Old Wine

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.

Pentecost

It seems that several of the events in salvation history corresponded to holy days and festivals that God gave his people to observe. The crucifixion of Jesus is pointedly associated with Passover. From the beginning of his ministry, Jesus had been identified with the Passover lamb (John 1:29) whose blood was spread on the doorposts to deliver families from the death of the firstborn.

The gospels describe Jesus celebrating a Passover seder with his disciples the night before he died. On that occasion he associates the unleavened bread of Passover with his body that is to be pierced. Also he connects the third Passover cup of wine, the cup of salvation, to his shed blood. He urges his disciples, whenever they celebrate Passover, to associate the symbols, not only with the deliverance from Egypt, but also with the deliverance from sin that he was to provide through his death.

It’s also very possible that the resurrection of Jesus is intentionally connected with the first day of counting the omer and the offering of the firstfruits offering. It was to be done the day after the Sabbath of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:9-17). The resurrection of Jesus is called the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (I Cor. 15:20)

Often overlooked is the role that “Pentecost” plays in this sequence. “Pentecost” is the Greek-based term for the Jewish festival of Shavuot (Weeks) described in Leviticus 23:15ff and Deuteronomy 16:9ff. It was one of three festivals that all Jewish men were to go to the temple in Jerusalem to celebrate (Deu. 16:16).

After the firstfruits offering, the Jews were to count off seven weeks (Shavuot). The next day, the fiftieth day, was to be the festival (hence Pentecost). In scripture this festival is described in terms of the harvest. But Jews have traditionally used it also to commemorate the giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai. The time frame matches. The Passover occurred in the middle of the (lunar) month. Exodus 19:1 says, “In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai.”

The exact timing seems to be important to the chronology. The arrival at Sinai would have occurred just over six weeks after Passover. Once the people got settled and Moses went up the mountain to talk to God, there were three days for the people to prepare themselves before the Law was given in the voice of God, accompanied by fire (Exod. 19:18).

In the rabbinic writings about the book of Exodus it is written that, “God’s voice, as it was uttered, split up into seventy voices, in 70 languages, so that all the nations should understand.”

The event described in Acts 2, that Christians refer to as “Pentecost”, exhibits many clear parallels to the Sinai event. It occurred on the same day of the year, and there were tongues of fire and speaking in other languages. The significance of the event, as described by Peter, seems to be the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

We could consider this Pentecost event as the Sinai of the New Covenant. We recall that one of the things that was new about the New Covenant was that the law was to be internalized (Jer. 31:33). Since men couldn’t keep God’s law in their own strength, God’s Spirit was going to be given to enable them to keep the law (Ezek. 36:27).

Jesus alludes to this in John 14:15 when he says, “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth.” Paul alludes to this ministry of the Holy Spirit in Romans when he says that sin was condemned “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit” (8:14).

It’s easy for those without a knowledge of the Jewish background of the festival of Weeks (Pentecost) to overlook the fact that one of the primary reasons for the giving of the Holy Spirit was to enable the believer to obey God’s law. The Acts 2 Pentecost event was truly the Sinai of the New Covenant.

James and the Law

The apostle James wrote one of the earliest epistles that became part of the New Testament. We’ve already mentioned that he alluded to the fact that believers to whom he was writing met in synagogues (2:2), even though most Christian translators won’t translate it literally.

Admittedly James (or Jacob) seems to be writing to a Jewish audience, as he addresses them as “the twelve tribes”. But he does mention the Law at several points during his epistle, and always in a positive context. Let’s look at these instances.

In James 1:22 he is speaking about not merely listening to scripture, but doing what it says. As a remedy, he prescribes looking “into the perfect law that gives freedom.” This often takes us aback because we’re not used to thinking of God’s Law as giving freedom. We sing hymns with lyrics like, “Free from the law, oh happy condition.”

James does seem to be alluding to passages like Psalm 19:7, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul”, and Psalm 119:96, “To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless”. He may also be alluding to passages like Psalm 119:32, “I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free.”

Many of us think, inaccurately, that it is the law that Jesus has set us free from. Paul discusses this in Romans 7 and 8. He goes to great lengths to show that it was not the law that enslaved, but sin. The law, of course, defines sin, so in a sense it can be said to be a contributor. But Paul emphasizes that, “The law is holy” (7:12), “the law is spiritual” (7:14), and “the law is good” (7:16).

Paul says that “I delight in God’s law” (7:22) and I “am a slave to God’s law” (7:25). But he contrasts that with what he calls a “law of sin” making him a slave and a prisoner. It is this sin principle that Jesus sets us free from, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

“The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (8:6-8). But those that are controlled by the Spirit can. Paul says that God condemned sin, “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (8:4). This is consistent with the words of the prophets in speaking about the new covenant, that the law will be internalized (Jer. 31:33), and that it will be the Spirit of God that moves people to keep his laws (Ezek. 36:27).

James echoes his words later in the epistle when he says, “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom” (2:12). This idea of the law giving freedom seems to be central to James’ thought in this epistle. And it is to be the standard by which we are to live.

This is contrasted in chapter 4 with the idea of judging the law. James equates judging a brother with judging the law, and “When you judge the law you are not keeping it” (4:11). Clearly James is opposed to judging the law and in favor of keeping it.

The other place that the law is mentioned is in James 2:8. “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’, you are doing right.” Lest we think that James is only endorsing this one command, he goes on to say that the law is a whole; if you break one part, you are guilty of breaking all of it.

This particular command, given in Leviticus 19:18, is used by Jesus, along with the command in Deuteronomy 6:5 to love God, as a summary of all the commands in the law (Matthew 22:37-40). It’s not a substitute for the others, but an encapsulation. All of the commandments involve either our relationship with God or with other people.

It’s clear from James’ mentions of the law as perfect, royal, giving freedom, and to be kept rather than judged, that James is on the same page as the writer of Psalm 119 who said, “All your righteous laws are eternal” (119:160). He didn’t expect them to be time-bound or obsolete.

Apostles – Temple

During his lifetime, Jesus worshiped regularly in the temple when he was in Jerusalem and in the synagogue when he was elsewhere (Luke 4:16). After he ascended, his followers continued to practice Judaism in the same way.

The apostles and other disciples, a group of about 150, were in Jerusalem for the Passover festival. After Jesus’ resurrection, he told them to remain in Jerusalem, rather than going home and then returning for Shavuot (Pentecost), another pilgrim festival (Deu. 16:16).

Acts 3:1 records Peter and John going up to the temple at the time of prayer, at 3 pm. This is the minchah prayer time that Jews traditionally observe. Many Christians read this passage and fail to note that the apostles were practicing Judaism on this occasion and others.

This was not just a one-time visit either. In the preceding verses (2:46) we’re told that they continued to meet together in the temple courts every day. No doubt when the occasion arose, they would preach. But only one or two sermons are recorded. On the dozens of other days, they apparently went to the temple to worship and pray.Paul himself, years later when he was in Jerusalem, would go to the temple, purify himself, and pay the expenses for four men who were concluding a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:24).

As far as synagogue worship is concerned, we see Paul visiting the synagogues in almost every town that he visited (Acts 17:2). Where there was no synagogue, he tried to find a place where the Jews met for prayer, so he could worship with them.

It’s easy to forget that when Paul was seeking believers in Jesus to persecute them, he was going to synagogues to find them (Acts 9:2). He repeats this account in his testimony to Agrippa (Acts 26:11). It’s clear that believers in Jesus were worshiping in the synagogues with other Jews throughout the empire.

The apostle James, in summarizing the discussion in Acts 15 of how to get the Gentile believers started following God’s Law when they had never done it before, enumerates four laws that they should start with, apparently to avoid offending the Jewish community that they were worshiping with. Then he concludes his message by pointing out that the Law of Moses is taught in every synagogue, so that presumably these Gentile believers could learn it over time during their weekly synagogue meetings.

James also mentions synagogue attendance in his epistle, one of the earliest. In chapter two he says that if a rich man comes into your synagogue, don’t show him favoritism over a poor man. Many translators try to hide that fact by translating it as “assembly”, but it’s clearly the word “synagogue”.

The believers often met in homes of other believers, as we see in the greetings at the end of Paul’s letters. But there can be no doubt that they worshiped in synagogues with other Jews during the years immediately following Jesus’ ascension.

I always have to laugh when I walk by a building near where I live. The building is labelled, “First Church of the Apostolic Faith.” The reason I laugh is because if it were really the apostolic faith, it would be a synagogue. The religion of Jesus and his followers in the first century was Judaism. Acknowledging this can go a long way toward helping us understand the New Testament.

Was Paul A Christian?

Last week we discussed the issue of whether Jesus was a Christian. The issue is even more clear cut in the case of Paul, as he made several statements which define his religion for us.

The headings in many Bibles describe Paul’s (Saul’s) encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road as “Saul’s conversion”, as if he converted from Judaism to Christianity. That’s certainly not how he saw it in his later life. Much of his defense in the last half of the book of Acts involves his claiming that his message is identical to the Hebrew scriptures. (Acts 26:22)

Let’s take a look at some of his specific statements concerning his religion. When Paul was on trial before the Sanhedrin, he made the statement, “I am a Pharisee.” He didn’t say, “I used to be a Pharisee”; he said, “I am a Pharisee.” He clearly still considered himself to be a member of that branch of Judaism.

A little later, in his appearance before Agrippa, he made the statement, “According to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.” Here he is talking about the past. But he refers to “our religion”, the religion that he holds in common with Agrippa. What religion is that? And what religion is Pharisaism a sect of? Judaism, of course. Paul never thought of himself religiously as other than a Jew.

He did, however, identify also with another sect of Judaism. In his trial before Felix he says, “I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.” (Acts 24:14) Paul claimed religious affiliation with the Way, a sect of Judaism. He goes on to say, “I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.” He’s being rather emphatic that his religion is Judaism. Even his accusers claim that “he is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5) A sect is a subdivision of a religion, and the religion referenced is clearly Judaism.

Some people think of Paul as the real founder of Christianity. Paul, like Jesus, never had any idea of starting another religion. His focus was Judaism the way it was intended to be, with Jesus as the promised Messiah and Redeemer.

Another misleading idea is that Paul had his name changed when he became a “Christian”. We’ve seen in the Hebrew scriptures that Abram, Sarai, and Jacob had their names changed by God. That’s not the case with Paul. The transition in his name occurred when he was already on a missionary journey. Acts 13:9 says, “Then Saul, who was also called Paul…” There is no name change, just a reference to another name by which he was known.

We need to realize that several people in the New Testament are called by different names depending on whether they were among Hebrew speakers, Greek speakers, or Aramaic speakers. “Saul” is a Hebrew-based name, shared with the first king of Israel, while Paul (Paulos) is clearly Greek.

Peter is another individual who went by three different names, Simon (Shimon) among Hebrew speakers, Cephas (Kefa) among Aramaic speakers, and Peter (Petros) among Greek speakers. Acts 1:23 tells of another man who went by three names, “Joseph (Hebrew) called Barsabbas (Aramaic), also known as Justus (Greek).”

Paul makes it easy to identify his claimed religion when he identifies himself as a Pharisee, which he calls a sect of our religion, and then claims to be a follower of the Way, also a sect of that same religion. We need to realize that the religion taught by both Jesus and Paul was essentially Judaism, with Jesus as the culmination of it.

Was Jesus A Christian?

Was Jesus a Christian? This is a question that I used to hear from theology professors. At the time, I thought it was a trick question, something like, “Is the Pope Catholic?” After all, if Christians are followers of Jesus and his teachings, wouldn’t they be pretty much equivalent?

In another sense, the question is anachronistic. The term “Christian” was unknown in Jesus’ day. It occurs only three times in the New Testament. The first reference to it seems to be in Antioch. This is what the believers were called, whether by their opponents or by their friends is unknown. (Acts 11:26)
Another usage is in the mouth of King Agrippa at the trial of Paul. After Paul’s testimony about his experience, Agrippa comments about Paul trying to persuade him to become a Christian. (Acts 26:28) Paul seems to avoid the term in his reply, saying that he wished Agrippa could become like him. The third and final use of the term is in I Peter 4:16 where Peter talks about suffering as a Christian.

Even though the term was not used during the lifetime of Jesus, I’ve become convinced that the question, “Was Jesus a Christian?” is crucial for understanding Jesus’ life and ministry. We can define “Christian” in a couple of ways. We can define it as a follower of Jesus. By this definition, Jesus would certainly identify with it.

Another definition, however, may accord more closely with how we actually use the term. A Christian is an adherent of the religious system that has come to be known as Christianity. Ever since the second or third century, Christianity has been used to draw a contrast with Judaism. If a person follows Christianity, he does not follow Judaism, and vice versa.

I have become convinced that Jesus, as well as all of his immediate followers, would have described their faith as Judaism, the faith and practice that God established for his people in the Hebrew scriptures. There was no intention to start a new religion.

The issue rarely comes up in the life of Jesus because it was inconceivable. But the one time that people seem to be asking if he’s teaching something new, in Luke 5:33-39, he emphatically denies it, saying, “You don’t fix an old coat with a new patch.”

Jesus was announced at his birth, and presented himself throughout his life, as the “king of the Jews”. He saw himself as the culmination of the prophecies and promises of the Hebrew scriptures, as the ultimate king who would reign over Israel from Jerusalem. He even went so far as to express continuity with the teachings of the Pharisees when he told the crowds that “the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so you must obey them”. (Matt. 23:2-3) (He then goes on to criticize them for not following their own teachings.)

Jesus’ claim to the kingship of Israel was not accepted by the authorities, and they killed him for it. But after his resurrection, that was still clearly the plan. When Jesus’ disciples asked if he was now going to establish his kingdom, his reply was essentially, “Later”. (Acts 1:6-7)

Jesus may have been the reason for the origin of Christianity, but he unequivocally affirmed the tenets of Judaism, God’s Law (Matt. 5:17-18), his scriptures (Matt. 22:29), his people (John 4:22), and his Messiah (John 4:26). Jesus never criticized Judaism, but the wrong understandings of its practitioners. His death inaugurated the new covenant, which was to be made with Israel. (Jer. 31:31) In the way that we most commonly think of Christianity today, Jesus was not a Christian.