AGRIPPA AND THE GREAT PHYSICIAN

AGRIPPA

 Acts 25:13-Acts 26

As we have taken our way through this series of articles one very solemn thing has been occasionally revealed, namely that notwithstanding His almighty skill as a Physician, there were some who came into contact with Him who by reason of their own attitude did not gain His healing power. It would seem that this was so in the case of Agrippa. It is unquestionably a sad account, and we want to endeavor to see it as it is presented to us on the pages of the inspired narrative.

I should like at the very beginning of our article that we enlighten our minds of the false conception, so widespread, that Agrippa nearly became a Christian. This view is based upon an undoubtedly mistaken translation of something he said, to which we shall return now.

Herod Agrippa II, to give him his full title, crosses the page of New Testament history suddenly, and passes away with equal suddenness. He is only seen in his connection with Paul. Here, as in some other cases, we may make reference to certain facts concerning him which are not recorded in Luke's narrative. We find Agrippa both in pagan and Jewish history, and there can be no doubt that he was a very remarkable person. Descriptions of him reveal him as a man of fine physique and of magnificent presence. It is also true that he was a man of wide education, and of great natural ability. Born in A.D. 27, he lived to be 73 years of age, dying in Rome in A.D. 100. He received his education in the palace of the emperor. As a politician, he adopted the cause of the Jews, claiming through the early years that he himself was a Jew. When the Rebellion broke out, as the result of which the Jewish nation fell, he completely joined the Roman power, and fought against the Jews.

His relationship with Bernice was a scandal both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, as the writings of Josephus and Juvenal very clearly show. This, then, is the man as revealed from sources outside the New Testament narrative.

In order to see him as revealed in the narrative of Luke we need to remind ourselves of certain circumstances and events. Felix had left Paul a prisoner. He was succeeded in the Roman governorship by a Roman named Festus. He, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, and at the same time to administer Roman law, found himself placed in a strange dilemma in the case of Paul. While he was facing the situation, Agrippa appeared upon the scene. Whereas he was called a king and Paul addressed him in that way, it is best to remember that it was a title of courtesy. He was in effect, a vassal under Festus, and came to Caesarea to pay his respects to his superior, the Roman governor. Knowing his intimate acquaintance with all Jewish matters, Festus felt he had an opportunity to gain some light on the problem confronting him concerning Paul. Agrippa responded that he was anxious to hear Paul. A formal occasion was arranged.

Now we see him, and his contact with "the Way," that is with Christ, through Paul. We are first arrested by the simple historic statements made in the record concerning him. The narrative tells us that he and Bernice came together to what was certainly a formal and even a pompous occasion, with the military leaders, and others around him. Agrippa and Bernice were central to the group. We may remind ourselves here that he was the great-grandson of the Herod who had murdered the innocents at the birth of Jesus. His great-uncle had murdered John at the request of a dancing wanton. His father had murdered James. That gives us his family background.

When we look at Bernice the whole outlook is full of shame. She was Agrippa's sister, the sister also of Drusilla, who was the wife of Felix. She had been married to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis, until she abandoned him, and consorted with Agrippa. After a while she married Polemo of Sicily, but stayed a very little while with him, and then went back to Agrippa. Finally, she went to Rome with him, and then pagan history tells us that she figured shamefully in the lives of Vespasian and Titus, father and son. That is the woman who was sitting by Agrippa's side. Everyone knew of his incestuous connection with his own sister. He did not attempt to hide it, but flaunted his shame and her shame in the sight of Festus, the whole assembly, and Paul.

The other brief historic revelation is contained in what he said to Festus when told the account of Paul.

"And Agrippa said unto Festus, I also could wish to hear the man myself";

A suggested rendering in the margin of the Revised Version is unquestionably correct and important. What Agrippa really said was, "I was wishing." The very form of the statement reveals the fact that he had some previous interest in, or curiosity concerning Paul. He knew something about him. The probability is that he had never seen him, and was glad of the opportunity offered when Festus told him that he held him as a prisoner. It will be remembered that Paul's presence there was due to the fact that he had used the proper Roman formula, "Ceesarem appello," I appeal unto Caesar. It was a legal formula, and when once a Roman citizen, which Paul was, had employed it, no other tribunal could deal with his case. On the other hand when a governor sent a prisoner to Caesar, it was necessary for him to make a formal charge against him. That was Festus' difficulty. He did not know with what to charge him. The people at whose prompting Paul had been arrested were unable to make a charge of sedition, the whole question being one about their religion, and concerned the declaration that Jesus Who had been put to death, was affirmed to have risen, and to be alive. Festus, knowing Agrippa's knowledge of these turbulent Jews, felt that he might help him in the matter.

It was then that Agrippa said:

"I also was wishing to hear the man myself."

It is, therefore, quite evident that he had some previous knowledge, and now he had his chance of meeting, seeing, and hearing the man himself.

Our next revelation of Agrippa is discovered as we read Paul's address to him. He declared that he was:

"Expert in all the questions and customs which are among the Jews."

Whatever Agrippa knew about Paul, Paul knew this about Agrippa. Paul would not have said this if it had not been true. He was not employing the language of courteous flattery. That is the man that Paul saw.

Later in the same address he said, still concerning Agrippa, "For the king knoweth of these things," and the reference was to all that he had been telling him, that is, the account of Jesus. Paul declared that he was persuaded that none of these things were hidden from Agrippa. Thus he is seen, a man expert in all the questions and customs of the Jews, and a man having knowledge of the Christian movement.

And we have still a further revelation in this address of Paul. Festus had interrupted him, and Paul having replied to the interruption, again addressed himself directly to Agrippa, and he said:

"Believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest."

This is a remarkable addition, showing that Paul saw him not merely as a man clever, expert, learned, highly trained, not merely as having knowledge of the fact of the Christian movement, but familiar with the Hebrew writings, and in some sense believing in the prophets.

To summarize; Agrippa was flagrantly sensuous, a slave to his passions. He had become quite careless about public opinion. Jewish opinion was against him, and so was pagan, but he cared nothing as is evidenced by the fact of his bringing Bernice with him. He was, moreover, a man careful about Roman law, as well as expert in the customs of the Jews. His finding about Paul was strictly accurate.

"This man might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed unto Caesar."

He knew, however, that the appeal to Caesar was irrevocable, and that Paul must be sent to him.

The last revelation of Agrippa found in the narrative is that of a man contemptuously dismissing a possibility. The possibility, to use his own expression, was that of becoming a Christian. We are familiar with the account of that word "Christian." It only occurs three times in the New Testament, and was at first undoubtedly a name applied to the followers of the Way by those who were outsiders. There are those who think it was a term of contempt. Personally I think it meant simply that those so named were recognized as followers of Christ. At any rate Agrippa's use of the term shows that it was a familiar one. He said to Paul quite literally, with a very little are you trying to make me a Christian? There is no doubt that we understand the question if we place emphasis on two words, the words "me" and "Christian." With a very little thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. He accurately interpreted Paul's intention to make him a Christian. He contemptuously referred to the method as of very little value as he said "With a very little." He was dismissing Paul and his arguments as being of little weight with him. The door of opportunity opened in front of him. It had been opened by a man whose mind was equal to Agrippa's intellectually, and indeed greater. The offer grew out of the fact that Paul had shown the relationship between the things of which Agrippa had knowledge, and those customs and prophetic writings of the Hebrew people. He saw that the door was open, but had no desire to enter in. The last thing we see of him, then, is his act in this contemptuous dismissal of opportunity.

So far as Paul was concerned, his method was a serious attempt to gain the soul of Agrippa. As we watch, let us remember that our chief interest is in Christ, as He was dealing with the human soul through His messenger. When Agrippa attempted thus to dismiss Paul and his arguments, Paul had one more method of appeal. As we have seen, he first approached Agrippa with great courtesy by recognizing his expert knowledge of the customs of the Jewish people, of the facts of the Christian Way, and of the prophets. It is important that we keep in mind that this man Paul was equally expert in all these things, and indeed more so than Agrippa. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and if any man would be an expert in these matters of Jewish belief and custom, it was such a man as Saul of Tarsus.

Paul, however, saw all these things exposed, illuminated, interpreted in Christ. He had seen the history of the Hebrew people, and all their literature leading to Messiah, and in the light that had shined about him on the road to Damascus he had found that Jesus was that Messiah. There can be no doubt whatever that in all his dealing with Agrippa Paul was utterly desirous of leading him to the point of a like conviction, with his consequent surrender. He was saying as within himself in desire, if this man Agrippa could see these things of which he has expert knowledge, as thus interpreted, illumined, explained, it would be a way for him into life.

There was nothing in his address to Agrippa of the nature of an explanation of the doctrines of the Faith. In all probability by this time he had already written his letter to the Romans, but he did not suggest to Agrippa any of its massive arguments. The interpretation of Salvation is found in that letter, but an intellectual grasp upon its arguments is not the way of Salvation. Therefore Paul did not give him an argumentative statement of the doctrines of the Faith, but rather, gave him a testimony, thus acting as a witness. Agrippa had said, "Thou art permitted to speak for thyself," and Paul evidently fastened upon that permission, and said in effect, I will speak for myself. Leaving out all argument, I will tell you my own account.

This he did in a remarkable way. He first referred to his past as he declared that he was of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. That meant among other things that he claimed to have been trained in a School where most meticulous attention was paid to every detail of ceremonial and ritualistic religion. Referring to his attitude of mind under those conditions he said that the result of that training was that he thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. It is important to remember that he was never more sincere than when he thought that. Sincerity is not an evidence of accuracy. A man may be very sincere and at fault at the same time. He emphasized the sincerity that had characterized him in that conviction by a declaration that he had put into the business of opposition all the passion of which he had been capable.

He then told the king of what had happened to him on the way to Damascus, of the light that had shined around him of such brilliance as to bring himself and the company travelling with him to their faces on the ground. He then told him how that he had heard a voice which had said to him, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" and that recognizing the authority of the voice he had asked, "Who art Thou, Lord?" and received the amazing answer, "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest." What that fact that Jesus was alive and speaking to him had meant to Paul he was telling Agrippa, giving him the opportunity for the same experience. To Paul it had meant the reconstruction of his theology, and a new interpretation of Hebrew history and the Hebrew Scriptures. There had come to him a light which, after two years of consideration under the shadow of Sinai in Arabia, had made it necessary for him to recognize the triviality of even a Divinely ordained ritual when the full spiritual realization had arrived.

In effect, therefore, he said to Agrippa, after that light upon the Damascene road I had to go back to all the things with which I was familiar, back to Moses and his writings, back to the prophets, and I found they were all foretelling the things which now were realized. He then said to Agrippa:

"I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision."

I think the whole emphasis of the declaration, as Paul spoke to Agrippa was on the personal pronoun "I." As though he would say, when conviction came to me, I was obedient. How wilt thou act?

He accompanied the account of his own experience by two final home-thrusts as he addressed the king. The king knoweth, the king believest. It was then the answer came to Paul to which we have already referred. "With but a little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian."

Then Paul made his final appeal, and there is exquisite beauty in it. He said:

"I would to God that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds."

The sweep of his desire included Bernice, Festus, and those present. I venture to declare that there is nothing in human history more dramatically magnificent than the vision presented to us at this point. Agrippa in his robes of royalty, Bernice bedecked with her jewels, Festus in the scarlet of the Roman governor, the military leaders in their garments of magnificence, as Luke has said, "great pomp." Before them a prisoner, formally arraigned, and therefore wearing chains that marked his position. Yet this prisoner, looking into the faces of these royalties, said that he would to God they were such as he was. There was a royalty, and a dignity, and an august majesty in this outlook upon his position, all Christian experience flaming into a glory that put the tinsel and the gaud of earthly splendor into darkness, and made them even disreputable.

But the final touch is in that little phrase, "except these bonds." There the Christ was speaking in fullness of power through His servant. Paul stood, his wrists and his ankles manacled, and perhaps lifting those manacled hands he declared that whereas he desired that those whom he addressed should be such as he was, he exempted from that desire the chains of his bondage. In that phrase there flashed the very genius, the very spirit, the very heart of Christ. There was a passion to win Agrippa and the rest for the freedom that was his in Christ, and a desire that they might be exempt from the bondage in which he found himself. In effect he said, Agrippa, I would give you my freedom, the franchise of the ages, but not my bonds. I would give you all the joy of my heart, but not my pain. I would wish you to be exempt from suffering. That is Christianity, and with it he flooded the soul of Agrippa.

As we close we ask, where does it all end? We read the account, and it is perfectly clear that Paul's interpretation of the prediction of the past in the sacred writings, and the history of their fulfillment in his own experience, produced for Agrippa a point where he must consent, or definitely refuse.

We ask: was Agrippa convinced? If not, the reason was undoubtedly to be found in the fact that he had not been honest with the logical argument, for it was unanswerable. If he were convinced, still that conviction did not make him a Christian. Being convinced never makes a man a Christian. Conviction must be carried out by submission. So far as we know, Agrippa never submitted. At the moment, and perhaps eventually he was disobedient to the heavenly vision, and therefore, in spite of Christ's activity through His chosen servant Paul to reach the citadel of his soul, and capture it for high things, he said “No.” It is an account of the most solemn import and warning.