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.

Replacing Judas

Wedged between the stories of Jesus’ ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a short report on the reconstitution of Jesus’ inner circle known as “the Twelve” (Acts 1:15-26). This brief passage is notable for two things: (1) an explanation of what happened to Judas and (2) the procedure for choosing his replacement.

What is a Disciple?

Many people only casually familiar with the gospel stories would recognize the terms “the twelve disciples” or “the twelve apostles” and could probably name Peter and one or two others as members of the group. But this should not be understood as there only being twelve disciples or twelve apostles. There were more than just twelve disciples; according to Luke, there were at least 70 (10:1). And Paul was an apostle, but definitely not one of the Twelve.

In today’s terminology, anyone who follows the example of Jesus with commitment and devotion would be called a disciple, either in the 1^st or the 21^st century. But, with few exceptions, the evangelists tend to restrict the title “disciple” to those who were called and left everything behind to physically follow Jesus during his public ministry. When Peter proposed to fill the empty seat left by Judas, the qualifications laid out in vv. 21-22 define a disciple: one of the men who has followed Jesus from his baptism by John until his ascension. Even a woman like Mary Magdalene, who seems to meet the criteria for discipleship, is never called a disciple in any of the gospels.

The title of disciple is not used outside the gospels and Acts. Paul, however, does refer to apostles and considers himself one. The word “apostle” means “one who is sent.” The gospels report that the Twelve were briefly sent on a missionary journey inside Israel and, after the resurrection, commissioned to baptize and witness to the resurrection. But there’s scant evidence that the Twelve served as missionary apostles to the world in the way that Paul and Barnabas did. And, according to Paul, at least one woman named Junia was “prominent among the apostles” (Rom 16:7).

The Twelve

Of the many called by Jesus to leave everything and follow him, there were twelve who were part of his inner circle. First among them is Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, followed by James and John, the sons of Zebedee. The second group of four are Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew. The final four gets a little confusing with James of Alphaeus, Simon the Cananean/Zealot, and either Thaddeus (Mark and Matthew) or Jude of James (Luke). Judas Iscariot is always listed last.

The twelve apparently were meant to symbolize the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God. It was a prophetic action meant to proclaim, and to some degree actualize, the kingdom. By choosing these twelve men, Jesus was prophetically setting in motion the regathering of the twelve tribes. In Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:30, Jesus promises them that “you shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Part of the Remorse of Judas and Crucifixion fresco, by Giovanni Canavesio, 1491. Luke 22:3 states that Satan had entered Judas and led him to betray Jesus. The reference to Judas bursting open in Acts 1:18 was interpreted as Satan forcibly exiting. In this grotesque image, I believe the artist was trying to convey the devil devouring Judas' soul.

The Last Days of Judas

Because of his notoriety in having betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot appears last in every list of the Twelve. According to Matthew 27:3-10, feeling remorse for what he had done, Judas returned his payment of thirty pieces of silver and hanged himself. Having determined that they cannot return blood money to the Temple treasure, the chief priests used the money to buy a potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. This field became known as “the Field of Blood.”

Acts 1:18-19 give us a different version of the death of Judas and the origin of the Field of Blood. Awkwardly intruding into Peter’s speech, these parenthetical verses tell how Judas bought a plot of ground with his ill-gotten money and then he laid prostrate (or swelled up) and burst open in the middle, his guts spilling out. That is why the field was called Field of Blood.

In a third, non-biblical, account by Papias (c. 70-163 CE), Judas’ body had swelled up to the point where a passing wagon struck him and his guts spilled out.

No matter the actual cause of Judas’ death, since it happened shortly after the crucifixion, his violent end was seen as God’s punishment on a wicked person.

Reconstituting the Twelve

The death of Judas left an empty slot that needed to be filled in order to maintain the prophetic action of the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God. Peter spoke to the gathered community and Luke tells us they were 120 in number. The number is somewhat surprising because in the previous passage we are only told of the Eleven, the women followers, and Jesus’ family (Mary and his brothers).

Of these 120, two are nominated to fill Judas’ spot. One is named Matthias and the other is known by three different names: “Joseph called Barsabbas, also known as Justus” (v. 23). Barsabbas (son of Sabba) is his Semitic name; Justus his Latin name.

But how to choose between them? Just as Jesus selected the original Twelve, he would choose Judas’ replacement. The casting of lots was seen as a means of ascertaining God’s will (cf. Prov 16:33). The lot fell on Matthias and he took his place alongside the Eleven.

After this passage, Matthias is never mentioned again. The Twelve fade from view. In Acts 6:6, the Twelve are last mentioned appointing seven men to take over food distribution. When James of Zebedee is executed by Herod Agrippa (12:1), there is no mention of the need to replace him. The Twelve were the founding members of the regathered twelve tribes and thus had fulfilled the role Jesus intended for them. In the following story of Pentecost, Peter and the other Eleven will give their first testimony to an Israel gathered for the first great feast day following Passover. It is fitting that this initial testimony of the resurrection be made by the apostles to the Twelve Tribes of God’s people.