschatological resurrection hope (26:6–8) and need not be rejected by those who affirm resurrection logic: if the general category of resurrection is tenable, why not the specific example of Jesus’s resurrection? And even those who do not regard it as tenable ought to regard it as tolerable: how could Paul be persecuted for affirming a resurrection of one person when the respected Pharisaic sect that nurtured him affirms a resurrection of many?
When Paul uses the plural form of “among you” (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν), he avoids sounding as though he is accusing Agrippa himself, although Agrippa, as a hellenized and romanized Jew, is perhaps more likely to accept the immortality of the soul1242 (or, much less likely, Sadducean annihilation) than the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection. “Among you” would refer not to Judeans in general, many of whom did share the hope (26:6–7), but to those present, most of whom would not share it (see the list in 25:23).
(2) Countering the Usual Probability Argument
Although Luke (Luke 9:41; 12:46) and other NT writers tend to use ἄπιστος to mean “unbelieving,”1243 it can also mean “incredible,” “unbelievable,” as here; this was, in fact, the more common classical usage (fitting the audience of this speech).1244 Forensic orators dealing with past events sometimes treated witnesses as less credible than arguments from probability (see comment below).1245 Acts follows the Isaianic emphasis on witnesses (see comment on Acts 1:8), and here (in contrast to some other passages) Paul counters the probability argument. He cannot argue, on the basis of common occurrence, that the resurrection is a probable event,1246 but he can argue that, given God’s power and promises, it is not improbable.
Arguments from probability were important in ancient rhetoric, including arguments against the consistency of the opposing position.1247 When he lacks witnesses, Demosthenes builds an argument from inference and claims that his witnesses are the facts (Fals. leg. 120).1248 Elsewhere he shows a charge to be absurd because it wrongly assumes his foreknowledge of events (Pant. 23). Another orator complains that the opponents propose something that violates probability: “Could anything be more incredible [ἀπιστότερα] than this?” (Isaeus Cleon. 22.37).1249 Josephus refutes a charge of Apion by claiming that it is simply unbelievable (Ag. Ap. 2.82);1250 he produces not only documents supporting his own case (Life 342) but logic refuting his challenger’s (Life 350).1251
Historians and biographers also often evaluated their sources on the basis of probability;1252 one could dismiss ancient claims, such as particular herbs restoring persons to life, as unbelievable.1253 Standard rhetorical criteria for developing refutations include an argument’s implausibility or impossibility;1254 by contrast, defending an argument might entail contending for its possibility.1255 See further discussion at Acts 24:11.
Sometimes, however, writers warned that what might otherwise sound improbable or exaggerated is true.1256 Rhetoricians explained that one’s support for what appears improbable might not seem unbelievable (ἀπίστως) if we provide supporting arguments (Rhet. Alex. 30, 1438b.2–4).1257 Others recognized the contingency of plausibility structures; those schooled in only one philosophic system would find it internally consistent, but this approach ignored external realities.1258 Most relevant here was the intelligibility of Paul’s point: what is humanly impossible is not impossible for God (as for the resurrection, so also for miraculous births; Luke 1:37; cf. 18:27).1259 The early stories about Dionysus are hard to believe, one biographer opines, but what would normally be improbable cannot be dismissed when one is dealing with a divine element (Arrian Alex. 5.1.2). If some could affirm this about created or begotten gods, how much more could anyone affirm it of the supreme Creator of the universe?
Technical rhetoricians distinguished among various kinds of rhetorical questions. One kind was a brief question that the speaker then proceeded to answer.1260 Paul’s question here, however, appears to require no direct answer; it assumes the unstated premise that nothing is impossible to God.1261
VI. FORMER PERSECUTOR OF CHRISTIANS (26:9–11)
Paul both establishes his credibility in testifying for Christ (since it cannot be the result of his original presuppositions) and tarnishes the credibility of his accusers (Acts 26:10).
Paul’s account of persecuting the saints (26:10–11) as the context for his revelation (26:12) is rhetorically sound. The support for opinion B by a character whom one would instead expect to hold opinion A carries much more weight in favor of opinion B than the support of someone whom one would expect to support it.1262 One earlier rhetorical handbook expresses this principle in the case of witnesses:
Another thing to consider is whether the witness is a friend of the man for whom he is giving evidence, or in some way connected with his act, or whether he is an enemy of the person against whom he is giving evidence, or a poor man; because witnesses in these circumstances are suspected of giving false testimony, from motives in the one case of favor, in the other of revenge, and in the other of gain.1263
Paul, who now testifies for the risen Christ, had not been predisposed to listen to the Christian interpretation, and nothing less concrete than a divine epiphany transformed his cause. In the process, Paul also exposes the nasty underbelly of how the earliest Jesus movement had been treated, publicly confronting with truth an entire elite (25:23) who had political reasons to ignore it.
In 26:9, Paul introduces by way of summary the list of persecutions against Jesus’s followers that he will develop in 26:10–11:1264 he closed many of them up in prisons, voted against them at executions (26:10), punished them in synagogues, sought to make them blaspheme, and pursued them even to foreign cities (26:11). Paul’s use of both the first-person pronoun (grammatically superfluous because implied in the verb) and the reflexive pronoun graphically highlights Paul’s personal activity and responsibility.1265
Paul’s first action here was to shut1266 many of the saints up in prisons (8:3; 22:4, 19). Since Paul himself is in custody, his confession of imprisoning others invites his persecutors to identify with him; if he (whose acts of coercion exceeded theirs, at least given his relative rank) was a candidate for conversion, so are they. Such detention appears as a frequent danger for God’s servants in Luke-Acts,1267 which reduces for Luke’s audience the stigma otherwise attached to Paul’s detention.
By speaking of members of the Way as “saints,” “holy ones,” Paul indicates at the outset that he was acting against God (26:14); see comment on those “sanctified” (“set apart,” “consecrated as holy”) at Acts 26:18 (also 20:32).1268 “Saints” here may be shorthand for the saints in Jerusalem (Acts 9:13; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 9:1), apparently a common name or even a technical label for themselves.1269 But it had broader applicability (Acts 9:32, 41), even to Gentile believers (26:18; see comment there).
Paul could lock up the “saints” not by his own license but precisely because he had received “authority” from the high priests (26:10; so also 9:14; 26:12).1270 By mentioning the high priests (and the corporate decision-making perhaps suggested by “cast my vote”), Paul implicates his own accusers (underlining this point again in 26:12).1271 (He had already incriminated their class in 22:5, and it is possible that silencing or at least discrediting his testimony is one concern in the case.) Rome did not grant local leaders the right to execute anyone, but Paul is about to mention people being put to death.1272
The very leadership that now accuses Paul, after he has quit acting criminally, acted criminally along with him.1273 One rhetorical device was for a defendant or a politician to implicate his audience; its members shared in the decision for which he was now assigned responsibility.1274 But it was far more common to reverse charges against one’s accusers (see comment on Acts 24:19); Paul here implies that the chief priests approved of and sponsored these illegal acts.1275 The implication may also be that if they now oppose Paul, it is because he has departed from such unethical activity whereas they continue in it (cf. 23:14–15; 25:3; and, more ambiguously but possibly as part of the court record, 23:30).
Second, Paul “voted” against Christians at their executions (cf. Saul’s agreement with Stephen’s death, 8:1; 22:20). (Dividing up a charge into multiple components was a way to amplify it; Hermog. Inv. 1.2.101.) Casting his vote against “them” could mean that more than Stephen were put to death, which may fit the summary of 22:4 (though summaries strove more for the general sense than for precision in detail; see comments on Acts 2:41–47; 6:7). It might, however, be a generalizing plural, which would allow the possibility that his intentions were fulfilled in only one concrete case;1277 analogously in his rhetoric, in 26:11 he claims to have pursued Christians to “foreign cities” whereas the only one we know of was Damascus (9:2; 22:5; 26:12).
Against some scholars,1278 it is extremely unlikely that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. Granted, he came from a wealthy family;1279 but it was also a Hellenist family (see comment at Acts 6:9), and most of the elders of the Sanhedrin came from aristocratic Judean (and very often priestly) families. He was too young (7:58) to hold such a respected position1280 and was probably not yet married,1281 and his occasions of being forced to boast about his background do not list this qualification (although one notes that he was advancing far in his age-group, Gal 1:14).
It is also unlikely that the “voting” is literal here. Some think that the juridical context and the frequent metonymy of “pebble” for “vote” in such contexts suggests a literal vote.1282 The frequent use of “pebbles” in voting historically1283 allowed for this metonymy, though other “ballots” were also employed.1284 But the metonymy could stand for other means of corporate approval than a vote as well.1285
Johnson shows why literal voting is unlikely here: the present participle suggests condemnation roughly simultaneous with (rather than preceding) the execution; no voting is suggested in Acts 7:57–58; and for all Luke’s emphasis on Paul’s high status, Luke never portrays him as a member of the Sanhedrin (the only group in Israel that would even claim legitimate capital jurisdiction, had Rome granted it).1286
Most relevant (but often not noted by commentators) is the widespread figurative use of “ballots.”1287 Sometimes the phrase is used figuratively for expressing an opinion.1288 When deciding the authenticity of a reputed speech of Lysias, Dionysius of Halicarnassus finds one criterion that casts the final “vote” (ψῆφον, Lysias 11).1289 Lucian tells his patron that no matter what the vote (ψῆφον) of others on his work, his patron’s carries far more weight and is decisive (Harm. 3).
Paul likely speaks of “casting his pebble” as a pun: as Stephen was being stoned to death, Paul cast his own pebble.1290 This sense, granted, cannot be inferred simply from the idiom “cast”; jurors “casting” their pebble was idiomatic (cf. φέρειν τὴν ψῆφον, Plut. Cic. 7.4).1291 But it makes excellent sense in this context. Some scholars object that this “seems an unlikely bit of gallows humor that does not suit the tenor of this speech.”1292 Puns were not, however, meant to be funny; they were displays of rhetorical skill or wit and sometimes were even used in arguments.1293 Further, Luke would not have been the only writer in antiquity to conceive or report such a Greek wordplay. Compare one fragment of Hipponax (frg. 89): “by public vote . . . / Pebbled with stones she may die, an evil death to the evil.”1294 Likewise, when some accusers agree to drop their stones and vote as jurors instead, the defendant says, “Keep your stones [λίθους], however, . . . for you will need them presently at court.”1295
(4) Discipline to Compel Renunciation of Christ
Third, Paul disciplined many Christians in the synagogues (perhaps hyperbolically, “all the synagogues”; cf. Acts 22:19); other texts mention only his going to the synagogues (9:2; 22:19) or punishing them in Jerusalem (22:5), and so this statement offers specific new information. This claim involved a very public matter, for which surviving witnesses could no doubt still be found (cf. 26:4–5, 26).1296 We have evidence that early Christians did in fact face discipline in synagogues (Mark 13:9; Luke 12:11; 21:12; Matt 10:17; 23:39),1297 including Paul himself once he became a follower of Christ (2 Cor 11:24).1298
That the purpose of the punishment was to compel the Nazarenes to “blaspheme” is also new information in Acts, negative information about Paul’s prior behavior not shared earlier. The term here for “punish” (τιμωρέω) appears twice in the NT, both referring to Paul’s activity against Christians (Acts 22:5). Although the term can refer to divine punishment,1299 it also appears in Jewish martyr literature for the torture to which tyrants subjected Jewish martyrs (2 Macc 7:7).
The term generally translated “blaspheme” (βλασφημέω) can mean simply “speak against,” but when applied technically, it is speech against God (Luke 12:10) or another deity (Acts 19:37); the strictest Jewish circles applied the presumable Hebrew equivalent of the term to abuse of the divine name (m. Sanh. 7:5), but it probably bore a more general sense in popular usage (Luke 5:21).1300 It could mean speaking against or reviling Christ (22:65; 23:39), but given Christ’s special association with the divine, it probably means more here (Acts 13:45; 18:6). The irony is that when some Jews persecuted Christians for “blaspheming” God (6:11), they were in fact urging them to truly blaspheme!
The language of compulsion (ἀναγκάζω),1301 when applied to persecution of a group, need not specify the degree of its success toward all the individuals.1302 When Antiochus offered a pig on the altar, he “compelled” (ἠνάγκασε) the Jewish people to stop worshiping their God (Jos. Ant. 12.253), but many did not comply (12.255). Likewise, his agent who was “compelling” them to sacrifice was killed by one of them (1 Macc 2:25).1303 The same pattern appears elsewhere regarding Maccabean persecutions (2 Macc 6:1, 7, 18; 7:1; 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2, 27; 8:2; 18:5). Herod likewise placed Judeans under compulsion (ἀνάγκης; Jos. Ant. 16.2) to follow his laws even where those laws contradicted those of Judeans’ ancestors.1304 Josephus admiringly notes that captors could not force any of the captured Sicarii (or even their children) in Egypt to confess, or even pretend to confess, Caesar as their lord (War 7.418–19). Later the governor of Bithynia claimed (Pliny Ep. 10.96.5–6) that whereas former Christians offered to the emperor’s image and reviled Christ (maledicere Christo), true Christians could not be forced to do so (quorum nihil cogi posse dicuntur).1305 As Tertullian still later complained, officials tortured other prisoners to solicit confession of their activities, but only Christians to make them deny them (Apol. 2.10).
(5) Pursuit to Diaspora Cities
Fourth, Paul madly pursued Christians to distant cities. The language is graphic: Paul was “maddened with rage,” just as he was “breathing murder” in Acts 9:1. He depicts his rage against them with the verb ἐμμαίνομαι, which means “be filled with such anger that one appears to be mad” (BDAG; cf. Jos. Ant. 17.174); by way of wordplay, this claim anticipates in Luke’s narrative Festus’s charge that Paul is now, as a Christian, “mad” (Acts 26:24, μαίνῃ, from μαίνομαι). For Paul, his only madness was before his belief in Jesus’s resurrection. The verb διώκω means “persecute” (Luke 11:49; 21:12; Acts 7:52; 9:4–5; 22:4–8; 26:14–15) or “pursue” (Luke 17:23), both of which nuances are probably relevant here, though the emphasis on movement focuses on pursuit.
Diaspora (“outside,” ἔξω) “cities” might be a generalizing plural1306 for Damascus (Acts 9:2; 22:5); although it is likely that Damascus was not the only place where the fugitives fled, and Paul may have had in mind other missions elsewhere, Luke provides no indication that Paul in fact went to the other cities (cf. also Gal 1:13, 17, 22–23). A generalizing plural, however, would serve to intensify the tone of his hostility, represented by his intentions. Luke’s language also contrasts for his audience Paul’s activity as a persecutor with Paul’s subsequent, narrated activity as a proclaimer: traveling to synagogues even in distant lands to honor Christ (e.g., 9:20; 13:5; 17:1–3, 10–12, 17; 18:4; 19:8; 28:23).
c. Paul’s Divine Commission (26:12–18)
One defense argument in ancient rhetoric was the argument from necessity; a divine commission would certainly constitute necessity. Yet far from Paul using this divine necessity to justify wrongdoing, he appeals to it to justify his turning from wrongdoing to righteousness, confessing a noncrime (see comment on Acts 24:14).
I. A LIGHT EN ROUTE TO DAMASCUS (26:12–13)
Paul emphasizes again that he was authorized by the high priest; now, however, he was intercepted by Jesus and would ultimately become his agent instead (26:16–18). The light that shone on the travelers fits biblical depictions of divine glory. It also prepares for Paul’s commission to turn others to light (26:18), using Paul’s conversion in light as a particularly graphic model.
(1) Agent of the High Priests (26:12)1307
Paul again emphasizes that he acted as an agent of the high priesthood (26:10); Paul, who has repented,1308 cannot be convicted without also calling into question the behavior of the high-priestly families, who might accuse him now precisely because his repentance threatens them. Previous participation of the aristocratic priests in Paul’s persecuting activity casts their current requests for trial irregularities in a suspicious light. For Luke, who has apparently inherited the sentiments of Paul and/or the Jerusalem church, the high priesthood is not interested in justice in this sort of case but satisfied with lynchings (25:3). Who then, Paul and Luke appear to ask, is the real threat to peace and stability? (On the rhetorical strategy of returning charges, see comment on Acts 24:19.) Especially if Luke writes after 70 C.E., this case could appear compelling to many in the Roman world.
Simply denying Paul’s claims might be precarious. For all that Paul’s accusers know, the letters that Paul carried might still exist if he handed them over to the Christian community in Damascus. These would not count against the standing high priest or his associates, who were not personally involved, but would cast a shadow over their “class” by revealing that it harbored elements sympathetic with revolutionary-like aims.
Even according to Luke’s version, the initiative to persecute came from Paul (9:1), but he apparently found a ready hearing and received the authorization (9:2); this may be why he could expect cooperation against the Nazarenes from the synagogues in Damascus. This also would help account for why the epistolary Paul can speak of persecution from “the Judeans” even apart from his own activity and continuing after his own conversion and call (1 Thess 2:14–15; cf. Acts 9:29; though cf. also 9:31).
In Acts 9:1, Saul approached only the high priest, but here he notes the commission of plural high priests. This might be another “generalizing plural,” but Paul could well reason that the high-priestly family had acted in concert, as they commonly did (4:6); or Luke may have simply emphasized the most prominent high-priestly ally of Paul earlier. Josephus also often uses the plural for the priestly aristocrats’ families (see comment on Acts 4:6).1309 That Paul was backed by their authority suggests that he acted as their agent.1310 Agency was a wider Mediterranean concept intelligible to all of Paul’s hearers, not exclusively to later rabbis.1311 Thus Paul was once an “apostle of men,” seeking to please them, before being an apostle of God (cf. Gal 1:1, 10). Some people in ancient courts, no less than in modern trials for war crimes, argued that their offense was not indictable if they were simply carrying out their orders (Pliny Ep. 3.9.14–15).1312
Why does Paul mention that the vision occurred at midday (also in Acts 22:6)? That the light was “brighter than the sun” at noon highlights how bright the vision was.1313 Less relevant is that Philo suggested that midday, being the brightest time of day, was the best time for a vision;1314 Luke at least would have agreed that it was an acceptable time for visions (cf. 10:9), but he apparently valued other times no less (10:3; 16:9; 18:9). A skeptic could have complained that Paul and Peter (who had another revelation about Gentiles in 10:9) both hallucinated at noon because of sunstroke.1315 Luke mentions a “light from heaven” in 9:3 and 22:6 as well as here. To avoid confusion, it is therefore important for Luke to mention that others fell with Paul (a point not specified in 9:4; 22:7)1316 and that the light was brighter than the sun.1317 (For the light around Paul, see comment on Acts 9:3; on λαμπρότητα, “shining,” see comment on the cognate λαμπρᾷ in Acts 10:30.)
The light was around him in 9:3 and 22:6 but here is also around those with him. (The blindness in earlier accounts [9:8; 22:11] also coheres with a vision, but it is compatible with sunstroke as well.) It was also assumed that people saw phantoms more often at night, and midday was the least likely time to encounter them (Philost. Hrk. 8.16). This was also no secretive, unverifiable revelation (see comment on Acts 26:26). Not only were others present during Paul’s experience; it came at midday, not a time for secret activity.1318
Perhaps most relevant is what Paul’s midday travel reveals about his commitment. Everyone was well aware that the sun was hottest around noon (Sir 43:3);1319 the heat could be so terrible then that a Gentile poet could compare it hyperbolically with Zeus’s lightning,1320 and it could prove dangerous.1321 Conversation out in the open then would be unpleasant (Heliod. Eth. 2.21), and people normally took shelter then under trees, in homes, or elsewhere.1322 People broke for meals then1323 and especially (often after meals)1324 for a midday siesta.1325 Sometimes attackers even found guards napping at midday, which rendered them susceptible to attack.1326 On midday rest, see further discussion at Acts 8:26; see also discussions at Acts 10:9–10; 19:9. If Saul was traveling at midday, it was because he was “so intent on his errand to persecute Christians.”1327 That is, Luke notes the time of day not to explain the character of Paul’s vision but to amplify his persecuting zeal already mentioned.
II. JESUS CONFRONTS SAUL (26:14–15)
Jesus challenges Saul for persecuting him through persecuting his followers. New elements in Paul’s description here include both that the voice came in a Semitic language and the use of a Greek saying recognizable to Agrippa.
Paul mentions here that all fell to the ground (more specific than in the other two accounts in Acts 9:4; 22:7).1328 This reaction is consistent with responses to divine or angelic revelations in the OT (Ezek 1:28; 3:23; 43:3; 44:4; Dan 8:17–18; 10:9) and Jewish literature.1329 It also resembles prostration for worship1330 or falling backward in awe.1331 Most details here resemble those in the earlier accounts1332 (for those details, see comments on the earlier accounts), but the divergences are significant.
Why does Paul mention here that the voice spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic (on the latter, see comments on Acts 21:40; 22:2)? One might have expected the emphasis on Semitic speech in Acts 22:7 (where the entire speech is Semitic), but the language is explicitly specified in neither 9:4 nor 22:7. Perhaps it appears here for Agrippa’s benefit; use of a holy language (“Hebrew,” though in fact it is likely Aramaic) would make sense for a revelation. The use of Aramaic explains the form Σαούλ in the call narratives in Acts;1333 on this occasion, it may also explain why the voice calls him “Saul” when Paul’s audience knows him as “Paul.”1334 It is unlikely, however, that Paul repeats Jesus’s whole message in Aramaic (unless he translates afterward), since it would be no more intelligible to most of his audience than to Luke’s; he most likely simply mentions the language in which Jesus addressed him.1335
Many considered Hebrew a holy language, as is evident from the comments of later rabbis, even when they wrote in Aramaic.1336 Certainly it remained as a scribal language, as the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls exemplify.1337 Even rabbis who allowed other languages for various purposes valued Hebrew most highly.1338 Some thought that God created the world in Hebrew1339 and that, before Babel, everyone spoke it,1340 but some Babylonian Amoraim insisted that the first man spoke Aramaic.1341 Some rabbis discussed whether the Torah could be debated in any language or only in the holy tongue,1342 but they could acknowledge that some Aramaic appeared throughout the Scriptures;1343 further, Aramaic paraphrases were already in vogue long before this period (and before our current Targumim; cf. Neh 8:8).1344 God reportedly spoke to Israel’s prophets in Hebrew, the language of the holy angels.1345 But the heavenly voice was sometimes thought to come in Aramaic rather than Hebrew.1346 (For the repetition of Saul’s name, see comment on Acts 9:4.)
“Persecuting me” refers to persecuting Jesus’s followers in Acts 26:10–12 (see comment on Acts 9:4); Paul’s acts against Jesus’s name in 26:9 are expressed in 26:10–12.1347 “Kicking against the goads” appears only in this third recounting of the story, but Paul was apparently doing so by persecuting Jesus and his followers.1348 Most commentators point out that Paul here uses a Greek proverb;1349 this is Luke’s only use of κέντρον and λακτίζω (as well as of σκληρός),1350 and λακτίζω is a biblical hapax legomenon (while κέντρον appears only nine times, e.g., 4 Macc 14:19; Sir 38:25; Hos 5:12; 13:14). The proverb was widely used and by no means limited to Euripides.1351
More often emphasized than the other occurrences, however, are the closely parallel and widely known lines in Eurip. Bacch. 794–95.1352 Significantly, this text in Euripides (along with cognate verbs in Bacch. 45, 325, 1255) provides the ultimate (though not necessarily the proximate) literary source for Luke’s use of θεομάχοι in Acts 5:39.1353 It is quite possible, given 5:39 and some other passages, that Luke knew Euripides’s work directly,1354 but many scholars argue that it is more likely that if he knows these words from Euripides, he does so through an anthology from which he studied and memorized when younger in school.1355 School exercises included developing maxims and anecdotes into moral essays; although, technically, maxims, unlike anecdotes, were “not explicitly attributed, . . . in fact their source was usually known.”1356
Since Luke presents Jesus’s wording in more than one form elsewhere (Luke 24:47–49; Acts 1:4–8), it would not be surprising if “kicking against the goads” is an example of Luke’s “literary freedom,” Paul’s explanation to his hearers rather than Jesus’s original wording.1357 The idea of Jesus’s compelling summons is in any case not foreign to Paul; Paul’s letters hint of his being “seized by Christ” (Phil 3:12) and undergoing a “compulsion” to preach (1 Cor 9:15–18).1358 Whether Paul’s or Luke’s adaptation,1359 it is particularly fitting in addressing King Agrippa, who had a Hellenistic education.1360
The point of the proverb, fitting in this context, is the futility for a human to strive against fate or the will of deity,1361 precisely what Paul’s hostility to the Christian movement is doing (cf. Acts 5:39). But whereas King Pentheus (in Euripides) and King Antiochus (in 2 Macc 7:19) reaped destruction for battling a deity, here the Lord’s mercy turns Paul to the right way (cf. 1 Tim 1:12–16).
Most members of Luke’s audience would probably have heard the Greek proverb, though they might not have gathered that it ultimately came in this form from Euripides. Although Euripides is the closest form, much of Luke’s target audience may have also been able to supply secondary resonances that could theologically inform the claim. Those who were biblically informed and knew the Hebrew text may have thought of Israel’s corrupt leaders (1 Sam 2:29) “kicking” against God, although the connection is not clear in the LXX. Clearer is that the same Hebrew verb applies to Israel “kicking” against God in Deut 32:15, where the LXX employs ἀπελάκτισεν, a cognate to our present term.1362 Those who were biblically literate only in Greek might have also thought of Prov 26:3 LXX, where a κέντρον, or goad,1363 for donkeys offers an analogy for a rod to punish wrongdoers (i.e., fools). Ironically, just as Paul seeks to “punish” believers in Jesus (cf. Acts 26:10–11), he now confronts Jesus’s sharp goads against himself.
A goad was “a sharp pointed stick used to move cattle in the desired direction,” like a modern “cattle prod.”1364 Goads had long been applied figuratively (though applied literally often enough for the figures to retain their allusive force)—for example, for anger1365 or conscience.1366 One pre-Christian Jewish writer compares the teachings of sages with oxgoads (βούκεντρα, Eccl 12:11). The gods might use adversities like “spurs” to provoke virtue;1367 a pre-Christian Jewish source also claims that God afflicts his servants to restore them to the way, spurring them like horses (Pss. Sol. 16:3–4), and Philo applies the image to punishments to teach the wicked (Dreams 2.294). Philo regularly uses κέντρον figuratively,1368 whether for the affliction of reproof;1369 the sting of the passions, pleasure, or pain;1370 or philosophy stimulating attention to what was appropriate.1371 Later rabbis, whose range of uses for metaphors typically proved less diverse, employed goads as a stock metaphor for the words of Torah, based on Eccl 12:11.1372 The image of kicking against the owner’s correction might recall, for some, OT images of Israel’s disobedience to its master (Isa 1:3). Most obviously, it reflects the familiar experience of rebellious donkeys kicking hard and painfully (Babr. 122.11–12).1373
Whether or not most of Luke’s audience would have caught the Euripides allusion (Theophilus may well have), they likely saw the connection with Acts 5:39 (which may draw from precisely the same possibly anthologized and ultimately Euripidean verse, referring to fighting God).1374 Gamaliel warns that one cannot fight the Jesus movement without fighting God (5:39); fighting it is precisely what Gamaliel’s student Saul does (26:10–11), and fighting God is precisely what the heavenly voice informs him that he has been doing.1375
III. APPOINTED AS A WITNESS (26:16–17)
Paul’s testimony shifts more fully to his calling—a calling that would incidentally explain, should anyone challenge him further with having started riots, why he was preaching on the occasions when riots were raised against him. Although his hearers do not share his self-evaluation (26:24), Paul is within their tolerance range (26:31–32).
(1) Paul’s Commission in 26:16–18
Although Luke’s audience already knows Paul’s calling to the Gentiles, Luke has reserved his fullest account of Paul’s call at the Damascus road revelation for the final, climactic narration of Paul’s conversion—at one of the prominent occasions where the call is being fulfilled. This call was already implied in 9:15 (Jesus’s words to Ananias) and in 22:21 (Jesus’s words to Paul after his conversion),1376 but only here do we find Jesus speaking it directly to Paul at his conversion. We know, and perhaps Luke’s audience knew, that Paul’s calling and conversion happened roughly simultaneously (Gal 1:13–16).
Paul’s commissioning in 26:16–18 evokes the call of OT prophets or agents of the Lord.1377 Cumulatively, these echoes portray Paul’s experience as prophetic, like prophetic callings in the OT; Paul thus asks Agrippa if he believes in the prophets (26:27).1378 To disobey the call would be true rebellion against Israel’s God; obedience to it has led to his being falsely accused of violating God’s law. Refusing to heed God’s message could be as consequential as refusing to heed biblical prophets; by implication, rejecting Paul’s divine message would be tantamount to rejecting the prophetic message (26:22, 27).
Scholars often find in “delivering you” a recollection of God’s promise to Jeremiah at his call (Jer 1:7–8).1379 Jeremiah’s ἐξαιρεῖσθαί σε (1:8; cf. also 1:19) by itself is hardly a sufficient connection to Luke’s ἐξαιρούμενός σε (Acts 26:17),1380 but we may factor in ἐξαποστείλω σε (Jer 1:7; cf. ἀποστέλλω σε in Acts 26:17)1381 and Jeremiah’s call as a “prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5; cf. Acts 26:17) as well as to Israel.1382 Acts 18:9–10 recounts a vision to Paul in which the Lord tells him not to be afraid because the Lord is with Paul, possibly echoing especially Jer 1:8; there is another possible allusion in Acts 9:15. Paul’s letters also allude to his call in language at times reminiscent of Jeremiah’s calling (see comment on Acts 9:15). There might also be a fainter echo of Ezek 2:1–61383 in “I am sending you” (ἐξαποστέλλω ἐγώ σε, 2:3) and the command to rise up (2:1), though neither phrase is rare by itself (e.g., the command to stand in Dan 10:11; sending in Exod 3:12; Ezek 3:6; the verb may evoke also Isa 61:1, quoted in Luke 4:18).
In Acts 26:18, Paul turns people to light as in Isa 42:6 and opens their eyes as in 42:7;1384 this Isaiah passage easily connects midrashically with another, since both mention a “light for the nations” (49:6, as in 42:6), an Isaian phrase that applied to Paul’s mission in Acts 13:47.1385 The servant whom Isaiah addresses (Israel’s righteous remnant) is also the same as the “witnesses” in Isa 43:10, 12 and 44:8, the primary background for the apostolic commission in Acts 1:8.
Paul’s own writings emphasize his special revelations (2 Cor 12:1–4, 7; cf. 1 Cor 14:37; Rom 16:25–26; perhaps Gal 2:2; Eph 2:20; 3:2–9).1386 Jesus, in himself, also revealed to his disciples special matters not seen by earlier prophets (Luke 10:21–24). A number of scholars argue that Paul’s description of his calling in Acts 26:16–18 corresponds well with descriptions in his letters.1387
(2) Witness of What He Sees (26:16)
The command to “rise” or “stand” or not to fear was common after a theophany (e.g., Ezek 2:1; Matt 17:7) because mortals experiencing the theophany were generally felled to the ground.1388 For example, an angel tells Aseneth, “Rise and stand on your feet, and I will tell you what I have to say” (Jos. Asen. 14:8).1389 Luke sometimes elsewhere applies ὁράω (here both for the past appearance and the promise of future ones) to theophanies (Acts 7:2, 30, 35; cf. 2:3, 17; 7:44; 13:31; 16:9).
Paul is also told to arise in 9:6 and 22:10, but those texts tell Paul to enter Damascus for further instructions (presumably for Ananias’s message in 9:15; 22:14–16). Here, however, Paul receives the message from the Lord directly. Luke might simply abbreviate by omitting Ananias here,1390 but Paul’s own account in Gal 1:12–16 probably suggests that Paul viewed his turning to Christ and his call to the Gentiles as part of the same event, as Luke does here.1391 Paul insists that he received it without human mediation (1:12), and he wraps the call and conversion together as God’s sovereign act of ironic grace (1:16).1392 (For Ananias’s role regarding Paul’s calling being confirmatory, see comment on Acts 9:17.)
Luke uses προχειρίζομαι for Paul’s calling also in Acts 22:14 (as well as seeing and hearing; and for Jesus’s mission in 3:20, the only other NT use).1393 Although the term does not appear in the biblical prophets,1394 the idea may appear in Jer 1:5, 10 (“appointed”) and Isa 42:6 (“appointed,” lit., “gave”).1395 Luke elsewhere uses ὑπηρέτης for an honorable office in the Jewish community (Luke 4:20; Acts 5:22, 26), but it can imply subordination (Acts 13:5; Prov 14:35; Wis 6:4) as well as service for the Christian message (Luke 1:2; 1 Cor 4:1).1396
To be a “witness” (μάρτυς) in the context of Acts includes being an eyewitness (see Acts 1:22); this is part of Paul’s commission in keeping with the resurrection appearance from which it derives. “Seen” recalls the larger “seen and heard” motif in Luke-Acts (see 2:33; 4:20; 22:14–15). What he has seen1397 presumably involves the vision being narrated, just as the Lord will appear to him further; Luke’s audience, knowing that Paul was blinded (9:8), may hear some irony here. The Lord Jesus notes here that Paul will have some additional revelations; some of these appear in Acts, including another promise of deliverance (18:9–10) and other encouragements relating to deliverance so that he can fulfill his calling among the Gentiles in Rome (23:11; 27:24), or the giving of specific directions relevant for his call to Gentiles (16:7–10; 22:17). These experiences are consistent with the visions and dreams that Luke depicts as normal in the new age of the Spirit (2:17).
The term for “servant” or “minister” here, conjoined with the idea of (though with a different term for) “witness,” probably evokes Luke’s preface in Luke 1:2: just as Jesus’s original apostles testified about what Jesus began to do and teach, so Paul was among those who testified of his continuing experience with Christ.
(3) Deliverance and the Gentile Mission (26:17)
Luke often likes to couple Israel (“the people”) and the Gentiles, as here (Luke 2:32; Acts 4:25, 27; 15:14),1398 and he will do so in describing Jesus’s mission in 26:23 and, by implication, Paul carrying out his commission in Acts 26:20.1399 Toward the end of Acts, Paul evokes again the calling in 26:17 by mentioning that God’s salvation has been “sent” to “the Gentiles” (28:28, one of only two other verses in the NT that use both ἀποστέλλω and ἔθνος).1400 (Here Paul is sent both to “the people,” Israel, and to the Gentiles, since the relative pronoun ὅς occurs in the masculine accusative plural form οὕς rather than the neuter accusative plural form ἅ; “people,” unlike “Gentiles,” is masculine.)1401 Paul in his letters also regards the Gentile mission as a task especially appointed for him (Rom 11:13; Gal 2:7–9; cf. Eph 3:1–8, esp. 3:8; Col 1:25–27).1402
There are numerous examples of Paul’s “deliverances” in Acts (cf. Acts 9:16)—from Jews (9:23–25, 29–30; 18:12–16; 20:19; 21:27, 32), from Gentiles for non-Jewish or anti-Jewish reasons (16:38–39; 19:30–31, both parts of longer stories),1403 and from Gentiles stirred by Jews (14:19–20; 17:8–10, 13–14; cf. 13:51). Perhaps in connection with his linking of various figures in salvation history, Luke elsewhere applies the present term (ἐξαιρέω) to Joseph (7:10), Israel (7:34), and Peter (12:11; cf. Paul in 23:27);1404 in this context, as noted above, an allusion to Jeremiah’s calling is likely (Jer 1:8).1405
Paul proclaims the light (Acts 26:23) as part of his commission (26:18) and his experience (26:13). If Paul’s claims sound grandiose here, they are no more grandiose than in undisputed (Rom 1:5, 13–14; 11:13; 16:4; Gal 2:7) as well as disputed (Eph 3:1–5, 8; Col 1:24–26) Pauline letters; indeed, in historical retrospect, Paul had a larger effect than he lived to see or than even his immediate successors would have realized. For biblical allusions here, see most fully the introduction, above, to Acts 26:16–18. There are probable signs of rhetorical elegance, including a genitive with an articular infinitive (Acts 26:18) and litotes (26:19).1406
Others used the metaphor of opening eyes; Marcus Aurelius’s teacher “opened” Marcus’s “eyes.”1407 The expression applies to revealed insight about reality (Luke 24:16, 31; Gen 21:19),1408 including perception of the spiritual realm (2 Kgs 6:17)1409 and, most relevant here, God’s truth (Ps 119:18; Eph 1:18),1410 which the eyes of many could not see (Acts 28:27, quoting Isa 6:10). As noted above, the primary biblical allusion informing this image is probably the servant’s mission in Isa 42:7, which contextually includes turning people to light (42:6); but this occurrence recalls a wider Isaian theme of opening eyes.1411
Vision was a frequent analogy for knowing1412 and was often used for spiritual sight.1413 Plato emphasized the vision of the mind that could see ideal forms;1414 the physical senses were deceitful, and so the soul should depend only on itself and “see” invisible abstractions perceptible only to the mind.1415 Eventually many writers emphasized the mind’s or soul’s ability to see;1416 Philo speaks repeatedly of the “eyes” of the soul.1417 Stoics such as Epictetus1418 and Marcus Aurelius1419 viewed the ignorant masses as “blind”; likewise, Seneca the Younger believed that only the pure mind could comprehend God.1420
Such views flourished, however, particularly among those most deeply engaged with Platonic tradition. In the mid-second century C.E., the eclectic Platonist orator Maximus of Tyre stressed vision by the intellect (Max. Tyre 11.9; 38.3).1421 He noted that at death those who love God will see him, ideal Beauty and pure Truth (9.6; 10.3; 11.11).1422 In the meantime, one can strip off the layers of sense perception in the world’s beauty to see God (11.11).1423 The soul can recall only vaguely its prenatal vision of divine beauty (21.7); whereas such beauty remains perfect in the unchanging heavens, it grows faint in the lower realms of the senses (21.7–8). The third-century founder of Neoplatonism sought such vision: Plotinus allegedly “experienced in a trance actual visions of the transcendent God.”1424 Developing his views according to the Platonic model, Plotinus declared that the soul’s vision, a sort of inner sight, contemplated the beauty of the Good in the realm of Ideas.1425 His followers, however, retained older popular mythology alongside such views.1426
Early in the first century, the eclectic Jewish Platonist Philo reflects analogous notions. True knowledge is available through seeing transcendent reality, not depending on the body and its senses.1427 Like other philosophers, he condemns blindness of soul,1428 an image utilized for centuries even in popular drama.1429 Wisdom can enable the soul to see; vision, the swiftest of senses, is preferable to hearing, and so inspiration is preferable to mere lectures.1430 Because Philo’s God is absolutely transcendent, seekers can know God only through ecstatically experienced mystical vision.1431 Only the pure soul may envision God.1432 Thus Abraham perceived God not with physical eyes but with those of the soul;1433 the prophets were “seers” because of the active eyes of their souls;1434 “Israel” means “the one who sees God.”1435
Following biblical tradition, Philo states that divine vision depends on God’s revelation: God is too transcendent to be perceived apart from his revelation.1436 As in the OT, God is invisible;1437 Philo allows that one can come to the Logos but warns that God is so transcendent over creation that even here one cannot fully perceive God.1438 The present vision of deity is necessarily incomplete; mortals can perceive only that God is, not what he is;1439 only God can “apprehend God.”1440 The soul’s eye is overwhelmed by God’s glory,1441 yet seeking God remains a blessed endeavor, “just as no one blames the eyes of the body because when unable to see the sun itself they see the emanation of its rays.”1442 One should progress toward clearer vision; the ultimate vision of God is a reward for attaining perfection.1443
Neither Paul nor Luke engages the Platonic tradition deeply; Scripture offers a more proximate source here. Thus it should be noted that the motif of spiritual sight and blindness in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 4:12; 8:18; Matt 13:13–16; 15:14; 23:16) flows especially and often explicitly from biblical tradition.1444 The motifs of eschatological vision1445—spiritual blindness and sight representing straying from or following God’s way,1446 and spiritual sight representing spiritual insight into God’s character and mysteries1447—persisted in “intertestamental” Palestinian Judaism. Later Jewish sources continued to employ this language.1448 The rabbis had to explain biblical passages referring to Israel seeing God;1449 they commented on the rare persons who, in some sense, “beheld” God’s presence in the present time,1450 but they especially focused on the eschatological vision of God.1451 According to some later rabbis, obedience to the law produced nearness to—and, in some sense, the vision of—God;1452 Merkabah literature stressed the mystical vision of God.1453
Regarding explicit sources for Luke’s audience, Paul’s opening people’s eyes and turning them to light may reflect the Isaian servant’s mission, emulating the path of Paul’s Lord (Luke 4:18; cf. 1:78–79). Paul’s hearers in the narrative world know nothing of Paul’s experience of blindness, but Luke’s audience knows that the very one called to open others’ eyes (Acts 26:18) was first struck blind, and his eyes were opened when God’s servant came to baptize him and report his commission (9:8, 17–18; 22:13–16).1454 Such narrative symbolism also fits this context: Paul would turn others’ eyes to the light just as he had encountered a light brighter than the midday sun in 26:13.
Isaiah’s servant would turn (ἐπιστρέψαι) Israel back to God, and God would make the servant a “light” for salvation to the earth (Isa 49:6); salvation would come to all those on the earth who would turn (ἐπιστράφητε) to God (45:22).1455 John the Baptist was already active in this calling (Luke 1:16–17);1456 evoking the language of Isa 9:2, he would prepare for the one who would shine in darkness (Luke 1:79). Peter (Acts 3:19; 9:35) and the Hellenists (11:20–21) would also “turn” people to God. Paul has also effectively demonstrated this calling (14:15; 15:19; cf. 28:27), as he goes on to point out (26:20).1457
Satan’s “authority” or “dominion”1458 may include the world system (Luke 4:6).1459 Judaism was unanimous that God is the ruler of the world;1460 nevertheless, the (Gentile) human sphere could lie under God’s dominion (1 John 5:19). The Qumran scrolls contrast the Prince of Lights (שר האורים)a1461 with Belial, prince of the wicked realm,1462 and they present Belial as ruler of the army of the Kittim.1463 Clearly, early Christians adopted the apocalyptic worldview in which God allowed the devil and his forces considerable activity among the nations in the present age (2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; cf. Mark 3:22).1464
In Luke’s theology, however, God’s authority through the kingdom often crushes that of Satan (e.g., Luke 4:36; 9:1; 10:19; 11:18–20).1465 On God’s kingdom, see discussion at Acts 1:3, 6. Forgiveness of sins is a theme in Luke-Acts (Luke 3:3; 7:47–48; Acts 2:38; 22:16); whereas Pauline literature mentions “forgiveness” only occasionally, it mentions sin regularly (ἁμαρτία appears more than fifty times) and emphasizes how to be “justified.” Paul’s mission to lead people to “turn” and hence receive forgiveness of sins is none other than the apostolic (and, by extension, the church’s) mission to lead people to repentance for forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47).
Paul makes a shockingly universal and somewhat exclusive truth claim (for Gentiles as well as Jews) in a world where, apart from Jewish affirmation of one God, tolerance of most cults was often confused with accepting at least their partial validity. The universal benefit of his message and mission provides justification for his total zeal in pursuing it.
Luke sometimes uses light, connected with seeing eyes (Luke 11:34), as a metaphor (8:16; 11:33–36); this image was, however, more common among many of his contemporaries, including Paul.1466 Paul uses light-and-darkness imagery for spiritual or moral awareness, often through the gospel;1467 as here, he can apply it to contrasts with Satan’s kingdom1468 and to conversion (2 Cor 4:6; esp. Col 1:12–13). This transition from darkness to light at a believer’s conversion also appears in some Christian texts outside Paul’s letters and Acts’ speeches (1 Pet 2:9).
Luke’s biblical canon often uses “light” figuratively,1469 as does the early gospel tradition dependent on the OT.1470 A variety of Jewish sources employ darkness and light figuratively for evil and good respectively1471 or with reference to enlightenment in wisdom;1472 “light/darkness” dualism is especially common in the Qumran scrolls.1473
Jewish teachers applied light and darkness imagery to a variety of specific occasions, all of which reflect a common appreciation for the goodness of light and a common disdain for the dangers of darkness (e.g., Job 18:5, 18; 24:13, 16). The image applied to the primeval light before or from the creation;1474 in Gen 1:3, the light emerged through God’s word, and this tradition continued to be developed.1475 Because this light would be restored,1476 it also was connected with OT images of eschatological light and glory.1477 Other Jewish teachers regularly called particularly righteous sages or other persons lights (cf. Matt 5:14; John 5:35),1478 including Adam,1479 Abraham,1480 Jacob,1481 Moses,1482 David,1483 R. Johanan ben Zakkai,1484 and ultimately the Messiah;1485 the designation also could be applied to Israel,1486 Jerusalem,1487 the temple,1488 and to God himself.1489 Moreover, Jewish literature portrays both Wisdom1490 and Torah1491 as light (e.g., Ps 119:105, 130; Prov 6:23). Many ancients used darkness as an image of ignorance.1492 Death also was associated with darkness.1493 And the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife could be associated with darkness.1494
Antithesis was a standard rhetorical device,1495 displayed here in the antithesis between light and darkness, on the one hand, and Satan and God, on the other. Like Jewish writers noted above, Gentile writers commonly employed the contrast between light and darkness for good and evil.1496 The opposition between light and darkness offered a natural metaphor for the incompatibility of good and evil.1497 This moral imagery is frequent in the Qumran scrolls.1498 The presence of light banishes darkness (1Q27 I, 5–6);1499 this triumph of light would especially characterize the activity of the eschatological deliverer (John 1:5; 4Q541 9 I, 4–5).
Like others, Paul in his letters often employs the contrast between spiritual light (day) and darkness (Rom 2:19; 13:12–13; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 4:6; 6:14; Eph 5:8; 1 Thess 5:5; cf. Col 1:13). Other early Christians also taught that God called his people from darkness to light (1 Pet 2:9; cf. 1 John 2:8–9), perhaps reflecting Isaianic imagery (Isa 9:2; 42:16; 58:10). The same language appears in Jos. Asen. 8:9/10; this suggests some common source for the image (perhaps an interpretive tradition on Isa 9:2; 42:16; 50:10; or 58:10).1500 Both Joseph and Aseneth and the NT references suggest conversion language;1501 the passage in 1 Peter applies to Gentiles experiencing a spiritually Jewish identity in Christ (1 Pet 2:9–10). Also very possibly relevant is the Passover tradition that in the exodus God redeemed his people and brought them from darkness to light (m. Pesaḥ. 10:5).1502
The immediate contextual connection here with light offers a concrete illustration: Paul was turned to a bright light (Acts 26:13) and now is called to summon others to the same light (26:18). (A vision of God would naturally emphasize light; in addition to biblical accounts of God’s “glory,” Jewish sources often depict light around God’s throne.)1503 Thus Paul’s conversion becomes a paradigm for turning both Jews and Gentiles from their former understanding to a new relationship with God in Christ (that Paul intends his own conversion paradigmatically is explicit in 26:29). More broadly, this light may evoke that in Luke 2:32, which (as in Acts 26:17) applies to both Israel and the Gentiles.
(4) Inheritance among Those Set Apart
As in Acts 20:32, the “inheritance” is among the “sanctified”—that is, God’s people set apart for his promises (Paul has already applied “saints” to the persecuted believers in Jerusalem in 26:10). (For “inheritance,” see comment on Acts 20:32.) Israel was God’s sanctified inheritance (μερίδος ἡγιασμένης, 3 Macc 6:3). (On forgiveness of sins, see comment on Acts 2:38.)
“Saints” also referred to angels (4Q403 1 I, 31). Some scholars have suggested that when Pauline literature speaks of believers sharing the “inheritance of the saints” (Eph 1:18; Col 1:12), it refers to angels;1504 such a usage, however, fits neither those letters’ usage of “saints”1505 nor the probable sense of “by faith” here in Acts 26:18. For fuller discussion of “saints” (and their inheritance), see comment on Acts 20:32.
That Gentile believers (26:17) are included in this designation implies that (using language from Pauline letters) they have been grafted in (Rom 11:17–19, 23–24), or made part of, the Messiah’s empire (Eph 2:12–13). Including Gentile believers in this category would surprise Paul’s hearers but probably not offend them (mostly Agrippa, Berenice, and Gentiles) the way it would have offended some other audiences in Acts (cf. Acts 22:21–22).
The language of Acts 26:18 resembles Col 1:12–14 in many respects, both texts probably imitating or (in my opinion, more likely) reflecting Pauline language (though for Luke this cannot be verbatim): God enables believers to share in the inheritance (κλῆρος, in both cases) of the holy or set-apart ones (in Col 1:12, ἁγίων) in light, having delivered them from the authority (ἐξουσία, in both cases) of darkness; in Christ they have forgiveness of sins (1:14).1506
Paul develops his argument from ēthos and protests against his accusers even further here. Jesus commissioned Paul to preach (Acts 26:16–18), and Paul, having always pursued the way he thought was pious (26:4–12), then carried out this commission (26:19–20). It was such preaching of righteousness and good behavior that provoked the attack in the temple (26:21), but by God’s help, Paul survived and has continued to testify (26:22), as he is continuing to do even this day, to the message of Christ’s resurrection (26:23).
I. OBEYING JESUS’S COMMISSION (26:19–20)
Paul now carries out the commission given by Jesus in 26:16–18. Paul preached repentance from Damascus to Jerusalem, Judea, and to the Gentiles.
(1) Obeying the Heavenly Vision (26:19)
Paul now predicates (ὅθεν) all his behavior on the divine call of 26:16–18; the narratio up to this point provides the explanation for his otherwise controversial behavior.1507 Paul obeys (“not disobey” is Lukan litotes) the heavenly vision,1508 fitting the pattern of his predecessors in Luke-Acts. Jesus obeys the Father’s heavenly call in Luke 3:21–22; Peter also obeys a vision from heaven (Acts 11:5) and points out that he had to obey God (11:17). Paul now obeys this initial vision (26:16) instead of kicking further against the goads (26:14). Obedience to the heavenly vision contrasts with his acting on the delegated authority of the priestly elite (26:10). That the vision was “heavenly” may mean that Paul experienced it as coming from the sky (cf. 11:5),1509 or it may mean just that it was from the God associated with heaven.1510 (Luke employs the same adjective in Luke 2:13, which could be construed as either “visible in heaven” or “having come from heaven,” depending on how the scene is envisioned; cf. 2:15.) It may at least be noted that in this telling of Paul’s call, he did experience a light “from heaven” (οὐρανόθεν, 26:13).1511
One could hardly be expected to disobey a heavenly vision.1512 Paul’s defense at this point is a defense from divine necessity (see comment on Acts 11:17). Necessity could justify actions otherwise more easily questioned.1513 An act could not be condemned—even a wife’s pregnancy by someone other than her husband—if it was genuinely by a god.1514 Ancient rhetoric often considered divine activity the most persuasive form of testimony, a motif to which appeal is made regularly in Luke-Acts.1515
(2) Preaching Repentance (26:20)
Paul’s mention of his widespread preaching not only provides a motive that explains his critics’ false accusations (Acts 26:21) but also implicitly answers the claim that he was stirring unrest throughout the world (24:5). Paul will soon ground this pattern in Jesus’s example of ministry to Jews and Gentiles alike (26:23). The geographic pattern of 26:20 closely follows the paradigm of 1:8 (cf. Luke 24:27), except that it starts where Paul found himself just after his conversion.1516 Paul’s “Gentiles” take the place of the “ends of the earth,” just as Rome will ultimately fill this role in Luke’s larger narration.
Fitting the narrative of Acts (Acts 9:19–20), which was likely constrained by Paul’s own experience (cf. Gal 1:17), Paul preaches to Damascus before starting to do so in Jerusalem. Paul’s preaching in Jerusalem appears in Acts 9:28–30; Judea may be implied as a corollary of Jerusalem, making it formulaic here to fit the pattern in 9:31 and 1:8. One of Paul’s own letters tells us about his trip to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18–19), which apparently somehow sooner or later had an impact on the churches of Judea through the report of his conversion (1:22–24); even here, Judea seems grammatically linked with Jerusalem (τε . . . τε, whereas other components are linked by καί)1517 and is expressed irregularly.1518 It might precede the Gentiles logically but not chronologically1519 (cf. Acts 15:3; 18:22; 21:7–16; though Luke distinguishes Samaria and Caesarea from Judea, cf. 21:10). In any case, it may offer a contrast between the Judeans and the Gentiles, whom Paul also names and to whom he also preached (e.g., 13:7). Most important for Luke is how the claim fits his own narrative-theological pattern: Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond (cf. 1:8).1520
By preaching deeds appropriate to repentance (ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας), Paul closely echoes John’s preaching in Luke 3:8 (ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας), offering continuity between these prophets.1521 The verb for “practicing” such deeds does not appear in Luke 3:8 but might allow for a contextual contrast with the forensic “practicing deeds deserving death” in Luke 23:15, 41; Acts 25:11, 25; 26:31. The exhortation to “turn to God” recalls the Lord’s commission to Paul in Acts 26:18. Paul’s manner of summarizing his message would not offend anyone present; Romans did not oppose public advocacy of morality.1522 Naturally, by the label “repentance,” Paul’s message advocated some specific content (see comment on Acts 2:38), but the summary here is not inaccurate, or unusual for Luke, for whom not only John (Luke 3:3, 8) but Jesus (5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3–5; 15:7, 10) and Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18) preached repentance. This was part of the summary of the apostolic commission (Luke 24:47); though Paul sometimes summarizes it as John’s message (Acts 13:24; 19:4), he shares it himself toward both Gentiles and Jews, as here (17:30; 20:21).1523
II. PAUL THREATENED FOR PIETY (26:21)
Signs of rhetorical elegance appear in 26:21–23, including a form of the Attic πειράομαι in 26:21 (a NT hapax legomenon), the classical οὐδὲν . . . λέγων in 26:22, and the classical παθητός as “subject to suffering” in 26:23 (a NT hapax legomenon).1524 Paul reiterates that the real basis for the charge against him is prejudice against his theological position and implies that this prejudice is itself impious.
Seeking to kill Paul for his obedience to the divine commission was a heinous act of impiety. Paul claims in 26:21 that 26:20 offers the reasons (ἕνεκα τούτων) some of his own people wanted to kill him: because (26:20) he was preaching works appropriate to repentance (i.e., unobjectionably upright behavior) and/or because he was preaching to the Gentiles. This seems to insinuate that Paul’s enemies do not favor upright behavior and/or that they are unwilling to communicate God’s gifts to Gentiles. (This resembles the argument that one is, ironically, on trial for a benefaction or piety; see comments on Acts 4:9; 26:6–7.) That they tried to kill him (a Roman citizen) is itself a serious offense, since (as Paul argues) they, and not he, were in the wrong. Thus Paul is reversing the charges, as perhaps in 24:19 (see comment there). (Paul’s wording about the attempt on his life fits Luke’s narrative but also avoids explicitly contradicting Lysias’s official version in 23:27, where the same verb appears.)
Thus, having completed his story, Paul begins to recount his thesis for which his narratio prepared (26:6–8): the Jewish opposition he faces (26:21; cf. 26:6–7) stems precisely from his commitment to the resurrection hope (26:23; cf. 26:8) rooted in the Scriptures (26:22; cf. 26:6–7). Whether this is (as some scholars hold) the peroratio repeating an earlier theme or (as I think) the propositio of an unfinished speech (again repeating an earlier theme, and paving the way for its further development), it serves the same literary function, namely, to frame the speech proper (after the exordium) and drive home the point.
Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ (26:13–18) was simply the continuing experience of OT prophetic revelation and the outworking of OT promises. If the Christian faith did not spring from the OT hope, neither did Pharisaism or the dominant Judean belief in the resurrection; and no public spokesperson for Judaism in the presence of Gentiles would dare take intolerance so far as to condemn all these views. If, by contrast, the God of the OT remained active, Paul’s revelation was consistent with the OT message and ought to be embraced like the revelations of earlier prophets. The early Christians believed that they lived in the era of OT fulfillment, and hence expected continuity with OT miracles and revelations.1525
Paul here accuses “some Jews” of trying to kill him because he obeyed the Jewish God, believed Jewish religion, and preached good deeds. That is, he summarizes his “crime” as something that is not a criminal offense, a common rhetorical technique (see comment on Acts 24:14). Further, he summarizes his crime as in fact a benevolent and good act (cf. 4:9); in forensic rhetoric, it strengthened the pathos of one’s case if one could present one’s opponents as doing evil in spite of or because of one’s benevolence (see comment on Acts 24:17). If his opponents wanted to kill him simply for preaching morality and conversing with Gentiles, then they are the true lawbreakers; returning charges against one’s accusers was conventional in forensic rhetoric (see comment on Acts 24:19). In 26:21, then, Paul begins to drive home the point of his narratio,1526 at the same time revisiting for readers convincing themes elaborated in earlier speeches.
Paul’s summary of his own activity is so benevolent1527 that Festus would be unable to grasp how 26:20 provided the basis for 26:21; Paul basically accuses “some Jews” of trying to kill him for honorable behavior. Agrippa, however, knows enough about the conflicts of Jewish sects in this period, including the Nazarenes, to comprehend the conflict: Paul was preaching the same message to Gentiles as to Jews (26:20), welcoming them all alike into God’s kingdom and into the inheritance of the set-apart people (26:18).1528 Naturally, such a message would conflict with Judean nationalism and the most common reading of Scripture in Paul’s day. And, as Paul would know, neither Agrippa nor Festus approved of such Judean nationalism.
Paul judiciously omits the question of circumcision; Romans were unhappy about the proselytization of Romans to be circumcised, and Jews were unhappy about treating Gentile God-fearers as full converts without their first undergoing circumcision. But Agrippa will have heard enough to understand why some want to kill Paul; being more liberal-minded himself, however, he would likely have disapproved of what he would have seen as the fanatic fringe wanting to have Paul killed.
III. PAUL’S BIBLICAL MESSAGE (26:22–23)
On the view that 26:22–23 is Paul’s peroratio (i.e., he was interrupted in 26:24 only when he was basically finished with the complete speech), it is interesting that Paul expresses his dependence on God’s help instead of making a petition for help, a petition often offered to officials in a forensic peroratio (but also in an opening exordium).1529 Some scholars also note parallels to the end of Jesus’s final speech in Luke 24:44–48: Scripture is fulfilled; its substance is that Jesus is the Messiah and will suffer and rise.1530 If Luke does not expect his audience to perceive this as the intended conclusion of Paul’s speech (as I think more likely), it nevertheless fulfills an analogous function for Luke’s narrative, and so these suggestions remain noteworthy.
(1) Testifying, Helped by God (26:22)
The connection in Paul’s thought would not be obscure to ancient hearers. “Having obtained help” is probably a causal participial clause1531—that is, “because I obtained help.” Any benefit rendered by a benefactor or patron obligated a dependent to respond with gratitude. Paul could not fail to testify of God’s benevolence; otherwise, he would be an ungrateful beneficiary. The ingratitude of clients was highly offensive, though it was unlikely that anyone would prosecute Paul on that charge.1532 Ingratitude to a deity for his or her favors was considered even worse and merited punishment from the deity.1533 Paul’s letters may reveal similar thoughts (cf., e.g., Rom 8:12; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8–10).1534
By “helped by God,” Paul might refer specifically to his deliverance from the danger of the previous verse (Acts 26:21)—that is, through Roman intervention—though he could also have in mind (perhaps in addition to this) previous deliverances that he does not recount but that Paul and Luke’s audience understood occurred during the ministry related in 26:20.1535 One might contrast Paul’s “help” from God with his opponents’ sycophantic claim that they were “helped” by the previous governor, Felix (24:2).
Paul’s “testifying” reflects the apostolic commission throughout Acts as well as the present court setting (see comment on Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:48). Paul offers testimony about Jesus to the court because this is part of what Jesus called all his followers to do (Luke 21:12–15), including specifically Paul (Acts 22:15), especially in the visionary commission he has just recounted (26:16).1536
Paul testifies to both small and great; the “great” are before him this day, but he testifies regularly to the small as well (as Luke would insist that any follower of Jesus must, Luke 9:48). The phrase “small and great” (also in Acts 8:10) was a standard idiom used often in the OT1537 and early Judaism1538 to mean “all” (by some definitions, a merism, like “heavens and earth” and “day and night”).
The appeal to “the prophets and Moses” evokes the pairing elsewhere in Luke-Acts (Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; cf. Acts 28:23)1539 as well as the use of other global references to signify a much larger array of texts than Luke provides at any one time (see, e.g., Acts 3:18, 21).1540 Paul’s claim of solidarity with the biblical message and hence with his Jewish heritage is so key to his presentation that he seeks to return to this issue in 26:27. Luke’s Paul, like the Paul we meet in the letters, is utterly convinced that he can demonstrate that the Scriptures point to and confirm the reality of his message. Showing that the Christian movement remains part of Judaism and that the conflicts are purely theological also invites the protection normally afforded by Roman religious tolerance.
Paul proclaims Christ’s mission, so that his own is an extension of Christ’s (as indeed the parallel character of the narratives in Luke-Acts also suggests for Peter, Stephen, and other disciples). Paul here defines the prophetic promise (26:22) in terms of the gospel.1541 Luke has explained earlier that Moses and the prophets testify to Christ’s suffering (Luke 24:26, 46) and resurrection (16:31; 24:27, 44–46) and has provided the proofs in earlier speeches (for suffering, see comment on Acts 7:35–37; for resurrection, Acts 2:24–35; 13:33–37).1542 Similarly, in Luke 24:44–47, the message of Christ’s suffering and death (24:46) and its audience among all nations (24:47) seem to be grounded in Scripture (24:44–46); at least part of the biblical background here must be Isaiah’s emphasis on the salvation of the Gentiles (see comment below).1543 For Paul, this Gentile audience was nonnegotiable as part of his message (Acts 22:21). As darkness helped to facilitate the engineering of Jesus’s crucifixion (Luke 22:53; cf. 23:44), so here light is associated with his resurrection.
That Christ is the “first” to proclaim light suggests that others should do so after him, making the mission in Luke-Acts paradigmatic for continuing Christian mission.1544 Paul’s own mission follows that of Jesus, who was a light to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32).1545 Paul’s mission of preaching light to the Gentiles (Acts 26:18) clearly echoes Isa 42:6–7 (and hence implies Isa 49:6) earlier in this speech (Acts 26:16–18), strongly suggesting the connection here. (Thus the biblical foundation for this proclamation [26:22] at least includes Isaiah’s emphasis on the salvation of the Gentiles; see comment on Acts 1:8.) Paul earlier describes his mission as the servant who brings light in 13:47, but Jesus is the servant in Luke 4:18–21. Paul’s mission is thus modeled after Jesus, which explains how he, like Jesus, embodies the mission of the Suffering Servant (see discussion of this background in the introduction to Acts 26:16–18, above). As in the larger story of Luke-Acts (Luke 2:32; 7:8–10), Paul’s mission to Jew and Gentile alike, already noted (Acts 26:17), is therefore grounded in Jesus’s mission to both alike (26:20). In keeping Luke’s apologetic for Paul in the final quarter of Acts, Luke emphasizes that Christians who accepted Jesus’s mission ought also to accept Paul’s.
The term παθητός, “subject to suffering,” is a biblical hapax legomenon, though it appears in Ignatius (Eph. 7.2; Pol. 3.2); it is another likely indication of this speech’s elegance.1546 Because few expected a suffering Messiah at this time, some commentators have asserted that Paul cannot be arguing for Jesus’s death from Scripture but is merely countering arguments against the Messiah’s death.1547 But the early Christian concept of messiahship, defined by Jesus’s ministry, departed in significant respects from contemporary expectations, and early Christians did believe that Scripture predicted Jesus’s death (Acts 3:18; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Pet 1:11). Luke’s portrait of the rejected deliverer in Acts 7 is undoubtedly one of the approaches that he and his circle of believers had in mind.1548
The part of his speech that Paul is able to finish uninterrupted climaxes by summarizing his message (Jesus’s suffering and resurrection) and (in its final word) that Jesus pioneered the mission to the Gentiles.
e. Paul’s Desire to Convert His Audience (26:24–29)
Charged by Festus with madness, Paul responds by affirming both his sanity and the common knowledge (of both the events and the prophecies) on which he bases his argument. His response to Agrippa, however, admits that he seeks his conversion, which Paul views as beneficial to Agrippa.
Paul’s biblically grounded announcement of resurrection (26:22–23) seems madness to Festus (26:24; cf. 25:19; 1 Cor 1:18, 23). Luke has elsewhere exemplified the difficulty of persuading those educated in conflicting paradigms (Acts 17:32); like Paul, he recognizes that his message is a stumbling block to educated Greeks (1 Cor 1:21–25), even if they prove more tolerant (in terms of outright persecution) than the street mobs he reports. As Johnson points out, neither Festus nor Agrippa is persuaded, and Festus even views Paul’s talk as madness.1549 Johnson concedes, however, that the speech is successful insofar as they believe Paul innocent; for Luke, this is a significant success, and it fits his own apologetic interest.1550
(1) Interruptions in Court Scenes
This interruption allows Luke to provide a more complete finale; at this point, the last lengthy speech in Acts parallels the first, where an interruption (Acts 2:37) functions similarly. This interruption fits Luke’s pattern of frequently interrupted speeches more broadly1551 (see comment on Acts 2:37; for a “loud voice,” cf. comment on Acts 7:57).
Although the interruption serves Luke’s literary purposes, one should not suppose that a judge would not interrupt Paul’s speech. It is not an interruption in this speech but its rareness that appears unusual for a defendant presenting his case. Magistrates could interrupt with questions to the defendant or witnesses.1552 Such interruptions in a court could be hostile.1553 Thus friends of one defendant kept interrupting a prosecutor with hostility (Pliny Ep. 3.9.25–26); on another occasion the emperor, when judging Philiscus’s case, repeatedly interrupted his self-defense with remarks and sudden questions (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.30.623).1554
Charges of madness would fit this pattern.1555 Festus could mean “madness” in one of several ways, as could Luke. Most likely Festus thinks of Paul’s visions of Jesus, on which he bases his behavior (Acts 26:8, 13–20), as a form of temporary insanity, perhaps mixed with the insanity of inspiration, rhetoric, and probably philosophy (given Paul’s “learning”); Luke would lay emphasis on the elements of inspiration and philosophy, though correcting the insanity verdict with the assertion of Paul’s sobriety in 26:25. (Philosophers did not share the world’s opinion of them; see discussion below.)
Making one’s adversary in a debate look foolish often drew derisive laughter and might, on rare occasions, even make the butt of the joke smile,1556 but criticisms usually shamed their receiver.1557 One person so abused responded that he would have been more disturbed by the abuse had he considered it deliberate instead of the result of an unstable mind.1558 One could charge an opponent in court with madness.1559 In other cases, a hearer might conclude that the teller of wild tales was either insane or a fraud.1560 Unlike some interlocutors, Festus is not necessarily hostile (he praises Paul’s learning), but he finds Paul’s beliefs irrational.
In another court scene, the emperor tells one Appianus that he has lost his senses, and Appianus denies it.1561 The wording is so close that it might reflect the diffusion of Christian tradition in the late empire. But both accounts may reflect an earlier tradition of Jewish martyr stories, where some persecutors charged Jewish martyrs with insanity (μαίνομαι and μανία, in both 4 Macc 8:5 and 10:13). Mockers who thought the righteous to suffer from insanity (μανίαν, from μανία) would eventually find the verdict of folly reversed (Wis 5:4). (Some may have counted Jesus as mad at his hearing.)1562
(3) Logical or Rhetorical Madness?
To Festus, the logic of Paul’s defense is difficult to follow. Granted, Paul has established that he merely preaches a variation of Judaism, but what is the point of elaborating his beliefs after he has established this point? Roman thought could not accommodate the resurrection any more than Greek thought could (cf. Acts 17:32).1563 More disconcertingly, Paul’s argument does not sound like a logical defense; 26:22–23 sounds more like a deliberative thesis than a forensic one—as if Paul is trying to persuade his hearers of his irrelevant views. One form of defense in antiquity was the insanity defense,1564 but this is not a plausible construal of Paul’s point here.
Paul may have been forceful in his rhetoric, as orators sometimes were known to become.1565 Cicero felt that a good orator would sometimes “fly into a passion and protest violently” (Or. Brut. 40.138),1566 but although intensity of passion was important in rhetoric (Plut. Cic. 5.3), some condemned others who shouted too much as not understanding the appropriate ways to use passion (5.4). One rhetorician complains about a speaker who pretended insanity as a mark of genius (note the “insanity” of philosophy below) until he did indeed drive himself mad (Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.25). The philosophically inclined, of course (as Paul will claim to be in 26:25), eschewed such passions in rhetoric.1567
(4) Madness, Ecstasy, and Inspiration
Earlier in Acts those inspired by the Spirit were thought drunk (Acts 2:13), requiring Peter’s rebuttal (2:15); early Christian inspiration by the Spirit sometimes appeared to outsiders as madness (1 Cor 14:23;1568 2 Cor 5:131569 [cf. 12:2–4]), as was typical for prophetic ecstasy (2 Kgs 9:11; Hos 9:7–8). In one early Jewish portrayal, Noah, although not necessarily ecstatic, was considered insane for speaking truth (Sib. Or. 1.172). In Christian experience, too, speaking the truth about God’s unusual acts could be construed as madness (Acts 12:15).1570 Various ancient texts portray prophetic “madness.”1571 In connection with the poets, for example, later Platonists spoke of the “madness” of inspiration,1572 a madness that was superior to a “sound mind”1573 and whose inspiration was superior to the reasoning of a sound mind.1574
Valerius Maximus reports that during the bacchanals’ secret nocturnal rituals in Rome, men and women mingled and went insane (furerentque, Val. Max. 1.3.1), a very derogatory evaluation from a Roman perspective.1575 Sometimes madness could even be a punishment for insulting the gods (Apollod. Bib. 2.2.2),1576 such as trying to restrain those inspired by Dionysus.1577
Madness could be associated with inspiration or irrational frenzy of various sorts (less positive to Romans than to Greeks; discussed below), and it is not the first occasion in Acts where inspiration has passed for something less savory (inebriation in Acts 2:13). This is why Paul will counter with an emphasis on his sobriety in 26:25. Some scholars do see an allusion to the madness of inspiration here.1578
“Madness” (μανία) is associated with prophets in the LXX of Hos 9:7–8; its verb cognate μαίνομαι is associated with pagan celebration and possibly prophecy in Wis 14:28, and critics use the verb to denigrate prophetic “madness” in Jer 36:26 (29:26 ET). A second-century author claims that the Pythian priestesses prophesied ecstatically (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D; see comment on Acts 16:16).1579 Some ancient readers might construe Festus as ironically speaking truth: Paul was “mad” in the sense of “inspired.”1580
Festus mentions Paul’s “letters” (τὰ . . . γράμματα) as the source of his madness. Commentators are nearly all agreed that Festus here implies not mere literacy but higher education, as the term sometimes meant.1581 This observation fits Luke’s characterization of Paul as a sage (17:22–31; 19:9; 24:24–26) and is not inconsistent with Paul’s pastoral role in his letters.1582 Festus’s remark fits Luke’s apologetic: other respectable persons may differ with Paul, but they do not dismiss his intellect. This is better treatment than some ancient philosophers received.
The attribution of Paul’s “madness” to learning qualifies it (contrast Peter and John as ἀγράμματοι in Acts 4:13), but it may also qualify the particular kind of “madness” in view. The masses would consider a Cynic sage such as Diogenes mad (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.3.82; 8.36; 9.8; 34.2),1583 but truth, Dio Chrysostom opined, was sometimes viewed as madness by those embracing different plausibility structures (12.8).1584 An orator could use reductio ad absurdum to make philosophic objections to rhetoric appear insane.1585 Philostratus claims that Apollonius predicted Domitian’s death and was accused of insanity (Vit. Apoll. 8.26).
One newly converted to philosophy depicts himself as maddened (lit. “divinely possessed”) and drunk with philosophy (Lucian Nigr. 5), to which his companion retorts that this is not drunkenness but sobriety (σωφρονεῖν, Nigr. 6). But only those predisposed to it are so “divinely possessed” (Nigr. 37).
Many philosophers believed that the nonphilosophic masses were “mad,” not thinking soundly.1586 A foolish person, opined the Stoics, is insane.1587 Dio Chrysostom observes that some would call him mad for confronting Alexandria’s vices (Or. 32.24),1588 but in reality it is the Alexandrians who act mad, pursuing entertainment like a narcotic (32.41), taking days to regain their senses (32.42).1589 Likewise, when they hear the lyre, they lose their senses (32.65). Their sexual immorality is moral insanity.1590 Excessive pride could also generate a form of moral insanity, compared to the frenzied rites of the mother goddess.1591 For Paul, his madness belonged only to his preconversion persecution of believers (see comment on Acts 26:11).
Philosophic “madness,” in the eyes of the masses, could be compared to the “madness” of inspiration (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.4). Middle Platonist philosophers, at least as early as Philo, began to seek visionary experiences of the divine through divine inspiration, a pattern that developed fully in later Platonism. Such philosophic ecstasy might help explain, from an uncommitted Gentile’s perspective, the visionary experiences of the educated and articulate Paul (Acts 26:13, 16). A complication is that such Platonism (and similar ideas in Gnosticism) becomes pervasive especially in the second century and later; Stoicism remained the dominant philosophic school in this period. The ideas are probably this early, but would the Roman Festus (even with a respectable Greek education) have known them, and would Luke have expected him (and his audience) to know them? Even with these caveats, the possibility remains, especially given the reapplication of prophetic madness in Plato’s Phaedrus itself.1592
A display of learning could suggest a prosperous background and high status, which often prejudiced judges in one’s favor. Paul’s “great learning” was perhaps more evident to the Roman officials who met him (21:37–38 and here) than to the average hearer of Luke’s accounts. Despite Luke’s rhetorical skill in the speeches (see various comments on the speech’s special “elegance” above), it is probable that Paul could display his learning even more eloquently than Luke could present in his précis. Paul’s letters exhibit a level of rhetorical proficiency (in argumentation, not in delivery), albeit not that of a rhetorician; this was supplemented by familiarity with Greek intellectual thought and his greater strength in the Scriptures. It is the last that matters most, however, for Festus’s language may imply documents, namely, the prophets to whom Paul appeals (26:22; though not the specific sense in 28:21; Luke 16:6–7). Thus Paul now appeals to Agrippa, to whom his speech is particularly addressed, to attest the content of the prophets (26:27).
Although Paul is later ready to embrace King Agrippa’s response (26:28–29), he now corrects that of Festus (26:24–25). It was rhetorically prudent not to rebuke members of the court even if they protested one’s words, lest one risk stirring their anger (Rhet. Alex. 18, 1433a.20–24). Paul responds respectfully. No one will accuse Luke of untidiness for allowing an interruption and response here; after a defense speech in a history was interrupted, it was possible for the speaker to conclude with final words.1593
Paul’s term for “utter” (ἀποφθέγγομαι), used in the earliest extant Christian literature only in Acts, is associated with inspired speech in at least one (Acts 2:4) and possibly both (2:14) other uses (see comment on these passages).1594 In that very context in Acts 2, such inspiration appeared to some as drunkenness (2:13). Paul’s inspiration, however, ought not to be confused with madness (26:24), for he speaks soberly (26:25). “Words of truth and sobriety” here may be a hendiadys, hence, “words of sober truth.”1595 Such sobriety could be contrasted with madness, as here.1596 Less relevant, some people in antiquity also spoke of a divinely inspired μανία that was superior to a “sound mind” (σωφροσύνης, Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 53, §17D).1597
Philosophers were widely known to extol this virtue of σωφροσύνη,1598 extolled at length by Plato’s Socrates.1599 Following Aristotelian categories,1600 the dominant Stoic philosophy of the era, including among Roman Stoics, made sobriety (σωφροσύνη)1601 one of its central virtues;1602 it regularly appears among the traditional four virtues.1603 It means especially self-control over the passions, the baser emotions.1604 It should characterize the reign of the ideal ruler,1605 might be applied even to a city as well as to an individual,1606 and, of course, should characterize the philosopher.1607 In a woman, the virtue is associated with chastity and avoiding unlawful relations.1608 The virtue was also widespread in Greek philosophy in general1609—for example, among Pythagoreans.1610 Outsiders might doubt the sobriety of one who abandons all for philosophy, but this person is truly wise (Dio Chrys. Or. 80.1). Given Luke’s depiction of Paul as a sage and Festus’s remark about Paul’s education (Acts 26:24), the philosophic usage seems relevant, particularly given its linkage with “truth” here.
The ideal extended far beyond philosophers, however.1611 A historian could, for example, praise young men able to demonstrate σωφροσύνη (Polyb. 31.25.2), which included avoiding sexual laxity, lavish banqueting, and other Greek excess (31.25.4).1612 It was also a welcome female virtue connected with modesty, sexual self-control, and so forth.1613 A Spartan declared that this virtue was central to self-respect, which was the prerequisite for courage (Thucyd. 1.84.3). Others used it to depict hardworking farmers (Libanius Encomium 7.5; Comparison 5.8).
Although Paul mentions it only briefly, this virtue appears more widely in speeches. For orators, σωφροσύνη or its synonyms functioned as one of the virtues useful in an encomium.1614 Like others, epideictic orators utilized the four traditional categories of virtues, which sometimes provided convenient topics for extended ethical treatments,1615 including, for example, what became recommended topics for praising the emperor,1616 the governor,1617 or a friend.1618 In such praises this virtue could include restraint not only in baser pleasures but even in laughter, as a sign of dignity,1619 though others allowed their heroes to laugh as well as to display self-control.1620
In contrast to the expectations of ecstasy noted above, one praises even a mantic who spoke with such self-control (Dio Chrys. Or. 1.56)—thereby illustrating the contrast between sobriety and “mad” inspiration. One who led a life of such self-control would be difficult to convict in court (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.58.2).
Jewish sources in Greek display a range of meaning analogous to the non-Jewish uses. Those influenced by Stoic thought hail the virtue and its power to subdue harmful passions (4 Macc 1:30–31; 2:18; 3:17, 19; 5:23), including gluttony (1:3) and lust (1:3; 2:2, 16; Test. Jos. 4:1–2).1621 In some instances it clearly appears among the four traditional virtues (4 Macc 1:6, 18; 2:23; 15:10; Wis 8:7).1622 Only God could dispose one’s mind toward this virtue (Let. Aris. 237, 248). The virtue appears fairly commonly in Hellenistic Jewish sources.1623 Σωφροσύνη appears in some early Christian writers.1624 It is not at all surprising here, especially in response to Festus’s suggestion of undignified (perhaps ecstatic or philosophic) madness informing Paul’s speech.
In response to Festus’s failure to be persuaded, Paul calls Agrippa as a witness to the veracity of Paul’s claims about Jewish matters, the very purpose for which Festus called this hearing (Acts 25:26–27). This appeal may be, as Witherington suggests, “a masterful rhetorical move.”1625 For Paul’s speaking “boldly” (cf. 9:27–28; 13:46; 14:3; 19:8; 28:21), see comment on Acts 4:13. In trusting that nothing has escaped the king’s notice, Paul speaks respectfully to the king concerning what is expected of kings1626 and, indeed, what philosophers expect of the ideal wise person.1627
(1) Appeals to Common Knowledge
When Paul appeals to Agrippa, his basis for assuming Agrippa’s knowledge is that the events he recounts (or at least the reports about them, especially regarding Jesus, 26:23) are common knowledge within Judea. Appeals to common knowledge were standard in forensic rhetoric;1628 such appeals to agreed-on knowledge do not require specific proofs (Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.4–6). Cicero appeals to his hearers’ knowledge that Syracuse is the most beautiful of all cities (Verr. 2.4.52.117), and ironically demands of his opponent, “Conceal if you can your certainty of what all Sicily saw clearly.”1629 Defending himself, Apuleius regularly appeals to common knowledge:1630 “All of you who were present must have seen” (Apol. 76); “The whole town heard about this” (94). Like Paul appealing to Agrippa’s knowledge, Apuleius also appeals to his judge’s knowledge (28; 98–99).
This practice spilled over into other disciplines besides forensic rhetoric; thus, for example, Xenophon reported Agesilaus’s deeds “done before a crowd of witnesses” and hence undeniable (Ages. 3.1).1631 Likewise, one rhetorician writing on literary criticism claims, “I need not say, when all educated people know it as well as I, that this passage does not consist of . . .”1632 Although Seneca prefers to use Stoic argumentation rather than the popular argument that he may take for granted any point on which all agree, he attests to the pervasiveness of the latter view.1633 Writing apologetic in which he contends against an accuser of Judaism, Josephus explicitly appeals to public knowledge, what is known by all the people (Ag. Ap. 2.107). He also offered his histories to the emperors while they and other eyewitnesses remained alive, when the information he reported was virtually “under their eyes” (Life 361).
Appeals to common knowledge or publicly available evidence also appear in novels, where the evidence may be fictitious; it is, however, presented as genuine evidence within the narrative world, reinforcing the point that such claims were normally made only when something like such evidence existed.1634 Since Luke is writing a historical monograph resting on genuine sources and not a novel and is writing in a period when some witnesses and evidence remain available (Luke 1:2–4), he apparently believes that the basic claims he makes (such as the existence of a circle of eyewitnesses claiming to have met the risen Jesus) were publicly known events. Elsewhere, too, Luke emphasizes the public nature of the events, such as Jesus’s crucifixion (known to all in Jerusalem at that time, 24:18), although a much smaller body of witnesses attested to the resurrection (Acts 10:41).
We may object that today we have little reference to these events in first-century non-Christian Judean sources, but here Luke, much closer to the events than are his modern objectors, is more likely to be correct than are our objections. The only first-century non-Christian Judean historical source extant is Josephus; although his interests lie elsewhere, he mentions Jesus in connection with his brother James1635 and, very likely, Jesus himself as a popular teacher.1636 (The passage on the latter point, Jos. Ant. 18.63–64, has been disputed, but most scholars today accept it as authentic with spurious additions. All the 42 Greek and 171 Latin manuscripts of Josephus extant contain the disputed passage;1637 but the earliest Christian citations omit the supernatural elements,1638 and Josephus attributes belief in Jesus’s messiahship only to others.)1639 People may recall various public events years later without assigning them prominent roles as historical causes; Josephus gives Jesus no more space than he allots other popular prophets not directly part of his action. What seems unexpected is Josephus’s silence about Jesus’s movement (which cannot but have existed); that omission seems deliberate (see comment on Acts 21:20).
(2) “Not in a Corner” and Secret Teachings
Not only Paul’s appeal to common knowledge but even his language (“these things were not done in a corner”) would have been familiar.1640 Commentators regularly cite very similar expressions in other authors, arguing that Paul here employs a common proverb, “in a corner” referring to whatever is secretive or private.1641 Malherbe points to the commonly cited expression in Plato Gorg. 485D: one interlocutor charges that an old man will simply whisper his views in a corner. Malherbe notes that Aul. Gel. 10.22.17–24 quotes this passage and applies it to those who focus on trifles rather than what helps society; later Themistius Or. 22.265bc1642 applies it to “those who withdraw from society.”1643 Thus, for more than seven hundred years, speaking in a corner was pejorative for those, especially philosophers, who withdrew from public life.1644 Whether or not the phrase’s use had become idiomatic,1645 it would be intelligible. Although the language was not limited to philosophers, it appeared often enough among them to suggest in this context that Paul maintains his role as a sage, one whose “learning” Festus has already acknowledged (Acts 26:24).1646
If we may judge by second-century apologists, some outsiders found Christians’ private activity a natural target for this sort of criticism.1647 Further, secretive meetings were viewed as subversive;1648 by disclaiming any secretive activity, Paul thus reinforces his case that he and the Christian movement are no threat to the empire’s stability.
It was understood that some private matters were shared in confidence only among trustworthy friends;1649 to conceal secrets from one’s in-group was offensive.1650 More problematic were secret venues for teachings that could prove subversive, although, again, many secrets were acceptable if publicly understood to be apolitical. Greeks had mystery cults, in which a secret was not to be revealed to outsiders;1651 Rome did not oppose these, though it had a tradition of suspicion toward unapproved cults stemming from second-century B.C.E. abuses by the Dionysus cult in Rome.
Some Jewish groups often spoke of spiritual mysteries revealed to a select group.1652 Jewish sages also had a small collection of topics considered too esoteric for popular consumption and given out only very selectively to disciples.1653 Luke emphasizes that the mysteries of the kingdom were not being held by a small group but being revealed. He speaks of the mysteries of the kingdom being revealed to a select group (Luke 8:10; Mark 4:11) but soon after notes that what is spoken in secret will be revealed (Luke 8:17; cf. Mark 4:22).1654 Some later rabbis (perhaps combating something like gnostics) warned that false teachers work in secret but true wisdom is proclaimed openly.1655
IV. SEEKING AGRIPPA’S CONVERSION (26:27–29)
Paul’s attempt to appeal to Agrippa as a witness (Acts 26:27), combined with Paul’s earlier claims based on his revelations, moves Agrippa to the witty observation that Paul seeks his conversion (26:28). Consonant with Paul’s mission (26:16–18), Paul gladly admits that he does indeed desire this outcome (26:29).
(1) Appeal to the Prophets (26:27)
Rhetoricians sometimes practiced the rhetorical device of apostrophe: shifting from addressing the entire audience to focusing on a particular member or group.1656 Here, however, Agrippa has remained a central focus throughout (see esp. 26:2–3, 7, 13, 19). Festus interrupted Paul’s address to Agrippa (26:24–25), and so Paul’s appeal to Agrippa returns, in a sense, to his original primary audience; but he does so at this moment partly to respond to Festus.1657 Festus has already claimed that he invited Agrippa’s presence precisely to appeal to his expertise (25:26), and so he cannot complain that Paul appeals to it here (26:26); Paul’s direct appeal to Agrippa also fits his other appeals to him in this context (26:2, 7, 13, 19).1658 Paul’s experience coheres with that of the biblical prophets, as Agrippa, who is biblically knowledgeable, can testify, and hence is not “madness” in any negative sense.
By asking if Agrippa believes the prophets, Paul is inquiring whether he accepts their testimony that Paul has been citing (26:22). This is a leading question in a context where “faith” in Jesus is the object (26:18). Paul implies that one who believes the prophets will consequently believe in Jesus; this implication presupposes a larger argument that Luke does not need to flesh out here, because he has illustrated the prophetic testimony to Jesus elsewhere (e.g., 3:24; 8:32–33; 13:34, 41). If Paul cited specific references, these could contribute to his probatio, or proofs, to which he can now appeal. As intimated above, he may also appeal to the prophets to suggest that his visionary experience stands in continuity with them (26:13, 16). Claiming that he knows that Agrippa is aware of common information (26:26) and believes the prophets (26:27) is complimentary (learning being positive, 26:24).1659 He is tightening his case to make his conclusion of the truth of Christ’s revelation difficult to evade (26:28).1660
(2) Evading Paul’s Logical “Trap” (26:28)
Agrippa intelligently, publicly, and explicitly exposes Paul’s not-so-subtle attempt to convert him: Paul is explaining his gospel on the basis of the prophets in 26:20–23, with Agrippa in view (26:19); after being interrupted, Paul seeks to return to the same point (26:27).1661 Paul is not merely defending himself; he is trying to persuade his hearers about his faith (per Jesus’s instructions, Luke 21:12–13). Paul’s audacity in seeking to convert a person of Agrippa’s status may offend (or amuse) Agrippa, but it also makes clear that Paul is no temple desecrator or leader of revolutionaries: he is a politically innocuous Nazarene, whose apolitical but evangelical fanaticism has led him into trouble with the already troublesome Jerusalem priesthood. Sharing Rome’s ideals regarding religious tolerance (ideals the support of which Luke seeks to encourage), Agrippa would hardly find legal fault here (Acts 26:31–32).
How should we understand Agrippa’s reply? One could read it as indicative (e.g., NASB): “In a short [time?] you will persuade me to be a Christian.” In this case Luke presents Paul’s case as so compelling that he nearly converts King Agrippa himself or at least as showing that Jews who care about their tradition must take Paul’s message seriously. “It is not ‘madness’ but what the prophets spoke about in their writings.”1662 This would be consonant with Luke’s apologetic, would fit Agrippa’s being impressed with Paul (26:32), and would be, even if an exaggeration, an expression of praise for Paul’s skill.1663 Still, Agrippa would find it politically next to impossible, humanly speaking, to openly align himself with a minority sect extremely unpopular with the ruling elite. Indeed, it would work against his purpose in visiting Festus to begin with, which was undoubtedly to impress him favorably and build a stronger political connection than had been possible with Agrippa’s corrupt brother-in-law, Felix. On any first-century dating of Acts, Agrippa (50–ca. 100 C.E.) was likely still alive when Luke wrote; Luke would hardly dare co-opt him as a “believer” or seriously misrepresent what he professed on the occasion.1664 The majority of scholars and translations, however, read Agrippa’s reply as interrogative (e.g., NRSV), on the basis of how they understand the context: “Will you persuade me, in so short [a time?], to be a Christian?”
In either case, Agrippa’s intent may be ironic.1665 Many scholars argue that “be a Christian” here refers to “play the part of a Christian”1666 (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 20:7 LXX [21:7 ET], ποιεῖς βασιλέα);1667 certainly ποιέω is not the normal way to say “become a Christian.”1668 Agrippa can hardly deny the prophets, but if he answers, “Yes, I believe the prophets,” he could be construed by some of his hearers as taking Paul’s side. Thus, on this view, he objects (whether in the form of a question or in that of a statement), “So you want me to play the part of a Christian by agreeing with what you are saying!”1669 (Others argue that the grammar supports only “about to make me a Christian” or “try to make me a Christian,” noting that the verb applied to “playing” a part only in later patristic writers.)1670 “Christian” is probably not a friendly term (see Acts 11:26), though it shows that Agrippa well understands what movement Paul’s articulate defense represents.
The Greek verb for “persuade” here probably belongs to the irony. If we take “persuade” as conative, we could read it as “try to persuade,” but the likelihood of this reading, which is not obvious, is questionable.1671 (Agrippa’s “persuade” might echo Paul’s own use of the term in 26:26: Paul is persuaded that these matters are public record, but Agrippa is not yet persuaded to become a Christian on that account.)
Another vexing question is the meaning of ὀλίγῳ (usually translated “in so short a time”); does it refer to length of time or brevity of arguments (cf. 24:5)? Some argue for a nontemporal sense because, they claim, Paul’s sense is not temporal in 26:29.1672 This argument is questionable, since the meaning in 26:29 could be temporal instead of referring to people of high and low status. One could argue that Paul refers to his hearers “small or great” (ὀλίγῳ . . . μεγάλῳ) in 26:29, echoing his own words about his audience in 26:22 (μικρῷ . . . μεγάλῳ); in this case the “great” might be Agrippa and Festus, but would the small be the other officials (25:23) or guards and servants whom Luke has not mentioned? Unless he refers to the embarrassment of a public conversion, Agrippa in 26:28 cannot mean, “Do you hope to persuade me among the lowly present?” (thereby risking offense among the local officials). Agrippa could be asking, “Do you persuade me with so few arguments?” and Paul could respond in 26:29, “Whether my arguments are few or many . . .”1673 Or Agrippa could be saying, “You are persuading me to play the Christian [assuming that this reading is defensible, which is debated] a little!”1674 In this case Agrippa dismisses him with humor, and Paul accomplishes little (insofar as he seeks the king’s conversion).1675 But the neuter use of ὀλίγος with prepositions was indeed suitable to express “a short time,” “quickly,” and this is the likeliest sense in both 26:28 and 26:29.1676 It may be relevant that some people ridiculed the idea of instant conversion claimed by some others.1677
Is Agrippa teasing Paul? Rejoinders could be harsh but were often meant to make people laugh (e.g., Plut. Demosth. 11.4). Banter and making fun of others were common in speeches and entertained the audience, although one obtained the reputation for being malicious if one overdid it (Plut. Cic. 5.4; 27.1; 39.1).1678 Banter could be playful; for example, Seneca the Elder could claim that he wanted to stop his work and go back to enjoying his old age, when he had every intention of continuing the work (Controv. 10.pref. 1).
That Agrippa employs “Christian” rather than “Nazarene” may have been significant, but at this remove, the data being what it is, it is difficult to be certain what the significance was. Because “Christian” perhaps began as a title of ridicule but was adopted by followers of the Way themselves (Acts 11:26), perhaps it sounds less harsh than “Nazarene,” used by Paul’s prosecutor in 24:5. But “Christian” would also sound harsh when coupled with a legal charge (1 Pet 4:16), and believers may have adopted “Nazarene” no less than “Christian.” It is also possible that Agrippa is being less than respectful with the title. Most likely, however, Agrippa prefers a term that has gained broader Greek usage1679 whereas “Nazarene” reflects a more local Judean coinage.1680 Because “Christian” may be a title of derision, Agrippa may protest that Paul is asking him to lower his status.
In any case, Agrippa acts in character here with what little we know externally concerning his relationship with the Christian movement. He did not become a Christian, but neither did he actively persecute Christians (in contrast to Luke’s report about his father). When, after Festus’s death, the high priest Ananus illegally executed some individuals, including James, leader of the Jerusalem church, Agrippa, acting in concert with the new governor, removed Ananus from office (Jos. Ant. 20.201–3).1681 Simply because Paul appears in a Christian document rather than in Josephus is no reason to doubt that he, like James, held a significant role that could invite Agrippa’s attention; perhaps Paul’s testimony even helped the hellenistically educated Agrippa to be more favorably disposed toward Christians.
(3) Wanting All to Share His Faith (26:29)
Paul’s exclamatory interjection is rhetorically appropriate.1682 Paul wants all his hearers to be “Christians”;1683 what Agrippa may mean as a term of levity Paul embraces positively.1684 If Agrippa takes “Christian” as a title of derision in 26:28, Paul rejects that idea, finding no shame in his own role except for the chains. Paul balances Agrippa’s “short time” with “long time”1685 and the implication of Agrippa as his primary audience (“not only you [singular]”) with “but rather all those listening to me today.” The balance is euphonic, but it also communicates significant meaning. Paul is ready to pay a greater price (“a long time”), and his mission is to all, both Jews (e.g., Agrippa and Berenice) and Gentiles (e.g., most of the others present, Acts 25:23), as Paul has already noted (26:20).
In the larger context of Luke’s narrative about Paul’s trials, Paul’s willingness to speak a long time probably means that he is ready to talk further with Agrippa, as with Felix before (24:24–25). Malherbe also notes that some philosophers debated whether conversion was instantaneous or gradual and suggests that in response to Agrippa’s objection to expecting his sudden conversion, Paul declares that he welcomes Agrippa’s conversion whether suddenly or gradually.1686 That Paul wants others to be like him presents as an example his own faith in the preceding narration, just as his commission to call others to light (26:18) relates to his own encounter with light (26:13).
Although addressing most of the speech to Agrippa, he appeals here not only to Agrippa but to all who hear him (he is called, after all, to everyone, 26:17). When a judge’s advisors might influence the outcome of the case, it was natural to appeal to them as well as to the judge (Cic. Quinct. 2.1, expressing confidence in them); but while others might comment on Paul’s case (cf. Acts 26:30–31), Paul’s interest in them is less judicial than evangelistic (cf. “small and great” in 26:22, though most of his hearers here would have been considered “great”).
(4) Except for His Chains (26:29)
Paul concludes the comparison with “except for these chains.” This is epidiorthōsis or epanorthōsis, “the correction or improvement of a remark immediately recognized by the speaker as unsuitable.”1687 He wants the hearers to be like him1688 in following Christ, which he presents as of benefit to them (26:18), but not like him with regard to his chains. Although Paul embraces “Christian” positively rather than as a term of derision, he does not wish the humiliating status of chains on his hearers.1689
Because chains are a shame and humiliation in this culture,1690 failure to qualify his wish that they be like him could risk insulting the dignity of these people of high status.1691 (For a prisoner to be in bonds could indicate that the outcome of the trial was virtually predetermined,1692 but they do appear in relatively light custody as well,1693 as probably here.) Even associates felt considerable social pressure to abandon prisoners,1694 perhaps even exemplified in Agrippa’s reluctance to directly agree with Paul in 26:28. One need not be lame to be a philosopher, a lame philosopher granted (Epict. Diatr. 1.8.14).
This concluding exception is not, however, a mere accidental afterthought, for it deliberately highlights some points. It serves various rhetorical functions: it builds rapport with his audience members by showing concern for them; it draws attention to the matter where Paul genuinely experiences shame; and it underlines the pathos of his condition. The pathos function was especially appropriate at the end of a speech,1695 and Paul, winding down, appears to offer his peroratio;1696 although this might not be Paul’s intended peroratio within the narrative world, it functions thus at least on the level of Luke’s narrative. His chains suited custom; Roman citizens could be kept in chains while being tried or being brought to Rome.1697 But in light of other customs, they could still evoke sympathy. Chains could indicate a more severe detention,1698 and they were sometimes forgone for higher-status prisoners unlikely to attempt escape (Polyb. 32.3.5). That Paul is still in them (even as late as Acts 28:20)1699 invites sympathy.1700 It fits the larger rhetorical implication that he should be freed.
The nature of Paul’s chaining was probably that his right wrist was manacled to his guard’s left wrist; this practice allowed a (right-handed) guard the advantage in the event of need to use force against or on behalf of a prisoner.1701 Other chains (both wrists; more severely, legs, neck, or each part of the body) were possible,1702 but we need not suppose they were used in Paul’s case. Sometimes chains even outweighed a prisoner, but more often they were about ten to fifteen pounds of iron.1703 Those left in chains even overnight in damp prisons would find their chains eventually rusting on their sweaty limbs, providing extreme discomfort; some scholars have even suggested chains’ becoming attached to prisoners’ limbs.1704 Again, however, Paul’s lighter detention need not presuppose these harsher scenarios.
For Luke’s ideal audience, Paul remains the consummate sage. Stoics emphasized the soul over the body and hence the relative unimportance of the body’s fettering so long as the soul remained free (Cic. Fin. 3.22.75). Indeed, a Roman Stoic points out that exiles and fugitives often become famous, rather than dishonored, by exile (Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 72.12, 18, 20–21). Paul notes his chains but also suggests that his life is otherwise favored in what matters most.
Far from being intimidated by those he addresses, Paul speaks respectfully as a respectable person to other respectable people, people who would not have listened patiently to Christians who were less educated and articulate. And far from being put off by Paul’s presumption, members of the elite are apparently sufficiently impressed as to treat him as an honorable person (26:30–32). Luke’s audience would also appreciate Paul’s forthrightness.1705
It is no coincidence or literary error that Luke concludes the defense speeches, and Paul’s ministry before the voyage to Rome, with these brief verses. Whatever his judges’ opinion of him in other respects (such as “madness” in Acts 26:24), it is the legal verdict that counts most. The defense speeches of Acts 22–26 close with this final relevant verdict:1706 Paul is not worthy of death or imprisonment. On this commentary’s suggested date for Acts, Luke’s audience probably knows that Paul faced both, but the most socially qualified voices here deny that he should have faced either.
The combined verdict of Festus, Berenice, and especially Agrippa, who is a representative of Israel acceptable to Rome (and still respected after the Judean war), is that Paul does not deserve death or imprisonment. In an empire where Roman power had executed both Jesus and Paul, the latter after a long imprisonment, this assurance would be important for edification and evangelism as well as for a legal apologetic for Christians that could address apparently negative precedents. (Although governors were not bound by precedents in any case, the state was reluctant to reverse long precedents, conceding long-standing error.) The verdict is climactic, directly before the storm and serpent incidents provide divine verdicts on Paul’s behalf.
Here, as in 25:14–22, Luke recounts a scene where neither he nor a reliable source was likely present.1707 Given the letter that must have accompanied Paul to Rome, however (25:26–27), something quite close to the events briefly narrated here is a safe inference. Although the officials recognize that Paul is innocent and are unwilling to hand him over to his accusers, they are also “constrained” by political “realities.” Sending Paul to Rome lets them off the hook. Now that they are relieved from the political responsibility, they can freely declare his innocence.1708
As Tannehill notes, the chapter (and hearing) that concludes with these verses “presents a climactic summary of Paul’s mission as the narrator wants it to be remembered”: as a witness, Paul is linked with prophets and sent to Jews and Gentiles alike.1709 The pronouncement of innocence here fits Luke’s public apologetic, climaxing a series of such pronouncements in Paul’s ministry and paralleling the declarations of Luke’s passion narrative (see Acts 23:29; 25:25; cf. 16:36–39; 28:18; esp. comment at Acts 18:14–15). Pilate likewise pronounced Jesus innocent (Luke 23:4, 14, 22), forced only by political considerations to hand Jesus over (23:20, 23); Herod also found him innocent of the charges against him (23:15).1710 The centurion at the cross also declared Jesus’s innocence (23:47,1711 probably Luke’s application of a more encompassing statement in Mark 15:39), perhaps paralleling Lysias’s observation in Acts 23:29.
Luke reports even Jesus’s arrest in such a way as to forestall accusations: although the disciples had swords (Luke 22:36), they had them only in order that Jesus could be condemned as a transgressor (22:37). Further, they did not have many swords (22:38), and Jesus opposed their use (22:51). In good forensic fashion, Jesus offered a valid countercharge against those who arrested him (22:52–53). The cumulative force of Luke’s defense is compelling: Jesus’s followers, including those in the Gentile Christian movement, of which the Jewish missionary Paul was the most visible leader, are not seditious and should not be persecuted or repressed.
II. PAUL’S INNOCENCE (26:30–31)
Gentiles conclude that Paul’s offense does not merit death or imprisonment; the respected Jewish figure Agrippa, who understands Paul’s teaching better than any of the Gentiles present and knows that the Nazarenes are politically innocuous, clinches this recognition by noting (in Acts 26:32) that Paul could have simply been acquitted altogether. Luke’s forensic language here is significant: having “practiced nothing worthy of death” is a familiar Lukan apologetic refrain (Luke 23:15, 41; Acts 25:11, 25; elsewhere in the NT only Rom 1:32); Paul had preached only “practicing” works “worthy of” repentance (Acts 26:20).
“King and governor” in 26:30 recalls the opportunity to witness to kings and governors in Luke 21:12–13 (together only here in Luke-Acts, and in the same sequence; elsewhere in the NT, but not in the same sequence, Mark 13:9; Matt 10:18). Presumably, the group conversing in Acts 26:31 includes the members of 26:30, hence the officials of 25:23.1712 At the very least, they are present and thus party to the conversation, but their input is probably solicited as Festus sought the advice of his consilium in 25:12. If for Festus Paul’s “much learning” reveals him as a sort of philosopher or sage (see comment on 26:24–25) Festus will view him as politically innocuous.1713
Luke was not privy to the conversation among the elite in 26:31–32 (presumably including the entire company mentioned in 26:30),1714 but he can safely infer from the outcome that Agrippa II did not think Paul guilty.1715 Had Agrippa sided with the Sanhedrin, Paul might have been handed over to the Sanhedrin, the more politically convenient course. One could instead argue that, given Paul’s appeal to Caesar, sending him to Rome was the more expedient course now, in any case, and Paul was not released instead because Agrippa was offended by his attempt to convert him (26:27–29). But Festus’s letter, based partly on and undoubtedly explicitly appealing to Agrippa’s recommendations, would be public record for Paul’s case in Rome, and hence Agrippa’s opinions might be safely inferred. Although Luke’s scenario seems much more plausible than the opposite inference, what matters most from a literary perspective is the confirmation again of Paul’s innocence. As Jesus was twice pronounced innocent by a Roman governor and once by a Herodian prince, so likewise is Paul twice pronounced innocent by a Roman governor and once by a Herodian prince.
III. AGRIPPA’S FINAL WORD (26:32)
Other hearers may have concluded that Paul did nothing worthy of death or imprisonment, and one could well expect Agrippa, a “progressive” Jew unhappy with the divisions in Judaism that would soon lead to war with Rome, to concur. (Indeed, Agrippa would soon have conflict with the new high priest he himself appointed; see Jos. Ant. 20.179, 189–96.)1716 But Agrippa does more than concur; the one hearer who understands the arguments among the Jewish sects states openly his opinion that Paul could well have been set free.
(1) Politically Irrevocable Appeal
The complication is that Paul has appealed to Caesar; the pluperfect ἐπεκέκλητο implies that the appeal is now irrevocable. But whereas a governor could not scourge or mistreat a Roman citizen who had appealed, he certainly could acquit one. The impossibility of his doing so here is not legal but political.1717 Refusing to retract the appeal after the conclusion of Acts 26:32 is a matter of honor and propriety;1718 Festus has already publicly announced that he is referring the case, and it would dishonor both Festus and the emperor for Festus not to follow through.1719 To appear to decide a case already appealed to Caesar could seem a usurpation of the emperor’s auctoritas. If word reached Rome, this could risk hurting a governor’s career opportunities.1720 (This situation did not arise very often in practice, since the appeal usually followed the public verdict; Paul’s appeal was unusual, creating an unusual—but for the officials, a politically expedient—situation.) If we wonder why word might reach Rome of Festus’s acquitting rather than referring Paul to the emperor, we need think only of Paul’s accusers.1721 The conflict between the former high priest and the governor Cumanus led to the latter’s banishment; at some point in time near the events described in these narratives, the conflict between the chief priests and Felix was playing out in Rome. Agrippa could afford to call Paul innocent, but Festus could not afford to simply release him.
Thus, canceling such an appeal could appear to be a usurpation of the prerogatives of Caesar’s court and also would put Festus back in the political situation he was in before. To mention the latter is not discreet, and so it is the former that is emphasized; the political constraints of Rome, rather than those of the Sanhedrin, will control the surface direction of the narrative from this point forward. Behind that surface, however, Luke sees not merely false accusations but more fundamentally God’s providence, fulfilling the mission that God has already given Paul (19:21; 23:11; cf., later, 27:24), even if, as in the case of Jesus, this mission led to the fulfillment of his passion (Luke 9:51; cf. 9:31).
Luke’s point here is not to make Paul’s appeal look foolish. Luke’s audience already knows that Paul was forced to appeal to avoid being killed (Acts 25:3; cf. 23:30; 28:19), a situation about which Agrippa has no knowledge. Even if Paul eventually dies in Rome, he has gained more years than he would have had if sent to Jerusalem. Luke records the verdict merely to show that all precedents in Paul’s case and all verdicts from those truly qualified to pronounce them vindicated Paul. If he eventually died in Rome in Nero’s persecution, the cause was Nero’s well-known depravity (albeit less acknowledged in Greece, possibly Luke’s primary target audience), not any deficiency in the persuasiveness of Paul’s case.
(2) Usefulness of Agrippa’s Opinion
Nevertheless, Agrippa’s statement in 26:32, an opinion specifically solicited to help Festus frame Paul’s letter of introduction to the imperial court (25:26–27), would undoubtedly become part of the record sent on to Rome.1722 It was to Festus’s advantage to explicitly attribute the opinion to Agrippa, demonstrating that he had done the necessary research by consulting an expert on Judean issues recognized as such by Rome. He could well quote Agrippa and then add something like this: “Here is Agrippa’s opinion; it may well be correct, but given the insistence of the leaders of Jerusalem’s Sanhedrin, I thought it best not to act without consulting Your Majesty. I have sent the prisoner to you for a decision.”
Even under the most favorable of emperors, it was wiser to ask procedural questions than to take matters for granted, if any possibility of later negative evaluations of the judgments was conceivable.1723 This report would help explain Paul’s favorable treatment in 28:16, 30–31.1724 It would also help explain Luke’s ability to infer the essential content of the officials’ meeting.1725