When Did Paul Return to Jerusalem?

I have yet one more thing to address concerning Paul in Damascus before I go on to discuss his stay in Jerusalem. How long was Saul (Paul) away from Jerusalem? Paul says in Galatians 1:17-18 that he didn’t return to Jerusalem for about 3 years after leaving there to arrest believers at Damascus. Yet, some critics seem to believe that Luke contradicts Paul making it seem like he returns to Jerusalem almost immediately after his conversion. Is this true?

 

Yet Another Contradiction in Damascus?

Before going on to other matters in Acts, I would like to mention one more place that some modern critics point to in their efforts to show disagreement between Luke and Paul. As we have seen thus far, these “contradictions” are really points of misunderstanding whereby the modern critics have read incongruities into the text, and that mentioned below will be no different. One must be very careful not to take a matter for granted when the text isn’t clearly stating one’s presumption.

 

Do We Rescue Luke at Paul’s Expense?

There seems to be a growing number of folks who believe Luke contradicts Paul and ancient history concerning events surrounding Paul’s conversion. Some even claim that in order to rescue Acts we must sacrifice Paul’s credibility on matters that pertain to his own life. Are the critics correct, or are they simply addressing these matters with some preconceived notions of what things were like back in the first century Middle East?

 

Does Paul Contradict Luke in Damascus?

Recently, I’ve been running across websites that claim Luke and Paul disagree concerning the events surrounding Paul’s conversion. Some critics say Paul’s vision was in, not on the road to, Damascus. I don’t know what difference that would make, if it were true, except to undermine the Scriptures’ claim that they are the word of God for us and aren’t contradictory within the text. Nevertheless, little things like these keep jumping out at me as I study the book of Acts and read what others say about it online.

 

Luke vs. Paul – Truth or Confusion

If the Bible can be proved to be in error, what would be our authority for truth about God? Unless we have certain truth about God, all we could have concerning an unseen God would be pure conjecture. Isn’t that so? It would be something like—your guess is as good as mine. Who could authoritatively tell us what God is really like, and who could prove that the false prophet is… well, false? I’ve been reading various websites that concern themselves with disproving the word of God by presuming contradictions in Paul’s conversion either within Luke’s three accounts of the event or between Acts 9 and Paul’s letters, especially Galatians. I thought it would be fun if we dwelt upon these things for a few blog-posts.

 

Paul’s Vision on the Road to Damascus

In recent years textual criticism has placed in doubt in the minds of some what actually took place on the road to Damascus. In a short essay (found HERE) John Dominic Crossan has taken issue with Paul’s vision of Jesus as recorded in Acts – where it took place, how long Paul was away from Jerusalem and who threatened Paul’s life in Damascus that he was saved by the brethren secretly letting him down through a window in the city wall under the cover of night to make his escape to Jerusalem (Acts 9:25).

 

The Prophet Like Moses ~ His Rejection

Luke, in the person of Stephen, uses four periods in Moses life, beginning with his birth and then separated by 40 years each, to show a correlation between Moses and the Prophet who would be like him (Jesus), and subsequent parallels in the lives of those who would be like Jesus. What happened to Moses reoccurred in Jesus’ life under different circumstances, and, perhaps unexpectedly, we find what happened to Jesus, the Christ (Messiah), also occurred in the “life” of the Body of Christ—the believing community—and this is Stephen’s defense, Moses’ life is Stephen’s vindication and the vindication of the Gospel

 

The Prophet Like Moses ~ His Coming

In chapter seven of Acts Stephen’s defense of the Gospel, which ultimately included proof of his own innocence of the charges of blasphemy brought against him, was presented in the form of a summary of the history of salvation in the persons of Abraham, Joseph and Moses. In a previous blog I wrote of his illustrations of Jesus and the infancy of the Church in the lives of Abraham and Joseph, but by far the main body of Stephen’s testimony lay in his illustration of Moses’ life.

 

The Structure of the Book of Acts ~ Part 3

This represents the third in a three part series in which I intend to show how I think Luke constructed the Book of Acts. He did so by presenting the theology and the practicality of specific problems the Church had to face in its infancy—from Pentecost 31 CE to the culmination of Paul’s mission cir. 62 CE or roughly a span of about 30 years. When Luke adds what he does to Acts, he always ends his submission by giving a summary of the growth of the Church. He does this six times showing he organized his thesis into three two-part summaries of what the Church began to do and teach (cp. Acts 1:1).

 

The Structure of the Book of Acts ~ Part 2

This is the second in a three part study that shows how I believe Luke constructed his thesis, the Book of Acts. What he did was structure it in three pairs of subject matter or sub-themes. The first pair unveiled the Temple built without hands that was not stationary, but moved about the world, just as the original Tabernacle in the wilderness did (see Stephen’s argument in Acts 7 concerning the international, non-stationary God). Luke’s second pair concerns how the teaching of circumcision affected the Church, once Gentiles began to be received into the predominantly Jewish body of believers. We are in the middle of this study now. The third and final pair of teachings will show that the Gospel and the Church are totally innocuous. Preaching Jesus is not against any political sphere nor will the presence of the Church upset the community at large. We are harmless and our existence is not against any law.

 

The Structure of the Book of Acts ~ Part 1

In ancient times when a book was a scroll, how was the book put together; more specifically, how was Luke’s Acts put together? Did Luke simply begin writing, stopping only when his work was written? It seems to me, if this were true, error would be rampant and confusing due to themes begun and left unfinished. There must be a better way to write a scroll.

 

Who is the Author of Acts & Luke?

It is apparent from the prologue of Acts that its author is the same as that for what we refer to as the “Gospel According to Luke!” Both were written about the Lordship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3; cp. Luke 4:43) to someone by the name of Theophilus. Moreover, Acts refers Theophilus to his former treatise or account (logos – G3056) concerning all that Jesus began to both do and teach (Acts 1:1; cp. Luke 1:3). Many modern critics try to tell us that, because neither work is signed that we cannot know the author of either.

 

Dating the New Testament

It has been argued, and rightfully so, that there existed a strong oral tradition in first century Judaism. But, what should that mean to us in the 21^st century? Should we believe that no one wrote anything down concerning Christian literature prior to 70 CE except for Paul during this period of oral tradition? Certainly Josephus didn’t let his Jewish history to oral tradition and he drew upon the writings of others who recorded what Jewish officials were doing at the time the events transpired. So, other Jews, who also held to a strong oral tradition, were recording events of importance in written form.

 

Who is Luke’s Theophilus

Image via Wikipedia

The identity of Luke’s Theophilus (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3) could be a very important matter. For example, if I were to address a letter to “Mr. President,” the weight of its content and some of its meaning would be determined by who my addressee happens to be. If it were the president of the Elks Club or the CEO of a large business or the President of the United States, knowing his identity would determine how the letter should be read. Similarly, the identification of Luke’s addressee could determine some of the meaning of the content of his works, especially matters of his Gospel that are peculiar only to Luke. Nevertheless, it seems that knowledge of who Theophilus is has been forgotten, and no one throughout the centuries (to my knowledge) has considered it important enough to engage in a real study to reclaim his identity until recently.[1]

 

The Jeconiah Curse and the Virgin Birth

One of the most interesting questions I have heard from a Jew is: “How can Jesus be the Messiah, if his genealogical line comes through Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12)? God had cursed the Jeconiah line in that none of his descendants could inherit the throne. As far as God is concerned, the Jeconiah line is childless (Jeremiah 22:28-30).” Furthermore, one Jew I spoke with said the problem is even greater, because even if one could show that Jesus’ line is through Jeconiah, the fact that he is not Joseph’s son by marriage would make him a mamzer (bastard), so he could not inherit anything that was his mother’s husband’s.