I think we often read past Acts 8:1-4 just to get to Philip’s ministry to Samaria and the Ethiopian eunuch. Nevertheless, these four verses tell us a great deal, and are pretty much continued at Acts 11:19. It seems Luke placed Philip’s ministry to Samaria and the Ethiopian plus Saul’s conversion plus Peter’s going to the Roman centurion and his household right in the middle of this persecution, or to but it another way: between Acts 8:4 and Acts 11:19. It serves as a kind of parenthesis within the persecution and its information helps us to forget what is really taking place. Believers are dying for their faith.
What happened? Well, it seems that the ruling Sadducees finally got what they wanted. They are now able to strike out at the Messianics without fear of causing an uprising among the people (cp. Acts 6:11-12a). Still they are kept from hurting the Apostles, but that won’t last forever as we shall see once we get to the reign of Herod Agrippa in Acts 12. The Pharisees are also in the mix now, and it seems this means Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40) as well. We couldn’t expect Saul, who grew up under the teaching of this man (Acts 22:3), to revolt against his teacher and side with the Sadducees, whom the Pharisees normally resented and opposed (cp. Acts 23:6). So, we have a united ruling body who lashes out at the Messianic Jews and their decision to do so is supported by the people.
What sort of persecution was this? Was it a minor uproar within Jewish society that could hardly be noticed otherwise? According to Paul (Acts 26:9-11) he entered every synagogue (house in Acts 8:3) and seized believers and brought them before the Sanhedrin for punishment up to and including death. Moreover, during his interrogation of believers, he tried to get them to deny Jesus. He also punished them himself (Acts 26:11) which probably included beatings (cp. Matthew 10:17), and he was an equal opportunity enemy of the faith in that both men and women were included (Acts 8:3; 22:4) in his efforts to stamp out this growing sect (Galatians 1:3). Not only did Saul seek to eradicate the believing community from Jerusalem, but he pursued believers even to foreign cities with the intent of imprisoning them and bringing them to Jerusalem for judgment (Acts 26:11; 9:1-2).
Saul, however, was not on a one-man-mission. On the contrary, he was one among many, but excelled above all (Galatians 1:14). Saul advanced in the Jewish religion by being a good Jew, by doing the bidding of the high priest (Acts 22:5; 26:12), and being a good Jew meant hurling insults at Messianic believers (Acts 8:3) and more. Persecution became state policy, backed up with the approval of the high priest and the Sanhedrin—composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees.
It isn’t said in the text, and neither does Josephus give a reason for the replacement of the officiating high priests during this time, but Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in-law, was removed from office and replaced by Jonathan, Annas’ son. Caiaphas seemed to otherwise have a good rapport with Rome in that he served in that office for about 10 years. Jonathan served less than 2 years before he was replaced by his brother Theophilus. So, in the space of 2years, Jerusalem had three different high priests officiating at the Temple, when prior to this Caiaphas had officiated in that office for about ten years without any interference from Rome. On the face, it seems there is a good argument that Rome really opposed the persecution conducted by the Sanhedrin. Perhaps, leading believers even complained to the Roman governor for how they were being mistreated as was done when James, the Lord’s brother, was killed by another of Annas’ sons (cir. 62 AD).[1] Later in Acts, Luke shows that the believing community enjoyed a relatively good relationship with Rome, in that, believers in Jesus were considered innocuous by Rome, although every other messianic cult was pursued and destroyed by the Roman governors ruling Judea and Samaria.
[1] JOSEPHUS: Antiquities of the Jews; Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1.
Smoodock's Blog 
13 responses to “The Great Persecution”
An interesting note on Rabban Gamaliel: The Talmud actually shows him citing Yeshua’s own teaching to rebuke a min (heretic; in this context, a Nazarene) who wanted him to make a ruling in violation of the Torah. Gamaliel cites Mat. 5:17, but reworks it into a paraphrase of Deu. 12:32. This shows that Gamaliel at least did not consider Yeshua a Law-breaker, which probably factored in very heavily into the entire Pharisee party rising to Paul’s defense as Gamaliel solidified his leadership.
In Paul’s case, given the extreme emphasis he puts on unity in the Body of Messiah, I have to wonder if the thing that set him off was the disunity and apparent rebellion among the Nazarenes–Peter and John flat out refusing to do the bidding of the Sanhedrin, Stephen lecturing them, etc.–at a time of extreme political danger to Judea. If you’re right that the Damascus mission represents a shift in alliances to draw the Pharisees and Sadducees together against a common enemy (with Gamaliel likely dissenting, but not yet having the political currency to steer his own party), then Paul’s zealousness for unity would have had him leaping to put down these minim (lit. “dividers”).
Shalom
I don’t share the view you have of Gamaliel. I understand, due to your mission to the Jews, you must give him the benefit of a doubt more than I might do. I am not certain where in the Talmud you see him referring to Matthew 5:17, but there are several references to the NT in the Talmud. One has Hillel referring to the Golden Rule, making it look like Jesus quoted him. But if this were true, why wouldn’t Jesus’ point in Matthew 5:17 be a common paraphrase of Deuteronomy 12:32 or 4:2? If this is so, Gamaliel may not be referring to Jesus’ statement at all.
Concerning Paul, as Saul, why would he have such altruistic views of unity at this early date, since the party of the Pharisees was often at odds with the Sadducees with or without considering the Christians/Nazarenes? With the emphasis that believers placed upon the resurrection of Jesus, I would think this had more in common with the Pharisaic teaching than the denials of the Sadducees. Therefore, if Saul should require theological unity at this point, he had more in common with the Apostles. In my opinion Jesus was a common enemy of both Sadducees and **leading** Pharisees, which would include both Saul and Gamaliel. The Pharisees in the council could not side with the Sadducees because of the popularity the Apostles enjoyed with the common Jews. The political power of Gamaliel and the Pharisaic party was vested in the support of the people while the Sadducees’ power was vested in Roman approval. It was essential that popularity should shift from the believers before the Pharisees (the leaders in the council) could side with the Sadducees. The Pharisees could not ignore the people, if they hoped to keep their support against the Sadducees on other matters. I am more inclined to take this pov than a friendly Gamaliel.
“One has Hillel referring to the Golden Rule, making it look like Jesus quoted him.”
You are deeply mistaken on that point; R. Hillel lived in the late 1st Century BC and died when Yeshua was between seven and fifteen years old. If there was any borrowing, it was Yeshua who took Hillel’s formulation and transformed it from a “thou shalt not” to a “thou shalt,” not the other way around.
(Personally, I just think they both got their Golden Rules from correctly understanding the Torah. Hillel put it as a “thou shalt not” to avoid discouraging a potential convert while Yeshua made it more difficult because He was teaching His disciples.)
On the exact Talmudic reference and context, I’ll have to pull my notes and give it to you tomorrow; I’m currently without internet so I’m limited to posting at work at the moment.
Shalom
Rabbi Mike, Shalom. You don’t need to hurry about the reference in the Talmud. I was just curious. Concerning Rabbi Hillel, I don’t mean to take anything away from him and make it Jesus’. I am content with whatever is true.
If I came across a little touchy, I apologize. I didn’t mean to. I may be still in my defensive mode. I had been debating with a very knowledgeable Jew on a discussion forum. I have been debating with him for a few years off and on. Previous to this time (perhaps a year ago, can’t remember) our discussion didn’t end well. Although he makes an effort at being very cordial in our discussions, the constant denying of Jesus and the NT Scriptures as eyewitness records brought a sharp rebuke on my part. I almost immediately regretted it (almost, but I half-way enjoyed doing it). Anyway I began another discussion about a month ago and he responded. I immediately apologized for my previous behavior, and he was very gracious and said he didn’t remember it, but told me he probably acted similarly. Well, as I said, he is very knowledgeable and his debating style is such that it denies an early writing of the NT. We ended our discussion about Christmas and the coming of the Messiah when the discussion forum did an upgrade and lost the last 14 pages of our ongoing discussion — there were more than us discussing. I told him I was ready for a break and would put something else up about mid January. If he felt like it was something that he would like to participate in to drop by.
Long-story-short, between him and the atheists on the forum I am not at my best in gracious behavior. I didn’t lose it this time, but my normal approach to debating Scripture is such that I respond with very little apparent emotion–at least from my pov. Others may disagree–don’t know. So, I hope I wasn’t offensive with you. Looking back, I don’t see anything specific, but I do appear very straightforward and business like–no real cordiality. Sorry for how that might have felt.
Lord bless,
Eddie
P.S. do you celebrate Christmas. I know you celebrate the Jewish Holy Days, but don’t know if Messianic Jews celebrate Christmas. I know Chanukah is celebrated at this time of year, so probably not. Just curious. :-)
Shalom Ed.
I was wondering. You did come across as touchier than usual. No matter; we’re all friends and brethren here.
Shoot me a link if you get back into it with your Jewish friend; I’d enjoy watching–and if you find yourself in need of Talmudic references to mess with his head, I don’t mind helping with the legwork. :)
I got in early to work so I could go ahead and get the reference for you:
“Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer’s wife, was R. Gamaliel’s sister. Now, a certain philosopher lived in his vicinity, and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes. They wished to expose him, so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, ‘I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father’s estate.’ ‘Divide,’ ordered he. Said he [R. Gamaliel] to him, ‘It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.’ [He replied], ‘Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded and another book given, wherein it is written, ‘A son and a daughter inherit equally.’ The next day, he [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Lybian ass. Said he to them, ‘Look at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to add to the Law of Moses, and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son.” (b.Shabbat 116a-b, Soccino translation)
Hmm . . . which group of “philosophers” (i.e., Greeks) had “another book” which some construed to mean that the Torah had been set aside in favor of a new law? Moreover, the Codex Oxford of the Talmud actually reads, “and the law of the Evangelium has been given.” Finally, every commentary and footnote on this passage that I’ve been able to find states that R. Gamaliel was citing Mat. 5:17 against this “philosopher” who wanted to replace the Torah with “another book.”
I find some significance, however, in the way the Talmud actually cites Mat. 5:17–it’s obviously not a direct quote. In fact, it reads very much like Deu. 12:32, “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” This would indicate that R. Gamaliel did not consider Yeshua to be one who enticed Jews either into the worship of other gods nor “from the way in which the Lord your God has commanded you to walk” (13:5).
Shalom
P.S. I personally believe Yeshua was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, but my parents still celebrate Christmas, so every year we join them for Christmas dinner. Since it falls at about the time the Annunciation most likely happened, I celebrate that alongside Hanukkah and everyone’s happy.
So I guess a belated Merry Christmas is in order: Merry post-Christmas and a happy New Year!