Did Paul murder any other Christians besides Stephen?

[Bob8102]

The Dr. David Jeremiah Study Bible says of the apostle Paul that "...he was the modern-day equivalent of a hitman, responsible for the deaths of many innocent believers in Christ." But other than being linked to the stoning death of Stephen, do we know that he is responsible for the deaths of any others? I don't think the Bible explicitly says that. It says he imprisoned and beat believers.

 

[tturt]

There may be other Scriptures. "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest," Acts 9:1

 

[coffee4u]

The Dr. David Jeremiah Study Bible says of the apostle Paul that "...he was the modern-day equivalent of a hitman, responsible for the deaths of many innocent believers in Christ." But other than being linked to the stoning death of Stephen, do we know that he is responsible for the deaths of any others? I don't think the Bible explicitly says that. It says he imprisoned and beat believers.

Paul did not murder Stephen, he watched and approved.
Acts 22
19 “‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 20 And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

 

[RDKirk]

Saul was kind of like a roving sheriff/prosecutor.

I find it interesting, though, that he was active against Christian Hellenist Jews rather than Christian Hebraic Jews.

Stephen was a Hellenist brought up on charges by a Hellenist synagogue. The scripture tells us explicitly that it was the Hellenist Christians who had to flee Jerusalem, while the Hebraic Christians remained. After that, rather than stay in Jerusalem to root out the leaders of the Jerusalem Christians (i.e., the apostles...who were all Hebraic), Saul left Israel entirely to go to Syria...where there were more Hellenist Christians.

For some reason, Saul was after the Hellenists, but left the Hebraic Christians alone. I suspect that the fact that Saul himself was Hellenist probably had something to do with that.

 

[J_B_]

Further, calling Paul a hitman (or a murderer) is somewhat sensationalizing the situation. Paul himself was later fully aware of the horrible thing he had done, and he bore the guilt of it for quite some time.

Still, within the system of the time, what he was doing was technically legal. He wasn't a vigilante doing something no one had ever done before.

It's a subtle point, but I think an important one, because sensationalizing this has unfortunately been the source of much anti-Semitism.

 

[tturt]

Goes back to ignoring what Scripture says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exo 20:13) and we go with what we think instead.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Dr. David Jeremiah Study Bible says of the apostle Paul that "...he was the modern-day equivalent of a hitman, responsible for the deaths of many innocent believers in Christ." But other than being linked to the stoning death of Stephen, do we know that he is responsible for the deaths of any others? I don't think the Bible explicitly says that. It says he imprisoned and beat believers.

The thorn in his side.

 

[RDKirk]

The thorn in his side.

I think the Judaizers were the thorn in his side.

...Those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell -- Numbers 33

 

[J_B_]

Goes back to ignoring what Scripture says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exo 20:13) and we go with what we think instead.

I don't know if that is a reply to my post. If so, the 5th commandment isn't the right reference here.

Capital punishment is listed in Leviticus for various offenses. According to Leviticus 24:16, the punishment for blasphemy is stoning. The OT doesn't stipulate what to do for each and every case, and therefore in Deuteronomy 16:18 it is stated that judges are to be appointed to decide these cases. Paul was not just some random guy, and this was not some random crowd of radicals. He was a Pharisee and a student of Gamaliel, the most famous rabbi in Israel next to Jesus. The implication is that he was serving as the judge in Stephen's case, and this is indicated when the witnesses in the stoning laid their cloaks at his feet (Acts 7:58).

So, according to Jewish law, everything was done properly. It was all legal, and therefore not murder but capital punishment as allowed by Leviticus. To start throwing labels of "murderer" and "hitman" is to twist the context of the Biblical story and cheapen the effect of Paul's later conversion. He didn't grow up from rebellious teenager to mature man. He was converted from a believer in the very heart of Judaism to a believer in the Christ - something much more significant to those to whom he later preached.

I'm not justifying what Paul did, and neither would Paul. It was wrong. But to abuse the context of the Bible is just as wrong. I would bet Paul was very well aware of Deuteronomy 16:19 - the very next verse after the one that supposedly justified him as a judge - the verse that says, "You shall not pervert justice."

 

[tturt]

Capital punishment was for a number of behaviors such as hitting parents, kidnapping, witchcraft, worshipping other gods, carnal relations with a beast, and murdering someone unless it wasn't intentional. (Exo 21:12-14).

He ignored those guidelines/standards.

 

[coffee4u]

Capital punishment was for a number of behaviors such as hitting parents, kidnapping, witchcraft, worshipping other gods, carnal relations with a beast, and murdering someone unless it wasn't intentional. (Exo 21:12-14).

He ignored their own guidelines/standards.

Paul did not murder Stephen, scripture clearly says that he watched and approved but he did not throw any stones. And while this event was horrible it was also done as the previous poster said, within the law. He did not go against his own standards, those were his standards as Saul the Pharisee. After his conversion and name change to Paul, then his standards changed, he became a new man. This is really what these passages are about, how God can take a man like Saul and change him to become a new man.

Ephesians 4:24

24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Which is what Paul did, he took off the old and put on the new. This should give people hope, hope that they can change with the power of the Holy Spirit.
It isn't what you were that is important but what you can become.

 

[tturt]

Yes thankfully he changed. The thread seemed to be about his earlier life.

 

[public hermit]

People in power don't have to pull the trigger; they just say the word and hold people's coats.

 

[RDKirk]

People in power don't have to pull the trigger, they just say the word and hold people's coats.

It doesn't necessarily take power though. It just takes being the one holding the microphone.

 

[coffee4u]

Yes thankfully he changed. The thread seemed to be about his earlier life.

The Bible doesn't sugarcoat great peoples lives, either before or sometimes during their walk with God. Noah got drunk, David committed murder and Saul approved of Stephen's stoning. If all these men were shown as perfect I think we would have a hard time connecting to them and feel inadequate. But they were sinners like us and saved by Grace. They were still God's people but far from perfect, so we can take heart that we too are works in progress. This is how I see this anyway.

 

[J_B_]

The Bible doesn't sugarcoat great peoples lives, either before or sometimes during their walk with God. Noah got drunk, David committed murder and Saul approved of Stephen's stoning. If all these men were shown as perfect I think we would have a hard time connecting to them and feel inadequate. But they were sinners like us and saved by Grace. They were still God's people but far from perfect, so we can take heart that we too are works in progress. This is how I see this anyway.

Yeah. You ought to compare this to a hagiography. I have one for St. Margaret of Scotland, which is the only historical source on her life ... but also quite difficult to take seriously.

 

[tturt]

Oh, I know. They made mistakes just like us. We would make fewer if we followed Scripture, too.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It doesn't necessarily take power though. It just takes being the one holding the microphone.

Sometimes loudness and enough people to listen is enough for it to be a kind of power. If history is any indication.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bob Crowley]

We don't know if Paul / Saul was responsible for the deaths of other Christians. Quite possibly he was.

I think the reason the stoning of St. Stephen gets so much air time is that it had a role in Saul's conversion. I don't think he could forget two things - first the fact that Stephen's face looked like that of an angel. The other was his forgiveness.

He might have been mulling over these things in his mind on the road to Damascus. He may have started to have doubts about his mission. And that's when Christ knocked him off his high horse.

Obviously someone witnessed Stephen's execution and told Luke about it later, who put it in Acts. The most likely person to do that was St. Paul himself. It obviously had an impact on him or it would not have been recorded.

 

[Bob Crowley]

People in power don't have to pull the trigger; they just say the word and hold people's coats.

CS Lewis put it this way - "The men who commit the greatest sins sit in offices with clean hands".