We the People

[Note: I will be on vacation next week, so I won't be posting any new articles until I return the week of August 8.] 

The Council of Jerusalem sits at the center of Acts and marks a turning point in the story. Prior to the council, Luke’s narrative thread darts from one character to another: Peter, Stephen, Philip, Saul, Peter again, and Paul. But after the council, the apostles disappear from the story and the focus is solely on Paul. Not only that, but the author seems to insert himself into the story with an unexpected shift from 3rd person narration to 1st person.

Paul’s New Partner

After the men from James arrived in Antioch and started enforcing the separation of Jewish and Gentile Christians at common meals, Paul decided to hit the road on another missionary journey. Acts explained (15:37-39) that Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them and Paul refused. Whether for that reason or Barnabas siding with Peter in the table-fellowship controversy (Gal 2:13), Paul chose Silas as his new missionary partner.

Silas was first mentioned in Acts 15:22 as a leader in the Jerusalem church who, along with Judas Barsabbas, would carry the Jerusalem council’s decree to Antioch. He is most likely the same person Paul identifies as Silvanus in his letters. Given Silas’ position within the Jerusalem community, he would bring legitimacy to the Pauline mission.

Timothy’s Circumcision

Revisiting the towns from the previous mission, Paul and Silas travelled overland to Lystra where lived a disciple named Timothy (Acts 16:1-4). Timothy was the son of a Jewish Christian mother and a Greek father and was highly recommended by believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to join him on the mission, so he had him circumcised.

Paul’s action here has puzzled many commentators. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy when the Jerusalem council did not require it of Titus (Gal 2:1-3)? The key, I think, is that while Titus was Greek, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. If he was then considered to be Jewish by birth, he needed to be circumcised if he would be accompanying Paul since he did not want Timothy to become a distraction to his mission.

Timothy’s circumcision would also demonstrate that Paul was not opposed to Jewish Christians following the Mosaic law. It was a literal embodiment of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:20:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

The “We” Passages

Leaving the region of Galatia, Paul and his companions were prevented from going to the cities on the west or northern coasts of Asia Minor (16:6-10). They made their way to Troas, a seaport on the northwestern shore and there Paul had a vision one night of a Macedonian man inviting him to come over to Europe. Convinced that God was calling them, “we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia.”

This first use of the 1st-person plural in what had been up to this point 3rd-person narration is quite jarring. It marks the first of four We-Sections (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). The first We-Section covers the journey from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi in Macedonia. The second and third pick up four chapters and several years later and cover the journey from Philippi to Jerusalem. The last We-Section covers the captive Paul’s journey from Caesarea to Rome.

Scholars have debated the meaning behind these “we” passages. The obvious explanation is that the author is recounting experiences that he shared with Paul and the others. The day-by-day detail of the itinerary in the We-Sections reads like the travel journal of an eyewitness. The problem is that Acts paints a different portrait of Paul than what we know from his authentic letters. The alternate theory is that the use of “we” is a stylistic device well-known in sea voyage literature of the time. Critics of this theory argue that the “we” passages do more than simply recount travel by ship.

For the time being, I am inclined to believe the “we” passages are taken from an eyewitness source. Scholars say that the use of language in these passages match that of the rest of Acts, so they either come from the same author or were thoroughly re-written to match his literary style.

In the second century, Irenaeus attributed the Gospel and Acts to Luke, a companion of Paul. Why Luke and not any of the dozen other companions of Paul? Maybe it was a guess or maybe that was the tradition he received. Whatever the case may be, I refer to the author as “Luke” for simplicity’s sake, instead of using a circumlocution such as “the author of the Third Gospel.”

Icon of Lydia of Thyatira. Thyatira is one of the "seven churches" mentioned in Rev 2-3. The message to the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:18-29) warns against a prophetess who teaches the community to practice immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols. We know from Paul's letters (1 Cor 8) that he had no objections to eating meat sacrificed to idols. If Lydia returned to Thyatira and promoted Paul's version of Christianity, could she be the false prophet condemned in Revelation? NT Christianity was not monolithic and one group of faithful believers could be considered false brothers by another group.

Women’s Liberation

The first convert in Philippi – indeed, the first Christian convert in all of Europe – is Lydia (16:11-15), a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. Royal purple cloth was a luxury item that only royalty and the wealthy could afford. Since Lydia had a household large enough to accommodate both servants and guests, she was probably a financially independent woman. Acts calls her “a worshipper of God,” so she was a Gentile God-fearer.

The author writes that on the Sabbath day Paul and his companions went outside the city to a place along the river where the Jewish women gathered for prayer. This suggests there were not enough men in Philippi to form a proper synagogue. After her baptism, Lydia welcomed Paul and his companions to her home, ignoring the restrictive customs of the day that would not allow a woman talk to a man, let alone invite him into her home. By the end of the chapter (v. 40), Lydia’s home had become a house-church for the Christian community in Philippi.

Luke’s subtle point here is that Jewish women could not be founding members of a Jewish synagogue. But as Christians, women like Lydia could be the founding members of a local church. The freedom of the Gospel empowers women and frees them from the restraints placed on them by their faith and culture. It calls to mind the statement of absolute equality in my favorite passage from Scripture (Gal 3:28):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus.

The Jerusalem Diet

The English word diet is derived from a Latin word meaning both “parliamentary assembly” and “daily food allowance.” Although the political use of the word may not be very familiar to us today, it was used for the governing body of the Holy Roman Empire and the most famous Diet was one held in Worms, a city in the German Rhineland. The Diet of Worms was called by Emperor Charles V in 1521 to demand Martin Luther either recant his views or be declared a heretic. He didn’t recant.

The Jerusalem Conference in Acts

Both senses of the word apply to the Jerusalem conference (c. 49 CE) described in Acts 15:1-21. It was a general assembly of the apostles and elders (first- and second-generation leaders of the church) and its final decree dealt with food restrictions on Gentile converts. Paul’s account of the Jerusalem conference and its aftermath are reported in Gal 2:1-14.

In the opening verses of the account in Acts (vv. 1-2), Luke explains that the crisis was precipitated in the Antiochene church when members of the circumcision party arrived teaching that circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law were requirements for salvation. This generated confusion and dissension, so Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders there.

After both sides presented their case (vv. 4-5), Peter spoke of his experience with converts like Cornelius and how he witnessed the Holy Spirit poured out on the Gentile Christians (vv. 7-11). James concluded the conference when he announced his decision (“I have reached the decision,” v. 19) that Gentiles will only be required to abstain from certain foods and improper sexual relations (vv. 13-21). Curiously, both James’ decree and the resulting letter (vv. 22-29) said nothing of circumcision, the driving issue for the conference.

The main image in the St. Peter Window (c. 1870) of the Cologne Cathedral in Germany shows the Council of Jerusalem. Sts. Peter and Paul are the central figures. Peter's stance and gestures indicate he is the more significant figure in the window..

Two Separate Decisions

Biblical scholars believe that Luke is conflating two different decisions by the Jerusalem authorities. In Paul’s description of the council in Gal 2:1-10, the apostolic leaders decided that circumcision would not required of Gentile believers. But in a later decision where Paul was not present, some ground rules based on Lev 17-18 were established for Gentile Christians that would allow them to live and worship alongside observant Jewish Christians.

What evidence do we have for this? Paul reported (Gal 2:11-14) how table fellowship in Antioch was disrupted by insistence from the “men from James” that Jewish believers could not eat with Gentile believers. But the whole point of James’ decision in Acts 15:19-20 was to lay down minimum dietary rules for Gentiles that would allow Jews to be able to join them in table fellowship. It doesn’t make any sense for the James party to insist on separation at meals if the decision of the Jerusalem conference had established rules to eliminate the need for separation.

Not only that, but according to Acts 21:25, on a later visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) Paul is informed by James that a letter was sent listing the four restrictions on Gentile Christians, the same letter that he and Barnabas were supposed to have carried to Antioch (15:25)! But it all makes perfect sense if there were two decrees from the Jerusalem authorities made a few years apart and Luke combined them as the product of one council.

Why No Circumcision?

Why did the pro-circumcision faction lose? The best explanation I’ve seen is that James realized that forcing circumcision and the Mosaic law would have driven away many potential Gentile converts. Although they might then be considered nominal Jews, the Gentiles’ allegiance would be to Christ and not to Moses. When push came to shove and outside persecutions against Jews arose again, the Gentile believers would consider themselves Christians and not Jews, in spite of any circumcision they received. They would not be willing to die rather than denounce the Mosaic law that was forced upon them.

The unspoken flip side of the Council’s decree meant no relaxation of the Mosaic law for Jewish Christians. This was not something Paul agreed to and Peter only accepted grudgingly. By ending the joint table fellowship between Jew and Gentile Christians, it dissolved the glue that held together churches like those in Antioch.

The Second Decree

Something had to be done to avoid schism. The result was a second decision holding Gentiles to the same rules spelled out in Leviticus 17 and 18 for Gentiles who are resident aliens in Israel. Acts 15:20 spells it out:

“We should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” (NRSV)

Three of these are clearly dietary regulations: abstinence from (1) meat that was part of a pagan sacrifice (Lev 17:8-9); (2) meat from an animal that was not butchered by having the blood drained from it (17:14-15); and (3) food made from the blood of animals (17:10-12).

The odd man out in this list is porneia in Greek, translated variously as “fornication”, “unlawful marriage” (NABRE), “sexual immorality” (NIV), and “unchastity” (RSV). It is a vague term, so we look to the context to understand it. The other three restrictions come from Lev 17, and Lev 18:6-18 lists a variety of sexual unions among kin that are forbidden. As with the dietary rules, these incestuous unions are not just demanded of Jews, but also of resident aliens (Lev 18:26).

James’ cryptic statement in Acts 15:21 regarding how Moses has been read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath must be his way of saying that these are not rules that he has invented but are rules that were set forth by Moses for Gentiles living with Jews. Any Gentile familiar with the Torah would also be familiar with the regulations in the Holiness Code. In short, if it was good enough for Moses, it was good enough for James.

Finally, these were rules imposed for a mixed community. If the local church consisted of none but Gentiles, the dietary restrictions would not need to be followed. Gentile Christians in those areas, like Christians today, could still enjoy black pudding or eat their steaks rare.

We're On a Mission From God

The story of Paul’s first missionary journey is presented in Acts 13 and 14. Some scholars question its historicity since Paul’s Letter to the Galatians seems to rule it out. Others point to a verse (2 Tim 3:11) that references sufferings Paul endured “in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra” and those are three towns on the itinerary of the first missionary journey. It is widely held that 2 Timothy is not an authentic Pauline letter, but it may be an independent witness to the Lukan source that underlies Acts 13-14.

The mission begins in Syria when the Holy Spirit spoke to the five “prophets and teachers” leading the Antiochene church and Barnabas and Saul were commissioned to go forth and proclaim the word (13:1-3). The other three men are otherwise unknown, but the mention that Manaen was brought up with Herod Antipas indicates that Christianity was not just a religion of the lower classes.

Conflict in Cyprus

The first stop is Cyprus, Barnabas’ homeland (13:4-12). From Antioch, it was a day’s walk to the port city of Seleucia where they were able to take a cargo ship – no passenger ships in the 1st century CE – to Salamis on the eastern shore of Cyprus. They walked the length of the island, proclaiming the word in the synagogues as they went, eventually arriving on the western shore at the capital of Paphos (100 miles from Salamis).

In Paphos the apostles encountered a Jewish magician named Bar-Jesus who was in service to the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus. Saul (who, Luke finally tells us, was also known as Paul) admonished Bar-Jesus. As a result, the magician became blind and the proconsul became a believer. The whole story is reminiscent of the conflict between Peter and Simon Magus in 8:5-25.

There are a couple more items of interest in this passage. First, Sergius Paulus was the proconsul of Cyprus between 46-48 CE, so that gives us a rough idea of when the first missionary journey could have taken place. Second, from this point on Luke will refer to Saul as Paul. Unlike Simon who was given the name Peter (Aramaic Kephas, meaning “rock”) by Jesus, the names “Saul” and “Paul” were given to him at birth. “Saul” would have been his Hebrew name and “Paul” his Roman name. (John Mark would be another example of a double name.) It makes sense that Paul would go by his Roman name in his interactions with the Gentile world.

Inciting a Crowd

With the Cyprus part of their mission concluded, Paul and his companions began the next leg (13:13-52). They sailed to Perga on the southern shore of Asia Minor where John Mark left them to return to Jerusalem. Barnabas and Paul continued on the dangerous 100-mile overland route to the mountainous region where Pisidian Antioch lay. It was called “Pisidian” because it was close to the border of the district of Pisidia (and to distinguish it from a dozen other cities named Antioch).

According to Acts, Paul gave a lengthy speech in the synagogue and won over a following, but that success aroused jealousy in the local Jewish population who eventually had the apostles expelled from the district. They shook the dust of the town off their feet in protest, just as Jesus instructed the disciples (cf. Lk 9:5; 10:11), and moved on to Iconium where the sequence of success and rejection repeated itself (14:1-7).

After fleeing Iconium under threat of stoning, Barnabas and Paul travelled 25 miles to the Roman town of Lystra (14:8-20). It was the first town they visited that did not already have an established Jewish community so they preached in the agora (the public open space). Paul saw a man there who was lame from birth and healed him. The Gentile crowd reacted by calling the apostles Zeus and Hermes and wanted to offer sacrifices to them. (Luke explains that Paul was called Hermes because he did most of the speaking, Hermes being the messenger of the gods.)

Barnabas and Paul tried without success to dissuade the crowd from treating them as deities when Jews from Pisidian Antioch and Iconium arrived and turned the crowd against the apostles. Paul was stoned and left for dead outside the town, but his disciples formed a circle around him and Paul recovered. The next day the apostles left for Derbe but Acts reports nothing of the visit there.

“The priest of Zeus…brought oxen and garlands to the gates; he and the crowds wanted to offer sacrifice.” Paul and Barnabas in Lystra (1678) by Johann Heiss

Everybody Must Get Stoned

The entire Lystra episode bears tell-tale signs of Luke’s reworking. Paul’s healing of the crippled man is a parallel to an earlier healing story involving Peter (3:1-10), but in his letters Paul never refers to having performed healings. Jews stalking the apostles from town to town in order to turn the local pagan populace against them stretches credulity. The Jewish antagonism is part of the Lukan program to show that hostile rejection of the Christian message on the part of the Jewish population forced the apostles to turn to the Gentiles.

That said, in 2 Cor 11:24-25 Paul speaks of his sufferings as am apostle: five floggings (Jewish punishment), three beatings with rods (Roman punishment), one stoning. Stoning usually ended in death, but I wonder if the reference to Paul’s disciples forming a circle around him may have been an intervention to stop a stoning in progress.

[Side note: The RSV (1952) translates 2 Cor 11:25a, “Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.” In the NRSV (1989) this verse was translated, “Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning.” In the 37 years between these two translations, the term “stoned” developed a different connotation in the US English vocabulary and the NRSV translators didn’t want readers thinking Paul got high on anything other than the Holy Spirit.]

Acts 14:21-28 reports that Barnabas and Paul retraced their steps before sailing back to Syrian Antioch. It would have been shorter and quicker to continue along the road towards Tarsus from which they could then book passage home to Antioch. Does it make sense to return to cities that had rejected and almost killed one of them? The route of the return journey suggests that Luke exaggerated the rejection and downplayed the successes. After all, even in Lystra where Paul was stoned he had won over disciples who formed a protective circle around him.

Paul’s first missionary journey was the shortest of the three in terms of distance travelled. Scholars estimate that he and Barnabas were away for two years. The actual travel time by ship and foot was about two months; most of the time was spent in residence in the cities on their itinerary.

Clouds on the Horizon

When the apostles gave an account of the outcome of their mission to the Antiochene church, they said God “had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles.” Gentiles were a tremendous opportunity for the new faith, but also posed a problem. It was one thing to win over Gentile God-fearers, but quite another to convert pagan Gentiles to Christianity. What about dietary laws and the rest of the Mosaic law? Do the new Gentile converts also need to be circumcised like all Jews? Those were the questions that pre-occupied the minds of the leaders in Jerusalem. The future of the Christian faith would depend on the decisions they were about to make.

The Cradle of Christianity

Jerusalem was certainly the birthplace of Christianity, but Antioch was its cradle. In the first century CE Antioch was the third greatest city in the Roman Empire (after Rome and Alexandria) and the capital of the province of Syria, with a population of over two-hundred thousand. From Ignatius bishop of Antioch in the second century to John Chrysostom in the fourth century, it was the home for great theologians and bishops. The city was predominantly Greek-speaking but had a large Jewish population. It is obvious why the apostles considered Antioch prime territory for evangelization.

They’ll Know We are Christians

One of the prominent figures in the early Antiochene church was Barnabas and his story is told in Acts 11:19-30. Because of persecutions following the death of Stephen, believers fled Jerusalem for Phoenicia (modern-day Lebanon), Cyprus, and Antioch. Although the initial inclination was only to teach the word to Jews, in Antioch the Hellenist believers proclaimed Jesus to the Greeks as well and converted many.

Once the Jerusalem leaders heard of this, they sent Barnabas to investigate and perhaps take control of the situation. There are no chronological markers to indicate when this happened, but it is plausible that it was concurrent with Philip’s mission to the Samaritans and Peter’s conversion of the house of Cornelius. However, Peter was one of the Twelve and Philip one of the Seven, so both of those missions were somewhat under the auspices of the Jerusalem church. Whatever was happening in Antioch was completely unsanctioned.

After assessing the situation, Barnabas decided to build upon what had already taken root there. He travelled to Tarsus (about 100 miles from Antioch, as the crow flies) and brought Saul back to Antioch with him where they spent the next year teaching and preaching. This tells us that Barnabas is bringing both the Antiochene church and Saul under control of Jerusalem. No longer is Saul acting as an independent agent; he now has a mandate from the mother church through Barnabas.

Almost as an aside, the last part of v. 26 announces that “in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” Up to this point in Acts, the followers of Jesus have been referred to as believers, disciples, brothers, or members of “the Way.” It seems like a minor historical footnote, but the implication is that the followers of Christ in Antioch had become so numerous and so different in practice from the Jewish population that they had to be identified by a different name. “Christian” was a name they were called, not a name they gave themselves.

Relief Mission

Vv. 27-29 tell of the wandering prophet Agabus who announced a coming famine in Jerusalem. Luke tells us the famine took place during the reign of the Emperor Claudius and the historian Josephus does report there was a famine sometime in the years 46-48 CE. (We’ll see Agabus again in 21:10-14 when he predicts Paul will be handed over to the Romans.) Agabus’ prophecy encouraged the prosperous Antiochene church to take up a collection to send to the poor believers in Judea.

Luke states that this relief mission was carried out by Barnabas and Saul (v. 29). But in his letters Paul seems to preclude it. As we saw, he did report visiting Jerusalem to confer with Peter for a couple of weeks three years after his conversion. After this, Paul says he “went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” and it was fourteen years until he returned to attend the “Council of Jerusalem” described in Acts 15.

Some biblical scholars accept the historicity of a famine relief mission but think Saul’s involvement was a creation of Luke. As with the census at the birth of Jesus and Saul’s journey to Damascus, Luke appears to be using the relief mission as an excuse to get Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem so they can return with John Mark.

Herod’s Persecution

We first hear of John Mark in Acts 12:1-19, a passage recounting persecutions under “King Herod” This is not the same “King Herod” who had John the Baptist beheaded in the gospels. That was Herod Antipas. This “King Herod” is Herod Agrippa I who assumed control over Judea in 41 CE. It’s not coincidental that persecution of Christians picks up again when Judea is no longer under direct Roman control.

According to Luke, Agrippa ordered the execution of James son of Zebedee, brother of John, and one of the Twelve. Agrippa then had Peter arrested, double-chained, and guarded by four squads of soldiers but to no avail because an angel of the Lord sprang him out of prison. What follows is an amusing scene as Peter goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, to announce his freedom. The maid answering the door was so shocked when she heard Peter’s voice that she ran to tell everyone inside and forgot to open the door, leaving Peter still knocking at the door.

“Wait, don’t leave me out here!” The maid Rhoda runs away without opening the gate for Peter in this Sunday School lesson (from www.BibleFunForKids.com by Debbie Jackson).

John Mark

Concluding the account of the Herodian persecution is the report of the death of Agrippa (12:20-23) and the Jewish historian Josephus helps us date this to 44 CE. Mention of the successful completion of the famine relief mission (12:25) awkwardly ends the chapter. The verse is very intrusive in its current location but it flows perfectly if read immediately after 11:30.

Luke purposefully interrupted his story in order to mention Peter’s visit to the house of Mary, the mother of John, also known as Mark. Why? One reason is to link Peter to Mark. When Peter escapes from prison, he immediately goes to the safe house of Mark’s family where he knows believers will be gathered in prayer. This suggests Mark’s family were prominent members of the Jerusalem community. Later tradition will associate Mark more closely with Peter.

In 13:5 we are told that on their first mission in Cyprus, Barnabas and Saul have John Mark with them as their assistant. But once they departed Cyprus, John Mark left them to return to Jerusalem (13:13). This didn’t sit well with Paul. When Paul later proposed (15:36-40) checking up on the cities they visited on their first mission, Barnabas wanted to take Mark along but Paul considered him a deserter. So they parted ways, Barnabas taking Mark with him to Cyprus and Paul choosing Silas to accompany him to Asia Minor.

Why is Barnabas so keen on taking Mark along with him? Scholars disagree as to whether or not Colossians is an authentic Pauline letter but in Col 4:10, we are told that Mark is the cousin of Barnabas. That would certainly explain why Barnabas chose Mark over Paul. But Mark eventually returned to Paul’s good graces for he is mentioned in the authentic Pauline letter to Philemon as one of Paul’s fellow workers (v. 24).

We think of figures like Barnabas and Paul as great saints and heroes of the Church. That does not make them exempt from human foibles like playing favorites and bearing grudges. What is important is that they rise above it.

The Gentile Pentecost

How is Acts of the Apostles like the television series The Walking Dead? In terms of story-telling, both are sprawling tales with a vast cast of characters. When those characters become separated due to a traumatic event, the narrative thread splits to follow individual characters as they cope with new challenges.

Following Multiple Storylines

In the middle of the fourth season of The Walking Dead, the main cast of characters are separated into five groups when their home comes under attack. For the rest of the season, each episode focused on one of the five groups struggling to reunite with their friends and find a safe haven in the zombie apocalypse.

In Acts, the shattering event that drives the characters apart is the persecution of the Jerusalem church first mentioned in Acts 8:1. The rest of Acts 8 focused on the evangelist Philip in Samaria and Judea. Acts 9:1-31 rewound back to the persecution with Saul pursuing Christians to Damascus and his conversion there. He eventually returns to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, and in 9:32-43 we follow Peter healing the paralyzed Aeneas and raising Tabitha from the dead, miracles reminiscent of those Jesus performed in Luke’s gospel. Although this passage appears after Saul’s return to Jerusalem, due to the story-telling technique, the events may have occurred during the three years Saul was in Damascus.

Peter’s two miracles are merely a prelude to the more important story of the baptism of the centurion Cornelius and his family in 10:1-11-18. The story is recounted in five acts:

1. Cornelius has a vision of an angel who instructs him to send his servants to Joppa to find Peter (10:1-8); 
2. Peter has a vision instructing him to eat clean and unclean animals (10:9-16);
3. Peter greets the messengers from Cornelius and invites them to spend the night (10:17-23a);
4. Peter sets off to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea. Finally understanding his vision, Peter begins to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and they receive the Holy Spirit. Peter then has them baptized. (10:23b-48);
5. Peter is asked to give an account of his actions (11:1-18).

The vision of Peter and the conversion of Saul are both pivotal events for Luke because he narrates each three separate times. Another similar feature is the “double vision” of the convert and his sponsor (Cornelius and Peter, Saul and Ananias) which is more common in Greek than Jewish literature. Luke wants to be clear to his readers that these foundational events were under divine direction.

God-Fearers

Cornelius is described as a “God-fearing man” (10:2), a term referring to non-Jews sympathetic to Judaism. The God-fearers agreed with Jewish ethical principles and attended synagogue services, but did not submit to circumcision or observe the Torah in its entirety. In modern parlance, I suppose you could call them “Jew-curious.” But Cornelius was more than that. In v. 22, he is also called “upright,” meaning that he actually followed Mosaic law.

In addition to circumcision, one of the religious practices that dissuaded God-fearers from conversion to Judaism was the dietary restrictions. Certain food items – like pork – were forbidden to Jews. Peter explains in 10:28a that it was actually unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. This rule was probably adopted to eliminate the possibility of the Jew unintentionally bringing ritual impurity upon himself through contact with a Gentile.

Peter’s Vision, engraving from the Dutch theology text History of the Old and New Testament by David Martin (1639-1721)

In this context, we can understand Peter’s vision of “all kinds” of animals and the instruction that God has declared them all to be clean (kosher). Scholars are divided on whether Peter’s vision is an integral part of the Cornelius story or something Luke took from a separate strand of tradition – for example, a dispute story about whether Christians are allowed to eat non-kosher foods – and introduced into the Cornelius narrative. In 10:28b Peter interprets the vision of various animals as an allegory for people: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”

After Peter arrives at Cornelius’ house, he delivers a missionary speech. After a brief introduction (vv. 34-36), he launches into the Christian kerygma (vv. 37-41), before reaching his conclusion (vv. 42-43). Kerygma is a Greek word used to refer to the initial and essential proclamation of the gospel message. You can think of it as “the gospel in a nutshell.” Luke usually writes Greek that indicates he is cultured and educated, but portions of this passage are written in a “miserable Greek” that is not at all his style. This indicates to biblical scholars that Luke is incorporating very old material. Some scholars believe that apostolic preaching such as this eventually developed into the synoptic gospels.

The Gentile Problem

At this point in Acts, we have seen the word of Jesus spread among Jews (both Hebrew and Hellenists), Samaritans, and Gentile converts to Judaism like the Ethiopian eunuch. Being a follower of Jesus was seen as just a different way of being Jewish, certainly not a separate religion. It just didn’t make sense that one could be a believer in Christ without also being Jewish.

Cornelius presents an interesting case. He’s a Gentile God-fearer who follows Mosaic law and attends synagogue, but he isn’t circumcised and therefore not Jewish. Fortunately for Peter, God takes the initiative and sends the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his relatives and friends who have gathered in his household. Seeing the Gentiles “speaking in tongues and extolling God,” Peter decides there is no reason not to baptize them with water as well.

Word of what happened in Cornelius’ house got out and the next time Peter was in Jerusalem, he was confronted by the “circumcised believers” and asked to explain why he visited and ate with the uncircumcised. The term “circumcised believers” is apparently being used to describe Jewish Christians, in distinction from Gentile Christians like Cornelius who would be “uncircumcised believers.” Interestingly, the Jewish Christians seem to be more concerned about Peter visiting Gentiles than with him baptizing them as Christians. For the time being, they are satisfied with Peter’s explanation of the divine initiative in pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles. Soon, however, the church will have to decide on expectations for the newly baptized Gentiles.

The thought that Peter’s fraternization with Gentiles was considered scandalous among the Jewish Christians tells us that there was no episode in Jesus’ public ministry that could be referenced as justification for such a ministry. The church had no blueprint for how to address questions such as: Do Gentiles need to be circumcised to become followers of Jesus? Do Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish dietary restrictions? Without clear statements from Jesus to lead them, the early church had to rely on insights gained through the Holy Spirit to guide them on what Christ wanted for his church.

Basket Case

[This is the conclusion of my article on Paul’s early career that I began last week. I strongly suggest that you first read that article, if you have not already done so, before continuing with this article.]

Fixing Pauline Chronology

Paul’s mention in Galatians 1:11-24 that “after three years” he traveled to Jerusalem to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) is a key piece of information that helps biblical scholars fix the time of Paul’s conversion. The common opinion is that the “three years” are in reference to his conversion and not to his return to Damascus from his sojourn in Arabia. So if we can narrow down the year Paul left Damascus, it would give us an idea of the date of his conversion.

In citing his sufferings as an apostle in 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to a time he escaped Damascus in a basket (11:32-33). This can only be the incident Luke narrates in Acts 9:23-25. Paul tells us this happened when Damascus was under the authority of an ethnarch (sheik of an ethnic group) appointed by King Aretas. Prior to the death of the emperor Tiberius (March 37 CE), Damascus was under Roman rule. Since the Nabatean king Aretas died in 39/40 CE, Paul’s attempted arrest and escape could only have occurred between 37 and 40 CE. Therefore, Paul’s conversion would have been 34-37 CE.

Saint Paul Escapes from Damascus [painting based on a 14th century mosaic in Sicily]. In boasting of the events that show his weakness, Paul mentions his humiliating escape from Damascus by basket. He may be contrasting himself with the honor that would be given to the first Roman soldier to scale the walls of a city under siege.

The confluence of Paul’s visit to Arabia (Nabatea) and his subsequent flight from the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus has led many scholars to wonder if Paul got into some trouble in Arabia that required him to flee to the safety of Damascus. According to this theory, after Damascus fell under Nabatean authority, Paul learned of a plot to arrest him and had to flee once more, this time by means of a basket from the city’s wall. If this hypothesis is correct, it would place Paul leaving Damascus shortly after the Nabateans gained control, perhaps late 37 or early 38 CE. This would narrow down the year of Paul’s conversion to 34 or 35 CE.

Saul in Jerusalem

34-35 CE is prior to the recall of Pontius Pilate in late 36 CE. Previously, we speculated that the stoning of Stephen and persecution of the Jerusalem church would have been most likely during the period between the departure of Pilate and the arrival of his successor, Marcellus. But Acts places Saul at the stoning of Stephen and leading the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem, events that could have only happened before his conversion.

The dating of these two events can be reconciled if we consider that Paul may not have had anything to do with persecuting Christians in Jerusalem. His placement at the scene of Stephen’s execution and subsequent spearheading of a program of persecution may have been dramatic license by Luke. It gives the reader of Acts a narrative thread to follow: from the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles, to the Seven they commission, to the stoning of Stephen – one of the Seven – at the feet of Saul.

As we saw last week, Luke’s explanation of why Saul left Jerusalem for Damascus has issues of historicity. One is reminded of the thoroughly implausible census that Luke provides as the reason for Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Jerusalem. If Luke wanted to situate Saul in Jerusalem to play up his role as arch-persecutor of the church but it was well-known that his conversion occurred in Damascus, Luke needed to come up with a reason for Saul to travel from Jerusalem to Damascus. A mission from the Sanhedrin to extradite Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem was Luke’s solution.

Paul in Jerusalem

Both Acts and Paul are in agreement that, after leaving Damascus, he travelled to Jerusalem. Acts gives no reason for the visit. Paul says it was to “visit Cephas” (that is, Peter) and he only stayed fifteen days, seeing no other apostle except James the brother of Jesus. The phrase “visit Cephas” could also be translated as “get information from Cephas” and Paul may be intentionally vague here. His visit to Peter was hardly a social call. Undoubtedly, Paul wanted to learn about the historical Jesus to better inform his preaching.

Acts tells us that Saul was treated with suspicion on his arrival in Jerusalem and Barnabas had to introduce him to the apostles. It seems unlikely that three years after his conversion and ministry Paul’s intentions would still be doubted. We previously saw Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37 where he served as a positive example for selling his field and donating the proceeds to the Christian community. We learned in that passage that Barnabas was a native of Cyprus. Like Paul, he was a diaspora Jew and would later become Paul’s travelling companion on his early missionary journeys.

Although Luke reports that Saul angered the local Jewish populace for preaching in Jerusalem, Paul’s itinerary doesn’t allow for that. He insists in Gal 1:22 that he did not do any evangelizing in Judea (“I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea”) although they had heard of how he had formerly persecuted Christians. Paul seems to be going out of his way to stress that he has always been an apostle operating in Gentile territory.

Concluding Comments

Paul is the rare biblical character who provides us first-hand information about himself in his letters. Not only that, but we have additional information on his life from Acts, although as we have seen, that information does not always dovetail with what Paul tells us. Just like many people telling their story, Paul casts himself in the best possible light. Like many writers, Luke employs dramatic license in telling Paul’s story. Critical scholars cannot take either account completely at face value. Even so, we know more about Paul and his life than we do about any other character in either the Old or New Testament.

Better Call Saul

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke presents us with the story of Saul’s conversion. Paul also discusses his calling and his travels on a few occasions in his letters, giving us the rare opportunity to compare Luke’s account with Paul’s own.

Luke’s Version of Saul’s Conversion

Luke actually presents three versions of Saul’s conversion, one in third-person narration in Acts 9 and the twice more (22:1-16; 26:9-18) in the form of Paul’s speeches. There are some minor differences in all three accounts, but the basic core is the same: Saul was traveling to Damascus with letters of authority from the Sanhedrin to round up Christians there and return them to Jerusalem. As he approached the city, he was struck by a blinding light and heard the voice of Jesus say, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Saul was left blind by the incident for three days until he was healed and baptized by a Damascene disciple named Ananias. Saul began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues and debated the Jews there. “After some time had passed” (v. 23), Saul became aware of a plot by the Jews to kill him and escaped the city by being lowered from the city wall in a basket.

Arriving in Jerusalem, Saul sought out the Christian community there, but no one wanted to have anything to do with him. Barnabas intervened and brought him to the apostles. Saul began preaching the name of Jesus and arguing with the Jewish Hellenists until they, too, sought to kill him. Learning of the plot, the disciples hustled Saul off to Caesarea where he could take a ship back to his hometown of Tarsus. He would remain there until Barnabas found him and brought him to Anitoch (11:25-26).

Was Paul a pedestrian or an equestrian? If you are Catholic, you probably think he got knocked off his horse, but if you are Protestant, you probably think he was just knocked off his feet. Prior to the Renaissance, images featured Paul on foot. The Catholic imagination was fueled by visual images such as this one, but Protestants were influenced by the text of Scripture. (The Conversion of St. Paul [1767] by Nicolas Bernard Lépicié)

The Road to Damascus

Before we contrast Luke’s account with Paul’s, there’s some inconsistency with what we have read so far in Acts. According to Acts, the early Christian community lived largely at peace in Jerusalem until Saul led a program of persecution that caused all but the apostles to flee to Samaria and the Judean countryside. After being sidelined with the mission of Philip the evangelist, we return to the main narrative to find Saul still on the warpath and seeking to persecute Christian disciples in Damascus.

Damascus is 140 miles from Jerusalem and it would have taken Saul about a week to walk there. If Saul wanted to expand his area of operation, there were Christians much closer at hand in Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Traveling all the way to Damascus doesn’t make much sense unless he was attempting to extradite Christians who had escaped from Jerusalem. But, as explained elsewhere, the Jewish Sanhedrin had no authority outside the city of Jerusalem. At most, the letters Saul obtained from the Sanhedrin could only have served as proof he was not acting on his own initiative.

When Saul finally arrived in Damascus, he found a Christian community who took him in and, he immediately began proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God in the synagogues. Presumably he would have been catechized by the local Christians in some form before he began preaching. Although Saul’s reputation as a persecutor of the Jerusalem Christians preceded him, it doesn’t sound like the Damascene Christians had fled his persecution. One gets the impression from all this the Christian community in Damascus was well-settled long before Saul’s arrival.

Bottom line: Luke’s version of events seems somewhat contrived.

Paul’s Account

How does Luke’s version square with what Paul describes in his letters? Although Paul speaks several times of his vision of the risen Christ which called him from life as a persecutor of the church to become an apostle to the Gentiles, he never provides any details of the experience.

However, Paul gives an account of his early career in Gal 1:11-24. He is eager to assert that the gospel he received was unmediated by any human authority (vv. 16-17). After his call, he did not confer with any local disciples or the apostles in Jerusalem. Instead, he “went away at once” to Arabia and only afterwards returned to Damascus. From this we can infer that his conversion experience occurred in Damascus, matching what we are told in Acts.

Paul’s account doesn’t leave any room for the role Ananias played in healing and baptizing him. Given the importance of baptism as an initiation into the Christian community, it seems certain that Paul would have been baptized at some point, so we have to take his insistence that he “did not confer with any human being” with a grain of salt. Having already learned enough of the basics of the faith through his arguments with Hellenist Christians, perhaps Paul did not feel the need to be formally catechized but he must have had some contact with the local Christian community in Damascus before starting his ministry.

Into Arabia

More interesting is Luke’s failure to mention Paul’s sojourn in Arabia. “Arabia” is generally understood as the Nabatean Kingdom, across the Jordan from Israel. Paul never explains what he was doing there or how long he was there before returning to Damascus, so it is easy to see why Luke would have left that out, even if he had known about it.

Why go to Nabatea at all? For prayer and reflection prior to beginning his ministry? Perhaps. Did he seek to start a ministry there? Then why not begin in Damascus? If, as I suspect, the historical Paul had been engaged in persecuting Christians in and around Damascus rather than Jerusalem, he may have thought he would get a more open-minded hearing in a region where he didn’t carry as much baggage.

Most likely, things didn’t go well in Nabatea and Paul returned to Damascus where he must have known he would receive a chilly reception from both the Christian and Jewish communities. But Paul apparently considered it preferable to remaining in Nabatea. And, as we’ll see next week, once Nabatea gained some control over Damascus, Paul was threatened with arrest and had to flee once more. His first effort as an evangelist in Nabatea must really have turned out badly.

If all this supposition is close to the truth, it is little wonder Paul doesn’t say anything more about his journey into Arabia.

[To be continued next week.]

The Adventures of Philip

Most of what we know about Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven, comes from two incidents in Acts 8. In the first (8:4-25), Philip preaches in Samaria and encounters Simon the magician. In the second story (8:26-40), Philip baptizes an Ethiopian eunuch he meets on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.

Appointment in Samaria

According to Luke in Acts of the Apostles, Saul led a wave of persecution in Jerusalem that caused the Christian community to scatter to the winds. As a result, Philip relocated to Samaria and followed the model of Jesus with a ministry of preaching combined with exorcisms and healings.

Samaria was the area we know today as the West Bank. Once part of the heartland of Israel, it was resettled by various peoples after Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Samaritans accepted only the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, and did not acknowledge the Temple in Jerusalem as the only place of worship. Upon the return of the exiles from Babylon, the Jews considered the Samaritans as heretics and worse than pagans. For the Jews of Jesus’ day, there was no such thing as a “good” Samaritan, such was the hostility between the two.

Therefore it is with some surprise that (1) Philip traveled to Samaria and (2) was accepted there. At the time, the Samaritans were enamored of a certain magician named Simon who they referred to as “the Great Power of God.” Better known in later Christian tradition as Simon Magus (“magician”), he was converted by Philip’s message, submitted to baptism, and became a follower of Philip.

The success of Philip’s mission drew the attention of the apostles in Jerusalem, so Peter and John were sent to investigate. Since the Samaritans had only been baptized, Peter and John laid hands on them to confer the Holy Spirit. Presumably, at this point the Samaritans began to demonstrate charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues. Seeing this, Simon Magus offered the apostles money to give him a share of their power. Peter berated him, essentially saying, “To hell with you and your money!” (v. 20). Unlike the story of Ananias and Sapphira, however, Peter gave Simon the opportunity to repent and Simon asked Peter to pray for him.

Who was Simon Magus?

For such a minor character, the amount of legends surrounding Simon Magus are quite surprising. The term “Great Power” (v. 10) used to refer to Simon is found among later gnostic texts. Gnosticism was a popular movement in the 2nd century that believed in a strong dichotomy between spiritual (= good) and material (= evil) existence and salvation relied on a special knowledge (gnosis) that was only granted to a select few. The early church considered Gnosticism a heresy and identified Simon Magus as the first gnostic. In other church traditions, Simon was considered a charlatan and opponent of the apostles.

Fall of Simon Magus (1461-62) by Benozzo Gozzoli. The apocryphal Acts of Peter tells the story of a contest between St. Peter and Simon Magus in Rome. Simon uses his magic to levitate (seen in the background) and Peter (on right) prays to God that he be struck down (where he lays at Peter’s feet).

Certainly Luke’s intent is to subordinate the person of Simon Magus to apostolic authority. Since Simon is described as a sorcerer with a substantial Samaritan following, there could be a polemical purpose to the story, especially if Simonians were still active at the time Luke wrote Acts (80-85 CE). In a similar fashion, the NT sought to subordinate John the Baptist to Jesus to the point of trying to obscure Jesus’ baptism by John.

As a side note, the term “simony” (buying an ecclesiastical office or grace) comes from this episode.

The Ethiopian Eunuch

After Peter and John arrive in Samaria, we hear nothing more of Philip and his ministry there. We’re told in v. 25 that Peter and John eventually returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to the Samaritans as they went along. Apparently Philip went along with them, because when he is next mentioned in v. 26, he is told by an angel of the Lord to go down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, one of the five ancient Philistine cities.

Along the road, he encountered a eunuch who was treasurer to the Candace (the queen of the Ethiopians). Luke tells us that the eunuch was returning to his country after worshipping in Jerusalem. Running alongside the eunuch’s carriage, Philip heard him reading Isaiah 53:7-8 and offered to explain it to him. Believing in the message of Jesus, the eunuch stopped his carriage beside some water and asked to be baptized. Immediately after the baptism, Philip was snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and he found himself in Azotus (Ashdod), another of the five ancient Philistine cities. He continued travelling north along the Mediterranean coast until he arrived in Caesarea where Paul later finds him in Acts 21:8.

Many have seen correspondences between this story and the Emmaus narrative. Both have as their core the narrative of travelers (two disciples; eunuch) overtaken by a stranger (risen Christ; Philip) who interprets Scripture for them. A request from the traveler leads to a sacramental outcome (Eucharist; baptism). Upon conclusion of the sacrament, the stranger disappears from the traveler’s presence.

Another side note: v. 37 is missing in the oldest texts and appears to be a baptismal formula that was incorporated into the text within a hundred years or so of the writing of Acts.

Evangelizing Beyond Jews

In both the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch and the preceding passage, we see the good news of Jesus being preached for the first time to people other than mainstream Jews. While not considered Jews, the Samaritans weren’t Gentiles, either. They did accept the Torah and some traditional Jewish practices like circumcision. Baptizing Samaritans into the Christian community didn’t run into the same objections that would come with Peter’s baptism of Cornelius and his family in Acts 10.

The Ethiopian eunuch is either a Jew or a convert to Judaism. Deuteronomy 23:2 (23:1 in some English versions) seems to preclude the possibility of a eunuch entering “the assembly of the Lord” but in the later understanding reflected in Isaiah 56:3-5, “eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths…and hold fast to my covenant” will be given an everlasting name. Luke portrays the Ethiopian treasurer as that kind of eunuch.

In these two stories, Luke is showing how the first Christian evangelists are quick to welcome those who would be considered on the outskirts of mainstream Judaism or who would be rejected altogether. He is setting the stage for the next big leap in Acts 10 when Peter baptizes Gentiles for the first time. But, before we can get to that momentous event, we have to backtrack a bit in Acts 9 and report the story of Saul’s conversion.

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.