# Acts Chapter 26
---
## Summarrium
King Agrippa gives Paul leave to make his defence. Paul claims that all his life he has lived as a Pharisee and he stands before the King because of his belief in the resurrection from the dead. Paul points out that he once opposed the name of Jesus but shares his miraculous conversion from one who cast his vote against Christians to one who will be a witness to both Jew and Gentile.

Paul points out that he has not be disobedient to the heavenly visitation but instead has declared the good news of the Kingdom in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea and to the Gentiles. That they might repent and act in keeping with their repentance. Festus tries to claim that Paul is out of his mind and Paul points out that he is speaking true and rationally. Paul is deemed a novelty and Agrippa points out that he has done nothing deserving of death and might have been released had he not appealed to Caesar.

## Meditatio
Once again Paul takes on the demeanour of an injured party. His defence is plain. He is a passionate Jew that formerly enacted the devout life of a Pharisee. Paul continues to maintain his cultural pattern but points out that all things have changed for him. He highlights his heavenly encounter and draws continuity between his former life and this one. He has remained obedient to the heavenly vision. However his perspective has been transformed.

Once he would have cast his vote against the believers now he wishes that all would be like him except for his incarceration. This is a powerful statement and we should once again remind ourselves Paul is speaking to a King here and a powerful bureaucrat. Indeed Paul honours them as is their due whilst still speaking boldly and even attempting to pursuade them to see what he is saying. 

It's fascinating here the language used here. Paul is accused of having lost his mind (v24) but Paul disputes this stating that he is speaking 'reasonably and truthfully'. Paul is attempting to speak persuasively that others might consider to adopt the way.

There is one anomoly I want to examine this turn of phrase 'kicking against the goads'.

ChatGPT suggests that *"The saying "to kick against the goads" refers to futile resistance against authority or inevitable circumstances, often resulting in self-harm. The phrase originates from the practice of using a goad—a pointed stick—to drive oxen when plowing. If an ox kicked against the goad, it would only hurt itself more, as the sharp instrument would dig into its flesh.*

So in this instance Paul is being asked why he is being such a muppet and setting himself against the Lord of the heavens. This is not a wise move Paul. Indeed Jesus ensures Paul becomes aware of the futility of his actions through the revelation of who he is and the symbolic (and probably physical) blinding by this heavenly encounter.

Much has been said about heavenly encounters and Pauls thorn in the flesh, and I'm certain too this argument has been made by many. But for a laught let's speculate for a moment. What if Pauls heavenly encounter had lasting physiological effects. His blinding causes him to have lasting damage to his eyesight. Such that he must write in such large letters[^1]. If this was the case I wonder if it might make individuals think twice before seeking an enounter with the almighty. 

There certainly is biblical president Jacobs wrestling match, Job's entire life, Moses circumcision, are but a few that come to mind.

[^1]: See [Galatians 6:11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+6%3A11&version=ESV)