 |  |
Lewin, on the other hand, writes:
"Agrippa was deeply moved, and the confession fell unbidden from his lips `Almost
thou persuadest me to be a Christian'."
Another interpretation is this:
"En oligo, as the expression is used by the apostle himself in another place (Eph. 3: 3)
may mean, `in short' . . . . . `In short, you are persuading me, the most zealous of Moses'
followers, to be a Christian'. But this interpretation is not consistent with Paul's reply, `I
would to God that both almost (en oligo) and altogether (en pollo) . . . . ."--(Lewin).
Conybeare and Howson give the following note:
"En oligo cannot mean `almost', which would be par oligon. It might mean either `in
a few words' (Eph. 3: 3), or `in a small measure' or `in a small time' . . . . . We might
render the passage thus: `Thou thinkest to make me a Christian with a little persuasion'.
We should observe that peitheis, `persuade' is in the present tense, and that the title
`Christian' was one of contempt--see I Pet. 4: 16."
The note in the Companion Bible is as follows: "To put it briefly, thou art persuading
me to become a Christian."
We feel reluctant to part with the thought enshrined in the words "almost persuaded",
but truth is greater than sentiment. Pilate before the Saviour asked "What is truth?", but
there is no reason to believe that he was really seeking the light. Felix, too, enquired of
Paul concerning faith in Christ, and actually trembled as he heard, but there is no
evidence that there was the slightest movement towards repentance. And so it seems,
alas, to have been with Agrippa.
In spite of this, however, the Apostle replies with his whole soul:
"I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost
and altogether such as I am, except these bonds."
Agrippa's verdict was that nothing worthy of death or of bonds could be laid to Paul's
charge, and that if he had not appealed to Cæsar, he might have been given his freedom.
How Festus framed his letter we do not know, but it is certain that there could have been
no specific charge against the Apostle according to Roman law.