Tyndale Open Study NotesActs 26

In his careful defense before King Agrippa, Paul argued that his message agreed fully with the Jewish faith. He began by respectfully recognizing Agrippa’s knowledge of Jewish matters (26:2–3). He then described his early life, his training in Judaism, and his membership in the Pharisees (a Jewish group known for strict obedience to the law; 26:4–5).

Paul explained that the charges against him were only because he believed that God had fulfilled the Jewish hope of the resurrection (God raising the dead to life; 26:6–8).

He then told how he had once strongly opposed Christians (26:9–11), but changed after seeing a vision from Jesus on the road to Damascus (26:12–18; see 9:1–18).

Paul said that his preaching simply obeyed this message from God (26:19–20). Although some Jews opposed him violently (26:21), God protected him. He continued to teach a message that his fellow Jews should have accepted (22–23). This defense shows an example for Christians who are put on trial for their faith (see 9:15; Luke 21:12–15).

See 9:1–18.

Throughout his defense in this trial for his life, Paul also clearly set out the conditions for receiving new life in Christ (also in 26:20, 23; see Matthew 10:19–20).

Paul stressed that God protected him as he carried out his witness (compare 3:18; 10:43; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47). Paul urged his listeners to believe that Jesus is the Christ who fulfills Old Testament promises (see Luke 24:27, 44).

You are insane, Paul!: Festus, a Roman, thought Paul's talk about the prophets and resurrection was crazy (compare 17:18, 32). He concluded that Paul had studied so much it drove him to madness.

it was not done in a corner: The main events of the Christian faith were public historical events. Witnesses could confirm them as true. King Agrippa could not contradict Paul's statements of fact.

Paul's question put King Agrippa in a difficult position. If Agrippa said he believed the prophets, Paul would press the Christian message. If Agrippa denied belief in the prophets, he would upset the devout Jews who were listening.

Agrippa knew Paul was not crazy and that Paul's testimony about Jesus was historically accurate (26:26). So, Agrippa avoided answering Paul's question and refused to consider the claims of Christ. Agrippa said that Paul's statement was too short for him to make a responsible decision.

"Can you persuade me in such a short time to become a Christian?": This remark might have been ironic, expressing a lack of belief. It might have been making fun of Paul, or a dismissal of Paul's challenge. It might also have been a comment on how well Paul could persuade. Or it could have been a genuine question about Paul's intention. It seems best to understand King Agrippa's reply as intentionally trying to avoid the question. He did not want to admit he believed the prophets, because Paul had made a strong case (26:27).

The next step would be to believe in Jesus as the promised Christ, which Agrippa did not want to do. On the other hand, he did not want to say he did not believe the prophets. This would cause his Jewish subjects to feel isolated, and Agrippa wanted their allegiance. His lack of a committed response emphasizes his discomfort with Paul's testimony.

Paul’s bold answer shows that he could respond quickly and clearly. He challenges Agrippa and the whole audience to think about the value of knowing Christ and making a personal commitment to him.

The rulers agreed that Paul did not deserve death or imprisonment. Roman authorities repeatedly gave this verdict when considering Paul's case (25:25; see Luke 23:4, 15, 22).

Paul could have been set free because the legal verdict was evident (26:31). However, if he had not appealed to Caesar, Paul might not have survived (25:1–11). By appealing, he was fulfilling God's purposes for him (23:11).