Introduction

According to Cornelius a Lapide, Thomas Aquinas once called on Pope Innocent II when the latter was counting out a large sum of money. “You see, Thomas,” said the Pope, “the church can no longer say, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’” “True, holy father,” was the reply; “neither can she now say, ‘Rise and walk.’”¹⁵ This story, it seems, has a somewhat anti-Catholic flavor, so let us even the scales a bit.

We Protestants pride ourselves for not having money, and yet we are seldom heard saying one word which Peter and the apostles frequently used—“give” Peter said, “But what I have I give to you.” I see help offered in the name of Jesus, but for a price. We cannot repeat Peter’s words either, not if we are honest. Observe also the way the church today tries desperately to draw crowds, but not by means of miracles; today it is done with magic shows, pony rides, and circus acts. Just this week I heard a radio commercial for special services at a church, and the drawing card, among other circus acts, was that there would be strong men showing their brute strength by blowing up hot water bottles!

The story of the healing of the lame man in Acts chapter 3 is one of the delightful accounts of the power of the risen Christ at work through the apostles. This miracle will be the second occasion in Acts for the gathering of a large crowd, and this will be the occasion for the second sermon Peter is said to have preached to the people of Jerusalem. Both the miracle and the message of Acts chapter 3 are quite different from those described in Acts chapter 2. And the results will be somewhat different. There will be a number of people saved (we see this from Acts 4:4), but there will not even be time for the people to ask what they must do to be saved. A party will arrive, as recorded in 4:1-3, who will arrest Peter and John, put them in jail, and then bring them up to stand trial the next day. Opposition to the gospel has now begun.

You will notice that there are great similarities between the miracle which we find in our text and the miracles performed by Jesus (Matthew 21) and by Paul (Acts 14). That is because, as I understand it, the Lord Jesus was at work in each case, fulfilling the Messianic promise of healing(s) of the lame, as found in Isaiah 35. Thus, when John the Baptist wavered in his faith as to whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, He pointed to the healing of the lame (for one thing) as evidence to the fact that He was the Messiah (Matthew 11).

The Structure of the Text

The third chapter of Acts falls into two major sections: (1) the miracle of the healing of the lame man, verses 1-10; and, (2) the preaching of Peter in response to the crowds who had gathered, verses 11-26. Chapter four follows immediately on: (3) the results of the miracle and Peter’s preaching, verses 1-4; (4) the trial and threatening of Peter and John, verses 5-22; and, (5) the response of the church to persecution, verses 23-31.

The Approach of this Lesson

In our study of this chapter, we shall first consider the miracle of the healing of the lame man (verses 1-10). Then we will study the message which Peter preached when the crowd gathered in response to this miracle, and the testimony of the man who was not only healed but who was dramatically demonstrating it by his leaping and praising God. We will then consider the contribution of this incident to the developing argument of Acts. Finally, we will attempt to demonstrate the relevance and application of these events to our own lives.

The Miracle
(3:1-10)

1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer, 2 And a certain man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple. 3 And when he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple he began asking to receive alms. 4 And Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze upon him and said, “Look at us!” 5 And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” 7 And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. 8 And with a leap, he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God; 10 and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to beg alms; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

For over forty years (cf. Acts 4:22) a man had suffered from an ailment which made him lame. He was born that way (3:2). He had never known the freedom of going anywhere without petitioning others to carry him there. It would seem that this man had been a beggar for many, if not most, of those forty-plus years (cf. 3:2). It may be that he had staked out a certain “territory” at the temple. At least we know that for some time this man daily was carried to the gate of the temple, a gate identified here as the “Beautiful” gate.¹⁶ It seems the gate was this lame beggar’s station, much as a newspaper boy would find a suitable location and return there day after day.

We are not told what this man had heard about Jesus or whether he had ever tried to reach Him to be healed. It would seem that the man would have given considerable thought to Jesus during those times when He visited Jerusalem and especially that final week of His public ministry, before His death. This was a week characterized not only by daily appearances in the temple for teaching but also to heal:

And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant, and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABES THOU HAST PREPARED PRAISE FOR THYSELF’?” (Matthew 21:14-16)

Is it possible that this man had made efforts to reach Jesus and thus to be healed? The problem was that he was immobilized by his ailment. Men carried him to the temple to beg each day. There they would leave him. Then in the evening (it would seem) they would carry him back home. Perhaps Jesus passed by this lame man, but he was unable to press through the crowds or to call out loudly enough to be heard by the Master. It sounds something like a “Catch 22” problem to me. The man needed to be healed. Jesus could heal him. But he had to get to Jesus to be healed, and his lameness kept him from getting there (not unlike the situation described in John 5:1-9).

It is not altogether clear whose faith it was (primarily) that was instrumental in this man’s healing, but it would seem this man had some measure of faith (cf. 3:16). Could it be this man had hoped Jesus would heal him, but just could not get to Him? How this man’s hopes of healing must have been crushed when Jesus was led outside the city to that cross! And yet, after the death of Jesus, it was Jesus who had healed him. Let us see how it came to pass.

It was the ninth hour (cf. the “third hour” in Acts 2:15), which would have been 3:00 P.M. Peter and John were on their way to the temple to observe a regular time of prayer.¹⁷ As they were heading toward or into the temple, the lame man was being carried to his normal post, at the “Beautiful” gate. He was not, as we so often visualize him, sitting or laying down at the gate, but only on his way. As he is approaching his station, he observes two men nearby about to go into the temple. Beggars generally seem to get attention by calling out to those who would pass by. Almost instinctively, I think, he called out with his usual petition. Here were two prospects. He might as well get right at his task.

I am not certain we can understand this account apart from having experienced a beggar or two. On my two trips to India, I saw a large number of beggars. There were so many beggars there was no way one could respond to all of them. The solution was often not to “see” any of them. But the beggars made this difficult. Those who were mobile would press themselves on you. They would approach your taxi at an intersection, tugging at your sleeve and pleading for help. Those not mobile would call our for charity. The beggar would be aggressive, something like the salesmen as you try to walk through the appliance section at Sears. You would concentrate on not seeing them as they converged on you, and you hurried to get through the section before you were trapped.

In this instance, the roles appear somewhat reversed. The beggar called out all right, but he doesn’t seem to expect anything to happen. After all, he has not yet reached his station, and they are nearly out of his territory. I think the beggar hardly looked up, for he simply expected to be ignored. Had he been directly in front of them, perhaps he would have stood a chance, but not here.

Peter and John¹⁸ did not respond typically, however. It was not the beggar who fixed his eyes on Peter and John, but they who first fixed their eyes¹⁹ on him. He may not have expected anything from them, but they fully intended to do something for him. It is noteworthy that Peter and John had no money to give him. Surely it was not that they were opposed to giving to the poor, but they could not give what they did not possess. They did give what they had. How fortunate for the beggar. The best he hoped for was a little money. He did not get money, but he did receive his health and mobility.

Peter seems to know from the outset (and John too) what he was going to do for this man. Somehow he knew that he had the power to heal this man, and also that it was God’s will for him to do so. There is a deliberateness to everything which Peter and John said and did. They looked intently at him. They instructed him to look at them. They said that they possessed no silver or gold, but they did have that which they would give to him. Immediately Peter commanded the man to stand up and walk in the name²⁰ of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene. Peter then seized the man by the right hand and raised him up.

The man who had never walked before in his life stood up with a leap, and he didn’t quit leaping.²¹ What a sight that must have been. Some men would probably have dealt with such a miracle with great dignity and composure. Here was a man who had, for his whole life, been a spectacle. He earned his living by making a spectacle of himself, by drawing men’s attention to his pitiable state. Now this man would surely care little that everyone was staring at him, for he leaped about, clinging to Peter and John, praising God. It was a sight no one in the vicinity could have avoided. No wonder a crowd was attracted.

God had marvelously prepared this scene. The healed man had spent his life (or a good deal of it, it would seem) around the temple, begging. Everyone knew him—they couldn’t have avoided him. The man, and his condition, were well known by all who frequented the temple (cf. 4:16, 21). And the fact that he had been crippled from his mother’s womb was more than ample evidence that he was hopelessly disabled, and thus the miracle was a spectacular one. The people who witnessed this were understandably filled with wonder and amazement (verse 10).

The Message
(3:11-26)

11 And while he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement. 12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 “But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. 16 And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all. 17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 “But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. 22 “MOSES said, ‘THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 23 “And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. 25 “It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’ 26 “For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

A crowd gathered, filled with wonder, not unlike that which occurred after the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Only here, there were no skeptics as there were before. In fact the problem the healing of this lame man created was that people thought too much of the apostles, Peter and John, not too little. Peter and John were heroes, first to the lame man and then to the crowd. It was they who were given credit for the miracle. Peter’s first words to the people, as at Pentecost, were spoken to correct a misconception. Before, it was the conclusion that they were drunk. Here, it was that they were too “divine,” that is, that the healing was the result of their own power or piety.²² Peter quickly and flatly denied this. Far from taking credit for the miracle, Peter gave the praise to God, through His Servant, Jesus.

Israel’s Guilt:
A Study in Contrasts

It is most interesting to study Peter’s message in Acts chapter 3 in comparison to his message at Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2. While there are definite similarities between the two sermons, there are these contrasts. Peter’s first sermon, in chapter two, was the result of the phenomenon of Pentecost. The second sermon was the result of a healing (both manifestations of the power of the Holy Spirit, but quite different manifestations). Peter’s first sermon was longer and was complete with specific instructions as to what men must do to be saved, in response to their question. The second sermon is interrupted by the arrest of Peter and John. While a number of people seem to have been saved, they must have been converted “on their own,” because Peter and John were not there (cf. Acts 4:1-4). Furthermore, Acts chapter two tended to focus on the last days, the “day of the Lord” as prophesied by Joel, while the second sermon tends to go back to the early days of Israel’s beginnings, to the days of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 3:13,25) and of Moses (3:22-23). Finally, the primary theme of chapter 2 was judgment (with a secondary theme of blessing), while the primary theme of chapter 3 is blessing (with a secondary theme of judgment.

In spite of (and perhaps because of) the popularity of Peter and John due to the healing of the lame man, Peter came down very strongly on the guilt of his audience for having rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Peter’s words in chapter 3 are even stronger (in my opinion) than they are in chapter 2. It is my opinion that many of those who heard this second message may well have been present at Peter’s first sermon, at Pentecost. If they had heard his first message without repenting, it is no surprise that this second message would come down even harder on his hearers.

The guilt of the people of Jerusalem is described by means of a series of contrasts. Let me point out a few of them.

First, Peter contrasted the glorification of God’s servant in His resurrection and ascension with his audience’s disowning of Him as their Messiah:

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant²³ Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned … (Acts 3:13a).

Second, Peter contrasted Pilate’s desire to release Jesus because he felt he was innocent, with their insistence that He be put to death, convinced He was guilty, and thus worthy of death:

“… you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him” (Acts 3:13b).

In chapter 2, Peter had spoken of the death of Jesus as a joint-conspiracy of the Jews and the Gentiles (2:23), but here Pilate is represented as wanting to release Jesus but being pressured into putting Him to death, making the guilt of the Jews greater in the sense of their accusation of His guilt and being worthy of death.²⁴

Third, Peter contrasted the One whom they wished to crucify with the one they wished to release:

“But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, …” (Acts 3:14-15a).

Imagine it. They wanted a murderer to be set free, a wicked and violent man—a murderer, a thief, a revolutionary! They wanted the Holy and Righteous Son of God, the Prince of life, to be put to death! What an incredible evil.

Fourth, they dealt with Jesus, who was the promised “prophet like Moses,” as though He were a false prophet. Peter reminded his listeners of these words, found in the Book of Deuteronomy:

22 “MOSES said, ‘THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 23 “And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

Let us take a look at the fuller context of these words:

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” 17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

When God was about to bring the people of Israel into the land of promise, the land of Canaan, He warned them through Moses not to do as those who lived in Canaan before them, those that He was about to expel from this land. They listened to their false gods and idols, something which the Israelites must not do (Deuteronomy 18:9-13). Instead, they must listen to God’s prophets. God would raise up, Moses said, a prophet like him, to whom they must listen (verse 15). This was in accordance with their own request on Mt. Sinai (verse 16), a citation worth reviewing:

When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” 21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was (Exodus 20:18-21).

The people of Israel were terrified at the holiness of God, as they beheld the thunder and lightning and smoke on the mountain. They feared any direct contact with God, and they begged Moses to be their intermediary, something which God commended. The prophet, like Moses, would be an intermediary as well. And, like Moses, the carrying out of his mission would cost him His life.²⁵

Peter’s use of this quotation from Deuteronomy 18 has a two-pronged impact. It was, in the first place, a reminder of Israel’s guilt. In the context of Deuteronomy 18, Israel was warned not to listen to the gods of the Canaanites. They were to listen to the prophets, particularly the prophet “like Moses.” In the final verses of Deuteronomy 18 the people were told how to discern a false prophet from a true one. That which the true prophet foretold would surely come to pass. If the prophecy of the prophet did not come to pass, that person was a false prophet²⁶ and should not be heeded. Indeed, that “prophet” should be put to death. Israel’s guilt was to be seen by the fact that they listened to the words of their leaders, rather than to the words of Jesus. They followed their leaders and they put to death the “prophet like Moses.” They had done the exact opposite of what God had commanded the Israelites through Moses in Deuteronomy 18.

In the second place, this quotation served as a strong word of warning. Those who failed to heed the words of Jesus, the “prophet like Moses” were warned that they would bear the consequences for it. Peter spelled it out. Those who failed to heed His words would be “utterly destroyed.” Let those who heard Peter take heed.

Israel’s Glory—Promised Blessings

Very quickly I sense an even stronger indictment in chapter 3 than I did in chapter 2. Peter did not go easy on his audience. And yet, when one looks carefully at this chapter, the dominant theme is not judgment, but blessing. While the phenomenon of Acts 2 was a sign of coming judgment, the healing of the lame man was an evidence of blessing, a foreshadowing of the messianic blessings of the kingdom (cf. Isaiah 35:4-6 above). The suffering which is most prominent in this chapter is that of Christ, not that of Israel. While the resurrection and ascension of Christ was interpreted in terms of His return to judge His enemies, here the glorification of the Lord Jesus was interpreted as a prelude to His return to bless those who have trusted in Him. The coming of the Christ is viewed as for Israel, not against her (verse 20). These blessings are called “times of refreshing” in verse 19, the “restoration of all things” in verse 21, the “blessings” promised in the Abrahamic Covenant in verse 25, and God’s blessing in verse 26.

There is a principle evident here in this emphasis on Israel’s blessings, in spite of her sin and guilt before God. It is that stated by the apostle Paul:

But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20b).

Israel’s guilt was great, but it could never outrun the grace of God. Christ died according to the plan of God, so that the sins of men might be atoned for. All those who would repent of their sins would find them “wiped away,” so that the promised “times of refreshing” might come (Acts 3:19).

Graciously, Peter attributed the sinful actions of his audience to ignorance, and ignorance it was. Where there was ignorance, there was both guilt and grace:

They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts (Ephesians 4:18).

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13).

He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness (Hebrews 5:2).

But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance (Hebrews 9:7).

Conclusion

At first, I saw the healing of this lame man as only an “excuse” for Peter’s preaching of the gospel. I now see it as far more than this. This miracle did attract a large crowd, to whom Peter preached. But the miracle of the healing of this man also illustrated the salvation of which Peter preached. This lame man typifies man’s helpless state, and the grace of God which reaches out to touch and to save sinners. Let us conclude by giving consideration to the way in which the lame man typifies the state of lost men.

The lame man of our text typifies lost Israel

The lame man was in a hopeless condition. He was helpless, immobilized, broken. He needed to be healed. His only “salvation” was Jesus, and yet his ailment disabled him, it kept him from coming to Jesus. He would never get to Jesus on his own. He looked to the temple and to the goodness of men, but this could not deliver him. The help which the man cried out for was merely monetary—he cried out for money but hardly seemed to expect that. When Jesus was put to death, it appeared that this man’s hope of healing was gone. And yet it was the risen Jesus whose power healed him.

The Israelites, like this man, were in desperate need, and from birth. From birth, the Israelites were sinners. They were enemies of God. Their sin kept them from getting close to God, even from wanting to be near Him. This was seen by the Israelites’ request that Moses serve as a mediator between them and God. They looked to such things as the temple and their rituals. They sought God’s blessings, but these were primarily physical, material. And when Jesus came, their hopes were initially raised, but when He spoke of spiritual salvation and of giving up one’s material goods, they wanted no part of Him. They put Him to death. But through this death, man’s sins were atoned for. It was through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, that Israel’s spiritual healing was made possible.

The lame man of our text typifies all who are lost

It is not just Israelites who are lost, but all men. To play on words for a moment, when it comes to our relationship to God, to our approaching Him, we “don’t have a leg to stand on.” Our sins have separated us from God and keep us from approaching Him. But just as the apostles reached out to the lame man, giving him far more than he hoped for, or asked for, so the Lord Jesus has taken the initiative to come to fallen men, lost and helpless in their sins. While lost men do not seek God, God has sought out the lost, in the coming of Christ. By His death, man’s sins are atoned for. He takes hold of us and draws us to Himself. All those who have faith in His name, who repent of their sins, and who trust in Him, are healed and are made whole.

To all who believe, who “take heed” to the words of Jesus, there is salvation, wholeness. But to all who refuse to heed His words, there is only the expectation of the judgment which will befall all those who refuse to heed the words of the “prophet like Moses.”

The lame man also typifies many Christians

Unfortunately, this lame man also typifies many Christians. We, like him, may be in great need, and in a pitiable state—beggars. The apostles had their eyes fixed on the beggar, but they had to command him to look intently at them. He cried out for help, but of the most meager and material kind. How often do we come to God in prayer for only material things and hardly believing that God cares or that He will provide. We seem to think that our problem is getting God’s attention, when His eyes are fixed on us, to bless us. And what He wants to give us is so much more than anything we might ask or think (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-13).

And we so often attempt to attract a crowd by circus-like antics, rather than by genuine manifestations of divine power. It is not God whose attention we need to attract. It is our attention which needs to be riveted on Him. And we should believe that what He desires to give us is far greater than what we expect to get.

There is a clear evidence of the “supernatural” hand of God in our text. But there is also a clear sense of the “natural.” The disciples were acting naturally; that is, they were on their way to the temple to pray. They did not go out of their way nor did they attempt to attract a crowd. They did not have any money, but they did possess the power of the Holy Spirit, which the Lord Jesus had poured out on them. And so, when they encountered a man in need, they gave what they had; they did what they could. And when a crowd gathered, they shared their faith. A very supernatural thing took place from some very natural actions. That is the way God often works, using vessels of clay through which to manifest His grace and power. May we be faithful as vessels of clay, to be instruments in His hands, to produce marvelous things.

---

¹⁵ Cited by F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 77-78.

¹⁶ There is no clear identification of this gate, but many have concluded that it was the gate commonly known as the “Nicanor Gate”:

“This may be identical with the Nicanor Gate, as it is called in the Mishnah, leading into the Court of the Women; the name here given to it may be more readily understood if it is further identified with the gate of Corinthian bronze described by Josephus, of such exquisite workmanship that it ‘far exceeded in value those gates that were plated with silver and set in gold.’”

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 77, citing Josephus, BJ 5. 201. Bruce further comments in his footnote: “Josephus, BJ 5.184-247, and the Mishnaic tractate Middot are our principal sources of information about the temple before its destruction in A.D. 70.” (p. 77, fn. 10).

“Josephus says, concerning this gate: ‘its height was fifty cubits, and its doors were forty cubits, and it was adorned after a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker plates of silver and gold upon them than the others.’”

Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 49-50.

¹⁷ It was the “time of the evening sacrifice”. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 41. “There were three hours of prayer (third, sixth, ninth).” Ibid, p. 41.

The apostles (and the rest, it would seem) continued to observe Jewish ceremonies at the temple. This is evidence of continuity between that which the church was doing here and that which God began in the Old Testament. The reason the apostles and the rest ceased to attend the temple is because they were thrown out, not only of the temple, but of Jerusalem. Coming to faith in Christ (Christianity) did not necessitate the Jews’ throwing off all of the rituals, all of the practices, of Judaism. Put in different terms, the coming of the Spirit on the apostles did not replace the normal routines and disciplines of life with pure spontaneity.

¹⁸ Peter and John seem to become “partners” of sorts. One would expect these two men, both of whom had brother/disciples (Peter and Andrew, Matthew 4:18; James and John, Matthew 4:21) to be with their brothers, but they were not. Peter and John were sent out together by our Lord in Luke 22:8 to prepare for the Passover meal. Could they possibly have been paired together when the twelve were sent out two by two? The two are listed together in Acts 1:13, for what that is worth. They were arrested together in chapter 4 (cf. vv. 13, 19), and they were the two sent down to Samaria by the Apostles.

¹⁹ This expression, “fixed his gaze” (verse 4), or something similar, is found also in Luke 4;20, and in Acts 1:10; 10:4 and 13:9. If it tells us anything it is that Peter and John riveted their attention on this man, fully intent on his healing. They were much more attentive to him than he was to them. Thus, they commanded him to look at them. They did not wish him to miss any of what was to happen. I think, in particular, they did not wish him to miss the statement that it was Jesus who was healing him.

²⁰ There is a strong emphasis in Acts on the name of Jesus. Below is a list of references to the name of Jesus in Acts: 2:21; 4:17-18; 9:21; 19:5; 2:38; 4:30; 9:27-28; 19:13; 3:6; 5:28; 10:43; 19:17; 3:16; 5:40-41; 10:48; 21:13; 4:7; 8:12; 15:17; 22:16; 4:10; 8:16; 15:26; 26:9; 4:12; 9:14-16; 16:18;

²¹ “Leaping up repeatedly” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, III, p. 42.

²² How often those who are the instruments through whom the power of God is manifested begin to lay claim to that power, as though it were their own. How quick God’s servants are to deny this (cf. Paul in Acts 14:8-18). How often, too, power and piety are associated. That is, men are quick to conclude that if God’s power has been manifested through a human instrument, it must be the result of his or her piety. This is not necessarily so. Spiritual gifts and spiritual power do not equate to a person’s piety. The Corinthians had all the gifts and many manifestations of God’s power, but they were also a carnal lot in many ways. Nowhere is the power of God working in men viewed as the result of man’s piety. Look at men like Samson and Jonah, for example.

²³ The statement of Peter that God had glorified His Servant is a very significant one, for these two terms seemed contradictory to the Israelites. The “suffering” and the “glory” themes of the Old Testament seemed to be so inconsistent that they could not be applied to the same person, Messiah. Thus, Peter wrote,

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow (1 Peter 1:10-11).

When it came to “the Christ,” the Messiah, the two themes of “suffering” and “glory” did not seem to fit, not together anyway.

When Peter, in Acts 3:13, said that God had glorified His Servant Jesus, he said a great deal. He identified Jesus as the Messiah, who was the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 52 and 53 (and elsewhere), as well as the glorious King, who would reign in power and in glory. The reason why “glory” and “suffering” were combined in one person, Jesus, the Messiah, was because he first suffered, and then was glorified; He first was rejected and put to death on the cross, and He then was glorified by His resurrection and ascension. Here was the answer to the mystery which baffled even the prophets who wrote of Messiah’s suffering and glory.

²⁴ One might argue, with some force, that Pilate’s guilt was just as great, for he allowed an innocent man (by his judgment) to be put to death wrongly.

²⁵ God promised Moses that he would serve Him on the mountain where he encountered him, from whence his call originated (Exodus 3:12). In the exercise of his duties as a mediator, Moses became angry at the people of Israel and smote the rock. This cost Moses his life and the opportunity of leading the people of God into the promised land (Numbers 20; Deuteronomy 32:48-52). In this sense, Moses died in the exercise of his duties. His task cost him his life. The difference is, of course, that Moses sinned and thus died, whereas Jesus was sinless and died.

²⁶ When a prophet’s words failed to come to pass, one would definitely know that he was a false prophet. But if one’s words did come to pass, it was no sure sign that he was a true prophet. This matter was taken care of in Deuteronomy chapter 13, where the ultimate test of a prophet was given. A true prophet was one whose prophecies came to pass, and whose words were in accordance with what God had revealed (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

Introduction

We have all had the opportunity recently to watch a problem handled very badly. From one perspective, the problem was a serious one—the Dallas Cowboys were in a slump. Team morale seemed to be at an all-time low. The morale of the fans was no better. Ticket sales and attendance at the games were equally as bad. Team management and coaching were being questioned. The team was up for sale. And then a buyer from another state came along. He came with quick, guaranteed solutions, or so he assured us in a hastily-called press conference. The team’s only coach was summarily and unceremoniously sacked, and another coach was already waiting in the wings. This coach, we were assured, was better than five first-round draft choices. Many Cowboy fans were not so sure. And when the new coach arrived, he spent much of his time apologizing for the man who hired him.

There were many things the press and fans did not like. The buyer was a newcomer to football ownership. He was also a foreigner to Texans. And he was making all the decisions. He tried to put our minds at ease by telling us he would continue to exercise “hands-on leadership,” seemingly not being left out of any decision, even the calling of plays (we feared). While the new coach was born in Texas, he was new to the Cowboys. In time, we who are fans will cool down, but it appears, at this time, that all the wrong moves were made.

This man’s method of solving the “Dallas Cowboys’ problem” serves as an instructive backdrop for our text in which the apostles’ method of solving an even more serious problem arose in the church. On the surface, it appeared to be a simple problem involving some of the widows in the church. But because these widows were all a part of the same group, it became an occasion for the “Hellenistic Jews” to grumble against those who made up the other dominant group, the “native Hebrews.” The outcome could have been disastrous, but the apostles, supported by the church, brought about a decisive remedy which resulted in even greater growth for the church.

While our text is not a large one, it is a vitally important one. The problem which the Jerusalem church faced was unique, and it will certainly not be one which we face in our church. Nevertheless, the cause of the problem is one we have already experienced. And, we will find, neither is the nature of the problem unique. The problem which arose between the “Hellenistic Jews” and the “native Hebrews” originated because of the growth of the church—and the resulting failure of the church to minister to a particular segment of its congregation. We, as a church, have already experienced similar failures, and we have experienced some legitimate criticism in my opinion. A careful study of this text and an understanding of the principles and process by which this problem was solved could save us a great deal of heartache and division. And the lessons to be learned are not merely those which apply to church leaders, so let us all listen and learn what the Spirit of God is saying to us in this passage.

The Problem
(6:1)

Now at this time while the disciples⁸⁰ were increasing in number, a complaint⁸¹ arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews,⁸² because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving⁸³ of food.

A Suggested Scenario

It may be difficult at first to understand how a problem such as this could have arisen in the church at Jerusalem. Our text does not tell us how the problem arose, and thus it must not be that vital to understand. Nevertheless, let us consider how such a problem might arise so that we can see how easy it is for things to “fall through the crack,” even in a church which is growing, which is “Spirit-filled,” and in which people love one another.

Suppose you were a devout Jew who had been born in some Gentile nation. You would worship in a synagogue with others of like faith if you lived in a city which had a sizable Jewish population. You could not, however, worship at the temple. You knew that God’s covenants and promises were to be fulfilled in the land of Israel and that the Messiah would sit upon His throne in Jerusalem. Your life’s dream would be to relocate and to live in Israel, to worship in the temple, and to await the kingdom of God.

Years of hard work, sacrifice, and savings had made it possible to go. You and scores of other “Hellenistic Jews,” arrive in the land of promise. Your dream would be to live in the holy city of Jerusalem, so it is there you first go in search of property. Finding a long line at the real estate office, you learn that all of the others who have immigrated to Israel desire to live in or near Jerusalem as well. All the property in and near the holy city is owned by the “native Hebrews,” and they have no desire to sell, regardless of the price. The best you can do is to buy property (or at least a house) somewhere in the suburbs of Jerusalem, a number of miles from the city.⁸⁴ A visit to the holy city of Jerusalem would thus require a rather substantial “hike.”

If you were a “Hellenistic widow,” things would likely be even worse. The widows who were “overlooked” must not have had any immediate family, and neither did they have any financial resources. One can hardly expect such people to be living in the heart of the city of Jerusalem. They were very likely living in the suburbs, a good distance from the city. The “native Hebrew widows” would have a much better chance of living “close in,” in the holy city itself. After all, they were there first. And even if the price of land greatly increased, the Law would give them some measure of protection against losing their property.⁸⁵

So the day of Pentecost came, and the church was born. Many of those saved were “Hellenistic Jews,” and the rest were “native Hebrews.” As time went on, more and more were added to the church. The saints immediately began to share their goods with those in need. I understand the texts in Acts to indicate that both “native Hebrews” and “Hellenistic Jews” gave, just as both received charity from their brethren. Eventually, the needs of the widows became so great that some system for feeding the widows came into existence (either by design or by a kind of “evolution”). In any case, Acts 6:1 seems to indicate there was a system in operation intended to provide daily rations for the needy widows.

I would imagine that some central location was secured in the city of Jerusalem, where the daily portions of food were either prepared or brought. Here the widows came for their provisions, either eating them at that place along with other widows, or taking their food home to eat there. Perhaps hundreds of widows were thus provided for in a reasonably efficient way. Who could complain when so many were being helped?

But such a system would favor the “native Hebrew widows,” who lived in or near Jerusalem, while it would not benefit the “Hellenistic widows,” who lived a distance away. If you were an elderly widow, miles removed from Jerusalem, would you attempt a walk of several miles each day for a free meal? I doubt it. And so, I suspect, it began to dawn on the “Hellenistic Jews” that, while many of the “native Hebrew widows” were being cared for (with the help of their funds), their own widows were receiving no help at all. The longer this went on and the more these “Hellenistic Jews” thought of it, the more angry they became. And this led to a growing bitterness on the part of the one group toward the other. The unity and joy which these saints once shared in common, in giving toward the needs of others, began to weaken. Something needed to be done—quickly and decisively.

Again I hasten to remind you that my “scenario” is purely hypothetical, but it does provide an illustration of how the problem in the Jerusalem church could have arisen, without malice or intent on the part of the “native Hebrews” and yet in a way that systematically overlooked the needs of a large group of widows who were “Hellenistic Jews.”

Observations on the Problem in the Jerusalem Church

What I have suggested is a mixture of fact and fiction, a suggestion of how the problem in the church could have come to be. Our text does provide us with a great deal of information that is factual. Let us now turn to those things Luke has told us about the problem which arose in the church so that we can base our interpretation and application on fact and not on fiction. Some of the important facts or inferences which we must keep in mind are:

(1) The Jerusalem church consisted of two major groups: the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews.” The “native Hebrews” were those who were born and raised in the land of Israel. They took great pride in this. As a rule, they would have spoken Aramaic (probably not Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written) and perhaps some Greek (as a commercial language). The “Hellenistic Jews” would be those Jews whose ancestors had been dispersed from the land in Israel’s captivities (primarily Babylonian). These Jews were drawn back to Israel by their Jewish faith and their expectation of the coming of Messiah and the establishment of His kingdom, in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises made to the patriarchs, and the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. They would likely not have spoken Aramaic but would have spoken as their native tongue the language of the nation from which they had come. It is my understanding that both “native Hebrews” and “Hellenistic Jews” were present at Pentecost:

1 And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were mocking and say, “They are full of sweet wine” (Acts 2:1-13).

It is also my understanding that those identified in chapter 2 as “devout men from every nation” were, by and large, Hellenistic Jews. I would also suspect that those “others” (2:13), who mocked and who concluded that the apostles were drunk, were mainly “native Hebrews,” who did not come from these “foreign lands” and thus did not understand the foreign languages spoken by the apostles, but who heard it only as drunken babbling.

One can very well imagine that while these two groups shared their Jewish lineage and faith in common, as well as the rituals of temple worship, they had many differences which kept them apart. Not sharing the same native tongue, they probably attended different synagogues and had separate teaching services. There was a strong potential for snobbery on the part of the “native Hebrews” and for friction between the two groups.

(2) There is evidence here of a long-standing friction and animosity between these two groups of Jews, the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews.” The discrepancy in the way the widows of these two groups were cared for was, as it were, the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” When relationships between two people or two groups are strained, it does not take much to create an incident.

(3) Initially, however, in its early days the church in Jerusalem was characterized by its unity and oneness in soul and spirit and thus in its generosity to others in need. When Pentecost came and the church was born, it should go without saying that there were men and women converted from both groups. Initially, there was a wonderful spirit of unity and harmony in the church as can be seen from Luke’s repeated references to the “oneness of heart and mind” of all the saints:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:44-46).

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them (Acts 4:32).

And at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico (Acts 5:12).

(4) The church in Jerusalem had already organized a program for feeding the needy. This program may have “evolved,” but there had to be some kind of organized program, which Luke referred to as the “daily distribution” (the added explanation, “of food,” is not found in the original text, but the text clearly implies this is the meaning, and thus the translators of the NASB supplied this explanation.) This program was very likely not to be limited to the feeding of widows alone, however. It was probably a program to feed all of the hungry in the church (and perhaps some outside the church).

(5) In spite of the good work this “feeding program” had accomplished, there was one group of people who were not being cared for in the same manner as the other. The Hellenistic widows were, as a group, being neglected. The text does not say that every Hellenistic widow was overlooked, but many of them were—enough so that it appeared to be discriminating against the Hellenistic widows.

(6)The neglect of these Hellenistic widows was apparently not deliberate but merely an oversight. The good news about this oversight or neglect of the Hellenistic widows is that it seems to have been unintentional. Administratively we might say this one group, for one reason or another, “fell through a crack” in the church’s program. The “sin” was not one of commission (a deliberate act), but one of omission (an accidental, unintentional act). There is no indication these widows were purposely neglected. It was a de facto discrimination.

(7) The neglect of the Hellenistic widows seems to have been the result of the rapid growth of the church in Jerusalem. The expression, “while the disciples were increasing in number,” precedes the statement that a complaint arose due to the discrepancy in the care of the two groups of widows. This suggests rather strongly that the growth of the church (and thus the number of widows) was one of the precipitating factors. If the church had not grown so large, the problem may never have occurred. Indeed, the problem did not exist earlier when the church was smaller.

(8) The grumbling of the Hellenistic community is directed against the “native Hebrew” community. The bitterness is not directed toward the other widows nor toward those who may have been in charge (alone), but toward the entire community of “native Hebrews.” This is evidence of a strong “class” feeling, the tip of the iceberg of a long-standing dispute or friction. It has a “cold war” feeling.

(9) We are not told that the widows grumbled but that those in the broader Hellenistic Jewish community grumbled. It is possible, of course, that the grumbling began with the widows, but this is never stated. In my opinion, the widows would not have done so but would have suffered silently. That is the way it usually works with the needy and the powerless. This is why God gave the Israelites (in the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 24:19-22) and Christians (in the New Testament, e.g., James 1:27) the responsibility of caring for the widows and the orphans.

(10) We are not told that the “native Hebrew” portion of the church grumbled against the “Hellenistic Jews.” It was a one-way grievance, and understandably so, if the “native Hebrew widows” were being well-cared-for. What would the “native Hebrews” have to complain about?

(11) The grievance of the “Hellenistic Jews” was based on the fact that what they (or their widows) received back was not up to par with what they gave. They seemed to get back less than they gave. This would be especially distressing if their needs were greater than those of the “native Hebrews.” The mindset here is that of a “taxpayer” in America. We hope to get back from the Federal Government in services or benefits at least as much as we paid in. We do not want what we have paid in to go to someone else.

(12) The grumbling of the “Hellenistic Jews” was not unfounded, but neither was it the proper response. The translation of the term, “complaint” (6:1) of the NASB would be better rendered “grumbling.” Every reference to grumbling in the Bible is looked upon as sin.⁸⁶ While there was an evil, and men should rightly be distressed over its existence, the response of the “Hellenistic Jews” was not a proper one.

(13) It is implied that the widows who are in view, both the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews,” are believing widows, those who are a part of the church. I do not mean to say that the needs of unbelieving widows were ignored, but rather to suggest that the principle concern of the church was to care for its own. This, I believe, has been implied all along (cf. Acts 2:41-47; 4:32, 34-35).⁸⁷

(14) The apostles promptly and decisively took action, implying that there was basis for the grievance, and that it was a problem the church needed to solve, a matter in which they needed to exercise leadership.

(15) There is an implied assumption that the apostles should personally take care of the problem. The apostles were financially supported in their ministry as 1 Corinthians 9 makes clear. It would not be surprising for the congregation at Jerusalem to look to the “paid staff” to solve the problem since “they had to work for a living.”

(16) The problem which faced the apostles was one that could potentially turn them from doing what they were commanded to do, to preach the gospel. The response of the apostles was to point out the danger which this problem posed. They did not focus on the disunity which resulted but on the distraction which it presented to them in carrying out their primary task.

(17) The apostles gathered all the church together, which therefore included all sides of the issue.

(18) The apostles called for the men of the church to solve the problem. The men were instructed to select seven men. It was women who were neglected. It was a problem which may have aggravated the women more than the men. Did the women of the church take the lead in the grumbling? It would seem that if women could lead in any task, it might be here. The apostles called for men to take the lead and to solve the problem.

(19) This is not the final apostolic word on the care of widows. James chapter 1 speaks strongly of the Christian’s responsibility to care for widows, and 1 Timothy chapter 5 speaks clearly about who should be cared for and by whom.

The Response of the Apostles
(6:2-4)

2 And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 But select from among you,⁸⁸ brethren, seven men⁸⁹ of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,⁹⁰ whom we may put in charge of⁹¹ this task.⁹² 4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”

The apostles’ response to the problem which had surfaced was, from every indication, a good one. The continued growth of the church, as described in verse 7, is an apparent evidence of the wisdom of the decision which was reached. Let ut pause to consider the response of the apostles, making some observations based on Luke’s report.

Observations Concerning the Response of the Apostles

(1) The apostles led the church. If leadership was ever needed in the church at Jerusalem, it was now. And leadership is precisely what the apostles provided.

(2) The apostles led as a group. In the past Peter has often spoken for the twelve, but not here. I believe Luke wants to emphasize that this was a problem facing the whole church, and it was a problem dealt with by the twelve, together.

(3) The apostles led by involving the whole church in solving the problem. The whole church was called together, appraised of the problem, and given a significant role to play in the solution. The apostles gave clear instructions as to what they required (for example, seven men were to be chosen, and their qualifications were spelled out), but they also appear to have given freedom in other areas (for example, who was to be chosen and how the choice was to be made).

(4) The apostles led with wisdom and skill.

• They quickly recognized the problem and its seriousness.
• They accurately appraised the problem.
• They promptly acted on the problem, to bring about its solution.
• They had a clear grasp of their own responsibilities and priorities.
• They wisely delegated, to avoid over-taxing themselves.
• They clearly communicated their position, their priorities, and the courseof action which was to be taken by the church.

The Basis of the Apostles’ Actions

It is not only important to observe what the apostles did in response to this problem in the church but to discern why they acted as they did. The actions of the apostles were based upon principles, principles which it would be good for us to review.

(1) The care of widows was the responsibility of the church.⁹³

(2) The ministry of the church should not discriminate against any group or individual. If it was right for the church to feed its widows, it was wrong for the church to fail to feed a certain group of widows, even if that failure was not deliberate. De facto discrimination was understood to be wrong and was seen to be in need of correction.

(3) The primary responsibility of the apostles was the ministry of the Word of God and prayer. While the widows were in great need of food and the discrimination against this one group needed to be corrected, the disciples must not be distracted from their principle calling—proclaiming the Word of God and prayer. It is most interesting to observe here that this problem in the church could easily have produced the same result as the threats of the Sanhedrin—the cessation of the preaching of the gospel by the apostles. The apostles would not allow this problem in the church to deter them from their God-given task any more than they would allow the threats of their opponents to do so.

(4) The apostles must choose to “neglect” some things in order to “devote” themselves to others.

(5) The choice as to what the apostles should “devote” themselves to should be based on their priorities, and these priorities should be based upon their God-given task.

(6) That which the apostles chose to personally neglect as their personal ministry, they must see to having done by exercising oversight through administration and delegation.

(7) The task required men of high caliber, spiritual men who possessed practical wisdom.

(8) This was a problem affecting the whole church, and thus the whole church needed to be involved in the solution of the problem.

(9) The apostles had faith in the Holy Spirit to guide and empower men other than themselves.

Implications

Before we press on, let us give some thought to the implications of this text and to the actions taken by the apostles and the church.

(1) The greater the size of the church, the more structure is required to facilitate its ministry. Added size requires additional structure. The problem which arose in the church seems to have been a by-product of church growth. As the church got larger, things could not be handled spontaneously or informally. When a church is small, many of its tasks can be handled with little or no structure. But as a church grows, more structure and programming may very well be needed. Church growth thus requires an increase in structure. Church growth consequently requires constant evaluation and change in the way things are done. How often we resist change with the words, “But we’ve always done it that way!” Growth requires change in the way the church goes about its ministry.

(2) The leaders of the church are ultimately responsible for what the church does or does not do. While there is no indication that the apostles⁹⁴ were directly responsible for the failure in the feeding of the Hellenistic widows, they assumed responsibility and took charge of the matter in order to rectify this wrong. Church leadership is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the church, so long as it is in their power to deal with it.

(3) The leaders of the church are not obliged to personally do all that for which they are responsible. The apostles were “overseers.” Their job was not to do everything in the church which needed to be done. Their actions and their words in our text underscore their conviction that while they were responsible to see that the widows were all fed (fairly and equitably), they were not responsible to do the feeding themselves. The responsibility of church leaders is often administrative—that is, they are responsible to see to it that the tasks of the church are carried out. They are not responsible to do all the ministry in the church. The expectation of many church members—today, as in the days of the apostles—seems to be that the leaders should be doing what needs to be done but is not being done.

(4) Church leaders, like all others, must chose to do some things to the neglect others. The apostles’ words reveal their understanding of the fact that if they were to take on the task of “waiting tables” they would neglect the “ministry of the word.” Reversed, they knew that in order to minister the Word, they must refrain from waiting on tables. How often we feel guilty for that which needs doing but which we do not take upon ourselves to do. Life is such that there are far more things which need doing than we can ever do ourselves. Leadership is seeing to it that the important and vital things we do not do personally will get done. Delegation is required at this point, and administration sees to this delegation.

(5) In order to know what to do and what to avoid, we must have a clear sense of our calling, from which our priorities are the outflow. The apostles were convinced that their primary calling was to proclaim the Word of God, with its related requirement of prayer. Knowing what they were called to do gave the apostles a clear grasp of what they could not do. Our priorities should govern what we do as well as what we abstain from doing, and these priorities flow out of our particular calling and purpose. Just as the apostles would not allow the threats of the Sanhedrin to keep them from proclaiming the gospel, so they would not allow the feeding of the widows to turn them from their task. But they did take administrative measures to see to it that the widows were cared for.

(6) Levels of leadership or ministry are needed in the church to assure that all vital tasks are carried out, without the neglect of tasks of the highest priority. It is my opinion that the apostles were acting with respect to their “job” responsibilities. The apostles were supported financially. Ministry was their job (1 Corinthians 9:1-18), but not just any ministry. Their task was to “proclaim the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14), as later on teaching elders were paid to “work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17-18). If it would have taken an excessive amount of time for twelve men to “wait tables,” one can safely assume that a great deal of time was required of the seven who were put in charge of this task. In my opinion, these men were very likely paid by the church to administrate the feeding of the widows.

While these seven men were not called “deacons,” their function in the church and in relationship to the apostles was very similar. The apostles had certain priorities as apostles, and taking on the care of the widows would have resulted in the neglect of their primary tasks of the ministry of the Word and prayer. These seven deacon-like men were brought into a leadership position to carry out this ministry but in a way that did not burden the apostles.

The same relationship and function exists in our church today with the elders and the deacons of this body. The elders have a general responsibility for the overall health and functioning of the church and of its members. In this sense, they are responsible for all that takes place in the ministry of the church. But in order to focus their attention on their priority ministries (including the ministry of the Word and prayer), they must appoint deacons and others to be put in charge of many of the ministries of the church. The role of the deacons, then, is to exercise oversight in those areas delegated to them by the elders, enabling the elders to focus their attention and efforts on those ministries which are a priority for them. As I presently understand 1 Timothy chapter 5, not all elders would be gifted as teachers and devoting their full time to this ministry, but some of them would. Thus, the function of all the elders in a church might not be identical to the function of the apostles.

In addition to the need for deacons and other leadership personnel, I believe that our text supports, in principle, the need for what is known today as “church staff”—people who are paid to minister in and for the church. I am inclined to believe that these seven men were paid to minister full-time. Assuming this to be true, these men might not only be thought of as “deacons” (or their prototypes), but also as “church staff.” Church staff becomes necessary as the size of a church increases and as the demands upon those who minister the Word increase as well. I think that I am expressing the view of our elders when I say that we, as elders, are willing to add to the “church staff” when the ministries they perform are vital, when the task they will perform requires the full or undivided attention of people, when the task needs to be done during the daytime (as the feeding of the widows would require), when the addition of staff frees up others to minister more effectively, and when the overall ministry of the church is enhanced, rather than usurped.

(7) The ministry of the Word and prayer were not to be the “private priority” of the apostles alone but are to be a priority for every saint. The Word of God and prayer were not simply the priority of the apostles. These were a high priority for the entire church:

And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:42).

Other texts in Acts could be understood to imply the same (cf. 4:12).

Luke is quick to tell his readers that two of the seven men who were put in charge of the feeding of the widows (so that the apostles could devote⁹⁵ themselves to the ministry of the Word) were powerful preachers of the Word themselves. Thus, at least two of the seven had preaching the Word as a high priority of their own. Giving attention to the Word of God and to prayer should be a high priority in the life of every saint. The only difference between the saints is that a few are to devote themselves to this as their job, while all others are to devote themselves to it as a high calling, but not as their occupation. The difference is that between one’s avocation and another’s vocation.

What is it that keeps us from the Word of God and prayer? I would wish it were a cause so important and so noble as the feeding of widows. Unfortunately, it often is something far less noble, such as watching television, or indulging in some fleshly pleasure, or perhaps even in the upkeep of our body, as good as that might be (1 Timothy 4:7-8). Such “good” pursuits are worthwhile, until and unless they become a priority in our life which cause us to neglect the Word of God and prayer.

(8) The ministry of the Word and prayer were a priority to the apostles because the proclamation of the gospel was a priority. I mention this here for an important reason. Here, the priority of the advancement of the gospel required the apostles to refrain from working and to devote themselves to the “ministry of the word and prayer.” The priority of the apostles was the advancement of the gospel, not just preaching the gospel. Thus, they ceased working to support themselves so that they could devote themselves to preaching and prayer. The advancement of the gospel was Paul’s priority too, and it required the opposite of him. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul made it clear that while he and Barnabas had the right to be supported as apostles, they declined to do so, working with their own hands, supporting themselves, because this was the best way for the gospel to be advanced (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-23). This can be seen from other texts as well (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thessalonians 2:9-10). How sad it is today that so few think of advancing the gospel by refraining from being supported, while so many wish to be supported to preach the gospel. If the advance of the gospel is our priority, we will determine whether we support ourselves or whether we are supported on the basis of what most adorns and advances the gospel.

(9) The equality and unity which the gospel demands, and the Holy Spirit produces, is not complete until leadership is shared by the various parts of the body of Christ. This inference may not be as clear or as universally accepted, but I believe that it is valid. Before significant evangelization takes place outside Jerusalem, leadership in the church in Jerusalem is expanded to include those who were likely excluded previously. Equality is not really present until it is reflected in leadership.

The Outcome
(6:5-7)

5 And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.⁹⁶ 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.⁹⁷ 7 And the word of God kept on spreading;⁹⁸ and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.⁹⁹

The proposal of the apostles found favor with the entire congregation, and so the church set about its delegated task of selecting the seven men. While there is no indication that the apostles suggested or required that some of these men be Hellenistic Jews, it would appear from their names that they all were Hellenistic Jews, with the exception of Nicolas, who was a proselyte. When these men were brought before the apostles, they prayed and laid their hands on them. I believe this was to indicate that they were acting in the authority of the apostles. The inference is that the problem was solved and that the rift which was threatening the church was healed.

What Luke does tell us is that the church continued to grow. The proximity of this “progress report” to the matter of the feeding of the widows would suggest that growth continued in the church at Jerusalem because the problem was properly handled. If the threats of the Sanhedrin could not deter the apostles from preaching the gospel, neither could the problems in the church. The apostles persisted in preaching, and the Holy Spirit persisted in converting men and women and adding them to the church.

Luke gives us a very interesting detail concerning the added growth of the church. He informs us in verse 7 that “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” At this point in my understanding of Acts, I am not certain what to make of this statement, although I am convinced it is not an idle word. Luke’s words are always well chosen. It is possible, in the light of the next portion of Acts, that Luke is demonstrating that one era is drawing to a close. Initially the Pharisees adamantly opposed the Lord, but they have been silenced, to some degree, by His resurrection. The Sanhedrin too has aggressively opposed the Lord and His apostles, but they have now backed off, taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40). Finally, many of the priests have actually come to faith in Christ as their Messiah. The religious system of Israel has changed its stance considerably. But now, at a time when the “old guard” has backed off, a new source of opposition is about to emerge—the Hellenistic Jews. The first appearance of these opponents will be in Acts 6:9, where those from the “Synagogue of the Freedman” will oppose Stephen, and will spearhead his stoning. Not only will we find the torch being passed to the Hellenistic Jews (beginning with Stephen and Philip, with Saul close behind) to proclaim the gospel, but the torch will also be passed from the “native Hebrews” to the “Hellenistic Jews” in carrying on the opposition to the gospel.

This brings us to a very significant, and final, observation concerning the outcome of this apostolic action of the feeding of the widows. While the apostles appointed seven men to be in charge of the feeding of the widows so that they could preach, the Spirit of God sovereignly selected and empowered two of these seven to become workers of signs and to be powerful preachers themselves. It should not be overlooked that the action of the apostles was taken so they could continue to preach, but the outcome of their action was that Stephen and Philip became great preachers, whose ministry reached beyond Jerusalem and Judaism. Stephen’s preaching resulted not only in his death, but in the scattering of the church abroad, and the gospel as well (Acts 8:1). It also impacted and involved a Hellenistic Jew named Saul, who was to become God’s instrument to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 8:1; 9:1ff.). And the scattering of the church from Jerusalem also served to launch the ministry of Philip, who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:4-40).

I love the way the Spirit of God sovereignly works in and through the church. This incident in Acts 6 reminds me of the previous incident in Acts 1, where the apostles acted (again, with the consent of those gathered) to appoint the twelfth apostle. God nowhere condemned this action, but the Book of Acts will reveal that God had other “apostles” to add. This certainly included Paul, but it may also be understood to include Stephen and Philip. All of these men performed “signs and wonders”¹⁰⁰ and preached the gospel with great power.

The plans and purposes of God are always greater than our anticipation or understanding of them. Thus, the apostles acted in such a way as to enable them to be able to preach the gospel. In this, I believe, they acted wisely. But God was still free to raise up two of the seven they selected for ministering food to the task of ministering the Word. The apostles did not plan for this. They did not appoint these two to this task. They did not give them the power to work signs and wonders. They did not “disciple” these men, with the hope that they would take over a part of their task—of preaching the gospel. All of this was the sovereign purpose and work of the Holy Spirit. Men could not take credit for Stephen and Philip, or for the expansion of the gospel beyond Jerusalem, as a result of their ministries. The sovereign God was, once again, evident in the expansion of the gospel to Gentiles, as well as to Jews. What a mighty God we serve! Let us, like the apostles, seek to act in a way that is wise and pleasing to God. And let us, like the apostles, look for God to work in ways that we would never have anticipated, asked for, or acted upon.

Conclusion

As we seek to conclude this message, let me simply recap some areas of application, as stated or implied by our text.

First, there is a very literal application of our text in its stress on the need to care for believing widows. We have been talking about the neglect of a certain group of widows from a historic point of view, but let us not think only in terms of the past. I fear that the widows are a group who have always been neglected, and in some cases abused (cf. Matthew 23:14). Is it not possible for widows to be neglected by us, in our church, today?

The danger of widows, or at least a certain group of them, being overlooked by the church today is even greater now than it was then, in my opinion. Let me explain why. There was but one church in Jerusalem, which encompassed all members, regardless of race, culture, class, or economic level. There was but one church in Jerusalem, but in the city of Dallas, for example, there are virtually hundreds of churches, many of which are evangelical. The division of the church into many churches in one city has masked the problem of “overlooked people” even more today than in those days. The saints in Jerusalem saw the discrepancies in the care of the two groups of widows, because both groups were present as a part of the church. Today, the church in the city of Dallas is divided into geographical (North Dallas, Garland, South Dallas, etc.), racial and cultural (black, white, hispanic, Asian, etc.), socio-economic (middle, upper, lower class), and denominational segments, so that the whole church is never assembled in one place at one time (nor could it). The result is that poor black Christian widows in South Dallas may be doing without food, and yet we white Christians in North Dallas may never even see it or become aware of it. It is my personal opinion that the chance of widows being overlooked in our day is much greater than in the days of the first church in Jerusalem. Here is a text which we need to take very literally, to begin with, and very seriously in its implications.

Beyond our responsibility to feed the widows, let’s assume that there are well-fed believing widows in rest and retirement homes. They are not probably not mobile enough to find their own way to church. They will miss out on worshipping together with us, on worship and communion. And all too often, just as they cannot come to us, we do not go to them. I dare say that we are guilty of neglecting some of the widows today, and we may not even have gotten as far as to recognize it. We may not even have a group of people in our congregation who are, like the Hellenistic Jews, upset about it.

And if we let our concern for widows be expanded to the widows in our city, let us not restrict our vision or compassion to those within our own borders. Some of the greatest needs are those which are to be found in the Third World. In the developing argument of the Book of Acts, the vision of the church for the poor will become evident in Acts 11. We must, therefore, have a concern and a compassion for all widows, especially believing widows, wherever they might live.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from this text in Acts as it relates to its context and to the developing argument of the book as a whole. There is a very obvious transition taking place in chapter 6, a transition from Jerusalem to Samaria, and from “native Hebrews” to “Hellenistic Jews.” The torch of leadership is in the process of being passed. Leadership in the proclamation of the gospel is being passed from the twelve apostles (who will remain in Jerusalem, Acts 8:1), to all the rest, and especially the Hellenistic believers (such as Stephen and Philip, and later, Paul), who will be scattered abroad, preaching the gospel to “Hellenistic Jews” and also to Gentiles (cf. Acts 8:1-4; 8:5-25; 11:19-21). The torch is leadership is also being passed from the religious leaders in Jerusalem to the “Hellenistic Jews.” The stoning of Stephen is initiated by “Hellenistic Jews” from the “Synagogue of the Freedmen.” Others, like Paul, who take up the torch of opposition, are Hellenistic Jews. Thus, we find we are at a point of transition in Acts. We are on our way from Jerusalem to Rome and from the evangelization of the Jews (primarily) to Gentiles (primarily).

Another prominent theme to which this text in Acts contributes is that of the “progress of the gospel.” If the opposition of the Jewish leaders could not keep the apostles from preaching and ministering in the name of Jesus, neither could the problems within the church and the expectation that they personally solve them. The problem of the neglect of some widows, which was the result of the growth of the church, was also the cause of greater growth, by the way in which the church dealt with it. The gospel marches on, in spite of opposition and difficulty, indeed, because of it.

There are many other applications of this text to our lives which are apparent by implication, based upon the principles taught or assumed in our text. We learn from this text that as a church grows, its problems increase, and its structure must change. While the leaders of the church are responsible for seeing to it that problems are handled in a godly way, they are not responsible to personally solve them. Elders (like apostles) must see to it that many problems are handed by dealing with them administratively—by defining the problem, determining biblical principles and priorities, and communicating guidelines and standards for its correction. The elders must see their priority as that of the “ministry of the word and prayer.” Leaders, like deacons, are God’s means for freeing up the elders to focus on their principle tasks.

One of the greatest lessons in this text, in addition to others in Acts, is that of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Men have been given certain tasks and responsibilities by our Lord, who is the head of the church. He has given us His Spirit, who will enable us to perform these tasks. If we fail, it is not because He has failed to provide all that we need. If we fail, His work will go on and His purposes will be accomplished, for He can achieve His purposes through man’s disobedience and failure as easily as through his “successes.” And if we appear to succeed, and to carry out His will, God is not limited to our victories, any more than He is hindered by our failures. When the apostles chose Matthias as the last apostle, God had other apostles (like Paul) in mind, which He added in His way and in His time. When the apostles appointed these seven men to administrate the feeding of widows (and perhaps others), so that they could preach the gospel, God was free and able to take two of these seven and make great preachers of them. God works, in spite of our failures and successes, as well as by means of them.

We are obliged and responsible to undertake every task as unto Him, to do our task according to His principles and His power. If we fail, we will be accountable to Him for our failure, though His work will go on. And if we appear to succeed, it will have been by His grace. It will have been His work. It should be viewed as for the sake of His glory and praise. And even though we should appear to have handled the matter in the best possible way (as the problem of the widows was handled in our text), God may accomplish much more than we would ever have expected and in ways we would never have predicted nor planned. Man is responsible, but the sovereignty of God assures us that His purposes and plans will be achieved, in spite of us, through us, and by means of others than ourselves. What a God we serve!

---

⁸⁰ “The name disciples occurs here for the first time in Acts. The Greek mathetes literally means ‘learner’ (from the second aorist stem math of manthano, ‘learn’). It is the most common designation in the Gospels for the followers of Jesus, occurring 74 times in Matthew, 45 in Mark, 38 in Luke, and 81 in John. Outside the Gospels it is found only in Acts, where it appears 28 times, making a total of 266 times in the New Testament. It is always translated ‘disciples.’ It is ‘perhaps the most characteristic name for the Christians in Acts.’ Other names in Acts are ‘the saved’ (2:47), ‘saints’ (9:13, 32, 41; 26:10), ‘brethren’ (e.g., 1:15), ‘believers’ (10:45), ‘Nazarenes’ (24:5).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 85.

⁸¹ There is considerable discussion in the commentaries over the precise makeup of each of these groups. The description which is given above is an attempt to focus on the main features of the groups, and to show how friction could easily arise between the two.

⁸² The term used for “Hebrews” is found only here and 2 Corinthians 11:22 and Philippians 3:5. In each case, at least the last two, there is an aura of superiority attached or implied. The bitterness and grumbling against the “native Hebrews” would have included, as a matter of course, the apostles. Notice that they did not react negatively or defensively to this, as they could have done.

“The terms Hebrews and Hellenists (9:29; 11:20 mg.) are obviously to be defined as contrasts. After much discussion there is a growing consensus that the Hebrews were Jews who spoke a Semitic language but also knew some Greek. It can be safely assumed that nearly every Jew knew at least a little Greek, since it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean world. The Semitic language which they spoke was probably Aramaic rather than Hebrew itself. But contrast, the Hellenists were Jews who spoke Greek and knew little or no Aramaic. These groups would tend to worship as Jews in their own languages, and this practice would carry over when they became Christians. The former group would be principally of Palestinian origin, while the latter would be principally Jews of the Dispersion who had come to settle in Jerusalem. The latter group were more open to syncretistic influences than the former, but it should be emphasized that they had a strong sense of their Jewishness; Hellenistic Jews were strongly attached to the temple. The complaint which the Hellenists made concerned the lack of attention to their widows in the provision made by the church for the poor; it has been noted that many widows came from the Dispersion to end their days in Jerusalem. They would not be able to work to keep themselves, and, if they had exhausted or given away their capital, they could be in real want.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 125-126.

“The Grecians were Hellenists, or Jews who had imbibed the Greek culture, including language, of the countries in which they were born in the dispersion. They were considered inferior by the Hebrews, or Palestinian Jews, who were in a majority in the church.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 86-87

⁸³ The “daily distribution of food” was not necessarily restricted to widows.

⁸⁴ This does not seem to be altogether hypothetical. Not only does this seem to fit the facts as we perceive them, but to fit in with the inferences of Scripture. For example, Simon of Cyrene (a Hellenistic Jew?), on whom the cross of our Lord was placed, was said to be “coming in from the country” (Luke 23:26). Did he, like many others, find that he was forced to live some distance from Jerusalem, and to make a trek to this city? So, also, we find the two “disciples” to whom our Lord appeared, on their way to a village, named Emmaus, about seven miles distant from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13). I suspect that many who wanted to live as close as possible to Jerusalem found it necessary to live a number of miles distant.

⁸⁵ It is this fact which makes the indictment of our Lord against the scribes and Pharisees even more forceful, for they were taking advantage of these widows, and gaining possession of their houses, while they were duty bound to protect them (cf. Matthew 23:14).

⁸⁶ The references to grumbling in the NIV are: Exodus 15:24; 16:2, 7-9, 12; 17:3; Numbers 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:11, 41; 17:5, 10; Deuteronomy 1:27; Joshua 9:18; Psalm 106:25; Matthew 20:11; John 6:41, 43, 61; 1 Corinthians 10:10; James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:9; Jude 1:16.

⁸⁷ The priority of meeting the needs of believers is stated in Galatians 6:10, in a general way. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16 the widows who were to be permanently cared for by the church had to be elderly, godly, and without other means of support. Thus, it is only believing widows to whom Paul is referring in this text.

⁸⁸ We are not told the precise process by which this decision was reached by the apostles. It seems that there was no one “correct” process, one “formula” for determining the “will of God” here, as elsewhere. It would seem, however, that the “will of God for the church” is evident when the decision is consistent with biblical principles and practices, unanimous with the leaders of the church, and which is found acceptable by the congregation.

⁸⁹ There is a masculine element here, which should probably not be overlooked. It was the men “brothers” (v. 3) who were instructed to choose the seven, and it was men who were to be chosen. Here, one might think, would be a legitimate place for feminine leadership, but it was, in fact, prohibited.

⁹⁰ The apostles did not require or even recommend that the men who were “put in charge” of this ministry be Hellenistic. The fact that they were (or seem to be) must be credited to the church who chose them. I take it that there was a broadmindedness evidenced by the church in this.

“Full of the Spirit and wisdom.” There are several ways to take this. One could understand that being full of the Spirit was to have wisdom. I am inclined to see that one could be full of the Spirit and yet not wise. There are many people who may be, at the moment, “spiritual,” but who do not have the maturity and wisdom of years behind them. There was the need for spiritual sensitivity and practical wisdom (as Solomon possessed and practiced, for example, cf. 1 Kings 3).

⁹¹ The 7 men are not said to be given the task of waiting tables. The apostles not only declined to personally “wait on tables” (verse 2), but they did not delegate this task to the seven men, either. They were rather “put in charge of” this matter. The is a difference between doing a job and seeing to it that a job is done. It may well be that the whole church needed to be involved in this, and that the administration of it was to assure that it was well done.

⁹² I must admit that I am not sure whether “this task” was the overall responsibility for the “daily distribution of food” or whether it was the daily distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows.

⁹³ We know from 1 Timothy chapter 5 that only certain widows qualified for permanent care by the church. There were age and character qualifications, in addition to the fact that these widows were “widows indeed,” without a family to care for them (cf. 1 Timothy 5:3-16). It is interesting to note that the church’s responsibility to its widows is dealt with in the same chapter as the church’s responsibility to its teaching elders (5:17-20).

⁹⁴ The apostles are the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Elders do not appear in Acts until 11:30, followed by 15:4. It would seem that the apostles functioned, for all intents and purposes, as the first elders of the church, just as the seven men functioned as deacons.

⁹⁵ The key word here may be “devote,” which in Acts 2:42 seems to imply spending most of one’s time to something.

⁹⁶ “All seven appear to have been Hellenists (this conclusion does not rest merely on the fact that they all have Greek names); indeed, they were probably the recognized leaders of the Hellenists in the church.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 121.

The last of the seven was not a Jew by birth, but a Gentile proselyte.

“Prochorus is pictured in Byzantine art as the scribe to whom John dictated his Gospel.” Carter and Earle, p. 88.

⁹⁷ “The rite indicated a conferring of authority, and the accompanying prayer was for the power of the Spirit to fill the recipients (cf. Dt. 34:9). A similar rite was used in the appointment of rabbis, but there is some uncertainty whether this goes back to the first century. Se further 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6.” Marshall, p. 127.

⁹⁸ Marshall (p. 127) refers to the phrase, “the word of God increased,” as “a favorite phrase (12:24; 19:20).”

⁹⁹ “The priests were presumably those attached to the temple in Jerusalem, of whom there was a great number (estimated at 18,000 priests and Levites; they were on duty for a fortnight each year according to a rota; Lk. 1:8).” Marshall, pp. 127-128.

“Josephus claims that there were 20,000 priests in his day (Against Apion, II 8). So mention of a great company of the priests is not preposterous, as some have held.” Carter and Earle, p. 89.

¹⁰⁰ We are told that Stephen performed “great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). We are only told that Philip performed “signs” (Acts 8:6). Up to this point, these are the only two men to do so, other than the 12.

Introduction

There are three distressing facts when it comes to cults. The first is that Christians are prime targets for cults. All too many cult members appear to have been genuinely saved, but poorly grounded in the Scriptures, and thus were easy marks for cult leaders who professed to be “in touch” with God. I am told, for example, that Southern Baptists are some of the most likely prospects for Mormonism. The second distressing fact is that a number of cult founders and leaders have had some involvement with evangelical Christianity, but have departed from it. One of our close relatives was involved in a cult, and when she showed us the book written by the cult leader, he openly admitted an evangelical background. A third distressing fact is that some of the cults are so close to Christianity, at least in their professions and in their propaganda, that it is difficult to determine whether they are really Christian or not. I will not name a particular group, but you may easily be able to think of one or more which fall into this category.

Simon the magician was believed by some of the ancients to have been the founder of a very dangerous cult, one which dogged the heels of Christianity for a period of its history.¹¹⁰ It is difficult to determine with any degree of conviction, whether or not he was even a Christian. From Luke’s words (“even Simon himself believed,” verse 13) we would conclude that he was saved, but from the words and actions of Simon himself, and from the severe warning of Peter, one would surely have some second thoughts on the matter.

Simon is, unfortunately, similar to many of those who are cultists or false prophets and apostles, as described in the Scriptures. Simon was a man who once practiced magic, but who never seemed to fully give it up. He was thus plagues with a “magic mindset” which can be seen in what he says and does, as recorded by Luke. This mindset is not just that of the cultists; it is a mindset which characterizes many Christians today. There is a world of difference between magic and Christianity, as we shall see here, in our text, and later on in the Book of Acts (13:4-12; 19:13-20). Let us look carefully at Simon, then, to see if any of his ways of thinking or of acting are our own, or are characteristic of others, who profess to be Christians. And let us look as well at the ways in which God is bringing about the growth of His church, from Jerusalem and Judea, to Samaria.

The Source of the Samaritan Revival
(8:1-3)

And Saul¹¹¹ was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.

It was a remarkable chain of events, one which no one would have conceived of in advance. The problem of the neglected Hellenistic widows was solved by the appointment of seven men. Prominent among them in Luke’s account are Stephen and Philip. Stephen’s ministry exploded and expanded beyond overseeing the care of widows to the powerful proclamation of the gospel, accompanied with signs and wonders. This ministry led to opposition, which ultimately led to his execution. And Stephen’s death snowballed into a massive reaction to the entire church in Jerusalem. This intense persecution which broke out against the church caused the saints to scatter. All but the apostles fled, but these men stayed behind.

The result was a massive missionary expansion, without any missions committee, without any “support,” and (remarkably) without the leadership and presence of the apostles. Acts 1:8 was being fulfilled in Acts 8:1, but not in the way we would have expected. The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 was given in the form of a command. Acts 1:8 was given in the form of a promise. In reality, the evangelism of the Samaritans and the Gentiles did not take place because men actively sought to obey the command of our Lord, expressed in the Great Commission, but rather providentially, brought about by the Sovereign Head of the Church, through persecution. The saints went about, sharing the gospel, not so much out of obedience as out of necessity. Persecution brought about proclamation. How God’s ways surpass our own!

According to Luke’s account, the persecution of the church in Jerusalem which brought about the Samaritan revival¹¹² was, in large measure, the result of one key individual—Saul. No other names are mentioned. And, after the conversion of Saul, the persecution ceases, and a new era of peace commenced (Acts 9:31). I take it that Saul was therefore one of the driving forces behind the persecution of the church in Jerusalem.

The significance of this must not be overlooked. As the ringleader of the opposition to the gospel and the persecution of the church in Jerusalem, Saul was instrumental in the first “missions thrust” of the church. Granted, this was not his intent, but it was the result. God uses the “wrath of men to praise Him” (cf. Psalm 76:10). How often we tend to think of the evangelization of the world of that day as the result of Paul’s “preaching,” rather than as a result of Saul’s “persecution.” Both are true. The sovereign God can just as easily employ the intense opposition of an unbeliever to spread the gospel as He can the faithful preaching of one of His saints. A sovereign God does not need the obedience of men to achieve His purposes, but how blessed it is when men obey, becoming a willing participant in God’s plans and purposes!

Philip’s Samaritan Ministry
(8:4-8)

4 Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 And Philip¹¹³ went down to the city of Samaria¹¹⁴ and began proclaiming Christ to them. 6 And the multitudes with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing. 7 For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. 8 And there was much rejoicing in that city.

Samaria and the Samaritan people are not new to the gospels. John (chapter 4) recorded a very significant encounter between Jesus and the “woman at the well.” In this account, we are given some very pertinent insight into the views of the Samaritans, as well as their strained relationship with the Jews. When Jesus was passing through Samaria and was given an unfriendly reception, some of Jesus’ disciples asked His permission to “call down fire from heaven” on that village (Luke 9:51-55). Jesus told the story of the “Good Samaritan,” which contrasted the warmth and compassion of this “heathen” with the callused disregard of a Jewish priest and a Levite (Luke 10:30-37). While He forbade His disciples to go to Samaria with the good news of the kingdom initially, this was rescinded in the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 10:5-6; 28:18-20).

Philip’s arrival in the city of Samaria was but a part of a much larger program, whereby the persecution of the church scattered saints. Notice that this scattering occurs in such a way as to exactly follow the order of Acts 1:8:

“… and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

And so the church was born in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), it spread through persecution to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1, in that order), and then abroad (cf. Acts 11:19-21; 13:1ff.).

Those who were scattered may have fled Jerusalem in fear, but the message of the gospel was nevertheless proclaimed. I do not think that the gospel was proclaimed out of duty, but rather spoken as a truth which could not be kept secret. It would not surprise me that some of the saints who fled from Jerusalem purposed to keep quiet about their new faith in Jesus as their Messiah, but when they spoke with others, they could do nothing other than to speak of Him with their new neighbors.

Like Stephen, the hand of God was powerfully evident in the ministry of Philip. Great signs accompanied and underscored his preaching, so that the people gave attention to his message. Among the miracles which occurred were the exorcism of demons and the healing of the paralyzed. As God’s power was demonstrated and the gospel was received, there was great joy in that city (verse 8). The “Samaritan revival” had commenced.

Simon’s Past and His Profession
(8:9-13)

9 Now there was a certain man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; 10 and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” 11 And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 13 And even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

In the previous section, Philip’s overall ministry was summarized, and a general overview of its results was given. Now, in verses 9-13, one man is in view, a magician by the name of Simon. This “Simon” was a man who had once mystified the people of this Samaritan city (verses 9-11). By his magic arts¹¹⁵ Simon had managed to “pull the wool over the eyes” of the Samaritans for years. He made claims of being someone great, but it seems that he allowed the people to come to their own conclusions. Their conclusion, skillfully suggested and orchestrated by Simon, was that he was “the Great Power of God.” Given the religious views of the Samaritans, and the fact that they shared a messianic hope with their Jewish “half-brothers” (cf. John 4:25), I take it that Simon was claiming to be more than a representative of God, but that he was indeed deity. Was he actually claiming to be the Messiah? Such was not uncommon, and it may well have been Simon’s intent.

When Philip arrived in Samaria, Simon’s magic practice came to a screeching halt. The impression I gain is not that Simon gave it up, as something deceptive, evil, and anti-Christian, but rather that his practice merely died, outclassed by the real power of God manifested through Philip. Even Simon was amazed by the power of God at work through Philip. But because he did not forsake his magic practice, he seems not to have forsaken the “magic mentality” on which it was based. Simon is said to have believed, and to have been baptized (verse 13), but there seems to have been little repentance evident, that change of heart and mind which sees one’s past ways as those which must be rejected and put aside. If Simon was not saved, he surely appears to have come close to faith, and if he was a true believer, he seems not to have taken his faith far enough.

While the people of Samaria witnessed the miracles which God performed through Philip, they focused on his message. When the people of Samaria witnessed the “magic” of Simon, they focused on the man. Simon seems to have been more taken by the ministry and the power of Philip than with his message. Wherever Philip went, Simon tagged along, constantly amazed at the evidences of the hand of God in this man’s life and ministry. The power of Philip seems more fascinating to Simon than the person of Christ and the practical outworkings of the gospel. The magician seems to live on, focusing on a bigger and better power, rather than on a whole new way of life. He seems, still, to be too self-centered, and not Christ-centered.

The Arrival of the Apostles
and an Admonition from Peter
(8:14-24)

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.” 24 But Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

While the apostles in Jerusalem did not initiate this revival in Samaria, they did sense a responsibility for exercising oversight in the matter. Thus, when they heard of the Samaritan revival, they sent down Peter and John. (Ironically, it was John who was one of the disciples who asked permission to call down fire on the Samaritan village in Luke 9:54. How strange it must have seemed to John, now, to be going down to Samaria to recognize the church which was begotten there. I wonder if Peter and John had to pass through this same village on their way down, or back, and to preach the gospel to these people.)

We are not told that Peter and John were sent to Samaria to lay hands on the Samaritans and to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. I think that they went on a “fact-finding mission,” not know what God would have them do when they arrived. When they arrived, they must have begun to interview these new saints, and in a way similar to that described in Acts 19:1-7, they must have learned that while these “saints” had believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah, and while they had also been baptized, they had not received the Holy Spirit, as had happened in Jerusalem. Learning this, they must have sensed that God had held back the descent of the Spirit until their arrival. They somehow learned that through the laying on of their hands and their prayers the Spirit would come upon the church.

There is a temptation for us to try to make this text conform to our pre-conceived ideas about the Holy Spirit, rather than to allow it to speak for itself. It would seem to me that the “coming” of the Holy Spirit here upon the Samaritans was very similar to (if not identical with) the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). There is, however, no emphasis on the “ecstasies” of this event, and we are not told exactly what did take place. Surely something unusual and miraculous occurred, for Simon seems to be even more impressed at this event than with what he had seen taking place through Philip. I take it, then, that this is the second of four “pentecosts” in the Book of Acts (the remaining two being found in Acts 10 and 19).

For those who would like to view this event as normative, I would disagree. I do not think that this text suggests that the Holy Spirit comes upon men only after they have had the “laying on of hands.” Indeed, when we look at the four “pentecosts” in Acts, it is only here and in chapter 19 that the Spirit falls upon men through the laying on of hands. In Acts 2 and 10, no one expected the Spirit to descend on men, and nothing was done to prompt it. Elsewhere, the laying on of hands has nothing to do with the reception of the Holy Spirit.¹¹⁶ The point of the “laying on of hands” is identification, more than impartation. The laying on of hands was an act of identification. In laying their hands on Paul and Barnabas, the church at Antioch identified with them in their God-given task of evangelization (Acts 13:3). When the apostles laid their hands on the 7 (Acts 6:6), they were identifying themselves with these men and their task, thus giving them (their) authority to carry out the oversight of the feeding of the widows. In Acts, the reception of the Holy Spirit (a “pentecost” by my definition, at least) happens to four groups. These incidents are not the norm, but the exception. They occur so that it might be made clear that the gospel has been proclaimed and received by those outside Jerusalem, and by those other than Jews (i. e. Gentiles). In the epistles, the norm is that men receive the Holy Spirit at the time of their salvation (cf. Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2:6-16; 12:13). The fact that Luke has to tell his reader that these Samaritans had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16) strongly suggests that this case was the exception, and not the rule.

The focus of this account is not to emphasize the reception of the Holy Spirit, but rather the undue attraction which this power to bestow the Holy Spirit has for Simon. Simon was amazed by the power of God at work through Philip, but he did not offer Philip money to have such power.¹¹⁷ Once the apostles arrived, it would seem that Simon quickly transferred his fixation on them, and on their power, rather than on Philip. To Simon, if their power was not greater than Philip’s, it was at least more desirable.

Simon “reached for his wallet” (at least figuratively), offering Peter and John money for the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit. It is not really surprising that he would do so. After all, would he not have paid to learn his magic arts. No one would be inclined to pass along such valuable knowledge without compensation. Learning to practice magic would be something like buying a franchise. Simon was used to thinking in terms of the buying and selling of abilities. He simply continued to operate as he always had—as a magician. The problem was that Christianity and magic are worlds apart, night and day. This he would learn from the lips of Peter.

Peter’s first words are strong indeed, signaling the seriousness of Simon’s sin. J. B. Phillips catches the flavor in a translation which closely resembles the sense of the original text:

“To hell with you and your money” (Acts 8:20).

It certainly casts some doubt on the salvation of Simon. If this man were truly saved, you would also be eternally secure, but Peter’s words would not give him a false sense of assurance. Let us remember that Peter, himself, heard some very strong words of correction from the lips of his Lord:

“Get behind Me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23).

Just as Peter was called “Satan” by his Lord for expressing his thoughts and desires, so Simon was addressed as a heathen, for he was acting like one at the time.

Peter’s rebuke is stinging, but it is not really what we might have expected. Simon was not admonished for improper motivation, though one can hardly doubt that his motives were impure. Did he not wish to obtain the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit to make money, or at least to gain power and prestige, and to further himself? I suspect so, but this is not what Peter condemned.

Peter’s indictment was not Simon’s motivation, but his mindset. It was not his attitude which was the most serious problem, but his assumptions. The bottom line was that Simon thought he could buy the gift of God:

“May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20).

The ability to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit was a gift, as I understand it, a gift which was restricted to the apostles. This is why Philip could not bestow the Spirit upon the Samaritan saints. When Simon tried to purchase the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit on others, he based his actions on the assumption that the gift of God could be bought and sold.

Why is this such a serious matter? Because it is a misconception, a perversion of grace. There is a direct, one-to-one connection between spiritual gifts and grace. In fact, spiritual gifts are “graces.” The word used for gift is the word for grace. Any spiritual gift is a grace gift. That means that it cannot be earned or secured by man’s efforts. That is why gifts are sovereignly bestowed:

But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

The gifts of the Spirit and the gift of salvation are all gifts in the same sense that they are gifts of grace, they are gracious gifts of God that are not deserved, but which are sovereignly bestowed on men, with no consideration of one’s worthiness of receiving them. No gift of God is ever deserved by its recipient, and thus we must always be grateful to God for them. Thus, too, we can never have pride because of any gift we receive.

This is why Simon’s sin is so serious. It is a sin against grace itself, and thus a sin of the most serious type. Peter’s words are intended to shock Simon, to underscore the evil of his actions and to bring about repentance. As I understand the words of verses 21 and 22, Peter is not speaking so much about Simon’s sinfulness in general, but rather in terms of this specific sin, the sin of trying to purchase God’s gift. It is this sin which is in view, and it is this sin which Simon must repent of and seek God’s forgiveness and restoration.

Peter’s rebuke employs the terminology of Deuteronomy 29:18.¹¹⁸ Note this text in its broader context:

“Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today (for you know how we lived in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the midst of the nations through which you passed. Moreover, you have seen their abominations and their idols of wood, stone, silver, and gold, which they had with them); lest there shall be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there shall be a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood. And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, ‘I have peace thou I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry.’ The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. Then the LORD will single him out for adversity from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant which are written in this book of the law” (Deuteronomy 28:14-21).

The context of this word of warning is the approaching entrance of Israel into the land of promise. God has made a covenant with His people, a covenant which promises His blessings if they obey His commands, but which promises judgment if they rebel against Him by disregarding His laws. God’s people have been given the law to distinguish them from the nations around them. To act like the other nations is to disregard God’s covenant, and to be a “root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.” It is to incur God’s judgment.

These words are most appropriate when referred to Simon. He was continuing to think and to act like the pagan he had once been. He was not obedient to God, and he was in great danger of divine disciple. No wonder Peter’s words were so severe! These words do not refer to Simon’s disregard of God’s old covenant, however, but to the new covenant, the covenant of grace. By attempting to buy the gift of God, Simon was setting aside the covenant of grace and seeking to influence God by magic, by manipulation, in a way that was like the heathen worship of the pagans. Simon was turning from grace to magic, and was in grave danger by so doing. Peter used the words of Deuteronomy 29 to cause Simon to think very seriously about his sin and the dire consequences which could follow, if repentance were not sincere and speedy.

The text that was cited, along with the words of Peter which were spoken to Simon are said in such a way as to raise serious questions about Simon’s salvation. A man who is truly saved should understand grace. A man who does not grasp the essence of grace is a man whose salvation is in question. I think that the reader is left to ponder Simon’s salvation, just as we wonder about the salvation of men like Balaam, in the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24). Simon is not only like Balaam of the Old Testament, but too much like the false prophets and apostles who are described in the New (cf. 2 Peter 2 & 3; Jude). No wonder Peter is so strong in his rebuke of this man.

Simon’s response is no cause for encouragement, either. His response is not one of deep repentance. He does not seem to express any sense of his sin against God, or his alienation from Him, due to his sin. Nor does he have any desire to go directly to Him for forgiveness. Instead, he is more concerned with the consequences of his sin than of the sin itself. He asks Peter to serve as his mediator. It is a most distressing note on which to end this account.

Conclusion

Our text is the beginning of an exciting new era in the history of the church. It depicts the expansion of the gospel from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria, and from Jews to others—in this case, Samaritans, half-Jews. It is a further testimony to the sovereignty of God in the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the promise of Acts 1:8, which lays out the strategy and the structure of the Book of Acts. God persists at bringing about His plans and purposes in spite of men—like Saul—who oppose the truth and who persecute the church. God’s truth and His church, are marching on, yet in a way that no man would have predicted, and that no man would have believed, if he were told ahead of time.

This passage may have had a very practical application for the saints who first received and read it. Suppose that Simon did depart from the faith and establish a cult. That cult could have existed during the time when the apostles (including Paul) were ministering to the churches. This cult could have caused some of the saints to stumble. If this were so, mention of Simon, of his sin, and of his rebuke by Peter, could very well have served as a warning to any who might be tempted to listen to Simon and to follow his teachings. This is an inspired “reference,” and not a positive one at that.

This text also has a lesson for us in evangelism. Somehow, in Simon’s “profession” there was a lack of repentance, a lack of complete turning around, a failure to reject and forsake the evils of his past. Instead, Simon continued to think and to act as a magician, rather than as a Christian. He was interested in “spiritual power” at a price, not in servanthood as his own expense. He did not seek those gifts which would build up and benefit others, but those which would be a source of gain to himself. He did not think in terms of grace, but in terms of magic and manipulation.

How important it is for us to proclaim a clear gospel, a gospel which identifies men’s past thinking and actions as sin, and which calls upon men to repent and to forsake the past. How often the gospel is presented in a way that suggests that men do not need to radically change to be saved, but that they can simply add a belief in Jesus to their current lifestyle. Salvation, by it very nature, is a radical change. We will see this with Saul, but we do not see it with Simon.

I find it both interesting and informative to compare the “profession” (whether genuine or not) of Simon with the conversion of Saul. In both accounts, we are told a fair bit about the past of these men, but there is one critical difference. Paul renounced and rejected his past, leaving it behind as something which was worthy of death, and he began to live in an entirely different way (cf. Philippians chapter 3). Simon, on the other hand, simply brought his past along, persisting in it as a professing Christian. Christianity teaches that the old man must die, and that the old life must be left behind, and that the new man must be manifest, through God’s Spirit (cf. Romans 6-8).

We have said that Simon was wrong for not repenting of and rejecting his past ways. To be specific, that of which he should have repented was magic. Magic is contrary to Christianity, and yet it is often confused or combined with it. Luke deals with magic in the Book of Acts three times: here, in chapter 13, and once again in chapter 19. In all three instances, the “magic” which is exposed has a religious flavor. Here, the magic of Simon merits him the title, “the Great Power of God” (8:10). In chapter 13, Bar-Jesus, the magician, who attempted to keep the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, from turning to faith in Jesus, was a “false prophet” (13:6). Finally, in chapter 19, the beating which the exorcists (the sons of Sceva) received from the demonized man, caused many to turn to Christ and to renounce their magic practices (19:11-20). In chapters 13 and 19, the magicians were Jews.

The difference between magic and Christianity is simple: MAGIC CLAIMS TO ENABLE MEN TO MANIPULATE GOD, SO THAT HE GIVES THEM THEIR DESIRES; CHRISTIANITY’S GOD MANIPULATES MEN.

In magic, God becomes man’s servant (the magic genie, who does man’s bidding). In Christianity, men become God’s servants. The difference is the sovereignty of God. God is not manipulated by men, for men have no claim on Him, on His grace, or on His power. God owes men nothing, and nothing men do can merit or cause God’s blessings.

Whenever men lose sight of the sovereignty of God, they begin to think and to act according to the rules of magic. And all of this can take on a very pious appearance. We believe that if we follow the right formulas God is obliged to act as we wish. If we pray, using the right formula (e.g. “in Jesus’ name”), or with enough persistence or sincerity, or the agreement of others, we can be assured that God will act in the way we desire. Magic focuses on the “right” methods. Christianity trusts in a God whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and whose ways are beyond our comprehension.

God’s grace and God’s gifts are a matter of His sovereign pleasure, but what a comfort it is to know that God acts independently of men, without being manipulated. What a comfort to know that God’s independence assures us that He will not only act independently of men, but in the best interest of His own. He is not manipulated by His children; He manipulates us, but in a way that is for His glory and for our best interest. His sovereignty will be evident in our next lesson, in the salvation of Saul, the rebel.

May we gratefully bow the knee in worship and obedience to the Sovereign God, who works all things together for our good, and in such a way as to achieve His purposes and plans.

---

¹¹⁰ “Simon Magus plays an extraordinary role in early Christian literature. The word ‘magus’ originally denoted a member of the Median priestly tribe, but it came to be used in an extended sense of a practitioner of various kinds of sorcery and even quackery, like Elymas, the sorcerer of Paphos in Cyprus, whom we meet later in the narrative of Acts (13:6-11). The ‘magi’ or ‘wise men’ from the east (Matt. 2:1), who saw the rising star of the newborn king of the Jews, were evidently astrologers. This Simon is depicted in postapostolic writings as the father of all Gnostic heresies. Justin Martyr tells how he secured a following of devotees not only in Samaria but in Rome, to which he went in the time of Claudius. In the apocryphal Acts of Peter (4-32) he is said to have corrupted the Christians in Rome by his false teaching and made the authorities ill-disposed toward them, but to have been worsted at last in a magical contest with Peter. But it is in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies that the Simon legend is most curiously elaborated: in them he not only appears as the untiring adversary of Peter but seems, to some extent at least, to serve as a camouflage for Paul, reflecting anti-Pauline sentiments among some of the Ebionites and similar Jewish-Christian groups.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 166.

“. . . Simon Magus (the magician, or sorcerer) -- is the subject of many legends in the Early Church. The most striking tradition is that he was the founder of Gnosticism.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 114.

¹¹¹ “Saul, a native of the Cilician city of Tarsus, as we learn later (9:11), may have attended the synagogue in Jerusalem where Stephen engaged in disputation with the spokesmen for the old order (6:9).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 161.

¹¹² The persecution which sent men and women to Samaria, where the gospel was proclaimed, also sent others to more distant places, where the gospel was proclaimed not only to Jews, but to Gentiles as well. This resulted in the birth of the church at Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). Luke indicates that the same persecution results in both “waves” of evangelism, but saves the more “Gentile” phase until later in the book, to keep his account consistent with the geographical outline of the gospel’s expansion, given in Acts 1:8.

¹¹³ Of Philip: “The deacon (6:5) and evangelist (21:8), not the apostle of the same name (Mark 3:18).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 102.

¹¹⁴ “The city of Samaria” is rendered “a city” in some translations. There was in Samaria, a city whose name was Samaria. Thus, one could have spoken of Samaria (city), Samaria (country), just as one can presently speak of New York, New York. Of the city of Samaria, Bruce writes, “The ancient city called Samaria had been refounded by Herod the Great and renamed Sebaste, in honor of the Roman emperor, but it was a Hellenistic city, and the impression given by our narrative is that the people to whom Philip preached were genuine Samaritans.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 165. If the rendering, “a city” is correct, a number of cities could be proposed as the particular city.

¹¹⁵ I take it that Simon had no real supernatural powers. Some, such as the demon-possessed girl who pestered Paul and Silas (Acts 16:16-18), did have supernatural abilities, but it seems that this man had only tricks, deceptions, the slight of hand appearances of magical powers. His amazement at the power of God at work through Philip gives me the impression that he had no real power.

¹¹⁶ Ananias did “lay his hands on” Saul (Acts 9:12, 17), and this seems to be in conjunction with his receiving the Holy Spirit, but once again we are not told what phenomenon accompanied his reception of the Spirit, if any.

¹¹⁷ It is my opinion that Simon had little interest in this power to heal and cast out demons, because he was not as interested in ministering to others and he was in promoting himself. Thus, the “razzle dazzle” ability to bestow the Holy Spirit had more appeal to Simon than the less spectacular ability to heal and deliver others from Satan’s bondage.

¹¹⁸ Cf. also Deuteronomy 32:32; Lamentations 3:15; Job 16:14; Isaiah 58:6; Hebrews 12:15.

Introduction

Imagine for a moment that this is the week of Saul’s arrival at Damascus.¹²⁹ By this time Saul has gained a reputation as the ringleader of the movement to make Christianity extinct. A devout Hellenistic Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, Saul was a member of the Pharisees and was taught by none other than Gamaliel, whom we have already met (Acts 5:34-40). Saul did not agree with his teacher, Gamaliel, on how the Christians should be dealt with, however. Rather, he sought the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment (with imprisonment the norm and death the ideal, it would seem) of those in Jerusalem. His career as a persecutor of Christians seems to have begun with Stephen, but it quickly spread to all of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58–8:3). Saul was not content to punish some and to drive the rest from the “holy city.” He did not want to merely contain Christianity or to drive it from Jerusalem; he wanted to rid the earth of Christianity and its followers. Thus, his opposition to Christ and His church took on a “missionary” spirit. Saul went to other cities where he sought to arrest Christians and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Damascus, a city some 150 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, was one such city. Word was out that Saul would soon be arriving.

Suppose you were a Christian who had just arrived in Damascus, and you had been able to learn the whereabouts of a group of believers. Let us suppose further that the church had gathered on this particular evening for a time of prayer, prompted by the news that Saul was soon to arrive, with all the necessary legal machinery (that is, the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin¹³⁰) to arrest and extradite¹³¹ the saints who were in the city. What do you suppose the saints would have prayed at this special prayer meeting? We are given a little insight from the account in Acts 12 when Peter was imprisoned and it appeared he would soon be executed, as James had already been, and as we would infer Herod purposed to do with Peter (Acts 12:1-4). In this occasion, no one seems to have prayed for Peter’s miraculous escape. At least we can say that no one had enough faith to believe it, even as Peter stood at the door, knocking to get in (12:12-17).

I very much doubt anyone prayed that this Saul might be saved. I can believe someone might have prayed that Saul be waylaid, or “terminated,” in some divine act or providential accident (“act of God”). I can believe the saints who gathered to pray would have prayed for the protection of the church in Damascus and for the safety of individual saints, especially the leaders and the most visible Christians. No one, it would seem, was even thinking of what God was about to do. Ananias is not only surprised by his commission; he is resistant to it, at least initially.

There would likely be another group of people meeting on the evening before Saul arrived in Damascus—those who did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah, and who eagerly sought the eradication of the church in their city. Were these people as eager as Saul to destroy the church? Did they send for Saul? Or did they somewhat dread his arrival, knowing how zealous he was in his opposition to the church. If he were viewed as a reactionary, a trouble-maker, perhaps there were some unbelievers who thought Saul was too much trouble. Nevertheless, there must have been those who intended to use Saul’s coming to oppose the church. They may have been attempting to compile a list of known (and even suspected) Christians, along with addresses, to facilitate Saul’s task.

What a shock Saul’s conversion must have been to both groups! To the church, Saul turned out to be a friend, a fellow-believer, in fact, a flaming evangelist, who proclaimed Christ more clearly and powerfully than anyone had previously done in Damascus. The church did not shrink or suffer for Saul’s arrival, but it grew because of it. And the second group, who were waiting for Saul to come and help them deal with the followers of “the Way,” were about to discover that Saul had joined them, perhaps bringing other members of the opposition along with him. Did they think their task would be a simple one? They found that their cause was literally shut down by Saul’s arrival, and the wind was taken out of their sails by his conversion. What can you say about Christianity when its most outspoken and zealous opponent suddenly claims to have seen the risen Christ, and to have trusted in Him as the Messiah?

The importance of Saul’s conversion can hardly be overestimated. Three times in the Book of Acts it is reported, the first time in the third person (“he”) by Luke (Acts 9:1-31), the second time in the first person (“I”) by the apostle, as he spoke to his Jewish unbelieving brethren in defense of his ministry (Acts 22:1-21), and the third time, again in the first person, as his personal testimony to King Agrippa, Festus, and Bernice (Acts 26:1-23). This three-fold repetition is a clear indication of the importance of this event, especially in the themes Luke is seeking to develop in the Book of Acts.

It is not just in the Book of Acts that the importance of Saul’s conversion is evident. On various occasions in his epistles, Paul made either direct or indirect references to his former life of opposition and his radical conversion.¹³² Paul’s theology, his lifestyle, his ministry, and his methodology, all are rooted in his conversion. This text portrays one of the historical landmarks of the church.

Problems in the Passage

If this passage is profoundly important, it also poses its problems. There are differences between the three accounts given to us in Acts. All of these should be expected and can be rather easily explained. But there is a greater discrepancy between the accounts of Saul’s conversion in Acts and that which Paul gave in Galatians 1. I. Howard Marshall summarizes the problem in these words:

“Nevertheless, we obtain a different impression of things from Galatians 1:16-24, according to which (1) Paul did not confer with men after his conversion nor go to the apostles in Jerusalem, but (2) departed to Arabia and then returned to Damascus; then (3) three years later he went to Jerusalem for a visit lasting a fortnight during which he saw only Peter and James, and at this time he was unknown by sight to the churches of Judea; thereafter (4) he went to Syria and Cilicia. This account is accompanied by an asseveration of its truth which suggests that some people were contradicting it.”¹³³

As I look at the problem, I believe several conclusions must be drawn. First, there are problems which appear to be serious. Second, we are not given enough information in the biblical text to solve them dogmatically. Third, these discrepancies may well have been evident to the writers, who did not see fit to remove or explain every problem. Fourth, if we had all the facts, there would be no problem. Fifth, faith must take the text on face value, as it is written, and believe it as God’s inspired, inerrant, authoritative word.

The Structure of the Passage

The passage which we are studying can be divided into these major segments:

• Saul’s Arrest—Verses 1-9
• Convincing Ananias—Verses 10-16
• Ananias and Saul—Verses 17-19a
• Saul’s Witness in Damascus—Verses 19b-25
• Saul’s Witness in Jerusalem—Verses 26-30
• Peace Returns to the Land—Verse 31

Our Approach

We will begin this lesson by making some general observations concerning this account of Saul’s conversion,¹³⁴ after which we will examine the sequence of events leading up to Saul’s conversion, the events surrounding his conversion, and the consequences of his conversion as depicted by Luke. We will next seek to learn how this description of Saul’s conversion fits into and contributes to the development of Luke’s argument in Acts. We will also attempt to determine to what degree Saul’s conversion was typical and to what degree it was unique. We shall then seek to identify the characteristics of Saul’s conversion which are typical of every conversion. Finally, we shall attempt to focus on the application of this passage to our own lives.

Overall Observations

The first thing we shall do is to make some observations on the passage as a whole to attempt to see the forest before we scrutinize the trees. Note the following impressions gained from a reflection on the passage as a whole.

(1) There is considerable emphasis given to Saul’s conversion in the Book of Acts. To put it differently, the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9 is but the first of three accounts, the other two coming from the lips of Paul himself.

(2) While there is considerable emphasis on the conversion of Saul, there is very little detail given as to the precise time or the details of Saul’s conversion. We do not know the exact time when Saul was saved. It would seem not to be there on the road to Damascus. Here, Saul was only told that it was Jesus whom he saw, who was speaking to him, and whom he was persecuting. The details of what was said and done when Ananias arrived are fuzzy. There is clearly no attempt to establish some kind of pattern or formula for evangelism here, at least as far as methodology is concerned.

(3) Saul’s conversion experience was quick and dramatic in one sense, but it also involved a process, a process of at least three days.¹³⁵

(4) More space is devoted to the process of getting Ananias to Saul than is devoted to getting Saul to Damascus and to the home of Judas. It almost seems harder to convince Ananias that Saul is (or will be) a Christian than it is to convert Saul.

(5) There is a good deal of emphasis on the results of Saul’s conversion. In fact, more is written of what Saul said and did because he was saved than is written of what he said and did resulting in his salvation.

(6) Little emphasis is placed on Saul’s reception of the Holy Spirit, and nothing is said about what happened as Saul received the Spirit. In our text Ananias was instructed to go to Saul and to lay hands on him so that he might receive his sight (9:12). The words which Ananias spoke to Saul indicate he was also to lay hands on him so that he would receive the Holy Spirit (9:17). In spite of this, we are not told here that Saul did receive the Holy Spirit or what happened when he did. I do not question that he did receive the Spirit, but merely observe that this receiving of the Spirit (accompanied by the laying on of hands) was not something Luke wanted to emphasize. If Luke had any “ax to grind” on this issue, here would have been a great place to stress this matter, but he did not do so. This silence is instructive, in my opinion.

(7) Those who were saved by Saul’s ministry were convinced by the power of the gospel message he preached and not by miraculous signs and wonders. Elsewhere in Acts, such as with the apostles, Stephen and Philip, the message of the gospel was underscored by signs and wonders which accompanied the message. Nothing is said in our text about any miracles being performed by Saul, as yet. We are simply told that the message itself was proclaimed powerfully and that people were amazed at the message and its miraculous impact on Saul’s own conduct.

(8) Saul was saved independently of the apostles. Ananias was used as God’s instrument in the conversion of Saul, but even he had to be pushed to go to Saul. There is not so much as a hint that anyone prayed for Saul’s salvation or took the initiative to bring it about. It was God’s initiative all the way. The apostles had nothing to do with Saul’s conversion, and they were reluctant to believe it had happened or to welcome him into their fellowship. Paul would make much more of this point in the first chapter of Galatians.

(9) On the road to Damascus, Saul did far more than to see a bright light and to hear a voice from heaven. Saul saw and heard the resurrected Christ. When one looks at all the references to this event, it was, in fact, a personal appearance of the risen, glorified Jesus to Saul (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:4-11).

(10) Saul’s encounter with Christ was not only a conversion, but it was also a call to a very specific ministry. Saul was told at the time of his conversion that God had chosen him to bear witness to the Gentiles, to kings, and to the Jews (9:15).

(11) Saul’s conversion was a watershed event which greatly affected the history of the church. From the fact that three different accounts of Saul’s conversion are recorded in Acts, we know this event had to play a crucial role in the expansion of the church.

(12) The same Saul who played a role in Stephen’s execution was to become, in large measure, his replacement. Saul, like Stephen, was a Hellenistic Jew. Saul, like Stephen, spoke with such power and authority that his opponents could not refute him. Saul, like Stephen, had a ministry which focused on the Hellenistic Jews. Like Stephen, the enemies of the gospel attempted to kill Saul when they could not silence him by means of debate.

(13) As Stephen’s death, instigated (or at least assisted) by Saul, resulted in an intense and widespread persecution of the churches in Jerusalem and elsewhere, so Saul’s conversion seems to have been directly related to the return of peace (cf. 9:31).

(14) There is an interesting symmetry or parallel between the conversion of Saul and the conversion of Cornelius.

“Conybeare and Howson {The Life and Times of Saint Paul, p. 77 (sic punct.)} remark on the symmetry with which Luke sets forth the two stories: ‘The simultaneous preparation of the hearts of Ananias and of Saul, and the simultaneous preparation of those of Peter and Cornelius,—the questioning and hesitation of Peter and the questioning and hesitation of Ananias,—the one doubting whether he might make friendship with the Gentiles, the other doubting whether he might approach the enemy of the Church,—the unhesitating obedience of each when the Divine will was made known,—the state of mind in which both the Pharisee and the centurion were found,—each waiting to see what the Lord would say to them,—this close analogy will not be forgotten by those who reverently read the two consecutive chapters. . ‘“¹³⁶

Man Proposes—God Disposes
or Saul’s Intentions and God’s Interruption
(9:1-9)

Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way,¹³⁷ both men and women,¹³⁸ he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?”¹³⁹ And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do.” 7 And the men who traveled with him¹⁴⁰ stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.¹⁴¹ 8 And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.¹⁴² 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Verses 1 and 2 vividly depict Saul’s intent, his intense desire and determination to rid the world of Christianity by taking active, aggressive, severe action against those saints who had fled from Jerusalem. While Paul may not have brought about the execution of all those whom he arrested, including women as well as men (verse 2), verse 1 strongly suggests that this was his desire and ambition. How true are two of the proverbs, which read:

The mind of a man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand (Proverbs 19:21).

God’s promises and purposes would not be stopped by this madman, Saul. Indeed, God would reveal His sovereignty by using Saul to further the gospel, first by his opposition (which scattered the church and spread the gospel), and then by his conversion (which resulted in his powerful proclamation of Jesus as Messiah).

We know from other accounts (22:6; 26:13) that it was “high noon” when Saul was stopped in his tracks by a bright light from heaven. This light would thus have been very bright indeed. It was bright enough to bring about a period of blindness. It was almost as though Saul had looked intently into the beam of an intensely powerful carbon-act light, the kind used as search lights.

This light was more, much more, than just a bright light. It is, in the Bible, the radiance of God’s glory. Frequent biblical texts speak of God in terms of light:

You are resplendent with light, more majestic than mountains rich with game (Psalm 76:4).

He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent (Psalm 104:2).

Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).

“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you (Isaiah 60:1).

He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him (Daniel 2:22).

Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).

In the end, God Himself will provide the illumination so that the sun and the stars will not be needed for this function:

The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the Lord binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted (Isaiah 30:26).

The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory (Isaiah 60:19).

Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end (Isaiah 60:20).

The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world’s great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray (Revelation 18:23).

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it (Revelation 21:23-24).

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5).

Israel was called of God and set apart to proclaim the way of salvation to the Gentiles. They were to be a “light to the Gentiles,” but they failed. They wanted to keep God’s blessings to themselves. They too rebelled against God and forsook His word and persecuted His prophets. What Israel failed to do, Jesus, the Messiah would do. He was to come to the earth as the “great light,” the “light to the Gentiles,” and so He did. In His coming as “the light,” those who come to “the light” become lights to the world themselves:

The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned (Isaiah 9:2).

“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6).

He says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).

“Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations (Isaiah 51:4).

After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:11).

Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will rise. Though I sit in darkness, the Lord will be my light. Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the Lord’s wrath, until he pleads my case and establishes my right. He will bring me out into the light; I will see his righteousness (Micah 7:8-9).

“The people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:16).

There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light (Matthew 17:2).

“A light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:32).

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it .… He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (John 1:4-5, 7-9).

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:19-21).

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:5).

Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them (John 12:35-36).

I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness (John 12:46).

Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard (Isaiah 58:8).

Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn (Isaiah 60:3).

When Saul was confronted on the road to Damascus, he saw the risen, glorified Lord. The light was the “light of His glory.” Saul, as it were, “saw the light,” but in addition, he was to become a light, a light to the Gentiles, as well as to his own people. Saul’s conversion was also his call to ministry, and this conversion experience is strikingly similar to that of one of his predecessors, Ezekiel:

1:4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, … 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell face down, and I heard the voice of one speaking. 2:1 He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” 2 As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. 3 He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’ 5 And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6 And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. 7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious (Ezekiel 1:4, 26-28; 2:1-7).¹⁴³

Paul recognized that his ministry was that of bringing “the light” to those who were lost, including the Gentiles, kings, and his fellow-Israelites:

For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’” (Acts 13:47).

“‘… to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’” (Acts 26:18).

The blindness to which Saul was subject for three days provided him with much time for reflection, meditation, and prayer. But his blindness was symbolic of his condition. Israel was also blind, and Paul’s blindness was but a specific example of this blindness:

The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you (Deuteronomy 28:28-29).

“Hear, you deaf! And look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but my servant {Israel}, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the Lord?” (Isaiah 42:18-19).

“Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf. All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.

Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep” (Isaiah 43:8-10).

Like the blind we grope along the wall, feeling our way like men without eyes. At midday we stumble as if it were twilight; among the strong, we are like the dead (Isaiah 59:10).

Now they grope through the streets like men who are blind. They are so defiled with blood that no one dares to touch their garments (Lamentations 4:14).

Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14; cf. 23:16-17, 19, 24; 23:26).

This blindness was only removed by faith in Christ, a miracle brought about by divine action:

In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see (Isaiah 29:18).

Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped (Isaiah 35:5).

To open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness (Isaiah 42:7).

“I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them” (Isaiah 42:16).

It was just such a miracle which gave Saul his spiritual sight, as he received back his physical sight. One cannot help but wonder if it did not send chills up and down Paul’s spine when he cast the spell of blindness on the Jewish false prophet, Bar-Jesus:

And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord (Acts 13:6-12).

Just as Saul had opposed those who believed, so Bar-Jesus opposed the proconsul’s conversion. Just as Saul was stopped short by his blindness, so was Bar-Jesus. And if Saul’s blindness led to his own conversion, at least the blinding of Bar-Jesus contributed to the conversion of the proconsul (and perhaps too his own conversion—who knows?). If the blinding of Saul was a major turning point in his life, so was the blinding of Bar-Jesus. It is here in Acts, for the first time, that Saul is called Paul. It is here that Paul took the leadership and became the dominant or leading individual, instead of Barnabas. The blinding of Bar-Jesus thus seems to be the second major turning point in the ministry of Paul. The casting of this spell on this false prophet could therefore have been an act of kindness, as God’s blinding of Saul had been, intended to cease his opposition and perhaps even to bring about his conversion.

The light from heaven brought Saul to the ground. It was surely fear (reverence), among other things, which prompted this. Jesus’ words, “Why are you persecuting Me?,” clearly implied that Saul’s persecution of the church was a persecution of the Lord. Did he still not realize who the Lord was? So it would appear. And so, Saul asked the LORD who He was. The LORD identified Himself as the Jesus, whom he had been persecuting. Jesus was alive and not still in the grave! Jesus was LORD and not a false prophet! And Jesus took the persecution of Christians very personally. To persecute them was to persecute Him.

Enough revelation for the moment. It was time for Saul to ponder what he had seen and heard. For now, he was told to proceed on to Damascus, where he would be given his next instructions.¹⁴⁴ His blindness certainly gave Saul the opportunity to dwell on these events. Saul took this most seriously, not eating or drinking until after his confession of faith by means of his baptism.

The Arrival of Ananias
(9:10-16)

10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Behold, here am I, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.”¹⁴⁵ 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

All of this account describes the two complementary divine visions which Ananias and Saul received. Saul’s vision prepared him for the arrival of Ananias, clearly indicating that he was the one God had appointed to reveal His will for him. Ananias’s vision was intended to direct him to the house of Judas and to Saul. There is more space devoted to convincing Ananias than there is to the conversion of Saul. It is difficult to estimate the amount of resistance Ananias would have had to this divine instruction to receive Saul as a brother in the Lord. Perhaps Ananias called a meeting of the church to discuss how they would deal with Saul’s arrival. He was a man of great respect and influence, and thus he realized that his actions would have broad ramifications. The ultimate issue was God’s ability to save—even the most committed unbeliever. How humorous it seems to hear Ananias informing the Lord that Saul was an enemy, one who had caused many Christians great suffering and adversity, as though He was unaware of this! Rather than attempt to pacify Ananias or to alleviate his apprehension, God went on to tell him that Saul would not only be a brother, but he would be His instrument for bringing the gospel to Gentiles too. Now this would have been a very bitter pill to swallow for many Jewish Christians. Nevertheless, Ananias obeyed.

The Meeting of Ananias and Saul
(9:17-19a)

17 And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

The words and actions of Ananias are an evidence of his faith and obedience to the divine commission he was given, as outlined by Luke in the verses above. They are also very significant in what they conveyed to Saul. The words, “Brother Saul” must not have come easily to Ananias. They were based, as I understand it, on what the Lord had revealed to Ananias and not on any confession or actions of Saul, for these seem to follow these initial actions and words of Ananias. Saul was received as a true believer, as a brother.¹⁴⁶ The laying on of Ananias’s hands, however, was a distinct act of identification with Saul. The result was the restoration of Saul’s sight and, it would seem, Saul’s reception of the Holy Spirit. Saul’s baptism followed, accompanied by his profession of faith, his “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). After this, Saul broke his fast and was strengthened.

The Consequences of Saul’s Conversion
(9:19b-25)

Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding¹⁴⁷ the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

23 And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

The remaining verses of this account describe the results of Saul’s conversion, all of which serve as dramatic proof of his radical transformation as a result of his encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. The first evidence of Saul’s conversion was his immediate identification with the church in Damascus. He who had wanted to kill these saints now wanted to fellowship with them. No doubt God had used Ananias to serve as Saul’s “first Barnabas.” Just as Barnabas would vouch for Saul with the apostles in Jerusalem, so Ananias, a highly respected Jewish Christian, would vouch for Saul here.

The second evidence of Saul’s conversion was in his bold proclamation of his newly found faith in Jesus as the Messiah. This man who had formerly cringed at the preaching of the gospel¹⁴⁸ was now proclaiming the same message. The man who, days before, was persecuting Christ was now preaching Christ. Saul proclaimed Jesus to be the “Son of God” (9:20), a designation understood to refer to Israel’s awaited Messiah.¹⁴⁹

The results of Saul’s preaching were predictable, very much like the response Saul would have had (or did have) to the preaching of the gospel before his conversion. Some were amazed, taking note of the dramatic turn-about in Saul’s faith and practice (9:21). But as Saul grew in strength and as his arguments were irrefutable, just as Stephen’s had been (Acts 6:10), his opponents realized that the only way to silence Saul was to kill him. They could not out-argue him. They could not prove him wrong from the Scriptures. They could only kill him, and this they were determined to do (9:23). When the plot became known to Saul, he made a successful, albeit undignified, escape from the city of Damascus. His disciples¹⁵⁰ lowered him in a basket, from the window of a room which was in the wall of the city (9:25).

Saul’s Journey to Jerusalem
(9:26-30)

26 And when he had come to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.

There may well have been a long time between Saul’s conversion and his arrival at Jerusalem. This conclusion could be based upon Paul’s argument in Galatians 1 and 2, along with the expression, “when many days had elapsed” in Acts 9:23. Nevertheless, at some point in time Saul did arrive in Jerusalem. One thing was certain; no matter how much time had passed, the apostles were not yet convinced of Saul’s conversion. They, not unlike Ananias, were very reluctant to have anything to do with this Christian killer. It was due to the intervention of Barnabas, a man who would prove to be a lifetime friend of Paul, that the apostles risked a meeting with him and then granted him the freedom to associate with the saints in Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, as in Damascus, Saul spoke out boldly proclaiming Jesus to be the Christ, the promised Messiah. Like Stephen, Saul seemed to gravitate toward preaching to the Hellenistic Jews (9:29). Some of the Hellenistic Jews responded to the preaching of Saul as they had to Stephen’s preaching; they wanted to kill him (9:29). He was, indeed, Stephen’s replacement. As at Damascus, Saul eventually had to leave the city of Jerusalem to save his life. The church sent him on his way to Tarsus by way of Caesarea. Those whose lives Saul would gladly have taken in his unsaved days now sought to save his life by sending him away.

Peace Returns When Saul is Removed
(9:31)

31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and, going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

Saul seems to have been the instigator of the persecution of the church, which began at the death of Stephen in Jerusalem and worked outward from there. With the conversion of Saul, persecution of the church did not stop, for now some of the Hellenistic Jews were opposing his preaching (and no doubt, the church at large as well). It was only with the exit of Saul from the Holy Land, back to his native land (Tarsus), that peace once again returned. As persecution was no longer needed to disperse the church and the gospel, peace was restored to the land. There is surely a connection between Saul and persecution, and Saul and peace. In peace, as in persecution, the church was comforted and continued to increase.

Conclusion

The first question which must be asked with regard to the interpretation of this text is this: “What is the meaning of this text in the context of the whole book?” Luke has included this account of Saul’s conversion in order to contribute to the argument which he is seeking to develop. The argument of the Book of Acts is essentially this: The expansion of the gospel through the church as it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. The expansion is three-fold:

(1) The expansion from Christ, to His apostles, to His church

(2) The geographical expansion from Jerusalem to Rome

(3) The racial expansion from the Jews to the Gentiles.

Saul’s conversion was to play a crucial role in the expansion of the gospel. Paul’s opposition resulted in the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem, thus taking the gospel to Judea, Samaria, and beyond (Acts 8:1; 11:19-21). The salvation of Saul was to result in the gospel being preached to distant people and lands, and in the extension of the church to many key cities. In the process, Saul was to greatly extend the outreach of the gospel to the Gentiles. It was his preaching that resulted in the conversion of many Gentiles, and it was his writing (his epistles) to these saints which greatly strengthened them in their faith. Saul’s conversion is a watershed event, catapulting the gospel to the Gentiles and to more distant places.

The conversion of Saul is important in another way. It is one of the few accounts of a conversion which is described with some detail (although this detail is much less than we would prefer). The question must be asked as to whether or not Saul’s conversion has a more general application and relevance. In other words, “Is Saul’s conversion typical and illustrative of the conversion of every saint, or is it unique, the exceptional case, which has little correspondence to most converts?”

The longer I study Saul’s conversion, the more convinced I am that his conversion is typical. Granted, his experience is unique and dramatic. Few Christians will encounter the risen, glorified Lord as Saul did here. We would readily grant that every conversion which is recorded is unique, to some degree. That is because our Lord always confronts, convicts, and converts men and women individually, in the light of their own actions and beliefs. Jesus dealt with Nicodemus (John 3) very differently from the Samaritan woman (John 4). Nevertheless, conversion has certain elements which are vital and which are to be present in any salvation experience. The common characteristics of conversion are those on which I would like to focus in the conversion of Saul.

Characteristics of Conversion

(1) Saul’s salvation was the salvation of a sinner. One of the most dramatic revelations of Saul’s Damascus road experience was that he was not serving God, but he was persecuting Him. The first words spoken to Saul were, “Saul, Saul, Why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4).

What a shock these words must have been to Saul, who up to this point, seems to have prided himself for his faithfulness to Judaism! Up till now, Jesus was the sinner, and Saul was the saint. Now that the Lord had identified Himself as Jesus, Saul recognized that he was the sinner. In fact, as Saul would later write, he realized that he was “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15).

Saul was also blinded, which identified him with the blindness of the nation Israel of which the Old Testament prophets wrote (see above). In Saul’s account of his conversion to His Jewish brethren, he added that when Ananias arrived, he instructed him to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). This expression, “calling on the name of the Lord” seems to be one used consistently in the Old Testament. It is the invitation for sinful Israelites to be saved, by repenting and calling on the name of the Lord for salvation:

Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:6-7; cf. also Psalm 50:15; Joel 2:32; Jeremiah 29:12; 33:3-8).

Later, when Paul looked back on his past “devotion and deeds,” all done in the name of Judaism, he came to view his apparent “righteous deeds” for what they really were—dung:

1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians 3:1-9; cf. also Isaiah 64:6).

What Paul learned about himself, personally, on the road to Damascus he came to understand and to preach concerning all men. Theologically, we know this as the doctrine of man’s total depravity.¹⁵¹ Paul surely believed that it was essential for men to begin with the understanding of their own sin, for in his Epistle to the Romans, he took the first two and one-half chapters to prove that “… all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

There are no exceptions in this “all” of Romans 3:23, as Paul indicated in these Old Testament words, cited just before:

“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE” (Romans 3:10b-12).

What a terrible revelation this is—that all are sinners, even the “best,” the most religious, the most righteous! But the gospel is good news for sinners. It is also bad news for the self-righteous. This is why Jesus was so receptive of sinners and so hard on the self-righteous. The good news of the gospel is that Christ Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Those who think themselves worthy of God’s blessings (as many Jews did in that day) are those who are in trouble. Those who know themselves sinners, and who call upon Jesus for salvation, are saved:

For “WHOSOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED” (Romans 10:13, citing Joel 2:32).

Lest anyone think they are “too sinful” to save, let me remind you that when Paul wrote that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” he quickly added, “among whom I am foremost of all.”

12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life (1 Timothy 1:12-16).

If the worst sinner (Saul) was not too sinful to save, then you are not too sinful for God to save. No sinner is beyond the grace and the grasp of God.

(2) Saul’s salvation was exclusively the work of a sovereign God. Our text presents Saul as a man who was not only running from God, but one who was actively opposing Him. Saul was not “seeking God.” Saul was saved in spite of himself. This Paul knew and testified to. God chose Saul and had his destiny planned, before He saved him. When God spoke to Ananias commanding him to go to the house where Saul was staying, he was to receive him as a brother; and he was told that he was called to suffer as God’s chosen vessel to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles, kings, and to his fellow-Israelites. In Galatians 1, Saul wrote that God had called him “while he was still in his mother’s womb” (Galatians 1:15).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:3-6).

Luke is emphatic in his representation of man’s salvation as having been ordained and orchestrated by God, as a manifestation of His sovereign grace:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14).

Those things in which Saul would have formerly trusted for his standing before God, he saw in an entirely different light after God found him and saved him:

4b If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philippians 1:4-9).

There is a great basis for comfort in the sovereignty of God. We know that the salvation of men rests ultimately with God and not with us—and not even with the one whom we wish to see saved. How much better to petition God to save those whom we are concerned about, a God who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). And what a comfort to know that God always finishes what He starts:

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

(3) Saul’s salvation was personal. The election of Saul to salvation was specific and thus, personal. It is evident in the way he was saved. The risen Lord selected Saul out of the group with which he was traveling to hear, to see Him, and to understand His words. Jesus did not address the entire group but said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” The others knew that something unusual was going on, but they did not grasp it (Acts 22:9). The approach the Lord took was one of dealing with Saul in the light of his sin, of his salvation, and of his ministry. The voice from heaven did not call out, “Have you ever heard of the four spiritual laws?”¹⁵² Ananias was sent to Saul only. The message which Saul received was not only a call to salvation, but a divine call to ministry.

There are two very important implications to the personal dimension of Saul’s conversion. The first is this: every saved person must have a personal conversion experience. We may not be able to identify the precise moment or the exact events which brought it about, but salvation does not happen in some kind of group way. Salvation may occur in a large group, such as those saved at the preaching of Peter at Pentecost, but each individual was saved because of a personal encounter with Christ. Have you had such an encounter?

Second, the gospel should be proclaimed in a way that is personal. When I look through the Gospels and the Book of Acts, I never find the gospel presented in the same way to different people. The message of the gospel, to be sure, is always the same, but the approach is not. Let us not fail to respect the individuality of the conversion experience and to deal with people in the light of their individuality. Let us avoid “cookie cutter conversions.”

(4) Saul’s salvation was miraculous. Saul’s conversion was a miracle, short and simple, but not so much the result of the external miracle of the bright light and the voice of the Lord as the internal transformation and illumination which God wrought:

15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man (Galatians 1:15-16).

When Paul spoke of his conversion here in Galatians 1, he did not speak of the light which shone without, but rather of the light which shone within. He did not say that God revealed his Son to him, but that He revealed His Son in him. This divine illumination is that miracle which God performs within a lost, blinded, dead soul, so as to bring about salvation:

4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4, 6).

Salvation is the miracle whereby God removes the blindness of sin and of Satan, whereby God replaces death with life. This is a miracle, a miracle which is all of God, and all of grace.

(5) Saul’s salvation was an act of divine grace. Saul recognized that he was a sinner, and that his “righteousness” was but “dung” before God. He realized that it was nothing which he had done—nor ever would do—but only by what Jesus Christ had done that saved him. Thus, whenever he spoke of his conversion and his call to ministry, he always spoke of this incident as an act of divine grace, of God’s unmerited favor, of an act of mercy toward him:

I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:15-16).

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord (1 Corinthians 15:8-11).

12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 1:12-14).

The same grace which was shown to Saul in his salvation is shown to all whom God calls to Himself:

8 So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day (2 Timothy 1:8-12).

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (Galatians 2:8-9).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).

Throughout his life and ministry Paul marveled at the grace of God shown to him and to other sinners. He constantly defended the gospel against those who would diminish grace and seek to pollute it with works. The Book of Galatians is but one example of this. He also warned those who would corrupt grace, to make it a pretext for sin (cf. Romans 6).

Grace is not only the basis for one’s salvation, but also for one’s spiritual walk and service:

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude (Colossians 2:6-7).

Thus, it is grace which sustains the saint, in addition to saving him:

Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited (Hebrews 13:9).

Grace is also the source and the standard for our service:

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person (Colossians 4:6).

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).

(6) Saul’s salvation was a conversion, a radical change. Salvation is a revolution, not an evolution. It is not a transition, but a transformation. It is a miraculous, dramatic reversal, first of one’s beliefs, and then of one’s behavior. This is very evident in the conversion of Saul. One moment, Saul was persecuting the church; shortly thereafter he was seeking to fellowship with the saints. One moment, Saul was opposing Jesus, as though He were the sinner; the next, Saul is on his face before this Jesus, calling Him Lord. One moment, Saul is inflicting pain and suffering on others who trust in Jesus as the Messiah, the next, he is enduring suffering for the sake of Jesus, the Messiah. Nothing is more evident in the account of Saul’s conversion than his radical reversal. Here is a graphic illustration of what true repentance is—it is a turning about, beginning with one’s belief and bearing fruit in one’s conduct. The baptism of Saul was his testimony to the change which had taken place. But beyond this, his conversion totally changed the remainder of his life. The life-changing implications of conversion are expressed in these words of Paul to Titus:

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. 15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you (Titus 2:11-15).

Perhaps nowhere else is the radical change (of conversion) in Paul’s life¹⁵³ more readily evident than in his attitude toward the saints. Saul sought them out to persecute, even kill them, as an unbeliever; but he sought them out to worship and fellowship with them as a Christian. More than that, he had a deep dislike and hostility toward Christians before his conversion. When we look at Paul’s great love and compassion for the saints, we have to remind ourselves of the hate he once had toward them. Only a radical conversion can produce this attitude in the life of a man like Saul:

For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:8).

But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children (1 Thessalonians 2:7).

For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? For you are our glory and joy (1 Thessalonians 2:19-20).

Over and over in his epistles, Paul spoke of salvation in terms of radical change. He spoke of it as the movement from darkness to light (Colossians 1:12-13; Ephesians 4:8-14) in which the new believer should now walk. He spoke of salvation as the change from death to life (Ephesians 2:1-3). He spoke of salvation as dying to the old manner of living and as rising from the dead in order to live an entirely new life (Romans 6). Christianity was described as putting off the old and putting on the new (Colossians 3). No change in life is greater than the change from unbelief to belief in Christ, from being lost and condemned to being saved and eternally secure, from being separated from God and others to being united with Him and with all believers.

The conversion of Saul, as depicted in our text, was not only a divine “call” to salvation, but it was also a “call” to service. At first, I thought this was unique with Saul. I was inclined to think that most of us, experientially, are called to faith in Christ only to gradually learn God’s will for our life, progressively revealed to us as we walk in Him. But as I see the “call of God” referred to in the New Testament, it seems that the “call of salvation” assumes other “callings,” to which Paul and other New Testament writers made frequent reference:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God (Romans 1:1).

6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 1:6-7).

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours … 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful (1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 9).

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 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. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to (1 Corinthians 7:15, 17-22, 24).¹⁵⁴

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13).

I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:18).

As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received (Ephesians 4:1).

I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:14).

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful (Colossians 3:15).

For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life (1 Thessalonians 4:7).

With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith (2 Thessalonians 1:11).

Who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9).

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (1 Peter 2:9).

Just as Saul was “called” to a live of suffering, so Peter tells his readers that they too, like all saints, are called to “suffer for His name”:

To this {suffering} you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:21).

The “call” to salvation is also the “call” to a life of holiness and obedience. The “call” of salvation is a call to change.

(7) The salvation of Saul was Christ-centered. When all is said and done, the miracle which took place on the way to Damascus (and likely in Damascus as well) was that Saul saw Jesus as the Son of God, as the Messiah, and as his Savior and Lord:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1).

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Saul’s salvation was focused on one thing and on one thing alone—Christ. He summed up life in this one word:

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21).

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to his death (Philippians 3:7-10).

For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him (Colossians 1:13-19).

It is no wonder then that this one who was Saul’s all in all would be the focus, the substance, of the gospel which he preached:

“But we preach Christ crucified …” (1 Corinthians 1:23).

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

And when the Galatians began to depart from the true gospel, Paul rebuked them for turning from Him:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel (Galatians 6).

Note Paul’s summary of the gospel at the end of Galatians 2:

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me (Galatians 2:20).

Paul’s method was consistent with his message. He sought to preach Christ in simplicity and not in a way that would detract from Him. Thus, he did not use the method of many others, which was man-centered, not Christ-centered:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:17-18; cf. also 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2).

For Paul, the method of proclaiming the gospel must be consistent with the message itself, and so it was.

(8) The salvation of Saul made him a vital part of Christ’s body, the church. The first words of the Lord Jesus to Saul were intended to teach him the inseparable unity between Christ and His church. Saul could only be persecuting Jesus through the members of His body, the church. Thus, persecuting the church was persecuting Jesus Christ. If the unity of Christ and His body, the church, were a vital truth with respect to Saul’s persecution of the church, it was also a vital truth for him as a Christian. It is no wonder that a fair amount of the text is devoted to a description of Saul’s attempt to associate with the local church, first at Damascus, and then in Jerusalem. And if this was important for Saul to do, it was equally important for the church to accept him into their fellowship, as an expression of their unity in Christ. The laying on of Ananias’ hands was also an expression of unity, as was the later “right hand of fellowship” extended by some of the apostles to Saul (Galatians 2:9).

To Paul, his relationship, by faith, to Jesus Christ was also the beginning of his new relationship to the body of Christ, the church:

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Colossians 1:24-27).

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

There are all too many “autonomous Christians,” those who feel that coming to faith in Christ does not necessitate identifying with His body, the church. They are “private Christians,” living like islands rather than as a part of His body. They do not understand the gospel well enough.

(9) Finally, I believe that Luke’s portrayal of Saul’s salvation is typical of that of the nation Israel, which is still future. I believe that as Luke portrays Saul in Acts, it is as a prototype, a picture of Israel. The Old Testament passages which I have suggested bear to Saul (“blind,” “light”) are passages which speak of Israel in their original context. Saul, in my opinion, is portrayed by Luke as the first-fruits of these promises. Saul, like Israel, had been blinded as to the meaning of the law because of his rejection of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:14; cf. 5:3-4). Saul, the typical (albeit more zealous) Jew, opposed God in the person of Christ and His body, the church, even while he thought he was serving Him. And yet, even in opposing God, he furthered God’s purposes; he was instrumental in the evangelization of the Gentiles (Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19-21). And yet while God had foretold the rebellion of Israel and their rejection, so He had also foretold of Israel’s restoration (cf. the “light” and “blind” passages above). And thus, in God’s time, Saul was dramatically converted, seeing the Christ whom he had been persecuting, risen from the dead and in His heavenly glory. Israel too will look on Him whom they have pierced and mourn. Israel too will just as surely return to God; and when it happens, it will be all of God, all to His glory and praise:

15 Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm worked salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him. 17 He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak. 18 According to what they have done, so will he repay wrath to his enemies and retribution to his foes; he will repay the islands their due. 19 From the west, men will fear the name of the Lord, and from the rising of the sun, they will revere his glory. For he will come like a pent-up flood that the breath of the Lord drives along. 20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the Lord. 21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord. 60:1 “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. 2 See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. 3 Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn” (Isaiah 59:15b–60:13).

10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives. 13:1 “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity” (Zechariah 12:10–13:1).

The conversion of Saul is a very crucial event in this book, which spells out from a historical point of view (Romans, from a theological viewpoint) the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the plans and purposes of God. For the time being, God is using the disobedience of Israel to accomplish His purposes, but there is surely a time coming when Israel will be restored to the Lord, by faith in Christ. And when this time comes, God will use their obedience to serve Him:

“For if their rejection be the salvation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15).

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Romans 11:25-32).

There is no more appropriate conclusion to our message than the words of the apostle Paul, which immediately follow those above, and which aptly express the response of the Christian to the wisdom, the grace, and the sovereignty of the God who has saved us, and who works all things together for His glory and for the good of His chosen ones:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! FOR WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? OR WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).

Amen!

See Appendix B for information on Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans.

---

¹²⁹ “The history of Damascus goes back to remote antiquity. It was a city in the days of Abraham, and at the time of the Israelite monarchy it was the capital of the most important Aramaean kingdom. Later it was the seat of administration of an Assyrian province. In Hellenistic times it was completely replanned on the Hippodamian grid-system. From 64 B.C. on it belonged to the Roman province of Syria, but had a measure of municipal autonomy in the loose federation of cities called the Decapolis.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 181.

“Damascus was an important town, about 150 miles (242 km) from Jerusalem, with a considerable Jewish population. It lay within the jurisdiction of the Roman province of Syria, and it formed part of the Decapolis, a league of self-governing cities. In 2 Corinthians 11:32 Paul speaks of an ethnarch of Aretas, the king of the Nabataean Arabs, who guarded the city to prevent him escaping from it. It is not clear whether this official was a representative of the king resident in Damascus to look after the interests of the Arabs there, or whether Damascus at this time was under the control of Nabataea.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 168.

“This old city is the most enduring in the history of the world (Knowling). It is some 150 miles Northeast from Jerusalem and watered by the river Abana from Anti-Lebanon. Here the Jews were strong in numbers (10,000 butchered by Nero later) and here some disciples had found refuge from Saul’s persecution in Judea and still worshipped in the synagogues. Paul’s language in Acts 26:11 seems to mean that Damascus is merely one of other `foreign cities’ to which he carried the persecution.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 114.

¹³⁰ In our text, we are told the Saul “went to the high priest” to ask for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus (9:1-2), but in Acts 22:5-6 Paul indicates that the “Council” (the Sanhedrin) was also involved in providing him with letters of authorization to arrest Christians in Damascus. Furthermore, in Acts 26:10 Paul testifies that he received letters from the chief priests, not just the chief priest alone.

¹³¹ “. . . the Romans . . . required neighboring states to grant it the privileges of a sovereign state, including the right of extradition. A letter delivered at that time by a Roman ambassador to Ptolemy VIII of Egypt concludes with the demand: ‘If any pestilent men have fled to you from their own country {Judaea}, hand them over to Simon the high priest, so that he may punish them according to their law’ (1 Macc. 15:21). In 47 B.C. Julius Caesar confirmed those rights and privileges anew to the Jewish nation (although Judaea was no longer a sovereign state), and more particularly to the high-priesthood.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 180-181.

¹³² The impact of Saul’s conversion on his message and his ministry is testified to by A. T. Robertson:

“Luke evidently attached great importance to the story of Saul’s conversion as the turning point not simply in the career of the man, but an epoch in the history of apostolic Christianity. . . It is impossible to overestimate the worth to the student of Christianity of this event from every angle because we have in Paul’s Epistles his own emphasis on the actual appearance of Jesus to him as the fact that changed his whole life (1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:16f.).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 115.

Acts 9, 22, 26; Romans 15:15-21; cf. also Romans 1:1-7, 13-17; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:3-11; cf. also 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; cf. also 2:14-17; 3:12-18; 4:1-18; 5:17-21; 6:13--7:1; Galatians 1:13-17; cf. 1:11--2:10; Ephesians 3:1-13; cf. 1:11--2:10; Philippians 3:1-14; Colossians 1:24-29; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-12; Titus 2:11-15; 3:1-7.

¹³³ I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 173.

¹³⁴ Blaiklock comes to this conclusion concerning the time of Saul’s conversion:

“Probably the earliest acceptable date for the conversion on the Damascus road is AD 33. This would leave AD 33-46 for the visit to Arabia (Gal. 1. 17) and the restoration of the man after the shattering experience he had known, and for the early ministry in Tarsus, Syria, Cilicia, and Antioch, which prepared mind and method for the major assault on the pagan world. The splendid deliberateness with which God forged His human tool is the great lesson of these years. Impatient men forget that God is not bound by time. His conversion was by far the most vital influence in Paul’s life. Ancestry, Pharisaic training, Hellenistic education, were fused by it into the character which the Holy Spirit formed and fashioned over the fourteen years of training. At length, in God’s good time, the door opened, and the events of half a lifetime assumed final and complete significance.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photo-lithoprinted}, 1966), p. 90.

¹³⁵ There are those who describe Saul as a “tormented man” after the stoning of Stephen. I am not at all sure how this can be determined from the text. I see a man who is confident, aggressive, and zealous, rather than a man troubled by inner doubts. The conclusion of many of the commentators is that Saul’s conversion was a much longer process than I see reflected in this account, or in any other. Blaiklock, for example (pp. 87-89), plays out the two views of Saul’s conversion, the first (and seldom held the view of Ramsay), that Saul was suddenly and radically converted; second, that there was a considerable process involved.

¹³⁶ E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 91.

¹³⁷ “‘The Way’ is a designation for the new movement used several times in Acts 9:19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22; cf. also 16:17; 18:25-26). It was evidently a term used by the early followers of Jesus to denote their movement as the way of life or the way of salvation.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 181.

¹³⁸ “Three times (8:3; 9:2; 22:4) this fact of persecuting women is mentioned as a special blot in Paul’s cruelty (the third time by Paul himself) and one of the items in his being chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 114.

¹³⁹ A. T. Robertson writes, “It is open to question if kurie should not here be translated ‘Sir’ as in 16:30 and in Matt. 21:29 (30); John 5:7; 12:21; 20:15; and should be so in John 9:36. It is hardly likely that at this stage Saul recognized Jesus as Lord, though he does so greet him in 22:10 `What shall I do, Lord?’” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 116-117.

This can hardly be possible. If there is one thing of which Saul is now convinced (by what he has so far seen and heard on the road) it is that whoever he is talking to is LORD. The only question is who is the LORD? The answer is: Jesus. Saul was not aware, until after our Lord’s words, that the One who had interrupted his journey was Jesus, and that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah, the LORD, but he was certain, at this point, that whoever this One was, He was the LORD.

¹⁴⁰ “They are called his sunodeuontes, `those who were in the caravan with Him’ (cf. sunodia, Luke 2:44).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), fn. 28, p. 185.

¹⁴¹ Compare this voice with that in John 12:29.

¹⁴² “His companions therefore took him by the hand and led him through the gate of Damascus to the place where, presumably, arrangements had been made for him to stay.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 185.

Presumably this is the case, however I still wonder a bit about this. Could Judas have been a Christian? Could it be that God had also appointed someone to meet Saul as he entered the city, with specific instructions as to where he was to stay? There is a great deal of information we are not given, and thus we cannot be dogmatic about our conclusions.

¹⁴³ “. . . a conversion of will, intellect, and emotion, which dictated the abiding purpose and direction of his subsequent life and activity. . . . There are affinities between his conversion experience and Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, in which the prophet saw the ‘likeness’ of the heavenly throne and above it ‘a likeness as it were of a human form’ (Ezek. 1:26); but for Saul the one who bore a human form identified himself as a historical person: `I am Jesus.’ Few of Saul’s distinctive insights into the significance of the gospel cannot be traced back to the Damascus-road event, or to the outworking of that event in his life and thought. “ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 113.

¹⁴⁴ Was Ananias the one who “told him what he must do”? Perhaps so, but I am not as confident of this as I once was. Who told Saul to go to the house of Judas on Straight Street? It was, of course, Ananias who instructed Saul to be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

¹⁴⁵ “We may note incidentally the two new descriptions of the Christians used here. The saints (9:32, 41; 26:10; cf. 20:32; 26:18) is a common term in Paul’s writings and describes Christians as people who have been set apart for God’s service and must show an appropriate character. Those who call upon your name echoes 2:21 (Joel 2:32) and recurs in 22:16 in a command to Paul himself to be baptized . . . .” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 171.

¹⁴⁶ It is possible, however, to understand the expression, “Brother,” as referring to Saul only as a fellow Jew. Paul would later use this expression (in the plural) to address his unbelieving Jewish opponents, as in Acts 22:1.

¹⁴⁷ “The more Saul preached, the more the Jews were confused. Proving (sunbibazon). Present active participle of sunbubazo, old verb to make go together, to coalesce, to knit together. It is the very word that Luke will use in 16:10 of the conclusion reached at Troas concerning the vision of Paul. Here Saul took the various items in the life of Jesus of Nazareth and found in them the proof that he was in reality ‘the Messiah’ (ho Christos). This method of argument Paul continued to use with the Jews (Acts 17:3). It was irresistible argument and spread consternation among the Jews. It was the most powerful piece of artillery in the Jewish camp that was suddenly turned round upon them.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 123.

¹⁴⁸ I would assume that Saul was one of those who covered his ears so as not to hear the praise of Stephen, as reported in Acts 7:57. Even if he were not one of these men, he would surely have hated to hear the gospel. And now, he is preaching the same message.

¹⁴⁹ “It is more significant than might be supposed at first glance that the only occurrence of the title `Son of God’ in Acts should be in this report of Saul’s early preaching. It was as the Son of God that Christ was revealed to him on the Damascus road (Gal. 1:16; cf. 2 Cor. 1:19; Rom. 1:4).” F. F. Bruce, p. 190.

“That our Lord’s contemporaries believed the Messiah to be in some special sense the son of God is rendered probable by the wording of the high priest’s question to him at his trial: `Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ (Mark 14:61 par. Matt. 26:63; Luke 22:67, 70). As applied to our Lord, then, the title `Son of God’ marks him out as the true representative of the Israel of God and as God’s anointed king; but it is no merely official title. As he himself understood the heavenly voice which said to him at his baptism, ‘You are my Son’ (Mark 1:11 par. Luke 3:22), it expressed his unique relationship and fellowship with the Father.” Ibid.

¹⁵⁰ It is interesting to ponder the identity of these “disciples” of Saul. Were they some of those converted to Christ through his preaching? But why would they be called “his disciples”? Would the church not have undertaken the task of discipling these folks? Or could it be that these “disciples of Saul” were Saul’s disciples before his conversion, who accompanied him as he sought to capture Christians. It may be that Saul’s conversion was the instrument God used to convert these followers of Saul, so that they really were “his disciples,” in a two-fold sense.

¹⁵¹ The doctrine of total depravity is that every person, every man, woman, and child, has been affected (infected?) by the sin of Adam. Everyone is born in sin, and every part of their being is affected by sin (intellect, emotions, and will). This doctrine does not hold that men are as bad as they could be in each area of their life, but that sin has permeated every dimension of a person’s life.

¹⁵² I do not mean to criticize the four laws of Campus Crusade, which have been used of God to bring many to faith in Christ. But these laws, which seek to summarize the gospel in a concise way, should always be applied individually. The Lord seeks and saves individuals, and thus our methods should be personal.

¹⁵³ Saul’s conversion did not bring instant maturity or spirituality, but was the point where growth commenced. We know from Romans 7, for example, that Paul had struggles in his spiritual walk. We know that Paul was not instantly a biblical scholar or a seasoned apostle. His conversion was the beginning of a life-long process of maturing and growth in the Lord.

¹⁵⁴ What is both interesting and important about this text is that the “call of salvation” does not necessarily require a change of career. Some would like the excuse to make some “changes” to make their life more comfortable. The “call” of salvation is a call to holiness, and to obedience, and to fellowship, with God and with our fellow-believers. It may well be a call to live transformed lives in the same circumstances in which we were found. Indeed, this seems to be the rule. Let us be careful to discern what changes the gospel requires and what changes it does not.