In Acts 26 (click here for text), we see Paul making his defense before Agrippa, Festus’ response, and Agrippa’s response. Take some time to think about the following:
- Look through chapters 24 & 25 and identify the charges that the Jews bring against Paul.
- As you read chapter 26, does Paul really address these charges? If you were Festus or Agrippa, would you feel that he had cleared himself of the charges against him? Why/why not?
- Acts 9 and 22 each record Paul’s Damascus road experience, but each does it in a different manner. Why do Luke/Paul relate each one differently?
- Paul makes mention that he says nothing different than what Moses and the Prophets said would happen. Where did they discuss this? (c.f. Gen. 3:15, Ps. 16:10, Is. 9:2, 42:16, 52:13-53:12)
- Paul takes even this opportunity to testify to the Truth of the gospel and of Jesus Christ. In what specific ways can you make the most of every opportunity to testify to Christ?
Feel free to post any questions/comments about this. Have a great week & walk worthy of the calling you’ve received!
I was reading through Stephen’s “defense” in Acts 7, and I noticed that, much like Paul in Acts 26, Stephen doesn’t really address the issues that he is being charged with. He’s charged with pretty much the same general charges as Paul (he’s against the temple, against the law, against our customs), but instead of saying something like “you guys are way off and you know it”, he proceeds to give them a history lesson of the Israelites – specifically just how stiff-necked they really are! Its not simply that Stephen wasn’t defending himself; defense just didn’t seem to even register on his radar in light of the opportunity to tell the truth to these religious leaders – whose hearts and ears were uncircumcised!
What does this have to do with Paul? I’m not quite sure, other than your discussion on Paul’s defense really got me thinking about what Paul’s goal was in his defense. Stephen’s goal seemed NOT to be his own acquittal from the false charges, but yet in some way to stick it to the religious leaders – crassly put, and maybe it could be better stated in positive terms. Positively, his goal was to tell the truth about Christ. And it seems like that was the same goal Paul had in his defenses.
So, in that light, all the charges against Paul were merely nuisances to address if he must, but so piddly in the big picture that most of the time he doesn’t dignify them by even responding to them. And I get the idea that Festus and Agrippa don’t seem to put much stock in the charges laid against Paul, either. It seemed like this further freed up Paul in his “defense” to totally ignore the specific charges against him, and instead focus on sticking it to the Roman leaders – putting truth right in front of their faces, forcing them to respond in some way.
Sorry for being so wordy . . . does this make sense?
By: Ben Whipple on February 19, 2007
at 11:35 am
That makes sense Ben. However, Paul does sometimes directly respond to his accusers and what he is being charged with. I’m mostly thinking of when Paul claims his Roman citizenship just before being whipped in Acts 22:25-29. So in that case he definitely takes the legal approach to directly address his accusers and get out of a bad situation. He could have just told the centurion about Christ and not appealed to the law.
So there definitely is a balance and skill to knowing the approach God would have us to take when falsely accused. Probably the most important lesson is that Paul never uses the legal approach at the expense of Christ. While it could have been God’s will that Paul witness to the centurion and then the centurion lets him go because of that (sort of like the jailer and his family in Acts 16:16-35), Paul chose to effectively use his citizenship to continue the spread of the Word (by not being killed and getting sent to Rome as Jesus told him to in Acts 23:11).
By: Mikel Berger on February 19, 2007
at 5:15 pm