Acts 25:8
While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
25:1-12 See how restless malice is. Persecutors deem it a peculiar favour to have their malice gratified. Preaching Christ, the end of the law, was no offence against the law. In suffering times the prudence of the Lord's people is tried, as well as their patience; they need wisdom. It becomes those who are innocent, to insist upon their innocence. Paul was willing to abide by the rules of the law, and to let that take its course. If he deserved death, he would accept the punishment. But if none of the things whereof they accused him were true, no man could deliver him unto them, with justice. Paul is neither released nor condemned. It is an instance of the slow steps which Providence takes; by which we are often made ashamed, both of our hopes and of our fears, and are kept waiting on God.While he answered ... - See this answer more at length in Acts 24:10-21. As the accusations against him were the same now as then, he made to them the same reply. 7. the Jews … from Jerusalem—clamorously, as at Jerusalem; see Ac 25:24.

many and grievous complaints against Paul—From his reply, and Festus' statement of the case before Agrippa, these charges seem to have been a jumble of political and religious matter which they were unable to substantiate, and vociferous cries that he was unfit to live. Paul's reply, not given in full, was probably little more than a challenge to prove any of their charges, whether political or religious.

Paul answers unto the three crimes which he was charged with:

1. He had not offended against the law, having been always a religious observer of it: nor:

2. Against the temple, which he went into devoutly, and upon a religious account: nor:

3. Against Caesar; having never taught any rebellion, nor said or done any thing against his government. While he answered for himself,.... As he was allowed by the Roman laws to do, he pleaded his own cause, and showed the falsehood of the charges exhibited against him; by observing, that as the crimes alleged against him were reducible to three heads, neither of them were just and true:

neither against the law of the Jews; the law of Moses, whether moral, ceremonial, or judicial; not the moral law, that he was a strict observer of, both before and since his conversion; nor the ceremonial law, for though it was abolished, and he knew it was, yet for peace sake, and in condescension to the weakness of some, and in order to gain others, he submitted to it, and was performing a branch of it, when he was seized in the temple; nor the judicial law, which concerned the Jews as Jews, and their civil affairs: neither against the temple; at Jerusalem, the profanation of which he was charged with, by bringing a Gentile into it; which was a falsehood, at least a mistake:

nor yet against Caesar, have I offended at all; for he was charged with sedition, Acts 24:5. Caesar was a common name to the Roman emperors, as Pharaoh was to the kings of Egypt; and which they took from Julius Caesar the first of them, who was succeeded by Augustus Caesar, under whom Christ was born; and he by Tiberius, under whom he suffered; the fourth was Caius Caligula; the fifth was Claudius, mentioned in Acts 11:28 and the present Caesar, to whom Paul now appealed, was Nero; and though succeeding emperors bore this name, it was also given to the second in the empire, or the presumptive heir to it: authors are divided about the original of Caesar, the surname of Julius; some say he had it from the colour of his eyes, which were "Caesii", grey; others from "Caesaries", his fine head of hair; others from his killing of an elephant, which, in the language of the Moors, is called "Caesar": the more common opinion is, that he took his name from his mother's womb, being "Caeso", cut up at his birth, to make way for his passage into the world; in which manner also our King Edward the Sixth came into the world.

While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Acts 25:8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated for his vindication, that, etc. On ἀπολογεῖσθαι with ὅτι (more frequently with ὡς), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22.

οὔτε κ.τ.λ.] These were consequently the three principal points to which the πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα of the Jews referred. Comp. Acts 21:28, Acts 24:5 f., to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly against Jesus.Acts 25:8. Evidently the charges classed as before under three heads, (1) the Law, (2) the Temple, (3) the Empire. In this verse Hilgenfeld ascribes ὅτιἥμαρτον to his “author to Theophilus”(Jüngst, too, omits the words). But, not content with this, he concludes that the whole narrative which follows about Agrippa is to ratify the innocence of Paul before a crowned head of Judaism, cf. Acts 9:15, where υἱῶν τε Ἰσ. is also ascribed to the “author to Theophilus,” and perhaps also τε καὶ βασιλέωγ; we are therefore to refer to this unknown writer the whole section Acts 25:13 to Acts 26:32.—ἥμαρτον with εἰς only here in Acts, three times in Luke’s Gospel, three times in 1 Cor., only once elsewhere in N.T., Matthew 18:21.8. While he answered for himself] Rev. Ver., with MSS., “While Paul said in his defence.” He offered an “Apologia” for himself. He did not make a defence against the unsubstantiated charges, but alluded only to those points on which they would try to prove their case, i.e. his alleged attempt to defile the Temple, his breaches of the Jewish law, and any insurrectionary outbreaks, in which the accusers would try to prove him a leader, and which might be construed into opposition to the Roman power. On this last his accusers would lay most stress. St Luke has only given us the three heads of St Paul’s Apologia.

Neither against the law of the Jews] The accusation on the former occasion had not dwelt on this point, but in the course of two years they had discovered that the Apostle had taught among the Gentiles that circumcision was no necessary door for admission to Christianity, and this they would construe into an offence against the Jewish law.

have I offended any thing at all] Rev. Ver., “have I sinned at all.”Verse 8. - Paul said in his defense for he answered for himself, A.V. and T.R.; nor for neither, A.V.; against for yet against, A.V.; sinned for offended anything, A.V. Said in his defense (ἀπολογουμένου'); Acts 24:10, note. The Law... the temple,... Caesar. The accusations against him fell under these three heads (Acts 24:5): he was the ringleader of an unlawful sect; he had profaned the temple; and he had stirred up insurrection against the government among the Jews. The accusations were false under every head. Have I offended (ἥμαρτον)

See on the kindred noun ἁμαρτία, sin, Matthew 1:21.

Acts 25:8 Interlinear
Acts 25:8 Parallel Texts

Acts 25:8 NIV
Acts 25:8 NLT
Acts 25:8 ESV
Acts 25:8 NASB
Acts 25:8 KJV

Acts 25:8 Bible Apps
Acts 25:8 Parallel
Acts 25:8 Biblia Paralela
Acts 25:8 Chinese Bible
Acts 25:8 French Bible
Acts 25:8 German Bible

Bible Hub

Acts 25:7
Top of Page
Top of Page