Thursday: Return to Jerusalem
Having escaped from Damascus, Paul returned to Jerusalem for the first time since he had left as a persecutor. This happened three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). It was not an easy return, as he faced problems both inside and outside the church.
Read Acts 9:26-30. What happened to Paul when he arrived in Jerusalem?
Image © Standard Publishing from GoodSalt.com
In Jerusalem, Paul tried to join the apostles. Though by that time he had already been a Christian for three years, the news of his conversion sounded so incredible that the apostles, like Ananias before them, were rather skeptical. They feared it was just part of a carefully elaborated plot. It was Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36-37), thus a Hellenist, who broke the apostles’ resistance and introduced Paul to them. They, too, must have marveled at what God had done to Paul; that is, once they realized that he was genuine.
Such resistance, however, would never entirely disappear, if not because of Paul’s past actions in persecuting the church, then at least because of the gospel he preached. As in the case of Stephen, the Judean believers, including the apostles, were quite slow to understand the universal scope of the Christian faith, a faith no longer based in the Old Testament ceremonial system, especially in the sacrificial system, which had lost its validity with Jesus’ death on the cross. Paul’s closest circle of relationship within the church in Judea would always be the Hellenistic believers: besides Barnabas himself, it included Philip, one of the Seven (Acts 21:8), and Mnason, also from Cyprus (Acts 21:16). Several years later, the Jerusalem church leaders would still accuse Paul of preaching basically the same doctrine Stephen had preached before (Acts 21:21).
During the fifteen days he stayed in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18), Paul apparently decided to share the gospel with the same nonbelieving Jews whom he had incited against Stephen some time before. As with Stephen, however, his efforts met with strong opposition, posing a threat to his own life. In a vision, Jesus told him to leave Jerusalem for his own safety (Acts 22:17-21). With the help of the brethren, he went down to the city port of Caesarea and from there to his hometown in Cilicia, where he would stay for several years before starting his missionary journeys.
(37)
He who has ears to hear, let him hear
There is a difference between having ears and having "ears to hear."
The seed being planted is the living word of God
The soil hard as a rock did not allow the seed to germinate and take root.
The temple leaders did not want to hear the testimony and conversion of Paul.
Jesus had already said,
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
What a longing Paul must have had to reach his own. (Romans 9:3)
He was one of them.
He understood them.
Now rejected by them, God had to take him out of the city.
Love of money is the root of all types of evil. When Paul was persecuting Christians. he was doing it in pursuit of truth. All the temple activities became a cash cow. Those who sent him were protecting their wallets.
This post left out a statement from the full Sabbath School lesson on Thursday which stated:
"Several years later, the Jerusalem church leaders would still accuse Paul of preaching basically the same doctrine Stephen had preached before (Acts 21:21)."
Did Steven and Paul really preach to the Jews teaching them forsake Moses? Did they teach the Jews to forsake the Law of Moses entirely (all the customs) as they were accused of?
Well, I would say that Paul and Stephen did not specifically preach to forsake Moses, or The Law, but when one preaches Jesus and Him Crucified and risen and to focus on God's Grace through His Son Jesus, this tends to come across like that and it definitely does preach against the Legalistic aspects of keeping the customs of Moses and The Law.
Yes it seems to me Steven and Paul did not specifically preach to forsake Moses. It appears that the opponents of Steven and Paul misunderstood their message. The opponents and accusers of Steven and Paul were looking to condemn and demonize them. In their own minds they twisted and perverted the teachings of both Steven and Paul to say something they did not say or teach. The issue was not likely “legalism” 1st century Jews for the most part did not believe they were saved by works of the law, for most Jews this would a foreign and gentile way of thinking. 1st century Jews may have been zealous for the law but that does not mean they thought it as a means of salvation. The reason the opponents attacked both Steven and Paul was more likely due to sectarian and political differences, and this new sect they believed threatened their positions, standing and the order, therefore had to be suppressed and stopped. They falsely charged Paul with teaching against Moses, this is the same as saying Paul was teaching against the Bible.
Return to where you made a big fuss pointing out how bad 'those' people are, and now tell everyone that in fact 'those people' were correct you were wrong!! Has that ever happen to you?? What did that feel like?? embarrassing? humiliating?
What is more important - how you feel? or promoting the Good News that Jesus loves everyone?
It is interesting that Paul never speaks of his coming to know Jesus as "conversion". This tells me that he thought what he was doing was always with the right intentions. Of course he speaks of himself as a sinner (chief) but not as being "converted" to Jesus.
Yet Paul speaks everywhere of this experience, even if not calling it by a name. "New creature", "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost", "transformed by the renewing of your mind", and the new life "by the Spirit" rather than by the flesh(Rom 7-8), works of the flesh vs "fruit of the Spirit", "let this mind be in you...", etc.
What could we conclude concerning Paul's "conversion" from his own epistles?
Yes, but he never applied those terms to Himself.
Did he need to? Look what he was on his way to do when the sudden turn around came, and he never looked back. His actions and epistles speak for themselves. Really no question here regarding the conversion of Saul/Paul.
Are you claiming Saul was converted to Christ before Damascus, while stating clearly his intentions for going there? What does Jesus' question tell us?
Paul in Acts 26 clearly says he was doing things contrary to the name of Jesus, and then after the Damascus road vision he obeyed Jesus and preached the Gospel - which means he believed one thing and then his mind was changed and he believed something different. What else does conversion mean?
However I do believe there is difference between someone like Paul who was worshiping God and then was shown a better revelation of the character of God and someone who had never known anything about God being introduced to Jesus.
Act 26:9 I truly thought within myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,
Act 26:15 And I said, Who are you, lord? And He said, I am Jesus whom you persecute. Act 26:16 But rise and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of what you saw, and in what I shall appear to you;
Act 26:17 delivering you from the people and the nations, to whom I now send you
Act 26:18 in order to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God, so that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.
Act 26:19 After this, king Agrippa, I did not disobey the heavenly vision.
Paul did not convert in the sense he as a Jew became a gentile. Rather he as a Jew had his faith completed in Jesus. He did not teach Jews to abandon Moses and against circumcision. He said “Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.” and “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.” (1 Corinthians 7:18 & 20) Thus Jew is to remain circumcised and a Jew and a gentile is to remain uncircumcised and a gentile. There is a heresy that created much evil, this doctrine taught Jews must be converted into gentiles (uncircumcised so to speak) in order to be saved. Jewish Christians were forbidden to keep the Sabbath, keep kosher, practice circumcision or any other Jewish practices in the law of Moses. Jewish Christians who did were tortured and put to death in the Spanish Inquisition for this. This was a great evil and sin and the Church that perpetrated this evil has repented of in recent times. Still, there are some Christians that hold onto a form of this heresy.
Conversion has little to do with ceremony, though the change from the former life of sin will be seen in how one lives. When asked by the Jews what they should do, what was Peter's answer while filled with the Holy Spirit? "Repent and be converted..." was the Divine remedy spoken through the apostle now bold to stand for truth. Jews were to be converted from self-reliance and works of the law to dependence on Christ as Savior and Lord. Whether Jew or gentile, sinners need to repent and be converted. This was the conversion Saul needed since he was fighting against the truth, and breaking the Law of God, though ignorant of how sinful he actually was. When conviction came of his error, he no longer followed his former course, but became a foremost witness for the truth found in Christ, and Him crucified. This after persecuting those who believed in Jesus.
There is a difference in "forsaking Moses and the Prophets" and studying Moses and the prophets discovering they all pointed to Jesus. The first disconnects from the old testament, the second sees the old testament come to life as it illustrates Christ's mission in so many ways. When we study the new testament we see the writers draw very heavily from the old testament.
Stephen and Paul did not preach "to forsake Moses", they looked to Moses and the law to verify the truth of salvation in Christ!
The people who were "more noble" were the ones who opened the scripture (they only had the Old Testament} to see if what Paul was preaching was true! (Acts 17:11)
The problems are in disconnecting the old testament from the new.
The Jewish leadership rejected the meaning of their rituals and ceremonies which all pointed to Christ. Their problem was in setting up the shadows as the substance, and rejecting the substance.
Modern Christianity too often disconnects from the OT and thus has a limited picture of Christ and His work of salvation. Too often they believe that the New Testament actually rejects Moses.
" The author of today's lesson said the helennists were Paul's closest circle of relationship as they entirely accepted the mystery of Christ hidden throughout the ages of humanity but now revealed to Paul, which is Christ in us (Colossians 1:26-27). The true basis of the righteousness by faith in Christ was not completely understood by Peter and apostles but was revealed to Paul. This reminds me of this saying of Jesus : Luke 5:37 "And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined." He poured the new teaching to Paul to be revealed to the rest of the world starting with the Jews. Christ well knew that Peter and his co-apostles were not the best fit to understand and share this message. It needed someone broken at the Rock, empty of self, and humble enough to live and experience the message of righteousness by faith. And clearly, Paul to be able to share in such a powerful way the message had to experience it himself. Praise God for His wisdom.
Francine the author of the lesson refers to an old theory (the superiority of the Hellenists) that is not widely accepted anymore. 1) The Gospel of John, in the beginning, reveals the mystery of Christ hidden throughout the ages and also Christ in us (John 14:20). The gospel was once thought to represent a Hellenistic perspective since the Greek is so good. However theologically the perspective is anything but Hellenistic in many ways the very opposite of Hellenistic thought. The Gospel of John represents a very Galilean perspective. Paul's views also are very Jewish in so many ways (many books have been written on this as of late) and certainly not Hellenistic. Paul's strength is that he can convey the message of the Hebrew Scripture and the Gospel meaning to the Greek gentile world.
Robert, I don't see the lesson author refer to "the superiority of the Hellenists," only that "Paul’s closest circle of relationship within the church in Judea would always be the Hellenistic believers." That is not saying anything about superiority or inferiority - only that his cultural brothers and sisters were closer to him than the Jewish Christians. This can be seen in Paul's letters if one traces the name of the people who were close to him and supported him. It also seems to me that the church in Jerusalem did not support Paul at all when he was in prison - which is contrary to the regard one would expect the church to hold towards a great missionary such as Paul.
What was the issue of Steven`s sermon? He was accused of rejecting Moses and the temple. So he had to answer the accusation. In his speech he proceeded to show that Israel had rejeced Moses and the temple. They rejeced Moses by turning their hearts back to Egypt and dancing around the golden calf (Acts 7:39). They rejeced the temple in mixing it up with idolatry (Acts 7:40-43). In rejecting Moses they also rejected the coming One he had predicted (Acts 7:37). Coming to his conclusion, Steven pointed out that they had received the law, but did not keep it, which history had demonstrated (Acte 7:53). This is but an echo of the voice of the prophets who had proclaimed the same (see Isaiah chapter 1 and parallels).
What made them stone Steven? He saw heaven open and Jesus of Nazareth standing at the right side of God (Acts 7:56). Moreover, he was calling on the name of this Jesus (Acts 7:59). Inasmuch as Moses had said that anyone hanging on a tree was cursed of God (Deueronomy 21:23), this was blaspheming God in their thinking. Lateron, Paul commented that Christ was taking on himself the curse of sin on our behalf and thus redeeming us from the curse of transgressing the law (Galatians 3:13).
I think, in order not to be missing the point of Steven`s sermon, one has to differentiate between what he was saying and what he was not saying. As he had to answer the above accusation he had to stick to that issue. Questions, such as justification by faith ect were beyond the scope of his sermon. The ongoing histoy leaves us with the hope that Saul of Tarsus was to take up the gospel work Steven had to abundon by his death. The spreading of the gospel did not stop with Steven and does not stop today at any obstacle in its way.
Winfried Stolpmann