“Acts” Of Deception

Chapter 1: The “Saulus” of Jerusalem – Josephus’s Herodian Prince

Opening Premise:

In the canonical New Testament, Paul—formerly Saul of Tarsus—is introduced as a devout Jew who experiences a dramatic spiritual awakening and becomes the most prolific apostle of the early Christian church. Yet the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the same century, describes a Saulus who was not a religious reformer, but a noble-born agitator aligned with the Herodian royal house.

This chapter will examine the striking evidence from Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews that places a “Saulus” at the center of a violent and politically disruptive movement in Jerusalem around 61 AD—the same time and place the book of Acts claims Paul was imprisoned. Could these two figures be the same man?

The Passage from Josephus:

In Antiquities 20.9.4, Josephus writes:

"Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us."

Analysis of the Text:

Let’s break this passage down line by line:

“Costobarus also, and Saulus…”

These are two individuals working together, both of whom were prominent enough to be named by Josephus. Costobarus is a known Herodian family name; Herod the Great’s second wife Mariamne had a brother named Costobarus.

“…did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches…”

This indicates they actively recruited thugs or mercenaries—suggesting they had both wealth and political influence. These were not grassroots revolutionaries or religious zealots. They were powerful men, manipulating violence for personal or dynastic gain.

“…because they were of the royal family…”

This is a major point. Josephus plainly states that Saulus was of the royal Herodian family. The New Testament makes no such claim about Paul—raising the possibility that the connection was deliberately obscured.

“…obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa…”

Their blood relationship to Agrippa II, the last of the Herodian kings, gave them political sway. This again supports the idea that Saulus was deeply entrenched in the Herodian dynasty.

“…used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder…”

These men were not acting in a spiritual or religious capacity. They were using force to assert dominance and control. This completely contradicts the image of the apostle Paul as a meek, persecuted missionary.

“…our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse…”

Their actions contributed to the breakdown of social order in Jerusalem in the lead-up to the First Judaean-Roman War (66–70 AD).

Chronological Context:

Josephus places this violent activity in the early 60s AD—precisely when the Book of Acts claims Paul was in Roman custody under the procurators Felix and Festus. According to Acts:

“But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.” Acts 24:27

Acts presents Paul as imprisoned quietly during this same time. However, the historical record from Josephus shows that Saulus, a Herodian noble, was actively destabilizing Jerusalem.

High Priests and Timeline Conflicts:

Further complicating the issue is the Book of Acts’ claim that Paul was brought before the high priest Ananias during Felix’s term (Acts 24:1). Yet according to Josephus and historian Emil Schürer, Ananias was removed and sent to Rome in 52 AD—before Felix became governor.

This means the book of Acts arrest narrative contains factual errors, while Josephus’s account fits the chronology far more precisely. This casts doubt on the idea that Paul was a passive prisoner during this time. He may, in fact, have been the “Saulus” helping foment disorder.

Why Would Acts Conceal This?

If Paul were known publicly to be a Herodian aristocrat involved in street violence and political plunder, the early Christian movement would struggle to defend his authenticity as a spiritual leader. The Book of Acts, written decades later, may have attempted to clean up his image—creating a sanitized narrative of conversion, persecution, and apostleship that erased his earlier political ties.

The Josephus-Paul Connection: Plausibility or Coincidence?

Critics of this theory argue that “Saulus” was simply a common name. But the convergence of the following details makes that claim difficult to defend:

Both Saulus and Paul were active in Jerusalem during the 60s AD.
Both had Roman citizenship and elite status.
Both were involved in major political or religious controversy.
Both disappeared from the historical record in roughly the same time period.

Is it more likely that these are two different individuals, or that the Book of Acts was constructed to hide the real identity of a politically connected Roman agent?

Conclusion of Chapter 1:

Josephus’s account provides a rare and revealing alternative perspective on the man the New Testament calls Paul. His description of a violent, elite Saulus of Herodian lineage living in Jerusalem during the exact period Paul was supposedly imprisoned is too close to be ignored.

Rather than a contradiction, this may be the key that unlocks Paul’s true identity—one rooted not in humble piety, but in royal politics, Roman allegiance, and strategic deception.

Chapter 2: A Roman Education – Paul’s Knowledge of Greek Thought and the Hidden Curriculum of the Herodians

Introduction: A Pharisee or a Philosopher?

One of the most overlooked, yet startlingly revealing, aspects of Paul’s profile in the New Testament is his fluency in Greek philosophy. In Acts 17, during his speech at the Areopagus in Athens, Paul quotes two distinctly non-Jewish sources: Epimenides of Crete and Aratus, a Stoic poet. These were not household names. They were niche authors in the Greco-Roman philosophical canon.

The fact that Paul could quote them from memory is evidence of a deep, formal education in Greek literature and philosophy—a type of training almost entirely inaccessible to a provincial Pharisee from Jerusalem. But it fits perfectly if Paul was, as Josephus implies, a well-placed Herodian insider educated in the elite circles of Rome.

Acts 17:28 – The Smoking Gun of Classical Education

“For in him we live and move and have our being…” – Epimenides

“…As even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’” – Aratus, Phainomena

These two references are not only obscure but deeply embedded in the Hellenistic worldview. They reflect not Jewish Torah study but a Stoic and poetic vision of divinity and human nature. This passage, more than any other, explodes the myth of Paul as merely a devout Pharisee turned apostle. It reveals:

He was well-versed in Hellenistic poetry and philosophy.
He was comfortable addressing Greek intellectual elites.
He tailored his message using culturally elite references—a rhetorical style common among Roman-trained statesmen, not Judaean religious students.

Greek Education in the 1st Century: Who Had Access?

In 1st-century Judea, Greek education wasn’t simply rare—it was inaccessible to most. Rabbinic schools in Jerusalem, such as those of Hillel or Shammai, taught Torah, not Homer. The curriculum focused on Hebrew law, Talmudic reasoning, and sacred writings. Greek authors were often viewed as profane.

So who did study Greek philosophy and poetry?

Answer: The Hellenized Jewish elite—and most notably, the Herodian family.

Josephus himself (a contemporary of Paul) was a prime example. Born into the Jewish priesthood, he was sent to Rome, where he received an advanced Greek education. In Antiquities and Life of Josephus, he boasts of mastering the works of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, but only because of his status and connections.

In Antiquities 20.11.2, Josephus confirms that elite Jews could be educated in the Roman tradition—but this was the exception, not the rule.

Paul’s Roman Connection in Acts 13:1: Raised with the Herodians?

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon... and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Acts 13:1

This passage casually mentions that Manaen (a court insider) had been “brought up with Herod the tetrarch” (Herod Antipas). But notice: Paul is listed alongside him.

This heavily implies that Paul too was raised among the Herodian elite, a revelation with massive implications. Herod Antipas was raised and educated in Rome, as Josephus attests in Antiquities 17.1.2. So if Paul was raised with him or in a similar environment, Paul too would have:

Lived in Rome or a Romanized court environment.
Had access to elite tutors, rhetoric instructors, and Greek philosophical texts.
Been part of a political class, not a humble religious sect.

This would explain his comfort not just with Greek poetry, but also with navigating Roman courts, writing formal epistles, and appealing legal cases to Caesar (Acts 25:10–12).

Paul’s Claims About His Upbringing – Contradictory Accounts?

In Acts 22:3, Paul states:

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city \[Jerusalem], at the feet of Gamaliel…”

This directly conflicts with the implication of Acts 13:1. You cannot be raised and educated in Jerusalem and among the royal household of Herod Antipas in Rome at the same time.

If Paul’s philosophical literacy and political maneuvering don’t match his supposed upbringing in Jerusalem, then one of two things must be true:

1. The Book of Acts is wrong about where Paul was raised.

2. Paul is lying—possibly to conceal his true elite background.

Or, more precisely: The Acts narrative is a constructed myth designed to present Paul as a humble Jewish convert, rather than as an agent of the Herodian-Roman establishment.

Historical Context: Herodians and Greek Culture

The Herodian dynasty was fully integrated into Roman imperial culture. Herod the Great rebuilt Jerusalem’s temple, but also constructed Roman-style theaters, bathhouses, and fortresses. His descendants were deeply Romanized, fluent in Latin and Greek, and trained in the arts of administration and diplomacy.

If Paul was a Herodian, it would make sense that he:

Spoke Greek fluently.
Knew obscure poets and philosophers.
Traveled extensively across the Roman Empire with ease.
Could debate Stoics and Epicureans in Athens.
Held Roman citizenship by birth (Acts 22:28).

These facts are not anomalies—they are indicators of who Paul really was.

Conclusion: Paul the Herodian Philosopher

The deeper we look, the clearer it becomes that Paul’s supposed Jewish rabbinical background doesn’t square with the intellectual profile presented in his letters and speeches. His access to Greek literature, Roman citizenship, and Herodian circles places him firmly in a different class—not a Torah scholar from Jerusalem, but a Roman-trained aristocrat.

Paul’s ability to “become all things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22) wasn’t simply spiritual adaptability. It was a skill honed by elite training and imperial politics. This chapter adds a key brick to the growing case that Paul was not who the New Testament claims he was, but rather a man deeply shaped by Herodian-Roman interests.

Chapter 3: Born a Roman – Paul’s Citizenship and the Herodian Lineage

Opening Question:

In Acts 22, during a tense interrogation by Roman authorities, Paul casually drops a bombshell:

“Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” Acts 22:25

This declaration shocks the Roman commander, who responds:

“I bought this citizenship for a large sum.”

Paul replied, “But I was born a citizen. Acts 22:28

This moment is treated as a throwaway defense mechanism in the Book of Acts. But for anyone familiar with Roman law, Paul’s claim is massive. Roman citizenship by a non Roman at birth was extremely rare, especially for provincial Judaeans. So the question must be asked:

How did Paul, a supposed Pharisee from Tarsus, inherit Roman citizenship?

The answer: He didn’t. Unless he came from one of the few Jewish families granted Roman status — namely, the Herodians.

Roman Citizenship: An Exclusive Club

In the 1st century AD, citizenship in Rome was not automatically granted to the people of its provinces. It was a legal and political privilege, tightly controlled. The average subject of the Roman Empire had no citizenship and no legal standing under Roman law.

There were only a few ways to become a Roman citizen:

1. Be born to a Roman citizen father (ius sanguinis — right of blood).

2. Receive citizenship as a reward from a general or emperor (often for loyalty, wealth, or military service).

3. Buy it, as the commander in Acts claims to have done (a costly and rare option).

4. Be part of a family or ethnic group that had previously been granted it.

The Herodian dynasty falls into the fourth category.

Antipater and the Herodian Citizenship Privilege

Josephus tells us that in 47 BC, Julius Caesar rewarded Antipater the Idumaean — father of Herod the Great — with full Roman citizenship for his loyalty during the Roman civil war:

“Caesar confirmed Hyrcanus in the high priesthood and granted Antipater Roman citizenship for his services.” Josephus, Antiquities 14.8.3

This grant was hereditary. Herod the Great, as Antipater’s son, was born a Roman citizen. His descendants—including Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I, Herod II, and others—were all Roman citizens by birth.

If Paul were descended from this royal line, his claim in Acts 22:28 — “I was born a citizen” — would make perfect sense.

Why Being Born in Tarsus Isn’t Enough To Be A Roman Citizen

Paul is often called “Saul of Tarsus,” and some have argued that being born in this city would grant automatic citizenship. But that’s not how Roman law worked in the 1st century.

It is true that Marc Antony, in the 40s BC, freed the city of Tarsus from taxation and granted it status as a “free city” (Appian, The Civil Wars 5.7.1). However, modern scholarship is unanimous: Tarsus’s civic status did not grant its residents Roman citizenship.

As scholar Sean A. Adams puts it:

“There is no record of citizenship being granted to the people of Tarsus upon the promotion of that city to the provincial capital.”

— Sean A. Adams, “Paul the Roman Citizen” (2008), p. 320

Even more, being born in a Roman province — even in a privileged city — did not make you a Roman citizen. That wouldn’t happen until Emperor Hadrian’s reforms in 123 AD, nearly a century after Paul’s time.

So how could Paul truthfully claim Roman citizenship by birth?

Paul’s Status Explains His Privileges

Paul’s elite status is not just a legal technicality—it shows up repeatedly in how Roman authorities treat him:

He appeals directly to Caesar (Acts 25:11).
He is given a personal guard of 470 soldiers (Acts 23:23).
Roman officials panic when they discover he is a citizen (Acts 22:29).
He is allowed to travel freely, even under “arrest” (Acts 28:16).

These are not normal procedures for a Judaean from a Roman province. They are more consistent with someone well-connected, someone with powerful family backing, someone whose bloodline demanded special treatment.

The Silence About Paul’s Father

Strangely, Paul never names his father in any of his letters. This is unusual, especially since he claims:

“I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…” Acts 23:6

This raises a key question:

If Paul’s father was a devout Pharisee, why is he never mentioned by name?

Unless his name would have exposed something inconvenient—like his Herodian identity.

Some researchers propose that Paul’s father was none other than Phasael III, a known Herodian prince and son of Herod the Great and his concubine Pallas. This would fit perfectly:

Phasael III is one of the few Herodians whose lineage is vague in Josephus, leaving space for unknown offspring.
Paul (Latin: Paulus) could have been named for his grandmother Pallas.
Herodians commonly had dual names—a Hebrew and a Roman one. “Saul” (Sha’ul) and “Paul” (Paulus) are exactly such a combination.

This theory explains not only Paul’s Roman citizenship, but also his access, his wealth, his power, and his silence.

Citizenship as a Political Tool

If Paul was Herodian by birth, then his Roman citizenship wasn’t a spiritual accident—it was a tool of empire. It allowed him to travel freely, to intervene in religious disputes, and to act as a bridge between Rome and Jewish religious life.

Rather than seeing Paul’s conversion as an abrupt break from power, it may be more accurate to see it as a redirection of political strategy—a way to reshape early Christianity from the inside for Roman benefit.

Conclusion: Roman By Blood, Not Conversion

The notion that Paul was a humble Jewish Pharisee who became a Roman citizen through fate or fortune is a myth. The historical, legal, and political evidence points to a far more potent reality: Paul was born into Roman citizenship because he was born into Herodian royalty.

This chapter peels back another layer of the apostle’s public persona and reveals a man whose loyalty to Rome was not earned—it was inherited.

Chapter 4: Power Beyond the Priesthood – Paul’s Legal Authority Across Borders

Introduction: Who Gave Paul the Right?

In Acts 9:1–2, we’re told that Paul—then known as Saul—went to the high priest in Jerusalem and received official letters authorizing him to hunt down followers of “the Way” in Damascus, a city well outside Judea’s legal jurisdiction:

“\[Saul] asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way… he might bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.”

This passage raises a critical question that’s almost never asked:

How could a private citizen—even a Pharisee—exercise such sweeping judicial power in foreign territory?

Under Roman law and the political realities of the 1st century, he couldn’t—unless he wasn’t acting on behalf of the high priest alone. Unless he was carrying Herodian or Roman state power behind him.

The High Priest Had No Power in Damascus

Damascus was not under the jurisdiction of the high priest in Jerusalem. In fact, it was under Nabataean control, ruled by King Aretas IV. The Second Temple priesthood had no legal or political authority in Nabataean territory. So Paul’s mission could not have been legally executed under Judaean religious authority alone.

This exposes a major hole in the Book of Acts narrative—one that theologians often gloss over. If Paul was a mere religious zealot acting under temple leadership, how did he:

Cross Roman and Nabataean borders freely?
Arrest and detain individuals without trial?
Transport prisoners back to Jerusalem?

These were powers reserved for military governors, royal emissaries, or agents of Rome—not freelance temple police.

Herod Antipas – The Real Source of Paul’s Power

The answer lies not in the high priest’s office, but in the Herodian dynasty, particularly Herod Antipas.

Josephus tells us that Herod Antipas—son of Herod the Great—ruled over Galilee and Perea, and was a client king of Rome. As a Herodian, he had political dealings with both Rome and the Nabataeans. He also maintained an uneasy relationship with King Aretas IV of Nabatea, which culminated in a military conflict over a personal and political falling-out.

In this context, Paul’s activities begin to make much more sense if he was acting not as a religious agent, but as a Herodian operative, helping to suppress Messianic movements—which were seen as threats to both Herodian and Roman order.

Why Herodian Power Explains Everything in Acts 9

Let’s revisit Acts 9 with this in mind:

Paul is not merely given religious authority; he is exercising state-level authority.
He can travel freely across borders.
He can arrest people without trial and transport them across jurisdictions.
He is executing a politically motivated suppression campaign.

This is exactly how a Herodian agent, concerned with preserving dynastic and Roman interests, would act. The “sect of the way”, seen as Messianic and potentially revolutionary, would have represented a threat to both the status quo in Judea and Roman peace in the East.

Roman Law Was Clear: Only Officials Had Jurisdiction

Roman jurisprudence did not allow ordinary citizens or religious authorities to carry out arrests beyond their regional boundaries. Arrests were conducted by military or judicial authorities with imperial approval.

For Paul to be operating as a quasi-enforcer in foreign cities, he must have been functioning with the approval of Roman-aligned power—the Herodians. It would explain:

His ability to act outside Judea.
His capacity to enforce detention across territories.
The absence of any Roman challenge to his actions.

This kind of behavior simply cannot be explained by religious zeal alone. It implies institutional backing.

Paul’s Authority Mirrors the Powers of the Herodian Dynasty

Consider what the Herodians controlled:

Border relations with Rome and Nabatea.
A military apparatus, though often small.
Legal jurisdiction granted through Roman client-kingship.
Deep connections with both Rome’s bureaucracy and Jewish religious institutions.

Paul’s activities mirror these dynamics perfectly. He moves like a political agent, not a rogue Pharisee.

His journey to Damascus was not about mere persecution—it was about preemptive suppression. The movement of “The Way” threatened the balance of power in the region. Paul, if he were Herodian, would have had both the motive and the means to stop it.

The Nabataean Connection and the Fallout

Ironically, Paul’s mission to Damascus seems to have backfired politically. In 2 Corinthians 11:32, Paul recounts how, after his conversion, the governor of Damascus under King Aretas IV tried to arrest him:

“In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.”

Why would the Nabataean king suddenly want Paul arrested? The answer lies in Paul’s Herodian identity.

Aretas IV was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas.
Herod Antipas divorced Aretas’s daughter, sparking a personal and political feud.
If Paul was a Herodian loyalist, his presence in Damascus would have been a provocation.
Once Paul defected (or appeared to), Aretas saw him as an enemy agent.

This context is missing from Acts—but not from history. It supports the thesis that Paul was acting on Herodian business in Damascus, not religious zeal alone.

Conclusion: Paul, the Herodian Enforcer

Paul’s cross-border power wasn’t spiritual authority—it was political authority. His ability to operate across cities, arrest followers of Yeshua, and carry out a suppression campaign reveals a clear Herodian chain of command.

He was not just a Pharisee. He was likely a Herodian aristocrat, operating as a Roman client’s agent, defending the dynasty’s political future against a growing spiritual threat.

Once that threat could no longer be contained, Paul changed tactics—claiming conversion and co-opting the movement from within.

Chapter 5: Fabricated Arrest – The Timeline That Exposes Acts as Fiction

Introduction: When Two Accounts Collide

The New Testament’s Book of Acts portrays Paul as a persecuted apostle—arrested, unjustly imprisoned, and held under Roman protection as he appeals to Caesar. The story seems complete, coherent, and lawful.

But when we compare this carefully curated image to the historical record preserved by Flavius Josephus, the result is striking. Josephus describes a man named Saulus active in Jerusalem during the exact same years Acts claims Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea under Felix and Festus. Only, this Saulus wasn’t in prison at all. He was on the streets—stirring civil unrest, leading violent gangs, and tied by blood to the Herodian royal family.

Historical Timeline Breakdown

✅ Reliable Dates from Josephus and History

48 AD – Ananias appointed High Priest.

52 AD – Ananias sent to Rome by Governor Quadratus.

52 AD – Felix becomes governor of Judea, replacing Cumanus.

60–61 AD – Festus replaces Felix as governor.

61 AD – Saulus, Costobarus, and their faction cause violence in Jerusalem.

❌ Book of Acts Timeline

Paul appears before Ananias under Felix’s governorship.
Paul is imprisoned for two years under Felix.
Paul remains in custody when Festus takes over in 61 AD.
Paul is portrayed as a calm, innocent figure surrounded by protective Roman soldiers.

⚠️ Direct Conflicts

Ananias was no longer high priest by the time Felix took office.
Festus was dealing with violent unrest in Jerusalem led by a man named Saulus, not protecting an imprisoned apostle.
The timelines cannot both be true.

Why Hide the Truth?

The early Roman Church had powerful motives to alter Paul’s story:

To distance him from his royal Herodian background.
To present him as persecuted, not privileged.
To erase his involvement in civil unrest or political violence.
To convert a Herodian loyalist into a Roman prisoner of conscience.

The Book of Acts is not a neutral historical record. It is a controlled narrative—designed to sanitize Paul’s reputation and make his conversion story more palatable to Rome and the early Church.

Conclusion: The Arrest Story Is a Fiction

Josephus gives us the uncomfortable truth: Saulus, a Herodian prince, was an active instigator of violence and corruption in Jerusalem—protected by family connections and political privilege.

This happened in 61 AD, the exact year Acts claims Paul was in chains under Festus’s watch.

This contradiction is not a scholarly quibble. It is a window into how the early Roman Church reshaped Paul’s biography—masking his royal ties, muting his violence, and rewriting the past to fit a theological agenda.

The evidence is clear: The arrest of Paul in Acts never happened. But the uprising of Saulus in Josephus did.

Chapter 6: Arabian War Games – Paul’s Disappearance and the Herodian-Aretas Feud

Introduction: A Curious Omission

In Galatians 1:17, Paul briefly mentions a mysterious early detour in his life:

I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.”

That’s it.

No explanation. No details. And notably—this entire episode is absent from the Book of Acts. Luke, the author of Acts, mentions Paul’s conversion three separate times, each with inconsistencies, but not once does he refer to Paul’s time in Arabia.

Why would this be deliberately left out?

Because what Paul was doing in Arabia would have shattered the apostolic myth built around him. The truth has more to do with politics, family, and war, than with meditation or missionary work.

Arabia in the First Century: Not a Desert Retreat

When Paul says “Arabia,” he wasn’t referring to the modern Arabian Peninsula. In the 1st century, “Arabia” referred primarily to the Nabataean Kingdom, with its capital at Petra, and ruled at the time by King Aretas IV (9 BC – 40 AD).

But wait—if Aretas died in 40 AD, how could Paul have fled from him after his conversion? The answer is that Paul’s confrontation with Nabataean forces actually makes perfect sense—but only when we view it as part of a Herodian family conflict.

The Herodian-Aretas Family War

To understand the real reason for Paul’s trip into Arabia, we have to go back to a political scandal.

Herod Antipas’s Divorce

Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea) had married the daughter of King Aretas IV.
Around 27–28 AD, Antipas divorced her in favor of his niece, Herodias (the wife of his half-brother).
This caused a diplomatic rupture with Aretas IV.

Border War

In response to this insult, Aretas launched a military campaign against Antipas.
Josephus reports that Antipas suffered a major defeat, and many in Judea saw it as divine judgment for executing John the Baptist.
The conflict was significant enough that Tiberius Caesar ordered a Roman military response—which was halted when Tiberius died in 37 AD.

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God... because of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist.” Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.1

Paul Caught in the Crossfire

So why would Paul—recently “converted,” newly zealous—go to Arabia right after fleeing Damascus?

Because Paul was a Herodian, and Arabia wasn’t a spiritual detour—it was a war zone involving his own royal family.

Here’s what fits:

Paul was connected to Herod Antipas, possibly as a cousin or nephew.
Paul may have been sent to Arabia to engage diplomatically—or even militarily—with the Aretas faction.
Paul says he later had to flee Damascus because of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32).
This suggests Aretas had reason to want him dead, not as a Christian preacher, but as a Herodian operative.

“In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket... and slipped through his hands.” 2 Corinthians 11:32–33

This is not standard persecution for religious preaching. Roman governors typically didn’t respond this way to minor Judaean sectarians. This kind of manhunt implies Paul was a political figure of serious consequence.

The Silence of Acts

Nowhere in Acts is this war or Paul’s escape from Aretas mentioned. Why?

Because it would have required explaining Paul’s loyalty to the Herodian family and their feud with Arabia. Luke—writing for Roman and Gentile audiences—carefully avoids anything that would portray Paul as a political insider or military operative.

Instead, the story is reshaped to fit the narrative of a man transformed by faith—leaving out that he fled not for his new religion, but for his old dynasty.

Cross-Referencing Paul’s Silence and Josephus’s Voice

We’ve already seen in the previous chapter that Josephus places “Saulus” in Jerusalem in 61 AD, linked to Herodian violence and political manipulation.

Now, with Paul’s flight to Arabia and back, we see a suspicious pattern of:

Missing context in Acts.
Political motives for travel.
Royal enemies pursuing him.

What’s being edited out is a Paul who functioned like an intelligence agent or envoy—someone tasked with protecting his family’s interests under the guise of religious zeal.

Conclusion: The War Behind the Conversion

Paul’s time in Arabia has nothing to do with spiritual contemplation. It was tied to Herodian dynastic affairs, specifically the border war with Nabataea.

His quick escape from Damascus, pursued by officials loyal to Aretas IV, signals more than theological disagreement. It was the end result of royal loyalties and a failed operation in hostile territory.

And so, once again, we see that the sanitized portrait of Paul in the New Testament isn’t supported by the historical context. Instead, the fuller, grittier truth was quietly buried—not to protect Paul’s safety, but to preserve the Church’s story.

Chapter 7: The Herodian Bloodline

Introduction: Why Paul’s Family Tree Matters

The life of Paul is often discussed in spiritual or theological terms, but to truly understand who he was, we must examine something rarely talked about: his family lineage.

Throughout his letters and the book of Acts, Paul avoids naming his father or mother. Yet clues embedded in historical records—especially those from Josephus—and Paul’s own words, point us toward a remarkable conclusion:

Paul was not simply a devout Jew or Roman convert.
He was born into the Herodian royal family.

The Mysterious Father of Paul

In Acts 23:6, Paul says:

“I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.”

That’s the closest Paul ever gets to identifying his father.

But if he was indeed from the Herodian dynasty, as all the evidence has shown so far, then the most likely candidate for Paul’s father is a lesser-known son of Herod the Great:

Phasael III — son of Herod the Great and a Greek woman named Pallas.

Who Was Phasael III?

Phasael III was the nephew and namesake of Herod the Great’s brother, Phasael I. Unlike Herod’s more famous sons (Antipas, Archelaus, Philip), Phasael III stayed closer to the background politically.

But here are some key details:

Father: Herod the Great
Mother: Pallas (a Greek concubine of Herod)
Herodian by blood: fully part of the ruling dynasty
Roman by law: a citizen through his father’s Roman favor
Pharisaic influence: part of the religious tradition that many Herodians blended into for legitimacy

This makes Phasael III a perfect candidate to be Paul’s father—especially since Paul’s name “Paulus” mirrors that of his grandmother, Pallas.

Naming Patterns in the Herodian Family

The Herodian dynasty frequently gave dual names to their children—one Hebrew and one Greco-Roman—a cultural and political strategy. This is crucial to understanding Paul’s identity.

Examples of this dual naming custom:

Herod Antipas —

Hebrew: “Antipas,”

Roman: “Herod”

Saulus/Paulus —

Hebrew: “Saul” (Sha’ul),

Roman: “Paul” (Paulus)

Phasael III’s mother: “Pallas” (Greek, feminine), reflected in the name “Paulus” (Latin, masculine)

Paul’s own name fits this pattern exactly—a Greco-Roman name given to a child of a Greco-Roman woman (Pallas), while retaining a Hebrew counterpart (Saul).

This was standard among Herodian elites.

Herodian Family Traits Paul Shares

Let’s review the traits that show Paul was raised within the Herodian world:

Roman citizenship by birth
Deep education in Greek thought and philosophy
Strong Pharisaic tradition (for public legitimacy)
Protected by Roman governors and military forces
Maintained high-level relationships with priests and governors
Used fluent Greek and quoted obscure Greek authors
Had relatives with royal names (e.g. Herodion in Romans 16:11)

All of these traits match the lifestyle, education, and behavior of the Herodian elite.

Key figures:

Pallas (Paul’s grandmother): A Greek woman whose name means “young maiden”; source of Paul’s Roman name
Phasael III (Paul’s father): Pharisee, Herodian prince, and Roman citizen
Paul/Saul: Raised in Roman privilege, educated in Greek philosophy, loyal to Rome and Herodian interests

Why Would Paul Keep This Quiet?

Paul never names his father. Why?

Likely because:

1. Revealing Herodian ties would destroy his credibility among early Jewish-Christian communities.

2. He needed to appear as a convert, not a political insider.

3. His agenda was to preserve Herodian-Roman order through a modified religion that supported imperial peace, not Jewish revolution.

This silence is not accidental—it’s strategic omission.

Conclusion: Paul Was a Herodian Royal in Disguise

The evidence now gathered suggests the following:

Paul’s father was almost certainly Phasael III, making Paul a Herodian prince
His name “Paulus” is a masculine version of his grandmother’s name “Pallas”
His citizenship, education, protection, and status all stem from this elite heritage
His silence on these facts was intentional and politically motivated

Paul was not a fringe zealot or radical convert. He was born into power—and used that power to shape a version of Christianity aligned with Roman and Herodian interests.

Chapter 8: Subverting a Covenant — Paul’s Real Motives and Legacy

Introduction: The Restoration That Was Underway

Before Paul’s rise, the early followers of Yeshua had a focused mission — not to launch a new religion, but to call the lost sheep of the house of Israel back to covenant.

Yeshua himself declared this mission explicitly:

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

His disciples carried this same commission forward. They did not abandon the Torah, nor seek Gentile converts to a lawless faith. Instead, they aimed their message at the dispersed tribes of Israel, scattered after the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, now residing throughout Asia Minor, Syria, and beyond.

The Scattered Tribes: The Real Target of the Message

James opens his letter with a direct address:

“To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greetings.” James 1:1

Likewise, Peter, writing to regions like Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, speaks to:

“...the exiles of the dispersion.” 1 Peter 1:1

These were Israelites, descendants of the northern and southern kingdoms, now living among the nations. The disciples’ mission was to gather them, rekindle their identity, and restore them to the Torah through the Messiah.

This was not evangelism to random Gentiles. This was reclamation of a covenant people.

Why This Alarmed the Herodians and Rome

The message of Yeshua for Israel — repentance, a return to the ancient paths of Torah and covenant, and the revealed promises of the coming Kingdom of YHVH— was a dangerous challenge to the Roman-Herodian alliance.

If the tribes of Israel across Asia Minor began reuniting around Torah, rejecting Roman paganism, and proclaiming Yeshua as King, it would signal an imminent uprising — not necessarily by force, but by allegiance.

Rome had always feared messianic nationalism. The Herodians, who held power by Roman permission, feared it even more. A mass return to Torah by the exiles of Israel would destroy their control and threaten their dynasty. This was why in Matthew 2 when king Herod I, heard the news of the birth of the Messiah and couldn’t find him. He gave orders to have the Hebrew male infants killed.

So persecution and murder are exactly what the Herodian elite did and were used to doing to maintain their control. But what happens when persecution and death doesn’t stop a movement?

You infiltrate it.

Paul’s Strategic Infiltration

Paul’s conversion story, presented as dramatic and miraculous, starts to look more like an intelligence operation when viewed against this backdrop:

He enters the movement suddenly and without apostolic training.
He redirects the message from covenant restoration to “grace without Torah.”
He tells Gentiles — including many from the lost tribes — not to keep the Law of Moses.
He redefines the “National Israel” as a metaphor for believers, not a people or nation.

This wasn’t just theological innovation. It was a containment strategy — a way to hijack a tribal, Torah-based revolution and fold it into something Rome could tolerate, and that’s just what Paul did. Using the ancient art of Oration that was taught in the Roman schools for public officials, he knew well how to win over a crowd.

📘 Definition (Classical Context):

Rhetoric (noun):
The art of persuasive speaking or writing, especially as developed by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In Roman times, rhetoric was a foundational skill for politicians, lawyers, and public figures, often taught through formal education and practiced in forums and courts.

🏛️ Historical Context:

In Ancient Rome, rhetoric was not just a skill — it was a pillar of public life. Politicians like Cicero and Julius Caesar used eloquence and structured argument to sway the Senate and the public. Training in rhetoric included mastering ethos(credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) — principles inherited from Greek thinkers like Aristotle.

🏛️ Historical Quote:

"Nothing is more noble, nothing more admirable, than the ability to hold a crowd by the power of speech."
— Cicero, De Oratore, Book I (55 BCE)

This quote captures how highly the Romans regarded oratory — not just as a skill, but as a noble power.

To show just how Paul effectively used this skill in his letters in the New Testament scriptures, see our teaching “An Enemy Has Done This“

Revelation’s Warning: The True Apostles vs. the False

The book of Revelation provides a cryptic but powerful rebuke of this infiltration.

To the assembly in Ephesus, Yeshua says:

“I know your deeds... that you cannot tolerate those who are evil, and you have tested those who claim to be apostles and are not, and have found them to be liars.” Revelation 2:2

Who were these false apostles?

It’s no stretch to see Paul and his circle implicated here.

His claim to apostleship was self-appointed.
The original apostles in Jerusalem never formally endorsed his gospel — in fact, many opposed it.
The Ephesians, and most of the elect throughout Asia eventually rejected Paul’s doctrine. As Paul says himself in one of his last letters.

"This you know, that all they which are in Asia have turned away from me” 2 Timothy 1:15

The Seven Assemblies: The Menorah of Israel

The seven assemblies mentioned in Revelation were not generic churches. They were the descendants of Israel that were:

Strategically placed in Asia Minor, near the isle of Patmos where John was exiled
Symbolic branches of the menorah, representing the light of Torah and the Spirit among the returning tribes
Entrusted with the Apocalypse to complete the restoration mission

These communities were meant to preserve the original message, live a separate and holy life, endure persecution, and expose the lies of counterfeit doctrine. They represented a prophetic remnant, faithful to the covenant, ready to carry the message of Messiah to their brethren.

They were given the message of the apocalypse because many believed the Messiah would return in their day. The message given in Revelation was to revive their faith and strengthen them. It was to prepare them and their descendants for the persecutions that would be endured and the chronological order of events that would take place before the return of the Messiah.

Conclusion: Paul as Counter-Missionary

Once seen through this lens, Paul’s legacy comes into focus:

He redirected a powerful Israelite awakening into a universalized Roman religion.
He replaced covenant obedience with philosophical abstraction.
He neutralized the tribal identity and replaced it with spiritual allegory.
He disrupted the gathering of the twelve tribes just as it was gaining momentum.

Chapter 9: The Battle for the Covenant — Prophecy, Deception, and the Future Regathering of Israel

Introduction: The War Beneath the Surface

At the heart of scripture lies a war — not just between men or kingdoms, but between truth and deception, covenant and corruption, light and darkness. The message entrusted to the disciples was not a new religion, but the next chapter of Israel’s prophetic destiny: the regathering of the lost tribes, the restoration of the covenant, and the reign of the true King, Yeshua.

This chapter will trace that war through the prophets, the mission of Yeshua, the book of Revelation, and ultimately into our own day — where the remnants of Israel are still awakening.

1. The Prophetic Foundation: Regathering the Lost Tribes

Throughout the Tanakh, YHVH promised not only to preserve Judah but also to regather the scattered northern tribes — Ephraim, Manasseh, and the ten-house kingdom dispersed by Assyria.

“I will take the children of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land.” Ezekiel 37:21

“In that day... the great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in Assyria and Egypt will come and worship YHVH in Jerusalem.” Isaiah 27:13

This regathering would not be merely physical. It would involve a return to the Torah, a renewed heart, and the recognition of Messiah son of David (Jeremiah 31:31–34, Hosea 3:5).

The scattered tribes would be sown among the nations, and like seeds, they would multiply and grow into multitudes (Genesis 48:19).

2. The Mission of Yeshua: A Shepherd for the Lost Sheep

Yeshua explicitly confirmed this prophetic mission:

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

His disciples were messengers to the exiles, not founders of a new religion.

Their commission was to call the dispersed to repentance, to Torah, to covenant renewal, and to prepare them for the final return.

And who were these “lost sheep”? Many had already migrated northwest, even over the Caucasus Mountains, as history and archaeology now confirm — later known among the Greeks and Romans as Scythians, Celts, Gauls Parthians, and beyond.

The seed of Israel had already begun spreading into every nation under heaven, just as foretold.

3. Revelation: The Blueprint of the Final Regathering

The book of Revelation is not a cryptic apocalypse for the curious — it is a prophetic summary of the final battle over Israel’s destiny.

The seven assemblies (Revelation 2–3) are not random churches. They are symbolic menorah branches, representing the scattered covenant people among Asia Minor — the very regions addressed by Peter and James.

Revelation shows:

A people marked by Torah and testimony (Rev. 12:17)
The dragon (Satan) who goes to make war with the remnant of her seed— those who keep YHVH’s commandments
A final ingathering of a great multitude, from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 7:9), clothed in white, having washed their robes (i.e., repented and returned to righteousness)

This is not the birth of the church — it is the rebirth of Israel.

4. Satan’s Strategy: Stop the Regathering

Why did Satan target this movement so aggressively?

Because the regathering of Israel signals the end of his dominion.

When the house of Israel returns to the covenant, and when they recognize their true King, Yeshua, the kingdoms of this world fall, and the kingdom of Elohim is established on Earth (Revelation 11:15).

To stop this, Satan used:

The Herodians, to persecute the early followers
Paul, to redirect the message and spiritualize the covenant
Rome, to build a replacement theology — a church that rejected Israel, annulled the Torah, and enthroned Caesar’s theology

What better deception than a false gospel claiming to replace the very people of the covenant?

5. The Scattered Multitude: Still Waking Up

The tribes of Israel never disappeared — they were scattered, sifted, and preserved. And now, in the latter days, they are beginning to awaken.

“Ephraim shall say, ‘What have I to do anymore with idols?’... I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily.” Hosea 14:8, 5

The truth of Yeshua — as Torah-faithful Messiah — is being recovered. The original message of the disciples is rising again. And the great multitude is stirring in every land.

Conclusion: Awaiting the Return of the King

Yeshua told his disciples:

“You will not have gone through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Matthew 10:23

That mission continues today. Yeshua said that this message of the Kingdom must be preached in all of the world as a witness to the truth.

The message of the kingdom, of repentance and covenant, is still reaching the scattered remnant. It was never about a new religion — it was always about restoring a nation to righteousness and truth.

This is the primary purpose of this ministry. It is to call the lost sheep back to the true Shepherd. And to expose the shackles of religion, and the deceptive chains that have bound them.

For an in depth study on the journey and dispersal of Israel, see our teaching The Kingdom of YHVH, the Beast, and the Final Conflict

↑ Back to Top