Acts 8 begins with the church at Jerusalem being scattered. As we saw in the last lesson, the angry mob stones Stephen to death. Then in Acts 8:1 Saul was gladly consenting to his death and in the very next sentence it says, “at that same time there was a great persecution against the church”. The fact that God did not intervene and save Stephen only encouraged the enemies of Christ to continue their rampage. In their view, the tide had turned and they were winning!
So the church was scattered throughout Judea and Samaria as verse 1 states. However, it is reasonable to assume these believers were scattered over a much larger area, considering all the different places they were from (see Acts 2:5-11). This is later confirmed in Acts 11:19 where we learn that some had traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch.
“A group of Godly men carried Stephen to his burial and mourned greatly for him.” (Verse 2) This reminds me of what Jesus told His disciples in John 16:20, that after He was gone, the time would come when they would grieve and the world would rejoice.
And Saul was emboldened as well, no doubt rejoicing in his successes. Verse 3 tells us he “made havoc of the church”. Here, “havoc” is from lumainomai, to ravage. It is commonly used to describe the ferocity of animals attacking their prey. It continues that he went from house to house, dragging people out and taking them to prison. I had mentioned already that Paul admits in Acts 22:4 and 26:10 that he was ultimately responsible for the deaths of many of these people. Although the Roman occupiers were the only ones who had the power to kill (the Jews could only imprison people), many did die either through murder (as Stephen did) or by the permission of the Romans in order to pacify the Jews (remember the trials of Jesus, then the pressure put on Pilate to crucify Him).
So then the rest of Acts 8 is about Philip (not the disciple of Luke 6:14, but the deacon of Acts 6:5). You can read it for yourself. He goes to “the city of Samaria”, and a great revival takes place. It’s not certain where he actually went. John Hyrcanus destroyed the city called Samaria in the Old Testament in 128 BC during the Jewish wars. It was finally rebuilt in 27 BC by Herod, but was renamed Sebaste. It is more probable that Philip went to Sychem, as this was the center of the Samaritan religion, the location of their temple at nearby Mt. Gerizim and where Jesus had already won many converts (John 4).
I’m not trying to minimize what takes place in Samaria, but want to resume our examination of the accounts concerning Saul, so we’ll go on to Acts 9:1-2. “At the same time, Saul, still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples, went to the high priest and asked for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to this Way, he could bring them bound to Jerusalem.” The “Way” is literally, “the Way of life that is bound by belief in Jesus Christ”. It is a common term in the Book of Acts (18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) and most probably came from what the Lord said of Himself in John 14:6, that He was “the Way, the Truth and the Life”.
And just to point out Paul’s enthusiasm and determination in persecuting Christians, he now wants to undertake the nearly 200-mile journey from Jerusalem to Damascus to see if there are believers among the Jewish population there. So now the irony of Saul’s conversion begins, as he sets out to arrest even more believers, the Lord arrests him instead!
“And as he came near to Damascus on his journey, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him, and he fell to the ground. Then he heard a voice saying, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? And Saul said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, the One you are persecuting. Now get up off the ground and go into the city, then you will be told what you must do. And those traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound, but saw no one.” (Verses 3-7)
If you’re reading a King James or maybe some older translation, you may have noticed something missing from the translation above. “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” at the end of verse 5. “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,” at the beginning of verse 6. Neither of these are found in the best manuscripts and are either omitted altogether or at least found in italics in later translations.
And if you’re wondering what the meaning of the statement about kicking against the pricks is all about, let’s look at that. The “prick” is a reference to the use of a goad, a sharp, pointed rod used to guide animals. And when it says, “it is hard”, some commentaries say what the Lord was trying to convey here is “it is dangerous for you to keep ignoring the clear evidence that what you are fighting against is really from God” (remember Acts 5:39).
There is one other issue I want to mention from this account. When the light from heaven flashed around him, Paul immediately fell to the ground. This is consistent with other instances when people found themselves in God’s presence: Ezekiel fell on his face (Ezekiel 1:28); Daniel grew weak, his appearance lost its color, and he fainted (Daniel 10:7-10); the disciples were struck with fear and fell on their faces (Matthew 17:5-6); and John, when he saw the Lord, fell at His feet as if he were dead (Revelation 1:17). The Lord asks Israel this question in Jeremiah 5:22, “Do you not fear Me? Do you not tremble in My presence?”
Now, this is not intended to offend anyone, but to get you to think. There is a movement popular today in many churches that practice what they call congregational worship. During that time they claim (or at least assume) their worship ushers them into the presence of God. It is usually a time devoted to upbeat music with an optimistic, cheerful message that produces an ecstatic response in the worshippers.
And so, the participants assume that since they feel so good about what they’re doing, they must be in the presence of God. Yet that was never the response of anyone in scripture. Isaiah said, “Woe is me! I am undone, a man of unclean lips” when he found himself in the Lord’s presence (Isaiah 6:5). I have to ask, if believers today were actually in the presence of the holy and righteous God Who does not change (Malachi 3:6), shouldn’t their response be the same as those in scripture?
There’s something (or several things) incongruous about this whole matter of worship. First, none of the words translated “worship” in either the Old Testament or the New Testament have anything to do with music. They all convey the idea of reverence with a view to submission or service. In scripture both men and God are objects of worship. With either, the act is intended to acknowledge the authority of the one worshipped over the worshipper.
Also, there is no evidence that the act of even true worship will produce the presence of God or that the presence of God brings feelings of happiness or joy. On the other hand, if it were determined that one could somehow beckon the presence of God at his or her timing or whim, would there not be weakness, fainting, or maybe some repentance involved?
Here’s my conclusion, everyone else is free to have his or her own. The so-called “worship experience” is the gimmick of church leaders to make their congregants service participation more exciting and pleasurable. And my fear is that when people learn to sing upbeat, cheerful songs, then assume they’re in the presence of a God that shows up every time they get happy to show He’s in agreement with them, then they’re going to assume that this is the fullest expression of their relationship with God. And it’s all based on a false premise leading to a false outcome.