On the day of his death, as Stephen was preaching to Saul of Tarsus and his cronies, he really provoked them by saying,
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, & have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”
Stephen basically handed his persecutors the knife when he said that they constantly resisted the Holy Spirit and rejected the prophets of God.
But it was the truth.
And this was basically what the Lord Jesus had told these people as recorded in John 5 and 6.
I don’t know how many people attend church in this country on any given Sunday.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that 50 million people attend a Christian place of worship week by week.
How many of those 50 million attend church on Sunday evening? Let’s generously say 1 in 10 – 5 million.
I would be surprised if tonight – on this particular Sunday – there are even 10% of that number.
The vast majority of churches of the United States at this moment are dark and cold.
And I believe that the primary reason for this is that the members of those churches are “Almost Christians” rather than genuine children of God.
They are like Agrippa in that they don’t mind hearing a Christian preacher now and then, but they aren’t persuaded by the Truth, and they are definitely not closely following or disciples of Christ.
They say that they are “Christians,”
they can’t be found in the House of God.
There are two basic interpretations of this verse, but they are poles apart.
If Luke had just given us an extra word or two, there would be no problem, but alas….
If a mere human writer was penning this kind of information, he might have said:
With just a simple adjective or two the confusion of the Bible interpreters could have been avoided.
But the Lord seemed to say, “Let’s see what they do with THIS one.”
This evening lets think about the controversy, the proximity, the resistence and the result.
Was he serious? Was this said in an ironic or sarcastic way? Was there anger or scorn in his voice?
We have no way of answering.
All that we have are the eight English words based on the five Greek words.
On nearly every verse of our study I consult three of the commentators in my computer Bible program:
The old Baptist, John Gill, is first; then there is the more recent Baptist, A.T. Robertson and finally Jamison, Fausset and Brown.
Between those three, I am usually confirmed in what the text is saying, however sometimes it’s a struggle.
For example, in this case, Robertson disagrees with the others and says,
The Greek word does not mean ‘almost.’ That would require a different Greek word.
It is not clear, however, precisely what that word does mean.”
I not only think that it is criminal to try to correct our Bibles,
For example it could mean: “Paul, you have almost persuaded me to become a Christian.”
Or, “Paul, do you think that you can persuade me to become a Christian so easily?”
What do you think that the translators believed Agrippa to say?
I agree fully with Jamison, Fausset and Brown when they write:
“Most modern interpreters think the ordinary translation inadmissible, and take the meaning to be,
“Thou thinkest to make me with little persuasion (or small trouble) a Christian” – but I am not to be so easily turned.
But the apostle’s reply can scarcely suit any but the sense given in our authorized version,
which is that adopted by CHRYSOSTOM and some of the best scholars since.”
If you put this verse in the hands of an eight-year-old child and explain to him what “persuadest” means, that child’s simple logic will tell you that Agrippa was close to becoming a Christian.
He had been at his post only a few days, when he quickly traveled up to Jerusalem to meet the Jewish leadership.
There he had been told about Paul, and that they wanted him to be executed.
Wisely, Festus said that he wasn’t about to execute anyone without a fair trial.
So after he returned to his capital in Caesarea, some of the Jews came down and once again lodged their complaints against God’s preacher, and once again Paul made his defense.
“But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.”
Shortly after that King Agrippa came to pay his respects to the new Governor, and after a few days, the subject of Paul came up.
“Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself.”
Question: what kind of curiosity did Agrippa have about Paul?
Do you suppose that he had been hearing things about Christianity which intrigued him?
Is it possible that his life was so royally rotten that he was actually hungry for something better and more substantial?
Do you suppose that he too had been kicking against the pricks for some time?
I’m not saying that these things were so, but they were certainly possible.
Then he was given the opportunity to hear this ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarines, and he pounced on the chance.
Yes, it was curiosity which drove him, because he didn’t really know what his spiritual needs were.
But what kind of curiosity was it?
Then Paul explained how he had been converted.
As I say, perhaps when he mentioned kicking against the pricks, Agrippa’s own spiritual wounds throbbed.
Perhaps he knew the scriptures well enough to know that Paul was not preaching heresy or lunacy.
When Festus cried out that Paul was mad, it might have made Agrippa just a little mad himself.
And when Paul said, “I know that you believest the prophets,” the King knew that he didn’t have any place to hide.
He meant every syllable when he said, “ALMOST thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
But what about the word “Christian”?
It is argued that since “Christian” was a derogatory, denigrating term, Agrippa couldn’t possibly have been saying that he was close to becoming a Christian.
Although it is still true that in some circles the name “Christian” is a curse word, for most of the Western world that is not the case.
And when did “Christian” shed its negative connotation?
Who is to say that by the time of Acts 26 the term wasn’t just a name rather than a curse word?
And even if it was a curse, why couldn’t Agrippa have used it anyway?
Do you think that Paul shied away from charges that he was a “Christian?”
He probably wore the word as a mark of nobility even if it did come out of most mouths as a sneer.
And in that case, there would be nothing wrong with Agrippa using the word the same way – as something good and honorable.
According to the testimony of Agrippa, he was close to becoming a Christian.
The fact that Agrippa knew that he was close to becoming a Christian without being one is infinitely better than most Americans.
Some time ago early in the last century, the First Missionary Baptist Church of Calgary, Alberta gave some printing equipment to the mission which eventually became the Calvary Independent Baptist Church of Post Falls.
I don’t know how many things that your first pastor actually printed with that equipment, but there is still one tract in the rack at the front door which was produced during that time.
On the front it says something like: “The only thing worse than going to Hell is….”
And on the inside it only says, “… going to hell, thinking that you’re going to Heaven.”
I would venture to guess that 98% of the people who have attended Christmas Mass, Christmas pageants and various Christmas worship services, think that they are Christians and bound for the Promised Land.
But it simply isn’t true.
How did Agrippa know that he was only almost a Christian?
It sounds like a dumb question, but isn’t really.
He was not a Christian because he refused to accept what Paul had just told him.
It wasn’t that Agrippa knew what Paul said was unscriptural, because it wasn’t unscriptural.
And it wasn’t because what he had said was illogical.
but Israel was supposed to be a nation which accepted God’s right and ability to do the miraculous.
Just as Stephen told Saul years before: “ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.”
Don’t you think that verse 30 is rather abrupt and impolite?
“And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.”
Why do you think that Agrippa cut Paul off the way that he did?
Wasn’t it because he felt the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and he didn’t like it?
Wasn’t it because he had just heard Festus call Paul a mad-man, and he didn’t like the thought that he too might be called the same if he agreed with Paul and believed on Christ?
Wasn’t it because his “wife” Bernice was sitting beside him, whom he knew to be a hater of Christ?
Agrippa wasn’t ready to count the cost of becoming one of Christ’s disciples.
He hadn’t accurately weighed eternity in Heaven with eternity in Hell.
I believe that man is completely dead in trespasses and sins.
I believe that his depravity has made him incapable of faith and repentance on his own.
But the fact of the matter is that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent, to turn to God and do works meet for repentance.
It is a theological perplexity to try to figure out where man’s responsibility meets and blends with his incapability, but the scripture shows that they do.
Agrippa made an abrupt choice to walk out on a presentation of the Gospel.
He chose to reject the Saviour and the message of His salvation.
He was like millions of people this weekend who have attended Christmas celebrations, coming close to the Truth, but not quite in it.
But as I say, Agrippa knew that he was without Christ, but most of modern Americans are too blind even to see that.
Someone needed to teach Agrippa that old hymn:
“Have thine own way, Lord! Have thine own way!
Mold me and make me after thy will,
while I am waiting, yielded and still.
Wash me just now, Lord, wash me just now,
as in thy presence humbly I bow.
Power, all power, surely is thine!
Touch me and heal me, Savior divine!
Fill with thy Spirit till all shall see
Christ only, always, living in me! ”