Acts XXV. 23

"And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.”

See what an audience is gathered together for Paul. Having collected all his guards, the governor is come, and the king, and the tribunes, “with the principal men,” it says, “of the city.” Then Paul being brought forth, see how he is proclaimed as conqueror. Festus himself acquits him from the charges, for what says Festus? “And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer. But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.” (v. 24–27.) Mark how he accuses them, while he acquits him. O what an abundance of justifications! After all these repeated examinations, the governor finds not how he may condemn him. They said he was worthy of death. On this account he said also: “When I found,” says he “that he had committed nothing worthy of death.—Of whom I have no certain thing to write to my lord.” This too is a proof of Paul’s spotlessness, that the judge found nothing to say concerning him. “Therefore I have brought him forth,” he says, “before you. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crime laid against him.” Such were the great straits into which the Jews brought themselves and their rulers! What then? “Agrippa said to Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.” (ch. xxvi. 1.) From his great desire to hear, the king permits him to speak. But Paul speaks out forthwith with boldness, not flattering, but for this reason saying that he is happy, namely, because (Agrippa) knew all. “Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews. Especially because I know thee to be expert in all questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.” (v. 2, 3.) And yet, had he been conscious of guilt, he should have feared at being tried in the presence of one who knew all the facts: but this is a mark of a clear conscience, not to shrink from a judge who has an accurate knowledge of the circumstances, but even to rejoice, and to call himself happy. “I beseech thee,” he says, “to hear me patiently.” Since he is about to lengthen out his speech, and to say something about himself, on this account, he premises an entreaty, and (then) says: “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews: which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” (v. 4, 5.) Then how should I have become a seditious person, who when young was (thus) testified of by all? Then too from his sect: “after the most straitest sect” says he, “of our religion I lived.” “What then, if though the sect indeed be worthy of admiration, thou art evil?” Touching this also I call all to witness—touching my life and conversation. “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” (v. 6–8.) Two arguments he lays down for the Resurrection: one, the argument from the prophets: and he does not bring forward any prophet (in particular,) but the doctrine itself as held by the Jews: the other and stronger one, the argument from the facts—(especially from this,) that Christ Himself held discourse with him. And he lays the ground for this by (other) arguments, relating accurately his former madness. Then too, with high commendation of the Jews, he says, “Night and day,” says he, “serving (God) look to attain unto.” So that even if I had not been of unblemished life, it is not for this (doctrine) that I ought to be brought to trial:—“for which hope, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” And then another argument “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Since, if such an opinion had not existed, if they had not been brought up in these dogmas, but they were now for the first time brought in, perhaps¹¹³⁸

1138 Old text omits ἴσως, and puts it as a question, “Who would not have received the saying?”

1139 This is the comment on “forgiveness of sins:” the ἐπιεικὲς consisting in the not enlarging upon the greatness and aggravation of their sins. In the mss. and Edd. this is placed at the end of v. 18, and then, “God said to me, I have appeared to thee,” and the rest repeated to “forgiveness of sins.”

1140 Mod. text “Whether He (as) first to rise from the dead should declare light: as if he had said, Christ as the first that rose dieth no more.” It is manifest from the declaring this to all, that they also (have to) expect it for themselves. Then Festus seeing the boldness, since he all along addressed himself to the king, not once ceasing to look full towards him, was as annoyed (ὥσπερ ἔπαθέ τι), and says, “Thou art mad, Paul.” And that he says this in annoyance (or passion), hear from what follows. “And as he thus discoursed,” etc.

1141 ὥσπερ ἔπαθέ τι. This is explained in the Recapitulation: “with a loud voice—οὕτω θυμοῦ ἦν καὶ ὀργῆς.”

1142 Old text: “v. 27–29. Εὔξαιμην ἂν, φησίν, ἔγωγε οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ, τί ἐστι; παρὰ μικρόν. Καὶ οὐχ ἅπλως εὔχεται ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως. From the Recapitulation it appears that Chrys. supposes that Paul, as an ἰδιώτης, i.e. not conversant with the elegancies of Greek style, οὐκ ἐνόησεν τί ἐστιν ᾽Εν ὀλίγῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐνόμισεν ὅτι ἐξ ὀλίγου: did not perceive what Agrippa’s phrase meant (viz. as here explained. παρὰ μικρόν), but supposed it to be the same as ἐξ ὀλίγου.” “With little ado”—i.e. thou makest short work to persuade me, as if this were an easy thing, to be done in brief: therefore Paul answers, Be it in little, or be it in much, I could pray to God, with no brief and hasty prayer, but ἐπιτεταμένως, much and earnestly.—For καὶ οὐχ ἅπλως, we read καὶ ἐν πολλῷ· οὐχ ἅ. and transpose τί ἐστιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ; παρὰ μικρόν, to its fitting place. Mod. text οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ· τουτέστι, μικρόν, omitting παρὰ, meaning this as the explanation of St. Paul’s εὔξ. ἐν ὀλίγῳ. Of the Edd., Commel. Sav. Ben. give παρὰ, and so Par. Ben. 2, who however rejects the οὐκ.

1143 The correct interpretation of v. 28, 29 depends upon the ff. points: (1) Whether the remark of Agrippa is sincere or ironical. (2) Whether the true text in v. 29 is ἐν πολλῷ or ἐν μεράλῳ. (3) What noun, if any, is to be supplied with the adjectives ὀλίγῳ and μεγάλῳ (or πολλῷ). Regarding the first question, the considerations in favor of the view that Agrippa’s remark is ironical are (a) the frivolous character of the man, (b) the current use of Christian among Jews and Romans as a term of reproach and contempt. Touching the second point, we find that μεγάλῳ is favored by א A. B. Syr. Copt. Aram. Vulg., as against G. H. for πολλῷ. The former reading is adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, and most modern critics, and the evidence in its favor may be considered decisive. Whether any noun is to be supplied to ὀλίγῳ and μεγάλῳ (as most) or not (as Meyer) is not important. In any case the sense must be completed. What do “in little” and “in great” mean? The sense may be completed by supplying (a) the idea of time—“in a little time,” i.e. almost. In this case, ἐν μεγάλῳ would have to be rendered “wholly” or “altogether,” a meaning which ἐν μεγάλῳ cannot well convey. Another rendering which might be derived from supplying the idea of time—differing but slightly from the foregoing—would be: “in a little time thou art persuading me!” i.e. dost thou think so soon to persuade me? and Paul replies: “Whether in a little time or in a long time—whether soon or late—I could wish,” etc. The first interpretation lays emphasis upon the state of Agrippa’s mind—persuaded almost—persuaded altogether; the second upon the element of time required to accomplish the persuasion (ironically spoken of). (b) The idea of labor, trouble or argument may be supplied thus: “Easily—with few words—or with little trouble—thou persuaded me!” and Paul’s answer is: Whether with little (labor) or with much, I would to God that,” etc. This view we prefer, because, (a) it harmonizes best with the natural meaning of ἐν μεγάλῳ which (if the true reading) requires taking both phrases in a quantitative sense. (b) It is favored by the evidently ironical character of Agrippa’s remark. There is no ground for the opinion of Chrys. (followed by Calvin) that ἐν ὀλίγῳ is used in different senses in the language of Agrippa and Paul, much less for the idea that Paul did not understand what ἐν ὀλίγῳ meant!—G.B.S.

(Recapitulation.) “And on the morrow,” etc. (v. 23.) The Jews desisted ever since Paul exercised his right of appeal.¹¹⁴⁴

1144 ᾽Απέστησαν λοιπὸν οἱ ᾽Ι. τῇ ἀφέσει χρησαμένου ἐκείνου A. B. (C. has lost a leaf here). Mod. text ἐφέσει. Cat. ᾽Επέστησαν λοιπὸν οἱ ᾽Ι τῇ ἐφέσει χρησάμενοι ἐκείνου. If this be the true reading, it should seem to belong to πᾶν τὸ πλ. τῶν ᾽Ιουδ., viz. “‘concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews besought me:’ the Jews thereupon had set upon him, using his, Festus’ permission.” But ἀπεστ. and ἐφέσει give a better sense as comment on v. 23, i.e. “No mention now of the Jews—they had left him, when he had made his appeal.”—Then, μετὰ πολλῆς φαντ. (mod. text adds ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ) πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾽Ι. παρῆσαν οὐχ οἱ μὲν οἱ δὲ οὔ. Which is not true, for it could not be said that all the Jews were present at this hearing before Agrippa. We read μετὰ π. φ. παρῆσαν. Then from v. 24, “πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος” sc. ἐνέτυχόν μοι.

1145 Εἰ γὰρ οὐδὲν μὲν εἶχον δεινὸν εἰπεῖν. i.e. “As far as the matter of accusation was concerned, he knew that he had nothing to fear: ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐμεμήνεσαν, but the people yonder (at Jerusalem) were mad against him: therefore εἰκότως ἐπ ἐκεῖνον ἔρχεται, no wonder he is for going to Cæsar.”

1146 The ἀπολογία is Festus’ written report of the hearings before him, which would be sent to Rome, and would at once testify to Paul’s innocence, and to the malignity of the Jews.

1147 Πάντα τοίνυν ἀποδυσάμενος, not as Ben. “omnibus ergo relictis, apud quos natus, etc.” but in the sense of the phrase ἀποδύεσθαι (ἐγκλήματα) which is frequent in Chrys. That is, “the consequence is that Paul makes his first appearance at Rome, not merely as one who has cleared himself of all charges brought against him at home, but, after these repeated examinations, clear from all suspicion.”—Below οἷατε κυρίων οὐκ ὄντων τῶν καταδικαζόντων αὐτόν: the sense intended may be, “seeing they were not his judges, even if they wished to condemn him.”

1148 Mod. text “But not before the tribunal of Lysias alone does he this, but also before Festus, and again here.” Ben. cites the old text only to condemn it. Inconsiderately: for it was in the hearing ἐπὶ Λυσίου xxii. 3–5. (Lysias had no “tribunal”) and here, that St. Paul thus challenged the testimony of the Jews: not before Felix, which is what is meant by ἐκεῖ, still less before Festus.

1149 καὶ τοῦτο μέσον τίθησι. The innovator not understanding the phrase, and its reference to Εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς etc., substitutes, “And puts their (words) in the midst.”—The meaning is: “He had greater things to say than what the prophets had said:” he could say, “The Christ whom ye slew is risen, for I have seen Him: but instead of this, he put it as a subject for discussion, Did the prophets teach that the Christ was to suffer and to rise again?”

1150 See above, p. 310, note 1, and *. Yet some modern commentators assert that ἐν ὀλίγῳ cannot mean, as Chrys. says, παρὰ μικρόν: that this sense requires ὀλίγου, or ὀλίγου δεῖν, or παῤ ὀλίγον: so that, in their view, Chrysostom’s remark οὕτως ἰδιώτης ἦν would be quite out of place.—In the next sentence οὐ βούλομαι, all our mss. and Edd. But Ben. renders it without the negative Et non dixit, Vellem.

1151 He is commenting upon 2 Tim. ii. 9. “I suffer trouble as an evil-doer even unto bonds.” To others, this might seem a twofold aggravation: both that he was treated as a malefactor, and that his destruction was intended. For if indeed he was put in bonds ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀγάθῳ, the thing bore its comfort with it, and such was the case to him, but not in their intention; which was, that he should be in chains καὶ ὡς κακούργος καὶ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς. Of the mss. A. C. have ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς ἀλλούς· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς τούτων ἐφρόντιζεν. Β. ἁλούς· and so mod. text. But ἀλλοὺς seems to be only the abbreviation of the following ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς.

Such is a soul winged with heavenly love. For if those who cherish the foul (earthly passion which men call) love, think nothing either glorious of precious, but those things alone which tend to gratify their lust, they think both glorious and honorable, and their mistress is everything to them; much more do those, who have been taken captive by this heavenly love, think nothing of the cost (τὰ ἐπιτίμια). But if we do not understand what I am saying, it is no marvel, while we are unskilled in this Divine Wisdom. For if any one be caught with the fire of Christ’s love, he becomes such as a man would become who dwelt alone upon the earth, so utterly careless is he for glory or disgrace: but just as if he dwelt alone, he would care for nothing, no more does he in this case. As for trials, he so despises them, both scourges and imprisonments, as though the body in which he suffers these things were another’s and not his own, or as though he had got a body made of adamant: while as for the sweet things of this life, he so laughs them to scorn, is so insensible to them, as we are insensible of dead bodies, being ourselves dead. He is as far from being taken captive by any passion, as the gold refined in the fire and purified is free from alloy. For even as flies would not dart into the midst of a flame, but fly from it, so the passions dare not even to come near this man. Would that I could bring forward examples of all this from among ourselves: but since we are at a loss for such, we must needs betake ourselves to this same Paul. Observe him then, how he felt towards the whole world. “The world is crucified unto me,” he says, “and I unto the world” (Gal. vi. 14): I am dead to the world, and the world is dead to me. And again: “It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.”¹¹⁵²

1152 Mod. text adds, “To say this, belongs to Paul only: ours it is, who are so far removed from him as the heaven is from the earth, to hide our faces, so that we dare not even to open our mouth.”

1153 μετέωροι τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἡμῖν γίνονται αι οψεις. Unable to discover any meaning in this, (Ben. sublimes nobis sunt: operationum oculi), we conjecture τῶν ἐπιγειῶν.

1154 mss. and Edd., τρία γὰρ ταῦτά ἐστι ψυχῇ (only F. has ψυχή): “there are for the soul these three subjects.”—Below, mss. and Edd. οἰκοδομεῖν for οἰκονομεῖν.

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH