1. How does ACTS 6:5-15 describe Stephen?
2. Read the charges Stephen made against the Jewish leaders in verses Acts 7:51-53. What do you think he meant by the following terms?
• Stiff-necked
• Uncircumcised hearts
• Uncircumcised ears
3. The Bible mentions Saul for the first time in ACTS 7:58. How is he first introduced in Scripture?
4. Why do you think Stephen did not want the sins of his executioners held against them?
5. How does ACTS 8:1 prove Saul was no innocent bystander?
6. Compare and contrast Saul and Stephen. *
Read ACTS 9:1-9, 17-19; 26:9-18.
7. Compare ACTS 9:1 to ACTS 26:9. How could these verses support the statement: “A person can be sincere in his beliefs yet be sincerely wrong”?
8. Why was Saul going to Damascus that eventful day? *
9. How did Saul describe the light from heaven?
10. What conclusions can you draw from Christ’s words “persecute me”?
11. Why did Christ appear to Saul? List every reason given.
12. What might be several reasons why Christ struck Saul blind? Think in terms of physical reasons, spiritual reasons, and even emotional impact.
Read ACTS 9:10-31
13. The Lord told Ananias he would find Saul at a certain house praying. What do you think Saul may have been praying about?
14. In a word, how would you describe Ananias’ initial response to God’s instruction?
15. What was Saul’s first action after he regained his sight?
16. Saul began preaching in Damascus. What was his message?
Class 2: Question 6. Compare and contrast Saul and Stephen
The following is an excerpt from John Pollock's biography on Paul, The Apostle: A Life of Paul. Note that it is written as a biography not a textual study.
“Stephen and Paul were probably about the same age – the Greek word translated “young man,” denotes a male between youth and forty. Stephen’s birthplace is unknown, for Jews from Egypt and elsewhere used the same synagogue as Cilicians, but he spoke Greek as fluently as Aramaic. Both men were quick thinkers, powerful minds, able controversialists. No tradition remains of Stephen’s physique, but though Paul is believed to have been short, he held himself well enough to stand out in a crowd. His face was rather oval with beetling eyebrows, and fleshy from good living. He had a black beard, since Jews scored the Roman taste for shaving, and his clue-fringed robe and the amulet strapped to a turban-like headdress displayed his pride in being a Pharisee. As he strode about the Temple courts, he disclosed arrogance inevitable in a man whose ancestors and actions made him feel important. He carried out faithfully the unending cycle of ritual cleansings of platters and cups and of his own person. He kept the weekly fasts – between sunrise and sunset—and said the daily prayers in exact progression and number. He knew what was due to him: respectful greetings, high precedence, a prominent seat in the synagogue. Deep down in his character lay a vein of compassion, but he believed that a good man should keep away from bad men. Paul would have approved the Pharisee who, on seeing Jesus allow a prostitute to wash His feet with her tears…, took it as proof that the man could be no prophet...
Stephen, on the other hand, spent much of his time in doling food and necessities to widows. In the two years since the execution of Jesus, the holy city had become pervaded with those who believed that He had risen from the dead. Most were nondescript and poor. Many lived in communal groups and all of them shared their resources. When Greek-speaking disciples complained that widows were being neglected, Stephen and six others were chose to undertake routine daily distribution of food.
Paul was disturbed that a man of Stephen’s academic caliber should demean himself in social concerns; and irked that, while his own affairs absorbed him, Stephen should go around bringing happiness. Men respected but feared Paul; the respected Stephen and loved him. When Stephen preached, Paul could not fail to discern the gulf between them: Stephen always turned the Scriptures in the direction of Jesus as the Deliverer or Messiah … and proved his point by citing the evidence of eyewitnesses that, incredible as it seemed, a corpse had come to life again and climbed out of the grave…
Paul considered Stephen’s arguments nonsense. The Christ had not come yet. And the way to God was fixed forever: a man must belong to God’s chosen people the Jews, and try to obey the Law… Paul felt no personal concern, knowing his own goodness, but he recognized Stephen’s contentions as dangerous. Gamaliel had advised toleration; Simon Peter and other disciples of Jesus worshiped at the Temple and continued to obey the Law. But Paul saw, as Stephen saw, that the old and the new were incompatible; man was saved either by the Temple sacrifices and obeying the Law, or by faith in Jesus. The old must destroy the new or be destroyed.”
Pollock, John. The Apostle: A Life of Paul. pp. 20-22
“Stephen and Paul were probably about the same age – the Greek word translated “young man,” denotes a male between youth and forty. Stephen’s birthplace is unknown, for Jews from Egypt and elsewhere used the same synagogue as Cilicians, but he spoke Greek as fluently as Aramaic. Both men were quick thinkers, powerful minds, able controversialists. No tradition remains of Stephen’s physique, but though Paul is believed to have been short, he held himself well enough to stand out in a crowd. His face was rather oval with beetling eyebrows, and fleshy from good living. He had a black beard, since Jews scored the Roman taste for shaving, and his clue-fringed robe and the amulet strapped to a turban-like headdress displayed his pride in being a Pharisee. As he strode about the Temple courts, he disclosed arrogance inevitable in a man whose ancestors and actions made him feel important. He carried out faithfully the unending cycle of ritual cleansings of platters and cups and of his own person. He kept the weekly fasts – between sunrise and sunset—and said the daily prayers in exact progression and number. He knew what was due to him: respectful greetings, high precedence, a prominent seat in the synagogue. Deep down in his character lay a vein of compassion, but he believed that a good man should keep away from bad men. Paul would have approved the Pharisee who, on seeing Jesus allow a prostitute to wash His feet with her tears…, took it as proof that the man could be no prophet...
Stephen, on the other hand, spent much of his time in doling food and necessities to widows. In the two years since the execution of Jesus, the holy city had become pervaded with those who believed that He had risen from the dead. Most were nondescript and poor. Many lived in communal groups and all of them shared their resources. When Greek-speaking disciples complained that widows were being neglected, Stephen and six others were chose to undertake routine daily distribution of food.
Paul was disturbed that a man of Stephen’s academic caliber should demean himself in social concerns; and irked that, while his own affairs absorbed him, Stephen should go around bringing happiness. Men respected but feared Paul; the respected Stephen and loved him. When Stephen preached, Paul could not fail to discern the gulf between them: Stephen always turned the Scriptures in the direction of Jesus as the Deliverer or Messiah … and proved his point by citing the evidence of eyewitnesses that, incredible as it seemed, a corpse had come to life again and climbed out of the grave…
Paul considered Stephen’s arguments nonsense. The Christ had not come yet. And the way to God was fixed forever: a man must belong to God’s chosen people the Jews, and try to obey the Law… Paul felt no personal concern, knowing his own goodness, but he recognized Stephen’s contentions as dangerous. Gamaliel had advised toleration; Simon Peter and other disciples of Jesus worshiped at the Temple and continued to obey the Law. But Paul saw, as Stephen saw, that the old and the new were incompatible; man was saved either by the Temple sacrifices and obeying the Law, or by faith in Jesus. The old must destroy the new or be destroyed.”
Pollock, John. The Apostle: A Life of Paul. pp. 20-22
Class 2 Question 8. Why was Saul going to Damascus?
By Acts 9, Saul's blood is boiling. He's on a murderous rampage toward Damascus. The scene opens as "Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:1-2)
Why Damascus? Saul had determined to go to the farthest extreme in his mission to apprehend followers of the Way. Over one hundred miles north of Jerusalem, the journey to Damascus was no small undertaking. To Saul the trip would pay off in spades, though. According to Josephus, at one point in history ten thousand Jews were massacred in Damascus - hard evidence that at certain times a significant number of Jewish people lived in the city. Saul was certain that many Jewish turncoats had fled to seek refuge in far away Damascus. He devised an aggressive plan to capture these infidels and drag them to court.
Reference: Paul: A Man of Grace and Grit
Why Damascus? Saul had determined to go to the farthest extreme in his mission to apprehend followers of the Way. Over one hundred miles north of Jerusalem, the journey to Damascus was no small undertaking. To Saul the trip would pay off in spades, though. According to Josephus, at one point in history ten thousand Jews were massacred in Damascus - hard evidence that at certain times a significant number of Jewish people lived in the city. Saul was certain that many Jewish turncoats had fled to seek refuge in far away Damascus. He devised an aggressive plan to capture these infidels and drag them to court.
Reference: Paul: A Man of Grace and Grit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)