Acts chapter 26

vs 22

Paul has survived a significant amount of death threats, assassination attempts, and other dangerous things. God hasn't protected him from them, he has helped him through them. Which is a much more solid thing.

He then moves on to the reason this suffering has come about - because of the mssage that he testifies to, which he points out is simply the message of the Old Testament...

vs 23

That message is indeed there if you look for it. And it is as much not there if you don't. The only time it becomes really clear is in hindsight. And that's not really a problem - forward-looking prophecies and types really are more for the encouragement of the people who read them, rather than to reveal some special knowledge about the future. Then for those who are there are the fulfilment of them, they are for backing up the veracity of the occurence. That's the purpose Paul calls upon them for.

vs 24

Seems an odd interjection to make. But then, Paul had not given Festus the full story, had he? He simply appealed to Caesar. Now Festus could have come to this conclusion through a number of different ways - he might be pro-Jewish, and just agree with the Pharisees. Or he could be non-Jewish, and think the idea of a Messiah that suffers is completely stupid. Not to mention the resurrection.

Note though that regardless of which direction Festus is coming from, he still respects Paul as a learned person.

vs 25

Paul defends himself against the insanity charge now.

vs 26

Paul makes it clear that he is directing his comments to King Agrippa, because the King is knolwedgeable about these things (which suggests he's more knowledgeable than Festus). But Paul also thinks that the suffering Messiah and the resulting Christianity epidemic would have come before Agrippa's notice too.

vs 27

What reads first off as a fairly innocuous comments comes to full force with the words behind it. Paul has defended his position as that to which the Law and the Prophets testify. So if King Agrippa believes the law and the prophets, then he believes in Christ. The suggestion here, too, is that the Jews in rejecting Christ have rejected their Torah.Nothing new in this - Jesus made the same accusation, all the more blatantly too.

vs 28

Agrippa betrays that he does indeed know all about this, because he uses the newly coined word "Christian". The Jews don't even use it - they still call it "the Way". Agrippa can feel the pressure that Paul, a prisoner, is putting on his beliefs. And so he hides behind his regal regalia and the shortness of Paul's presentation, in order to rebuff the challenge to his beliefs.

vs 29

Paul just tells it like it is. Paul hopes for a time where all of those listening to him would be converted. But he also hopes that their conversions would mean that they don't have to be placed in chains like he has been (in chains might be an idiom for arrested - not sure). That's an interesting thought - Paul sought a normalisation for Christianity so that it wouldn't be an illegal religion. So while he saw suffering as the lot of the Christian, he did not necessarily see state sanctioned suffering as part of that. A little more pragmatic than his letters seem, to me anyway.

vs 30

I guess because the proceedings were over, and they didn't want to listen anymore. Religious or moral challenges from the floor of a legal proceedings can have that effect sometimes. But Paul's going to Caesar anyway, so why not take the opportunity.

vs 31

At least they were convinced that Paul, while he might be insane or judgemental, is not a criminal.

vs 32

Alas, Agrippa would see Paul freed, but now that he's appealed to Caesar, can't see a way around it. Paul probably doesn't care - in chains or not, he's headed to where God wants him.