ROMANS: Buried Alive

We were left wondering if Paul’s assertion of the supremacy of grace was a dangerous license to sin. Paul now turns his attention to that nagging question:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Paul takes this fallacious line of thinking and shows it to be flawed. This amazing grace cannot be construed as a license to sin, for the very awakening to that grace was also a death to the kind of worldview that leads us to sin in the first place. Once we truly come to grasp and embrace this gospel of acceptance, we die to that former way of thinking — acting out of fear, preservation of self, and our unharnessed desires are replaced with a spirit of peace and a life of self-sacrifice. We die to that old way of thinking.

Paul then uses baptism as his picture and teaching point (to understand why Paul might use baptism at this point in his argument, I would recommend reading Elementary Principles by D. Thomas Lancaster; we will study this further in our upcoming look at the book of Hebrews).

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Paul says that this baptism we undergo is a physical picture (among other things) that teaches us about the transformation taking place. Just as Jesus died, was buried, and then brought back to life, so there is a part of us that has been put to death so the truest part of us might live on. Baptism is this watery grave, an image of burial and resurrection, teaching us about this new life.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

We left our “old self” in the watery grave; it died a death and can be put to rest. We, however, live on. The part of us that lives on is the part of us being shaped into the image of Christ (and you might notice all of the language of “joining” and “with him” and “united”).

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

This is where it really starts to sound like we are reading the culmination of one single narrative. This exhortation from Paul is nothing new at all. It takes us all the way back to the beginning of the story, where we meet Adam and Eve in the middle of the garden and are told about their temptations, their desires, and their invitation to demonstrate they are made in the image of God. They are invited to know when to say enough.

And so are we. Paul makes sure we know our invitation has not changed since the dawn of time; the language is incredibly similar to the language of Genesis. We are invited to trust the story, to master our desires, and to demonstrate self-control.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Finally, Paul circles back to the question at hand. If grace is this good, should we just continue in our sin? Absolutely not! The truth is we will offer ourselves to one of two realities. We can live out our lives in service to fear or we can live out our lives in the service of trust, faith, and love. But a life of bland neutrality is not an option available to us. This gospel has come to rescue us and set us free from a life of servitude to fear and self-preservation; it has come to set us free to tzedekah — to righteousness, generosity, and self-sacrifice.

GALATIANS: No Other Gospel

Now that we have wrapped up our conversation about the narrative of God, I want to start diving into the letters of the New Testament. I will not try to present the letters in any sort of chronological order, as I feel like the debate is a lively one, and it doesn’t lend easy answers. Instead, I want to focus on hearing each letter in its context.

I would like to start with the letter to the Galatians for a few reasons. First, I personally believe Galatians is the earliest letter of Paul’s (even though I won’t be trying to present these chronologically). Second, I think the letter to the Galatians is the one that flows best out of the record of Acts. And third, I think understanding the context of Galatia and the argument we touched on surrounding Christianity in Asia and Asia Minor is essential to interpreting our New Testament correctly.

To review, we said back in our post about Barnabas and Paul in Pisidian Antioch that the Jewish world of Asia and Asia Minor was having to wrestle with a question found in the new world of the Diaspora: What do we do with the theosabes — the God-fearing Gentiles? We talked about how the city of Pisidian Antioch sat on the edge of the region of Galatia, and the region was dominated by the ultra-conservative worldview of Shammai. Galatia was a backwater, off-the-beaten-path kind of place where those Jews who wanted to maintain the purity of their Jewish faith could go and avoid the corruption of the Greco-Roman world. If the Gentiles wanted to worship the God of Israel there, the answer was easy — they can convert to Judaism.

But the arrival of the gospel changed everything in that world. All of a sudden there was a Jewish community insisting that God’s grace, salvation, and justification was for the Gentile just as much as it was for the Jew. This group of believers was arguing not only for a place at the fellowship table, but for full-fledged membership and adoption into God’s family.

In a region like Galatia, this was simply unacceptable. What this meant, of course, was that God-fearing Gentiles who followed Jesus were not given a place in the assembly, a seat at the table, or the hand of fellowship. They were excluded; unless they wanted to convert, they simply were not seen as a part of God’s family.

This led to a major temptation for the believers in Galatia. If they would simply convert to Judaism, they would be welcomed into the Jewish family and accepted at the synagogues. Not only this, but in the first century the Jewish people were exempt from the imperial demands of emperor worship through what historians refer to as “the Jewish Exception.” Based on an agreement instigated by Herod the Great, the Jewish people were the only people group excused from offering their worship to Caesar.

But what do you do when you are a Gentile and not included in the Jewish community? Not to bow your knee to Caesar was a capital offense. The reasons were many for why the theosabes would see it as easier and more beneficial simply to convert to Judaism.

Understanding this context is absolutely critical to understanding the letter to the Galatians. Look at how one of the opening paragraphs reads:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul says on no uncertain terms that the gospel of Christ is a gospel of inclusion. The whole message of “good news” to the people of Galatia is that in Christ, everyone is welcome at God’s table, and everyone belongs in God’s family. Paul insists that if they allow this message to be perverted, they are ruining the entire mission of God in Galatia. They must put the gospel on display despite the hardship and the persecution.

As we continue to look through the book of Galatians, we would do well to remind ourselves that, in Christ, there are no “those people.” We should remind ourselves that the gospel of Christ always has been, and always will be, a gospel of inclusion. This good news is an announcement that all people, through faith in Christ Jesus, have a seat at the table. There is no people group, geographical region, or religious establishment with a monopoly on faith.

To pervert this truth is to pervert the very mission of God.

** As we continue this study of Galatians, I would recommend The Holy Epistle to the Galatians by Thomas Lancaster. Lancaster does a great job drawing from some of the most recent scholarship to help us understand this letter correctly. While I don’t agree with the conclusions drawn in the last few chapters of his book, the contextual work surrounding the letter to the Galatians is fantastic.

...or a Prophet?

Before we wrap up the book of Acts, we need to finish another conversation we left hanging. You will probably want to refresh your memory by going back and reading about it. In that part of the story, we discussed Saul’s meeting of Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he was headed to continue his persecution of the early Christians. We asked the question of whether or not Saul’s story was best understood as a conversion or a repentance. Did Saul change teams and join something new, or did he revise his thinking and align his service to a proper understanding of what the King was doing in the world?

It will also be helpful to go back and read the story in Acts 9:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

But the question gets even better if we consider Saul’s own understanding of the incident in question. How did he see it? Did Saul understand that day as a conversion? Did he see it as a repentance? Is there something else entirely?

Fortunately, we have some help in that Paul mentions his testimony more than once. The way he talks about his experience may make all the difference in our properly understanding how to interpret that encounter.

Unfortunately, his testimony only seems to make things worse. It seems Saul has a horrible memory of the event and has embellished his story. The main testimony we will look at is found in Acts 26 as Paul shares his story with Agrippa:

“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

“Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 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.’ ”

Apparently Paul can’t remember the details, and some of these may seem like minor details, but we have to consider whether they really are minor/harmless, whether Paul has a faulty memory, or whether he’s doing this on purpose. Remember, we aren’t dealing with a slouch in Paul; we are dealing with a highly trained Jew who is a former student of one of the greatest teachers of Judaism (Gamaliel). Let’s outline the details that have changed.

Paul seems to embellish the radiance of the light and the way it engulfed him and his companions.

Paul adds to the dialogue he hears from God. The phrase “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” is completely absent from the original story and seems to be an arbitrary addition by Paul.

Paul continues to add to God’s conversation by saying God told him to “stand on [his] feet” when that instruction was absent in the story.

If that wasn’t enough, Paul adds the entire conversation within his testimony about God rescuing him and sending him to his own people, bringing them from darkness to light, etc.

What’s going on here? Is Paul a liar, liar, pants on fire?

Our first clue might be the whole bit about the goads. For those who may not know, a goad is a cattle prod; to kick against the goads would be an expression of fighting against where God is trying to lead you. In Jewish thought, the idea of kicking against the goads is brought up commonly in the conversation surrounding the prophet Jonah. Jonah was the only prophet in the Tanakh not directly obedient to God’s call; he was the prophet who “kicked against the goads.”

And Jonah spent three days inside the belly of a fish. Fish have scales. And if you were inside a fish, you would experience blindness in a very unique way.

Saul was blind for three days, as well, and when it was done, scales fell from his eyes.

This idea might lead us to start looking closer at these details. Why the additions? Consider the calling of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1 and 2:

Then there came a voice from above the vault over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. Above the vault over their heads was what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 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. 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 facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.

He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says.’ And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious people—they will know that a prophet has been among them. 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 be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious people; open your mouth and eat what I give you.”

It might feel like a stretch, but to have all of those varied phrases and “embellishments” pulled straight from the same passage in Ezekiel seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Furthermore, Jonah was sent on behalf of the Gentiles and Ezekiel was going to encounter the pushback of his own people.

You still might feel like that’s a stretch.

But then consider that Paul gave us another brief testimony in the opening of Galatians:

But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

There is no stretch on this connection. Any Jew who heard the phrase “set me apart from my mother’s womb” would immediately think of the prophets. Consider the following passage from Jeremiah:

The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 

    before you were born I set you apart;

    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

“Alas, Sovereign LORD,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”

But the LORD said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the LORD.

Or this passage from Isaiah:

And now the LORD says— 

     he who formed me in the womb to be his servant  

to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself,

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD 

    and my God has been my strength—

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 my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

I believe it becomes clear at this point how Paul understood his calling that day on the road to Damascus. He certainly didn’t see it as a conversion. I would argue he associated that day with something much different than even repentance (although I don't think he would deny that repentance was taking place).

Paul saw his experience as something akin to the calling of Jonah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. Like Jonah was called to the Gentiles, so he would be called to bring repentance to the nations. As Ezekiel was called to confront the stubborn people of God, so was he. As Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah would announce light to a world of darkness, Paul would join the rank of prophets who were called by God to remind His people of their calling to be a kingdom of priests and a light to the Gentiles.

Paul saw that day as more than repentance and different than a conversion. Paul saw that day as a prophetic calling. And it might help us interpret the story correctly if we saw it that way, as well.

"Not to burden you"

So Paul and Barnabas continue on their way through the region, heading to places like Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They have very similar experiences in these places as they had in Pisidian Antioch. If you read through Acts 14, you will find they are initially received quite well in all these areas. As they go throughout Asia Minor, they proclaim a gospel of inclusion for the Gentiles. We are told they are quite persuasive in Iconium and a great number of Jews and Gentiles believe. They also have quite a successful beginning in Lystra and a wonderful time in Derbe. At each location, they have a group of Judeans (as it would be translated more literally, not simply “Jews” as most of our translations have it; these Judeans are from the Jerusalem church that has rejected this newfound inclusion of the Gentiles) who follow them, causing controversy, division, and, over time, their rejection at these locations.

They eventually return to Antioch after causing quite a Jewish ruckus in Asia Minor. The church is forced to deal with the mounting tension within this very Jewish church.

They head to Jerusalem for what many have called the “Jerusalem Council” to discuss what to do about these Gentiles. What is the Church’s position going to be regarding this huge influx of Gentile believers? Will they have to become Torah observant like everyone else? As we mentioned before, this conversation is not new, nor is it even a conversation unique to the Jesus movement. These Jesus followers have taken the same conversation to whole new levels, but it’s far from new dialogue.

We spoke about how Shammai and Hillel kept their typical form in disagreeing about how to handle things. Shammai thought a Gentile would only be justified through obedience to Torah. If this is true, then while a Gentile is welcome to worship God, they will never experience true justification without conversion to Judaism. Hillel argued everyone is justified by faith. If this is true, it would mean Gentiles do not have to become Jewish in order to experience justification; while they still aren’t full children and heirs of God’s chosen household, they are fully accepted cousins and welcome to worship the God of Israel. However, more context will help us understand the guts of the arguments of Shammai and Hillel.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has done much to help the understanding of the context of the New Testament in some incredible ways. One of the things it helped us discover is how we have much of our reading all wrong (particularly with the teaching of the Apostle Paul). One of the scrolls found is titled Miqsat Ma’asay haTorah, or “The Works of the Law.” Through our study of Mishnaic Judaism, we now understand some things about how first-century Judaism understood Torah. Much of this was prompted by the very argument Shammai and Hillel were engaging about the Gentiles. 

The Jews had broken down the Law into three sections (please note that these are not the typical three sections that are often arbitrarily imposed on the Law [moral, civil, liturgical], which have not produced any historical credibility; these are unrelated distinctions that are being defined more and more thoroughly in modern scholarship through scholars like Mark D. Nanos):

CULTIC LAW: This is the part of the law that has to do with liturgical worship at the Temple. This is the Levitical system of priesthood, sacrifice, and Temple worship. In short, you need a Temple to engage in cultic law. As believers in Jesus, we would say Jesus has become the cultic law for us (which is the argument of the book of Hebrews).

ETHICAL LAW: Ethical law is simply true. No matter who you are or where you are, these laws are universally true for all people. Ethical law isn’t true just because “God said so.” Ethical law is true because it’s the way God made the universe to function. The Ten Commandments would be a good example of ethical law. It’s not an issue of whether or not you are “bound” or “under” the law of the Ten Commandments — “do not murder” is a good idea for everyone. It’s ethical.

“MIQSAT MA’ASAY HATORAH” (The Works of the Law): This is the part of the law that makes you Jewish. After presenting the ketubah of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, after God’s people said “Yes!” to God’s wedding vows, they voluntarily agreed to carry the Law that would make them a “kingdom of priests.” God wanted them to be different than the world around them and put their God on display for the nations. He did this by giving them the “works of the Law” that would do the work of making them different. This includes circumcision (which happens to be the mark of carrying miqsat ma’asay haTorah), kosher eating, wearing tassels, not wearing blended fabrics, etc.

Shammai had decided that you were justified — you were declared righteous (please note, this has nothing to do with salvation) — when God saw you being obedient to the miqsat ma’asay haTorah. This would mean that a Gentile has to become Jewish and begin carrying all three parts of the Law.

But Hillel said God declared you righteous when you believed — just as he did with Abraham in Genesis 15. This would mean that carrying the miqsat ma’asay haTorah was a function of being Jewish, not an expectation from God in order to be justified.

Now, back to our story in Acts 15.

The early Christians are battling through this same argument, only they have more at stake. In the new Kingdom order Jesus brought, this won’t just be about justification; this will be about sonship. This will be about God’s household. This will be about these pagan, rough-around-the-edges, former idolaters becoming full-fledged heirs of God’s promises.

There are some Jesus followers who are adamant that this is too much, and the gospel is going too far.

There are some who say this is what God has always been up to.

And they don’t agree. And they argue. And when they are done, they decide Hillel is right and Shammai is wrong.

And just like their Rabbi Jesus, they decide Hillel hasn’t gone far enough. But more on that later.

Those People

Paul stands up and addresses this mixed crowd with a teaching that boggles the mind. In typical fashion for the record of Acts, Paul begins by outlining the narrative history of the Jewish people in a way that sets up the point he’s trying to make.

Paul doesn’t sugarcoat the history of his fellow Jews: he talks about their history as a stubborn people led out of Egypt — about how God had to endure their conduct and help them find their inheritance. He sums up the history of the judges and Saul as their first king, alluding to the frustrating story that lay behind Saul’s rule. He mentions the pinnacle of Jewish history (particularly as seen from the first century) by speaking of the reign of David as a king who was after God’s own heart.

From this history, Paul connects Jesus directly to David and the work of John the Baptist. He speaks of the anointed calling of both and alludes to the fact that Jesus is Messiah. He then points out how Judaism’s leadership (the Judeans) did not recognize Jesus and made the foolish mistake of putting him to death. He speaks of the resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom.

Paul then goes back to recap the amazing story surrounding the resurrection by teaching through a series of brilliant remez quotations — which happen to function as a sermon in and of themselves — before ending the sermon with a direct and challenging application: it is the job of the Jewish people to carry on this story and be about the ministry of the forgiveness of sin. He warns that if they miss this calling, they would be the foolish scoffers spoken of in the Psalms.

Paul’s message is directly aimed at the Jews in attendance. While Paul recognizes all those in attendance, his first “sermon” that day was a sermon for the Jewish audience. He spoke of the Jewish story and how Jesus fit into the grand narrative of God. He continually referenced the “we” of the Jewish people throughout the telling of this story. “It is to US,” Paul said, “that this message has been sent.” Paul’s point is that this is THEIR story. It’s the calling of the Jewish people to carry this story well.

Paul is certainly not “playing it safe” for his first public teaching. Paul is a fiery preacher on his first day. As Jewish teacher, trained under Gamaliel, he is directly confronting the Jewish audience. He isn’t trying to hedge his bets. He refers to their background as a stubborn people, he critiques their leadership as being blind to the purposes of God, and he even closes the sermon with a thunderbolt challenge not to be a scoffing fool. Paul isn’t concerned with making or keeping friends.

Now, how do you suppose the people respond to this message that day in Pisidian Antioch?

Did you say, “They loved it! They welcomed it with open arms!”?

Of course you didn’t. Because you’ve likely been taught your whole life that those stupid Jews hated the gospel and everything from Jesus and rejected Paul everywhere he went. But, unfortunately, you have been taught all wrong. Have a look at Acts 13:

As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Wait. What?

Let’s recap. Paul spoke a challenging word that day, he spoke very directly about the crucifixion of Jesus, and he taught at length on this teaching about the resurrection.

And the people begged them to come back and teach them more.

Brothers and sisters, the Jewish assembly didn’t have a single problem with the message of Jesus and what so many of us would call the “gospel.”

In fact, if you were to begin scouring the book of Acts, you would find the rejection of the Jews to the early followers of Jesus is hardly EVER connected to the story of Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.

So what will they get upset about? Let’s keep reading.

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

“ ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,    that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

It was difficult for this group of religious God-worshippers to accept the fact that all of “those people” might be allowed into the family of God. While the debate was open between Shammai and Hillel regarding the place of justification in the life of the theosabes, what no rabbi had suggested was that a Gentile could ever be a full-fledged child of God. While the argument is initially intriguing to them, when they see the synagogue fill up the next week with unclean Gentiles, they cannot continue.

So Paul and Barnabas confront their brothers about the very message they spoke the week prior. This is their message to carry into the world! This is what God has always been up to! But since they don’t want to be a part of God’s great project (“…since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life…”), Paul and Barnabas must now turn their attention to the good news they are there to proclaim. If the people of God are going to reject their calling, then Paul and Barnabas will fulfill it.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord.

I worry that if we miss this part of the story, we are missing THE great backdrop to the New Testament. This is what the gospel does to the world of Asia and Asia Minor. It brings all those on the outside, inside. This is found all over the New Testament! This is the story!

“If you let yourself become circumcised, the gospel is of no use to you…”

“You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but citizens and fellow members of God’s household…”

“…and now those of you who were far off have been brought near.”

I fear we may have missed the point. And somewhere along the way, we have exchanged the good news and the truth of the New Testament narrative for a message about heaven and hell and escaping a world doomed to destruction.

But the story has never been about that. The story has always been about a God who is redeeming this world. The story (a very Jewish story, by the way) has always been about a community of folks — a kingdom of priests — confronting the world and showing them God is, in fact, for them, and they do have a place at His table.

God’s story has always been an invitation to trust — to trust the story that there is Sabbath rest available to all.

Available to ALL.

You see, things don’t change much over the course of 2,000 years. There are still groups of people and entire institutions who claim to speak for God and are certain they have finally figured out who gets to be in and who is out. They seem to believe, contrary to the teachings of the very Jesus they claim to worship, that they have stumbled across the guest list to the great wedding banquet and they know who’s getting in and who’s staying out.

There are even people who talk about the gospel being for all people. Until your synagogue is full of a bunch of people who don’t look like you. Or until a handful of “those people” come and sit in the front row of your church.

You know who “those people” are.

It’s their economic status, skin color, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or dress code. Or a myriad of other things even less significant and humiliating to admit.

Quite frankly, they just aren’t like us.

And to hear God is inviting all people to the table to be his kids… Well, that just doesn’t sit well with us.

But it’s the gospel we’re called to carry into the world around us. It’s the announcement of a better Kingdom.

But it’s what He’s been doing since the dawn of creation. It’s the story He’s been telling the whole time. And I believe He’s hoping, with tears in His eyes, that we will be humble enough to accept it.

Saul to Paul

Barnabas and Saul arrive at Cyprus. It seems clear that they are taking the standard route to Asia (see the map below), the likely place to begin this first missionary journey. Cyprus is the island that sits just west off of the Mediterranean coast from Antioch and is the logical stop for all ships sailing west.

When Barnabas and Saul get to Cyprus (we are told John is with them, as well), they begin proclaiming this message of a new Kingdom in the synagogues of the region. We are not given the impression they have a negative experience at all or find any trouble being received by their Jewish brothers (more on this later). Eventually, they meet a Jewish sorcerer (if you’re scratching your head, you should be — those two do not go together and is a direct violation of Torah) who happens to work for the Roman proconsul, named Sergius Paulus. You could think of proconsul as the “Secretary of State” of the Roman world. (At the least, it refers to that major region, but most have argued the position is imperial, not just regional.)

Saul boldly confronts the sinful and deceptive lifestyle of this false prophet who is immediately engulfed in darkness and blindness. Upon seeing this encounter, Sergius Paulus believes in the Lord and finds himself amazed at the teaching. What I find so interesting in this story is that Saul changes his name to Paul. Why would he do that?

If you immediately made the connection to Sergius, you are astute. It seems that Saul changes his name to that of his first convert.

However, if you also thought deeper than that, you are even more astute. Paul changes his own name. This is something that almost never happens in Scripture. (Naomi, in the story of Ruth, tells her friend to call her “Marah,” which means bitter.) A name change is always initiated by a figure of authority who has the right to change your name (God, a rabbi, your parents, etc.), but Paul formally changes his own name.

This name change signifies something significant in the consciousness of Paul. What is it? I think the next story may clue us in.

After this encounter John leaves their company while Barnabas and Paul head to Pisidian Antioch. This is where unfamiliarity with the geography of Asia and Asia Minor will have us miss the point in the story completely. The original readers would be shaking their heads as to why they end up in Antioch of Pisidia. It doesn’t make any sense.

They were clearly heading west to Asia; now they are headed due north into the middle of nowhere in Asia Minor. It’s a drastic change of route. They would have to sail north to reach the coast, and upon reaching the coast they would depart on a week-long hike. This hike would be through a region that does not even have a road to walk on. They would have hiked through the wilderness and they probably could have counted the people they met on the way with their two hands.

What are they doing?

It will also help to know a few details about Antioch of Pisidia. The city was one of many Antiochs that were planted by Rome throughout the tribal region of Asia Minor. Rome always struggled to conquer the primitive tribal regions since they had no imperial structure. These strong barbaric fighters were such a nuisance to the Romans that they formed treaties to solicit their help in the region rather than conquer them. In order to influence the region with progressive thought and the values of Hellenism, the Romans planted these cities that put Rome on steroids.

The cities were designed to put Rome on display, in all of her military might. Pisidian Antioch was unique because it was known as a miniature Rome. Built on seven small hills, the city had most of the same installations as its capital counterpart. In the archaeological ruins of Pisidian Antioch, we have found multiple references to one name of particular interest: Proconsul Sergius Paulus.

Sergius Paulus was a resident of Pisidian Antioch. According to one of the inscriptions, he was the one who paid for the installation of the main city gate — which is an impressive structure. Why Barnabas and Paul ran into Sergius on Cyprus is unclear. Was he traveling through? Was he on an assignment? Vacation? We don’t know, but their next stop after his conversion will be his hometown.

It makes the reader wonder if Paul’s excitement after experiencing his first encounter with a convert — coupled with the fact that it is such a high-profile leader — affected his mission strategy. Was he convinced he could go straight to the top of Rome? Was his goal to speak directly to the family of Caesar himself? It is impossible to know for sure, but there is certainly a lot of evidence in Paul’s writings that will lend credence to this theory.

He will tell the Christians in Rome more than once how he cannot wait to visit Rome, and how it has been a goal of his to get to Rome ever since his calling. More than once in the book of Acts, we will see Paul try to go to Rome and have his mind resolutely set on standing before Caesar.

Of course, God has other plans — as He often does.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Barnabas and Paul have quite the interaction in Pisidian Antioch, and it is one that will shape the contours of the New Testament.

Jerusalem to Antioch

Of course, if Peter isn’t prepared for this world-altering shift in understanding, the rest of this Jewish movement isn’t ready for it either. Peter’s interactions and behavior with a Gentile, the rumors of his inclusion of such an outsider without first making him a covenantal part of the story, has set off the Church at large.

Peter has to defend his actions and very clearly tell the story. It’s clear that the discussions are not easy, and on some level it’s comforting to know that even the early church had problems. They had problems with doctrines and traditions, they had problems communicating with each other, and they had problems finding a place of agreement. Fortunately, the early church does model for us how to navigate these difficulties and find a place of resolution (more on that later in Acts), but they are certainly as human as we are.

After people tell the story of both his vision and his experience, coupled with his ability to speak as the ringleader of Jesus’s disciples and the movement as a whole, the people there accept the testimony of Peter and have enough humility to be able to rejoice in this plan of God that they previously misunderstood.

Depending on how you read the second half of Acts 11, you may get a more realistic picture. We are told the Church begins to move and scatter from the region of Judea and Samaria and reach into the world of Asia and Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). The disciples send some leaders north to Antioch in order to provide leadership to this spreading movement as it finds a home in a very Greco-Roman — and largely Gentile — world.

It does become clear that the Church finds a new “center for operations” in Antioch. What is unclear is whether or not there is a tension between the church in the Diaspora and the church in Judea, and how deep that tension runs. I find in most of the conversations we have for basic Bible study, we aren’t even aware of the tensions between New Testament worldviews, but the issue is profoundly significant. Most New Testament scholars are going to identify a deep rift in worldviews between the Jewish church in Jerusalem (the “Judeans”) and the expanding church of Asia and Asia Minor.

Some liberal scholars will even go are far as to say there is a major schism that is never repaired. According to these scholars, the “Jewish Church” of Judea, led by James, does not survive and falls out of existence; the church that remains is the Gentile church that will be largely Roman in nature, shedding it’s Judaism and the Law and moving into a new day and the Christian faith we know so well. But I believe this ignores the biblical Text, and modern scholarship is telling us quite clearly that the church of Asia and Asia Minor was much more Jewish than we anticipated.

However, an attempt to act like there is no tension between the church in Jerusalem and the church in Antioch would be just as ignorant. There are details living within the New Testament writings (which we will certainly look at) that clearly show how these pesky Gentiles make this Jewish-Jesus faith quite difficult, and not everybody agrees on how to deal with it. To understand this context is to understand not just a piece of the New Testament, but the New Testament conversation as a whole. But more on that later…

Peter’s experience with Cornelius is really rocking the boat, and the waters aren’t going to calm down anytime soon.

Unknown by Peter at this point is that God is preparing a special prophet for this new frontier. While people are aware of Saul’s life-changing experience, we will see later (from the book of Galatians) that Saul has been spending significant time working through his own version of “the Gospel.” God is training him and teaching him how to take this announcement of a new Kingdom into a world radically different from the Jewish world of Judea.

When the church moves to Antioch, they send Barnabas to help lead the efforts. Barnabas encourages the believers and helps lay some foundations, but then immediately sets off to find Saul, whom he brings to operational headquarters. The church sends out Barnabas and Saul on their first “mission” to check on the growing movement, spread the gospel, and start planting some healthy faith communities throughout the region.

They set sail for Asia and arrive at their first stop, only to have their plans changed…

Conversion? Repentance? Or...?

The next chapter tells the stunning story of Saul’s transformation. If you remember, we were introduced to Saul in the story of Stephen as he held the coats and oversaw the execution. We are reminded of his intense pursuit of the church in the next chapter as the movement was scattered because of the persecution he was leading.

And then, all of a sudden, Jesus enters Saul’s story and everything radically changes. Saul is on his way to Damascus with letters in hand from the high priest himself to find and arrest any of Jesus’s followers. (Please note, the letters are intended for “synagogues”; apparently this early church is still very much Jewish and a part of the world of Judaism.) As he gets closer to Damascus, a bright light sends him to the ground as he hears the voice of Jesus asking why Saul is trying to persecute him. When Saul asks who is speaking to him, Jesus responds that it is he whom Saul is persecuting.

I find it interesting to note that Jesus claims — twice — it is he whom Saul is persecuting. He doesn’t say, “Hey Saul! Why are you persecuting my followers?” But Jesus claims Saul is actually persecuting Jesus. I find that to be quite the commentary on what it means to partner with God and be a part of the “body of Christ.” But I digress.

Saul is struck blind and sent to the house of Ananias (who isn’t too pleased with the idea of helping out the man who is notorious for trying to destroy them) and he regains his sight. He also enters into a time of deep commitment and training. After all, Saul — who has been trained by Gamaliel the Elder — has a lot to learn (and unlearn) in his Judaism. This isn’t a statement we should read past. Saul was the disciple of one of the greatest names of first-century Judaism. Saul’s pedigree is incredible; it’s the equivalent of being a Ph.D. from Harvard. Saul would be able to walk into any Jewish setting and demand respect simply by being a student of Gamaliel’s. 

But in this Jesus reality, much of what he has learned is still incomplete.

Now, I want to end this post with a question. I want to pose a question I don’t intend to resolve until the end of our time in Acts.

The subtitle in most Bibles for this section is going to read: “The Conversion of Saul”

Is that an accurate subtitle? Is Saul “converted”? On some level, this is a matter of semantics and what we mean technically by “conversion.” But if we mean that Saul changes religious affiliation, I would like to ask you to reconsider. You see, this is why semantics matter, because I believe most of us as Jesus followers tend to take a similar stance toward Judaism.

God worked through Judaism in the Old Testament, then God sent Jesus and God changed stories. He abandoned Judaism and started at square one. If Jews want to be saved, they have to accept Jesus as the Messiah and be converted. They need to switch teams from an old abandoned Judaism to “the new thing” God is doing in Jesus.

Right?

But this betrays the story we have been studying. I have been trying to show that this story of God is one narrative from front to back. God doesn’t change game plans; Jesus is the fulfillment and the demonstration of the game plan that has been true all along. And while we aren’t in the book of Romans yet, I think the position we typically hold in the evangelical community runs directly contrary to the teaching of Romans 11. We have been grafted into the Jewish story. We have been grafted into their tree. God didn’t plant a brand new tree and invite everybody to jump on board. No, God pruned and continued to cultivate the original tree and grafted Gentiles into that.

While I will admit that Saul was certainly misguided in his persecution of Christians, his intentions come from a zealous pursuit of the God of the Bible. The same Jewish God Jesus came to show us.

So I will ask again, was this a conversion?

Or was this a repentance? Was Saul following the right story and simply had some wires crossed? Once he realized his error, did he switch teams or simply start following the same God and the same faith with a new understanding of what God was up to in the world?

Or was this something else entirely?

We will talk much more about Saul and his education. We’ll talk much more about this new “Christian” faith and how it fits into Judaism in the time to come. For now, I simply want to let that question upset the apple cart before we move on.