Smoodock's Blog

In yesterday’s blog I mentioned that the Theophilus priesthood was persecuting believers in Jesus and especially Hellenistic or Grecian Jewish believers. Scholars seem to be divided as to when this peace was experienced. Moreover, most scholars believe the persecution of Jewish believers in Jesus was a general persecution and not directed at a particular group among the believers. So, I thought I would explain the reasons for my stand, and I apologize in advance for the length of my blog.

In Acts 9:30 the brethren sent Paul back to Tarsus, apparently to save his life. He had been preaching in Jerusalem, and the Hellenistic Jews there wanted to kill him. Just after this the Scripture says, “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace… (Acts 9:31 NET). What does Luke mean, and can we know at what time the churches experienced this peace. Is it, as is implied in Acts, that, because Paul stopped persecuting the church, so then they began to have peace?

If Paul is responsible for this peace, then he must have been leading a one-man battle against the church. That is, if Paul stopped persecuting the church, and then the churches in the region began to have peace, then Paul is to blame for the whole persecution against the church. Isn’t this the logical conclusion for this issue? However, is this what Luke wishes to say to Theophilus, or is Luke pointing to something much deeper, and of which Paul was only a part?

Most scholars put Stephen’s death at 34-35 CE (see HERE for an example). I place Stephen’s death in the fall of 34 CE. Apparently Paul had a free hand in the persecution of what appears to be directed toward the Hellenistic Jewish believers only, for the apostles were able to remain in Jerusalem without fear. It was only that part of the church that preached what Stephen preached that were persecuted. Notice:

Acts 8:1-4 NET.  And Saul agreed completely with killing him.   Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.  (2)  Some devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him.  (3)  But Saul was trying to destroy the church; entering one house after another, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.  (4)  Now those who had been forced to scatter went around proclaiming the good news of the word. (emphasis mine)

It seems “all except the apostles” means all who were not worshiping with them. Notice in Acts 6:5-7 when the Hellenistic Jewish believers (Jews from the Diaspora who had resettled in Palestine) separated themselves from the Palestinian Jewish believers (Jews who grew up in Judea and Galilee), the Palestinian Jewish believers grew in number, when a great body of the priests became obedient to the faith. Apparently, these believers held back while the body of believers in Jesus was not segregated, i.e. as long as the Hellenistic believers worshiped with the Judean and Galilean believers. The priests no doubt considered the body ceremonially unclean, but when the Hellenistic Jewish believers separated from the apostles, the priests found a clear opportunity to join with the apostles.

Were these priests among those that Saul persecuted, dragging from one house (church) to another to be cast into the prison at Jerusalem? Many of these believing priests were Pharisees (cp. Acts 15:5), but some do doubt were Sadducees, but all were probably of the poorer body of priests. I doubt any were of the nobility. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem logical that a large segment of the priesthood was outlawed and/or cast into prison.

Every believer who felt “free” to preach the Gospel to someone other than Jews were the Hellenistic Jewish believers. Peter (the exception) had to be convinced by a vision from Jesus (repeated three times) and then the Holy Spirit had to fall upon the non-Jews (gentiles), while Peter and company witnessed it all (Acts 10:34-35, 44), before he and/or they could see that non-Jews were acceptable. Even the conversion of the Samaritans (partial Jews) came as a surprise to the church at Jerusalem, and notice Peter and John preached the Gospel to other Samaritan villages only on their return to Jerusalem, after they witnessed the work of God in Samaria (Acts 8:25). It seems the Hellenistic Jewish believers were a lot freer with whom they associated and the kosher-minded priesthood at Jerusalem found this unacceptable. However, when the Grecian Jewish believers separated from the Palestinian Jewish believers, the priests at Jerusalem felt free to become associated with the apostles.

That said, Saul had a problem not with the priests who had come to believe in Jesus, nor did he have a big problem with the Apostles. Stephen had stepped over the “line” when he implied the Temple was not needed to worship God. This, in effect, would mean anyone was acceptable to God, just as they are, including gentiles. It was this idea that the Jewish priesthood was trying to extinguish, and Paul became a part of that effort.

Acts 8 leads right into Acts 9 without the time span being addressed. Was it a few weeks, a few months or a year or more? I believe we can be sure that Caiaphas was the High Priest when Stephen was killed. Saul seemed to have a free hand under his administration to do what was reasonable to the church in Caiaphas’ tenure as High Priest. However, when we get to Acts 9, Saul needs letters from the High Priest. I think it is reasonable to say that Caiaphas is no longer the High Priest at this time. The new High Priest is probably Jonathan, Theophilus’ brother. A new administration logically demands new orders, so I think it is reasonable to presume the time of the beginning of Acts 9 is 36 CE. This was the year of Saul’s conversion—his vision of Jesus.

Luke doesn’t imply much of a time lapse between Saul’s vision on the way to Damascus and his visit to Jerusalem (all in Acts 9). However, when Paul writes to the Galatians, he claimed he didn’t go to Jerusalem, until three years after he saw Jesus (Galatians 1:18). This would put the peace that the church experienced in the year 39 CE. In other words, the church had been persecuted throughout the three years Paul had spent in Arabia studying and learning about Jesus. Therefore, this peace couldn’t have had anything to do with Paul’s conversion. What then is Luke telling Theophilus?

Josephus mentions that in the latter time of Caius Caesar’s reign he had demanded that a statue of himself be placed in the Temple at Jerusalem to be worshiped. He sent a letter to Petronius, the president of Syria, to make war with the Jews, if necessary, but his statue was to be placed in the Temple at Jerusalem. [JOSEPHUS: book xviii, chapter viii, paragraph 2]. Long-story-short, Petronius, wintered at Ptolemais, with the intention of carrying out his orders in the spring of 40 CE. However, the Jews by the thousands began to come to him there to plead that he would not do such a thing. Meanwhile he sent a letter back to Caius, presenting the Jews case, for they left off planting their fields and Caesar stood to lose a great deal of income, if the matter was carried out. Meanwhile, King Agrippa was in Rome, and he made a petition to Caesar to reconsider his demand. Caius did reconsider, but died (assassinated in January of 41 CE) before his letter got back to Petronius, who waited for a reply [JOSEPHUS: book xviii, chapter viii, paragraphs 8-9].

It is my opinion that the reason the Jews left off persecuting the church was due to the rumor concerning the statue being placed in the Temple. This became far more important to the Jews than pursuing the Hellenistic Jewish believers. When King Agrippa returned as the ruler of Judea, he replaced Theophilus as High Priest, so the church was at peace probably until the king made Matthias, Theophilus’ brother, the High Priest. I presume through his influence the king had James, the brother of John killed, but when Peter miraculously escaped during the Passover, he probably took it as a bad omen and replaced Matthias.

Therefore, it seems to me that Luke was pointing to the judgment of God against the Jews for persecuting Jewish believers in the Messiah. “And then the church had peace…” pointed Theophilus to his own part in persecuting Jesus (cp. Acts 9:4-5). It took a much more important issue, the possibility of the complete desecration of the Temple by Rome, on a level similar to that of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BCE, for Theophilus to stop pursuing believers in order to punish them for their faith. What Antiochus Epiphanes did to the Temple was also seen by Jewish writers as a judgment by God against the behavior of the Jews (2Maccabees 5:17-20). The peace for the church represented a threat of virtual extinction to the Theophilus priesthood and any Jewish priesthood in the Temple. Luke wanted Theophilus to see that this near calamitous event happened to the Jews, because of what Theophilus’ priesthood in particular and the Theophilus family in general were doing to the believers in Jesus. Jesus is Lord, and he can and will stop any concentrated mistreatment of his own, no matter what the cost to those who oppose him.