Almost - Acts 26

Paul’s style of speaking is very hard for me to understand, so I’m just going to have to go by summary. For the most part, Paul’s defense to Agrippa doesn’t contain any new information, so we can probably just go over what’s new. Agrippa permits Paul to speak for himself, and Paul begins by acknowledging Agrippa’s knowledge of Judaism. He then goes into his life as a Pharisee, and his initial response to Christianity, which was to arrest the believers and put them in prison and to give his “voice against them” when they were condemned to die. Paul states that he even traveled out of his city, Jerusalem to persecute the believers of this new sect.

He tells of the Savior appearing to him while on the road to Damascus, and Christ’s intention “to make thee a minister and a witness.” The IM points out that Paul’s speech to Agrippa was a little bit different than accounts he had given previously, similar to a criticism of Joseph Smith, that there were differing accounts of the first vision. The IM points out that in both cases, the men were presenting to different audiences with different intentions. In this case, when speaking to Felix two years earlier, Paul had focused on his innocence of the charge of sedition, which was Festus’ main concern, whereas Agrippa, being a Jew, was more concerned with the doctrinal issues.
The IM more differences in Paul’s accounts, saying, “the book of Acts contains several accounts of Paul’s vision, and each account differs to some degree. For example, the description of ‘light’ is different in each account; only Acts 9:17 indicates that Ananias restored Paul’s sight by the laying on of hands; and the account in Acts 26 provides less detail about what Paul’s companions experiences.”
The IM also points out that Paul’s testimony before Agrippa “blended the words of three different revelations as though they were one: the words the Lord spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus; the words Ananias later spoke to Paul; and the words the Lord spoke to Paul still later in a vision at Jerusalem. These variations are likely due to the different audiences and purposes of each account.”
Discussing the similarity in criticism of both Paul and Joseph Smith’s different accounts, the IM says, “As with Paul, these variations do not discredit the essential truth that the Prophet saw a vision of Heavenly Father and the Savior.” The first time that I heard someone say that the Church wasn’t true because Joseph Smith had given different accounts of the first vision to different people, I was devastated. I love the gospel and if it turned out to be a fraud, it would ruin my life, and the possibility that the proof of the fraud was differing accounts of the first vision was terrifying. However, when it was explained to me that the accounts were different because Joseph Smith was speaking to different people with different goals at each recorded event, it began to make more sense.
For example, if I want to explain a medical case to someone, I would vary my approach based on that person’s previous knowledge of medicine. If I was speaking to a doctor, I would use different details that would have been important to the doctor’s understanding of the case. If I was speaking to the patient, I would use different language to help them understand, and that language would be significantly different than what I said to the doctor. And if I was explaining the case to a child, then the whole presentation would be different. Which of those prove that I’m wrong, or lying, or misguided? None of them do. In fact, if anything the varying degrees of my own knowledge would demonstrate that I have a working knowledge of the case, to the point where I could explain it in multiple ways. This explanation really helped me understand why the words might be different, but the truth remained.
Paul continued that he “was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision,” but traveled to many lands and to the Gentiles, “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” The IM quotes President Ezra Taft Benson as teaching, “the greatest test of life is obedience to God. ‘We will prove them herewith,’ said the Lord, ‘to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them. The greatest task in life is to learn the will of the Lord and then do it. The greatest commandment of life is to love the Lord.”
This about what the vision of Christ on the road to Damascus meant in terms of Paul’s lifestyle. Before the vision, he was a powerful persecutor of heretics, given free range to imprison or kill whomever he felt deserving of it. Most people would not have been able to control that type of power. Paul probably had a decent amount of money and a comfortable lifestyle. After the vision, Paul not only gave up his power, but was now on the other end of the persecution and hatred stick, he was no longer perpetrator, but victim. If anyone had a reason to disregard the message in the vision, it would have been Paul, but he didn’t, he was obedient and he did what he was told.
Interestingly, Paul testifies to Agrippa that his testimony of Christ, is the same as the “things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” This is a key point for the Jews to understand in order to accept Jesus as their Messiah. It would be one thing for this guy to show up and say “hey I’m the one to solve all your problems,” but when he can show up and say, “I’m the one that you’ve been told about your whole lives, check the scriptures and see if I meet that criteria,” there is just so much more credibility. They must reconcile the Messiah that they’ve been expecting according to the scriptures, and the Messiah who showed up, and a lot of Jews or people in general can’t do that. A big disconnect between Jesus and the Jewish people was that they were expecting a militant Messiah, and when he showed up without an army, they could bring the two perspectives together, and therefore rejected him.
Festus was not buying Paul’s testimony, and declares “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” This specific accusation of “madness” from Festus is, interestingly, used by Joseph Smith to describe his own feelings of rejection after he started talking about the first vision. Joseph Smith tells of the frustration of “but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision.” It’s really interesting to me that Joseph Smith found a kindred spirit in Paul, and really it makes sense because their experiences were so very similar, both seeing Jesus Christ above their heads, bathed in glory as bright as the noonday sun.
Paul basically tells Festus, “that’s ok, you don’t have to believe me, but I know that Agrippa does,” and speaking of Agrippa, Paul says, “for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.” I didn’t really understand the whole “not done in a corner” thing, but the IM explains that this phrase means that “the truth of the gospel is not hidden or ‘done in a corner,’ but rather it is a light shining on a hill.” He’s saying, “I know that you know what I’m talking about, and in fact, his next statement is to Agrippa saying that “believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” This is the spirit of discernment is working in Paul to know that Agrippa believes what he is saying.
Unfortunately for Agrippa, belief in a principle doesn’t do you any good if you don’t do anything about it. Like the phrase, “faith is a principle of action and power,” it’s not good enough to just “believe” in the gospel, you have to actually live it as well. Now called out by Paul for his belief in his words, Agrippa makes his famous statement, “almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Almost. Agrippa might believe, but at this point, he can’t be bothered to change anything to comply with his beliefs.
The IM quotes President Harold B. Lee talking about an example given to him by a bishop he once visited saying, “the king knew the truth but he lacked the courage to do that which would be required… some members almost,’ he said, ‘but not quite say, ‘thou persuadest me almost to be honest, but I need extra help to pass a test… Almost thou persuadest me to keep the Sabbath day holy, but it’s fun ti play ball on Sunday. Almost thou persaudest me to love my neighbor, but he is a rascal; to be tolerant of others’ views, but they are dead wrong;… to go home teachings but it’s so cold and damp outside tonight; to pay tithes and offerings, but we do need a new color TC… Almost!” Another quote in the IM comes from Bruce C. Hafen who says, “if we almost keep the commandments, we almost receive the blessings.”
I think it’s important here to point out that there is a different between “almost” being persuaded, and just falling short of perfection. The “almost” side is looking at making a choice between trying and not trying, they aren’t doing their best and just not making it, they are deciding “should I even bother? Do I believe enough to make any changes in my life?” Once we decide to make the changes, to do our best, our efforts are accepted and strengthened by the Lord, and that’s the difference. One is trying and failing and one is not even making the attempt.
I think we can’t be too hard on Agrippa here, it would have been nice if he would have at least made some effort, but just because he didn’t at that point doesn’t mean he never will. Once he dies, he will be out of power and then he will have a completely new life and personality to understand and hopefully at least at that point he will think “wait, what was that one thing I heard about?”
 
After finishing his defense, Agrippa, Bernice, and Festus all get up and talk amongst themselves saying, “this man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” Paul could have been set free, except that he asked for a trial by Caesar himself, so that begs the question was it a bad idea to ask for trial by Caesar? We can look back on it in hindsight, but ultimately, Paul did what he felt was best at the time. Even if he had been let go now, that might not have been the case if he had not asked for Caesar.