Welcome
People present
People at home on
Youtube
Facebook
And in our online archives
If you haven’t been with us we have deconstructed these gatherings down to the essentials:
We begin with prayer
Sing the Word of God set to music (as a means to get it into our heads) and then we sit for a moment in silence here at the Church/Studio.
When we come back we pick up where we left off last week in our verse by verse study.
So Paul has finished his speech before King Agrippa II. Let’s see what happens next at verse 24:
Acts 26.24 – end Acts 27.3
September 24th 2017
Milk
Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
And back to verse 24:
Acts 24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.”
Apparently, by the way this verse reads, Festus was taken back by the zeal of Paul, so much so that he even raised his voice when he uttered the words:
“Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning has made you mad.”
There are a number of reasons Festus could have voiced this opinion.
it could have simply been to take a side with the Jews (and therefore Agrippa) who were certainly not on Paul’s side.
Or perhaps, he was moved by a dark Spirit at the name of Jesus to lash out against Paul.
Then again maybe there was not a motive driving Festus and he just really believed Paul was out of his mind.
This could have been the case due to
The content of what Paul was saying – “Seeing a light and hearing Jesus voice? Come on, Paul, you’ve become one of the many lunatics out there on the fringe.”
Or perhaps Paul was really animated in his delivery of this information – so much so that he gave the appearance of just being mad.
Whatever it was, Festus communicated (outloud) his opinion of Paul in light of this tale – it was the effect of an inflamed and excited imagination; and as the proof of delirium.
It’s nothing new is it? In fact, to the watching unbelieving world anyone who places their very salvation, faith and trust on a historical figure named Christ must seem mad.
But to the believer, to the converted, to those who understand the relationship between holy God and fallen man, the necessity of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter how foolish it may appear, cannot be denied.
But there is another side to this situation that must be addressed. And it is a living reality.
Paul was preaching and teaching before an audience of Jews. Their defense against his message, through the mouth of Agrippa, was that He as mad.
That he was “beside himself due to much learning.”
And this defense is frequently used by groups and individuals who fear change, fear something that challenges their thinking, fear or want to resist new information for whatever reason.
Here Paul bore witness to an event we believe it true. But they did NOT want to accept it as true – so they said, “He is mad.”
Now, 99 times out of 100 this response is wise. 99 times out of a 100 people are crazy. And they can promote and tell stories to support their craziness like no other.
So on the one hand, we are to be congratulated for detecting a mad religious deception, right?
But on the other hand what is in place to test every proposition and to then hold fast to what is true and good?
How were these Jews to know? I mean, in their day there were dozens of men claiming to be the Messiah and others to claim to have the way? What made Paul and his claim any different or worth believing?
This is a serious dilemma in this life. Around every corner is a proposition, a prophet, a new supposition or revelation for us to consider. What most people do in the face of it is choose what works for them (typically based on parental influence, history, tradition, and pastoral teachings) and then go ostrich to everything else because it is just too difficult to have to change once we have made our theological bed, right?
I cannot tell you how many people I have had interactions with over the years who have claims to new religious truths or information.
We’ve had some on the shows – the Man in White, Chris Nemelka, that prophet guy from vernal, Joey Scoma and Denver Snuffer of recent history.
And I have fallen prey to a few of their stories.
Years ago I was in Evanston Wyoming speaking and before and after a number of people were telling Cassidy and me that we really needed to sit and hear the wisdom of a woman I’ll call Hope.
So afterward a small group took Cassidy and I to the front of the chapel and a woman stood up before us and she began to speak.
Now, what made her quite intriguing was she spoke with a kind of brogue or accent of some unknown Celtic form and she spoke back and forth in her own Socratic dialogue as if sharing her revelations with God by recanting the exact conversations.
I said, Lawd?
He said, My Child.
I said, Not me, Lord.
He said, If not you who.
Oh, Lord, what can I say to thee?
And He said, “say you will.”
And then she would tell more about her life with ten kids and struggling to make ends meet and the grocer coming to her door and a knockin and saying he needed payment and
Lord, what am I to do.
And the Lord said, “Slaughter ye a pig and offer the man its meat fer tender.”
And I did. And the shikina glary of the Lord fell upon me and . . .
Well, after 10 minutes of this Cassidy and I were getting converted to her stuff! I’m not kidding!
But after two hours of it we both started seeing through the cracks (in her brain) and realized that Hope was in fact mad.
Notice in the situation with Paul that he repeated something to them in his presentation – over and over again.
He said, “What I am telling you is NOT out of character with what our prophets have all been saying for 1500 years!”
And here we have THE WAY God has given us to know what is good and what can be ignored.
His word.
It is what Paul appealed to in HIS mad presentation – over and over again. And so I think it is safe to say that this is our REFERENCE by which to test all things – all things – the Word of God – taken contextually and within the reason of the whole story and not just part.
Having this inspired resource – notice my choice of words to describe it – we have a ready reference to “test all things” and to then, “Hold fast to what is good.”
Of course, the ability to understand the word and its application to our lives is predicated on the Spirit moving in us.
We know from the Old Testament and from the mouth of Jesus that in the mouth of two or three witnesses that everything would be established.
I suggest so strongly to you today that the two witnesses are the Word of God and the Holy Spirit of Christ, and that if there is a third witness it might be an individual who speaks things that are in harmony with the first two.
If we HAD to chose between the Spirit and the Word I would suggest the Spirit every time because its fruits are love, but fortunately we do not have to make such a choice as God has gifted our world with two witnesses which enable us to see if we are being presented with truth or deception.
The importance of the Spirit when considering all presentations is explained in 1st Corinthians 2 where Paul writes:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (Now listen to this)
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Unfortunately, some have errantly taken the written word and made it their God and King forgetting that universal agreement on its intents and purpose can be agreed upon.
And forgetting that the ONLY thing that can actually and truly be agreed upon in the faith is agape love – which IS the fruit of the Spirit.
Anyway, Festus must have been acquainted with the fact that Paul had been well instructed and that he was a learned man because he pulls from these facts and suggests that all of his learning had “made him mad.” (verse 25)
25 But he (Paul) said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.”
I really love this reply. It was not lawyer like, full of polemical rhetoric or argumentation.
It was in fact, child like.
Sometime I tease my grandson with things, and when he disagrees with my assessment he’ll say back to me:
“I Amn’t.”
That’s what Paul sort of says to Festus who has called him mad – “I Amn’t, most noble Festus,” and he adds:
“but I speak forth the words of truth and soberness.”
Festus accused Paul of being beside himself and mad and Paul directly responded to each charge:
To being beside (his true self) Paul maintains that he speaks “words of truth” and to the charge that he was mad he claims to speak “words of soberness.”
SOFF-ROSS-SOON-AYE – taken from the root word Sophie meaning wisdom.
I speak forth words of wisdom not maniacal ramblings.
And I would suggest that built into Paul’s response is the cry:
Test what I am saying again scripture!
Challenge my account but do not prematurely decide that I am wrong until you do.
That is all we can ask of others, not that they believe us, or accept our views as right, but to test and challenge them by the two witnesses – the Word and by the Spirit and to NOT simply reject them because they go against
Religious tradition
The way people are taught
Because of what is popular
Or because our leaders teach otherwise.
See, that is what the Jews who rejected John the Baptist, Jesus, his twelve and Paul were guilty of doing.
They rejected their views as heretical and evil because they appeared to go against their
Religious traditions
The way they were taught as kids
Because what was popular said no way, and
because their leaders taught otherwise.
And they wound up not only rejecting the promised Messiah, they killed him AND they killed his representatives that He sent out!
How can we be sure we are not guilty of the same mindset and therefore the same results – the killing of those who represent truth?
(Beat)
We humbly, lovingly receive all things, never quenching the Spirit or snuffing it out of others. And then by the Spirit we test it by scripture and see if it can bear up against the principles found therein.
If it doesn’t we can politely refuse it, all the while loving and accepting those who try to share it with us.
After defending His mindset and wisdom (soberness Paul turns to King Agrippa and says)
26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
King Agrippa had been many years in that region and the fame of Jesus and of Paul’s conversion were probably well known to him.
But in addition to this he was a Jew, though Hellenized and Paul seems to be appealing to the idea that he would have have to have been acquainted with Moses and the prophets, he expectation of a Messiah and the promises associated with His coming.
In all probability Agrippa would have known of Pilate and Jesus death as well and perhaps he had even heard of his resurrection.
Paul says that because of this he has spoken openly, freely, meaning boldly, and he adds:
“for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.”
I am convinced that King Agrippa is well acquainted with these things as none were done in a corner or “hidden from him.”
At this point Paul turns his attention to King Agrippa directly and both asks and answers for him, saying (in verse 27)
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
Now, here in our reading we are presented with a direct challenge by Paul to a King.
He could talk with paupers, he would speak with Kings. There appears to be an urgency in his tone and presentation, so much so that it seems to have added to the charges that he was mad.
What scripture does not always give us is timing. When we read verse 27 it sounds like Paul looks to Agrippa and says: (Quickly)
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
As though he is selling him, or doesn’t want to wait for his reply. I don’t like this view. I prefer to think the following:
That Paul was striving to reach into the heart of Agrippa. And after defending his sanity to Festus looks at King Agrippa and says:
King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets?
And he waited. Perhaps the King swallowed hard. Or tears welled a bit.
Perhaps light shown upon his face which only Paul could see – the conjectures are endless.
(Beat)
Then after a moment Paul said in kind resignation:
“I know you believe.”
But sometimes, depending on the person, the seeds of belief are not long lasting. They can be gobbled up, or are scorched, or choked – and they never bear fruit.
But at this moment in time, hanging in space between Paul the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ and this Hebrew King in the pocket of Rome, Paul says to Him:
“I know you believe.”
Either Paul was using motivational tools to convince him, or he really knew this. See, Agrippa as King was over the temple. He knew the law and the prophets and I suggest that Paul could say with all honestly,
I know that you believe the prophets.
The question was, was he willing to believe in Paul’s interpretation of the prophets and to accept his conversion story as legitimate?
To so do would have been a total game-changer for the man, his life, his comforts, his position in the community, his family.
The question from Paul was NOT, “do you believe and receive Jesus?” though it was subtly being implied.
Instead, Paul asked the King if he believed the prophets of Old to which Paul adds,
“I know you do.”
I would also suggest that after Paul confirms this knowledge to King Agrippa that the Spirit was calling to the Man. And that in that space he had a choice.
And we are left with some decisions to make about King Agrippa II because in the next verse we read:
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
This passage brings us to an important fork in our study of scripture because of the number of ways we choose to read and understand Agrippa’s reply.
See, in the King James, he seems to be telling Paul that because of his argumentation he was almost persuaded to become a Christian.
If we take in the fact that Paul has claimed to know that he believed in the prophets of Old this seems to be the case.
It is a wonderfully hopeful message and it speaks to our desires for sharing with others and the outcome we hope to experience.
We all want King Agrippa opportunities in life and we seem to really love it when the mighty and powerful are willing to entertain our faith.
This is the hopeful presentation we find through the King James.
But in the face of this hope we are also confronted by some mitigating factors.
Agrippa was a king sold out not only to the Hebrew state but to the Romans.
He was illegally married to his own sister Bernice.
He was rich – and we know what Jesus said about rich people entering the Kingdom of heaven – not easy!
But perhaps most importantly, we need to look to the Greek.
Other translations (not derived from the Authorized manuscripts that created the King James) but from the Westcott and Hort versions we read that Agrippa’s response was:
“In such a short period of time you think you can make me a Christian?”
These are very different responses, aren’t they? But is this due just to different proof texts? No, it’s due to the King James translators.
So I went to the Greek myself then I went to those who understand the Greek better than me.
ON BOARD
One of the most respected says:
(Robertsons)
(en oligôi me peitheis Christianon poiêsai).
Then it says:
“The Authorized (King James) rendering
“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” is IMPOSSIBLE” because “En oligôi” cannot mean “almost.” That would require “oligou,” “par’ oligon,” or “dei oligou.”
Most likely the idea is “in (or with) a small effort you are trying to persuade (peitheis, conative present active indicative) me in order to make me a Christian.”
This takes the “infinitive poiêsai” to be purpose and thus avoids trying to make poiêsai like genesthai (become).
The aorist is punctiliar action for single act, not “perfect.” As a result of this we know that “the tone of Agrippa is ironical, but not unpleasant. He pushes Paul’s words aside with a shrug of the shoulders.
Taking this into consideration, we are then faced with the truth of the situation which is not as pretty as the hopeful fiction:
Agrippa was not moved and he was not about to actually convert to Christianity.
And perhaps with some humor he set Paul’s preaching aside once and for all.
And we then have another living example derived from reality which supports all the teachings of Jesus which plainly state, in word, parable and actual situation, that the rich and powerful of this world rarely respond to the Gospel message. There is just too much for them to lose. And the Gospel is far far more attractive and amiable to the weak, broken and lost.
Verse 29 adds some insight to this interpretation of verse 28 as Paul responds by saying (in the King James)
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
The Revised versions read this way:
And Paul said, “Whether short or long, (meaning whether my attempts are short or long) I would to God that not only you (King Agrippa) but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am–except for these chains.”
This is my earnest desire, that with the exception of these chains, this bondage that I am in, I would to God that all within my voice could be as I am.
There was nothing Paul could do to overcome Agrippa’s heart – that would be a work and act of God.
30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
This was what Claudius Lysias determined in Acts 23:29, what Felix decided in Acts 24:1-27, what Festus decided in Acts 25:26,27 and now it was the view of Agrippa and Bernice.
It was a full acquittal from all the charges against him but, in what we can only see as the hand of God, he was not released. Instead (verse 32)
32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
And so we come to chapter 27. We have a few minutes so let’s get into it.
Acts 27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band.
2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.
3 And the next day we touched at Sidon. And Julius courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself.
Acts 27:1 And when it was determined (by those in charge) that we (Obviously Luke and company were with him) that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band (a man over 100 men in Augustus band of men – a group of 400 to 600 men).
2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, (a town of Mysia which was opposite the Island of Lesbos which we have talked about) we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.
According to verse 6 this ship was not expected to sail to Italy, but the centurion expected to find some other vessel into which he could put the prisoners to take them to Rome.
So they entered the ship then Luke writes and “we launched” meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia. And at this point Luke informs us that they were joined by on Aristarchus who was a Macedonian.
We remember meeting Aristarchus in Acts chapter 19. Apparently he was a companion of Paul’s in travels to Macedonia and to Asia minor and now He appears to be joining him, not as a prisoner, but as a voluntary companion, choosing to share with him his dangers, and help them along the way.
Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 1:24 call him Paul’s fellow-laborer. Luke adds at verse 3
3 And the next day we touched at Sidon. And Julius (the Centurian assigned to Paul’s care and transport) courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself.
Being human Julius gave Paul the liberty to go to his friends and as the King James says, to “refresh himself.”
This probably means to rest and find repair rather than just to wash his face. It was probably a time given to Paul to relax with friends before sailing on toward Rome Italy.
We will pick it up here next week.
Q and A
Prayer
Announcements
Interviews?
New Shows
Bold new approach to things – don’t let it bug you. Explain relative to the LDS and where they are going today.
Need to start promoting the NEW CAMPUS teachings and the NEW SHOWS.
