Why Wouldn’t Jesus Let Mary Magdalene Touch Him?

Posted on April 1, 2026 by russellmckinney

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17, K.J.V.)

Of all the passages that get preached and quoted at Easter, this verse is among the most debated. I’ve long hesitated to write a blog post about it simply because the issues surrounding it are so convoluted. But here now I’m finally taking on the assignment.

For starters, there is the translation issue. I quoted the King James Version of the verse as an opening text because that translation’s rendering is at the core of the issues. Whereas the vast majority of translations quote Jesus as saying something along the lines of, “Do not cling to Me,” “Stop clinging to Me,” or “Do not hold on to Me,” the translators of the K.J.V. went with the statement, “Touch me not.” Obviously, there is a difference between clinging to a man and merely touching him.

The Greek verb in question is haptou, which is the present imperative tense of the Greek verb haptomai. The K.J.V. of John 20:17 simply continues that translation’s consistent pattern of translating haptou and haptomai as “touch,” “toucheth,” or “touched.” For example, this Greek wording is used in the story of the woman with the issue of blood who said to herself concerning Jesus, “If I may but touch His garment, I shall be whole” (Matthew 9:20-21; Mark 5:27-28; Luke 8:44-47). Similarly, it’s used to describe others believing that touching Jesus or His clothing would result in healing (Matthew 14:36; Mark 3:10; Mark 6:56). For that matter, it’s used to describe Jesus Himself literally touching someone to provide healing (Matthew 8:3; 8:15; 9:29; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 7:33; 8:22; Luke 5:13).

This wording is also used to describe what Jesus did in resurrecting the widow of Nain’s deceased son (Luke 7:14) and what He did in restoring the severed ear of Malchus (Luke 22:51). Furthermore, it’s used to describe Jesus touching Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:7), Him touching infants and small children to bless them (Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15), and the sinful woman washing His feet with her tears and drying them with her hair (Luke 7:39). Again, in each of these instances, the King James Version uses the words “touch,” “touched,” or “toucheth.”

Why, then, do the majority of translations come to John 20:17 and render it something other than “touch”? Well, the fact is that haptomai and haptou can refer to more than a mere touch. As evidence of this, consider the following quote from Greek scholar Marvin R. Vincent:

The verb, primarily, means “to fasten to.” Hence it implies here (John 20:17), not a mere momentary touch, but a clinging to. Mary thought that the old relations between her Lord and herself were to be renewed; that the old intercourse, by means of sight, sound, and touch, would go on as before. Christ says, “The time for this kind of intercourse is over. Henceforth your communion with me will be by faith through the Spirit. This communion will become possible through my ascending to the Father.” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent)

Of course, by now maybe you are asking, “Why is this translation issue so important?” It’s important because if “Touch me not” is 100% accurate, it opens up a couple of interesting possibilities about what Jesus had on His itinerary that resurrection morning. I’ll explain both of these possibilities so that you see what you think of them.

Possibility #1 has to do with the Jesus, in His resurrected/glorified body, sprinkling His shed blood in heaven’s sanctuary. The Bible teaches that the earthly tabernacle God instructed the Israelites to build was the copy (example, shadow, figure, symbol) of the heavenly things (Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:9; 9:23-24; 10:1). Evidently, this means there is a heavenly tabernacle (temple, sanctuary) that features the same basic layout as Israel’s earthly tabernacle. As a matter of fact, the apostle John was allowed to see this heavenly sanctuary as a part of his revelation that serves as the last book of the Bible (Revelation 15:5-8). John even saw heaven’s version of the Ark of the Covenant sitting in the Holy of Holies room of that heavenly sanctuary (Revelation 11:19).

Okay, so once a year, on the annual Day of Atonement, Israel’s earthly High Priest would take some of the blood of a sacrificial bull and a sacrificial goat into the Holy of Holies room of the earthly tabernacle and use his finger to sprinkle that blood onto the Mercy Seat, which was the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. As the High Priest was completing this ceremony he wasn’t to be touched by anyone lest he or the special garments he wore during the ceremony somehow become defiled. This earthly ceremony is described in detail in Leviticus 16:1-34.

Now let’s take that ceremony and make it a scene in heaven’s sanctuary. Hebrews 9:24-26 indicates that Jesus, in His role as the eternal High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-16), at some point after His resurrection entered into the Holy of Holies of heaven’s sanctuary and sprinkled His own shed blood on the Mercy Seat of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant. Therefore, it could have been that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene just as He was about to ascend to heaven and perform that ceremony. If this was the case, it would explain why He wouldn’t let Mary Magdalene touch Him at that moment, only to a short time later that same morning have no objection to a certain group of women holding Him by His feet (Matthew 28:9-10) or to Thomas touching Him the following Sunday (John 20:24-29).

While this interpretation might be considered outlandish, it is bolstered by the fact that the Greek verb that is translated as “ascended” in John 20:17 is in the perfect active indicative sense, which implies that Jesus was in the active process of ascending when He appeared to Mary Magdalene. In other words, what He literally said was, “Go tell My brothers that I am ascending…” (For the record, this is how all other translations besides the K.J.V. read.) So, if Jesus truly was beginning His ascension at that very moment, it must have been a different ascension than His final one that occurred 40 days later and is described in Acts 1:1-11.

Remember, though, that I told you the translation “Touch me not” opens up not one but two interesting possibilities about Jesus’ itinerary that first Easter Sunday. What, then, is the second possibility? Like the first possibility, it requires an Easter Sunday ascension from Jesus to perform a High Priestly duty in heaven, but this second possibility has nothing to do with Him sprinkling His blood in heaven’s Holy of Holies. Instead, the duty I have in mind now is described in its earthly performance by Israel’s earthly High Priest in Leviticus 23:10-11. On the day after the Sabbath following the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, the High Priest was required by Old Testament law to wave a sheaf of firstfruits before the Lord. This ceremony served to not only signify the beginning of the harvest season but also to dedicate the firstfruits of the harvests to the Lord.

Perhaps, then, the duty Jesus needed to perform before He could be touched that resurrection Sunday morning, which actually was the day after the Sabbath following the Feast of Unleavened Bread, was that of Him ascending to Heaven and presenting Himself to God the Father as the firstfruits from the dead. This would fit in perfectly with 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, which calls Jesus “the firstfruits” of those who have died. For that matter, is it possible that Jesus performed this heavenly ceremony that morning in addition to performing the other one involving His blood?

While all of this certainly makes for fascinating conjecture, we need to acknowledge that there are some logical objections to this entire line of interpretation. So, let’s consider a few of those before we run off too far into fanciful interpretations of scripture. I’ll name three of those objections even though I’ll admit that others could be added to the list.

Objection #1: Many experts in the Greek language contend that the original Greek of John 20:17 conveys the idea that Mary Magdalene was already touching Jesus (clinging to Him) when He spoke the words in question. This contention is based upon the fact that the present imperative tense of the verb is used. If this is a correct assessment what Jesus wanted from Mary Magdalene was a ceasing of what she was already doing. Needless to say, if Mary Magdalene was already clinging to Jesus or even touching Him at all, that doesn’t align with the idea that He needed to remain untouched and ceremonially pure because He was about to ascend into heaven to perform some type of ceremony in heaven’s sanctuary.

Objection #2: Even if Jesus did at some point perform either one or both of those ceremonies in heaven, there is nothing to mandate that it all happened that resurrection morning in the brief amount of time between His appearance to Mary Magdalene and His appearance to that group of women. The fact is, He could have performed one or both ceremonies after His Acts 1:1-11 ascension.

Objection #3: By consulting all four of the gospels to develop a chronology of the events of that resurrection morning, we find that the conversation Jesus had with Mary Magdalene didn’t take place until a lot of other things had happened that morning. By the time the conversation occurred, an angel had removed the stone from Christ’s tomb and had caused the men guarding the tomb to flee (Matthew 28:1-15), that group of women of which Mary Magdalene was originally a member had arrived at the tomb site (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1,10; John 20:1), Mary Magdalene had left the group to go tell Peter and John that Christ’s body wasn’t in the tomb (John 20:1-2), the group of women had been informed by two angels that Jesus had arisen (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:4-7; Luke 24:3-8), Peter and John had visited the site (John 20:3-10), and Mary Magdalene herself had made it back to the site (John 20:11-18). You see, in light of this chronology a fair question to ask is, “If Jesus needed to ascend to heaven that morning to perform some type of High Priestly ceremony there, why did He wait so long to do it? Why didn’t He do it immediately as soon as He resurrected?”

Obviously, just as there are plausible arguments to be made that Jesus ascended that morning so that He could do something in heaven, there are equally plausible arguments to be made that He didn’t. As for where I find myself in all of this, as of this writing — and I could change my mind at a later date — I fall by a slim margin on the side of the interpretation that He did ascend that morning and perform either one or both of those heavenly ceremonies I’ve mentioned. My reasons for coming down on this side of the debate are varied, and I’ll cite them as the close to this post. As you read them keep in mind that I’m just one student of the Bible in a long line of them who have come to John 20:17 and tried to accurately understand it. The debate about the passage won’t be settled by any of us anytime in this life, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to get the interpretation right.

  • As evidenced by many of those other stories in which the Greek wording haptomai (haptou) is used, the wording genuinely can mean “touch” rather than “cling to” or “hold.” Putting it simply, “Touch me not” is a perfectly acceptable translation, not a plainly wrong one.
  • In order to make Christ’s command to Mary Magdalene mean “Stop clinging to Me” or “Don’t hold Me,” an assumption must be made that she was already in the process of clinging to Him or holding to Him. This is a leap all those who disagree with “Touch me not” are willing to make, but the reality is that the story itself makes no mention of Mary Magdalene embracing Jesus, hugging Him, throwing herself into His arms, etc. That scriptural silence leaves us to build a scenario around nothing more than an implication, and that is never an ideal way to interpret the Bible.
  • The fact that the morning in question was the morning of the day after the Sabbath following the Feast of Unleavened Bread really does fit in perfectly with the idea of Jesus wanting to perform that heavenly ceremony involving the sheaf.
  • Jesus saying, “I am ascending…” rather than, “I will ascend…” seems significant to me. While I can’t answer why He chose that very moment to ascend, the text says what it says and I favor applying it literally rather than projecting it to be a reference to the ascension 40 days later.

Posted in Christ's Resurrection, Easter, Heaven, Resurrection, The Ark of the Covenant | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

They Should Have Known

Posted on March 30, 2026 by russellmckinney

Consider the following passages (all from the N.K.J.V., emphasis mine):

  • From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. (Matthew 16:21)
  • Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” (Matthew 17:9)
  • Now while they were staying in Galilee. Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.” And they were all exceedingly sorrowful. (Matthew 17:22-23)
  • Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.” (Matthew 20:17-19)
  • Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee” (Matthew 26:31-32)
  • And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly…. (Mark 8:31-32)
  • Then they departed from there and passed through Galilee, and He did not want anyone to know it. For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” (Mark 9:30-31)
  • And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.” (Luke 9:21-22)
  • Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” (Luke 18:31-33)
  • Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

As we read these passages, it’s hard to understand why the apostles didn’t expect Jesus to resurrect. Even if they didn’t believe His predictions when they first heard them, shouldn’t they have expected Him to rise again once they knew He had been betrayed, arrested, condemned, scourged, and crucified? I mean, once everything else He had predicted had come to pass right on schedule, the only item left on the “to do” list was to rise again on the third day.

It’s not that I can’t understand why none of the apostles were camped out at Christ’s tomb awaiting His resurrection. After all, they were living in fear of being arrested and crucified themselves and weren’t about to be where any Roman soldiers were. But how was it possible that even when they heard that Christ’s tomb was empty, they still didn’t believe He could have resurrected?

According to Luke 24:11, the words of the women “seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them.” You see, Peter and John, upon hearing the women’s report, didn’t say, “He must have arisen; let’s go find Him.” Instead, they ran out to the tomb in an attempt to figure out what had happened (John 20:1-9). Checking out the scene is not the same thing as believing.

Later that day, when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles, the group was terrified and thought they were seeing a ghost. It wasn’t until Jesus showed them His hands and feet and ate with them that they believed it was actually Him (Luke 24:36-43). Unfortunately for Thomas, he wasn’t present for that appearance, but when he heard about it, he said, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). As we know, Jesus obliged him a week later (John 20:26-29), but Thomas’ attitude certainly characterized the fundamental unbelief all the apostles had concerning Christ’s promise to rise again.

What makes their unbelief all the worse is the fact that even Christ’s enemies understood that He had promised to resurrect. As a matter of fact, the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pontius Pilate and asked that guards be placed at the tomb until the third day had passed (Matthew 27:62-66). Even though these religious leaders didn’t believe that Jesus would resurrect, they remembered that He had said, “After three days I will rise” (Matthew 27:63) and were suspicious that some of His disciples would steal the body and tell everybody that He had arisen. Isn’t it interesting (and sad) that those Jewish religious leaders remembered Christ’s promise to resurrect but His disciples forgot it?

I really can’t say why the apostles had so much trouble believing that Jesus would resurrect. But their unbelief surely arrived early and stayed late. In Mark’s gospel, the first time Jesus tells them He is going to be killed and rise again three days later, Peter immediately rebukes Him for saying such a thing (Mark 8:31-32). Jesus, in turn, rebukes Peter by saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Mark 8:33).

You would think that hearing Peter called “Satan” would have alerted the apostles that Jesus was serious when He said He was going to be put to death and rise again, but just one chapter later (Mark 9:31), when He tells them again, they still can’t buy it. Mark 9:32 tells us they didn’t understand Christ’s words but were afraid to ask Him for clarification. No doubt they didn’t want to be called “Satan” like Peter had been when he had disputed Jesus on the same subject matter.

In the end, of course, all the apostles (except Judas Iscariot) not only believed that Jesus had arisen but went out and changed the world with that truth. We are left to wonder, though, what would have become of them if they hadn’t been able to literally see the risen, glorified Jesus with their eyes. You and I have never had that privilege, have we? And yet, we are called to believe every bit as much as they were. While that can be too tall an order for some people, for those of us who have stepped out in faith and believed in not only the resurrection of Christ but, more importantly, the resurrected Christ, we know that our belief is well placed because Jesus fellowships with us each day, not just Easter Sunday.

Posted in Belief, Christ's Death, Christ's Resurrection, Doubt, Easter, Resurrection, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Are You Sure You’re a Soldier?

Posted on March 27, 2026 by russellmckinney

An elderly gentleman found himself seated next to a young man who was dressed rather sloppily. The elderly gentleman struck up a conversation to pass the time. After exchanging names and pleasant greetings, he asked the young man, “Son, what do you do?” The young man answered, “I’m a soldier in the United States army.”

That answer surprised the gentleman, and he said, “Sorry, I didn’t know because you aren’t wearing your uniform right now.” The young man said, “Oh, I don’t have a uniform.” “Come now,” said the gentleman, “every soldier has a uniform.” “Not me,” said the young man, “I just wear what I want to wear.”

The old man chuckled and said, “Well, I guess you didn’t read the training manual about how a soldier has to wear his uniform.” To that, the young man said, “No, that book never did interest me. My fellow soldiers are always talking about it, but I haven’t read any of it.”

The old man asked, “Can you at least tell me where your base is?” “I don’t have a base,” answered the young man. Then he added, “My fellow soldiers have begged me to show up at base, but I’ve always got something else to do.”

At this point the elderly gentleman only had one card left to play to try to make any sense of the conversation. So, he said to the young man, “Well, I guess if your commander tells you that it’s okay for you to dress in civilian clothes, ignore your training manual, and spend all your time off base, he must have his reasons.” But to that the young man replied, “I wouldn’t know what my commander thinks. He and I never talk.”

Now the old man was thoroughly confused. He laughed and said, “Boy, they are certainly training soldiers differently these days. I’d sure hate to have to depend on you in a fight.” Even though the old man meant that as a criticism, the assessment didn’t seem to affect the young man one way or the other. His answer, given in a very matter-of-fact tone, was, “You don’t have to worry about it because I’m not about to do any fighting anyway. If I did, I might get hurt.”

That answer was the last straw for the elderly gentleman’s tolerance as he had heard all he cared to hear. He leaned up in his seat, looked the young man squarely in the eyes, and rebuked him by saying, “You say you’re a soldier in the United States army, but you dress just like the rest of the world, never read the soldier’s manual, never show up at your base, never talk with your commander, and have no interesting in fighting for your country. Son, you might think you are a solider, but I assure you, you aren’t one.”

Perhaps by now you’ve figured out where I’m going with this illustration. The Bible tells us in 2 Timothy 2:3-4 that the Christian is a soldier in Jesus Christ’s army. And yet, many people who claim to be Christians don’t look a bit different from the world, don’t read the Bible, don’t attend church, don’t pray, and never strike a blow for Christ’s cause. How, then, can we take their supposed Christianity seriously? The best we can do is say that if these people are indeed soldiers in Christ’s army, they are poor ones who aren’t prepared for spiritual battle, and even if they were prepared, they have no interest in fighting anyway.

Posted in Backsliding, Bible Study, Disobedience, Dress and Appearance, Faithfulness, God's Will, God's Word, God's Work, Obedience, Personal Holiness, Rebellion, Sacrifice, Salvation, Sanctification, Scripture, Separation, Service, Spiritual Warfare, The Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s Not Enough Just to Start

Posted on March 25, 2026 by russellmckinney

A retired couple were advised by their doctor to get more exercise. So, they decided to start walking two miles a day. Since they lived at the end of a long road in a rural area, they planned to daily walk down the road one mile and then turn around and walk back home.

On the first day, they headed out of the house and made it to the one-mile mark. Now it was time to turn around for the other mile. The husband asked the wife, “Can you make it back, or are you too tired?” The wife answered, “Oh, I’m fine. I can make it back without any problem.” The husband said, “Good, I’ll wait here while you go get the car and come get me.”

Have you ever heard the saying, “He’s great out of the gate but not much for stamina”? Unfortunately, that saying can be applied to a lot of Christians. They start out to pray more, but their prayer times reduce back to average after just a few days. They commit themselves to reading the Bible in a year, but they get bogged down somewhere in Leviticus and give up on the goal. They promise God they will better their church attendance, but after a month or so their spike in attendance vanishes. They dedicate themselves to contributing more money to God’s work, but that dedication ends up being no match for the first unexpected bill. What can we say about such Christians? They are great out of the gate but not much for stamina.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:13, we are told, “But as for you brethren, do not grow weary in doing good” (N.K.J.V.). As you consider this verse, think about your own life. How many starts and stops do you have on your record with God? Also, ask yourself one major question: “Have I stopped something that God didn’t want me to stop?” And if you find yourself answering, “Yes” to that question, then get back to the starting blocks and begin again with God, this time working harder at persevering.

Posted in Adversity, Backsliding, Bible Study, Church Attendance, Commitment, Doing Good, Faithfulness, Giving, God's Work, Marriage, Perseverance, Personal Holiness, Prayer, Service | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Lies & Dishonest Scales

Posted on March 23, 2026 by russellmckinney

Two college boys foolishly spent the week before their final Physics exam drinking and partying at their off-campus apartment. They didn’t sober up until the morning of the exam, and that’s when it dawned on them how much trouble they were in for not studying. So, they cooked up a lie to tell their professor. They would miss the exam completely, show up two hours later as he was in the middle of another class, tell him they’d been delayed by a flat tire on the way to the exam, and ask if they could take the test sometime the next day.

The professor listened to their story and agreed to let them take the test the next morning at 8:00 a.m. sharp. Pleased with themselves for having gotten away with their deception, the boys raced back to their apartment and began cramming for the exam. By dawn of the next morning they were ready.

When the boys arrived at the professor’s classroom, he kept one of them in the classroom and sent the other one to the room next door. As each boy sat down in his assigned seat, he opened the test pamphlet and was surprised to find that the test consisted of only two questions. Question #1 read: “For 5 points, what are the contents of an atom?” Each boy was amused at the simplicity of the question and smugly wrote down: “proton, neutron, and electron.” Then came question #2: “For 95 points, which one of your car’s four tires went flat yesterday?”

A similar story comes from the world of a big-city butcher. A woman came into his shop and asked to buy a chicken. The butcher promptly went to the back and located the chicken he knew was the only one he had left. He brought it out to the counter, placed it onto the scales, and said to the lady, “The weight is five pounds.” The woman thought for a moment and responded, “I want a bigger one.”

The butcher, not wanting to lose a sale, removed the chicken from the scales and said to the woman, “Give me a second while I go in the back and get a bigger one.” Then he took the chicken into the back, waited a little while, and brought it back to the counter. He again placed it onto the scales but this time subtly forced his thumb down onto the scale enough to make the weight total up to seven pounds.” He looked at the woman and said, “This one is seven pounds. Is that big enough?” She said, “Yes. As a matter of fact, I’ll just take both.”

There are many Bible verses that speak to the issue of honesty. The book of Proverbs, in particular, provides numerous ones. Here are two that specifically pertain to the two stories you just read:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight. (Proverbs 12:22, N.K.J.V.)

Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight. (Proverbs 11:1, N.K.J.V.)

Isn’t it interesting that each of these verses uses the word “abomination”? Lying is an abomination of the Lord and so are dishonest scales. Lying applies to our conduct in personal matters, and dishonest scales applies to our conduct in business matters. God keeps a close eye on us in both realms, and we should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Posted in Business, Character, Communication, Conscience, Deception, Depravity, Doing Good, Honesty, Lying, Money, Personal Holiness, Work | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Away from Family & Upbringing

Posted on March 20, 2026 by russellmckinney

If you are a Christian who was born into a “Christian” household, let me ask you a question: If you had been born into a household that was not “Christian,” would you have still believed in Jesus Christ at some point and thereby gotten saved?

Let me get even more specific. If you had been born into a Jewish household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Judaism to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Muslim household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Islam to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Hindu household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Hinduism to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Buddhist household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Buddhism to Christianity at some point?

Now let me ask the same sort of question about the different denominations of Christianity. If you are a Southern Baptist — and by that, I mean that your denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, not just that you are a Baptist who lives in the south — are you a Southern Baptist by choice or by family tradition? If you are an Independent Baptist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Freewill Baptist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Methodist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Presbyterian, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Pentecostal, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Charismatic, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Lutheran, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are Church of Christ, are you that by choice or by family tradition?

The fact is that one’s background can be a very, very hard thing from which to break clear. This is especially true in cases where the individual looks back with fondness upon his or her upbringing. I once had a fellow who had been brought up in a certain denomination, one that has some doctrines and practices with which I differ, attend the church I was pastoring. He came a few Sundays at the urging of his wife and her parents, all of whom hold to the same doctrines I do. This fellow is a great guy and we are still friends to this day, but I’ll never forget what he told me just before he and his wife stopped attending my church and went back to his family church. He said, “Russell, if I accept as the truth everything that you teach, it will mean that my parents have been wrong for years in what they have always believed.” Needless to say, since he loved his parents dearly, that was a bridge he just wasn’t willing to cross.

It took nothing less than a personal visit from Jesus to get the scandalous Samaritan woman to understand that her Samaritan religion was in error and that she needed to believe in Jesus, a Jew, as Savior (John 4:4-42). It took nothing less than a physical encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road to get Saul of Tarsus to lay aside his Jewish upbringing and believe in Jesus as Savior (Acts 9:1-19). It took nothing less than a divine vision from heaven to get Peter to step outside the walls of his Jewish upbringing and come to the knowledge that Gentiles can get in on the same salvation that God offers to Jews (Acts 10:1-48). Each of these stories can be cited as evidence that breaking clear from your religious upbringing and background doesn’t happen easily.

Reading these stories should make us appreciate Abraham (whose original name was Abram) all the more. There he was in the city of Ur in the land of Chaldea, minding his own business, married to Sarah (whose original name was Sarai), living his life, worshiping the same false idols his father Terah worshiped (Joshua 24:2). Then one day God said to him, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1, N.I.V.).

Did Abraham hear a voice or did He have some type of vision? The Bible doesn’t give us the details. Either way, though, can you imagine God speaking to you right now and saying, “I want you to leave behind everything that you know and everybody that you know (except for your spouse and your children), and I want you to follow My voice as I lead you to a completely new land, a completely new way of life, and a completely new religion?” I wonder, would you be willing to do it?

Actually, even Abraham’s obedience wasn’t perfect. Whereas God wanted him to leave behind his father and the rest of his family (except for Sarah), Abraham took along not only Terah (his father) but also Lot (his nephew). As a matter of fact, the way Genesis 11:31 reads Terah was actually the ramrod of the operation. That verse says:

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. (N.K.J.V.)

Notice two things about this verse. First, notice that Terah, not Abraham, is the dominant character in the verse. Did Terah horn his way into God’s unique call upon Abraham’s life? Maybe, but it’s likely that Abraham didn’t mind having his father and his nephew along for his trip into the unknown. Second, notice that the whole operation ended up settling down in Haran, which was only about the halfway point between Ur and Canaan, the land where God ultimately wanted Abraham. Evidently, Terah liked it in Haran and decided the family had traveled far enough. They even acquired some servants there in Haran (Genesis 12:5).

It wasn’t until Terah died in Haran that Abraham, Sarah, Lot, and those servants pulled up stakes from there and pressed on for the land of Canaan (Genesis 11:32; 12:4-5; Acts 7:4). Commentators believe that Abraham spent several wasted years in Haran. You see, this is the damage that can be done by the powerful pull of family, especially the pull of parents, especially the pull of fathers. We are even left to wonder if Abraham would ever have made it to his God-given land of Canaan if Terah had lived much longer. Remember, neither Terah nor Lot were even supposed to be along on the journey!

What I’m trying to show you in all this is that family and upbringing can be powerful dams that prevent God’s river from flowing in your life. Putting it another way, Satan can use your background against you to keep you from living out God’s will for your life. Certainly, this holds true in regards to salvation itself, but it also holds true in regards to what we might call the various “stations” of your life. By “stations” I mean: where you live, where you work, which school you attend, which church you attend, which political affiliations you hold, etc.

I guess what I’m asking you is, “Are you really your own person or is your life dominated by your raising?” I’m not suggesting that God wants everybody to forsake family and friends in order to head off into the wild blue yonder with Him. But what I am suggesting is that each of us needs to be enough of a “free agent” that we can mind God completely no matter how radical His will for our life gets. Think of it this way: If God has a Canaan in mind for you, you will never know His best if you either stay in your Ur or settle for a Haran. And if you reaching that Canaan requires you to break away from your family and your upbringing, then so be it. Putting it simply, it’s a price worth paying.

Posted in Change, Children, Choices, Church, Church Attendance, Commitment, Courage, Decisions, Desires, Discernment, Dying To Self, Faith, Faithfulness, Family, Fatherhood, Fear, God's Guidance, God's Will, God's Work, Husbands, Individuality, Obedience, Parenting, Salvation, Service, Submission, Trusting In God, Wives, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Road Signs

Posted on March 18, 2026 by russellmckinney

By the close of 1944, Adolph Hitler’s dreams of world domination were coming to an end. Just a few months later, on April 30, 1945, he would commit suicide, and May 8, 1945, would become the day Americans call V-E (Victory in Europe) day. But in December of 1944 Hitler’s Germany mounted one last major counteroffensive that employed 250,000 German troops and caught the Allied forces off guard.

The counteroffensive was launched 100 miles inside the Belgian border in the densely forested region of the Ardennes. Germany’s goal was to use a surprise blitzkrieg attack to split the Allied lines and prevent the Allied forces from using the Belgian port of Antwerp. If the splitting of the lines proved successful in separating and fragmenting the Allied forces, the Germans would be able to destroy no less than four Allied armies. The press dubbed the counteroffensive “the Battle of the Bulge” because of the way the fighting caused the Allied front line to bulge inwardly on maps.

In the end, the Allied forces won the Battle of the Bulge, but the victory came at a high cost. The U.S. forces alone suffered over 100,00 casualties, making the battle the deadliest ever fought by America’s army. The German attack came so close to succeeding because the Germans used a variety of ingenious tactics as part of it. One of those tactics involved, of all things, road signs.

A few days before the Germans launched the counteroffensive, a group of elite German soldiers parachuted behind Allied lines. These soldiers were dressed in American uniforms that had been taken from POWs. Other similarly dressed German soldiers made their way behind enemy lines by using American jeeps that had been captured.

And what were all those covert Germans supposed to do behind Allied lines? Their mission was to alter road signs so as to prevent reinforcing troops from being able to reach the Allied forces when the fighting began. By most accounts this particular tactic proved only moderately successful for the Germans, but we can’t deny that the attempt made a lot of sense. Road signs are certainly important to anyone who doesn’t know the way. Even if you have a G.P.S. you still need road signs to identify the roads.

Of course, just as we need road signs to get where we want to go on a trip, we also need them to get where we want to go spiritually. And where do we find these spiritual road signs? We find them in one place: the Bible. That book is a repository of spiritual road signs that serve to guide our way through this confusing land. Therefore, if we don’t study the Bible and build our lives around its teachings, we really shouldn’t expect to ever get to where God wants us to go.

Posted in Bible Study, Choices, Decisions, Discernment, God's Guidance, God's Will, God's Word, Scripture, The Bible, Truth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Ever Happened to the Original Church of Jerusalem?

Posted on March 16, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #16)

The church of Jerusalem, the megachurch that was the world’s first church (Acts 8:1; 11:22), was never intended to be the planet’s only church. God’s plan was always for those believers to launch out from that church, take the gospel to all parts of the globe, and organize churches everywhere (Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:4-8). That dispersal was kick-started in earnest by the persecution that began with the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60; 8:1-4).

What follows over the course of the New Testament is the founding of churches all across the Roman empire. Churches were started in cities such as Antioch (Acts 13:1), Cenchrea (Romans 16:1), Smyrna (Revelation 2:8), Pergamos (Revelation 2:12), Thyatira (Revelation 2:18), Sardis (Revelation 3:1), Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7), Laodicea (Revelation 3:14), etc. You get the idea.

The New Testament book of Romans is the apostle Paul’s letter to the church of Rome, the capital city of the empire. 1 and 2 Corinthians are his letters to the church of Corinth. Galatians is his letter to the churches of the region of Galatia. Ephesians is his letter to the church of Ephesus. Philippians is his letter to the church of Philippi. Colossians is his letter to the church of Colosse. 1 and 2 Thessalonians are his letters to the church of Thessalonica. As you can see, the emphasis of the New Testament becomes very much the local churches that were “birthed” from the “mother” church of Jerusalem.

The interesting thing, however, about these other churches is that they involved house-church congregations. We know this was the case because house churches are specifically mentioned in: Romans 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; and Philemon verses 1 and 2. Along the same lines, James 2:1-3 speaks of a “footstool” as being part of a local church assembly, and 2 John verse 10 talks about not receiving false teachers into your house.

So, what do we make of this? The best interpretation is that all the house churches of a city (such as Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc.) or a region (such as Galatia) totaled up to be the one “church” of that city or region. In other words, the church of Corinth was not one congregation of hundreds or thousands that met in a big building that sat on the corner of Oak Street and Elm Street. It was, instead, a series of house churches that were scattered throughout that large city.

As for the New Testament’s pastors (also known as elders, bishops, shepherds, and overseers in the New Testament), Acts 14:23 says that Paul and Barnabas appointed (“ordained” K.J.V.) elders in every church. But does that mean they appointed pastors in every house-church congregation or in every city? If we go with the old adage that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible, the answer is found in Titus 1:5. There Paul says to Titus concerning the island of Crete, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (N.K.J.V.).

You see, if we stack Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 beside each other, we find that the words “church” and “city” are used interchangeably in regards to where pastors were appointed (ordained). In one verse the pastors are appointed in every church, while in the other verse they are appointed in every city. This provides even more evidence that the “church” of any given city or region (or island in the case of Crete) was the sum total of all its house churches.

Furthermore, it seems logical to conclude that there was one pastor per house church, which explains how one church (one city) could have multiple pastors. For example, Acts 20:17 talks about the elders (pastors) of the church of Ephesus, and Philippians 1:1 talks about the bishops (pastors) of Philippi. These verses don’t mean that the cities of Ephesus and Philippi each had one huge church congregation, consisting of hundreds or thousands of members, and that each of those congregations was led by a pastoral team that consisted of multiple elders. Instead, the verses paint the picture of multiple house churches in each city, with each house church having a pastor. After all, even two pastors, let alone a pastoral team, wouldn’t be needed for a congregation small enough to meet inside a house.

But what about evangelism and church growth? What did a house church do when it outgrew the home in which it was meeting? Did the members establish a building fund for the purpose of building an addition on to the house? Did they look for a bigger house? The best answer is that some of the members simply branched off, started another house church, and found a new pastor to shepherd the new congregation. In this way, each house church was involved in church planting.

Meanwhile, back at the church of Jerusalem, that church certainly didn’t immediately disappear once all these other churches came into existence. As late as Acts 15:1-29 the Jerusalem church was still serving as the home base of Christianity, the place where the religion’s doctrinal disputes got settled. Even as late as Acts 21:20 it still boasted “many thousands” (N.I.V.) of Jewish believers.

However, the leadership of the Jerusalem church did change when the 12 apostles, who were the church’s original pastoral team, began to spend more time away from the city in their roles of authority over the ever-expanding realm of Christianity. The leadership void created by their absence in the Jerusalem church was filled by a team of elders/pastors (Acts 15:1-6; 21:18) who were led by James, the half-brother of Jesus (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Galatians 2:9). In Galatians 2:9, Paul lists the three “pillars” (N.K.J.V.) of the Jerusalem church as being James, the apostle Peter (Cephas), and the apostle John.

Ultimately, though, three factors ended the 40-year era of the original church of Jerusalem. The first two of these factors helped destabilized the church, and the third one finished it off completely. Let’s take these factors one at a time.

Factor #1: Acts 12:1-19 lets us know that Jerusalem’s Roman leaders eventually chimed in with the church persecution that had been begun by the city’s Jewish leaders. It started with the Roman ruler Herod Agrippa I having the apostle James, the brother of John the apostle, killed (Acts 12:1-2). Following James’ execution, Herod then had the apostle Peter arrested with the intention of executing him after Passover (Acts 12:2-4). But God sent an angel to help Peter escape from prison and avoid being executed (Acts 12:5-19). For good measure, a short time later God also struck Herod Agrippa I dead (Acts 12:20-24). Nevertheless, the Romans coming on board to help the Jews persecute the church of Jerusalem obviously made things much worse for that church.

Factor #2: The city of Jerusalem (including the church) was hit hard by a time of famine sometime around A.D. 46 during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius, who reigned from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54. A Christian prophet named Agabus had even prophesied this famine would come (Acts 11:27-28). Evidently, the famine created such dire conditions in Jerusalem that the apostle Paul felt the church there needed relief help from other churches. Consequently, he spent a considerable amount of time openly asking the churches to which he ministered to contribute to that relief help. This “collection for the saints” is spoken of in: Acts 11:29-30; Romans 15:25-27, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8:16-21.

Factor #3: Even though the events aren’t recorded in the New Testament, history tells us that in A.D. 66 Jewish rebel factions in Jerusalem revolted against Rome and actually took control of the city for an extended time. To reclaim the city, the Romans eventually resorted to a long-term siege of it. Finally, in A.D. 70 they destroyed the city and leveled the Jewish temple in the process, thus fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy (Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 19:41-44). The Jewish historian Josephus reports that over one million people, most of them Jews, were killed during Rome’s siege and conquering. All this marked the end of the original church of Jerusalem.

Actually, though, we might say that the original church of Jerusalem, in a sense, continues on today. It continues on in all the Christian churches that dot the globe. These churches are the offspring, propagated down through the multiple eras and generations, of the work the Jerusalem church did to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) in its day.

Whereas that church accomplished so much in its brief 40-year run, it’s to the shame of our modern churches that so many of them have done so little with so much more time and resources in regards to fulfilling that Commission. In Acts 17:6, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica say of the evangelistic efforts of Paul and Silas, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too” (N.K.J.V.). You see, that’s how the lost people described the Christians of the early church, as people who had turned the world upside down. Unfortunately, if today’s lost people described us modern Christians, I’m not sure they could accuse us of causing the world much more than a minor shake.

Posted in Church, Evangelism, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Pastors, Persecution, Preaching, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", The Gospel, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Most Shocking Convert Ever

Posted on March 14, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #15)

Imagine Osama Bin Laden becoming a Christian and asking to speak in Christian churches. Imagine Adolph Hitler converting to Judaism and asking to speak in Jewish synagogues. Imagine the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan becoming an advocate of civil rights and asking to speak to gatherings of Jews and blacks. Do you think such conversions might be met with skepticism? Do you think some of those churches, synagogues, and gatherings might say, “No way, you’re not coming here.” Well, allow me to introduce you to Saul of Tarsus.

My previous post provided the scriptural evidence that Saul was the leader of the persecution against the church of Jerusalem. I won’t rehash all those verses, but suffice is to say that the name “Saul of Tarsus” was on the lips of every Christian who lived in Jerusalem at that time. He was a terror.

Let me be clear, though, in saying there was nothing fake or hypocritical about Saul’s zeal for God. He was 1000% real. What you saw was what you got, no ulterior motives, no hidden agendas. Actually, it was the sincerity of his dedication to God that fueled his intense hatred of the followers of Jesus. Saul believed to the depths of his soul that Jesus was a false Messiah and that the God-ordained Jewish religion, Judaism, had to be protected and preserved against this new religion that so many were calling “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).

What’s the difference between a saintly reformer that history praises and an evil terrorist that history condemns? In many ways there isn’t much difference except for the fact that one fights for what turns out to be the truth and the other fights for what he believes to be the truth but turns out to be a lie. Do you see what I mean? I’m not defending Saul’s persecution of Christians. I’m just trying to help you understand it correctly.

But something happened to Saul, something that got him to rethinking everything he had been raised and trained to believe. That something was the death of Stephen. Saul was an eyewitness to that brutal stoning. He even stood guard over the coats and outer garments of the ones who did the stoning (Acts 7:58).

When the stoning began, Saul was in full support of it. No doubt he thought, “Yeah, get him.” Maybe he even mocked a bit when Stephen cried out just prior to the stoning, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56). Did Saul even bother to look? If he did, he saw nothing.

And so, the stoning was carried out, and Stephen breathed his last. He said two things, however, just before he died. First, he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Second, with his dying breath, he said, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60).

Saul heard both of those statements, and they resonated with him. No matter how wrong he thought Stephen was about Jesus, he had to admit that Stephen’s faith was genuine. A dying man just doesn’t call upon a Savior he secretly knows to be a sham. Similarly, a man who is being executed doesn’t ask God to cut his executioners a break in regards to judgment. And yet, that’s exactly what Stephen did.

The days, weeks, and months that followed Stephen’s death saw Saul become the embodiment of persecution against the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:3). Even when that persecution caused many of the church members to flee the city and relocate to other places, Saul hunted them down and brought them back to Jerusalem to be tried by the Sanhedrin. He was relentless.

Years later, as he retold the story of that part of his life, he used graphic language to describe his behavior. Take the time to read what he says and hear the religious rage that drove him:

“Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” (Acts 26:9-11, N.K.J.V.)

One day Saul was on one of those hunts, making his way from Jerusalem to Damascus, a trip of about 140 miles. He was carrying with him official letters, signed by the Jewish High Priest, written to the synagogue leaders of Damascus. Those papers gave him the right to arrest any man or woman who were members of “the Way” and bring them back to Jerusalem to be tried and put to death (Acts 9:1-2).

Saul and his group were just outside Damascus when suddenly an exceedingly bright light burst down upon them (Acts 9:3). Saul would later describe it as “brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me” (Acts 26:13). The light was so overpowering that it knocked each man to the ground (Acts 26:14). Then came a voice saying in Hebrew, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14). The men who were with Saul heard the voice, but they laid there speechless. For one thing, even if they did know Hebrew, they weren’t Saul. For another, they weren’t about to carry on a conversation with a bright light.

As for Saul, he managed to reply, “Who are You, Lord?” (Acts 26:15). Perhaps the fact that he addressed the speaker as “Lord” is a tip-off that he knew, deep down, the speaker was God. Whatever Paul did or didn’t suspect about the voice, Jesus quickly removed all doubt about His identity by saying, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 26:15).

By the way, isn’t it wonderful to know that Jesus takes it personally when His followers are persecuted? From His viewpoint, the persecution is being done to Him every bit as much (if not more so) than it is to His follower. Take heart in that, Christian, the next time you find yourself being persecuted for your Christianity.

Still, the part of Saul’s conversation with Jesus that I want to emphasize are those words: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” A goad (“prick” K.J.V.) was a prodding device by which a farmer would poke an animal to either get the animal moving or get it to change course. This is where we get the phrase, “He goaded me into doing that.”

A goad could be as simple as a slender piece of wood that was blunt on the handle end and sharp on the prodding end. Sometimes when an animal was stuck with a goad, the animal would respond by kicking back against the device. The animal soon discovered, though, that kicking back only drove the goad further into its flesh and caused more pain.

So, what was Jesus trying to goad Saul into doing? What course change was He trying to get him to make? The answer is obvious. He wanted Saul to stop persecuting the church and accept Him as Messiah/Savior. To that end, it seems clear from Christ’s words that Saul had inwardly been under conviction to make that change for some time prior to that day.

But what were the “goads” that Jesus had been using to create that conviction in Saul? First, surely Saul had heard the reports of Christ’s ministry. Perhaps Saul had even personally seen Jesus teach, perform a miracle, cleanse the temple, or die. Based upon the fact that by Saul’s own admission he cast votes in favor of Christians being put to death (Acts 26:10-11), some scholars believe that he was a member of the Sanhedrin council that had tried Jesus and relentlessly pushed the Romans to crucify Him. Even if Saul wasn’t a full-fledged member of the Sanhedrin, he was certainly closely associated with the group and as such would have had intimate knowledge of Christ’s arrest, trial, crucifixion, and purported resurrection.

Second, there’s no doubt that Jesus had been sticking Saul over and over again with the goad of Stephen’s death. It can’t be a coincidence that the Bible’s first mention of Saul places him guarding the clothing during Stephen’s stoning. Watching Stephen die that horrific death affected Saul. Even the defense that Stephen so eloquently provided for himself before he was stoned had to have resonated with Saul. After all, Saul himself was a scholar, an expert in the history of Israel, and Stephen’s defense was all about that history.

Because of these goads of conviction, by the time Jesus supernaturally appears to Saul on the Damascus road, Saul is ripe for conversion. Trembling, Saul asks, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” That’s the question of a man who has stopped kicking at the goads. Jesus then instructs him to go into the city of Damascus (Acts 9:6). As Saul rises from the ground to carry out those marching orders, he realizes that he has been struck blind. What a scene it must have been to see the great Saul of Tarsus, the most feared man in all the land if you were a follower of Jesus, being humbly led by the hand by some of his companions into Damascus (Acts 9:8).

For three days Saul remained in darkness, not eating anything or drinking anything (Acts 9:9). Then a man named Ananias, a follower of Jesus, showed up at the house where Saul was staying. Jesus had sent Ananias there to heal Saul’s blindness. Ananias laid his hands upon Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17, N.K.J.V.).

As soon as Ananias mouthed those words, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes and his sight was restored (Acts 9:18). Saul was then promptly baptized and given food, after which he stayed several days with some of Christ’s followers there in Damascus (Acts 9:18-19). To the astonishment of all, Saul even preached Jesus in the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:20-22).

Those first sermons there in those Damascus synagogues were merely the initial sparks of the roaring blaze that Saul’s ministry would become. Beginning with Acts 13:9, he will no longer be called “Saul.” Instead, he will be known as “Paul.” Even though that name means “little,” Paul’s ministry would be anything but small. He would become recognized as an apostle. He would perform miracles. He would write half the New Testament. He would embark upon three missionary journeys by which he would take the gospel to the Gentiles, win untold numbers to Jesus, found churches, ordain pastors, instruct Christians, and become the man that many refer to as the greatest Christian who ever lived. All this came from the worst persecutor the early church knew.

In closing, let me say that Saul’s conversion proves beyond all doubt that Jesus can reach anybody, even the person who seems the most unreachable. Christ has all kinds of goads He can use to melt even the hardest heart. Because of this we should never classify any lost person as being beyond hope. If Jesus could convert Saul of Tarsus, He can convert anybody. And when He gets all of that passion, fervor, emotion, and zeal turned around and working for Him, then look out. That’s how an apostle Paul is born.

Posted in Brokenness, Change, Church, Conscience, Conviction, Dying To Self, Evangelism, God's Sovereignty, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Persecution, Salvation, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service, Submission, The Gospel, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How God Brought Good Out of Persecution

Posted on March 12, 2026 by russellmckinney

It takes quite a bit of time and energy for a mob to literally stone someone to death. Coats and outer garments must be taken off so that rocks can be gathered and thrown most effectively. But what should be done with the coats and garments to keep them from getting stolen during the proceedings? The best solution is to lay them all in one big pile and appoint a person to watch over them. Well, guess who guarded the clothes pile during the stoning of Stephen. It was a zealous young Jewish Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus who had trained under the tutelage of the famous rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 7:58; Acts 22:3, 20; Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:3-6). This Saul would ultimately become better known as the apostle Paul.

The stoning of Stephen marked a turning point in the Jewish persecution of the church of Jerusalem. Acts 8:1 says: “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem…” (N.K.J.V.). And do you know who took the lead role in that intensified persecution? Young Saul of Tarsus. His life was so intensely invested in Judaism that he could only see the followers of Christ as blasphemers who preached lies about a false Messiah and sought to corrupt the one true religion that God Himself had instituted. He hated the followers of Jesus with a passion and stood by in full approval (watching the clothes) as Stephen was stoned to death. Read carefully the following passages, which all speak of Saul’s rage-filled hatred of the followers of Christ:

Acts 8:3: As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. (Acts 8:3, N.K.J.V.)

“I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished.” (Acts 22:4-5, N.K.J.V.)

For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. (Galatians 1:13, N.K.J.V.)

Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2, N.K.J.V.)

We might question why God would allow Saul and his fellow Jews to persecute the Jerusalem church this severely. But the answer is found in Acts 8:1 and Acts 8:4. Those two verses say:

Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

Acts 8:4: Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word. (Acts 8:4, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

You see, Christianity couldn’t become a worldwide movement as long as all the Christians were stationed in one city, Jerusalem. As wonderful and as idyllic as the church of Jerusalem was, God wanted churches here, there, and everywhere, not just one big megachurch in one big city. What was the great commission that Jesus had left His followers? “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:19, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine). Likewise, what had been Christ’s departing words to that group of approximately 120 of His followers? “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine).

It had always been God’s plan for the Christians of Jerusalem to start branching out by winning people to Christ in every city and founding churches in those cities. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people tend to remain entrenched where they are comfortable. That includes Christians.

But what is a surefire way to upset a comfort zone? Let the comfortable start experiencing intense persecution. That will put a lot of “For Sale” signs in yards. Therefore, the persecution against the Jerusalem church accomplished something that allowed the early church as a whole to go to a new and more prolific level. Summing up the matter, that persecution put the followers of Christ on the move, and wherever they went they took the gospel.

You might recall, though, that I closed my previous post by saying that the persecution against the Jerusalem church accomplished two things that allowed the early church to go another level. Okay, so, if many of the Jerusalem Christians fleeing town and relocating to other cities and regions was one of those things, what was the other? It was the introduction of Saul of Tarsus into the storyline of the early church. That, too, will prove to be a game changer.

But, first, God has to get Saul converted. That conversion will be the subject of my next post. I’ll preview that post just a bit by saying that watching Stephen’s stoning had much more of an impact on Saul than even he realized at the time. Actually, it created the small crack of a fault line in his thinking, one from which he wouldn’t be able to recover.

Posted in Adversity, Church, Contentment, Evangelism, God's Guidance, God's Sovereignty, God's Will, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Persecution, Problems, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Spiritual Warfare, Suffering, The Gospel, Trials, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment