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?

 

Why is Paul’s Conversion so Important?

We need to remember that authors of books in ancient times didn’t have the luxury that modern writers have of adding a few pages here and there for color and depth. In the first century CE authors like Luke were limited to the length of a scroll. They had to be concise and choose carefully what they wished to say in order to successfully express the theme behind their work. Luke chose to record Paul’s conversion three times (Acts 9, 22 and 26)! Why? Wouldn’t once have been sufficient, knowing that space was limited? Looking back, our vision is 20/20; Paul turned out to be one of the most significant figures of western civilization. What he did, or rather what God did through Paul, changed the direction of the whole continent of Europe and ultimately of the Americas, and to some degree even how the East developed into our modern societies. But, Luke didn’t know this, so why did he take such an interest in Paul’s conversion?

 

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).

 

Was Paul Converted or Called?

Luke treats Paul’s Damascus road experience as a very important event in his thesis, mentioning it three times. First, he describes the event as part of an historical narrative concerning the spreading of the Kingdom of God (Acts 9). However, later he has Paul recall the event, describing what occurred in his own words to the Jews at Jerusalem, including the Jewish authorities (Acts 22). Finally, Luke has Paul recall the event before King Agrippa, while other important authorities listened, including the Roman governor, Festus (Acts 26).

 

Is Suffering a Sign of Divine Favor?

Obviously, not all suffering is of God, nor does it mean one is held in his favor. However, I have read, and I believe it to be true, that suffering in the midst of one’s devotion to God is not only a sign one is in the narrow path to glory but also a sign of divine favor. Certainly we exalt those men and women who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to risk life and limb for their country. So, there is reason to believe that suffering for one’s country or out of devotion to God is worthy of praise.

 

The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb

I wonder how often, if ever, that we think of the prospect of coming into fellowship with one who hurt us badly. Most often, I suspect, we would simply seek to avoid such a person. People who seem to live to or at least enjoy hurting those who trust in Jesus are too often simply written off as unreachable, and perhaps unforgivable. Certainly, it would be very difficult to forgive such a one under normal circumstances who had beaten or killed a friend or a loved one, especially a harmless, gentle friend or loved one. Yet, as the Scripture keeps telling us, the thoughts of God are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9); yes, the depth and height of his wisdom is beyond our full comprehension (Romans 11:33).

 

Saul and the Persecution

If Luke was not among those believers who were persecuted and had to leave Jerusalem, he could not have witnessed Stephen’s death. However, it would not be inconsistent with his explanation in Luke 1:1-4 that he could have researched his material concerning the events surrounding Stephen’s death and the persecution that followed. These things may very well have been supplied by Philip, who had ultimately settled in Caesarea after fleeing Jerusalem.

 

The Stephen Conspiracy

Why would a nice guy like Stephen get arrested and then executed, either by rule of the Sanhedrin or mob violence? Acts 6:8 tells us he was a miracle-worker, and the people seemed to love the believers among them who healed their ailments (Acts 5:12a, 15-16, 26), but something seems to have occurred here that kept Stephen from being protected by the power of the people. What was it?

 

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.

 

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.