Chapter 21

                 SAUL/PAUL THE APOSTLE  (III).

     "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to
     vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John
     with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he
     proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of
     unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in
     prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep
     him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Peter
     therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing
     of the church unto God for him. And when Herod would have brought
     him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two Šthe
     keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of
     the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he
     smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up
     quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said
     unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And
     he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And
     he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which
     was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were
     past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate
     that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord:
     and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith
     the angel departed from him."
                            Acts 12:1-10

       The Herod spoen of here is Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the
Great. In the year 41 CE, Caligula was assasinated, and his uncle Claudius
became emperor. At that time, Claudius made his friend Agrippa king of all
the provinces of the Land of Israel. Agrippa I is praised by both Josephus
and the Talmud for being a good king, devoted to the Torah, and devoted to
the Pharisees. Therefore, as much as Luke excoriates him, we must ask,
What crime had James the son of Zebedee committed that the king felt
constrained to have him executed. Furthermore why was Peter imprisoned
while James the brother of Jesus and John the son of Zebedee suffered no
harrassmnent at all? And why did these things "please the Jews"?

       We are not given sufficient reason for this and are left to
speculate that the animosity was due to the Nazarenism of these Apostles.
But if this is the reason, we are again left with the question of why the
other apostles were left alone. The execution of James and the imprisonment
of Peter had to have been due to some serious infraction of the Torah
tradition which was the law of the land under Agrippa I. But as to the
details of this infraction, we are left in the dark. We can speculate that
it may have had to do with some on-going, increasing agitation against the
Temple, or against the Herodian dynasty itself. After all, the more
militant Nazarenes might have spoken out against the Herodians as royal
pretenders or impostors since, to their mind, the only true king of Israel
was Jesus. On the other hand, thihs punishment metted out to James and
Peter may have had absolutely nothing to do with Nazarenism in particular.
During his reign, Claudius had to deal with the problem of Jewish
messianism both within Rome itself and in the far reaches of the Empire.
There was even a period during which, in desperation, Claudius expelled the
Jews from the city of Rome itself due to the intense messianic agitation.
This does not indicate that he was an anti-semite. In fact he was not.
Perhaps another emperor would have chosen lions over expulsion. The
expulsion, in fact, did not last long and was probably more symbolic than
anything else, intending to teach Jewish messianists a lesson. At any rate,
we have said that Claudius and Agrippa were close friends, and the latter's
harrassment of the Nazarenes may have merely been a small part of a larger
attempted put down of general messianic activity within his own kingdom as
a gesture of co-operation with Claudius. If this is so, then Luke would
simply overlook the fact that Agrippa's anti-Nazarenism was merely part of
an overall suppression of messianism, and would use the incident as a
demonstration of "persecution against Jesus." In the final analysis,
whether Agrippa was lashing out against messianists in general or against
Nazarenes in particular, we are left in the dark as to why he chose to cast
his wrath in the direction of James (son of Zebedee) and Simon Peter, and
NOt at James (brother of Jesus) and John (son of Zebedee).

       Acts tells a story of Peter's miraculous escape at the hands of an
angel. The actual "angels" involved were probably sympathizers among the
jailers themselves. (This is as much as implied in Acts 12:19). Although we
are not in any position to now know why it happened, nevertheless from this
point onward, Peter became an outlaw in the eyes of the authority and
consequesntly he had to keep on the move to avoid capture and re-arrest.
Interestingly enough, after these incidents of James and Peter, we hear of
no further harrassment of the Nazarenes for the nearly the next two
decades, until the death of James, brother of Jesus, in the year 62 CE. As
a matter of fact, Agrippa II who succeeded his father after the latter's
death, appeared to be on much better terms with the Nazarenes. On one
aoccaision, he even exchanged banter with Paul the Apostle (see Acts 26).

       Upon his escape, Peter sought temporary refuge at the home of Mary,
the mother of John Mark. (This is the Mark who later became the travelling
companion of Saul, and later the travelling companion of Peter, and whose
name has been attached to the first composed gospel of the New Testament as
its alleged author.) Peter told Mary to inform James of his escape from
jail, and that he had to leave Jerusalem since Herod Agrippa had put out a
re-arrest order for him. Then abruptly the reader of Acts is informed about
Peter, "And he departed, and went into another place." (Acts 12:17).

       Peter's name is mentioned only once more in Acts (chapter 15) where
he introduces the discussion of circumcision at the so-called Council of
Jerusalem, in which he states his opinion that gentiles coming into the
Nazarene movement ought not be converted to Judaism. His short speech
merely serves as a prologue to a much more elaborate speech by Paul and
Barnabas about how successful they have been among the gentiles, bringing
them into the Assembly of the Faithfull. This late appearence of Peter at
the Council meeting hardly seems historical. What is Peter doing back in
Jerusalem after having gone to "another place"? Why doesn't Luke say
exactly where he went and what he did after his departure from the Holy
City? Surely this information was known to Luke. Why does acts not mention
Peter again? Peter had been designated by Jesus as the "Rock" upon which
the Church would be built; that is, he was supposed to have been
Jesus'lieutenant, and successor in the movement. Yet in the narrative that
purports to tell the story of the unfolding of said Church, Peter plays a
subordinate role, seemingly that of lieutenant to Paul. As we have seen,
he is even made to refer to Paul's writings as "scripture". Indeed the New
Testament as a whole, written from a Pauline perspective, seems to be
robbing Peter to pay Paul, giving Paul the glory while demoting Peter to
second place, and this despite the tradition that Peter was the first
bishop of Rome, and the spiritual ancestor of every Pope of the Roman
Catholic Church. Later Jewish Christian literature clearly states that
Peter and Paul were at variance on all issues, and that they were not the
good buddies that Acts and later New Testament writings make them out to
be. It is also interesting to note that "Mark", who supposedly was Peter's
late companion and "interpreter", casts Peter in the more in an unfavorable
light than any of the other evangelists. Now that Luke has dispensed with
Peter, sending him to "another place", the way is clear for Paul to become
the real hero of the story of Christianity, as it evolved from Jesus' small
initial Nazarene movement. Happily, Acts has not the final word to say
about the fisherman who was the chief apsotle at Jerusalem. A picture of
the real Peter emerges from other sources, as shall be presently seen.

       Meanwhile, as we have been informed, Barnabas and Saul had gone to
Jerusalem to deliver the collected alms from Antioch to the apostles in the
Holy City. Upon the completion of this task, they returned to Antioch,
taking with them Mary's son, John Mark.

       After returning to Antioch, it was decided by the Christian com-
munity there that Barnabas and Saul, having been successful in spreading
the message of Jesus, should take off on a missionary journey through parts
of the diaspora in order to continue preaching the coming Kingdom and its
resurrected king. This was to be the first of three missionary journeys
undertaken by Saul. It began about the year 43 CE and lasted three to four
years. Taking John Mark with them, they departed for the island of Cyprus,
Barnabas' birthplace. Peter may well have been present in Antioch at the
time of their departure (Antioch being one of the possible locations of the
"other place" mentioned by Acts). If this is so, and he was aware that they
were going with his friend John Mark, and Acts does not report any
objection on his part, then it is possible that they went on this journey
with his permission.

       At Cypriot Paphos they made the acquaintance of the Roman deputy of
the island, Sergius Paulus, who called them to an audience in order to hear
the doctrine they were teaching. It is reported that Sergius Paulus was
impressed with what they had to say (he most probably was a G-d fearer like
the centurion at Caesarea), but Luke does not tell us definitely that he
was converted (if he had been, Luke would not have missed the opportunity
to declare it). Whether he was converted or not, he had made a positive
impression on Barnabas and Saul. So much so was this true, that beginning
with their departure from Cyprus, Saul began to call himself by the Roman
name of Paul. From this point on, Paul began to assert the strength of his
personality, becomming the primary missionary spokesman in their travels.
Hitherto, Acts had always given Barnabas precedence by giving his name
first ("Barnabas and Saul"). Now and for most of the rest of the Acts
narrative, this was changed to "Paul and Barnabas."

       Paul, Barnabas, and Mark left Cyprus and moved on to the city of
Perga in Pamphylia on the Aegean coast. When they arrived in Perga, some
sort of disagreement broke out between Paul and Barnabas on one sie, and
John Mark on the other. Acts, in its desire to harmonize the events, does
not state what the disagreement was but merely states that Mark took his
leave of them and returned to Jerusalem, leaving Paul and Barnabas to
continue the work of missionizing without him.

       We can speculate as to the nature of the problem Mark had in
remaining with them. Mark was a friend of Peter, and close to the Jerusalem
apostles. The Jerusalem Nazarenes, recalling the words of Jesus that they
were to go only to the Jewish poeople with their message, never felt fully
com- fortable with the "Grecians" approach to the gentiles. Paul began to
veer more and more in the direction of gentile proselyzation, having
convinced Barnabas that this was the direction to pursue. As he did so, he
began to identify more and more with his gentile proteges in a very
emotionally intense way. This is apparent in his writings as well as in the
fact that he chose to use his Roman, rather than, his Jewish name, and also
that he boasted of his Roman citizenship on more than one occaision. In one
place he actually appears to be referring to himself as a gentile:

     "That the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
      Jesus Christ; that WE might receive the promise of the Spirit
      through faith."
                     Galatians 3:14 (emphasis mine)

       On the few occaisions that he DID refer to his own Jewishness, in
addressing his converts, it was only to us that Jewishness to his own
advantage:

     "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant
      unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became
      as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the
      law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the
      law."
                               I Corinthians 9:19-20

       In other words, as he himself said, he became all things to all men,
as the situation suited. (I Corinthians 9:22). On one occaision, he
cynically FLAUNTED his Jewishness (and proclaimed himself a SUPER-
CHRISTIAN) in order to downplay the importance of the Jewishness of the
Jerusalem apostles who began to convince his own converts to convert to
Judaism:

     "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they
     the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I
     speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes
     above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft."
                            II Corinthians 11:22-23

       But otherwise, (in the absence of the chief Nazarenes) his attitude
viz-a-viz Jews and gentiles was abudantly clear:

     "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
     there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
     Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
     according to the promise."
                            Galatians 3:28-29

     "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man
     with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in
     knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is
     neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,
     Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."
                            Colassians 3:9-11

     "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
     same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."
                            Romans 10:12

       On the third leg of their journey at Pisidian (Aegean) Antioch, they
encountered a negative reaction from the Jewish community just as they had
at Perga. There, turning away from the Jews, Paul recieved an audience of
G-d fearing gentiles who were receptive to his message. To this point, the
only gentiles that the Nazarenes had approached WERE the G-d Fearers who
congregated at the synagogue on Sabbaths and holidays, encouraged by Jews,
to share in religious festivities. Soon, Paul was to break out of this set
mold, and speak to gentiles who did not necessarily have any interaction
with Jews at all. Paul made this perfectly clear to the Jewish community of
Pisidian Antioch:

     "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that
      the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing
      ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting
      life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."
                                  Acts 13.46

       It was not only that Paul would from now on deal almost exclus-
ively with non-Jews, but unlike all Nazarenes before him, he would not
demand that they convert to Judaism in order to be accepted as believers in
Jesus, and more. The Jesus that he began to preach to them became more and
more detached from the historical Jewish Galilean who had walked among his
Jewish brethren proclaiming the approach of the Kingdom of G-d on earth. To
be sure, Paul continued to refer to Jesus as Christ (anointed) but in his
mouth this term began to take on new significances, alien to the Jewish
understanding of messiah, and even alien to the Nazarene understanding of
Jesus.

        It is therefore not surprising that these things began to weigh
heavily on the heart of the Nazarene friend of Peter, John Mark, to the
point that he felt he could no longer countenance how Paul and Barnabas
were conducting this mission, and so he departed from them, returning to
Jerusalem and reporting the activities of Paul and Barnabas to James and
the other disciples. In time, Paul would have to answer to James for his
unorthodox attitudes and behaviour. In Jerusalem, far removed, the brother
of Jesus was initially unable to impede Paul. But after some time, he
himself sent out apostles to controvert Paul in front of his own converts,
and, to a certain extent, to undo Paul's work. In the end, James, by virtue
of his position of esteem in the Nazarene movement, was able to summon Paul
to Jerusalem where he forced him into an embarrassing and perilous
situation which ultimately led to Paul's arrest and undoing.

       Paul and Barnabas proceeded to the Helenized cities of Iconium,
Lystra and Derbe, where they had more success among the gentiles, and more
resentment from the Jewish communities.

       An amusing event occured at Lystra. There Paul and Barnabas had
effected a faith healing on a congenital cripple. Certain gentiles, hav-
ing observed this, began to hail them as gods come down from Olympus in
human form. Paul immediately chastised them for stating such an obviously
pagan idea. The irony of course was that shortly Paul himself was to assert
a similar concept in regard to Jesus.

        Winding up their activities at Derbe, they retraced their steps
through the cities they had visited previously, and again came to Syrian
Antioch to report on their success among the Greeks to the Antioch
Christian community. There they remained for several years.