-3

My take on this would be that the answer is "no" in the physical realm because Saul was a Pharisee and therefore obeyed the law to the letter.

Was he an accomplice? Surely he was, as he held the coats of the ones who killed Steven and had people thrown in prison. That would make the answer in the spiritual realm "yes", as the Word speaks of if you hate a brother or sister you are a murderer, so standing by and letting someone stone another person to death would spiritually make you guilty of the same.

  • Welcome to Christianity.SE! Please read how we are different than other sites. This question appears to be asking for opinions, rather than facts about the beliefs of a specific Christian group. If you need help fixing up your question to be on-topic for this site, read What makes a good focused question? – 4castle Oct 27 '17 at 21:13
  • This is probably a good question, could you rephrase the title with "What evidence is there that..." otherwise, it invites opinions, I think you've got good answers too, so it would be a shame to leave this question closed. – Peter Turner Oct 27 '17 at 21:27
  • What evidence do you need other than the book of Acts? If you're skeptical, the proper site to ask at is Skeptics. – curiousdannii Oct 30 '17 at 4:05
3

In Paul's defense before King Agrippa he stated: "I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were to be put to death I cast my vote against them." (Acts 26:10, ESV) Thus, he was more than just an accomplice whether he killed them with his own hands or not.

  • What do you mean by "more than just an accomplice"? – 4castle Oct 27 '17 at 21:27
  • 3
    If you cast a vote on a jury and it is part of the majority vote, you are directly responsible for what happens to a defendant. From the OP's wording it appeared Saul/Paul might have been responsible in some indirect way for the deaths of Christians, but according to Acts 26:10 he was directly involved even if he was not an executioner. – Pilgrim Oct 27 '17 at 21:30
0

I agree with you. I do not see any evidence in scripture which would indicate that Saul killed anyone. He used his position to seek proper authority (within the Jewish hierarchy) and we see him with letters on the way to Damascus, that is, with some kind of written authority to go there.

It is something I have tried to research previously. Was he using his liberty as a Roman citizen, which he had because he was a native of Tarshish ? Did his Roman citizenship give him some kind of ability to go outside of Israel and into Syria in his quest to persecute Christians ?

I can't say. I have not been able to research this far enough to find out.

But what is true of Saul, I think it is important to say, is that he 'verily thought that he ought' to be doing these things. None of what he did was unlawful, in Jewish terms or in Roman terms, the two authorities over him, naturally. And all of what he did he says he did 'in good conscience'.

He thought it was right to do it.

Only the experience on the road to Damascus could ever have stopped such a zealous, energetic, 'Pharisee of the Pharisees' in his course of eradicating Christianity from the face of the earth.

His real state of soul is seen in Romans 7, however. Sin had been discovered within his own self. 'Thou shalt no covet' had revealed it within him.

'O wretched man' he says of himself, and admits that that was the condition inside himself, even as he persecuted others, until the voice of Jesus Christ himself spoke to him - 'I am Jesus whom thou art persecuting'.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.