Глава 26

Paul's defensive speech before the assembly led by Agrippa and Festus (1–29). Opinion of Agrippa and the assembly on the case of Paul (30–32) Acts 26:1. Agrippa said to Paul: You are allowed to speak for yourself. Then Paul, stretching out his hand, began to speak in his own defense: As the king and the honored guest of the procurator, Agrippa takes precedence in the meeting, opening and closing the meeting. It is significant at the same time that, opening the meeting by allowing Paul to make a defensive speech, Agrippa, raised at the Roman court, reveals such delicacy towards the procurator, expressing himself impersonally when addressing Paul: “it is allowed” (and not: I allow) you to speak.” “Stretch out your hand.” An oratorical technique to enhance the solemnity of the moment and the spoken speech, in this case having special power and meaning. The outstretched hand on which the chain hung - what a strong symbol of the incoherence of inner spiritual freedom and the truth of the matter! “The Word of God does not fit!” Paul's speech essentially does not represent anything new that he has not said before. Its peculiarity is that it is a victorious, solemn defense not so much of Paul himself, but of all Christianity, as a truly revealed religion. The starting point of the speech is the idea of ​​a close connection between the Old Testament and the New. Coming out of this thought, Paul declares that his guilt lies only in the fact that he believed in the fulfillment of the promise, the immutability of which the Jews themselves recognized, although they did not consider it fulfilled. Acts 26:2. King Agrippa! I consider myself happy that today I can defend myself before you in everything that the Jews accuse me of, Acts 26:3. especially since you know all the customs and controversial opinions of the Jews. Therefore, I ask you to listen to me generously. “I consider myself happy.” Paul, without a doubt, spoke completely sincerely and could say so. He quite naturally expresses his joy that he has the opportunity to defend himself, firstly, before the king, and, secondly, before such a king, who knows better than others “all the customs and controversial opinions of the Jews” and who, therefore, better than others (for example, the procurators of Judea), could judge his innocence and the highest truth of his case. Such cases - to present this just cause, which has universal significance, before such eminent listeners - were presented infrequently, but they served in a special way to the glory of the name of Christ and to the justification of Christianity in the eyes of the whole world. That is why it is quite natural that “Paul begins to speak with boldness and calls himself happy, not out of flattery, but because he speaks before a man who knows everything” (Chrysostom). Acts 26:4. My life from my youth, which I first spent among my people in Jerusalem, is known to all Jews;: Acts 26:5. They have known about me for a long time, if they want to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest teaching in our religion. By pointing to a strict, Pharisaic - “according to the strictest teaching in our religion” - upbringing, in the very center of the religious life of Judaism - Jerusalem, from the years of his early "youth", Paul intends to deepen the significance of the revolution that took place in him, which he intends to talk about further, a significance that is valid not for him alone, but for all people of common sense and sincere, honest seekers of truth. “If they want to testify...” The expression implies a negative meaning: it is a great disadvantage for the Jews to testify to all this, which serves to greater honor and justification of Christianity, and it is natural that they will not want to testify about it. Acts 26:6. And now I stand on trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, “And now I stand before judgment for the hope of the promise.” “What treachery does the strictest Judaism want to commit! - as if the apostle wants to say so. This strictest Judaism could not but approve of the kindled thirst for the promise in its most zealous follower. And then, when this thirst has honestly and truly found true satisfaction, the same strictest Judaism acts as its executioner. An obvious incongruity! “Isn’t it crazy to try in every possible way to make it (hope) come true, and to persecute the one who believes in it?” (Chrysostom). “For the hope of the promise” - for Paul, which had already received living fulfillment in the person of the Lord Jesus, for the rest of the Jews it was still expected so in vain and so belatedly (cf. Acts 13:32, 23:6). Acts 26:7. which our twelve tribes hope to see fulfilled by diligently serving God day and night. For this hope, King Agrippa, the Jews accuse me. Acts 26:8. So what? Do you really think it incredible that God raises the dead? “Our twelve tribes” is an ancient theocratic designation for the entire people of Israel, as one whole people of God. Although this division into tribes had long been smoothed out by the repeated captivity of the Jews, as well as later - both forced and voluntary - resettlement to pagan countries, the idea of ​​the whole people as consisting of the 12th tribes always remained in the people's consciousness, no matter where their representatives lived - either in Palestine or in dispersion (cf. James 1: 1). “Serving God diligently day and night” - precisely in anticipation of the fulfillment of God's promise of the Messiah, who was the focus of all the service to the God of the Jews, by whom they, so to speak, live and breathe. “For this hope... they blame me.” It was clear to everyone that Paul here meant Jesus, killed by the Jews and resurrected by the power of God. But here, perhaps, noticing a movement of indignation in the listeners or simply wanting to prevent objections, the apostle suddenly raises his voice, speaking as if to everyone, both Jews and pagans, whose representatives were here: “What then? Do you really consider it incredible that God raises the dead?...", meaning here not the resurrection of the dead in general, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as clear proof of the fulfillment of prophecies in the person of the Savior. Further, to prove his point, Paul speaks of his conversion (Acts 26:9-23), and this third story of his, essentially identical with the other two, takes on a special shade in his mouth, in relation to the circumstances and listeners. Since the resurrection of Jesus was visible, living proof of the fulfillment of the prophecy about Him, he, in essence, did not say anything new, for even before him Moses and the prophets taught the same thing: Jesus must suffer, must rise again (cf. Acts 3:24). “God raises the dead” - (cf. Acts 2 and par.) - the present tense is used to signify the ever-present ease and possibility of the resurrection of the dead by God, without regard to the resurrection of Jesus and the future resurrection of the dead, for this is the work of the eternal and omnipotent God, not allowing any doubt or objection. Acts 26:9. It is true that I thought that I should do a lot against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. “Act against the name of Jesus” - that is, against the confession of the name of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, Lord and God (cf. Acts 4:10). Acts 26:10. This is what I did in Jerusalem: having received power from the high priests, I imprisoned many saints, and when they killed them, I gave my voice to it; “That’s what I did” - cf. Acts 3 et al. in Acts 7, 8, 9. Just as above - “it is true, and I thought” - the apostle confesses that he once did not believe not that God raises the dead (he always held to this faith, like a strict Pharisee, Acts 26 and Acts 23, etc.), but that He raised Jesus and that Jesus is the true Son of God, and at first acted in accordance with this unbelief. This, however, is even more in favor of his teaching, which could not provide such a sharp contrast with his entire previous way of thinking and acting - without a particularly strong and solid foundation, which he again talks about further. "Saints" - cf. to Acts 20 and par. The Apostle calls Christians this way, elevating them in the eyes of the judges and more deeply exposing his injustice in relation to the persecuted. Acts 26:11. and throughout all the synagogues I repeatedly tormented them and forced them to blaspheme Jesus and, in excessive rage against them, persecuted them even in foreign cities. “Forced to blaspheme” - that is, Jesus. This is not mentioned in the previous stories. With what contrition of heart the confessor and apostle of Christ must have remembered this! And how powerful it was to make these persecutors and blasphemers of Jesus think, who did not want to believe in Him after such strong evidence of His Divinity! Acts 26:12. For this reason, going to Damascus with authority and commission from the high priests, Acts 26:13. In the middle of the day, on the road, I saw, sir, a light from the sky, surpassing the radiance of the sun, shining around me and those walking with me. Acts 26:14. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice speaking to me in Hebrew: Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting Me? It's hard for you to go against the grain. Acts 26:15. I said: Who are you, Lord? He said, “I am Jesus, whom you persecute. “With authority and commission” - cf. approx. to Acts 9:1–2. There are some curious, albeit small and insignificant, features of this second story of the apostle’s own story about his conversion, in comparison with his first story (Acts 22) and the story of the writer (Acts 9). These features are the following: 1) about the heavenly light that shone on Paul, it is more precisely noted that it was “a light that surpasses the radiance of the sun” (in Acts 9 “light from heaven”, in Acts 22 - “great light”). This feature is fulfilled in both stories about Paul. 2) The Apostle then says that he himself and his companions “we all fell to the ground,” which is not mentioned at all in Acts 22, while Acts 9 says that Paul’s companions “stood dumbfounded” (Acts 9:7). There is hardly any need to try particularly hard to reconcile this disagreement. It is enough to explain it in both cases by the differently expressed desire of the apostle to depict the force of the impression of the event on his companions (probably both this way and that, i.e., some with a fall, and the other with numbness, or first all with a fall, and then still with numbness), who expressed their horror at what was happening. 3) The apostle makes the remark that the Lord spoke to him in the “Hebrew language,” a remark from which it is clear that the apostle spoke his real speech in Greek, the language most understandable to his listeners. Finally, 4) the most important feature of this story is that the Lord’s speech is conveyed in much more detail. What in those stories is conveyed as the words of the Lord to Ananias and Ananias to Paul already in Damascus (cf. Acts 9, etc., Acts 22, etc.), is here presented as the speech of the Lord to Paul himself at the appearance, and with some additions. Probably, the apostle, for the sake of greater convenience, combined into one speech both what the Lord told him directly and what Ananias told him, expressing this in a free presentation, without adhering to the letter and without significantly violating the truth, because Paul really heard from Ananias what was entrusted to him by the Lord. As for those details of the present story (Acts 26 and Acts 26:18), which are not found at all in the two previous reports about this event, they can also be explained very simply - by unequally detailed transfer of the same essence of the matter. Acts 26:16. But rise and stand on your feet; For this is why I appeared to you, to make you a minister and a witness of what you have seen and what I will reveal to you, Acts 26:17. delivering you from the people of Judah and from the Gentiles, to whom I am now sending you Acts 26:18. to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, and through faith in Me they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance with those who are sanctified.” “Servant and witness” - cf. Acts 1:8. An indication of the equality of Paul’s ministry with that of the other apostles, with the difference that Paul was primarily sent to be the apostle of the “gentiles.” “What have you seen, and what will I reveal to you?” Paul saw the Lord risen and glorified, and therefore could be exactly the same witness of His resurrection as the other apostles (Acts 3:15; 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:4–9). (The fact that the Lord actually revealed His will in the further history of Paul is evidenced, among other things, in Acts 20, etc.; Acts 23, etc.). “From the people of the Jews and from the Gentiles, to whom I am now sending you.” To whom I am sending must include both the Jewish people and the Gentiles, just as we see in all the activities of Paul, who everywhere addressed himself first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13 and par.). “Darkness and light” are images of the spiritual state of man - in the power of Satan (the prince of darkness) and in the gracious Kingdom of God - the Father of lights. The first state - under the power of the prince of darkness - is a state of ignorance of the truth of God and conscious alienation from it, the end of which is eternal destruction; the second is a state of grace-filled enlightenment with the light of Divine truth, in filial closeness to God the Father and eternal bliss with all the saints (cf. Acts 20:32). Acts 26:19. Therefore, King Agrippa, I did not resist the heavenly vision, “Therefore, I did not resist,” as sometimes the most obvious and convincing truths are resisted, as all those by whose grace Paul was bound and now faces trial are still resisting. “By this appearance He (Jesus) converted me and convinced me so that I could not resist” (Chrysostom). Acts 26:20. but first he preached to the inhabitants of Damascus and Jerusalem, then to the whole land of Judea and the pagans, so that they would repent and turn to God, doing deeds worthy of repentance. The Apostle indicates the circle of his preaching activity (Damascus, Acts 9, etc., Jerusalem, Acts 9, etc., the entire land of Judea and, finally, the pagans - mainly Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece). The apostle characterizes the content of his sermon generally as a sermon about repentance and turning to God of Jews and pagans in order to encourage them to do “works worthy of repentance” (cf. Matt. 3:2, 8; Acts 2 and parallels). Acts 26:21. For this the Jews seized me in the church and tried to tear me to pieces. “For this,” that is, for preaching about repentance, turning Jews and pagans to God (a general designation of the subject of the sermon), “the Jews seized me in the temple.” In Acts 21 et c. the immediate reason for the Jews' attack on Paul is indicated, and the innermost reason for their hatred of him is also given here. Acts 26:22. But having received help from God, I stand to this day, testifying to small and great things, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen, “Having received help from God,” manifested, apparently, in the quick arrival of a military commander to the rescue of the apostle from the hands of a brutal crowd (Acts 21, etc.). “Until this day I stand” - I remain intact until this day, testifying about Christ to everyone who wants to listen, from small to great, from young to old, from poor to rich, from humble to noble (cf. Chrysostom). “Saying nothing,” that is, one’s own, self-invented, but only what was foretold by Moses and the prophets. Acts 26:23. that is, that Christ had to suffer and, being the first to rise from the dead, proclaim light to the people (Jewish) and the pagans. The Apostle separately indicates the general content and meaning of the prophecies of Moses and the prophets about Christ (cf. Acts 3 and parallels), indicating the following three main features: the suffering of Christ (Is. 53 and par.), the resurrection (Ps. 15:8-11; cf. Acts 2, etc.), the proclamation of light to the Jews and pagans (Is. 60:1-3; cf. Matt. 12:21 ; Deut. 18:15–18 ; Acts 3 etc.). “Rising first from the dead” - in the same sense as “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18), having laid the beginning and foundation for the resurrection of all people with His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23; cf. Acts 26 6 and par.). “Proclaim the light” - enlighten with the true teaching about the salvation of the world (cf. Matt. 4:16). Acts 26:24. When he defended himself in this way, Festus said in a loud voice: You are crazy, Pavel! great learning drives you to madness. Paul's speech is interrupted by a loud, angry exclamation from Festus, understandable given the frivolous skepticism and contempt for all faith. “You are mad, Paul” - the expression apparently refers to Paul’s entire speech about his conversion and to his entire behavior after this conversion, in which the skeptic Festus could not see anything other than the ordinary delirium of a frustrated imagination. “Great learning drives you to madness” - Festus mockingly says that Paul has learned too much, which is why, as they say, his mind has gone beyond reason - a review of extreme frivolity, speaking of the great ignorance of Festus himself. Apparently, Festus drew the conclusion about Paul’s great learning from the fact that Paul gave so many references to prophecies that confirmed his teaching about Christ. Acts 26:25. No, venerable Festus, he said, I am not mad, but I speak words of truth and common sense. Acts 26:26. For the king knows about this, before whom I speak boldly. I do not at all believe that any of this was hidden from him; for this did not happen in a corner. Quite respectfully, but with full dignity, briefly and forcefully, the apostle denies the reproach and suspicions of Festus. “I am not mad, but I speak words of truth and common sense!” To reassure the pagan who does not understand the matter, the apostle refers to a Jew who is more understanding and knowledgeable in this matter, King Agrippa, to whom all this speech of the apostle is actually addressed (Acts 26:2-3). The apostle is also right in the factual side of his teaching. It is excusable that Festus, as a new man, doubts the fidelity of what Paul preaches. But it cannot be that “any of this” was hidden from the king, that is, from what relates to the life and work of Jesus and to the life of the early Christian Church after His ascension, for all “this did not happen in a corner ...” - not in secret, but publicly, and not in Jerusalem alone, but in the sight of all Palestine. Acts 26:27. Do you believe, King Agrippa, the prophets? I know that you believe. Acts 26:28. Agrippa said to Paul: You are not convincing me to become a Christian. Acts 26:29. Paul said: I would pray to God that, little or no, not only you, but also everyone who listens to me today, would become like me, except for these bonds. Having confirmed the truth and sanity of his words by King Agrippa’s indisputable knowledge of “what was not happening in the corner,” the apostle suddenly, with an unexpected and decisive turn of speech, turns to Agrippa’s conscience and, like a wise and skillful fisher of men (Matthew 4:19), puts him in such a position that anyone else, honestly zealous for the truth, would not have avoided being caught, as Agrippa did, bashfully getting off with a frivolous witticism and hastening to close the meeting. “Do you believe, King Agrippa, the prophets? “I know that you believe,” the apostle himself hastens to answer for the embarrassed king, confused by such an unexpected examination in the field of faith and conscience, in front of educated Roman officials, before whom the king hypocritically would like to better appear as a good pagan, alien to the superstitions of the Jews. Agrippa’s answer is usually translated as follows: “You are not convincing me to become a Christian.” In the interests of the glory of Paul, whose eloquence evoked such praise from the king, many accept this translation. However, it is unlikely that Agrippa, even assuming that the apostle’s speech had a strong effect on him, could go so far, especially in the presence of Festus, who had just called Paul almost insane. The answer cannot be understood in the indicated sense because it contradicts the direct meaning of the words in the original. The Greek reading of this passage is: εν ολίγω (i.e. χρόνω) μέ πείθεις Χριστανόν γενέσθαι, the Greek word πίθειν - “to convince” more often means to try, to try to convince. The word εν ολίγω - “a little” - is almost always taken to mean a short time. If we take into account the speed of the turn of phrase with which Paul wanted to say: “if you believe the prophets, then you must believe in Jesus Christ,” then we will understand the natural meaning of the answer: “you are too quick to conclude!”, i.e. Agrippa wanted to say: are you asking if I believe the prophets? Yes, I believe it. But to conclude from this that I must necessarily believe in Christ in order for me to be a Christian is already too hasty a conclusion. The Slavic text better emphasizes this meaning of the answer - “in the smallness of my being a Christian!” And it is precisely this meaning that is best reconciled with the deep and serious impression of Paul’s speech on Agrippa, his weak desire to become a Christian and, finally, the difficult position in which Agrippa was placed, feeling, on the one hand, in the presence of Paul, who called him a converted Israelite, and on the other, Festus, who did not respect either Judaism or Christianity and considered Paul a madman. In addition, such a meaning comes closer to Paul’s answer, which without that becomes an obscure and empty play on words. In fact, there must be a logical connection between Agrippa's and Paul's responses. The king says: you want to make me a Christian too soon, Paul replies: “I would pray to God, so that who knows how much” (i.e. whether soon or long, the difference in time does not matter, as long as the matter is done), “not only you, but also everyone who listens to me this day, become like me!...” The last words obviously hint at the words of Festus regarding the “madness” of Paul. “Except for these bonds,” the innocent confessor of Christ touchingly adds. Bonds were his praise (Eph. 3:1, 4:1; Phil. 1; Phil. 2, etc.), but, of course, he did not want all Christians, his beloved children, to be in bonds always (cf. 3 Lat. and Theophilus). Acts 26:30. When he said this, the king and ruler, Bernice and those sitting with them stood up; Acts 26:31. and, stepping aside, they said to each other that this man was not doing anything worthy of death or chains. Acts 26:32. And Agrippa said to Festus: this man could have been released if he had not demanded trial from Caesar. Therefore, the ruler decided to send him to Caesar. “The king and the governor... stood up” - not because Paul said everything, but - in order to stop the word of the apostle, which was so tormenting the king’s conscience, Agrippa stands up, followed by the governor and all “those who sat with them.” Be that as it may, the general impression of the apostle's defense remained favorable. It is curious that Festus and Agrippa, recognizing Paul as having done nothing worthy not only of death, but also of “chain”; nevertheless, they send him to Caesar, citing the fact that Paul “demanded” Caesar’s judgment. But this demand was valid as long as Paul was found guilty. Now that this guilt was solemnly removed from Paul, he had the right to freedom, without being sent to Caesar. Obviously, both Festus and Agrippa did not quite sincerely want the release of Paul, or, at least, showed themselves to be soulless and petty formalists, strictly observing the law, which could so easily be turned in favor of Paul, one had only to ask the latter whether he insists on the trial of Caesar, when the court of the procurator is completely ready to free him? There would be, of course, only one answer: there is nothing to insist on, it is enough to free. “Having stepped aside” - αναχωρήσαντες, moving away, retiring, obviously, to another room, and not just towards the one where the meeting took place. “Does nothing worthy of death or chains.” The present tense - “does not” - expresses an assessment of all of Paul’s activities, as long as he acts according to the religious principles he expressed. An important and valuable recognition, aggravating the inconsistency of sending Paul back to Caesar's court. You might be interested in: