In Peter Allison's sermon titled 'Was Paul's Defense of the Gospel Successful?', he discusses Acts 26 where Paul defends the Gospel before Festus and Agrippa. Festus reacts with anger, accusing Paul of madness, illustrating a common unbeliever's reaction to the Gospel. Allison explains anger as a response to perceived loss of control and highlights the irrationality of unbelief, as demonstrated by Festus's reliance on empiricism. Agrippa's more polite yet evasive response shows another typical reaction. The sermon critiques empiricism, arguing that true knowledge comes from the Word of God, not just sensory experiences. Paul responds to Festus without offense, maintaining respect and boldness, asserting the truth and reason of his message. The sermon concludes that while Paul's defense did not convert his audience, it was still successful in fulfilling God's purpose, which includes offering salvation and hardening hearts. The Gospel always achieves its intended outcome, whether as a fragrance of life or death, calling believers to reflect on its impact in their lives.

Let's turn to Acts, please, chapter 26. Lord willing, we'll conclude this chapter today. I will begin reading at verse 24. I'll pick up at the conclusion of Paul's defense where he is interrupted. Verse 24, Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself.

Much learning is driving you mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. For the king before whom I also speak freely knows these things. For I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets?

I know that you do believe. Then Agrippa said to Paul, you almost persuade me to become a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains. And when he had said these things, the king stood up, as well as the governor and Bernice and those who sat with them. And when they had gone aside, they talked among themselves, saying, This man is doing nothing deserving of death or chains.

Then Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set free if He had not appealed to Caesar. May the Lord consider our affliction and deliver us as we remember His law. Heavenly Father, please seal to our hearts this morning your gospel truth. Please open our ears to hear what your Spirit says to your churches and enlarge our hearts and sanctify my sinful lips that they may proclaim the riches of Your grace through Christ Jesus. Amen.

Well, this response to Paul's defense, Paul's Gospel message by Agrippa and Festus illustrate several of the various ways which unbelievers typically respond when they hear the Gospel. And it also gives us an example of how Gospel messengers should respond when the Gospel is not well received by those to whom they speak. Paul is in the midst of making his defense. He's related his conversion. Then he has talked about the commission that he received through a heavenly vision.

And he has just mentioned Christ's suffering and resurrection from the dead when Festus erupts. And in a loud voice, he proclaims that Paul is insane, a madman. Now this indicates a measure of agitation and probably a degree of anger. And anger is an agitation, it's a common reaction for fallen men when presented with an inconvenient truth. See, anger is an attitude of judgment, of condemnation, or displeasure at a person for something they have done or at a present state of affairs.

Anger is like an internal judicial system which reacts to a perceived wrong with energy. It's like an internal judicial system because it first evaluates a situation, finds it lacking or wrong or displeasing in some way. And then that moves us to attack or discredit whatever we're finding displeasing. So that raised or loud voice that Festus has, or accusatory words, or emotional heat, or hostile attitude, are an emotionally aroused form of judgment against something that is perceived as evil. And of course that judgment can be righteous when the perceived evil is in fact evil.

You know, When Jesus became angry at the money changers for their abuse of the temple, that was a righteous anger because it arose from a righteous judgment, an assessment of what was happening. But when that judgment is wrong, and the perceived evil is not an evil, then it leads to an unrighteous anger. And so a selfish man who loses control will often perceive that loss as a moral wrong against him and become angry. That's often the cause of anger, is a loss of control by people who believe they should control things. People become angry at God when they think He has done them wrong in some way.

God hasn't been fair to them. They become angry at Him, because maybe they feel like they've lost control. Even Joe became angry at God when he thought that God had not treated him fairly. Now he didn't curse God. He didn't do that.

Instead, he cursed the day of his birth, which is something that God had brought about, of course. So even in his anger, unrighteous anger, he did not curse God, as his wife suggested. The other though essential component of anger in addition to a judgment that we make about something is that the matter is something that we regard as important such that we are moved by it. You know things that are trivial we consider trivial or completely unimportant. We may disagree with them, but if we're not moved about it, we are unlikely to be, we won't be angry about it.

So this movement is the motion in emotion, or it's the motive in motivation. It's the energy. It's what brings the energy into the situation. So the natural man is proud. And Obadiah tells us that The pride of the natural man causes them to be deceived.

So, the Adho Kumbh Daya, 1.3. The pride of your heart, he said, has deceived you. Deception leads to shame when a deceived person is shown the truth. So, Proverbs 11 tells us, when pride comes, then comes shame, but with the humble is wisdom. So shame is this painful sensation that we all get when we're made aware of something we've done wrong or some impropriety or something which injures our reputation in front of other people.

And to a proud man, there's nothing more damaging to the reputation than to be put to shame. And so, Festus is this unbeliever with no prior knowledge of the Scriptures. And like most Roman rulers, he bases his conclusions and his judgments on data that he can gather by His sight, by what He can touch, by surveys or censuses or reports and so forth of witnesses. He didn't see the resurrected Christ. He had no Old Testament revelation regarding the resurrection.

And of course, without faith, he would not have believed any of that revelation anyways, even if he had it. And so Paul's claim that Jesus rose from the dead was preposterous to him. And for someone to believe such a claim, such a preposterous claim, would be prima facie evidence that they were crazy. Interestingly, it's at this same point, this exact same point in Paul's address on Mars Hill that the Athenian crowd interrupted him. Remember, some thought he was crazy or a fool, and others were interested in knowing more.

But it was the exact same point when he got to the resurrection. And so Festus at this point may have felt some embarrassment or possibly shame at having brought all these prominent citizens together. Remember, he gathered everybody in the city that was somebody. He gathered all the rulers, all the kiliarks of the cohorts that were in Caesarea, and there were a number of them. He's gathered all these people here.

He's had all this pomp and circumstance. He's the one that brought Paul in. And he's maybe wondering what I do, bring everybody together to hear a crazy person talk about a dead man coming to life in order to bring light to them. And remember, he was the one that he had set all this up, and he allowed Paul the floor to address him, and so he might be concerned about what people would think of him for bringing such a crazy person or what he thought would be a crazy person to them. He might have been concerned that they were promoting Paul.

So He abruptly, rather rudely, interrupts Paul with a loud voice, proclaiming that Paul is beside himself and that much learning has driven him mad. I think he's trying to preserve his reputation here. Which leads us to the next natural response of unbelief to truth that Festus displays. And that is to label those who proclaim the truth as crazy. During the days of the USSR, that's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in case you weren't living then, the Soviet communists were famous for diagnosing Christians as insane and imprisoning them in psychiatric wards and even drugging them.

See, this eliminated the need for the formality of a courtroom trial. The signature of a psychiatrist was enough to lock someone up in an insane asylum with no chance of getting out or recourse to appeal. Before his conversion to Christianity, Kenneth Goff was a member of the U.S. Communist Party in the 1930s. And after his conversion, he wrote a book called Brainwashing, a Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics, in which he claims, this book that he wrote, put together, he claims was a summary of communist manuals circulating the Soviet Union that had been written and compiled by the chief of the secret police.

And in this book, one of the statements that he attributes to this KGB manual is, quote, religion must be made synonymous with neurosis and psychosis. Another statement he attributes to them is that the psychological operative in this program of degradation should at all times bring into question any family which is deeply religious. And should any neurosis or insanity be occasioned in that family to blame and hold responsible their religious connections for the neurotic or psychotic condition. Now The exact authorship of this book is somewhat controversial. But 20 years later, Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident like Alexander Zolzhenitsyn, wrote a book from his own firsthand experience in psychiatric prisons in the Soviet Union.

And in 1992, after he had been released from, escaped the Soviet Union, I think 10 years earlier, no, 15, 20 years earlier, he managed to copy over 4500 top secret Soviet documents regarding their psychological warfare against Christians and other dissidents. And how he did that is very interesting. But it's well documented. The point is it's well documented from their own documentation. But of course, it's also well known by anyone who followed the Christian martyrs in the days of the Iron Curtain.

But calling Christians crazy goes far, far before Festus. When Elijah anointed Jehu, remember he came and Jehu was with a bunch of people. He took them inside, anointed him, And when Jehu came out, the crowd said, Oh well, why did this madman come to you? That's what they thought of Elijah, the prophet of God. You remember this was a day of unbelief when only 7, 000 people in all of Israel were faithful to the Lord.

That's where Elijah ministered. He was considered crazy by the rest of this nation. The believing Israelites were considered insane in the days of Hosea. In 9-7 it says, the days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come. Israel knows the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is insane because of the greatness of your iniquity and great enmity.

Spiritual people, Christians that were believers, or they say believers, they didn't call them Christians yet, but the believers were considered insane. The Jews consider, you remember, Jesus insane. In John 10-20 it says, and many of them said, He is a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him? And of course, the Jews, hearing all the people speaking in tongues in Acts 2, thought they were drunk.

You see, this is nothing new. That unbelievers, when they encounter the Gospel, when they encounter the truth, consider the messenger crazy. Now why are unbelievers so quick to accuse Christians of being insane or crazy. Well, we think someone is crazy when they don't do what is obvious to any normal person, which we usually define as ourselves or being the normal person. Now as believers, we are new creatures in Christ, the Bible says.

It means we have a new heart. We have a renewed mind that begins with God as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. Paul told the Ephesian church in Ephesians 4 that they should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk in the futility of their mind, in the vagueness of their thinking, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the blindness of their heart. See, the Scriptures have to be the standard by which our sense perceptions are evaluated. And the wisdom of God is found only in and through Christ.

Paul told the Corinthians, but of Him we are in Christ, who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. But you see, to the Greeks, the unbelievers, the crosses foolishness and the resurrection is impossible. The God of our culture today is science. And the scoffers of the resurrection believe that what they falsely call science and the scientific method are the source of knowledge and the basis of rational belief. Science and the scientific method, I say it's falsely called science because science means knowledge.

And all knowledge and wisdom is hidden in Christ. And so to deny Christ is to deny the only source of knowledge. So what they actually believe is not science, but empiricism. Empiricism believes that knowledge originates in the senses, in what we perceive. We can see, we can hear, we can touch, and taste.

And their rhetoric, The rhetoric of these empiricists, who are falsely called scientists today, is little changed from the days of Festus nearly two thousand years ago. Richard Dawkins called Christians who believed Christ rose from the dead science denying, in other words, knowledge denying, flat earthers who traded empiricism for Bronze Age ghost stories. See, he thinks that empiricism should be the standard of truth. And he thinks Christians have abandoned empiricism. On a post in X in 2021, he called belief in a corpse coming back to life, quote, a form of mental abuse that saddles kids with a permanent fear of physical death.

Another scoffer, Sam Harris, said the Easter cult thinks that 98 degrees Fahrenheit mammalian tissue spontaneously reboots after 36 hours is literally indistinguishable from credulity toward werewolves or unicorns. You see these people are saying, we can't observe this. And So you're insane if you think it happened. Blogger Richard Carrier, who's a very profane man, called The Resurrection, first century science fiction for the gullible. And Bill Maher said on Real Time, talking snake, pregnant virgin, dead guy hops out of the grave.

This isn't a worldview. It's an expletive deleted sci-fi original script written by people who'd flunk eighth grade biology. See, these are all empiricists. They're not scientists. They don't have knowledge.

They only think that knowledge comes by what they can perceive. And if we can't perceive it, then it's not true. Of course, there are a number of problems with empiricism. And here's the most fundamental and unavoidable problem of all empiricists, is that they have to draw inferences and conclusions from their observations, from their collection of experiences. They have to draw conclusions from their observations.

That in itself is inductive reasoning, and that is a formal, logical fallacy. So you see how professing to be wise and cutting off the Word of God, they've limited themselves to what they can sense, and now the basis of all their knowledge is a formal, logical fallacy, inductive reasoning. To be able to gain true knowledge through empirical methods of sense perception, we would have to be present everywhere throughout the universe all at the same time. We would have to have every experience that's possible to have all at the same time We'd have to know all things in order to know anything And so if an empiricist hasn't experienced every possible thing there is to experience if he hasn't done it everywhere throughout the universe, all at the same time, then he can't be sure that some future experience or observation won't contradict or overturn one of his conclusions. He just can't be sure about that.

And that's why even the unbelieving scientists will not only acknowledge but actually boast in the fact that scientific truths of fifty years ago are the errors of today. And their boast is that science is always progressing. So yes, we Christians have traded empiricism, but not for ghost stories. We have abandoned empiricism for the propositional truth of the Word of God. See, God does know everything.

God is everywhere present. He is infinite, eternal. He's the God who made everything that exists and sustains everything that exists. His Word is truth. So what is more rational then?

What is more sane? To believe the conclusions of a man who has only existed a few decades out of eternity, and who has only experienced an infinitesimally small and vanishingly small part of the universe? Who is prone to error and who revises his conclusions every fifty years? Or is it more rational to believe the Word of God, who is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, knowledge, justice, goodness, and truth? Infinite and eternal.

He's everywhere present. He knows all things and He doesn't change. I think the answer should be obvious to those who think rationally. But it's not obvious to those who think irrationally. The unbeliever is fundamentally irrational in his thinking.

And that's what we see in Festus. Irrational thinking. Now how does Paul respond to Festus' rude interruption and his rather unflattering declaration that Paul was crazy. Well first, he's not offended. There's no emotional charge or outburst to his response.

He responds to the Festus' emotional outburst without any trace of hurt, any offense or name calling. He Doesn't castigate Festus and throw a bunch of invectives or names upon him. He's not offended. He probably expects it. He's been in this situation many times before.

In fact, his response is just the opposite. He is gentle. And he's respectful. Even using a superlative in calling Festus most noble or most excellent, Festus. That, brothers and sisters, is the grace of God that He can, after being called a crazy man, by an angry man, to respond gracefully, respectfully, most noble festus.

Thirdly, he's not ashamed of the truth. He doesn't backpedal, soften, or retract anything that he says. But he actually defends the truth, asserting in response, I speak words of truth and reason. Of course, in making that claim, Paul is implying that Festus is not speaking either truthfully or rationally. Paul is, you see, in effect here, very gently saying that Festus is wrong.

He's implying, I have the truth, not you, I'm rational, I have reason, not you. You see, Paul's faith is a logical faith. Our faith is too. It's not a leap in the dark. It's not what we turn to when reason fails.

It's not believing something without any evidence or contrary to evidence. It's believing what we can't see based on what we have seen and on the testimony of reliable witnesses. The Gospel accounts were written very shortly after Christ's resurrection. About half of the Greek manuscripts that contain the Gospel state that Matthew was written eight years after Christ ascended. Mark was written ten years later, Luke fifteen years later, and John thirty-two years later, roughly the time Revelation was written during his exile on Patmos.

Paul himself witnessed and spoke with Jesus Christ after the resurrection. And Paul testifies in 1 Corinthians 15, For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how Christ Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve, and after that He was seen by over 500 brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained to the present, but some have fallen asleep. And after that, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all, he was seen by me also, as one born out of due time." Luke states in Acts 1 that Christ presented Himself alive to His apostles after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking of those things that pertain to the kingdom." Now the word for infallible means that which causes something to be known in a convincing and decisive manner. Jesus appeared to His disciples and caused the fact of His resurrection to be known in a convincing and decisive manner.

That's a proof. You see, with all of the testimony of the Gospels and the witnesses that saw Christ, the level of proof for the resurrection far exceeds the level of proof we have for any other single fact in the ancient world. God created the world out of nothing. And the sensible evidence of that surrounds us all. Even people who can't see or hear, we're all standing on something.

So if God can make something out of nothing, if He can give life to what is not only lifeless but has no form, then it's quite reasonable that he can raise somebody from the dead. And so Paul says that I have the voice of truth and reason. But then he immediately returns the focus to Agrippa, which is the person that he's been primarily addressing all along, by claiming Agrippa as somebody who could vouch for what Paul is saying. A very clever transition. Now in an earlier message I covered quite a bit about Agrippa's knowledge and familiarity with the Jewish faith.

And I won't repeat that here. But Paul alludes to that now by saying that he is convinced that Agrippa knows the things of which Paul speaks because they were not done in a corner and because of Agrippa's familiarity with all things that Paul has discussed, his familiarity with the Jewish law. And so Paul says that he has been able to speak freely. And that Greek word for freely means to express oneself openly and fearlessly. It's frequently used in Acts to describe the boldness with which Paul testified to the resurrection in the Gospel.

It's used frequently, but I believe it's always used in connection with Paul. And so Paul is saying, Paul is bold here. And he puts Agrippa on the spot by directly asking him, Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe. Now this is bold in not only putting him on the spot as to what he believes in front of the entire city of Caesarea, at least all the prominent people in Caesarea.

But he's also putting him in somewhat a difficult position. He's asked him in front of everybody what he believes essentially about Jesus Christ. But his position is also difficult because Agrippa would have nominally believed in the prophets since he was a Jew with oversight of the temple. But Paul is maintaining that what the prophets said about the Messiah was true of Jesus. And that if you're going to believe the prophets then you have to believe that Jesus is the Messiah because that's what the prophets were saying.

So he's asking if Paul believes that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is this one who is crucified by the Romans and detested by the Jews. He's asking him publicly, do you believe this man that was crucified, which is a very ignoble form of death. Do you believe he's the Messiah? So if he says yes, he would appear to be in Paul's camp, something that would be distasteful to the Jews and might make him appear to the Romans as crazy as Paul is.

But if he said no, then he would appear to deny the faith that he possessed to believe. And so Agrippa completely evades the question and then runs from the room. He completely sidesteps the question and runs from the room. Now his evasive answer is polite. It's not emotionally charged like Festus was, but it is unbelief, Just the same.

Now exactly what he says is in the New King James, you almost persuade me to become a Christian. Exactly how to interpret what he said is a matter of debate. The Greek is hard to translate here for a couple of reasons, leading some to conclude that Agrippa is mocking Paul, sort of rebuking him, and they do that by making his reply a question, you think you can make me a Christian in such a short time. Kind of implying that Paul is foolish for thinking that. But others understand Agrippa to be more gracious.

They see his reply to be acknowledging that Christianity is rational and that there's a reason for it. He actually uses the word Christianity. That's not a common word in the Bible. And they see him essentially saying that Paul's proofs are strong, the objections against it are insufficient to overturn the proofs, and that with a little more time, he might be persuaded to become a Christian. Now part of the problem here in this translation, part of the problem is the eclectic text, which is a text that is put together with unbelieving presuppositions, and is the basis of most modern translations, it sends translators in the wrong direction.

And in that text, there is not good consistency in the Greek between Agrippa's comment in verse 28 and Paul's reply in verse 29. The words are not in good agreement. But the majority text is much clearer in this regard. Now on this particular verse, the text used for the King James is identical to the majority text. But this King James word choice, almost persuaded, in Paul's reply, both almost and altogether, are probably not the best words to choose.

Although I do think they convey the sense. And the fact that they're not good words has led a number of Greek scholars to call the King James rendering impossible and simply wrong because the Greek word does not mean almost. It means relatively small in number or few, relatively small on a scale of extent, which means small, little, or short in time. Or it means existing only to a small degree. So we get our word oligarchy, which means rule by a few.

So it's a few, whether it's number, or time, or extent, or whatever. And so the most literal translation would be, in a little, you do persuade me to become a Christian. Or in a little, you are persuading me to become a Christian. But what is little? What is little there?

The context seems to imply a little time. And so This leads to the New American Standard translation, in a short time, you will persuade me to become a Christian. But if you think Agrippa is mocking Paul, then the order of two words is reversed to make it a rhetorical question. In a short time, would you persuade me to be a Christian?" And you see the meaning is totally changed by reversing those two words. I think the former is the correct understanding, which is what's captured in King James, even though the word choice is somewhat awkward.

Agrippa is saying, You will soon, or you are persuading me, to become a Christian. And Paul's response matches up with that. He says, Whether sooner or later, I would through God that not only you but also all who are hearing me today would become such as I am except for these chains." You see, Agrippa was favorably inclined to Paul, but he was still in unbelief. He didn't believe. He's just as lost as Festus was, even though he's a bit polite about it.

Matthew Henry describes, I think, Agrippa's belief quite well. He says, "...many are almost persuaded to be religious, who are not quite persuaded. They are under strong convictions of their duty and of the excellency of the ways of God, but yet are overruled by some external inducements and do not pursue their convictions. Now there are many external inducements that Agrippa had. His reputation with the Romans, his pride, his incestuous relationship with Bernice that he would have to give up.

Maybe he's just a weak mind that's unable to make decisions. I remember witnessing to a colleague who was a Roman Catholic, and he was just very frank. He said, you know, He was a practicing Roman Catholic, but he said I could never be a Christian because he didn't want to give up his womanizing. And he just told me that flat out. Kind of like Agrippa.

Gracious, polite, but unbelieving. And so we can ask the question, was Paul's defense of the Gospel successful? Was Paul's defense of the Gospel successful? Success means something that accomplishes its purpose. In that sense, The Bible says that the Gospel is always successful.

It always accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent. Isaiah 55, verse 10, For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven, and do not return there but water the earth, and make it bring forth in bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater. So shall be my word that goes forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." So yes, the gospel, Paul's defense of the gospel was successful, but why does God send out His word? God says, it shall accomplish what I please.

Why does He send it out? Well, He freely offers to save all who come to Him. None who come to Him should be turned away. John 6.37, All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out. The one who comes to me I will by no means cast out.

That's the free offer of the Gospel. So God's one purpose in sending out the Gospel is to offer it to sinners. John 7.37, In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood up and cried, If any man thirst, Let him come to Me and drink." Any man. In fact, God even commands us to come. Isaiah 45, "'Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth.

For I am God and there is none else." In Acts 17, Paul told the Athenian crowd, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. And God truly desires us to do what He commands us to do. But just because God commands us to do something doesn't mean that we can. No man can come to the Father except the Father draw him. And so God sends out his gospel to offer it to all men, to draw some to Him, and to harden others in it.

And so Paul could tell the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 2, 15, For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death. And to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? So the question for you is, What is the Gospel accomplishing in you today?

An aroma of death to death, or the aroma of life to life? Heavenly Father, thank You for Your Gospel. Thank You for Your grace in offering it so freely to all. We thank You for Your grace in offering it so freely to all. We thank You for Your grace also that enables us to do what we cannot otherwise do.

To come to You. We thank You that You do subdue us to Yourself. And that You rule over us. That You are our King and our God. That You are our lawgiver.

We thank You for Your Holy Spirit that equips us, that sanctifies us, that empowers us and enables us to do what we cannot do in the flesh. Father, may we have the patience and the gentleness that Paul had to all those who called Him crazy or sought to kill Him. But may we also have the boldness to speak freely, to speak loosely and liberally of the riches of your grace and your offer, your free and gracious offer. We ask this in Jesus' name, Amen.