Compare Luke’s version in ACTS 9:19-30 with Paul’s own version in GALATIANS 1:14-18. Number the following events in chronological order.
__ Grecian Jews in Jerusalem tried to kill Saul.
__ Saul began preaching in the Damascus synagogues.
__ Saul went to Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
__ The brothers sent him off to Tarsus.
__ The brothers got him out of Damascus in a basket.
__ Barnabas brought Saul to the frightened apostles.
__ Saul traveled to Jerusalem but was rejected by the disciples there.
How long did Saul stay in Damascus and Arabia after his conversion (GAL 1:17-18)?
Why do you think he went to Arabia? *
When Saul arrives in Jerusalem how do the disciples react (ACTS 9:26-27)? Who reacted differently?
What was Barnabas’ original name (ACTS 4:36-37)? Who renamed him and why this particular new name?
The root of the word encouragement is courage. What does courage have to do with encouragement?
In ACTS 9:26-28 what were the results of his encouragement? What about in ACTS 11:22-24?
With whom did Saul stay for 15 days after he arrived in Jerusalem (GAL 1:18)? Why do you think he chose to stay with him?
Compare and contrast Peter and Paul. (Think about their backgrounds, heritage, encounters with Christ, ministries…).
ACTS 22:17-21 describes the Lord’s vision to Paul instructing him how to respond to the danger he was in. What was Paul’s protest? Why do you think he protests?
After he was rescued from death threats he was sent away to Tarsus. We can’t be sure how long he was there, but it was probably about five to eight years. Many conclude that the trials referred to in 2 CORINTHIANS 1:23-27 took place during this period. Why? *
Based on ACTS 11:19-30 what caused the gospel to reach as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch?
Why do you think he went to Arabia? *
Whenever the Bible remains silent on a subject, scholars and theologians love to fill in holes with theories. Here are a few possibilities why Paul went to Arabia.
1. Early church fathers believed Saul traveled there as a missionary, brining the Gospel to a group of desert dwellers. If so he probably went to a populated area of Mesopotamia, east of Damascus.
2. Some scholars propose that Saul fled to Arabia to protect himself from Jewish leaders who, having heard of his newfound faith, wanted to nip it in the bud.
3. Many believe that for close to three years Saul lived somewhere in the desert, cut-off from his former manner of life—in solitude, quietness, and obscurity. He might even have gone to the wilderness of Sinai. If he had ever been addicted to popularity, he lost the urge to pursue it during those years in the desert. If at one time he had become enamored with his own spiritual significance, that pride melted away in God’s presence.
Reference: Paul: A Man of Grace and Grit & Paul The Apostle
1. Early church fathers believed Saul traveled there as a missionary, brining the Gospel to a group of desert dwellers. If so he probably went to a populated area of Mesopotamia, east of Damascus.
2. Some scholars propose that Saul fled to Arabia to protect himself from Jewish leaders who, having heard of his newfound faith, wanted to nip it in the bud.
3. Many believe that for close to three years Saul lived somewhere in the desert, cut-off from his former manner of life—in solitude, quietness, and obscurity. He might even have gone to the wilderness of Sinai. If he had ever been addicted to popularity, he lost the urge to pursue it during those years in the desert. If at one time he had become enamored with his own spiritual significance, that pride melted away in God’s presence.
Reference: Paul: A Man of Grace and Grit & Paul The Apostle
After he was rescued from death threats he was sent away to Tarsus. We can’t be sure how long he was there, but it was probably about five to eight years. Many conclude that the trials referred to in 2 CORINTHIANS 11:23-27 took place during this period. Why? *
“We can be fairly sure that some of the trials referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:23-17 took place during this period, mainly because the ministry that is described in Acts does not accommodate all of them. There Paul mentions, for example, five lashings at the Jews’ hands (v. 24), none of which is described elsewhere in Acts. Such lashings were a common form of synagogue discipline. No double Paul made persistent efforts in the synagogues in his home area to turn his hearers to faith in Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer, and no doubt he was subjected to discipline for his efforts.”
Excerpt from Paul The Apostle, Robert E. Picirilli (p. 60)
Excerpt from Paul The Apostle, Robert E. Picirilli (p. 60)
Class 2 Questions: Stephen and Saul
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)