Expansion
The fifth in a series of talks on the Acts of the Apostles at Nedlands Anglican Church 7 April 2024
Stephen pronounces judgement against the leaders of the Jewish nation, accusing them of being the same as the rebellious Israelites of old. This provokes a ferocious backlash, and Stephen is stoned to death. Saul, later known as Paul, is there in some official function. He was an obvious source for the information about Stephen. Luke introduces him, and now describes some of the kingdom-growth that took place when the disciples were scattered because of the official persecution that broke out then against the Jerusalem church.
Clearly, the Jesus movement was seen as a danger to Judaism. If the teaching of Jesus and the accusations against Stephen, and the doctrines of later Christianity are anything to go by, it was. There was an understanding of law which threatened the strict code of the Pharisees, and the temple was no longer seen as the place where God and humans should meet and be reconciled. To a young Pharisee like Saul the disciples’ faith in Jesus was blasphemous, and their way of life slack, even lawless.
Disciples of Jesus are arrested and imprisoned, though there is nothing more about them being put to death. This will be correct. Only the Roman prefect had authority to order executions. The Romans were very particular about this in the provinces, for they feared if local authorities had capital powers, they might use them it to eliminate friends of Rome. Stephen’s death was an unofficial lynching, to which Pilate turned a blind eye; further executions would not have been allowed. The high priest would have had to go to Pilate for permission, as happened with Jesus.
It is also unlikely that Christians would be kept long in prison. Prison was for those on remand; if they were tried and found guilty, they would undergo some penalty, probably flogging, and perhaps excommunication. It was serious enough for those under threat to flee.
According to Luke, the apostles didn’t flee; they remained in Jerusalem. This is commonly read to mean they were not threatened, that the persecution was against the Hellenists, not the Hebrews. This is part of a widespread understanding of early Christian history associated with F.C. Baur, that there were two conflicting parties in the early church, a radical party originating with the Hellenists, of which Paul became the leader, and a conservative Jewish party led by Peter. But Luke knows nothing of this. He does not say only the Hellenists were persecuted, only that the apostles remained in Jerusalem. As leaders of the movement they may have gone underground and continued to lead—as we see with their action towards the Samaritans. We have no evidence that Stephen or Philip were Hellenists, nor that the beliefs of Stephen were at variance with those of Peter and the others.
Philip is another of the seven, who turns out to be more a preacher than a “deacon.” In the next two stories Luke narrates the coming of the gospel to people who were regarded as beyond the pale; we would call them marginal.
Samaritans and Jews had been at loggerheads for generations. Samaritans were descendants of the mixed races the Assyrians had moved into the area when they deported the northern Israelites. The immigrants adopted Israel’s faith, held the first five books of the Bible as Scripture, and built a temple on Mt Gerizim with its own sacrificial system. The Jews regarded them as racially impure, and their worship as heretical. The Jewish king, John Hyrcanus destroyed their temple in 110 B.C., and relationships between Jews and Samaritans became toxic.
I have not found in my (limited) reading any serious discrimination in the first century world against people who were black, although Greeks regarded anyone who couldn’t speak Greek as a barbarian, and Jews regarded non-Jews as “ethnics.” The Ethiopian nation was regarded with some awe. A bigger problem for the Ethiopian Philip spoke to was his position as a eunuch. Old Testament law forbade an emasculated man to participate in temple worship. He was something of an outsider, then, though he was probably a circumcised convert to Judaism. These two incidents chart the expansion of the gospel to two outsider groups.
Samaria in the New Testament is a district with several cities. “The City of Samaria” would most naturally indicate the then capital, Sebaste. But why doesn’t Luke name it? “The city of Samaria” sounded odd to some copiests, who amended it to “a city of Samaria.” But perhaps Luke has named it, with its ancient biblical name: Samaria. This would be to emphasize the coming of the gospel to the lost Israelite kingdom of the north. Philip “heralded the Christ,” meaning he announced that the Messiah had come, and that the Messiah was Jesus. Although the Samaritans were seen by Jews as heretics, they had a belief about the Messiah, so what Philip announced made sense to them, and there was a dramatic response. Tnis is understandable if Philip was backing his proclamation with exorcisms and healings; also if Jesus had been in the region before. Two decades later Luke would visit Palestine and stay in the house of Philip and his famous daughters.[1] Philip will be the source of the two stories of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch.
One prominent Samaritan is mentioned by name: Simon the Magician. He was a big name in Sebaste, calling called himself “Great.” He was held by some to be a god. Buty Philip’s miracles went beyond anything he could do; he was amazed, professed faith in Jesus, and was baptized, along with many other Samaritans. None of them received the Holy Spirit, however— not until word got back to Jerusalem that Samaria had received the word of God, and Peter and John visited them. They prayed, laid hands on them, and they too received the Holy Spirit.
This is different to what happened at Pentecost. In his Pentecost sermon Peter promised that everyone who repented and was baptized in the name of Jesus would receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why was that not the case for the Samaritans? I heard a preacher prove that laying on of hands and speaking in tongues was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. It raises the question once more of to what extent the narrative of the Bible is descriptive or prescriptive. Are we meant to imitate everything we read about. This became a big issue with the Puritans in the 16th century. Some taught that nothing should be done in the church that does not have a biblical precedent. This is the so-called regulative principle. An extreme example: nothing is said about singing in the early church; therefore we should not sing in church. Less extreme, but more of an issue at the time: diocesan bishops are not to be found in the New Testament, therefore there should be no such thing in the church. Richard Hooker argued that church practice needed to conform to the teaching of Scripture, but not necessarily imitate it. Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles says that the traditions and ceremonies of the Church may differ from place to place and from time to time, so long as they are not repugnant to Scripture.
The Samaritans are not alone in differing from the norm. Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before they were baptized, as Peter was still preaching. It seems God withheld the gift from the Samaritans until the Jerusalem apostles laid hands on them and recognized them as fellow-believers. Had God not done this, the Samaritans might have seen themselves, and been seen by others, as a separate movement. The tension between them and the Jews could have continued into the future church. This may not appear too serious to us, who are familiar with many denominations, but in reality the church is one—”one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” as our Creed makes clear. All disciples of all nations are the one people of King Jesus. Peter and John made it clear that the Samaritans were now part of the one people of God.
We are not told how the apostles were able to recognize they had received the Holy Spirit; probably they spoke in tongues, as did Cornelius and his family later. There must have been some definite sign, as Simon Magus offered the two apostles money for power to be able confer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of his hands. Peter was incensed, and urged Simon to repent; he perceives he is nursing evil in his heart—another Ananias perhaps. The Magus begged Peter to pray for his forgiveness and Luke says no more about him. Stories attach to him in later history though, where he becomes the arch-heretic. Justin Martyr, who came from Samaria, says the Samaritans worshiped Simon, and that there was even a stature to him in Rome.[2] There was a story that the apostle John in his old age ran from a public bath house when he realized the Magus was there. Luke indicates none of this, but it does seem probable that in later years Simon Magus become the leader of a heretical version of Christianity—perhaps a form of Gnosticism.
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch
It is possible Luke relates the conversion of the Samaritans and the encounter with the Ethiopian because he heard both stories first-hand from Philip. But they are also stages along the way to the Gentile mission: “Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” The conversion of Paul marks another decisive step.
One wonders whether the instruction to go south may have suggested to Luke the beginning of the gospel’s expansion to the end of the earth; certainly the idea of Christianity finding its way to Ethiopia must have triggered this thought. The main idea this incident conveys, however, is the coming among the people of God of a previously marginalized eunuch. This man is a circumcised convert to Judaism, a proselyte. Luke is building towards the coming of Gentiles, but does not get there until the Cornelius story. There were various black people who belonged to the Israelite family in Old Testament times. Moses had a Cushite wife, and there was the Cushite runner who took the news of victory to King David. Ebed-Melech was a Cushte official in the court of King Zedekiah of Judah, who rescued Jeremiah from certain death.[3] Here is a reminder that there is only one race—one species of human— the human race, as Paul affirms to the philosophers in Athens. Under the old covenant Gentiles were welcome to join the children of Abraham, so long as they worshipped the God of Israel and, in the case of men, were circumcised. This would have been so for the Ethiopian; colour was not a barrier. As a eunuch, however, he faced discrimination. Although he has travelled more than a thousand kilometers to worship in Jerusalem, as an emasculated person he was not allowed to participate in the temple worship. However, through the prophet Isaiah, God promised them a future:
So now full inclusion is about to come to this once marginal proselyte. Perhaps Luke mentions it was in a desert place because it pictured the state of the eunuch (“a dry tree”), or because he received a full description of the place from Philip; perhaps both.
The eunuch is the Treasurer of the Ethiopian queen, known as the Kandake; he is, therefore, a man of means, also obvious from his chariot. Ethiopia was the name given by the Greeks to the kingdom of the “black-faces” south of Egypt, what we today know as Sudan. On this once in a lifetime pilgrimage he has purchased a scroll of Isaiah, no small purchase; the one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is over 7 meters long. It is significant that of all the OT books it is Isaiah he is taking home. It is here that God’s promise to the eunuchs is recorded. But the passage he is reading when Philip approaches his chariot is another, about a servant of the Lord who suffers terribly, but succeeds in his mission for God. Philip asks him if he understands what he is reading. If Luke is writing for pastors of congregations, as I have suggested, his answer is telling:
Imagine how this would speak to a minister of the gospel, whose task was to read the Scriptures and explain their meaning to his people! The quotation, like all Luke’s Bible quotations, is direct from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, the same one as was used for instruction by the Christian leader’s of Luke’s time.
Was the eunuch drawn to this passage because like the eunuch in Isaiah 56 (“Do not say, ‘I am like a dry tree.’”), it is asked of the servant, “Who can describe his generation?” If you visit Jerusalem, you will probably want to visit the holocaust memorial. It is called Yad va-Shem, after this scripture: “Hand and Name”—someone to look after you in your old age, and an abiding name. This is God’s promise to the eunuch’s who keep his law. Philip explains that this servant, who is killed without offspring, but who will nevertheless see his offspring, is Jesus.
“He told him the good news about Jesus”: this hardly gets it. In the Greek is simply says “he evangelized Jesus to him.” Evangelizing usually means announcing a victory, or the coming of a new kingdom. Philip was announcing the arrival of God’s kingdom through the work of the suffering and exalted Jesus. For Luke and those who accept it, this is a matter of great joy.
The Conversion of Saul
Saul was present at Stephen’s execution (8.1); in 9.1 we are reminded of his ongoing leadership in the persecution of Christians. Now he is proposing to go to Damascus to arrest people there.
Several things become apparent. First, to have a letter from the high priest means Paul has some standing. We know that he was a disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel, who had earlier urged restraint in dealing with Christians; the trial of Stephen may have changed this. Second, that there are enough Christians in Damascus to warrant an official expedition shows how serious Saul and others regard the growth and spread of Christianity, even in the early thirties. Third, the synagogues in Damascus exercised some authority over Jews living there; The High Priest’s letter may also have secured extradition rights from the Damascus authorities. Last, note the name of the Christian movement before it became known as Christianity. “The Way” harks back to John the Baptist calling on people to prepare the “Way of the Lord.”[4]
This is the first of three accounts of Saul’s conversion in Acts. There are some differences, but Luke sees no contradiction. By repeating the story three times he underlines its importance. Later, Paul will head up the Gentile mission. Both the mission, and Paul himself are matters of controversy amongst Jews of Luke’s day. He needs to defend both. Acts is correctly seen by many as an apology. An “apology” (apologia) is a defense, not and apology, as it sounds in English. Here is the beginning of Luke’s defense of Paul and his mission. Heaven is opened and Jesus speaks as a heavenly figure; Saul addresses him as Lord. In opposing disciples, Saul is opposing a heavenly person who is rightly addressed in exalted terms.
Pay attention to the way Luke tells the story. “The Lord” addresses Ananias. This would be heard anywhere else in Scripture to be Yahweh, the Almighty Creator Lord, and Luke surely intends this ambiguity. Ananias answers, “Here I am, Lord.” Remember the young Samuel’s words: “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.”[5] When he mentions Jesus’ disciples, it becomes clear it is the Lord Jesus that he addresses. But then he speaks of disciples as those who “call upon your name.” This reminds us of Joel’s prophecy that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, where the Lord is the Almighty Lord.[6] The Lord then tells Ananias that Saul is to be his “chosen instrument” to carry his name to Gentiles, kings, and Israel. One thinks of God’s “polished arrow” of Isaiah 49, though the obvious reference there is to the serevant Jesus.
Nevertheless, Paul is to share in the servant mission, and later applies this Scripture to himself and Barnabas. The Lord Jesus emphasizes that he must “suffer for my name,” another indication that Saul is being called to share in the mission of the suffering servant.
Saul experiences a vision, but lest we should explain it away as something psychological, Ananias also receives a message from the Lord Jesus, which he initially refuses, such is the threat of Saul, but when the Lord insists, goes to do his will.
Saul’s baptism justifies us seeing what has happened as his conversion. However, he is not changing his religion, as in converting from Judaism to Christianity, just embracing Israel’s Messiah. He remains in every way a Jew, as he will make clear several times later on. But as one who is now “born again” and in possession of the Holy Spirit, he has undergone an inner revolution which will justify us speaking of conversion in the modern Christian sense.
Far from arresting Jesus’ followers, Saul is now proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. “Son of God” is not a title Luke often uses. That he does so here must reflect knowledge that this was the way Saul spoke of Jesus. In his letters it is one of his main ways of referring to him as one who preexisted the human figure of Jesus, who is from eternity to eternity, who is fully divine. To Jewish ears the title “Son of God” meant the son of David who was to be adopted as God’s ruler on earth. Jesus hinted there was more to it than this, and we have seen enough in Luke to know that Jesus is much more. Why then does he avoid the term? I suspect that, as a Greek he was too familiar with the many myths of human women who had sex with gods and produced heroes or sons of the gods. He did not wish Jesus’ sonship confused with that.
Luke will go on to briefly summarize Saul’s early contacts with the church in Jerusalem, to when they sent him off to Tarsus to escape an attempt on his life. Luke will now attend to another chapter of the story which led to the Gentile mission.
[1] Acts 21.8–9.
[2] Justin, First Apology 26.
[3] Numbers 12; 2 Samuel 18; Jeremiah 38–39.
[4] Luke 3.4.
[5] 1 Samuel 3.1–9.
[6] Acts 2.21.