PAUL’S CONVERSION (1)

This begins a series on Acts 9 and the Conversion of Paul.

INTRODUCTION

History changed with the events of Acts 9. It authorizes the spread of the message of Christ from a strictly Jewish message to a worldwide message. It marks the beginning of the separation of Christianity from Judaism, from a message of exclusion to Jews only to the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles into one body. It is the gate that swings open the message of God and His grace to the world. It has been correctly observed:

Two people dominate the pages of the NT more than any others: Jesus and Paul. These two men were quite different from each other in many ways…. But both played a vital part in the establishment and early development of the Christian movement.[1]

Witherington comments, “Without question, the story of Saul’s ‘conversion’ is one of the most important events, if not the most important event, that Luke records in Acts.”[2] While there are those who hold to a new perspective on Paul, and deny that Paul experienced a conversion, but transferred to a new sect of Judaism, I disagree. The Scriptures tell us that for Jews to believe in Jesus they had to be converted (Matt. 13:15; 18:3; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 3:19). Part of the problem is we are reading back into Scripture a modern definition of conversion: i.e. “Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religion that differs from the convert's previous religion."[3] This is not the Scriptural definition of conversion. The Greek word epistreya /epistrepha means to turn to, to return or to turn about. Conversion is turning to God in a new relationship from the old relationship or lack thereof. It is the adoption of faith from unbelief. This is precisely what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. 

There can be no question that Paul holds a prominent place in the history of the New Testament and the world. More is known about him than any of the Twelve Apostles. The only thing we know about most of the Twelve are their names, with the few exceptions of Peter, James, John, and Matthew. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples offered Israel a Messiah-King; Paul will offer the world a Messiah-Saviour. To Paul will be given the revelation of the mystery, the dispensation of Grace (Eph. 1:1-10), which was hid even at this point in Acts, that the Twelve were unaware of.

Acts 9 records the conversion of Saul (a.k.a. Paul). The importance of this event is clearly indicated by it being related to us three times in Acts (Acts 9; 22:1-16; 26:9-18).[4] Acts 9 is a third person account, while in Acts 22 and 26 we have first person accounts.[5] (See Chart below). He also gives information about his conversion in his epistles (Gal. 1;13-17; 1 Cor. 15:8-10; Phil. 3:4-11). Barclay calls Saul’s conversion the most famous in all history.[6]

 Acts 9 marks a new section in the book of Acts. Starting with the conversion of Saul everything changes. This Saul changes from the persecutor to the preacher. The record of the Twelve to Israel changes to Paul’s (a.k.a. Saul) ministering to the Gentiles. He becomes the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13). It must be pointed out that this change did not come because the Twelve had failed; rather, it came because the nation had failed to accept the offer of the Twelve. Sir Robert Anderson notes,

In a word, if ‘to the Jew first’ is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, ‘to the Jew only’ is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the ‘Hebraic section’ of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony.[7]

Paul’s ministry will entail two things: First, it will be directed toward the Gentiles (Acts 26:28). He will reveal that from now on there will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, which are made one in the body of Christ (Eph. 3:6). Second, he will also have a ministry to the Jews, not only to lead them to Christ, but to announce their judgment (Acts 9:13; 13:46). The conversion at this juncture prepares the readers for both. It also preceded Peter’s ministry to Cornelius. Peter’s experience will be used as validation to the Apostle that God is reaching out to the Gentiles  (Acts 15). Peter’s experience with Cornelius will also be used to validate the ministry of Paul.

Paul's Damascus Road Account in Acts

       Event                                      Acts 9                  Acts 22                 Acts 26
Bright light                                      9:3                       22:13                     26:3
"I AM Jesus"                                   9:5                       22:8                       26:15
"Why Persecute Me?"                     9:4-5                    22:7-8                   26:14-15
Commission to the Gentiles                                                                     26:16-18
Ananias' Oracle                               9:10-19                22:12-16
Ananias affirms commission           9:15-16                 22:15

---

[1]  Wenham, David, PAUL: FOLLOWER OF JEWS OR FOUNDER OF CHRISTANITY, 1.

[2]  Witherington, ACTS, 303.

[3]  Wikipedia.org

[4]  It is recommended that all three passages be read and studied together to get all the details of the conversion.

[5]  Bock, ACTS, 350.

[6]  Barclay, ACTS, 71.

[7]  Anderson, Sir Robert, THE SILENCE OF GOD, 76-77.

BEST ON REVELATION

In my humble opinion the best commentaries on the book of Revelation are:

Exegetical Commentary:

• Thomas, Robert L., WEC: REVELATION (2 Volumes), Moody, Chicago, 1995.

This commentary is technical, but extremely readable and understandable for laymen as well as scholar. It is dispensational, premillennial in approach. Detailed, yet it does not get bogged down. Good exegesis, balanced, and reader friendly. 

Expositional Commentary:

• Newell, Wm. R., THE BOOK OF REVELATION, Moody, 1935.  

A classic dispensational, pretribulational exposition. Rich homiletically. One of the most used in my library. Great for laymen and preacher

THE SETTING OF THE VISIONS IN REVELATION

Revelation 1:9-10

After the introduction (1:1-8), John continues with the prelude by giving us the details of how the book came to be written. It gives the background to the book. It was written because of a vision—the vision of the glorified Christ. Like the Old Testament prophets of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the book opens with great visions of God. John opens with the setting of the vision (1:9-10). In this vision Christ reveals Himself to John. The content of the vision reveals four things: His Command (1:11); His countenance (1:12-16); His comfort (1:17-18); and His clarification (1:19-20).

The setting of the vision reveals four things:

 

• The receiver of the vision—“I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance [which are] in Jesus” (1:9a). The words, I John, are repeated in Rev. 22:8. Thus, the booked is framed with a declaration of authorship. There can be no doubt as to the name of the author, it was John. The phrase reminds us of Daniel and his writings (Daniel 8:15; 9:2; 10:2—“I Daniel”). What Daniel begins in his book of prophecy, concludes in John’s book. There is a close relationship between the two. Walvoord comments, “That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘shortly’….”[1]

  
There are two keys words that describe John’s relationship with his readers. First, is brother. Evidence from the New Testament is that the difference between minister and laity was that of function, not status. In a day when the trend is to put ministers on a higher status, John correctly opposes such a view. Seiss reminds us, “At the time of the vision, he was the only remaining apostle, and perhaps the only survivor of those with whom Christ had personally conversed…. But he was as humble and meek as he was high in place. He gives himself no titles. He says nothing of his sublime official relations. It was enough for him to put himself on the level with the common brotherhood of believers.”[2] The term brother put him on the same level as his readers.

Second, is the term fellow partaker. The term draws upon the idea of sharing with; fellowship; joint participation. The object of the joint participation is in “the tribulation, and kingdom, and perseverance [which are] in Jesus” (1:9). Some dispensationalist hold the view that John is referring to the Great Tribulation here because of the word the before the word tribulation.[3] While at one time I also agreed with this, I no longer do so. The grammatical context and Sharp’s rule applies here, indicating that the three are interrelated and a conceptual unity. Bullinger calls this a Hendiatris, i.e. three words are used, but only one thing is meant.[4] It is unnecessary at this point to lift the words out of the context of the times in which John was living and writing. John and his readers are going through Roman persecution; John has not been spared from this affliction. It is the cup of suffering Jesus had promised in Matthew 20:23. Even Paul uses similar terms on his own ministry—Acts 12:22. Thomas notes that this reference in Paul gives an instance where “kingdom” is eschatological and “tribulation” is not, and is more general.[5] Although the tribulation or affliction of John and his readers were foreshadowing the end-times, they are not identical. However, the tribulation of their present experience gives them insight and further understanding of the visions that John will communicate about the eschatological tribulation in this book. This is a common occurrence in the life of prophets and their prophecy. Many times in prophecy the surrounding events foreshadowed the eschatological events, thus giving some insight of the coming events. In other words, it is the present events that set the stage for the visions of eschatological events, and at the same time bring comfort to John’s fellow believers who are sharing the struggle of affliction and endurance for the kingdom. It is that struggle that John and his readers share. The primary meaning eschatological, yet it is contemporary to John and his readers in the first century. However, these readers and John foreshadowed the Tribulation saints.  

The term “in Jesus” is a preposition of sphere or location. It gives the location where the tribulation, kingdom, and perseverance are experienced. It marks such experiences as distinctly those of believers. This is true of all believers, for suffering affliction is perceived as participation in Jesus’ suffering, life and glory (Rom. 5:3; 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5, 4:10; 1 Peter 4:13). 

• The circumstances of the vision—“on the island of Patmos[6] because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9b). Eusebius, the historian, tells us that John was banished to this island in the fourteenth year of Domitian’s reign (95 AD).[7] The reason he was banished was religious, not civil. Domitian perceived Christians as atheists because they refused to worship or pay homage to Caesar and the Roman gods. Dio Casius records that atheism was identified with those who were adopting the Jewish mode of life, which would have included Christians, since it was seen as a sect within Judaism.[8] It is said he exiled his wife because she was Jewish. Both Judaism and Christians were against Emperor Worship. They refused to worship the emperor. John was neither a civil threat nor enemy of the Roman Empire. He was, as all Christians of his time, being persecuted because of what they believed—“the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” It was religious persecution.

• John’s condition—“I was in the Spirit…” (1:10). The text simply reads “in Spirit,” the article is not in the text. In the book of Revelation this is a common expression (4:2; 17:3; 21:10). In each case, it is clearly a state which John found himself. The Greek word egenomen (I was), means “I came to be,” indicating a change of state. What state? “In Spirit.” But what does that mean? It could refer to John’s human spirit, but all indicators of the text and context rule this out. It is rather a reference to the power or agency of the Holy Spirit.[9] Osborne calls it a prophetic/apocalyptic state.[10] The Old Testament gives vivid examples of this prophetic state. We first meet it in Numbers 24:2 with Balaam where “the Spirit of God came upon him,” when he received his prophecy. The phrase is especially connected with Ezekiel where, like John, it involves more than inspiration, but also transportation (see Ezekiel 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5). Ezekiel, like John, was transported by the instrumentality of the Spirit into the perspective scenes (cf. Rev. 17:3, 21:10). While this transportation may have been visionary, it is no less a real transporting into the future (Ezekiel 11:24, 16-20). This prophetic experience is that “of being carried beyond normal sense into a state where God could reveal supernaturally”[11] the prophecy.

• When—“on the Lord’s day” (1:10). This is the only time the phrase is used in the New Testament. There are two major views as to what this means. First and most popular view is that it refers to Sunday.[12] Those who hold this view believe that John received these visions while he was super spiritual on a Sunday morning, even some suggest it was on an Easter Sunday. They also grant this is the first use of referring to Sunday as the Lord’s Day. We do know that this term had become customary use in this area of Asia Minor by the end of the Second century.[13] The weakness of this view is that in John’s day it was not customary to call Sunday the Lord’s day. In Scripture Sunday is always referred to as “the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 19:7, 1 Cor. 16:2). The phrase predates its use among Christians as Sunday being the Lord’s Day.[14] If that is the case it is hard to understand why more of a definition would not have been found indicating the new use. How would the readers understand this new meaning? There is no indication that they would understand it as Sunday, the first day of the week.

The second view holds that it refers to the Day of the Lord, the eschatological event that the Revelation describes.[15] Walvoord concisely expresses this view; 

“There is no solid evidence, however, that the expression used by John was ever intended to refer to the first day of the week. It is rather a reference to the day of the Lord of the Old Testament, an extended period of time in which God deals in judgment and sovereign rule over the earth. The adjective form can be explained on the ground that in the Old Testament there was no Hebrew adjective form for “Lord,” and therefore the noun had to be used. The New Testament term is therefore the equivalent to the Old Testament expression “the day of the Lord.”[16] The voice like a sound of a trumpet has eschatological significance (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54; 1 Thess. 4:16).

In light of the eschatological subject of the book of Revelation and the visions given John, this seems the best view. The day of the Lord covers both the Tribulation and the Messianic Kingdom that John describes in Revelation. It is the imperial day of the Lord. There can be little question he was transported to that time (Rev. 17:3; 21:10). The readers would be familiar with the day of the Lord, and it is doubtful that they would know that Sunday was the Lord’s Day, without some indication or redefinition of the term. By reading the book they would not likely understand the term as referring to the first day of the week without some prior understanding, of which there is no evidence; but they would understand it in the eschatological terminology of the day of the Lord since it was a common Old Testament term. That is the difference between the first century readers and modern readers. We tend to read our understanding back into the text, which is wrong. To us it is normal to read the phrase as meaning Sunday, to them it would be normal to understand it as the day of the Lord. The setting is best understood as the coming Tribulation period and the coming of the Kingdom of God.

---

[1]  Walvoord, REVELATION, 35.

[2]  Seiss, THE  APOCALYPSE, 35-36.

[3]  William Root, COMMENTS ON COMING THINGS, 7.

[4]  Bullinger, APOCALYPSE, 149.

[5]  Thomas, REVELATION, 1:86.

[6]  Patmos is a small island, 10 miles long and 6 miles wide, thirty-seven miles southwest of Miletus, the harbor city of Ephesus. The historian Tacitus refers to it as a place for political banishment. Eusebius says John was there during the rule of Domitian, only to be released after Domitian’s death by the emperor Nerva.

[7]  Eusebius, ECCL. HISTORY, 3.18-20.

[8]  Garland, REVELATION, 183.

[9]  Bullinger, 152.

[10]  Osborne, REVELATION, 82.

[11]  Walvoord, 42.

[12]  Held by Newell, Mounce, Osborne, and Garland, to name a few.

[13]  Bullinger, 10-11. He observes that it is strange that the first reference in the Church Fathers from the first day of the week is to call it Sunday by Justin Martyr (114-165), not the Lord’s day. His work is still probably the best defense of the Day of the Lord view, the second view.

[14]  Garland, 184.

[15]  Held most notably by Bullinger, Pentecost and Walvoord.

[16]  Walvoord, 42. Also see Bullinger, 9-15.

Revelation's Proposition: HE IS COMING!

Revelation 1:7-8

The introduction of the book of Revelation concludes with a proposition that is also the first prophetic oracle of the book. It is in the form of an announcement, which at the same time provides the content of the book of Revelation in a nutshell. Interestingly, John is the speaker in verse 7, and God is the speaker in verse 8. John declares: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen” (1:7). There are four elements in the pronouncement:

 

·         An attention getter: “Behold” (1:7a). The Greek word idou, meaning to pay attention, and is used 26 times in Revelation and emphasizes the importance of what follows. It highlights the critical prophetic oracles in Revelation.[1]

·         The declaration: “He is coming with the clouds” (1:7b). This is a declaration of the Second Coming of Christ. He is “the coming one”—Christ’s name in Old Testament prophecy (cf. Matt 11:3, Dan. 7:13). This verse combines Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10. It has been estimated that Second Coming is referred to once in every twenty-five verses in the New Testament.[2] The phrase takes us back to the ascension of Christ where He went up in the clouds (cf. Acts 1:11). This is the counterpart; He is coming back in or with the clouds. At his first coming, he came to the world in a womb; this Second Coming will be with the clouds. Utley tells us there are three ways clouds are used in the Old Testament in relation to God. (1) To show His presence in the Shekinah cloud of glory (Ex. 13:21, 16:10). (2) To cover His Holiness to the view of humans (Ex. 33:20; Isa. 6:5). (3) To transport God (Isa. 19:1 cf. Dan. 7:12).[3] The phrase “with the clouds” indicates He is coming down from above. The heavenly origin of His return is reinforced in 19:11, 14. It also brings out the imagery of His coming as a Warrior-King (cf. Psa. 18:9-15; 104:1-5).[4] It also speaks of power, glory and majesty.

·         The visibility of His Coming: “and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him” (1:7c). His second coming will not be hidden or symbolic; it will be an open public event, universal and global in scope. Generations have wondered how this could be. Now in the age of technology it is no mystery. We live in a day that we see actual events happen in another part of the world as they take place. The event is broadcast live all over the world. This can be done at a moments notice. Every eye is a figure of speech for every person, everyone (cf. Matt. 24:30).[5] This presents a problem for those who holed to a 70 AD fulfillment of this event. They play mind games with the meaning of this text. Chilton states: “As He had promised, Christ would come against the present generation “in the clouds,” in wrathful judgment against apostate Israel (Matt. 23-25). And every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him (the Gentiles, John 19:34, 37): The crucifiers would see Him coming in judgment – that is, they would experience and understand that His Coming would mean wrath on the Land.”[6] This does not hold water because: (1) “See” is a reference to visibility, not some abstract “understanding” by a few in Israel, let along the Romans. (2) If Israel did understand, would they not understand that this judgment requires repentance and acceptance of their Messiah? (3) It separates the Old Testament reference from its context. They defend this separation as a reinterpretation by John,[7] but there is no evidence of this in the text. It is Chilton who does the reinterpretation to fit the 70 AD context. There is no question John is making special reference to Israel in this event. Beyond question the phrases refer to Zechariah 12:10-14. The context is the future repentance and restoration of the people of Israel, which happens at the Second Coming. To use Chilton’s terms, this Old Testament reference would say that at the time of this “understanding” (seeing) would lead them to repentance and restoration from God. Nothing resembling this happen in 70 AD. In point of fact, Israel ceased to be a nation in 70 AD until 1948, and is still blind to their Messiah.

The phrase “even those who pierced Him” (1:7c) is interesting. First, it is a subgroup within every eye, the nations. While Scripture points to both Jew and Gentiles responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion (Acts 4:27-28), yet this passage speaks to the Jews responsibility (Acts 3:12-15) and because Jesus was their Messiah (Rom. 9:4-5). His second coming is a revelation to Israel of their rejected Messiah whom they pierced; it is not the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ (recorded in 1 Thess. 4). Zachariah 12:10 identifies this subgroup as the nation—“I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem….” It is not a subgroup within Israel, but this subgroup is within of the global community—all nations. However, the subgroup within the nations is the nation: Israel. Notice the word pierced—it is only used by John in the New Testament (here and John 19:37) in reference to crucifixion. Zechariah 12:10 tells us it is God who was pierced. Thus by referring to this Old Testament verse, John is not only reinforcing His coming, but His deity. The rejected one of Israel is returning.

“And all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him” (1:7c). There is a debate on how this phrase should be taken. Does it refer to the nation of Israel (Bullinger), or to all the tribes of the earth, i.e. nations (Garland)? There are two main reasons to see this as the nation of Israel. First, the text literally says “tribes of the land.” Second, it matches the meaning and context of Zechariah 12:10-14, where Israel will mourn the coming of the Lord. It describes the wailing and places it “in that day” (Zech. 12:11)—the Day of the Lord.

• Affirmation—“So it is to be, Amen.” (1:7d). It is not a simple affirmation, but a double affirmation, combining Greek and Hebrew.  Nai (yes) is the usual Greek word of affirmation, and amen the Hebrew. It is a figure known as synonymia, which is the use of synonymous words “in order to strengthen the certainty of this prophecy.”[8] (cf. 22:20).  The coming of Christ is an absolute certainty, there is no doubt about it, it will happen as prophesied.

Verification—“ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’ ” (1:8). This is a statement of verification from God as to the certainty of this prophecy. The question is debated if it is God the Father or God the Son who is speaking. It is not a question with an easy answer. Those on the side of God the Father tie it to the Old Testament name for God, I AM (Exodus 3;14). Plus, the Almighty is used of God the Father, especial in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3, 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21-22). However, those on the other side points the I AM formula of John in His Gospel, where Christ is presented as the Great I AM (cf. John 6:35, 48; 8:12, 58; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25). Both the Father and Christ use these titles in Revelation: Kistemaker shows the parallels:[9]

God: I am the Alpha and the Omega (1:8)

Christ: I am the First and the Last (1:17)

God: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End (21:6)

Christ: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (22:13).

Walvoord is probably correct that the switch from the Son to the Father is too abrupt in this context.[10] However, no matter how one views it the person of the Godhead is referred to here, it is absolutely clear that the verse is a validation by God. Remember, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 1:30).

---

[1]  Osborne, REVELATION, 69

[2]  Garland, REVELATION, 1:176.

[3]  Bob Utley, REVELATION, 23.

[4]  Osborne, 70; Thomas, REVELATION, 1:77.

[5]  Bullinger, REVELATION, 146.

[6]  David Chilton, THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE, 66.

[7]  IBID, 66.

[8]  Bullinger, 147.

[9]  Kistemaker, REVELATION, 87.

[10]  Walvoord ,REVELATION, 40.

Persecution, Stephen, and Saul

Looking at Acts 8:1-3.

With the attack upon Stephen, the persecution of believers by the Jewish leadership began in earnest. Being a believer will now entail paying the price for that belief. Acts 6, 7 and 8 are linked by the subject of persecution. The first 3 verses of this Acts 8 bring the stoning of Stephen to an end, while at the same time marks the beginning of Saul’s activity. Acts 8:1 states that “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.” This is a concluding statement to the events of Chapter 7. It speaks of the attitude of Saul in regard to Stephen’s death; he was in active agreement with it, not just passive consent. The Greek tense indicates he “is agreeing to the action as it proceeds”[1] In doing so, he was following not only the stream of opinion, but his religious loyalty. He saw Stephen as a rebel to religious authority and a religious heretic. Some relate this passage to Acts 26:10 to indicate Saul voted in the Sanhedrin. However, that connection is questionable at best. Whatever the case, it is clear Saul steps up the persecution “beyond measure” (Gal. 1:13).

What the stoning of Stephen does is unleash the hostility of the leadership of Israel against the remnant of believers found in the city of Jerusalem. It was the starting point: “And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (8:1). It was the answer to the offer of the kingdom. “Israel was in the process of confirming its tragic choice to reject Jesus as her Messiah,” comments Toussaint.[2] They will not repent nor listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. This was the first great persecution of believers in Jerusalem. The martyrdom of Stephen and continued persecution starts the push of evangelism away from the Jewish capital. They scattered away from the city into the country (cf. Acts 11:19). It is also clear that the word all does not mean all without exception, but indicates many or most of them scattered. This is clear because there were still believers in the city who were being hunted down and imprisoned. The text also indicates at this point the persecution was limited to the city, since the believers scattered to the countryside of Judea and Samaria.

Some maintain that this persecution was against Hellenistic Jews only.[3] There seems to be two points in its favor: First, Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew. Second, the Apostles stayed in the city because the persecution was against the Hellenistic Jews, not the true Hebrews. The Twelve being homeland Jews did not need to leave the city. However the text does not put that type of limitation on the persecution. It rather seems to indicate an unlimited persecution within the city (cf. 8:3). The text does not distinguish between Hellenistic and homeland Jews. Also Paul later says he was out to destroy the church (Gal. 1:13), in a context that indicates the whole believing assembly, not just a portion of it. He also says he punished believers in every synagogue, not just the Hellenistic synagogues (Acts 26:11).

In light of this persecution, why did the Apostles stay in Jerusalem? Was it because they were homeland Jews, not Hellenistic Jews? Such a view is highly questionable and unlikely. Harrison suggests the Apostles were not the subject of persecution because of their popularity and respect of many in Jerusalem.[4] Others say because of their duty to the believers in Jerusalem. This has some merit. They were commissioned to start at Jerusalem and then to the rest of the world. Their duty to reach Jerusalem had not been accomplished. The apostles knew their future and hope was tied to the city (cf. Luke 12:32; Matt. 19:28 cf. 21:43). While they may be coming to realize that the nation was rejecting the offer of the kingdom, their duty was clearly to stay in the city and continue with their mission. They knew that the Lord had told them that they were to preach repentance to all nations, “beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). No doubt they felt it was still their duty to reach Jerusalem. They saw no reason to change their task, but to remain faithful to preach at Jerusalem.

This section of the text, while centering on persecution, alternates between the persecution and Stephen’s murder. Note the pattern:

                  Approval of Stephen’s murder (8:1a)

                              Beginning of Persecution (8:1b)

                  Burial of Stephen (8:2)

                              Saul ravaging the church (8:3)

From this pattern we notice how Luke ties in the death of Stephen with the beginning of the Persecution of believers. This section becomes both transitional in character as well as a summary of events connected with Stephen. It makes the transition to why Phillip is ministering in Samaria and sums up the effect of Stephen’s murder.

The burial record almost seems out of place in light of the second half of verse 1. However, it is given to reinforce the connection of persecution with the events of Stephen’s murder. Luke states: “[Some] devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him” (8:2). It may well be that Luke is not only trying to reinforce the connection of persecution with the Stephen event, but also to complete the similarity to Christ’s life and death (cf. Luke 23:50-53). It was done by devout men, a term that is also used of unbelievers. The lamentation reminds us of the ladies in Luke 23:27. It has been pointed out that, “The Mishnah considered open lamentation for someone who had suffered death by stoning as inappropriate.”[5] The Greek word for lamentation is koptos / kopetos (only here in the N.T., cf. LXX, Gen. 50:10; Jer. 6:26), and means a beating of the breast, thus a wailing or lamentation, not simply mourning.[6] This could indicate a defiant act or a belief this was not a legal execution.[7] Interestingly, there is a tradition that Augustine endorsed which puts Gamaliel and Nicodemus (Sanhedrin’s believing members) at the burial, and later buried in the same spot.[8]

“But Saul [began] ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison” (8:3). While the Sadducees made up most of the Sanhedrin, now Saul the Pharisee steps in. Stephen’s execution invigorated Saul’s retaliation against the church. The word ravaging (elumainveto /elumainseto) is found only here in the NT, meaning to make havoc of, or ravage. Knowling says the classical meaning is used of scourging and torturing, of armies causing waste and destruction, and in the medical field the word speaks of the ravages of disease.[9] Barclay notes that it “denotes a brutal and sadistic cruelty.”[10] The severity of the persecution by Saul is reinforced in the text showing this included a house to house search. It was a search and destroy mission that Saul was on.

Again it must be noted the word church has its normal meaning of assembly (OT, congregation—Isa. 7:38), and should not be taken in the universal sense. Peterson explains, “At this critical point in the narrative, that significant title for the people of God in the OT is applied again to Jewish believers in Jesus (5:11; 11:22; 12:1-5).”[11] In Acts the word church always denotes a local congregation or assembly. In this case the impetus of the persecution was against the local remnant in Jerusalem.

Welcome any comments you may have.

---

[1]  Bock, ACTS, 316.

[2]  Toussaint,  ACTS, 371.

[3]  Bruce, ACTS, 162-163; Constable, NOTES ON ACTS, 119.

[4]  Harrison, ACTS, 139.

[5]  Constable, 119.

[6]  Knowling, ACTS, 209; Larkin, ACTS, 124, notes that the NIV downplays the public aspect with its wording mourned deeply.

[7]  Peterson, ACTS, 276; Bock, 319.

[8]  Knowling, 210.

[9]  Ibid, 210.

[10]  Barclay, ACTS, 64.

[11]  Peterson, 277.

Dangerious Attitudes / Jer. 2:20-37

Israel was deplorable. They forsaken God and turned to idols. We used to call it backsliding. Jeremiah 2:20-27 gives us attitudes that cause us to backslide.
1) The Attitude of Ingratitude (Jer. 2:20). Ingratitude is the cornerstone of unfaithfulness.
2) The Attitude of Hopelessness (Jer. 2:25). The difference between Hope and Hopelessness is God.
3) The Attitude of Freedom (Jer. 2:31). cf. Gal. 5:13.
4) The Attitude of Denial (Jer. 2:35). "That's not me."
The answer is Jer. 3:13-14, 1 John 1:9.

THE ESSENCE OF SERVICE

Matthew 14:15-21

Salvation has many aspects. We are saved not to be reservoirs of Grace, but channels of Grace. We are saved to serve. We are to be “sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). We are to be servants! What is service? Service takes place when divine resources meet human needs through loving channels to the glory of God.  Matthew 14:114-21 shows us the essence of service. There are 4 elements to service in this passage:

1. HUMAN NEED

The multitude had a need. In this case they needed food to eat. How do we relate to needs of others? The disciples hesitated. We can be blinded to the need. They wanted to send them away. Do we turn a blind eye to need? Or can we meet the need? The disciples could not. The boy with a sack lunch could. God asks us the same question he asked Moses—“What is that in thy hand?”  God wants what we have; not what we do not have. The boy gave what he had. Do we?

2. COMPASSION

Like the disciples we can look with the eyes and not the heart. They saw the need, but it did not touch their heart. What was the problem? They saw themselves as manufacturers, not distributors. Service is not manufacturing something we don’t have, but distributing of what is given. We are to move with compassion with what we have, not what we can produce. We must remember true service is constrained by the love of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14). We are to be loving channels of service? It is He who creates this love within us (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22),

3. GOD’S EMPOWERMENT

Manufacturing is God’s job, not us. Our job is to distribute what He manufactures. The disciples did not manufacture the food; they only distributed the food given to them. It was God who multiplied the bread and fishes. What does God give us? We have been empowered with Divine resources: Love, grace, mercy, gifts, etc. He empowers. We are channels of that empowerment. Are we distributing what God has empowered us with?

4. GOD’S GLORY

The object of true service is not us! It is God’s Glory. The Glory of God is what salvation and service is all about. We are saved “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph. 1:6). Paul commands us. “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).  If our motive for serving is anything but the glory of God, then all we are doing is religious activity not true ministry. God is gloried when people see the Master and not the minister!

Are we reservoirs of Grace? Or are we channels of Grace? Reservoirs withhold water; channels distribute water. True service takes place when we are channels