*I* indeed myself thought that I ought to do much against the name of Jesus the Nazaraean.
Paul stands before King Agrippa and tells his story. He begins not with his conversion but with the years when he was sure that opposing the name of Jesus was his duty. So what happens when a clear conscience drives a man against the Son of God?
Paul was not pretending. He was sure of himself. But God had already given proof about His Son, so sincerity was no excuse.
Here he lets us see how unsafe a guide conscience is for the natural man, whatever his religious helps may be. He considered it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and zealously persecute all who called on Him. Nor does God accept such a plea. He had sent His Son with proof enough that He was the Messiah. Anyone who compared God's written word with the facts about Jesus the Nazarene could see it: prophecy fulfilled, miracles worked not only by Himself but by His servants... So Paul had acted in ignorance and unbelief. Others do the same when they refuse all revelation, or misuse one part of it to reject another part that is fuller and more glorious.
A clear conscience is not the same as a safe one. It needs something outside itself to steer by.
He no doubt did all this with a good conscience. But note this: conscience is no guide to a man. Conscience is like the helm of a ship. If you have a correct chart and a good steersman, the helm is useful for guiding the ship's course. But if you let wind and wave toss the helm about, the ship will go on the rocks. We hear these days that if a man walks according to his conscience, all will be well for time and eternity. That teaching is not divine, and it will not do.
Saul's problem was not that he had too little religion. It was that his religion was the engine driving him.
A man's religion may be the worst thing about him. His sincerity in it will not stop its effect on him; it makes that effect more certain. And how solemn to realise that Saul's religion was zealous law-keeping — and the law was what God Himself had given. Here was one of Moses' disciples attacking Christ — and attacking Him in that very character. Of Moses they could rightly say, "We know that God spoke by Moses."
Unbelief does not only harden a man. It blinds him.
Such is the blinding power of unbelief! It was so with Saul... Man walks in darkness, because he is darkness. His conscience is darkness, and false teaching blinds his mind too. What a man does from conscience he always does with earnestness, even though he may be acting wrongly with a blinded conscience. A person may be very conscientious in resisting the truth.
Saul was a moral man. That was not what made him the worst of sinners.
What made him chief of sinners was not immorality, but the dreadful will and purpose with which he set himself against the purpose and mind of God.
His record was spotless. That record was the very thing that ruined him.
Outwardly he was a man without a spot, of faultless reputation according to the law; he had a good conscience. He believed it was his duty to do much against the name of Jesus, and he did it... conscience, legal justice, religion — everything that formed his moral life had made him the fierce enemy of the Lord of glory. But at one blow all the foundations of his moral life were ruined.
The name Saul set out to destroy became the name that mastered him.
Of all who tried to blot out the name of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus went furthest. He thought it right "to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth." But the power living in that precious Name flooded his Pharisee heart. The words of Christ from the glory, "I am Jesus," transformed the rest of his life.
- Conscience — Saul's was clear, and it steered him onto the rocks. Commentators call conscience an unsafe guide, and God did not accept the plea.
- Conviction — sincerity did not soften the sin. What a man believes he ought to do, he does with all his strength.
- Cause — his religion, not his immorality, made him the chief of sinners: a will set against the mind of God.
- Collapse — one meeting with the risen Christ ruined every foundation of his moral life at a stroke.
- Conquest — the Name he set out to erase became the power that flooded his heart and transformed the rest of his life.
Which also I did in Jerusalem, and myself shut up in prisons many of the saints, having received the authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death I gave my vote.
Paul stands in chains before King Agrippa. He opens not with his defence but with his crimes: he once jailed and helped to kill the very people whose faith he now preaches. How could a sincere, religious man do that, and what mercy could cover it?
The account is blunt. Paul calls his victims God's own people, says where his authority came from, and admits he did more than lock people up.
Here, before Agrippa, he does not hesitate to confess to his own shame that he shut up "many of the saints" in prisons. To the Jews he had used the vaguer expression "this Way" (Acts 22:4). Luke, in the history, spoke of "the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). How little he thought of them that way when he received the authority he needed from the chief priests! Nor was it only imprisoning. When it came to putting them to death, had he not voted against them? It was clearly so in Stephen's case, as this book records.
"I cast my vote against them" is a courtroom picture. Older translations read "I gave my voice against them." The word behind it is the small stone jurors dropped to record a verdict.
The word used here (psephos) means a stone or pebble which, in ancient times, had two well-known uses. In criminal cases, a white stone was given to mean acquittal; or a black one, meaning condemnation. So Paul speaks of his days before conversion, when he persecuted the Christians. He says that when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them. Literally, he gave his stone against them — the word is the same (Acts 26:10).
Some see here that he sat among the judges:
He would seem to have been a member of the Jewish council, before which all such heretics were tried and sentenced.
The wording covers more than one death. What was life in Jerusalem like in those days?
What a time it must have been! No wonder that all were scattered abroad from Jerusalem who could get away, except the apostles. Imprisonments and deaths were frequent events, and some whose faith gave way were made to blaspheme. Stephen was the first martyr, but clearly not the only one. Many were put to death at that time. It was a great execution indeed.
A man following his own sense of duty did all of this. That is the warning in it.
Conscience is so often falsified by education — and this was his case — that he followed its directions and obeyed its instructions. Through that very thing, he opposed Christ with all his might. In good conscience, he did the greatest possible wrong… With all our conscience, our religion, our learning, and the approval of the teachers of this world, we may be at open war with the Lord.
The same writer weighs that plea against what God had already given:
He considered it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and zealously persecute all who called on Him. Nor does God accept such a plea. He had sent His Son with adequate proof of His Messiahship for all who would compare His written word with the facts of Jesus the Nazarene.
Paul's own verdict on himself did not rest on scandal. It rested on the will behind these actions.
What then made him chief of sinners? Not immorality. Not the gross wickedness at which refined society blushes. It was the dreadful will and hateful opposition with which he set himself against the purpose and mind of God… He drove the scattered saints of God from city to city. And not only that — he forced them to blaspheme the One who to them was above everyone.
The voice from heaven that stopped him named only one victim.
When the voice from heaven said, "Why are you persecuting Me?" — who did the Lord mean and include in that word "Me"? Was it not the very ones that Saul was committing to prison and to death (Acts 22:4-5; Acts 26:10-11)? Are we used to seeing and enjoying our position and privileges this way, as members of the body of Christ?
The man who voted for those deaths became Christ's pattern case. Why does that matter for everyone else?
The chief of sinners is in heaven. How did he get there? Simply by the blood of Jesus; and what is more, he is Christ's "pattern" man. All may look at him and see how they too are to be saved… The grace that reached the chief can reach all. The blood that cleansed the chief can cleanse all.
- Zeal. Paul acted on conscience and religious training, and that very conscience put him at open war with the Lord.
- Verdict. Sincerity was no defence. God had already given proof enough of who Jesus is, so ignorance was no excuse.
- Vote. His vote was a juror's stone dropped for the death penalty. The plural "when they were put to death" shows Stephen was not the only martyr.
- Victim. The One who stopped him counted every prisoner as Himself: "Why are you persecuting Me?"
- Pattern. Christ saved the chief of sinners as His pattern case — the grace that reached the chief can reach all.
And often punishing them in all the synagogues, I compelled them to blaspheme. And, being exceedingly furious against them, I persecuted them even to cities out [of our own land].
Paul stands before King Agrippa and tells the story of his own past as a hunter of believers. His words raise two hard questions: how can a sincere religious man end up at war with God, and what hope is left for him?
The phrase about making them blaspheme points to pressure applied with a threat behind it.
Paul persecuted those who confessed the name of Jesus. He did this in Jerusalem, where he imprisoned many and argued for their death. In every synagogue he kept up this campaign, forcing men to blaspheme. This clearly meant trying to make them speak against the name of Jesus under threat of death. It reached even to foreign cities.
Paul does not soften the record in front of a king. He admits each step, and he calls his victims saints:
Here, before Agrippa, he is not afraid to confess to his own shame that he shut up "many of the saints" in prisons. To the Jews he had used the vaguer phrase, "this Way" (Acts 22:4), and Luke in his account spoke of "the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). How little he thought of them that way when he received his authority from the chief priests! And it was not only imprisonment. When it came to putting them to death, did he not cast his vote against them? That was clearly so with Stephen, as the book of Acts records. Did he not visit every synagogue, often punishing people and forcing blasphemy out of them where he could? And in his wild rage, did he not chase them even into cities outside the land?
The attempt did not always fail:
And some, as we learn from Acts 26:11, gave way before such terrible treatment. They saved their lives and their place in the synagogue by speaking against the name they had claimed to honour, after having in some measure confessed the One to whom that name belongs as the One they would follow.
Paul himself knew what that pressure could do.
None knew better than he what persecution could do to shake the steadiness of anyone not fully established in grace. For had he not in the past made many blaspheme that holy name by which they were called? (Acts 26:11).
Paul was not acting against his conscience; he was obeying it. That is exactly what makes the verse so searching.
Here he shows us how unsafe a guide conscience is for the natural man, whatever religious helps he may have. He thought it was his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and to persecute with zeal everyone who called on Him. God does not accept that excuse. He had sent His Son with proof enough that He was the Messiah, for anyone willing to compare God's written word with the facts about Jesus of Nazareth.
The danger is not Paul's alone:
Conscience is so often given a false direction by teaching — and that was his case — that he followed its lead and obeyed its orders, and by that very thing he opposed Christ with all his might. With a clear conscience he did the greatest possible evil... With all our conscience, our religion, our learning, and the approval of this world's teachers, we can be at open war with the Lord.
Nothing here shows Paul slowing down.
But a great change was at hand. There is no hint of relenting here or anywhere else, no feeling of pity for his victims, no trace of self-judgment or hesitation in the path he took. Who proved the Lord's own words more plainly? "They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God."
Chasing believers into other cities showed a hatred that no distance could satisfy.
He wanted to be the active enemy of the faith wherever it was found, and to destroy the name of Jesus. He had done much at Jerusalem, but he wanted to satisfy his hatred even in foreign cities... Grace was greater than the sin, and God's patience more perfect than the persistence of man's hostility. Man's hostility was limited by what man amounts to; God's patience has no limit in His own nature except that of His sovereign will.
- Conscience — Paul thought he was serving God while fighting Him. Sincerity was no defence: God had already given proof enough about Jesus.
- Reach — From Jerusalem, through every synagogue, out to foreign cities: his hatred wanted no boundary.
- Casualties — Under threat, some believers saved their lives by speaking against the name. Paul knew what fear can do to a faith not yet settled.
- Confession — Years later he tells it all to a king, calls his victims "the saints," and makes no excuse for himself.
- Grace — At the point where he shows no sign of relenting, grace proves greater than the sin. Nothing limits it but God's own will.