Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, June 25, 2013 Read – Acts 9:19b-25 The experience of Saul on the Damascus Road is often referred to as the conversion of Saul. Luke would find this description to be very offensive. Saul does not change religion!! His understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, changed but Paul remains just as much a Jew after this experience as before. Luke remains insistent that Christianity is Judaism in its fullest form. It is always important for us to remember this as well – without Judaism as the foundation, Christianity crumbles. Perhaps one way to think about this is to recognize that Christianity is a form of Judaism – that is the only way in which Luke thought of it. There are Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah and those who don’t – but they all remain Jews. So in is not proper for us to speak of the “conversion” of Saul as if Saul changed religions. That Saul became a powerful and effective proclaimer of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, is without question and that reality caused quite a startling sense of amazement at that time – and, were we not so familiar with Paul, it may also carry amazement for us. How could it be that one who had tried to stamp out what he thought was a perversion of Judaism becomes one of its most ardent supporters? Luke clearly wants his readers to recognize that this was the work of God. It wasn’t that Paul was plagued by a guilty conscience or that he sat down and thought it all out. God intervened. Paul would testify to the same reality! From a strictly historical point of view – Luke and Paul remember the details of Saul’s time in Damascus and afterward differently. Luke tells us that Saul remained in Damascus for several days – an indeterminate time – and because Saul had become such an effective evangelist he came under threat of Jews in Damascus who did not believe in Jesus. They sought to kill Saul so he was helped to escape the city by night being lowered from a window in the city wall in a basket. As we will hear in tomorrow’s reading, from there Saul went immediately to Jerusalem where he was at first reluctantly accepted by the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem but eventually, through the intervention of Barnabas, became well known in Jerusalem going “in and out among them” (Acts 9:28). Because he was so effective and came under threat of being killed, after a short time he was brought to Caesarea and sent off to Tarsus because it was too dangerous for him to remain in Jerusalem. Paul tells us much the same story in his letter to the Galatians. It is important to say first of all that there are many things in common between these two versions of the same events. However, there are significant differences too. Paul tells us in Galatians that after God had “revealed his Son” to him – once again this is not viewed as a conversion to another religion but a correct understanding of Judaism – Paul began to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles. He says specifically that he did not go up to Jerusalem to confer with any human being (Galatians 1:16-17). After an indeterminate period of time Paul tells us that he went to Arabia, eventually returning to Damascus (Galatians 1:17). It was only after three years that Paul finally did go to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18). He stayed only 15 days and saw only two people, Peter and James the Lord’s brother, and then went into the region of Syria and Cilicia (where Tarsus is located) and it was only after fourteen more years that Paul finally made a public visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-2:1). And, Paul specifically says that until his visit fourteen years later – actually 17 years or so after his experience on the Damascus Road – he was “unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:22). The reality is that Luke and Paul remember the whole episode differently. From a historical point of view it is probably best to accept Paul’s version – after all he experienced it and we would either need to claim Paul is a liar or incredibly forgetful to claim otherwise. So, why did Luke tell the story as he did? We need to remember that from Luke’s point of view it was important for the Jerusalem church to verify and approve the mission of the church. The Apostles have a normative role. Something, by the way that Paul would not have accepted (Galatians 2:6). Luke’s version of Paul’s experience, though it is based on a kernel of historical reality, is more about Luke’s theology than it is about what actually happened. Luke’s point is important – the church needs a normative foundation. Paul’s reasons for telling the story are also important. Both proclaim the truth to us – each in different mode. Paul’s is likely the historical truth. Luke’s truth is theological and also necessarily important – although if our only measure of truth was to be historical accuracy we run into trouble with Luke’s story. It is a very good thing that our faith is not based on historical accuracy!