Sermon Notes
Wallpaper
eBooks/Articles
Chord Charts

The Salvation of Saul (Part 1)

Acts 9:1-2
Pastor Mike O'Brien
April 22, 2007

The making of a murderer and an apostle!

As we begin this morning, I want us to look in a bit of detail at the making of Saul. I want us to see his background and the culture in which he was brought up. This will help us in understanding our Scripture. Also, we can’t help but notice God’s sovereign hand all over this.

The Basic Background of Saul:

No one verse gives us any better picture of Paul’s background than Gal. 3:6

Gal 3:6

just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Paul was Jewish and also had Roman citizenship.
Paul was mainly focused on his Jewish roots.
Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin.
Paul’s Jewish name was Saul, after the greatest Benjamite of them all—Israel’s first king, King Saul. Saul was his Jewish name and Paul was his Roman name. Some claim that Saul changed his name to Paul when he became saved, but that is not true. His conversion had nothing to do with a name change. In fact in Acts 13: 9 we read: “Then Saul, who also is called Paul . . . “
When Paul says “Hebrew of Hebrews” he is really stressing his Jewish heritage.
Paul was a “Pharisee.” Acts 22:3 (“I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today”) states that he studied under Gamaliel, who was the leading Pharisee of his day.
Paul further told the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:6, that he was “a Pahrisee, a son of Pharisees.” This probably means that his father or other ancestors were Pharisees.

Who were the Pharisees?

Time does not permit to cover all that a Pharisee was. But we can learn some important things that will tell us a bit about the mindset of Paul. There were three main groups in Paul’s day: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. The main difference was in how each group interpreted and applied the Law. But they also had some doctrinal differences. For instance the Essenes believed that man was pretty much a robot and that God predestined all that happened apart from man’s actions. The Sadducees went to the other extreme and believed that all that happened was a result of man’s total free will.

The Pharisees on the other hand, held to a middle position where room was afforded for both divine predestination and human choice. And you thought that theological debates were a modern phenomenon! In relation to the Law the Sadducess believed only in the written Law. The Pharisees on the other hand, not only believed in the written Law but they held to oral traditions which allegedly came from Moses. They also held to rulings the scribes had made over the years. So in a real sense the Pharisees were the legalists of the day, in that they added man made laws. Now that is what most of us already know about the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were by far the most influential of these groups.
The name Pharisee means “the separated ones.” They claimed to separate themselves from anything that was deemed impure.
We do not know for sure where the Pharisees originally came from.
The Pharisees adhered very strictly to the Sabbath law and the food restrictions. Many Pharisees would not think of eating food, even they were starving, that had not had the tithe paid on it. In fact, many Pharisees died for that belief under Antiochus IV.
Now when the Romans came to power the Pharisees were represented in the Sanhedrin.
Josephus says that there were about 6,000 Pharisees in Christ’s day.

Paul’s assessment of himself before Christ:

Galatians 1:13-14

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

Paul’s day there were two philosophies of legal interpretation among the Pharisees. The two schools of thought were led by Shammai and Hillel. Shammai held to a stricter interpretation and application than Hillel.

We would expect to find out that Paul was educated in the stricter Shammai school. However, he was a disciple of Gamaliel. And Gamaliel succeeded Hillel as head of the Hillel school. In fact, it is probable that Gamiliel was Hillel’s grandson. Saul was probably around 13 years old when he began his studies with Gamiliel. And he is thought to have been around 30 years old when we first see him in Acts.

It is clear, however, that while Paul may have interpreted the Law the same as Gamiliel did, he did not apply it in the same manner. Gamiliel, you might remember from Acts 5, felt that the believers should be left alone and tolerated. Saul, on the other hand, felt that they should be persecuted. Saul also felt that the Law should be kept in its totality. So in some ways Saul’s beliefs were a morph between the two schools—Shammai and Hillel. In fact Gal. 5:3 tells us Paul’s attitude on the Law from a Jewish perspective:

Paul’s physical description:

As to what Paul looked like there is only obscure allusive data from the New Testament. His Hebrew name Saul means 'asked for' while his Roman equivalent Paul means 'little'. As his name suggests he was probably of small stature and build Acts 14:12; 2

Paul’s family:

Little is known about his family. Probably he came from a well-to-do home, because he was a Roman Citizen from birth. The fact that he was a Roman Citizen implies that his parents possessed some wealth and position. Acts 16:37,38 makes it clear that Paul had Roman citizenship: “But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out. And the officers told these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans.”

Paul’s early years:

Jewish law prescribed that a boy begin the study of the scriptures at five years of age and the study of the legal Jewish traditions at age ten. (Josephus and Philo) According to his own testimony he was a Pharisee, as his father had been before him Acts 23:6, (But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!") spoke Aramaic (a Hebrew of the Hebrews), and was taught the trade of tent making in his youth. The Jew was taught that manual labor was good, maintaining that intellectual ability and physical activity go hand in hand. Tent making was a noble trade, clean and respected in Paul's day.

-At thirteen a Jewish Boy becomes a Bar Mitzvah 'son of the commandment' and take upon themselves the full obligation of the law. Those who show exceptional ability are directed into rabbinical schools with special teachers. At an early age he went to Jerusalem, and probably lived with the married sister spoken of in Acts 23:16. Paul says in Galatians that he had advanced in the Jew's religion' beyond many of his contemporaries 'being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers' (1:14).

Paul’s Education:

We have already said plenty about Paul’s education. But I want to make a point here. I have often observed people who are on two different sides of this track. Some downplay an education as not being important. Sometimes they say things like “the more educated a man gets the more liberal he gets.” Of ten they will point to the disciples as exhibit A. Many students will say “I just want to serve God, I don’t have time to get an education.” On the other hand, some act as if you can’t serve God without an education. I want to say that God can and does use people in both cases.

In fact, who was the man that God most used in the Old Testament? The answer is Moses. Moses had the best education that a man could get in his day. And it was even a secular education! But God used him. Who did God use in the most mighty way in the New Testament? Paul, of course. And as we have seen he was very educated. And it wasn’t a Christian education either!

Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating nor putting down education. Nor am I advocating a specific type of education, like homeschooling, private school, or public school. I am just trying to make a point that I think is often lost. God can use people who have no formal education, and He can use people who even have a secular education.

Paul’s marital status:

It will probably never be conclusively settled whether Paul was ever married or not. Some argue that he had to be married to be a member of the Sanhedrin. But this may have been instituted later in the order. 1 Corinthians 7:8 states that Paul is single by implication. Probably Paul remained single, at least throughout the rest of his life to minister to the people. This does not mean that other apostles were not married. Peter was married according to Mark 1:30.

Sermon:
In the 18th Century there were two young men who were lawyers in England. Lord Lyttleton and Gilbert West were there names. They believed that they had good reasons for rejecting Christ. They said that there were only two things which support Christianity: 1) The resurrection of Christ; & 2) The conversion of Saul. They said that if these two events be proven to be untrue then Christianity is a farce.

They each went there respective ways and agreed to write a book. West was to write a book disproving the resurrection. Lyttleton was to write a book disproving the conversion of Saul.

Some time later they met again. West said that he had a confession to make. He said that, “I have been looking into the resurrection and there may be something to it.” Lyttleton said the same thing was happening to him in regards to Saul’s conversion. They both agreed to continue studying and see where they end up. In the end they each were saved by God and wrote books supporting both events!

This true story not only illustrates God’s grace, but it illustrates the importance of Paul’s salvation to Christianity.

Saul’s sinful disposition – vv. 1-2

Acts 9:1-2

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

What we see in Saul here is really a picture of each of us before we became saved. You say, not me. I mean I wasn’t killing people, much less Christians. Well perhaps not, but you and I were just as far away from God as Saul is here in vv. 1-2. There is not one iota of Saul which is seeking Christ here. In fact, Saul is a picture of seeking the total opposite of Christ.

In Eph. 2:1-3 we read about how each person is before they come to Christ. I want us to read these verses, because they describe Saul and us before we were saved perfectly:

Ephesians 2:1-3

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind

Now this text tells us 3 important facts about each person before they are saved:

1. They are spiritually dead in sin;

2. They lived apart from God and could not please God in any way; (We might call this total depravity or total inability; and the meaning is not that man apart from God is a bad as he possibly can be, but that without a saving relationship with Christ we cannot please God in any way.)

3. They are by nature children of God’s wrath.

This perfectly describes Saul. And it perfectly describes all of us before we were saved. Now I also mentioned that Saul was not seeking God in the least. Let’s read Romans 3:9-11.

Romans 3:9-11

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Here we see that no one seeks God on their own, not because God keeps them from seeking Him, but because they are not capable seeking Him due to their sin nature. Now this text and the passage in Ephesians is in perfect harmony Saul’s conversion here.

(Now the astute Bible student will have questions about this seeking. A couple of text might come to mind that seem to suggest that man can seek God on his own. So how do we reconcile this? Some say that God cannot command man to do something that he cannot do on his own. But this is not accurate. 1 John tells believers not to sin. But 1 John also tells believers in chapter 1, that they can’t not sin. Jesus heels a man and says “go and sin no more.” Now how can we sin no more? Only by God’s power. As long as we walk in the Spirit and not the flesh we won’t sin. But we don’t always walk in the Spirit, do we? This is why Augustine said something like “God please grant me obedience to obey what thou has commanded!” This point is this: Just as man cannot abstain from sin apart from God’s power, man also will not seek God apart from God’s drawing him.)

And so Saul is pictured here like a dragon. Just as a dragon breathes fire, Saul is breathing threats against believers.

Now let me also point out a great irony here. Last week we saw how God had called Phillip to take the gospel in another direction. Remember I made the point that Phillip may have been thinking “why should I leave Samaria when things are going so well?” Well, what Phillip didn’t know was that Saul was headed his way. So while Saul was headed North to persecute Christians and stop the spread of Christianity, God sent Phillip South!

Acts 9:8-9

Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.