Persecution
The fourth talk in a series on the Acts of the Apostles at Nedlands Anglican Church 24thMarch 2024
The Story So Far
Notice the pattern: Miracle, speech, community / miracle, speech, opposition, community. This is Luke’s literary activity.
We come next to another attack on the apostles.
The main opposition is coming not from Pharisees, but from the temple leadership and political hierarchy. This is not surprising. These were not a factor when Jesus was ministering in Galilee, but are part of the the establishment in Jerusalem. Note that Luke calls them a “sect” (hairesis). The Pharisees and Essenes would probably agree with this, as they each saw themselves as God’s true community, and the others as illegitimates. Josephus uses the word “party” (sect) to describe each of the four main groups. There is now a fifth group, the Nazarenes.
Miraculously, they are released and continue their teaching in the temple. The angel describes the new movement as “this Life.” The promised “life of the aeon”—eternal life—has become present among the new believers. Think of Jesus’ words: “I have come that they may have life—life in abundance.”[1] Eternal life is the life of eternity (the aeon), but it is not just at the end; Messiah has come, and his kingdom is partly present. “This Life” is a good name for the movement at this stage.
We may raise our eyes at the abundance of miracle at this stage of the story. One of the rules of normal history is that gods are never invoked as part of the historical process. History is human history (if it is not natural history) and must be understood as a continuous chain of human and natural causes. This is correct as far as it goes, because God has placed the world under human control. But there is nothing to prevent him doing something unusual for his own reasons. To say this is impossible is what is called “Naturalism.” Naturalism is a philosophy which cannot be proven. God acted in a special way throughout the ministry of Jesus to make himself known and establish his kingdom. He continued to do so through his apostles and a few others in the early church. If God really did raise Jesus from death, and was now inaugurating a new phase in the life of the people of God, miracles should not be a surprise. Miracles cannot be ruled out today, but it does not seem they are normal. It is striking that the Pentecost miracle, the healing at the temple, and now their release from prison are all public, and would have easily been falsified or verified.
Peter is the spokesman again. They have been warned not to teach in Jesus’ name, and are now back in court.
This is hardly a speech, nor is it a serious defense of their actions. It is a simple explanation: “God has commanded us.” A simple gospel outline follows: Jesus has been raised from the dead; you killed him; God exalted him to be his viceroy; the opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness is offered to Israel. This last point is important: the door is not closed on Israel, despite the fact that they have killed their saviour. Peter almost suggests that it is because of Jesus’ death that repentance is offered to Israel!
In speaking of his death on a tree, Peter (and Luke) hint at the reason for Jesus’ death. The cross was not a tree, but it could be viewed this way. The Old Testament law says, “Cursed is everyone who dies on a tree.” Someone guilty of a capital offence like murder was put to death, and then hung on a tree until nightfall as a warning to people that their death, though carried out by humans, was God’s judgement. Crucifixion could be seen as like hanging on a tree. It is probable that the high priests decided to deliver Jesus to the Romans, hoping that crucifixion would destroy once and for all any illusions anyone may have had about him being Messiah.
Paul who once shared this understanding, will later say, “Yes, cursed is everyone who dies on a tree, just as the law also says, ‘cursed is everyone who does not do all of God’s laws.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …”[2] Peter calls the cross a tree in his first letter: “He himself bore out sins in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”[3] Calling the cross a tree is a way of signaling that Jesus died carrying the curse against us, so that we can go free.
Gamaliel Intervenes
The rulers want to kill Peter, but Gamaliel intervenes. Gamaliel is well known to us from Jewish writings. He was a Pharisee, the most prominent in his generation, after Hillel and Shammai. The “apostolic” succession of rabbis goes, Hillel and Shammai, Gamaliel I, Gamaliel II… Saul, if he had not become a Christian, was on his way to being there between the two Gamaliels. Gamaliel counsels caution: this movement could be from God! This is startling. We know of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both Pharisees who believed in Jesus during his lifetime. Notable miracles have occurred. Gamaliel’s caution is understandable, though there is no evidence from his teaching that he ever became a Christian.
He mentions two movements which rose and fell; if the apostles’ undertaking was not from God, it would die a natural death. If it is from God—well, you don’t want to find yourself fighting against God.
Gamaliel’s advice is heard. It doesn’t stop the court ordering a flogging, but it could have been worse. They leave the council happy that they have been privileged to suffer “for the Name.”
Who is Jesus really?
We should pause at Acts 5.41 and notice something very curious. When we read Luke and Acts we are looking for prominent themes. We have already come across two: Jesus’ messiahship, and God’s ownership of the church. Here we run into more information about Jesus’ identity.
A common way of speaking of God amongst the Jews was to call him “the Name.” “The Name” is the four-letter personal name of God which appears throughout the Old Testament, but was never pronounced by Jews of later times because of its holiness. Clearly, the name for which the apostles have suffered is the name of Jesus, but in simply saying “the Name,” Luke causes his Jewish readers to pull up short and ask, “What is this?” In his Pentecost sermon Peter said that everyone who called on the name of the Lord would be saved. The Lord in the Joel passage he quoted is the Lord God Almighty, but it seems that calling on the name of the Lord Jesus is somehow the same as calling on the name of God. Luke doesn’t come out straight and say Jesus is God, but he hints they are somehow the same. He does various things to associate Jesus with God; this is one of them. Luke does not want to offend Jews, who were fiercely monotheistic, but he quietly moves Jesus closer and closer to the person of God. We will see further examples of this later.
Before we leave this incident, I should comment on a notorious problem: Gamaliel refers to uprisings of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Josephus refers to uprisings associated with both these names, so some have imagined Luke drew on his history; that would mean Luke was writing well after the war. Judas the Galilean was the Pharisee who began what Josephus calls “the fourth philosophy,” one of the Jewish parties (or sects). According to Gamaliel, Judas led an uprising at the time of the census when Herod’s son was removed from his kingship and Judaea and Samaria came under direct Roman rule, and taxation. So far so good, but the uprising led by Theudas, which Josephus mentions was in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus who ruled Judaea and Samaria from 42 – 46. This is long after Gamaliel’s speech, so Luke is often accused of making up Gamaliel’s speech and mistakenly adding this anachronistic detail. There is no cause for thinking Josephus may have got his facts wrong. The question, then, is whether there could have been an earlier incident involving someone named Theudas. It was not an uncommon name. Gamaliel mentions 300 followers. Josephus gives the impression the uprising at the time of Fadus was much more serious. Also, a careful writer like Luke would have been unlikely to place Theudas earlier than Judas. Problems like this just have to remain problems, until more information is available.
We end this discussion of the early persecution of the Christian church by noting what will be a repeated theme in Acts: attempts are made to stop Christianity, but they never succeed. We should back up a little to the Sanhedrin’s first warning. Peter and John join the other believers and they pray.
They remind themselves of God’s sovereignty, to be assured that everything is under God’s control; they need not fear. They also line up what has happened with the Old Testament predictions, in this case Psalm 2.
They sought to understand their situation with reference to the Scriptures, then prayed that God would give them courage to continue to speak in Jesus’ name. Jesus promised that the “gates of death” would never prevail against his church. As Luke says, “they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.” We should relate the progress of the gospel in part to the church’s prayers. Jesus’ prayers, and the prayers of the early community greatly impressed Luke; he often comments on them. But now the early Christians are about to encounter another threat to their growth.
A Problem with Language
Who were the Hellenists and who were the Hebrews? This is debated, but it seems clear that in this situation the Hellenists were Jews who spoke Greek only. Their origin would be in the Diaspora; they have lived most of their life in a Greek-speaking environment, and have come to Jerusalem, perhaps in retirement, or for some other reason. The Hebrews (like Paul)[4]spoke the native tongue of Palestine, Aramaic; they probably also spoke Greek. Greek was the common language of the civilized world. Because of the language barrier there were both Aramaic-speaking synagogues and Greek-speaking synagogues in Jerusalem. A dissension arises with the daily distribution of food; the Greek-speakers felt they were being discriminated against. Luke does not enlighten us as to whether this was a legitimate complaint, but they hastened to make sure the system was fair by asking the church to elect seven godly men to deal with it. Their swift action ensures the happiness and growth of the community is not impeded.
The apostles are insistent that teaching and prayer—probably leading the prayers of the community—remain their priority.
The men chosen all have Greek names, which does not mean they are all Hellenists, but some will be.
In this way Luke introduces Stephen who will dominate the next part of the story, and also be the means of bringing Saul, aka Paul on-stage.
It is debated how Greek became the language of the early church; the answer probably lies here. The Christianity known to us has a whole set of Greek theological terms. Jesus himself probably spoke Greek so some of the language of the New Testament may originate with him, but the early Greek-speaking Christians must have played an important role. Here we have the names of some of them.
We hear nothing more about the daily distribution; the action now turns to Stephen. It is noteworthy that the miracle working we have encountered went wider than just the apostles. But what is of concern to Luke is Stephen’s teaching, which brought him into conflict with a Greek-speaking synagogue. We don’t know whether he was a Hebrew or a Hellenist, only that he was fluent in Greek. We can note in passing that the Diaspora Jews were likely to have been more zealous for their Jewish traditions than the locals, who took them for granted.
This is a theological dispute. You can see how Christianity could be taken this way. Temple and law do not have the same importance in Christianity as in Judaism. The temple is no longer the place where God meets with us; Jesus is. The law of Moses no longer guards the way between God and humans; Jesus fulfilled the law for us and brings forgiveness.[5] We don’t know what Stephen was saying, and Luke is clear that the charge of blasphemy was false, and also their accusation that Jesus would destroy the temple. This accusation was brought against Jesus at his trial, but was never proven. We know from John that he spoke about the destruction of the temple: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”[6] He was suggesting they destroy it, and there was some ambiguity in what he meant by the temple.
It is an interesting thing that nowhere in Acts is there any prediction or warning of the destruction of the temple. Jesus spoke of it, and you would think the apostles would have too. Judging from Acts (and Paul) they didn’t. I suspect they just didn’t know what to do with Jesus’ prediction. The temple was a going concern; they used it for their own meetings. It was destroyed—in A.D. 70—and had Luke known about it, he would surely have done something with it, but apart from this (false) accusation against Stephen there is not a word. Another good indication Acts was written beforehand!
When those in the council looked at Stephen, they saw that he had “the face of an angel.” What are we to make of this? Certainly not that he looked like the angels depicted in stained-glass windows! Angels in the Old Testament don’t have wings. Possibly, Paul was present and recalled this. Stephen had the look of someone about to deliver a message from God! This is an important comment for interpreting the speech that follows. Stephen hardly defends himself; he brings God’s message of judgement against the leaders.
A huge amount has been written on Stephen’s speech. It is frequently observed that there is a disconnect between the content of the speech and the accusation he is meant to be countering. Some say Luke created the speech, but it is quite different from the rest of the speeches in Acts, and when interpreted correctly, it fits the occasion perfectly. There was a ready source for the speech: Paul. It is far and away the longest speech in Acts, which underlines its importance to Luke.
What then is Stephen doing? He starts off with a reminder of Abraham, moves on to the patriarchs selling their brother Joseph into slavery in Egypt.
Joseph’s story is summarized. Then comes a summary of the story of Moses, the disobedience of the Israelites in the wilderness, and the tabernacle. All of this is lifted straight from the Old Testament, with a certain amount of spin. It is, as I see it, the confession of a true Israelite.
Christians have a creed. It is what we believe that takes first place, at least with Christians today. But N.T. Wright has noted that Jews have a story. Christians do too, also Muslims. The question in each case is how the story ends; Judaism, Christianity and Islam each has a different ending to the story. Stephen simply rehearses the old old story, and, if I not mistaken, Luke is insisting it is Christianity’s story.
Israel’s election is confirmed, the gift of the promised land, circumcision, God’s protective providence over Israel, Moses’ leadership, the revelation at Sinai, the Exodus, the tabernacle, and the temple. There is nothing unbiblical here; a Jew could not disagree with anything. If this was Stephen’s faith, there was nothing un-Jewish about it. Stephen is telling the court that he is faithful to the traditions of Israel. Luke is telling his readers that Christianity is loyal to the traditions of Israel.
But as I said, there is an amount of spin. In the Joseph story Stephen accentuates the brothers’ rejection—but God used him to save them. The parallel with Jesus is not difficult to see; even more so in the case of Moses.
Moses, sent as ruler and redeemer, but the people rejected him! But God used him to save them. Moses himself declared God would raise up another like him; we saw in chapter 3 of Acts the claim that Jesus is that prophet. The parallel is hard to miss: God sent Jesus to save his people; they rejected him, but he is ready to be their Saviour anyway.
At various points the disobedience of the people is emphasized, and this affects the question of Israel’s worship, and whether they were loyal to it. Stephen is pointing out the idolatry that dogged the steps of the Israelites; that he makes it one of the causes of the Babylonian exile shows he is making a point.
If the charge against Stephen involves teaching an alien view of worship, this all makes sense. If he were implying that the temple is no longer needed for worship, we can appreciate what he says.
This passage and the condemnation that follows has often been interpreted to mean Stephen rejected the temple as idolatrous, but this can hardly be so? Moses made the tabernacle as God directed him, David received permission from God to build a temple, though Solomon actually did it. All this is biblical and correct. The rider that is placed upon it—God cannot be confined to the temple and the temple is made with human hands—is not a radical rejection of the temple and its worship; it is a biblical, prophetic understanding, which would not in itself have been offensive to the council members. The suggestion that they are as guilty as their ancestors is highly offensive. Doubtless, we have a summarized version of Stephen’s speech; it now jumps to the point.
What we have here is the “angel” of 6.15 delivering God’s message, associating the present Jewish leadership with the historic resistance of the Israelites to God’s prophetic messengers, and their false worship. Stephen does not bother to defend himself; he carries a message from God. The message will assure his condemnation.
I cannot help thinking this startling description owes something to Paul. Was it part of what caused the young Saul to be so incensed by the early Christians—speaking like this of a crucified heretic. Stephen’s death marks the beginning of official persecution of the church in Jerusalem. It is to be wondered whether for Luke the story marks the end of opportunity of repentance for the Jewish leaders. It certainly does not for the people as a whole. But now that for the moment, at least, the church is an illegal body, it marks the beginning of the church as a distinct body over against the synagogue. From this point forward Luke will speak freely of the church, but it is a church under the shadow of Jewish rejection.
Next week is Easter, so we will next meet on 7th April. We will look at how Christians scattered from Jerusalem and Christianity spread more widely.
[1] John 10.10.
[2] Galatians 3.10–14.
[3] 1 Peter 2.24.
[4] Philippians 3.5.
[5] Did the early Christians declare the temple’s sacrifices obsolescent, or did they announce forgiveness in the name of Jesus and ignore them? Nowhere in the NT are Jewish Christians told not to participate in temple offerings, though as propitiatory sacrifices they were obsolete.
[6] John 2.19.