This persecution is directly related to the death of Stephen in Acts 7. Stephen’s sermon was a statement of judgment against the leadership of Israel for their resistance to the Holy Spirit. There is a progression of resistance in Acts 1-8. First, the apostles are warned, then they are arrested and beaten, and then Stephen is tried before the Sanhedrin and lynched. Now, the whole church of Jerusalem is being suppressed.
Saul is the ringleader of this persecution – he begins to “ravage the church” (ESV). This verb (λυμαίνω) is only used here in the New Testament, but in the LXX, it had the sense of violent oppression (1 Chron16:10) or even rape (Judith 9:2, 4 Mac 18:8). Keener indicates the word can be applied to torture as well (2:1484). It seems odd from a modern, western perspective to employ violence to suppress sub-groups within a religion. However, there are plenty of examples of violent clashes between various Christian groups over the centuries. The fact Saul would use such violent measures against the Jesus movement indicates he thought it was a dangerous belief that had to be suppressed by any means. (Saul is just as zealous as those who persecuted Peter in Acts 5; see my comments on that passage).
But who exactly is scattered? The apostles are not “scattered” but remain in Jerusalem. Since Saul led the group that killed Stephen, it seems as though conservative Hellenistic Jews are continuing the persecution. Since Stephen and Philip are examples in Luke of Hellenistic Jews who have accepted the apostolic message, it also seems likely that this persecution targeted Hellenistic Jewish believers.
Keener recognizes that the Hellenists were the special targets of persecution, although Luke says Saul was attaching “all the church.” Keener sees this as another example of Luke’s hyperbolic use of “all” in both the Gospel and the Book of Acts (2:1468). Some Hebrew Christians may have been affected even if Saul targeted the Hellenists.
The people persecuted are scattered “throughout Judea and Samaria.” This may indicate that those who lived relatively nearby left Jerusalem and simply returned to their homes on account of the persecution. We will find out later that these Hellenistic Jews also went as far as Antioch and Damascus.
Why do the apostles stay in Jerusalem? It is quite possible that the apostles took Jesus’ final commission to them seriously and stayed in Jerusalem because they were to evangelize the world starting in Jerusalem. Suppose the persecution that Luke describes in Acts 8:1-3 targeted Hellenistic Jews. In that case, it is possible that the Apostles were not seen as a threat. F. F. Bruce thought the Apostles felt their duty to remain in Jerusalem despite persecution (Acts, 162-3). There is no indication that Saul was hunting down people like Peter and John, but rather those who were associated with Stephen – Philip, for example.
These few verses are a transition from the dramatic execution of Stephen to Philip’s mission in Samaria. Because of Saul’s violent suppression of the followers of Jesus, the Gospel begins to move out from Judea to Samaria, just as Jesus said in Acts 1:8.
Is there enough evidence to decide Saul was targeting only Hellenistic Christians (like Stephen and Philip)? If he was targeting Hellenists, what was his motivation?
The part about the post that really made me think was the fact that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem even with everything that was happening to people like them. People were getting tortured and killed because of their beliefs and for being a Christian, but they still stayed because they took Jesus’ final commission very seriously. Saul is literally searching for people like them because he wants to suppress this Jesus movement. This makes me think about how much I am willing to sacrifice for my faith. I am lucky enough to not have been born in a time or place where it is life threatening to be a Christian. I was born in a country where it is a very common thing to be a Christian yet it is still easy enough to set it to the side at times and focus on other things as my identity. On the other hand, these guys were willing to give up their lives to follow what Jesus wanted from them. I think this is a very good lesson I can take away from looking at this passage.
It does appear that the persecution is directly aimed at the Hellenistic Christians. In Acts 4 when Peter and John are arrested, they are subsequently released with no harm done to them. In chapter 5, while the apostles are beaten upon their arrest, they again are released. However, suddenly with Stephen, there is no mercy. While there may not be concrete evidence to prove Saul was only targeting the Hellenistic Christians, this sudden shift to extreme persecution does lend to that theory. As for his motivation, I think that because Saul was in his own way an “extreme” religious Jew, he believes this persecution was necessary to stop those who were leading others in what he would say was heresy. In Acts 22:3 while giving his testimony he says he was educated “according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers” (ESV). While it is true that a modern, western perspective cannot fathom using violence to “encourage” others to remain true to their faith, clearly this is not always the case. Looking back through history, one can see examples of how an ideology can become so distorted to the point where violence becomes the way to “silence” the opposers. It seems that Saul has become so entrenched in the ideology of the orthodox Judaism, that he found violence to be the only way to silence something he believed was dangerous to the faith. It is interesting to me however, that the apostles appear to remain neutral from this persecution. Polhill states that the apostles “retained their authority over the entire church” (2097). While they were not Hellenized Jews, I would think that those who are the authorities, or ringleaders, of this new movement would still pose a threat to Saul?
Polhill, J.B. (Ed.). (2008). The Acts of the Apostles. In ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles.
I want to think that at the end of it all, God was in control of the events that were all meant to spread the gospel. The courage shown by Stephen, the persecution of the church all, led to gospel of the church. Targeting Hellenistic Jews again fell into God’s plan as the Hellenists were the class of people to question Jewish culture in favour of Greek philosophy. To that extent the middle to upper class citizens could be considered as the societal influencers of the day whose conversion had a greater impact in leading the society on a way to conversion. Most of the converts in the book of Acts were relatively well to do people like the tax collectors, the Centurion etc.
The persecution is related to Stephen’s death and Saul as Long’s blog says is the “ringleader of this persecution” that takes place in Acts 8. It says, “Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged men and women and committed them to prison” (Acts 8:3). In Long’s blog post, Acts 8:1b-4, the word ravaging means “in the LXX…the sense of violent oppression or even rape.” So Saul was ravaging the Hellenistic Jewish believers because he was furious that Stephen blamed his people for the resistance of the Holy Spirit.
Meanwhile, the apostles never dispersed and scattered to other cities like “Judea and Samaria” to stay safe (Polhill, 2008, p. 2096). The apostles stayed in Jerusalem. There are a couple of possibilities as to why they did not scatter. They may have taken the words of the commission all very seriously to the extent they truly thought they had to start in Jerusalem to evangelize. Or they felt their duty was to stay in Jerusalem and keep evangelizing because it is where it was needed most at that time. I do not think there is enough reason to factually state that Saul was only ravaging Hellenistic Jewish believers because it would seem as if he would ravage anyone who stood in his way especially when you are so mad you gnash your teeth. However, I do think that in Acts 8, the apostles stayed in the city of Jerusalem to allow people to see how God protected them during this awfully violent time after the death of Stephen the first martyr. It shows that God is constantly with us protecting His children if we allow Him.
Whether the evidence shows that Saul was only hunting Hellenistic Christians, the apostles still risked staying in Jerusalem to finish the work Jesus had commanded them to: they “stayed in Jerusalem because they were to evangelize the world starting in Jerusalem” (Long, Phillip). Plus, as you said in the blog, conservative Hellenists seemed to continue the persecution, so even if Saul wasn’t hunting in Jerusalem, the apostles were likely not the most popular group. I don’t believe Saul was only attacking Hellenistic Jews, even if that is where most of his anger was posed. I think he was attacking anyone who went against what he had always known as correct. In Saul’s mind, he was a hero, spreading the message he thought was true about the Laws and Temple. We, as Christians, would love to say we would die for our faith. Hopefully, we wouldn’t go around killing people who believed differently. Still, we can appreciate what he was trying to do: keeping the law and, in a way (the wrong way but a way), defending God against those changing what he believed God wanted.
The case made in this blog post is that it was mostly at the Hellenist Jews that Saul aimed his persecution. Polhill (1992) backs up this assumption in his Acts commentary by understanding the “all except the apostles” statement to mean that this persecution dealt primarily with the Hellenists. He expounds on this by pointing out that the violence started at a Hellenist synagogue and gives some historical background information on the ideals of this religious group to further confirm the idea of a Hellenistic Jewish persecution only (Persecution and Dispersal of the Hellenists section). Given this evidence, it seems fair to assume that the Hebraic Jews were largely left unbothered. This, however, does seem rather odd given the fact that Saul was going after both men and women, apparently set keeping the Word from spreading. Elsewhere, Paul says that he went after disciples of the “Way” (Acts 22:4). Given his general character of complete commitment to his faith throughout the rest of his letters, it seems strange that he would have stopped at the Hebraic believers. Either way, it’s interesting that Polhill (2008) likens this scattering or dispersion to the Old Testament diaspora of the Jews (p. 2096). This time the scattering wasn’t a result of disobedience but of submission to God’s Word. Ultimately, this dispersion from Saul’s persecution would go on to fulfill the Great Commission of the Gospel being spread to the ends of the earth. To me, this rejection of the Gospel by the Hellenist Jews shows that there was a complete denial of the Holy Spirit by Jews. Now the Word could be taken to those on the fringes of Jewish culture and eventually to the larger Gentile world (Acts 8:4, 27).
In thinking about the persecution that Saul was leading against the Christian community, I find great similarity to the zealous fight of the Hasmoneans during the Maccabean Revolt of the Second Temple period. I agree with Long as he describes how it is strange for us to think that such violence can be placed on a sub-group of a religion, for it sounds insane; yet, the reality of how different Jews responded to the changing world of the Second Temple period shows how some Jews were willing to use violence against any opposition that was against the Law. Even so, it’s powerful to see that dispersion of the people allows for someone like Phillip to continue the advancement of the Gospel. Polhill (2008) states that Stephen had “laid the foundation for a worldwide mission” by stating God was not confined to one place or group of people; now, the dispersion had allowed Phillip to put this mission into practice (p.2096). Though Saul had intended to stop the advancement of the Gospel, his persecution had coincidently done the opposite. Ironically, even Saul himself would learn that the Gospel Truth could not be contained when he would be called to preach it himself.
As the persecution begins to commence, we see that there are both pros and cons during this biblical event. As the Christians begin to scatter we see that there is a better chance of having the gospel being spread throughout the nations. There is a bible verse where it mentions that God’s people are scattered throughout the nations which is found in the book of Deuteronomy. The bible verse relates a lot to the biblical passage of Jesus commanding us to go out to the nations and spreading the word. Because as the disciples were being persecuted they scattered and during the process of them being scattered they started to preach the word to wherever they were being scattered of to. We must always see the good of things when we face trials and tribulations. Saul was going from house to house imprisoning those who believed in Christ men and women. We see that it was a sad case that innocent people were facing time for believing in the son of Man. For having an encounter or revelation is necessary to know who Christ is. We today still see religious people in the church hating on what the apostles teach and its sad to see how religious people still persecute the church
I don’t think it’s that surprising that a sub-group might experience types of violence and persecution, even in this day and age. There’s been countless recollections in history of violence and persecution towards groups of people regarding religion or non-religion. Pohill indicates that after the martyrdom of Stephen, who was a Hellenist Jew, the persecution of Hellenistic Christians began. He also points out that because Stephen’s prophetic critique against the Sanhedrin was a seen as intolerable and led Diaspora-Jewish Synagogues to persecute what they viewed as “radicals”, the Hellenistic Christians. It seems as though through the isolated event of Stephen’s stance against the Sanhedrin was at a boiling point so people like Saul could persecute Hellenists that he seemed “too radical”. I think with this point there is evidence that Saul was targeting only Hellenistic Christians, because Stephens was too “radical” compared to the apostles when they were arrested and brought to the high priests. Also, even when the apostles were facing death, they were freed because Gamaliel defended them, no one came to the defense of Stephen when he turned the narrative against the Sanhedrin.
I can’t help but find similar tones to the persecution that Saul leads against the Jewish Christian community to what we are learning in the Second Temple period. Saul is described as ravaging the church which the verb (λυμαίνω) is used in the sense of violent oppression or even rape. The imagery we get is Saul ravaging the church as if she is the bridegroom of the Lord. This is powerful imagery. Similarly, we see one of the two potential responses from the Jews in the Second Temple Period to be of violence. This is seen in the story of Judith and in 1-2 Maccabees looking at the Maccabean Revolt. They were zealous for what they believed in like we see here with Saul. As we know, zeal should be paired with a knife. Saul’s persecution was fueled by Stephen through his sermon of judgement against the leadership of Israel for their resistance to the Holy Spirit. His death left a mark on the people from both sides. “Stephen laid the foundation for a worldwide mission” (Polhill, 2008). We see this as Phillip continues the mission outside of Jerusalem and sort of launches the outward spread of the Gospel that the apostles were told in Acts 1. Without the events that occurred, we wouldn’t see the heart change eventually in Saul, and the advancement of the Gospel as foretold. The Holy Spirit, like a dove, spreads it’s wings and flies.