Persecution Complex

The commissioning of the Seven serves as an introduction to the martyrdom of Stephen which, in turn, serves as an introduction to Saul and the greater persecution of the church in Jerusalem. The persecution is the motivation behind the mission of Philip to Samaria and his baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.

Escalating Persecution

This is not the first time Luke records harassment of the early Christians. In Acts 4:1-22, Peter and John were imprisoned overnight and hauled before the Sanhedrin to explain why they had been healing in the name of Jesus and preaching the resurrection of the dead. They were eventually released without punishment but warned not speak or teach in the name of Jesus again.

Further persecution of the apostles was reported in 5:17-42 when they disobeyed the Sanhedrin’s gag order. Initially imprisoned, they were freed by an angel of the Lord and went back to preaching in the Temple. Re-arrested, the Sanhedrin was convinced by the words of council-member Gamaliel to release the apostles, which they did after first having them flogged.

But when Stephen debated with foreign Jews in their synagogue, he was charged with blasphemy and brought before the Sanhedrin where false witnesses testified that Stephen also spoke against the Temple and the Law of Moses (6:8-15). The high priest asked Stephen what he had to say about the charges against him and he responded with the lengthy speech in 7:2-53.

At the end of his monologue (7:54-8:1a), Stephen described a vision of Jesus sitting at God’s right hand which was enough to send the mob over the edge. Dispensing with any legal procedure, the mob dragged Stephen out of the city and stoned him to death. The “witnesses” (that is, those doing the stoning) laid their cloaks “at the feet of a young man named Saul” who, we are told, approved of Stephen’s execution.

Saul at the Stoning of Stephen. Artist unknown.

According to Luke, Stephen’s death marked the start of a major period of persecution of the church in Jerusalem (8:1b-4) and Saul was the chief enforcer, pulling people from their homes and imprisoning them. All but the apostles fled Jerusalem for the relative safety of the Judean countryside and Samaria. And, wherever they went, they preached the Christian message. Thus the stage is set for recounting Philip’s mission in Acts 8 and Saul’s conversion in Acts 9.

How Reliable is Acts?

Biblical scholars have issues with the historicity of events as reported by Luke. We’ve seen how, in his Gospel, Luke is not averse to rewriting his source material – whether it be Mark or Q – to give a smoother narrative flow. Unlike Luke’s Gospel where we have Matthew or Mark to compare against, when it comes to Acts, we don’t have an alternate source except for occasional remarks in Paul’s letters. So we have to look for doublets and internal contradictions to get an idea where Luke may be blending his source material with his own composition.

According to the gospels, Jesus was considered such a threat to the Roman and Jewish authorities that he had to be crucified. Yet his disciples are allowed to live in Jerusalem largely unmolested. They are first given a warning and later flogged. But it is not until Stephen begins debating with Hellenist Jews that Christian lives are put in danger. Something more than simply preaching the message of Jesus made the Christian presence in Jerusalem intolerable.

After the lynching of Stephen, Luke says all but the apostles fled Jerusalem due to persecution led by Saul. Judging from the rest of Acts, though, it seems it was mostly the Hellenists who fled Jerusalem while the Hebrews stayed behind. Based on the charges against Stephen, a disparaging attitude towards the Temple and the Law of Moses is what made the presence of the Hellenist Christians intolerable to the non-Christian Jews. Eventually, the friction between the Hellenist Christians like Paul and the Hebrew Christians like James will lead to a crisis over how to initiate Gentiles into the Church.

Introducing Saul

Saul, of course, is better known as St. Paul. Luke places him at the scene of Stephen’s execution and states he was a “young man” which could mean anything from 20 to 40 years of age. Luke also states that cloaks were piled at the feet of Saul, which sounds reminiscent of how money donated to the Church would be laid at the feet of the apostles. There was some symbolic significance for this act that has been lost to us.

Elsewhere in Acts, Luke states that Paul studied the Law in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (22:3) and voted to execute Christians at their trials. There are some doubts about this. In his letters Paul is proud of his education as a Pharisee yet never mentions he was taught by Gamaliel, the leading Pharisee of his time. If he spent years in Jerusalem studying Judaism, he took no notice of events around Passover 30 CE because he never mentions in his letters a personal connection with the Jesus of the public ministry.

Could Saul really have had a free hand to drag Christians out of their homes and imprison them? Some biblical scholars think something like this could only have happened in the period between the administrations of Pontius Pilate and Marcellus (late 36 to early 37 CE). Luke claims Saul had the authority to do this either from the high priest or the Sanhedrin, but this is dubious. Acts 9:1-2 states Saul had letters allowing him to arrest Christians in Damascus but neither the high priest nor the Sanhedrin had authority outside the city of Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that Luke is exaggerating Saul’s role as the great persecutor of the church in order to better serve as a contrast with his conversion to the great apostle.

The biggest takeaway from this brief episode in Acts is that it was the pressure of persecution that propelled the early church outwards from Jerusalem to the countryside of Judea and Samaria. It wasn’t something that Jesus planned from the start. Just as with the creation of the Seven, the apostles were making it up as they went along, responding to situations as they arose. In the next chapter of Acts, we will follow the mission of Philip, one of the Seven, as he preached in Samaria and the countryside of Judea.

Deacon Blues

Last week, Pope Francis agreed with a proposal to construct a commission to study the issue of women serving as permanent deacons. The diaconate is the first of three ranks of ordained ministry in the Roman Catholic Church (the other two ranks are that of priest and bishop). Deacons preparing for the priesthood are transitional deacons. Married men cannot be ordained as priests but can be ordained as permanent deacons. Acts 6:1-7 is usually cited as the origin of the diaconate but the seven men who were chosen are never referred to as deacons.

Hellenists vs. Hebrews

In something of a departure from previous episodes in Acts that spoke only of the irenic fellowship of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, for the first time Luke speaks of dissention in the ranks as the Hellenists lodged a complaint against the Hebrews that their widows were being neglected in the daily food distribution.

“Hellenists” are typically referred to as “Greek-speaking Jews.” That’s a rather sloppy designation, though, because although Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew, he identified as a Hebrew. The most commonly accepted description among biblical scholars is that the Hellenists spoke only Greek and followed Greek customs. The Hebrews spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic in addition to Greek and followed traditional Jewish customs. So what we’re dealing with is a cultural difference in the community and not just a language difference. A modern-day equivalent would be English and Spanish-speaking segments in a church congregation, each with their own cultures and traditions.

Reading between the lines, there was probably more at issue than just food distribution to widows. Throughout the early chapters of Acts, Luke speaks of the apostles praying in the Temple. But in the remainder of Acts 6, Stephen will be accused of speaking against the Temple. And, in his speech that is supposed to be his defense against those charges, Stephen challenges the importance of the Temple: “Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands” (7:48). We know from other sources that Jews of this period were sharply divided over the claim that the Jerusalem Temple was the only place on earth where sacrifices could be offered. So it is not too much of a stretch to think that the importance of the Temple could have been a divisive issue within the early Jerusalem Christian community, as well.

Apostles are not Waitstaff

For whatever reason, unintentional or otherwise, the Hellenists believed their widows were being shortchanged. Widows were considered the most vulnerable members of a community since they did not have a husband to look after their welfare. The Twelve responded to the complaint by calling a meeting of the entire community to explain, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.”

The apostles were responsible for how the community’s resources were spent and food inequality was a result of them paying inadequate attention to those duties. Rectifying this would require the apostles to spend more time on administrative functions and they felt that prayer and evangelizing were their proper roles.

Their proposed solution was that the community should select seven men of good standing who could be appointed to the task of seeing that the funds were distributed equitably. Why seven? It may have been in imitation of a Jewish town council (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.14), but we really don’t know.

It is noteworthy that the seven names on Luke's list are Greek. While Greek names were common among Jews in Jerusalem, it is most likely in this instance that the Seven came from the Hellenist part of the community. Since the original charge of unfair treatment came from the Hellenist group, the best way to set that right was for the apostles to appoint administrators chosen by the Hellenists. The Hebrew group must have had their own administrators as well because after this time, Acts will speak of James the brother of Jesus and the elders alongside the apostles as authorities in Jerusalem.

“The apostles put their hands on the men and prayed for them” (Acts 6:6b). The imposition of hands is a gesture from the OT that expresses a blessing, spiritual gift, or installation to an office or rank. [image courtesy of www.freebibleimages.org]

Introducing the Seven

Of the seven names listed, we only hear more of Stephen and Philip. Stephen’s story will be told in the rest of chapter 6 and chapter 7. He will be known as the first Christian martyr. Philip will be featured prominently in Acts 8 and in 21:8 he will be called “the evangelist, one of the Seven.” He had four unmarried daughters with the gift of prophecy. Nicolaus is the only one of the Seven mentioned as being a convert to Judaism, so presumably the others were Jewish from birth. The rest are otherwise unknown.

The Greek word diakonia (ministry, service) is used several times in this passage referring to the daily service of food (6:1), serving tables (6:2), and the ministry of the word (6:4). Because of the frequent appearance of this term, the Seven have often been regarded as the first “deacons” of the church, but that name is not used for them here. And, although they were appointed to wait on tables, we never see Stephen and Philip function in that role. But we do see them engaged in the self-described role of the apostles, “the ministry of the Word” (6:4).

This has led biblical scholars to think Luke is misreading the tradition he received. In Mark 6:35-44, Jesus fed 5000 in a Jewish region and had twelve baskets leftover. A couple of chapters later (Mark 8:1-10), Jesus fed 4000 in a Gentile region and had seven baskets leftover. Many commentators see a numeric symbolism here: twelve = Israel, seven = Gentiles.

As discussed previously, Jesus intended the Twelve to symbolize the regathering of the twelve tribes. But there could only be twelve patriarchs for the new Israel. Others had to be appointed to evangelize to the Gentile world, and that’s where the Seven came in. Fluent in Greek and comfortable in the Gentile culture, these Hellenist apostles would help the Church spread to “all of Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1: 8).

Knock 'em Dead

The picture of the early Christian community that Luke paints In the opening chapters of Acts of the Apostles is a communist ideal: “No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32). A positive example is given of Barnabas (4:36-37), who sold a field he owned and laid the proceeds “at the feet of the apostles.” And then you have the negative example of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11).

Holding Back

As Luke tells the tale, Ananias – with the full consent and knowledge of his wife Sapphira – sold property and held back some of the proceeds when donating it to the apostles. Peter, aware of the subterfuge, called Ananias out on it, whereupon Ananias immediately dropped dead. Three hours later, completely unaware of what had happened to her husband, Sapphira is questioned by Peter. When she backs up her husband’s story, Peter tells her that those who have just returned from burying her husband will also bury her and then she is struck dead as well.

The passage reads like a tale that would be comfortable in the OT. Indeed, it has similarities to the story of Achan in Joshua 7. In that story, after the fall of Jericho, Achan took some of the gold and silver that should have gone into YHWH’s treasury. When the Israelites suffered a military setback, Joshua learned of the transgression and eventually fingered Achan as the culprit. Achan confessed and was executed by the people, thus restoring order.

Death of Ananias by Gustave Doré (1832-1883)

The main difference with the story of Achan is that here God is the one carrying out the death sentence. Peter, acting as spokesman for the apostles, declares their sin (“you have lied to God;” “you have put the Lord’s Spirit to the test”) but he does not curse them or condemn. But after rebuking them, neither does he offer them a chance to repent and be forgiven as Jesus instructed his disciples to do in Luke 17:3-4.

There are other irregularities. First, it strains credulity that word of Ananias’ sudden death would not have made its way to Sapphira, if only so she could attend his burial. Second, Acts 4:32 quoted above stated no one in the Jerusalem community owned private property, yet Peter clearly tells Ananias that he was under no obligation to sell his property. And, if he did sell it, he was also under no obligation to donate the money from the sale to the community.

So what was their crime?

Trying to Explain

Ananias’ sin was essentially that of lying, claiming that he had donated the entire value of property when he really had not. And Sapphira not only lied to cover up for her husband, but also having full knowledge of what he planned to do, she failed to dissuade him from his course of action. But are those transgressions so terrible that death is a just sentence? What sort of church requires such purity that it can only be preserved by the death of sinners?

The story is so at odds with Jesus’ teachings of repentance and forgiveness that many have struggled to make sense of it. Some biblical scholars have looked for an explanation in the Essene community of Qumran. According to that community’s rule book, after a two-year probationary period, it was obligatory for a candidate to hand over all his property to the community. There were punishments (although not the death penalty!) for deception in regards to property. If there was such a rule in the early Jerusalem community, Ananias and Sapphira would be guilty of failing to fulfill their obligation to God, not simply lying about how much they donated.

Another attempt at explaining the point of the story is that it was the “original sin” of the Christian community. After describing an idyllic community, we see a Christian couple who sin against God and receive a punishment of death. Satan (v. 3) enters the Christian community for the first time. Other examples of sin at the “beginnings” would be the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), the golden calf at Sinai (Exodus 32), and David arranging the death of Uriah to claim Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). But the magnitude of this sin compared to those seems way out of balance.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

The most plausible explanation to me is an etiological reading. In the primitive Christian community, it was believed that death had been conquered through Jesus’ resurrection. Since Jesus would return soon in his glory, none of his followers would suffer death. If Ananias and Sapphira were the first members of the Jerusalem community to die, people would want to know why had they died before Christ came again. Death before the second coming is a problem that Paul tries to explain to the Thessalonians (1 Thes 4:13-17).

A simple explanation for the couple’s unexpected death was that they were guilty of some grievous sin (for example, lying to the Holy Spirit) for which death was a suitable punishment. If they had just donated money to the community before their death, their sin must obviously have had something to do with that. The story would then have been re-told in that light, emphasizing the sin and the immediate punishment. It would then become a cautionary tale for members of the community.

If this hypothesis is correct, Ananias and Sapphira were not condemned to death by a vengeful God because they sinned; they died and sin was proposed as an explanation for their untimely demise. It’s not that different from today when, after a great natural tragedy strikes a city, televangelists cast about for some heinous sin that “explains” why God let loose his fury on that city. Never mind that those who died in the natural disaster played no part in the “sin” that supposedly brought down God’s wrath.

Speaking in Tongues

Having narrated the reconstitution of the Twelve, Luke now records the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13). This episode is completely understandable as it reads, but there are many nuances that are unlocked when we have a fuller understanding of the significance of Pentecost.

What is Pentecost?

Pentecost (“the fiftieth day”) is the name used by Greek-speaking Jews for the festival known in Hebrew as Shavuot (“Feast of Weeks”). Originally it celebrated the wheat harvest when Jews thanked God for the blessings of the harvest by offering up leavened bread. But because Israel had arrived at Mt. Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt (Exod 19:1) – that is, after Passover – Weeks picked up a secondary significance as the commemoration of the day God gave the Torah to the nation of Israel assembled at Mt. Sinai.

When the Jewish historian Josephus explains Pentecost in his Antiquities (3.10.6), he writes: “on the fiftieth day, which is Pentecost, but is called by the Hebrews Asartha…” Asartha is the Aramaic word for “solemn assembly” and indicates that in the 1st century CE Jews were celebrating Pentecost as a pilgrimage “Feast of Assembly.” Josephus does not give a reason why Jews would assemble on that date, but it is plausible that they did it in commemoration of the nation of Israel gathered at Mt. Sinai to receive the Torah.

The last piece of extra-biblical information on Pentecost comes from the Qumran Temple Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this we learn that the Jews of Qumran celebrated three Pentecostal feasts, each fifty days apart: the feast of new grain, the feast of new wine, and the feast of new oil. If Luke knew of these multiple Pentecosts, he could have conflated them thinking that the Feast of Assembly was associated with the harvest of grain and wine. This would explain the crowd’s mockery of the apostles speaking in tongues in v. 13: “They are filled with new wine.”

Pentecost by El Greco (1541-1614)

Remembering Mt. Sinai

The Sinai theophany – manifestation of God – is described in Exod 19:16-19:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud on the mountain, and a blast of a trumpet so loud that all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God. They took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the Lord had descended upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently. As the blast of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses would speak and God would answer him in thunder.

In elaborating on this event, the Jewish philosopher Philo explained in The Decalogue (n. 46) that the fire of God descending on the mountain communicated with Israel in a language they could understand:

And a voice sounded forth from out of the midst of the fire which had flowed from heaven, a most marvelous and awful voice, the flame being endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers, which expressed its words with such clearness and distinctness that the people seemed rather to be seeing than hearing it.

With this background in mind, we can now see how Luke alludes to the Sinai revelation with “the noise from heaven like a strong wind” and “tongues of fire” that came to rest on each of the disciples. The Hebrew word ruah and Greek word pneuma can both mean “wind” or “spirit.” Philo’s flame endowed with articulate speech familiar to the hearers resonates in “they began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them the ability.” And the gathered crowd remarked, “How is it that each of us hears them speaking in our own native language?”

Babel in Reverse

Paul speaks of the gift of tongues and compares it to the gift of prophecy in 1 Cor 14:2, 4-6, 9. He is referring to glossolalia, “ecstatic speech.” It is practiced in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic services. What Luke is referring to in v. 4 is xenologia, “speaking in foreign tongues,” and is the first miracle recounted in Acts. Either the disciples were speaking various foreign languages – a speech miracle – as in v. 4, or the disciples were speaking their native Aramaic and the recipient understood them in their native language – an auditory miracle – as in v. 6.

Nowhere else in the NT do we have a reference to xenologia. Biblical scholars believe that the original tradition Luke inherited referred to glossolalia: “the disciples were filled with the Spirit and began speaking in tongues.” Luke modified this to “other tongues” to dramatize the apostolic proclamation to Jews from all over the world. In a sense, it is a reversal of the story of the Tower of Babel in which God confused human speech and scattered humanity over the face of the earth.

Map showing the 15 regions from which, according to Luke in Acts, pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast of Assembly (also known as Pentecost).

Immediately before the Babel story was the Table of Nations passage which explained how the nations and peoples surrounding Israel descended from Noah’s three sons. There are similarities in the Pentecost episode to that passage when the assembled crowd of Jews list their places of origin. Luke’s list of fifteen different regions moving from east to west seems to have been something he inherited, but modified to suit his purposes. “Cretans and Arabs” seem to be an afterthought, appearing as they do after the parenthetical comment of the visitors from Rome being Jews and converts. Rome, itself, being a city and not a region, doesn’t quite fit. And you would expect Judeans to understand the language of Galileans, so why are they mentioned?

Luke wants to emphasize how the Jews gathered in Israel for Pentecost/Feast of Assembly represent the regathered Twelve Tribes who were scattered across the earth. And, preaching to them for the first time are the reconstituted Twelve. They were empowered by the Holy Spirit descending on them like fire, gifting them with the ability to speak in foreign tongues.

Jesus commissioned the Twelve to be witnesses to him “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, even to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Pentecost is known as the birth day of the Church because that is when it started living out its mission to the world.