For most Christians, Paul’s experience on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9) is the classic story of the conversion of the chief of sinners. Jesus himself appears to Rabbi Saul and confronts him with the truth of the resurrection and completely turns him around. For many preachers, Paul’s experience is a clear example of what God can do in the life of every sinner. His conversion is therefore an example of the lavishness of God’s grace and mercy.
Yet there is a great deal about Paul’s experience which is open for discussion. Longenecker and Still offer three reasons for scholarly debate over Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road in Acts 9 (TTP 31). First, the terminology use to describe Paul’s experience varies within Acts and even within the Letters of Paul. Did Paul experience a vision in Acts 9? How is that vision related to his 2 Corinthians 12?
A second problem is the chronological relationship between Paul’s “conversion” and his “mission.” Perhaps it is inappropriate to describe Paul as converting from Judaism to Christianity in the modern sense of the word. Did Paul experience a conversion experience similar to a person who attends a modern evangelistic meeting, raises their hand and walks forward to “accept Jesus”? Or was his experience more of a calling to a particular mode of ministry, the mission to the Gentiles?
The relationship between conversion and mission raises a third problem for Longenecker and Still, how should Acts be used to unpack what happened to Paul? For some scholars, Luke’s story of the early church is suspect: he is a later writer trying to emphasize the unity of the church and (perhaps) promote Paul as a more significant leader than he really was. For other more conservative interpreters of Acts, Luke tells his story with a theological agenda but he does not create events out of nothing. He tells the story of Paul’s conversion three times in order to highlight the theological significance of Paul’s mission.
Yet it seems clear Paul had some kind of experience that really did cause him to rethink everything, even if he did not reject all aspects of Judaism in favor of Christianity. By appearing to Paul in his resurrection glory, Jesus radically changed Paul’s thinking in a way which cannot really be described as “conversion” in the contemporary sense. It was a prophetic call like Isaiah or Ezekiel which resulted in a transformation of Paul’s thinking about who Jesus is and what he claimed to be.
Over the next few posts I will take up these topics and examine a few of the texts in which Paul describes his own calling to ministry. Perhaps this is a discussion that ought to stay in the academy, but I wonder if it is surprising to hear Paul did not experience a conversion in quite the same way modern Christians do? If Paul did not experience a “conversion,” does this change the way we think about his mission? Or to put it another way, if he was converted from Judaism to Christianity, what should we do with the many Jewish elements of Paul’s theology and practice?
Glad that you, Phillip, from a “conservative” academic institution, are taking on this subject, and with openness (at least to a degree:)). Lots of things of importance here.
And even undergrads can/should be “brought up to speed” as much as possible. The issues are more than just “academic”. Views and understanding of conversion experiences and processes are vital, for example. And generally poorly understood.
Careful comparison of Paul’s own self-descriptive accounts and sense of calling, development of his experience of mission and his theology are important. Clearly NOT all “revealed” to him in one conversion experience. And yes, there clearly are a number of good reasons to prioritize his own statements over those of “Luke”.
I don’t think the case that he was, even for a brief time, a companion of Paul has much credibility. Lots of evidence, however, that he wrote much later and with a strong agenda involving both theological points and the survival/future of a Pauline-type Christianity (over against the much-weakened Jerusalem/observant-Jewish type, post 70 AD and destruction of the city and Temple). Luke, more than any single writer/leader seems to have revived and promoted Paul and the “Pauline school”. But he did it by often distorting Paul as well!
I touch on Galatians 1 in the next post. And while I agree Paul did not receive a bolt of pink light that beamed all his theology into his head fully formed in the Damascus Road event, meeting the resurrected Jesus was so jarring that it did cause him to re-think what he knew about God and his relationship with Israel. Specifically, everything he thought about *how* God would accomplish his plan to restore Israel had to change because of what God has done through Jesus. More of this as we pick through the letters, especially on Romans 9-11.
I hope we do not over interpret or over simplify the story of Luke. There could be many sides to the understanding and interpretation. But at the bottom line is the interaction between human and divine. Conversion whether in the so-called modern or conservative understanding does not entail the destruction of human personality. In every process of conversion or transformation, something is transformed, something remains, and some others acquired. So one should not be surprise to read from paul many Jewish elements. Paul is Paul the Jew, and no one could take it away from him.
I usually get accused of over-complicating things! The question here is not that (Christian) Paul would have some Jewish elements in his theology, but rather how much that heritage continued to influence him throughout his mission. I am trying to push back at the anachronistic reading of Paul that seems to think he jettisoned every Jewish thought and became a good Lutheran the moment he accepted Jesus as savior.
I think I read your paper on non-violence in Luke 22:35-38, your name seems very familiar to me.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Any and all wording describing any of the “early church” converting from Judaism to Christianity is incorrect. All they who believed in the Lord Jesus did so because they were Jews and believed in the fulfilment of all that their prophets foretold. They did not stop being Jews because they believed in the promises to their Nation. They were the only ones of their Nation who could say that they were “circumcised in hearts and ears”. They were Jews every whit, and what separated them from the rest of the nation was that the rest of the nation rejected their only hope, as Peter told the Sanhedrin:
Acts 4:8–12 — “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Paul’s conversion was also not a change of religion, but it was first truly converting from disbelief in the Lord Jesus as the Messiah and thereby the hope of his nation, to belief in Him as Lord and Christ (Messiah), and he was also called into the ministry that day. Paul’s own words to Timothy about this:
1 Timothy 1:12–17 — “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
When looking at Paul’s conversion, or eye opening experience or whatever we should call it, I wouldn’t expect his theology to change per se. I think elements of who we are before we encounter Christ are supposed to transfer over into our lives. I look at my own testimony, and I went through a lot of things, many of which have become means by which to be able to witness to others. Paul talks a lot about what being a Christian looks like in Romans 14. Some Jews weren’t able to give up certain aspects of their faith, and that was okay. Paul tells the reader to stop judging other believers or treating them with contempt, “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” (Rom 14:10b). It was so different, because for the Jews Jesus is the fulfillment of their religion. Christianity is just the culmination of Judaism, not entirely a different religion. Longenecker has this to say: “Some scholars prefer to describe Paul’s revelatory encounter with Christ not as a ‘conversion’ but as a ‘call’ experience.” (TTP 32). However you want to look at it, I see that Paul was living his life one way, encountered Christ, and chose to live his life a different way. That way may have been similar to the way he was living before, but it was different. Much as a person living a “good” life needs to still change and grow when they accept Jesus, so too did Paul. I think that is the important take away from the Damascus Road encounter.
Whenever someone has an encounter with Christ, it will look completely different from the person who is sitting next to them. So often in modern Christianity, we seem to put our “conversions” into boxes. The people with tough lives and heartbreaking stories who rise up from the ashes and their whole life is flipped upside down are somehow more valid than a person who accepted Christ when they were 3 and have never “gone through anything”. We have twisted this way of thinking into our modern norm. We want to believe that God blinded and struck Paul down and then immediately his thought patterns were completely different and his old ways went out the window. Whether or not he was converted in the “normal” sense or not, we can look at his life, post-conversion, and come to the conclusion that he lived for Christ faithfully. Personally, he seems more relatable because he still maintained some of his old theology and pattern of thinking. No one can completely unlearn what he or she knows and Paul is a perfect example of this. His old life seeped into his new life and this caused his teachings to be unique to him, while still spreading the good news of Christ and living his life for Him.
I personally would say that the way Paul encountered Christ would be different than how a modern person who raises their hands and steps forward to receive Christ does. However, that does not mean that those who accept Jesus or the way that Saul (Paul) received Christ and how God encountered Him. Everyone’s personal conversion experience is unique to them so there is no way to categorize how people accept Christ and how it is different. If Paul never received a conversion it would definitely change the way I think about his mission. Before he was “converted” the mission he was doing was persecuting Christians and if he never was “converted” then he never would have been able to go forth and do the mission that God called Paul to do. Also we would be missing a decent amount of scriptures. So if Paul never was converted it would be very easy to view the mission he was doing differently. Also I don’t want to say that we should ignore the Jewish theology and practice in the elements of his writing, but we should pay attention to the context of what he is writing and the times that he is writing. Many of the Jewish practices are not applicable to our Christian values, but they were applicable for Paul so instead of ignoring the jewish elements of Paul’s theology we just need to pay attention to the context of what he is writing in his letters.
I agree with bjohnston7415 in that everyone’s conversion story is very different. In our A-term class on the theologians, we discussed Augustine’s conversion story as one which was very unique but was a process. Not all people will have a light-switch change in their lives like Paul did, but when true understanding happens, our lives are transformed, never the same as they once were. When I looked up conversion in the dictionary, phrases such as rebirth, transformation, and reformation were used to describe it. When we look at Paul’s experience, his mission and actions appear to be of a total transformation. Of course, we are not Paul and did not live his life, but that is how it appears, one day killing Christians, the other spreading the gospel. Since he was Jewish, he already knew who God was and knew the Torah, but the change happened in changing his belief on who Jesus is. When discerning between the “call” or “conversion” I think in Paul’s unique experience, those are both lumped together. Paul’s mission after conversion was very clear, not only because Jesus told him, but because Christianity was not spread yet. He specific mission was revealed right away because that was clearly what needed to happen. I don’t think many people realize their specific call on their life until later. On a more specific level, Paul didn’t know right at that moment who to preach to, but his mission was revealed to him later to be a herald of the gospel to the gentiles (Galatians 2, Rom 15, Eph 3) (TTP, 33).
I think most Christians go through two types of conversions. First is a conversion from being an unbeliever into a child God who has accepted God’s gift of eternal life through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. Christians also experience a conversion during which they change from living a life of following their earthly desires to living a life dedicated to picking up their cross and serving the Lord. These two different conversions can happen at the same time, but will often happen years apart. For example, it seems pretty rare that an 5-year-olds who has accepted Christ into their hearts to immediately throw away their earthly life styles and dedicate themselves to God’s service. People who I have crossed path with usually pay most of their attention to the first type of conversion when people are saved. However, as Christians it is not only important that we are saved, but the conversion when we decide to leave our earthly comforts to full hearted pursue God’s calling for them is also incredibly important. When Paul was on the Road to Damascus, he experiences this second form of conversion as Paul rededicates his life to serving God.
-Chloé P.
I like when I see people thinking more deeply about both “conversion” and a life of dedication and service.
I want to add in yet another type of “conversion” (maybe more properly called “growth step”…. One I went through a couple decades ago, as have many, many other Christians (one can find people with such journeys in their spiritual lives readily on the Internet on blogs and groups). Some even call this general type of thing “de-conversion” (not a term I favor). It is a common (not really unexpected, and not “backsliding”) kind of development: movement from a faith centered on personal salvation and usually an intervening, miracle-working kind of God-belief to one that is more widely other-centered and inclusive, with a view of a more broadly “gracious” God… often one who does not “break into” history with either one-time miracles or specialized judgment/punishment, but who is none-the-less quite “immanent” or involved in the world and people’s spirits.
It is described well in the higher “stages” of the faith development concepts of James Fowler (and others). My own experiences of growth could broadly be labeled as from solidly “Evangelical” to now progressive (or more specifically, Process theology) Christian faith. In this, the core constant is seriousness about the priorities and style of Jesus of Nazareth, and seeking to follow him…. And no being longer concerned at all about my “personal salvation”, which is a misplaced and misleading emphasis in most of traditional Christianity, in my well-studied opinion.
Thanks for the comment Howard. I added a bit more on the psychology of conversion in a new post, dedicated to your question!
I agree with bjonston7415 in that each person’s personal conversion story is unique to them. When I first started my freshman year at Grace, I heard at least five conversion stories a day; each was unique to the person. Before going to Grace, I only heard the occasional conversion story when my family and I were physically able to go to the Sunday service. How we live our lives after our conversion relies on our choices. For example, I technically accepted Jesus as my savior when I was seven, but it would not be until I was in a burn accident in eleventh grade that I would take Christianity seriously in my life. The life choices I made and the events in my life effected how I approached the Bible. Now I approach scriptures with both a personal and educational understanding.
Paul (Saul) was brought up in a Jewish household in Tarsus (TTP, 20). Paul was a follower of the Law and of the Lord, “he became both a Pharisee and a persecutor of Jesus-followers” (TTP, 20). If I understand it correctly, Paul’s first approach to learning about God was from an educational perspective. Paul was tutored by the council member Gamaliel (Acts 5). When we first met Paul, he was persecuting Christians and denied Jesus as the savior (Acts 7-8). When Saul went to Damascus, he was stopped by Jesus and everything Paul knew was questioned (Acts 9:5). Each person’s individual conversion story may not be the blink-of-the-eye experience that Paul had, but Paul’s story is relatable and his theology should be understood from this perspective (Galatians 1:11-17). The journey that Paul had to Christianity should be considered when reading the scriptures just as the context and circumstances should be considered when reading the Bible. As Longnecker puts it, “Paul’s writings derive their character and content from their author” (TTP, 10).
The term “conversion” seems to hold a heavy definition—whether it be defined by biblical scholars or mathematicians. Myself, claiming to be far from a mathematician, view a conversion as something being transformed into something other than what it was originally. Take converting fractions to decimals: even though one number can be converted both into a fraction and a decimal, the fraction and decimal of that same number, will never look the same. Similarly, when an individual experiences a conversion, it is thought that they are becoming something completely new—usually making them appear differently in various ways such as modes of dressing, speaking, acting, and so on. Longenecker expressed similar thoughts in saying “…Paul did not image himself altering his loyalty to the God of Israel or abandoning key tenets of Jewish monotheistic belief…”(TTP 32). Interestingly enough, it still could be said that parts of Paul became new—not in a drastic aspect of losing his prior identity, but rather by receiving a more focused calling from the God he served.
Some people may see Paul’s Damascus Road experience as Paul transforming from a Jewish follower to a follower of Jesus Christ. This is not the case as we learn while reading through the blog post. Although this experience did change the thinking that Paul had on Jesus and while he did not make a full belief change between Judaism and Christianity. In every situation where we may see some transformation of some sort, there is always something that remains the same meaning that while reading through Paul’s letters, there should be no surprise when we see he has added possibly some Jewish elements within his Christianity teachings. After the encounter, Paul was sent out of the city of Damascus and ended up traveling to the town of Arabia although no body really knows the reason for his travels there. As Christians we sometimes get these callings from God that is him leading us in our own ways, Paul was led to changing the way that he lived by growing and accepting Jesus. This is the most important thing to me as a Christian seeing more and more people grow and learn more about their faith and this is my biggest take away from Paul’s encounter from the road to Damascus.
The word “conversion” in the English dictionary is the process of altering something – such as a religion, belief, or changing numbers into different forms. Paul’s journey on the road to Damascus and his experience of a vision from God caused Paul to have an alteration of Faith rather than completely converting to Christianity from Judaism instantly after his revelation. Most scholars do not think there to be a word for conversion in the relevant texts in Pauline Literature, while also mentioning that Paul does not abandon his key Jewish ideals in result of the vision he has on the way to Damascus (TTP 32). This examination by the scholars can result in the conclusion that although there was some transformation in Paul’s beliefs it cannot be said that it was a complete conversion into Christianity – although he took on some Christian aspects. An earlier blog post by “journeywithchristsblog” made a comment on the road experience topic about “conversion” happening twice in the events of a Christian. They mention that the first conversion is the decision to accept Christ in your life as savior and the second conversion is the complete alteration of one’s life to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ specifically. While agreeing with the second idea from the comment on the blog post, the mere acceptance of a personal calling to accept Jesus Christ into one’s heart should not be considered a “conversion” as people who accept Him as lord and savior do not always alter the way they live out their lives. This example can be seen as another reason why conversion is not an appropriate term to use to describe Paul’s interaction with the Lord. Paul did not just disregard his past teaching and way of life in pursuit of Christianity. In Galatians 1:16 Paul says “was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;” I believe that Paul was called into ministry when he was appeared to on the road to Damascus but was not “converted” to Christianity until he sought his mission out. The biggest take away I had from this blog was that conversion is a complete transformation, and that I am a follower of Christ by accepting Him, but I must live out Jesus’ example in order to be “converted.”
I don’t feel as though it was shocking to read that Paul didn’t experience a conversion in the same way Christians do today. In Biblical times the dynamic of things were very different with culture and conversions. There isn’t a pattern of believers converting, I would have been more shocked to see that changing throughout Scripture. I feel as though most of the people we read about in the Bible who become followers of Christ will stick to their tradition (ex. Messianic Jews).
Conversion wasn’t widely accepted then (not that Paul would have cared anyway) but it helps me put together the pieces as to why it wasn’t so dramatic as modern Christians have today. If Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity, the “conversion” process more than likely still wouldn’t have taken place. Christ followers who were devoted to Judaism still followed the Torah and dietary laws. The only thing that would have changed is adopting the life of Christ into their belief system and changing some small things. This would make for a very different Paul than what we see in Scripture had there been a dramatic conversion.
In my opinion this doesn’t change the way I think about Paul’s missions. Paul did great things for the body of Christ, I don’t think one has to have such a dramatic conversion to be recognized as beneficial to building the Kingdom of God.
After reading about Paul and his own experience on the road to Damascus. I find this event to be very interesting because of his conversion and everything that took place in his life leading up to that moment on the road. It is very cool to see where a person’s life can lead them and what God has in store for them. Every conversion is something completely different from someone else which is what makes the event so remarkable. After reading Acts 9 and the blog post one thing that I found to be pretty interesting was the second problem that occurred when looking at Paul’s experience. I never really looked at this event in this way in how maybe Paul’s experience may have been either downsized or “blown out of proportion”. The blog post talked about how Paul’s experience may have been something similar to that of someone raising their hands during praise or maybe someone who really feels called to during a prayer right before a meal. That is one thing that I like about the faith so much is that one event or moment can call out to us more than another person as it is God talking to us specifically, making that conversion all the more special.
Paul’s experience was not like that of today. Paul saw something that none of the modern-day Christians will see. In the church of today you raise your hand and confession your following for Jesus. We may have something that opens our eyes to Jesus but nothing to the degree of Paul seeing Jesus and having him fully changed. The cool thing is that everyone has a different experience when it comes to accepting Jesus. Just because Paul had something more than we will have does not mean we can categorize everyone’s experience and compare them. We are all transformed through Christ and we will all have a transformation in our lives which is the most important part to it. With Paul’s mission it was revealed right away because Christianity was not yet spread. Paul was set out to spread the Gospel by Jesus as we as His followers are to do so as well. Accepting Jesus is a way for us to grow in our lives just as Paul did and that is the important take away from his Road to Damascus experience. To be living one way our whole lives then to accept Christ to transform our lives and the others around us.
I think it would be accurate to call Paul’s experience as both a conversion and calling. Instead of converting from one religion, Judaism, to another, Christianity, it would be Paul’s mission in life was converted from one goal, persecuting the church, to another, spreading the gospel to the Gentiles. His conversion and calling were two parts of the same coin. It would be hard to say Paul didn’t experience some kind of conversion. If he didn’t, then at the very least, he was called. However, his calling would have had to drastically change his way of life, for example, not killing people of the church since he was preaching to Gentiles to have them be members of the church. I wouldn’t be able to wrap my head around the idea that Paul was either converted or called. Paul seems to see it as both, in Galatians 1:13, he describes his former life, and verse 15, “But he who had set me apart…who called me by his grace…” To think of his mission without conversion would be impossible. Paul would be preaching something he doesn’t agree with, he’d rather be killing people of the church than letting them into the church. Kind of like how Jonah was called but didn’t want to do it. If he was converted from Judaism to Christianity, his Jewish elements would still be of importance for context. And for our own testimony, it important to view our backgrounds and see how they have influenced our decision to follow Jesus.
It is a very interesting topic to think if Paul’s road to Damascus event was a conversion or a call. What I think is why not both (as we learned in class today)? Hopefully we all know that testimonies for everyone can be quite unique, just as Paul’s is. For example, I accepted Jesus when I saw the movie “The Passion of the Christ” when I was around four or five years old. Even though Stendhal argues that Paul never leaves Judaism, remaining a faithful Jew and being the “light to the Gentiles”, he challenges that by teaching Gentiles to be saved without circumcision (Long, p36). Even Paul himself explained the uniqueness of his testimony (Ephesians 3:1-6) as well there’s a title of “The Conversion of Saul” in Acts 9:1-19 (ESV).
Moving on, I would say Paul’s conversion affected his ensuing theology (Galatians 1:12). Just imagine growing up your whole life thinking Judaism is the way, but then there are these groups of people that follow this so-called Jesus, son of God. Now that sounds scandalous and blasphemy, which enrages you with zeal and justice. With this you go out of your way to put down these groups and travel to different places to bring them down. But then on your way to Damascus a bright overwhelming light succumbs you. The person that you were persecuting showed up to you and even told you what your mission is to be. With this perspective, I think that can change anybody’s theology.
It makes sense as to why there is debate about whether or not Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was a conversion in the sense that we understand today. Acts 9 clearly describes a distinct change in Paul from the beginning of the passage to the end. Verse 1 illustrates Paul’s opposition to the followers of Jesus. By the end of the passage, he was documented to have been baptized following his encounter with Christ. Longenecker and Still also point out the absence of the word conversion from the Pauline writings (TTP 32). They further develop this statement in the sense that when Paul was called to disciple the Gentiles, he did not fully reject his Jewish heritage (TTP 32). When we think of the term conversion today, especially in terms of faith, we think of someone coming to a new faith while rejecting their old faith. For example, someone converting from Hinduism to Mormonism. However, that was not necessarily what Paul was described to have gone through. Paul became a believer in the faith that he once persecuted. At the same time, he remained faithful to his Jewish background while still fulfilling his calling to share the Gospel of Christ with the Gentiles.
I find it to be a rather interesting perspective to say that Paul’s conversion experience was not quite the same as a modern day Christian conversion experience. If you look at the basic elements that we know of that were part of Paul’s experience, we can break it down into simple terms. Paul had one way of thinking and living. He had an encounter with Jesus that somehow changed his way of thinking and prompted him to make a major change to his way of living. Aside from the rather unique way that Jesus had an encounter with Paul, shouldn’t these be the same basic elements that our own conversion stories are made up of?
I suppose one way that Paul’s experience, or anyone with an experience that followed the same principles as what I shared above, could be different from many modern Christian “conversions” is that of those that are converted at a very young age and raised under Christian values. I personally accepted Jesus into my heart technically when I was only 5 years old, so I guess I would not say that my way of thinking completely changed and I altered my way of living from that moment on. I already was being raised with Christian standards and I continued to develop that as I got older. Many Christians who were raised in a Christian home maybe relate to a similar experience, but I almost am hesitant to call it a “conversion” as much as maybe it is a continuation and development of a faith that I had already been developing.
Many mentally ill people claim to encounter talking bright lights? Do you believe their claims? Of course not. So why do you believe Paul?
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2023/04/23/why-do-christians-assume-paul-was-sane/
I have always found the story of Paul’s conversion interesting. At the time, Paul was murdering Christians who openly followed God and he was on his way to Damascus to find followers of Christ who he was planning to imprison in the city of Jerusalem. Then, on his way there, God appeared to Paul, formerly known as Saul, and made him lose his vision. After Paul regained his vision, he was baptized. According to Acts 9:20 NIV, “At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.” To me, the conversion of Paul shows how every Christian goes through a different experience when they first come to Christ. For some, it is a simple yet sweet moment that makes everything make sense. For others, it can be a tough moment where the person may wrestle with past mistakes and have a hard time truly accepting the love that God has for them. Then, there is an alternative third option which is this moment being something that takes the person by surprise, so much so that they begin to act “erratic”. I would say that Paul falls under the third alternative. He went from persecuting Christians for their beliefs to becoming a Christian himself and preaching to others. I do not think that Paul changed overnight in his theology and beliefs, but it is evident that his views did begin to change after his conversion on Damascus Road. No matter how much you try to dissect the story of Paul’s conversion, there will always be room for speculation and skepticism because no one can truly know how it impacted Paul in the moment.
As we all agree that the culture of Jewish and the gentiles are different and they can not be a line together. But Paul was both for these two. He was born in Jewish family who valued culture and practice but grew and educated with gentiles. This experience of his made him be like the bridge between Jewish and Gentiles to spread out the Gospel of Christ that God has for the world.
The experience that Paul had in Damascus was really important. If Paul had never experienced the conversion for sure all our views of his mission will be different. All that we will know about him is as he is a pharisee and who started persecution of Christianity. Also, we christian may keep the law of Jews, such as ‘’circumcision, and live under the Torah”.
But Paul’s conversion changed the whole point of view of Christianity. He was called to proclaim the Gospel not just for gentiles, both for gentiles and Jew but more of Gentiles (Act 9:15). So clearly understand the law of Jew and the Grace of God. That’s why he pointed out that we are free under the grace of God.
Also, Paul’s conversion helps christianity to stand firm on faith, build the church on Christ, and live style of elder, pastor, husband/wife and children and know how to use our gifts for the Kingdom of God. If he had not experienced conversion, it is impossible to think what christianity looks like in this model life. It will be totally different.
I think that it is interesting that Paul’s “conversion” is almost entirely different than that of the modern conversion. I do not think that it is totally farfetched to call it a “conversion” as he did go from dishonoring God and persecuting those that were serving him, to being a servant of God. What’s different than usual is that he did not change religions, nor did he change the God that he served, but started to serve him rightly.
I also think that Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus might be a top three most important moment for Christianity. Without Paul we would be without 28% of the New Testament and some of the most important teaching sections of scripture. Paul was the main teacher of grace by faith, and so without his teachings we might have struggled to come to that understanding.
When thinking about Paul’s experience, I like the idea of transformation a little bit more than conversion. Not that I disagree with conversion, but thinking about it in a modern sense it can lead people to make assumptions based on their experiences with people converting to Christianity. When I think about the word transformation, I think of someone whose life was completely changed and essentially, made new. Like it says in Romans 12:2, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is for you. His good, pleasing, and perfect will. Comparing and contrasting the two there are similarities. Both imply changes being made to the way of living, however the changes of Paul’s life seemed to be more transformative in nature. Transformation is more of a dramatic change whereas many people think of someone who converted as someone who was previously tip toeing on the edge of a certain set of beliefs. The reason it seems like more a drastic change is because of what Longenecker brings up, “…prior to his revelatory encounter with Christ en route to or in Damascus, Paul sought to oppose the church.” It’s interesting to think about the work God did in the life of Paul to transform him from opposing the church, to go on missions from church to church to bring them the good news and tell them to repent from their sinful ways. Though I don’t think conversion is the wrong word, or an inaccurate word to use, I do believe that transformation describes the situation more accurately especially in the modern day.
The thought that Paul’s experience as he traveled to Damascus is considered an “unusual conversion” is very true, as it is not the typical “turning” to Jesus moment like we see so often. Paul’s experience was almost literally seeing and then believing. Paul did not repent of his persecution/deaths of early believers. Scripture plainly says to repent of our sin before proceeding into salvation through Christ’s blood. Paul was not described as having done this but had a miracle performed in his life in ensuing days only after conversing with the Savior. Paul himself said, when speaking of his conversion, that “God had revealed his son to him so that he could preach the gospel to the Gentiles” (Galatians 1:16). Paul believed that’s why he got converted. God had chosen him to bring about salvation to the Gentiles; in other words, to the world. God was more than happy to forgive Paul for his innumerable lives he took and for all the horrible things he had done. God gave grace to Paul, and made him a totally different man.
When we look at Paul’s Damascus experience, I think we can look at it as a conversion and a calling. While Paul’s experience with Christ is much different than a modern day person who raises their hands and confesses their following in Jesus. Paul saw Jesus in a vision, and He called him to spread the Gospel. The cool thing about this is that everyone’s experience in finding Jesus and following the word is different. Some people accept Christ when they are younger, and some don’t find Jesus until they are older. Everyone has a different story, and God has a different plan for everyone. Some are not more or less than others because of the way they found Jesus. We can see Paul’s experience as both a conversion and a calling because without Jesus calling out to him, Paul would have continued his journey with his original plan, persecute Christains. This calling from Jesus, ultimately converted Paul to go and spread the gospel. Paul was not fully converted to Christianity from this experience and call from Jesus, as Paul continued to teach and live out certain Jewish ideals. Either way, conversion or calling. Paul has played a huge role for Christianity today, and can show many people in our world that no matter your past, you can find Christ.