《Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》(Henry Alford) Commentator

13.] HEROD AGRIPPA II., son of the Herod of ch. 12 (see note on Acts 25:1 there), was at Rome, and seventeen only, when his father died (Jos. Antt. xix. 9. 1). Claudius (ib. 9. 2) was about to send him to succeed to the kingdom, but was dissuaded by his freedmen and favourites, and sent Cuspius Fadus as procurator instead. Soon after, Claudius gave him the principality of Chalcis, which had been held by his uncle Herod (Antt. xx. 5. 2),—the presidency of the temple at Jerusalem and its treasures (Antt. xx. 1. 3),—and the appointment of the High Priest. Some years after the same emperor added to his jurisdiction the former tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanæa, Trachonitis, and Abilene (Antt. xx. 7. 1), with the title of King (B. J. ii. 12. 8). Nero afterwards annexed Tiberias, Tarichea, Julias, and fourteen neighbouring villages to his kingdom (Antt. xx. 8. 4). He built a large palace at Jerusalem (ib. 8. 11); but offended the Jews by constructing it so as to overlook the temple (ib.), and by his capricious changes in the high priesthood,—and was not much esteemed by them (B. J. ii. 17. 1). When the last war broke out, he attached himself throughout to the Romans. He died in the third year of Trajan, and fifty-first of his reign, aged about seventy (Winer, Realw.).

βερνίκη] The Macedonian form ( βερενίκη or βερονίκη) for φερενίκη. She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I., and first married to her uncle Herod, prince of Chalcis (Antt. xix. 5. 1). After his death she lived with Agrippa her brother, but not without suspicion ( φήμης ἐπισχυούσης, ὅτι τῷ ἀδελφῷ συνῄει, Antt. xx. 7. 3; see also Juv. Sat. vi. 156 ff.); in consequence of which ( οὕτως γάρ ἐλέγξειν ᾤετο ψευδεῖς τὰς διαβολάς, Antt. ib.) she married Polemo, king of Cilicia. The marriage was, however, soon dissolved (ib.), and she returned to her brother. She was afterwards the mistress of Vespasian (Tac. Hist. ii. 81), and of Titus (Suet. Tit⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ 7; Winer, Realw.).

ἀσπασάμενοι] on his accession to the procuratorship, to gain his favour.

Verse 14

14. ἀνέθετο] laid before, so reff. He did this, not only because Agrippa was a Jew, but because he was (see above) governor of the temple.

Verse 15

15.] It seems more probable that the unusual word καταδίκη should have been changed to δίκην, especially as κατά precedes, than the converse. Luke never uses δίκη, except as personified, ch. Acts 28:4; and in the only two places besides where it occurs in the N. T. (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Jude 1:7), it has the sense of condemnation or punishment; and in neither place is there any various reading.

Verse 16

16. χαρίζεσθαι] The words inserted in the rec., εἰς ἀπώλειαν, are a correct supplement of the sense; to give up, i.e. to his enemies, and for destruction.

De W. remarks, that the construction of πρίν with an opt. without ἄν, is only found here in the N. T. (not that it occurs with ἄν). Hermann, on Viger, p. 442, restricts the opt. with πρὶν ἤ to cases where ‘res narratur ut cogitatio alicujus:’ so Paus., μὴ πρότερον φάναι ζητοῦντι μηνύσειν πρὶν ἢ οἱ καὶ ἐν ἀκροκορίνθῳ γένοιτο ὕδωρ.

On the practice of the Romans, here nobly and truly alleged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst. in loc.

τόπον] This use of τόπος as the Lat. ‘locus,’ is not found in good Greek.

Verse 18

18. περὶ οὗ σταθ.] See Acts 25:7; E. V., ‘against whom,’ supposing περὶ οὗ to refer to ( ἐπ) έφερον, is wrong. The word πονηράν or πονηρών, added in the best MSS. at the end of this verse, looks very like a gloss to explain ὧν or αἰτίαν, and this suspicion is strengthened by the variations in its form and place. ‘Hinc iterum conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias ut in judicii rationem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet.’ Calv.

Verse 19

19.] δεισιδαιμ. is used by Festus in a middle sense, certainly not as = ‘superstition,’ E. V., speaking as he was to Agrippa, a Jew.

Verse 20

20.] See the real reason why he proposed this, Acts 25:9. This he now conceals, and alleges his modesty in referring such matters to the judgment of the Jews themselves. This would be pleasing to his guest Agrippa.

ἀπορ. εἰς] so σὺ δʼ εἰς τὰ μητρὸς μὴ φοβοῦ νυμφεύματα, Soph. Œd. Tyr. 980; and ἀμφινοῶ ἐς τέρας, Antig. 372.

ἔλεγον] There is a mixed construction between ‘I said, wilt thou?’ as in Acts 25:9, and ‘I asked him whether he would.…’

Verse 21

21.] τηρηθῆναι is not for εἰς τὸ τηρ. (as Grot. and De W.), but follows directly on ἐπικαλεσαμένου. The construction is again a mixed one between ‘appealing so as to be kept,’ and ‘demanding to be kept.’

σεβαστοῦ] This title, = Augustus, was first conferred by the senate on Octavianus ( αὐτὸς γενόμενος ἀρχὴ σεβασμοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἔπειτα, Philo de Legat. ad Caium, 21, vol. ii. p. 566), and borne by all succeeding emperors. Dio Cassius (liii. 16) says: αὔγουστος, ὡς καὶ πλεῖόν τι ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ὤν, ἐπεκλήθη. πάντα γὰρ τὰ ἐντιμότατα καὶ τὰ ἱερώτατα αὔγουστα προσαγορεύεται. ἐξ οὗπερ καὶ σεβαστὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἑλληνίζοντές πως, ὥσπερ τινὰ σεπτόν, ἀπὸ τοῦ σεβάζεσθαι, προσεῖπον. On ἀναπέμψω, Bornemann cites Lucian, Tox. § 17: ὁ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῷ μεγάλῳ ἀναπέμπει αὐτόν.

Verse 22

22.] ἐβουλόμην does not (as Calv.) imply any former wish of Agrippa to hear Paul. It is, as Meyer explains it, a modest way of expressing a wish, formed in this case while the procurator was speaking, but spoken of by Agrippa as if now past by, and therefore not pressed. We say somewhat similarly, ‘I was wishing.’ See ref. Rom. and note there. Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1027: ἐκκλησιάσαι δʼ οὖν ἐδεόμην οἴκοι μένων: and see other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 373 ff. Agrippa, as a Jew, is anxious to hear Paul’s defence, as a matter of national interest. The procurator’s ready consent is explained, Acts 25:26.

Verse 23

23.] φαντασία is of frequent use in this sense in Polybius and later Greek writers. Herodotus uses the verb φαντάζεσθαι for ‘superbire,’ vii. 201: ὁρᾷς ὡς τὰ ὑπερέχοντα ζῶα κεραυνοῖ ὁ θεός, οὐδʼ ἑᾷ φαντάζεσθαι. See Wetst., who finely remarks on the words, ‘In eadem urbe, in qua pater ipsorum a vermibus corrosus ob superbiam perierat.’

ἀκροατήριον] after the Latin ‘auditorium:’ perhaps no fixed hall of audience, but the chamber or saloon set apart for this occasion.

χιλιάρχοις] Jos. (B. J. iii. 4. 2), speaking of Titus’s army, says, προσεγένοντο δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ καισαρείας πέντε ( σπεῖραι). These, then, were the tribunes of the cohorts stationed at Cæsarea. Stier remarks (Red. der Apostel, ii. 397), “Yet more and more complete must the giving of the testimony in these parts be, before the witness departs for Rome. In Jerusalem, the long-suffering of the Lord towards the rejectors of the Gospel was now exhausted. In Antioch, the residence of the Præses of Syria, the new mother church of Jewish and Gentile Christians was flourishing; here, in Cæsarea, the residence of the procurator, the testimony which had begun in the house of Cornelius the centurion, had now risen upward, till it comes before this brilliant assembly of all the local authorities, in the presence of the last king of the Jews.”

Verse 24

24. ἅπαν τὸ πλ.] At Jerusalem (Acts 25:1) literally, by the popular voice (probably) of some tumultuous outcry:—here, by their deputation.

Verse 25

25. αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου] he himself moreover. These reasons did really coexist as influencing his determination. Mr. Lewin cites, on Acts 25:12, Dig. xlix. 1. 16: ‘Constitutiones quæ de recipiendis, necnon, appellationibus loquuntur, ut nihil novi fiat, locum non habent in eorum persona quos damnatos statim puniri publici interest, ut sunt insignes latrones, vel seditionum concitatores, vel duces factionum.’

Verse 26

26. ἀσφαλές] fixed, definite. The whole matter had been hitherto obscured by the exaggerations and fictions of the Jews.

τῷ κυρίῳ] viz. Nero. Augustus and Tiberius refused this title; Caligula and (apparently) all following bore it. “Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 450: ‘Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat;’ and Suet. Aug⁽¹⁵¹⁾ 53: ‘Dominum se appellari ne a liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel joco passus est;’ ami Tib. 27: ‘Dominus appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se amplius contumeliæ causa nominaret.’ Caligula accepted the title, according to Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Suet. Dom. 13: ‘Martial,—Edictum Domini Deique nostri.’ ” Mr. Humphry.

γράψω has apparently been altered to γράψαι to suit the τί γράψαι above.

Olsh. remarks, that now first was our Lord’s prophecy Matthew 10:18, Mark 13:9 fulfilled. But Meyer answers well, that we do not know enough of the history of the other Apostles to be able to say this with any certainty. James the greater, and Peter, had in all probability stood before Agrippa I. See ch. Acts 12:2-3.

26 Chapter 26
Verse 1

Acts 26:1.] The stretching out of the hand by a speaker was not, as Hammond supposes, the same as the κατασείειν τῇ χειρί of ch. Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16. The latter was to ensure silence; but this, a formal attitude usual with orators. Apuleius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it very precisely: ‘Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit.’ The hand was chained— τούτων τ. δεσμ., Acts 26:29.

Verse 2

2.] There is no force in Meyer’s observation, that by the omission of the art. before ἰουδαίων, Paul wishes to express that the charges were made by some, not by all of the Jews. That omission is the one so often overlooked by the German critics (e.g. Stier also here), after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. § 1, and compare κατὰ ἰουδαίους in the next verse, of which the above cannot be said.

μέλλων contains the ground of ἥγημαι, in that I am to defend myself.

Verse 3

3. γν. ὄντα σε] For the construction see reff.; and cf. Viger (ed. Hermann), p. 337, where many examples are given—e.g. Herod. vi. 109: ἐν σοὶ νῦν ἔστιν ἢ καταδουλῶσαι ἀθήνας, ἢ ἐλευθέρας ποιήσαντα μνημόσυνον λιπέσθαι κ. τ. λ.

Verse 4

4.] The μὲν οὖν takes up ἀπολογεῖσθαι: q. d. ‘well, then, to begin my apology.’

Verse 5

5. ἀκριβεστάτην] See ch. Acts 22:3; κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου. Jos. (B. J. i. 5. 2) calls the Pharisees σύνταγμά τι ἰουδαίων δοκοῦν εὐσεβέστερον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβέστερον ἀφηγεῖσθαι. The use of the term finds another example in Ephesians 5:15, βλέπετε πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, which command it illustrates.

θρησκεία] ἡ λατρεία· ὅθεν καὶ ἑτερόθρησκος, ἑτερόδοξος. Suidas.

We have an instance here of αἵρεσις used in an indifferent sense.

Verse 6

6.] The rec. text has apparently been corrected after ch. Acts 13:32; for there we have πρός, and no ἡμῶν. The εἰς has its propriety here, combining the ideas of address towards, and of ethical relation to, its object: so ἐς δʼ ὑμᾶς ἐρῶ μῦθον, Æsch. Pers. 159: ψόγος ἐς ἕλληνας μέγας, Eur. Bacch. 778 (735): δημοκρατίας κατίστα εἰς τὰς πόλιας, Herod. vi. 43. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 217, where many more examples are given.

The promise spoken of is not that of the resurrection merely, but that of a Messiah and His kingdom, involving (Acts 26:8) the resurrection. This is evident from the way in which he brings in the mention of Jesus of Nazareth, and connects His exaltation (Acts 26:18) with the universal preaching of repentance and remission of sins. But he hints merely at this hope, and does not explain it fully; for Agrippa knew well what was intended, and the mention of any king but Cæsar would have misled and prejudiced the Roman procurator. There is great skill in binding on his former Pharisaic life of orthodoxy (in externals), to his now real and living defence of the hope of Israel. But though he thus far identifies them, he makes no concealment of the difference between them, Acts 26:9 ff.

Verse 7

7. τὸ δωδεκάφυλ.] The Jews in Judæa and those of the dispersion also. See James 1:1. There was a difference between Paul and the Jews, which lies beneath the surface of this verse, but is yet not brought out: he had already arrived at the accomplishment of this hope, to which they, with all their sacrifices and zeal, were as yet only earnestly tending, having it yet in the future only (so Romans 10:2; ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν). It was concerning this hope (in what sense appears not yet) that he was accused by the Jews.

The adverb ἐκτενῶς and subst. ἐκτένεια are disapproved by the philologists, as belonging to later Greek. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 311. We have the adj., Æsch. Suppl. 990: ἐκτενὴς φίλος.

Verse 8

8.] Having impressed on his hearers the injustice of this charge from the Jews, with reference to his holding that hope which they themselves held, he now leaves much to be filled up, not giving a confession of his own faith, but proceeding as if it were well understood. ‘You assume rightly, that I mean by this hope, in my own case, my believing it accomplished in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth.’ Then, this being acknowledged, he goes on to shew how his own view became so changed with regard to Jesus; drawing, by the μὲν οὖν (Acts 26:9), a contrast in some respects between himself, who was supernaturally brought to the faith, and them, who yet could not refuse to believe that God could and might raise the dead. All this he mainly addresses to Agrippa (Acts 26:26), as being the best acquainted with the circumstances, and, from his position, best qualified to judge of them. It may be, as Stier suggests, that if not open, yet practical Sadduceism had tainted the Herodian family. Paul knew, at all events, how generally the highly cultivated, and those in power and wealth, despised and thought ἄπιστον the doctrine of the resurrection.

εἰ … ἐγείρει] not, as commonly rendered, ‘that God should raise the dead’ (E. V.): but the question is far stronger than this, if the conjunction be taken in its literal meaning: why is it judged by you a thing past belief, if God raises the dead? i.e. ‘if God, in His exercise of power, sees fit to raise the dead (the word implying that such a fact has veritably taken place), is it for you to refuse to believe it?’ Compare the declaration of our Lord, Luke 16:31; οὐδʼ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται. We have many instances of this use of εἰ:—Xen. Mem. i. 1. 13, ἐθαύμαζε δὲ εἰ μὴ φανερὸν αὐτοῖς ἐστίν: ib. 18, ὅσα δὲ πάντες ᾔδεσαν, θαυμαστὸν εἰ μὴ τούτων ἐνεθυμήθησαν: ib. i. 2. 13, ἐγὼ δʼ εἰ μέν τι κακὸν ἐκείνῳ τὴν πόλιν ἐποιησάτην οὐκ ἀπολογήσομαι: on which examples Hermann remarks, ad Viger. p. 504, “in his locis omnibus rem non dubiam et incertam indicat εἰ, sed plane certam et perspicuam.”

Verse 9

9.] Henceforward he passes to his own history,—how he once refused, like them, to believe in Jesus: and shews them both the process of his conversion, and the ministry with which he was entrusted to others.

μὲν οὖν, well then, resuming the character described Acts 26:4-5.

Verse 10-11

10, 11.] This is the διωγμὸς μέγας of ch. Acts 8:1. We are surprised here by the unexpected word ἁγίων, which it might have been thought he would have rather in this presence avoided. But, as Stier remarks, it belongs to the more confident tone of this speech, which he delivers, not as a prisoner defending himself, but as one being heard before those who were his audience, not his Judges. κατήνεγκα ψῆφον can hardly be taken figuratively, as many Commentators, trying to escape from the inference that the νεανίας Saul was a member of the Sanhedrim; but must be understood as testifying to this very fact, however strange it may seem. He can hardly have been less than thirty when sent on his errand of persecution to Damascus. The genitive is supposed by Elsner and Kypke to be dependent on κατήνεγκα; but this is harsh, and it is better to take (as most Commentators, and Meyer, and De W.) it as absolute, and κατήνεγκα as local, ‘detuli sententiam:’ when their deaths were being compassed, I gave in my vote (scil, against them, as in ref.). On the fact, cf. συνευδοκῶν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, ch. Acts 8:1.

Verse 11

11. τιμωρῶν] viz. by scourging; compare Matthew 10:17. ἠνάγκαζον does not imply that any did blaspheme (Christ: so Pliny, Ep. n. 97, speaks of ordering the Bithynian Christians ‘maledicere Christo,’ and adds, ‘quorum nihil cogi posse dicuntur qui sunt revera Christiani’): the imperf. only relates the attempt. The persecuting the Christians even to foreign cities, forms the transition to the narrative following.

Verse 12

12. ἐν οἷς] In which things (being engaged).

Verse 13

13.] See notes on ch. Acts 9:3-8, where I have treated of the discrepancies, real or only apparent, between the three accounts of Saul’s conversion. See also ch. Acts 22:6-10.

Verse 14

14. τῇ ἑβρ. διαλ.] These words are expressed here only. In ch. 9 (see note) we have the fact remarkably preserved by the Hebrew form σαούλ; in ch. 22 he was speaking in Hebrew (Syro-Chald.), and the notice was not required. (Beware again of the supposed emphatic με of Wordsworth.)

σκληρ. σοι πρ. κ. λ.] This is found here only; in ch. 9 the words are spurious, having been inserted from this place. The metaphor is derived from oxen at plough or drawing a burden, who, on being pricked with the goad, kick against it, and so cause it to pierce deeper. (See Schol. on Pind. I. c. below.) It is a Greek, and not (apparently) a Hebrew proverb; but this is no reason why it should not be used in Hebrew, just as it is in Latin. Instances of its use are Pind. Pyth. ii. 173: χρὴ δὲ πρὸς θεὸν οὐκ ἐρίζειν … φέρειν δʼ ἐλαφρῶς ἐπαυχένιον λαβόντα ζυγὸν ἀρήγει. ποτὶ κέντρον δέ τοι λακτιζέμεν τελέθει ὀλισθηρὸς οἶμος. Æschyl. Agam. 1633: πρὸς κέντρα μὴ λάκτιζε, μὴ πήσας μογῇς. Eurip. Bacch. 791: θυμούμενος πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζοιμι, θνητὸς ὢν θεῷ. See also Æsch. Prom. 323, and other examples in Wetst.; Plautus (Truc. iv. 2. 59); and Terence, Phorm. i. 2. 27: ‘Nam quæ inscitia est advorsum stimulum calces?’

Verses 15-18

15–18.] There can be no question that Paul here condenses into one, various sayings of our Lord to him at different times, in visions, see ch. Acts 22:18-21; and by Ananias, ch. Acts 9:15; see also ch. Acts 22:15-16. Nor can this, on the strictest view, be considered any deviation from truth. It is what all must more or less do who are abridging a narrative, or giving the general sense of things said at various times. There were reasons for its being minute and particular in the details of his conversion; that once related, the commission which he thereupon received is not followed into its details, but summed up as committed to him by the Lord himself. It would be not only irreverent, but false, to imagine that he put his own thoughts into the mouth of our Lord; but I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of maintaining that all these words were actually spoken to him at some time by the Lord. The message delivered by Ananias certainly furnished some of them; and the unmistakeable utterings of God’s Spirit ( τὸ πνεῦμα ἰησοῦ, ch. Acts 16:7) which supernaturally led him, may have furnished more, all within the limits of truth.

Verse 16

16.] εἰς τοῦτο refers to what follows, προχειρ. &c.,— γάρ gives the reason for ἀνάστηθι, &c. (Meyer.)

προχειρ.] See reff.

μάρτυρα ὧν τε εἶδες] Stier remarks, that Paul was the witness of the glory of Christ: whereas Peter, the first of the former twelve, describes himself (1 Peter 5:1) as ‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.’ So true it was that this ἔκτρωμα among the Apostles, became, by divine grace, more than they all (1 Corinthians 15:8-10). The expression ὑπηρέτην ὧν εἶδες may be compared with ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου, which Luke calls the αὐτόπται, Luke 1:2.

ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι] (1) ὀφθ. must be passive, not (as Bornemann, Winer (not in edn. 6, § 39. 3, remark 1), Wahl, al.) causative (‘videre faciam’),—but as E. V., I will appear unto thee. (2) the gen. is exactly paralleled (Meyer) by Soph. Œd. Tyr. 788, ὧν μὲν ἱκόμην = τούτων (rather ἐκείνων) διʼ ἃ ἱκόμην. So here ὧν = τούτων ( ἐκείνων) διʼ ἃ ὀφθ., the things in (or on account of) which I will appear to thee. That such visions did take place, we know, from ch. Acts 18:9; Acts 22:18; Acts 23:11; 2 Corinthians 12:1; Galatians 1:12.

Verse 17

17. ἐξαιρούμενός σε] delivering thee from, as E. V.: not, as Kuin., al., and Conyb., ‘choosing thee out of:’ see reff.

τοῦ λαοῦ] as elsewhere, the Jewish people. ‘Hic armatur contra omnes metus qui eum manebant, et simul præparatur ad crucis tolerantiam.’ Calvin.

εἰς οὕς] to both, the people, and the Gentiles; not the Gentiles only.

Verse 18

18. τοῦ ἐπιστ.] not, as Beza, and E. V., ‘to turn them:’ but, that they may turn; see ἐπιστρέφειν, Acts 26:20.

The general reference of οὕς becomes tacitly modified (not expressly, speaking as he was to the Jew Agrippa) by the expression σκότος and ἐξουσία τοῦ σατανᾶ, both, in the common language of the Jews, applicable only to the Gentiles. But in reality, and in Paul’s mind, they had their sense as applied to Jews,—who were in spiritual darkness and under Satan’s power, however little they thought it. See Colossians 1:13.

τοῦ λαβ.] A third step: first the opening of the eyes—next, the turning to God—next, the receiving remission of sins and a place among the sanctified, see ch. Acts 20:32.

This last reference determines πίστει τῇ εἰς ἐμέ to belong not to ἡγιασμένοις but to λαβεῖν.

Thus the great object of Paul’s preaching was to awaken and shew the necessity and efficacy of πίστις ἡ εἰς ἐμέ. And fully, long ere this, had he recognized and acted on this his great mission. The epistles to the Galatians and Romans are two noble monuments of the APOSTLE OF FAITH.

Verse 19

19. ἀπειθής] See Isaiah 50:5 in LXX.

Verse 20

20. τοῖς ἐν δαμ πρ.] See ch. Acts 9:20.

εἰς belongs to ἀπήγγελ. (De W.), not to τοῖς ( ἐν δαμ.) as Meyer; see Luke 8:34; and on this sense of εἰς, note on Acts 26:6 above.

Verse 22

22.] The οὖν refers to the whole course of deliverances which he had had from God, not merely to the last. It serves to close the narrative, by shewing how it was that he was there that day,—after such repeated persecutions, crowned by this last attempt to destroy him.

μαρτυρόμενος] The mere love of paradox and difficulty, as it seems to me, has led De Wette and Meyer to prefer the ordinary reading - ρούμενος, although very weakly supported by MSS., and yielding hardly any appropriate sense. μαρτυρ ού μενος must be passive, and signify (see reff. below) ‘testified to,’ ‘borne witness of:’ the datives μικρῷ and μεγάλῳ must be the agents, ‘by small and great’ (to which there is no objection grammatically, but every objection analogically, see ch. Acts 10:22; Acts 16:2; Acts 22:12, in all which μαρτύρουμαι is followed by ὑπό), and λέγων must be predicative, ‘as saying:’ i.e., ‘that I say.’ But this would be contrary to the fact: Paul was not thus borne witness of by all, but on the contrary accused of being a despiser of the law by a great majority of his own countrymen. There can, I think, be no question either critically or exegetically of the correctness of the other reading μαρτυρόμενος, bearing witness, as directly appropriate to the office to which Paul was appointed,—that of a witness (Acts 26:16); and then μικρῷ τε καὶ μεγάλῳ, to small and great, so flat and meaningless on the other interpretation, admirably suits the occasion,—standing as he was before an assembly of the greatest of the land.

Verse 23