Paul’s Persecution of the Church: An Observation on the Four Approaches

What struck me about these four types of answers is that as different approaches they are not necessarily antithetical to one another. And yet I sense that there has been a tendency by different advocates of one or another approach to dismiss the others.

It is true that in the details these approaches may conflict with one another (as some do below). They can be configured in such a way as to actually complement each other, however. Here’s what I mean. (Allow me to be a little facetious.)

One can argue that from the perspective of the Christ-believers, the central issues in the persecution were religio-theological; that is, if you could ask them, “Why is Paul persecuting you?” the answer might well be something like “Because we preach salvation in Jesus the Messiah.”

If Paul were asked, this might well be his answer, too. Or, perhaps he would have said, “They are threatening our people’s traditional way of life,” which would conform to socio-theological emphases. Alternatively, he may have said, “If they continue on with their street-corner preaching about a crucified political pretender, gaining more followers, they risk putting us in danger of the Romans,” echoing socio-political concerns. Indeed, Paul may well have answered all three at once, or one way after breakfast, another after lunch, etc.

On the other hand, it is not likely that Paul would have answered “Because my doctor keeps giving me bad news, and I’m mad at God,” and yet this, too, (in theory) could be an important factor behind his activities. It’s also entirely possible that Paul’s victims could have recognized this as a/the factor; they might have answered, “Because he’s nuts.”

It is also legitimate to disregard, for a moment, the explicit factors that individuals in the conflict would cite. Regardless of what they might answer, the sociologist might point out that the persecuted group posed a serious threat to the larger community’s self-definition and coherence and that this explains the conflict. The insight might be valid even if the actors in the conflict would not recognize it or formulate it as such.

I think this is an important point to keep in mind when weighing the different approaches: It’s not all or nothing. In fact, if you want a well-rounded understanding of what happened, then you should take account of these different facets of life, the social, political, psychological, and religious.

I may yet offer a more serious evaluation of the details of each approach as they are represented below.