In the Book entitled 'The Acts of the Apostles' as written by Luke, we see the event in story form in which an ardent Jew named Saul is apparently converted to become an Apostle of Jesus, the Messiah. Before this apparent conversion, Saul of Tarsus not only consented to the death of Stephen, a Disciple and a zealous Hellenist (i.e. Grecian Jew), who was stoned to death, but Saul also went hunting out other followers of Jesus and had them bound for trial by the authorities. Thus, because of Saul's consent, he is guilty of murder, and therefore:

 According to Mosaic Law, should be put to death.

 The Lord would hardly select a murderer to be a chosen vessel.

In defence of this man let us commence by looking at his background. Saul was born in Tarsus, the main city of Cilicia in Asia Minor. This city was noted for both literature and philosophy, which were regarded equal with that of Athens and Alexandria. His father, being a Pharisee, brought him up in the faith of Jewry. While being educated by Gamaliel, one of the foremost Rabbis, he gained knowledge in Syro-Chaldaic, (referred to as 'Hebrew' in the New Testament), although his natural tongue was Greek. This tuition required him to reside in Jerusalem which added to his already eager high regard for Judaism and led him to follow his Elders zealously while still a young man, and to side with them against Christianity.

Saul had much to be proud of in the eyes of society, especially with his impeccable genealogy as a Benjamite. He was zealous for his temple and wanted to administer justice according to God's Law, which plainly states in Leviticus 24:14-16 that blasphemy against God was punishable by stoning the offender to death. The same death penalty was also mandatory for the leader or prophet that undertook to turn people away from following the lord God (Deuteronomy 13:5). Hence even in the 'Law of God', Stephen would have been guilty IF, and only IF, Jesus were not the Son of God.

This was the only Mosaic Law, which the Pharisees could use to persecute the out-called (Greek-'ekklesia'), but by using it, the Pharisees were plainly denying acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and at the same time His power of redemption. They were also proving their hypocrisy by not heeding the abundant signs and prophecies stated throughout the Scriptures, which they professed to know intimately. Any one of those signs if studied without prejudice would have proved His authenticity. Let us not forget though that those other Apostles had not only met the Messiah personally, but had also received the benefit of His tuition concerning the Divine Plan. If one were to accuse Saul of following his tutors like a sheep without questioning their judgement, then one would have a strong case. But how many of us, under those same circumstances and in that same environment - considering Saul's age - would stop to question such authority? I wonder?

The Greek word here used for 'consent' is 'suneudukeo' which literally means 'to think well with'. Other renderings of this word are translated as 'content', 'please' and 'allow' - thus all are showing an agreeable state of mind. NO VERBAL CONSENT was given by Saul. If this had been meant, then the Greek wording used would have been 'ek sumphonou' meaning literally 'with a voice' (i.e. by consent) I Corinthians 7:5.

I am fully aware that the A.V. reads in Acts 26:10 (Paul speaking) ...

The Greek word here for 'voice' is 'psephos' meaning 'a smooth stone' or 'pebble'. These pebbles were used for voting. A white pebble showed one's approval, and a black pebble showed one's condemnation. This means that it was a non-vocal act to illustrate the individual's view. The Revised Version renders its translation 'vote' instead of 'voice' in this passage. With only silent agreement supporting Stephen's martyrdom, given in this manner, how could anyone accuse Saul of being the actual murderer? Knowing especially that Saul was not a member of the Sanhedrin, it follows that his vote would NOT carry much weight anyway in the final verdict.

Were the suggestion for the reinstatement of the death penalty to be proposed today, I am sure that we would all be in an 'agreeable state of mind' regarding its enactment in our judicial system. But if a case should arise, where fresh evidence comes to light after the execution of a supposed murderer - proving his innocence - are the jury then to be labelled 'murderers' themselves because they agreed with the sentence of the judicial system, or made such a decision on the evidence presented at the time? We would have to call the case 'unfortunate' to say the least, and try to ensure that such an incident did not recur. However, no individual could be charged with murder, nor could such an accusation be made against anyone who bound a suspected criminal for trial in our courts. Under these conditions, the Law of God would not classify Saul as a murderer. This means that a charge of Murder against Saul can not stand.

"For I am the least of the apostles and am not fit to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the out-called of God" (I Corinthians 15:9)

His regret is visible also in the changing of his Hebrew name - from 'Saul' meaning 'an asked one', to 'Paul' meaning 'a little one' - once again a permanent acknowledgement of his now humble disposition.

As for Saul's eligibility for appointment as an Apostle, our Lord Jesus will accept all those who truly repent, or more correctly, 'change their mind' (Greek - 'metanoeo'). The only 'unforgiveable' sin, in fact, is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" which is not the crime in question here. No, Saul was eligible, and his pre-conversion reputation made him a fine example to express the all-redeeming power that Jesus had now gained for His brethren.