Category: Uncategorized

Passover in I Corinthians

Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written immediately before or after the biblical festival of Passover. He mentions it a number of times in addressing his readers.

One reason for thinking that Paul was writing at Passover time is the explicit time frame that he mentions in chapter 16. He expresses a desire to visit Corinth after going through Macedonia. But he is currently in Ephesus, and he says, “I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost…” (16:8). Pentecost, as you know, is the Greek term for the biblical festival of Shavuot, or Weeks, that comes fifty days after Passover.

There are also internal evidences that Paul had Passover on his mind when writing to the Corinthians. In chapter five he is discussing immorality within the congregation. He is comparing the sin with leaven/yeast in bread in that a little of it works its way through the whole batch, so they should get rid of the sin, like unleavened bread. “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.” (5:7-8)

Even though Paul is interpreting the Passover bread and yeast in a somewhat allegorical sense, it’s clear that he expects his readers (mostly Gentiles) to observe the Passover and learn lessons about life from its symbolism.

Paul goes even deeper into discussing Passover in chapter 11 when he criticizes their actions during a recent Passover seder. In the traditional seder, there is a lot of liturgy to go through before the meal is served, and Paul criticizes the impatience of some (perhaps Gentiles) who go ahead and start eating the food before the proper time in the ceremony. He clarifies that the purpose of celebrating Passover is not to eat (you can do that at home) but to commemorate the things God has done.

He then goes into a review of Christ’s last Passover seder with his disciples as recorded in the gospels. On this occasion, Christ gives no hint that he intends to initiate a new ceremony. Instead, he is celebrating Passover with his disciples in the biblically prescribed manner. There is a lot of symbolism in the events of the seder that recall the deliverance from Egypt. Jesus is telling his disciples to apply this same symbolism to his passion and death which delivers from sin.

Jesus has already been compared to the Passover lamb by John at his baptism. (John 1:29) Now he compares himself to the Passover matzah, the unleavened bread. In the same way that the matzah is ceremonially broken at the seder, Jesus’ body is broken in death.

He uses the third cup (out of four), the cup of Redemption, to signify his blood to be shed on the cross to bring redemption from sin. As the blood of the lamb was spread on the doorpost of the house in Egypt so that God would not exact punishment on that household, so the shed blood of Jesus tells God to spare the believer from the punishment for sin that Jesus took, inaugurating the new covenant that is foreseen in Jeremiah 31.

Jesus then went on to instruct his disciples to continue to observe Passover until his return, but when they did it, to apply the symbolism to his suffering and death as well as to the deliverance from Egypt. “For whenever you eat this bread (the Passover matzah) and drink this cup (the third cup of Passover), you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (I Cor. 11:26)

It’s a shame that so many followers of Jesus have misapplied this passage to create a new ceremony that has no biblical warrant at all, and to dilute it by performing it monthly, weekly, or daily. Many of these same people ignore Passover entirely, and substitute other, man-made holidays for the ones God ordained.

It wasn’t an accident that the passion of Jesus took place during the Passover season; it was God’s perfect timing. And Paul urges his readers, Gentiles as well as Jews, to celebrate the Passover in commemoration of God’s gracious deliverance, both from Egypt, and its analog, the redemption of Christ on the cross.

The Tension Between Law and Faith

In the third chapter of Romans Paul focuses on a natural tension that arises. He has been talking about demonstrating righteousness by keeping the law rather than merely hearing it. Some people might conclude from this that you become righteous by keeping the law. So he devotes chapter three to a discussion of this tension.

He starts out by pointing out the advantage of the Jew in having been exposed to God’s words and commands. But even some of them did not have faith, the circumcision of the heart that we talked about last week. He goes on to declare that no one is righteous in himself, whether Jew or Gentile; all are under sin.

He then goes on to discuss the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus, apart from merely keeping the law. He explains how Jesus had to die to fulfill the demand for justice, since he wasn’t punishing the sinners themselves.

A phrase that Paul uses several times in this passage (as well as others) is “works of law” (ergon nomou). It is not “works of the law”, but just “works of law”. Some treat it as if it means observing the law of God given in the Hebrew Scriptures. The phrase is not used in rabbinic literature, but it is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There it appears to refer to specific actions that mark one as Jewish rather than Gentile. In light of this Paul seems to be making the point that a person is not righteous simply because he’s a Jew. He’s not discussing the merits of keeping the law.

In verses 27 and 28 Paul uses the phrase twice, to argue against boasting, and to contrast with justification by faith. In the next verse, however, he appears to draw a parallel by asking, “Is God the God of Jews only” Is he not the God of Gentiles too?” So in light of the meaning of the phrase “works of law” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears that Paul’s main argument boils down to “you aren’t saved just by being a Jew”.

In verse 30 he points out that God justifies the Jew and the Gentile in the same way, through faith. Jews or Gentiles who embrace God through the death of Jesus have this righteousness.

But having emphasized that salvation, for anyone, is through faith, Paul makes a special point of correcting a misconception that has since become prevalent among believers. He says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Absolutely not! Rather, we uphold the law!” This is Paul’s last word on the subject, and it never seems to get quoted when discussing Paul’s position on the law.

Interestingly, Paul makes a similar statement in I Corinthians 7:19. Paraphrased, it would say, “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Jew or a Gentile. Keep God’s commands!” Again, this isn’t for the purpose of obtaining salvation, but out of love for God. As John says in I John 5:3, “This is love for God, to obey his commands.” It’s hard to imagine that so many people are convinced that the New Testament teaches against keeping God’s law.

The Law in Romans

We’ve seen in some past posts how Paul viewed God’s law in the book of Acts and how he even went out of his way to provide evidence to quell the rumor that he was teaching people to disregard the law. (Acts 21) But what about his epistles? Do they claim that the law is no longer in effect, as some people think? Let’s look at his epistle to the Romans and see what it says about this topic.

We should first notice that Paul declares the primacy of Jews over Gentiles in the faith of Jesus. He says that the gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (1:16). In chapter three he states that Jews have much advantage over Gentiles because “they have been entrusted with the very words of God” (3:1-2).

Back in chapter two he addresses Jews and their association with the law. He says, “You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23) It’s clear that he thinks that Jews who adhere to God and his law should keep it so as not to dishonor God. But should the law be kept by Jews only?

He goes on to say, “If those who are not circumcised (i.e. Gentiles) keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker” (2:26-27). It’s clear that he considers Gentiles keeping the law as a good thing.

Earlier in chapter two he addresses the difference between hearing the law and obeying it. “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (2:13). He doesn’t mean by this that keeping the law brings salvation, as he makes clear in 3:20. But keeping the law is a way of declaring that you are righteous, that you have been saved.

Admittedly he’s talking primarily to Jews at this point and contrasting those who talk about the law with those who actually keep it. But he does go on to include Gentiles in the conversation when he speaks favorably that “Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law… they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (2:14-15).

What’s this about having the requirements of the law written on the heart? The idea echoes the language of Jeremiah when he announced the coming of the new covenant (for Jews only) with God saying, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33).

Paul uses slightly different language for the same concept at the end of Romans 2. “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.” (2:28-29). Circumcision of the heart is something that had been urged since Moses (cp. Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). And here Paul declares that it’s available to Gentiles as well.

Elsewhere in his epistles Paul talks about believing Gentiles being included in Israel in different terms: being grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11:17-24), becoming one new man, or a building in which God lives (Ephesians 2:11-22). But it’s clear that when Gentiles accept Jesus’ sacrifice and embrace the God and the people of Israel, they are considered to be a part of the greater Israel, due to their heart condition — circumcision of the heart.

Paul summarizes this in chapter 3 when he talks about the mystery that was revealed to him. “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus” (3:6). He goes on to explain how this mystery of Gentile believers becoming one with Israel is to demonstrate the wisdom of God to the entire spiritual world. Praise God for his wisdom!

Peter on Paul

It is well known that when Jesus and the apostles lived and taught, the only Scripture that they had was the Hebrew Bible, sometimes called the Old Testament. This Hebrew Bible was affirmed by Jesus many times, for example, when he said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). It was also affirmed by other apostles in their letters, for example when Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (II Timothy 3:16).

These words testify to the scriptural status of the Hebrew Bible. But is there anything that testifies similarly for the New Testament? Since the New Testament was not assembled into a collection until many years after it was written, we wouldn’t expect it to testify to itself. But there is a place in II Peter that appears to do so.

Peter’s second letter is thought by many to have been written by someone other than Peter. But one of the points he makes early is that he’s not making up the things he said about Jesus; he’s an eye witness. If he’s writing pretending to be someone he’s not, this testimony wouldn’t have much credibility. But as Peter, he certainly has standing to tell us what Jesus taught.

But he also seems to affirm Paul’s writings as Scripture. In the third chapter he writes, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (3:15-16) By comparing Paul’s letters to “the other Scriptures”, he affirms the scriptural status of Paul’s writings.

In discussing Paul’s letters, his main point is that they contain some things that are hard to understand, and that some people distort them through misunderstanding. Does Peter give any hint of how people misunderstand and distort Paul’s letters? Actually, he does.

He follows up the previous verse by warning his readers to “be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position” (3:17). So misunderstanding Paul can lead to “the error of lawless men”.

We have seen how this has played out in the history of the church. Despite clear and emphatic statements by both Jesus (Matthew 5:17-19) and Paul (Romans 3:31) about the continuing validity of God’s law, the bulk of the church took an anti-Jewish and anti-Torah turn in the second century, and has been insisting ever since that God’s law is obsolete. They justify this stance by citing some passages from Paul’s letters that may seem to teach such a thing on the surface, but on closer examination are often teaching that keeping the law does not save a person.

We will be looking at some of these passages in future posts, as well as passages where Paul affirms the law. But it’s easy to see how prophetic Peter was when he warned people to avoid distorting Paul’s letters and falling into the error of lawless men. That’s exactly what happened, and we’re still suffering the consequences.

Paul vs. Peter in Antioch

A troubling passage for me has been the section in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter to his face, stating that he was clearly in the wrong. Both of these men were apostles, followers of Jesus. If they differed on an issue, how could we determine who was right? And why would they differ in the first place?

In looking at the passage in Galatians 2:11-14 based on what it says, trying to avoid presuppositions, we see that Peter was alternating between two courses of action. Sometimes he was eating with “Gentiles”. There is no indication whether the Gentiles mentioned here are believers in Jesus; they are simply described as Gentiles.

When a delegation of Jews comes, sent by James in Jerusalem, he acts differently, and withdraws from eating with these Gentiles. One of these actions is viewed by Paul as hypocrisy. But which one, and why?

There is some ambiguity around this situation, as I see it. But it seems to be cleared up a little by Paul’s direct words to Peter. “You are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew.” This seems to be the very definition of hypocricy, one’s life not matching his identity or claims.

In another epistle, the one to the Ephesians, Paul goes into more depth regarding what he thinks of living like a Gentile. Ephesians is the letter in which Paul points out that Gentile believers in Jesus were once “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise.” (2:12) But in Christ they are now brought near, fellow citizens with God’s people. (2:19)

In Romans 11 Paul describes this same transformation as being wild olive branches grafted into the olive tree of Israel. Clearly a believing Gentile has a new identity, as part of the commonwealth of Israel, the larger people of God.

But in Ephesians 4:17 Paul points out the difference this should make in the believer’s life. “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do.” Clearly Paul does not approve of believers living like Gentiles. For a Jewish believer like Peter to do so would be even worse.

Paul goes on in the Galatians passage to say to Peter, “If you, a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you expect to get Gentiles to live Jewishly?” That, after all, is one of the results of the gospel, to get “Gentile sinners” (as Paul refers to them in the following verse) to embrace the God of Israel and the Israel of God, to leave a life of sin and begin to live according to God’s commands.

A sticking point for most translators in this verse is the Greek word that they take as meaning to force or compel. A quick review of the half-dozen times it’s used in the New Testament shows that it usually means something much weaker, like to influence.

There is apparently more to the story of Peter in Antioch that we’re not told. My best guess is that if Paul is accusing Peter of living like a Gentile, he is probably eating with Gentiles in situations which are inappropriate for a believer to be part of.

It’s true that Jesus ate with tax collectors a “sinners”. But these were Jewish sinners, and eating with them would not entail breaking God’s laws about what not to eat. Perhaps Peter, for the sake of evangelism, was going to the extent of eating foods that God had prohibited in his law. This is the only thing that I can see that would cause Paul to accuse him for living like a Gentile.

The point Paul is making in the context is that Gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus, not by becoming Jews. I’m not sure how this relates to Peter’s hypocrisy in eating with Gentiles. But I’m also not sure how it relates to the typical Christian interpretation of this passage of Peter drawing back from eating with Gentiles.

The lesson that I would draw from this passage is that there are lengths to which we should not go in our attempts to evangelize. If our lifestyle leads to breaking God’s commands to his people, then we are being hypocritical, even if our intentions are good.

As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 28:20, the essence of discipleship is following his commands. And that certainly includes following God’s commands to his people, as Jesus affirmed so strongly in Matthew 5:17-20 and elsewhere.

Paul’s Defenses

In Acts 21 Paul is arrested in Jerusalem and charged with teaching all men everywhere against the temple, the law, and the Jewish people, basically denying the validity of Judaism. Essentially the rest of the book of Acts, the remaining seven chapters, is a chronicle of Paul defending himself from these false charges. In fact, much of the history of Christianity has been taken up with people believing these things about Paul. So we would do well to pay careful attention to the defenses that Paul makes for himself on the way to Rome.

Paul’s first defense is to the crowd in Jerusalem. After he gets permission from the soldiers to address them, he speaks to them in Hebrew. Among the things he tells them is, “I am a Jew… Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today” (22:3). He goes on to tell the story of his encounter on the Damascus road. He describes Ananias as “a devout observer of the law.” It is when he mentions God’s commission to preach to the Gentiles that the crowd goes berserk and calls for his death. They were not upset that he was a bad Jew, but that he was including Gentiles in his ministry.

From there the soldiers decided to bring him before the Sanhedrin to find out about the charges against him. Among the statements he made to this group was, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead” (23:6). Part of his preaching was consistent with the beliefs of the Pharisees, and he wanted them to know that.

As a result of this, some of the Jews (not the Pharisees) formed a plot and took an oath to kill Paul. When the commander found out, he sent Paul ahead to Caesarea to defend himself before Governor Felix. When his accusers arrived there was a trial. The prosecuting attorney, named Tertullus, brought this accusation. “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He… even tried to desecrate the temple” (24:5-6).

Paul responds by claiming that the charges are false. He says, “However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Here as elsewhere he emphasizes the continuity between Judaism and his teaching. And he denies that he was doing anything wrong in the temple.

Two years later, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and Paul was still in prison. In a trial before Festus, the same charges were brought. But Paul said, “I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” Then he made his appeal to Caesar.

A few days later, King Agrippa visited Festus, and Paul was brought to trial before him because Festus was unclear of the charges against him. In Paul’s address to Agrippa he said that the Jews all know that “according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee” (26:5). He reiterates his claim that he is on trial because of his hope in what God had promised through the prophets, i.e. the coming of the Messiah. He goes on to say that his message to both Jews and Gentiles is to “repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). He makes the claim, “I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen” regarding the Messiah (26:22). Again he emphasizes the continuity of his message with Judaism.

Agrippa and Festus were convinced that he was innocent of any charges, but since he had appealed to Caesar, they put him on a ship to Rome. He experienced a shipwreck and a snake bite on the trip, but he arrived in Rome. Paul was allowed to stay in a house by himself, under Roman guard. But he met with Jewish leaders and reiterated that he had “dome nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors… It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain” (28:17, 20). He went on to try to “convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets” (28:23).

Over and over again in every appearance, Paul continues to emphasize that his message is based on Judaism, the Law of Moses and the promises of the Hebrew scriptures regarding Messiah. It’s hard to imagine while reading these passages that Paul ever imagined himself abandoning Judaism. But rather, he recognized its fulfillment.

Paul in Jerusalem

In Acts 21 we have an episode in the life of Paul that is confusing to many people. Paul has been in Macedonia, and is traveling by ship to Jerusalem. The festival of Passover is past, and Paul is trying to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, seven weeks later. Pentecost (Shavuot) is one of the festivals that Jewish men are to go to Jerusalem for (Deu. 16:16), and Paul missed going there for Passover because of his travels.

Paul suspected that he might run into trouble in Jerusalem (20:22), and stated that none of those from Ephesus would see his face again (20:25). In Caesarea a prophet told him that he would be bound and handed over to the Gentiles. But Paul was convinced that God wanted him to go to Jerusalem.

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted warmly. Then he went to see James and the elders, who told him that there was a false rumor about him going around. First they point out that there are thousands of Jews there who have believed in Jesus, and all of them are zealous for the law. Then they reveal the rumor that is being spread about him.

Some people have been claiming that Paul has been teaching Jews in the diaspora that they no longer should circumcise their children or live according to God’s law. Where in the world could they have gotten that idea? They probably got it from the same place that many today have gotten the same impression of Paul, from misunderstanding some of Paul’s early writings, like the epistle to the Galatians.

But Paul will have none of it. He eagerly accepts the suggestion of the elders that he demonstrate his fealty to the law by taking on the expenses of some men who are in the process of concluding a Nazirite vow (Num. 6). Paul himself had taken a similar vow a year or two earlier (Acts 18:18), and he was happy to participate. All involved agreed that this would show that Paul was living in obedience to the law, and that there was no truth in the rumors (21:24).

So Paul purified himself along with these men, and went to the temple with them to arrange for the finalizing of the ceremony. This passage is a problem for many Christians today because they have been taught that Paul was opposed to keeping the law, and that he was being a hypocrite by affirming it like this. When I was in college, I heard my own father preach on this passage, and he was convinced that Paul was in error to do this. I agreed with him at the time, since that is what I had been taught as well. But in the years since, through studying the New Testament, I’ve come to some very different conclusions.

The story goes on to tell how several days later Paul was recognized in the temple by some Jews from Asia, and they made the same false accusation, that he had been teaching aginst the temple and the law and the Jewish people. Paul is arrested, and over the next several chapters he strenuously denies these charges many times.

But the main point to be made here is that Paul, as well as the believers in Jerusalem, was “zealous for the law”. It comprised the commands that God had given to his people for living to please him.

The elders admitted that Gentile believers were given a little bit of leeway, as they got used to keeping the law. But Jewish believers, as Paul himself, were to follow God’s commands for living, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Jerusalem Council

In Acts 15 there is a description of a meeting of leaders of the believing community in Jerusalem to settle a question that had arisen in Antioch when Paul and Barnabas were ministering there. The causes and results of this meeting have been misunderstood by many.

The controversy starts when some men come from Judea to Antioch and teach, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” (15:1). What did they mean by this? If taken very literally, it would imply that women can’t be saved. We need to understand that circumcision is used as a kind of shorthand for conversion to Judaism. Jews were “the circumcised”, while “the uncircumcised” were Gentiles. The claim of these men was that in order to be saved, you had to convert to Judaism.

This was not such a far-fetched idea. Until quite recently, all the believers had been Jews, and synagogues were the main places that the apostles taught. But Paul and Barnabas recognized that this idea was a grave error. It was not Judaism that saved, but faith in Jesus. Throughout biblical times, before there was any concept of conversion to Judaism, there were Gentiles who embraced God and the people of Israel, for example, Ruth. Throughout the Torah there were instructions given to both the native-born and the sojourner (e.g. Lev. 24:22). It was clear to Paul and Barnabas that God accepted the faith of Gentiles.

Some potential confusion is thrown into the mix. When the apostles and elders meet in Jerusalem to discuss the question, “Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses'” (15:5). From this verse many interpreters have concluded that the issue here was whether believers should obey the law of Moses. This is not the issue at all.

It helps to be aware that in biblical times as well as today there were considered to be three elements to conversion to Judaism. The person had to be circumcised (if male), immersed in water, and vow to follow God’s commands in scripture. It was this process that was being addressed here. Ther question was the same; “Do Gentile believers need to convert to Judaism to be right with God?”

After a lot of discussion, including testimonies of how God had brought Gentiles to faith, James, who was apparently the leader of the group, got up and summarized the biblical teaching from the prophets on promises regarding Gentiles. It seemed to be the consensus of the council that God saves Gentiles. James, however, recognized the difficulty that Gentiles would face in transitioning to a lifestyle of following God’s commands completely, seeing that it was difficult even for Jews who had been raised in Torah-observance to do so. So he suggests a compromise.

Newly-believing Gentiles would be encouraged to focus on four specific laws at first. Why these four? It seems that they are practices that would allow the Gentiles to be accepted in the Jewish community and not offend practicing Jews.

James concludes his presentation by noting that the law is taught in synagogues all over the empire. The implication is that these new believers will attend synagogue services and gradually increase in their knowledge of the ways in which God commanded his people to live.

This suggestion of James is accepted by all the apostles and elders, and was communicated by messengers to Gentile congregations in the diaspora.

The difficulty that many readers have with this passage, as well as the epistle to the Galatians, which addresses a similar theme, is that they think the apostles are teaching not to follow the law. If that were the case, the recommendation of four laws to start with wouldn’t make any sense, nor would the reference to Moses being taught in the synagogues.

The point of this passage, and the epistle to the Galatians, is that God saves Gentiles, as Gentiles, by faith in Jesus. Paul does point out in Romans and Ephesians that those Gentiles are grafted into the covenant people of God, but as to their identity, they remain Gentiles. God is the God of all peoples, not only the Jews. (Romans 3:29)

Saul’s “Conversion”

In many Bibles, the ninth chapter of Acts is headed with the words, “Saul’s Conversion”. Is this an accurate representation of the contents of this chapter? I believe that it’s not, that it presumes too much. Let’s look at the scripture text and see.

We first see Saul at the stoning of Stephen. Saul was guarding the clothes of those who were doing the stoning. Saul was also giving approval to his death (8:1). After this, he joined in the persecution of believers in Jesus. “Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison” (8:3).

We need to picture accurately what is happening. Here is a Torah-observant practitioner of Judaism fighting against other Torah-observant practitioners of Judaism. The point of contention is that they believe that Jesus is the Savior and the Messiah, while Saul doesn’t. In his eyes, that makes their message dangerous.

As chapter nine opens, Saul is on his way to Damascus. He has requested of the high priest “letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem” (9:2).

A couple of things are noteworthy about this passage. Saul expects to find these people in the synagagues of Damascus. This is strong evidence that the believers worshiped in synagogues along with other Jews. In later days Saul (Paul) reiterates this in his testimony to other audiences. “Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished” (26:11 cf. 22:19). Clearly those he was seeking were practicing Jews who believed in Jesus.

Also prominent is his mention of the identity of those he sought as belonging to “the Way”. This term is mentioned several other times in Acts as the self-identification of those who believed in Jesus. In one of those passages (24:14) he claims to “worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.” A “sect” here is a group within a religion, in this case, Judaism. The usage here is parallel to Paul’s statement in 26:5 that “according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee”. Both Pharisaism and the Way were sects of Judaism. Saul embraces one without abandoning the other, as he states later, “I am a Pharisee” (23:6).

What is it that happens to Saul on his way to Damascus? He sees a light which blinds him for three days, and hears a voice which identifies itself as that of Jesus. He is instructed to go into the city for further instructions. Subsequent retellings add further details, such as that Jesus was Speaking to him in Hebrew (26:14).

After Saul is led into Damascus by his companions, he is met, by divine appointment, with a man named Ananias. A later retelling describes Ananias as “a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there” (22:12). Ananias, a disciple of Jesus, spoke words, and Saul’s sight was restored.

The purpose for this encounter is described in the vision to Ananias. “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel” (9:15). Comparing this with the retellings of Paul later (22:21; 26:20), it seems clear that this was a commission to Saul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

It’s interesting to notice how Saul’s subsequent message is described. In Acts 9:20 it says that “he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God”. In Acts 26:20 he describes his message differently. “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds”. He goes on to emphasize the continuity of his message with Judaism. “I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen” (26:22).

The word “conversion” implies a change from one religion to another. That is clearly not what happened here. Saul, an observant Jew, became an observant Jew who embraced the Way and faith in Jesus. This passage would perhaps be better titled as “Saul’s Commission”.

Stephen

Stephen is well-known as one of the first deacons, and the first person to be killed for his faith in Jesus. We often don’t pay much attention to the specific things that he said and the circumstances of his case.

Stephen is described in Acts 6 as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” This was consistent with the requirements the apostles had outlined, that the seven men selected be “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (6:3). He is also described in verse 8 as “a man full of God’s grace and power” who did great wonders and signs among the people.

These characteristics caused Stephen to be opposed by members of a particular synagogue of Jews from the diaspora. These Jews stirred up the elders and teachers to seize Stephen and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Then they produced false witnesses, who claimed that Stephen spoke against the temple and the law.

The text of Acts clearly states that these charges are false, and his testimony is dedicated to proving that. When the high priest asked him, “Are these charges true?”, he could have simply said, “No!” Instead, he goes into a long speech which illustrates his understanding of the faith of Israel.

In his speech, he recounts the call of Abraham, the slavery and deliverance from Egypt, and especially the statement of Moses in Deut. 18:13 that God would raise up a prophet like him in the future. After this he relates the various ways that Israel and its people abandoned the worship of God and turned to worshiping other things.

He does address the charge of speaking against the temple when he states that David wanted to build a “dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built the house for him” (Acts 7:49). Stephen then quotes Isaiah to say that God is too big to be contained in a building.

Stephen then addresses the rebellion of the current group of leaders to whom he is speaking. He says that they are just like their fathers who persecuted and killed the prophets and those who predicted the coming of the Messiah. And he accuses them of being part of the group that betrayed and murdered that promised one, Jesus.

At this point, he turns their accusation of speaking against the law back on them. First, he calls them “stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears.” This is reminiscent of the command God gives to Israel in Deut. 10:16. “Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.” What did he mean?

Circumcision was a ritual that God had commanded for every baby boy in Israel as a sign of his covenant with Abraham. It’s not something that can be literally done to the physical heart. The prophet Jeremiah reiterated the need for circumcised hearts in Jer. 4:4 and 9:26. It seems to refer to an internalized love for God, obedience to his commands, and identification with his people.

Stephen hits his accusers even harder with his final words, “You who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.” He accuses his accusers of not obeying the law. This is what got them really angry and led to them stoning him.

His statement, however, sounds very much like that of Jesus in John 7:19 when he said, “Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law.” It’s clearly the view of both Jesus and Stephen that the law should be kept. But it should be kept from the heart, out of love for God and with the help of the Holy Spirit.