The Hellenist Messianic Jews were scattered abroad going into regions of Samaria and Judea (Acts 8:1) and then to more distant lands such as Phoenicia, Cyprus, Cyrene and Antioch (Acts 11:19-20). Paul pursued them to wherever it became known they were (Acts 26:11). In order for Paul to pursue the Hellenistic Messianic Jews to foreign cities, two things are implied. First, letters had to have been sent out from Jerusalem to those synagogues outside Judea to beware of this Messianic sect that had so little regard for the Temple, meaning the name of God (cf. Acts 28:21). Secondly, it would have to be known by those in Jerusalem that wanted Messianic Jews had traveled to such cities. Otherwise it would be like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Therefore, news had to have been brought back to Jerusalem such cities alerting the high priest that these Messianic Jews had come there and were spreading the Gospel in their synagogues (Acts 26:11), before someone such as Saul would journey there.[1]
Some time must be presumed to have elapsed to allow for such communication. Acts 9:1 shows Paul seeking letters of extradition from the high priest. If Stephen was stoned in 34 Ad about the time of the fall Holy Days, then a reasonable period for word to be brought back from Damascus to the Jerusalem authorities concerning the Messianic believers there would be the next celebration of a major Jewish Holy Day season. This would be in the spring during the Passover of 35 AD. At the time of this particular Passover Caiaphas, the high priest, was removed from his office by Vitellius, the new Roman governor of Syria, and Jonathan, the son of Annas, was placed in that position. Later, Paul would refer to Jonathan who reigned as high priest a second time during the time of Felix’s tenure (see Acts 22:5). The reason for Paul’s mentioning the high priest at that time was that he could verify that he had been sent by him to incarcerate believers at Damascus and bring them to Jerusalem for punishment.
Therefore, Acts 9:1 denotes the passage of time of about six months from the time of Stephen’s stoning. If this is logically sound, then we can also point to 35 AD as the year of Paul conversion backward from the Jerusalem Council which most scholars believe occurred in 49 AD. This was the visit Paul himself referred to in Galatians 2:1 his second visit after his meeting Jesus. Fourteen years after 35 AD would bring us to the time of the Jerusalem Council.
Additionally, we can reasonably point to the 35 AD date by calculating a pattern Paul seems to use in his ministry. He seems to spend about 3 years working in a given area founding churches in a given locale in Jesus name. We know he spent three years in Damascus with excursions into Arabia (Galatians 1:15-18). If Paul returned to Jerusalem in 38 AD, but had to leave for Cilicia not long afterward, we can reasonably assume he spent another three years evangelizing Tarsus and surrounding communities, because Barnabas sought him out for the work at Antioch about the time Claudius Caesar became Emperor in 41 AD (Acts 11:25-28). Luke tells us that he an Barnabas taught the new gentile believers for a full year (Acts 11:26), but this doesn’t mean they wouldn’t spend another two years preaching Christ in the surrounding communities of Phoenicia, Samaria and Galilee (Acts 26:20), thus, reasonably keeping within his three year plan. Then in the spring of 44 AD Paul and Barnabas went on the evangelistic labor for another three years in Galatia before returning to Antioch about the spring of 47 AD where Luke says they spent a good while (Acts 14:26-28).
If they spent another three years here before leaving to check on the churches in Galatia (Acts 15:35-36), this would bring them to the spring of 50 AD. This is a full year after the Jerusalem Council of 49 AD. If this is logically sound according to the pattern Paul seems to use throughout his ministry, then this also points to 35 AD as the year of Paul’s vision of Jesus and becoming a believer. Therefore, it is my opinion that Paul persecuted the Church for about six months—from the autumn of 34 AD to the spring of 35 AD.
__________________________________________
[1] This post is a revision both in the time I presume Paul persecuted believers and in the manner in which I calculated that time. I came to realize my previous post had too many errors in it to permit it to remain published, so I revised it as best as I understand the truth.
Smoodock's Blog 
24 responses to “How Long Did Paul Persecute Believers?”
Hi friend. I’m having trouble with the wordpress login. You may get this 5 times, please delete what is duplicated.
Your care about those who love God doesn’t affect my feelings towards you. They are to be loved and cared for. I didn’t intend any reference to my opinion of the RCC or those who worship there. I simply wanted to show that the rationale behind the moving of Daniel’s 70th week to the future was a political response to the Reformers accusing the pope of being a/c. Once I learned the motivation, I felt relieved to remove that as an eschatological option. It is part of what brought me to this site, that you were reading the bible and interpreting things from a perspective of the 70th week being fulfilled.
As to the RCC, the Council of Trent is still the underlying and fundamental premise upon which the religion is built. It makes clear that faith, alone, is not enough to gain salvation. That is in direct opposition to Paul, and would make Paul anathema according to Trent. One of the two is wrong. I would guess most have never read Trent, and further, most have never read the majority text and compared the two. I wish they would!
Let me know your thoughts after reading and digesting the Larkin notes about each school of thought and how they originated. I appreciate your insights.
My best to you,
Bill
Greetings Bill, and thank you for your kind reply. …and I received only one reply, so maybe things at your end are working for you and wordpress now. :-)
Let me offer you the briefest account of my history in Christ. I once was Roman Catholic, but I’m not now, haven’t been for about 47 years. Unfortunately, I was a Biblical illiterate at the time and fell into a cult headed by Herbert W. Armstrong, headquartered in Pasadena, California. After a brief stay there (about three years), I was fed up with religion and didn’t go to any church for about 11 years. Since the week after Easter in 1986, I’ve been attending a fine Bible believing Church. God did a lot of healing work there on my attitudes, my hatred for pastors and other things connected with religion. However, when I felt being drawn by God to attend church once again, I told him I would never submit myself to a man ever again, that is to say, I wouldn’t let another man believe **for** me ever again—I didn’t mean that I would never submit to organizational authority.
That said, I do no aspire to any system of understanding Scripture. Perhaps my understanding of Revelation is closest to the Preterist viewpoint, but I do not embrace it wholly. I do believe in the return of Christ, but not in the same way Pre / Post-Millennialists do. Jesus is not in the business of taking over the world in the same way these systems of thought seem to believe. They forget that Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world. He is interested in hearts, not land area. I believe most of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD, but the Millennium, as I see it, isn’t literal. I did a study on this once, and my conclusion is the millennium is nothing more than the time Jesus is ‘away’. As far as the literal time is concerned, it could have been one hundred years, but it has actually been almost 2000 years since Jesus ascended to heaven, and we still don’t have a clue when he might return. I don’t set dates, and I cannot stomach those who do—God hasn’t healed me of that attitude yet, but I trust he will.
So, in essence I agree with the Post-millennialists who claim Christ will return after the millennium, because, if the millennium is the time Jesus is away, then (duh!) when he returns the millennium is over. :-)
I hold in suspicion every study that doesn’t prove itself. For example, Larkin says that Pre-millennialism dates to the Old Testament prophets. That’s easy to say, but he doesn’t prove it. The ancient Jews believed that the reign of the Messiah would be rife with conflict, some rabbis even have him being killed, but in the next age all things are set right and we have eternal peace.
To a degree, I support this point-of-view. I believe Jesus is reigning now in the kingdoms of men. He raises up leaders and terminates them at will. He is in control today, just as much as he was in control of the time he would lay down his life 2000 years ago. Jesus reigns now, and will continue to reign forever. We don’t get to reign **with** him today, but we reign **in** him—something like adding our “Amen!” to all he does on our behalf and for the sake of the Gospel. We will reign with him, but that’s when he returns, and I don’t see us reigning then like kings, presidents and dictators do today.
I just finished my study on the Gospel of Luke, but I have over a year’s worth of blogposts to submit (at three per week). This gives me the opportunity to think about and pray about what to study next. I’ve been toying with the idea of going into the Book of Revelation (or Job or Ecclesiastes or James). I already have some studies published but they represent studies I did decades ago, when I had to write it all out by hand. I wanted to know then when I could expect Jesus to return, and could I expect to be alive when he does. That was the impetus that propelled me into those studies years ago, but now I don’t have any such impetus. I don’t believe we can know even the decade of Christ return, despite all the ‘blood moons’ and galactic conjunctions of stars etc. I’m not impressed by any of these things.
As for Daniel’s 70th Week Prophecy being used as a political maneuver by the Catholic Church, I don’t know, maybe that’s so, but quite frankly it doesn’t matter, in as much as I can tell. Truth is truth, no matter who champions it or for what reasons it is championed. According to my studies Daniel’s 70th Week is fulfilled. Unless someone can prove otherwise, that is where I hang my hat. I’ve never really investigated the source of the viewpoint of separating the 70th week from the other 69, but it could be just like Larkin said.
I’ve never read the Council of Trent papers. I remember reading about the council in religion class in high school, but I don’t remember much. I know Catholicism aspires to faith plus works. I don’t agree. However, there is the technicality that James points out. Faith without works is dead. So, I give the Catholic church a little ‘wiggle room’ on this one. There seems to be room for an erroneous position without judging the heart that took them there. I do believe they make too much of works, but it is also true that without works my faith is dead. I see a fine line here, but technically speaking, we are saved by faith alone, all our works are a result of that faith.
I’m not certain if I missed anything, Bill, but don’t hesitate to mention it to me in a future reply, if you would like greater clarity on anything. Lord bless you.
Saul/ Paul is one of a mentor in my life I NOW understand the reason he persecuted Christians…they were not being whole heartedly true to God . He only did this for a season then the Lord spoke to him on the road of Damascus. Amazing Man of God went through lot for Gods name sake.
I believe Stephen was stoned on Pentecost of 34AD for many reasons that would take too long to explain in a comment like this. So, I will give you one: Luke 13, a chapter pregnant with prophesy, but special notice should be given to ‘one more year’ before the implied Day of the Lord was to begin. Thus, Paul was converted during the fall feast of 34AD. He spent days in Damascus alone and meditating w/out food or water. This was in conjunction with Yom Kippur. Paul received permission from the H/S to begin his ministry in 48AD after Passover, the very Passover that James was martyred by Herod of Chalcis (NOT by his brother Herod Agrippa who died in 44AD). I agree that the Council of Jerusalem occurred in 49AD. As you have stated, 3s are important. So are 14s.
Greetings Ann, and thank you for reading my blog studies, and thank you, as well, for you comment.
I have the stoning of Stephen taking place on the Day of Atonement, the 10th day of the seventh month, 34 AD, and Paul’s meeting Jesus just outside of Damascus in the spring of 35 AD. I honestly don’t understand your reference to Luke 13. I realize you are making a reference to the three years the owner of the fig tree sought fruit, but was advised to wait another year. How you get to 34 AD with Luke 13 is a bit of a mystery for me, unless you have Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, but under those circumstances too many things must occur in a single year with Paul’s conversion in a year and a half. Frankly, I don’t see how Luke 13 gets you there.
Why would Paul be converted in 34 AD but never begin serving the Lord during his first fourteen years as a believer? I don’t see the sense in that. Moreover, I don’t understand how you can begin the Jerusalem Council in 49 AD, one year after you say Paul began to preach the Gospel, when for all intents and purposes Paul never went on a missionary journey until after the Jerusalem Council (according to your calculations). Where’s the controversy that was responsible for convening the council? After all, once Barnabas found Paul in Tarsus, he brought him to Antioch and together they spent at least a year there preaching out of the churches. Yet, when the council was over, Paul brought the letters from the Jerusalem church not only to Antioch, but also to Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Moreover, about a year later, they brought those same letters to Galatia (Acts 16:4). Why would they do that, if Galatia hadn’t been evangelized earlier and invaded by the men from James (so called) just prior to the Jerusalem Council? Yet, Acts 13 shows Galatia was evangelized well before the Jerusalem Council, but you say Paul didn’t have permission to preach until 48 AD!
Perhaps there is a better explanation, and I’ve taken your comment too far in a different direction. So, I’ll wait to see what you may say in another comment, if you choose to continue this discussion.
Lord bless you, Ann, as you study his word.